Political Crossfire Forums

[ricekrispies187]

First off, please show where did I say that you do not believe in or love God. I did not contradict myself, I was making a statement about being told you (not necessarily yourself, but non-Mormons) being told they will go to hell because they do not "choose the right"
Second, there was no agrument, disagreeing is not the same as an argument.
Third, you may not call anyone an unbeliever, but yes it is used.
Fourth, I have nothing against Mormons or any other religious affliations.
Fifth, I never said anyone was forced to perform any rituals whatsoever, I said at the request of others childern were asked to perform rituals.
Sixth, The difference between a church meeting house and a temple may vary in your religion. The Vatican, The Buddisht, The Muslims, may disagree with you on this subject, as these are all considered Holy Ground.
The Vatican is open for tours, it is really a beautiful "House of God". All I was stating is that there are other Houses of God than the one belonging to the Mormons, ones that you can walk through with attaining any certain privilege to do so. That you can feel the presence of God anywhere that you choose to without being baptized by any church. The Kingdom of God is within. God is with you always. You may have been taught that you have to be perfect to feel this, but some of us with imperfections feel it all the time.

You may not have been an "accomplish" to what I have learned being the parent of a Mormon and having to have lessons on how to raise your child as a Mormon, although I am not Mormon, nor do I intend to be. These are things that I have learned first hand. It is very arrogant to take a position on the church doctrines and what other members say or do, unless you are there to confront, confirm or deny what they are saying to others. This may not be your stance or the "official" stance, these are facts on what has happened in my life with Your church and their members.

[usuchamp]

ricekrispies187 wrote: First off, please show where did I say that you do not believe in or love God. I did not contradict myself, I was making a statement about being told you (not necessarily yourself, but non-Mormons) being told they will go to hell because they do not "choose the right"
Second, there was no agrument, disagreeing is not the same as an argument.
Third, you may not call anyone an unbeliever, but yes it is used.
Fourth, I have nothing against Mormons or any other religious affliations.
Fifth, I never said anyone was forced to perform any rituals whatsoever, I said at the request of others childern were asked to perform rituals.
Sixth, The difference between a church meeting house and a temple may vary in your religion. The Vatican, The Buddisht, The Muslims, may disagree with you on this subject, as these are all considered Holy Ground.
The Vatican is open for tours, it is really a beautiful "House of God". All I was stating is that there are other Houses of God than the one belonging to the Mormons, ones that you can walk through with attaining any certain privilege to do so. That you can feel the presence of God anywhere that you choose to without being baptized by any church. The Kingdom of God is within. God is with you always. You may have been taught that you have to be perfect to feel this, but some of us with imperfections feel it all the time.

You may not have been an "accomplish" to what I have learned being the parent of a Mormon and having to have lessons on how to raise your child as a Mormon, although I am not Mormon, nor do I intend to be. These are things that I have learned first hand. It is very arrogant to take a position on the church doctrines and what other members say or do, unless you are there to confront, confirm or deny what they are saying to others. This may not be your stance or the "official" stance, these are facts on what has happened in my life with Your church and their members.

Looking back at your original post, I suppose I missed the link between "Therefore, you do not believe in God, and if you do, you do not believe in the right God." Since I didn't catch the connection between going to heck and not believing in God, it looked to me like you were making conclusions about church members. My mistake.

It is an argument in that disagreement is being expressed. If you wish to disagree with the philosophies and practices of the LDS church, you have the right to.

Yes, the church asks for volunteers to perform ceremonies.

There are many holy places, which may include other places of other religions. There is a difference between a holy or sacred place and a House of the Lord.

The Holy Ghost is a comforter, light, and truth-bearer. The Holy Ghost is often called "the still, small voice." Nonmembers may feel the influence of the Holy Ghost, but they do not have the gift of the companionship of the Holy Ghost, which allows for constant guidance and protection in life.

[ideal]

I would consider myself antimormon, but have strict rules against criticizing any religion that I don't consider to be harmful. That being said, I'll just point out that it's contradictory for a religion to use the bible in conjunction with any other holy text.


Revelation 22:18

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

[wormwood]

Quote: Revelation 22:18

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: In all fairness to the Mormons, there was no "book" (the canon) when John wrote this...AND John was a crazy man that wrote many prophecies with the exact same imagery, and they were all about Rome and not the end of the world. Any other biblical reasons?

