Mormons: We are Christians, too

Pahoran wrote:

<quoted text>
Really? Which ones?
And if that is the case, why do you immediately change the subject and go into a long Bible-bash?
<quoted text>
Yes, and?
Latter-day Saints (being Christians, a fact not disputed by anyone who has actually studied the question) regard the Law of Moses as having been fulfilled in Christ, and therefore no longer operative.
Didn't you know that?
Do you really think that we either do "the works of the law" or no works at all? Is your antinomianism really based upon that kind of fallacious dilemma?
Now: have you actually read _Offenders for a Word_ yet? If not, you remain woefully uninformed upon the issue at hand. Mormonism is Christian and nothing else.
Regards,
Pahoran

Offenders for a Word....good reading. They just don't get it.....and its probably over their heads anyway....their preferred reading is religious tabloid hate.
http://mi.byu.edu/publications/books/...

LightBearer wrote:

Amen Dave.
Oh, and I thought it would help if I gave a definition of Christianity with which everyone would agree.
Christianity is, quite simply, the faith of a person placed in Christ Jesus and also the act of living out His teachings.
Now, while Mormons say the Bible is the Word of God, they say that it is correct "only as far as it is translated correctly".
Well, the many translations of Scripture, though they may have differing interpretations, all say the same thing on the six important issues that are mentioned in that article. And each of those issues were touched on by Christ during His ministry on earth.
Mormonism and its "divine scriptures" are these:
The Book of Mormon
The Doctrine and Covenants
The Pearl of Great Price
These three books contain within them conflicting views on many things found in the Bible. Those six mentioned in that article are but the tip of the iceberg.
So, if you have read the article you will see that Christianity and Mormonism are diametrically opposed. As such, they are presented with a dilema.
Either they say that the Bible is incorrect in all of its aspects, or that the Book of Mormon and the other "divine texts" are erroneous.
Just a thought.
In Christ,
LightBearer

Baptists make great Mormons?

In the early 1980s, Southern Baptist Convention leaders discovered—much to their horror—that 40 percent of Mormonism's 217,000 converts in 1980 came from Baptist backgrounds. More than 150 Mormon missionaries had descended on the northern Georgia area alone, a Southern Baptist magazine noted warily in 1982, and they found Southern Baptists among their most promising targets. When the Mormon Church built temples in the early '80s in Atlanta and Dallas, two of Southern Baptism's most important hubs, it was as if the Mormon Church had thrown down the gauntlet in an arms race between two of the most missionary-minded faiths. Mormonism was declaring its permanent presence in the American South, where Southern Baptism enjoyed status as the de facto religion.

And the SBC got serious about tempering the expansion of what was becoming the fastest-growing religion in the world. They developed programs, trained pastors, hosted Mormonism-awareness conferences, and published articles to help spread the message to Southern Baptists that Mormonism was a dangerous cult religion they had to avoid. The SBC's Sunday School Board developed an instruction kit, "The Christian Confronting the Cults," that covered five religious groups: the Mormon Church, Jehovah's Witnesses, the Worldwide Church of God, the Unification Church (the Moonies), and Christian Scientists. The book quickly became the Sunday School Board's top-selling item.

The Baptist Film Centers even purged two films produced by Brigham Young University from its distribution lists. Neither film addressed doctrinal issues, but the Southern Baptist Convention dropped the titles so as not to appear approving of Mormon-produced messages.

All of these efforts against Mormonism, an SBC magazine explained, were "to help Baptists witness to Mormons without becoming 'Mormonized' themselves."

http://www.slate.com/id/2180391/

LightBearer wrote:

Well, first, I am sorry about your friend. To be involved in service and get hurt is really sad...although you could say it is a blessing because it's a sacrifice to the Lord, it's still unfortunate.
I was busy all weekend as well. My girls and I run a small jewelry business and do the festival circuit here in central Indiana, and spent all day Saturday getting "beat up" in the market place by too much junk overflowing the market interfering with artisan crafted stuff. We should have had a thousand dollar day and we took in a little over what it took to pay expenses.
Anyway, not to be bitter...

