Bible Versus

Hi Truth22,
You say you'd love to "hear" but like Christ said "he who has ears let him hear" and I say the same thing. It's been written, and is still here written plenty of times but you have no desire to hear/understand the very plain doctrine of the Godhead which is FULLY and COMPLETELY in line with the Bible.
Excuse me if I'm wrong about you believing God the Father and Christ are ONE being. I thought that was your purpose in the long list of scripture which you think supports the Trinity God. I thought you believed Christ was only The Son in a very hypothetical way and not literally (correct me if I'm wrong).
If what you say is true, that I have a misunderstanding of the Trinity, I gained that understanding from your fellow Christians.

If I take it how it is explained by most, it is this in a nutshell...God, Christ & Holy Ghost are the SAME being,force,individual...God is everywhere and nowhere, Big enough to cover the world and small enough to dwell in ones heart. I take it you believe he is not human, but once was.(this doctrine is NOWHERE in scripture)He's invisible and a spirit and that no man can know him or see him.

I like this quote by Parley P. Pratt:
"It is painful to the human mind to be compelled to admit, that such wonderful inconsistancies of language, or ideas, have ever found place in any human creed. Yet, so it is. It is but another way of saying, that there is a God who does not exsist, a God who is composed of nonentity, who is the negative of all existance, who occupies no space, who exsists in no time, who is composed of no substance, known, or unknown, and who has no powers or properties in common with any thing or being known to exsist, or which can possibly be conceived of, as exsisting either in the heavens or on the earth."

In my question that starts out "I'm curious..." you did not answer but simply said that I have no understanding...so, explain to me why all the names if it is one God as you define "one" rather than "one" the way we see "one"?
I guess I cant argue that I do understand the Trinity doctrine because I will admit that it sounds like a bunch of nonsensical words which try to explain what these men themselves say is "unexplainable". Eventually, every person who believes in the Trinity has to end the subject by saying "well, God cannot be known or explained or understood by humans."

If you truly "make no claims, (but) let the Bible speak for itself" then are you saying one should take every word for how it reads?
Certainly you would not go to that length would you?
Do you really believe the Bible needs no clearifying?
If not, then why the need for counsels and creeds? Why has there NEVER been ONE church?
I told you before I have no problems whatsoever with the scriptures you quoted. They speak the truth to those who have a desire to hear not only what they say but what they mean.
I do not need counsels and creeds to interpret what God is for me. They were not prophets and never claimed that what they knew of God they learned from him directly. They took it upon themselves to interpret scripture, scripture which states that it(scripture) is NOT up for private interpretation. They took it upon themselves to speak for God as if they had been chosen to do it, yet they had no such experience and they (re)defined God without any authority from Him to do it.

Sarah, both of our views can be backed with piles of scripture, and things cannot be resolved unless God himself comes down to explain who is right and why.
I have taken my questions "up with God" as you suggested, yet it was not you who suggested it to me first, and guess what?
He answered me. He is not a God of nonentity. He's real and I do know it. He reveals himself to humans who have faith and are humble enough to take correction on matters of truth.
What I do know of God I learned from no man, just as Paul. I know God will teach others by the power of the Holy Ghost since he did it for me, so I encourage people to have faith and try it.
When you say, "take it up with God, not me." It sounds as if you thought I looked upon you as a teacher, which is far from how I see you. I do not converse with you to be taught by you. So do not think that it is possible to convince me that the Trinity doctrine is true, I KNOW for a fact it is not and I got that information from the source. So can you know, if you will. Dont believe anything I or any person has said concerning the matter, ask God, and I mean cry, plead, repent, and beg. I dont think you will though because you sound as though you THINK you are right already without asking him.
Being right is more uplifting than admitting that without inspiration from God, you know nothing.

You cannot deny that the Bible has always left room for error, especially on this subject.
mormon

Hi Truth22,
The fact of the matter is that, YES, I do have a complete understanding of this particular topic which is contained in the Bible.
You write this instead of answering the question asked: "You obviously believe that you have the correct interpretation of the Bible so therefore you are guilty of the same charge that you claim I'm guilty."
First off I "believe" nothing. The fact is that I do have a "knowledge" of this doctrine and not a simple belief. You are the one who "believes" things without any real justification from God. You will say you have his word(scripture) but so do I and so do many others whose views differ from eachother. So who is correct and how shall one know what interpretation is REALLY correct? The only option is to take the problem to the source.
You, on the other hand, take the book and have let flesh tell you who/what God is and what Bible verses mean, and then you PAY these men for their help. You could have given that $$ to the poor and found out for yourself. These teachers have no more claim on recieving an answer than you do.
You are the one who is brave to make "bold claims" against a doctrine which you do not have proof is false. Yes, I do say bold things about this and would not dare do it if I did not have literal proof directly from the lips of God on the matter. Paul also spoke boldly the things he KNEW to be true. He knew them and NO MAN taught him what he knew. God in all reality taught him what he knew and therefore he could speak the truth boldly. The Jews who disagreed had only scripture and their own interpretation of them to stand on. No visions, no voice from heaven, and no visitation. So their proof = no proof.
I do NOT think you are godless nor did I state that but I do say you have put too much of your trust in men's definition of what God is. If you indeed have asked God about the Trinity doctrine as you claim, then please, by all means tell me, what did God say to you? My GUESS (see I wrote guess) is that you have never questioned the doctrine but have accepted what men have told you it is true on this matter. They give you scriptures to back it and leave out the other half of the Bible which contradicts their possition.
You say I attack and am rude? For what? telling the truth? Expressing my faith and backing my possition?
GOSH Truth22, Where did I attack your character??? You are a hyper defensive girl, calm down...cant we talk and share doctrine and defend our faiths? If pats on the back and agreement is what you desire then go to christiantalk.com... I know you wont though, because the conversation here is so much more stimulating!

All I did was pull out the sword of truth, which is God's word. It's not rude or mean.

So funny you would use the word "attack" against me, when it is your fathers who have always been the bloodthirsty wolves, killing prophets etc. Seriously Sarah, if you cant take the heat of the discussion then go to your preacher and for $10.00 he can say a prayer for you and heal your hypothetical wounds. If you cant stop acting like a tempermental little child, then go to another playground. You came here to play, so play.

