Rock star defends Mormonism against famous atheist

After performing his 11th concert this month in Europe as a part of the iTunes Download 2012 festival, Killers lead singer Brandon Flowers appeared on “Skavlan,” a Norwegian TV show, to wrap up a European trip before the Sept. 17 release of the band's new album "Battle Born."

The show started out as a normal celebrity guest appearance, but host Fredrik Skavlan soon began inquiring about Flowers' Mormon faith. Skavlan asked Flowers to describe the "beauty of faith," and the international rock star spoke positively about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

However, Skavlan later welcomed Richard Dawkins, author of "The God Delusion," onto the stage. The famous atheist immediately was asked his opinion on faith, and began denouncing the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith and the Mormon faith.

Flowers didn't concede to Dawkins' remarks, although he was obviously surprised the interview had taken this turn.

Continue reading at www.deseretnews.com

« Previous Article

Posting Policy

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.

LouiseCA

I'd say Richard Dawkins is one of those people who should just be ignored.
Mex Seiko

I never present martyrdom as proof of truth. It only proves their belief. Muslims die for their faith any day of the week. I only point to Jesus' death AND resurrection as center of my faith. Often the response is that Jesus' resurrection is a fable. But that's for them to prove. None has ever uncovered that the story of Jesus is a mere novel, or hoax.

It is sad to learn about an Atheist mocking a Mormon while he defends Joseph Smith. That could be an eternal conversation they may hold together forever.
- Evermyrtle
  
  Joseph serves as the God of The Mormons. He comes far ahead of JESUS CHRIST THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD.
  - Mex Seiko
    
    Joseph is the Mormon's Mohammad. They both did the same thing: mish-mash Judeo/Christian biblical concepts and twist them around to their taste. Funny how Joe and Mommy both came up with polygamy.
    - Vladimir
      
      Wrong again, Mex Seiko. A prophet is directed by God, he does not "mish-mash Judeo/Christain biblical concepts" as you say. You obviously haven't read the Book of Mormon.
      
      Mohammad was a fraud and his fruits are death and damnation.
      - Mex Seiko
        
        Neither one of these were prophets of God. None of them were approved by the Bible as they either contradicted or added new or strange information to the Scriptures and twisted the gospel.
      - Vladimir
        
        Wrong again, Mex Seiko. Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. Mohammad was an imposter.
      - mallen11
        
        Joseph Smith was a prophet of Satan the same as Mohammad was — both distorted the Word of God and that is Satanic. Satan is a deceiver and that is why so many people fall for a religion of deceit.
        Some good information on the mormon cult…
        
        http://www.equip.org/articles/the-book-of-mormon-vs-the-bible
        
        http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/changecontents.htm
        
        http://www.utlm.org/navonlinebooks.htm
      - Esther
        
        Wake up mallen11, Mr. Allen. When you go to Satan's library in Hell you will find the same kind of garbage against your God as you have just posted against Our Father of the Mormon church. In Hell, in other words, you will feel just at home, as you feel so smug in attacking good Americans who are not ensconced in the degenerate European religions as you are, that caused the birth of this nation by the atrocities against it. Whose side are you on?
      - mallen11
        
        I knew mormons were vicious and you just proved it.
        I will be in heaven as soon as I pass from death to eternity and face to face with my Lord and savior Jesus Christ. I pray that you turn from your religion and believe in Jesus Christ as your savior; the one and only way to eternal life with Him. He paid your way; He paid for your sins on the cross and all you have to do is by faith tell God the Father that you believe in His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. There is nothing you can do for your salvation.
        After salvation when you learn from His Word, the Bible, you will learn how to serve Him and glorify Him here on earth.
      - Esther
        
        Sticks and stones … and words, Mr Allen. What kind of trashy way were you brought up to speak to decent people the way you speak to Vladimir? If you think I won't defend him against some throw-back to the vicious people of the European Christian Church "you have another thought coming." Go ahead and copy/paste. There's lots of reality about your so-called Christian people online as well. Let's see if I can keep up with it.
      - mallen11
        
        Are you on medication? You seem to be drunk or on drugs. If anyone needs to clean up their writings; it is you. Read your vicious attacks on others on this site and you will see what I mean. Your words are vulgar and you are calling me out? You need salvation through the Lord Jesus Christ and turn from your evil ways.
      - Esther
        
        LOL Mr. Allen, that's rich. Someone gets up to defend a good man, and you say they are on drugs, vicious, vulgar, and I need saving!!!!!!!!!! That is rich. You made my day. sir. Thanks for the good laugh. BTW, No, no, no, no. Does that answer all your accusations.
        
        However let's not forget the problem: The problem is you don't understand the difference between secret and sacred. You pseudo-Christians blab on about how bad Mormons are and all they do is prize their sacred things… which of course you don't understand and never will, at your negative rate of your intelligence gathering.
        
        Guess whose side the Savior will be on when the time comes? I will give you a hint. Nor yours, but Vlad's.
      - mallen11
        
        You are consistent; revealing the fallacy of the mormon cult when you consider those who are not mormons to be Christians when mormons will say they are Christian and in actuality they are not. Thank you.
      - Esther
        
        What you have written is nonsense, Mr. Allen. I am actually a worthy Mormon. I am well aware of how so-called-Christians treat the Mormons. I see how you treat Vladimir, and how you have treated, me in the past. Let me be clear: The Mormons are true followers of Christ. Yes, you can cough up all kinds of anti-Mormon literature. Did you get that in my earlier message? I can do the same, don't you see that? Why do you want to keep doing that?
      - millergroup2
        
        Define "worthy"? God has a different opinion dear:
        
        Isa 64:6 "But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousness are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our
        iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away." KJV…
        
        And then they said,
        
        "The above verse compares our self acts of righteousness to rags that are
        filthy. IOW they are not clean but filthy. The stain of sin CANNOT be
        removed by our righteous acts.-"
      - millergroup2
        
        More vicious Hogwash!
      - Vladimir
        
        Forget what you have been told or read about Mormons. Your posts show that you've been fed a load of anti-Mormon propaganda. Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation. He atoned for all of mankind's sins and only He has the power to lift us up from sin. We are not saved by our works, but through Him we are rewarded for keeping His commandments. Prophets reveal what the Lord wants revealed to us for His purposes. Joseph Smith was a prophet just as Moses and Abraham to mention a few. Joseph revealed things that had been revealed in the past, but through apostasy had been lost by our day. There is nothing materially different between the Bible and the Book of Mormon.
      - mallen11
        
        If there is no difference between the Bible and the Book of mormon then why did Joseph Smith write the Book of mormon that is held in higher esteem than the Bible? We are not rewarded for keeping His commandments but to grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. (2 Peter 3:8)
        
        Eph 2:8-9 For you have been saved by GRACE in the past with the result that you continue to be saved forever through faith; and this salvation is not from yourselves, it is a gift of God; not by works, that no one may boast.
        
        Just out of couriosity, how many good works do you need to do to satisfy God? Can you keep all of His commandments? What about the ones in the NT?
        The only prophets are those mentioned in the Bible; all others are fake for they set themselves up; not by God the Father.
      - Esther
        
        Your negative-speaking about Mormons will absolutely get you nowhere. Why can't you accept Mormons as good Americans, have some faith in these other children of God, let go, and let it be. Let them have the peace they deserve as much as you do, at least as much as you think you do. Can't you see the fallacy in your methods? Nothing you say will make a Mormon relinquish his/her religion for yours. Get beyond the differences, Mr. Allen.
      - mallen11
        
        I suggest you practice what you preach.
      - Esther
        
        I do already. Just remember what I preach about attacking my friends in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I would expect you have that same veracity, in the instance that you have religious principles to convey.
      - Michael G.
        
        Some of the nicest people I have ever met were Mormons.
      - Esther
        
        Me too. Vladimir is a member here on the forum, so is Mesaman. They would love to hear your opinions. I hope you watched the video with Brandon Flowers. above.
      - Michael G.
        
        My best friends, Mormons, tried to get me to join their church, but I was in the process of joining the Catholic Church. They are still my best friends, and will stay that way.
      - Esther
        
        That's wonderful. I know you are glad to know them. I know the feeling of such love and care these people so willingly give to their friends. They really have an unmatched eternal perspective.
      - Vladimir
        
        Wrong again, mallen11. Joseph Smith did not write the Book of Mormon and you obviously haven't read it.
        
        You seem not to understand what I wrote. I wrote, "We are not saved by our works,..". So why did you quote Ephesians?
        
        Who said God had a quota for good works? I am trying to keep all of God's commandments. Are you?
        
        Another point of ignorance is your statement that Mormons hold the Book of Mormon in higher esteem than the Bible. Do you hold Matthew in higher esteem than Luke?
        
        Finally, can you show me where it says in the Bible that only prophets mentioned therein are the real ones and all others are fake?
      - Pastor Dwayne
        
        WHAT A TRUE PROPHET prophesies ALWAYS comes to pass. None of the mormon prophets have fulfilled that .
      - Michael G.
        
        The actual quote of Eph: 2: 8 – 9 goes like this (depending on the rendition you're using). "8 For by grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves it is the gift of God 9 not of works, least any man should boast." Are you using the Book of Mormon to get the quote? Just curious…
        The thing we need to do to satisfy God by works done 'in-the-Body' not what we did before we became a Christian. The only thing we can do is believe in Him who He sent.
        No one can keep all the commandments (Old or New Testament). The only person who fulfilled the Law was Jesus Christ. The commands were not meant to be kept. They were designed to do one thing; drive you to Christ. Only there can you find safety, salvation, and one day, happiness…
      - mallen11
        
        The Eph 2:8-9 that I quoted was from the original Greek language in its full meaning. I do not quote from the book of moron since it is a book of fairy tales make up by a man for self serving purposes.
        The rest of your comment is in full agreement of the Word of God the Bible that I believe in because it is the mind of Christ.
        
        1 Corinthians 2:16 For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, THAT
        HE WILL INSTRUCT HIM? But we have the mind of Christ. (The Word of God, the Bible)
        
        Isaiah 40:8 The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever.
      - Esther
        
        Mr Allen, I take offense that you so denigrate the religion of the good Mormon people, You need to edit. What about practicing what you preach? Your famous last words? Or is that just a warning to me as a Mormon? Let me know and I will take my gloves off.
      - mallen11
        
        It does not matter what you believe; I give my comments just like you do and will continue to write what I please on this site whether you like it or not and…
        
        II Cor 12:10 Therefore I am well content with weaknesses, with insults, with distresses, with persecutions, with difficulties, for Christ’s sake; for when I am weak, then I am strong.
        
        II Cor 12:10, Gal 5:25-26, I Tim 6:3-5
        
        Gal 5:25-26 If we live by the Spirit let us also walk by the Spirit. Let us not become boastful, challenging one another, envying one another.
        
        I Tim 6:3-5 If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain.
        
        Titus 3:10-11Reject a factious man after a first and second warning, knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned.
        
        Don't take things so personally.
      - Esther
        
        There, that's better. I did not see your use of that un-biblical, un-American denigrating term. Thank you.
      - mallen11
        
        Oh, thank you so very much for giving me your pat on the head. That is something I don't need from a mormon who believes in an evil religion.
      - Esther
        
        No Mr. Allen, I never touch the five-year-olds nor any of my students. If they cannot learn a reasonable lesson – and I have a 99.9 percentile success rate – then they, my students, may be judged to be incompetent and placed wherever "they" send the "challenged." I could say more. I am a daughter of my Heavenly Father and like Him, my words are endless.
      - mallen11
        
        You are talking crazy. I feel sorry for you. This is my last communication with you since you are not willing to know the truth about your cult religion. All future notices will be deleted before they are read.
        II Cor 12:10 Therefore I am well content with weaknesses, with insults, with distresses, with persecutions, with difficulties, for Christ’s sake; for when I am weak, then I am strong.
      - Esther
        
        Why, Mr. Allen? Because I didn't appreciate that you thought I "patted" you? Well, that is fine by me Mr. Allen. I will continue to defend the good Christians of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-0day Saints. I will also post links to. I hope, to encourage your good knowledge of the Mormon people:
        
        Ether 12:27 And if men come unto me I will show unto them their weakness. I give unto men weakness that they may be humble; and my grace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me; for if they humble themselves before me, and have faith in me, then will I make weak things become strong unto them. .
      - Vladimir
        
        Who said there is no difference between the Bible and the Book of Mormon?
        Who said we are not rewarded for keeping His commandments?
        Who said God can be satisfied by a good works quota?
        Do you try to keep ALL of His commandments?
        Who said the only prophets are those mentioned in the Bible?
        
        Bonus question:
        What is the first principle you come to when reading the Book of Mormon?
      - Evermyrtle
        
        What do you think of 'JESUS CHRIST THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD?
        What do you think about Matthew 6:1-34, The entire chapter, including what is know as the LORDS PRAYER. I was told by a Mormon that it is outdated and that Mormons do not accept it as important today.
      - Vladimir
        
        Pick a better source. That person is wrong.
      - millergroup2
        
        I suppose that that "better source" would be the Book of Mormon?
      - Vladimir
        
        Yes, or someone who actually knows what they are talking about. The ultimate source is God. I endorse James (James 1:5).
      - millergroup2
        
        Again……What did Joseph Smith prophesy that came true? You speak well of what you think he did…..but did he?
      - Vladimir
        
        Everything Joseph Smith revealed from God is true. Under the direction of God, Joseph received the priesthood and used it to re-establish the Church of Jesus Christ on the earth in modern times. He brought forth the Book of Mormon and clarified a lot that was confusing the Christian world. That makes him a prophet of God to all who have received confirmation from God that his fruits are good.
        
        Really now, miller, are you going to fall down on your knees and declare Joseph Smith a prophet in the face of all that? Of course you won't. And you won't declare him a prophet even if he revealed every lottery number to the end of time. You would argue that he got his information from Satan. I read your posts.
      - millergroup2
        
        I hate to admit this, but if Joe Smith did reveal all of the lottery numbers to me, I might consider slipping a little bit with a compromise. What the heck? :-)
      - Vladimir
        
        I get first dibs.
      - millergroup2
        
        Are you really that brainwashed that you can state publicly that "There is nothing materially different between the Bible and the Book of Mormon"? You know I am long winded! Would you enjoy me listing the 1,001 (that is just part) of the material differences between the Book of Mormon, and the only true word of God……the bible? Didn't think so.
      - Esther
        
        lol, Vladimir is not brainwashed. Where are your manners Millergroup2? Now why would anything Christ said on the Mount in the bible be any different in the priesthood meeting that He has in America with the priesthood leaders here? Pray tell.
      - millergroup2
        
        Don't pray about it, as Vald commands. Open the bible and study it. When you do pray about guidance, it has always been my experience that God will always direct the person inquiring of guidance right back to His Holy Word, and he also said, “And when you pray, do not use
        vain repetitions as the heathen do, for they think that they
        will be heard for their many words” (Matthew 6:7). So directing inquisitive minds to James 1:5 is
        
        Bibically incorrect.
      - Esther
        
        We never use vain repetitions. How sad it is that you think we do. It demonstrates your lack of knowledge of the true Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I think James 1:5 in in direct support of this admonition of Matthew.
      - Vladimir
        
        My brains are perfectly clean and do not need washing. Thank you very much.
        
        Do you understand the use of the term "material"? Do you know that there are no material conflicts between the books of the Bible? Are you aware of non material conflicts between the books of the Bible? Do some research before quoting a lot of garbage written by professional Mormon bashers. You are becoming boring with your endless opinions gained from equally ignorant people.
        
        There is one way and only one way to know the truth and that is to follow the guidance in James 1:5. Everything else is just argument.
      - millergroup2
        
        On and on you go with your never ending evasive tactics. Refusing to answer questions, and the"poor me" Mormon bashing cries. Bible scholars, for years have uncovered the many errors and conflicts within the Mormon doctrine. You are embarrassed of your own faith, and cannot answer honestly questions of this doctrine. You evade direct questions with the "poor me" defense. So you are saying that the thousands of verifiable documents discrediting Mormonism are all wrong, and that well known scholars are heretics. You say that the only Holy verse in the bible, James 1:5 is all we need, and that the rest of the bible is "just argument". This dialog was in fact, not a waste of my time. I and others have been strengthened in our knowledge of the phoney Mormon Doctrine. Your refusal to counter the claims and documents that expose the Mormon Doctrine for what it is, anchors the claims against it. You still have not answered the most important question: What did Joesph Smith prophesy that came to pass? The answer to this question will determine weather or not Joesph Smith was a true prophet of God. A test, if you will. According to your own Mormon Doctrine, Joesph Smith fails miserably as the "Self proclaimed Prophet".
      - Vladimir
        
        The test of a prophet is their fruits according to the Bible. The test according to millergroup is how well someone predicts the future. I choose the Bible test over the millergroup test. In fact, I choose the Bible over millergroup in all things every time.
      - millergroup2
        
        Frequently a person will say to me that the
        Mormon (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) missionaries have challenged them to
        pray about Joseph Smith's message and the Book of Mormon. But is this the proper way to
        determine if his message is truly from God? The Bible never says to test a prophet by
        prayer, but by his message. Deuteronomy 13 warns that a prophet must teach correctly about
        God. Chapter 18 tells us the prophet's prophecies must come to pass. Paul tells us in
        Galatians 1:8-9 that even angels can appear with a wrong message. We are to compare the
        message with the teachings of the apostles. In Acts 17:10-12, when Paul went to Berea to
        proclaim Jesus as the Messiah to the Jews, we read "these were more noble than those
        in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched
        the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. Therefore many of them
        believed…" Note, Paul did not tell them to go home and pray about it. They were
        praised for searching the scriptures, in other words, testing the message to see if it
        agreed with the prophecies of the Messiah.
        Note that John made an appeal to fact, not
        feeling, when he declared "that which was from the beginning, which we have heard,
        which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled,
        of the Word of life;…that which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also
        may have fellowship with us…" (I John 1:1-3) He continued in the next chapter,
        verse 21, "I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye
        know it, and that no lie is of the truth…let that therefore abide in you, which ye have
        heard from the beginning…." Chapter 4, verse 1, "beloved, believe not every
        spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone
        out into the world."
        
        Peter wrote specifically to warn about false
        teachers: (2 Peter 1:15-16) "Moreover I will endeavour that ye may be able after my
        decease to have these things always in remembrance. For we have not followed cunningly
        devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ,
        but were eyewitnesses of his majesty…." In Chapter 2, verse 1, he continues
        "but there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false
        teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies,…and many shall follow
        their pernicious ways…" Then in Chapter 3 he continues "this second epistle,
        beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of
        remembrance: that ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy
        prophets, and of the commandments of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour: knowing this
        first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers…" Notice, he refers them to
        past teachings and facts, not to feelings or prayer.
        
        The Mormons misuse James 1:5. That verse is
        for wisdom during times of temptation and persecution, not for knowledge or testing a
        prophet. He goes on to warn in Chapter 4, verse 3, about those who pray (and we assume it
        was in Jesus name) for the wrong things—"Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask
        amiss…" This verse shows our own desires or misdirected ideas can play a part in
        the answer. If someone claimed God said we should rob a bank and give the money to the
        poor, would we need to pray about it? God has already spoken on the issue in the Ten
        Commandments. So why should we pray to know if God and Jesus appeared to Joseph Smith to
        show him that they are two totally separated gods with resurrected bodies? Or that there
        were gods BEFORE our heavenly father. (See Smith's sermons in the LDS History of the
        Church, vol. 6, pp. 305-312, 474-476) Compare his sermons with Isa.43:10-11, 44:6-8,
        24-25, 45:5-6, 18-24, 46:5-10. Joseph Smith contradicts Isaiah—which one should we
        believe? Christians test prophets, pastors, and teachers by the Bible. LDS test the Bible
        by their prophets. They go about testing the message backwards. The Bible was here first,
        therefore Joseph Smith must be tested by it, not the other way around.
        
        Certainly a decision regarding our eternal
        life is the most important one we will ever make and deserves careful examination. Anyone
        meeting with the LDS missionaries should know both sides of the issue. There are plenty of
        facts from LDS sources to show that Joseph Smith taught false doctrine, lied about
        polygamy (even to his own wife), changed his revelations, gave false prophecies, etc. He
        hardly meets the test of a prophet. Truth will stand up to investigation.
      - Vladimir
        
        I'd be interested in what you consider "brainwashed dogma".
      - millergroup2
        
        Brainwashing,
        the application of coercive techniques to change the values and
        beliefs, perceptions and judgments, and subsequent mindsets and
        behaviors of one or more people, usually for political, financial,
        personal, or religious purposes.
        
        Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, or a particular group or organization.[1] It serves as part of the primary basis of an ideology or belief system, and it can not be changed or discarded without affecting the very system's paradigm,
        or the ideology itself. Although it generally refers to religious
        beliefs that are accepted regardless of evidence, they can refer to
        acceptable opinions of philosophers or philosophical schools, public
        decrees, or issued decisions of political authorities.[2]
      - Vladimir
        
        I'd be interested in EXAMPLES of what you consider "brainwashed dogma".
      - millergroup2
        
        I am very flattered the you esteem me high enough to test the validity of a prophet, however I cannot accept such a compliment. I never did say that a prophet foretells the future. You already admitted this when you said that you misquoted me, that it must have been mallen11.
        
        Secondly, I am very surprised at your lack of biblical knowledge. I began a dialog with you under the assumption that your 40 odd years of study would bring an interesting challenge to the table. I was even looking forward to it. My knowledge on the subject we have (I mean I) been discussing is limited, and I really thought that I would learn new aspects to the subject. You have grossly let me and your Mormon faith down. Grossly!
        
        Your description of testing a prophet biblically, is so far off base, that I really wonder if you have even picked up a bible to browse the pages. If you choose the word of God to explain your arguments, then you need to read it, become familiar with it, and quote it correctly. My advice to you is to set those extra books of your so called faith aside, and get to the simple basics of God's only word, His original bible. You would be surprised at the untold amount of knowledge, and spiritual guidance it provides. Even to a simpleton like yourself. If you want me to stop being forceful and intimidating, calling you on your every lame answers, I would be happy to educate you on the basics of bible study.
      - millergroup2
        
        Vald, I should have not called you a simpleton. For that I do apologize.
      - Vladimir
        
        I've been called worse. Apology accepted.
      - millergroup2
        
        No No not you! Vladimir
      - Guest
        
        comedian
      - Vladimir
        
        I am interested in what you consider a "lame answer".
      - millergroup2
        
        lame 1 (lm)
        adj. lam·er, lam·est
        3. Weak and ineffectual; unsatisfactory: a lame attempt to apologize; lame excuses for not arriving on time.
      - Vladimir
        
        I am interested in EXAMPLES of what you consider a "lame answer".
      - millergroup2
        
        Your statement does apply here, as the Book of Mormon is not at at all part of God's holy bible. Never has been, that is just a fallacy for all the world to observe.
      - Vladimir
        
        Again you voice your opinion gleaned from who knows where.
      - Pastor Dwayne
        
        more so than James 1:5. If you have asked the Lord for wisdom , the wisdom he gives you will not deny the Word of God, will not stray from the truth of the Word of God, There will no teachings, such as the major purpose of the "church" is to "help prepare and qualify man and woman to be candidates to enter the great eternal destiny and rule in the Celestial Kingdom!!!! to get there, both man and woman "must" be mormon, and they must be married in the mormon temple.
        That one had to be direct REVELATION,to some prophet, WOW, that was a dandy , which of coarse is no where found in the word of God.
        So now we must compare scripture with scripture, ,,, no, not compare the Bible in the light of the Book of mormon , but the Book of mormon in the LIGHT of the Word of God , The Bible….. Who is the true Church the bride of ?? yes, Jesus. It must hurt to know you have studied, and studied all that time to be a Bishop and realize you are wrong . Coarse if I had done the same as you, I wouldn't, and never would admit that I was wrong.
        Just think, the Wisdom of the Word of God would tell us
        
        NO, Prophets , other than those that prophesy in church during a church service.
        NO, Preisthood other than all of the true Church are Kings and Priests
        NO, no marriage nor giving in marriage in the Kingdom of God, because Christ is my Bride groom..
        
        Now no more casting the pearls of the Word to the swine and dogs, and ORDER all others to stop the nonsense of trying to correct IGNORANCE!!!
        
        Good Day
        Dwayne
      - Vladimir
        
        The wisdom of God is truth. Truth is perfectly consistent. Nothing the Lord has revealed through His Prophets in modern times is in conflict with what He has revealed in ancient times.
        
        The Lord has revealed truth in modern times that had been revealed in the past, but which is no longer had among the children of men. You claim that this truth revealed again from God is false because it is not in the Bible. James provides you with a solution, ask God if it is true. James 1:5
        
        However, you are not interested in the truth because all argument ceases when God speaks and you just want to continue arguing.
      - Pastor Dwayne
        
        HIS WORD SPEAKS THE TRUTH ,,,,,, and all prophecy and revelation, will not reveal any thing different . PLEASE tell me what old testament prophets tells us that God the Father has a mommy and daddy
        
        Now it is over
      - Vladimir
        
        I understand that you are operating under a handicap. You can't get it through your head that God has revealed truth IN ADDITION to what He has revealed in the Bible. And because God has revealed it, this additional truth does not conflict with the Bible. It is your loss if you don't confirm this with God. James 1:5
      - Pastor Dwayne
        
        I did ask God for his wisdom on the subject of mormonism, He told me mormonism is a high order of the Roman Catholic Church, which is damned, albeit some catholics get saved , and come out. of the false teaching of the catholic church, likewise , some mormons get born from above and come out of the false teachings of the mormon church, Most that come out of mormonism tell me they can't believe they were such suckers, all of this happening just moments after being born again ( from above).
        I don't know what it will be like in this " CELESTIAL KINGDOM of yours , But the true Church will know it to be heavenly in the Kingdom Of God , where the Father and Jesus will be.
        I'm a true Son of God that does exactly what Jesus told us to do, 1. preach the Gospel ( good news) , I cast out demons, I lay hands on the sick, and they recover!!!!!!!!!!!!!
      - Vladimir
        
        You have stated that God told something. I will not comment on your statement.
        
        But know this, that you and I will be judged by our words and I can testify that the Church of Jesus Christ is God's church on the earth today with the saving ordinances restored and the authority and commission to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ to all the world. And though the world reviles me, I will not, indeed I cannot deny what the Lord has revealed to me.
      - Pastor Dwayne
        
        oops you blew it ,,,, Satan revealed lies that sound good , Remember Gal:18-9 speaks of another gospel, or as you put it another testament!!! ( an other gospel, "good news") mormon-ism sounds like it has "good news" but as Apostle Paul put it """"an other gospel""""
      - Vladimir
        
        God is more powerful than Satan. I believe that Satan is more powerful than I am. Therefore I rely on God not to let Satan deceive me. I trust in God. I advise you to call on Him as James counsels. Find out if what you are fighting against is actually further truth from God. Only God can convince you of that.
      - Pastor Dwayne
        
        KNOW an absolute truth Vlad, Satan can give revelation of wisdom also. You pray to Jesus ( I assume ), a different Jesus than the true Christian does..By this I mean you Pray to a little boy that progressed, in your mind and mormon doctrine, to become son of god! You pray to this other Jesus , other gospel , another testament, and will certinally will get different wisdom, revelation than what the Word of God , (THE BIBLE) says!!!!
      - Vladimir
        
        I pray to the Father of Jesus Christ just as He taught us in the Bible. When I pray I call on Heavenly Father and end my prayer "in the name of Jesus Christ".
        
        I hope you don't believe that God would allow Satan to deceive anyone calling on Him regardless of how they perceive Him. That is not the loving God I know.
      - millergroup2
        
        I can't stand myself, and I am unable to hold back Vald. So here is the start until you cry uncle!
        
        Similar to the insecure person who hangs around the rich and famous for
        the sole reason of establishing himself, the Book of Mormon has
        attempted to make a name for itself by “cozying up to” the Bible. The
        very first line in the “Introduction” to the Mormons’ revered text
        states: “The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible.” Even the Book of Mormon’s subtitle (“Another
        Testament of Jesus Christ”—emp. added) lends credibility to the Bible.
        Obviously, the Mormons have attempted to give credence to their
        scripture by comparing it to the Bible. Furthermore, a crucial element
        of the Mormon religion found in their Article of Faith #8 says: “We believe the Bible to be the word of God
        as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of
        Mormon to be the word of God” (emp. added). If both the Bible and the
        Book of Mormon are inspired by God, then reason demands that they must
        never contradict one another. No book from God’s hand will contain
        factual mistakes because He does not make mistakes. By definition, He is
        omniscient and perfect in all His ways (cf. Psalm 139:1-6; 1 John
        3:20). The truth is, however, they do contradict one another.
        
        The Book of Mormon contains numerous passages that contradict what the
        Bible says. The following examples are conspicuous instances of such
        contradictions.
        
        Rather than God confusing “the language of all the earth” at the tower
        of Babel as the Bible records (Genesis 11:9), the Book of Mormon
        contends that the language of Jared, his brother, as well as their
        friends and family members “were not confounded” (Ether 1:33-37).
        Contrary to the Bible prophecy concerning the Lord’s birth in
        Bethlehem (Micah 5:2), and the fulfillment of that prophecy in Matthew
        2:1, the Book of Mormon reads: “And behold, he (Jesus) shall be born of
        Mary at Jerusalem” (Alma 7:10, parenthetical comment and emp. added). The writer of the Book of Mormon was simply wrong.
        The Bible tells us that at the crucifixion of Jesus, darkness covered
        the land for three hours (Matthew 27:45; Mark 15:33; Luke 23:44).
        However, the Book of Mormon states three different times that there was
        darkness “for the space of three days” (Helaman 14:20,27; 3 Nephi 8:3, emp. added). Of course, this is a big difference.
        Finally, whereas the Book of Mormon has people wearing the name
        Christian in about 73 B.C. (Alma 46:13, 15), the Bible clearly reveals
        that the disciples of Christ “were called Christians first in
        Antioch” (Acts 11:26, emp. added). This was in approximately A.D. 40,
        and thus represents a difference of over 100 years. Which account are
        people to believe? After all, according to Mormons, both books are
        inspired.
        
        The fact that there are numerous disagreements between the Bible and
        the Book of Mormon does not disparage the Bible in any way. In fact, a
        Bible believer would expect there to be contradictions between the two,
        since the Bible never gives any legitimacy to the Book of Mormon, but
        actually condemns it (cf. Galatians 1:6-9, Revelation 22:18-19, 2 Peter
        1:3, and Jude 3). On the other hand, the Book of Mormon easily is
        exposed as fiction when compared to and contrasted with the Bible, which
        Mormons claim is “the word of God.”
        
        Simply put, if both the Bible and the Book of Mormon were inspired by
        God, then they never would contradict each other. However, since they do
        disagree with one another (in a number of places), the Book of Mormon
        is obviously a fraud, written by con men, not inspired men.
      - Vladimir
        
        If you actually read the Book of Mormon you would know that it is a record of people on the other side of the earth. The writer you are copying chooses to ignore that fact and hopes the reader is too ignorant to call him on it.
        
        You wasted a lot of time. If you looked harder you could have answered all these yourself.
      - millergroup2
        
        Vladimir, Esther says that I have been too cruel. We have been butting heads in this dialog. I have written numerous facts revealing Mormonism for what it really is, a gathering of text that plagiarizes the word of God. If you do believe in God, than you must have faith that he is in control, and that he does not make mistakes. The whole idea of the Mormon faith, is that somehow man and the word of God lost its way, so God sent Moroni to a man to reveal that God's chosen prophet , Joesph Smith was to bring a new testament of Jesus to the world. What I am saying here is that was neither necessary, nor biblical. Below is a summary of our conversation. I remain unchanged on this subject.
        
        Vladimir: I’d like you to read and pray about the Book of
        Mormon, asking God if it’s true.
        
        Me: Can you show me in the Bible where we are told to pray
        about a book or a prophet to find out the truth?
        
        Vladimir: James 1:5 says, “If any of you lack wisdom, let
        him ask of God, who giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not, and it
        shall be given him.”
        
        Me: That passage is not speaking about praying about a
        book, or a prophet. The context is testings and trials and temptations. (vv.
        2,3, 12).
        
        Vladimir: That is your interpretation!
        
        Me: That is what the passage says in context. It is up to
        you to demonstrate that the passage applies to praying about a book in order to
        discover whether it is true or not.
        
        Vladimir: I know the Book of Mormon is true
        because I prayed about it.
        
        Me: Acts 17:11-12 gives us an example of how to test a
        teaching or a doctrine, which would include a religious book. Paul and Silas
        went to the synagogue of the Jews in Berea and preached the gospel of Jesus
        Christ. The passage states that the Bereans received the word with all
        readiness of mind, which means that they were open to accept the word which was
        preached to them, but they first searched the Scriptures daily to determine if
        what they were being told was scriptural and therefore true. The Scripture
        calls them noble for responding in this way. You will notice that it wasn’t
        through prayer that the new teaching was proven but by putting it to the test
        of Scripture. When they saw that the teaching accorded with Scripture, then
        many of them believed.
        
        Vladimir: But I prayed and I have a burning in my bosom
        that confirms my belief in the Book of Mormon. Don’t you believe in prayer? Do
        you think our Heavenly Father would allow me to be deceived when I prayed to
        Him?
        
        Me: Let me ask you a question: Where did you get the idea
        to pray about the Book of Mormon?
        
        Vladimir: Well, we are exhorted to pray with a sincere
        heart and receive a testimony from the Holy Ghost in Moroni 10:4-5.
        
        Me: So the idea to pray about the Book of Mormon came from
        the Book of Mormon itself, right? Suppose for a moment that the Book of Mormon
        is not true. Now, I know that you believe that it is, but just for the sake of
        argument suppose that it is not an historical document, but rather a
        counterfeit not inspired by the God who inspired the Bible. Who then would be
        the real inspiration behind a counterfeit book that claims to be from God?
        
        Vladimir: Satan?
        
        Me: Right! Now, since the admonition to read and pray about
        the Book of Mormon comes from the Book of Mormon itself, if its author is in
        reality Satan, who do you think would give the answer that the Book of Mormon
        is true?
        
        Vladimir: Well, if Satan were the author, which he isn’t,
        he would have to be the one who gives you the answer that the Book of Mormon is
        true.
        
        Me: That is correct, and that is why it is a spiritually
        dangerous thing to pray about whether the Book of Mormon is true. The Bible
        makes it clear that the Book of Mormon is false (e.g., Gal. 1:8-9). To pray for
        an answer about it is to ignore what God has already said, which is to dishonor
        Him. We have only ourselves to blame, then, if Satan comes and answers such an
        irresponsible prayer instead. You must rely on the authority of the Bible to
        prove all things.
      - Vladimir
        
        However you portray me in your fictional debate, you can't edge away from the truth I proclaim:
        
        All truth comes from God and God will confirm truth to us.
        
        Many will be lifted up in their pride and not ask God. Like the stubborn Israelites who refused to look at the serpent, they will perish.
        
        Don't be one of them, millergroup2.
      - Pastor Dwayne
        
        Vlad,,,, when Jesus spoke of other sheep I have IS NOT giving reference to people on the other side of the world, it was giving reference to all Gentiles world wide that when they would get born again would compose the true church world wide. It is amazing , The Catholics believe they are the true church, The church of christ believe they are the true church now the latter day boys think they are the true church, they are all wrong!!!!
      - Vladimir
        
        If any of them lack wisdom, and since there are conflicting beliefs someone needs wisdom, let them ask of God, who gives wisdom. That solution is in the scriptures as plain as the nose on your face.
      - Evermyrtle
        
        Why, then, does the whole world today, and yesteryear know about Abraham and Moses and so few know about Joseph Smith. Why has he not become well known except in your small group?
      - Vladimir
        
        Good question. How many knew about Abraham and Moses 160 years after their deaths? I don't know either. BTW my "small group" is about 14 million and growing.
      - millergroup2
        
        Even worse than I thought. Sad……………………………………………………..
      - Evermyrtle
        
        We must pray for these people. The are lost if they do not accept the truth of GOD AND HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON.
      - mallen11
        
        Right. This is what "religion" does to people; their eyes are blinded to the truth and they become self-serving instead of serving and focusing on Jesus Christ.
      - Vladimir
        
        I accept all prayers on my behalf. But I accept the truth of God and His only begotten Son. I reject the nonsense of the Council of Nicea invented about 300 hundred years after Christ's death. If you follow their description of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost you need my prayers.
      - Evermyrtle
        
        I need and accept all honest prayers from Christians, believers in JESUS CHRIST THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD. If you believe this, I welcome your prayers and I will pray for you. But please grow, up all vicious and spiteful remarks and name calling is offensive to HIM
      - Vladimir
        
        He who called me a name has apologized. All is well.
      - Evermyrtle
        
        You do not, IN THE NAME OF JESUS, call people unfair names, nor do you return ugly names with ugly names. That DOES NOT make it OK
      - Evermyrtle
        
        Indeed, the are vicious and at the same time, they proclaim Christianity. I do not know if this is the church itself or some who do not know what they are talking about, but claim there are errors in THE WORD OF GOD. This lie is a true sign of a non Christian establishment of either the entire church or some misguided individuals, which is very sad. By the way, this is from ones that proclaim loudest, we are Christians.
      - mallen11
        
        You are absolutely correct.
      - Pastor Dwayne
        
        Good Americans does not equate to being born again. Tell me what part does water baptism have in your salvation??
      - Esther
        
        total immersion is everything, and performed by a Melchizedek priesthood holder … ask Vladimir, Pastor Dwayne.
      - Esther
        
        negative intelligence gathering.
      - Evermyrtle
        
        Wonderful eye opening information. Thanks.
      - Mex Seiko
        
        If the writings don't jive with the original Scriptures it's an impostor. That's just the idea Satan has since the beginning, to throw people off. Since Adam&Eve Satan just kept lying about who and how God is. Joe and Mo have done the exact same thing. Actually Jim Russell did the same thing. He turned Jesus as a created being downgrading His deity.
        False, false, false. Wake up. The Bible is a perfect., completed work of God. All else is just counterfeit. Mo brings destruction. Joe brings polygamy, racism, fables. Jim Russell brings fables, false theologies, condemnation to followers. All of them do.
        Come to Jesus alone. Only He can save you and your family. Don't condemn them and yourself into hell. Seek the truth and not fables of men.
      - Vladimir
        
        Every time you make a statement about what you are ignorant, it is obvious to those of us who actually know the subject.
      - Esther
        
        You are talking to yourself?
      - Esther
        
        I meant that to Mex Seiko!!! Vlad! My apologies!
      - Mex Seiko
        
        When you take a course to detect counterfeit, you only need to know the authentic. If the item is missing any components or has any additional you'll know it's counterfeit. I acknowledge I ignore a lot of the falsities in your cult. But I know the real one, the true one, the original.
        None of the 12 disciples of Jesus were Muslim, Mormons, or Jehova's Witnesses. That's one of the reasons I'd stay away from them. If I were you I'd do the same before you check out. Once you do, there's no reverse.
      - Vladimir
        
        Your comment screams ignorance. Read the Book of Mormon, otherwise you are condemned to repeating the ignorance of others.
      - Mex Seiko
        
        You're welcome to continue accusing me of ignorance of your cult even after I gladly pleaded guilty. I guess it makes you feel big or something. I'll reiterate I don't know everything about your cult and don't want to know. I don't want to contaminate my mind with counterfeit theologies and end up defending the cult.
        If you continue in the cult you'll end up in the same "heaven" Joe, Moe, and Jim Russell will end up, not the real and true kingdom if heaven.
        You owe it to your family. Seek the truth and don't settle for a 19th Century counterfeit cult.
        Don't let pride get in the way of your salvation. I don't have to know. As Jesus said: "Search the Scriptures diligently for in them you will find salvation and the are the one that speak of Me.
      - Vladimir
        
        You admit ignorance, but you present yourself as knowledgeable enough to "know" that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is not what it claims to be, the restoration of the church that Jesus Christ established before He was crucified.
        
        I owe it to my family to keep the covenants that I made with the Lord in His house, so we will be together forever. Death for you ends the relationship you enjoy on earth with your spouse and children. For me, what is bound on earth will be bound in heaven. This is what God intends for all His children, but He will not force blessings on us. It is you who must be humble enough to see truth when all the world is shouting cult.
      - Esther
        
        Very well said. I concur Michael. Thank you.
      - Mex Seiko
        
        I admit ignorance to every detail of the cult you follow. Like I said, what I do need to know is the real thing. That's how one can tell a counterfeit, by knowing the original real thing. Mormon is based on inventions by a man with as many credentials as a prophet as Mohammed and James Tess Russell to whom we owe Islam and the cult of the Jehova's Witnesses. Mormon is no different than these.
        Polygamy is not of God, so I know this cult is not the restoration of anything related to God, let alone the other fables dreamed by Joe Smith related to the person of Jesus. You can rationalize away this restoration hook you have in your mouth, or a special gospel for American Indians or whatever. It's a plagiarized version of Christianity, but it's not ordained by God. There are no prophesies about restorations. It doesn't fit. Even their advertisement shows the hook "The Other Gospel of Christ." Right. The other gospel he forgot to mention. Wake up!
      - Vladimir
        
        Mex Seiko, can't you get anything right? It isn't "The Other Gospel of Christ" as you claim. It is "ANOTHER Testament of Jesus Christ". That's a BIG difference.
        
        I'm interested that someone who admits he doesn't know about something but persists in passing judgement on it.
        