I am copying your post I found offensive. I will explain in *(these marks, within your post)*

"The claim that Mormons are Christians too is a stretch at best. While the Church of *(JESUS CHRIST OF)* Latter Day Saints continues to say they are a Christian organization, all you have to do is compare the Bible (which is the "Holy Book" of the Christian faith)*( Which translation? The KJV? NIV? Another?)* and the Book of Mormon (which is "the most correct book on Earth" according to Joseph Smith).

The two have many, MANY different variances and completely contradict one another in so many ways.*(Of course there are variances. It is another testament of Jesus Christ.)*

Here is a link to a website which has made just a few comparisons between the Bible and the Book of Mormon; comparisons that touch on six VERY important subjects to any Christian believer. The link is:
http://www.carm.org/religious-movements/mormo ...
I would strongly advise anyone who goes to the site to also read some of the other things said about Mormonism and Christianity on there.
In Christ,
LightBearer"

Then again...

"Amen Dave.
Oh, and I thought it would help if I gave a definition of Christianity with which everyone would agree.
Christianity is, quite simply, the faith of a person placed in Christ Jesus and also the act of living out His teachings.
*(Alright, I agree. We are Christian, since we have faith in Christ Jesus and--wait, you are saying works make a Christian Christian?)*

Now, while Mormons say the Bible is the Word of God, they say that it is correct "only as far as it is translated correctly".
Well, the many translations of Scripture, though they may have differing interpretations, all say the same thing on the six important issues that are mentioned in that article. And each of those issues were touched on by Christ during His ministry on earth.

Mormonism and its "divine scriptures" are these:
*( THE HOLY BIBLE--NEW AND OLD TESTAMENT KJV VERSION)*
The Book of Mormon
The Doctrine and Covenants
The Pearl of Great Price
These three books contain within them conflicting views on many things found in the Bible. Those six mentioned in that article are but the tip of the iceberg.

So, if you have read the article you will see that Christianity and Mormonism are diametrically opposed. As such, they are presented with a dilema.
Either they say that the Bible is incorrect in all of its aspects, or that the Book of Mormon and the other "divine texts" are erroneous.
Just a thought.

*(And one, I am afraid, that is unbelievably incorrect. Doctrinally, we vary from mainstream Trinitarianism/Christianity in just a few points:
1. Jesus Christ, the very Son of the Father, is a separate individual with the same purpose as the Father. They both are corporeal, in that they have flesh and bone, in an exalted form. The Holy Spirit has a separate spiritual body, but not a corporeal form.
2. WE REJECT TRINITARIANISM. We feel it has been foisted upon good people in moments of weakness by the father of all lies to confuse and corrupt the knowledge of God.
3. We understand and appreciate the concept of authority. Priesthood authority did not simply "go away" with the Protestant Church. It is still needed to preach, teach, and baptize. In cooperation with that, there must needs be a Prophet on the earth. There has been one since the days of Joseph Smith in 1830.)*
In Christ,
LightBearer "
*(So, Lightbearer, I can see that yes, you certainly believe in what you say. But in an argument, it is important not to exclude specific points that may keep your story straight and fair. I noticed some of your posts to be missing pieces--such as the name of the church, for example) and found it to be highly offensive. I will now look at your site and refute the six points you refer to.)*

Hannah Rebekah wrote:

<quoted text>
Offenders for a Word....good reading. They just don't get it.....and its probably over their heads anyway....their preferred reading is religious tabloid hate.
http://mi.byu.edu/publications/books/...

Yeah, it must be over our little pea-brained heads.

Hannah, if you want us to listen to you, stop being elitist.

One thing we have found in most cases is it is very rare for the average Latter-day Saint to fully explain the unique teachings of Mormonism. In the LDS Church it is taught that milk must be given before meat. Since many Mormons know that some of their unique teachings will be questioned by their evangelical acquaintances, they often give an explanation of the LDS faith that is less than precise.

It is difficult to comprehend why Mormons would say they are Christians “just like us” given that the foundation of their church presupposes that all professing Christian churches outside of the LDS Church are in a state of apostasy. Do Mormons who make this claim really think they too are “apostates”? Putting that aside, you need to ask yourself some important questions before automatically accepting the notion that the differences separating Christians from Mormons are insignificant. For instance, if your Mormon friend is really a “Christian just like you,” does that mean you believe:

A quick interjection

(Pahoran) and (Hannah)'s most recent posts attest to this as fact, they can only insult and name call.

