Jesus is a Mormon

[_OUT OF MY MISERY]

I know what Harmony was doing....I am glad she is saying this and making MEN think...Hopefully Harmony can accomplish this...She can hold her own...I would be so hurt if I was Jewish...I know too many Jewish people...and it justs hurts me to hear that.....

[_Jason Bourne]

Jason, just because someone asks questions you're afraid to doesn't mean a person is having a bad day.

I am not afraid to ask questions at all. These questoins were, however, nonsensical.

I sometimes wonder how deeply some LDS read the Bible.

I am well versed on the New Testament and semi OK with the Old Testament.

There were women prophets and spiritual leaders, before and after Paul's tirade.

Yes I know this. So how does this bear on the questoin "Were Women allowed to speak in a SM in the New Testament."

Beware of leagalism, Jason.

You birng this up because......?????

Legalism takes Paul 100% seriously...dangerous.

I don't think I defended Paul's position. But it is in holy writ and many of your EV cousins take it a heck of a lot more literally then LDS do.

And Harmony is right, the early church looked nothing like the LDS hierarchy.

That is not what she said. by the way, while I do not claim the LDS hierarchy is identical to the BYT Church the LDS Church is the only one that cliams literal apostles.

All the LDS church did was take a very crude reading of the Bible, take the bits that looked like they fit the LDS position, and left the rest in the "so long as it's correctly translated" category. Pastors, deacons, teachers, etc.

Hardly.

[_Sam Harris]

Jason,

So you have a "pretty good" knowledge of the New Testament, and you're "ok" with the Old Testament. If you're going to talk about the early church according to how the Bible portrays it, you need to be familiar with the whole. Far too many readers of the Bible see the Old Testament and the New Testament as two books with barely a connecting thread between them.

I'm sorry, but the LDS church does distort biblical scripture to meet its ends. See my thread on racism and the LDS church for more proof. The book I quoted claimed to use the Bible as a source, but he took every single scripture out of context. On amazon, even some LDS were ashamed of him.

I told you to beware of legalism, because the fact that you would deem harmony's question as silly showed a lack of wanting to think outside the box that has been prescribed for you. Legalist religion tells you what to think and to believe. That is why I have no affiliations with any church.

Don't get off the subject with Paul, you knew what harmony was asking. She was making a modern day comparison with the early church. And she is right, the LDS church is no where near being similar to the early Christian church. The temple rituals aren't even close to Jewish temple worship. The differences go on and on, but I know that folks like yourself will see what is put before you by your leaders.

Also, educate yourself on the differences between evangelicals and fundamentalist Christians. There is a difference, you can be evangelical and not fundamentalist. You can also be evangelical and fundamentalist, but I am the former, not the latter. I have never handed out anti material, I have not picket one temple, wiped my ass with any garments, nor have I spit on any LDS. Broaden your horizions beyond what propaganda SLC feeds you. I am evangelical because I am passionate about my faith, but it's exactly that, mine. Do what you wish with your beliefs, but don't ask me to do the same, I haven't asked you to walk the exact path that I'm on. To do so, THAT would be nonsensical.

[_Jason Bourne]

So you have a "pretty good" knowledge of the New Testament, and you're "ok" with the Old Testament. If you're going to talk about the early church according to how the Bible portrays it, you need to be familiar with the whole. Far too many readers of the Bible see the Old Testament and the New Testament as two books with barely a connecting thread between them.

I am quite confident of my Bible knowledge. Would you like to debate something?

I'm sorry, but the LDS church does distort biblical scripture to meet its ends. See my thread on racism and the LDS church for more proof. The book I quoted claimed to use the Bible as a source, but he took every single scripture out of context. On amazon, even some LDS were ashamed of him.

I am not sure about the racism issue because I do not know what you are talking about. But I do not think the LDS Church is any more distorting of the Bible then any other sect. All interpret it to their own ends. LDS interpret it through the lens of what they believe is modern revelation. You are evangelical. Evangelical interpret it through the distortions of reformed theology.

I told you to beware of legalism, because the fact that you would deem harmony's question as silly showed a lack of wanting to think outside the box that has been prescribed for you. Legalist religion tells you what to think and to believe. That is why I have no affiliations with any church.

