Hey Guys I’m new here. I’ll start out by saying that I am a protestant Christian that is obsessed with learning about what other people believe and why. I also love debate

Matthew: You are the person that I knew before I entered this board so I’ll pick on you first. Specifically, your Case for Christ argument (the rest seems to be responses to earlier arguments on this thread)

Im a little disappointed that you used the Case for Christ as evidence in the very least use the books that the Case for Christ cites. Second of all I’m surprised at you for taking those bits and pieces out of it out of context. If I recall.. you didn’t actually read the Case for Christ right?

For the folks at home I’ll put it back in context for you:

The evidence Matt cited comes out of the middle of the book. Chapter 3 if my memory serves me correctly. Lee Strobel (our hero) is talking to Bruce Metzger (the expert for this chapter) or at least I think it’s him (if not it’s another expert here and after: Bruce).

Bruce is an expert on manuscripts and Lee is interested in talking to him about the early manuscript evidence of the bible.

By this time Lee has already spent the first two chapters talking to a Craig Bloomberg (My Favorite Expert) Craig is a expert in scripture and has already proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the book of Acts was written before AD 62 with the book of Luke before Acts, and the book of Mark before Luke. Craig also has proven that some of the creeds present in Paul’s Epistles date back to within 2 years of the crucifixion (in comparison to 500 for Alexander the Great) Bloomberg states that a good estimate for the authorship of the book of John is within the AD90s although many liberal scholars had placed the book about 100 years after the death of Christ in AD33.

Bloomberg also explained Hebrew oral tradition and how it left no room for fabrication or altering of the truth. I won’t go into it here but I suggest you read the book.

When you give Bruce’s chapter that kind of backing his evidence takes on new light. He claims that there is a portion of a manuscript of the Book of John that dates to AD100. He compares this to other documents of antiquity (none of which have such an early fragment) and goes on to explain that we have a several copies (I wanna say 5?) of the entire bible from about AD 200 and a great multitude within a short span of time from that 200 mark beyond that, the multitude spreads a wide area and several languages. He once again compares this to documents of antiquity explaining that no other ancient document can brag of so much manuscript evidence. He explains the significance of having so many copies because it means that one manuscript can be compared to another and we can easily tell when something has changed. He explains that there is no manuscript with more than 1% variation from the others and that the little variation that it did show was most often meaningless (word order which means nothing in Greek)

Bruce explains that no major doctrine talked about in the bible is in question (although if you are concerned about how many sheep Arphxiad had you may have something to worry about)

Bruce finishes off by saying that the Iliad is second place in terms of the multitude of early manuscripts and goes on to compare. The bible has 5,686 early Greek manuscripts to compare to the Iliad’s 643. and there is no close third all other documents are quite a bit below that mark.

Now that we have it all in context. What does it mean? Well first and foremost it does not serve as evidence that the bible may have been changed. That is unless you are willing to admit that the Iliad is 8 times more likely to have been changed and that all other ancient documents are even more likely than that.

As it stands there are very good reasons to believe that the bible has maintained integrity over time, and little to none to suggest it hasn’t. If you say the bible was changed I encourage you to find evidence that it was changed. Show me an early manuscript with significant differences from the bible.

You could even show me that there was one area in which a person could make a change to the bible (say that nasty verse in John 1 about the word being god) and have it not squandered by severel other people with different copies and different oral history to prove that a change was made.

There is simply no evidence that such happened or even that it could happen.

::sigh:: nonetheless you made a claim about the sentury between the first find and the full manuscripts, and you deserve an response even if there is no reasonable reason to assume anything was changed.

So what we have established is that we have the original authorship of the majority of the books of the bible happening around or before 100AD then we have severel manuscripts coming around AD200.

The reason for this is that there was an important event that happened right around AD200, the Council of Nycea determined the official Cannon of the Bible! This means that the took the books that people had been reading for a century, they chose which were valid and which were not. And they placed them into one Tome called the book (Bible).

Not only does this explain why there were no full manuscripts of the bible before this time, it brings to light a very important question to Mormons concerned about the reliability of the Bible.

If the first bible was put together right around the year 200… and we have tremendous manuscript evidence that the bible was not and could not have been changed AFTER that year.. When was it changed?