Now instead of just reading LDS offical church scriptures to understand their beliefs we now must get another book, the spin is never ending, I suspect we will need seer stones and magic glasses soon too.

article continued below

God was not always God?
Joseph Smith, the founder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints taught,

“We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see. These are incomprehensible ideas to some, but they are simple. It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that he was once a man like us”(Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.345; also cited in Gospel Principles, p.305).

In contrast to this, Psalm 90:2 states,“Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever you have formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, you are God.”

God is a glorified, perfected human being with a body of flesh and bones?
According to Joseph Smith,

"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret, if the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by his power, was to make himself visible,—I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form—like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with him, as one man talks and communes with another" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345. Also cited in Achieving a Celestial Marriage, p.129).
The Doctrines of Covenants, considered to be scripture by Latter-day Saints, teaches,“The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's”(130:22).

Jesus taught that God the Father was not a man at all. In fact, John 4:24 records Jesus saying,“God is spirit, and they that worship Him, must worship Him in spirit and in truth.”

cont...

God is only one among many Gods?
Joseph Smith said,“I wish to declare I have always and in all congregations when I have preached on the subject of the Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods. It has been preached by the elders for fifteen years”(Discourses of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.35).

Brigham Young, the second president of the LDS Church, once stated,

“How many Gods there are, I do not know. But there never was a time when there were not Gods and worlds, and when men were not passing through the same ordeals that we are now passing through. That course has been from all eternity, and it is and will be to all eternity. You cannot comprehend this; but when you can, it will be to you a matter of great consolation”(Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 7:334, October 8, 1859).
However, Isaiah 44:6,8 tells us that the God of the Bible knows of no other Gods.“I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God…Is there a God beside me? Yea, there is no God; I know not any.”

God is married?
Gordon B. Hinckley, Mormonism’s 15th President, once noted in a conference message,“Logic and reason would certainly suggest that if we have a Father in Heaven, we have a Mother in Heaven. That doctrine rests well with me”(“Daughters of God,” Ensign (Conference Edition), November 1991, p.100. This is also cited in The Teachings of Gordon B. Hinckley, p.257).

Mormon Apostle Bruce R. McConkie wrote,

“Implicit in the Christian verity that all men are the spirit children of an Eternal Father is the usually unspoken truth that they are also the offspring of an Eternal Mother. An exalted and glorified Man of Holiness (Moses 6:57) could not be a Father unless a Woman of like glory, perfection, and holiness was associated with him as a Mother. The begetting of children makes a man a father and a woman a mother whether we are dealing with man in his mortal or immortal state”(Mormon Doctrine, p. 516).

Just as there is nothing in Mormonism’s unique scripture that mentions God being married to a “heavenly mother,” there is nothing to imply such a teaching in the Bible either.

cont...

Jesus is the spirit-brother of Lucifer?
12th Mormon President Spencer W. Kimball wrote,
“Long before you were born a program was developed by your creators ... The principal personalities in this great drama were a Father Elohim, perfect in wisdom, judgment, and person, and two sons, Lucifer and Jehovah.”(Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, pp. 32-33).
Since The New Testament claims that it was through Jesus all things were created (John 1:3; Colossian 1:16, 17), it is difficult to assume such a familial relationship. Lucifer is described as an angel and angels, according to Psalm 148:1-5, are created beings, not pro-created beings in a sexual sense.
Jesus is the literal “Son of God” who was begotten naturally by an immortal Father?
In a pamphlet published by the LDS Church First Presidency, it says:
“Jesus Christ is the Son of Elohim both as spiritual and bodily offspring; that is to say, Elohim is literally the Father of the spirit of Jesus Christ and also of the body in which Jesus Christ performed His mission in the flesh, and which body died on the cross and was afterward taken up by the process of resurrection, and is now the immortalized tabernacle of the eternal spirit of our Lord and Savior”("The Father and The Son; A Doctrinal Exposition by The First Presidency and The Twelve," June 30, 1916. Reprinted in Articles of Faith, p. 421).
Mormon Apostle Bruce McConkie taught that God stepped down from His throne to “join with one who is finite and mortal in bringing forth,‘after the manner of the flesh,’ the Mortal Messiah”(Bruce R. McConkie, The Mortal Messiah: From Bethlehem to Calvary, 1:315).
The Bible describes the incarnation of Christ as a miracle known as the Virgin Birth. Mary, the mother of Jesus, became pregnant without the aid of man, mortal or otherwise (Luke 2:35).
cont...

