Scott Esk: Stoning Gays OK

There are idiots of every religious persuasion and idiots of no religious persuasion at all. That said, Scott Esk inadvertently provided reason #345,934 why I don't think Biblical literalists make much sense.



Republican candidate says ok to stone gays to death

Jesus Christ .

Sounds pretty rational

That reminds me of the old joke. Jesus comes across a crowd of people about to stone an adulteress to death. He orders the crowd to stop and reminds them, "Whoever among you is without sin may cast the first stone!" A little old lady limps forward, picks up a giant rock, throws it at the adulteress and instantly kills her.

Shaking his head, Jesus says, "Aw, Mom!"

Maybe I'm reading too much into what is just a joke but is it a Catholic belief that Mary was sinless?

Anyway, gays should't be stoned. But their lifestyle shouldn't be condoned, celebrated, or enshrined in law either.

The Catholic Church teaches that The Virgin Mary was indeed without sin. It is a fairly bizarre dogma which goes something like this:

Adam and Eve were created without sin on their souls. Because of their disobedience to God (letting a talking serpent tempt them into eating a piece of fruit from a magic tree),they committed what is known as the Original Sin.

The result of this is that even if a person managed to live their entire life without sinning,they would still have the stain of Original Sin on their souls,since it was passed down from Adam and Eve. Therefore,no one could be entirely sin-free.

And then along came Mary.(apologies to the Association).

As the story goes,when God decided to have a kid,there were several criteria that the surrogate mother had to meet.
One of these was that she be a virgin,and the other was that her soul did not have the stain of Original Sin on it.

The solution to the Original Sin thing was another bit of cosmic smoke and mirrors called the Immaculate Conception.
Contrary to popular belief,this did not refer to Mary conceiving Jesus without having had sex.
What is taught by the Church is that when Mary's mother conceived her,God removed the Original Sin from her soul,therefore it was MARY who was conceived immaculately,allowing her to be the only human in history who lived her whole life totally sin-free.

A few centuries later the Church had to do a little tap dance on the Mary saga,after someone pointed out that since "the wages of sin is death",(according to the Bible),Mary couldn't die,because she never sinned. If she couldn't die,then why wasn't she seen around town,(going to weddings,doing her shopping) for the next thousand years or so?
The solution to this little dilemma was, even by Church standards, a real piece of work.

Bada Bing,Bada Boom,the Church comes up with another gem called The Assumption of Mary.
According to this theory,Mary was bodily assumed up into Heaven
while still alive. One minute,she is hanging out with her lady friends,maybe having some figs,or getting her nails done,and next thing ya know,she starts floating up and up,eventually reaching the Pearly Gates. By the way,this is the actual depiction in Church literature,she literally is shown in old artwork as ascending in the air.

So,for what it's worth,that's the way the story goes.

Well, Mary being with or without sin aside, I think it's just a joke about overbearing mothers and the generation gap that has always existed between parents and children.

In the church I grew up in which is the Presbyterian church, and other Protestant churches I have been to all have said how Mary had other children besides Jesus.

I know in the Roman Catholic church they say that Mary only had Jesus and he was born from her body, not via a C-section but she still remained a virgin for the rest of her life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_virginity_of_Mary

A friend of mine who is no longer Roman Catholic and has not been for decades told me how he was in a class with a priest when he was younger. He asked the priest something akin to what you posted about how Mary was always a virgin despite giving birth to Jesus and other children, and always free from sin despite being human and the whole original sin. The priest got angry and told him to leave.

When I was in confirmation classes at my Protestant church they were OK with us asking all sorts of questions. If they did not know the answer they would just tell myself and other people that.

For example I remember asking what happened to the 30 pieces of silver Judas was paid and our female pastor/minister at the time said she did not know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_pieces_of_silver

The Presbyterian church is OK with people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or trans-gendered and OK with them getting married in the church as same gender marriage is now legal here in my state and ones near it.

I grew up with people who are not heterosexual both adults and friends/peers my age so I am all for them getting equal rights like everyone else already has and has had for awhile.

Lilo,

Esk doesn't believe that anymore than most politicians believe some of the rhetoric that comes out of their mouths. He's pandering to a specific demographic...to get campaign contributions and raise his profile.

Watch this thread, and within a year he will be accused of a "sin" that was also punishable by death in the Old Testament. He will be forced to admit to the transgression and then have to explain why HIS sin should not lead to "death" but why homosexuality should.

He's a clown.

finally someone that doesnt read everything literally...christ its refreshing

That's pretty dang funny!

I always had heard the joke as after Jesus says, "Let him who is without sin...," he's hit in the head with a stone and says, "You know, mom, sometimes you really piss me off."

Anyway, to chime in on the related Catholic position on Mary's status, the Church teaches that because of the Immaculate Conception (which most Catholics erroneously believe refers to the Virgin birth), Mary was born without original sin and therefore was sinless and incapable of sin during her life. The Catholic Church teaches that Mary was also assumed into heaven, body and soul, though there has been uncertainty in the Church as to whether Mary actually physically died.

Most of us look at our mothers as sinless.

That would not surprise me..

Well, homosexual or not, as Bob Dylan once pointed out: "Everybody must get stoned."

I'll bet Bob saw a butt crack or two in his day. But hey, it was the '60s, man .

Haha I read a very old interview with Bob Dylan where he claimed he was a male prostitute in NYC when he first arrived.

This is the quote that I found for it.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/7-things-bob-dylan-did-that-are-worse-than-what-jo



No I don't believe it. But that's because at times Dylan hated the media and would get drunk or high and have fun with them.

A friend of mine I've known since highschool for more than a decade and I both like early Bob Dylan interviews since they're hilarious to read.

I think that this is a very good thing. But in the Presbyterian church I grew up in and am a member of they are completely supportive of people who are not heterosexual. Same gender marriage is now legal in my state so people will be getting married at my church.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/pres...ristian-n136256

Presbyterian Church Leaders Declare Gay Marriage Is Christian
DETROIT — The top legislative body of the Presbyterian Church in America voted by large margins Thursday to recognize same-sex marriage as Christian in the church constitution, adding language that marriage can be the union of "two people," not just "a man and a woman.

^^^^^^^^^

To each his own and I've met several respectable gay people as well. But I have heard of the wild (and sometimes even plain disgusting- even to respectable gay men) lifestyle a fair amount of them lead and while they shouldn't be stoned, it's not a lifestyle I would approve of.