Ok.

Don't get off the subject with Paul, you knew what harmony was asking. She was making a modern day comparison with the early church. And she is right, the LDS church is no where near being similar to the early Christian church.

I disagree in part.

The temple rituals aren't even close to Jewish temple worship. The differences go on and on, but I know that folks like yourself will see what is put before you by your leaders.

I see you do not understand my point of view in regards to much on thing LDS. However, you can go and study esoteric rites in early Christianity and you might be amazed at what you find that has shadows of the LDS temple endowment. But I do not argue that the LDS temple endowment is an ancient Christian rite. I do not think it is. It is either entirely created by Joseph Smith as part of his religious innovations by borrowing from Masonry and adding his own twists, or Masonry was a catalyst for God to reveal and esoteric rite that he wanted used in the LDS Church in these the latter days. For me, the verdict is still out as to which it is.

Also, educate yourself on the differences between evangelicals and fundamentalist Christians. There is a difference, you can be evangelical and not fundamentalist. You can also be evangelical and fundamentalist, but I am the former, not the latter

.

The only EVs I know are rather conservative and fundamental. If there are liberal ones out there they are awful quiet.

have never handed out anti material, I have not picket one temple, wiped my ass with any garments, nor have I spit on any LDS. Broaden your horizions beyond what propaganda SLC feeds you. I am evangelical because I am passionate about my faith, but it's exactly that, mine. Do what you wish with your beliefs, but don't ask me to do the same, I haven't asked you to walk the exact path that I'm on. To do so, THAT would be nonsensical.

I have not got a clue as to why you are ranting at me like this. Your post is ad hominem and if you have followed anything I write here you will understand that I have quite broad horizons. In fact, I often am on the same page as Harmony on some things. But this thread was just rather goofy in my opinion.

Sorry that pisses you off so much

[_Brackite]

Hi There Jason,

You wrote and quoted from Harmony:

1. So... does that mean that Jesus is no longer a Jew? That he's a Mormon now?

Uhhhhh....NO. One can be a Jew and a Mormon. But that is not the point. I think you know this. [/quote]

Not according to Brigham Young. Here is what Brigham Young stated:

We might say much on this point, showing you why things are as they are concerning the inhabitants of the earth receiving or rejecting the Gospel. Do you suppose they believe in Jesus Christ at Jerusalem? Can you make a Christian of a Jew? I tell you, nay. If a Jew comes into this Church, and honestly professes to be a Saint, a follower of Christ, and if the blood of Judah is in his veins, he will apostatize. He may have been born and bred a Jew, have the face of a Jew, speak the language of the Jews, and have attended to all the ceremonies of the Jewish religion, and have openly professed to be a Jew all his days; but I will tell you a secret-there is not a particle of the blood of Judaism in him if he become a true Christian, a Saint of God; for if there is, he will most assuredly leave the Church of Christ, or that blood will be purged out of his veins. We have men among us who were Jews, and became converted from Judaism. For instance, here is brother Neibaur; do I believe there is one particle of the blood of Judah in his veins? No, not so much as could be seen on the point of the finest cambric needle, through a microscope with a magnifying power of two millions. This is a secret that you will perhaps find out, in a coming day, to your satisfaction.
(Journal of Discourses, Volume 2: Bold Emphaisi Mine.)

It looks like that Jesus is Not a Mormon.

[_Jason Bourne]

Hi There Jason,

You wrote and quoted from Harmony:

1. So... does that mean that Jesus is no longer a Jew? That he's a Mormon now?

Uhhhhh....NO. One can be a Jew and a Mormon. But that is not the point. I think you know this.

Not according to Brigham Young. Here is what Brigham Young stated:

We might say much on this point, showing you why things are as they are concerning the inhabitants of the earth receiving or rejecting the Gospel. Do you suppose they believe in Jesus Christ at Jerusalem? Can you make a Christian of a Jew? I tell you, nay. If a Jew comes into this Church, and honestly professes to be a Saint, a follower of Christ, and if the blood of Judah is in his veins, he will apostatize. He may have been born and bred a Jew, have the face of a Jew, speak the language of the Jews, and have attended to all the ceremonies of the Jewish religion, and have openly professed to be a Jew all his days; but I will tell you a secret-there is not a particle of the blood of Judaism in him if he become a true Christian, a Saint of God; for if there is, he will most assuredly leave the Church of Christ, or that blood will be purged out of his veins. We have men among us who were Jews, and became converted from Judaism. For instance, here is brother Neibaur; do I believe there is one particle of the blood of Judah in his veins? No, not so much as could be seen on the point of the finest cambric needle, through a microscope with a magnifying power of two millions. This is a secret that you will perhaps find out, in a coming day, to your satisfaction.
(Journal of Discourses, Volume 2: Bold Emphaisi Mine.)