The LDS believe that at some time after the original disciples died there was an “apostasy” or that the church became corrupt. The trouble is, if this apostasy occurred after AD200 manuscript evidence would have prevented it from making a dent in the reliability of the scriptures.
Even worse: if the apostasy occurred BEFORE AD200 we are all done for. Not only does it mean that the church shattered very quickly… which would bring into question the leadership of Peter, Paul, and by association, Jesus himself… It means that we cannot trust the cannon. In other words. The books of the bible were put there by people during an apostasy of the church and there is no reason to believe that we are reading the right book! Even more so there is reason to believe we are reading the wrong book because the first leaders of an apostasy would be responsible for the breakup of the true church of god, which would mean that Satan controlled them! We certainly cannot trust a bible that was compiled by Satan’s servants can we?

Certainly not.

So there’s your choice: either the bible stayed the same through the apostasy (which means it must have been flawed from the start [it also means that any scripture saying the bible has changes is wrong])

Or: the bible was changed alright and there is no way we can trust it at all. (that also causes problems with Mormonism as they believe the bible is correct so far as it is translated correctly)

I’ll leave it to you guys on this board to Prove me wrong about the false dilemma up there (you ARE going to tell me it’s a false one right?) but I think that even if my dilemma doesn’t stand (as I hope it to) I will have demonstrated that there is certainly no use in Matthew’s argument. We just have to see whether there is anything to mine!

Perhaps a better explanation of my belief in an apostasy would serve to give more credit to my argument.

First, the Bible itself shows signs that very early on the people were starting to fall away - several times Paul writes his letters and is amazed that so quickly they have fallen away from what he just taught them (no time for verses right now, sorry - maybe after school). The reason for this I would say is because they had no one in any posiiton of authority (an apostle) to make sure that everything stayed the same, so they were left to do their best without that leadership. And, as they are men, not God, they aren't perfect, and practices from their old religion started creeping in, with no one to say, "Hey, you shouldn't do that!"

Since I don't have much time, I hope that's enough of a brief explanation to get two major points - 1. The apostasy started almost instantly, I'd say it started as early as 100 AD. 2. The people that were in apostasy were good people, they had good motives, they just didn't have any priesthood leadership, because the apostles were all killed by those crazy Romans. So they did their best, but still, as I said, without that leadership they wander (see Eph. 4:11-14).

So the Bible was put together by people who were trying to do good, so it's fairly trustworthy, but not entirely. And "as far as it is translated correctly" does not mean "as far as the manuscripts we have are translated correctly," it means "as far as we have what the apostles actually wrote." Those are two very different things, I believe.

This is a very loose argument, I know, because I don't have time to provide more to it right now. Also, as I stated earlier in the thread, I think the major problem with the Bible is one of omission, not of comission (changes). That could very easily have happened with the Nicean Creed, with all of everything else being reasonably accurate. I'm sorry I'm jumping around so much, I'll try to explain more when I get home.

Oh, and Ryan, as far as only quoting from Case for Christ, I don't have the book, I was quoting it from memory, so I didn't know what books it came from or whatnot. And all of the background evidence you gave - I'm not sure it makes a bit of difference, given the nature of my argument against it (see above post). You cannot compare the Bible to any other book, because who would really care about changing the Illiad? The very nature of the Bible requires much more proof than the Illiad or any book of literature. I gotta go, I'll finish this when I get home.