Go ahead and pat yourself on the back THINKING you have flustered me. Nothing you say can do that. You may feel free to express your views but please allow me that same privilage!

Lets get to the bare bones of the discussion Sarah, if you dare.

You say: "..funny, I KNOW for a fact that your religion is not true. I believe you should study the history of your church."
Who told you that it was not true? The "god maker" video? Did you pay 25.00 for that knowledge? You have again trusted in the opinions of men concerning the church of Jesus Christ. God himself did not reveal this "fact" to you therefore your knowledge is a "BELIEF" and not knowledge.

I have looked into my churches history, isnt it awsome! Have you looked into your own foundation? Let's go ahead and compare them on an equal scale if youre brave and bold enough to do that.

The definition you give of the Trinity makes no sense. Where is it written that they are a society of complex persons? How can you call them persons and then in the next breath say they have dimentions that are not found in humans/persons? How many times was the Trinity/nature of God redefined by counsels?

So you say that it would be possible to see two individuals at one time without denying the Trinity? I guess that could be possible as there are definitions galore...Even you cant stick to one definition because after stating that they could indeed present themselves as 2, you contradict that by saying "if God says ONE god with no others beside him does that mean that the Father and the Son are 2 separate gods yet equal(WE SAY ONE) in purpose?" Which is it Sarah, your switch hitting?
Then you write that if Jesus says no marriages in heaven...But we say he was speaking to one not of his following who would not reach that status. Is it important to know the context of the statement or do we sweep it over all? The Bible says "ALL believed" John the Baptist was a prophet. Did "ALL" believe that he was? Absolutly not, so knowing the intents and situation of the words is of great importance.
You say that if John said no man sees God, does that mean a man involved with other things and was sentanced to jail saw him?
If your judgement here is applied equally youd say to Christ..."he eats with sinners and Pubicans, can he be sent of God?" And youd say of Paul and the apostles "He was sentanced to jail many times, can we believe God appeared to him on the road?" John himself SAW the resurrected Lord so how is it that "no man can see God"??? Well the scripture is misunderstood and the words are applied by men wrong.
We believe no man, without power from God (Holy Ghost), can see God.
How many scriptures say men cannot see God? How many say they can? More say they can than say they cant, so what's a Bible believer to do? Condemn a man who says he has seen? If you do, John and the other apostles must also fall by your judgment because they say they SAW God too.
Do these examples answer your questions?
Give us some of the same measure of judgement you give yourself. If jail time, polygamy, and belonging to groups outside of church are the PROOF you judge real men of God with, your/my God and His apostles have failed this judgment too.

Can we discuss things or not Sarah? I guarentee my intentions are not to be rude as I will assume yours are not. I can take any bold claim you can bring up. Boldness does not offend me. The gospel of Christ has always been bold(to the point) why would I expect anything different?

P.S. It was not the "take it up with God" phrase that I was addressing, it was the "not me" part. Thats the part that made me think you thought I was taking things up with you or in other words going to you to be taught. I believe we are clear on that matter now.

Since you are so interested in debating the history of your church I would like to give you a very good and informative website on this subject.

http://www.namb.net/evangelism/iev/Mormon/Concepts.asp

(just copy and paste it in the place you type your web addresses)

When you get to the website scroll down and you'll see the title "The Truth About Mormonism" on the right hand side. I would urge any Mormon to look at it, as well as the rest of the site. This is only if your "brave and bold enough to do it."

God Bless you
Sarah

Mormon:

I just would like to make it clear that I do not get offended when you try to tell me your doctrine, teachings, or the problems with my doctrine. I explained to you what I get offended by so this should not be an issue anymore.

I believe that many of the questions you asked me should be directed towards yourself. I did want to know if Joseph Smith was a true prophet. I asked God about it and as I said he told me "no." You ask me if I physically heard the voice of God? Well did you hear the voice of God when you asked if the Book of Mormon was true? I highly doubt it. You got a feeling that made you THINK that it was true. Well just as you, I got a feeling. After I prayed about it I later came upon a information sheet from my sisters old Bible about the Mormon Church. It told me various versus that went directly against the Bible that are in your scriptures. I knew that through this God was telling me it's not the true church. You also ask me to "swear this before God, and all men, on the Bible, and your grandmothers grave that you are telling the truth." Well Mormon, if you read the Bible closely it says not to swear on anything, a simple yes or no would do. I will not swear on anything and consider this a sin. Is this another misinterpretation of the Bible? I highly doubt it.

Now as I said before I really think you should look into your church history, that website is a very good start. Read through all of it (I gave you the address and where to find it on the website on the previous post if you didn't notice). Please do not stop reading it because you think it might make you doubt your faith. Trust me, if your religion is as solid as it seems to you it will not make you doubt anything. I have went on plenty of websites with atheist apologetics against Christianity and still hold firm to my faith in Jesus Christ. Now you should try the same.

God Bless you
Sarah

I have another minute and I need to clear something up.
I got talking about the "burning" which I had had many times, and like the apostles said they should have known, I also should have known and not had to pester God with the desire I had, which was to know for SURE and I wanted to know the difference between churches which worshipped Him. And this time the answer was literal words and it was physical along with the burning.
God reveals himself to men in different ways and there are many different examples as you well know which are recorded.

As far as reading anti Mormon literature goes....been there, done that. Many times. My own brother is one of the biggest anti's around. If I have proof that they are liars who believe that the end (convincing people Mormons are wrong) justifies the means (the lies) would it make any difference to you? I have the web site of one anti mormon and I asked him why he had to lie, wouldnt the truth do just as well to bring down a false church? I knew he considered himself honest enough and he asked me to prove the lies. I did and he changed his web site because he KNEW in his heart and in all reality he was spreading lies. I continued to show him more but he would not answer to the rest and refused to email me anymore. Do you know why? Because if he were to change all the lies he would have a very boring web site. I have copies of the web site as it appears before the changes and a copy of what it is now. I also have about 100 pages of conversation between us.
They know, like the Pharisees knew, that if they leave us alone, all will follow, so they must do something, even if it's break the commandments....they must have convinced themselves they could break them as long as it was for God.
JS was killed by men who believed they had done God a service.
I'm sure you think that we must not have read the web sites, but we have. You need to test their proof against us fairly.
But after the proof I have been given on the issue, I can no longer be open to their side.

