Cute sound bite

The only thing folks like you are doing is spreading falsehoods about the church.
I do not tell lies about the church, I don’t need to.
“I’ve been a member my entire life (please…no phony charges about me being brainwashed), and I know exactly what the church is all about. “

Obviously you don’t as evidenced by the fact you are still a member, those who find the truth about the church leave.

“So you left for whatever reason. That is your right. But it is also my right to call you on statements that are not true.”

By all means if you can’t find one untruth otherwise you are simply slandering me by calling me a liar.

“You state that “Remember even in the Book of Mormon God invites you to test him, if the elders and the Bishop tell you not to, why are they not abiding by God’s will and scriptures?
I have never heard a Bishop or a missionary tell someone not to test God. ”

That is not evidence it is hearsay of a personal experience. I was told to stop questioning and testing God I was even quoted Matthew 4:7, 12:39, 16:4 and Luke 11:29 as evidence of this.
“On the contrary, that is what I encouraged all the time when I was a missionary in Scotland many years ago. “

That is advice to investigators, not for apostates.

“Test by sincere prayer, and the answer will come via a witness from the Holy Ghost. It worked for me, and I’ve seen it work for anyone who really wanted to know the truth. “

So what you are in effect saying is that if I ask for an answer and I already know what answer I want because I already believe it, then I’ll get the right answer. If not I wont. Brilliant. Circular reason at it’s dishonest best.

You see, the problem you anti-Mormonism types have is that you encourage folks NOT to pray for truth,

As an Atheist type I ENCOURAGE PEOPLE NOT TO PRAY FULL STOP. However the many genuine Christians on this site you refer to as Anti-Mormon types, encourage people to pray, with an open mind and ONLY to pray with a sincere desire for TRUTH

“in particular, whether of not the Book of Mormon is the word of God, if Joseph Smith really was a prophet, the LDS church being the one true church on the face of the earth, etc., etc. But I know why you folks have to take that path–because it might lead to that person actually getting a testimony of the truth, and of course, that’s exactly what you DON’T want to happen.”

That sounds suspiciously like a rant to me. Bare your testimony by all means and have the courtesy to allow others the same privilege even if you disagree with it.

“But as I said, it’s your choice, and your right to have that opinion.”

Exactly and I will do so but if you accuse me of making statement that are not true, I will call you on that too.

I certainly dont think your brain washed, a lot of intelligent people believe in Mormonism and I certainly can understand as a religious believer myself the thought process in becoming a Mormon (and there are no silent digs there) however I host this site because I believe that Mormonism is a false religion that keeps people from freedom in Christ.

The asking God thing sounds nice but it is something the 200-300 offshoot LDS groups claim among many others, we see in Acts 17:11 the best way to test what is true.

I appreciate you may not believe this for a second but I do what I do out of genuine love and concern for Mormon people, I believe that the message of Christ and the message of Mormonism are so massively apart from each other that something needs to be said. I have never been a Mormon and do not hate the Mormon Church at all.

I have had many, many, many Mormons come in and leave similar comments like you about how horrible Anti-Mormons are etc (not that you said Im horrible personally) and then never be seen here again. I hope you will stick around and comment on any of my posts that you like and I look forward to some dialogue with you, if you go to this page http://upfc.org.uk/audiovideo.html you can hear an interview I did on a podcast where I share why I do what I do and a dialogue I recently had with a Mormon on Premier Christian Radio. I am not at all expecting you to be impressed with me or won over to my cause as such but I hope you can get the idea that I am not merely some hateful anti-Mormon

Anyway Bless you and I hope to talk again

The only thing folks like you are doing is spreading falsehoods about the church. I’ve been a member my entire life (please…no phony charges about me being brainwashed), and I know exactly what the church is all about. So you left for whatever reason. That is your right. But it is also my right to call you on statements that are not true.

You state that “Remember even in the Book of Mormon God invites you to test him, if the elders and the Bishop tell you not to, why are they not abiding by God’s will and scriptures?”

I have never heard a Bishop or a missionary tell someone not to test God. On the contrary, that is what I encouraged all the time when I was a missionary in Scotland many years ago. Test by sincere prayer, and the answer will come via a witness from the Holy Ghost. It worked for me, and I’ve seen it work for anyone who really wanted to know the truth. You see, the problem you anti-Mormonism types have is that you encourage folks NOT to pray for truth, in particular, whether of not the Book of Mormon is the word of God, if Joseph Smith really was a prophet, the LDS church being the one true church on the face of the earth, etc., etc. But I know why you folks have to take that path–because it might lead to that person actually getting a testimony of the truth, and of course, that’s exactly what you DON’T want to happen.

But as I said, it’s your choice, and your right to have that opinion.

I know we disagree and hope none of what I say is viewed or taken as offensive, but only to express my opinion and testimony. Now points 7 and 8.

7) I own and have read a Copy of Since Cumrah to be fair some of it is interesting most of it is inaccurate biased tripe. It is not a viable history book that would be accepted as a reliable reference work anywhere outside of BYU.

