Saying any religion is true without evidence is just an openion. All Religions are theories, most say "i am right" and the rest are "wrong". Quiet silly.
Well, thank you for bringing this up but i recomend you actually read what has been brought up already. Not trying to be mean or anything but these have already been brought up for the most part. As well thank you for the following line But taking things into context you must not forget about how the catholic church "doctored" up the bible. But, most mormon's beleive the president of the LDS church to be a prophet, therefor giving him the right to make change's to the LDS bible. But, makes Joseph Smith a false phrophet.
"Burned for turning on Jesus"? Some of them were martyred for believing in Jesus, it's true, but I don't recall anyone being burned for "turning on Jesus." On the contrary, Joseph Smith was teaching that blacks were equals when other people were saying blacks didn't have souls. I defy you to find one single reference that says that the LDS Church ever taught that blacks didn't have souls and could not be saved. That is COMPLETE FALSEHOOD. If you're a Christian, I'd say that makes you quite the hypocrite yourself, because the history of Christendom is quite bloody and full of the persecution of non-Christians. Christianity has changed quite a bit since the days of the Crusades and the Inquisition, wouldn't you say?
And I won't. Even the Savior didn't answer every question asked of Him, as some questions were simply attempts to trap Him in His words, or prove that He was teaching "heresies."
Well first of there have existed numerous volumes of bible canons, ranging from the OT all the way to the NT. What books they had and their order was largely dictated by authors of religions, not divine influence. "The process of canonization was complex and lengthy. It was characterized by a compilation of books that early Christians found inspiring in worship and teaching, relevant to the historical situations in which they lived, and consonant with the Hebrew Testament (early Christian communities were primarily Jewish). In this way, the books considered authoritative revelation of the New Covenant were not hammered out in large, bureaucratic Church council meetings, but in the secret worship sessions of lower-class peasant Christians. While an episcopal hierarchy did develop and finally solidify the canon, this was a relatively late development." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_testament "The New Testament canon as it is now was first listed by St. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, in 367, in a letter written to his churches in Egypt. That canon gained wider and wider recognition until it was accepted by all at the Third Council of Carthage in 397. Even this council did not settle the matter, however. Certain books continued to be questioned, especially James and Revelation." The books we have in the Bible, and the order that they, were outlinted by the Roman Catholic Church not Jesus Christ and the 12 apostles. Wether the Book of Revelation is the last book written; there is much debate because some "evidence" shows variable dates, however, I don't think there is a more apropriate book to end the NT with, than the Apocalypse. Well Jesus pretty much changed the whole format of worship, from the letter of the law to a more spiritual law. Anyways, in conclusion, God can say whatever we wants, and can cause things to be written whenever. I don't think that he would limit his communications with his children and the human race over one verse of scripture in the new testament.
Marlin, True enough, but He didn't make the same claims you are making. You used Deut. 4:2 (repeated in Deut. 12:34) to support the case that God could add to His words after He had commanded nothing to be added to it. If God never added to any of the laws ("words") attached to the command (i.e. the ones He gave at Horeb), your statement is false. From there it follows that the Mormon prophets do not fulfill the role you ascribe to them. They do not just ask God's people to return to the words He spoke, but you say they may also add to words considered doctrinal before John wrote Revelation. I wanted to know what they said that is so "new", that Christ hadn't said himself; what they prophesied that hadn't already been said before Christ (Luke 16:16). The last canonized book to be written was Revelation (in 96AD at the latest), unless you believe 2 Peter, Timothy and Titus are pseudonymous (which would not explain why Mormons quote from them to support teachings like apostolic succession and total apostasy). In Revelation, Jesus does not acknowledge anything to be lost in any of the churches of the time, instead He advises them to "hold on to what they have". That's why I asked which books you believe were written after Revelation (you called it "ignorance" to believe Revelation was the last). It would be from these books (or these times) that the truths Mormonism claim to restore would have to come, and without which Christianity is supposedly crippled. Also, if nothing may be added or removed from the book of Revelation, it follows that every event - from Christ's death to the last day of judgement - is contained in it. There are no untold secrets about the last days yet to be revealed, because if there were, they would have to be added to the book. And if there was ever any loss of truth, it would be reflected in Revelation. I think these are valid questions, and it's a pity you feel persecuted by them.