So, I realize I've kind of contradicted myself in my arguments - earlier I said that one who would have tampered with the Bible had a horrible motive, this morning I said they had good motives. Allow me to better explain (this morning I was very rushed trying to get to school on time). I think reposting one of my first posts on this thread will be helpful in this.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> I think I'd agree that the words in the Bible that we have are probably pretty accurate. But that's not the problem we have with the Bible. What we believe (what the Book of Mormon tells us) is that "many plain and precious things [have been] taken away" from the Bible (1 Nephi 13:28). The problem with the Bible is that things have gone completely missing, not that they've been changed. And looking at the previous few verses in 1 Nephi 13 tells us that this happened after it was written by the Apostles but before it went into the hands of the Gentiles (in other words, the second generation manuscript would have been lacking, and perhaps entire books were lost (there are many references of those, too - 1 Cor. 5:9, Eph. 3:3, Col. 4:16, Jude 1:3, Jude 1:14)). And according to verse 27 of the same chapter this was done intentionally, "that they might pervert the rights ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men." Thinking about what actually happened about that time period seems to fit with what the Book of Mormon says - Jerusalem was destroyed and all of the Christians were scattered when they were not killed by the Romans. Does it not fit that in trying to wipe out the Christians they would harm their scripture as well? The New Testament even prophesies that this will happen in many places, that people will try to pervert the Gospel and do evil things to the church (Acts 20:28-30, Galations 1:6-7, 2 Peter 2:1, 1 Jn 2:18, 1 Jn 4:1). The Dead Sea Scrolls also confirm this belief, that segments of scripture are missing, as well as entire books (I read that a while ago, but I don't remember the details, just that that's what it said. If you want I could find it again). So, basically, our problem with the Bible is one predominantly (though not exclusively) of omission, not of deviation, and it is a very well founded belief. The Book of Mormon also seems to imply that it is mainly the New Testament that has problems, though that does not exclude the Old Testament, because it was used as scripture at the time of Christ.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I think I'm going to have to retract much of this morning's post, 'cause I just wasn't thinking straight. I apologize. Though there was some truth to it - I do believe that the majority of Christians in the times that I believe were in apostasy were trying to do their best, they were just misguided by some people with bad motives, and they didn't have any authority to set them straight (See specifically Acts 20:28-30 regarding bad people taking over, also Matthew 24:24, and as I said earlier Eph. 4:11-14 for a reference to authority being necessary to keep doctrine consistent).

I do also believe that some changes were made to the Bible as we have it before 200 AD, but those changes were relatively minor in terms of the amount of the Bible changed - though changing one single word can have a dramatic impact on the doctrine in the Bible, and I think if you were in the right position, it would be relatively easy. I believe those changes were made by people with bad motives, or maybe even by people who honestly thought they were doing Christianity a favor by making its doctrine more consistent with the Platonic philosophy of the time (I could go more into that if you want, too - how many non-Mormon scholars call Augustine the father of Christian doctrine, even though he was alive in about 300 AD, I think - don't you think that's a bit odd? Tangent, I know, he wouldn't have changed the Bible, just the interpretation of it. Anyway...)(I could also go more into the nature of the Council of Nicea - not a very good rep, from what I've heard).

I still stick with the "as far as it is translated correctly" bit. I don't think we will ever have a completely correct translation, because we would have to get it straight from the apostles who wrote it to do that, and we would have to include many more books.

I feel like I'm rambling, so I'm going to stop. There's just so many different aspects to this issue, I respond to one and think about another, and I'm rambling again. I hope that's a better explanation. (And yes, I actually did read most of the Case for Christ book, Ryan, up to a little bit past the part with manuscript evidence - the only thing I didn't recognize from what you said was the Hebrew oral tradition. I just didn't really think any of it was relevant. Anyway)

As I've said before in this thread and in another thread. The Bible in it's current state has proven itself entirely insufficient to foster a unity of faith. So whether or not you deem it to have been translated 100% correctly or not, the end result has done nothing but create dissension on doctrinal issues throughout the Christian community ever since the age of the Reformation.

That would appear to me to be a problem.

Truth is not relative - what is true for one group cannot be false for another. Hopefully, some group or person on the face of the earth, has the ability to tap into God and gain what we could consider a 100% true and 100% correct interpretation of the Bible. If not then we are all in error and must be willing to accept that as a possibility.

Personally, I believe that God would want his children to know the truth - the whole truth. The only effective means of communicating the truth clearly and accurately has been the calling of a Prophet, revealing his will to that prophet and then the Prophet taking God's truth to the People.

Well said.

So what would be the defination of Prophet?

I’ll start with Joel and move up.

Joel, it if fallacious to believe that the bible was even intended to have total unity of interpretation. It is also fallacious to belief that if 2 people in one religion disagree on something, and they can’t both be right, they must both be wrong.

YES, we are absolutely in error and should be ready to accept that possibility! If we are not willing to accept that we are no better than the scoffers in the end times unwilling to consider that they are wrong.

However despite being willing to accept that we may be incorrect in some places, we as the children of god DO know the truth. And the truth is Jesus Christ which every protestant and catholic denomination agrees upon the truth of. As does everyone who honestly reads the bible.

We don’t need to know everything that we want to know.

John 21:25: Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

Now on to Matt:

Matt: first of all I should clarify that my last post was a reply only to your Case For Christ argument that stated that the bible could have been changed. I did not seek to prove that nothing was lost, or that the bible is absolute truth. That’s for later.

Second, please don’t rush replying for me. Especially if it detracts from the value of your rebuttal. There will be times when I will have to take time to reply to the people on this board and I can expect no more of them.