        As for your assertion that "there are no prophesies about restorations." Try Thessalonians 2:1-3. Here's the sequence of events, (1) Jesus established His church in the meridian of time, (2) there is a falling away, (3) coming of the day of Christ (restoration).
      - Mex Seiko
        
        The operating word here is OTHER regardless of any semantics. Qur'an, Russell's bogus translations or the vanishing book of Joe, it's ANOTHER book which contains contradictions and/or strange theologies regarding the person of Jesus, the nature of man, and God's plans. They are all counterfeit departures from the ORIGINAL canon of Scripture tested through time.
        2 Thessalonians 2:1-3 is a warning against cults like yours. It's funny Joe picked a warning against to deception in order to deceive. It's genius. The thing about counterfeit is that it can look perfect, except for a little smudge right there on the corner. But again, if you don't know the original, counterfeit can look pretty good.
        Read Satan's conversation with Eve in Genesis. He twisted God's Word juuust enough to convince her that it's ok to disobey a little, plus you get to be like God! That's the extra bonus. In your sad case, God started off as a man and then became a God and guess what? You can do it too! It's a great deal. So, you live your life qualifying to be a god and at the end will find yourself at the edge of the Lake of Fire together with som people you know, wondering.
      - Vladimir
        
        Your theme is counterfeit versus genuine. So which is counterfeit? On one hand we have your interpretations of Biblical Scripture which you claim is the genuine versus your interpretations of what you claim is Mormon doctrine which you claim is bogus.
        
        My theme is what God reveals to man is genuine. Whether He reveals it through a prophet who wrote it down or He reveals it directly to your spirit via the Holy Ghost. The method to determine truth from error is found in James 1:5.
        
        I have studied revelation from prophets ancient and modern and then gone to God in prayer. James didn't lie because God has revealed to me through the Holy Ghost that these ancient and modern prophets have been commission of Jesus Christ and He further confirmed the truth of the revelations they proclaimed. That's not all. I have received understanding that correlates all that I have learned from this prophets.
        
        I do not face the dilemma that you do. I know from God and not of myself. Most folks like you refuse to humble themselves and admit to God that they might be suffering from the deception of men in scriptural interpretations that they have heard all their lives. Their pride prevents them from asking for confirmation from God of the correctness of their understanding. They just trash anything that they don't understand or that is new to them. Much like your posts.
        
        I am sorry for you. You will refuse any further light and knowledge from God because you have been told that God has ceased revealing truth to His children. But God has raised up prophets in this modern era and you and your kind will mock and ridicule them just as has been done in ancient times.
        
        God does not cut you off, you cut yourself off from God with your arrogance and pride. You will not ask so you will not know that what you call counterfeit is, in fact, genuine.
      - Mex Seiko
        
        The original, the Bible is the revelation from God to man. It is presented through many, many years and any, many men. It is not the work of a single man and his own interpretation or version of theologies that RESEMBLE Judaism, Christianity, or a combination.
        The Holy Scriptures known as The Bible show the Lord Jesus Christ as The God of Creation. He created the universe. Mohammed, the first great counterfeit portrays Jesus as one of 12 prophets and not the Son of God. James Tess Russell pretended to know more Greek than the Greeks and made up his own translation to shoe the Lord Jesus Christ as a created being, just like an angel. Joseph Smith invent a series of fables in which Jesus is supposed to be the brother of Satan.
        All the books of the Bible are glued together in various ways. One of them CONSISTENCY. Men from different eras or ages, even cultures AGREE in all the major concepts, even through the New Testament. Joe, Moe, and Jim contradict THE ORIGINAL Scriptures and each other. That is why you have 3 different and separated religions which are NOT in concert with the Bible. If you say Smith is a true prophet go God, then by your own argument you should say the say about Mohammed and James Tess Russell, but you can't. As far as them 2 you are an infidel and they can't fellowship with you. And if you had occasion you would want to convert them to Mormon, etc. You can't cross participate in any off these counterfeits because they are all contradictions.
        The original is the Bible. The rest contradict it and each other. The way to tell a counterfeit is tat it doesn't square with the original Word of God.
        I can't say it anymore clearly. You have been convinced that one guy is a prophet so you follow everything he says and think you are serving God. Just the fact that you live your life in such a way to eventually in the after life become a god yourself in diametrically opposed to the Bible.
        I don't know what else to say. God doesn't contradict Himself. Islam, Jehova's Ws, and Mormon are all contradictions.
      - Vladimir
        
        You said, "If you say Smith is a true prophet go God, then by your own argument
        you should say the say [same] about Mohammed and James Tess Russell, but you
        can't."
        
        You are not making sense.
      - Mex Seiko
        
        I find it interesting how Joe Smith chooses to call his followers Latter Day Saints. The Lord Jesus Himself and His apostles warn us against deception in the "latter days."
        2 Timothy 3:13-15
        But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
        There are several other warnings against deception. The antidote, the weapon against deception is "the unchanging Word of God." If you know it, you will be saved. If you accept the lies against God, and His Son, and His Holy Ghost you'll end up becoming a Mormon, or a Muslim, or a Jehova's Witness, among other false religions.
        Like I said before, none of the Disciples and Apostles of Jesus were Mormons, Muslims, or JWs. Not even Catholics, for that matter. So, why should I seek to become one? God has kept His Word, literally and physically. I have a Bible. What else do I need? The falling away doesn't get fixed with a tangent. You get back to the Word. The Bible has not fallen away. Restoration is getting back to the original. Not plugging stuff that was never there. Mormon, Islam, JW is the falling away. Not the other way around.
        If you restore a 1965 Ford Mustang you need OEM, the addition of a surround sound system will devalue the finished work and you can't call it a restored Tang anymore. You may call Mormon a "New and Improved Christian faith" but since that was not God's plan you'll end up OUTSIDE.
        Once more: Any new revelation that does not agree with the Holy Scriptures is deception and counterfeit. It is so simple that it is probably why it escapes you.
        The theme in Romans 1 is acknowledging God as the Creator. That in itself tells you tat perhaps it at be important to know and acknowledge God as who He is. The Bible shows Jesus is no less than God. He is the Creator. To reduce Him to mere prophet or a created being is an error of galactic proportions. All false religions attempt to redefine the Godhead. Satan's purpose in his existence is to make himself equal to God. That's why he either makes you believe you can be like God or God is like you. That's exactly what Mormon, Islam, JW, else do. It is false, it is eternally consequential, and you are art of it.
        If you have had any spiritual confirmation of your theology, well so did Mohammed who said his revelation came through none other than Gabriel, the angel. So, you're in "good" company. Gabriel, the same angel who announced the miraculous birth of Jesus, told Moe that God doesn't beget children. That's how Islam demotes God in Jesus. So, be forewarned. You have been deceived and are convicted in your deception.
      - Vladimir
        
        You sure do rattle on. But I don't share your opinions. I prefer to learn truth as directed by the Holy Ghost and disregard unlearned opinions.
      - Mex Seiko
        
        You are deceived and choose to remain so. You pretend to climb a higher pedestal by stating you receive from the Holy Spirit. Anybody can say they receive from the Holy Spirit, but again and again and again, if the Holy Spirit contradicts the Holy Spirit, one of them is not so holy.
        Jesus said search the Scriptures diligently. Take a wild guess what Scriptures He aw referring to? I'll bet my children He was not talking about the vanishing book of Joe Smith. Only Jesus is salvation. You better do what He says.
        Speaking of pride. I'm not in competition with you. Mex Seiko is not my real name. I have not mentioned any denomination, preacher, or anything else. I'm not recruiting you to any group, church, or club. I will never know what you decide, what you do your life. I do not have a direct personal interest in your decisions, I don't get paid, there's no announcement of whether I win any debate or argument. I speak to you hoping that you will open your mind and realize the obvious situation. If Jesus sent some saliva explaining to Hs disciples not to be deceived, He wasn't talking about Zeus, or Diana. You cannot be confused between a truck and a motorcycle. But such a beautiful religion and message as what the Book of Mormon brings it looks like it can never be evil. But just teheran theology behind the Mormon polygamy should give you a hint. Even worst, the fact that one can suddenly opt out of it. The act that one day blacks cannot participate, which should've given everyone a pause, and the next day is different. God's word never changes . Man's word changes all the time. That the Holy Spirit teaches to marry more tan one woman is blasphemy. So, the Holt Spirit was for polygamy before he was against it?
        The inconsistencies must give you pause and cause to think. I pray your mind is not so seared.
      - Vladimir
        
        The only inconsistencies here are between your attempts to describe the Lord's doctrines and the Lord's doctrines.
      - Mex Seiko
        
        That's why you should read them yourself straight from the Bible, the real Word of God. Don't take it from me. Follow Jesus advise yourself and do not be deceived with the errors and falling away of the "Latter Days."
      - Vladimir
        
        I have read them and unlike you who refuse to ask for confirmation from the Lord, I have asked in humble prayer if what I read was true. The Lord has confirmed to me through the Holy Ghost that what He has revealed through the Bible, through the Book of Mormon and through modern prophets, that He has called, is all true.
        
        So again, my recommendation to you is to do the same and get confirmation from God. Once you do, all of your concerns about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints will evaporate and you will know that it is His true church.
        
        But I know that you will continue to rely on the wisdom of men and wander in the mists, ever learning but never coming to a knowledge of the truth.
      - Mex Seiko
        
        I sense you are presently in denial of your error and are now shifting to God's confirming your deception. I know you're hoping I back away from your amazing revelation that you received confirmation of your cult's profane theologies, but you must admit that these argument is as valid to you as it is for Mohammed and Islam who teaches infidels must die and are on task to chèvre this. Mohammed was visited by none other than God's kingdom announcer, Gabriel. Also, please realize that when you went on your humble prayer to ask for confirmation on your reading you were already praying to the wrong god, so what answer are you expecting?
        So, merely stating that you got confirmation from God Himself doesn't make it true. The one quality or characteristic of God we appreciate the most is His reliability. He doesn't change. He's not a doctrinal moving target. He said Hs truth endureth forever.
        He left the Bible with many purposes and one of them is to inoculate us from deception. So, if you receive confirmation from some spirit that men should lead polygamous families in the name of God, you know it's a spiritual prank.
        The Bible is the standard. If you get confirmation to contradict the Bible it is NOT OF GOD. So, run away from your cult and free yourself and your loved ones. Vlad, this is not a contest or even a debate. The consequences are terrible. Your eternal abode is at stake. I hope you really consider these things.
      - Vladimir
        
        I have to admit, Mex Seiko, I got a chuckle pondering what you wrote. What struck me as amusing, was "how do you pray to the wrong god". Do you change your prayer's salutation and begin with "Dear Zeus". Perhaps "Dear Baal" would suffice. Do prayers get miss routed? Do prayers have IP addresses? Perhaps there is a celestial buffer that gets overloaded and prayers float around until Satan grabs them.
        
        How amazing that you think God has such poor prayer security. Perhaps you think God likes to play tricks on us and periodically lets Satan answer a prayer or two just for laughs.
        
        Your statement that God allows us to be misled when we appeal to Him is without Biblical foundation and totally without merit.
      - Mex Seiko
        
        The Mormon god is not the God of the Bible. Another Mormon person just told me Joe Smith taught that the Bible hasn't been and never will be properly translated. So, Joe came to save the day and straighten things out, AFTER 1,800 YEARS!?! He set out to render the Bible useless through most part of its history. He taught you of his own god who was originally an ordinary man who became a god. That, my friend, is not the God of the Bible. You might as well pray to Zeus. You'll get the same results.
        It is obviously of utmost importance to know who you're praying to. God has a definite identity. Jesus probed His disciples frequently asking them "Who do you say I am?" In Romans 1 you'll learn it is critical to acknowledge that God is the Creator of Heaven and Earth.
        Mohammed claims that Allah is the God of Abraham and of the Bible. Would you pray to Allah?
        Do not blame God for your deception, especially while I'm pleading with you to search the Scriptures diligently and be saved and your family. When you finish laughing, please read Matt 7:21 through 23 below.
        Matthew 7:21-23
        Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
        I'm sincerely trying to open your eyes.
      - Vladimir
        
        If your premise is wrong, no amount of explanation you provide can yield a correct conclusion.
        
        Your false premise is "The Mormon god is not the God of the Bible". Your conclusion is, I'm going to hell because I pray to the wrong god.
        
        Allow me a premise, "The triune God described by the Council of Nicea is not the God of the Bible". The majority of the Christian world adopted that description and it is the dominant belief among Christians today. You are probably one who prays to this triune god.
        
        The triune god is described as "three persons in one". The Bible describes a different Deity. One who prays to His Heavenly Father in the Garden of Gethsemane, one who cries out to His Heavenly Father while on the cross and one who goes to sit at the right hand of His Heavenly Father. Jesus taught his disciples to pray "Our Father who art in Heaven…" while He was standing in front of them. That is not the behavior of a "three persons in one" god.
        
        The God that Mormons pray to is the God of the Bible not the triune god. The God we pray to is the Father of Jesus Christ. We pray exactly as instructed by Jesus, and we end our prayers, "in the name of Jesus Christ".
        
        So who do you pray to? The triune god of the Council of Nicea or the Father of Jesus Christ as instructed in the Bible?
      - Mex Seiko
        
        Joe Mormon and many others discredited the Bible (they had to) in order to suck you into their falsehood. The doctrine of the Trinity or Triune God is "implicit" in the Bible. It was recognized early by the Church and then named and explained to Christendom in the councils.
        You just take Joe's word for it but if you even start studying you'll find that The Father, The Son, and The Holy Ghost are all God, while He is One. They were all present at the Lord's baptism when the Holy Ghost came on Jesus in the form of a Dove, while a voice from heaven announced His Son, in whom He was well pleased.
        In Colossians it says that in Jesus the godhead dwells bodily. There are many other instances even in the OT that point to God in each of these 3 persons. It is very consistent through the whole Bible and we find it has never been an exclusively NT doctrine. All this driving us to the same conclusion, that God, the Lord is One, and also these Three.
        So, the Bible does not have a defect just because Joe, Moe, and Jim, all post New Testament self proclaimed prophets, don't understand or just need to erode any credibility by using human logic rejecting concepts from out of our dimension to be able to inject their error.
        Colossians 2:8-9
        Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. 9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
        If you accept Joe's teachings, ho do you know if Jim's teachings that are the true ones? And what about Mohammed's? All three bible based religions and also Atheism corrupt the original words from the Bible in order to insert themselves into as any minds as possible.
        Is it too late to liberate your mind from the hold of Mormon mind control?
      - Vladimir
        
        Sorry, the "doctrine of the Trinity or Triune God" is NOT in the KJV of the Bible. I gave you examples from the Bible that demonstrate that Jesus Christ taught that He and His Father are NOT THE SAME PERSONAGE.
        
        Why does Jesus call himself the Son of God if he and God are the same person? Why did He teach humble fisherman that they should pray to His Father who are in Heaven WHEN HE WAS STANDING RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEM? Was Jesus actually in heaven and using holographic projections of Himself? There's a word for people like that: Gnostics.
        
        Sorry, your non-defense is making a good case AGAINST the false concept of a "triune god".
      - Mex Seiko
        
        Ok. You'll have to argue with the King James itself, although I'm sure Joe Mormon or successors must've twisted this portion as well to sear your mind against it. This piece speaks clearly by itself. It shouldn't require any interpretation. I won't even try to spell it out for you, but you should read it without anyone else's filter. Use your own intellect. Reason with the Scripture. Put yourself in Philip's place. Ask the question as yourself and receive the answer as it is, coming from Jesus Himself. Try it. Go!
        John 14:8-11
        Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. 9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? 10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. 11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works 'sake.
        Also, read Colossians 2:8-10 again.
        
        Colossians 2:8-10
        Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. 9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. 10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
        Ask yourself what are the rudiments of the world and why would this be used to deceive me?
        I feel this speaks exactly what you are doing here. You are denying the deity as it is because it doesn't match the limitations of our human capability to comprehend this heavenly concept of the Trinity.
      - Vladimir
        
        Jesus Christ emphasized that He and His Father are one in purpose–not one in substance as the Council concluded. In the same vein, Jesus opined to his disciples that they should be one as He and His Father are one. That doesn't mean His disciples are 12 in 1. The conclusions of the Council of Nicea are total nonsense. I am so glad God RESTORED the truth through His prophets.
      - Mex Seiko
        
        I don't know of any human being that can "look" at a purpose. You can hear about it, or read it on a paper.
        Jesus said in plain Greek, "If you SEE Me, you SEE the Father. He said I and my Father are One. In case ol' Phil didn't get it, He said the Father is in Me and I in the Father. If it wasn't for the Holy Spirit, that would be a Twinity right there. But since He is referred to as God as well, we add Him to the Twinity and make it Trinity.
        The God the Father and the Son are one in purpose just like I am with mine.
        Here's an example where the Scripture is as clear as water, and your mormonized mind cannot speak to what the text really says. If that's how you study the Bible you'll never get anywhere. Your Mormon filter is so thick that you can't see the truth. And if you see the Mormon book compared to the Bible with that crazy mentality, you will never realize the errors and the labyrinth of lies you have been served, perhaps since a very young age.
      - Vladimir
        
        We have expressions in English that would confuse folks not familiar with us. Such as, "if you've seen one, you've seen them all". So don't try to "prove" the triune god theory with expressions Jesus used to emphasize something else.
        
        I just can't swallow that nonsense published by the Council of Nicea that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one God.
        
        There is just too much in the Bible that points to three personages comprising the Godhead. Why are there many references to three personages, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost? If they are all the same God, why not just make reference to just God? Father and son are terms that are very specific. They refer to a man that is the progenitor of the another man. Jesus wasn't talking to Harvard graduates, He was speaking to His disciples who understood the language style of the period.
        
        Either twist yourself into a tortured logical pretzel or just admit that the uninspired Council of Nicea issued a description of the Godhead that was POLITICAL not Biblical.
        
        I know you won't go to God and ask as James says you can (James 1:5). You are so stubborn, you would rather continue in ignorance, trusting the interpretations of men, than finding out the truth from God.
      - Mex Seiko
        
        You keep harping on Nicea because that's the talking point of the anti Christian cults.
        I gave you Scripture that speaks for itself. You don't need to interpret anything. Just read it literally as it's presented. Imagine the dialogue between Philip and Jesus like a movie. Perhaps you may want to try and express the Scripture in your own words, but be careful with your bias.
        Do not interpret the Bible. Let it interpret itself. Jesus interprets every single parable he says. Every dream from Pharaoh's to Peter's on the roof are interpreted already in the Bible. The rest you just read and accept the Scripture JUST AS IT IS WRITTEN. when Jesus tells the disciples that they have to eat His flesh and drink His blood He freaked a lot of people, but He explained that He didn't mean it LITERALLY, but SPIRITUALLY. So, He explained that strange saying also.
        Whatever the Bible doesn't explain is because it's self-explanatory. The Council of Nicea just categorized certain doctrines for clarity and discipleship.
        Regarding the God, even His name is plural, but He is One and He makes sure that we understand that. "Hear ye, oh Israel, The Lord is One." But Hs name is Elohim. I hope you know that the "im" ending in Hebrew words means plural. He speaks in plural ("let us make…"), His name is plural, but He is one.
        Keep in mind always that God created us, we didn't create Him. The Bible was dictated and inspired by Him. So do not argue with the Scriptures just because you don't understand it like Russell and Smith have done. They set out to change the Bible. Russell just didn't like the doctrine of Hell, so he invented his own story and translated the Bible to Hs own purpose. Joe Smith did the same as did Mohammed.
        Your tirade about why God doesn't express Himself more clearly demonstrates your arrogant rejection of the Holy Scriptures. But as a mitigating factor I'll acknowledge you are brainwashed into believing that the Bible was was messed up and God waited over a millennium for the right gringo from the 1800's and let him find a book which "clarified" the inspired Word of God, even though the book itself disappeared before any second person could see it.
        But I guess all ths is not strange at all to you. You grew up with it.
      - Vladimir
        
        I never said that God doesn't express Himself clearly. Those are your words. The prose of the Bible is beautiful and the truths are breathtaking when you understand the whole Plan.
        
        What I did say, "I know you, Mex Seiko, won't go to God and ask as James says you can (James 1:5).
        You are so stubborn, you would rather continue in ignorance, trusting
        the interpretations of men, than ask God and receive God's truth."
      - Mex Seiko
        
        Your abuse of James 1.5 is another example of false teaching. Praying for wisdom would never result in a decision to act against Biblical teaching which I think is what you're trying to Justify. So you pray intensely until you hear a still small voice saying strange things the Bible never told you.
        Peter gives more value to the Bible than to any experience he could have including having seen the Glory of Jesus face at the transfiguration.
        Salvation is in Jesus. He said you find salvation in the Bible because it talks about Him. This is before the first book of the NT was written. Any book outside of the Bible will only lead you astray as it has.
      - meg903
        
        Meg–
        Vladimir, I know you realize by now, you can't explain true principles to anyone who thinks the are so smart. They appear to think no one can read and understand the scriptures, but themselves. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, have many of the best in the world of interpreting scriptures, and they do it by the Spirit. Who are they to think they know all truth? I'll take what you and I know over them any day. They are the ones deceived.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Mex Seiko says:
        Like I said before, none of the Disciples and Apostles of Jesus were Mormons, Muslims, or JWs. Not even Catholics, for that matter. So, why should I seek to become one?
        
        Jesus and his disciples were Jews. So, I suppose you should consider becoming Jewish.
      - Mex Seiko
        
        Well, there you go again with your nonsense. You know the Apostles argued among themselves about Judaizing and they resolved that issue amicably. They agreed against forcing Gentiles having to comply with circumcision and other rituals.
        Please stop this nonsense.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Nothing nonsensical about what I posted. You stated that none of
        the Disciples and Apostles of Jesus were Mormons, Muslims, or JWs. Not even
        Catholics, for that matter. I merely pointed out other denominations that they
        were not part of. It is not my problem whether you like my postings or not. You
        are not in control of this site or my decisions on what to post. When you post
        nonsense, you can expect to get a response about it.
      - Mex Seiko
        
        Na, na, na, na… Boo, boo,
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Not much different between that comment and the other nonsense you post.
      - Mex Seiko
        
        Eye of beholder.
      - Pastor Dwayne
        
        Vlad,,, If you study as much as you say you do, you would KNOW that, if God gave a revelation to Joe or anybody, it would not change that which is already written in the Word of God, The Bible. What it would do is verify what is already written as the TRUTH
        How true 2 cor.4:4 speaks of you. A blinded mind can study forever, but until that person gets Born again they will stay blinded.. CLUE , getting born again has nothing to do with Water Baptism . Water Baptism comes after the born again experience..
      - Vladimir
        
        God's revelations are perfectly consistent. He will not contradict what He has previously revealed to His other prophets. But God doesn't just repeat himself. He reveals new truth and information vital to His children's salvation.
        
        BTW, Pastor Dwayne, the World of God is Jesus Christ. The Bible is a book. Pretty hard to confuse the two.
      - Pastor Dwayne
        
        The Bible is a book with its authors inspired by the The Holy Ghost, If your prophets bring a new truth ( Revelation ) IT WILL NOT STRAY FROM THE TRUTH OF THE BIBLE, THE WORD OF GOD, which the Book Of Mormon and your other books do.
      - Vladimir
        
        I do not share your unsupported conclusion.
      - Pastor Dwayne
        
        What new truth, do we need that is vital to God's children's SALVATION , When Jesus said on the cross it is finished! ???????
      - Vladimir
        
        Jesus Christ was referring to His atonement for the sins of the world not further communications from Him. After all, He returned and revealed more truth and His apostles revealed even more truth in all the books of the Bible they wrote after Christ ascended.
      - Pastor Dwayne
        
        The Apostle Paul said all he preached or wanted to know, was the simplicity of Jesus Christ and him crucified !!!!!!!!!!!. All the Apostles preached what Jesus had already preached, Live the life, Get }Born Again) or go to eternal hell , I know you don't call what the Catholics call it there is no such place as purgatory, You say after certain people in die , they spend x number of years paying for their sins,, then they go to some other eternal heaven. Jesus didn't preach it nor the disciples , Read Jn 15 again and again maybe you will get it.. Jesus said in Jn 12 : 14 that we would do what he did! What did he do , Peached the Gospel , Cast out demons, Laid hands on the sick and they will recover.That is what the TRUE church is to DO.
      - Vladimir
        
        In light of what you said about the true church, I invite you to attend some of our meetings.
      - Evermyrtle
        
        You know, these people actually believe this trash. Satan is constantly pitching it at them and they cannot seem able to escape. The really great warriors
        of GOD gave their lives in horrible ways, because they stood for the truth. Thomas, Peter, James and the others, they never asked for recognition for anything they did, and you very seldom hear the name of one of them mentioned. but the bogus Joseph Smith is praised very highly by a few who are his followers. Every Christian in the world know who HIS disciples were but Joseph Smith, who is he??
      - Mex Seiko
        
        These cults are so intricate and detailed they just have got to be the work of Satan himself. Vlad must be one of their "apologists." He's gasping and has nowhere else to go, but his mind is so powerfully locked in, like Jesus said "this kind requires much prayer and fasting.
      - Evermyrtle
        
        You are exactly correct, Satan has his fingers in a lot of false prophesies and this is one of them.
      - Vladimir
        
        Sorry, you are wrong once again, Mex Seiko. The Book of Mormon doesn't contain, "contradictions and/or strange theologies regarding the person of Jesus, the nature of man, and God's plans." Repeating inaccuracies that you have heard or read reflects poorly on your investigative abilities and suggests a high level of gullibility.
        
        To keep from embarrassing yourself any further, check out your information with someone who actually knows the truth. Follow James 1:5.
      - millergroup2
        
        This is exactly right! Man will be deceived by false prophets. They will leave the church to follow vain babbling. Matthew 24:24 For false messiahs and false prophets will rise up and perform great
        signs and wonders so as to deceive, if possible, even God's chosen ones.You have number 3 wrong (I am not surprised).
        
        2 Thessalonians 2:1-3King James Version (KJV)
        
        1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, 2 That
        ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor
        by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. 3 Let
        no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except
        there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the
        son of perdition;
      - Vladimir
        
        I think you are confused. Reread my post.
      - millergroup2
        
        While I am reading, please answer my question: "What did Joesph Smith prophesy that came to pass"?
      - Esther
        
        That the true Church of Jesus Christ would be established in the top of the mountains. Or was that one attributed to Brigham?
      - millergroup2
        
        I am not glad to see you write that you have decided to adhere to the counsel of men (Jeff and Vlad) rather than God and his word. This tells us where your spirituality lies. So sad.
        
        That is what your cultist dogma of a book stated.
        The correct verse that you are referring to is:
        Micah 4:1 "But in the last days it shall come to pass, that the mountain of
        the house of the LORD shall be established in the top of the mountains,
        and it shall be exalted above the hills; and people shall flow unto it"
        
        And the non Mormon commentary that goes with it:
        
        Micah 4:1-4
        
        But in the last days it shall come to pass – These four verses contain, says Bp. Newcome, a prophecy that was to be fulfilled by the coming of the Messiah, when the Gentiles were to be admitted into covenant with God, and the apostles were to preach the Gospel, beginning at Jerusalem, Luk_24:47; Act_2:14, etc., when Christ was to be the spiritual Judge and King of many people, was to convince many nations of their errors and vices, and was to found a religion which had the strongest tendency to promote peace. Bp. Lowth thinks that “Micah took this passage from Isaiah;” or the Spirit may have inspired both prophets with this prediction; or both may have copied some common original, the words of a prophet well known at that time. The variations (few and of little importance) may be seen in the notes on the parallel passages, Isa_2:2, etc.; to which the reader is requested to refer.
      - Esther
        
        ' hope you learned during the repetition which you certainly missed the first time around
      - Pastor Dwayne
        
        2 Thes.1-3
        vs1. speaks of Jesus returning from heaven to gather(Rapture) us to him.
        vs 2.The small church of the Thessalonians was all shook up because some false prophet had told them the day of Christ was at hand ( happening right then). They were shook up because they knew the Rapture would happen at that time. Paul wrote and told them ,NO, the day of the Lord had not happened yet.BUT
        vs 3. But there had to be a falling away first, (which granted has happened to a very small degree in the past, ) but nothing to the similtude as is happening right now, and the man of sin (The AntiChrist) would immediately after the falling away would be revealed. 2 Thes 2:1-3
        Your big difference, between another Gospel, and another testament, in reality is
        one and the same , since scripture itself says don't take away or add to. When people are not born again, and read the bible , they can't understand what it means , therefore to them ,there has to be contradictions. Your other testament of Jesus Christ is so completely different from the teachings of the TRUE bible it has to be FALSE. Vlad get born again under the true conviction of the Holy Ghost, and you will see the Falseness of mormon–ism.
      - Vladimir
        
        Ho hum… Let's go through this one more time.
        
        The scriptures speak of false prophets and teachers. Sorry, they are not referencing Joseph Smith. They didn't say all future prophets would be false. You are making a false assumption.
        
        You misquoted the scriptures. You added the word "immediately". It does not say the man of sin would immediately be revealed after the falling away.
        
        The Book of Mormon and the Bible both testify that Jesus is the Christ. Your contention that the Book of Mormon is so completely different from the teachings of the Bible is evidence that you have not read the Book of Mormon.
        
        Since your post was so flawed, you have a homework assignment. Tell me what is the first divine principle explained in the Book of Mormon, reading from the beginning of the book and explain it in your own words.
      - Evermyrtle
        
        Unless you put JESUS CHRIST THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD before Joseph Smith, you will not get to enjoy that everlasting life.
      - Evermyrtle
        
        Don't worry about him, his willingness to call you names shows his lack of integrity. That is what he knows to do when you start getting the best of him!!.
      - Mex Seiko
        
        I actually think he's being very patient with me. He's being a "good Christian." So many deep in deception. I don't want to get the best of him. I want him to wake up. Matt 7:23 scares me so much.
      - Evermyrtle
        
        I used to have one. I think i trashed it, after trying to compare it to GOD'S WORD..
      - Vladimir
        
        I don't think you are telling the truth, Evermyrtle.
      - Evermyrtle
        
        They always call you ignorant and other names when they have nothing to say. Spite, malice and lying are are the only weapons they have to fight with. We have the truth, all in one book, THE WORD OF GOD and not one word should be added to it or taken away from it, or considered,"Out of date!"
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Whether one word should not be added or deleted, the reality is that the bible has changed many times over the last two centuries.
      - Esther
        
        Joseph Smith was right. The bible is valid only when correctly translated. Ha! We won't see that day.
      - millergroup2
        
        Esther, Over the months I have observed your posting and answers. I have learned much from your reactions. When it comes to biblical scholarship, I have noticed that you defer the "tough ones" over to who you think has more knowledge, or hold a higher position within the church. I have watched your frustration sometimes grow to anger. You even stated in one of your postings that you were more likely a theist, like Jeff searching. I have found you to be a bright, educated person who doubts herself. Probably because of all the confusing guidance around here.
        
        You really have not had a chance to decide for yourself, concerning spirituality. Brought up in the Catholic Church, then to being a Mormon. The Catholic Church teaches very little about salvation. The Mormon Church teaches a very distorted reason toward salvation.
        
        Esther, the Word of God (the bible) by itself holds all the answers and truth, sufficient for all times and knowledge. You owe it to yourself to ignore me, Vladimir, Jeff Dixon, and the new mallen11, even Myrtle. Take some alone time, reflect on your life, and study (by yourself) the word of God. Read what he has to say, then compare it with other doctrines. When you do this honestly, you will be able to see clearly what God has to say. God makes things very simple. The only thing he wants from you is a personal relationship, with His son Jesus. He requires nothing else. Jesus came not to condemn the laws of God, but to fulfill them. This is what Jesus says about the Ten Commandments. I will pray that you find peace, no matter your decision.
        
        Matthew 22:36-40New International Version (NIV)
        
        36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” 37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself
      - Esther
        
        millergroup2Conservative Christian139 comments • 78 votesFull profileFollow millergroup2 • 5 days ago • parent−Vladimir: While I am reading, please answer my question: "What did Joesph Smith prophesy that came to pass"?1 •Reply•Share ›
        Esther • 5 days ago • parentmillergroup2: That the true Church of Jesus Christ would be established in the top of the mountains. Or was that one attributed to Brigham?
      - millergroup2
        
        I am not
        glad to see you write that you have decided to adhere to the counsel of
        men (Jeff and Vlad) rather than God and his word. This tells us where
        your spirituality lies. So sad.
        
        That is what your cultist dogma of a book stated: "That the true
        Church of Jesus Christ would be established in the top of the mountains.
        Or was that one attributed to Brigham? ". Notice the twist, misquote,
        and the plagiarizing of God's word. No Mormon can find, nor quote a
        prophesy that Joseph Smith said that came to pass. There is no such
        thing!
        
        The correct verse that you are referring to is:
        Micah 4:1 "But in the last days it shall come to pass, that the mountain of
        the house of the LORD shall be established in the top of the mountains,
        and it shall be exalted above the hills; and people shall flow unto it"
        
        And the non Mormon commentary that goes with it:
        
        Micah 4:1-4
        
        But in the last days it shall come to pass – These four verses
        contain, says Bp. Newcome, a prophecy that was to be fulfilled by the
        coming of the Messiah, when the Gentiles were to be admitted into
        covenant with God, and the apostles were to preach the Gospel, beginning
        at Jerusalem, Luk_24:47; Act_2:14, etc., when Christ was to be the
        spiritual Judge and King of many people, was to convince many nations of
        their errors and vices, and was to found a religion which had the
        strongest tendency to promote peace. Bp. Lowth thinks that “Micah took
        this passage from Isaiah;” or the Spirit may have inspired both prophets
        with this prediction; or both may have copied some common original, the
        words of a prophet well known at that time. The variations (few and of
        little importance) may be seen in the notes on the parallel passages,
        Isa_2:2, etc.; to which the reader is requested to refer.
      - Esther
        
        You need to get your wife to read the BofM to you, Mr. Miller. There are some great role models there especially for men like you, compare King Benjamin to the the natural man. I know who to follow Mr. Miller.
      - Evermyrtle
        
        You may as well back off , you cannot win with one.
      - millergroup2
        
        Not really a contest here. Just want folks to learn the truth. Exposing the Mormon cult is still necessary, even with the great amount of documented information, it has to be fresh on a daily basis.
      - Esther
        
        I quoted Isaiah, Millergroup2, don't get all excited.
      - millergroup2
        
        BTW, the Indian word "Utah" is the word the Miller's use with excitement once a year when we go snow skiing high atop the mountains.
      - Esther
        
        Regardless of what it means to you personally, beyond that, if you will note, it means the prophet of God, Joseph Smith, of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints foretold, prophesied, that the Lord's true church would be established "high atop the mountains"… which is exactly where you will find it. There's the answer to your original question. Sorry to hear you two went in the wrong direction, Mr. Miller. Next time you may be more willing to listen to Vladimir yourself.
        
        quote:
        Isaiah 2:2-3
        “And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord’s house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.“And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.”
      - Evermyrtle
        
        Excellent advice. You can not understand the WORD unless you read, study and accept the entire WORD OF GOD TO BE RELEVANT. I have read it in it's entirety several times and every time I read it, I find things that I missed before .If we will allow HIM to do so, HE will give us the the understanding of how to live for HIM, and then can live a live according to HIS WILL, We must gave other people the right to make their own mistakes and to repent their mistakes
        because we as Christians know there was only one person who ever lived on this earth, who livee a sinless life. This was the "ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD. We are to teach HIS WORD not ram it down anybody's throat. HE told the disciples to teach HIS WORD and if the peole did not want it, to leave, shaking the dust off of your feet.
      - Bighoss
        
        The tiny differences among ancient texts used by translators of the Bible are insignificant, in that they compass no doctrinal contradictions or other issues that impair the message or its understanding. The Book of Mormon (BOM), by contrast, absolutely reeks with inauthenticity. Not the least of proofs of the fraudulent nature of the Book of Mormon is its use of verbatim language from the King James Version (KJV) in the Jacobean language used by the KJV translators. The KJV was translated hundreds of years after the purported date of original authorship of the Book of Mormon. Thus, the extensive material in the BOM that consists of verbatim quotations from the KJV is an anachronism that Mormons simply can not explain away. This glaring discrepancy proves without doubt that Joseph Smith, Jr. was a false prophet!
      - Esther
        
        You have indicated before that the Saints are idiots, but why would an idiot want to break from the following; might they instead be geniuses? I vote for the latter: Here you go:
        
        Library: Modern: James A. Haught: Holy Horrors (1990)
        Order books by James A. Haught now
        
