Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult

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

thread question makes about as much sense as "is an apple a fruit or is it red?"

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

thread question makes about as much sense as "is an apple a fruit or is it red?"

As I said, I want to gauge your gut-level reaction.

ok, but just understand I don't do "gut-level reaction" to such things, rather I compare to scripture in order to make an objective decision.

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

ok, but just understand I don't do "gut-level reaction" to such things, rather I compare to scripture in order to make an objective decision.

have you read the Book of Mormon?

no, at least not all of it, but I am familiar with a good portion of their doctrine through my extensive study of Armstrongism.  They have MANY damnable heresies: God was not always God, but was once a created man who went on to become God...Jesus and Satan were once brothers...earthly man can become god after death...no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith...LDS racist doctrinal past...salvation of those who died lost...etc, etc, etc

I am not even sure if the book of Mormon touches upon those things.

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

you're Mormon?!  When did this happen?  I thought you were atheist?

---

the LDS Church instructs us to read the entirety of the Book of Mormon, and then pray to our Heavenly Father and ask him if it is true.

what?  Is that how the bible tells you to determine truth – just simply pray about it?  If all truth is simply determined through prayer, then what is the role of scripture?

---
 

  I am embarking on this journey now.  I am about 2% of the way through the Book.  I ask you to join me before summarily rejecting the Holy Text.

are you telling me I can't put Mormon doctrine (which may not even be mentioned in the Book of Mormon) to the test without first reading the Book of Mormon?  Can’t I simply take the Mormon statement of beliefs for face value?

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

are you telling me I can't put Mormon doctrine (which may not even be mentioned in the Book of Mormon) to the test without first reading the Book of Mormon?  Can’t I simply take the Mormon statement of beliefs for face value?

Do you think someone could really test Christian doctrine without first reading the Bible, and only taking the statement of beliefs for their face value?

 

You could test Christian doctrine without reading the NT, simply by comparing it to the OT (which is EXACTLY how Jesus and the Apostles taught others).  After all, the NT doesn’t invent anything that wasn’t already mentioned in the OT.

And since the Book of Mormon is simply suppose to be an addendum (doesn’t introduce a new covenant), why not simply compare Mormon doctrine to the OT and NT?

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

Tweed,

If the Apostles didn't have knowledge of the Book of Mormon, why is it necessary for you to have it?  Why is it necessary to add something to what the Apostles taught?

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

Tweed,

"read our material thouroughly, then pray about it" is a common cult brain-washing tactic


...it should be obvious to you that you should examine their claims point by point, before willingly sitting through a brain washing session that is aimed at feeding upon your need to feel a part of something important.

Remember how Satan deceived Eve?  He told her a tale of being a part of something bigger beyond the word of God:

Gen 2:1   He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” 2 And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, 3 but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’” 4 But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

Read the above passage carefully, and notice how Eve had no trouble understanding the word of God on her own – she correctly quoted and understood what God had told her – because she took it for face value.  She only became deceived when she allowed someone else to interpret it for her, and that deception fed upon her desire to be a part of something bigger.

The problem with Eve is that she didn’t compare what she was being told to the word of God that she already knew.

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

I think the specifics of the doctrine is something like that you read the scriptures to get the specific knowledge, and then when you pray to God he somehow shows you that what you just read is true. From my outsider perspective it doesn't seem to be much different from how you describe your experience - you were studying the Bible at the time and then you felt that bonefire thing or what have you, which you say was the Holy Spirit filling you. (or something along those lines)

Also, just an FYI, it isn't uncommon for Christians of varying stripes to tell unbelievers that we just need to pray real hard and God will reveal himself to us. (failure is of course usually blamed on the person doing the praying) It's not exactly an idea that's exclusive to Mormons.
 

Interesting topic.  Let me do a quick search and see if there are any scriptural examples we could use in this discussion…I’ll get back to you.

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

Dibble:

I can't find any scriptural example of hearing a message that was supposedly the word of God and then praying to God to test the message.  Doesn't mean that one doesn't exist in scripture, just that a) I don't remember such an example, and b) I haven't found an example by searching passages that include the word "pray" (which includes: pray, prayed, prayer, etc).