It looks like that Jesus is Not a Mormon.[/quote]

Well I'll be darned!!! Another weird and far out Brigham Youngism!!!!


I stand corrected!!!! ;-)

[_Runtu]

The reason we know that Jesus isn't a Mormon is that he

1. Has long hair and a beard.
2. Doesn't wear a suit.
3. Drinks.
4. Prefers sandals.
5. Hangs out with women.

[_Sam Harris]

I love the posters here. The minute you stop bending over, you're guilty of ad hom, even if their response post had more to do with asking the person who started the post what their problem was, rather than debating the issue.

Jason, I do not care what your leanings are towards LDS. I've met some strange people on the net this past year who are all over the spectrum with regards to "belief", yet swear up and down every aspect of the LDS faith is legit. The temple ceremony was taken from Masonic ritual. You mean to tell me that early Jews were shaking each other's hands in between fast, grain, wine, offerings?

Since you're so knowledgeable about the Bible, tell me how many different types of psalms are there? What is the overall theme of the psalms? The central theme of the Old Testament, and the purpose of it? Can you tell me how the books came to be in the Old Testament (we know some of the ways New Testament canon came into place, but how did the Old Testament canon come to be accepted)? As the books progress, what is God trying to tell the Israelite people? What are the different genres of literature in the Old Testament?

I ask these specific questions because when I was just reading the Old Testament dry, I had no idea what I was reading, and little made sense. Once I resume my studies, and we get into the New Testament, which you seem to be so knowledgable in, perhaps we can talk about that. But if you don't mind, can you point me out to sources which prove that the early church of the New Testament is similar to that of the LDS church?

Again, I ask you to try, just try my dear, to differentiate between fundamentalist Christians and Evangelicals. Fundies are an annoying, pissy lot, but not all evangelicals are fundamentalist. Not all evangelicals think everyone outside their good graces is going to hell. Not all evangelicals fit your stereotype. Can you do that? If you can't, then I'll just leave you alone. But if you can, let me know, ok? And as far as not knowing what your stance is on the LDS church, your interaction with me seems pretty telling. But if you want to elaborate more on what you think, go right ahead, I would love to know. Since those who made themselves my opponents here have not "done their homework" on me and what I believe, I'm not extending the courtesy to anyone else either. But when I see someone bashing evangelicals without knowing truly who and what they are, when I see constant defense of the indefensible, like the questions harmony raised, when I see a person who wants to initially question someone's day instead of answering the question, I see typical closed-minded Mormon behavior. If you're not Mormon, yet you feel you need to be a sword of truth for Mormons given the things that aren't true, I'd like to know why, if you are ok with that. If you are something else, please enlighten me. Mind you, I've seen folk who claim to believe in no God, yet believe in the mystical experiences of the LDS church, who think it's ok to bash the archaeology of the Bible, yet claim that the Book of Mormon archaeology just hasn't been discovered yet, so I'd love to see just what you can bring to the table. Not to laugh, just to be educated.


Bible distortions as a whole come from mere reading, not study. I have come to learn this over the past year or so of my own study. I know all too well how people can twist scripture. Take the scripture in Matthew about the two folks in the field at Christ's coming, and how one would be left? Tell me, who is it that's left? And why do you think so? What about Romans 2: 14-16? How does that address the claim that only Christians are going to heaven, and that God's wrath is simply the rule for everyone else?

As far as the LDS church twisting scripture with regards to racism, see the following, for a complete view of what I'm talking about, you'll have to see my thread on it. I haven't created many here, so it shouldn't be hard to find.