        A pig caused hundreds of Indians to kill one another in 1980. The animal walked through a Muslim holy ground at Moradabad, near New Delhi. Muslims, who think pigs are an embodiment of Satan, blamed Hindus for the defilement. They went on a murder rampage, stabbing and clubbing Hindus, who retaliated in kind. The pig riot spread to a dozen cities and left more than 200 dead.
        This swinish episode tells a universal tale. It typifies religious behavior that has been recurring for centuries.
        Ronald Reagan often called religion the world's mightiest force for good, "the bedrock of moral order." George Bush said it gives people "the character they need to get through life." This view is held by millions. But the truism isn't true. The record of human experience shows that where religion is strong, it causes cruelty. Intense beliefs produce intense hostility. Only when faith loses its force can a society hope to become humane.
        The history of religion is a horror story. If anyone doubts it, just review this chronicle of religion's gore during the last 1,000 years or so:
        – The First Crusade was launched in 1095 with the battle cry "Deus Vult" (God wills it), a mandate to destroy infidels in the Holy Land. Gathering crusaders in Germany first fell upon "the infidel among us," Jews in the Rhine valley, thousands of whom were dragged from their homes or hiding places and hacked to death or burned alive. Then the religious legions plundered their way 2,000 miles to Jerusalem, where they killed virtually every inhabitant, "purifying" the symbolic city. Cleric Raymond of Aguilers wrote: "In the temple of Solomon, one rode in blood up to the knees and even to the horses' bridles, by the just and marvelous judgment of God."
        – Human sacrifice blossomed in the Mayan theocracy of Central America between the 11th and 16th centuries. To appease a feathered-serpent god, maidens were drowned in sacred wells and other victims either had their hearts cut out, were shot with arrows, or were beheaded. Elsewhere, sacrifice was sporadic. In Peru, pre-Inca tribes killed children in temples called "houses of the moon." In Tibet, Bon shamans performed ritual killings. In Borneo builders of pile houses drove the first pile through the body of a maiden to pacify the earth goddess. In India, Dravidian people offered lives to village goddesses, and followers of Kali sacrificed a male child every Friday evening.
        – In the Third Crusade, after Richard the Lion-Hearted captured Acre in 1191, he ordered 3,000 captives — many of them women and children — taken outside the city and slaughtered. Some were disemboweled in a search for swallowed gems. Bishops intoned blessings. Infidel lives were of no consequence. As Saint Bernard of Clairvaux declared in launching the Second Crusade: "The Christian glories in the death of a pagan, because thereby Christ himself is glorified."
        – The Assassins were a sect of Ismaili Shi'ite Muslims whose faith required the stealthy murder of religious opponents. From the 11th to 13th centuries, they killed numerous leaders in modern-day Iran, Iraq and Syria. They finally were wiped out by conquering Mongols — but their vile name survives.
        – Throughout Europe, beginning in the 1100s, tales spread that Jews were abducting Christian children, sacrificing them, and using their blood in rituals. Hundreds of massacres stemmed from this "blood libel." Some of the supposed sacrifice victims — Little Saint Hugh of Lincoln, the holy child of LaGuardia, Simon of Trent — were beatified or commemorated with shrines that became sites of pilgrimages and miracles.
        – In 1209, Pope Innocent III launched an armed crusade against Albigenses Christians in southern France. When the besieged city of Beziers fell, soldiers reportedly asked their papal adviser how to distinguish the faithful from the infidel among the captives. He commanded: "Kill them all. God will know his own." Nearly 20,000 were slaughtered — many first blinded, mutilated, dragged behind horses, or used for target practice.
        – The Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 proclaimed the doctrine of transubstantiation: that the host wafer miraculously turns into the body of Jesus during the mass. Soon rumors spread that Jews were stealing the sacred wafers and stabbing or driving nails through them to crucify Jesus again. Reports said that the pierced host bled, cried out, or emitted spirits. On this charge, Jews were burned at the stake in 1243 in Belitz, Germany — the first of many killings that continued into the 1800s. To avenge the tortured host, the German knight Rindfliesch led a brigade in 1298 that exterminated 146 defenseless Jewish communities in six months.
        – In the 1200s the Incas built their empire in Peru, a society dominated by priests reading daily magical signs and offering sacrifices to appease many gods. At major ceremonies up to 200 children were burned as offerings. Special "chosen women" — comely virgins without blemish — were strangled.
        – Also during the 1200s, the hunt for Albigensian heretics led to establishment of the Inquisition, which spread over Europe. Pope Innocent IV authorized torture. Under interrogation by Dominican priests, screaming victims were stretched, burned, pierced and broken on fiendish pain machines to make them confess to disbelief and to identify fellow transgressors. Inquisitor Robert le Bourge sent 183 people to the stake in a single week.
        – In Spain, where many Jews and Moors had converted to escape persecution, inquisitors sought those harboring their old faith. At least 2,000 Spanish backsliders were burned. Executions in other countries included the burning of scientists such as mathematician-philosopher Giordano Bruno, who espoused Copernicus's theory that the planets orbit the sun.
        – When the Black Death swept Europe in 1348-1349, rumors alleged that it was caused by Jews poisoning wells. Hysterical mobs slaughtered thousands of Jews in several countries. In Speyer, Germany, the burned bodies were piled into giant wine casks and sent floating down the Rhine. In northern Germany Jews were walled up alive in their homes to suffocate or starve. The Flagellants, an army of penitents who whipped themselves bloody, stormed the Jewish quarter of Frankfurt in a gruesome massacre. The prince of Thuringia announced that he had burned his Jews for the honor of God.
        – The Aztecs began their elaborate theocracy in the 1300s and brought human sacrifice to a golden era. About 20,000 people were killed yearly to appease gods — especially the sun god, who needed daily "nourishment" of blood. Hearts of sacrifice victims were cut out, and some bodies were eaten ceremoniously. Other victims were drowned, beheaded, burned or dropped from heights. In a rite to the rain god, shrieking children were killed at several sites so that their tears might induce rain. In a rite to the maize goddess, a virgin danced for 24 hours, then was killed and skinned; her skin was worn by a priest in further dancing. One account says that at King Ahuitzotl's coronation, 80,000 prisoners were butchered to please the gods.
        – In the 1400s, the Inquisition shifted its focus to witchcraft. Priests tortured untold thousands of women into confessing that they were witches who flew through the sky and engaged in sex with the devil — then they were burned or hanged for their confessions. Witch hysteria raged for three centuries in a dozen nations. Estimates of the number executed vary from 100,000 to 2 million. Whole villages were exterminated. In the first half of the 17th century, about 5,000 "witches" were put to death in the French province of Alsace, and 900 were burned in the Bavarian city of Bamberg. The witch craze was religious madness at its worst.
        – The "Protestant Inquisition" is a term applied to the severities of John Calvin in Geneva and Queen Elizabeth I in England during the 1500s. Calvin's followers burned 58 "heretics," including theologian Michael Servetus, who doubted the Trinity. Elizabeth I outlawed Catholicism and executed about 200 Catholics.
        – Protestant Huguenots grew into an aggressive minority in France in the 15OOs — until repeated Catholic reprisals smashed them. On Saint Bartholomew's Day in 1572, Catherine de Medicis secretly authorized Catholic dukes to send their soldiers into Huguenot neighborhoods and slaughter families. This massacre touched off a six-week bloodbath in which Catholics murdered about 10,000 Huguenots. Other persecutions continued for two centuries, until the French Revolution. One group of Huguenots escaped to Florida; in 1565 a Spanish brigade discovered their colony, denounced their heresy, and killed them all.
        – Members of lndia's Thuggee sect strangled people as sacrifices to appease the bloodthirsty goddess Kali, a practice beginning in the 1500s. The number of victims has been estimated to be as high as 2 million. Thugs were claiming about 20,000 lives a year in the 1800s until British rulers stamped them out. At a trial in 1840, one Thug was accused of killing 931 people. Today, some Hindu priests still sacrifice goats to Kali.
        – The Anabaptists, communal "rebaptizers," were slaughtered by both Catholic and Protestant authorities. In Munster, Germany, Anabaptists took control of the city, drove out the clergymen, and proclaimed a New Zion. The bishop of Munster began an armed siege. While the townspeople starved, the Anabaptist leader proclaimed himself king and executed dissenters. When Munster finally fell, the chief Anabaptists were tortured to death with red-hot pincers and their bodies hung in iron cages from a church steeple.
        – Oliver Cromwell was deemed a moderate because he massacred only Catholics and Anglicans, not other Protestants. This Puritan general commanded Bible-carrying soldiers, whom he roused to religious fervor. After decimating an Anglican army, Cromwell said, "God made them as stubble to our swords." He demanded the beheading of the defeated King Charles I, and made himself the holy dictator of England during the 1650s. When his army crushed the hated Irish Catholics, he ordered the execution of the surrendered defenders of Drogheda and their priests, calling it "a righteous judgment of God upon these barbarous wretches."
        – Ukrainian Bogdan Chmielnicki was a Cossack Cromwell. He wore the banner of Eastern Orthodoxy in a holy war against Jews and Polish Catholics. More than 100,000 were killed in this 17th-century bloodbath, and the Ukraine was split away from Poland to become part of the Orthodox Russian empire.
        – The Thirty Years' War produced the largest religious death toll of all time. It began in 1618 when Protestant leaders threw two Catholic emissaries out of a Prague window into a dung heap. War flared between Catholic and Protestant princedoms, drawing in supportive religious armies from Germany, Spain, England, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, France and Italy. Sweden's Protestant soldiers sang Martin Luther's "Ein 'Feste Burg" in battle. Three decades of combat turned central Europe into a wasteland of misery. One estimate states that Germany's population dropped from 18 million to 4 million. In the end nothing was settled, and too few people remained to rebuild cities, plant fields, or conduct education.
        – When Puritans settled in Massachusetts in the 1600s, they created a religious police state where doctrinal deviation could lead to flogging, pillorying, hanging, cutting off ears, or boring through the tongue with a hot iron. Preaching Quaker beliefs was a capital offense. Four stubborn Quakers defied this law and were hanged. In the 1690s fear of witches seized the colony. Twenty alleged witches were killed and 150 others imprisoned.
        – In 1723 the bishop of Gdansk, Poland, demanded that all Jews be expelled from the city. The town council declined, but the bishop's exhortations roused a mob that invaded the ghetto and beat the residents to death.
        – Islamic jihads (holy wars), mandated by the Koran, killed millions over 12 centuries. In early years, Muslim armies spread the faith rapidly: east to India and west to Morocco. Then splintering sects branded other Muslims as infidels and declared jihads against them. The Kharijis battled Sunni rulers. The Azariqis decreed death to all "sinners" and their families. In 1804 a Sudanese holy man, Usman dan Fodio, waged a bloody jihad that broke the religious sway of the Sultan of Gobir. In the 1850s another Sudanese mystic, 'Umar al-Hajj, led a barbaric jihad to convert pagan African tribes — with massacres, beheadings and a mass execution of 300 hostages. In the 1880s a third Sudanese holy man, Muhammad Ahmed, commanded a jihad that destroyed a 10,000-man Egyptian army and wiped out defenders of Khartoum led by British general Charles "Chinese" Gordon.
        – In 1801 Orthodox priests in Bucharest, Romania, revived the story that Jews sacrificed Christians and drank their blood. Enraged parishioners stormed the ghetto and cut the throats of 128 Jews.
        – When the Baha'i faith began in Persia in 1844, the Islamic regime sought to exterminate it. The Baha'i founder was imprisoned and executed in 1850. Two years later, the religious government massacred 20,000 Baha'is. Streets of Tehran were soaked with blood. The new Baha'i leader, Baha'ullah, was tortured and exiled in foreign Muslim prisons for the rest of his life.
        – Human sacrifices were still occurring in Buddhist Burma in the 1850s. When the capital was moved to Mandalay, 56 "spotless" men were buried beneath the new city walls to sanctify and protect the city. When two of the burial spots were later found empty, royal astrologers decreed that 500 men, women, boys, and girls must be killed and buried at once, or the capital must be abandoned. About 100 were actually buried before British governors stopped the ceremonies.
        – In 1857 both Muslim and Hindu taboos triggered the Sepoy Mutiny in India. British rulers had given their native soldiers new paper cartridges that had to be bitten open. The cartridges were greased with animal tallow. This enraged Muslims, to whom pigs are unclean, and Hindus, to whom cows are sacred. Troops of both faiths went into a crazed mutiny, killing Europeans wantonly. At Kanpur, hundreds of European women and children were massacred after being promised safe passage.
        – Late in the 19th century, with rebellion stirring in Russia, the czars attempted to divert public attention by helping anti-Semitic groups rouse Orthodox Christian hatred for Jews. Three waves of pogroms ensued — in the 1880s, from 1903 to 1906, and during the Russian Revolution. Each wave was increasingly murderous. During the final period, 530 communities were attacked and 60,000 Jews were killed.
        – In the early 1900s, Muslim Turks waged genocide against Christian Armenians, and Christian Greeks and Balkans warred against the Islamic Ottoman Empire.
        – When India finally won independence from Britain in 1947, the "great soul" of Mahatma Gandhi wasn't able to prevent Hindus and Muslims from turning on one another in a killing frenzy that took perhaps 1 million lives. Even Gandhi was killed by a Hindu who thought him too pro-Muslim.
        – In the 1950s and 1960s, combat between Christians, animists and Muslims in Sudan killed more than 500,000.
        – In Jonestown, Guyana, in 1978, followers of the Rev. Jim Jones killed a visiting congressman and three newsmen, then administered cyanide to themselves and their children in a 900-person suicide that shocked the world.
        – Islamic religious law decrees that thieves shall have their hands or feet chopped off, and unmarried lovers shall be killed. In the Sudan in 1983 and 1984, 66 thieves were axed in public. A moderate Muslim leader, Mahmoud Mohammed Taha, was hanged for heresy in 1985 because he opposed these amputations. In Saudi Arabia a teen-age princess and her lover were executed in public in 1977. In Pakistan in 1987, a 25-year-old carpenter's daughter was sentenced to be stoned to death for engaging in unmarried sex. In the United Arab Emirates in 1984, a cook and a maid were sentenced to stoning for adultery — but, as a show of mercy, the execution was postponed until after the maid's baby was born.
        – In 1983 in Darkley, Northern Ireland, Catholic terrorists with automatic weapons burst into a Protestant church on a Sunday morning and opened fire, killing three worshipers and wounding seven. It was just one of hundreds of Catholic-Protestant ambushes that have taken 2,600 lives in Ulster since age-old religious hostility turned violent again in 1969.
        – Hindu-Muslim bloodshed erupts randomly throughout India. More than 3,000 were killed in Assam province in 1983. In May 1984 Muslims hung dirty sandals on a Hindu leader's portrait as a religious insult. This act triggered a week of arson riots that left 216 dead, 756 wounded, 13,000 homeless, and 4,100 in jail.
        – Religious tribalism — segregation of sects into hostile camps — has ravaged Lebanon continuously since 1975. News reports of the civil war tell of "Maronite Christian snipers," "Sunni Muslim suicide bombers," "Druze machine gunners," "Shi'ite Muslim mortar fire," and "Alawite Muslim shootings." Today 130,000 people are dead and a once-lovely nation is laid waste.
        – In Nigeria in 1982, religious fanatic followers of Mallam Marwa killed and mutilated several hundred people as heretics and infidels. They drank the blood of some of the victims. When the militia arrived to quell the violence, the cultists sprinkled themselves with blessed powder that they thought would make them impervious to police bullets. It didn't.
        – Today's Shi'ite theocracy in Iran — "the government of God on earth" — decreed that Baha'i believers who won't convert shall be killed. About 200 stubborn Baha'is were executed in the early 1980s, including women and teenagers. Up to 40,000 Baha'is fled the country. Sex taboos in Iran are so severe that: (1) any woman who shows a lock of hair is jailed; (2) Western magazines being shipped into the country first go to censors who laboriously black out all women's photos except for faces; (3) women aren't allowed to ski with men, but have a separate slope where they may ski in shrouds.
        – The lovely island nation of Sri Lanka has been turned hellish by ambushes and massacres between Buddhist Sinhalese and Hindu Tamils.
        – In 1983 a revered Muslim leader, Mufti Sheikh Sa'ad e-Din el'Alami of Jerusalem, issued a fatwa (an order of divine deliverance) promising an eternal place in paradise to any Muslim assassin who would kill President Hafiz al-Assad of Syria.
        – Sikhs want to create a separate theocracy, Khalistan (Land of the Pure), in the Punjab region of India. Many heed the late extremist preacher Jarnail Bhindranwale, who taught his followers that they have a "religious duty to send opponents to hell." Throughout the 1980s they sporadically murdered Hindus to accomplish this goal. In 1984, after Sikh guards riddled prime minister Indira Gandhi with 50 bullets, Hindus went on a rampage that killed 5,000 Sikhs in three days. Mobs dragged Sikhs from homes, stores, buses and trains, chopping and pounding them to death. Some were burned alive; boys were castrated.
        – In 1984 Shi'ite fanatics who killed and tortured Americans on a hijacked Kuwaiti airliner at Tehran Airport said they did it "for the pleasure of God."
        
        Obviously, people who think religion is a force for good are looking only at Dr. Jekyll and ignoring Mr. Hyde. They don't see the superstitious savagery pervading both history and current events.
        During the past three centuries, religion gradually lost its power over life in Europe and America, and church horrors ended in the West. But the poison lingered. The Nazi Holocaust was rooted in centuries of religious hate. Historian Dagobert Runes said the long era of church persecution killed three and a half million Jews — and Hitler's Final Solution was a secular continuation. Meanwhile, faith remains potent in the Third World, where it still produces familiar results.
        It's fashionable among thinking people to say that religion isn't the real cause of today's strife in Lebanon, Sri Lanka, Northern Ireland, India and Iran — that sects merely provide labels for combatants. Not so. Religion keeps the groups in hostile camps. Without it, divisions would blur with passing generations; children would adapt to new times, mingle, intermarry, forget ancient wounds. But religion keeps them alien to one another.
        Anything that divides people breeds inhumanity. Religion serves that ugly purpose.
        "Holy Horrors" is copyright © 1990 by James A. Haught. All rights reserved.
        The electronic version is copyright © 1997 by Internet Infidels with the written permission of James A. Haught. All rights reserved. Enter content here
        Koran, slavery and anti-SemitismThe main source of slaves was the pilgrimages to Mecca where poor Sudanese would sell one of their children into slavery for to pay for they journey home. In 1962 the government changed the law, it no longer allowed the purchase of slaves, although it still allowed the purchase of wives. The Koran was used by clerics to legitimize the government’s anti-Jewish fever. Portions of the Koran that condemned Jews: The Jews are enemies of the of Allah, of the Prophets, of the angels (297-98). They lies against Allah (450). They kill the prophets of Allah (571). They are enemies of the believers (582). They will receive the punishment of hell fire (793). [These passages] were given evermore prominence. [King] Fisal when beyond what even the Koran taught about Jews…. Fisal ordered that all hotels have the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in every room…. Fisal believed the Jews used the blood of Moslems and Christians in their religious holidays [a widely held by Christians Medieval belief]. From the Secrets of the Kingdom: The Inside Story of the Saudi-U.S. Connection, Chapter 3, Gerald Posner, 2005
        accessed 092812 http://www.skeptically.org/enlightenment/id7.html
      - Mex Seiko
        
        Het Est, keep repeating tat to yourself. You may get to believe it for real.
      - Esther
        
        I do believe it for real. You should pay closer attention to Vladimir and Jeffrey. Their ideas are far more respectable even if they do have major differences. I am open to what is reasonable and works for me and my family. That is the bottom line. And the one thing I have completely ruled out, is pseudo-Christianity
      - Mex Seiko
        
        More respectable than what? Jeff hates religion. He already told me he's not taking any sides with Mormons. He just hates real Christianity more than the cult of Mormonism. He posts lies about supposed similarities between pagan idols and Jesus Christ. For some odd reason, you posted almost a chapter from an Atheist book. Interesting choice as an apologists for a religion.
        I guess you must be desperate and are deflecting somewhere else. I don't get that move.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        I do not hate religion. I simply dismiss out of hand any viewpoint which is based on faith instead of factual evidence. Faith is what people who have no evidence rely on. I am of the opinion that life on earth would be better if people stopped believing in ancient tribal myths. But I am also of the opinion that life would be better if people stopped thinking that Socialism can work. It is doubtful that either topic will disappear soon, but I can hope.
        
        I did not post lies about similarities between Jesus and other man-gods. I posted information that has been referenced by many different researchers into the topic. Lies are something that one knows to be false yet they express them as true anyway. I expressed an opinion. An opinion which can be supported by the research of many. The idea that Jesus is actually god is an opinion of yours. An opinion which has no support of evidence.
      - Mex Seiko
        
        Real research shows the similarities are fabricated if not exaggerated. In other words lies or half lies. A lot of similarities were added post Jesus (between 100 and 1,000 AD). As example one of the similarities you mentioned before was December 25th as His birth date which it may or may not be Horus' same. Unless you check your brains out in order to spread your lies, you know that that date is not the Biblical birth of Christ. it was extra biblically set way later as such. The Bible doesn't say the exact date. By study you may be able to approximate it in October. Also 1st Century Christian missionaries preached the gospel in Asia, India, Alexandria, Mesopotamia, etc. So Jesus' story was told in these places since the first and second centuries.
        Most if not all religions require a belief or a faith in something or someone you cannot presently see. So, I guess You don't hate religion but the practice of religion. So you justify yourself with semantics? Pretty clever!
        I believe Jesus Christ is God the Creator of the Universe as evidenced by His fulfillment of every prophesy about Messiah and by His own Statement. The prophet, Daniel prophesied His ministry and death as did Isaiah in chapter 53. The Magi that came to worship Jesus, came from Mesopotamia where Daniel had been in charge, by orders of the king, of the diviners, and Chaldeans over 500 years before Christ. Jesus did many signs or miracles and His disciples were eye witnesses of His resurrection. The Christian religion didn't actually take until this event. The whole Bible speaks about Jesus directly and indirectly.
        The Bible is credentialed as the Holy Word of God by fulfilled prophesy. One of them, Ezekiel 37 was fulfilled in 1948 when The World (League of Nation) issued a decree to reestablish the nation of Israel while lifting them from the death camps or Valley of the Dead Bones, in Germany. Now you can read it's sequel, Ezekiel 38, 39 on newspapers (Internet) as Iran readies itself to attack Israel. Magog (Russia) is getting ready for their part. The Jews are pleading for help to stop Persia's nuke program and may be forced to take matters into their own hands as they remain "alone" especially as their only and powerful ally refuses to shoe signs of support. If Israel attacks Persia, they will provoke a response, which will involve Russia, Iran, and a host of Shia countries. Ezekiel says that God will intervene by blasting the attackers in what appears to be nuclear blast which will require 7 months of specialized personnel to cleanup and for passerby to flag the area if any contaminated area is detected. All that is in Ezekiel 38 and 38, which fulfillment is very much imminent. Once these events occur you will see the the Revelation of Christ unravel before your eyes.
        I have faith, but He made sure it's not blind faith.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        The real birthday is not known. It is difficult to pinpoint an actual date to event that did not actually occur. Mostly derived from pagan myths, Jesus' birth stories are very dubious, and it very likely that all such beliefs were written retrospectively by the Roman gospel writers, or were assumed from the outset. There is no evidence or reason to believe that they actually occurred. Events such as King Herod's killing of every male child simply could not have gone unnoticed. The date if Dec 25th has been chosen by many religions s it reflects the winter solstice. Worldwide, interpretation of the event has varied from culture to culture, but most cultures have held a recognition of rebirth, involving holidays, festivals, gatherings, rituals or other celebrations around that time
        
        I am not justifying myself with semantics. I am merely expressing what I feel. If you want semantics, look no further than your religion with your "love the sinner, hate the sin" comment. It would be a nice sentiment if Christians actually loved the people they claim to love. But, what is shown by their actions is nothing of the sort.
        
        Oh, please, the prophecies are fulfilled? Jesus prophesied he would return in the lifetime of his disciples. He missed that one by 2,000 years or so. Jesus makes it clear that he is speaking about the current generation of people. In Matthew 24:4 when the disciples asked Jesus about the end of the world, he "answered and said unto THEM", "Take heed that no man deceive you… ye shall hear of wars and rumors of wars… Ye shall see the abomination… etc." He is clearly replying to them, telling them what they shall see. He says that THEY shall see these things. Read it for yourself. Then he concludes by saying: "THIS generation shall not pass" until he comes again. The evidence can be found in Mark chapter 13, starting from verse 5 onward. It is clear that he is speaking to his apostles, answering their inquiry. To say otherwise is to be dishonest.
        
        No historians of the time mention Jesus. Suetonius (65-135) does not. Pliny the Younger only mentions Christians (Paulists) with no comment of Jesus himself. Tacitus mentions a Jesus, but it is likely that after a century of Christian preaching Tacitus was just reacting to these rumours, or probably talking about one of the many other Messiah's of the time. Josephus, a methodical, accurate and dedicated historian of the time mentions John the Baptist, Herod, Pilate and many aspects of Jewish life but does not mention Jesus. (TheTestimonium Flavianum has been shown to be a third century Christian fraud). He once mentions a Jesus, but gives no information other than that he is a brother of a James. Jesus was not an unusual name, either. Justus, another Jewish historian who lived in Tiberias (near Kapernaum, a place Jesus frequented) did not mention Jesus nor any of his miracles. It is only in the evidence of later writers, writing about earlier times, that we find a Jesus. What is more surprising (Jesus could simply have been unknown to local historians) is that academics note that the gospels themselves do not allude to first-hand historical sources, either!
        “The four Gospels that eventually made it into the New Testament, for example, are all anonymous, written in the third person about Jesus and his companions. None of them contains a first-person narrative ("One day, when Jesus and I went into Capernaum…"), or claims to be written by an eyewitness or companion of an eyewitness. Why then do we call them Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? Because sometime in the second century, when proto-orthodox Christians recognized the need forapostolic authorities, they attributed these books to apostles (Matthew and John) and close companions of apostles (Mark, the secretary of Peter; and Luke, the travelling companion of Paul). Most scholars today have abandoned these identifications, and recognize that the books were written by otherwise unknown but relatively well-educated Greek-speaking (and writing) Christians during the second half of the first century.”"Lost Christianities" by Bart Ehrman (2003)1
      - Mex Seiko
        
        Thanks for your contribution to the Dec25 issue and I reiterate that that date is not found in the Bible unless you come up with your own translation. Further, there's pagan and then there's Judeo-Christian.
        You express what you feel about religion and I express what I feel about what you express about religion, especially about Christianity. Your hatred for Christianity moves you to insert yourself in any conversation and take sides with cults providing negative arguments to perhaps assist the counter, which is happily accepted by them as they seek validation by knocking the very same religion the purport to "restore."
        Yes! Prophesies fulfilled. You totally ignored the restoration of Israel, in 1948 as prophesied by Ezekiel. I'll mention again current events that indicate that an imminent attack led by Russia and Iran and a coalition of Islamic countries was also prophesied in chapters 38 and 39 by the same prophet. They talked about at the UN General Sessions, Israeli PM is pleading for commitment to assist, and Obama is giving signals tat may encourage such attacks by giving the appearance of not supporting Israel.
        About the historicity of Jesus Christ I'll point out the fact that there is indeed an immense library of scholarly research attempting to prove that He is an imaginary character. There is a similar amount if study to misplace the authorship and dating of any account as witness of His existence, but when a credit card size papyri pops up indicating that this "inexistent" character had a wife, they rush to attempt it's authentication. And that is the sum of my reliance in "scholarly" work.
        Christianity is a massive world fact. It has a beginning date and a detailed account of it's origins. To deny Jesus' existence is equivalent as denying that Rosa Parks ever rode a bus.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        There is pagan and Judeo-Christian and Muslim and Hindu and many other religions. Mankind has never been shy about creating new religions and gods associated with those religions.
        
        I think is hysterical that you believe I am taking the sides of the Mormons when I have argued with them about their beliefs as well. Ask Vlad if I offer support to the Mormons. All I did was point out something idiotic that you posted in response to a posting from a Mormon. You consider any comment that does not agree with you as hate, which is just utter nonsense.
        
        Yes, Israel exists again. But the odds are something that was prophesied would eventually happen. It is the law of averages. I was not ignoring it earlier. I was making a larger point. You claim that Jesus is god. If he cannot even get a prophecy right, what makes you think anything else is a fulfilled prophecy? A very simple flaw in the prophecy-fulfillment argument is that foreseeing the future doesn't necessarily prove divine guidance. Psychics have existed in every generation, and some of them have demonstrated amazing abilities to predict future events. Their "powers," although mystifying to those who witness them, are not usually considered divine in origin. If, then, Old Testament prophets did on occasions foresee the future (a questionable premise at best), perhaps they were merely the Nostradamuses and Edgar Cayces of their day. Why would it necessarily follow that they were divinely inspired? Even the Bible recognizes the possibility that uninspired prophets can sometimes accurately predict the future:
        "If there arises among you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams, and he gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or wonder comes to pass, of which he spoke to you, saying, `Let us go after other gods'–which you have not known–`and let us serve them,' you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams, for Yahweh your God is testing you to know whether you love Yahweh your God with all your heart and with all your soul" (Deut. 13:1-3, NKJV with Yahweh substituted for "the LORD").
        By the Bible's own testimony, then, natural psychic ability could offer a perfectly sensible explanation for any example of prophecy that bibliolaters might cite in support of the inerrancy doctrine, but an unbiased contextual examination of the alleged prophecy will very likely uncover an even more rational explanation. Usually, Bible "prophecies" turn out to be prophecies only because imaginative Bible writers arbitrarily declared them to be prophecies. The same can be said of their alleged fulfillments: the fulfillments are fulfillments only because obviously biased New Testament writers arbitrarily declared them to be fulfillments.
      - Mex Seiko
        
        Typical Atheist denial and dismissal of Facts. The odds get more and more exponential as the details increase. Not just was the country reconstituted, it was by people that 3 years before were being systematically exterminated. One person in 3 lost their life, most of them lost all personal possession. The Scripture says they were brought in from all corners of the world as they were and from the valley of the dry bones signifying they rose from the dead. The precision of the prophesy cannot be ignored. It was not a casual coincidence. It was confluence of events in history that merged at a specific moment.
        In addition you have today the conditions brewing for the fulfillment of the chapters following 37 where Russia and Ian lead an attack over Israel. More over the description of the event written 500 years before Christ and 2500 before today describes an event very similar to a nuclear blast requiring experts for the cleanup and the flagging afterwards of potential contamination for the experts to clean it up. They will wait 7 months before even approaching the work.
        Ezekiel 39:14-15
        And they shall sever out men of continual employment, passing through the land to bury with the passengers those that remain upon the face of the earth, to cleanse it: after the end of seven months shall they search. 15 And the passengers that pass through the land, when any seeth a man's bone, then shall he set up a sign by it, till the buriers have buried it in the valley of Hamongog.
        2 Peter 1:16-21
        For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. 18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. 19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        The only typical thing occurring is your adherence to nonsense. What fact did I dismiss? I agree that Israel exists. That is a fact. What I dismiss is your storybook fabrication of why it exists or what will be occurring in the future.
      - Mex Seiko
        
        Which is the storybook? The existence if Israel or its prophecy in Ezekiel 37? Or is it the fact that Ezekiel 38 is being played out as we speak?
        Ezek 38, 39 imply the relationship between Russia and Iran 2500 years before it happened. http://worldnewsrecord.blogspot.com/2012/01/russian-military-getting-ready-for-us.html
        The implication of this fulfillment extend to the ret of the prophesies in which you will be present a you are now.
        Your empty words cannot change the odds, the reality.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        The storybook is your desire that the reason that Israel exists is because a god desires it exists. The only reason Israel exists is because people decided to make it happen. Of course, I am not discounting the strong probability that the reason that some people wanted it to exist is because they desperately want the bible to be true.
        
        We are not seeing any biblical prophecy being played out. And even if there is a nuclear war in that region, you will not be seeing Jesus riding to earth on a white horse. People will not suddenly be able to overcome the effects of gravity and start floating in the air. Stars, meaning suns, will not be falling on the earth.
        
        But this part is my favorite in Revelation. The locusts looked like horses prepared for battle. On their heads they wore something like crowns of gold, and their faces resembled human faces. 8 Their hair was like women’s hair, and their teeth were like lions’ teeth. 9 They had breastplates like breastplates of iron, and the sound of their wings was like the thundering of many horses and chariots rushing into battle. 10 They had tails with stingers, like scorpions, and in their tails they had power to torment people for five months. 11 They had as king over them the angel of the Abyss,whose name in Hebrew is Abaddon and in Greek is Apollyon (that is, Destroyer.
        
        What exactly is women's hair? It is same as men's hair, except it gets styled differently. And many men wear their hair long like women.
      - Mex Seiko
        
        People decided to make it happen? Exactly what people? Nazi Germany was in the process of exterminating every Jew. When Hitler was out of cash he offered 500,000 Jews for $1 each. There were no bidders. Did the UN wanted to restore Israel? They have been against Israel ever since they signed the resolution to restore Israel. They signed the resolution against their own desires. Israel was supposed to get Transjordan as well but England made another deal. Since, the Sun began to set on the Empire. And as much as it burns your gut the Scriptures are still there. It's called the Promised Land for a reason and that promised is being honored as we speak before the terrible Day of the Lord. Denial of reality is inconsequential.
        Israelis live among their enemies and are surrounded by enemies. The Six Day War was nothing short of a miracle. They had no help and the result was land gain. There haven't been too many wars since because Arabs are afraid of being embarrassed again by a nation the size of NJ.
        Ahmadinejad claims the job of ushering in the Mahdi. This is a figure that fits the biblical character known as Antichrist. Another "coincidence."
        If Israel is attacked with nukes, are you willing to say "they wanted to make it happen?"
        I bet you do.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Actually, the UN did establish the new Israel. For someone who claims to know the facts, you are sadly missing many.
        
        Following the adoption of a resolution by the United Nations General Assembly on 29 November 1947, recommending the adoption and implementation of the United Nations partition plan of Mandatory Palestine, on 14 May 1948 David Ben-Gurion, the Executive Head of the World Zionist Organization[8] and president of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, declared the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz Israel, to be known as the State of Israel, a state independent upon the termination of the British Mandate for Palestine, 15th May, 1948.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        I see you ignore the reality of how Israel became a nation again.
      - Esther
        
        Is it okay to repeat myself, Jeff? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mm2Jrr0tRXk&feature=em-subs_digest-newavtr-vrecs
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        http://www.tribulation-now.org/
        
        This is website of Christians who wanted to make it happen.
      - Mex Seiko
        
        Oh, we want to make lots of things happen. But we don't have the power. God does. And He made it happen. The Jews didn't have the power. God did. And He made it happen.
        The restoration of Israel happened through a convergence of several events, conditions, and developments, not just that they or we wanted it to happen.
        There was Hitler, England, the UN, the Diaspora Jews, their displacement by Hitler, the conditions in Palestine, etc. too many factors in the mix. Only God's sight reached into the future and told Ezekiel.
        Your denial is irrational and nonsensical. The connections between so many parts of the prophesy to the historical events are too many to be coincidental. Even if the Russian attack hasn't happened yet, the fact that they're talking about, they're getting ready for it, and the political atmosphere shows the imminence of it happening just as foretold in Ezekiel 38&39.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        The history of the world is filled with examples of people actually accomplishing things. The only time gods accomplish things happens in fairy tales.
      - Mex Seiko
        
        Fairy Tale do come true. Check this out:
        
        Ezekiel 37:21-22
        And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen, whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land: 22 And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all:
        Comprende amigo? How long have they been trying to make Palestine a nation? We will not see a Palestinian nation ever. It will be Israel alone. There will be no dividing of land anymore. Very soon, there will be a nuclear exchange that will change the Middle-Eastern situation very drastically and end the Palestinian issue once and for all. Russia will be too busy burying dead people to be concerned with Israel's gas and oil any longer.
        You should understand that Israel is under Devine protection. There is no messing with Israel right now.
        Example: In May 2010 UK banned Israeli advertisement because it showed parts of Palestine. That same month, a volcano erupted and cancelled UK tourism for months http://articles.cnn.com/2010-05-10/travel/volcanic.ash.flights.europe_1_ash-cloud-volcanic-ash-flights?_s=PM:TRAVEL
        http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/apr/14/israeli-tourism-ad-asa
        
        Hugo Chavez said in a speech that he curses Israel from the bottom of his guts, exactly the spot where he got cancer a year later. I guess either he never read Genesis or perhaps he though it was a fairy tale.
        There are many other examples involving Katrina, Japan Earthquake, and other "reactions" but the above should b enough.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Enough for what? To show that you are a delusional loon?
      - Mex Seiko
        
        To show that if you don't get it with these examples, then you've proven willful rejection of the reality of God's existence and the truth of the Bible.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Truth of the bible? lol. The book that claims that a flood covered the earth within the past 10,000 years even though the evidence shows that not to be true? A book that claims that plants could exist before the sun? A book that says that if you place a striped stick in front of mating cattle, it will result in striped offspring.
        
        All it shows is that I am unwilling to pretend that fables from goat herders are the ultimate source of knowledge in the world.
      - Mex Seiko
        
        There you go again playing dumb. Because I know you have been lectured about this already. You're just hoping I stumble on your foolishness. But I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ because I know in Whom I have believed, and am persuaded that He will keep what I have committed to Him until His day comes.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Not playing dumb at all. Whether or not Christians try to explain nonsense with more nonsense is hardly a concern or an
        actual response.
      - Esther
        
        Jeff: Count me in where this is concerned: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mm2Jrr0tRXk&feature=em-subs_digest-newavtr-vrecs I don't want to be part of the nonsense
      - Mex Seiko
        
        So, if you're not playing dumb, well I guess we're left with the alternative.
        So, that's all folks.
        
        Nice talking to ya!
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        As usual, you are confused. There are more than those two possibilities. But I have not seen any evidence that you are capable of analytic thinking skills. But, yes, it was a joy to chat with you.
      - Mex Seiko
        
        Well, I did have plain or naturally dumb and willfully dumb, so I combined those 2 as dumb.
        I provided you with current events (various) which matched biblical prophesy perfectly and you refused to critically analyze that and just dismissed it with the typical minimizing. I must confess I tend to refuse logs of anti-Christian blathering but you understand. I've seen it before and been flooded with it so I just tend to ignore it a little. The similarities was case in point. TF is also in question as perhaps there's only one source of unproven suspicion on Eusebius inserting TF being echoed by "scholars."
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Debunking the
        Russia/War of Gog and Magog Myth
        
        by Jeffrey Goodman
        Ph.D.
        
        One of the more popular
        topics among Christians today is the “end times.” With each significant news
        story, a correlation between it and end times events prophesied in the Bible is
        sought. Because of recent military activities and tensions in Russia and Israel,
        the end times event prophesied in the Bible called “The War of Gog and Magog” is
        now a red hot topic. Ezekiel 38/39 tells how Gog, the powerful leader from the
        land of Magog, will lead a confederacy of nations to invade Israel during the
        end times and start a war of unprecedented size and devastation.
        
        Many end times
        aficionados believe that Magog represents Russia and that Russia will soon come
        to invade Israel. However, the ancient Assyrians had dealings with Magog, and
        their Court records clearly identify Magog and it is not Russia. For decades
        Christians have been deceived and have been unwittingly deceiving others about
        who is to be involved in the prophesied invasion of Israel. Russia has
        absolutely nothing to do with Magog and being the nation that will lead an
        invasion of Israel.
        
        While many may picture
        Russia as an “evil empire,” personal opinions, traditional views, incomplete
        research, and current events cannot be the basis of the identification of Gog
        and Magog and the interpretation of Ezekiel 38/39. The correct identification
        and interpretation of Ezekiel 38/39 must be based on scripture, with the aid of
        the archeological and historical context of these scriptures. (The scriptures of
        the Bible are set in a context of ancient cultures, nations, and times.)
        
        While everyone is
        entitled to their own opinions, everyone is not entitled to their own set of
        facts. Although opinions may abound, there is not one verifiable fact or any
        primary evidence to support the belief that Magog represents Russia. II Peter 1:20 says
        “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private
        interpretation.” This is consistent with II Timothy 2:15
        which says, “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not
        to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” Any interpretation of
        Ezekiel 38/39 requires recognition of the historical truth and obedience to the
        word of God which is truth.
        
        The brief report below
        explains the great deception about Russia and the War of Gog and Magog.
        
        Jeffrey Goodman,
        Ph.D.
        
        An archeologist and a
        geologist, Dr. Goodman has devoted over twenty- five years to the study of the
        Bible. He holds a geological engineering degree from the Colorado School of
        Mines, a M.A. in anthropology from the University of Arizona, and a Ph.D. in
        anthropology from California Coast University. He also earned a M.B.A. from
        Columbia University Graduate School of Business. He was accredited by the former
        Society of Professional Archeologists. Goodman is a Messianic Jew who was saved
        in 1987.
        
        Russia and the War of
        Gog and Magog
        
        While most end times
        Bible prophecy authors have argued that Russia's origins trace back to the
        ancient nation of "Magog” described in Ezekiel 38-39, this is simply not true.
        This myth that traces back to the mid 1800’s is built on historical statements
        that were deliberately altered, and on the assumption that the similarity of
        certain words could mean something else in another language. Although ancient
        records have been found that tell a different story about the identity of Magog
        and about Russia’s origins, the “Russia is Magog” myth persists.
        http://believersjourney.blogspot.com/2012/02/debunking-russia-war-of-gog-and-magog.html
      - Mex Seiko
        
        Splash! Should've seen it coming.
        
        For a guy with prides of critical thinking you always pull a "no brainer" (pun premeditated and totally intended).
        Perhaps Jeffrey Goodman is a critical thinker, but you're a copy/paster thinker. You talk about having an opinion, but you just paste other people's brains.
        About Russia: the prophesy states that Russia to take spoils. In other words to lute. It's not like they haven't done it or tried before.
        Ezekiel 38:12
        To take a spoil, and to take a prey; to turn thine hand upon the desolate places that are now inhabited, and upon the people that are gathered out of the nations, which have gotten cattle and goods, that dwell in the midst of the land. http://glblgeopolitics.wordpress.com/2012/09/11/putin-seen-courting-israel-to-guarantee-natural-gas-dominance-in-region/
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        I know you could not care less what i think, so I showed you what another Christian thinks about your absurd view.
      - Esther
        
        The method of making a point from published data, especially peer-reviewed-published data, is how all reasonable, true knowledge advances in the real sciences.
        
        Jeff, do you have more on the Assyrians with regards to specific tribal references, which is some information I have been seeking?
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Not offhand.
      - Esther
        
        not a clue?
      - Esther
        
        Does this mean no? Pretty sure it does but I have never heard it before.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        And let us chat about cut and paste. You and most every Christian I have encountered cut and paste verses from the bible as if they offer some great insight. When people point out the absurdity of the verse, the typical response is that unbelievers cannot understand.
        
        Offering a perspective from another writer is not simply cutting and pasting. It is showing that a point of view is not unique. It is showing that it can come from someone who actually shares your delusion, just not that particular brand. Perhaps Jeffrey Goodman is a critical thinker. But in dismissing that I showed his thoughts, you are attempting to dismiss his thoughts.
        
        To take a spoil, and to take a prey; to turn thine hand upon the desolate places that are now inhabited, and upon the people that are gathered out of the nations, which have gotten cattle and goods, that dwell in the midst of the land.
        
        That concept is hardly unique to people who live in Russia.
      - Mex Seiko
        
        But we're not critical thinkers. You are. We are people of faith. There are differences of opinion as to who is Magog. In Christianity, the way different people "read" the Bible drives their conclusions. I subscribe to a literal reading, "interpretation" if you will, of the Scriptures. The Bible always interprets its own dreams and visions. There are many speech devices for which the reader must use a little common sense or reference previous uses in concordance and verses. Non believers also arrive to different conclusions for different reasons including anti-biblical bias.
        The explanation I adhere to is that since Ezekiel is a prophesy of events for our day, the names of the coalition "nations" relate to locations rather than a specific people or tribe. Magog is identified as the Scythians who although were nomads, they concentrated in the regions of southern Russia. Russians today take pride in being identified as Scythians. They've done their own research and have come to the same conclusion that they descend from the Scythans. So, I'm not going to argue with them or them Bible.
        Additionally, Ezekiel points to the north parts to identify Magog. Although you have several countries north of Israel, since none of them are identified as Magog, the matter is resolved with a quick calculation. In the context of current events, you have the restored Israel as prophesied in 37, the hostility from Iran, the relationship between Iran and Russia, and then Russia's energy dominance which they want to maintain but may loose to Israel… "Boom!" There you go.
        Your response that Russa is not the only country to attack another for their own enrichment is true while void of any relevance of context given the evidence pointing to Russia.
        
        IWhen the search is done you will be notified.
        
        Word Count
        It's possible to get information about the number of characters and words in the document by selecting button from the Search menu. If no text is selected, the entire document will be counted. If text is selected, only the selected text will be counted.
        Print
        You can choose between two ways of printing your documents:
        - print using AirPrint
        - print to a PDF
        Select the appropriate toolbar button and choose your preferred option.
        
        When using AirPrint, you can select a printer and specify the range of pages and copies to print. When printing to PDF you'll need to specify the location where the PDF file will be saved.
        