I have gay and bisexual male friends, they told me how they don't like the gay men who are into purposely having unsafe sex, having sex with 100s or 1,000s of men and revolving their entire lives around nothing but having sex and having it with as many men as possible, and that men like this are gross and give everyone else that's not heterosexual a bad name.

This is a laughably ridiculous decision from a dead apostate church. And I don't apologize for saying it. I mean, not only does Christian scripture clearly show that gay marriage is not Christian, these people don't even make a pretense about how they came to this conclusion...they voted. Voted! Since when does God rule by the votes of man?

"...They draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof."

@ivy

what was the scriptural basis for Mormons believing that Blacks were demons/devils? and how was that Mormon doctrine reversed?

You don't have to reply. My overall point was that, even under the umbrella of Christianity or Protestantism...the beliefs, Biblical interpretations, and even the Holy books vary by denomination.

With some of the attacks on Mormons from mainstream Christian groups over the years, I figured that you'd be acutely aware of this.

I'm not sure about Mormonism, Gets. But most people who use the Bible as an excuse to hate dark skinned people usually refer to the "Mark of Cain" in Genesis.

Of course it all stems from a poor Biblical translation. But any excuse will do for some people, right?

Yeah, because being part of a pseudo-Christian cult like the Mormon church means you have an excuse to be a bigot and hate people for something they can't change like their sexuality or race. I don't apologize for saying it. All because the false prophet and egomaniac Joseph Smith made up the story of finding golden plates with made up revisionist history based on a fantasy novel, and made up an entirely false book to control people and propagate his BS, propagate racism against blacks for over a century and not let them become cult leaders, have group marriage, and control or make women even more subservient to men.

http://www.cultwatch.com/mormon.html

http://mormoncult.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spalding%E2%80%93Rigdon_theory_of_Book_of_Mormon_authorship

I'm not saying angels could not exist, only I think that the book of Mormon is a fraud.

The fact that Mormons claim Jesus the Christ as part of their religion does not make them Christian.

If that were the case, then Muslims are Christians.

Thanks, pizza.

Ivy knows what I'm getting at though. An interpretation of a passage is one thing. Explicitly saying that Blacks are demons/devils as part of the doctrine/belief system is something else.

My cousins told me that Protestant missionaries used to go to Haiti and teach the mark of Cain nonsense to a country FULL of Black people, and have the Barry Gibb looking image of JC in tow. The entire full court press of propaganda.

Slowly they came, step by step, closer and closer:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An Episcopal chaplain on Sunday became the first openly transgender priest to preach at the historic National Cathedral in Washington D.C.

The Reverend Dr. Cameron Partridge, one of seven openly transgender clergy in the Episcopal Church, spoke from the Canterbury Pulpit in honor of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community's Pride Month, the Cathedral said.

http://news.msn.com/us/transgender-priest-preaches-at-washingtons-national-cathedral

This is a good thing.

I have no issues having a religious leader who transitioned genders, or who is in the process of doing so.

Your attempt at diversion is rather apparent but I'm happy to answer anyway.

It's never been Mormon doctrine that blacks are demons or devils. They've always been seen as God's children. What you're likely referring to is black males not being able to hold the Priesthood until 1978. That's when the prophet of the Church at the time - President Spencer W. Kimball - received a revelation that allowed all worthy male Church members to hold it. I point that out because it obviously doesn't jive with the claim by enemies of the Church that it somehow caved to social pressure. If that was the case, it likely wouldn't have held out so long.

As for the ban itself, and the reasons for it, there is scriptural basis. It has it's origins in the mark and curse set upon Cain but those few verses in Genesis don't explain things very well. Of more clarity is a passage found in the Book of Abraham (Pearl of Great Price) chapter 1 verses 21-27.
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/abr/1?lang=eng

You can also read a recent statement by the Church on the issue below.
https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood


In sum, I would tell you or anyone else what I would tell people while I was on my mission in Atlanta. If they had a problem with the Priesthood ban, I would ask them "Do you believe the LDS Church is God's Church and has the Priesthood to begin with?" If they said "yes," I would say that should be good enough for them and to trust in God's will and time table. If they said "no," my reply would be that by their own admission the Church doesn't have the Priesthood and so has kept nothing from anyone. It's sort of like the Jews who get uppity about Church members doing baptisms for the dead for their relatives. If they don't believe in the LDS Church, then our baptisms for the dead have no effect whatsoever. So they really have no reason to protest. And yet they do. What are they afraid of?

Typical, tired, anti-Mormon talking points. Not even original.

First, Mormons don't "hate" gays. They just believe in scripture, unlike these churches who are throwing scripture out in favor of the social whims of the day.

Second, I'd be willing to bet that, like most detractors of the Book of Mormon, you've never even read it. You think you already have it all figured out and lack the humility it requires to come to a true knowledge about it's origins. You're content to have others tell you what you want to hear about it. People have been coming up with one theory after another for how it came about for years and none of them have held water. Not one has adequately explained how Joseph Smith, as uneducated as he was, could "write" such a book in so short a time. Christians who reject further light and knowledge in the form of the Book of Mormon are not unlike the Jews who reject further light and knowledge in the form of the New Testament. They accept only so much of God's revelation and go no further.

Third, women are not "subservient" in the Church. Men and women are considered equal partners. In fact, they absolutely need each other to qualify for exaltation. As Jesus said, "Neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man, in the Lord." Which is a fundamental reason why homosexual behavior is a sin and has no future in the eternities.

Fourth, as I explained partially above, the Church never "propagated racism" against blacks. You'd know that if you had done any in depth research of our history or scripture. But we both know you haven't. You're content to Google some anti-Mormon links or regurgitate what you've heard. The fact that you were so quick to use the word "cult" demonstrates as much. The LDS Church does not fit the definition of such a label. And, in any event, let's not forget that Jesus and His early followers could have been called that as well.

Finally, we believe in Christ. His name is the name of our Church. Every bit of LDS doctrine revolves around Christ. What makes us different is, we aren't 2nd century Christians. We don't subscribe to what Christianity became shortly after the Apostles were killed off and the Church went into apostasy. Nor do we subscribe to the reformist idea that anyone could just start a new Church without the requisite Priesthood authority. The Church and Priesthood had to be restored from above. Within Christiandom, the argument is between Mormons and Catholics. Either the the Church continued down from the Apostles or there was an apostasy and it needed to be restored. The reformist Protestant churches don't have a leg to stand on.