However, there are examples in scripture of people testing a message, but that test is done by comparing the message to scripture:

Acts 17:11 "Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true."

...which is why the NT is full of scriptural proofs and doesn't attempt to prove what it is saying by asking people to pray about whether what it says is actually the word of God.

---

Look at it this way:  what if Tweed prays after reading the Book of Mormon and hears a spirit tell him, “Yes, the Book of Mormon is the word of God”…what does that prove other than there is a spiritual force behind the Book of Mormon?  Doesn’t mean the spirit talking to him is a truthful spirit and it certainly doesn’t exempt the Book of Mormon from having to agree with the OT and NT, since the LDS is claiming they are an extention of those books.

So why not simply begin by comparing Mormon doctrine to the OT and NT, before attempting to contact the spirit behind the book?

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

After all, the NT doesn’t invent anything that wasn’t already mentioned in the OT.

That's arguably not the case. Most translations of the OT don't mention hell. (some do, but it's likely a mistranslation of a different concept, 'sheol', where the concept of hell is applied retroactively) Jews don't believe in hell and you would imagine that since the OT is a significant part of their theological texts they would if it contained the concept.

So, you think Jesus and the Apostles, who were all Jewish, simply introduced the concept?  Clearly, the concept of eternal punishment is in the OT:

Daniel 12:2:  "And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt."

---

There is a place of fire where some dead go, but it's rather a place of purification where they are cleansed for up to twelve months, with only the utterly wicked being destroyed completely.

Yet that is not a concept presented in the OT – it’s basically made up out of whole clothe.

---

I'm not trying to argue this view is a correct interpretation, just that it's a view that some people take. The view that the OT and NT mesh perfectly may well have a good deal of Christian bias in it. Have you ever asked someone well versed in Jewish theology, such as a Rabbi, why they don't feel the NT meshes up with their theology?

Yes, the Jews see even more meshing between the NT and OT than I (a Gentile) do, after all, the NT was written by Jews.  They can point out Jesus’ Jewishness much better than I can.

They simply don’t believe Jesus was the Messiah.  Of course, they’ve gone out of their way to cover up the proofs of Jesus being the Messiah (e.g. most of them no longer call the Messiah the “Son of Joseph”, because there are simply too many parallels between the life of Jesus and the life of Joseph.)

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

I reject the Christian binary.  that one must accept something as Canonical or not, as 'true' or not.  no, there is a Holy Spirit: and so much around us is influenced by that Spirit.  to accept or reject any text in totality is to err.  I find the Book of Mormon is dripping in the Holy Spirit: whether this means it is inerrant, well, I am not qualified to say.

well, if you're not qualified to qualify it, then you'll simply be blindly following whoever you believe is qualified to decide, and if whoever you choose to follow is also blind...

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

I rented a book last year titled 'On Being a Christian'... by a 'distinguished' Catholic theologian, Hans Kung.  and he claims belief in God is "a confidence based in reality itself".  so I don't find myself looking for proof of objective truth, but rather, that confidence... this I told my LDS missionaries on Sunday, and they agreed with the general sentiment.

I'm not sure what belief in God has to do with determining whether Mormonism is true - a lot of religions believe in God.  I just assumed by your statement “I’m going to read the Book of Mormon and then ask God whether it is true”, that you were actually looking for truth.

My point about truth is – if the Book of Mormon claims to be additional “scripture” yet doesn’t agree with the OT/NT (which Mormonism itself acknowledge as scripture), then, obviously, Mormonism itself is full of beans.

If [Y] says, “[X] is True”  and “[Y]=[X]”…then it follows that *if* [Y] does not equal [X], then obviously [Y] is NOT telling the truth, regardless if [X] is true or not.

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

If the Jews see more meshing than you, why would they not believe it?

Big picture answer: because God hasn’t called them yet.  Small picture answer: every unbeliever, Jew or Gentile, claims to have some excuse.

---

And how do you know they see more meshing? Have you even bothered asking one, or are you just making a bald assertion about their beliefs?

I’ve spoken with Jews on several occasions.  They’ve actually educated me on the Jewish roots of many of the details of the NT.