[ideal]

That wasn't actually an argument against Mormonism, as I said I was going to do that. I was just pointing out why it seems foolish to use the Bible and a second religious text.

[sLiPpY]

I personally like the LDS. At least, the revelation from Gawd, took place on the North American continent.

Why is it most American's prefer to follow some Aramaic speaking Jew, whose story was exaggerated and blown out of proportion by Greek speaking people? Later some text were accepted and others ignored during the Canonization process, at the behest of the Rome?

Sure it's a copy catism...but at least it's relevant to the North American culture and time.

Although, I generally don't see the point in Religion...all I can say is "Buy American!"

[LiquidCrack]

i wanna throw something in here

ok, im raised catholic, and hence, i can't stand it.

im dating a girl who is converted mormon, former catholic.

its serious, and we're probably going to get married. she wants me to convert so we can have the temple marriage, i could care less, im pretty much agnostic, and she knows that, so i see no problem, taking some classes and giving her the wedding she wants. what im wondering is if after i convert and start skipping services and rituals, what then?

personaly im anti-religion, not that it shouldn't exist, just not in public. its one of thsoe things you should just keep to yourself. i like ideas, not beliefs, beliefs are hard to change and usually get people killed.

so anyways, what to do guys? im crazy about her, so dont suggest i break it off, cause the sex is way to good... i mean i love her.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

sLiPpY wrote: I personally like the LDS. At least, the revelation from Gawd, took place on the North American continent.

Why is it most American's prefer to follow some Aramaic speaking Jew, whose story was exaggerated and blown out of proportion by Greek speaking people? Later some text were accepted and others ignored during the Canonization process, at the behest of the Rome?

Sure it's a copy catism...but at least it's relevant to the North American culture and time.

Although, I generally don't see the point in Religion...all I can say is "Buy American!"

Will you marry me?

[chrisbrowning]

It kills me that the LDS church tells South Americans that they're descendants of the original people of Israel, despite overwhelming evidence that they actually descended from East Asia and are not so called 'Lamanites'. The fact that they lie to them and tell them that they're Israelites is terrible. In fact, an anthropology professor in Washington was put on an LDS church excommunication trial for claiming that DNA evidence proved the BoM to be fictional, however controversy surrounding the proceedings lead the church officials to cancel the excommunication. Another, scientific error in the BoM is the fact that the book claims horses were running around in America way before the Spaniards actually brought horses to America.

[BOggThe1rst]

I am not anti-mormon,
I am against illogical faiths.

Fact: 1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.

2. a. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
b. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
c. Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.

3. A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact.

4. Law The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence: The jury made a finding of fact.
Idiom: in (point of) fact In reality or in truth; actually.


The Native American DNA came from North-East Asia, which is a FACT, yet mormons bury their heads in the sand and continue saying they came from the Middle-East.

That is solely ONE FACT among countless others.

[MJB]

BOggThe1rst wrote: I am not anti-mormon,
I am against illogical faiths.

Fact: 1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.

2. a. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
b. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
c. Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.

3. A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact.

4. Law The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence: The jury made a finding of fact.
Idiom: in (point of) fact In reality or in truth; actually.


The Native American DNA came from North-East Asia, which is a FACT, yet mormons bury their heads in the sand and continue saying they came from the Middle-East.

That is solely ONE FACT among countless others.

Funny that you would post anti-Mormon, "Christian Ministry," links, as if they're an unbiased source of science, only to completely ignore the numerous links at the FAIR site I posted, which include articles from experts in the field of DNA and genetics, then.

Articles on DNA & The Book of Mormon
http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai195.html

[MJB]

chrisbrowning wrote: It kills me that the LDS church tells South Americans that they're descendants of the original people of Israel, despite overwhelming evidence that they actually descended from East Asia and are not so called 'Lamanites'. The fact that they lie to them and tell them that they're Israelites is terrible. In fact, an anthropology professor in Washington was put on an LDS church excommunication trial for claiming that DNA evidence proved the BoM to be fictional, however controversy surrounding the proceedings lead the church officials to cancel the excommunication. Another, scientific error in the BoM is the fact that the book claims horses were running around in America way before the Spaniards actually brought horses to America.