Anyway, don't get mad and lash out at me because I called this recent decision by the Presbyterians for what it is. You can't defend it. Not while staying true to scripture anyway.

Don't waste your time responding. This troll is cornuto in disguise and his sole purpose was to stir up the shit. He's gone now.

@Ivy,

Wasn't meant to deflect from the subject. Just to point out obvious contradictions between your stance and points on this topic with the history of your chosen faith.


You are the one deflecting a bit as the ban on priesthood wasn't random and had to be based on things along the lines of what I alluded to(blacks and the devil).


I've read you make comments about LCN, and I've watched people correcting you time and time again. You know even less about Black people than you do about the LCN yet I've read comments you've made about what Blacks should be doing,etc,etc,
You're an "expert" on so many other things that I thought you could be candid and speak with authority about your chosen faith.


You made a statement earlier about how the word of God shouldn't be affected by the votes of man...yet glancing the second link,,,,about offical mormon position on race....I'm reading a lot of "at the time society all felt this way""the prevailing notions of race at the time were". Sounds like a cop out, since theologians throughout europe and in early history of this country challenged the "prevailing notions" about race and slavery.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/utah-ga...age-ban-n140656

This is significant. Until now, federal district judges have struck down gay marriage bans. Now a circuit court has done so. This increases the chances that the Supreme Court will grant certiorari and hear oral arguments.

Of course it was meant as a deflection. And there are no contradictions between my stance on this topic and the history of my faith. Show me some, pal. I'm far more familiar with LDS doctrine than you are. I think I would know. You're just going off old lies that have been told about us for years. Put up or shut up.



You're allusion has no basis in fact. You're talking out of your ass. There is nothing in LDS doctrine that says blacks are demons or whatever else you're claiming. As the scriptures say, "God is no respecter of persons." I explained the actual LDS doctrine to you and you just don't want to hear it. You want to hold onto your false belief about us for one reason or another. Again, put up or shut up.



Who has corrected me about the LCN? Internet posters masquerading as street guys online? Who? Name them. Again, put up or shut up. And I've said nothing about blacks, per se. Simply why the Priesthood was denied them at one time.



Did you read the whole thing or just cherry pick certain parts? And did you read the first link I posted? If you were familiar with the scriptures at all, and I don't think you are, you would know that the Lord only allowed the Priesthood to a small segment of men in ancient Israel. Was that wrong? No. It's the Lord's Priesthood and He gives it to who He will. You obviously don't believe the LDS Church has the Priesthood and so, by your own thinking, we were never able to deny blacks the Priesthood since we never had it to begin with. So you have no cause for complaint.

You're simply angry at what you think I've said or believe about blacks and so you're trying to take your shot back at me. And that's fine but at least come with something true. Not bullcrap about LDS history that doesn't exist or your own revisionist history about people "correcting" me about the LCN.

Ivy,

After I do the forum searches and find instances of you being corrected about LCN posts you've made.....what happens then?


After I post the quotes from Mormon leaders explicitly making "devil/Blacks" comments (and strongly influencing what Mormon doctrine was and is)...then what happens?
Do you still split hairs and say that none of this was ever "Mormon doctrine"? Remember you already detailed a revelation to the Mormon leader CHANGING Mormon doctrine...so good luck trying to separate the quotes from past leaders and their influence on past Mormon doctrine.

I'd concede your point. But we both know you won't find that many examples, if any, because you're pulling this stuff out of your ass. If you really had such examples already in mind, you would have posted them. But you don't.



Same as above.



What quotes? You have none. You're taking something you've heard, or are assuming, and passing it off as fact. It's never been the accepted doctrine of the Church that blacks are devils, demons, or whatever else you want to make up. The Priesthood issue was something entirely different. When I said, "Put up or shut up," I meant post something to back up your claims. You still have not done that because you've got nothing. At best you've got isolated statements made by individual leaders in the past who you or others have misinterpreted or misrepresented.

This thread was about gays in the context of religion. Like I said before, you simply interjected this whole "Mormons believe blacks are demons" stuff as a diversionary tactic. You're butt -hurt about God knows what and you're trying to get your licks in now.

Really not even a poor translation since the Bible never says anything about the color of Ham's or Canaan's skin. Somehow because of the similarities of the words in Hebrew, some ancient rabbis connected Ham with "dark." Then Muslims associated the curse with black slavery (Muslims started the African slave trade in Sub-Saharan Africa in the 700s). In more modern times Southern slave owners used the same faulty reasoning to justify slavery and twisting Scripture to back it up.

As for Mormonism and the belief that blacks were demons or devils, I didn't see any of that either. Like Ivy said, that had to do with the so-called Mark of Cain. In the Bible the Mark of Cain has nothing to do with race or color, and his descendants would have been wiped out in the Great Flood. Historically, the same Muslims who justified their black slavery on the Curse of Canaan merged it with the Mark of Cain, so that the two curses merged into one. I don't know if there's been changes in teaching, but from Bruce McConkie's book "Mormon Doctrine," it says that Ham married Egyptus, a descendant of Cain, whose line somehow avoided the flood.

(I used to have an extensive library of Mormon books when I wrote and researched comparative religions a long time ago, but since had to get rid of a lot books due to lack of room; I still have some left though.)

The denial of blacks to the Mormon priesthood was also connected to a belief that they were "less valiant" in the pre-existence (the time before creation).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_Ham

The doctrine of pre-existence is interesting in itself. Joseph Smith taught that "God is an exalted man" and that human spirits are eternal -- not created by God, but have always existed, just like God (except for him being a man). There was (is?) a Council of Gods with a Head God, that met before creating human beings. This can be found here at the LDS website: https://www.lds.org/ensign/1971/04/the-king-follett-sermon?lang=eng

Some of this can be found in the online version of Bruce McConkie's "Mormon Doctrine" here: https://archive.org/details/MormonDoctrine (this says it's the 1966 edition, but it's really newer than that since it talks about changes that occurred in 1978, so some of the harsher language was removed from this updated version). Type in the word "negro" or "negroes" in the search box. The 1851 edition of "Pearl of Great Price" is here: https://archive.org/details/PearlOfGreatPrice1851. You can search the word "black" and find out Joseph Smith's views. I'm sure other original documents are available on Google Books or archive.org. So historical Mormon teachings didn't teach that blacks were demons, but they had plenty of other racist teachings nonetheless.