Now for your posts:

The Hebrew oral tradition is at the bottom and separate from the other arguments so I will knock that out quickly.

Bloomberg explains in a portion of the chapter called “playing telephone” if I recall. He explained that the oral tradition or the Jews was strong enough to keep a story free from legendary development for about 500 years. It would be this tradition that would keep the story of the gospel intact before it was actually penned out, and it would also be secondary to the multitude of copies in keeping the story intake afterwards for the first few centuries.

So it’s pretty important to the issue of the bible being changed.

In the Piece you reposted I had a few questiones:
The first part starts with the doctrine of the LDS. Which is cool, except that im not talking about the large percent that was lost only the bits that you think were changed, but then you said “1 Nephi 13 tells us that this happened after it was written by the Apostles but before it went into the hands of the Gentiles” Paul preached the gospel to the gentiles almost immediately after his conversion from about 35AD to 62AD. Most of the bible was letters written to gentiles. So I’m confused when this period in history took place. Some books reached gentiles before others were ever written.

Then you named some verses that make references to other letters. Trouble is that not everything Paul ever wrote is scripture! We have records of many letters Paul wrote that are not part of the Cannon. And we don’t want them to be.

“Does it not fit that in trying to wipe out the Christians they [Romans] would harm their scripture as well?”

This quote confused me. What do the Romans want to trick us into believing into a trinity for? Why would they want us to think there is rapture, And that you can’t be baptized once you are dead? I don’t see the motivation there.

Below is another quote I found confusing.

“The Dead Sea Scrolls also confirm this belief, that segments of scripture are missing, as well as entire books (I read that a while ago, but I don't remember the details, just that that's what it said. If you want I could find it again).”

The Dead Sea Srolls were clearly put there before the cannon was assembled. They are missing many of the books currently in the cannon and it has extra books that are not in the cannon. If you use them as evidence you must assume that if things were taken away, other things were added. It doesn’t compute.

By the way did you neglect to notice that the dead sea scrolls were 99% accurate with the bible we use today even though they are from thousands of years ago? It seems to me that they are a much better testament to the bible’s accuracy than inaccuracy.

That is about all that I disagreed with from the quoted post. Your other post was interesting too.

The changes before 200 are minor compared to the total changes, so most happened after 200 ad. During the time when there were many copies of the entire bible in many different places in the world… I’m afraid I’m going to have to ask for at least SOME evidence of that having happened outside the BoM.

Then you said that if you were in the right position it would be relatively easy to make a change to the bible. What position is that? It seems to me that you would need to be in Greece and Jerusalem at the same time amount other major population centers. You would also have to have access to all the copies of scripture in all those areas. And you would need motive to want to trick Christians into believing seemingly random things. Who has all that? Or can you name me another position where someone would be able to change the bible with less?

You made a reference to platonic philosophy. I’d love for you to go into it. Plato believed in one God, an afterlife. And he thought that at some point someone would come and have knowledge others didn’t as a savior. And that that person would be rejected and hung on a stake (they didn’t have crosses yet).

Is that because Christianity matches Plato? Or is that because Plato was in tune with God and the world and used his head? Just like Paul talks about how there is no excuse for disbelief because it is readily apparent.

Augustine was the man! Don’t you be dissing my homeboy Augustine. T-Dog Aquanius was pretty cool too. They were some of the first people to look deeply into the bible and ask challenging questions. Like the Question of how can a loving god allow pain?

No, he’s not the father of Christian doctrine, Jesus is. But I can sure see why people may give him that title. I think it’s about equivalent to how we called Voltaire “Father of the French revolution” even though he hated war. You can still see the connection.

As for the Council of Nicea… Well especially if you don’t like the Nicean Creed sure they have a bad rep. Now tell me does that mean that we can or can’t trust the cannon? If not.. Why are ya’ll trusting it then?

I personally like the Council of Nicea. I think they did a good job and that study of canonical books in comparison to other ancient christian books shows that. But it seems like it would be hard for you to meet me on that issue. If they did a good enough job compiling the bible… without a prophet…

…


“I don't think we will ever have a completely correct translation, because we would have to get it straight from the apostles who wrote it to do that,”

can I assume that you use this same standard for the Book of Mormon and other scriptures. That it also is fallible? Because Joseph Smith didn’t personally hand you a copy?

