yup thas what i hear...i got some advice last night from a pretty wise man...who knows who he be...

Allen, I’m surprised that it’s taken “a bit” of reading to come up with this critique. I would grade this criticism of the Book of Mormon as coming from “Discredit the Book of Mormon – 101” hardly upper level stuff. Also, I would suggest you read from both sides of the coin. Don’t merely look at anti-Mormon literature. You might also want to look at those who’ve produced research coming from those “millions of dollars” spent by the LDS church. You have to register for the site, but the main church vehicle for researching the Book of Mormon is the “Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies” (FARMS) that is run out of BYU. FARMS website is http://farms.byu.edu/ you have to register to gain access to some of the articles but it is a free registration. Most of what I’ll give you here is from their research as perused by me.

Personally, while I do believe there is overwhelming evidence of a culture that has links to what is described in the Book of Mormon in Latin America and South America, it’s never been something that my belief has been based upon. Rather, the promise contained in the very last chapter of the Book of Mormon is where my belief that the LDS Church was established by Christ himself and that the Book of Mormon was inspired by Christ stems from. The promise reads as follows: </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts. And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I think we can all agree with what is says here. The pattern this promise lays out is as follows.

1. Before passing judgment on the book, READ IT!
2. Ponder over the message that it contains in your heart.
3. Ask God – with a sincere heart, real intent and with faith in Christ – if it isn’t true.
4. God will manifest the truth of it unto you by the power of the Holy Ghost.

I think we can all agree that, even biblically speaking, this pattern is a sound method for determining what is true and what is false.

Now, you’ve teased me in the past about long posts. I guarantee that the post answering this question will be extremely long and while your waiting for an answer, I have some questions of my own.

Exactly where and how does the Bible shut the cannon of Holy Scripture and condemn the Book of Mormon? (Rev 22:18 is not a valid scripture for if the same standard you apply to the Book of Mormon due to this verse were used in conjunction with Deuteronomy 4:2 then we would have to reject every part of the Bible following the Books of Moses, not to mention the Gospel of John which was chronologically written after the Book of Revelations – and thereby rejected by the standard of Rev 22:18)

How can any church operate and claim affiliation with Christ without following the pattern of leadership established by Jesus himself – in other words Apostles, Seventies and so forth. From Acts 1, we learn that the Holy Apostleship was evidently meant to continue as a replacement for Judas was called. From 1Corinthians 12: 28 we learn that Apostles are a necessary part of the “Body of Christ.” And from Ephesians 2: 19-20 we learn that the “household of God” or church is built upon the foundation of Apostles and Prophets. Where are they now? If they no longer exist, does Christ’s church exist? From Matthew 16:19, we learn that Jesus committed the “keys of the kingdom” unto Peter – bestowing him the authority to lead God’s kingdom on earth. With no apostle to hold those keys, who holds them now? Without those keys can the “kingdom” exist in any sense on the earth in the form of a church?

And now, I'll set to work on answering your question, while you set to work answering my two questions.

Well you certainly do have me confused with your big words ...lets remember i am country...but we say say scientist this scientist that culture this culture that and we could disagree with you all day until we are blue in the face but lets cut to the chase....
Joel do you belive that Jesus Christ was the one and only SON of GOD and that the only way to heaven is by accepting Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and savior and walking daily with Jesus and daily killing the flesh and daily reading Gods word (NIV version for arguments sake) is the only way to keep your realtionship with God a good one and do you believe in GOD and his son JESUS and the HOLY SPIRIT??
Like Allen said its about relationship...not rules

Yes NE20, I do believe in Jesus Christ and that he was and is God's only son in the flesh, and that only by accepting him will I be able to return and live in his presence. Nonetheless, there are rules. Rules that Jesus established and rules that Jesus followed. I'll quote something I said earlier in this thread as an example: </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No matter how strong our faith is we cannot circumvent the "straight gate and narrow way" that leads us back to our Father in Heaven. Consider the account in Matthew 3 of the Savior's own baptism
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Savior comes to John the Baptist requesting baptism. Now if anyone's "faith is so strong that he doesn't need to follow conventional teachings" I imagine it would be Jesus. John even seems to think so and "forbad him." Jesus however corrects him by explaining that Baptism is necessary, even for him, to fulfil all righteousness. Now if Jesus needs to follow "conventional teachings" then we all do.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Jesus was following a rule when he was baptized "to fulfil all righteousness" and as part of our relationship with him he asked us to keep rules by saying </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> John 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">and by stating that it is a prerequisite to entering into "life" or heaven that we keep the commandments. </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Matthew 19:17 ...but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the ccommandments.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And in order to help us know what rules to follow he established a church with keys and authority to act in his name once he was gone.