That's very interesting, AL. Do you have a background in all religions, or are you a Mormon with a strong interest in your own faith?

Either way, between the religion and the old OC stuff, I don't know where you find the time to sleep .

Great post Faithful . I can't say i'm particularly religious even though i was brought up as a Catholic, don't tell any of my Irish family members . I did find that incredibly interesting though, thanks for the links also.

I'm partial to Mormonism because it has an Italian Angel - Moroni.

I'm a Christian and was going to do some writing on Mormonism, but got sidetracked LOL. I did write something on Islam and the Nation of Islam back in 1995.

Also did some research into the Curse of Canaan a while back with a researcher from the Simon Wiesenthal Center.

It's important to remember the distinction between the "mark" put on Cain and the "curse" put on Cain. The curse was that Cain was cut off from God, the earth would not yield to him when he tilled it, and he would be a fugitive and a vagabond. The mark was indeed a skin of blackness. It was put on him and his descendants by the Lord so that the descendants of Adam and Eve's righteous children would not marry the descendants of Cain. It wasn't a separation based on skin color, per se, but on those who were living righteously and those who were not. Skin color was simply to enforce the distinction. For those who take the time to read and understand all this, it's not offensive at all. But in our politically correct-driven times, where people have such a knee-jerk reaction to anything about race, few seem to be able to do this.



That's correct. The mark and curse of Cain was perpetuated through Ham's wife. Ham, of course, was one of Noah's sons. Both of them were among the 8 people who survived the flood by going into the ark.



While the concept of blacks being less valiant in pre-mortality being a possible reason for them not having the Priesthood was mentioned now and again by a few individual leaders of the Church prior to 1978, it was never an officially accepted doctrine by the Church as a whole. It's important to make that distinction. And more recently, if one reads the Church's most recent press release on the subject, that belief is not accepted by the Church.



That's mostly true. One of the most amazing things Joseph Smith brought to the world was a correct idea of the character of God which he received through direct revelation and not man-made philosophy and conjecture. Joseph once said, "Could you gaze into heaven five minutes, you would know more than you would by reading all that ever was written on the subject." Through a sermon at the funeral of a member who had recently died was one of the times Joseph revealed that God was not some formless, invisible entity "without body, parts, or passions" but actually an exalted, glorified man with a body of flesh and bone as tangible as man's. Joseph revealed that God the Father and the Son (Jesus Christ) were two separate, distinct beings and the Son also had a glorified body of flesh and bone like the Father; and, in fact, exactly resembled the Father in every feature. The third member of the Godhead, the Holy Spirit, was also distinct from the other two but was a personage of spirit and had not yet taken on a physical body through mortality. Joseph taught that, as we are now, God once was. Namely that he lived life on an earth like we do now (and like His Son did), and went through mortality before entering into His exaltation. Therefore, God Himself has a God and so on. This, of course, meant that as God now is, we can become. In other words, God and man are all of the same race. The difference is of degree, not of kind.

We have always existed in eternity. First as intelligences. From there God created our spirits, so He is literally the Father of our spirits. Jesus (known as Jehovah in pre-mortality) was the firstborn of these spirits. So, yes, there are "Gods many, and Lords many" as it says in the New Testament. But, as Joseph pointed out, we are only beholden to our God. The "council" you mentioned was when God the Father gathered His children and presented to them a plan or way that they could become like Him. This involved them entering mortality, living on an earth, dying, and being resurrected just like He had been. Involved in this plan was also a Savior being chosen to redeem mankind from sin. This is where the war in heaven resulted, as Lucifer (Satan) had a very different idea from the Father and the Son about what the plan would entail. After Lucifer and his followers were cast out, Jehovah, Michael (Adam), and others created this earth under the direction of the Father. I know this is deep doctrine for many.



I'm familiar with all of these and, like I said above, if one understands the doctrine (and much of it is deep doctrine), there is nothing "racist" about it. But we're dealing with "meat" here, and many can barely take in "milk" when it comes to spiritual things.

It seems those who are so quick to try and paint Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Brunce McConkie, or other LDS leaders as racists - by cherrypicking and misprepresenting certain scriptures or statements - choose to overlook other LDS scripture that talks about how God is "no respecter" of persons. That all, "male and female, black and white, bond and free" can be partakers of eternal life. It is only the righteous that are "favored" of God.

There is a chapter in the Book of Mormon (Jacob 3) where the prophet Jacob chastises his people for thinking they are better than their brethren because they (the Nephites) have white skin and their brethren (the Lamanites) have dark skin. Jacob points out that the Lamanites at that time were more acceptable to God because they were living more righteously than the Nephites.

Ivy, I'll respond point by point instead of using the quote boxes, because after a certain point the boxes get confusing.

1. Mark of Cain. Ancient (pre-Talmudic) Judaism did not teach exactly what the Mark of Cain was, so what is the specific source for this claim, that the Mark was black skin? If this is a teaching that goes back to the early church and skips over the "apostate" church era, shouldn't it have existed in ancient Judaism?

Moreover, it's not knee-jerk political correctness if it is something that really is wrong. If it didn't exist in the Tanakh but really was an idea created by Joseph Smith and his followers in the zeitgeist of early American racism, then why would it not be wrong to condemn it? It clearly associates skin color with evil, and that is racism at its core.

2. "Less valiant." If this was a teaching held by most, if not all, of Mormonisms early leaders -- particularly its founders -- how can it be said that it was not AT THAT TIME accepted by the LDS Church? In other words, how was this not officially accepted doctrine pre-1978?

3. Pre-existence/polytheism. Mormons have a right to believe in those polytheistic doctrines, but in doing so how is it proper for modern Mormons to call themselves Christian when Christianity is and always has been monotheistic? Why not just state that Mormonism is a different religion?