Now, now that the above debacle is over, let me touch on a few things. First of all, the church was not “persecuted” because of Blacks not having the priesthood; it was rightfully questioned, given the change with regards to race matters in the nation. If your nation as a whole is seeking to dispose of racism, follow suit. Also, with regards to the Aaronic priesthood, please show me in the Bible where the words “Aaronic priesthood are”…and also tell me how one should apply those words. Because in my reading (and college studies) of the Old Testament, I came to find out, that the Levites were not priests. Sorry Mormons, but your doctrine is wrong. Only the descendants directly from Aaron were allowed to be priests and officiate in the temple. The descendants of Levi were set aside so that there would always be someone on hand to give administrative help to the descendants of Aaron in the temple. Due to the large volume of Old Testament sacrifice, the small number of priests could not take care of those duties all alone. Also, the Levites were charged by God to assemble and disassemble the tabernacle during the journey in the wilderness. They were exempt from military duty because of this as well. For reference, you can see Numbers 1:47-54.

This is all I could find on that issue that doesn’t have an LDS distortion.

[url] http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?se ... spanend=73[\url]

With regards to John 15:16, being chosen by God means you are his ambassador. Not some ticket holder to a heavenly country club. Once again, wrong doctrine. With regards to the Lord’s choice of who would hold the priesthood, that was made in Old Testament times, and the “limitation” was banished with the birth, ministry, and death of Christ. In Him, all divisions were supposed to have ceased. But we know people can be myopic at times.

With regards to Christ not going among the gentiles, the message was to go to the lost house of Israel first. They were the ones who were supposed to be God’s ambassadors, does it not make sense to fix them first, his representatives, before going to everyone else? That’s like trying to discipline someone else’s child when you have some bad ass kids. C’mon, man! And as far as the Canaanite woman, Christ was testing her faith in Matthew 15:26. He often did that. When Christ was resurrected, he told his disciples to go and preach the Gospel all over the earth. Not only that, but there are many instances in the Bible were Christ was healing and dealing with people who were not Jewish. The Samaritan woman at the well, the Samaritan man with leprosy, this Canaanite woman. If Jesus was as prejudiced as this Mormon fool is making him out to be, would he have done this?

With regards to circumcision, the passage in Genesis 17, the word forever does not come up. With regards to the covenant God makes with Abram however, that covenant was a “forever covenant”. Once again, word twisting. Yeah folks, as long as it’s correctly translated. Revoked? Um, what do fundie LDS not understand about the law being abolished by Christ’s sacrifice?

Women speaking in church. Any Bible scholar who is not fundamentalist in his leanings would carefully scrutinize Paul. First of all, his writings were influenced by the society he lived in, as well as his opinion. As were all the writings in the Bible. Legalism and the Bible don’t mix. I attend Pat Robertson’s university, and even they tell us not to be legalists with regards to the Bible. But then again, that’s the magic of accreditation.

The Law of Moses was abolished by Christ, true, but Isaiah and the Psalms speak of a Messiah that is coming to set his people free. The law was in place to be a guide that would get the people of Israel in place. It had to be strict, because early Israelites were polytheists, steeped in the cultures surrounding them in the Near East. They came out of Egypt with Egypt’s influence. There are over 40 borrowed Egyptian words in the Old Testament. The name Moses can be translated into both Hebrew and Ancient Egyptian. In fact, the name “Hatmose” means “brother of Moses”. Most Israelites up until the final exile of both Israel and Judah were worshipping Idols. They didn’t understand the commandment “ye shall have no other Gods before me”. That meant “after me”, too. The Israelites of that time were engaged in a very tentative monotheism. Prior to Sinai, there was no commandment to worship only Yahweh, and even after that command, it took hundreds of years to get used to. It wasn’t until the exile, the final judgment and wrath of God over Old Testament Israel for its idolatry, that Israel got the picture. The Old Testament law was strict for a reason. But upon the return from exile, this law turned into legalism, and was popularly known as the “Tradition of the Elders”. That’s where the Pharisees and Sadducees came from.

Divorce not being allowed? Um, see Deuteronomy 24:1-4. This doesn’t speak of a prohibition of Divorce, rather a prohibition of marrying someone you already divorced, because she has slept with another man. Again, Mosaic law was so strict as to work the polytheism out of Israel. In fertility cults, you slept with whoever whenever the god you worshipped needed some prodding. Makes you want to go “blech”. Some people, you just don’t know where they’ve been.