---

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, the Jews had a grand conspiracy to cover up the 'proofs'.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Popular terminology changes over time for a variety of reasons. Do you have any actual evidence that they didn't change which terminology they favored for other reasons?

The Jews didn’t expect the Messianic analogy of Joseph to include many of the aspects of the story of Joseph which reflect poorly upon the Jews and favorably upon the Gentiles…their Jewish pride is offended, and the Christian use of the detailed aspect of the analogy become too much for them to bear. so the analogy is swept under the rug.

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

Big picture answer: because God hasn’t called them yet.  Small picture answer: every unbeliever, Jew or Gentile, claims to have some excuse.

I love how it's an 'excuse' if we don't accept your claims. It can't be a reason, it has to be an excuse, because you are most definitely right and there's no way that anyone could possibly have a legitimate reason not to believe your claims. I swear it's like arguing with a mule.

That’s because you’re ignoring the big picture part.

---

Are these Jews who have converted to Christianity? Or are these Jews who still didn't think the NT meshed enough to believe it?

Both Christian and nonChristian Jews.

---

Ok... and I should accept that this is their actual viewpoint because...?

…it’s the most plausible answer given a) Jewish pride, and b) the historical record of decreasing emphasis on referring to the Messiah as the “Son of Joseph”, and c) the fact that Christianity drew much deeper parallels to the story of Joseph.

Also, understand these parallels aren’t explicitly mentioned in the NT (though they are alluded to by the fact Jesus was supposedly the son of Joseph – Luke 3:23 “He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph…”), yet they are undeniably engrained into the NT story and NT historicity (proving that the parallels weren’t simply contrived by later generations of Christians) – unless someone wants to claim that the parallels are mere coincidence.

Not only is Joseph a central character in Genesis (the blueprint of God’s plan for man), but more chapters of Genesis are dedicated to Joseph’s story than any other character:

Abraham – 12 chapters (Gen ch 12-23)
Isaac – 3 chapters (Gen ch 24-26)
Jacob – 10 chapters (Gen ch 27-36)
Joseph – 14 chapters (Gen ch 37-50)

An analogy to Joseph prophesying to his own brothers that he would be their savior, then being rejected by his fellow Hebrew brothers, handed over by Jews to Gentiles, being placed into the earth and rising out of it, his fellow Jews conspiring with Gentiles and lying about the location of his body, him being accepted as lord by the Gentiles, with Joseph marrying a Gentile bride, then finally revealing himself to the Jews which previously rejected him…is a bridge too far for Jewish pride.

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

I'm not ignoring it, I just don't accept it as valid and true because no good reason has been given to me to do so. Are you really so dense that after this much time you still don't get that? If your skull is really so thick that you can't understand something so basic then there's no point in continuing this conversation.

Hey, hey, hey…easy with the personal attacks. 

Let’s approach it from another, hopefully more production, direction, shall we?

Remember the test I gave Tweed for Mormonism – you can’t prove something is true, but you can prove something is false:  if Y claims X =True and Y claims X=Y, if Y<>X, then Y is False.

So, let’s look at the claims Christianity has made in regard to winning the acceptance of the Jews:

Did not Christianity, from the beginning, claim that it would be more accepted among the Gentiles than the Jews?  And did not Christianity, from the beginning, claim this would be the case throughout the church age?  Did not Christianity, from the beginning, claim that it would be preached to all nations?

So, even though this particular test doesn’t prove Christianity is true, it does prove Christianity passed this particular test with flying colors – its prophecy concerning Jewish/Gentile degrees of acceptance was spot on.

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

Tweed,

Still haven’t found a scriptural example for the approach, “Read our scriptures, then pray to our Heavenly Father and ask him if it is true”.  On the surface, this may seem like a proper religious practice, but it is actually brain-washing (which is why it is not scriptural).  This is no different than saying, “Whenever you read your bible, make sure you have [the study guide we provided you] handy at all times.”

It’s brainwashing because it takes a person who is not normally religious (or one whose previous involvement in religion was lukewarm), and asks them to engage in a religious activity (praying and/or reading the bible) while having the cult’s doctrine on their mind – so that at the very least, their experience with the cult makes them feel more religious and a part of something bigger than themselves.