That’s not supposed to be an argument I’m just making sure.

“and we would have to include many more books.”

Now what in the world makes you say that?

Anyone who agrees with mormon theology

Discussion is kinda all over the place, which is why people feel their arguments are glossed over or missed completely, I have felt the same way myself. I participate in this thread when I have time and think it's interesting, otherwise there's 8-10 pages of new posts that no-one not mormon is gonna read I'll give a shot at a couple topics covered in the last page or so.

I've seen it written in this topic a few times that mormon's primary problem is one of 'omission' citing references to other works in the current Bible. This would assume that there was already a collection of written books that Paul or someone else made reference to and Constantine or someone else left them out.

Just because there's a reference to another letter written by someone else doesn't mean that referenced letter should be included as gospel. Many good texts for instruction have been written since then, doesn't mean they'll be included as scripture in the Bible. Many were written before then, doesn't mean they need to be a part of the Gospel, and it definitely doesn't mean the person who referenced the other text meant for that text to be added into a collection of work. Most New Testament scripture were letters, meant for instruction and revealing the nature of God. For the most part they had no reason to expect those letters would be considered to be collected and presented as the official collection. The people the letters were sent to kept the letters and spread the teachings found in them.

The council of Nicea was not the first attempt to collect the works together... there were several others. Why do mormons have a problem with it? It was around 325ad... scripture collected together was determined to be part of the the Bible if it was written by someone with first-hand contact with Jesus or with those who served with those people who had first-hand experience. Those texts that were included were also deemed to be correct of the teachings 'fit' into general theology expressed in the other texts. A lot of those who weren't included were still considered good teaching and fine historical information, but didn't meet the above criteria.

Since the early councils, many texts have been found that show how remarkably the scripture was preserved in it's original state - text that pre-dates the time of the councils. These texts are the basis for the NIV version of the Bible. The NIV's that I've read show the newer text with footnotes to any differences found with the KJV. Reading it shows just how well the scripture maintained its original text between the councils and earlier manuscripts.

What I really find odd is that you guys have such a difficult time with Constantine and Augustine, partly because they lived a couple hundred years after Christ, yet you are so quick to believe someone who lived 1800+ years after Christ. After comparing the newer manuscripts with the older manuscripts the councils didn't change anything significant, yet you are quick to follow after someone's writings that differ greatly from the teachings of the Bible. You are correct Joel, truth is not relative, the fiction that is the mormon text is a shining example.

Welcome Ryan, I see you posted before me

The reason we have a problem with Constantine and Augustine but not one with someone 1800 years after Christ is a simple one - authority. The early church had no one to guide it and they knew it - why would you even need a council if you had a prophet and apostles who were guiding you? The mere act of forming a council to determine these things shows that they were relying on the strength of men, not the strength of God. The council of Nicea was called by the emporer, not a prophet. These men, try as they might to do their best, are fallible, as all men are. I'll go more into Plato and Augustine later, though much of my information comes from books by Hugh Nibley, so I might be quoting a lot - I can't really state his evidence from ancient documents firsthand.

We've discussed and your brethren agreed here that prophets, even mormon 'prophets' are fallible... even King David, a man described as 'after God's own heart' was clearly fallible, as he demonstrated many times. That's a really weak argument against Constantine. Remember 'polygamy'? Joel stated that was a mistake by brigham young... makes him sound fallible to me.

Another one is that a council cannot seek after God's will and direction. Constantine took a huge political risk in his identification as a Christian, and his assistance to the church, when the rest of the surrounding political power structure was still steeped in paganism.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
It used to trouble me to see how the first ecumenical or world wide council at Nicea was convened by a politician, the emperor Constantine. Instinctively it makes you want to sniff around for contamination. But God has seen fit to work out our salvation and growth in Christ in spite of our frailties, flaws and repeated failures. So perhaps it should not surprise us to discover that in the corporate body he works in and through our human limitations, corruption and personality conflicts in the church's ongoing quest to rightly understand and interpret the Word of God.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> http://www.gospelcom.net/chi/GLIMPSEF/Glimpses/glmps088.shtml

</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:
As I've said before in this thread and in another thread. The Bible in it's current state has proven itself entirely insufficient to foster a unity of faith. So whether or not you deem it to have been translated 100% correctly or not, the end result has done nothing but create dissension on doctrinal issues throughout the Christian community ever since the age of the Reformation.

That would appear to me to be a problem.