Humans can become Gods?
According to the Encyclopedia of Mormonism,

“Logically and naturally, the ultimate desire of a loving Supreme Being is to help his children enjoy all that he enjoys. For Latter-day Saints, the term ‘godhood’ denotes the attainment of such a state—one of having all divine attributes and doing as God does and being as God is”(2:553).

Brigham Young declared,

“The Lord created you and me for the purpose of becoming Gods like Himself; when we have been proved in our present capacity, and been faithful with all things He puts into our possession. We are created, we are born for the express purpose of growing up from the low estate of manhood, to become Gods like unto our Father in heaven. That is the truth about it, just as it is”(Brigham Young, August 8, 1852, Journal of Discourses 3:93).

Historically, such a notion has been considered blasphemous by Christians. Never have Christians taught that mankind has the capacity to become ontologically like God. As God Himself said through the prophet Isaiah,“Before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me”(Isaiah 43:10).

Mankind must believe Joseph Smith was a prophet of God in order to get into heaven?
“There is no greater prophet in any dispensation than Joseph Smith… Joseph Smith was a prophet, and all the calumny and aspirations to the contrary cannot controvert that fact. Anyone who has concern for the welfare of his eternal soul should give attention to this message. Every man who has lived since the days of Joseph Smith is subject to accepting him as a prophet of God in order to enter into our Heavenly father’s presence”(A. Theodore Tuttle,“Joseph Smith re-established fullness of true gospel, Church,” Church News, March 17, 2001, p.14).

This concurs with what Brigham Young said in 1859:

“From the day that the Priesthood was taken from the earth to the winding-up scene of all things, every man and woman must have the certificate of Joseph Smith, junior, as a passport to their entrance into the mansion where God and Christ are -- I with you and you with me. I cannot go there without his consent”(Brigham Young, October 9, 1859, Journal of Discourses 7:289).

The Bible declares that Jesus is the Christian’s living prophet and it is Jesus whom Christians must listen to and obey (Deuteronomy 18:15; John 5:46; 6:44; 7:40; Acts 3:22, 23; 7:37; Hebrews 1:1-2). Judgment has been given to Jesus alone by authority of the Father.“For the Father judges no man, but has committed all judgment unto the Son”(John 5:22).

cont...

Dave wrote:

<quoted text>
Yeah, it must be over our little pea-brained heads.
Hannah, if you want us to listen to you, stop being elitist.

That is all she has got, she accuses non-LDS so called anti-mormons of hate yet that is all she posts.

Hannah is in a very desprate situation and I feel for her and will pray for her.

For her to acknowledge the facts present to her means a war of great proportions in her family. It will literally be war in household if she chose to accept the truth.

The Cost is High for her but the reward will be great if rejects Mormonism anti-truth and Jesus of the Bible and Christianity Pro-truth.

She as are all of us without excuse.

Ro 1:18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness,
Ro 1:19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.
Ro 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Everybody should check this out...this is how the mormons and the non-mormons get along in Salt Lake City....
http://www.ksl.com/index.php...

humor me here wrote:

<quoted text>
I am copying your post I found offensive. I will explain in *(these marks, within your post)*
"The claim that Mormons are Christians too is a stretch at best. While the Church of *(JESUS CHRIST OF)* Latter Day Saints continues to say they are a Christian organization, all you have to do is compare the Bible (which is the "Holy Book" of the Christian faith)*( Which translation? The KJV? NIV? Another?)* and the Book of Mormon (which is "the most correct book on Earth" according to Joseph Smith).
The two have many, MANY different variances and completely contradict one another in so many ways.*(Of course there are variances. It is another testament of Jesus Christ.)*

Sorry to hear about the lack of income that you made at the jewelry thing Saturday, Humor me here. At least the expenses were covered. Our church had a situation like that recently. We set up a tent and were acting like a "drive through" resteraunt (selling biscuits and such for breakfast and then hotdogs and hamburgers at lunch) at a local fall festival. We barely made enough to cover the cost.