I'm aware of the canonization process. However, if there was nothing written, there would be nothing to canonize. Obviously there was nothing written in Jesus' day for Him to outline. Does that mean He didn't expect His apostles to teach, or those teaching to be preserved? Or do you suggest that nothing was authoritative until it was "officially" declared so, and because it was declared so by a church you have rejected in its modern form, that declaraton isn't to be trusted? The canonization wasn't such a chaotic process either - the list of disputed books was never long. In the case of Revelation, it was usually because the author didn't specifiy whether he was an apostle (which shows you how seriously they took apostolic authority in the time Mormons say Christians were lax in keeping their tradition alive). In the 4th century, St. John Chrysostom and other bishops argued against including it in the New Testament canon, chiefly because of the difficulties of interpreting it and the danger for abuse. Christians in Syria also rejected it because of the Montanists' heavy reliance on it (The Montanists were a gnostic sect who emphasized personal prophesy and also claimed their prophets superseded and fulfilled the doctrines proclaimed by the Apostles, much like Mormonism). But the books that were always unanimously accepted are still the most significant today, and represent the doctrinal core of the traditional church. It would be strange if someone rejected the authority of these books because of uncertainty over other books. From the formation of the canon it's clear that the "authors of religions" as you call the early saints, wanted to make certain of divine influence, rather than simply express the religious fashion of the day. And I know of no Christian church who thinks He does, so that's a strawman argument. What we do believe, however, is that God would never reveal anything contrary to Christ's fulfilment of God's unchangeable and eternal law. While He might guide us to a closer understanding and practice of it, there is nothing else to be said (i.e., that hasn't been revealed to us in the book of Revelation). Christ is, literally and figuratively, the last Word. Far from limiting His communication, it has established it unrevocably. Luke 16:16-17 "The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it. It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law."
ok so well, nice response, but the only point i was trying to make is that the verse in Rev. doesn't limit God, and you're judgement is shaken if you think it does. Duet 4:2 isn't really relevant since it's pretty much self explanatory. So were you trying to say the BoM couldn't possibly be the word of God because X and X reasons or what?
I'm saying that a) God isn't limited by that verse, or any verse, but it limits us - that's why such verses exist; and b) The Book of Mormon, like any religious literature, may be beneficial to faith or detrimental to it, depending on how much one allows it (and its proponents) to have authority outside the boundaries God set out for us here on earth (what has traditionally been called "law"). Just like the Bible, the BoM was "canonized" by a group of Christians, and the same limitations and criticism apply, but unlike the Bible, it represents a circle of experience removed, in time and space, from the immediate physical and historical event when God chose to reveal His salvation to the world, as He was witnessed by the disciples and first believers. In this capacity, it can at best confirm that Word of God - who brought grace and acceptance to the spiritually lost and religiously oppressed - and at worst detract from it's primacy.