That is NOT the way Jesus and the Apostles spread the gospel, rather they simply preached the message.  And to the members of their audience who already knew the scriptures, they welcomed scriptural examination of their claims against an exterior source (the OT).  They relied upon God to open the spiritual eyes of their audience, they NEVER attempted to brainwash their listeners by having nonChristians engage in religious activities in the context of Christianity.

But, by saying, “Read the Book of Mormon, then pray to our Heavenly Father and ask him if it is true” is asking nonMormons to engage in religious activities (praying) in the context of Mormonism.  That’s NOT lifting up Christ, rather that is lifting up the Mormon Church.  Obviously, for the non-religious, the simple act of praying is going to make them feel more “religious”, and thus brainwash them into believing the Mormon church is true, for, after all, they do feel more religious.  

I would rather the Mormon Church simply say, “Please examine our beliefs against exterior sources (the OT/NT)”.

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

I'm sorry if it offends you that I called you thick skulled, but you really don't seem to have any capacity whatsoever to even try considering someone else's perspective with any degree of honesty. Do you have any idea how utterly and completely arrogant it is to say that the reasons others have for not believing as you do are mere excuses?

Again, you’re taking my words out of context – first I stated a bigger picture:  God hasn’t called them (which is exactly what the NT says, so blame the arrogance on its author).  Second, as a result of the bigger picture, I gave an individual’s explanation from the nonbeliever’s perspective:  they name some excuse, even in the face of contrary evidence.

---  

I don't know the specific passages you are referring to, but let me give you some feedback on these notions before you give them:

1. If the passages are from Paul, this is problematic. Paul is not "at the beginning of Christianity", rather he would be after it since he would have been persecuting Christians before his conversion. As such he would have noted how much the Jews did not accept the new theology before writing anything that ended up in the Bible, so it wouldn't necessarily be predictive since he would have already had observational data.
2. The Gospels are also somewhat problematic in the same regard, though possibly less so since they are supposedly accounts of the words of Jesus himself rather than someone coming after the fact, because they were actually written down decades after the crucifixion, with not all necessarily by the apostles who supposedly authored them, and we lack the original manuscripts.

Prophesies related to the Messiah’s message being rejected by the Jews and received by the Gentiles originate in the OT, not the NT...then, it is reiterated in the Gospels by Jesus (which , Viewed from a secular perspective, was a very bold prediction since he didn’t even preach to Gentiles), and then reiterated throughout the rest of the NT.

---

The same observations Paul made could have been inserted. (while we lack the original manuscripts, early manuscripts show that later ones which made it into the Bible contain at least some forged content)

There’s what, 5600 ancient copies of the NT, with 99.5% agreement within those copies?  Both the number of copies and agreement between the copies is basically unparalleled in human history.

And, if you use the bible’s own rule of using two or three witnesses, the corruption of the additions and translational errors (the 0.5% that is not in agreement) will fall by the wayside.

---

3. An evangelical religion claiming that it would one day be preached across the world is not unusual, and that one happened to be successful doesn't indicate any veracity to the events being due to divine prophecy.

As I already stated, you can’t prove it true, but you can prove it false if its claims do not hold up…and it did pass that particular test, thus it has not been proven false by its own claims.

It’s easy to prove something wrong if its own claims do not hold water – which is why I recommended that Tweed start by examining the claims of Mormonism PRIOR to subjecting himself to a brainwashing session.

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

@Tweed

There’s what, 5600 ancient copies of the NT, with 99.5% agreement within those copies?  Both the number of copies and agreement between the copies is basically unparalleled in human history.

(Note:  I stated 5600 just to avoid argument and take the lowest possible number…the real number is somewhere in the neighborhood of 25000.)

I’ve heard, due to the contradictions between the bible and Mormon doctrine, that the LDS claims the bible, along with the “true” Gospel, became corrupted and that the Book of Mormon is more accurate…but since the Gospel had already spread to many many countries during the lifespan of the original Apostles, why is there such a high degree of agreement between the manuscripts if at some point corruption was introduced?  Barring an implausible conspiracy across many non-unified nations with language and geographical barriers, doesn’t the very high degree of agreement between the texts prove that the writings of the Apostles have been preserved and that no vast corruption was introduced, contrary to LDS claims?

