One saints deception, ignorance....or both?

I can't say you're much better.

And yet, if we use the "Standard Works" as a Standard, we see no such teachings.

No, he was the one that was "like unto God". See Abraham 3:24

That's referring to glory, not godhood. It's the same justification that Christians use that Jesus was God, but "emptied himself" when he became flesh
D&C 93
4 The Father because he gave me of his fulness, and the Son because I was in the world and made flesh my tabernacle, and dwelt among the sons of men.

There's nothing in the scriptures that says anything about "fully exalted". This is "philosophy of men, mingled with scripture" on full display here.

Yes according to "mormon gospel of Markk"

What measure ye mete

Yes, BOJ, because CLEARLY Nephi was a full proponent of relying on the arm of flesh and appealing to authority *sarcasm*
Nephi was a fictional character. You might as well base your beliefs on what Gandalf said.
 
Nephi was a fictional character. You might as well base your beliefs on what Gandalf said.
Whether that's true or not is irrelevant.
The subject is Mormonism. Mormon scripture defines Mormonism, which proves Markk's methodology in interpreting Mormonism wrong.
 
Whether that's true or not is irrelevant.
The subject is Mormonism. Mormon scripture defines Mormonism, which proves Markk's methodology in interpreting Mormonism wrong.
And Nephi is a character in your scripture, which you say “defines mormonism.” You brought him up. It’s entirely relevant.
 
And Nephi is a character in your scripture, which you say “defines mormonism.” You brought him up. It’s entirely relevant.
And the doctrines and practices unique to Mormonism aren't even found in the BoM--like the plurality of gods, and polygamy being endorsed by the Mormon god.
 
Fools? ok, got it.... christian doctrine of love thy neighbor nor matter if they don't even go to church... really nice folks...
It's an act of love for Christians to come here and attempt to draw Mormons captivated by the teachings of a false religious system to Biblical truth. It's an act of charity for us to share the Gospel with those who reject it and call our churches the great and abominable church.

By the way Richard, what do you think of Joey Smith's sermon he gave on May 26, 1844, where he claimed:

"My enemies are no philosophers: they think that when they have my spoke under, they will keep me down; but for the fools, I will hold on and fly over them."

Was it okay for Joey Smith to call non-Mormons fools? Let me guess, you think it was!


 
And Nephi is a character in your scripture, which you say “defines mormonism.” You brought him up. It’s entirely relevant.
Ok. So if we're seeking truth, and those truths are given through stories or sermons or whatever. But if the person that stated them didn't actually exist, does that mean all statements made in the text are false? That's an interesting line of reasoning. Suppose some people don't use their real name as their avatar in this forum, does that mean we can regard everything they say as false because the name isn't literally true? According to JS, It's the precepts, not the people or places that draw us closer to God.
 
Last edited:
Ok. So if we're seeking truth, and those truths are given through stories or sermons or whatever. But if the person that stated them didn't actually exist, does that mean all statements made in the text are false? That's an interesting line of reasoning. Suppose some people don't use their real name as their avatar, does that mean we can disregard everything they say as false because the name isn't literally true?

Well, first of all, our "nicks" are not our actual "name".
We get to CHOOSE our nicks.
It never says, "Please give us your name." (And in fact, it's been a while, but I seem to remember that the system asks for our actual name in ADDITION to the nick we choose to identify our posts.

Secondly, "Nephi" is not simply a "pseudonym" for a real person.
It is the name of a person who never existed in reality.
 
Ok. So if we're seeking truth, and those truths are given through stories or sermons or whatever. But if the person that stated them didn't actually exist, does that mean all statements made in the text are false? That's an interesting line of reasoning. Suppose some people don't use their real name as their avatar in this forum, does that mean we can regard everything they say as false because the name isn't literally true? According to JS, It's the precepts, not the people or places that draw us closer to God.

If a church lies to you about where their book came from, how it was written, who wrote it, and none of the characters were real, why would you believe any of it? And why would you hold it as scripture/God’s word?