4. Early LDS leaders and racist statements. It's not cherry-picking. It would be cherry-picking if I was selectively picking out statements favorable to my position. Yet I encouraged the reader to do his or her own searches to see that the statements are fairly uniform. I also do not have a side in this debate nor any personal desire to assert that early Mormon leaders were racist or were not racist. It's simply a fact that most white Americans pre-1860 had a range of anti-black prejudice. Early Mormon leaders shared that worldview. My ancestors who lived during that time period probably had those same racist beliefs. I'm just stating facts.
The example you gave from Jacob 3 is fine as an example of a verse that could be seen as antiracist, but that does nothing to change the existence of the many statements made by early leaders and in other verses. I know you believe that Smith and Young were prophets, but even prophets make mistakes and at times believe things they shouldn't. Moses was a prophet yet he was condemned when he did things he shouldn't have. King David was a prophet...same thing. So why not just say, "Yes, some Smith and Young said some things that were racist and they were wrong and shouldn't have said them. When they did right I praise them and when they did wrong I condemn them"?

First, to say it was an idea "created by Joseph Smith" insinuates he simply made it up. And, of course, I don't believe he made anything up. Even if one chooses to ignore LDS doctrine and scripture, they can read books like The Curse of Ham: Race and Slavery in Early Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, by David M. Goldenberg, which talks about how this belief went back to the early 1700's if not before. And that, obviously, was before Joseph Smith was even born.

Second, the whole point of the Restoration of the Gospel (brought about by the Lord through Joseph Smith) was to restore things lost previously. So, to argue that Ancient Judaism did not teach exactly what the mark of Cain was is to miss the point entirely. I should point out that, even though something is not accepted by the Church as official doctrine, that doesn't necessarily mean it isn't true. Just that it may choose to not emphasize it as one of it's central docrines. Black skin being the mark of Cain is a good example. From simply reading the Church's most recent press release, called "Race and the Priesthood," it seems to not expressly put forth this belief. However, we know from the statements of LDS leaders that this was the understanding. And one can find support for this in both the writings of Abraham (found in the Pearl of Great Price) and in the Book of Mormon.

Third, you only see this as wrong because you're looking at it through the modern-day lens of political correctness where anything about race is a highly charged topic. To say that LDS scripture or belief "associates skin color with evil" is overly simplistic. As I mentioned before, skin color was the way God chose to keep Adam and Eve's righteous descendants from intermarrying with the apostate descendants of Cain. The exact same thing occurred in the Book of Mormon to keep the righteous descendants of Nephi from intermarrying with the apostate descendants of Laman and Lemuel. But that doesn't mean that those with dark skin, who were righteous, weren't accepted by God. There are many examples in the Book of Mormon of righteous Lamanites. As I pointed out before, you can't look at only certain scriptures in isolation in order to reach a preconceived conclusion about racism in LDS theology. You have to take it as a whole, and that includes scriptures about taking the Gospel to "every nation, kindred, tongue, and people" and "all men are privileged the one like unto the other, and none are forbidden." And incidentally, many down through the years misusing Biblical interpretation as an excuse for racism, slavery, etc. doesn't change the valid history and reasons for the Lord doing what He did.



I don't think it ever was the official position of the Church or that it was necessarily held by most or all early Church leaders. In fact, that belief didn't become well known until the turn of the century. By that time, the Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith wrote in 1907 that the belief was "quite general" among Mormons that "the Negro race has been cursed for taking a neutral position in that great contest." "Yet this belief," he said, "is not the official position of the Church, and is merely the opinion of men." Even before that, Brigham Young taught there were "No neutral spirits in heaven at the time of the rebellion. All took sides."



That's just it, Christianity has not "always been monotheistic." The monotheism we see in modern-day mainstream Christianity, whether Catholic or Protestant, is the result of pure Christian doctrine being mingled with Greek and other pagan philosophy.

One can look through the New Testament alone and see example after example of God the Father and Jesus the Son of God being two, separate, distinct, Beings. The individual scriptural passages are two numerous to list. And that, alone, shows there are more than one God. Unfortunately, many Christians are blind to the plain and obvious meaning of these passages because they are reading it through the lens of belief that did not come about until long after the New Testament period. Indeed, the Trinitarian concept of God was the result of a long process of development (through various councils) and was not complete until the 5th century. Even Catholic scholars, such as found in the New Catholic Encyclopedia, admit that among the Apostolic Fathers there had been nothing even remotely approaching the idea of one God in three Persons.

Now what about the monotheistic belief of Judaism? First, we should not forget that modern Judaism itself is essentially apostate Christianity. It simply ends with the Old Testament while modern day Christianity went a bit further. But both had the same true origins, albeit in different dispensations.

Joseph Smith talked about how the ancient Hebrew text found in Genesis, before it was corrupted, said "In the beginning the heads of the Gods organized the heavens and the earth." He continued, "If we pursue the Hebrew text further, it reads, 'Berosheit baurau Eloheim ait aashamayeen vehau auraits' — "The head one of the Gods said. Let us make a man in our own image." I once asked a learned Jew, "If the Hebrew language compels us to render all words ending in heim in the plural, why not render the first Eloheim plural?" He replied, "That is the rule with few exceptions; but in this case it would ruin the Bible." He acknowledged I was right."

We Mormons readily admit to being Christians but different. We're not 2nd and 3rd century Christians, as mainstream Christianity is today, where much of their doctrine is built on non-Biblical creeds brought about by uninspired councils long after the New Testament era. In the First Vision, the resurrected Savior told Joseph Smith that "All their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: 'they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.'"



I actually agree with some of this. If you read the "Race and the Priesthood" statement by the Church, it immediately goes into how the Church was established during a time of great racial division where many of African descent lived under slavery and prejudice. It further says that, for many white Americans, prejudice was not just common but customary. And it influenced all aspects of people's lives, including their religion. Many Christian churches were segregated along racial lines. However, from the beginnings of the LDS Church, people of every race and ethnicity could be baptized and received as members. The main sticking point, for many, was the Priesthood ban but we've been over that.