Just to clear up confusion, before judging and dismissing the Book of Mormon and Mormonism, Read the Book of Mormon and ask God if it is true.

Now to answer Allen's question...

First go to the farms website, register and then read this article .

Let me get a few things out of the way:

Allen stated </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> The Book of Mormon describes a civilization lasting for a thousand years, covering both North and South America… Nor does the Book of Mormon mention many of the features of the civilizations which really did exist at that time in the Americas </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Being a religious record and not a history textbook, the Book of Mormon is unclear on the geographic area covered by the civilizations therein, as its purpose is to proclaim Christ and not to relay the results of an ancient census. Within the LDS community there is great disagreement regarding this point. To state that the civilization covered both North & South America is inaccurate and misleading as no one in the LDS church has stated that is the case or defined that as doctrine. Most scholars actually think that the Book of Mormon culture was confined to Mesoamerica. Allen continued </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">which was familiar with horses, elephants, cattle, sheep, wheat, barley, steel, wheeled vehicles, shipbuilding, sails, coins, and other elements of Old World culture. But no trace of any of these supposedly very common things has ever been found in the Americas of that period. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> to answer I’ll quote from the above referenced article </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> (People) object to the presence of certain animals mentioned in the Book of Mormon which are not thought to have existed in pre-Columbian America (5a-b). (They) fail even to recognize that Latter-day Saint scholars have dealt with this issue extensively, although all the questions have not been completely answered. Rather than acknowledging and engaging the informed Latter-day Saint position, (people) chooses simply to ignore the current evidence, blithely proclaiming the demise of the Book of Mormon.

The range of possible Latter-day Saint explanations for seeming discrepancies between the animals of pre-Columbian Mesoamerica and the Book of Mormon include:

1. A species may have existed only in small numbers-introduced by, and limited to the civilizations of the Nephites-which subsequently became extinct. The existence of small herds of animals in a limited region would likely leave no archaeological evidence. For example, we know that the Norsemen probably introduced the horse, cow, sheep, goat, and pig into North America in the eleventh century. Nonetheless, these animals did not spread throughout the continent and have left no archaeological remains.

2. A species may have existed at the time of the Nephites, but archaeological evidence of its existence has not been discovered, or has not been properly interpreted. The horse is an excellent example of this possibility. Although generally thought to have been extinct by the end of Pre-Classic times (before A.D. 300), possible horse remains have been found in various locations in Mesoamerica, which seem to be from archaeological strata contemporary with pre-Colonial Mesoamerican civilizations.

The Huns of Central Asia and Eastern Europe were a nomadic people for whom horses represented both a major form of wealth and the basis of their military power. Estimates are that each Hun warrior may have had has many as ten horses. Nonetheless, "To quote S. Bokonyi, a foremost authority on the subject, 'We know very little of the Huns' horses. It is interesting that not a single usable horse bone has been found in the territory of the whole empire of the Huns.' " During the two centuries of their domination of the western steppe, the Huns must have had hundreds of thousands of horses. If Hunnic horse bones are so rare despite their vast herds, why should we expect extensive evidence of the use of horses in Nephite Mesoamerica, especially considering the limited references to horses in the Book of Mormon text?