Hi Sarah,
I would love to share the details with you of the experience. It would take up so much time and space to get to all the details and I'm not so sure I should write it here because of it's sacred nature, but if you give me your phone# I'll be happy to call you and tell you about it in my own voice and in detail.
You say: "I do believe that some people can be a literal witness of God however...."
You claim you need PHYSICAL proof of ancient cities.
But what about the fact that the Aztecs thought that Cortez was the White God who had visited there ancestors? Not enough you say?
How about the writings of the Book of Mormon which are written in a style called kiasms(SP?) and are only found in hebrew or Jewish texts? How is it that this form of writting was not even defined or discovered until about 75 or so years ago? How is it that JSmith knew how to copy that?
Among all the anti Mormon web sites there are many Mormon web sites that can point out some of the PHYSICAL proofs if proof really mattered. It wont ever be enough for one who has their mind made up.
If you think for a minute that the Jews had PROOF that Christ was their Messiah, you are mistaken. God has always allowed for much doubt.

You say basically that there were witnesses who saw Christ ressurected, therefore you can believe it.
I can show you a list of witnesses who will testify that they saw for themselves the gold plates. I can find many many more besides myself who have had the same sort of literal witness I had, and then there are at least a couple of million more Mormons who will testify of the burning which testifies of truth. The burning is also a literal witness and could not be classified as a "thought type" feeling. So Sarah if numbers of witnesses (actual physical witnesses) matter to you, we have millions.
You say about Christ that if it were not for the witnesses, people would reject Him and call him crazy. This is exactly what those who did not believe Him did do, along with accusations of substance abuse, etc etc. And this is dispite the witnesses!
Those who knew He was the Christ had their own witness, sure there were some who believed without this personal witness, but they are not on solid ground untill they recieve their own witness.
Sarah there is plenty of physical facts that COULD debunk the Bible.
There is physical scientific proof that Adam was not the first man, so why do you believe that part of the Bible? Not one witness can prove that he was and infact science proves that he was not.
There are plenty of anti Bible web sites, why is it you dont believe their PROOF?
So how much proof do you need in order to believe in the Book of Mormon? I do not think that any ammount would suffice since it is not something you will even consider. Like I've said before, if the gold plates were visible, it would make no difference because the enemies would say they came by the power of the Devil.
God shows just enough proof for those who seek it and just enough doubt for those who chose to condemn it.
He wants men to ask him....ask, and ye shall recieve.
the power of the Devil is what the miracles of Christ were attributed to by those who did not WANT to believe. ANY proof can be explained away by a non believer.
You say in essence that christians dont hate me they just want to share the truth(THEIR opinion of the truth).
Christ said it would not be me, mormon, that people would hate, but Him because he testifies of them that their works are iniquity.
Did those christians who killed JSmith just want to share the truth with him and all of us?
My churches doctrine is Biblically sound Sarah.
And just to end this part of the discussion, can you please list just your top two (SHORT)examples (YOU DO NOT HAVE TO QUOTE EVERY SCRIPTURE, I WILL KNOW WHAT YOUR TALKING ABOUT IF YOU JUST NAME THE BASIC TOPIC.)so I can put an end to this false accusation. If I can prove 2 I can prove them all.
The part which appals you, the fact that I knew your statement that God had told you "no" was basically a lie and that I knew he had not in all reality said anything to you, should not appal you. If you say "God said to me..." then you'd better MEAN God SAID it in all reality to you. I expect total truth in this conversation so do not tell me "God said..." unless he did speak to you in the same way Paul was spoken to.
You ask how did I know God did not really tell you anything? Because, as I have told you, He in reality DID speak to me. I KNOW he would not tell me one thing in reality and literally and then tell you another. That is how I knew I could call your bluff here. I know you believe in God therefore I knew you would not carry the story to the point of claiming you actually heard the voice of God on this subject when infact you did not in reality hear His voice. A sheet of paper and a web site are what spoke to you, not God, yet they claimed to be of God.
I DID NOT state that the "history of Mormonism" is a bunch of lies. Lies certainly have been added to it by those who hate us and that is a fact.
If your story is true about Japan teaching the people a different account of Pearl Harbor then, could their be mis accounts given by those who want to condemn this Church?
First you claim written histories are true and then you show an example of how men change the facts, so which is it Sarah? Do you believe all of written history or not, no matter what country wrote it?
The governor of Missouri was a murderer and passed a law making it legal to kill and steal from Mormons, this is a historical fact. Now if this same governor writes a "history" about Mormonism in his state, How reliabe is the account of a murderer?
Dont make the mistake the Jews did, they prefered a murderer over Christ.
The history of the Jews states that Christs body was stolen from the tomb by his friends and there are two guards that will testify to that "fact". So now what?
Youve got 2 eyewitnesses who will testify against the story of the apostles, what do you do to know for sure where the truth is?
We are back to the fact that a person needs to find truth by asking the source of truth, God himself.

You falsey state that "ALL" the witnesses left the church. It is a LIE Sarah and you should be mad at the one who told you that lie. And you should be ashamed of yourself for spreading falsehoods.
The original 3 left but 1 came back. NONE ever denied their testimony of what they saw at the hand of God, EVENTHOUGH they left for their own reasons. Is that not a stronger TESTIMONY than if they had stayed? They leave the church but NEVER deny what they saw.
Check the true history before you get in any deeper here.
Do I think that a person who has been an eyewitness to the truth would ever deny it or leave it? ABSOLUTLY! Do you not know Peter? What about Judas?
And what about the many who followed Christ, yet when they heard that they would have to eat of his flesh, they left and no longer followed him? These people must have known of the miracles and such.

As for the final paragraph, I say judge not that ye be not judged with that same measure and that same scripture.
Mormonism will not be turned into any Fable.