The church without prejudice? Puh-lease! Allowing the poor black folk to sit in church with you is not the same as “separate but equal”, which many churches were prior to societal integration in this country. There were black priests and bishops long before Joseph Smith got that idea in his head at 14. Not to mention the Quakers and Shakers (not to be confused) treated blacks as equal from the beginning. True equals. Sorry Mormons, you lose out again.

And as far as apostles and prophets, many Christian churches have that today…but those men are seen merely as great teachers, not given the power the LDS church gives its leaders. And for good reason. Look at how LDS leaders spouting off “scripture” with their “thus saith the Lords” have influenced this sick man.

Ok, with regards to the whole "God's choice" in having blacks hold the priesthood; again, the LDS church has it all wrong. Cain was not cursed with black skin. Cain was given a "mark", the scriptures do not say what that mark was, and it was so anyone who found him would not kill him (strange, because there wasn't supposed to be anyone else around! Ah, legalism...explain that one *grin*). It took an addendum to the Bible in the form of the LDS canon to explain that one. Hence, the dude quotes Moses. And I stick an extra special finger up at him.

As far as the meanings of the names, see the hyperlinks for the truth. And the wives of the sons of Noah were never named in the Bible. And who Enoch preached to wasn't mentioned either. Only that he "walked with God" (Genesis 5:24). Again the church had to look to an addendum to justify this ridiculous claim.

With regards to Isaac not marrying a Canaanite woman because of "the mark", WTF? No, Abraham simply wanted "one of his own people" for Isaac. Probably because the culture and traditions were familiar, not because of black skin! That was as common back then as it is today, marrying people who share your background and values. But given the wealth of information we have today, more people are crossing those boundary lines, praise God. If they hadn’t I wouldn’t be here. What are these fundie TBMs seeing when they read the Bible? Probably nothing, because I've seen many a TBM carry only a triple in my sojourn in the church, and any reading of the Bible by the LDS church seems to need to go with a whole bunch of bogus GA commentary...to keep the members from questioning too much.

These are my words. These are my observations. Please explain to me how the LDS church is correct in the assumptions made above using Biblical scripture.

And for the record, I really hate it when people try to accuse me of being mean and giving a bunch of "ad hom" (you'll know when I do that), simply because I point it out in them first. Maturity, anyone?

[_Sam Harris]

The reason we know that Jesus isn't a Mormon is that he

1. Has long hair and a beard.
2. Doesn't wear a suit.
3. Drinks.
4. Prefers sandals.
5. Hangs out with women.

:-)

[_Jason Bourne]

I love the posters here. The minute you stop bending over, you're guilty of ad hom, even if their response post had more to do with asking the person who started the post what their problem was, rather than debating the issue.

Jason, I do not care what your leanings are towards LDS. I've met some strange people on the net this past year who are all over the spectrum with regards to "belief", yet swear up and down every aspect of the LDS faith is legit. The temple ceremony was taken from Masonic ritual. You mean to tell me that early Jews were shaking each other's hands in between fast, grain, wine, offerings?

Since you're so knowledgeable about the Bible, tell me how many different types of psalms are there? What is the overall theme of the psalms? The central theme of the Old Testament, and the purpose of it? Can you tell me how the books came to be in the Old Testament (we know some of the ways New Testament canon came into place, but how did the Old Testament canon come to be accepted)? As the books progress, what is God trying to tell the Israelite people? What are the different genres of literature in the Old Testament?

I ask these specific questions because when I was just reading the Old Testament dry, I had no idea what I was reading, and little made sense. Once I resume my studies, and we get into the New Testament, which you seem to be so knowledgable in, perhaps we can talk about that. But if you don't mind, can you point me out to sources which prove that the early church of the New Testament is similar to that of the LDS church?