But we all had fun while working so it wasn't SSSOOO bad.

Anyway, I will make a couple of points about the things you have found wrong in my post.

First, I excluded the OF JESUS CHRIST because...well...I didn't want to type the extra wording. It was REALLY late when I posted that and so I was kind of tired.

Second, you have asked which translation of the Bible is the "Holy Book" of the Christian Faith. I would say almost ALL of them. The real "Holy Book" is the original scriptures written in their respective native languages. But, since most of the people that read the Bible (myself included) cannot speak Hebrew or Greek, they have to read it in their native language (which is, obviously, English for me).

But about the translations. As long as people translate the Bible in such a way as to not IMPOSE their own ideas into the passages (as, I fear, the Jehovah's Witnesses have, as well as certain translations that are so called "Christian" today) then it is the Word of God. I think it is okay to INTERPRET the passages as well...but only in accordance with the words' original intent.

As to the variances between the Bible and the Book of Mormon, well, the "variances" are not like those one would see if it was simply "another testament of Jesus Christ". These "variances" happen to be COMPLETELY OPPOSING TEACHINGS!!! If Jesus said one thing in the Bible, but quite the opposite in the Book of Mormon...He's either confused or He's a liar. But since He cannot be either (since He is God), one of these two books must be wrong.

I go with the Bible for many reasons. One includes the HISTORICAL aspects of it. The Bible HAS MANY, MANY manuspcripts from the time of its original writing. The Book of Mormon....has none, actually.

Joseph Smith possessed the ONLY text of the Book of Mormon in the form of Golden plates...only eleven other people besides himself have been said to have seen them...officially at least. Smith himself was the one who translated the "Plates" into English and then RETURNED them to the Angel Moroni.

Compare the two books and see which one has more witnesses, more historocity, and more believability.

I do not believe the Book of Mormon CAN BE another testament of Christ because it CONTRADICTS the Bible.

I hope that this does not offend you. At least, no more than it would offend me if you said the same thing about the Bible.

In Christ,
LightBearer

LightBearer wrote:

Anyway, I will make a couple of points about the things you have found wrong in my post.
First, I excluded the OF JESUS CHRIST because...well...I didn't want to type the extra wording. It was REALLY late when I posted that and so I was kind of tired.

Hi there Lightbearer; or would you prefer that I address you by your Latin name?

At first blush, that seems like a rather lame excuse for leaving out the middle part of the Church's name.

And the more we look at what you actually posted, the lamer it gets. Why did you have time and energy enough to post all those gratuitous swipes at the Church of Jesus Christ, but leave out the most important part of its name?

And why, when you took it upon you to list the scriptures of the Church, did you deliberately omit the first item in the list? The one we spend the most time learning and teaching: the Holy Bible?

Why did you explicitly and counterfactually say we have "three" volumes of scripture, when you know we have four?

LightBearer wrote:

As to the variances between the Bible and the Book of Mormon, well, the "variances" are not like those one would see if it was simply "another testament of Jesus Christ". These "variances" happen to be COMPLETELY OPPOSING TEACHINGS!!! If Jesus said one thing in the Bible, but quite the opposite in the Book of Mormon...He's either confused or He's a liar.

The operative word being that "If."

So, if indded such "COMPLETELY OPPOSING TEACHINGS!!!" actually exist, it must be a trivially easy exercise for you to produce them.

So, where are they? This is a call for references please, Lightbearer. Proof by exclamation mark is not a valid argument. You need to show specific Book of Mormon teachings -- cite chapter and verse, please -- and show the Bible teachings they contradict. Likewise with chapter and verse.

Regards,
Pahoran

Dave wrote:

<quoted text>
Yeah, it must be over our little pea-brained heads.
Hannah, if you want us to listen to you, stop being elitist.

It's not a question of being "elitist." It's a question of being informed so as to validly participate in the discussion.