        Saving Documents
        Easily save documents in Quickword® by pressing the Close button. If the document was edited, you will be prompted to Save or Save As.
        If you select Save As, enter the desired file name in the field provided. Next, select the desired location in the file manager below. Lastly, tap the save button.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        You are humorous. You claim to use a literal reading of the bible and then proceed to discuss how to interpret the dreams and visions. One does not interpret something being read literally. That is what one does with something being read figuratively. However, when you claim that bible literally is referring to Russia, you are not only using a figurative reading of the bible, you are also being very subjective. While the Russians probably can trace their roots to the Scythians, so can many other nations. Herodotus wrote extensively on the Scythians – the common ancestors of most of Indo-European peoples. He noted that this was the name they used to call themselves and that it translates in Greek as Nomads, or "wanderers". This is almost a direct proof that the tribes he describes under the common name of "Scythians" were proto-Slav peoples and that the name was derived from the Slav word "skitati" meaning "wander", "roam" (and thence the derivative word "skiti" – wanderers). Herodotus roughly outlined the territory inhabited by "Scythians": from the German mountains (Schwarzwald) in the west to the Black sea in the east and from the Baltic region in the North to the Mediterranean in the south. This was more or less half the known world at his times. http://www.fantompowa.net/Flame/khazar_history.htm
      - Mex Seiko
        
        My apologies. Forgot you're a stickler for semantics. I did say the Bible interprets itself and that's what I meant. My interpretation of the Bible is literal to the text.
        The names of the nations in the coalition attacking Israel do not require interpretation, just a little deciphering.
        Like on every other word in the Bible, there are differences of opinion of what this and that means. Even within Christianity, there are different schools of thought regarding the names of these coalition countries.
        Historical events help unravel the prophetic writings as they occur. The impossible restoration of the nation of Israel after being literally wiped from the map for well over a millennium totally changed the popular view of prophesy before 1948. The in existence of the nation of Israel gave way to erroneous doctrines like Replacement Theology. Jeff Goodman's presentation is very interesting, but then, he's from a totally school if though. I think he's amilennialist. I believe in a literal millennial reign of Jesus on earth. I believe in Pretrib Rapture. Our differences of opinion drive our view of things.
        I think that current events reaffirm Ezekiel's prophesies and our view of Magog. Yet regardless of the name of these countries, the current environment is clearly ripe for prophesy fulfillment.
        The restoration of Israel in 1948 woke up the Middle-East which in a sense became dormant for a the few centuries until this event. There are 2 major groups in Israel ready to rebuild the Jewish Temple. The Temple Institute have all the utensils, priests garb, even they've genetically engineered a Re Heifer. They are in wait from God to do the rest. I personally think the coming Magog war will leave Arabs so paralyzed it will create the environment to destroy the Dome of the Rock. I don't believe there will be 2 nations dividing Israel and 2 Temples side by side. There is Scripture against dividing God's land. He owns it and promised it to Abraham.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Some Christian Zionists believe that the "ingathering" of Jews in Israel is a prerequisite for the Second Coming of Jesus. The idea that Christians should actively support a Jewish return to the Land of Israel, along with the parallel idea that the Jews ought to be encouraged to become Christian, as a means fulfilling a Biblical prophecy has been common in Protestant circles since the Reformation.
        
        Christian support for the restoration of the Jews was brought to America by the Puritans who fled England. In colonial times, Increase Mather and John Cotton,among others, favored restoration of the Jews, but it was not until the early 19th century that the idea gathered impetus. Ezra Stiles at Yale was a prominent supporter of restoration of the Jews. In 1808, Asa McFarland, a Presbyterian, voiced the opinion of many that the fall of the Ottoman Empire was imminent and would bring about the restoration of the Jews. One David Austin of New Haven spent his fortune building docks and inns from which the Jews could embark to the Holy Land. In 1825 Mordecai Manuel Noah, a Jew who wanted to found a national home for the Jews on Grand Island in New York as a way station on the way to the holy land, won widespread Christian backing for his project. Likewise, restorationist theology was the inspiration for the first American missionary activity in the Middle East. As the demise of the Ottoman Empire appeared to be approaching, the advocacy of restorationism increased.
        
        It was not just in the USA that this idea occurred. Ideas favoring the restoration of the Jews in the Palestine or Land of Israel entered the British public discourse in the 1830s, though British reformationists had written about the restoration of the Jews as early as the 16th century, and the idea had strong support among Puritan. Not all such attitudes were favorable towards the Jews; they were shaped in part by a variety of Protestant beliefs,[6] or by a streak of philo-Semitism among the classically educated British elite, or by hopes to extend the Empire.
        The role of certain Christians in supporting the establishment of Israel following World War II is well known; and it is really, in part, a kind of self-willed fulfillment of prophecy.
        What you consider to be the fulfillment of an impossible restoration of the nation of Israel is hardly impossible and actually the result of fanatics such as yourself who desire the return of their imaginary god.
      - Mex Seiko
        
        I hear the self-willed and self fulfilled argument constantly. But The reality is that the Holocaust played a pivotal part in the restoration of Israel, which I confidently declare it was not self-willed or fulfilled and it responds to Ezekiel 37. In addition, this restoration was not done through war, but by a global agreement and stroke of pen. Further, diaspora is hardly willful and the gathering of Jews from all corners of the world a consequence of it and a verbatim fulfillment of prophecy.
        Another factor of prophesy is the hatred for the Jews. The word Zionist is very bitter in the mouth of many that utter it. The global hatred for Israel is Satanic. These people have been targeted for annihilation several times in history even in this and the last centuries. Now is the Arab's turn to attempt wiping them off the map. Only this time is a little bit difficult because God is intervening to fulfill His promise to Abraham before wrapping up the times. It's fantastic for an individual to argue that the relationship between Arabs and Jews is willful ignoring the Biblical and historical background.
        This new cut and paste you present states many truths but it appears too attempt to disprove or disconnect history from biblical prophesy. On quick prima facia review it falls very, very short. Although, I'll admit it feeds minds like your.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        You hear the self-willed and self fulfilled argument constantly because that is the reality of what happened. You claimed that the reformation of Israel was impossible a few posts ago. Now in this last post you state it was done with the stroke of a pen. It was not done by global agreement. It was, however, done by powerful countries of the time who happened, ironically, to be Christian states which desired the reformation of Israel to occur. The point that you are unwilling to accept is that it was not impossible, and that mankind did it all themselves with no help from a non-existent deity.
      - Mex Seiko
        
        Adding the self prefix to fulfilled prophesy cannot eliminate the fulfilled part of it. Regardless of every intentional effort to fulfilled or prevent the prophesy has not changed its outcome in any way. Ezekiel wrote that the Jews would rise from the dead. Do you honestly think that Hitler said to himself: "I got to start burning these people so that the Christians have compassion and perhaps they'll bring them back to Jerusalem."
        
        Your proposal is actually pretty interesting. I think it would make an interesting movie. "The Zion Conspiracy." Christians got together sometime in the late 1800s, assisted Mrs. Hitler in raising this hideous child to become a monster and that ensured he became a leader in Germany, then made sure that the US continued to grow as a powerful nation, made sure that the Civil War wouldn't debilitate them too much, so they can intimidate whoever was needed to intimidate, time the end of WWII just perfect so there would be enough Jews to start a new and improved Israel, make sure there was a world club of nations or something so that they can force the Jews in. Ah, don't forget to make sure that England is also Christian and has power over Palestine so we can grab it from them, etc. etc. etc.
        
        At the end of the Jewish exile in Babylon, Daniel looked at the calendar and said: " Well I think it's time to go back home because God said it was for 70 years. So, he showed Darius that his name was mentioned in another prophesy by Isaiah. So, Darius got exited and released them, send them home, and financed the "restoration" of Israel.
        
        Zionism is a young movement, considering the age of Diaspora. It's impetus doesn't come from Christianity alone. Antisemitism was a motivating factor as well. I mean, they got tired of frequent pogroms in Russia, Poland, Hungary, where ever. So, again, Christians were not the only ones doing the self-fulfilling thing. I really don't think it would've happen without Hitler's displacing Jews from their homes, either.
        
        Your opinion, denial, minimizing, has no effect in, well, the reality of prophesy. Regardless of who intervened, it happened as written and we just turned the page on chapter 37.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        The reality of Hitler merely gave an excuse for more delusion about the idea of bible prophecy.
      - Mex Seiko
        
        Talk down – Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster … http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/talk%20down
        to speak in a condescending or oversimplified fashion transitive verb : to disparage or belittle by talking See talk down defined for kids » Examples of TALK DOWN <a …
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        More of a smack down.
      - Mex Seiko
        
        More like smack talk.
      - millergroup2
        
        Satan had a "good idea" too, dragging 1/3 of the angels with him with a bunch of promises too! Where are they?
      - Esther
        
        You operate from the premise, Mr. Miller, that you have the truth. I simply do not believe you do. Also, you are talking about things about which I have little absolute knowledge. You have never said anything to move me from that position, however much I would like to know the honest, reasonable truth, as we all do.
        
        Also, if you are suggesting that the two people I referred to in the note above have anything to do with what you are trying to find out, why not ask them. I respect both their opinions as I have stated.
      - millergroup2
        
        Excellent! Here you can gain the knowledge of truth for yourself. Depend on no one but God! http://zionica.com/2012/09/18/rock-star-defends-mormonism-against-famous-atheist/#comment-661489695
      - Esther
        
        The 10 commandments are good, Millergroup2, and is more like the Saints than any Catholics or Protestants. These are confirmed in the BofM. There is simply nothing like a good second testimony to confirm ones beliefs, now is there?
        
        I especially like this one: Thou shalt have no other Gods before me.
        
        Do you know what I think that means: I think it means we don't have any religious symbols, that what we have is held precious and not for flagrant display… see where I diverge immediately from the pseudo-Christians.
        
        As far as the essence of Christ, I believe both men whom I have previously mentioned have those essential qualities.
      - millergroup2
        
        Why would you profess publicly that you are a Mormon if you have ruled that faith out then?
        
        "And the one thing I have completely ruled out, is pseudo-Christianity"
      - Esther
        
        It's a word from biology: pseudo = false
        
        I am a follower of the Christian principles, which is not the Christ of the Bible, because the Bible is too full of contradictions, but is the Christ that my parents taught me from their hearts, that is more closely aligned with the good Saints of the Church of Jesus Christ of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I therefore simply call Catholics and Protestants pseudo-Christians. I was born and bred Catholic but my parents were not "hard-shell" full of hypocrisy as the public now knows the Catholics are .. where they court people like Obama and the pro-choice crowd, but my parents were simple good people who taught me reasonable ways to live with some reasonable humanity towards others. I have done that, my life has been essentially public service as theirs.
        Joseph Smith was (is) right that the bible is correct only to the extent it is correctly translated. I think he means the kinds of contradictions I have seen posted time and time again on this forum, as an aid to help people ponder the real meanings of these contradictions. Joseph was maligned and killed for pointing out the same kinds of things. I stand by the Saints and will continue to do so.
      - Mex Seiko
        
        The Bible OT was carefully translated by 70 Greek speaking Jews at a time when Greek was the universal language. The Apostles also spoke Greek, Aramaic, and of course, the Hebrew language. The wrote their testimonies and letters also in Greek. Many languages sprang out of Greek, and it's still spoken today.
        
        Joseph Smith's deception about the Bible translations is self-serving as he attempted to insert his vanishing writings over the original Holy Word of God. Joe Smith used the same argument as Mohammed, "the Bible is no good, the Qur'an is better." Of course. Otherwise how're you going to sell your version?
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        It is not known who wrote the testimonies attributed to the Apostles. In fact, many biblical researchers today doubt that the Apostles actually did write them. Tradition is what attaches the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John to the Gospels, not any actually knowledge that they really wrote them.
        
        And therein it becomes a huge problem. If Matthew, Mark, Luke or John did not actually write the Gospels attributed to them, then there is no basis for considering them to be eyewitness accounts.
      - Mex Seiko
        
        Tradition is an interesting thing. It's repetitive and by that quality tends to preserve. Tradition is what has maintained the Jewish identity through millennia. An Atheist once time told me that the Jews today are not the Jews of the Bible. I can't pinch any of them to prove genetically if they are or not, so my answer was "We'll, they think they are. And who the heck would want to be a Jew in this day unless one couldn't help it. So, even if they weren't by blood, they are by tradition."
        So, I say your argument as prove that the names attributed as writers of the gospels are not so, is the same argument I choose to present they are.
        Traditional observance invariably have a beginning. Someone knew the writer of the gospel and that knowledge became tradition. Even if we got the names wrong, that doesn't prove it was not an eye witness as the writing itself declares. You still have signed letters that refer to those testimonies including Peter's who alludes to his experience at the Mount of Transfiguration which mentions Jesus' inner-circle one of them being John.
        A huge problem that would discredit the Bible is an Atheist wet dream. You keep entertaining yourself with this scoreless sport. I say you need to play a different game.
        Have a nice day.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Tradition is interesting. People do things for no other reason than tradition says they should. Does not matter if it makes sense or has any factual basis, they do it for tradition.
        
        People actually did not know who wrote the gospels. That is why names were assigned to them.
        
        And the bible has been discredited for years. Sorry, but that is that is the reality.
        
        As far as what I should or should not do, your opinion is meaningless.
      - Mex Seiko
        
        The Jews are defined by their tradition and culture. To this day, at Jewish weddings, the couple breaks a glass commemorating the destruction of the Temple, a historical fact. Hanukkah celebrates the rededication of the Temple. So, you see, they celebrate historical events with traditions. I know you choose what to accept as historical and what myth, but that's why you're an Atheist.
        When it comes to writing, in those days people memorized large amounts of information and events. Muslims learned the Qur'an like a long, long song. That's how a large part of OT was written. God also said He would bring it to remembrance. While people of your persuasion attempt to inject doubt, there's still small to none in who wrote whitch gospel. It hasn't changed for seculorum. It won't change because you wish it.
      - Esther
        
        Jeff, I think you are right. When first I realized this was a question, I asked a very seasoned researcher at church. He hesitated to tell me, but then he said point blank there are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus.
      - Evermyrtle
        
        Adios!!
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Yes, run and hide. I expect nothing else from you Myrtle.
      - Evermyrtle
        
        Adios!!
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        And the silly responses continue
      - Esther
        
        Joseph Smith was right. The bible is valid only when correctly translated. You won't ever see that day.
      - Mex Seiko
        
        That's a self-serving maneuver for Joe. It was James T. Russell's very same technique. He faked knowing Greek in order to falsify the truth into his New World book of lies. Every cult must put the Word of God in doubt in order to wedge in their blasphemous doctrines. God confounded the languages at the time of Nimrod, but provided His Word when the world had one universal language, which was the Greek language and sent His Son in the fullness of time. That means according to plan and at the right time. Since then, it has been translated into every language and continues to be translated into every language today. Translation is not the problem. Lies, deception, blasphemy, false doctrines, that is the problem.
      - Evermyrtle
        
        This is another one who you are wasting your time trying to get across to.
      - Mex Seiko
        
        I really don't consider it a waste of time, but am investment. The anonymity has a special feature which is I cannot boast. These may actually be apologists for Mormon and are tactically deploying their weaponry. Their rough questions sharpen my own arsenal. Perhaps a little prayer can help. Who knows? They might get saved in the process. We can only hope. I do believe they're can be processed or are just demons, in which case it's another story. We'll know if they start using foul language. Otherwise, they could be sincerely brainwashed.
      - Esther
        
        All religions are revealed religions, including yours and including what most non-scientists call "science."
      - Mex Seiko
        
        Not sure what you're trying to say with revealed religions. God revealed Himself through the writers of the Bible. Religions like Mormon, Islam, and Jehovah's Witnesses are plagiarisms of Christianity and Judaism by single individual, each one presenting their own Jesus, different from the original Scriptures.
        Science is not a religion but Secular Humanism and Atheism are. Atheists use Science for their apologetics and there are principal Scientists as their leaders, but I don't agree science is religion.
      - Esther
        
        I was referring to atheists as "non-scientists" who use science in that way, as their apologetics, yes, good point. I stand by my statement that all religions are revealed, and therefore have some fallacies, that block my faith and belief that some of it is true. I contemplate any particular scriptures for what I see are contradictions, for I believe there are many.
      - Mex Seiko
        
        I still don't understand what you say by revealed as you don't say by whom. You are generalizing with a blanquette statement, which I don't know how you got to that conclusion. I believe in the Bible. Everything else I false. The Bible has proven itself as credible and also as coming from an intelligent entity from outside our time and space.
        Ezekiel 37 prophesied the reconstitution of Israel. This began happening in 1948. The reference of dead bones appears to be an allusion to the Holocaust. Today Israel is richer, more powerful, and advanced than most of her neighbors. Ezekiel 38-39 prophesied a coalition attack headed by Russia, Iran, and a bunch of Islamic countries. You have Israel today, days way from attacking Iran. Iran is a partner with Russia in various commercial and perhaps armament, defense and energy deals. They may be forced to come to the aid of Iran.
        The precision of the Bible telling the future from the past is unparalleled. The Bible says that many of these prophesies are proof that God is its author. I believe that.
        Isaiah 1 tells us what God thinks about religion and rituals. I try not to see myself being in a religion, but a relationship. Most religions have a code of conduct, and that is important for society, but it is important to the individual to know God, the real one.
      - Esther
        
        By that I mean, that all religions are based upon miracles. I am sorry, I thought that "revealed" was known general term for such phenomena. In other words, all religions are based on miracles. Does that make any sense?
      - Mex Seiko
        
        No it doesn't make sense to me as I don't recognize any particular miracles from Mormon other than a found book that "miraculously" disappears, but no one except Joe found and lost this magnificent book. Mohammed would get his "revelations" while getting into some trance and people memorized what he was spewing. He did manage to wipe out villages and convert many to his religion, but that was at sword-point. Russell "miraculously learned Greek, and he suddenly forgot it when he was interrogated in court. Otherwise, I don't know what miracles you're talking about.
        There are phenomena that has been experienced by different people in history, but unless these experiences are connected to a biblical truth I don't give it any credence. Angels and the spiritual world interact with us (humans) but they come in and out from other dimensions which we're starting to theorize about, but can't comprehend it.
        Jesus performed many, many "signs and wonders" in front of multiple people. He openly healed people from terminal illnesses, changed the molecular structure of water and turned it into wine, he put eyes into empty sockets. He even restored and body of a three day dead body back into life. This He did to credential Himself as God.
        I don't know of any other "religion" that can claim this Level of "miracles." Perhaps you can come up with some.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        You should read up on Horus:
        
        (1)It is written that Horus existed before his incarnations.(2)Horus was born of the virgin Isis on December 25th in a cave/manger.(3)Horus' birth was announced by a star in the East and attended by three wise men.(4)The infant Horus was carried out of Egypt to escape the wrath of Typhon. (5)He was a child teacher in the temple and was baptized by Anup the Baptizer when he was thirty years old.(6)He had twelve disciples and performed miracles such as feeding bread to the multitude and walking on water.(7)He raised one man, El-Azar-us, from the dead.(8)He transfigured on a mount.(9)He also had titles such as the "way, the truth, the light, the Messiah, God's anointed Son, the Son of Man, the good shepherd, the lamb of God, the Word, the Morning Star, the light of the world.(10)He was "the Fisher," and was associated with the lamb, lion and fish ("Ichthys").(11)Horus's personal epithet was "Iusa," the "ever-becoming son" of "Ptah," the "Father."(12)Horus was called "KRST," or "Anointed One.(13)He was crucified, buried in a tomb and resurrected.
        
        http://www.near-death.com/experiences/origen046.html
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Or Krishna.
        According to Bhagavata Purana some believe that Krishna was born without a sexual union, by “mental transmission” from the mind of Vasudeva into the womb of Devaki, his mother. Christ and Krishna were called both God and the Son of God. Both were sent from heaven to earth in the form of a man. Both were called Savior, and the second person of the Trinity. Krishna’s adoptive human father was also a carpenter. A spirit or ghost was their actual father. Krishna and Jesus were of royal descent. Both were visited at birth by wise men and shepherds, guided by a star. Angels in both cases issued a warning that the local dictator planned to kill the baby and had issued a decree for his assassination. The parents fled. Mary and Joseph stayed in Muturea; Krishna’s parents stayed in Mathura. Both Christ and Krishna withdrew to the wilderness as adults, and fasted. Both were identified as “the seed of the woman bruising the serpent’s head.” Jesus was called “the lion of the tribe of Judah.” Krishna was called “the lion of the tribe of Saki.” Both claimed: “I am the Resurrection.” Both were “without sin.” Both were god-men: being considered both human and divine. Both performed many miracles, including the healing of disease. One of the first miracles that both performed was to make a leper whole. Each cured “all manner of diseases.” Both cast out indwelling demons, and raised the dead. Both selected disciples to spread his teachings. Both were meek, and merciful. Both were criticized for associating with sinners. Both celebrated a last supper. Both forgave his enemies. Both were crucified and both were resurrected.
        
        http://listverse.com/2009/04/13/10-christ-like-figures-who-pre-date-jesus/
      - Mex Seiko
        
        I'll just post a link to take care of answering the log of crap you posted. If anyone cares for the truth just do your own research looking or the truth. If you want to join Jeff in his anti Christian party knock yourselves out.
        Someone once said: "If you torture a writing hard enough, it'll confess to anything."
        http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/HORUS.htm
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        I agree that people should do their own research. I have done that very thing, which is why I know the bible is full of contradictions and absurd stories.
      - Mex Seiko
        
        That Horus stupidity was not research. You just pulled crap without any discrimination or looking at the other side. Reading negative, slanderous manipulation of the truth is not research or study of facts.
        Hate makes strange bedfellows as you jumped in with the Mormons to indulge.
        I respect Vladimir because I sense he's sincere and he is arguing from what he has been taught perhaps from his childhood. But you are just inserting yourself motivated by hatred, perhaps a sport for you.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        The Horus information is simply one issue. Besides, your are
        assuming that your website is offering an unbiased and valid opinion. There is
        more than one researcher who has pointed out the similarities between Horus and
        Christ before. However, Christian apologetics have never worried about truth.
        Lying for Jesus is almost a reflex action.
        
        Here are other links that discuss the Horus/ Jesus issue.
        
        http://www.truthbeknown.com/horus.html
        
        http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5.htm
        
        http://www.tomharpur.com/books/paganchrist/
      - Mex Seiko
        
        Don't give me any crap about bias. Bias is what drives you to insert yourself into every good conversation in this blog.
        Of course there's more than one researcher that has copied and even expanded into Horus nonsense compiling every appearance of parallelism with Christ. But no one bothers to point out the differences like detached and reattached organs and stuff like that. There are seminars, scholars, scientists invested in God hatred. Then there's people like you looking for every opportunity to soil every conversation with that crap.
        You are mistaken if you think I'm visiting all that Horus crap. I saw enough.
        Jesus warned us about people like you. He said something along the lines of not casting pearls to the swing.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        It was actually swine, not swing.
        The one showing bias is you. This comment from you says it all. "You are mistaken if you think I'm visiting all that Horus crap. I saw enough."
        I am sure you would prefer the conversations to simply be that someone says god is great and everyone gushed how true and insightful that is. But, as with much in your life, you will be disappointed yet again.
      - Mex Seiko
        
        The problem is the hatred masked as insincere "research" taking things out of context and not considering the political, cultural, and religious environment around the matter. Like what you tried to pull with polygamy in the Bible. It is tiring and unprofitable attempting to answer each and every line item to invariably find that it's all nonsense.
        I've heard of the Horus thing before and I refreshed my mem again. Most of the Horus "researches" copy each other and insert Christian words to describe those similarities. But the differences are never discuss because the idea is to demean Jesus and the Scriptures exactly as you are attempting today and have been at it with consistency.
        I'll grant you we're all biased by our opinions, but then there's intentional misinformation and plain hateful distortion of the truth.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Christians throw out the word hatred every time someone points out issues with their belief system. It is not hatred to point out issues. But if you can get people to believe that others hate you, then you can reinforce the idea that Jesus said you would be hated.
        
        What is amusing is that you probably believe you have offered a compelling and strong defense against the idea that polygamy is frowned upon in the bible. And what is more amusing is that you were the one who initially stated that it was the Mormons and the Muslims who came up with the idea. Since the bible was written thousands of years before the Qu'ran or the Book of Mormon, it is laughable to claim that these other groups came up with the idea of polygamy.
        
        You are right, when someone purposefully offers misinformation and distortions of the truth, it is annoying. Why, therefore, do you do that very thing?
      - Mex Seiko
        
        Once again, polygamy is no a Judeo/Christian doctrine ordained by the God of the Bible and you know it. Marriage was designed by God to be a man and a woman as in the Garden of Eden. The fact that a few people acted in disobedience to God and committed polygamy does not mean that God ordained it.
        Polygamy is written in the Book of Joseph Smith a part of their doctrine. It is taught and practiced until civil law forced them to change it. And some may still have a house full today.
        But this is exactly what I just said. You are a very intelligent person, and since you're not a moron, your attempt to prove that polygamy is biblical doctrine has to be viciously intentional and I must conclude that it's driven by hate unless you can come up with a plausible explanation other that indeed you are a moron.
        You said it. Jesus did prophesy this hatred and you are just fulfillment of it.
      - mallen11
        
        Mex, you are right, we don't need to read anything that mere man has written to learn the truth about the life of man on this earth exept for the Word of God.
      - Mex Seiko
        
        Yup! Look around and after every cult you'll find a man with a book claiming to improve the Word of God. JW, Mormon, Islam, all have that in common. Even Catholicism has the Apocryphal additions to the Scriptures.
        Peter himself beheld the glory of the Living God in Jesus and he still relied more on the Bible than on his personal experience.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Oh please. The bible hardly demonstrates information that comes from an entity from outside of our time and space.
        
        If a person contracts leprosy, it wants people to gather birds for a sacrificial cleansing.
        
        If someone hopes for striped calves, the bible gives us an absurd story about letting cattle mate in front of striped sticks.
        
        If a bald man is teased, it offers a story about bears killing the children who teased the bald man. Not that the bald man comes to terms with being bald or that the children learn a lesson about teasing. No, it gives us a story about bears mauling children.
        
        Now, let us not forget all the stories about the Hebrews taking virgins as spoils of war or killing non-virgins on their wedding nights.
        
        The precision of the bible in regards to prophecy is complete absurdity. Jesus predicted that he would return in the lifetimes of his disciples. He was off by around 2,000 years.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Science is not a revealed religion. It is a discipline for determining facts.
      - Esther
        
        It may surprise you to the degree I am right, Jeff.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Who revealed what is known about science? It was certainly not a god or a prophet of a god.
      - Esther
        
        The brilliant mind of man's imagination got it started and is needed to keep it going. Same as religion. To each his own. The more I read here on the forum the more blurred the boundaries get between and among these topics.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Man's imagination is hardly the basis for science.
      - Esther
        
        Jeff, imagination including educated choices play a huge part in choosing directions one takes as a new protocol is developed. A wrong choice will delay a good result for years or forever.
      - Evermyrtle
        
        We have more class and confidence in who we are, and in GOD'S wonderful blessings, that we don't need to call people names, who know more that we do.
      - Evermyrtle
        
        Didn't Smith die while writing a book, which Mormons consider a very important book? If so, that means that the book was not authorized by GOD.
      - millergroup2
        
        If Joesph Smith was a prophet of God as you say, please state one prophecy that came to pass that Joesph Smith foretold, just one????? Just one little prophecy? Please tell me……please!
      - Evermyrtle
        
        You shouldn't ask anyone to do the impossible!!!
      - millergroup2
        
        Thanks, I know I keep pushing into a brick wall, but hopefully someone may get the idea. ;-)
      - Pastor Dwayen
        
        Sorry, Joe was a prophet of an angel of light, and told Joe there were so many contradictions in the Bible that god ( satan ) wanted to correct the KJV. So he sent a direct revelation, ( angel of light ) to Joe, and the mess that satan (the god of angel of lights) was delighted in was started!!! And Satan won, now there is 100s of thousands if not millions of mormons going to hell. Remember Gal 1 8-9 says another gospel could be preached. Another gospel will be so close to the original that people won't know , If they are not born again, and filled with the Holy Ghost, and know what the scriptures say and teach, BEFORE being indoctrinated with the book of doom. (mormonism)
        The teaching of progression is one of the biggest damnable, lieing, full of the spirit of pride teaching satan has come up with.!!!!!!!
        Joe and Mo , and their followers will spend eternity together !!!
      - Vladimir
        
        I am both amused and alarmed when people who are filled with hate towards the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints try and explain the restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ in our day.
        
        BTW, I think indoctrination would have been easier than all the studying I had to do on my own. But it sure was worth it. No regrets and I'm still studying.
      - Pastor Dwayne
        
        All people who are wrong in doctrine , think they are hated when corrected.
        By the way Vlad explain to me what Gal 1: 8-9 mean to you?
        By the way there was, is, and never will be a need to "restore the Gospel "
        to believe the lies of "the need to restore ", Vlad , came from and still comes , is of the devil..
      - Vladimir
        
        No, Paster Dwayne, that is not what I said. You and your ilk hate the Lord's church. I don't think I'm hated nor have you done any correcting. You have just repeated spurious allegations that have never gone through the filter of honest scrutiny.
        
        As for Galatians 1: 8-9, Paul is always spot on. If you knew the actual doctrines of the Lord's church, you could easily determine that it is all one gospel, the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
        
        If you doubt the need to restore the Gospel of Jesus Christ, you must be conveniently ignoring the Council of Nicea. That council totally altered the fundamental teachings of Jesus Christ as to His relationship to His Father and the Holy Ghost. The false doctrine of the "triune god" was published by that council about 300 years after Christ's death. It is accepted today by a majority of the Christian world as true.
      - Pastor Dwayne
        
        Show me IN THE BIBLE where it doesn't talk about the triune God. PLEASE??
        No where in scripture does Paul , or any Disciple, teach that Jesus Christ was once a little boy that grew up and progressed to become the Son of God , and will
        eventually become a God the Father in a different world. Nowhere does scripture anywhere teach that God the Father has a wife, and He himself has a father. nowhere except in your books of lies.
        I don't hate the person, but I hate the sin that has the person hooked in error. The church of the latter day saints is no more the Lords church , than it belongs to the man in the moon, cause the man in the moon doesn't have a wife. Wait, according to the teaching of the mormon church the man in the moon HAS TO , HAS TO have a wife, as it teaches that the Apostle Paul HAD TO have a wife. The books of the latter day saints have taken the true Word of God have twisted , bent , and broken it . If any that reads this is a mormon, GET OUT NOW, many have and latter were truely born again, and were ELATED !!!!!!!!
      - Vladimir
        
        You are locked into the "closed Bible" theory and can't comprehend that God still reveals His truth to us. All that God reveals to us is consistent and true whether He has revealed it through the ancient prophets or modern prophets. New revelation doesn't necessarily just repeat previous revelation, but God can and has revealed new truths pertaining to His kingdom.
        
        You remind me of the Jews who rejected Jesus Christ because His message didn't agree what they already believed.
      - Pastor Dwayne
        
        Vlad,,,, Show me in the Bible where it gives the slightest HINT that man and woman have to marry in a special temple to hopefully progress to Godhood??? please answer, don't beat around the bush..
        Also NEW truths pertaining to God's Kingdom will never stray from the truths in the the Bible, Such as Jesus said you must be born again to enter the Kingdom, Jesus also taught a non born again person will spend eternity in hell, NEW TRUTH , cannot change the truth of what Jesus said.,,,,,, "water baptism for the dead", never , never will change that persons eternal destination, according to Jesus' own words.,,,,, The truth of the Word is, Peter in acts 2: stated repent , ( in other words , get born again) after the rebirth experience, then you get Baptized in water, After that you receive the promised Baptism of the Holy Ghost with the evidence, ( proof of the baptism) of speaking in tongues ,,, NEW TRUTH , will never change !!!
      - Vladimir
        
        1 Corinthians 11:11.
        
        Newly revealed truth does not "stray from the truths in the Bible". We agree on that. Christ through His modern prophets has restored the authority to the earth to seal a man and a woman for eternity. Families can be forever.
      - Aristophanes
        
        vladimir – how can you say in one sentence that Joseph Smith is a prophet and then in the next say that Mohammed is a fraud? Do you have some crystal ball that tells you these things? Or are you a Mormon and believe in Joseph Smith; but, cannot give the same concession to muslims who believe Mohammed is a prophet? Seems like hypocrisy to me, vladimir.
      - Vladimir
        
        The secret is in the source of one's wisdom. Read James 1:5.
    - Jeff Dixon
      
      Not odd at all given that polygamy was already a concept that was practiced in the bible as well.
      - Mex Seiko
        
        Not practiced or taught in the Bible but done by men only in disobedience to God and with no good consequences. The Bible tells it like it is, not covering the sins of the people of God.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Let us look at some of the verses from the Old Testament
        that allow polygamy:
        
        In Exodus 21:10, a man can marry an infinite amount of women without any limits
        to how many he can marry.
        
        In 2 Samuel 5:13; 1 Chronicles
        3:1-9, 14:3, King David had six wives and numerous
        concubines.
        
        In 1 Kings 11:3, King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.
        
        In 2 Chronicles
        11:21, King Solomon's son Rehoboam had 18 wives and
        60 concubines.
        
        In Deuteronomy
        21:15 "If a man has two wives, and he loves
        one but not the other, and both bear him sons…."
        
        There are a lot more verses from the Old Testament that allow polygamy, but I
        think that the above are sufficient enough to prove my point.
      - Mex Seiko
        
        One of the major themes of the Bible is that men are evil and do not do the will of God. You are presently exemplary of this.
        By telling me that David had 6 wives and that Solomon bit him by 2994, you're not saying anything new. Every polygamous marriage in the Bible met terrible if not catastrophic consequences.
        It s clear in the Bible that it is not God's plan, will, or teaching that a man should have multiple wives.
        The fact that a guy like you would take sides with the Mormon religion is actually a good sign for for me.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        I am not taking the side Of Mormonism. I am pointing out that you are wrong when you say the bible is against polygamy. The bible is filled prohibitions that the biblical god supposedly expressed. But not one word condenming polygamy or slavery for that matter.
      - Mex Seiko
        
        The Bible does not hide the fact that we are a sick bunch. Jesus discussed divorce with the Pharisees about that law being on the books, but it wasn't because God wanted them to divorce. The same nonsense with slavery. The "biblical slavery" was not your typical Euro-American ownership of people. It was meant to pay debt with labor and since considered debt it was not meant to go over 7 or 6 years. God punished Israel severely (Jeremiah, Lamentations) for not following the Jubilee law sending them into captivity as they kept slaves and debt beyond the 7 years.
        You stupidly point out that Solomon and David as evidence that polygamy is taught in the Bible. Polygamy is not and has never been common use for Jews or Christianity.
        Even if it was to viciously slander my faith you did take Mormon side. You are not neutral or objective. Your nonsense contributed nothing to our conversation other than to cause distraction. You're just satisfying your hatred for the Bible.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Nonsense. The verses clearly show that statement to be compete fiction. Like I said before, lying for Jesus is a reflex action. The only ones who would be set free after six years are other Hebrews. People that are not Hebrews can be kept forever and passed on an an inheritence. But even Hebrews could be kept longer than six years if the slave was "willing". Of course, that willingless had to do with a desire to stay with a wife and children.
        
        I did not take the Mormon side. I merely stated that the bible also allows polygamy. There is nothing vicious about pointing out a fact.
        
        However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who
        live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners,
        including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your
        property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may
        treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must
        never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
        
        The following passage describes how the Hebrew slaves are
        to be treated.
        
        If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six
        years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his
        freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward,
        only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he
        became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a
        wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be
        free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his
        master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my
        children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must
        present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly
        pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master
        forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)
  - Vladimir
    
    You are wrong again, Evermyrtle.
    - Evermyrtle
      
      Vladimir, I didn't know you were a Mormon!! That does not mean that you cannot find the truth which is there for anybody who wants it. Will you admit to this fact, That JESUS IS THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD???? If you do you are the first one to do so that I know anything about. By the way what am I wrong about? What ever it is I need to know so that I can change my mind.
      - millergroup2
        
        Pay careful attention to what is said about Mormon's on this forum Vald. Listen to what Myrtle is saying to you.
      - Esther
        
        Listen instead to me Vlad.
      - Vladimir
        
        Unfortunately, Satan will fight against truth until he is bound for the thousand years. So buckle in for the long haul.
      - Esther
        
        I am in it for the long haul. I was cloistered and raised by Catholics, so I know how to defend myself. I am a worthy Mormon, like yourself and Brandon Flowers. I hope we can see a Mormon versus Dawson debate at some point. It would surprise everybody.
      - Vladimir
        
        Debates may provide some temporary satisfaction, but teaching the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ so His children can decide to choose the right is totally satisfying.
      - Esther
        
        My point is that Dawkins would learn a thing or two he needs to know. :)
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Oh please. Dawkins would rip them apart. This has to be one of the silliest debates in the history of debates. Which absurd religion is more absurd than the other?
      - Esther
        
        LOL Jeff. I thought you took the night off. Who needs an atheist's opinion anyway?
        It doesn't count does it? Did you see the encounter they had: Dawkins and Flowers? I don't think you did!
      - Esther
        
        lol, Jeff: So you don't think a debate is needed..(I thought you were taking the night off?) I don't know if an atheist's opinion is needed really :) but I do not think Dawkins would rip any one apart any more than you or Sam would. But maybe you would more so than the academics, but I don't really perceive that even you are that way! If you know what I mean. And I can show you the evidence of that. It is in the debate Dawkins had with Lennox in Alabama and the forum Sam had in California that I have on youtube. It is academic. And to me that says, yes, it is a debate, but nobody is ripping anybody. Did you see the short encounter they, Dawkins and Flowers, had? There is a video of it in the article. Please take a look at it. I would appreciate your re-considered opinion.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Debates are often good and provide valuable information. However, that assumes the topic is a reasonable one. But when people from competing religions start a debate, there is nothing reasonable occurring.
      - Esther
        
        What about respect for each other's viewpoint? Might that be a reasonable outcome?
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        It might, but it depends on the views being expressed. Should we give respect to people from the flat earth society? How about people who believe that Elvis is still alive? Simply stating that a viewpoint should be respected is not the basis we should be using.
      - Esther
        
        Yes, "it depends on the views being expressed," I think probably for two rather reasonable people conversing on such potentially nebulous subjects as religion and science, there is a lot of room for the acknowledgement simply of the unknown. Okay then, one might want to set the rules of the debate in a way the both parties would be extremely well versed to begin with, with any definition of terms that might reasonably arise. I think that would be fair. We know now that the earth is not flat but at one point in time, say prior to 1492, we did not know, so of course, any discourse with regard to that topic that might arise should be clarified well ahead. We don't want to venture into the absurd if it is avoidable. Thus, knowing that the earth is round should not even enter the debate since it is a foregone conclusion. Same as in the case of Elvis, for heavens sake!! I guess the absurd is what might be revealed some might say, but again, there is the complication of belief and faith and atheism to consider.
        
        A debate between atheism and Mormonisn is certainly more complicated then the one actual fact of either the question of whether the earth is flat, which we know it isn't, or the fact of a person's death, which a single fact of yes or no, either one or the other, and is simply not a question to the same complex magnitude of faith or religion or atheism.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        But Mormonism, along with other Christian religions, asks that we believe silly things. That the Hebrews lived in America. That Joseph Smith actually found golden plates that showed a language that does not actually exist.
      - Esther
        
        On what basis are these things silly, Mr. Dixon? I believe none the kinds of things you mention here are impossible, do you really think they are or are you parroting? Either way please give your sources, because this has to be clarified, and not merely swept under the rug.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        It is up to your group to show that the Hebrews lived in America. So far they have been unable to do that. As far as the golden plates, where are they? However, the language he claims was reformed Egyptian has no historical support at all. .No archaeological, linguistic, or other evidence of the use of Egyptian writing in ancient America has been discovered
      - Esther
        
        Acknowledged! Faith has a lot to do with the founding of this religion. I will think about it tomorrow. :)
      - Esther
        
        You also have a responsibility for giving details: How do you know that "I belong" to an invalid group? Again, this is rhetorical because you don't know my heart, so you can't know. Yet, I think this much is true: It is no more a false association than you belonging to The Atheist Organization and their promotion of reason as a premise for "everything." I know I have made a step in the direction of knowing two things: that the reason of science cannot be applied to the heart and like others I have familial needs that science cannot fathom at this time, though many are attempting to understand it and with that understanding, control people. Because I feel a freedom just in being apart from the Catholic church and its spin-off religions, is proof enough of what I just said, and like Dawkins said, "leave my wife out" of the discussion, caught in his lapse of atheism. Like I said, he is an academic. So is Sam who said virtually the same thing as Dawkins, in two entirely separate venues. Regarding my own dilemma of being Catholic for so many years, which include the so-called perfect word of God, the "Holy" Bible. and more, everyday, just when I look at the way so-called Christians treat people, my feelings are magnified that I am in the "right" church, I certainly am not in the wrong church. So you see, I have made some progress. The credit for the step in that reasonable direction belongs to me, not Dawkins or anyone like him . I am confirmed that I know where the wrong churches are. If you need validation just look no further than this page. Attend their Sunday service and you will experience even greater hypocrisy. The Mormons rightly, have fought for their freedom of religion. You would have all religions de-bunked. Well, fine, that seems to be your religion, or some type of religion. though, I have found that such purity as "no religion" does not exist and I am perfectly willing to live my religious life in the company of imperfect people who are, in my imperfect estimation, good. Joseph did say we follow the bible in-so-far as it is correctly translated. One hears that the BofM is fiction. If any one thinks the bible is correctly translated let him go to a reformed bookstore and pick up Beale's offering on the book of Revelations. Then come back and tell me the BofM is fiction. I await that research. Because I am only at the level of student when it comes to religion.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        You and I have had many exchanges over the past few months, and you have commented on many others that I posted to others. You also have visited my blog page which is full of details.
        So to claim that I somehow have dodged giving details is rather odd, especially at this point. Besides, I just finished giving details. I stated that there is no evidence that Hebrews ever lived in the USA. I stated that the reformed Egyptian language does not actually exist. Those are certainly details.
        
        I am also not sure where I stated the Mormons are an invalid group. I do not even know what an invalid group is. However, you certainly have stated you are a member of the Mormon religion. I do state that all religious groups offer absurd views about life and people and I stand by that statement.
        
        I am not a member of any atheist organization, although I understand why they exist. Support for a viewpoint is good thing.
        
        Atheists rely on reason and science because there is no evidence of anything else. Hoping that something exists might make one feel good, but on that basis, every religion must be true because I can show examples of people from every religion that claim they feel better because of their religion. And that includes the Catholics which you are running away from.
        
        I think the bible is one of the oldest versions of telephone around. Before the stories were written down, they were oral traditions.
        