3. The Book of Mormon text may have used familiar Egyptian or Hebrew terms for new unknown types of animals which the Nephites discovered in the New World. This option has been frequently mocked by anti-Mormons who are apparently unaware of the nature of Pre-Modern naming ambiguities. When Pre-Modern peoples encountered new species for which they didn't have a name, they followed one of two possible courses of action: they either adopted a foreign name for that animal, or they transferred to the new animal the name of an animal with which they were familiar. For example, when the Greeks first encountered a new type of animal in the Nile Valley, they called it the "horse of the river," the hippo-potamos, or hippopotamus. Are we to assume that Greek civilization didn't exist at all because they chose to call the Nile hippopotamus a "horse," rather than adopting the Egyptian name h bw? When the Romans first encountered the elephant in the army of Pyrrhus of Epirus in 280 B.C., they called it the "Lucca bos, Lucanian cow." Likewise, the Maya called the horse a "deer," while the Arabs call the turkey a dik hindi, or "Indian Rooster." Given this phenomenon in other civilizations, why is it preposterous for the Book of Mormon peoples to have called the Mesoamerican turkey-for which they had no name-a chicken, just as the Arabs called the Indian turkey? If such a linguistic phenomenon in the Book of Mormon is seen as evidence for discounting the very existence of Book of Mormon civilization, must we not also do away with the Greeks, Romans, Maya, and Arabs?

In summary, although important questions certainly remain, there are various ways in which the apparent anachronisms and ambiguities of the Book of Mormon text concerning metals, plants, and animals can be accounted for.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">In regards to Allen’s claim that </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> The detailed history and civilization described in the Book of Mormon does not correspond to anything found by archaeologists anywhere in the Americas.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> I’ll refer to some other highlights from the above referenced article: Why apply such a rigid standard to the Book of Mormon? Applying that standard to other widely accepted historical documents shows similar results. For example – most all scholars agree that several hundred years before Columbus, Norsemen established a settlement in the Americas known in their “sagas” as “Vinland” however, there are nearly a dozen candidates that fit the description for “Vinland” ranging from the Hudson Bay to Florida. Even though its location cannot be pinpointed, no one disagrees that it actually happened and existed. To a lesser extent the Bible itself is a good example. Only 55% of the places – cities, mountains, towns, rivers – have been identified today. For example: Mt. Sinai has been connected to over twenty possible locations, and the route taken by the Israelites out of Egypt, similarly has many competing theories. Yet no one doubts that it happened. Archeologists and Biblical historians disagree widely on when the actual Exodus occurred. Of the 55% of place names that have been identified from the Bible, most of them (190) are identifiable because the ancient name has not been lost to history and it is still identified by that name. Only 15% of all the names identified in the Bible have been re-identified in our time by geographic names.

Lastly, why is there no continuity between ancient names in the Book of Mormon and names of those places today? If you read the Book of Mormon you’ll find that part of it relates the history of conflict between two civilizations (the Nephites and the Lamanites). The Book of Mormon concludes when the Nephites are destroyed by the Lamanites. The Nephites were record-keepers and an advanced civilization. The Lord brought about their destruction, due to their wickedness, at the hands of the Lamanites. As such, all of the names of the places they (the Nephites) named died with their civilization and were not rediscovered until Joseph Smith brought forth the Book of Mormon. There was a break in the history. That break certainly makes it easier for people to disregard it, however, that break in and of itself is not enough to justify rejecting it.

Let me paraphrase a couple of the concluding paragraphs of that article linked to above.
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Just as anti-Mormons can marshal scholars who will proclaim… that there is "absolutely nothing" supporting the historicity of the Book of Mormon, likewise, atheists could marshal the opinions of numerous scholars… regarding the lack of archaeological proof of the historicity of the Bible. In both cases, scholars base their conclusions as much on their assumptions as they do on the evidence.

When (people say) that there is "absolutely nothing" in the archaeological record that supports the historicity of the Book of Mormon, what (they) are more accurately saying is that all of the archaeological evidence known to (them) can be adequately interpreted and accounted for based on the assumption that there were no Nephites. This is a very different proposition. Before the discovery of the Hittites or the Dead Sea Scroll community (to provide just two examples), ancient Near Eastern historians could also adequately explain the history of the ancient Near East without a single reference to either of those groups. Yet both of those groups existed whether or not scholars were able or willing to perceive their existence.