Truth is not relative - what is true for one group cannot be false for another. Hopefully, some group or person on the face of the earth, has the ability to tap into God and gain what we could consider a 100% true and 100% correct interpretation of the Bible. If not then we are all in error and must be willing to accept that as a possibility.

Personally, I believe that God would want his children to know the truth - the whole truth. The only effective means of communicating the truth clearly and accurately has been the calling of a Prophet, revealing his will to that prophet and then the Prophet taking God's truth to the People. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Try as you might, you'll never convince me that mormon 'prophets' have some corner on the market for God's attention and His ear. Not anymore than catholics would say the pope has. God still speaks directly to the people, as you guys have stated many times in here that He has spoken to you.

I believe Ryan has stated here that just because we may disagree on minor issues, that doesn't make the Bible wrong or both of us wrong. You are correct, truth is not relative. You can't pick out the pieces of the Bible that support your theories and in the same breath say that the Bible has been marginalized with someone's agenda. It's either all true or none of it's true, those very same pieces you use to 'prove' your theories could just as well be the ones corrupted.

I find it utterly astounding that a bunch of born-again Christians so readily rely on doctrines that were created or interpreted into existence by a council convened by the Catholic Church.

Do you, Allen, believe the Catholic Church to be a legitimate institution in the eyes of God? I'd be curious to know, how many people on this board think that the Catholic Church is legitimate (Except for you UKC, I think I know where you stand). Allen has already said that it's clear there was an apostacy following the time of Christ and the early Apostles. He differs from Mormonism in that he believes the Apostacy was ended by the Protestant movement and Mormons believe it was ended by Joseph Smith. So if the Catholic Church was in error and needed correction why are y'all so quick to jump on board with the things they did. It was the Catholic Church that cannonized the bible as we know it and it was the Catholic Church that defined the trinity at the Council of Nicea. None of you are practicing Catholics and none of you believe them to be correct, but you still buy in to the doctrinal fallacies and Biblical inconsistencies they created and perpetuated for centuries. It is utterly bizarre and irrational to reject the Catholic Church in its entirety and yet to accept the two founding documents as essentially perfect.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Discussion is kinda all over the place, which is why people feel their arguments are glossed over or missed completely, I have felt the same way myself. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">What argument of yours have I missed?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">otherwise there's 8-10 pages of new posts that no-one not mormon is gonna read </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually, Allen, when there is an active discussion in this thread it normally gets around 50-100 hits a day.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It is also fallacious to belief that if 2 people in one religion disagree on something, and they can’t both be right, they must both be wrong.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I agree, my point is merely that a loving Heavenly Father is certain to provide someone or some group of individuals with the truth.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">YES, we are absolutely in error and should be ready to accept that possibility! If we are not willing to accept that we are no better than the scoffers in the end times unwilling to consider that they are wrong. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I agree.
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">However despite being willing to accept that we may be incorrect in some places, we as the children of god DO know the truth. And the truth is Jesus Christ which every protestant and catholic denomination agrees upon the truth of. As does everyone who honestly reads the bible.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This is a false statement. Yes all Christian denominations agree that someone named Jesus Christ did exist, however, their interpretations regarding who he was and exactly what he did vary widely. It is important not only that we merely believe in Jesus Christ, but that we believe things that are true and correct. So if some people say Faith only and others say Works, that's a problem. If some people say Jesus and God are the same and other say they are separate, that's a problem. If some say Jesus established a church and others disagree, that's a problem. There is no unity of Faith, not even in our faith in Jesus Christ. Yes, we all agree he is a Savior and Redeemer, but do we all agree on exactly how that is accomplished or what exactly that means? NO and that's a problem.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">“I don't think we will ever have a completely correct translation, because we would have to get it straight from the apostles who wrote it to do that,”

can I assume that you use this same standard for the Book of Mormon and other scriptures. That it also is fallible? Because Joseph Smith didn’t personally hand you a copy?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon from the Original document that was compiled by an ancient Prophet (not a Catholic Committee). His translation was aided by divine guidance, which is far more accurate than academic means for transmitting the full meaning behind the words. His original translation has been preserved unchanged aside from grammatical correction and the breaking it out into chapters and verses. Do you see some differences there that would make us more apt to accept the Book of Mormon as translated correctly?