Again, I ask you to try, just try my dear, to differentiate between fundamentalist Christians and Evangelicals. Fundies are an annoying, pissy lot, but not all evangelicals are fundamentalist. Not all evangelicals think everyone outside their good graces is going to hell. Not all evangelicals fit your stereotype. Can you do that? If you can't, then I'll just leave you alone. But if you can, let me know, ok? And as far as not knowing what your stance is on the LDS church, your interaction with me seems pretty telling. But if you want to elaborate more on what you think, go right ahead, I would love to know. Since those who made themselves my opponents here have not "done their homework" on me and what I believe, I'm not extending the courtesy to anyone else either. But when I see someone bashing evangelicals without knowing truly who and what they are, when I see constant defense of the indefensible, like the questions harmony raised, when I see a person who wants to initially question someone's day instead of answering the question, I see typical closed-minded Mormon behavior. If you're not Mormon, yet you feel you need to be a sword of truth for Mormons given the things that aren't true, I'd like to know why, if you are ok with that. If you are something else, please enlighten me. Mind you, I've seen folk who claim to believe in no God, yet believe in the mystical experiences of the LDS church, who think it's ok to bash the archaeology of the Bible, yet claim that the Book of Mormon archaeology just hasn't been discovered yet, so I'd love to see just what you can bring to the table. Not to laugh, just to be educated.


Bible distortions as a whole come from mere reading, not study. I have come to learn this over the past year or so of my own study. I know all too well how people can twist scripture. Take the scripture in Matthew about the two folks in the field at Christ's coming, and how one would be left? Tell me, who is it that's left? And why do you think so? What about Romans 2: 14-16? How does that address the claim that only Christians are going to heaven, and that God's wrath is simply the rule for everyone else?

As far as the LDS church twisting scripture with regards to racism, see the following, for a complete view of what I'm talking about, you'll have to see my thread on it. I haven't created many here, so it shouldn't be hard to find.

Now, now that the above debacle is over, let me touch on a few things. First of all, the church was not “persecuted” because of Blacks not having the priesthood; it was rightfully questioned, given the change with regards to race matters in the nation. If your nation as a whole is seeking to dispose of racism, follow suit. Also, with regards to the Aaronic priesthood, please show me in the Bible where the words “Aaronic priesthood are”…and also tell me how one should apply those words. Because in my reading (and college studies) of the Old Testament, I came to find out, that the Levites were not priests. Sorry Mormons, but your doctrine is wrong. Only the descendants directly from Aaron were allowed to be priests and officiate in the temple. The descendants of Levi were set aside so that there would always be someone on hand to give administrative help to the descendants of Aaron in the temple. Due to the large volume of Old Testament sacrifice, the small number of priests could not take care of those duties all alone. Also, the Levites were charged by God to assemble and disassemble the tabernacle during the journey in the wilderness. They were exempt from military duty because of this as well. For reference, you can see Numbers 1:47-54.

This is all I could find on that issue that doesn’t have an LDS distortion.

[url] http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?se ... spanend=73[\url]

With regards to John 15:16, being chosen by God means you are his ambassador. Not some ticket holder to a heavenly country club. Once again, wrong doctrine. With regards to the Lord’s choice of who would hold the priesthood, that was made in Old Testament times, and the “limitation” was banished with the birth, ministry, and death of Christ. In Him, all divisions were supposed to have ceased. But we know people can be myopic at times.

With regards to Christ not going among the gentiles, the message was to go to the lost house of Israel first. They were the ones who were supposed to be God’s ambassadors, does it not make sense to fix them first, his representatives, before going to everyone else? That’s like trying to discipline someone else’s child when you have some bad ass kids. C’mon, man! And as far as the Canaanite woman, Christ was testing her faith in Matthew 15:26. He often did that. When Christ was resurrected, he told his disciples to go and preach the Gospel all over the earth. Not only that, but there are many instances in the Bible were Christ was healing and dealing with people who were not Jewish. The Samaritan woman at the well, the Samaritan man with leprosy, this Canaanite woman. If Jesus was as prejudiced as this Mormon fool is making him out to be, would he have done this?

With regards to circumcision, the passage in Genesis 17, the word forever does not come up. With regards to the covenant God makes with Abram however, that covenant was a “forever covenant”. Once again, word twisting. Yeah folks, as long as it’s correctly translated. Revoked? Um, what do fundie LDS not understand about the law being abolished by Christ’s sacrifice?