…Why do non-Mormon scholars reject the Book of Mormon? The answer is complex, but two points should be emphasized. First, acceptance of the historicity of the Book of Mormon logically necessitates acceptance of Joseph Smith's prophetic claims. Thus, any scholar who eventually came to accept the historicity of the Book of Mormon would be logically compelled to become a Latter-day Saint. He would thereby cease to be a non-Mormon who accepts the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Secondly, and more importantly, most non-Mormons do not take the Book of Mormon seriously enough even to read it, let alone give it the careful study required to make an informed judgment. They simply dismiss it out of hand. This has been the approach taken by anti-Mormons such as Wilson, and it is the reason why Wilson's criticisms can also be dismissed out of hand.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Allen also claimed </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> In addition, whereas the Book of Mormon presents the picture of a relatively homogeneous people, with a single language and communication between distant parts of the Americas, the pre-columbian history of the Americas shows the opposite: widely disparate racial types (almost entirely east Asian - definitely not Semitic), and many unrelated native languages, none of which are even remotely related to Hebrew or Egyptian.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> This is also inaccurate, the Book of Mormon is not purported to be an exclusive history of all people’s in the Americas between 2000 BC and 421 AD. It also cites instances of encountering other peoples with a different language and the ruins and records of previous civilizations which seem to closely identify with the Olmec civilizations of Ancient South America. Several Olmec names are found in the Book of Mormon the most prominent of which is “Kish.” The Jaredite name of Kish is unmistakably represented among the Tablet of the Cross inscriptions of Classic Maya Palenque, where it is recorded that a person by the name of U-K'ix (pronounced K'eesh)-Chan was born on 11 March 992 B.C. and then later installed as ruler on 28 March 966 B.C., at the age of twenty-six. This fits nicely with the loose timeline provided by the Book of Mormon.

Additionally, as the civilizations discussed in the Book of Mormon died out, there is no reason to assume that Mayan must be related to the language spoken by the Nephites. However, there is an entire school of thought and researchers known as “diffusionists” who believe that ample field evidence supports the idea of transoceanic cultural contact during the pre-Columbian history of the Americas. Some diffusionist findings support influences from China (which would indicate truth behind the migration over the bearing straits and down through Alaska), Norse cultures (supporting the Vinland reference above) and Phoenician cultures (i.e. Egyptian or Middle-Eastern – supporting to some extent the Book of Mormon migration). None of these finding preclude any of the others.

As for further evidences of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon check out this link . It points out, for example, that recent studies by several scholars indicate that Joseph Smith could not have written the Book of Mormon. It is simply too complex and rooted in the ancient world for an unlearned farm boy to get all the details right. Such details include chiasmus (a literary technique of inverted parallelism in ancient texts), the mention of a reformed Egyptian script (some ancient texts that have come to light were written in that manner), and distinct writing styles (wordprint studies of the Book of Mormon confirm that the source document Joseph translated would have had multiple authors). I guess Joseph Smith could have gotten lucky, but that hardly is enough to dismiss this argument.

i know all of that Joel but lets be real here I mean as long as we are being Biblical... if you focus on the kingdom of God then all else will fall in place...including the rules... and focusing on the relationship is what God was talking about...and another thing...

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Joel33:
I be able to return and live in his presence. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">what do you meen ..."reaturn"???

Hey NE20, Mormons believe that before we came to earth we lived as spirits with our Heavenly Father (God) and that after we die, based on our faith in his Son Jesus Christ and our obedience to commandments, we can "return" to live with him for eternity. There's a more detailed explanation upthread.

As for the "rules," if being baptized is a rule, which I believe it is. It's important to note that not everyone has the authority to perform a baptism that will be accepted by God. Only those who are authorized by Christ may perform a legitimate baptism in God's eyes. That's what the "keys of the kingdom" are. The Apostles were authorized by Christ himself to perform baptism and John the Baptist was authorized by God. The Apostles authorized others, but where does that authority stem from today, when the Apostles are missing and Jesus does not reside on the earth.

thats where the Holy Spirit comes in bro,,, which you did not tell me where you stand on that....but God and Jesus are no longer on this earth and when jesus died his holy spirit is what God uses to talk to us now... and Pastors step in as deciples...and just for the record i never said being baptized was a rule...now i see nothing wrong with it and i encourage it but you wont go to hell for not being baptized and one more thing ...and also we didnt live as spirits before we came to earth bro... i meen i am sorry to be the bearer of bad news but we just didnt ..and for those of you thinking we didnt evolve from monkeys either..lol.. so about returning ...it cant happen cuz we were never there , but we will have new bodies and live in heaven...of course only if we meet the guide lines