It kills me that closed minded people think science has successfully answered every question known to man.

[Whitefields]

acerbus80 wrote: LDS Patriot wrote: I came across the web page of Paul McNabb's, "Five Signs of an Anti-Mormon".

Do you agree or disagree with Paul's definition copied below as to what constitutes the qualities and characteristics of an Anti-Mormon?

What parts do you agree with?

What parts do you disagree with?

Paul wrote:

A Brief Discussion of Anti-Mormonism

I will never classify a person as "anti-Mormon" who is defending his own beliefs, no matter how much at odds with LDS beliefs that may be. Contrasting what you believe with LDS beliefs and showing why you think you're right and the LDS are wrong is, in my book, not anti-Mormon.

People can step over the line and become anti-Mormon, however. (People can step over the line and become anti-anything, of course.) Usually it happens when a person become so passionate about proving Mormonism to be false that he stops being kind, tolerant, patient, and respectful.

Paul McNabb's Five Signs of an Anti-Mormon

An anti-Mormon is a person who does one or more of the following.

1) Describes Latter-day Saints or LDS leaders as being stupid, insincere, dishonest, or evil.

2) Accuses Latter-day Saints of having a "secret" doctrine or agenda, argues with Latter-day Saints about "what Mormons really believe," or refuses to accept a Latter-day Saint's description of his beliefs as being valid LDS beliefs.

3) Distorts and mischaracterizes LDS beliefs by presenting beliefs or citations out of context; presents the most unfavorable LDS behaviors or statements as being typical, normative, or authoritative; or presents and mocks LDS beliefs using parody, caricature, and demeaning language.

4) Interferes with Latter-day Saints in their worship and religious practice, such as by picketing Church buildings and events, shouting through bullhorns at LDS gatherings, etc.

5) Uses seminars, books, newsletters, websites, and other forms of mass media to specifically target Latter-day Saints to destroy their faith or to encourage others to do so.

http://paul.mcnabbs.org/religion/antimormon.html


This could just as easily be called "Anti _____." Just fill in the blank with any religous denomination, or belief, or philosophy, ideology, whatever.

yup

[Dragoon]

MJB wrote: chrisbrowning wrote: It kills me that the LDS church tells South Americans that they're descendants of the original people of Israel, despite overwhelming evidence that they actually descended from East Asia and are not so called 'Lamanites'. The fact that they lie to them and tell them that they're Israelites is terrible. In fact, an anthropology professor in Washington was put on an LDS church excommunication trial for claiming that DNA evidence proved the BoM to be fictional, however controversy surrounding the proceedings lead the church officials to cancel the excommunication. Another, scientific error in the BoM is the fact that the book claims horses were running around in America way before the Spaniards actually brought horses to America.

It kills me that closed minded people think science has successfully answered every question known to man.

It kills me that you actually think the Native Americans are descended from Semites.

[MJB]

Dragoon wrote: MJB wrote: chrisbrowning wrote: It kills me that the LDS church tells South Americans that they're descendants of the original people of Israel, despite overwhelming evidence that they actually descended from East Asia and are not so called 'Lamanites'. The fact that they lie to them and tell them that they're Israelites is terrible. In fact, an anthropology professor in Washington was put on an LDS church excommunication trial for claiming that DNA evidence proved the BoM to be fictional, however controversy surrounding the proceedings lead the church officials to cancel the excommunication. Another, scientific error in the BoM is the fact that the book claims horses were running around in America way before the Spaniards actually brought horses to America.

It kills me that closed minded people think science has successfully answered every question known to man.

It kills me that you actually think the Native Americans are descended from Semites.

As I said in the other thread - read the articles then, read the science, the references, which include what experts in DNA and genetic testing have to say.

If you're so convinced of your position, then you shouldn't have a problem reading them, should you?

[MJB]

Here are just a few of the articles on the subject of DNA & The Book of Mormon. They go from the simple to the more detailed overview of DNA testing. Try reading them.




Addressing Questions surrounding the Book of Mormon and DNA Research
by John M. Butler
http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=601
John M. Butler is a world expert on genetic testing.