TH, </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">So what would be the defination of Prophet?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'm certain that my definition will be refuted, but here's what I think: The best way to define a prophet is to look at the Prophet's we all agree upon. We are most familiar with and agree upon the prophetic call of the Old Testament Prophets. It is clear from the Biblical account that their work was to act as God’s messenger and make known God’s will . The message was usually prefaced with the words “Thus saith Jehovah.” (Moses, Isaiah, Noah are all excellent examples of this) Prophets taught about God’s character, showing the full meaning of his dealings with Israel in the past.(Isaiah and Jeremiah are very good examples of this) Prophets preserved and edited the records of the nation’s history; and such historical books as Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Sam., 1 and 2 Kings were known by the Jews as the former Prophets. (Obviously Moses, Samuel and Nathan were good examples here) It was also the prophet’s duty to denounce sin and foretell its punishment, and to redress, so far as he could, both public and private wrongs. (Again Moses is a good example as is Nathan in his correction of King David and Jeremiah and Joel) A prophet was to be, above all, a preacher of righteousness. When the people had fallen away from a true faith in Jehovah, the prophets had to try to restore that faith and remove false views about the character of God and the nature of the Divine requirement. (certainly Moses, Noah, Abraham, Jeremiah qualify) In certain cases prophets predicted future events, for example, there are the very important prophecies announcing the coming of Messiah’s kingdom (Isaiah & Moses, Malachi, Ezekiel); but as a rule prophet was a forthteller rather than a foreteller (Noah). Meaning he was more likely to address current problems than run around predicting the future. We are also instructed by Jesus how in part we can judge the claims of self proclaimed prophets in Matthew 7:15-20 </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth devil fruit.

18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The problem, as I've said before, is that no principle of true doctrine can expect to be proved by academic means and or discussion. Certainly we can reason to an extent where we are able to show either probable or likely truth behind a doctrine, but at the end of the day we must rely on God to reveal the truth of it through the Holy Ghost. We must study it and pray with an unbiased heart and mind in order to learn the truth of all things.

I also want to re-iterate, that the LDS position is not that other churches are completely false, it's more along the lines of us believing that different churches have morsels of truth that have been confounded and obfuscated over time by mingling God's eternal truths with the finite and inadequate philosophies of men. There is some truth in all churches, God has seen fit however, to call a Latter-day prophet and restore the truth in its entirety to the earth and it is found only in the LDS church.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Remember 'polygamy'? Joel stated that was a mistake by brigham young... makes him sound fallible to me.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">never have I stated any such thing regarding polygamy being a mistake. Now was Brigham Young fallible, yes... he had a terrible temper. Polygamy however, was ordained by God for his prophets of old (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob ever heard of them) for the building up of a righteous people on the earth. The Mormon position is that Polygamy was necessary at that time in order to build up the church. It is no longer neccessary and has not been in practice since the 1890's. The practice of polygamy was always very limited within the church and I've heard estimates anywhere between only 3% to 15% of the male members of the church were practicing it.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Try as you might, you'll never convince me that mormon 'prophets' have some corner on the market for God's attention and His ear. Not anymore than catholics would say the pope has. God still speaks directly to the people, as you guys have stated many times in here that He has spoken to you. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Nor is that my point, we all can access God for our own personal edification and growth. However, a prophet has been designated to provide the correct doctrine to the earth and speak God's will for the earth as a whole.

There's no unity in the mormon church, or there wouldn't be divisions within it either. I seem to recall there's the main mormon church, a reformed version, and some others that call themselves mormons that you guys won't claim, just because they follow some of the earlier teachings (polygamy and such). You yourself hsa stated that mormon 'prophets' floated some mistakes in and out of your doctrines and covenants

I can agree with the findings of the early councils of catholics and apostolics easily. It was later that catholics tended to introduce teachings I can't agree with. What about the nicean council findings do you not agree with?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
"We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible. And we believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten from the Father, only begotten, that is from the Father's substance, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father. Through him were made all things, both in heaven and on earth. For us and for our salvation he came down, was incarnate and became human. He suffered, rose again on the third day, ascended into the heavens and is coming to judge the living and the dead. And we believe in the Holy Spirit. But those who say, 'there was once when he was not' and 'before he was begotten he was not,' and that 'he was made out of nothing,' or who affirm that 'the Son is of a different hypostasis or substance,' or that he is mutable or changeable - these the catholic and apostolic church anathematizes."
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You yourself hsa stated that mormon 'prophets' floated some mistakes in and out of your doctrines and covenants </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">either you are mistaken or you are lying - quote it and I'll believe it. I've never said any such thing.