Mormon:

It would be awesome to share a discussion with you over the phone, since I obviously would not want to post my personal phone number over this post then send me your e-mail address and I will give it to you. You say that it is sacred? How can sharing the "truth" be sacred to you, or is that considered secret? Isn't the Book of Mormon sacred to you however you will share it to anyone who will listen (ditto with the secret ceremonies performed in your temples).

You state:

"But what about the fact that the Aztecs thought that Cortez was the White God who had visited there ancestors? Not enough you say?"

I do not see what your point in saying this is. Obviously Cortez was NOT the white god who had visited there ancestors. Just as the Mormons they had faith in something that had not proof or evidence.

Actually the Book of Mormon was written in as Joseph Smith stated "Reformed Egyption." This couldn't be possible, why would Hebrews write their history in their enemies language. Would Americans ever write our history in Russian?

You state:

"many Mormon web sites that can point out some of the PHYSICAL proofs if proof really mattered"

Actually proof does matter Mormon. As I said would you start believing in the story of Star Wars because you came upon it 2000 years from now? There would be no proof of anything like that ever occurring in history. Would you start believing in "the force?"

You state:

"If you think for a minute that the Jews had PROOF that Christ was their Messiah, you are mistaken."

Let's see hmm proof. I would say that the multiple miracles he performed were considered PROOF. The fact that Christ was ressurrected was PROOF. At Jesus' baptism when the Father spoke to Jesus that was PROOF. There is plenty of PROOF that Jesus was the messiah. Let's say Jesus was just some normal man and did nothing special but claimed himself to be the messiah, he wouldn't be believed would he?? God always allows much room for belief.

You state:

"I can show you a list of witnesses who will testify that they saw for themselves the gold plates."

You say they SAW the golden plates correct? That doesn't prove anything, it just means that it was some papyrus that Joseph Smith found that had some symbols on it. He could have been translating anything, all the way from the from the Illiad to an Egyption Book of the Dead. (It was later proved that in I can show you a list of witnesses who will testify that they saw for themselves the gold plates. This doesn't prove anything, he could have translated anywhere from the Illiad all the way from the Egyption Book of the Dead. In 1966 it was proved that the plate which he "translated" the Book of Abraham was actually the Egyption Book of the Dead.

You state:

"So Sarah if numbers of witnesses (actual physical witnesses) matter to you, we have millions"

It is actually not the number of witnesses that I'm concerned with. I would like proof of the claims in the Book of Mormon. Did you know in the early 1900's a man actually decided to take on the challenge of finding proof of the cities in your scriptures. He spent most of his life searching and then gave up in frustration. He left the church and declared the Book of Mormon to be a book of fables.

You state:

"Sarah there is plenty of physical facts that COULD debunk the Bible.

There is physical scientific proof that Adam was not the first man, so why do you believe that part of the Bible?"

I have yet to hear one scientific fact that could debunk the Bible. The truth is Mormon scientific evidence has recently declared through the tracing of the human genome that man has descended from one man and women from one woman. They call the man "Adam" and the Women "Eve." I have researched all of the claims made against the Bible and there is not one to go against it. In fact in Genesis it can be considered a scientific guide to the formation of the earth. I wouldn't doubt the truth of the Bible if I were you, certainly if science could debunk the Bible then it would not be one of the largest religions in the world. The CIA declared after finding remnant of Noah's ark the Bible a "historically sound document."

You state:

"So how much proof do you need in order to believe in the Book of Mormon?"

I need proof of cities such as the same proof we found pertaining to the Bible. I need a newspaper article that proclaims Joseph Smith's vision since it would be such an awesome event in the small town he lived in. I need proof of horses being present in America around 2000 years ago. For being the most "correct book on earth," it sure is not consistent in the areas of archeology, translation and hisorical references.

You state:

"Did those christians who killed JSmith just want to share the truth with him and all of us?"

Actually JSmith died in a gun battle and was killed after he shot into a crowd and killed two men. Your probably right, they weren't trying to share the truth. They were trying to save their lives.

It is not going to be effective writing any more versus. As I know you will only skew the words so they may fit with your teachings.

You state:

"The history of the Jews states that Christs body was stolen from the tomb by his friends and there are two guards that will testify to that "fact"."

In the Bible it states that the guards were paid in order to testify this.

You state:

Youve got 2 eyewitnesses who will testify against the story of the apostles, what do you do to know for sure where the truth is?

Considering the fact that over 500 people saw the resurrected Christ I would rather believe over 500 people than 2 guards.

You state:

"The original 3 left but 1 came back. NONE ever denied their testimony of what they saw at the hand of God, EVENTHOUGH they left for their own reasons."

Excuse me, the website did say 3 left and one did come back however I did not have enough time to look for the information again. Now tell me something, if 3 people physically an Angel with some golden plates why on earth would they leave the church. They saw it with their OWN eyes. I could not possibly think of one reason why they would leave it. I could think of a million reasons why the other one came back, money, women, a leadership position. The other two must have been very noble to not come back to a lie.

You state:

"Do you not know Peter? What about Judas?"

Peter and Judas repented for what they did wrong. The other two did not come back, why is that?

You state at the end:

"Mormonism will not be turned into any Fable."

If you can show me evidence of any of the claims in the Book of Mormon such as a city artificact or a claim made by an esteemed scientist then I will believe you (not a Mormon scientist, they can make claims but have nothing to back it up).

God Bless you
Sarah

Sarah,

This is Mormon 210. I thought I might chime in here a bit. I just need to make a few comments regarding your assertions.

You state:

“Actually JSmith died in a gun battle and was killed after he shot into a crowd and killed two men. Your probably right, they weren't trying to share the truth. They were trying to save their lives.

We believe that Joseph Smith was assassinated for his beliefs. He therefore becomes a martyr for his statements and faith. Does it really matter that possibly he shot at a crowd? He was in jail (which makes it very difficult to obtain a weapon), and was shot and killed. Any other activity would be superfluous. The contemporary writings of Joseph's assasinations are very polarized on this issue but all state that he was in jail at the beginning of the incident.

Mormon says:

"The original 3 left but 1 came back. NONE ever denied their testimony of what they saw at the hand of God, EVENTHOUGH they left for their own reasons."