Most of us use screen names online, but we are, in fact, real people. The Book of Mormon is fiction. And in light of what you just said, you know that.
 
If a church lies to you about where their book came from, how it was written, who wrote it, and none of the characters were real, why would you believe any of it? And why would you hold it as scripture/God’s word?
You've just moved the goal posts.
The question is what we use to evaluate as doctrine for the Church (ie. The Book of Mormon). What I believe is irrelevant.
I have reasonable doubt the both the BoM and the stories of the Bible are true as explained. Regardless the precepts and principles of both books are true and result to living a better life than otherwise. Likewise, I can identify all the truth of all religions, and see them as one great whole. (Hmmm...I think I heard that somewhere.)
Most of us use screen names online, but we are, in fact, real people.
Oh, but how do we know? Some people's responses are so predictable they may as well be bots. Some people, I know for a fact, pose as Mormons and are chaos agents because they've admitted to such.
Apparently, according to your logic, fake people and things like Aesop's fables can't teach moral truths because the characters and settings are fictitious. That's just ridiculous.
The Book of Mormon is fiction. And in light of what you just said, you know that.
That's irrelevant. Jesus's parables were fiction also. Yet, he used to precepts of those parables to teach spiritual truths, to help people draw closer to God, which is exactly what JS stated.
More importantly, the Church included it as a Standard Work to define their beliefs.
 
You've just moved the goal posts.

Well, guess what, Aaron?
We're ALLOWED to "move the goal posts".
We're allowed to place the goalposts WHEREVER we want.

You don't get to try to "protect" any part of Mormonism, and put a fence around it, and claim, "You don't get to question this, you MUST accept it as true".

That's as cultish a move as I've ever heard.

And Maggie's point is completely valid.
When the LDS church LIES to you about:
- the Book of Mormon being "true";​
- Joseph Smith being a "true prophet";​
- literally HUNDREDS of misinterpretations of the Bible;​

... then your church MARKS itself as 100% UNRELIABLE.

The question is what we use to evaluate as doctrine for the Church (ie. The Book of Mormon). What I believe is irrelevant.

If the Book of Mormon isn't historically true, then there is NO basis for trusting it for use in identifying true "doctrine".

I have reasonable doubt the both the BoM and the stories of the Bible are true as explained.

So basically, you're admitting that you are an unbeliever, and are neither a Christian nor a Mormon. You are no better than Warren Jeffs, or Winston Blackmore, or Rulon Allred, or Elden Kingston, or Ervil LeBaron, or James Harmston, or James Strang, or any other Mormon cult leader.

The issue here, Aaron, is NOT what you personally believe.
The issue is what the LDS church officially teaches.
This is not the "Aaron32" forum. It's the "Mormonism" forum.

And I'm PRETTY sure that the LDS church believes and teaches that the BoM, as well as the Bible, are HISTORICALLY accurate.

And you don't believe that.

But at least we have some common ground.
We both believe that the BoM is not based on historical truth.

But you want to lump the Bible in with the Book of Mormon, when you really can't.
The BoM was presented as a "completed" whole, just like Harry Potter, or Lord of the Rings.

The Bible wasn't.
The Bible was written as a sequence of "journal articles", as it were, from Moses, to Joshua, to David, to Solomon, to the major prophets, to the minor prophets, to the gospels, the epistles, and revelation. And the chain of evidence was continuous, first from the Jews, and then through the church. We also have historical manuscripts, both for the Hebrew Scriptures and the Greek Scriptures. Nada for the Book of Mormon.

Regardless the precepts and principles of both books are true and result to living a better life than otherwise. Likewise, I can identify all the truth of all religions, and see them as one great whole. (Hmmm...I think I heard that somewhere.)

That's impossible, since differnet religions teach diametrically opposed doctrines.
But you are begging the question... If you think both the Bible and BoM are fiction, then what is your STANDARD for determining truth? You seem to have no standard but your own sinful opinion.