“Since Cumorah” was not written as a history book, it was initially written for the then LDS Church Magazine, Improvement Era, in a series of 27 parts from October 1964 through December 1966 and subsequently published in book form in 1967. Very few would use ever a book from 1967 as a reference work for archaeology, but the reason why I quote is in connection to the Isaiah theory which dates from . In Since Cumorah, Nibley points out some ways that we can reconcile the Isaiah quotations with multiple authorship theories.(pages 113–15, 121–34) He notes that the Book of Mormon does not quote any passages ascribed to the Third Isaiah (chapters 56–66), nor does it quote Isaiah 1, a chapter that many scholars think was written as a late summary of the book. It is why I reference ‘SC’ as it does contain very good and logical arguments as an apologetic response, to which you fail to answer other than calling it “tripe”. I least I try and back my opinion up.

You need to do more research, you information on the various authors of Isaiah is out of date and incomplete and probably was just googled.

I give you either a book or website reference, as back-up for my view and so you can look them up for your own research. If you desire more recent then how about 1991 “Isaiah and the Book of Mormon” by Victor Ludlow: http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=3&num=1&id=66

OR a little earlier: “The Apocalyptic Book of Isaiah” (Hebraeus, 1982) by Avraham Gileadi

Also, you need a better definition of the word theory. Theory does not mean in dispute it means as yet unable to be falsified so may be accepted as fact. (as in the theory of Evolution and the theory of gravity)

First, a definition of theory: 1. a system of rules, procedures, and assumptions used to produce a result. 2. abstract knowledge or reasoning. 3. a speculative or conjectural view or idea. 4.. abstract reasoning; speculation: 5. a belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment. 6. an assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
Can’t find any dictionary with your definition, which would enable a “conspiracy theory” to be fact.

On the Isaiah theory, let’s look at what they say:
“The distinction between First Isaiah and Second Isaiah is so widely accepted….The distinction between Second Isaiah and Third Isaiah is almost as widely accepted”… (The Anchor Bible: Second Isaiah, 1969).
AND “The bulk of the book [of Isaiah] was … probably composed more than a century after the lifetime of Isaiah”. (The Oxford Companion to the Bible, 1993)
I read “almost” and “probably”. I think they use these words because some scholars dispute the Isaiah theory and have been able to ‘falsify’ it, or rather the way I would put it – “give another plausible theory”. Anyway I am sure you will find someone with a different argument. That is the nature of academia.

Anyway this a complicated issue. Maybe you can begin by googling it as your research seems to be only an accusation.

Let’s first re-state the theory: Chapters 40-55, Second Isaiah (Deutero-Isaiah), written, at the earliest, 20-30 years after Lehi left Jerusalem, and so allegedly not available to Nephi on Laban’s brass plates. 1 Nephi 20-21, 2 Nephi 7-8, and 3 Nephi 16:18-20 all quote from 2nd Isaiah, which is a problem if those chapters were not written by 2nd Isaiah until after Nephi had obtained the brass plates.

In response, I refer your research to: http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms/Deutero-Isaiah
for a proposed scenario/theory and I particularly like its proposed development of Isaiah, which to me is the more likely explanation. This LDS scholarly /apologetic “theory” cannot be “falsified” and according to you, if I may be bold, is then to be “accepted as fact”. But I only put it up as a possible explanation. Personally, I have no issue with Deutero-Isaiah and the BoM.

AND as further research you canalso go to:
http://www.fairlds.org/authors/schindler-marc/deutero-isaiah-in-the-book-of-mormon
As Marc Schindler explains in his article: Deutero-Isaiah in the Book of Mormon? “To overthrow an existing theory, one needs to show that the existing theory’s facts are not proven, and one needs to propose a new theory with sufficient factual backing that the new one can replace the old. Here we have a case where the premier non-LDS commentary on “Second” Isaiah–the Anchor Bible–admits that there is insufficient evidence from wordprint analysis that Isaiah was written by anything other than a single author, and we have a new model, proposed by Avraham Gileadi, which shows that Isaiah contains a far more profound and sophisticated literary paradigm, if we accept that it is a unitary work. No wonder this new unitary theory, which just happens to get around a traditional objection to the Book of Mormon, is gaining ground.”
My point from the beginning is all this is not new to Latter-day Saints and not an issue to our testimony of the Book of Mormon.

8) I’m glad you know so many Jews, perhaps they then can confirm why I took issue with your original error.

I asked my accountant, who asked his Rabbi. They had no problem with my definition. To add to my defence I further quote from:

Israelite:
1. A native or inhabitant of the ancient Northern Kingdom of Israel.
2. A descendant of Jacob; a Jew.
3. A member of a people regarded as the chosen people of God.
4. A Jew not descended from the tribe of Levi and not a priest.
( Source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com)

AND
“It is clear from these passages that Jews were identical to Israelites in the minds of Gentiles, unbelieving Jews, Jesus’ disciples, and Jesus Himself. It is noteworthy that Paul, a post-cross believer and apostle to the Gentiles, identified himself as a Jew and an Israelite to Jews and Gentiles alike.
A Jew is a member of the nation of Israel, and “the Jews,” used in its broadest biblical sense, is identical to the nation of Israel.”
(Source: http://www.biblestudyproject.org)

And the reason why I didn’t ask if you were an Israelite?
• a member of the ancient Hebrew nation, especially in the period from the Exodus to the Babylonian Captivity (circa 12th to 6th centuries BC).
• an old-fashioned and sometimes offensive term for a Jew.
(Source: http://oxforddictionaries.com)

As you have Jewish heritage I am glad I didn’t call you an Israelite as I would may have offended you.

But you are diverting my issue – James1: 3-5 is applicable to everyone, Christian and non-Christian. You said it only applied to Christians. No error on my part.

Now to watch the swimming. Regards.