        And at the end of the day, I have never suggested you quit your religion. If you enjoy it, that is great.
      - Esther
        
        Are you saying I am being inconsistent? My challenge was not necessarily only to you but also to others who will undoubtedly attack me when they read my opinion of them, an opinion which I know is more then a reasoned approach, as in your approach to help them, where besides reason, my criticism will include some serious emotion. The fact that I do take an emotional approach to these people I think is also justified by the fact they tend to attack on emotional grounds and so I mention the atheists because they want to ignore that real part of humanity also, Jeff. And it is proof to me that they want to leave it out of their discussions, as though that part of humanity doesn't exist and has no meaning. I am not running from the Catholic church, I left it long ago, but have to contend with it often in the guise of the spin-off sects, which to me are represented by all the bible-quoting people on this blog. Their approach on their end of the spectrum is as adamant as yours is on the other. And both attack the religion of the Mormons. Did you miss that the Mormon religion is about family? I said familial. But it is ignored by others also. The religion that Joseph Smith so-called "founded" … though I can't explain it apparently to any so-called Christian or atheist satisfaction, except to try, and as so many people who are Mormon can tell you: it is defined by the individual experience, so there is hardly a Mormon who cares if there really were plates, though there are 11 witnesses who saw them, if there really is an exotic Egyptian language as claimed, or if Hebrews really came to America. The Mormon church updates all the time!!! I know you have no idea of the meaning of this. They are told these "facts" you have listed, things they are told as true by an oral tradition if nothing else, but documented in the quad which is what you should read, instead of the criticisms you have quicker access to on this forum, which are filled with lies. ALL religions are revealed religions, no exception. What do you say to this man:
        http://mormon.org/me/4HFM#.UFtTIPTWDok.facebook
      - Esther
        
        From Joseph Smith History: "While incarcerated in
        Liberty Jail in 1839, Joseph Smith wrote to the Saints and instructed them not
        to respond polemically but to "gather up the libelous publications that
        are afloat; and all that are in the magazines, and in the encyclopedias, and
        all the libelous histories that are published, and are writing, and by
        whom" so that they could bring to light all misleading and untruthful
        reports about the Church (D&C 123:4-5, 12-13), http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/123?lang=eng.
        
        D&C 123: 4-5, 12-13:
        
        4 And perhaps a committee can be appointed to find out these things, and to take astatements and affidavits; and also to gather up the libelous publications that are afloat;
        
        5 And all that are in the magazines, and in the encyclopedias, and all the libelous histories that are published, and are writing, and by whom, and present the whole concatenation of diabolical rascality and nefarious and murderous impositions that have been practised upon this people—
        
        12 For there are many yet on the earth among all sects, parties, and denominations, who are ablinded by the subtle bcraftiness of men, whereby they lie in wait to cdeceive, and who are only kept from the truth because they dknow not where to find it— 13 Therefore, that we should waste and awear out our lives in bringing to light all the bhidden things of darkness, wherein we know them; and they are truly manifest from heaven—
        This procedure has been followed by Latter-day
        Saints over the years." http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Anti-Mormon_Publications
        
        Thus, I will resist any future polemical response, and attempt to bring to light whatever is found in the SLC archives, any evidence of those things you have advised that I need. I appreciate your efforts to tell me as well as show me what must be done for the public forum as we have here.
      - millergroup2
        
        Resist Satan (Book of Mormon) and he will flee.
      - Vladimir
        
        That's only your opinion and a bad one at that.
      - millergroup2
        
        Mary, and another thing to mention here: You stated in your prior postings that you teach children in Sunday school…in the Mormon faith, that you left the Catholic church (I assume because of doctrinal differences). The Catholics also added extra books to the word of God. Christians stood up to this heresy, and Luther caused the church reformation to rid the public of such heresy. They killed him, however his works live on "Rightfully Dividing the Word of Truth".
        
        Do you not owe the children? Do you not study the word of God, so that you do not teach lies? Do you teach these children the theory of evolution, as do the public schools? The Mormon doctrine equates to Darwinism. Teaching it is Child Abuse.
      - Esther
        
        The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is apolitical, millergroup2!!! Have you an inkling what that means!!! ? NO, I know you do not. But one of the things I know what pseudo-Christians do (and you figure out who they are — in terms of the fact I think Latter-day Saints are the true Christians) is that the pseudo-Christians love to rail on about the politics, and they do so from the pulpit, as though the ultimate person who can tell them WHO to VOTE FOR is their preacher… as though the preacher were a PROPHET OF GOD!. That is NOT what our leaders do!!! But the pseudo-Christians seem to hate the Latter-day Saints for the peaceful like-Christ-taught-us to-have meetings and accuse us of ABUSE OF CHILDREN, though we never get close to teaching anything Christ did not teach!!! Are you getting the picture, Millergroup2 … Do you wonder why I call you pseudo-Christians? You have the nerve to decide whether the Latter-day Saints are Christian?
        
        Tell me, Millergroup2, did Christ teach Darwinism to little children? NO, and neither do we, TO LITTLE CHILDREN. Are you kidding?? What did Christ teach little children??? How about: "love one another as I have loved you" said Jesus!!! How's that for starters??? HAD YOU THOUGHT OF THAT??? When I think about how depraved so many are, not having had the privilege of attending and experiencing a real sacrament meeting and hearing a real Latter-day Saint prophet, it makes me think how far we have to go, it is very disturbing… and much less, have had a primary class: It's really far to go. You can hear one of our leaders at lds.org… that's easy to find and no one will know you are listening to one. No strings attached. The problem with you is you have never the blessing of a primary teacher in the Latter-day Saints organization. Poor you!!! Signed, Esther (do I need to give you a reason for everything?)
      - millergroup2
        
        Well Esther our whatever name, All churches (even the cults) should be apolitical. However Christians should in fact, be educated to the fact that their are pseudo-Christians. Mormon's have all the "bells and whistles" outwardly, but no inner-spirit.
        
        You do not "have to have a reason for everything", but it would be nice to see one of you Mormon followers to answer the questions directed to you, to witch you refuse to do. Your extra books, called the revealed word of God through a self proclaimed prophet who tells us that the word of God was corrupted, and that he was chosen by God to "restore the word". This tells us that God is a liar, did not know what he was doing, lost control, and made mistakes. So God apologized to us, found a new redeemer, and set the record straight. Ah! How refreshing. Now we can really be saved. Questions to you, and Vald still go unanswered. Like I have said, if you were to honestly answer any of the charges put to you, you yourself would destroy the ever changing, heretical, Mormon faith.
        
        Again……what did Joseph Smith prophesy that came to pass? Answer the question. I rest my point.
      - Esther
        
        Whatever your names are? QED
      - millergroup2
        
        I stand corrected. :-)
      - Esther
        
        You are wrong to o demean the Saints! No it was corrupted over time like this: Find your religious pinnings on this list sir:
        Library: Modern: James A. Haught: Holy Horrors (1990)
        Order books by James A. Haught now
        
        A pig caused hundreds of Indians to kill one another in 1980. The animal walked through a Muslim holy ground at Moradabad, near New Delhi. Muslims, who think pigs are an embodiment of Satan, blamed Hindus for the defilement. They went on a murder rampage, stabbing and clubbing Hindus, who retaliated in kind. The pig riot spread to a dozen cities and left more than 200 dead.
        This swinish episode tells a universal tale. It typifies religious behavior that has been recurring for centuries.
        Ronald Reagan often called religion the world's mightiest force for good, "the bedrock of moral order." George Bush said it gives people "the character they need to get through life." This view is held by millions. But the truism isn't true. The record of human experience shows that where religion is strong, it causes cruelty. Intense beliefs produce intense hostility. Only when faith loses its force can a society hope to become humane.
        The history of religion is a horror story. If anyone doubts it, just review this chronicle of religion's gore during the last 1,000 years or so:
        – The First Crusade was launched in 1095 with the battle cry "Deus Vult" (God wills it), a mandate to destroy infidels in the Holy Land. Gathering crusaders in Germany first fell upon "the infidel among us," Jews in the Rhine valley, thousands of whom were dragged from their homes or hiding places and hacked to death or burned alive. Then the religious legions plundered their way 2,000 miles to Jerusalem, where they killed virtually every inhabitant, "purifying" the symbolic city. Cleric Raymond of Aguilers wrote: "In the temple of Solomon, one rode in blood up to the knees and even to the horses' bridles, by the just and marvelous judgment of God."
        – Human sacrifice blossomed in the Mayan theocracy of Central America between the 11th and 16th centuries. To appease a feathered-serpent god, maidens were drowned in sacred wells and other victims either had their hearts cut out, were shot with arrows, or were beheaded. Elsewhere, sacrifice was sporadic. In Peru, pre-Inca tribes killed children in temples called "houses of the moon." In Tibet, Bon shamans performed ritual killings. In Borneo builders of pile houses drove the first pile through the body of a maiden to pacify the earth goddess. In India, Dravidian people offered lives to village goddesses, and followers of Kali sacrificed a male child every Friday evening.
        – In the Third Crusade, after Richard the Lion-Hearted captured Acre in 1191, he ordered 3,000 captives — many of them women and children — taken outside the city and slaughtered. Some were disemboweled in a search for swallowed gems. Bishops intoned blessings. Infidel lives were of no consequence. As Saint Bernard of Clairvaux declared in launching the Second Crusade: "The Christian glories in the death of a pagan, because thereby Christ himself is glorified."
        – The Assassins were a sect of Ismaili Shi'ite Muslims whose faith required the stealthy murder of religious opponents. From the 11th to 13th centuries, they killed numerous leaders in modern-day Iran, Iraq and Syria. They finally were wiped out by conquering Mongols — but their vile name survives.
        – Throughout Europe, beginning in the 1100s, tales spread that Jews were abducting Christian children, sacrificing them, and using their blood in rituals. Hundreds of massacres stemmed from this "blood libel." Some of the supposed sacrifice victims — Little Saint Hugh of Lincoln, the holy child of LaGuardia, Simon of Trent — were beatified or commemorated with shrines that became sites of pilgrimages and miracles.
        – In 1209, Pope Innocent III launched an armed crusade against Albigenses Christians in southern France. When the besieged city of Beziers fell, soldiers reportedly asked their papal adviser how to distinguish the faithful from the infidel among the captives. He commanded: "Kill them all. God will know his own." Nearly 20,000 were slaughtered — many first blinded, mutilated, dragged behind horses, or used for target practice.
        – The Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 proclaimed the doctrine of transubstantiation: that the host wafer miraculously turns into the body of Jesus during the mass. Soon rumors spread that Jews were stealing the sacred wafers and stabbing or driving nails through them to crucify Jesus again. Reports said that the pierced host bled, cried out, or emitted spirits. On this charge, Jews were burned at the stake in 1243 in Belitz, Germany — the first of many killings that continued into the 1800s. To avenge the tortured host, the German knight Rindfliesch led a brigade in 1298 that exterminated 146 defenseless Jewish communities in six months.
        – In the 1200s the Incas built their empire in Peru, a society dominated by priests reading daily magical signs and offering sacrifices to appease many gods. At major ceremonies up to 200 children were burned as offerings. Special "chosen women" — comely virgins without blemish — were strangled.
        – Also during the 1200s, the hunt for Albigensian heretics led to establishment of the Inquisition, which spread over Europe. Pope Innocent IV authorized torture. Under interrogation by Dominican priests, screaming victims were stretched, burned, pierced and broken on fiendish pain machines to make them confess to disbelief and to identify fellow transgressors. Inquisitor Robert le Bourge sent 183 people to the stake in a single week.
        – In Spain, where many Jews and Moors had converted to escape persecution, inquisitors sought those harboring their old faith. At least 2,000 Spanish backsliders were burned. Executions in other countries included the burning of scientists such as mathematician-philosopher Giordano Bruno, who espoused Copernicus's theory that the planets orbit the sun.
        – When the Black Death swept Europe in 1348-1349, rumors alleged that it was caused by Jews poisoning wells. Hysterical mobs slaughtered thousands of Jews in several countries. In Speyer, Germany, the burned bodies were piled into giant wine casks and sent floating down the Rhine. In northern Germany Jews were walled up alive in their homes to suffocate or starve. The Flagellants, an army of penitents who whipped themselves bloody, stormed the Jewish quarter of Frankfurt in a gruesome massacre. The prince of Thuringia announced that he had burned his Jews for the honor of God.
        – The Aztecs began their elaborate theocracy in the 1300s and brought human sacrifice to a golden era. About 20,000 people were killed yearly to appease gods — especially the sun god, who needed daily "nourishment" of blood. Hearts of sacrifice victims were cut out, and some bodies were eaten ceremoniously. Other victims were drowned, beheaded, burned or dropped from heights. In a rite to the rain god, shrieking children were killed at several sites so that their tears might induce rain. In a rite to the maize goddess, a virgin danced for 24 hours, then was killed and skinned; her skin was worn by a priest in further dancing. One account says that at King Ahuitzotl's coronation, 80,000 prisoners were butchered to please the gods.
        – In the 1400s, the Inquisition shifted its focus to witchcraft. Priests tortured untold thousands of women into confessing that they were witches who flew through the sky and engaged in sex with the devil — then they were burned or hanged for their confessions. Witch hysteria raged for three centuries in a dozen nations. Estimates of the number executed vary from 100,000 to 2 million. Whole villages were exterminated. In the first half of the 17th century, about 5,000 "witches" were put to death in the French province of Alsace, and 900 were burned in the Bavarian city of Bamberg. The witch craze was religious madness at its worst.
        – The "Protestant Inquisition" is a term applied to the severities of John Calvin in Geneva and Queen Elizabeth I in England during the 1500s. Calvin's followers burned 58 "heretics," including theologian Michael Servetus, who doubted the Trinity. Elizabeth I outlawed Catholicism and executed about 200 Catholics.
        – Protestant Huguenots grew into an aggressive minority in France in the 15OOs — until repeated Catholic reprisals smashed them. On Saint Bartholomew's Day in 1572, Catherine de Medicis secretly authorized Catholic dukes to send their soldiers into Huguenot neighborhoods and slaughter families. This massacre touched off a six-week bloodbath in which Catholics murdered about 10,000 Huguenots. Other persecutions continued for two centuries, until the French Revolution. One group of Huguenots escaped to Florida; in 1565 a Spanish brigade discovered their colony, denounced their heresy, and killed them all.
        – Members of lndia's Thuggee sect strangled people as sacrifices to appease the bloodthirsty goddess Kali, a practice beginning in the 1500s. The number of victims has been estimated to be as high as 2 million. Thugs were claiming about 20,000 lives a year in the 1800s until British rulers stamped them out. At a trial in 1840, one Thug was accused of killing 931 people. Today, some Hindu priests still sacrifice goats to Kali.
        – The Anabaptists, communal "rebaptizers," were slaughtered by both Catholic and Protestant authorities. In Munster, Germany, Anabaptists took control of the city, drove out the clergymen, and proclaimed a New Zion. The bishop of Munster began an armed siege. While the townspeople starved, the Anabaptist leader proclaimed himself king and executed dissenters. When Munster finally fell, the chief Anabaptists were tortured to death with red-hot pincers and their bodies hung in iron cages from a church steeple.
        – Oliver Cromwell was deemed a moderate because he massacred only Catholics and Anglicans, not other Protestants. This Puritan general commanded Bible-carrying soldiers, whom he roused to religious fervor. After decimating an Anglican army, Cromwell said, "God made them as stubble to our swords." He demanded the beheading of the defeated King Charles I, and made himself the holy dictator of England during the 1650s. When his army crushed the hated Irish Catholics, he ordered the execution of the surrendered defenders of Drogheda and their priests, calling it "a righteous judgment of God upon these barbarous wretches."
        – Ukrainian Bogdan Chmielnicki was a Cossack Cromwell. He wore the banner of Eastern Orthodoxy in a holy war against Jews and Polish Catholics. More than 100,000 were killed in this 17th-century bloodbath, and the Ukraine was split away from Poland to become part of the Orthodox Russian empire.
        – The Thirty Years' War produced the largest religious death toll of all time. It began in 1618 when Protestant leaders threw two Catholic emissaries out of a Prague window into a dung heap. War flared between Catholic and Protestant princedoms, drawing in supportive religious armies from Germany, Spain, England, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, France and Italy. Sweden's Protestant soldiers sang Martin Luther's "Ein 'Feste Burg" in battle. Three decades of combat turned central Europe into a wasteland of misery. One estimate states that Germany's population dropped from 18 million to 4 million. In the end nothing was settled, and too few people remained to rebuild cities, plant fields, or conduct education.
        – When Puritans settled in Massachusetts in the 1600s, they created a religious police state where doctrinal deviation could lead to flogging, pillorying, hanging, cutting off ears, or boring through the tongue with a hot iron. Preaching Quaker beliefs was a capital offense. Four stubborn Quakers defied this law and were hanged. In the 1690s fear of witches seized the colony. Twenty alleged witches were killed and 150 others imprisoned.
        – In 1723 the bishop of Gdansk, Poland, demanded that all Jews be expelled from the city. The town council declined, but the bishop's exhortations roused a mob that invaded the ghetto and beat the residents to death.
        – Islamic jihads (holy wars), mandated by the Koran, killed millions over 12 centuries. In early years, Muslim armies spread the faith rapidly: east to India and west to Morocco. Then splintering sects branded other Muslims as infidels and declared jihads against them. The Kharijis battled Sunni rulers. The Azariqis decreed death to all "sinners" and their families. In 1804 a Sudanese holy man, Usman dan Fodio, waged a bloody jihad that broke the religious sway of the Sultan of Gobir. In the 1850s another Sudanese mystic, 'Umar al-Hajj, led a barbaric jihad to convert pagan African tribes — with massacres, beheadings and a mass execution of 300 hostages. In the 1880s a third Sudanese holy man, Muhammad Ahmed, commanded a jihad that destroyed a 10,000-man Egyptian army and wiped out defenders of Khartoum led by British general Charles "Chinese" Gordon.
        – In 1801 Orthodox priests in Bucharest, Romania, revived the story that Jews sacrificed Christians and drank their blood. Enraged parishioners stormed the ghetto and cut the throats of 128 Jews.
        – When the Baha'i faith began in Persia in 1844, the Islamic regime sought to exterminate it. The Baha'i founder was imprisoned and executed in 1850. Two years later, the religious government massacred 20,000 Baha'is. Streets of Tehran were soaked with blood. The new Baha'i leader, Baha'ullah, was tortured and exiled in foreign Muslim prisons for the rest of his life.
        – Human sacrifices were still occurring in Buddhist Burma in the 1850s. When the capital was moved to Mandalay, 56 "spotless" men were buried beneath the new city walls to sanctify and protect the city. When two of the burial spots were later found empty, royal astrologers decreed that 500 men, women, boys, and girls must be killed and buried at once, or the capital must be abandoned. About 100 were actually buried before British governors stopped the ceremonies.
        – In 1857 both Muslim and Hindu taboos triggered the Sepoy Mutiny in India. British rulers had given their native soldiers new paper cartridges that had to be bitten open. The cartridges were greased with animal tallow. This enraged Muslims, to whom pigs are unclean, and Hindus, to whom cows are sacred. Troops of both faiths went into a crazed mutiny, killing Europeans wantonly. At Kanpur, hundreds of European women and children were massacred after being promised safe passage.
        – Late in the 19th century, with rebellion stirring in Russia, the czars attempted to divert public attention by helping anti-Semitic groups rouse Orthodox Christian hatred for Jews. Three waves of pogroms ensued — in the 1880s, from 1903 to 1906, and during the Russian Revolution. Each wave was increasingly murderous. During the final period, 530 communities were attacked and 60,000 Jews were killed.
        – In the early 1900s, Muslim Turks waged genocide against Christian Armenians, and Christian Greeks and Balkans warred against the Islamic Ottoman Empire.
        – When India finally won independence from Britain in 1947, the "great soul" of Mahatma Gandhi wasn't able to prevent Hindus and Muslims from turning on one another in a killing frenzy that took perhaps 1 million lives. Even Gandhi was killed by a Hindu who thought him too pro-Muslim.
        – In the 1950s and 1960s, combat between Christians, animists and Muslims in Sudan killed more than 500,000.
        – In Jonestown, Guyana, in 1978, followers of the Rev. Jim Jones killed a visiting congressman and three newsmen, then administered cyanide to themselves and their children in a 900-person suicide that shocked the world.
        – Islamic religious law decrees that thieves shall have their hands or feet chopped off, and unmarried lovers shall be killed. In the Sudan in 1983 and 1984, 66 thieves were axed in public. A moderate Muslim leader, Mahmoud Mohammed Taha, was hanged for heresy in 1985 because he opposed these amputations. In Saudi Arabia a teen-age princess and her lover were executed in public in 1977. In Pakistan in 1987, a 25-year-old carpenter's daughter was sentenced to be stoned to death for engaging in unmarried sex. In the United Arab Emirates in 1984, a cook and a maid were sentenced to stoning for adultery — but, as a show of mercy, the execution was postponed until after the maid's baby was born.
        – In 1983 in Darkley, Northern Ireland, Catholic terrorists with automatic weapons burst into a Protestant church on a Sunday morning and opened fire, killing three worshipers and wounding seven. It was just one of hundreds of Catholic-Protestant ambushes that have taken 2,600 lives in Ulster since age-old religious hostility turned violent again in 1969.
        – Hindu-Muslim bloodshed erupts randomly throughout India. More than 3,000 were killed in Assam province in 1983. In May 1984 Muslims hung dirty sandals on a Hindu leader's portrait as a religious insult. This act triggered a week of arson riots that left 216 dead, 756 wounded, 13,000 homeless, and 4,100 in jail.
        – Religious tribalism — segregation of sects into hostile camps — has ravaged Lebanon continuously since 1975. News reports of the civil war tell of "Maronite Christian snipers," "Sunni Muslim suicide bombers," "Druze machine gunners," "Shi'ite Muslim mortar fire," and "Alawite Muslim shootings." Today 130,000 people are dead and a once-lovely nation is laid waste.
        – In Nigeria in 1982, religious fanatic followers of Mallam Marwa killed and mutilated several hundred people as heretics and infidels. They drank the blood of some of the victims. When the militia arrived to quell the violence, the cultists sprinkled themselves with blessed powder that they thought would make them impervious to police bullets. It didn't.
        – Today's Shi'ite theocracy in Iran — "the government of God on earth" — decreed that Baha'i believers who won't convert shall be killed. About 200 stubborn Baha'is were executed in the early 1980s, including women and teenagers. Up to 40,000 Baha'is fled the country. Sex taboos in Iran are so severe that: (1) any woman who shows a lock of hair is jailed; (2) Western magazines being shipped into the country first go to censors who laboriously black out all women's photos except for faces; (3) women aren't allowed to ski with men, but have a separate slope where they may ski in shrouds.
        – The lovely island nation of Sri Lanka has been turned hellish by ambushes and massacres between Buddhist Sinhalese and Hindu Tamils.
        – In 1983 a revered Muslim leader, Mufti Sheikh Sa'ad e-Din el'Alami of Jerusalem, issued a fatwa (an order of divine deliverance) promising an eternal place in paradise to any Muslim assassin who would kill President Hafiz al-Assad of Syria.
        – Sikhs want to create a separate theocracy, Khalistan (Land of the Pure), in the Punjab region of India. Many heed the late extremist preacher Jarnail Bhindranwale, who taught his followers that they have a "religious duty to send opponents to hell." Throughout the 1980s they sporadically murdered Hindus to accomplish this goal. In 1984, after Sikh guards riddled prime minister Indira Gandhi with 50 bullets, Hindus went on a rampage that killed 5,000 Sikhs in three days. Mobs dragged Sikhs from homes, stores, buses and trains, chopping and pounding them to death. Some were burned alive; boys were castrated.
        – In 1984 Shi'ite fanatics who killed and tortured Americans on a hijacked Kuwaiti airliner at Tehran Airport said they did it "for the pleasure of God."
        
        Obviously, people who think religion is a force for good are looking only at Dr. Jekyll and ignoring Mr. Hyde. They don't see the superstitious savagery pervading both history and current events.
        During the past three centuries, religion gradually lost its power over life in Europe and America, and church horrors ended in the West. But the poison lingered. The Nazi Holocaust was rooted in centuries of religious hate. Historian Dagobert Runes said the long era of church persecution killed three and a half million Jews — and Hitler's Final Solution was a secular continuation. Meanwhile, faith remains potent in the Third World, where it still produces familiar results.
        It's fashionable among thinking people to say that religion isn't the real cause of today's strife in Lebanon, Sri Lanka, Northern Ireland, India and Iran — that sects merely provide labels for combatants. Not so. Religion keeps the groups in hostile camps. Without it, divisions would blur with passing generations; children would adapt to new times, mingle, intermarry, forget ancient wounds. But religion keeps them alien to one another.
        Anything that divides people breeds inhumanity. Religion serves that ugly purpose.
        "Holy Horrors" is copyright © 1990 by James A. Haught. All rights reserved.
        The electronic version is copyright © 1997 by Internet Infidels with the written permission of James A. Haught. All rights reserved. Enter content here
        Koran, slavery and anti-SemitismThe main source of slaves was the pilgrimages to Mecca where poor Sudanese would sell one of their children into slavery for to pay for they journey home. In 1962 the government changed the law, it no longer allowed the purchase of slaves, although it still allowed the purchase of wives. The Koran was used by clerics to legitimize the government’s anti-Jewish fever. Portions of the Koran that condemned Jews: The Jews are enemies of the of Allah, of the Prophets, of the angels (297-98). They lies against Allah (450). They kill the prophets of Allah (571). They are enemies of the believers (582). They will receive the punishment of hell fire (793). [These passages] were given evermore prominence. [King] Fisal when beyond what even the Koran taught about Jews…. Fisal ordered that all hotels have the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in every room…. Fisal believed the Jews used the blood of Moslems and Christians in their religious holidays [a widely held by Christians Medieval belief]. From the Secrets of the Kingdom: The Inside Story of the Saudi-U.S. Connection, Chapter 3, Gerald Posner, 2005 accessed 092512:
        http://www.skeptically.org/enlightenment/id7.html
        Jeff is sounding more and more reasonable all the time, especially when I read this stuff. Also, note that the Saints have encountered some bad times, but nothing like the European Christians from whence your religious persuasion came!!! The Church of Jesus Christ is the restored Church of Christ from before His Atoning sacrifice, from the time He actually set up the rules!
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Evolution stands in sharp contrast to religion in that it relies on evidence and testing that can be repeated and confirmed. Mormonism is exactly the same as Christianity or any religion in that it relies on faith and not evidence.
      - millergroup2
        
        The answer is a little vague and uninformative. We still do not have scientific facts of evolution. You thought we did until science proved otherwise. However more and more scientific evidence is being uncovered as scientist are looking very hard at the bible for answers.
        
        Scientific Facts in the Bible
        
        1. Only in recent years
        has science discovered that everything we see is composed
        of invisible atoms. Here, Scripture tells us that the
        "things which are seen were not made of things
        which do appear."
        
        2. Medical science has only
        recently discovered that blood-clotting in a newborn
        reaches its peak on the eighth day, then drops. The
        Bible consistently says that a baby must be circumcised
        on the eighth day.
        
        3. At a time when it was
        believed that the earth sat on a large animal or a giant
        (1500 B.C.), the Bible spoke of the earth’s free
        float in space: "He…hangs the earth upon nothing"
        (Job 26:7).
        
        4. The prophet Isaiah also
        tells us that the earth is round: "It is he that
        sits upon the circle of the earth" (Isaiah 40:22).
        This is not a reference to a flat disk, as some skeptic
        maintain, but to a sphere. Secular man discovered this
        2,400 years later. At a time when science believed that
        the earth was flat, is was the Scriptures that inspired
        Christopher Columbus to sail around the world (see Proverbs
        3:6 footnote).
        
        5. God told Job in 1500
        B.C.: "Can you send lightnings, that they may go,
        and say to you, Here we are?" (Job 38:35). The
        Bible here is making what appears to be a scientifically
        ludicrous statement—that light can be sent, and
        then manifest itself in speech. But did you know that
        radio waves travel at the speed of light? This is why
        you can have instantaneous wireless communication with
        someone on the other side of the earth. Science didn’t
        discover this until 1864 when "British scientist
        James Clerk Maxwell suggested that electricity and light
        waves were two forms of the same thing" (Modern
        Century Illustrated Encyclopedia).
        
        6. Job 38:19 asks, "Where
        is the way where light dwells?" Modern man has
        only recently discovered that light (electromagnetic
        radiation) has a "way," traveling at 186,000
        miles per second.
        
        7. Science has discovered
        that stars emit radio waves, which are received on earth
        as a high pitch. God mentioned this in Job 38:7: "When
        the morning stars sang together…"
        
        8. "Most cosmologists
        (scientists who study the structures and evolution of
        the universe) agree that the Genesis account of creation,
        in imagining an initial void, may be uncannily close
        to the truth" (Time, Dec. 1976).
        
        9. Solomon described a "cycle"
        of air currents two thousand years before scientists
        "discovered" them. "The wind goes toward
        the south, and turns about unto the north; it whirls
        about continually, and the wind returns again according
        to his circuits" (Ecclesiastes 1:6).
        
        10. Science expresses the
        universe in five terms: time, space, matter, power,
        and motion. Genesis 1:1,2 revealed such truths to the
        Hebrews in 1450 B.C.: "In the beginning [time]
        God created [power] the heaven [space] and the earth
        [matter] . . . And the Spirit of God moved [motion]
        upon the face of the waters." The first thing God
        tells man is that He controls of all aspects of the
        universe.
        
        11. The great biological
        truth concerning the importance of blood in our body’s
        mechanism has been fully comprehended only in recent
        years. Up until 120 years ago, sick people were "bled,"
        and many died because of the practice. If you lose your
        blood, you lose your life. Yet Leviticus 17:11, written
        3,000 years ago, declared that blood is the source of
        life: "For the life of the flesh is in the blood."
        
        12. All things were made
        by Him (see John 1:3), including dinosaurs. Why then
        did the dinosaur disappear? The answer may be in Job
        40:15–24. In this passage, God speaks about a
        great creature called "behemoth." Some commentators
        think this was a hippopotamus. However, the hippo’s
        tail isn’t like a large tree, but a small twig.
        Following are the characteristics of this huge animal:
        It was the largest of all the creatures God made; was
        plant-eating (herbivorous); had its strength in its
        hips and a tail like a large tree. It had very strong
        bones, lived among the trees, drank massive amounts
        of water, and was not disturbed by a raging river. He
        appears impervious to attack because his nose could
        pierce through snares, but Scripture says, "He
        that made him can make his sword to approach unto him."
        In other words, God caused this, the largest of all
        the creatures He had made, to become extinct.
        
        13. Encyclopedia Britannica
        documents that in 1845, a young doctor in Vienna named
        Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis was horrified at the terrible death
        rate of women who gave birth in hospitals. As many as
        30 percent died after giving birth. Semmelweis noted
        that doctors would examine the bodies of patients who
        died, then, without washing their hands, go straight
        to the next ward and examine expectant mothers. This
        was their normal practice, because the presence of microscopic
        diseases was unknown. Semmelweis insisted that doctors
        wash their hands before examinations, and the death
        rate immediately dropped to 2 percent. Look at the specific
        instructions God gave His people for when they encounter
        disease: "And when he that has an issue is cleansed
        of his issue; then he shall number to himself even days
        for his cleansing, and wash his clothes, and bathe his
        flesh in running water, and shall be clean" (Leviticus
        15:13). Until recent years, doctors washed their hands
        in a bowl of water, leaving invisible germs on their
        hands. However, the Bible says specifically to wash
        hands under "running water."
        
        14. Luke 17:34–36
        says the Second Coming of Jesus Christ will occur while
        some are asleep at night and others are working at daytime
        activities in the field. This is a clear indication
        of a revolving earth, with day and night at the same
        time.
        
        15. "During the
        devastating Black Death of the fourteenth century, patients
        who were sick or dead were kept in the same rooms as
        the rest of the family. People often wondered why the
        disease was affecting so many people at one time. They
        attributed these epidemics to ‘bad air’
        or ‘evil spirits.’ However, careful attention
        to the medical commands of God as revealed in Leviticus
        would have saved untold millions of lives. Arturo Castiglione
        wrote about the overwhelming importance of this biblical
        medical law: ‘The laws against leprosyin Leviticus
        13 may be regarded as the first model of sanitary legislation’
        (A History of Medicine)." Grant R. Jeffery, The
        Signature of God With all these truths revealed in Scripture,how
        could a thinking person deny that the Bible is supernatural
        in origin? There is no other book in any of the world’s
        religions (Vedas, Bhagavad-Gita, Koran, Book of Mormon,
        etc.) that contains scientific truth. In fact, they
        contain statements that are clearly unscientific. Hank
        Hanegraaff said, "Faith in Christ is not some blind
        leap into a dark chasm, but a faith based on established
        evidence." (11:3 continued)
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        1. The verse you quote is referring to the word of god as what is unseen, not atoms.
        
        2. Which is more likely? That God magically transmitted the message that baby boys should not be circumcised before eight days. Or, that it was learned the hard way that whacking off the ends of the penises of boys younger than eight days causes them to bleed to death. There is nothing here that could not have discovered by trial and error. And the real story is that cutting off part of the penis does little good and actually causes many problems. The AMA does not endorse circumcision. http://www.sharecare.com/question/is-circumcision-medically-necessary
        
        3. The earth is not hanging on nothing. It is orbiting the sun at 66,700 miles per hour.
        
        4. A circle is not a sphere. A circle is flat. And that is why they believed that Satan could take Jesus to a high mountain and show him the entire world, which is impossible on a sphere, but conceivable, although still unrealistic, if the world is flat.
        
        5. However, radio waves do not manifest themselves as light. Your attempt to tie these two concepts together is silly.
        
        6. Speed is not a location.
        
        7.
        What does one hear from a radio wave?
        Actually, nothing! While everyday experience and Hollywood movies make people think of sounds when they see the words "radio telescope," radio astronomers do not actually listen to noises.
        First, sound and radio waves are different phenomena. Sound consists of pressure variations in matter, such as air or water. Sound will not travel through a vacuum. Radio waves, like visible light, infrared, ultraviolet, X-rays and gamma rays, are electromagnetic waves that do travel through a vacuum. When you turn on a radio you hear sounds because the transmitter at the radio station has converted the sound waves into electromagnetic waves, which are then encoded onto an electromagnetic wave in the radio frequency range (generally in the range of 500-1600 kHz for AM stations, or 86-107 MHz for FM stations). Radio electromagnetic waves are used because they can travel very large distances through the atmosphere without being greatly attenuated due to scattering or absorption. Your radio receives the radio waves, decodes this information, and uses a speaker to change it back into a sound wave.
        8. Oh please, a 36 year article hardly reflects the current view that science holds about the formation of the universe.
        
        9. Umm, no. Air constantly moves over the face of the Earth in currents. These currents are caused by temperature differences on the surface of the planet caused by the sun. Earth's weather results from the interactions of warm and cold air currents.
        Solar influence
        Air currents move from areas of high pressure to low pressure. The sun causes differences in pressure by heating air. When air is heated, it rises, creating an area of low pressure. The heated air cools as it rises higher into the atmosphere. The cooling air falls back to Earth. This cycle creates air currents.
        High and low pressure
        As heated air rises, fewer air molecules are present. Air pressure goes down. The air pressure of surrounding cooler areas is higher because there are more air molecules present. Air then moves to the area of low pressure until the pressures are the same.
        Equatorial heating
        The sun shines most powerfully on the Earth's equator. The energy from the sun causes the air at the equator to become hot. The hot air rises, causing low pressure at the equator. Air from the cooler poles moves toward the warmer equator to equalize the pressure difference. Air currents form every day moving toward the equator.
        By the sea
        Air currents change direction by day and night around oceans and seas. During the day, the sun heats the ground, making the air above the ground warmer and creating low pressure over land. An air current develops from the cooler ocean, where there is higher pressure. In the evening, the land cools while the ocean retains heat. The warmer ocean air rises, causing air currents to come off the land toward the sea.
        Speed
        Air currents can move extremely fast. Air current speeds increase when there is a large difference in temperature. If the area of low pressure is very hot, the air will rise faster, causing air currents to be pulled in faster. This results in high wind speeds. Large differences in temperature can result in damaging winds
        
        Read more: How do air currents form? | Answerbag http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/2067032#ixzz27E9TZHcK
        
        10. Arbitrarily assigning scientific meanings to words in ancient documents does not automatically lend any scientific credibility to the stories they tell. One can play the same word game with a number of ancient creation stories. Consider the following from a part of a Chinese creation story:
        In the beginning (time), the heavens and earth were still one and all was chaos. The universe was like a big black egg, carrying Pan Gu inside itself. After 18 thousand years Pan Gu woke from a long sleep. He felt suffocated, so he took up a broadax and wielded it with all his might (power) to crack open the egg. The light, clear part of it floated up (motion) and formed the heavens (space), the cold, turbid matter stayed below to form earth (matter).
        I have inserted the words "time," "power," "motion," "space," and "matter" using the same logic (or lack thereof) that you used in your example above. Does this lend any scientific credibility to the creation story of Pan Gu?
        
        11. Leviticus 17:11 is referring to the need for a sacrifice, not that blood is critical to the health of someone. Besides, after observing numerous animals die as a consequence of losing substantial amounts of blood, it is hardly surprising that man should have been able to make the obvious connection that blood is somehow related to the maintenance of life. The animal is wounded, the blood drains out, and the animal dies. Therefore, blood is somehow involved in keeping animals alive. Again, there is nothing indicative of supernaturally transmitted wisdom here.
        
        12. First off, there were thousands of different dinosaurs that were of many different shapes and sizes. Second, there is nothing in the verse that suggests that every behemoth was killed off. That is quite a stretch on your part. Third, the bible makes other references to imaginary creatures. The behemoth could certainly be made up. Much of the bible is simply made up.
        
        13. Let us look at that verse more closely. "And when he that has an issue is cleansed of his issue; then he shall number to himself even days for his cleansing, and wash his clothes, and bathe his
        flesh in running water, and shall be clean" . 14 And on the eighth day he shall take to him two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, and come before the Lord unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and give them unto the priest:
        15 And the priest shall offer them, the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for him before the Lord for his issue.
        
        Odd that you left out the critical part of sacrificing birds and the ceremonial aspects as part of this sound medical procedure.
        
        14. It was not uncommon for people to travel to different countries at that period of time. And when they did, they would have noticed that there was a difference in when people worked and slept. This is the same nonsensical book that claimed that god stopped the sun from moving across the heavens so that the day could be longer.
        
        15. It is a religion that attempts to stretch fables into something more, which is common for all religions.
      - Esther
        
        Mr. Dixon, it is not exactly the same! You are 100% wrong there.
      - http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark
        
        I can think of nothing in the way of "evidence or testing that can be repeated or confirmed" that supports evolution. Evolution is something that supposedly happened in the past, yet is not occurring today, so how would anything be repeatable or be able to be confirmed in the present?
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        That is mostly because you reject evolution out of hand. However, evolution is occurring today and there are experiments occurring. Here is one.
        
        http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a-new-step-in-evolution/
      - http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark
        
        No, you mean natural selection is occurring today. The experiments you cite with your link are an excellent example of natural selection. The authors even used that term in in the article. They started with a single microbe of E. coli bacteria, and after over 44,000 generations of division, they now have a dozen flasks full of–wait for it–E. coli bacteria.
        
        Some of them now have an altered metabolism and breed faster, but that is not 'evolution'. If anything, it is artificial selection, since the researcher selectively provided the cultures with glucose, then later gave some citrate only. It was not an uncontrolled environment, in which evolutionists claim that evolution actually occurred eons ago. In this case, the bacteria adapted to their environment through natural selection and minor mutations, but no new form or function arose, which would be necessary if evolution were true.
        So we start with E. coli bacteria, and after 44,000 generations of natural selection and a few mutations, we end up with E. coli bacteria. Yet if we are to believe that incredibly complex forms of life 'evolved' from simpler forms of life (which is a misnomer since there are no 'simple' forms of life), it would require vast quantities of entirely new genetic information. This experiment did not show anything of the sort.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Natural selection is part of evolutionary theory. Therefore, if natural selection occurred then evolution has occurred.
      - http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark
        
        No, natural selection is simply a re-shuffling of existing genetic information. Evolution, if it were true, would require vast amounts of entirely new genetic information. Natural selection does not generate anything new, which is why, in the experiment you cite, it began with E. coli bacteria and at the end of the experiment they still remained E. coli bacteria. That hardly proves anything about single-cell organisms 'evolving' into highly complex organisms such as mammals.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        No, sorry. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. Natural selection is part of evolution.
        
        Natural selection is the gradual, non-random process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a populationas a function of differential reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of evolution. The term "natural selection" was popularized by Charles Darwin who intended it to be compared with artificial selection, what we now call selective breeding.Variation exists within all populations of organisms. This occurs partly because random mutations cause changes in the genome of an individual organism, and these mutations can be passed to offspring. Throughout the individuals’ lives, their genomes interact with their environments to cause variations in traits. (The environment of a genome includes the molecular biology in the cell, other cells, other individuals, populations, species, as well as the abiotic environment.) Individuals with certain variants of the trait may survive and reproduce more than individuals with other variants. Therefore the population evolves. Factors that affect reproductive success are also important, an issue that Charles Darwin developed in his ideas on sexual selection, for example. Natural selection acts on thephenotype, or the observable characteristics of an organism, but the genetic (heritable) basis of any phenotype that gives a reproductive advantage will become more common in a population (see allele frequency). Over time, this process can result in populations that specialize for particular ecological niches and may eventually result in the emergence of new species. In other words, natural selection is an important process (though not the only process) by which evolution takes place within a population of organisms. As opposed toartificial selection, in which humans favour specific traits, in natural selection the environment acts as a sieve through which only certain variations can pass.Natural selection is one of the cornerstones of modern biology. The term was introduced by Darwin in his influential 1859 book On the Origin of Species,[1] in which natural selection was described as analogous to artificial selection, a process by which animals and plants with traits considered desirable by human breeders are systematically favored for reproduction. The concept of natural selection was originally developed in the absence of a valid theory of heredity; at the time of Darwin's writing, nothing was known of modern genetics. The union of traditional Darwinian evolution with subsequent discoveries in classical and molecular genetics is termed themodern evolutionary synthesis. Natural selection remains the primary explanation for adaptive evolution.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
      - http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark
        
        Except that none of that explains where these "biological traits" came from. Natural selection only offers an explanation of how EXISTING traits are distributed throughout a population, but does not explain the ORIGIN of any traits. In order for entirely new traits to arise, there has to be new genetic information created, and natural selection does not create anything.
        
