You really have no clue, and I don’t think speaking as equals would help. There is no reason to except anything in the Book of Genesis as Historical. Moses is not excepted as a historic figure. While Jesus is excepted as being a historic figure, there is no historical proof of the resurrection. If you except these these you do so based on personal testimony, and thus, by your own argument, you except them on blind faith.

However, the point is that the discussion is not about what is historical or excepted or any other such nonsense. The discussion at hand is a comparison of LDS and other Christian doctrine. Anything that does not discuss that is a diversion away from it. As nothing you have said in any way addresses the comparisons being made than everything you have said is a diversion away from the point at hand.

It would be like two people discussing the differences between apples and beans, and then you telling one that he can’t discuss the green bean because it isn’t a fruit. Who cares if it is a fruit or not if that is not what the discussion was about.

Now, I will mention one thing here, since you have already proven yourself wrong. If we have had our prayers answered than we have evidence, and we are not acting on blind faith. You again claim that right to judge what we can or can’t use and except. I really don’t care if you accept it or not, but if God has spoken to me than that is all I need, because God does not make mistakes, while men do frequently. You dismiss all the evidence of Faith and the spirit in favor of the learning of men, and I quite honestly feel sorry for you.

It is not at all about whether I accept your ‘scripture’ but about whether it is scripture, whether the founding evidence for anything else you claim for your faith is reliable, plausible, worthy of consideration. You insist that there is evidence for the Book of Mormon but don’t present any so it seems reasonable to continue thinking the book is without foundation. That being the case, then every other claim to understanding issues of Christian faith made by you is brought into question because the foundation on which it is built is sand.

It is a trick to make this about what I accept, or don’t accept, as though the fact that some accept it puts me on the spot. There is not a scrap of evidence to show the BOM has any historical credibility, and plenty of evidence to show otherwise. Now, if someone is so blind as to accept the book without any serious evidence that is blind faith. If you are operating on that basis then everything you say is questionable because you have shown yourself lacking in discernment and insight.

This is important in any discussion. Mormons like to overcome objections by appearing to talk to Christians as mutually respected equals, as you have done here, but the discussion must start much further back if people are to get any real flavour of what Mormonism is really about.

In the Christian world there is an almost universal acceptance of the fact that Mormonism is not Christianity and Mormonism is a deception. I am sorry to put it that way but, if you are being honest, you know it and I know it so lets not pretend and give people the false impression that your faith and my faith get along just fine apart from a few denominational secondary issues. We are diametrically opposed and it starts with the imposition called the Book of Mormon. Better to tell the truth and shame the devil don’t you think?

As to faith, I know full well what Mormonism teaches, though I can’t know your own mind, but it is not your mind that is being discussed but Mormonism. Moroni’s promise, so-called, is a clear and unashamed invitation to believe blindly ( you see we are back to the BOM) and every Mormon will tell you that they “know the Book of Mormon is the Word of God” because they have prayed about it and felt a burning bosom. This is a well-trodden path Shem, and all the talk in the world about Mormonism being misunderstood won’t wash.

The danger here is that, in accepting Mormon claims blindly, the person is now in a place where even sold, verifiable and incontrovertible evidence means nothing if it contradicts what they “know” to be true because they prayed about it.

Mormonism presents two faces; one to the world and one to the faithful. To the latter it is all about maintaining and strengthening your testimony, based on Moroni’s promise. To the former the church presents a pseudo-academic, “be an independent thinker” message, but we all know what happens to independent thinkers in the Mormon Church who ask too many awkward questions. They are never said to have raised some good points, highlighted some issues we need to talk about. No, they are said to have ‘lost their testimonies’ become apostate, enemies of the church, and excommunicated.

And all this comes back to the Book of Mormon which encourages and nurtures blind faith for the simple reason that there is nothing of greater substance there to believe. relevance? Nothing could be more relevant.

Blessings

Mike

“For me your analogy does not work at all as we are a totally different being to God, everything about your analogy misses it.”

What my point on this is is that this is not logical. You are making God so completely foreign that there is no hope of ever knowing or understanding Him, and yet Christ declares that Eternal Life is to know God.
If God is so far removed from us that our language can’t be used to describe Him than he becomes a fairly useless God.
Now, I have never once said that the God you describe does not exist. I have simply stated that what you describe is a perfectly selfish being and even if he does exist I will seek out a better being that is actually worthy of my adulation.

Your argument that even though he acts selfishly we can’t describe him as a selfish being is unreasonable and illogical.

As to the LDS doctrine and our understanding of God, just consider this: how would your father feel if you called your grandfather your father and deferred to him instead. God is the Most High because he is our father, and we have no other. I don’t care how many other gods exist; none of the can claim to be my Heavenly Father except one, and to that one I will defer and only that one will I worship. Just as I would never hold anyone else in the place of my mortal father, I would hold no other being in the place of my Heavenly Father. This is perfectly right and just.

You don’;t have to like the God of the Bible if you don’t want too, but you are very much in error to assume He does not exist because you would not have Him be that way.

I think its likely that your concept of the nature of God is totally different from mine. Your analogy in point 2 screams this out to me. For me your analogy does not work at all as we are a totally different being to God, everything about your analogy misses it. However from it I can only assume that you subscribe to the LDS idea that God was once a mortal man and now He has received His exaltation.