And then you reply:

”Excuse me, the website did say 3 left and one did come back however I did not have enough time to look for the information again. Now tell me something, if 3 people physically an Angel with some golden plates why on earth would they leave the church. They saw it with their OWN eyes. I could not possibly think of one reason why they would leave it. I could think of a million reasons why the other one came back, money, women, a leadership position. The other two must have been very noble to not come back to a lie.”

Actually, two came back. Both Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer returned to the Church while Martin Harris did not. All three continued in their affirmations as to what they witnessed even though they were hostile toward Joseph or the direction of the Church. In fact Martin Harris makes a final statement in his final moments of life as to what he saw. Therefore, their human weakness (desire for things other than what God desired) led them away but their vision did not go away. LDS adherents would say that these men had a perfect witness and to deny a perfect witness would bring upon them eternal condemnation. However, God does not say a perfect witness will solidify an individual in the faith (e.g Judas Iscariot, the Israelites after the Red Sea, the Israelites many other times, in fact the 12 Apostles ran for their lives during the trial and raising of Christ on the Cross). Christ warns that a miracle (or any other visible act of God) does not precede the faith but that faith precedes the miracle.

Therefore, your assertions are not based. Even the fact that Martin did not come back is not a valid argument against the testimony of these three witnesses.

You then state:

“If you can show me evidence of any of the claims in the Book of Mormon such as a city artificact or a claim made by an esteemed scientist then I will believe you (not a Mormon scientist, they can make claims but have nothing to back it up).”

Yes I can show you a sign, but please read Matthew 12:39, John 4:48 and 1 Corinthians 1:22 first. Then under the framework of those verses we will work on the sign you requested.

Mormon 210

Truth 22:

You say:

”Hello, it is very nice to hear from you again. Thank you for taking the time to write me. First off I would like to say I know you believe that Joseph Smith was a martyr but I do not agree. I do however agree with your assertion of him being in jail at the time of his death. As I understand Joseph acted as a Mason at the time of his death. John Taylor explained that Joseph went to the window and made a Masonic distress sign after his gun was empty, hoping that Masons, if there were any among this mob, would rescue him, according to the Masonic oath "to defend one another, right or wrong." This seems very convincing since records show that Joseph Smith was actually a member of the Free Masons. “

As I stated earlier accusations as to whether or not he was shooting at people in a crowd (though not documented without argument) makes no difference as to Joseph’s giving his life in the end for the things he believed and espoused. He therefore becomes a martyr, whether protecting or submitting his life, for the philosophies and teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

Additionally when discussing the whereabouts and membership in the church of the twelve witnesses (Three with the Angel Moroni and Eight just with the plates), I claimed that most either left the Church or were excommunicated.

To that assertion you said:

”I agree that the witnesses swore what that they saw the golden plates. However Martin Harris later recanted his original statement and is found in GLEANINGS BY THE WAY by Rev. J.A. Clark, published 1842. In this statement he explained his previous sworn oath and existence to the golden plates. Harris said, "Well, I did not see them just as I see the penholder, BUT I saw them with the 'eyes of faith'. I saw them as plainly as anything whatever about me, although at the time THEY WERE COVERED WITH A CLOTH." Rev. J.A. Clark knew Joseph and his family very well, and he felt he should speak out against the so-called "prophet". It must be noted that Oliver Cowdery, David Witmer and Martin Harris were 'excommunicated' from the Mormon faith and labeled by their former 'brothers' as "liars," "thieves," and 'counterfeiters."

What my claim was that these individuals, although they had generated negative feelings toward the Church, did not recant their witness. You attempt to show a recant when with the Rev J.A. Clark’s book quote. Martin, in 1842 was most likely at his worst relationship with Joseph Smith and the Church, therefore, his feelings about this aspect of his life would be most negative. However, in your Clark quote it never states a recant, simply a clarification as to the mode of viewing the plates. In 1859 (Ohio) Martin Harris is interviewed by Tiffany’s Monthly (a widely distributed monthly periodical at that time) and he makes no negative statement as to his witness. In fact he claims to have “hefted the plates” and surmised that they were either lead or gold. He claimed that Joseph did not have the means to even obtain an ounce lead at that point. With these questions in mind Martin retired to his room and asked for a witness as to the materials and information given him by Joseph and concludes by the Spirit that it is what Joseph says it is. This experience occurs prior to the viewing of the plates and visit by the Angel Moroni. After the visit he sees the plates and angel and knows that they are true. He therefore generated faith before the visit. He did not gain a witness only a vision affirming an earlier witness when he viewed the plates and saw the angel.

One may argue that the four (Joseph and the Three Witnesses) conspired and developed the statement and formulated the written witness. There was plenty of time to develop an statements necessary to the notions. On the contrary others may assume that their witness is just as they stated. I have chosen the latter.

Now what will I lose by accepting the witness? Well most Christian religions believe that I must simply confess my sins, accept Christ and that He will make it so I am forgiven and able to return to Heaven. Since I believe that Christ is my Saviour, I have confessed my physical sins, I believe that he can forgive me and allow me to enter His rest. Therefore, I will lose nothing.

However, if I am right, what will I gain? It is obvious that much more would be expected of me. After gaining the faith, I would then be moved to good works (productive towards the notion of “Be ye therefore perfect” that by “…their fruits ye shall know them’). I would not simply be assured by design that I will receive His rest and that all others would not. I would have a greater call. I would need to aid others without gain and often times with a great sacrifice of time or money. I must be willing to devote at least two years on a full time mission at my own expense. I would be driven to succeed so that my offering to Christ might grow as well (parable of the Talents). I would not judge others as less than me and in fact I must find a way to lift even the reprobate of our world above me (least of all). I would be required to have authority to perform ordinances and submit that authority to others with more authority (John the Baptist stating he has authority to baptize but other with great authority would follow). I would be required to pay one-tenth for a tithe to this faith along with a generous fast offering and other financial contributions to the building up the Kingdom of God on earth. I would serve in callings at great sacrifice of time and money (such as a Bishop of a Ward or Stake President) and maintain an occupation to provide for a family where others could possibly earn (Pastors in other Christian churches) livings in tandem to their ecclesiastical work.