Women speaking in church. Any Bible scholar who is not fundamentalist in his leanings would carefully scrutinize Paul. First of all, his writings were influenced by the society he lived in, as well as his opinion. As were all the writings in the Bible. Legalism and the Bible don’t mix. I attend Pat Robertson’s university, and even they tell us not to be legalists with regards to the Bible. But then again, that’s the magic of accreditation.

The Law of Moses was abolished by Christ, true, but Isaiah and the Psalms speak of a Messiah that is coming to set his people free. The law was in place to be a guide that would get the people of Israel in place. It had to be strict, because early Israelites were polytheists, steeped in the cultures surrounding them in the Near East. They came out of Egypt with Egypt’s influence. There are over 40 borrowed Egyptian words in the Old Testament. The name Moses can be translated into both Hebrew and Ancient Egyptian. In fact, the name “Hatmose” means “brother of Moses”. Most Israelites up until the final exile of both Israel and Judah were worshipping Idols. They didn’t understand the commandment “ye shall have no other Gods before me”. That meant “after me”, too. The Israelites of that time were engaged in a very tentative monotheism. Prior to Sinai, there was no commandment to worship only Yahweh, and even after that command, it took hundreds of years to get used to. It wasn’t until the exile, the final judgment and wrath of God over Old Testament Israel for its idolatry, that Israel got the picture. The Old Testament law was strict for a reason. But upon the return from exile, this law turned into legalism, and was popularly known as the “Tradition of the Elders”. That’s where the Pharisees and Sadducees came from.

Divorce not being allowed? Um, see Deuteronomy 24:1-4. This doesn’t speak of a prohibition of Divorce, rather a prohibition of marrying someone you already divorced, because she has slept with another man. Again, Mosaic law was so strict as to work the polytheism out of Israel. In fertility cults, you slept with whoever whenever the god you worshipped needed some prodding. Makes you want to go “blech”. Some people, you just don’t know where they’ve been.

The church without prejudice? Puh-lease! Allowing the poor black folk to sit in church with you is not the same as “separate but equal”, which many churches were prior to societal integration in this country. There were black priests and bishops long before Joseph Smith got that idea in his head at 14. Not to mention the Quakers and Shakers (not to be confused) treated blacks as equal from the beginning. True equals. Sorry Mormons, you lose out again.

And as far as apostles and prophets, many Christian churches have that today…but those men are seen merely as great teachers, not given the power the LDS church gives its leaders. And for good reason. Look at how LDS leaders spouting off “scripture” with their “thus saith the Lords” have influenced this sick man.

Ok, with regards to the whole "God's choice" in having blacks hold the priesthood; again, the LDS church has it all wrong. Cain was not cursed with black skin. Cain was given a "mark", the scriptures do not say what that mark was, and it was so anyone who found him would not kill him (strange, because there wasn't supposed to be anyone else around! Ah, legalism...explain that one *grin*). It took an addendum to the Bible in the form of the LDS canon to explain that one. Hence, the dude quotes Moses. And I stick an extra special finger up at him.

As far as the meanings of the names, see the hyperlinks for the truth. And the wives of the sons of Noah were never named in the Bible. And who Enoch preached to wasn't mentioned either. Only that he "walked with God" (Genesis 5:24). Again the church had to look to an addendum to justify this ridiculous claim.

With regards to Isaac not marrying a Canaanite woman because of "the mark", WTF? No, Abraham simply wanted "one of his own people" for Isaac. Probably because the culture and traditions were familiar, not because of black skin! That was as common back then as it is today, marrying people who share your background and values. But given the wealth of information we have today, more people are crossing those boundary lines, praise God. If they hadn’t I wouldn’t be here. What are these fundie TBMs seeing when they read the Bible? Probably nothing, because I've seen many a TBM carry only a triple in my sojourn in the church, and any reading of the Bible by the LDS church seems to need to go with a whole bunch of bogus GA commentary...to keep the members from questioning too much.

These are my words. These are my observations. Please explain to me how the LDS church is correct in the assumptions made above using Biblical scripture.

And for the record, I really hate it when people try to accuse me of being mean and giving a bunch of "ad hom" (you'll know when I do that), simply because I point it out in them first. Maturity, anyone?

Hi,

Too much above to deal with at one time. Please let me know which items you want to start with?