If I am right and that is your view, then to be fair you are totally right to challenge me on this. If that view is correct then everything I am saying has to be totally wrong. God could not possibly seek first His own glory as He knows very well that His glory was given to Him as a result of His successful mortal probation where He lived out the eternal laws and ordnances and the grace that was given to Him by His God. This God should not be seeking first His glory. He should be seeking ours first, as the God of the Book of Mormon does.

However I would take this further and say that this God should not be accepting worship at all. Joseph Fielding Smith said

“The Prophet taught that our Father had a Father and so on. Is not this a reasonable thought, especially when we remember that the promises are made to us that we may become like him?” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 1:12).

This God, being fully aware that He has a heavenly Father should not be accepting worship as the most high God. as various Bible verses say He is. He should not be saying He has eben God from everlasting to everlasting as Psalm 90:2 says. He should not in fact ever accept worship, He should point people to His God whom He knows is more glorious than He is.

In fact any time anyone ever worships the Mormon God He should be utterly ashamed, as He knows that He is a saved sinner just like anyone else and He is only where He is because it was granted to Him. He could have been a drug dealer, thief, or any manner of sinner before He accepted the gospel in His life.

Also if you become a god will you accept worship, or will you point people to your Father, who should point people to His father and infinitely so on.

Mormons often tell me they will still worship their heavenly Father eternally, I wonder if this is true just how much this worship must be watered down now considering the LDS teaching that there are Gods without end.

As Brigham Young said:

“How many Gods there are, I do not know, But there never was a time when there were not Gods and worlds, and when men were
not passing through the same ordeals that we are passing through. That course has been from all eternity, and it is and will be so to all eternity” (Brigham Young, October 8,1859, Journal of Discourses 7:333).

So if this is your view as much as I think your God does not exist, I think you are right to argue this point with me.

2) I know no syllogism off hand, but consider this: Two men exist.
One is a poor man who hordes his money, never helping anyone and charging high interest on any loans. On the rare occasions that he does give many to a charity he makes a big noise about it and gets angry if they do not praise him for the gift.
The other is a rich man who give token donations to various charities (little by comparison to his wealth), but insists that his name is always mentioned and that he be given a memorial with each one.
Now, both these men are acting in a selfish manner. Your argument would be the equivalent of saying the rich man is not selfish because he is rich and the rich can’t be selfish.
Now, I understand that God cannot be truly compared to mortal men, but do you see what I am trying to say. Either they are both selfish or neither of them is. You can’t describe the exact same action in two opposite ways simply because it is two different beings that are engaged in it. Either the act is a selfish act or it isn’t.

5) In my experience most people, when asked that question, assume that it is only referring to those things that tangibly a part of their mortal existence. I know few members who would actually put their family before God, but will instinctively consider their family the most important thing in their life, because the term life invokes this life.
Honestly, I have, to myself, frequently criticized the general membership of the church, as well as other churches, of having a temporal point of view. More people need to look to the eternities and act with that point of view rather than the one they generally take.

“Your comments on Romans 3:25-26 don’t change the fact that this states why Jesus went to the cross, notice how the justification of man is the afterthought to that.”
My point is that justification is not the afterthought, but is given as the underlying reason. “To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.” In other words, the mission of Christ was to declare His righteousness, and the reason he was to fulfill this mission was so that He might be just and justify the believers. He did come to establish His righteousness, just as you say; but the reason for establishing His righteousness was to justify men.

I have got no real desire to discuss predestination at this time either.

2) Could you explain in more depth how this is the case, maybe give me a syllogism showing the fallacy in what I am saying.

5) Thanks for that, in my experience Mormons often say their family is more important, however I totally respect and believe that this is not the case for you.

I am certainly not denying that God loves us and that the cross was to reconcile man to God due to Gods love of humanity. God could have done a flood part 2, killed us all and that would have been perfectly just. What I am saying is that Gods primary motivation is the upholding of His name and the demonstration of His glory. Your comments on Romans 3:25-26 dont change the fact that this states why Jesus went to the cross, notice how the justification of man is the afterthought to that.

Of course my views on predestination are much different, they do not at all talk about being predestined to come to the earth, we can go there if you want but I am happy to stay with where we are.

Ephesians 1:4-6
Speaks of predestination and fore-ordination. I think I discussed this early regarding Romans 9. In the pre-existence God chose who would be born at what time and in what circumstances on the Earth. Paul is here telling the Ephesians that according to this predestination they were chosen to come to the Earth at a time and in a place where they could be partakers of the gospel. Since they have accepted the truth are now members of Christ’s church, they are the ones that shows the grace of God to the rest of the world so that they may praise the glory of God.
Psalm 106:7-8
Again, go back to what I said regarding Isaiah and Ezekiel. God had promised Abraham that the Israelites would only be in bondage for 400 years, and if he went back on his word His name would be tarnished and thus hinder the work of bringing others to salvation.
Acts 12:23
See my previous point. In this case Herod, who was a wicked and corrupt man, was being called a God by the people. He had just recently killed James, one of the apostles, and had imprisoned Peter, the leader of the church. If God had let Herod get away with this how would it have affected the missionary efforts of the saints in bringing the people to salvation.
l Samuel 12:20, 22
Again, the same thing I have been saying.
Why Did Jesus come?
Romans 3:25-26
Read the rest of the passage: “that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.” So, yes, he came to declare his righteousness, but the reason for doing so was to be just and the save those that believe in Christ. The ultimate goal as stated in this verse is the justifying of the faithful, not simply the glorifying of God. This passage actually says exactly what I have been saying the entire time.
Psalm 16:11
I agree that it is only in God that we have a fullness of joy, I just disagree as to what that joy consists of.