Ask a Mormon....almost anything.

Not to worry, it is fairly typical for some to try such pathetic tricks. But they are easily seen through.

 

That isn't history. That is you inventing a false history in order to give meaning to parts of the bible that you don't understand So you try to retrofit history and science into a biblical model.

The "history" that you claim of the bible being completed in 54 CE ought to be rejected because it isn't true.

 

Well, so much for the polite way of saying "No, you're just friggin' wrong Chief."

I suppose my being overly tactful is a waste at times.

 

No, it avoids the issue we were discussing altogether.

 

Refresh my memory. The thread is long and has been largely sabotaged by irritated third parties.

 

Sorry. I just noticed that what Cupid Dave is implying about your religion, that it is after the fact and so it is somehow denying the gospel is exactly the problem with his approach to the bible.

I aplogize for being blunt, but while he is accusing your religion of being erroneous for being beyond the 2nd century gospel, he attempts to form his own religion by making "interpretations" that he claims are extensions of the text. He's guilty of the very things he find fault with in your belief structure.

But in his private manifesto here he is making the argument to justify such behavior and corrupting doctrine:

http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id83.html


Double standards are annoying. Personally, I find a lot at fault with Mormonism. I have really good justifications for believing you are all just duped. I don't like that the LDS Church is actively engaged in politics while being tax exempt.. I would prefer you give up your 501c status if you are going to try to collectively pursue changing law. But, I don't really care how you practice or worship. And no other christian organization or individual should question the validity of your beliefs because yours are equally as demonstrable as any other christian group's.

I'm glad you're a Mormon if it makes you a better person. If it works for you and you aren't hurting anyone else by engaging in that particular flavor of rituals and traditions.


Don't let anyone try to corner you into a false dichotomy of "denying history" because your belief heirarchy is slightly skewed from theirs.

 

Forget it. The avoidances are boring me now.

 

Well, the burden of avoidance is now on you, I asked you to refresh my memory so I could address it.

It's all on you now chief.

 

What color are your magic underpants?

 

Oh don't worry in the slightest, my patience for creative revisionism was wearing thin. Besides, sometimes it comes best from a third party. I was just trying to be nice at first because he was being polite. But the pattern was all too evident. Should have put a stop to it earlier.

Cheers.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, typically they are white when you buy them, unless they are washed with something red....then they are pink.

But they do come in tactical colors for members of the military.

 

Glad you could be so entertained.

 

Did you enjoy the "Book of Mormon" show on Broadway? It opened in London yesterday.

 

Well, I'm not in London, so no. Didn't know they had one actually.

 

While some may regard it as humorous, And I can see how it might be, I personally find it a bit offensive. What I've seen of it takes several rather mean pokes at our religion, and it's not funny to me, which really is saying something. Neither do I believe it accurately portrays the actuallity of our religion and what we believe. Perhaps Im thinking of something else, but if it's what I think it is, then I've shared my thoughts.

 

The British LDS had no less than three ads in the programme for the show. They're putting a brave face on it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-21585803

 

Your faith and religion can't withstand some jabs by a play??? LOL!!!!

 

It has withstood much more than just another mockery play. Obviously, and we're still here, growing quite well.

So what questions do you still have? What draws you here?

 

When O said that, I wasn't speaking for my faith or religion. That's going on just fine, and no play will change that. I was speaking for myself. Me, as a person, is offended by the play. I can laugh at Mormon jokes as well as the next girl, but that's usually with friends, who I know don't mean anything by it, and if I taunt them back we laugh together. I was not asked how the Church as a whole feels about this play. I hav no idea what they said. But me as a person, I am offended. That doesn't mean I'm going to boycott it, or try to prevent anyone from seeing it. It's your own choice what you enjoy, but I will tell you that it offends me.

 

I know all I need to about the LDS...and even if I asked questions they might be a little "inconvenient" (pointed, inescapable, in blue, not quoted correctly,) ...and so will be avoided....


Whta draws YOU to MY posts???

 

Quote them conveniently and I'll answer them. It isn't that I can't answer them, it is that I won't answer them in the current format because you insist on being difficult.

I see you as a sort of rehabilitation project at this point. Purely intellectual philanthropic pursuit on my part.

 

Okay, I guess my point is....was Brigham Young being "sinful" when he engaged in polygamy....or did God approve....but then later disapprove?

 

No, at the time it was authorized by God, and yes, it was later revoked. We've not practiced it since. Of course there are fringe splinter groups, but they are not associated in any way with the mainstream church. Practicing it is a quick ticket to excommunication.

 

So then whay Mormons say is that Chrisyianity did not really exist until 1900 year after Jesus, when Smith received all the true stuff thatis that Gospel which they have recntly been trying to preach over all the world and the end as they see, will come with the real 1000 years?

And, I assume that when the 1000 years ends, the devil and satan re-appear and the beast with the seven heads returns>

 

Well some people here are wrong, for sure, but this 54AD is pretty much certified as close a date as the 1054AD that sets the 1000 years to the prophecy:


According to the Church Fathers, Matthew wrote his Gospel while Claudius was emperor of Rome. Tiberius Claudius Drusus Nero Germanicus (10 BC - 54 AD) was the son of Drusus Germanicus,

http://www.agapebiblestudy.com/Matthew_Gospel/Matthew_Lesson_1.htm


This certainly restricts Matthew to something at 54AD or just before.
The same somewhat arguable date for the actual Great Schism of Greek Orthodoxy suggests that the 1000 years can be maintained within the flexibility of those two end points, but certainly within a +/- error of very insignificance.
The 1000 years specifically mentioned in the prophecy for the first reign of Jesus, as the only name that will rule in the heavens is further attested to by the coinciding disappearance for a millennium of all the Greek and Roman Gods and their Myths.

These facts and the specific prophecy also seem to have ended with a revival of the Roman and Greek Cultures at the point in History we call The Renaissance.

Clearly you who have invested in arguments against such evidence will be slow or remiss in accepting or validating these things, but that us consistent with being wrong and steadfastly so otherwise.
I look for the impartial readers here to choose between these arguments, of course.