"A Bible! A Bible!" THE SECOND BOOK OF NEPHI, BOOK OF MORMON CHAPTER 29 Many gentiles shall reject the Book of Mormon—They shall say: We need no more Bible—The Lord speaks to many nations—He will judge the world out of the books thus written. [Between 559 and 545 B.C.] 1 BUT behold, there shall be many—at that day when I shall proceed to do a marvelous• work among them, that I may remember my covenants which I have made unto the children of men, that I may set my hand again the second• time to recover my people, which are of the house of Israel; 2 And also, that I may remember the promises which I have made unto thee, Nephi, and also unto thy father, that I would remember your seed; and that the words• of your seed should proceed forth out of my mouth unto your seed; and my words shall hiss• forth unto the ends• of the earth, for a standard• unto my people, which are of the house of Israel; 3 And because my words shall hiss forth—many of the Gentiles shall say: A Bible•! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible. 4 But thus saith the Lord God: O fools, they shall have a Bible•; and it shall proceed forth from the Jews•, mine ancient covenant people. And what thank they the Jews for the Bible which they receive from them? Yea, what do the Gentiles mean? Do they remember the travails, and the labors, and the pains of the Jews, and their diligence unto me, in bringing forth salvation unto the Gentiles? 5 O ye Gentiles, have ye remembered the Jews, mine ancient covenant people? Nay; but ye have cursed• them, and have hated• them, and have not sought to recover them. But behold, I will return all these things upon your own heads; for I the Lord have not forgotten my people. 6 Thou fool, that shall say: A Bible•, we have got a Bible, and we need no more Bible. Have ye obtained a Bible save it were by the Jews? 7 Know ye not that there are more nations than one? Know ye not that I, the Lord your God, have created all men, and that I remember those who are upon the isles• of the sea; and that I rule in the heavens above and in the earth• beneath; and I bring forth my word• unto the children of men, yea, even upon all the nations of the earth? 8 Wherefore murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word? Know ye not that the testimony of two• nations is a witness• unto you that I am God, that I remember one nation• like unto another? Wherefore, I speak the same words unto one nation like unto another. And when the two nations• shall run together the testimony of the two nations shall run together also. 9 And I do this that I may prove unto many that I am the same• yesterday, today, and forever; and that I speak forth my words according to mine own pleasure. And because that I have spoken one word ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my work• is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of man, neither from that time henceforth and forever. 10 Wherefore, because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my words; neither need• ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written. 11 For I command all• men, both in the east and in the west, and in the north, and in the south, and in the islands of the sea, that they shall write• the words which I speak unto them; for out of the books which shall be written I will judge• the world, every man according to their works, according to that which is written. 12 For behold, I shall speak unto the Jews• and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the Nephites and they shall write• it; and I shall also speak unto the other tribes of the house of Israel, which I have led away, and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto all• nations of the earth and they shall write it. 13 And it shall come to pass that the Jews• shall have the words of the Nephites, and the Nephites shall have the words of the Jews; and the Nephites and the Jews shall have the words of the lost tribes of Israel; and the lost tribes of Israel shall have the words of the Nephites and the Jews. 14 And it shall come to pass that my people, which are of the house• of Israel, shall be gathered home unto the lands of their possessions; and my word also shall be gathered in one•. And I will show unto them that fight against my word and against my people•, who are of the house• of Israel, that I am God, and that I covenanted• with Abraham• that I would remember his seed• forever•.
all of that is pretty much irrelevent until you can prove that the native american's actually came from a hebrew decent
I don't need to prove anything. The Lord speaks for Himself, and sincere followers of truth believe Him and obey Him.
the lord also says you will know a phrophet is fake is he is not knowledgable and mormonism is NOT knowledgable
.....let me get you the verse will that help? Well if i do or don't its rather pointless. I'm fairly certain you guy's will just create a verse or change another one so that it doesn't apply. I predict pretty soon native american's are gnona be natural jew's from syberia.
Ricky-- "Some of the earliest settlers of America may have come from Australia, southern Asia, or the Pacific, new research suggests. " http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3634544.stm "People in North America were voyaging by sea some 8,000 years ago, boosting a theory that some of the continent's first settlers arrived there by boat." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3517229.stm There are some articles of what Modern research is finding out about the population of the Americas. They're growing closer to realizing what really happened; and where the first settlers came from. And it doesn't mention anything about syberia... It mentions settlers coming by boat, and from different corners of the earth. Harmonious with BoM Jaredites sailing by boat and arriving to the americas, and by the family of Lehi also arriving by boat then colonizing. The idea of syberia etc... the shadows scatter as the light breaks through. Id est, it's not only old fashioned but proving to be very weak under comparison to modern discoveries.
"They say the first Americans may have arrived by sea, rather than by foot. " http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4650307.stm