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

jmf, I appreciate the degree of attention, but as I am but a novice in LDS history and doctrine, I must indefinitely suspend meaningful conversation on these points.

novice or expert...I'm just warning you of what should be obvious brainwashing techniques which feed upon the one's desire to be apart of something bigger than one's self.

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

Uh, you are aware that Christian churches do that sort of thing all the time? It's not "brainwashing".

NO!, that is NOT the practice of all Christian churches.  I have been going to the same church for 19 years, and I have NEVER heard my pastor say something along the lines of, “Make sure you have this study guide handy when you read your bible”…nor have I ever heard him say something like, “Here’s our statement of beliefs, read them and pray to God about them.”

Instead we are told just he opposite, “Don’t rely on a study guide when you read your bible.”

And I agree with that approach, because I didn’t start going to my church until 5 months AFTER I was saved, and in those 5 months (and for a over a year afterward), I was dealing with “Christians” who were taught to be terrified of attempting to read the bible without an official study guide from their church.  And they thought I was attempting to deceive them by asking them, “Put down your study guide, start at the beginning of a book of the bible, read a section, then tell me what you think it means…then read the next section, then tell me what you think it means…and keep going until you reach the end of that particular book.  I am simply going to sit here and listen and not say a word.”…and they, for the most part, had NO TROUBLE AT ALL understanding what they had just read. 

For example, when I had them read the book of Hebrews, they completely and without question understood the New Covenant was currently in effect.  When they finished reading and stating their interpretation:

I said, “I agree with your interpretation…So, just to be clear, from what you read from the book of Hebrews, you believe the New Covenant is currently in effect, right?”

…and they answered, “Well, of course it is, it just said so over and over again. In fact, the whole book of Hebrews I just read to you was all about the New Covenant being in effect and how it superseded the old!  Why do you ask?”

Then, I would spill the beans: “Because your church says that the New Covenant is NOT yet in effect.  But that it is a future covenant…..here, look what your church says in this article, and in this other article, and here, and here, and here…”

And they would be very upset, and then after I couple of days I would receive a phone call: “[jmfcst], I just called to let you know that I have prayed about it and now I see how the New Covenant  has not been put into effect yet.”

Me: “But what about what you read in book of Hebrews”

Them: “I don’t want to read the bible anymore without first checking with my church’s study guide.  I’m too afraid of being deceived.”

---

I am somewhat an expert on brainwashing techniques of cults, not because I have studied the subject, but because I have witnessed it firsthand for 18 straight months.  I myself went and attended a cultish church for 18 months with my friends (their church’s services were on Saturday, so after finding my church 5 months into it, for the remaining 13 months I attended their church on Saturday and mine on Sunday)

I lived and breathed their church’s doctrine for 18 months and became an expert on their doctrinal beliefs, so much so that I knew their doctrine better than 99% of their members.  I read everything they published, past and present – in order to learn their doctrinal roots and how their doctrine had changed over the years…I searched and acquired older books published by their church which their church had previously told their members to get rid of or burn (they would make changes to their doctrine - yet claim it really wasn’t a change since they were, after all, “the true church” and could make no doctrinal errors – so they would instruct their members to get rid of some of their previous books and magazines so that the members couldn’t trace the history of their doctrine and wouldn’t think they had fundamentally changed some beliefs).

Their services were NOT open to the public, and they took attendance at the door.  If you were a visitor, they took you aside and asked you a series of questions like, “Why are you here?  What is your motive? Was our staff expecting you?”.  In fact, in order for me to attend their services in Houston, I had to first write to the church’s headquarters in California (the address was provided on their weekly TV show).  They then replied by mail and sent be the phone number to one of their local pastors, which I had to call and discuss my interest BEFORE even being invited and given their address to where their weekly services were located.  Once inside, everyone who could write was expected to take notes, and all the men were dressed in suits and brought brief cases to keep their bible and notepad in, and all the women, if they couldn’t fit it in their purse, would do likewise (I kid you not!), so that they all appeared as clones of each other.  If your attendance wasn’t up to par, you received a phone call.  If your tithing wasn’t up to par, you received a phone call.  If you brought a quest, you were expected to check with your pastor BEFORE bringing them to church.  And the only unforgivable sin was for a baptize member of their church to leave the cult

---

This isn’t some game that is being played.  This is real varsity level brain washing and deception.  And it is demonic, even if it doesn’t involve pentangles and human sacrifice.  I didn’t buy into it because God had already opened my eyes before sending me to them.