You and "Concerned" are furiously trying to "explain" to us why we aren't Christians. Your technique consists of the following:

1) Assume that American conservative Protestantism is coextensive with Christianity.

2) Highlight (and exaggerate, distort and misrepresent) any perceived or actual differences between Latter-day Saint teaching and normative EV-ism.

3) Produce these differences with great, triumphant flourish as if they settled the matter.

Your has been addressed in the book to which we refer you; and it is a failed one.

And because you are too lazy to inform yourselves about the current state of the debate, you simply end up making very comprehensive fools of yourselves.

And as entertaining as that is, it really doesn't advance the discussion in anny direction.

So you see, Hannah is not being "elitist" at all; she's actually trying to help you out.

You should thank her.

Then go and read the book in question. Only then will you actually know what you are talking about.

Regards,
Pahoran

Pahoran wrote:

<quoted text>
It's not a question of being "elitist." It's a question of being informed so as to validly participate in the discussion.
You and "Concerned" are furiously trying to "explain" to us why we aren't Christians. Your technique consists of the following:
1) Assume that American conservative Protestantism is coextensive with Christianity.
2) Highlight (and exaggerate, distort and misrepresent) any perceived or actual differences between Latter-day Saint teaching and normative EV-ism.
3) Produce these differences with great, triumphant flourish as if they settled the matter.
Your has been addressed in the book to which we refer you; and it is a failed one.
And because you are too lazy to inform yourselves about the current state of the debate, you simply end up making very comprehensive fools of yourselves.
And as entertaining as that is, it really doesn't advance the discussion in anny direction.
So you see, Hannah is not being "elitist" at all; she's actually trying to help you out.
You should thank her.
Then go and read the book in question. Only then will you actually know what you are talking about.
Regards,
Pahoran

Pahoran, I'm just going to come out and say it. You annoy the heck out of me.

Trust me in that I am very well-informed and that I know a lot more about the church than you think.

LightBearer wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry to hear about the lack of income that you made at the jewelry thing Saturday, Humor me here. At least the expenses were covered. Our church had a situation like that recently. We set up a tent and were acting like a "drive through" resteraunt (selling biscuits and such for breakfast and then hotdogs and hamburgers at lunch) at a local fall festival. We barely made enough to cover the cost.
But we all had fun while working so it wasn't SSSOOO bad.
Anyway, I will make a couple of points about the things you have found wrong in my post.
First, I excluded the OF JESUS CHRIST because...well...I didn't want to type the extra wording. It was REALLY late when I posted that and so I was kind of tired.
Second, you have asked which translation of the Bible is the "Holy Book" of the Christian Faith. I would say almost ALL of them. The real "Holy Book" is the original scriptures written in their respective native languages. But, since most of the people that read the Bible (myself included) cannot speak Hebrew or Greek, they have to read it in their native language (which is, obviously, English for me).
But about the translations. As long as people translate the Bible in such a way as to not IMPOSE their own ideas into the passages (as, I fear, the Jehovah's Witnesses have, as well as certain translations that are so called "Christian" today) then it is the Word of God. I think it is okay to INTERPRET the passages as well...but only in accordance with the words' original intent.
As to the variances between the Bible and the Book of Mormon, well, the "variances" are not like those one would see if it was simply "another testament of Jesus Christ". These "variances" happen to be COMPLETELY OPPOSING TEACHINGS!!! If Jesus said one thing in the Bible, but quite the opposite in the Book of Mormon...He's either confused or He's a liar. But since He cannot be either (since He is God), one of these two books must be wrong.
I go with the Bible for many reasons. One includes the HISTORICAL aspects of it. The Bible HAS MANY, MANY manuspcripts from the time of its original writing. The Book of Mormon....has none, actually.
Joseph Smith possessed the ONLY text of the Book of Mormon in the form of Golden plates...only eleven other people besides himself have been said to have seen them...officially at least. Smith himself was the one who translated the "Plates" into English and then RETURNED them to the Angel Moroni.
Compare the two books and see which one has more witnesses, more historocity, and more believability.
I do not believe the Book of Mormon CAN BE another testament of Christ because it CONTRADICTS the Bible.
I hope that this does not offend you. At least, no more than it would offend me if you said the same thing about the Bible.
In Christ,
LightBearer

It doesn't contradict the Bible. Our only real "enemies are those that believe in a few very narrow doctrines:
Strong Trinitarians,

Those that believe in the inerrantcy of the Bible,(God breathed folks)

Those that do not believe in modern-day revelation,

and the ones that firmly believe in the "priesthood of all believers."