Now the two outcomes for me, I feel, is a win-win situation. I am not straddling a fence. I have simply taken the Catholic upbringing I have had and added to it the knowledge of a more defined mission as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ. I know this Church is the work of God. So I do not struggle with historical deviation in this regard. In fact, I do not struggle with current dissertation against my beliefs. I enjoy the debate, but realize it is nothing more than that, knowledge vs. knowledge. The Spirit is the Witness. I can’t change that and neither can you.

Mormon 210

Sarah,
I put off finishing the post of 2:10 9/25/02 and would like to begin there.

Rather than call you on the phone to talk, I will look for truth22 on the list of "chatting now" and speak to you in private and in person that way, okay?
It's obvious to me that I am now discussing things, not with Sarah, but with anti mormon.com. Your (sarah's)style certainly has changed. That's okay though, been there and done that too.

The letters are getting so LONG that it is impossible to reply to every claim.
So I'm going to generalize your(their) claims and combat it that way.

First off, when I say you(they) will behave as their "fathers" I'm not talking about the founders of this country. Are we not talking religion here??? I'm talking about "wolves" "Pharisees" "anti Christ's" "inquisitors" "murderers" etc etc, people who plunder and kill and break all the commandments for the good of religion and call it a good work for God.

Starting here again with your letter of 9/25/02.

We were talking about Cortez and you said:
"Obviously Cortez was NOT the white God who had visited their ansestors. Just as Mormons they had faith in something that had not proof or evidence."

The point I was making, and you do not deny, is the fact that these people were waiting for God to come back. (as do all christians)
Cortez certainly was NOT that God, the fact is he was a trinity creed believing christian.
And being the TRUE wolf that he was, he claimed to be God! He's a wolf in sheep's clothing... or you could say Satan in Christ's clothing. He told the Aztecs that he WAS that God that they had been waiting for! ( ...and many shall come saying I am Christ...)
He LIED to gain their trust! And then what did he do once he had that trust? Did he preach the gospel of Christ to them meek and mild and harmless as a dove as Christ commanded? Well, he did preach...He SLAUGHTERED thousands of them in order to take their possessions and then those who were left were "commanded" to join his church or be put to death. He was one of your trinity God's best missionaries Sarah. Is this how the gospel of Christ is to be shared? Those people would have believed if they had been taught by the Spirit and left to decide for themselves. They could have recieved that "Burning" had the religion been a true religion.
Cortez even said a prayer to his God after it was done, have you ever read it? It's dispickable and filthy.
All of this he did with orders from the top of the church(not God). He took upon himself the name of God and pretended to be Him without any authority or vision or anything! These are your roots & your church history, Sarah. I know you will claim they are not but you worship the same God as defined by the creeds and these were the leaders of that church at the time. We believe in an apostacy and you dont so those are your roots. If the christians were any better behaved they would have let Mormons alone. And i did read some of what "you" wrote about the supposed history of my roots. The violence from our side was ALWAYS in defense of our freedom to worship and be left alone.
The Aztecs had a belief in God whom their ansestors had seen. It is true there was no evidence at all that Cortez was this God, all evidence proves he was a true child of Satan. But, this does not discount the fact that there IS a God.

The part about reformed Egyption.
you write that this could not be so:
"why would Hebrews write in Egyption?"
Because Egyption was easier to carve on the plates.
"would Americans ever write our history in Russian (their enemy)?"
If they knew Russian and it was a close language and was shorter and easier to carve on gold plates then sure they would!
was Egypt really an enemy as Russia once was to us? Sometimes they were allies.
Why would the angel command Joseph and Mary to take the Son of God to an enemy country like Egypt for SAFETY? Do you think they knew the language and could get along there? Of course!

You ask would I believe in a book such as Star Wars if it were to surface after many years?
This is a silly comment but I guess I should commend you on your assumption that a historical book HAS indeed been found and called the Book of Mormon!
Let me ask you...If in 2000 years you find the book Shrek, will you believe in it? It has a talking ass just as the Bible does, will it be more proof that the Bible is sound according to your standards because here is another witness of a talking ass?

See, I can be as funny and snide as you are.

Next subject, Miracles=Believable Proof.
Miracles were explained away. Just as you explain away what we claim are miracles. Witnesses also are condemned and explained away...no matter the number.
You say: "let's say Jesus was just some normal man and did nothing special but claimed himself to be the Messiah, he wouldnt be believed would he??"
He wasnt believed Sarah!!! Even after the miracles!!! The Pharisees would not believe or change their VIEW of God no matter what he did. When they said to him that they WOULD belive if he would just do a miracle(trick), did he do it for them???? NO. He requires faith before miracles in most cases. The whole reason he was rejected was because he seemed so "normal" and they expected God to be so "abnormal"! they wanted a walking miracle and that was not what they saw.
Yes, he does indeed allow room for belief but he leaves in a lot of "motes" and "gnats" and reasons to doubt too. Enough so men will turn to Him only for the final answer.

Then you talk of the Paprus as if this was what the witnesses were shown as proof of the gold plates and this is a lie.
They saw the gold plates which JSmith translated from, which is the Book of Mormon.

Then you talk about some man who found no proof of cities...there you go again, trusting men's opinions. I can find a man to say just about anything too and it = no proof.
The Bible says there was a unicorn. Can you show me one shred of evidence to support this?
So we have a talking ass and a unicorn? And the Book of Mormon is judged by you to be MORE of a book of fables than the Bible? I guess I just cant see why you judge yourself to be the intelligent one and all of us Mormons are the ignorant!
If Mormons are so ignorant why do you believe that mormon "scientific evidence" which links us all to Adam?
Who are the bones of the Neandrethol(spelling??) man linked to? Our genes are also linked to apes? And my point is still this, you can find proof to back just about anything your heart desires to believe in. You falsely accuse me of DOUBTING the truth of the Bible. I do not doubt the truth of the Bible, I bring up these things because you claim the Book of Mormon fails certain tests you have come up with but when you apply the same tests to the Bible it also fails. So the test is faulty and hypocritical! I believe in BOTH books of scripture and I judge them with equal standards. I believe when understood correctly they are both absolutely true and both are of God.
you claim that "largeness of a church" proves truth or scientific believability? Then wouldnt that make the Muslims the true church? I do believe there is some truth in numbers that believe but more importantly is how they came to be followers. Were/are they forced to be members? Is it tradition? Is it that burning of the Spirit of Christ?