This is why I warned Tweed not to attempt to pray to or petition the spirits seeking to gain insight into Mormon scripture, because he is simply opening himself up the spiritual force behind the Book of Mormon.  If one wants to pray a Christian prayer, then lift up Christ in prayer.  If one wants to seek what is proper Christian doctrine, then don’t consult the spirits, rather consult the bible.

This is not something to play around with.  If you want to check out Mormonism (or any other “Christian” church, no matter how benign it appears), than check it out by comparing it to the OT/NT, since every church claims to be in agreement with the OT/NT.

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

*bangs head on desk* For crying out loud man, that's exactly how I interpreted it. The problem is that you don't have any real evidence for your big picture assertion. If you can't back up your big picture argument with something real (no, scripture alone does not count) then asserting anyone who disagrees with you on it is merely giving an excuse is nothing short of arrogance.

Why do you always fall back on your empty argument of, “I agree with the interpretation, but you haven’t shown me proof!”…haven’t I been telling you for years that proof and faith are contradictory terms and that you are only shown the proof once you called by God because only God can reveal what is unseen?  So why do you keep going back to your contradictory argument?

So, since I have clearly stated that you can’t prove the claims true, but you can prove a claim false, why don’t you instead focus on the simply test of: “If Y claims X is True, and Y claims X=Y, if Y<>X, then the claims of Y are False”?

It’s a pretty simple test, as long as you are willing to be a neutral judge.  In fact, back in Oct ’92 when I was an unbeliever and decided to look into the claims of Herbert Armstrong, I didn’t foolishly ask, “Hey, just show me some proof!’  Rather I tested their claims against something (the bible) that they stated their claims were in agreement with.



---

The oldest, most reliable copies and the copies that actually were used in the Bible are the ones that matter the most. Agreement between latter copies amongst themselves have a bit less relevance.

Furthermore, not only where there additions (John 7:53 to 8:11, for instance) and mistranslations …

Yet, you are fully aware that by not basing a doctrine on a single passage, the additions and mistranslations don’t influence doctrine…so what is your point?

---

…there are also ones where entire portions of the gospels seem to be copied significant amounts from other Gospels. (specifically Matthew and Luke appear to be very much based on Mark due to the similarity of the Greek wording, which would not likely have been the case if they had either been written directly by the Apostles or simply been solely written from it being orally passed down) Plagiarism kind of makes the two witnesses thing problematic, because it will by necessity agree with the first witness.

1) your plagiarism claim is pure speculation.

2) you can still get to two or three witness even if you throw out Matthew and Luke, and only use Mark and John.

2) And you are fully aware the complete doctrine of the Gospel can be taught by using only the OT (which is exactly what Jesus and the Apostles did), so what is your point?  The NT never claims to stand on its own, but rather claims to have the OT as it’s foundation.

---

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Give the specific passages, please.

Well, I would have to quote hundreds upon hundreds of verses if I listed them all, so I’ll just pick a few:

Messiah would be a rejected by the Jews and accepted by the Gentiles:

Foreshadowing of Messiah being rejected by the Jews yet accepted by the Gentiles, within the story of Joseph:  Genesis chapters 37-50  

One of Moses last prophesies that because of Israel’s rejection of God, they would be envious and understand less that the Gentiles who know nothing:  Deut 32:21 “I will make Israel envious by those who are not a people; I will make them angry by a nation that has no understanding.”

Isaiah agrees with Moses’ Prophesy that the Messiah will save the Gentiles, and that the Gentiles will understand the mysteries of God: Isa 52:15 “He will sprinkle many nations, and kings will shut their mouths because of him. For what they were not told, they will see, and what they have not heard, they will understand.” (This is why Gentiles like me can take OT stories like the life of Joseph and explain them more perfectly than Jews who have been studying them for thousands of years.)

