The God Makers - Mormon Conspiracy, page 3

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 6 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 6 times

reply posted on 17-3-2008 @ 04:48 PM by itguysrule

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
How do you reconcile that?

Reconcile what? Anyone can take any scripture from any volume out of context and INTERPRET it to mean whatever fits their agenda. You obviously have an agenda. Further, you are no more likely to change your mind than I am. Well meaning people of different opinions can throw scriptures back and forth all day and neither will change their mind one little bit.

You are entitled to believe anything you want and I won't accuse you of being evil or a member of a cult because of it. I am entitled to believe anything I want and ask only that I not be attacked for it.

Do you attack Muslims or Hindus or Jews as vociferously as you do Mormons?

reply posted on 17-3-2008 @ 04:56 PM by Bigwhammy

reply to post by itguysrule

That is black and white . What is interpretative? You side step the truth because you will not face it.

It is either Bethlehem or Jerusalem ?

reply posted on 17-3-2008 @ 04:57 PM by jakyll

reply to post by Bigwhammy

Of course you can have both.
You're talking about accounts from 2 different sides of the world.
Paul did not know of the people in the Americas so therefore he would have no knowledge of them being Christians.

I'm still looking into the DNA thread so,as yet,i have no opinion but this;ex-members of any religion rarely have good things to say about them.
But that doesn't mean i won't look at it with an open mind.

Now,i'm trying to refrain from pointing out flaws in other Christian faiths because that kinda thing gets us nowhere.
All such faiths have changed from how they were in the beginning.Some beliefs & doctrines change also because,as humans,we progress.If we didn't then the Vatican would still be supporting violence against the Jews because "they killed God!" They also have dark episodes that cannot be justified....

The Bible itself contains contradictions so its not big news to point out that the Book of Mormon has a few.(and before you say it,who wouldn't claim such a book is the most correct book on earth??)
But the B.O.M. does not contradict the Bible.All our beliefs stem from what is written in the Bible.The different Heavens,the baptism of the dead,Jesus & God being seperate beings.etc....they're all in there.

The Bible is explicit in warning about further revelations.

I guess you ignored my quote from Matthew.Scroll up,you'll find it.

But I believe it is the truth.

One program is all it takes huh?
When studying a subject always look at the positive as well as the negative.

Mormonism is not Christianity. I will stand by that all day and back it up with scriptures.

Meaning of Christian.

Dictionary.com....1)believing in,or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ.2)a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity.3)a person who exemplifies in his or her life the teachings of Christ

American Heritage Dictionary....1)Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.2)One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.3)One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.

Cambridge Dictionary....1)of or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ:2)someone who believes in and follows the teachings of Jesus Christ.3)

CatholicReference.net....A person who is baptized.A professed Christian also believes in the essentials of the Christian faith,notably in the Apostles' Creed.A Catholic Christian further accepts the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church,participates in the Eucharistic liturgy and sacraments of Catholic Christianity,and gives allegiance to the Catholic hierarchy and especially to the Bishop of Rome.

So,to Mormon's and word scholars a Christian is someone who follows the teachings of Jesus.To the Catholics its someone who accepts the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church and gives allegiance not to Jesus,but to the Pope,the Bishop of Rome!!

[edit on 17-3-2008 by jakyll]

reply posted on 17-3-2008 @ 05:05 PM by Bigwhammy

reply to post by jakyll

I think the Bible was over 1000 year before Book of Mormon was written By Smith. He simply contradicts the real scriptures.

Micah 5:2 "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting."

But your "further revelation" says he would be born at Jerusalem.

Alma 7: 10 "And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin..."

Please just watch the DNA vs Mormon video. Overwhelming evidence to debunk Smiths claims.

[edit on 3/17/2008 by Bigwhammy]

reply posted on 17-3-2008 @ 05:27 PM by PokeyJoe

Do the people on here that are Mormon actually live in Utah? I say that because there is a 100% percent difference between Utah Mormons and Non-Utah Mormons. Also, there are no black people in Utah. I lived there for over 4 years and probably say less than a dozen that wernt in the military or played for the Jazz.

The air in Utah just has an oppressive feel to it.

What about the practice of baptism of the dead? Baptising everyone that dies Mormon so that they "will go to heaven." Very very strange place....

reply posted on 17-3-2008 @ 05:31 PM by Wilsonfrisk

Did someone already mention the part about Mormon racism?