(about John M. Butler http://www.cstl.nist.gov/biotech/strbase/butler.htm )




Review of Detecting Lehi's Genetic Signature: Possible, Probable, or Not?
Reviewed By: David A. McClellan
http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=504

(about David A. McClellan http://bacs.byu.edu/facstaff/index.aspx?ID=119 )




Interpreting the DNA Data and the Book of Mormon

Part 1 gives a background on the controversy, as well as thoughts on how the DNA data could confirm Book of Mormon accounts rather than disprove them.
http://www.meridianmagazine.com/ancients/050711dna.html

Part 2 covers differing interpretations of the DNA data that have been uncovered.
http://www.meridianmagazine.com/ancients/050712dna2.html

Part 3 interprets the recent DNA data concerning peoples who settled the Western Hemisphere.
http://www.meridianmagazine.com/ancients/050713dna3.html

[Dragoon]

MJB wrote: Dragoon wrote: MJB wrote: chrisbrowning wrote: It kills me that the LDS church tells South Americans that they're descendants of the original people of Israel, despite overwhelming evidence that they actually descended from East Asia and are not so called 'Lamanites'. The fact that they lie to them and tell them that they're Israelites is terrible. In fact, an anthropology professor in Washington was put on an LDS church excommunication trial for claiming that DNA evidence proved the BoM to be fictional, however controversy surrounding the proceedings lead the church officials to cancel the excommunication. Another, scientific error in the BoM is the fact that the book claims horses were running around in America way before the Spaniards actually brought horses to America.

It kills me that closed minded people think science has successfully answered every question known to man.

It kills me that you actually think the Native Americans are descended from Semites.

As I said in the other thread - read the articles then, read the science, the references, which include what experts in DNA and genetic testing have to say.

If you're so convinced of your position, then you shouldn't have a problem reading them, should you?

It's not just the DNA, its the total lack of any archeological evidence supporting the claim. There is no evidence of either civiliazation. No swords or any of that. Furthermore, there is no proof of any of the animals that are described in the BoM (horses, etc.) being in the new world before the Europeans arrived.

Did God magically make them dissapear? :roll:

[milo1047]

Yo, just read your articles here...

The first one simply says "Hey, we don't know for sure, so it COULD be possible, I mean, there's not 100% evidence against it!"

The seond one can be summed up in this quote from the article:

Quote: Attempting to settle the matter solely upon the merits of empirical data will always leave one wanting.

Science depends entirely on empirical data. To discount it is not science. That is religious bullcrap. Then it goes on at length abotu basic DNA, etc. etc. and repeats basically what the first article said.


After this, I figured the rest would be more of the same.

[BOggThe1rst]

Mormons around the world are in an identity crisis,
Many of them have come to their senses and renounced their faiths seeing as how they were believing pure lies and fabrications.

This religion does not even deserve any debate because it loses against itself.

[MJB]

Dragoon wrote: It's not just the DNA, its the total lack of any archeological evidence supporting the claim. There is no evidence of either civiliazation. No swords or any of that. Furthermore, there is no proof of any of the animals that are described in the BoM (horses, etc.) being in the new world before the Europeans arrived.

Did God magically make them dissapear? :roll:

:roll:

Horses and The Book of Mormon
http://www.2s2.com/chapmanresearch/user/documents/horses.html

The Elephant and the Book of Mormon
http://www.2s2.com/chapmanresearch/elephant.html


Anachronisms in The Book of Mormon http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai156.html
(containing numerous articles, plus links to articles in the following catigories)

Animals
Christianity & Judaism
Materials
Plants
Transportation
Weapons and Warfare

New Light: "The Place That Was Called Nahom": New Light from Ancient Yemen
http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=jbms&id=187

Finding Nephi's Bountiful
http://www.meridianmagazine.com/bookofmormon/060118bountiful.html

_______________________________

http://www.the-book-of-mormon.com/photo-proofs.html

http://www.the-book-of-mormon.com/photos-page2.html

http://www.the-book-of-mormon.com/photos-page3.html

http://www.the-book-of-mormon.com/dna-evidence.html

http://www.the-book-of-mormon.com/critics.html

http://www.the-book-of-mormon.com/doublestandard.html

http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml

http://home.fea.net/~rfisher/izapa/izapa-1.html

http://www.ancientamerican.com/articles.htm