The CIA found remnants of Noah's Ark? Where and when? I havent heard this one.
Did they carbon date it? If so, then how come you believe in this carbon dating and not the others which prove men exsisted before Adam?

You then list the proof you need in order to believe the Book of Mormon, which FAR exceeds the proof you have needed in order to believe the Bible. If the Books do have the same source (God) then why is it that one must live up to a much higher standard of proof than the other?
You want cities, exact cities.
We claim the proof here is fragmented. And we also claim that God has not allowed that proof to come forward in full yet. Is keeping undeniable proof beyond God's behavior in times past? No. So hiding undeniable proof from the masses is still a possibility if He is to remain the same and require some faith.
There is proof just not undeniable proof, which is the way he has always proven things.
A newspaper event of JSmith's vision? After the respose he got from his "friend" the preacher when telling the story, is it any wonder he stopped telling so many people? If he was just a nut, why all the violence from church goers? Wouldnt his church just fall on it's own if it werent of God? And if it were who of them could stop it? Similar words were spoken by a very wise Pharisee in defense of the apostles!
Where was all the hoopla over the birth of Christ? Very few knew until later and then ofcourse as always the wolves decended. Do you think the "wolves decending on JSmith" would have had anything to do with the lack of publicity God wanted on this story before the plates were translated? True prophets get killed ya know when what they see or hear of God goes against the traditional belief system. Anytime God tries to correct religion by sending servants, they are always hated, abused, or killed by those who feel they know God well.
You want proof of horses? Do I then get my proof of the unicorns mentioned in the Old Testament?
Actually I heard a few years ago that some horse bones were found in Calif. that dated before the time of Cortez. BUT that is RUMOR and I do not know where the proof of this supposed finding is so I dont believe it yet and I DO NOT pass that along as truth...

You mock the BofM as being the most correct but it certainly has LESS flaws than the Bible. This because it has not passed through so many human hands which did not have had God's intrests at heart.

I've got to go and will return to the subject of JSmith's "gun battle" and then on with the rest of that letter.
Good Bye

I guess I'm really not done talking about the supposed gun "battle".
I have a few more questions & comments.
Do you really call 200 against 6 or 8 a battle? A battle?
Doesnt take a genius to figure out who will be the victors in this "battle" does it?
You do know there were clergy men involved in this "battle"? I wonder if they, along with the rest of these brave men, had the same Bible as I do where in it Christ says "As ye have done it unto one of the least of these my bretheren, ye have done it unto me"?
Obviously JSmith was seen as the very LEAST among them, right? Not even seen as worthy of life let alone a trial, right?

Maybe they should have gotten together and done what Christian religious leaders 100yrs before them had done with devils and such...tie him to a board so he cant get loose, then dunk him in a pond for a while. If he drowns then he wasnt really a devil and was innocent of the charge. (But darn it, he's dead...oh well!) If he floats, then he is charged with being a devil (supernatural powers must have enabled him to breath under water). He will be put to death for surviving the dunking test.
The religious people did this! Can you believe it? I can.

I have a minute again...
Sarah, you said in short, that Mormons brought most of the persecution upon themselves and gave the example of Sidney Rigdons fourth of July oration. You have been spoon fed another slanted view by anti mormon.com.
Have you read that oration in full? If so, and I doubt you have, what exactly did you find "threatening" and which part(s) do you find went against Christianity or the American way?
The oration is awsome and I cant find one word that would be offensive to a freedom loving God believer.
Youve been hood winked again, arent you mad at these sites for giving you partial truth and then your left here to defend the stupid lies and false accusations?
Dont trust them Sarah...they lie and call it a good work.

Mormon:

Although I would generally be anxious to write back to you and have plenty to write pertaining to your previous posts I do not have time to write back to you. I think it would be beneficial for us both if we did talk in private chat. I would also like to say that I never called Mormons ignorant, I know plenty of very intelligent Mormons and therefore would never say this. You see, you have twisted many of my words and took them as "funny and snide," however many of my analogies are only used in order to better clarify my point. I am certainly not trying to be rude/arrogant/condescending (whatever you claim it to be). My post "Bible Versus" has generated an extreme amount of posts and I do not wish to waste time with it anymore. Furthermore I would like to say if we are going to chat privately it is not going to be succesful if either of us reduce ourselves by using a patronizing tone (no I do not claim that you are the only one with this tone, I am guilty of it too).
I would also like to say that I find it extremely misleading that you use an example with Cortez in order to justify your judgement upon our church. Obviously Cortez was not a true Christian or else he would not have declared himself God or murdered innocent people. Therefore using Samuel Tarwater's (a Mormon)unjust killing in which he mercilessly mutilated a man's face with a sword and left him for dead does not justify that your church is a group of murderers or your church is wrong either. There is much else I would like to say but I am very tired of writing on this particular post. As I said I would not mind having a discussion with you privately, anytime you are on feel free to send me one.

God Bless you
Sarah

Mormon:

I do not agree that I was insinuating ignorance when I stated that Mormons are gullible. I will agree that it was not very appropriate for me to write this however it seemed proper to say at the time (considering many of the assumptions I make without looking at all the facts). You see I assume that you, as a Mormon, have not looked into the true history of your church, or lack the knowledge of those facts that challenge your religion. I was wrong in some ways. I have to retract the statement that I consider you gullible. However I would like to address the subject when you said "Yet when those same judging conditions, tests, and trials of our faith are turned around and applied equally to your own faith we are found to be no more gullible than they/you." This is false. I HAVE applied all the same tests to my faith as with yours. I have looked objectively at my faith because, to tell you the truth (and I know you would call me "unfaithful")I was doubting Christianity about six months ago. My parents went through a very bad divorce and it was hard for me to believe in any God. I had to research first of all whether God existed or not. Once I discovered that God indeed existed I then went on to studying Christianity. I looked on various websites that were challenging Christianity and then looked for the answers. I soon discovered that Christianity is the true faith, it surely surpasses any other religion based on evidence, miracles, and the accuracy of our scriptures. After accepting Christianity I was soon introduced to Mormonism by one of my friends. When he told me about your religion it seemed so right. I was thinking to myself that maybe we (Christians) had the wrong doctrine and our church was all wrong. Since I generally won't accept things without researching it first I took the next step. I went on plenty of websites that challenge your faith then I searched for the answers (just as I did with Christianity). The only problem is I couldn't find any answers! I talked to some of my Christian friends and they explained to me why they don't agree with Mormonism. Now once again my Mormon friend is trying to get me to join his Church. He advised me to watch General Conference this past week and to read the Book of Mormon. I don't have the heart to tell him it is a lost cause; however, I am trying to have an open mind and learn more about your church teachings. I even agreed to go to church with him one Sunday. I have researched your faith extensively and would like to know how people can believe in something that is obviously false (this is only to my understanding). The only reason I raise questions is because I would never accept anything based purely on feeling alone and would like these questions to be answered. Satan is a deceiver and can provide any sort of feeling that he desires (he can also literally talk to people if he wishes). Your statement "It's impossible to know the full truth in history because it totally depends on whose writing it and what their perspective and intended message is" is probably one of the most correct statements you've said on any of these posts. This is true; therefore I try to look at both sides objectively. I also did not say that I thought your church history was "sooo horrid," this statement would be very hypocritical (considering the crusades and other events). I was merely pointing out your history when you said that it was "my fathers who persecuted the members of your church." I would also like to address the subject of Joseph Smith's murder. Your church states he was killed like "a lamb to the slaughter," now how can this be when he was shooting into a crowd and killed two people before his death? Furthermore I also want to say that I commend you for defending your religion, I know I would do the same. You have many good points and I thank you for answering my questions. I will talk to you on private chat because I do not have the time or patients anymore to write on these posts. I look forward to our chat. I know that you are very intelligent and I really do love a good debate. I can't say that I actually took the time to read over many of your posts however I know that you probably wrote some decent arguments in them. I think we are all in search for the truth, I urge you to open your heart and look objectively at your religion, as will I. It is very difficult to discuss these issues when neither of us will make an effort seeing the other side.

God Bless you
Sarah

I had to run but Ive got another minute.
I'd like to finish up talking about the murder of JSmith.
I don't know which story or account you are reading but if things happened the way those who were in the room said that they did, JSmith did not just start shooting into a crowd. He was given a gun in the cell room because everyone there knew that the mob was there to "finish" things. When they stormed his cell, that is when he shot two men as THEY came in shooting to kill him. How is this a sin? He did what any normal human would do...he was afraid and that fight or flight response present in all humans was in him also. What would you have done? If you were being attacked and a mob was coming at you and you were cornered so that there was no place for flight, would you fight to defend your life? Even if you knew there was no chance you'd make it? He only said the part about the lamb because he knew he was turning himself in to be killed and he was going willingly. Ask your Mormon friend if you can borrow a video called "The martyrdom broadcast". It should be in his meeting house library. Just so you can get a second opinion.
Sarah, if this were 2 years ago I could open my mind to other opinions, BUT now that I have recieved a sure answer and an undeniable answer directly from God no other opinions can shake my faith. I would be denying Christ and I cannot do that. I would be denying the very real proof I was given. I experienced a miracle and even you said you would have believed had you been a witness to a miracle.
I did, however, look 2yrs ago and I did admit to myself that my mainstream Christian friends may be right about Mormonism. The arguments for both sides are pretty believable. Both sides seemed justified by scripture. This being the case one is left in a state of confusion because both cannot be right. Both may have some good but, both cannot be right.
I wanted to know what the difference was between us. I knew we were both believers in Christ and I knew that we both tried our best to do good, so I asked God what the difference was. I wanted to know what HE thought the difference was, I knew what men thought and now I had to know what He thought. He answered me and it was not with a "feeling" but was literal.

You said you had not read all I'd written because of time and patience.
I wont write anymore (because it really is getting to be long!)until you post saying that you have read what has already been written and then I will meet you here to talk on "chat" sometime soon.
Maybe some morning or early afternoon or on a Sunday afternoon. Let me know of a good time for you.
Thanks, Mormon

I had to run but Ive got another minute.
I'd like to finish up talking about the murder of JSmith.
I don't know which story or account you are reading but if things happened the way those who were in the room said that they did, JSmith did not just start shooting into a crowd. He was given a gun in the cell room because everyone there knew that the mob was there to "finish" things. When they stormed his cell, that is when he shot two men as THEY came in shooting to kill him. How is this a sin? He did what any normal human would do...he was afraid and that fight or flight response present in all humans was in him also. What would you have done? If you were being attacked and a mob was coming at you and you were cornered so that there was no place for flight, would you fight to defend your life? Even if you knew there was no chance you'd make it? He only said the part about the lamb because he knew he was turning himself in to be killed and he was going willingly. Ask your Mormon friend if you can borrow a video called "The martyrdom broadcast". It should be in his meeting house library. Just so you can get a second opinion.
Sarah, if this were 2 years ago I could open my mind to other opinions, BUT now that I have recieved a sure answer and an undeniable answer directly from God no other opinions can shake my faith. I would be denying Christ and I cannot do that. I would be denying the very real proof I was given. I experienced a miracle and even you said you would have believed had you been a witness to a miracle.
I did, however, look 2yrs ago and I did admit to myself that my mainstream Christian friends may be right about Mormonism. The arguments for both sides are pretty believable. Both sides seemed justified by scripture. This being the case one is left in a state of confusion because both cannot be right. Both may have some good but, both cannot be right.
I wanted to know what the difference was between us. I knew we were both believers in Christ and I knew that we both tried our best to do good, so I asked God what the difference was. I wanted to know what HE thought the difference was, I knew what men thought and now I had to know what He thought. He answered me and it was not with a "feeling" but was literal.

You said you had not read all I'd written because of time and patience.
I wont write anymore (because it really is getting to be long!)until you post saying that you have read what has already been written and then I will meet you here to talk on "chat" sometime soon.
Maybe some morning or early afternoon or on a Sunday afternoon. Let me know of a good time for you.
Thanks, Mormon