Now, when you say "many statements by early Church leaders" that were racist, I'm certainly now aware of "many" statements made by "many" leaders. In fact, pretty much all the specific statements that have led to accusations of racism against the Church (and various anti-Mormon groups just LOVE to cite them) come from one source - the Journal of Discourses that contains various speeches and sermons attributed to Brigham Young. Though certainly a relatively small part of the entire volume, there are several statements in there that could be taken as racist. The doctrine on eternal matters not being racist but what appears to be his views on a more temporal, societal level. And that's where I agree with you that even prophets are not perfect. Although God's mouthpiece, a prophet is still a man and still mortal. As Joseph Smith said, "A prophet is only a prophet when acting as such." He also said, "If the people expect perfection from me, I shall expect it from them." That said, however, it's dangerous to quickly question a prophet. They're prophets for a reason. And I've never been one to find fault with the Lord's anointed. Nor do I take some statements made by a single prophet and attribute it to the entire Church and it's officially accepted doctrine, or even to that prophet himself as if it was all he ever said or did.

To paraphrase Michael Corleone, just watch Ancient Aliens on History Channel 2 and what you see and hear will solve all your problems and answer all your questions.

Good show.

I'll restate what I meant about "Moreover, it's not knee-jerk political correctness if it is something that really is wrong. If it didn't exist in the Tanakh but really was an idea created by Joseph Smith and his followers in the zeitgeist of early American racism, then why would it not be wrong to condemn it? It clearly associates skin color with evil, and that is racism at its core." First, it was a hypothetical question, and second, he may have invented it insofar as it was religious doctrine. Where it previously existed it was simply the aberrant belief of certain individuals as opposed to a belief held as part of a religion. So if in fact Smith make it part of a religious scheme, then it is likely that it came out of that zeitgeist. You yourself have said previously that you believe in moral absolutes, so that if something is REALLY wrong (that is, objectively wrong), then it is ALWAYS wrong. For example, most people would agree that raping a baby is always wrong. It is wrong all the time and everywhere. Is it not also wrong to say "It is true that person X is less than person Y for the only reason that X has darker skin color than Y"?

Moreover, when I asked for the source, while you say the belief existed in some form for about a century before Smith, insofar as LDS doctrines are concerned it came from an alleged divine revelation to Smith? Therefore it really has no human antecedents other than Smith, even if some people believed it a hundred years before him. It's certainly not found in the Bible, for instance. So IF Smith did not receive divine revelation for the claim that the Mark of Cain was black skin, then would it not be a clear example of racism?

The LDS claim of restoration assumes that something was lost in the first place. Contrary to your assertions, the early church taught the same essential doctrinal beliefs as found in the New Testament. That mistranslation of Joseph Smith, "the head of the gods" is laughable. Ask any Hebrew scholar if that's found in any Tanakh. It's not there. You can look at the Masoretic texts that are used for Old Testament sourcing as well as the Greek Septuagint. The Shema, "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One" ("Adonai Eleheinu, Adonai Echad") has always been understood by Jews to mean that God is the ONLY ONE GOD.
That's why Judaism is and has always been monotheistic. And Jews and Christians are fully aware that Elohim is plural, that doesn't mean it gets translated as "head of the gods." As for a Jew saying "it would ruin the Bible." Yeah, right. Too bad Smith didn't provide us with the name of his Jew so that we could investigate his claim.

As for modern Judaism being apostate Christianity, I didn't write anything about modern Judaism. I wrote about ancient Judaism, so that's just a red herring.

Christianity is and always has been monotheistic, contrary to that bogus assertion that Emperor Constantine changed things at the Council of Nicea. Early church fathers like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria also taught monotheism years before the Council of Nicea. Early Christianity was not a mix of Christianity with paganism. If it was, then it would have been polytheistic like Mormonism. Look at the ancient religions of Greece, Rome, Scandinavia and India and you will see that they were/are all polytheistic. So if anything, Mormonism is far closer to paganism than Christianity is. That's the primary reason that Christian denominations reject Mormonism, because it is polytheistic. Anyway, that bogus charge has been disproven by scholars like J. Gresham Machen, Ronald H. Nash and others. It's the same sort of pseudoscholarly claim made by people like Dan Brown. The same garbage pops up every few years despite the fact that the scholarship that disproves it gets better and better with time. At any rate, since Smith so quickly condemned all Christian churches as corrupt and an abomination, Mormons shouldn't complain when members of those churches call him a false prophet and LDS a false religion. As they say, "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" and "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones." That was a pretty good size rock Smith threw at every church then in existence, so of course there will be anti-LDS sites and organizations. The question is: Are they accurate or not, not just poisoning the well by saying, "Well, those are claims made by anti-Mormon groups, so we can dismiss them." That reminds me how the late Johnnie Cochran dismissed Ken Starr by saying, "Oh, he's just a tobacco lawyer." The host didn't challenge the statement at all. He could have said, "Yes, Starr is a tobacco lawyer and a highly respected Constitutional lawyer, and you're a double-murderer defending race-baiting lawyer. Now that we got that out of the way, was Ken Starr correct or not?"

Finally, as for citing the Journal of Discourses, if you go back to what I wrote I plainly did NOT cite it. I used McConkie and Smith, so that was another red herring. You say it's wrong to "quickly question a prophet." What about slow, careful deliberative questioning of a prophet? Like in the examples I gave, even the Old Testament writers condemned prophets when they veered off the path.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that Smith got his views from anyone else. But they didn't "originate" with him either. You keep saying this or that "is not found in the Bible or Tanakh." And that's where you keep missing the point. The LDS contention is a whole host of things are not found in our modern day Bible. Many "plan and precious" truths related to the Gospel were lost or corrupted down through the centuries. As Joseph said, "I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, and designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors."

He received a commission from the Lord to undergo an inspired translation of the Bible. He was killed before the work could be completed but he was able to bring about many things previously lost, including the writings of Moses no longer found in Genesis. In another undertaking, he was able to translate the writings of Abraham. From these we see that, indeed, the mark of Cain was a skin of blackness.

Now you may choose not to believe this but, as I said, to keep arguing that it isn't found in the Bible or some ancient texts (typically found in various incomplete scraps) today is to miss the point entirely.



When you say "the early church," what do you mean? Because the LDS contention is that the apostasy of the Church was well under way even before the Apostles were all killed off (except for John of course). And there are many differences between the belief of the early Christians and what Christian dogma would later become. Not only the nature of the Godhead, but also such things as the nature of Lucifer, premortal life, the creation, how salvation comes about, continuous revelation, the three degrees of glory, man's divine nature and ability to become gods, etc.



Who shall I ask? More to the point, who should I believe? A prophet of God who had the inspiration of the Holy Ghost or Hebrew scholars who, despite their study of scripture, don't even know who their Messiah is?