        'Origin of Species' itself, per your source, describes natural selection as analogous to artificial selection, or human directed breeding. Selectively breeding two dogs, for instance, never results in anything other than another dog. The last sentence of your citation is also telling, as it describes natural selection as "adaptive evolution", or in other words, micro evolution, which is nothing more than a redistribution of existing genetic information. I totally agree that natural selection is entirely valid and is occurring today, but I do not agree that this is the equivalent of "evolution" in which lower life forms progress to increasingly higher-level life forms.
        If evolution were true, there would have to be a mechanism that creates vast quantities of entirely new genetic information. And yet no such mechanism has ever been shown to exist. We know that information does not arise by chance, so the only logical explanation for the vast quantities of encoded information we observe today in the DNA of the countless creatures, is that it arose from a superior Intelligence, otherwise known as God.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        And once again I seem to need to remind you that evolution does not address how life was created. It is a theory that explains how existing life changes over time. Creationists want to tie the two issues together, but they are separate issues. If a god created that initial life, that does not change one thing about the theory of evolution.
        
        The theory of how life was created is abiogenesis and that is a completely different theory than evolution.
      - http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark
        
        I didn't say it had anything to do with how life was created. I said that to go from a single-cell organism, regardless of its origin, to a highly complex creature like a mammal, would require a staggering amount of new genetic information. So even if I spot you a 'simple' single celled organism, no questions asked, there is still no known mechanism that would generate the vast amounts of new genetic information that would be necessary for upwardly-mobile evolution that could eventually transform that cell into all the life forms we see today.
        
        Information simply does not arise by itself. All the data and operating system information on your computer, for example, is there only as a result of an intelligent (presumably, heh heh) programmer or you yourself placing it there. It doesn't just suddenly appear spontaneously. Likewise, genetic information in the encoded form of DNA can only arise from an intelligent designer.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Key, this is what your posted started off with.
        "Except that none of that explains where these "biological traits" came from. Natural selection only offers an explanation of how EXISTING traits are distributed throughout a population, but does not explain the ORIGIN of any traits
      - http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark
        
        No, you misunderstood me. I was referring to natural selection as we see it today. Natural selection is a reshuffling of existing genetic information. My intended query was, where did this vast array of modern genetic information come from, that is now redistributed during natural selection? I did not intend to refer to the origin of any and all genetic information, although that too raises a serious question mark to evolutionist's explanations of origins, and is a subject all its own.
        
        So if we even start with a 'simple' cell without questioning its origin, it obviously has DNA of its own, but in order to make the leap from single-cell organism to, say, a mammal, requires a vast amount of new genetic information. My point was intended to center on where this new genetic information came from in relation to natural selection, not where DNA in general came from as related to evolutionary theory. Apologies if I was not clear.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Mutations.
        Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of
        
        increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
        increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003) novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996) novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)
        
        If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place.
        
        A mechanism that is likely to be particularly common for adding information is gene duplication, in which a long stretch of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations that change one or both of the copies. Genetic sequencing has revealed several instances in which this is likely the origin of some proteins. For example: Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway that are barrel-shaped, structural and sequence evidence suggests, were formed via gene duplication and fusion of two half-barrel ancestors (Lang et al. 2000).
        RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. (Zhang et al. 2002) Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further. (Brown et al. 1998)
        The biological literature is full of additional examples. A PubMed search (at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi) on "gene duplication" gives more than 3000 references.
        
        According to Shannon-Weaver information theory, random noise maximizes information. This is not just playing word games. The random variation that mutations add to populations is the variation on which selection acts. Mutation alone will not cause adaptive evolution, but by eliminating nonadaptive variation, natural selection communicates information about the environment to the organism so that the organism becomes better adapted to it. Natural selection is the process by which information about the environment is transferred to an organism's genome and thus to the organism (Adami et al. 2000).
        
        The process of mutation and selection is observed to increase information and complexity in simulations (Adami et al. 2000; Schneider 2000).
        http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html
      - http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark
        
        Without further detail I do not know what they are referring to in the second paragraph, and your link gives a 404 error, so I cannot comment on those. But the other specific example of the RNASE1 gene mutating to RNASE1B in langur monkeys and the yeast hexose transport gene variations sound very similar to another example you have given in the past. In both instances, the mutation only provides an altered metabolism for the host organism. No new form or function is created–only a slightly altered function which may or may not be considered beneficial. This is not evolution.
        
        I have never argued that mutations cannot happen, because it is a fact that they do. But the vast majority of them are detrimental and result in a loss of genetic information, not an increase. The few that may be considered somewhat beneficial, at least all of the examples I have seen, including the ones you present above, are simply a modification of an existing function that allows the host organism to live in a different environment or digest substances it does not normally digest. In other words, they act in the same manner as natural selection–an adaptation based on changes in the environment.
        
        These types of changes cannot be considered evolution, because no new form or function has been created. And it cannot be considered entirely new genetic information because it is only a variation of an existing gene, such as the RNASE1 gene mutating to RNASE1B. It is still an RNASE1 gene.
        
        No new form is created either, because the organism that experiences the mutation, for example, yeast, still remains yeast. But evolutionary theory postulates that there is an upward mobility in complexity of the organism itself, and no mutations that I am aware of have ever shown any such changes. In order for evolution to be true, there would have to be vast amounts of entirely new genetic information to bring about the incredibly complex changes that set apart a single-cell organism from a mammal. A mammal's entire body structure is obviously far different from that of a single cell. The amount of new genetic information to go from a single cell to a mammal is staggering. Simply altering the metabolism of a single-cell organism is a far cry from a theory that postulates an upwardly-mobile increase in complexity.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Key, you can deny evidence of evolution all day. I really would not expect anything different. But biologists who have studied this topic disagree with you. What I post as evidence of evolution comes from scientists trained in the field. And while I find you to be a pleasant enough guy, your views on what is or is not evolution carry little weight.
      - http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark
        
        And I would not expect anything different of you than that you would defend evolution. But science is not on your side. There are many scientists alive today who accept the Biblical account of creation. Here is a partial list, most of whom possess an earned doctorate in a field of science:
        
        http://creation.com/scientists-alive-today-who-accept-the-biblical-account-of-creation
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Yes, there are some scientists who accept the Creationist view. However, the science is on my side. 99% of biologists accept Evolution. Many of them are Christians or believers of other faiths.
      - http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark
        
        I'd like to see you prove that 99% figure, but in any case, it is the evidence that matters, not the opinions of biased scientists. Secular scientists have a 'reason', if you want to call it that, to acknowledge evolution, because they know that if they are doing government or 'mainstream' scientific research, and they disagree with evolution, they are likely to have their funding cut off or be blackballed. Extortion is a very powerful incentive to believe.
        
        But the fact is, evolutionists do not have a single shred of evidence that there exists a mechanism for creating vast amounts of new genetic information. And until such a mechanism is found (which it will never be), evolutionary theory is simply a faith-based dogma rather than a scientific endeavor. They also have no explanation as to how life originated, which once again is best explained by the Biblical creation model.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        So you want proof of a issue that you dismiss out of hand anyway?
        Wow, that is humorous. But, regardless, here it is. Of the scientists and
        engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a
        1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes
        those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer
        scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working
        in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000
        scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or
        consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15
        percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the
        United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized
        country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept
        creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent.
        
        Regarding your comment that biologists have a financial reason to
        promote evolution, you are overlooking a very important issue. Before Darwin
        offered up his ideas on Evolution, the Creationists dominated scientific
        fields. That primarily because no one had ever presented a valid reason to
        accept that descent was feasible before. The idea was not knew, it had been
        discussed before. However, Darwin was the first to offer an idea with a
        feasible mechanism. After that biologists started moving away from the
        Creationist view and adopted the Darwinian view. Creationists had their
        position of dominance stripped away because the evidence fit the theory of
        evolution better than the idea that a god created everything at one time.
        
        One component of evolution that gets glossed
        over by creationists is the reality that the animals that exist today did not
        exist in the past. When you start going back over the history of animals, you
        see an interesting pattern. There is a groupings of animals based on geological
        timeframes. There are no rabbits or tigers (as well as thousands of other
        animals that exist today) in the Paleozoic area. So, either god is doing
        multiple creations, (which contradicts the bible) or there was some mechanism
        that brought rabbits and tigers into the picture when they were not there
        originally.
        
        When we did
        not know how the bumble-bee flew, was that an adequate reason for positing god
        as the answer, or was it instead cause for further scientific investigation
        aimed at finding out the natural explanation? All of science is the result of
        choosing the latter approach. Once there was a time when nothing was explained.
        Since then, everything which has been explained has been found to have a
        natural, not a divine, explanation. Although this does not prove that all
        future explanations will be of like kind, it shows that it is not at all
        unreasonable to expect this–and it is not a very reliable bet to expect the
        opposite.
      - http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark
        
        Your survey seems dated. I would venture that the percentages are significantly different today, more than 20 years later. In any case, as I have stated previously, there is a heavy built-in bias toward evolution because virtually every university teaches it to their students, and once scientists enter the workplace, especially as related to government work, there is a heavy financial price to pay for disbelief in evolution.
        
        But regardless, truth is not determined by consensus. For example, the vast majority of government economists follow the Keynesian theory of economics, which in essense says that government should intervene in the markets by spending large sums of public money and incurring huge budget deficits, and that fiat currencies should not be held to a gold standard. Fed chairman Ben Bernanke is a typical example of a Keynesian.
        
        We are now witnessing the destructive effects of this school of thought as most major economies, including (and perhaps, especially) the US, are so deeply in debt that there is no hope they will ever be able to pay off the debt, unless they unleash massive inflation. This inflation would greatly devalue the dollar and would effectively rob US citizens of their money, but would allow the government to pay off the debt in much cheaper dollars, which they would simply print.
        
        Since the Federal reserve was created in 1913, the value of the dollar has fallen by over 95%, after having remained relatively stable from the founding of the republic until then. The US now has over $16 trillion in National debt, or $51,068/citizen, and a staggering $120 trillion in unfunded liabilities such as social security, or $1,055,482.00/taxpayer. http://usdebtclock.org
        
        We can thank our college-educated, PhD, majority philosophy Keynesian economists for the policies that have effectively led us to financial ruin. Truth from consensus? I don't think so. In fact. I would go as far as to say that when the vast majority of academics "agree" that something is true or is the best system, then it's highly likely that just the opposite is true, and it's time to run as fast as you can in the other direction.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Truth is not based on consensus. Now let us take a look at what members of Answers in Genesis must agree to in order to be a member.
        The following are held by members of the Board of Answers in Genesis to be either consistent with Scripture or implied by Scripture:
        Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole creation, spanning approximately 4,000 years from creation to Christ.The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six [6] consecutive twenty-four [24] hour days of creation.The Noachian Flood was a significant geological event and much (but not all) fossiliferous sediment originated at that time.The gap theory has no basis in Scripture.The view, commonly used to evade the implications or the authority of biblical teaching, that knowledge and/or truth may be divided into secular and religious, is rejected.By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.
        http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith
        Seems like a whole bunch of consensus going on there just to be a member.
        Evolution and economics have nothing to do with each other, and while I agree that Keynesian theories are flawed, that does not automatically mean that Evolution is equally flawed. But it was a nice attempt at offering up a Red Herring.
      - http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark
        
        So you are saying that they should have no standards? Evolutionary scientists most certainly have a standard that they use which defines what they believe. Why shouldn't creationists?
        
        Besides, that is not what I was talking about when I said 'consensus'. I am talking about the so-called 'mainstream' consensus who controls most universities, the government, and the media. You and i both know that all three have a strong evolutionary bias. I fail to see what that has to do with Answers in Genesis, who is not a part of the 'mainstream' bias, having standards that define their worldview.
        
        Obviously, someone who has a Godless worldview would not be interested in working for AIG any more than a creation scientist would be interested in working for a strictly atheist/evolutionist organization. You are only introducing this point to divert attention from the glaringly obvious bias toward evolution in the 'mainstream' community, which is what my "consensus" post was all about, not private organizations holding a certain standard. My warning about trusting the 'mainstream' consensus stands, as it (the 'mainstream' view) represents the lowest common denominator..
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        You were the one who brought up that truth is not determined by consensus, which I agree with. I am merely pointing out that at AIG, if one does not agree with their platform, they are not welcome. In fact, their entire platform is based on the concept that nothing new can be determined. Rather hard to conduct science when the answers are limited.
        The reason that the mainstream scientific community dismisses Creationists is because their "theory" is nothing of the kind.
        Why Intelligent Design Theory is Completely Useless
        Intelligent Design theory may be bad science, but it is good politics. People with no grounding in the scientific method and philosophy are highly susceptible to its arguments, for the simple reason that the scientific method does not come naturally to people. After all, if the scientific method did come naturally to people, it wouldn't have taken humanity more than three thousand years after the discovery of iron to figure out that you can make a boat out of it.
        So what is the basic philosophy of Intelligent Design, and how does it differ from the philosophy of science? Well let's review: the Intelligent Design argument goes like this:
        "Evolutionists cannot explain exactly how [insert species or organ name here] evolved.""Therefore, evolution theory cannot explain how it evolved.""Therefore, it could not have evolved.""Therefore, it must have been magically created by God … er, an "intelligent designer"."
        Each of these steps is riddled with falsehoods and basic logic errors. Let us address them one at a time, before we discuss the fundamental reason why Intelligent Design is completely useless.
        Step 1: "Evolutionists cannot explain exactly how [insert species or organ name here] evolved". In a surprisingly large number of cases, this statement is actually false. In many cases (such as the Bombardier beetle), the feature is described inaccurately, in order to exaggerate the unlikelihood of it evolving naturally. In other cases, it is claimed that there is no scientific explanation when in fact there is. But nevertheless, with millions of species in the world, it is obvious that scientists could not possibly have developed a complete family tree for every single one. The real question is: why is this a problem? It may seem like a problem to you, but it is actually not, as we shall see.
        Step 2: "Therefore, evolution theory cannot explain how it evolved." If you pick a name of a species and an organ from that species out of a hat and I can't fill in its family history, then I lose, right? Well that's not really how it works. Contrary to what you might think, there is a difference between explaining how things work (ie- science) and giving a complete history. As an analogy, imagine that you see me get into a car in Toronto on Friday morning and you hear that I arrived at my destination in Philadelphia late Friday evening. You would naturally conclude that I drove my car to Philadelphia. If you could not say exactly which route I followed, would that shake your confidence in this theory? Of course not.
        You don't know whether I crossed the border at Niagara Falls or Buffalo. There is a "missing link", yet that does not disturb you at all, does it? The correct way to disprove this theory is not to point to the "missing link", but to show that the theory makes predictions which are different from the outcome. For example, the theory predicts that it would take at least 10 hours. If I arrived in Philadelphia one hour after leaving Toronto, the theory clearly makes a prediction which is much different from reality, hence the theory fails. Perhaps I took a flight and then rented a car which just happens to be the same make, model, and year as my car. But the fact that a theory can't give you a complete history does not mean it fails; you need to generate a prediction with that theory and then show that this prediction is different from reality.
        Step 3: "Therefore, it could not have evolved." To return to our previous analogy, this is like saying that I could not have driven from Toronto to Philadelphia if you cannot explain which route I took. Let's be very clear about this: neither science, religion, or any other intellectual method will ever produce a reliable complete history of all the species on this planet. Too much evidence has been obliterated over the eons. There will always be unanswered questions. But these are not "holes in the theory"; they are holes in our history.
        The distinction between theory and history is a crucial distinction which "intelligent design" proponents invariably ignore in their zeal to attack evolution. The scientific theory of evolution only provides a mechanism which successfully predicts many otherwise staggeringly unlikely patterns in nature and in the fossil record. It does not provide a complete history of our entire biosystem, nor should it be expected to. It would be thoroughly illogical to conclude that a mechanism must not work if you can't use it to fill in a complete history. It works if its predictions are not contradicted by observation and it is found to be necessary, ie- it explain patterns that would otherwise beg for an explanation, such as the coincidental patterns of species characteristics and migration paths, or the fact that features never abruptly jump from one animal family to another. Evolution meets and passes these tests with flying colours, which is why "intelligent design" proponents try to move the goalposts. That is why they unreasonably demand that it fill in a complete history of our world before it can be considered a successful theory.
        Step 4: "Therefore, it must have been magically created by God … er, an "intelligent designer." Now it goes without saying that this is primitive logic: this is the exact same flawed logic used by the ancient Greeks to conclude that since they didn't understand lightning, it must have been thrown down from Mount Olympus by Zeus. The reasoning here is that if you can't explain the mechanism for something, then any story about it must be correct. And keep in mind: once again we encounter the distinction between a mechanism and a story, ie- a scientific theory and a history.
        Of course, an "intelligent design" proponent would argue at this point that "intelligent design" actually fulfills my earlier tests for a scientific theory. After all, it can predict any kind of species, so its predictions are never contradicted by observation1. And since evolution theory can't generate a complete history, "intelligent design" is necessary! However, this argument has three crucial flaws. As stated previously, it is notnecessary for a scientific theory to function as a complete history, and in fact, expecting it to do so is totally unreasonable. Also, the theory is generally defined in such a manner that it denies evolution, so the patterns which were explained by evolution would require explaining once again. But the argument also has athird huge flaw. Can you see it?
        Here's a hint: "intelligent design" can predict any kind of species, no matter what it looks like. This is touted as the great strength of "intelligent design" theory, but it actually proves that "intelligent design" iscompletely useless. You see, if you make a real prediction, you are not just predicting what will happen: you are also predicting what will not happen. If I use the theory of action/reaction to predict that a rocket will move forward in space when the engine is fired, I am not just predicting that the rocket will move forward: I am predicting that it will not move backwards or stay still. Similarly, the mathematical equation 2+2=4 does not just say that 2+2=4; it also says that 2+2 does notequal 3, or 5, or 100.
        Predictions and the Failure of Intelligent Design
        That is what it means to make real predictions; if a "theory" predicts that anything can happen, it is not a scientific theory at all. Imagine if someone promoted a theory of rocketry by saying that no matter whether the rocket goes forward, backward, or nowhere, his theory will predict it. You would be quite justified in asking what on Earth his theory is good for, right?
        When you think about it, a theory which can predict anything is actually a theory which predicts nothing. An open-ended "prediction" which is incapable of ever saying "no, we won't see that" is absolutely, utterly, completely useless. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is "intelligent design" theory in a nutshell: completely useless.
        Last updated: September 18, 2006
        1Actually, I could point out that human intelligent designers actually do have certain patterns, such as abrupt design changes, sudden addition of features, and migration of features and bugfixes across dissimilar product lines, all of which are inconsistent with the fossil record. However, our "intelligent design" proponent friend would no doubt argue that God, er- the "intelligent designer" does not necessarily have to act like a human designer, and may actually do things which seem totally illogical to us. In this manner, he makes the theory totally immune to conventional scientific analysis. Of course, he also makes it totally useless.
        http://www.creationtheory.org/Essays/IntelligentDesignIsUseless.xhtml
      - http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark
        
        Again you offer your straw man version of creation science, which I have seen you post in the past, and which i have already analyzed and refuted. Your source offers a superfluity of words, but no substance. It is pure illogical nonsense that attempts to shoot down this straw man version of creationism. I shall not take the time to do a point-by-point refutation of each illogical doublespeak point again.
      - http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark
        
        (Sorry, I had to reply to myself to fit this all in)
        
        You say that "Darwin was the first to offer an idea with a feasible mechanism." Really? What exactly is the mechanism that creates vast quantities of entirely new genetic information? Natural selection doesn't do it. Mutations don't do it. That is not why evolution 'caught on'. Rather, it is because man by nature hates God, and he wants to find some alternate explanation of origins, even something as outlandish as evolution, that leaves God out of the equation.
        
        As for your statement that "Creationists dominated scientific fields" before Darwin, that is correct. In fact, it was Christian scientists who developed virtually every branch of modern science, including astronomy, chemistry, physics, genetics, and yes, biology. Obviously, before Darwin, the theory of evolution had not been postulated, so of course science would have been dominated by those who believed in a divine creation.
        
        You say that there are animals that exist today that were not found in the distant past, and that may be true in a few instances where one member of an animal family became extinct and was replaced by a modern subspecies, but the argument you use is faulty because it is based on an erroneous assumption. You are giving the reason that "There is a groupings of animals based on geological timeframes. There are no rabbits or tigers (as well as thousands of other animals that exist today) in the Paleozoic area."
        
        But these supposed timeframes are based on the assumption that there is a 'geological column' that is layered according to certain eras. The dating methods used to arrive at the ancient dates are all based on assumptions, which we have covered before. So your entire argument regarding 'new' animals is based on a faulty assumption of timeframes.
        
        There was no multiple creation. God created distinct 'kinds', such as the cat 'kind' which later branched off into tigers, lions, pumas, domestic cats, etc, so I suppose you could argue that house cats are 'new' even though the original 'kind' was present at creation.
        
        It's interesting that you would point out the bumblebee, because from outward appearances, it does not look possible that it could fly. Yet God, in His infinite wisdom, chose to design just such a creature and confound conventional wisdom by giving it the ability to fly.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Yes, we have discussed the geological column before. You were wrong with your assertions about it then and you are wrong about it now.
        Of course there was no multiple creations. There was not even one. However, given that animals thaqt exist today did not exist in the past, that is all a Creationist is left with.
        And the bumblebee is interesting. It did confound conventional wisdom for a period. And then people discovered the answer. The same has been true for people throughout time. Something seems to defy what we know and people like yourself throw up their hands and say this is proof of god. Then the answer gets determined and the reality is that it has completely naturalist answers. The same will hold true for evolution.
      - http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark
        
        Then I ask you to show me evidence that is not based on assumptions that would show that the 'geologic column' is a valid concept.
        
        You are also speculating when you say that there are animals that exist today that did not exist in the past, because you do not have any written records from the past cataloging all known animals at the time you claim they did not exist. I will, however, agree that in all likelihood, there are modern subspecies today that did not exist at creation, but that is simply a result of the genetic diversity of the original 'kind'.
        
        A bumblebee does not cause creationists to "throw up their hands", implying that they do not understand it. For every structure there is a reason why it was designed the way it was. The reasons may not be apparent to us at first glance, but there is certainly nothing that would prevent a scientist with a creation viewpoint from studying a bumblebee to determine exactly how flight is achieved. Of course its ability to fly is a completely natural phenomena, but the bee's design is not. No one is saying that the bee itself does something supernatural. That would be absurd.
        
        But now that you mention it, ALL living creatures are proof of God. There is no other reasonable explanation for the existence of highly complex organisms that are reproduced and live by way of complex encoded information. Information does not create itself or arise by chance, so the only logical explanation is that this information came from an intelligent source.
        
        Just because we can determine how a bumblebee is able to fly is hardly any proof that evolution is true. I fail to see any connection.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        And we have talked about assumptions before. Every scientific theory or law is based on assumptions. To ask for something which is impossible to provide is a nice attempt at trying to prove a point. However, the Creationist viewpoint is also based on assumptions.
      - http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark
        
        Problem is, the assumptions upon which your dating methods rely have been shown to be false when used on a sample of known age, so why would we rely on the method when testing a sample of unknown age?
        
        The creationist viewpoint is based on an eyewitness account given by divine revelation, not assumptions. It also offers the only explanation of origins that is not in violation of known Laws of science, unlike the fanciful explanations offered by secular scientist that do violate known Laws, or else involve infinite regress (life arrived from another planet, and its life arrived from another planet, etc etc ad infinitum).
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Of course they are based on assumptions. You assume that your god actually gave an eyewitness viewpoint. You cannot support that assumption with anything other than the bible, which was written by men, not a god.
      - http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark
        
        I don't "assume" it, I know it to be true because the evidence fits it. The Bible was clearly not written by men, otherwise, there would be no explanation for the hundreds of fulfilled prophecies. Men cannot predict the future with any accuracy. Only God, who is omniscient and eternal, can.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        The problem is the evidence does not fit it. The Creation account of the universe is wrong. Plants cannot be created before the sun. They cannot live without the heat of the sun. And no, the light described the plants is not the same thing as heat.
        
        It is impossible for two people to create enough genetic diversity to sustain a population. The inbreeding problems are too severe.
        
        The Flood did not occur. It could not occur the way the bible describes it. And once again you are back with the same issue of inbreeding that would doom not only people but all the other animals. Add to that the reality that there is no fresh water or food. Add to that the boat could not handle all the animals in the world. Add to that the boat could not survive. The Flood myth is one of the silliest stories in the bible.
        
        Lol. Yours is the belief based on faith. Mine is based on evidence. And the evidence shows that the Creation account is fiction.
      - http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark
        
        God created light the first day, so there would have been no 'dark' period for plants. You are only making a speculation that there was no heat. It does not say that anywhere. In fact, on Day 2, it says:
        
        "6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. "
        
        Genesis 1
        
        If there was water, it would have to be above freezing. It does not say "ice".
        
        It may be impossible now for two persons to have enough genetic diversity, but that is only because genetic mistakes have entered the gene pool after thousands of years and hundreds of generations of humans. Time is the enemy of maintaining an uncorrupted gene pool. That is why there was no prohibition against marrying sisters for the first several hundred years–the genetic material was still more or less intact. As time progressed, more and more genetic mistakes entered the genome, so that now we must marry someone who is not closely related.
        
        The Flood did occur, despite your objections. The inbreeding would not have been a problem for the reasons described above. You are only speculating based on certain assumptions when you say it could not have occurred. You do not know what the distribution of fresh vs. salt water was back then. They obviously would have carried fresh water on the ark, and we do not know how much it was. You can speculate all day that it couldn't have happened, but that's all it is–a speculation.
        
        There was plenty of room on the ark for all the 'kinds' of animals. They did not have to be full-grown specimens. The ark itself, from the dimensions given, would actually be very seaworthy, according to modern engineering standards. I can give you a link for more info later if you are interested.
        
        My belief is based on sound evidence. There is world-wide evidence of the flood with the fossil layers that could only have formed from rapid burial. Polystrate fossils show us that the layers could not have been deposited over long periods of time.Your belief system is based on assumptions that have already been shown to be incorrect, so it is your worldview that requires a far greater 'faith' than mine.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Once again, light is not heat. It matters little if god could see the plants die or not. It matters little if the men who wrote the verse understood the contradiction they had placed in the bible. The reality is that the sun provides the heat for earth and it had not yet been created.
        
        No, it has always been impossible for two people to create the genetic diversity that is necessary. But even if Adam and Eve had magical DNA, Noah and his wife and his kids would not have this same magical DNA. And Noah and his family supposedly restarted the human race. Supposedly.
        
        The Flood could not occur. It is not a matter of opinion. The mere fact that you want to believe it could occur simply shows your bias and frankly idiotic opinion on the topic,
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        The physics of Noah's Ark are impossible. The flexibility of the wood being used opens gaps wide enough to dump hundreds of gallons of water a minute into the "ship."
        
        As a ship that large floats, there are tremendous strains and stresses over its length, and wood is flexible enough to make it impossible to keep the hull together. Wood is fairly flexible when subjected to large strains – trees caught in torrential floods bend and don't break. It's why wooden ships only reached certain sizes during real-life world history, bigger ships had to be made out of steel.
        
        Even many of the largest wood ships (still mucho smaller than the ark! According to the Biblical description, it was a barge roughly the size that would fit inside of one of our football stadiums!) built by master shipwrights at the peak of the shipbuilding art required numerous pumps and countermeasures to avoid sinking.
        
        Here's one reason large wooden ships have a limit: Hogging.
        
        From that site:
        
        "Until the 1920's a large percentage of the world's shipping consisted of large wooden ships and their plague, after plain old rot, was "hog". A ship floating quietly in still water is subjected to external forces. These are the weight of the vessel on its cargo (downwards) and the buoyancy force (upwards). Archimedes showed us that for a floating vessel, these two forces must be equal in magnitude. For a floating rectangular piece of wood, they are also equal in distribution. For most normally shaped ships, the distribution is not equal. For example, when an empty ship has more weight (relatively heavy structure, engines and equipment) in the ends, and more buoyancy in the middle. This "excess" of buoyancy in the middle cause the middle to rise up and the ends to bend down — a hog in profile. The opposite condition is sagging. For old wooden ships, this resulted in a long term, plastic deformation. The total curvature could be a meter or more in larger vessels. Some vessels like the Wapama hogged so much that they nearly broke in two. Hogging is no longer the problem it was in the 1920's when it threatened the nation's merchant fleet — because those ships have sunk!
        
        "Wooden ships, even wooden warships like USS Constitution, are actually quite weak even when new. Although solid shot may have ricocheted from their sides, they are generally unable, over time, to resist the fairly small forces they are subjected to moored in still water. There is a false idea that amazingly still has some following, that wooden ships were strong because they would flex. In fact, relative movement between structural members allows fresh water to enter the hull structure, carrying rot fungus spores deep inside.
        
        "Engineers have often attempted to analyze the structures of wooden ships as if they were homogeneous box girders. This is a common misapplication of beam theory. Actually, a wooden ship, especially as it ages, more closely resembles a rather weakly bound bundle of reeds. These reeds are free to slide past each other. If traditionally built wooden ships were box girders, then one would expect to see many tensile failures amidships in the upper deck of a severely hogged vessel; however, this is not the case. Failures in longitudinal structure are infrequent and tend to be scattered almost uniformly throughout the vessel. The idea of "strength decks" or "extreme fiber" is largely irrelevant to the meaningful analysis of old wooden ships. Microscopic investigation reveal a generally low level of stress in "hogged" structural members. There often is evidence of plastic behavior, creep, around fastenings. Large overall deflections in the hull can be achieved with a very small amount of creep around the fastenings.
        
        "The bundle of reeds metaphor implies that the ship is comparatively poor at resisting longitudinal loads due to a weakness in shear. Wooden ships are generally stiffer in lateral loading since the transverse frames are like individual beams. As a vessel ages and softens, even these relatively stiff beams can suffer large creep deflections. USS Constellation is an extreme example of an old, soft wooden ship and probably has large lateral deflections as well as hog — behaving more like a wet wicker basket than a bundle of reeds. Pushing up on the bottom of the basket causes the sides to bulge out and the bilges to drop. This is evidently the case since the keel has deflected over two feet and there is much less curvature in the upper decks. The vessel is also soft transversely. That is apparent from the curvature of the gun deck which is hogged in several distinct undulations. The upward force on the bottom comes from an unequal distribution of the weight and buoyancy forces on the vessel. In a newer, stiffer vessel it is possible to minimize this net force by the judicious placement of ballast both longitudinally and transversely in the bottom of the vessel. Here's a link to a TCM paper on hogging"
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Someone, who shall properly remain anonymous, suggested that all the water needed to flood the Earth existed as liquid water surrounding the globe (i.e., a "vapour canopy"). This, of course, it staggeringly stupid. What is keeping that much water from falling to the Earth? There is a little property called gravity that would cause it to fall.
        
        Let's look into that from a physical standpoint. To flood the Earth, it would require 4.252 x 109 km3 of water with a mass of 4.525 x 1021 kg. When this amount of water is floating about the Earth's surface, it stored an enormous amount of potential energy, which is converted to kinetic energy when it falls, which, in turn, is converted to heat upon impact with the Earth. The amount of heat released is immense:
        
        Potential energy: E=M*g*H, where
        M = mass of water,
        g = gravitational constant and,
        H = height of water above surface.
        
        Now, going with the Genesis version of the Noachian Deluge as lasting 40 days and nights, the amount of mass falling to Earth each day is 4.525 x 1021 kg/40 24 hr. periods. This equals 1.10675 x 1020 kilograms daily. Using H as 10 miles (16,000 meters), the energy released each day is 1.73584 x 1025 joules. The amount of energy the Earth would have to radiate per m2/sec is energy divided by surface area of the Earth times number of seconds in one day. That is: e = 1.735384 x 1025/(4*3.14159* ((6386)2*86,400)) = 391,935.0958 j/m2/s.
        
        Currently, the Earth radiates energy at the rate of approximately 215 joules/m2/sec and the average temperature is 280 K. Using the Stefan- Boltzman 4'th power law to calculate the increase in temperature:
        
        E (increase)/E (normal) = T (increase)/T4 (normal)
        
        E (normal) = 215 E (increase) = 391,935.0958 T (normal) = 280.
        
        Turn the crank, and T (increase) equals 1800 K.
        
        The temperature would thusly rise 1800 K, or 1,526.84 C (that's 2,780.33 F…lead melts at 880 F.). It would be highly unlikely that anything short of fused quartz would survive such an onslaught. Also, the water level would have to rise at an average rate of 5.5 inches/min; and in 13 minutes would be in excess of 6' deep.
        
        Finally, at 1800 K water would not exist as liquid.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Towards the end of the voyage, Noah sent a dove out to look for signs of life.
        Genesis 8-
        
        8:8 Also he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground;8:9 But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him into the ark, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth: then he put forth his hand, and took her, and pulled her in unto him into the ark.8:10 And he stayed yet other seven days; and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark;8:11 And the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf pluckt off: so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth.
        
        But an olive tree could not survive the flood. And if any seeds happened to survive, they certainly wouldn't germinate and grow leaves within a seven day period. In fact, they would have no chance to grow at all. Remember, all the land is now filled with salt.
      - Esther
        
        Jeff, Please use the the little mark ^ that indicates "to the power of" in your statements, e.g.
        10^9 km^3 of water with a mass of 4.525 x 10^21 kg.
        10^21 kg
        10^20 kilograms
        10^25 Joules
        10^25 J
      - http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark
        
        But I have just showed you a verse that indicated there was water on Day 2, so there must have been a source of heat that kept the temperature above freezing at a minimum. The sun does provide the heat for earth now, but to say there was no heat when the plants were created is pure speculation that is contradicted by Genesis 1:6.
        
        At the time of Noah, humans were still living to very old ages, so we can be confident beyond a reasonable doubt that the human genome had not yet been corrupted to any great degree then. Noah himself lived to be 950 years old (Gen. 9:29), nearly as long as the oldest recorded age for a man, namely, Methuselah (969 years, Gen. 5:27), so there was little if any reduction in lifespan in Noah's day, and hence few if any genetic errors. There would have been no interbreeding problems as there are today.
        
        The Flood is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact, evidenced by the fossil layers which found worldwide, and polystrate fossils that emphasize that the layers were deposited in a short period of time.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Yes, you showed a verse. But that is hardly the same as providing evidence that light is the same as heat. It is not speculation to say there is no heat. The bible, which is supposedly the source of all knowledge says nothing about heat, only light. Now your god, who supposedly knows everything, knows we will have this debate. He could certainly put heat into the verse to avoid these issues?
      - http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark
        
        An argument from silence is not much of an argument at all.
      - Esther
        
        The bible is obviously incorrect. That doesn't mean that Christianity should not exist.
        Consider Joseph Smith!
        
        http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Joseph_Smith_Translation_of_the_Bible_(JST)
        
        Quote:
        Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible (JST)
        Author: Matthews, Robert J.
        
        Joseph Smith, the first prophet of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, made a "new translation" of the Bible, using the text of the King James Version (KJV). This work differs from the KJV in at least 3,410 verses and consists of additions, deletions, rearrangements, and other alterations that cause it to vary not only from the KJV but from other biblical texts. Changes range from minor details to fully reconstituted chapters. This article presents statements by Joseph Smith telling why he made a Bible translation, gives information relating to the development and production of the work, examines a number of the significant variants, and considers some doctrinal results and historical implications.VIEW OF THE BIBLE. The official position of the Church is stated in its eighth article of faith: "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly." The message of the Bible is held to be true, while details of accuracy and completeness are accepted within certain limits. The Prophet Joseph Smith explained: "I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors" (TPJS, p. 327). And again, "From sundry revelations which had been received, it was apparent that many points touching the salvation of men, had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled" (TPJS, pp. 9-10). end quote, accessed 092712.
        
        Regardless of the errors in the bible, Joseph Smith knew that God existed. Note: What man would give his life for something he did not believe in? That doesn't make sense to me. But I am used to the fact that things change and don't make sense. What else is new?
      - millergroup2
        
        "The bible has obvious errors", yet you fail to expound on these errors. How can you say something that you know nothing about?
      - Esther
        
        Because I don't have to reinvent the wheel anymore than you have to. Haven't you seen Jeff's posts?
      - Esther
        
        Have you seen Key's and Jeff's posts on the flood and creation vs evolution. Those are the best examples..
      - Esther
        
        Jeff: Joseph Smith, a good family man, has been ostracized time and time again http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Anti-Mormon_Publications for his attempts to free his family of the types of crisis that he saw in the practice of the Puritans under the authority of the John Calvin: The "Protestant Inquisition" is a term applied to the severities of John Calvin in Geneva and Queen Elizabeth I in England during the 1500s. Calvin's followers burned 58 "heretics," including theologian Michael Servetus, who doubted the Trinity. Elizabeth I outlawed Catholicism and executed about 200 Catholics." and the trends in the New World offered little solace, "When Puritans settled in Massachusetts in the 1600s, they created a religious police state where doctrinal deviation could lead to flogging, pillorying, hanging, cutting off ears, or boring through the tongue with a hot iron. Preaching Quaker beliefs was a capital offense. Four stubborn Quakers defied this law and were hanged. In the 1690s fear of witches seized the colony. Twenty alleged witches were killed and 150 others imprisoned." http://www.skeptically.org/enlightenment/id7.html So once again, I ask the question, what would a good man do in the face of such horrific reality?
        
        Might a solution at all be found in the founding of one's own church, which in fact, is what the others, such as Calvin, Dawkins, R. C. Sproul, or any one in a non-denominational church or on his own without any CEO of one's own company is doing? Where is the fallacy? I really am trying to understand.
        
        Why not re-write the bible for a more accurately reflect the view of what a "good man" might do and might be?
        
        quote
        Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible (JST)
        Author: Matthews, Robert J.
        
        Joseph Smith, the first prophet of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, made a "new translation" of the Bible, using the text of the King James Version (KJV). This work differs from the KJV in at least 3,410 verses and consists of additions, deletions, rearrangements, and other alterations that cause it to vary not only from the KJV but from other biblical texts. Changes range from minor details to fully reconstituted chapters. This article presents statements by Joseph Smith telling why he made a Bible translation, gives information relating to the development and production of the work, examines a number of the significant variants, and considers some doctrinal results and historical implications.
        VIEW OF THE BIBLE. The official position of the Church is stated in its eighth article of faith: "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly." The message of the Bible is held to be true, while details of accuracy and completeness are accepted within certain limits. The Prophet Joseph Smith explained: "I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors" (TPJS, p. 327). And again, "From sundry revelations which had been received, it was apparent that many points touching the salvation of men, had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled" (TPJS, pp. 9-10).Joseph Smith often used the words "translated" and "translation," not in the narrow sense alone of rendering a text from one language into another, but in the wider senses of "transmission," having reference to copying, editing, adding to, taking from, rephrasing, and interpreting. This is substantially beyond the usual meaning of "translation." When he said the Bible was not translated correctly, he not only was referring to the difficulties of rendering the Bible into another language but he was also observing that the manuscripts containing the text of the Bible have suffered at the hands of editors, copyists, and revisionists through centuries of transmission. Thus, the available texts of the Bible are neither as complete nor as accurate as when first written.
        The Book of Mormon presents an account of a vision in which an angel, looking to the future, describes the Bible as a "record of the Jews" containing writings of "the prophets" and of the "Twelve Apostles of the Lamb." The vision asserts (1) that the ancient authors wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, (2) that originally their words contained the fulness of the gospel and were plain and easy to understand, but (3) that many things which were plain and precious, and many covenants, would be "taken away" from the original manuscripts; as a result, afterward (4) a great many persons, even with a Bible, would not understand the fulness of the gospel, but (5) the lost material would be restored through "other records" that the Lord would bring forth (1 Ne. 13:21-41). A somewhat parallel statement came to Joseph Smith in June 1830 while he was restoring a revelation received by Moses, declaring that many things would be taken "from the book" which Moses would write, but that the missing information would be restored through another prophet and thus be "had again" among those who believe (Moses 1:41). Latter-day Saints believe that the "other records" referred to include the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, the JST, and other records still to come forth, and that the prophet divinely raised up to begin restoring the lost material is Joseph Smith (see Scriptures: Forthcoming Scripture). In light of the foregoing statements, it is worth observing that the principal difficulty in the Bible apparently has been omissions. The remaining text may be generally correct in itself, but many important doctrinal items (resulting from the loss of a single word, a verse, a longer passage, or even whole books in some instances) are now missing. end quote http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Joseph_Smith_Translation_of_the_Bible_(JST) accessed 072712
      - millergroup2
        
        You are over thinking things. Did you ever play with a magnifying glass when you were a kid? Light is energy, therefore it must produce heat.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        No, light is a visible energy, created by fast moving photons,
        or particles of visible energy. Heat is a separate energy, and while it usually
        is accompanied by light, it does not have to be. EX: Microwaves do not make
        light aside from the light bulb installed so you can view your food, but even
        if it blows out, the microwave will continue to heat up your food.
      - millergroup2
        
        If you subscribe to Netflix, watch the new movie "The Daniel Project"
      - Esther
        
        The issues of light, energy and heat form the basis of the dilemma of combining quantum mechanics and classical thermodynamics. The answers to those issues did not seem intuitive to late 19th and early 20th century thinkers such as Planck and Einstein, nor really, are they intuitive to us now. Even those two experimentalists who developed so much of our protocol to study matter, were not entirely happy about the limitations, yet its the best we have so far. And we have taken it very far. See Lawrence Livermore National Lab article linked below.
        