Prophesy that the Jews, who were supposed to be the masters of the word of God, would reject the Messiah, and those who do accept him will marvel at the plan of God.  Psalm 118:22 “The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone; the LORD has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes.”

And a similar prophecy is found in Isaiah – a prophesy that the Stone would bring salvation to anyone who trusts in him:  Isa 28:16 “See, I lay a stone in Zion, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone for a sure foundation; the one who trusts will never be dismayed.”

Prophesy that the Messiah will save the Gentiles, and that the Gentiles will understand the mysteries of God Isa 52:15 “He will sprinkle many nations, and kings will shut their mouths because of him. For what they were not told, they will see, and what they have not heard, they will understand.”

Prophesy that God’s plan would have the Jews rejecting the Messiah: Isa 53:1-10  “Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?...he was despised, and we esteemed him not…Yet it was the LORD’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer..”

Isaiah also includes a prophecy concerning ignorant Gentiles achieving the knowledge of the Messiah: Isa 55:5 “Surely you will summon nations you know not, and nations that do not know you will hasten to you, because of the LORD your God, the Holy One of Israel, for he has endowed you with splendor.””

Messiah would be a light unto the Gentiles:

Prophecy given to Abraham that his seed, the Messiah, would be accepted by the Gentiles:  Genesis 18:18; 22:18 “Through your seed, all nations will be blessed.”

Prophecy given to Isaac that his seed, the Messiah, would be accepted by the Gentiles:  Genesis 26:4 “Through your seed, all nations will be blessed.”

Prophecy given to Jacob that nations would bow down to his seed, the Messiah: Genesis 27:29 “Through your seed, all nations will be blessed.”

God himself will be exalted among the Gentiles: Psa 46:10 “Be still, and know that I am God; I will be exalted among the nations, I will be exalted in the earth.”… Psa 98:2 “The LORD has made his salvation known and revealed his righteousness to the nations.”…Psa 102:15 “The nations will fear the name of the LORD, all the kings of the earth will revere your glory.”…


Prophesy of David that the Messiah would be a blessing to the Gentiles:  entire 72nd Psalm


Prophesy that the Messiah will be a banner to all nations:  Isa 11:10 “In that day the Root of Jesse will stand as a banner for the peoples; the nations will rally to him, and his place of rest will be glorious.”… Isa 49:22 ““See, I will beckon to the Gentiles, I will lift up my banner to the peoples.”


Prophesy that the Messiah will call the Gentiles to God: Isa 9:1-3 “In the future God will honor the Gentiles…2 The people walking in darkness have seen a great light; on those living in the land of the shadow of death a light has dawned.”

The Messiah will, in himself, be a covenant that gives light to the Gentiles: Isa 42:1 “Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen one in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him and he will bring justice to the nations.”…Isa 42:6 “I will keep you and will make you to be a covenant for the people and a light for the Gentiles, to open eyes that are blind, to free captives from prison, and to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness.”…Isa 49:6 “I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring my salvation to the ends of the earth…Isa 60:3 “Nations will come to your light, and kings to the brightness of your dawn.”

Prophesy that anyone can call on the name of the Lord and be saved:  Joel 2:32 “And all who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved.”

etc, etc, etc…

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

Uh, you are aware that Christian churches do that sort of thing all the time? It's not "brainwashing".

NO!, that is NOT the practice of all Christian churches.  I have been going to the same church for 19 years, and I have NEVER heard my pastor say something along the lines of, “Make sure you have this study guide handy when you read your bible”…nor have I ever heard him say something like, “Here’s our statement of beliefs, read them and pray to God about them.

Another problem of yours you should be aware of - you tend to construe general statements as blanket statements and personal attacks against you or your church. Case in point, notice that BRTD didn't say 'all Christian churches', just 'Christian churches'.