Would that have made any difference to you? The names and testimonies of 11 other men who saw the gold plates were given and many are not convinced.



It's simplistic to say "ancient Judaism," as ancient Israel went through various cycles of apostasy and restoration.



I posted this because, in addition to being quicker, explains it better than I could:

Detailed Analysis

Almost invariably when someone claims Mormons are polytheists, they are not seeking a clear explanation of Mormon thought on the nature of God, but are simply using a word with negative connotations in our religious culture as a club to intimidate or confuse others. Consider, for example, a conversation that Evangelical Christian author Richard Abanes, in his book Becoming Gods (pp. 107-8), claims to have had with a LDS bishop:

Abanes: "Don't you believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost?"
Bishop: "We certainly do, and they are one God."
Abanes: "Don't you believe the Father is a god?"
Bishop: "Yes, of course."
Abanes: "And the Son is a god?"
Bishop: "Yes"
Abanes: "And the Holy Ghost is a god."
Bishop: "Yes"
Abanes: "That's three gods."
Bishop: "No, they're one God."

The author goes on to describe that he felt he had entered some sort of Twilight Zone scenario, and goes on to declare all Mormons "polytheists." Yet, any Latter-day Saint, upon reading the conversation outlined above, would recognize the creation of a simplified version, or "strawman," of LDS belief. One might also seriously consider how an Evangelical Christian would answer these same questions. The reality is certainly more complex than the "strawman" above would lead us to believe.

There really is not a single word that adequately captures LDS thought on the nature of God. Pertinent key technical terminology includes the following:

Monotheism (belief that there is only one God)
Tritheism (understanding the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as distinct Gods)
Polytheism (worship of, or belief in, more than one God)
Henotheism (worship of one God without denying the existence of other Gods; also called Monolatry)
Trinitarianism (belief that God consists of three Persons in one substance)
Social Trinitarianism (belief that the oneness of the three Persons is not one of substance but is social in nature [e.g., unity of thought, etc.])
Modalism (belief that there is only one God that does not exist as three separate Persons but rather manifests itself in three different "modes" [i.e., as Father, Son, or Holy Ghost])

Usually the very same people who are pressing the case that Mormons are polytheists are some stripe of Evangelical Christians who claim to be monotheists. But Trinitarians are not Monotheists by definition (just ask a Jew or Muslim).

The facts that the LDS do not believe the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one in substance, and believe in deification/theosis (that humans may eventually become deified and become partakers in the divine nature), has been used to paint Mormons as polytheists. When we examine the technical terminology above, though, it becomes clear that a key point of demarcation is worship versus acknowledgment of existence. If members of the Church worshiped an extensive pantheon like the Greeks or Romans, then the label would be appropriate. In the context of doctrinal differences over the relationship among the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, however, or the doctrine of deification (which is a profoundly Christian doctrine and not just a Mormon one), use of the word "polytheistic" as a pejorative is both inaccurate and inappropriate.

Instead of using a single-word label, one must actually articulate the belief (using fully-developed sentences or paragraphs). The single-word label that will adequately describe the full breadth of LDS thought on the nature of God has yet to be coined.

Are Christians monotheists?

Any discussion with Jews or Muslims will quickly demonstrate no Christian is, strictly speaking, a monotheist.

One of the chief objections by Jews and Muslims is Christians are polytheists. Most brands of Christians insist on the divinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In addition, the very word those who crafted the great ecumenical creeds used to describe the deity of Jesus, his Father and the Holy Spirit is "trinity," meaning three. Additionally, they insisted the three Persons should not be confounded, as such would be deemed modalism (one of the primary heresies that led to the formation of the ecumenical creeds and various confessions). Modalism often insists the one God merely appears to us in three different ways (i.e., as Father, Son and Holy Spirit), and this is exactly what the creeds deny.

Human deification and monotheism

The Bible contains language indicating human beings can put on the divine nature and be called "gods" (see John 10:33, 34; Ps. 82:6, Deut. 10:17, etc.). They are instructed to become one with Jesus just as he is one with his Father. The key point to realize is that any existence of other beings with godly attributes has no effect on who Latter-day Saints worship. According to Jeff Lindsay, a popular LDS online apologist:

We worship God the Father in the name of Jesus Christ - not glorious angels or Abraham or Moses or John the Baptist, no matter how great they may be in the kingdom of heaven as sons of God who have become "like Christ" (1 Jn 3:2). The only reasonable definition of polytheism requires that plural gods be worshiped - but the beings that Christ calls "gods" are not who we worship at all. In terms of worship, we are properly called monotheists.

Additionally, there is abundant evidence of deification being taught by various commonly accepted Christians. If belief in theosis makes one a polytheist, many Christians would have to be so labeled - including such figures as C. S. Lewis and John Calvin. Clearly, this is not the way in which the term "polytheist" is normally used, but critics of the Church are often willing to be inconsistent if the Church can be made to look alien or "unchristian."

"Monotheism" is sufficiently broad to include the kind of oneness enjoyed by the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, as well as that promised to those who become one with them when fully sanctified.
http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_the_nature_of_God/Polytheism



Of course you're going to take the approach above if you believe that it was Joseph Smith who condemned all Christian churches as corrupt and an abomination. But is that what his history says? No. It was the resurrected Lord, Jesus Christ, who said that.

And that's where we get to the heart of the matter. Does one believe what Joseph Smith said about seeing the Father and the Son? Are they sincere seekers of the truth and have they humbly read and prayed to know for themselves whether the Book of Mormon is true or not?

On my mission, they often reminded us that anyone who could be brought into the Church through reason and argument could also be brought out of the Church through reason and argument. But it was the witness of the Holy Spirit that truly converts. Many of my companions forgot that and tried to debate on various points of doctrine without much success. That's why so many so-called Biblical scholars often don't believe the Bible to be historical fact. And why the Bible, Book of Mormon, and other scripture are essentially closed books to those who approach them with the requisite faith and humility. Someone like yourself can study all the religions of the world, and have a library of books in your collection, but you're simply "ever learning but never coming to a knowledge of the truth."

1. Regarding the so-called corruption of the text that happened during the lifetimes of the New Testament writers, where is your evidence for this aside from the claim of Joseph Smith? Oh, right, he doesn't need evidence because of his alleged divine revelation. That is contrary to the Apostle Paul who said not only did the NT writers have revelation, but evidence as well. He appealed to the 500 living witnesses to Jesus still alive at the time of his writings.