Anything else, we have few differences with.

And as far as the witnesses, in a court of law, you only need twelve, and only a majority at that, so seven will do.

Your statement about the witnesses was a little specious, you know that...

Dave wrote:

<quoted text>
Yeah, it must be over our little pea-brained heads.
Hannah, if you want us to listen to you, stop being elitist.

Ok....but that works both ways....and I have found that you guys don't even look at the things that we offer as evidence to how we see things so how could you possibly understand why we believe the way we do? I have found that you guys think you are right....end of story....and we at least concede that we believe in worshiping God by the dictates of our conscience and allow all men to worship how, where and what they may. We don't attack you guys but you guys feel it a calling to attack us....something is wrong with that attitude....IMO....it is not Christian.

Dave wrote:

<quoted text>
Pahoran, I'm just going to come out and say it. You annoy the heck out of me.
Trust me in that I am very well-informed and that I know a lot more about the church than you think.

You only know about what the critics have informed you of....which is some distorted version of what we believe and if you keep up that same line of using their distortions to tell US WHAT WE BELIEVE that tells us a whole lot about you and your un-wiliness to get the true facts. I didn't say that you had to believe what we do when you get the true facts...I just said you don't have a clear pictures of what we believe.

CIB,
This is in response to your 'milk and meat' post:

I ask all of you LDS critics how you teach the Bible to potential believers? Do you start off by teaching them advanced scriptures like Psalm 82:6 or John 10:33-36? Both of these scriptures, by the way, refer to humans becoming "gods." (See also Rev. 3:21, 1 John 3:2, Matt. 5:48, 2 Peter 1:3-4, etc.) If you are not comfortable throwing such concepts out on day one, then I hope you’ll understand why it is preferred to start with faith in Christ and the basics rather than jump into the mysteries of God's wondrous gifts.

And since I see nothing wrong with milk before meat (indeed, the concept and phrase are from Paul) as long as meat is actually forthcoming which it is in the LDS Church. This concept was taught extensible in the ancient Church….by Christ, by Paul and others and is even in the writing of the Ante-Nicene Fathers.
Basically, the ancient Christians believed in milk before meat….why do you think that Christ taught in parables? For those who were more mature in the gospel they would understand but for those who were new babes in the gospel they would not. New babes need milk and then can later handle meat.

When He was alone, the Twelve and others who were round him questioned him about the parables. He replied: "To you the mystery of the kingdom of God has been given; but to those who are outside everything comes by way of parables, so that (as Scripture says) they may look and look, but see nothing; they may hear and hear, but understand nothing; otherwise they might turn to God and be forgiven.(Mark 4:10—12)
Paul wrote that the apostles, the "stewards of the mysteries of God" (1 Corinthians 4:1), "speak wisdom among them that are perfect11: yet not the wisdom of this world.... But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory" (1 Corinthians 2:6—7). It is noted that the precise nature and origin of Paul's "spiritual" teachings "are still in need of clarification," since both this text and the one from Mark "seem to allude to esoteric doctrines, to be shared only within a small and exclusive group of direct disciples, but to remain hidden from the majority" (which brings us to teachings of the LDS Temples). This is clearly the case with Paul's comments to the Corinthians, who had been Christians for years. "I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able" (1 Corinthians 3:2).
Footnote:
11. A fourth-century Mesopotamian Christian document divides members of the church into the "just" and the "perfect." Stroumsa takes it for granted that "each category of believers receives a different type of teaching" (p. 31 n. 13; cf. p. 156).
(Professor Guy G. Stroumsa, chairman of the Department of Comparative Religion at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, has recently produced what may be the most comprehensive study to date on early Christian secrecy in his book Hidden Wisdom: Esoteric Traditions and the Roots of Christian Mysticism.)

Also see:
Them Sneaky Early Christians
http://mi.byu.edu/publications/review/...