2 Nephi 5:21
21 And the Lord had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.

Alma 3: 6 "And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men."

3 Nephi 2:14-15
14 And it came to pass that those Lamanites who had united with the Nephites were numbered among the Nephites;
15 And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites;

Moses 7:22
22 And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them.

And so on, all through their scriptures.

reply posted on 17-3-2008 @ 05:36 PM by jakyll

reply to post by Bigwhammy

But your "further revelation" says he would be born at Jerusalem.

Yes,the B.O.M. does say such a thing.Jesus was born in Bethlehem,wasn't he??

reply posted on 17-3-2008 @ 06:15 PM by Bigwhammy

The first video I posted made me angry because of the sexual abuse of women in the name of Mormonism. I now see it is a mute point. Mormonism is dead.
If you watch the DNA vs Mormonism video you'll see this whole conversation is pointless. Mormon scholars agree! The Book of Mormon has been completely discredited, Sorry I am just the messenger.

www.youtube.com...

reply posted on 17-3-2008 @ 06:49 PM by DragonsDemesne

I've got a feeling that no one will listen, given the kind of baited arguments taking place here, but Ed Decker, the guy who made Godmakers, was a Mormon excommunicated for adultery. Therefore, he has a rather large axe to grind. Decker also makes no distinction between fundamentalist Mormons and mainstream Mormons, and mixes them up at will, along with out of context quotes and exaggerations, plus a few points that are just plain made up.

(Proceeds to watch this post be totally ignored, sits down, and gets out a bag of popcorn)

reply posted on 17-3-2008 @ 06:53 PM by Bigwhammy

In case you don't have time to watch the DNA video. This basically the same evidence. Before you call this a hate site.. It's from Religious Tolerance.org

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and other denominations in the LDS Restorationist movement have taught that Native Americans are descendents of three groups of ancient Israelites who came to the new world:
bullet The Jaredite people came to Central America circa 2250 BCE but were totally destroyed because of their corruption.
bullet Lehi arrived in America circa 600 BCE. Descendents of his two sons, Nephi and Laman became the Nephites and the Lamanites. The Lamanites exterminated most of the Nephites circa 385 CE, and became the ancestors of present day Native Americans.

The belief that Natives are descendents of Jews was commonly accepted in the early 19th century when the Book of Mormon was published. The idea has since gone out of fashion except among the Mormons.

Scientific studies of DNA, facial structure, blood types, and migration patterns have indicated that Natives are of Siberian origin and are totally unrelated to ancient Jews.

The conflicts have caused some commentators to conclude that the Book of Mormon is a human document and was not translated by Joseph Smith from golden plates given to him by an angel. This has caused some Mormons to depart from their faith.:

And specifically

Murphy concluded that over the last few thousand years, modern-day Jews and modern-day Native Americans do not share common ancestors. If they did, then genetic markers would be found in Natives identical to those in the descendents of ancient Hebrews. He concluded that: "the Book of Mormon is a piece of 19th century fiction. And that means that we have to acknowledge sometimes Joseph Smith lied." However, he believes that "the book might be fiction, but inspired as well."

Religious Tolerance

[edit on 3/17/2008 by Bigwhammy]

reply posted on 17-3-2008 @ 07:02 PM by Bigwhammy

reply to post by DragonsDemesne

I believe you. That movie pissed me off and I guess it was designed too. I do not think it reflects most Mormons. The thing is I know Mormons who put evangelical Christians too shame with their holy lifestyles and service and zeal for God. The problem remains that that Joesph Smith deceived them. They may be great people but they are in a false church. The DNA bit is conclusive.

More evidence
USA Today

[edit on 3/17/2008 by Bigwhammy]

reply posted on 17-3-2008 @ 07:28 PM by Bigwhammy

reply to post by jakyll

So when the Book of Mormon clearly contradicts the Bible, you admit it, but then you try to discredit the Bible?

Well ancient historian Justin Martyr said in the second century "There is a village in Judea, thirty-five stadia from Jerusalem, where Jesus Christ was born, as you can see from the tax registers under Cyrenius, your first procurator in Judea." Bethlehem is indeed approximately 35 stadia (5 miles) south.