        Light (electromagnetic radiation, EMR, waves, Greek letter "nu", with units of cycles per second, s^-1, or called a hertz, Hz) can be determined as proportional to the energy, E, it "contains" (in units of Joules, as Jeff previously pointed out). In fact, they have been treated as separate parameters and not determined, literally, to be the same thing. Heat in thermodynamics is given the symbol q, for example, is related to the phenomenon of flow, i.e., heat flow. Although it does have the same unit of measure of Joules, it does not comprise the entire energy content.
        
        Max Planck at first demonstrated an understanding of the presence of light in an enclosed box by heating up the box and observing the emitted radiation through a pin-hole, black body radiation, like the glow of an electric stove burner. Plotting, E = h(nu), where E, Joules versus nu (Greek letter), s^-1, we get Planck's constant h with units of J-s. So emitted radiation (light) is proportional to the energy it contains, in fact in whole number multiples of h(nu), that is, 1 h(nu), 2 h(nu), 3 h(nu), etc, in other words in quanta of energy, 1 quanta, 2 quantum, 3 quantum, etc. where quanta is singular and quantum is plural. (Planck received the Nobel Prize for the discovery of quantized energy in 1918). These extremely small numbers are important on the atomic scale, see chapter linked below.
        
        Einstein later experimentally demonstrated the photoelectric effect, which Jeff also implied, where light (like tiny packets, photons of energy, upon impact with a metal surface will exhibit the emergence of particles, the electrons. The fact of the emergence from the metal in two directions, made it possible to measure the two components.
        
        Quantum mechanics today attempt to compute the very small and the very large issues of matter, light, energy, heat, velocity, temperature by the same methods. Still, at its inception when these great experimentalists were in charge of the investigations, exceptional ideas of Planck and Einstein (followed by others like Schrödinger, Born, DeBroglie) laid the ground work for the complexity, and the various paths taken by the future work, there has been apprehension along the way. the use of these methods, in other words, have not had the intuitive elements and confirmation, for example, of Newtonian physics. While classical thermodynamics, the study of our primary sources of energy – which, with the exception of the sun – comes from chemical reactions, is interwoven into quantum mechanics (QM), for example, the inclusion of thermodynamics has made it possible to extend the uses of QM, yes, but in a way that has not been completely satisfactory to say the least, indicated in chapter 7, linked below, and thus does not serve as, what Einstein called, a theory of everything.
        
        In some work that I find more respectable, the researcher will take it from people like Eyring, Frank, and Condon, whose work may have references in the probabilistic world of QM, but has a firm foot in the experimental realm where the final check for reality is always primary.
        
        Chapter 2: Max Planck's Revolutionary Hypothesis: http://www.faqs.org/docs/qp/chap02.html
        Chapter 3: Einstein demystifies the photoelectric effect: http://www.faqs.org/docs/qp/chap03.html
        Chapter 7: Wave-Particle duality: http://www.faqs.org/docs/qp/chap07.html
        Lawrence Liverpool National Lab, California https://www.llnl.gov/str/June05/pdfs/06_05.2.pdf
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        And by the way, simply having a doctorate in a field of science hardly means they are experts in biology, which is the specific field of science being discussed.
      - http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark
        
        The list I gave you includes scientists with doctorates in fields such as biology, biochemistry, plant physiology, microbiology, botany, genetics, and marine biology, so they would certainly be in a position to decide whether evolution had any validity or not.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Yes, some did have relevant degrees, but that does not mean they
        all had relevant degrees.
      - http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark
        
        We could argue all day about what degrees are relevant, but in any event, it is simply a smokescreen to say that one has to have a doctorate in biology in order to refute or understand evolution. Even though evolutionists would like us to believe that in order to stifle criticism, it is simply not so. I could use the same argument and say that you cannot refute creationism unless you have a doctorate in biology since there are equally degreed scientists on either side of the argument.
        
        The fact is, it only takes a common-sense understanding of science or biology for a layman to determine that evolution is false. In our exchange here, for example, I put forth a very simple proposition: If evolution is true, where is the mechanism that generates vast quantities of entirely new genetic information? One would have to exist if we are to believe that all life forms originated from a single-cell organism.
        
        Natural selection is not evolution, it is a re-shuffling of existing genetic information. And mutations are not evolution either, because the few examples available of beneficial mutations are simply a slight modification of an existing gene, usually involving metabolism, not an entirely new form or function. Very simple concept even for a layman with an average understanding of biology and genetics to grasp.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        No, once again you attempt to play the marytr. Evolutionists do not attempt to stiffle criticism. And the number of Creationists with diplomas from paper mills are numerous. But I agree that it is the evidence that is the important issue.
        If science only took a common-sense understanding to comprehend it, it would not have taken mankind thousands of years to develop basic scientific principles. That may be one of the more absurd statements you have made. The reality is that science is difficult discipline and many people have little to no scientific comprehension.
        Biologists have provided us with the mechanism that provides new information. Now, I am going to make a prophecy. I predict that you will retort that this cannot work. Let us see how close I am.
        Evolution occurs when there are changes in the frequencies of alleles within a population of interbreeding organisms. Mechanisms that can lead to changes in allele frequencies include natural selection, genetic drift, genetic hitchhiking, mutation and gene flow.
        Natural selection is not the sum total of evoluition, but it most certainly is a component of it. And yes, mutuations are a part of it as well.
      - http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark
        
        The Scientific Case Against Evolution
        
        "Belief in evolution is a remarkable phenomenon. It is a belief passionately defended by the scientific establishment, despite the lack of any observable scientific evidence for macroevolution (that is, evolution from one distinct kind of organism into another). This odd situation is briefly documented here by citing recent statements from leading evolutionists admitting their lack of proof. These statements inadvertently show that evolution on any significant scale does not occur at present, and never happened in the past, and could never happen at all.
        
        Evolution Is Not Happening Now
        
        First of all, the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many "transitional" forms that we could observe. What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct "kinds" of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear and — apparently — unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no "dats" or "cogs." Such variation is often called microevolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not true "vertical" evolution.
        
        Evolutionary geneticists have often experimented on fruit flies and other rapidly reproducing species to induce mutational changes hoping they would lead to new and better species, but these have all failed to accomplish their goal. No truly new species has ever been produced, let alone a new "basic kind."
        
        A current leading evolutionist, Jeffrey Schwartz, professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, has recently acknowledged that:
        . . . it was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.1
        
        The scientific method traditionally has required experimental observation and replication. The fact that macroevolution (as distinct from microevolution) has never been observed would seem to exclude it from the domain of true science. Even Ernst Mayr, the dean of living evolutionists, longtime professor of biology at Harvard, who has alleged that evolution is a "simple fact," nevertheless agrees that it is an "historical science" for which "laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques"2 by which to explain it. One can never actually see evolution in action.
        
        Evolution Never Happened in the Past
        
        Evolutionists commonly answer the above criticism by claiming that evolution goes too slowly for us to see it happening today. They used to claim that the real evidence for evolution was in the fossil record of the past, but the fact is that the billions of known fossils do not include a single unequivocal transitional form with transitional structures in the process of evolving.
        
        Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion . . . it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to the more evolved.3
        Even those who believe in rapid evolution recognize that a considerable number of generations would be required for one distinct "kind" to evolve into another more complex kind. There ought, therefore, to be a considerable number of true transitional structures preserved in the fossils — after all, there are billions of non-transitional structures there! But (with the exception of a few very doubtful creatures such as the controversial feathered dinosaurs and the alleged walking whales), they are not there.
        
        Instead of filling in the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species.4
        
        The entire history of evolution from the evolution of life from non-life to the evolution of vertebrates from invertebrates to the evolution of man from the ape is strikingly devoid of intermediates: the links are all missing in the fossil record, just as they are in the present world.
        
        With respect to the origin of life, a leading researcher in this field, Leslie Orgel, after noting that neither proteins nor nucleic acids could have arisen without the other, concludes:
        And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.5
        
        Being committed to total evolution as he is, Dr. Orgel cannot accept any such conclusion as that. Therefore, he speculates that RNA may have come first, but then he still has to admit that:
        The precise events giving rise to the RNA world remain unclear. . . . investigators have proposed many hypotheses, but evidence in favor of each of them is fragmentary at best.6
        
        Translation: "There is no known way by which life could have arisen naturalistically." Unfortunately, two generations of students have been taught that Stanley Miller's famous experiment on a gaseous mixture, practically proved the naturalistic origin of life. But not so!
        
        Miller put the whole thing in a ball, gave it an electric charge, and waited. He found that amino acids and other fundamental complex molecules were accumulating at the bottom of the apparatus. His discovery gave a huge boost to the scientific investigation of the origin of life. Indeed, for some time it seemed like creation of life in a test tube was within reach of experimental science. Unfortunately, such experiments have not progressed much further than the original prototype, leaving us with a sour aftertaste from the primordial soup.7
        
        TO READ THE REST: http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Every thing living today is a transitional fossil.
        Dats and cogs?? Really? You must really love Kirk Cameron with his crocoduck. If something like this was really found, it would be proof that evolution is wrong.
        No, sorry, there are examples of transitional fossils.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil
        Macro evolution is not distinct from macro ecolution. It is simply a difference of time. If small changes can occur, there is nothing that prevents these small changes from building into large changes.
      - http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark
        
        "Every living thing today is a transitional fossil"? You certainly have a very loose interpretation of "transitional fossil". Everything qualifies. How convenient.
        
        I have no clue what you are talking about with "Kirk Cameron with his crocoduck", much less dats and cogs. I do not keep up with popular culture, but I can assure you that no creationist with any credibility would believe that crosses between cats and dogs, or crocodiles and ducks, would be possible. Not sure what your point is here.
        
        As far as actual transitional fossils, there are none. Archaeopteryx, according to your source, "represents a classic transitional form between dinosaurs and birds." That has already been disproved. In the fossil record, organisms appear suddenly and fully formed.
        
        " A major problem with identifying transitional forms is in determining whether a particular fossil or living thing is truly intermediate between two others, or is merely an unrelated form which has characteristics common to both other forms.
        Archaeopteryx, for example, has some features in common with both living birds and reptiles, and is often quoted as an intermediate form. It was not covered with part-scales/part-feathers, but had fully-functioning feathers and wings, and was capable of flight. There is therefore no reason to think that it is not simply a bird with some features in common with reptiles.
        Evolutionists have criticised creationists for claiming that if an intermediate form is discovered, it merely creates two gaps where there was previously one. This criticism ignores the size of the gaps.[2] If the remaining two gaps are large, then the creationist claim is justified. Rather than simply producing the occasional form which appears to be intermediate between two different forms, evolutionists need to demonstrate what Charles Darwin called a "finely-graduated organic chain".[3]
        Despite many more fossils being discovered since Darwin's time, the continued lack of a series of fossils showing a smooth transition led Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge to propose Punctuated Equilibrium, which says that the change from one form to another took place is short bursts which generally would not leave a fossil trace. Evolutionists continue to claim that such intermediate forms exist or existed, but have failed to adequately demonstrate any such smooth sequence, as opposed to the occasional form with features common to two other forms.
        Claims of transitional forms
        In The Origin of Species Charles Darwin wrote that the fossil record (as it was known then) was lacking in transitional forms.[3] He predicted, however, that transitional forms would be found. Nevertheless, 120 years later, David Raup said that the situation had not improved.[4]
        Nevertheless, evolutionists continue to make claims of transitional forms. One such set of claims was in the 1st March 2008 issue of New Scientist[5] The article claimed that the so-called “fishbian” sequence of fossils shows the steps by which fish crawled out of the water and onto the land during the Devonian period. New Scientist claims that fossils have been "found spanning the entire transition from the distinctly fish-like Eusthenopteron to the four-legged amphibian Hynerpeton".
        However, the accompanying "family tree" showing a mere eight fossils in this sequence does not show any of them as being intermediate to any others, but all being on separate branches. Furthermore, it has many of the forms in the sequence living contemporaneously with others in the supposed sequence, including some "later" ones living earlier then their supposed ancestors!
        Nevertheless, New Scientist claims that the "fossil record of the fish-to-amphibian transition is now among the best documented of all"!
        Claims of a lack of transitional forms
        Creationists claim that there there are no transitional forms between the various created kinds. Even leading evolutionists have admitted that transitional forms do not exist as expected:
        The late paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould said in 1977:
        The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.[6]
        In 1979, the senior palaeontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, Colin Patterson, agreed with Gould, when asked why he didn't have any illustrations of transitional forms in his book:
        I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. … Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. I will lay it on the line- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.[7]
        In 1984 Gould wrote the following:
        The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.[8]
        However, in 1994, he wrote,
        The supposed lack of intermediary forms in the fossil record remains the fundamental canard of current antievolutionism. Such transitional forms are sparse, to be sure, and for two sets of good reasons—geological (the gappiness of the fossil record) and biological (the episodic nature of evolutionary change, including patterns of punctuated equilibrium, and transition within small populations of limited geographic extent). But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy.[9]"
        
        http://www.conservapedia.com/Transitional_form
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        "Every living thing today is a transitional fossil"? You certainly have a very loose interpretation of "transitional fossil". Everything qualifies. How convenient.
        
        Since everything that lives becomes the parents of new individuals, yes every thing is a transitional fossil.
        I have no clue what you are talking about with "Kirk Cameron with his crocoduck" I do not keep up with popular culture, but I can assure you that no creationist with any credibility would believe that crosses between cats and dogs, or crocodiles and ducks, would be possible. Not sure what your point is here.
        
        you just posted a comment that referred to dats and cogs. If you do not even know what you are copying and pasting then there is little reason to continue this discussion.
      - http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark
        
        Everything that lives is not a "fossil" because it has not been fossilized nor do we know that it will. And even if it did fossilize, it would only be transitional if the next generation or succeeding generations produced a new form or function. Therefore I still fail to see how you can call "every living thing" a transitional fossil. I could just as well (and perhaps more accurately) call every living thing a nontransitional fossil based on the fact that upwardly mobile evolution has never been observed. You are really stretching on this one.
        
        OK, I do see the part about the dats and cogs. Sorry I missed seeing that but I was pressed for time and did not read carefully through the entire article. Nonetheless, the point was simply that different 'kinds' cannot reproduce. I still have no clue as to what you are referring to when you say this relates to something about Kirk Cameron and a 'crocoduck' because I am not familiar with such a statement and it was not part of the article. All I can figure is that he was making the same point–that only like kinds can reproduce, which is true. Not sure why you are making an issue out of this.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Evolution is complicated. Of the many people who pontificate on it, either for or against, only a tiny minority have actually bothered to study it in any detail. Call it the progression of simple to complex organisms, and a biologist will tell you that's not exactly true. Call it survival of the fittest, and a biologist will tell you that this is only one of several mechanisms. Say it's a fact, and a biologist will point out that it's also a theory. Say it's a theory, and a biologist will point out that it's also a fact. One might be forgiven for throwing up one's hands and asking why there isn't a simple explanation, were it not for the fact that a scientific explanation can only be as simple as Nature allows, and should not cater to the uneducated man's desire for a 5 second sound-bite. The same must be said of the scientific method and philosophy.
        Creationism, by comparison, is disarmingly and seductively simple: "God did it". And its chief philosophical argument is, much like Pablum, easy to digest for even the smallest children: "You can't prove there's no God". Those who (ironically) oversimplify the idea of Occam's Razor believe this to be an advantage. As per Sydney J. Harris, creationism can very easily be put in a nutshell, but because it has no substance whatsoever, that's also where it belongs. Not in school classrooms, not in science textbooks, and not in the lexicon of any scientifically literate person on this planet.
      - http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark
        
        "Evolution is complicated". That is simply a smokescreen to avoid as much criticism as possible. Portray it as "complicated" so that it can be claimed that an otherwise intelligent person cannot understand it unless they have a higher degree in biology or a related field. How convenient it is that the universities that offer these degrees virtually all have a pro-evolution, anti-creation bias. Heads they win, tails I lose.
        
        The basic premise of evolution is not "complicated" at all. Either there is a mechanism capable of generating vast quantities of entirely new genetic information, or there is not. If not, then we would have to say that evolution is impossible. Period. Evolutionists only want us to believe it is complex so that its premises can avoid scrutiny.
        
        Implying that creation scientists are "uneducated" is silly. Many creation scientists have PhD's and are quite capable in their fields of study, which includes biology and related fields.
        
        You may label Creation by supernatural means as "simple" if you wish, but giving it a label does nothing to disprove its truthfulness. From our end creation may seem simple because we had nothing to do with it and it was accomplished in a very short period of time, but I would say that the most complex concept in all of history is the idea of an immortal, omniscient Being so powerful that He can speak an entire universe into existence. His understanding and power is so far above that of mortal man, that He is far and away the most complex being that ever has or ever will exist. It is completely beyond our understanding to comprehend such a complex being.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Using the word simply does not mean the concept is simple. Are you really that desperate?
        
        The reality is there is nothing to support your view. Nothing. You can rail against that idea all day long: it changes nothing. You have no physical evidence, you have no historical evidence. What you have is a hope and wish. Sorry, your day has passed.
      - http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark
        
        But it is simple. Either there is a mechanism capable of generating vast quantities of entirely new genetic information, or there is not. That is the whole foundation of evolution, and if there is no such mechanism, then it calls into question the entire premise.
        
        There is much evidence for my view. The existence of the universe alone is powerful evidence of divine creation. The vast array of complex life forms, which contain encoded information which could not have arisen by chance, is another powerful piece of evidence. Not to mention the perfect conditions on earth for life to exist. A chance occurrence? Not likely. And fossil layers found throughout the world, some containing polystrate fossils, are powerful evidence that there was indeed a worldwide flood that deposited layers of sediment very quickly, just as the historical record of the Bible says.
      - Esther
        
        Thank you for so well-defining this dilemma. You argument can be extrapolated to many situations in which we as humans find ourselves.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Natural selection is part of evolutionary theory. Therefore, if natural selection occurred then evolution has occurred.
        
        For evolution to operate, the source of variation does not matter; all that matters is that heritable variation occurs. Such variation is shown by the fact that selective breeding has produced novel features in many species, including cats, dogs, pigeons, goldfish, cabbage, and geraniums. Some of the features may have been preexisting in the population originally, but not all of them were, especially considering the creationists' view that the animals originated from a single pair.
      - http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark
        
        Selective breeding? That does not even qualify as natural selection. And in every one of those cases, even this artificial selection still results in a cat remaining a cat, a dog remaining a dog, etc. It is bait-and-switch to say this somehow proves evolution is true.
        
        I also do not see how any of this conflicts with the creationists' view that the animals originated from a single pair. All of the genetic diversity that each creature would ever need was contained in the genome of the original pair. Creationists do not disagree that natural selection occurs, as they realize that it is simply a re-shuffling of that very diverse genetic information.
      - Esther
        
        Foul play
      - Vladimir
        
        The Lord's church does not rely on faith as you stated, Jeff Dixon, it provides us the opportunity to develop faith.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        The 13 Articles of Faith are given as true, not something one develops.
      - Vladimir
        
        There is very little said about Mormons on this site that is accurate. For instance, you think that a prophet's job is to foretell the future.
      - mallen11
        
        That is what prophets did in the Bible. What is your definition of a prophet? Also, look it up in the dictionary.
      - Vladimir
        
        Prophets reveal the will of the Lord to His children.
      - mallen11
        
        As long as it is from the Word of God; the Bible.
      - Vladimir
        
        As long as it is FROM GOD. Or do you believe that the heavens are closed and God no longer speaks to us through prophets? That is exactly what I can infer from your comment about the Bible. And that is exactly what every preacher who ever made a nickel from preaching wants you to think. A prophet called of God in our day would be ruinous to the preaching industry.
        
        By the way Jesus Christ is the Son of God. The Bible is a book. Don't confuse the two. In the beginning was the Word. The Bible came along later.
      - Michael G.
        
        The prophets were for OT times. Those who prophecy today may be implementing one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Anybody else who prophecies may be doing it of their own efforts. I wouldn't pay much attention to those individuals.
      - Vladimir
        
        Who says prophets were for OT times? Why? Don't we need prophets today? Just look at all the confusion in the Christian world. We need prophets today!
      - millergroup2
        
        Actually the last prophet was Malachi, who preceded Jesus. God's word reveals all truth from beginning to end.. No other definition is needed, and if any is given, it is not from the word of God.
        
        Later God mentions only two additional prophets. Revelation 11:3. “And I will give [power] unto my two witnesses, and they
        shall prophesy a thousand two hundred [and] threescore days, clothed in
        sackcloth.”
        
        You see if God did not say it, then it is a lie. And, he gave us plenty of warnings of the fools who would come to call themselves prophets…..just like Joesph Smith did.
      - Vladimir
        
        Are you forgetting Agabus? You, also, make a lot of extra Biblical assumptions. I though that was verboten. You are getting almost as bad as mallen11.
      - Esther
        
        Not really. You have not read the restored gospel!
      - millergroup2
        
        The "restored Gospel" is a Mormon joke, and not very funny at that
        
        Paul Miller
        Alpine Builders
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Scientists are more useful
      - Vladimir
        
        Scientists discover physical truth, prophets reveal truth from God. They both are necessary.
      - millergroup2
        
        Gee, I am jealous Vlad. If I were to become an atheist, you would answer my never ending questions. Dang!
      - Vladimir
        
        Jeff Dixon may be misguided, but his motives are honest and forthright.
      - Esther
        
        Underline misguided. He wants to lump us into the pseudo-Christian crowd.
      - Esther
        
        Amen
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        My questions are more interesting and relevant.
      - Esther
        
        I lump you, the atheist, together with the pseudo-Christians, so as far as I am concerned you are irrelevant and irreverent, just like the Mr. & Mrs Miller, the pseudo-Christians.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Why, because I am willing to say that Mormonism is the same type of fiction that all religions espouse? What part of my being an atheist would ever lead you to think I would consider any religion to be different?
      - Esther
        
        The part that looks at the evidence objectively. I see there is a very real difference between atheism and pseudo-Christianity. The same wide a rift exists between pseudo-Christianity and the Saints, and the Saints and Atheism. I am not asking that you declare truth or falsity to any of these, I am asking that you look at details, that I know you are not aware. In other words, you over-simplify complex issues of the two diametrically opposed religions.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        While I have not looked at every detail, I have looked at details. If a religion is true, it should be able to show supporting evidence. Mormonism claims that Hebrews lived in the USA. It claims that a version of the Eqyptian language was used in the USA. There has never been any evidence provided that this is true. In fact, scholarly reference works on languages do not acknowledge the existence of either a "reformed Egyptian" language or "reformed Egyptian" script as it has been described in Mormon belief. No archaeological, linguistic, or other evidence of the use of Egyptian writing in ancient America has been discovered.
        I would suggest that you are the one who is being less than objective as you have an attachment to your religion.
        On a different response, you commented about people in your church offered support and guidance. That is great. I am glad it was available for you. However, people of many faiths offer support and advice. Guess what, Atheists also offer advice and support. The fact that your church provided this does not make it superior to other belief systems or more valid.
      - Esther
        
        The Millers… rude as usual.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        I have no idea what you are talking about.
      - millergroup2
        
        I too have no idea what Mary is talking about. Mormon brain cells, they distort reality.
      - Esther
        
        It was strictly a reaction to your less interesting and relevant comments, Mr. Miller, than it was to Jeff's.
      - Esther
        
        I deleted that, it was the worse. Sorry, Jeff, I was really having a bad day!
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        The difference is that science can be repeated by all people. That is one of the foundations of science. Unless another person can replicate the information, it is not considered true. Religion, on the other hand, is filled with differing belief systems that all claim they are the true path to god. They all disagree with each other. There is no way to determine which is the correct version, assuming that there is even a correct version on the topic. Most have prophets that people of that faith refer to as 'proof" that their version of truth is accurate. Religion is not offering any truth that is any real benefit to people. It offers empty platitudes to people who are scared of their own mortality.
      - Vladimir
        
        Confirmation from God that the Book of Mormon is true has been replicated millions of times. Those that wish to repeat what others have successfully achieved need only to follow the correct protocols just as the scientist must do to replicate physical experiments.
        
        Mormons, and all of God's children for that matter, have the right to go to God and receive confirmation of His revealed truths. That is the way to determine the "correct version". However, God does not force His children and many choose not to ask.
        
        Our doctrine states that God will yet reveal many truths pertaining to the kingdom of heaven. We also believe that He is continually inspiring His children in all areas of human endeavor. His hand is in all progress to some degree.
        
        The heavens are not closed and we welcome His continued revelation through prophets to us in this day.
        
        I personally have benefited from the truths I've learned since joining the church and so have millions. Just knowing where I came from, why I'm here and what is next has brought me great comfort. Knowing that death can't break the bonds I have with my wife and children is helping me become a better person. Removing the confusion of the sectarian Christian world from my life has brought me great peace.
        
        My religion doesn't offer empty platitudes it provides a precise road map home.
      - Esther
        
        Of course, science can be repeated, that's true and that is its strength as you say. but science cannot. does not have any kind of grip on the real psychic needs of people, that one would hope, religion would fill, but doesn't, not perfectly, for sure. Also, let's remind ourselves that you have an ideal view of science that in many ways does not exist. I have indicated this to you before. For one thing of the magnitude of things we do know there is a huge number of magnitude of things we do not know and do not hope to know in our lifetimes or any time soon.
        
        Oh and God forbid unique views of God: As you say "religion, on the other hand, is filled with differing belief systems that all claim they are the true path to god." [nothing like stirring the pot of discord, right Jeff?] "They all disagree with each other." [many do not, in fact Zacharias, a world renown Reformist, http://www.ligonier.org/learn/teachers/Zacharias_Ravi/ told a convention of Reformists last year that one of his favorite places to debate the differences between Reformed Doctrine and Mormonism is with the apostles in Salt Lake City at the Mormon Tabernacle, no less. When asked to disparage the Mormons he declined because it is one of his favorite places to visit and he wants to be invited back. How could he possibly like the Mormons!?] "Religion offers the view that it has already been given the sum total of information that is needed from god and is resistant to change." [Not so with the Mormons at all, the church began changing from day one of its inception, by the regular infusion of knowledge gleaned from prayer... or how about just contemplation? Now I know you do not believe in prayer... science has shown you that it absolutely doesn't work, so lets say it is just good decision-making that is possible when a good father contemplates what is needed for his family, and without strings... can you imagine that? That is what real prophets do, Jeff. They contemplate what the children need and tells us.]
        
        Lastly, "Religion is not offering any truth that is any real benefit to people. It offers empty platitudes to people who are scared of their own mortality."
        
        Jeff, I remind you of the atheists view of which you seem to think would be perfect. My mother used to say, "if everyone were Catholic…" just like you seem to think: "if everyone were atheist…" I admit your view offers you a perspective that is needed in a world of strife that IS fueled by religious differences and I admit you have courage to face up to idiots who have a narrow-minded viewed of God, but on a one-to-one issue the real problems of religion that can be determined easily by science are not addressed, but in fact, are scoffed at. Instead, science is a world of big toys in many ways and in many ways are "scared of their own mortality." The Mormons view of God is not narrow-minded at all, quite the contrary, our scriptural canons have never been closed! The Plan of Salvation is proof positive of that. Without it there would be no temples. Compare to the pseudo-Christians. You have some home work. Because you do not demonstrate you know the difference, yet you lump us all together.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        When have I ever stated that science has all the answers? Of course there is much we still need to learn. However, science provides the best opportunity for determining it.
        As far as Mormons believing that their religion has already been given the information that is needed from god, I refer you to this post from Vlad.Vladimir • a day ago • parent
        −
        Jeff Dixon: Sorry, I was assuming that you knew more about the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.It has been revealed by modern prophets that we did not flare into existence upon our mortal birth, but we were present with our Heavenly Father as His spirit children when the Plan of Salvation was disclosed and Jesus Christ was chosen as our savior. We agreed to participate, kicked out those that wanted to go with Lucifer's modification to the plan and started coming to earth and receiving physical bodies to clothe our spirit bodies. Later we will lay down our physical bodies, go to the spirit world to await our resurrection when our physical bodies are returned to us totally reconditioned, never to be separated again. Then it is on to the judgement and our reward.
        And yes, I lump all believers into the same category. You are completely right about that.
      - Esther
        
        Well I can do the same thing… " lump all believers into the same category. You are completely right about that…" that is, and put you in the category of those who do nothing but simplify and trivialize to the extent that life doesn't matter… let's 'leave out the feelings about wives…" say the top atheists, Dawkins and Sam. Oh yes, that puts it all in perspective for me. Who is it you think you are talking to? An idiot!?
        
        I am very sorry to see Vlad assist you in your determined purpose. You obviously think you can simplify and trivialize and that is your fallacy. Yes, you do have a God, You worship Science. That is your Great God. There is nothing innovative about it. It spawned religious discussions in the mid-1800s and an awakening in the 1960s, so no, it is not new. You are not innovating. However, I challenge you to do any science and not just the paper chase.
        
        BTW, no one else speaks for me. So don't hold me to anyone else's beliefs as seems to be your newly divulged purpose.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        I worship nothing. I accept science as the best method mankind has devised to understand our universe. I know science makes mistakes, but as I have pointed out before, it is a self-correcting discipline.
        
        I have no newly divulged purpose. It has always been the same and will remain the same. I point out flaws in religion that the believer is unwilling to admit to. I am not attempting to make you upset or angry. However, I will not be silent about the silliness of the Mormon religion either.
      - Vladimir
        
        It is not wise to judge something before you have learned of it. (with apologies to King Soloman). Also pretty unscientific.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Have you read the entire Qu'ran or the Vedas? Have you read the Book of the Dead?
      - Vladimir
        
        Have you read the Book of Mormon?
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Actually, yes I have. Now I will admit that I read it in my teens, which was a looooooooong time ago. However, I have read certain passages more recently. And I am very familar with the story of how the religion was created. And in my mind, that story is much more important than the book itself. It describes a series of events that are just as fanciful as the stories of other religions. The Golden Plates, for example. They were translated once and then had to be translated differently later????? I realize that religious stories are often silly, but that is simply absurd.
      - Vladimir
        
        It is evident that you need to reread the Book of Mormon as an adult. Your statement that "I am very familiar with the story of how the religion was created" suggests that you didn't understand what you were reading. Perhaps that's why you think religious stories are silly.
      - Esther
        
        I am a realist, I point out flaws in science, for example, as you might point out flaws in religion, that you do have an amazing dependence on it in a way I have never encountered, philosophically that is, but I have not been a party in the debate, over the few years I have practiced science… it does have its warts and bumps, Jeff, and I don't seek to silence the most honest man on this forum.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        I have never said science does not have flaws. Of course it does. But that does not change the reality that we have learned more about the universe from the scientific method than any other method.
      - Esther
        
        Amen
      - Vladimir
        
        What I gave you, Jeff Dixon, was a synopsis of the Plan of Salvation. It is not the sum total of what God wants us to know, but it is central to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and therefore extremely important. If you remember, you had trouble understanding how we could exist before the foundations of the earth were laid. That's how.
      - Esther
        
        This is exactly what I know: that just about anyone looking to discredit the church will take just a tiny scrap of anything you give them and like a rabid dog, tear it to shreds, and make a mockery of it, running with it without an inkling of understanding. This has happened time and time again now since I have joined the Mormons. We are just too trusting. I made that mistake too many times. Jeff Dixon believes not one iota in an afterlife.
      - Esther
        
        Was this your first encounter with the plan of salvation? Did you not read it on the links I sent you before, and not tell me about what you thought? You think it is fair that I get this kind of response for the thoughtful comment I sent to you?
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        I think you assume far too much about my willingness to accept that the Mormon plan of salvation could possibly be any different than another religions plan. I told you I would read them, but I did not say I would do it right that minute. How I spend my time is based on many factors and your perceived view that I am somehow slighting you is not only inaccurate, but unfair.
      - Esther
        
        I was more upset by the brief, truncated version that was given you. I thought you realized that. I regretted that you saw that one and not the original in context that I suggested, that's all. I still take responsibility for heated accusations I made, that you felt were only directed at you. I am sorry for it and I apologize.
      - Esther
        
        But you do imply absolutes all the time, Mr. Dixon,and your apologetics as an atheist is science so of course one would assume there is no contradiction between your basis and your practice, or is there?
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        I state there is no evidence of any gods. That is not stating an absolute. And whether there are contradictions in what I say and what I do, it is entirely possible. I have never claimed to know everything or be perfect in my actions. However, I am curious what contradiction you think I exhibit?
      - Esther
        
        This speaks to the fact of your seeming high regard for science, but I see science as being a human endeavour that is not so perfect, yet you have taken to make science your premise for the belief in no God. Jeff, I understand your claim that it is open-ended, that there is room for the evidence if indeed it exists. So why stand so stolidly on the side of no God exists, if that is true? Why are you not in church every other Sunday, if this is true? This to me is a contradiction, because, I feel the same way about my religion to some degree that you do, but at the same time as I recognize contradictions in it, you state it is total fairy tales. I don't understand why you don't see that same tendency in atheism/science.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        I am afraid I do not see your point. I do not attend church because it offers nothing of value to me. Listening to someone discuss how the bible is accurate or that Jesus is a way to heaven when I know that bible is not accurate and there is no evidence that Jesus even existed is not providing me new information. Besides, church is one of the most boring experiences I have had to endure.
        What is the fairy tale aspect of atheism or science? Once again, they are not the same thing.
      - Esther
        
        It's the people, too, Jeff. Perhaps, they would like a dose of your honesty. I know we would. We love to talk. Can't you tell? The same people in church are the ones at the football game, or the theater, or your kids school. e.g., I pull for LSU and UF,football, but there are people who are avid Alabama fans (ugh) and other places like Georgia and Tennessee…now we have Texas A&M and University of Texas, San Antonio in the SEC, starting this year. Well if it weren't for faith we would probably kill each other. It gets mean in the SEC. Nick Saban needs federal guards around LSU fans. Anyway all enemies meet at church and all is forgiven for about 3 hours. That/s just one example and probably not good enough.
        
        Let's see: well, I know you want to not have fairy tales in the atheists point-of-view. But note what someone has pointed out previously, that many times, it is science that imitates art … recall a conversation I believe you and Key were having about cell phones. Remember discussing the little hand held device, didn't the Star Trek crew wear it on their shoulder? That idea sort of became the cell phone… I believe one of you mentioned. That was once a fairy tale, and science gave it reality. So if you hinge your atheism on science, you could say in a round about way it hinges on imagination and/or fairy tales… maybe? … I am open here… :)
      - Esther
        
        Amen.
      - Esther
        
        Especially when they are not given over to the purposes of the state. In such cases I would more so trust a man of God who was NOT PAID. The only church I know to which that criteria applies is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
      - Esther
        
        Or completely useless depending on a lot of things. Check out your local university science library and see, just how much is so useful. Even the children's section of the library is more useful then the mega tons of science you find. While the wise men of our faith, who are like the best fathers, contemplate what answers we need to promote the health of our families and give us their answers, just like any good dad. We all need one. Heaven help us if we don't have a good one and many of us don't, Mr. Dixon. Do you?
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        While there are bad scientists, scientists as a group are more useful than prophets. Scientists help improve every aspect of our lives, from medical advances to obtaining better crop results.
        
        Good fathers are nothing like a prophet. A father is there to help raise their children to become productive and beneficial members of society. Prophets are there to offer pretend advice from non-existent deities. Prophets offer the same sort of nonsensical advice you can get from witch doctors. If you truly think you get better help from a prophet then a scientist, then why go to a doctor? Why use an engineer to build bridges? Why use light bulbs, cars or telephones? These are all available because of the advancement of science.
      - Esther
        
        Jeff, thank you for your classic definitions for fathers, scientists and prophets. However, in this advanced day and time when the actual Church of Jesus Christ is re-established in SLC, the definitions of these roles are more accurately defined, at least within the Church, and perhaps only for the Saints. But it would be nice to have some sincere, respectful consideration of these modern day men by serious students of religion.
        With regard to prophets, your definition of one fits that of the fairy tale biblical one, and not at all of the practical ones we have in Salt Lake City. They really are like fathers to those of us who don't have one. and many of them are engineers/scientists, business school professors/scientists, biologists and medical doctors/scientists, etc, etc. When there was no one to encourage my success after losing both my my parents very early in my studies, I depended upon these good people to morally buoy me up and be able to carry on with some extremely difficult work. I hesitate to call them prophets, just because you only have the classic ones in mind, but I strongly suggest you consider what I said about them.
      - millergroup2
        
        Read the word of God Vald. The word is God. Interpret this:
        John 1
        1
        In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
        
        2
        He was with God in the beginning.
        
        3
        Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
        
        4
        In him was life, and that life was the light of men.
        
        5
        The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.
      - Vladimir
        
        I understand that Jesus Christ is equated to the Word in the beginning. But where is the connection to a book which was written and complied centuries later? Are you confusing Jesus Christ with the Bible? Jesus Christ inspired prophets to write down both what they saw and also what He revealed to them. The result is a BOOK called the Bible. Jesus Christ is not that book or any other book. Jesus Christ is God. Got it?
      - Esther
        
        Vlad: Mr. Miller's wife was a member of the Saints! Did you know that? I believe Mr. Miller is prompting you for ways to deal with the Spirit in her, having been baptized and confirmed. I believe he doesn't know how to deal with it and needs your input. It probably irks him to no end that she is smarter than he is when it comes to actually reading the bible. He is always asking you for interpretation!
      - Vladimir
        
        Interesting.
      - Vladimir
        
        Correction, I deduced, you inferred.
      - millergroup2
        
        Prophets reveal the will of the Lord to all MANKIND! If you have ever read the bible, what is Nineveh?
      - Vladimir
        
        I agree with you! Prophets do reveal the will of the Lord to ALL mankind. Unfortunately not all the world chooses to believe all of God's prophets. You evidently are included in that group.
      - Esther
        
        Amen
      - Michael G.
        
        May I help out a little bit here?
        The definition I'm using comes from Vine's Dictionary.
        Prophet: PROPHETEIA: It is the declaration of that, which cannot be known by natural means. The purpose of their ministry was to edify, to comfort, and to encourage the believers…(noun); the definitions go on for adjectives. It's way too long to put all of it in this post.
        I hope this helps…
      - mallen11
        
        Thank you Michael, but I did not need that definition since I already knew it; however, there are no prophets needed since the close of the canon of scriptures and we have everything God wants us to know in His Word, the Bible. What we do need are pastors who will teach from the original languages; because…
        
        God’s own complete and coherent message to man was recorded in perfect accuracy in the original languages of scripture: Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. The very words carrying Divine Authorship.
        
        2 Peter 1:20-21 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
        
        Gal 1:12 For I (Paul) neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I
        received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
        
        The gift of prophecy was no longer needed after the completed canon scripture as well.
      - Vladimir
        
        I'm so impressed with you, mallen11, you know the mind of God! What an amazing statement for a non-prophet of God to make: "…we have everything God wants us to know in His Word, the Bible." Really? Did you check with Him? What did He say? Is He satisfied with the condition of the Bible today? And which version of the Bible does He endorse? The Catholics have a much larger Bible than the Protestants. Care to check back with Him on that for me.
        
        Oh wait a minute, you said the gift of prophecy is no longer needed. You can't check back with Him on any of this. Evidently we STILL need the gift of prophecy if only to verify the accuracy of your mind reading ability.
      - mallen11
        
        Vladimir, you are blinded to the truth but just maybe you will heed God's Word; not the man made fairy tales of your religion…
        Heb 4:12 -For the word of God is alive and powerful sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.
        
        1 Corinthians 2:14….But the natural man (unbeliever) receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
        
        2 Peter 1:20-21 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
        
        God’s own complete and coherent message to man was recorded in perfect accuracy in the original languages of scripture: Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. The very words carrying Divine Authorship.
        
        Gal 1:12 For I (Paul) neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I
        received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
        
        Isaiah 40:8 The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever.
        
        Heb 12:2 -fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.
        
        1 Corinthians 2:16 For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, THAT
        HE WILL INSTRUCT HIM? But we have the mind of Christ. (The Word of God, the Bible)
        
        God’s own complete and coherent message to man was recorded in perfect accuracy in the original languages of scripture: Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. The very words carrying Divine Authorship.
        
        Gal 1:12 For I (Paul) neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I
        received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
      - Vladimir
        
        Do you get all your exercise by jumping to conclusions? I don't draw the same conclusions from those passages. Perhaps we should exercise our right under James 1:5 and ask the Lord.
      - millergroup2
        
        Read the book of Acts! Who is the "Comforter"? What will he do for us? When you find this answer…..why a prophet?
      - Vladimir
        
        I am very familiar with the Holy Ghost, but you evidently are confused as to His mission. The Lord uses prophets when He has information to be revealed to all His children. The Holy Ghost is direct communication to the individual as is needed personally. A primary mission is to confirm truth to the individual as when someone asks if the Book of Mormon is true. Something you haven't done, yet
      - Esther
        
        You mean our infinite Father, with an infinite vocabulary has said everything that will be said in an eternity? You said: "there are no prophets needed since the close of the canon of scriptures"… Who pray tell closed the canon of scripture? Be sure you give your proof. And of course this proof can't come from the canon of scripture. Ask the arbiter of truth, Jeff Dixon.
      - millergroup2
        
        Here it is again Vald, direct questions….looking for direct answers….
        