Apparently, according to your logic, fake people and things like Aesop's fables can't teach moral truths because the characters and settings are fictitious. That's just ridiculous.

Where does the LDS church officially teach that stores about Nephi and Lehi and Moroni are simply "fables", referring to people who never existed?

How to people who (according to you) never existed, come to exist as the native Americans?

That's irrelevant. Jesus's parables were fiction also.

But there is more to the Bible than "parables".
Jesus didn't consider Adam and Eve, or Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob as "parables".

More importantly, the Church included it as a Standard Work to define their beliefs.

Does the LDS church teach that the Bible is a book of fiction containing "true principles", or does it teach that the Bible is an historically accurate account of God's people?
 
You've just moved the goal posts.
And your point is?

The question is what we use to evaluate as doctrine for the Church (ie. The Book of Mormon).
The Book of Mormon is fiction, and doesn’t even contain the doctrines and practices that are unique to mormonism. And mormonism contradicts what God said in the Bible. For example, the basic belief in who God is.

What I believe is irrelevant.
Then why are you here?

I have reasonable doubt the both the BoM and the stories of the Bible are true as explained.
Yes, and that is a normal part of the process of leaving mormonism. When you realize it’s false, but then you don’t know if you can trust anything or anyone else. Including yourself and God.

Regardless the precepts and principles of both books are true and result to living a better life than otherwise.
Not really. Lies don’t result in living a better life.

Likewise, I can identify all the truth of all religions, and see them as one great whole. (Hmmm...I think I heard that somewhere.)
You didn’t hear that from me. Some religions are evil.

Oh, but how do we know? Some people's responses are so predictable they may as well be bots.
Because you don’t like what we say.

Some people, I know for a fact, pose as Mormons and are chaos agents because they've admitted to such.
We are aware of that.

Apparently, according to your logic, fake people and things like Aesop's fables can't teach moral truths because the characters and settings are fictitious. That's just ridiculous.
Winnie the Pooh has some wise thoughts. But I’m not going to base my faith and eternal salvation on it.

That's irrelevant. Jesus's parables were fiction also.
Jesus used parables sometimes to teach. But His words, gospel, power, Godhood are not fiction. And your eternal salvation depends on Him.

Yet, he used to precepts of those parables to teach spiritual truths, to help people draw closer to God, which is exactly what JS stated.
No, Joseph Smith said those things were true and came from God. He lied.

More importantly, the Church included it as a Standard Work to define their beliefs.
A fake church has fake standard works to promote their false doctrine. Imagine that.
 
The Book of Mormon is fiction, and doesn’t even contain the doctrines and practices that are unique to mormonism.

How can it be "the fullness of the gospel", when it doesn't explain to us how to become gods, or even to tell us that we CAN become gods?

Winnie the Pooh has some wise thoughts. But I’m not going to base my faith and eternal salvation on it.

This is where it is demonstrated that Mormons have very poor critical thinking skills.
If we hear a wise thought (eg. from Thomas Sowell, G.K. Chesterton, or C.S. Lewis), that doesn't mean we should accept EVERYTHING they teach.

For instance, some friends of mine celebrate Aug. 18 (8/18) every year by quoting from the Book of Mormon:

Moroni 8:18 For I know that God is not a partial God,
.................... nethier a changeable being,
.................... but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity.

Like the saying goes, even a broken clock is right twice per day.
And even a blind squirrel can find a nut every once in awhile.

Jesus used parables sometimes to teach. But His words, gospel, power, Godhood are not fiction. And your eternal salvation depends on Him.

It begs the question of whether Mormons slide down the slippery slope and actually reject Christ's actual death on the cross wehre He actually atoned for sin, thinking instead that it is simply "symbolic" or something.

Imagine the bread and the cup of the Last Supper being "symbolic" of something else that Mormons might think is itself "symbolic".
 
Back
Top