2. If Joseph Smith was inspired, why has there been almost 4000 changes to the original 1830 version of the Book of Mormon? Why not use the same version he used? Isn't that the inspired version?

http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/3913intro.htm

(And please don't respond with the canard that this is from an anti-Mormon site; he put up the original 1830 version on the webpage so the reader can see from him or herself.)

3. Why is the Book of Abraham, which Smith said he translated from ancient Egyptian, so different from the translations given by Egyptologists who specialize in the ancient Egyptian language and have access to the same Egyptian papyrus that Smith used? If he was divinely inspired shouldn't his translation be accurate? Instead the evidence shows that Smith just made up his translation using the King James Bible as one of his sources. Not only that, but the papyrus, because of the words in it, dates over 1500 years after he claimed it was from. It's like saying a Chilton's auto repair manual was really from the time when the last Roman emperor was deposed. Once we open up and look at the manual and see that it talks about things that didn't exist in the year 476 then we know it's not from then.

http://www.utlm.org/other/robertritnerpapyriarticle.pdf

(There are also anachronisms and historical inaccuracies in the Book of Mormon: http://rediscoveringthebible.com/ArcherMormonAnachronisms.pdf )

4. As for Jewish Hebrew scholars and their translations, while we may disagree with their theology they are still experts in understanding Hebrew. If I asked someone to translate an Italian document on the Mafia for me, am I going to ask him what his religion is? So yes, I expect Hebrew scholars who are experts in the Hebrew language to have a better understanding of Hebrew than the untrained Joseph Smith.

5. Deification (theosis). I've seen Mormons make this claim that John Calvin and the Eastern Orthodox Church talks about deification in the same sense that the LDS does. They didn't and don't. This is the fallacy of equivocation, where there is a bait and switch with word meanings. Christians have always been encouraged to act in God-like manner, meaning to show love, kindness, patience, justice, etc. It does not mean taking up attributes of God's nature like omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, etc. Neither Calvin nor the Orthodox churches believed that believers can actually become gods. That is simply a distortion of what they believe.

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Theosis

6. Copy and Paste regarding Polytheism: First, polytheism is not merely the worship of many gods, it is a belief that many gods truly exist. In ancient Greek and Roman religions, not all of their deities were worshiped yet they are still considered polytheist religions. So henotheism is a subset of polytheism. Since Mormons believe that they can literally be deified, exalted to godhood with the ability to create and populate a planet, that is clearly polytheism. Historically Mormonism taught that Adam, the first man, became God the Father, although he had a separate creator (therefore at least two gods). For the members on each given planet it is henotheism, but in the overall scheme of things it is polytheistic. Mormon theology also runs into a problem of infinite regress, but that's a separate issue.

As for me, I came to knowledge of truth a long time ago; the difference in my case is belief and evidence, not a blind faith in spite of the evidence.

At this point we're going around in circles and will likely continue to. There was a time when I would continue this debate ad nauseum but, to be honest, I just don't have the time and energy now.

To answer quickly address your points above, to say there have been 4,000 changes in the Book of Mormon is highly misleading. I have my own copy of the 1830 version. The original transcript from the translation was written in long hand. Almost all of those "changes" were simply spelling corrections, punctuation, putting the book in chapter and verse form, etc. The Tanners (who run UTLM) know this but they don't tell you that because their whole purpose is misinformation about their former Church.

The Egyptologists don't have access to the same papyrus Smith used. At least not all of it. That's the big misconception that the Tanners and other anti-Mormons won't tell you. What the Egyptologists have is the Book of Breathings and possibly some other parts that have survived. Church members who saw the papyrus described them, there was a lot of them, and what Joseph had access to was much more (and considerably different) than what remains. Feel free to read about that at the link below. Hopefully you will take as much time to do that as you did consulting anti-Mormon websites.

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Abraham.shtml#point1

Finally, it's rather ironic when you say you came to a knowledge of the truth a long time ago through belief and evidence. Because many of the same arguments you are making against LDS beliefs are made by atheists and other non-believers against the beliefs of sectarian Christians like yourself. Many of the same critiques you make against the Book of Mormon can and are made by detractors of the Bible. Yet you believe in the Bible and Christianity (as you understand it). In the end, sectarian Christians are really no different than the Jews of old. Judaism rejected further light and knowledge in the form of the New Testament. Likewise, sectarian Christians reject further light and knowledge in the form of the Book of Mormon and other additional scripture. It's history repeating itself.

What's disappointing is you, who pretend to be so concerned about evidence and facts, haven't even bothered to read the Book of Mormon, etc. You simply go straight to critical websites (almost always run by anti-Mormon groups, many of who are embittered former members) to justify your preconceived notions about it. But I suppose this shouldn't be surprising. From the beginning of this you have tried to portray yourself as an objective party with "no dog in the fight." But we've seen you're anything but that.

What's disappointing is that you've obviously failed to read what I wrote and cited. Part of my citations included links to the LDS site itself, so I fail to see where I only linked to so-called anti-Mormon sites as you claimed. As for the changes, they are more than cosmetic changes. I even saw changes to Bruce McConkie's book on Mormonism that alters the text. Assuming Smith had access to more papyri than modern Egyptologists have, that doesn't explain the false translations he gave to those they do have access to.

That's a nice circular argument at the end in which your belief system cannot be falsified because everything is explained away. Sure some atheist arguments are similar, but even broken clocks are right twice a day! Distinctions can also be made between "further light" and industrial pollution.

I don't pretend to be concerned about evidence and facts, and how do you know if I ever read the Book of Mormon since you never asked me? When people assume...well, you know what follows that. I'm not an embittered ex-Mormon, but I am against falsehood. I probably wouldn't have jumped in if not for the bogus history that denies racism in the Mormon church and claims that all the other churches are apostate -- falling away even as the New Testament was being written. On that pseudo-logic, how does a Mormon defend against some future Joseph Smith calling himself a prophet and claiming all churches INCLUDING THE LDS are apostate? You've got nothing. My "burning in the bosom" cancels out your "burning in the bosom." Without appeals to logic, facts and evidence, all you've got is a battle of feelings and emotions. That's a foundation built on sand.