        Vladimir: Vlad,
        why do you continue to evade questions directed to you. Why do you ask
        us to pray for wisdom for the answer. This is an ongoing thing with you.
        You cannot answer questions without exposing the lies of the Mormon
        doctrine. We have prayed, and God always answers the same. He tells us
        to return to his word for the answers we seek. This is the wisdom he
        speaks of….HIS WORD!
        
        2Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman
        that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
        
        Vald, I have called Joesph Smith a false prophet, according to the
        word of God, defining a false prophet. And, I have asked you and other
        Mormons on this forum to answer one simple question, over and over. You
        refuse to answer this one simple question, because your honest answer
        will destroy your "brainwashed": faith……but here it goes for the
        newest followers of your faith that have not yet been brainwashed.
        
        "What did Joesph Smith prophesy that came true" ????? I will even
        accept one, and reconsider my studies. You say that you have studied the
        Mormon doctrine for over 40 years, and believe it to be the "Restored
        Word of God"
        
        Linguistics. Why, if the American Indians were descended from Lehi,
        was there such diversity in their languages, and why were there no
        vestiges of Hebrew in any of them? Why does the Book of Mormon say that
        Lehi found horses when he arrived in America? The horse did not exist
        in the Americas until the Spaniards brought them over in the sixteenth
        century. Why was Nephi stated to have a bow of steel? Jews did not have
        steel at that time, and no iron was smelted in the Americas until the
        Spanish colonization. Why does the Book of Mormon mention swords and
        cimeters when scimitars (the current spelling) did not come about until
        the rise of Islam after 500 A.D.? Why does the Book of Mormon mention
        silk, when silk did not exist in the Americas at that time?
        
        Let
        me add my own question here. Joseph Smith claimed that the Book of
        Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth (History of the Church,
        4:461). If that’s true, why has it been subjected to thousands
        of corrections and alterations since it was first published? Also, some
        of the LDS scholars to whom I referred in the second paragraph found that the
        American Indians are genetically more similar to Asians. No Hebrew link
        can be made through DNA analysis.
        
        There are also doctrinal
        discrepancies between the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and
        Covenants and other source of LDS doctrine. If the Book of Mormon
        is the most correct book on earth, then why the contradictions? For
        example:
        D&C
        130:3 says, The idea that the Father and the Son dwell in a man’s heart
        is an old sectarian notion, and is false. But in Alma 34:36, it says,
        And this I know, because the Lord hath said he dwelleth not in unholy
        temples, but in the hearts of the righteous doth he dwell.Joseph Smith
        said, We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity.
        I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see.
        (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345) This introduced the
        doctrine of eternal progression, which Brigham Young forcefully
        expounded upon. [Eternal Progression teaches that God was once a man
        who progressed to Godhood, and we humans have the ability to do the same
        through strict adherence to LDS doctrines and temple rites.] Yet
        Moroni 8:18 says, For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a
        changeable being; but he is unchangeable, from all eternity to all
        eternity.
        
        When Joseph Smith contradicts the Book of Mormon, we can reach only
        one of two conclusions. Either he did not write the Book of Mormon under
        divine guidance and is therefore a false prophet, or he decided to
        contradict the teachings of God, in which case he is a false prophet.
        Smith also stated that no one could see God without the Holy Priesthood.
        Yet according to his own account, he saw God the Father and Jesus
        Christ nine years before he himself received the priesthood!
        
        We can also look at Smith’s prophecies directly. In Doctrine and
        Covenants 87:2, Smith predicted that the American Civil War would be
        poured out upon all nations. This did not occur. In Doctrine
        and Covenants 84:4-5, he prophesied that a temple would be built in
        Independence, Missouri during that generation. There is still no such
        temple. The list goes on. He obviously fails the test of a prophet
        as outlined in Deuteronomy 18:21-22.
        
        Paul warned of false prophets in 2 Corinthians 11:13, For such are
        false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the
        apostles of Christ. As for the Book of Mormon, and its claim as the
        fullness of the everlasting
        gospel, Paul wrote in Galatians 1:8-9, But though we, or an angel from
        heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
        
        The evidence is clear that the Book of Mormon cannot be correct, and
        Joseph Smith was a false prophet who has deceived many. The truth is
        that the Bible contains the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ. We
        cannot and should not
        blaspheme Almighty God by presuming that we can
        someday become gods, as the LDS doctrine of eternal progression
        teaches. Satan’s first recorded lie to Adam and Eve was a promise that
        they would be godlike in their knowledge if they simply disobeyed God
        and ate of the forbidden fruit. False prophets have perpetuated the lie
        that promises godhood or godlike qualities ever since.
        
        Someone asked me once why there isn’t a huge apostasy from Mormonism
        in light of the compelling evidence. I can think of two primary
        reasons. Many
        sincere Latter Day Saints simply do not know the evidence, and are discouraged
        from
        investigating it. An LDS friend of my wife’s was told by her Bishop
        and her husband to stop investigating the claims of their founding
        prophet. Why discourage honest investigation? Acts 17:11 tells us that
        the Bereans were of noble character because they searched the scriptures
        daily to see if what Paul was preaching was the truth. Unfortunately,
        my wife’s friend yielded to pressure from her husband and bishop, and
        ultimately broke off social contact.
        
        The other reason has to deal with courage versus comfort. I’ve
        personally known a couple of Mormons who left the LDS Church for the
        true gospel of Jesus Christ after they realized that Joseph Smith was a
        false prophet. Those are two of the most courageous people I know, as
        they suffered severe pressure,
        persecution, and isolation from their
        LDS families, friends, and community. I’ve known other Mormons who
        admitted to me thatthey knew Mormonism was a false religion based on the
        lies of a false prophet, but were too afraid to leave the Church for
        fear of the same kind of treatment. They had comfortable lives as
        tithing members of the LDS Church, and were too afraid to face the
        potential loss of family, friends, and indeed, their entire social
        circle should they leave.
        
        Most Mormons I’ve known have been very sincere, decent people. Many hold
        their religious beliefs strongly. When those beliefs are shown to fail
        the test in the light of the truth of the gospel, it can be a frightening and
        life-altering event. Members of the LDS Church can choose to ignore or
        excuse the evidence, or they can face it with courage. Mormon
        missionaries tell people to pray to see if the Book of Mormon is
        true. I encourage the reader to read your Bible in depth, as a Berean
        would, to see if the points in this article are true or false.
      - Vladimir
        
        Are you repeating yourself?
      - millergroup2
        
        And the tips of my fingers are getting RAW!
      - Esther
        
        You are being foolish, Mr. Miller. Don't you know by now that it is personal revelation you will receive when you read James 1:5. It is not telling you to dredge up many more scriptures. I just had a revelation as a matter of fact…. it is this… you do not believe in answers to prayers, you just believe you will get the answers directly from the scriptures so you need to keep dredging them up… well there is nothing intrinsically wrong with that except, the other way is to simply say the prayer suggested by James 1:5 and patiently wait (as is suggested in Moroni 10:4). Get a grip Mr.Miller.
      - millergroup2
        
        I cannot find where I said that so that I can recant it. But, don't think I said it.
      - Vladimir
        
        That may have been mallen11. I get you anti's confused.
      - Vladimir
        
        I think your memory is slipping, Evermyrtle. I've told you before that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God.
    - millergroup2
      
      No one wrong here Vald! The only wrong one was Joesph Smith. Shall I go back in my postings on this subject, and copy and past it here for you to read again. How can you read that little Book of Mormon and not find all of the misguided words, and lies after 40 long years of study???? Why?????
      - Esther
        
        Please spare us those long boring passages again. Whatever he said, Vlad is probably right.
      - millergroup2
        
        Mary, if Vald is right, please help him out by answering a few of the questions for him below. Same thing I wrote to him, but directed to any Mormon with the "balls" to answer.
        
        Vladimir: Vlad,
        why do you continue to evade questions directed to you. Why do you ask
        us to pray for wisdom for the answer. This is an ongoing thing with you.
        You cannot answer questions without exposing the lies of the Mormon
        doctrine. We have prayed, and God always answers the same. He tells us
        to return to his word for the answers we seek. This is the wisdom he
        speaks of….HIS WORD!
        
        2Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman
        that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
        
        Vald, I have called Joesph Smith a false prophet, according to the
        word of God, defining a false prophet. And, I have asked you and other
        Mormons on this forum to answer one simple question, over and over. You
        refuse to answer this one simple question, because your honest answer
        will destroy your "brainwashed": faith……but here it goes for the
        newest followers of your faith that have not yet been brainwashed.
        
        "What did Joesph Smith prophesy that came true" ????? I will even
        accept one, and reconsider my studies. You say that you have studied the
        Mormon doctrine for over 40 years, and believe it to be the "Restored
        Word of God"
        
        Linguistics. Why, if the American Indians were descended from Lehi,
        was there such diversity in their languages, and why were there no
        vestiges of Hebrew in any of them? Why does the Book of Mormon say that
        Lehi found horses when he arrived in America? The horse did not exist
        in the Americas until the Spaniards brought them over in the sixteenth
        century. Why was Nephi stated to have a bow of steel? Jews did not have
        steel at that time, and no iron was smelted in the Americas until the
        Spanish colonization. Why does the Book of Mormon mention swords and
        cimeters when scimitars (the current spelling) did not come about until
        the rise of Islam after 500 A.D.? Why does the Book of Mormon mention
        silk, when silk did not exist in the Americas at that time?
        
        Let
        me add my own question here. Joseph Smith claimed that the Book of
        Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth (History of the Church,
        4:461). If that’s true, why has it been subjected to thousands
        of corrections and alterations since it was first published? Also, some
        of the LDS scholars to whom I referred in the second paragraph found that the
        American Indians are genetically more similar to Asians. No Hebrew link
        can be made through DNA analysis.
        
        There are also doctrinal
        discrepancies between the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and
        Covenants and other source of LDS doctrine. If the Book of Mormon
        is the most correct book on earth, then why the contradictions? For
        example:
        D&C
        130:3 says, The idea that the Father and the Son dwell in a man’s heart
        is an old sectarian notion, and is false. But in Alma 34:36, it says,
        And this I know, because the Lord hath said he dwelleth not in unholy
        temples, but in the hearts of the righteous doth he dwell.Joseph Smith
        said, We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity.
        I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see.
        (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345) This introduced the
        doctrine of eternal progression, which Brigham Young forcefully
        expounded upon. [Eternal Progression teaches that God was once a man
        who progressed to Godhood, and we humans have the ability to do the same
        through strict adherence to LDS doctrines and temple rites.] Yet
        Moroni 8:18 says, For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a
        changeable being; but he is unchangeable, from all eternity to all
        eternity.
        
        When Joseph Smith contradicts the Book of Mormon, we can reach only
        one of two conclusions. Either he did not write the Book of Mormon under
        divine guidance and is therefore a false prophet, or he decided to
        contradict the teachings of God, in which case he is a false prophet.
        Smith also stated that no one could see God without the Holy Priesthood.
        Yet according to his own account, he saw God the Father and Jesus
        Christ nine years before he himself received the priesthood!
        
        We can also look at Smith’s prophecies directly. In Doctrine and
        Covenants 87:2, Smith predicted that the American Civil War would be
        poured out upon all nations. This did not occur. In Doctrine
        and Covenants 84:4-5, he prophesied that a temple would be built in
        Independence, Missouri during that generation. There is still no such
        temple. The list goes on. He obviously fails the test of a prophet
        as outlined in Deuteronomy 18:21-22.
        
        Paul warned of false prophets in 2 Corinthians 11:13, For such are
        false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the
        apostles of Christ. As for the Book of Mormon, and its claim as the
        fullness of the everlasting
        gospel, Paul wrote in Galatians 1:8-9, But though we, or an angel from
        heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
        
        The evidence is clear that the Book of Mormon cannot be correct, and
        Joseph Smith was a false prophet who has deceived many. The truth is
        that the Bible contains the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ. We
        cannot and should not
        blaspheme Almighty God by presuming that we can
        someday become gods, as the LDS doctrine of eternal progression
        teaches. Satan’s first recorded lie to Adam and Eve was a promise that
        they would be godlike in their knowledge if they simply disobeyed God
        and ate of the forbidden fruit. False prophets have perpetuated the lie
        that promises godhood or godlike qualities ever since.
        
        Someone asked me once why there isn’t a huge apostasy from Mormonism
        in light of the compelling evidence. I can think of two primary
        reasons. Many
        sincere Latter Day Saints simply do not know the evidence, and are discouraged
        from
        investigating it. An LDS friend of my wife’s was told by her Bishop
        and her husband to stop investigating the claims of their founding
        prophet. Why discourage honest investigation? Acts 17:11 tells us that
        the Bereans were of noble character because they searched the scriptures
        daily to see if what Paul was preaching was the truth. Unfortunately,
        my wife’s friend yielded to pressure from her husband and bishop, and
        ultimately broke off social contact.
        
        The other reason has to deal with courage versus comfort. I’ve
        personally known a couple of Mormons who left the LDS Church for the
        true gospel of Jesus Christ after they realized that Joseph Smith was a
        false prophet. Those are two of the most courageous people I know, as
        they suffered severe pressure,
        persecution, and isolation from their
        LDS families, friends, and community. I’ve known other Mormons who
        admitted to me thatthey knew Mormonism was a false religion based on the
        lies of a false prophet, but were too afraid to leave the Church for
        fear of the same kind of treatment. They had comfortable lives as
        tithing members of the LDS Church, and were too afraid to face the
        potential loss of family, friends, and indeed, their entire social
        circle should they leave.
        
        Most Mormons I’ve known have been very sincere, decent people. Many hold
        their religious beliefs strongly. When those beliefs are shown to fail
        the test in the light of the truth of the gospel, it can be a frightening and
        life-altering event. Members of the LDS Church can choose to ignore or
        excuse the evidence, or they can face it with courage. Mormon
        missionaries tell people to pray to see if the Book of Mormon is
        true. I encourage the reader to read your Bible in depth, as a Berean
        would, to see if the points in this article are true or false.
      - Vladimir
        
        You are one long winded, dude.
      - millergroup2
        
        Let me catch my breath :-) be back with more…..Don't change that Chanel!
      - Vladimir
        
        Don't bother they're all repeats anyway.
      - Esther
        
        You are very crude; no wonder you don"t get answers from God.
      - millergroup2
        
        Actually, my dear and very loving wife was the one who discovered that the Mormon faith is nothing but a very big scam, designed to "brainwash" gullible people. Somewhere here I posted letters from her friends who also left the frightening cult. They told honestly why they left. Hopefully we can add your letter to the pile before you are to far gone.
      - Esther
        
        LOL I do have an aversion to folks who say they are members to try to reap benefits of a deep-pocketed church. They eventually leave when they see they have to take personal responsibility. I know a few of that type of member. That would not be me. So don't hold your breath.
      - Esther
        
        Ask Mrs. Miller for these answers. Didn't you say you saved her from the Saints… She should know the answers to your questions, unless she neglected her duties in Sunday School.
      - millergroup2
        
        He hasn't said anything. That is the big deal here. You haven't added anything either. EMPTINESS>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
      - Esther
        
        I know Vladimir's religion, not perfectly, but in my very busy professional teaching life, much of which means late hours grading papers and making exams, and not to forget, ongoing professional training, in my "spare" time, I have come to know equally dedicated priesthood holders in the Church of Jesus Christ, and I say with surety that whatever answers Vladimir has given, he is probably right. You may call his answers whatever you wish. It is your prerogative. By now you should realize that what he is trying to teach you is something exceptional that you are simply unwilling to learn.
      - Vladimir
        
        Answer: there aren't any "misguided words and lies" in the Book of Mormon. How simple is that? And you can't see it.
      - millergroup2
        
        Linguistics. Why, if the American Indians were
        descended from Lehi, was there such diversity in their languages, and why
        were there no vestiges of Hebrew in any of them? Why does the Book of Mormon say that Lehi found
        horses when he arrived in America? The horse did not exist in the
        Americas until the Spaniards brought them over in the sixteenth century. Why was Nephi stated to have a bow of steel? Jews
        did not have steel at that time, and no iron was smelted in the Americas
        until the Spanish colonization. Why does the Book of Mormon mention swords and
        cimeters when scimitars (the current spelling) did not come about until
        the rise of Islam after 500 A.D.? Why does the Book of Mormon mention silk, when
        silk did not exist in the Americas at that time?
        
        Let me add my own
        question here. Joseph Smith claimed that the Book of Mormon was
        the most correct of any book on earth (History of the Church, 4:461). If
        that’s true, why has it been subjected to thousands
        of corrections and alterations since it was first published? Also, some
        of the LDS scholars to whom I referred in the second paragraph found that the
        American Indians are genetically more similar to Asians. No Hebrew link
        can be made through DNA analysis.
        
        There are also doctrinal
        discrepancies between the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and
        Covenants and other source of LDS doctrine. If the Book of Mormon
        is the most correct book on earth, then why the contradictions? For
        example:
        
        D&C 130:3 says, The idea that the Father and the
        Son dwell in a man’s heart is an old sectarian notion, and is false. But in Alma 34:36, it says, And this I know,
        because the Lord hath said he dwelleth not in unholy temples, but in the
        hearts of the righteous doth he dwell.Joseph Smith said, We have imagined and supposed
        that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and
        take away the veil, so that you may see. (Teachings of the Prophet
        Joseph Smith, p. 345) This introduced the doctrine of eternal
        progression, which Brigham Young forcefully expounded upon. [Eternal
        Progression teaches that God was once a man who progressed to Godhood, and
        we humans have the ability to do the same through strict adherence to LDS
        doctrines and temple rites.] Yet Moroni 8:18 says, For I know
        that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is
        unchangeable, from all eternity to all eternity.
        
        When Joseph Smith
        contradicts the Book of Mormon, we can reach only one of two conclusions.
        Either he did not write the Book of Mormon under divine guidance and is
        therefore a false prophet, or he decided to contradict the teachings of God, in
        which case he is a false prophet. Smith also stated that no one could see
        God without the Holy Priesthood. Yet according to his own account, he saw
        God the Father and Jesus Christ nine years before he himself received the
        priesthood!
        
        We can also look at
        Smith’s prophecies directly. In Doctrine and
        Covenants 87:2, Smith predicted that the American Civil War would be
        poured out upon all nations. This did not occur. In Doctrine
        and Covenants 84:4-5, he prophesied that a temple would be built in
        Independence, Missouri during that generation. There is still no such
        temple. The list goes on. He obviously fails the test of a prophet
        as outlined in Deuteronomy 18:21-22.
        
        Paul warned of false
        prophets in 2 Corinthians 11:13, For such are false apostles, deceitful
        workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. As for
        the Book of Mormon, and its claim as the fullness of the everlasting
        gospel, Paul wrote in Galatians 1:8-9, But though we, or an angel from
        heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto
        you, let him be accursed.
        
        The evidence is clear
        that the Book of Mormon cannot be correct, and Joseph Smith was a false
        prophet who has deceived many. The truth is that the Bible contains the
        fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ. We cannot and should not
        blaspheme Almighty God by presuming that we can someday become gods, as the LDS
        doctrine of eternal progression teaches. Satan’s first recorded lie to Adam and Eve was a promise that they would
        be godlike in their knowledge if they simply disobeyed God and ate of the
        forbidden fruit. False prophets have perpetuated the lie that promises
        godhood or godlike qualities ever since.
        
        Someone asked me once
        why there isn’t a huge apostasy from Mormonism in light of the
        compelling evidence. I can think of two primary reasons. Many
        sincere Latter Day Saints simply do not know the evidence, and are discouraged
        from investigating it. An LDS friend of my wife’s was told by her Bishop and her husband to stop investigating the
        claims of their founding prophet. Why discourage honest
        investigation? Acts 17:11 tells us that the Bereans were of noble
        character because they searched the scriptures daily to see if what Paul was
        preaching was the truth. Unfortunately, my wife’s friend yielded to pressure from her husband and bishop, and
        ultimately broke off social contact.
        
        The other reason has to
        deal with courage versus comfort. I’ve personally known a
        couple of Mormons who left the LDS Church for the true gospel of Jesus Christ
        after they realized that Joseph Smith was a false prophet. Those are two
        of the most courageous people I know, as they suffered severe pressure,
        persecution, and isolation from their LDS families, friends, and
        community. I’ve known other Mormons who admitted to me that
        they knew Mormonism was a false religion based on the lies of a false prophet,
        but were too afraid to leave the Church for fear of the same kind of
        treatment. They had comfortable lives as tithing members of the LDS
        Church, and were too afraid to face the potential loss of family, friends, and
        indeed, their entire social circle should they leave.
        
        Most Mormons I’ve known have been very sincere, decent people. Many hold
        their religious beliefs strongly. When those beliefs are shown to fail
        the test in the light of the truth of the gospel, it can be a frightening and
        life-altering event. Members of the LDS Church can choose to ignore or
        excuse the evidence, or they can face it with courage. Mormon
        missionaries tell people to pray to see if the Book of Mormon is
        true. I encourage the reader to read your Bible in depth, as a Berean
        would, to see if the points in this article are true or false.
      - Vladimir
        
        You said, "why do you continue to evade questions directed to you". I have an aversion to feeding your narrative of attack, deride, ridicule and defame. If you had an honest motive, I would help you as best I could.
      - millergroup2
        
        Ah! But I do hold a very direct motive. That is: to do all that I can to expose Joesph Smith, Brigham Young, and all that followed the Mormon cult to what it is today. A heretical group of misled, gullible people, that really want to know the truth, as God tells it.
      - Vladimir
        
        I said an HONEST motive. If you were HONESTLY seeking knowledge I would accommodate, but you are simply using questions designed to ridicule the Lord's church. They are questions that assume the audience is ignorant of Mormon doctrine and has no knowledge of the context or even earlier revelations that provide the necessary foundation for understanding.
        
        If you were sincere, you wouldn't ask me, you'd ask God.
      - millergroup2
        
        e·va·sive/iˈvāsiv/Adjective:Tending to avoid commitment or self-revelation, esp. by responding only indirectly.Directed toward avoidance or escape.
      - millergroup2
        
        Myrtle, I am in a dialog with Vladimir. Seems that this site has hijacked your name as the parent. If this is so on your end, let me know so that I can email the moderator, and have this fixed. Vlad, I hope you can still follow?
      - millergroup2
        
        Never mind. A simple refresh of the browser fixed the problem. Vlad….Hessssssssssssssssssssssssssss Back!!!!!!
      - Esther
        
        Not
      - petroskhan
        
        Is the pursuit of knowledge and truth an honest motive? I tend to think it is.
        
        Or does "honest" only mean "agreement" when it comes to this topic? I'm serious, actually.
      - petroskhan
        
        Very well stated. Thank you! A man after my own heart.
        
        Ask questions, expect answers, right? Not gonna happen with LDS's. I've tried. No matter what you ask, you will get NO answers.
      - Pastor Dwayne
        
        Vlad a very important question to ask you. Is it true that the book of mormon talks about the city of Atlantis, and what does it say?????
      - Vladimir
        
        I never came across any references to the city of Atlantis, perhaps I missed it.
    - Esther
      
      Vladimir: A few days down and several more to go in the 1000 years.
  - meg903
    
    Meg- to myrtle
    This is probably the biggest lie you will ever tell. I am sure you have told many more. This statement tells right off that you are a very misguided person, that knows nothing about what you stated. Could it be that you are serving as the God of Satan?
    Looking a little farther down, I see where your brother, Seiko, is spouting out some lies.
    And then there is millergroup. Three of you right together thinking you are prophets, knowing all about something you know nothing about. Where did you three get your authority to be the judge of others? MY,MY. Selfrighteousness!!!
  - petroskhan
    
    I'm sure anyone who has taken note of my posts will know where I stand on the subject of the Book of Mormon, and Mormon/LDS teachings in general.
    
    That said, Myrtle, even I wouldn't go that far. They do think he was a prophet (with which I disagree), and that the Book of Mormon was inspired (ditto). But they do NOT believe Smith was God, a god, or even divine. He was a man, just like other men.
    
    I am NOT defending the Mormon religion; far from it. Opposite from it, in fact. :P I disapprove of that religion on the basis of a great many of its teachings, and have many questions which I simply cannot get them to answer, which leads me to have MORE questions and criticisms. But I do like criticisms to be factual, logical, and provable. There is simply nothing in Mormon doctrine that substantiates what you've stated, I'm afraid.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100004047180339 John Adams

Mormonism – atheism are both anti the One True God. There really isn't much difference between the two.
- Vladimir
  
  Wrong, John Adams. The Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ is true. It is up to you to come out of ignorance into the light.
  - Esther
    
    millergroup2 • 23 minutes ago • parent−
    Evermyrtle: Pay careful attention to what is said about Mormon's on this forum Vald. Listen to what Myrtle is saying to you.
    0 •Reply•Share ›
    
    Esther • a few seconds ago • parent
    millergroup2: Listen instead to me Vlad.
    - millergroup2
      
      Hogwash!
      - Esther
        
        Oh it's just the Millers. Pay no attention. (notice they recognize their own blog in context as hogwash… haha… that's rich)
- Jeff Dixon
  
  No, we are the reasonable and rational group.
  - Esther
    
    Of course you are when it comes to science: astronomy, geology, some biology, etc., that is, I think when science borders on psychology, is where atheism breaks down and can go nowhere.
    - Jeff Dixon
      
      I have been debating religious people for several years now. Your comments are hardly more compelling or supported by evidence.
      
      First off, science does not equal atheism. Science is secular, but takes no position on the idea of god. However, since science cannot investigate the supernatural, it has to use the premise that there are natural explanations for the universe. and that would include the functioning of the brain since it is also part of the natural world.
      
      Second, science does offer insights into psychology.
      
      "—Psychology took so long to emerge as a scientific discipline because it needed time to consolidate. Understanding behavior, thoughts and feelings is not easy, which may explain why it was largely ignored between ancient Greek times and the 16th century. But tired of years of speculation, theory and argument, and bearing in mind Aristotle's plea for scientific investigation to support theory, psychology as a scientific discipline began to emerge in the late 1800's. WilheimWundt developed the first psychology lab in 1879. Introspection was used, but systematically (i.e. methodologically). It was really a place from which to start thinking about how to employ scientific methods to investigate behavior.
      The classic movement in psychology to adopt these strategies were the behaviorists, who were renowned for their reliance on controlled laboratory experiment and rejection of any unseen or subconscious forces as causes of behavior. And later, the cognitive psychologists adopted this rigorous (i.e. careful), scientific, lab based approach too."http://www.simplypsychology.org/science-psychology.html
      - Esther
        
        Jeffrey: Thank you for the lesson in psychology. Really until I began to listen hear on this forum, May 31st of this year, I had no time to listen nor any idea about how science was used in such a way to justify one way or another anything about religion or no religion. I apologize for my lack of knowledge in that regard and pledge to listen more carefully. And try not to take these things to heart without more consideration.
- Jeff Dixon
  
  Of course there is. Atheists are rational.
  - Esther
    
    Not when it comes to wives and other similar topics.
Esther

I wonder how Christians feel about Dawkins now that they know he accepts the bible on at least some pseudo-legitimate level.
- Jeff Dixon
  
  Dawkins thinks it is a good piece of literature. He hardly thinks it offers legimate views of life.
  - Esther
    
    I wonder why not the Book of Mormon in the same sense. I don't think he knows the Book of Mormon. It has some very interesting characters including strong leaders. But that is what was missed by having Brandon's time with him cut short.
    - Jeff Dixon
      
      I cannot say for sure. But it probably has to do with being raised in a society that used the bible.
      - Esther
        
        Dawkins did mention being raised in the Church of England tradition, which basically is the Catholic church with the monarchy instead of the pope as the infallible (cough, cough) head, c.f. Henry VIII with all those wife problems for which Rome would not help him.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VIII_of_England accessed 092012
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        I do not think you will find Dawkins defending the Church of England
      - Esther
        
        Absolutely! I agree Dawkins would not defend any religion, And yes, he does look favorably on the bible as a "source of interesting myths." Unfortunately, he was extremely critical of the Book of Mormon, where Brandon stopped him to denounce what had been said… here is the interchange, it occurs at the end of the video:
        http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865562560/Rock-star-Brandon-Flowers-defends-Mormon-faith-against-famous-atheist.html
        
        We will hear more about this in the future. Dawkins seemed, in the end, apologetic.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Mary, all religions are silly when they are looked at from the outside. But Mormonism has a bigger challenge. It is a recent religion and as such it has a harder time defending its beliefs. There is no evidence of Hebrew settlements in North America for example. Now the bible has similar problems. There is no evidence of the the Exodus. But Christians can use the passage of time more effectively than the Mormans.
      - Vladimir
        
        "Mormonism" is the name originally used as derision. It is actually the restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ that was first taught to all of us before the foundations of the earth were laid. So it is not "a recent religion".
        
        The atheist and the religious can argue indefinitely because God will not allow a PROOF that He exists or doesn't exist. He provides ample evidence both for and against but not a proof that one person can present to another person.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        lol. So it it was taught to people before the foundations of the earth were laid and there not yet any people? That is a pretty slick trick.
      - Vladimir
        
        Sorry, I was assuming that you knew more about the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
        
        It has been revealed by modern prophets that we did not flare into existence upon our mortal birth, but we were present with our Heavenly Father as His spirit children when the Plan of Salvation was disclosed and Jesus Christ was chosen as our savior. We agreed to participate, kicked out those that wanted to go with Lucifer's modification to the plan and started coming to earth and receiving physical bodies to clothe our spirit bodies. Later we will lay down our physical bodies, go to the spirit world to await our resurrection when our physical bodies are returned to us totally reconditioned, never to be separated again. Then it is on to the judgement and our reward.
        
        I had assumed from the level of expertise you display on this site that you were aware of the Plan of Salvation.
      - millergroup2
        
        Really now? How do you pronounce…Hogwash?
      - Esther
        
        Mr. Miller, you would never survive The South. You have no manners.
      - Esther
        
        Jeff, I thought I gave you links to the quad! You know. I don't think this is the best format to really teach someone about the Plan of Salvation. Still, I have one question for you for now: Do you know anything about the Plan of salvation which is taught by the church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints which is found in the quad. I just want you to know that just the possibility of that story to be true stopped me in my tracks. If there is any story I hope is true, its that one. Now why would I want to share this with any skeptics? If it is simply a fairy tale, it is not one like the Muslims have that involve killing people to get umpteen number of virgins, and things like that. Do you get my point? It is a beautiful plan, that hurts no one if it is not true and does the most incredible things for the health of families that one can possibly fathom
        — I see miracles every day — just simple teeny tiny ones in the lives of families every time I am with a Mormon family!. Again, why would I want to share this with a skeptic or any down-right mean people who I see daily post on this forum. Answer me that! The Plan of Salvation is clearly stated in the quad. Oh boy, now watch the skeptics come out of the woodwork.
      - Esther
        
        Jeff, I neglected to tell you that my previous comment about the Plan of Salvation hinged upon this comment you made to Vladimir. I forgot about it until I came across it again here. I am almost afraid to ask: did you read the Book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price? I know you think it all silly, but if you read the original source, even if you think it a fairy tale, you will understand at least where Vladimir is coming from.
      - millergroup2
        
        Simple plan of Salvation is written in the bible. Salvation is by grace. The Mormon doctrine complicates salvation to an extreme. Simple….Mormon doctrine is certainly not of God. Here is the plan of salvation as written by God. Below is the plan of salvation as stated on the LDS website.
        
        Plan of Salvation-Romans 3:10 (All Have Sinned)
        
        10As it is written: There is no one righteous, not even one;
        
        Romans 3:23 (All Have Sinned)
        
        23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
        
        Romans 5:12 (Sin's Penalty)
        
        12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man,
        and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because
        all sinned.
        
        Romans 6:23 (Sin's Penalty)
        
        23For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in [1] Christ Jesus our Lord.
        
        Romans 5:8 (Christ Paid the Penalty)
        
        8But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
        
        Romans 10:9,10 (Salvation through Faith)
        
        9That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and
        believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be
        saved.
        10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.
        
        Romans 10:13 (Salvation through Faith)
        
        13for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." [2]
        
        Plan of Salvation-LDS
        
        Plan of Salvation
        
        In the premortal existence, Heavenly Father prepared a plan to
        enable us to become like Him and receive a fulness of joy. The
        scriptures refer to this plan as "the plan of salvation" (Alma 24:14; Moses 6:62), "the great plan of happiness" (Alma 42:8), "the plan of redemption" (Jacob 6:8; Alma 12:30), and "the plan of mercy" (Alma 42:15).
        The plan of salvation is the fulness of the gospel. It includes the
        Creation, the Fall, the Atonement of Jesus Christ, and all the laws,
        ordinances, and doctrines of the gospel. Moral agency, the ability to
        choose and act for ourselves, is also essential in Heavenly Father's
        plan. Because of this plan, we can be perfected through the Atonement,
        receive a fulness of joy, and live forever in the presence of God. Our
        family relationships can last throughout the eternities.
        
        ***************************************************************************************
        Notice here how even the LDS website defining salvation does not even mention the Word of God? But, rather mentions its own heretical books?
      - Esther
        
        You don't and can't understand Mr. Miller. I am not interested in your interpretation.
      - Esther
        
        Why don't you take Vladimir seriously, Mr. Dixon, and put into context what he told you? What harm would that do? I think it might exercise your abilities to also put your atheism in perspective where the female gender is concerned…. and here I refer unblushingly to the preponderance of your two favorite atheists, Dawkins and Sam, who are too chicken to involve their feelings, "keep their wives out of [the discussion]" in any talk about their atheistic religion, where science, as I know it first hand, is the sole source of apologetics for their, and your, case.
        
        BofM
        Mosiah 3:19 For the natural man is an enemy to God [this word means science to an atheist,] and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.
      - Esther
        
        Vlad: I am getting used to being called a Mormon. I think our prophet Mormon is not an un-worthy nickname, though if you recall we have been asked by the presidency to remind people we are actually members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, that Mormon is the prophet who compiled the BofM and that we are more rightly called latter-day saints, LDS, or just saints. Being from Louisiana I like being called a saint :) actually. I also love football!
        
        Thank you for the reminder that as spirit children of our Father, "actually the restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ that was first taught to all of us before the foundations of the earth were laid."
        
        I have hesitated to know what I can discuss in a public forum, since these are sacred issues, that will be rudely used.
      - Vladimir
        
        Esther, probably the best advice came from the First Presidency, "preach Jesus Christ and Him crucified".
      - Esther
        
        My name is Esther
      - Esther
        
        That doesn't change the fact he grew up entrenched in the Chuch of England and as I said before, VooDoo in South Africa, and in biology academics, as his parents were both biologists. It is all he really knows. That is all his experience except for taking in a lot out of ideas about Darwin and doing probably very little actual experimentation himself. I come from a family of entrepreneurs who built their own businesses and did not rely on the state and their publications and the new things they could dream up to put on paper. I am also an experimental scientist. And I know a limitation when I see one in an academic… and Dawkins is a classic case.
        
        You call the man I know to have wrenched a civilization from the grips of Calvinism… a charletan or worse. You don't know him. You are rebounding for convenience off of others opinions and I know you can do better. From your own website, here is what Joseph Smith was asked to accept…of course the 14 year old boy rebelled… and I thank God (for want of a better term) for it, quote:
        
        "The "Protestant Inquisition" is a term applied to the severities of John Calvin in Geneva and Queen Elizabeth I in England during the 1500s. Calvin's followers burned 58 "heretics," including theologian Michael Servetus, who doubted the Trinity." http://www.skeptically.org/enlightenment/id7.html accessed 092212
        
        This is the legacy of the PURITANS, the precursors of the Protestants in Vermont and Pennsylvania that Joseph was being forced to join in the early 1800s, and when he didn't he was severely criticized, his life threatened. Tell me Mr. Dixon, if you had a large family, how would you endeavour to protect them?
        
        This is serious early American religion. Your life was in the balance if you did not chose the right, Mr. Dixon.
        
        You examine the whole story of Joseph Smith and you tell me how he could have done it better, — even if he were a con man — to con his mother and brother into believing in how he intended to save his family from such a dastardly fate. Please tell me what you would have done, Mr.Dixon.
        
        I am not asking that you tell me again it is okay to be a Mormon. I already know you think that. I am asking you to put yourself in this young man's shoes and tell me what you would do.
      - Esther
        
        Don't forget, Dawkins was raised In South Africa, so he likely has a rich heritage of voo doo mixed in there.
    - millergroup2
      
      This "Book of Mormon" is the "Mythical Story Book" that Jeff refers to so many, many times.
      - Esther
        
        It can be perceived that way, definitely. And since Jeff is an atheist, that is a complement. We have an article of faith in our religion. It says
        
        We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.
        
        I believe Jeff is being honest. We hope all things.
      - millergroup2
        
        Elementary then…..seek ye the truth. Simple
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Seeking the truth is a wonderful thing. But religion will never offer you truth.
      - Esther
        
        That is why you are here, is it not, to help in making those discoveries? Where would we be without your occasional dose of honesty?
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        All religious texts are mythical story books. The bible is no different.
      - Esther
        
        How humans do love their myths, and who is there, or who would endeavour to take them away, unless of course they pose a danger in some way?
      - Esther
        
        So are atheist texts mythical story books.
      - Esther
        
        I wonder where the Miller's fit in here:
        "Ronald Reagan often called religion the world's mightiest force for good, "the bedrock of moral order." George Bush said it gives people "the character they need to get through life." This view is held by millions. But the truism isn't true. The record of human experience shows that where religion is strong, it causes cruelty. Intense beliefs produce intense hostility. Only when faith loses its force can a society hope to become humane.
        The history of religion is a horror story. If anyone doubts it, just review this chronicle of religion's gore during the last 1,000 years or so:
        – The First Crusade was launched in 1095 with the battle cry "Deus Vult" (God wills it), a mandate to destroy infidels in the Holy Land. Gathering crusaders in Germany first fell upon "the infidel among us," Jews in the Rhine valley, thousands of whom were dragged from their homes or hiding places and hacked to death or burned alive. Then the religious legions plundered their way 2,000 miles to Jerusalem, where they killed virtually every inhabitant, "purifying" the symbolic city. Cleric Raymond of Aguilers wrote: "In the temple of Solomon, one rode in blood up to the knees and even to the horses' bridles, by the just and marvelous judgment of God." end quote read more at: http://www.skeptically.org/enlightenment/id7.html
Evermyrtle

Going halfway to GOD will not work. If we think we can bring someone else to CHRIST WE must bring the entire WORD to them. HIS WORD tells us what will happen to us if we take away from HIS WORD as well as what will happen, if we add anything to it. IT is perfect and always in vogue with HIS people.
Vladimir

Mex Seiko, do you really think encouraging people to follow the Bible is abusing it? James 1:5 states that we can go to God and receive wisdom. I have encouraged people to do just that. How is that abusing James 1:5? You need to rethink your accusation and rethink your stubborn refusal to follow James' advice.
Mex Seiko

Another view of Jesus' similarities with pagan cults and mythological characters.

http://www.thedevineevidence.com/jesus_similarities.html
Mex Seiko

PAGAN SIMILARITIES WITH CHRIST

If you search the web for similarities between Jesus and pagan deities, you will be met with countless results presenting the same erroneous material which provide no original religious sources to validate their claims. However, if you search the religious texts of the figures in question you will be presented with straightforward information that reveals the claim that the story of Jesus was stolen from pagan myths to be utterly false. For the reader's convenience, I supply links throughout this discussion to the original religious texts so you can see for yourself that the "Pagan Copycat Theory" has been completely fabricated.Skeptic Interjection: But these figures existed before the alleged life of Jesus. Chronology alone makes this entire discussion pointless.

Answer: An important fact to keep in mind while reading this section is the approximate 300 detailed Messianic prophecies regarding the life, death, and ministry of Jesus in the Old Testament. The prophecies span approximately 450 to 1,500 years before His birth. The accusation of Christians plagiarizing the accounts of other figures in the first century ignores the fact that concepts such as the virgin birth, the resurrection, and a Father-Son, relationship precede most figures in this article.Also, many of the religious texts containing the figures and the alleged similarities claimed by critics postdate the completion of the Christian Bible. Most religious texts concerning these figures were added to over the centuries, with aspects of their lives becoming more spectacular and suspiciously similar to Christianity. An important difference between Jesus and the other figures in this article is the existence of verifiable facts surrounding Jesus' life: we know the approximate year of His birth and death, numerous records exist which verify His existence, accurate historical events that occurred around His lifetime are mentioned in the Christian texts, and we can trace the origins of the Judeo-Christian beliefs. Most other figures in question have no documented point of origin and mention no dates or approximate dates as to when the alleged events occurred.Regardless, since we will show the copycat claims to be false, the argument of who came first shows itself to be irrelevant.Skeptic Interjection: How does the mention of historical events prove the accuracy of the Bible? Many authors of fiction incorporate real people or places into their works to give the plot a feeling of reality. How is the Bible different?

Answer: Historical accuracy alone is not proof of the Bible's inerrancy but it does attest to it's reliability. If the Bible only mentioned spurious locations and people like many of the pagan texts do, it would certainly detract from it's authenticity.