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by New_Era_20:
thats where the Holy Spirit comes in bro,,, which you did not tell me where you stand on that</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">NE20, I believe what the Bible says about the Holy Spirit. After having read it more times than I can remember and studied even more, I feel pretty confident that I have a good handle on it. The Bible does not say that the Holy Spirit confers God's authority on people. </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">....but God and Jesus are no longer on this earth and when jesus died his holy spirit is what God uses to talk to us now... and Pastors step in as deciples</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The bible shows that Jesus established a plan for leadership of his church after he died. It was to be lead by the Apostles - not by self appointed pastors who are paid "filthy lucre" for their work. The Apostles worked for free man. In the real world, anyone getting a paycheck for religious service has an agenda. </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">...and just for the record i never said being baptized was a rule...</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No you didn't, Jesus did in both word and deed. </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">now i see nothing wrong with it and i encourage it but you wont go to hell for not being baptized and one more thing</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">actually you will. Nicodemus was confused about the same thing and Jesus told him, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (John 3:5) being born of water means being baptized. </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> ...and also we didnt live as spirits before we came to earth bro... so about returning ...it cant happen cuz we were never there , but we will have new bodies and live in heaven...of course only if we meet the guide lines</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Wrong again, and the Bible shows it. Eccl. 12:7 </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Jeremiah 1:5 </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ephesians 1:4 </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Romans 8:29 </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">

"spirit shall return unto God"
"Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee"
"chosen us in him before the foundation of the world"
"foreknow"
"predestinate"

All of these phrases and words from the Bible indicate a pre-mortal existence with our Heavenly Father.

I believe in the Bible and all other inspired scripture. I believe that God has a prophet on the earth. I believe what they say because God confirms it in my heart through the Holy Spirit. I never take anything anyone tells me about the Gospel at face value without testing for my self by studying it and praying about it and recieving a witness from the Holy Spirit that it is true. If you don't do that you can fall victim to Pastors and Parishoners for that matter who have agendas that may not coincide with God's will.

I dont have time to reply right now i have to go cut grass but you can bet i will defenetly reply when I get back

and just for the record dude you are twisting my words and the words of the Bible around and directing them to meen one thing and they really meen another...lets be real you know what your doing dude....and no we wont go to hell for not being baptised the dude on the cross was not baptised and jesus told him he would go to heaven ....and i know many of people who accept Jesus in their heart on their death beds and havent been baptised so...no we wont go to hell for not being baptised ...again its about relationship not rules...and about returning to the one who gave us our spirit ...of course GOD gave it to us and of course our spirit will be returned but we were never chillin up in Gods crib as a spirit before we got to earth ...see thats what im talkin about twisting my words and the bibles words...he did know us before he CREATED us and he did know our life before we were born but we were not created until he created us

love

How does one twist "the spirit shall return unto God who gave it." You can not return to a place you've never been. In fact, what you've said seems to be more of a twist. In some way you seem to indicate that we were never there and yet we will manage to return.

Let's not accuse each other of twisting words. Personally, I try to be very careful and generally quote the things I'm responding to in order to assure that I don't twist them. As far as disagreements regarding scripture, that's why there's so many different churches. It would be nice if Jesus were around or had left a prophet or some Apostles around to work things out. The difference is I believe he did.

Anyway since scripture can be twisted, I always try to quote several different to illustrate a point so that they can confirm one another within the context of the Biblical cannon. I believe that is standard practice.

Lastly, as far as the sinner on the cross next to Jesus and others you referred to, the Mormon belief system of the afterlife provides for baptism of those who are repentant with only their last breath. It is explained in detail on page 6 in this thread. I've backed it up with scripture and everything. Please go there and read it. In short (if anything I write can be called short), Jesus told the man he'd be in Paradise - not Heaven and to us Mormons there is a difference. In the Book of Peter in the New Testament, Peter tells us that after Christ died he went to teach spirits who had already died and were awaiting the Judgment but had not accepted Christ. Apparently, according to Peter some form of missionary work continues after death. Additionally, in Corinthians Paul mentions the practice of "Baptism for the Dead" which is essentially the practice of being baptized in behalf of those who did not have the opportunity in this life. That's a short and I emphasize short explanation. To get a longer one please read on page six of this thread.