The main Mormon church has 12Million members who all recognize Gordon B. Hinckley as God's prophet on the earth. the Splinter groups are miniscule in comparison and usually form when someone decides they are the prophet and convinces a small number to follow him. They are then excommunicated from the church for apostacy and have no affiliation with the Mormon church. In order to achieve unity, one needs a correct interpretation of the holy writ and a Prophet and Apostles, as explained in Ephesians 4.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">What about the nicean council findings do you not agree with?
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I don't agree with the Nicean Creed, which robs God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit of their separate identities and established the principle of the trinity (God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost being one and the same being).

</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:
or you are lying </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">come on now big daddy i asked you not to accuse him of lyieng or "falsely"accusing you of stuff...it may be a mistake or you may not remember it....

</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:
The Mormon position is that Polygamy was necessary at that time in order to build up the church. It is no longer neccessary and has not been in practice since the 1890's. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">come on now Joel...my copy of the book of mormon came in the other day Joel and me and my Grandmother have been reading it and we called the number on the book mark inside of it and they said that the belief of polygomy is still practiced in the mormon religion today....

and i also come to the realization that Mormons or the mormon leaders are decendents of Ismael .... could you clear that up for me Joel...before I go any further... i wouldnt want to mistake sumthing....or lie to you....

Actually, it was an either or - I included the possibility that he was mistaken.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">either you are mistaken or you are lying </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I know I haven't said those things because I would never say anything I don't believe. It's in Allen's court to either find evidence to back it up or retract it.

Polygamy is certainly not practiced by any legitimate Mormon today. Sure there are some in Utah that practice it, but they are not members of the Mormon church, and their acts are illegal.

Perhaps you'd prefer to read the 1890 letter written that did away with polygamy:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">To Whom It May Concern:

Press dispatches having been sent for political purposes, from Salt Lake City, which have been widely published, to the effect that the Utah Commission, in their recent report to the Secretary of the Interior, allege that plural marriages are still being solemnized and that forty or more such marriages have been contracted in Utah since last June or during the past year, also that in public discourses the leaders of the Church have taught, encouraged and urged the continuance of the practice of polygamy—

I, therefore, as President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, do hereby, in the most solemn manner, declare that these charges are false. We are not teaching polygamy or plural marriage, nor permitting any person to enter into its practice, and I deny that either forty or any other number of plural marriages have during that period been solemnized in our Temples or in any other place in the Territory.

One case has been reported, in which the parties allege that the marriage was performed in the Endowment House, in Salt Lake City, in the Spring of 1889, but I have not been able to learn who performed the ceremony; whatever was done in this matter was without my knowledge. In consequence of this alleged occurrence the Endowment House was, by my instructions, taken down without delay.

Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise.

There is nothing in my teachings to the Church or in those of my associates, during the time specified, which can be reasonably construed to inculcate or encourage polygamy; and when any Elder of the Church has used language which appeared to convey any such teaching, he has been promptly reproved. And I now publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land.

WILFORD WOODRUFF
President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

President Lorenzo Snow offered the following:

“I move that, recognizing Wilford Woodruff as the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the only man on the earth at the present time who holds the keys of the sealing ordinances, we consider him fully authorized by virtue of his position to issue the Manifesto which has been read in our hearing, and which is dated September 24th, 1890, and that as a Church in General Conference assembled, we accept his declaration concerning plural marriages as authoritative and binding.”

The vote to sustain the foregoing motion was unanimous.

Salt Lake City, Utah, October 6, 1890.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">come on now Joel...my copy of the book of mormon came in the other day Joel and me and my Grandmother have been reading it and we called the number on the book mark inside of it and they said that the belief of polygomy is still practiced in the mormon religion today....</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Did you get the book from the source I gave you? or from some other source? Give me the number you called so I can straighten them out. Perhaps, if that is indeed what they said, they were referring to the Mormon splinter groups, I just mentioned. There are a few breakaways from the church in remote areas of Utah who practice polygamy. They are in no way affiliated with the LDS church.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">and i also come to the realization that Mormons or the mormon leaders are decendents of Ismael .... could you clear that up for me Joel...before I go any further... i wouldnt want to mistake sumthing....or lie to you....</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">can you point me to how or where you came that perception? descendents of Israel yes, Ishmael, not so much.