Are you going to use the argument Bethlehem didn't exist in that time?

well then explain all this www.biblegateway.com...

I read both the liberal and conservative views for your link NOBODY says Jerusalem is where he was born but the BOM.

And that same site ReligiousTolerance.org debunks the Book of Mormon with the DNA evidence.

[edit on 3/17/2008 by Bigwhammy]

reply posted on 17-3-2008 @ 08:14 PM by itguysrule

reply to post by Bigwhammy

According to the Gospel of Luke, Jesus was born in "the City of David." Go to any Internet resource and look up the "City of David" and it will return Jerusalem, not Bethlehem. So what is it? Was Luke wrong?

reply posted on 17-3-2008 @ 08:26 PM by Bigwhammy

reply to post by itguysrule

You should check your Bible

Luke 2:
4So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David.

reply posted on 17-3-2008 @ 08:26 PM by itguysrule

reply to post by Bigwhammy

Religioustolerance.org is an interesting site. Thank you for the reference. You may be interested to note that they list Mormons as Christians. I haven't had time to read the the other articles you mentioned but I plan to as soon as I can.

reply posted on 17-3-2008 @ 08:34 PM by jakyll

reply to post by Bigwhammy

So when the Book of Mormon clearly contradicts the Bible, you admit it, but then you try to discredit the Bible?

I may follow the Bible but i'm not stupid enough to believe that it has never been altered or manipulated over the centuries.

Also,if archaeological evidence says that Bethlehem didn't exist at the time of Jesus' birth then it is impossible for Him to have been born there!

Joseph & Mary lived in Nazareth which may explain the title,Jesus of Nazareth/Jesus the Nazarene.(not Jesus of Bethlehem.)You may be interested to know that early Christians were celled Nazarenes.

In the book of Micah it states that a ruler of Israel will come from Beth-lehem Ephratah.There is no indication that this ruler would be of divine origin.

As for the line from Alma 7:10,i was giving you a chance to research,how silly of me.
The Jerusalem mentioned is not a city,as is seen in the full quote,

10 And behold,he shall be born of Mary,at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers,she being a virgin,a precious and chosen vessel,who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost,and bring forth a son,yea,even the Son of God.

You may find the links below useful.

www.shields-research.org...
www.jefflindsay.com...

edit to fix link tags

[edit on 3/17/2008 by Cuhail]

reply posted on 17-3-2008 @ 08:40 PM by jakyll

reply to post by Bigwhammy

Are you going to use the argument Bethlehem didn't exist in that time?

Your link quotes the name Bethlehem-Judah not Bethlehem Ephratah,they are 2 different places.

reply posted on 17-3-2008 @ 08:44 PM by Bigwhammy

reply to post by jakyll

Well ancient historian Justin Martyr said in the second century "There is a village in Judea, thirty-five stadia from Jerusalem, where Jesus Christ was born, as you can see from the tax registers under Cyrenius, your first procurator in Judea." Bethlehem is indeed approximately 35 stadia (5 miles) south.

Are you going to use the argument Bethlehem didn't exist in that time?

well then explain all this www.biblegateway.com...
Bethlehem did exist all through out the old testament.

These is no discrepancy with the Book of Mark either Nazareth was his hometown but he was born in Bethlehem. Not too hard to understand is it?

Once you study that DNA evidence you'll stop defending the Book of Mormon anyway. It's a slam dunk.

[edit on 3/17/2008 by Bigwhammy]

reply posted on 17-3-2008 @ 08:52 PM by itguysrule

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Once you study that DNA evidence you'll stop defending the Book of Mormon anyway. It's a slam dunk.

I went to religioustolerance.org and read about the DNA evidence you mention. It is hardly a "slam dunk" unless you are just validating what you already have decided in your own mind is the truth. I guess you skipped all of the articles on the same site that refute this "slam dunk" DNA evidence. Typical.

reply posted on 17-3-2008 @ 09:00 PM by jakyll

reply to post by Bigwhammy

Once you study that DNA evidence you'll stop defending the Book of Mormon anyway. It's a slam dunk.

Have you read any information that gives support for the DNA question,or has it all been studies that are against it?

This link will give you a different point of view.
mormanity.blogspot.com...

[edit on 3/17/2008 by Cuhail]- to fix link tag.

[edit on 3/17/2008 by Cuhail]