Allen, please don't let all this other stuff (some of which we've covered) prevent you from responding to my answer.

I've read your response, thank you... and thank you for calling my post "anti-mormon 101" - I didn't know I had gotten that good

Outside the mormon church, is there any evidence the cultures spoken of in the book of mormon ever existed? It's a little circular to use the book of mormon to prove the book of mormon Have any fragments of the old culture (such as chariots, etc.) been preserved by mormon archeologists at least?

Another question... it is my understanding the tablets used by joseph smith to write the book of mormon pre-date biblical times/writings? At least they were handed down in a time and place totally removed from the middle-east and the apostles/disciples who walked with Jesus?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Joel33:
[QB] The bible shows that Jesus established a plan for leadership of his church after he died. It was to be lead by the Apostles - not by self appointed pastors who are paid "filthy lucre" for their work. The Apostles worked for free man. In the real world, anyone getting a paycheck for religious service has an agenda. [QB] </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Pastors appoint them selves to get paid by "Filthy Lucre" huh??? i know many Pastors today that work for free just for the record...and the only reason most of them get paid is because they are totally devoted to the ministry and dont hold another job...that is their job and they have bills just like us that need be paid...And just to set you straight on your whole self appointed Preacher thing...we vote on ours and offer to pay him...it might help to know what your talking about before you talk about it.

If I may defend Joel, which I believe he is overly capable of doing himself, Joel has always stated that he does believe in modern-day apostles and prophets. I haven't read a post in which he denied that, and, just for the record, I would never deny it either.

The marvelous thing about the LDS church is that all of its functions and organizations are carried out by service. Each member of the church has a calling, and most all of them perform their appointed duties cheerfully. Why should one receive pay to spread the happiness of God's great plan? I don't quite understand that.

well eric i dont believe i could break it down any more than i already have and i realized that Joel never said that he didnt believe in apostles today thats why i changed my post and if you read the new one and still cant figure out why Pastors get paid and you still think that the LDS church is much more wonderful ...well then i dont believe i can help you understand...I explaind it pretty well friend

well i have to leave work now...but i will try to keep updated through the weekend.

Sorry New_Era, I didn't see you're new post until just now. I do realize that there are many pastors that do not hold another job, but that does not lessen my testimony one notch. I know without a doubt of my testimony of Jesus Christ and the great plan of salvation, and I find that one of my greatest joys is strengthening my testimony by reading and studying and pondering the scriptures.

ok there aint nuthin wrong with reading scriptures and having an awsome testimony but tell me where you mentioned any of that here

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by ericm:
If I may defend Joel, which I believe he is overly capable of doing himself, Joel has always stated that he does believe in modern-day apostles and prophets. I haven't read a post in which he denied that, and, just for the record, I would never deny it either.

The marvelous thing about the LDS church is that all of its functions and organizations are carried out by service. Each member of the church has a calling, and most all of them perform their appointed duties cheerfully. Why should one receive pay to spread the happiness of God's great plan? I don't quite understand that. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">no where you just talked about the "Marvelous" things about the LDS church and how you just cant understand why in the world pastors would wanna get paid you never mentioned any thing about how you love to read scriptures and how your testimony is awsome...and how you love to frolic through the flowers...and what not

i just went out and mowed a gazzilion acre church and mostly by push mower with no self propell and didnt get a dime and got a really GOOD sunburn and guess what i did it with a smile on my face and a song in my heart ..."Cheerfully" as you say ericm...not to be agressive or anything but if you look at my avatar it describes me pretty good i stand firm for what i believe in...and allen knows where im coming from on this but...my name is NEW ERA and what kind of era would i be living in if i didnt stand up for my god....and to be frank Joel i love you brother i really do and i am praying for you but it seems like you are trying to press to get your beliefs on us here man and it seemed like before i started posting here that you made sure this topic was showing in the praise joint...and i dont care what you believe in but you have to realize what kind of web site you are on...if you want people to agree with you about mormon beliefs then you should probably look for a mormon web site but i disagree so much here because i feel you are wrong and i know a couple people here that would agree...the whole reason i joined this site was because of what i believe in... but i aint chasin you off bro i want you to stay because like i said "I" love you ...but "I" cant believe in your religion cuz i just bluntly believe its wrong