I never said it was a direct attack on me or my church…rather I was simply making the point that not all churches are ignorant of or practice brainwashing, and that the behavior I spoke of is in fact brain washing....so it seems I don't have the problem you speak of...not that I view your statement was a personal attack on me or anything

There are some churches who don’t use brainwashing techniques because:

1)   they can recognize brain washing techniques when they see them
2)   they understand such techniques are contrary to the truth and find them sickening and misguided
3)   they have witnessed the damage that such brainwashing does
4)   they have something real that doesn’t require something fake

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

jmf, I appreciate the degree of attention, but as I am but a novice in LDS history and doctrine, I must indefinitely suspend meaningful conversation on these points.

novice or expert...I'm just warning you of what should be obvious brainwashing techniques which feed upon the one's desire to be apart of something bigger than one's self.

I'm only heading towards a Grand Inquisitor style anti-faith: my defenses are strong.

  then what was all this "the Book of Mormon is dripping in the Holy Spirit" stuff?

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

I don't see the contradiction.  it's clear the author felt a transcendental inspiration while penning it.

I'm talking about you, not Joseph Smith...by YOU stating "the book is dripping in the Holy Spirit", you're saying that you believe you have discerned a spiritual force behind the book.

And since you are saying you've tapped into something spiritual, I'm advising you to be careful and test the spirits BEFORE you dabble in the spirits.  And I've given you a very simple method to conduct such a test, a test that was used throughout scripture.

Since the LDS claims the bible and the Book of Mormon are both from God, then simply COMPARE the two.  If they are in disagreement, then you’ll know the LDS has been proven false without subjecting yourself to unnecessary spiritual contact.

If you believe in the transcendental, do not deceive yourself into thinking you’re stronger than it.  Do not think you can dabble in it and not be overcome by it.  Do not think you can dabble in the supernatural and escape unscathed – both Eve and Samson thought the same, and they were wrong, dead wrong.

just like in the movie Marked for Death:

Max: Well?
John Hatcher: One thought he was invincible... the other thought he could fly.
Max: So?
John Hatcher: They were both wrong.

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

Agreeing with you on how a book's author meant it to be interpreted does not mean I have to agree that the actual contents are true.

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?

---

My point, which includes more than just the part you included there, is that the Bible is a very unreliable document for a variety of reasons.

Well, considering the gospel was taught to dozens of nations in many languages during the life of the Apostles, and what has remained is thousands of documents across those many nations and languages that are 99.5% in agreement (MUCH more that any other set of ancient documents that had widespread dissemination), I’m not sure what you find lacking.  Guess maybe you’re expecting to discover some bronze plates that are supposedly the original copy.

----

Also out of curiosity, where else in the Bible does it say that the stoning of adulterers should stop?

You mean, outside of John 7:53-8:11? Then how about the parable of the weeds:

Matthew 13:24 Jesus told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25 But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 26 When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.
   27 “The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’
   28 “‘An enemy did this,’ he replied.
  “The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’
   29 “‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’”

As I have told you many times, capital punishment of the immoral was a foreshadowing of the coming judgment and the executioners where symbolic of God pouring out his wrath…but now that the reality of God himself was come to us (in the body of Jesus Christ), the foreshadowing has ceased.

If you want another example outside of the 4 gospels, then 1Cor ch 5 instructs the church to expel (not kill) immoral members…then, in 2Cor ch 2 the same church is instructed to receive back into fellowship the same person they were previously instructed to expel.

If you want an example from the OT prior to the Law of Moses, then you can look at the fall of Adam or Eve for examples – they weren’t stoned due to their failures.  Or, even in the story of Cain, God allowed him live even after he sinned by killing his brother.

The foreshadowing of judgment by killing was simply temporary, but it was not like that from the beginning (Adam, Eve, Cain werent killed).

---

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, it's based on the study of many theologians who have analyzed the texts. As I said, the idea is based on the original wording being similar - if you were a teacher and you had two students hand in papers that had mostly identical wording…

But the bible claims that there is only one true author of the bible, Jesus Christ.  So there is nothing stopping God from giving multiple people the same exact message, if he chose to do so (though, even the books you mentioned aren’t carbon copies of each other).

---

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Evidence suggests that John may have been written decades after all of the other canonical gospels. Even if John was based largely off of something orally passed down, there's enough time for cross-contamination - I think it would be rather absurd to think that whomever wrote John down hadn't heard about the other gospels and at least their basic contents by that point.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...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 (just as I was).  

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