xanmad33

No, I believe the Bible IS translated correctly It is only when things are taken grossly out of context and the FULL weight of scripture is not considered that one needs to go further to "prove" what the text was ACTUALLY saying vs. what someone wants the text to be saying :)

actually if you'll notice those were all in quotations

Again, that would be my OPINION... Who's being dishonest? How about a few quotes from Mormon Prophets and Apostles?... Christendom at the present day, and where are they, with all their boasted religion, piety, and sacredness while at the same time they are crying out against prophets, apostles, angels, revelations, prophesying and visions, etc. Why, they are just ripening for the damnation of hell. They will be damned, for they reject the most glorious principle of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and treat with disdain and trample under foot the key that unlocks the heavens and puts in our possession the glories of the celestial world. Yes, I say, such will be damned, with all their professed godliness. (Joseph Smith, Discourses of the Prophet Joseph Smith, compiled by Alma P. Burton, p.220) The gates of hell have prevailed and will continue to prevail over the Catholic mother of harlots, and over all her Protestant daughters; but as for the apostolical Church of Christ, she rests secure in the mansions of eternal happiness, where she will remain until the apostate Catholic church, with all her popes and bishops, together with all her harlot daughters shall be hurled down to hell; (Orson Pratt’s Works, p. 189-190) But to return to the Christians' idol. The pious, zealous, religious and hypocritical in our day, uniting with political demagogues, have set up a God for us to worship.... this loathsome, filthy, debauched, degraded monster is held up for our veneration and worship by its corrupt Christian devotees as the essence of everything that is great and grand, noble and praiseworthy; and we are called upon to fall down and worship this loathsome monster. (Journal of Discourses, 26 vols., 23:, p.36) Or How bout this I will now turn linguist. There are many things in the Bible which do not, as they now stand, accord with the revelations of the Holy Ghost to me. (Joseph Smith, Encyclopedia of Joseph Smith's Teachings, edited by Larry E. Dahl and Donald Q.Cannon) or this: It is from the Book of Mormon that we gain the concept of a "plan of salvation." This phrase is not a part of the vocabulary of theology of the Bible-believing world. The idea is not found in the Bible. We know it should be there, because we have it in the book of Moses (Moses 6:62), but the Bible as we have it today does not contain any reference to a divine plan for the salvation of men. (Doctrinal Commentary on the Book of Mormon v1 R. Millet) Ah..ya got me... heres a little outline "The Bible teaches that there is only one True and Living God and apart from Him there are no other Gods (Deuteronomy 6:4; Isaiah 43:10,11; 44:6,8; 45:21,22; 46:9; Mark 12:29-34). the Mormon Church teaches that there are many Gods (Book of Abraham 4:3ff), and that we can become gods and goddesses in the celestial kingdom (Doctrine and Covenants 132:19-20; Gospel Principles, p. 245; Achieving a Celestial Marriage, p. 130). It also teaches that those who achieve godhood will have spirit children who will worship and pray to them, just as we worship and pray to God the Father (Gospel Principles, p. 302). The Bible teaches That God is Spirit (John 4:24; 1 Timothy 6:15,16), He is not a man (Numbers 23:19; Hosea 11:9; Romans 1:22, 23), and has always (eternally) existed as God —He is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, all powerful, all knowing, and everywhere present (Psalm 90:2; 139:7-10; Isaiah 40:28; Luke 1:37). the Mormon Church teaches that God the Father was once a man like us who progressed to become a God and has a body of flesh and bone (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22; "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!" from Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345-347; Gospel Principles, p. 9; Articles of Faith, p. 430; Mormon Doctrine, p. 321). Indeed, the Mormon Church teaches that God himself has a father, and a grandfather, ad infinitum (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 373; Mormon Doctrine, p. 577). -The Bible teaches and that Jesus is the unique Son of God; he has always existed as God, and is co-eternal and co-equal with the Father (John 1:1, 14; 10:30; 14:9; Colossians 2:9). While never less than God, at the appointed time He laid aside the glory He shared with the Father (John 17:4, 5; Philippians 2:6-11) and was made flesh for our salvation; His incarnation was accomplished through being conceived supernaturally by the Holy Spirit and born of a virgin (Matthew 1:18-23; Luke 1:34-35). -By contrast, the Mormon Church teaches that Jesus Christ is our elder brother who progressed to godhood, having first been procreated as a spirit child by Heavenly Father and a heavenly mother; He was later conceived physically through intercourse between Heavenly Father and the virgin Mary (Achieving a Celestial Marriage, p. 129; Mormon Doctrine, pp. 546-547; 742). Mormon doctrine affirms that Jesus and Lucifer are brothers (Gospel Principles, pp. 17-18; Mormon Doctrine, p. 192). --The Bible teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost are not separate Gods or separate beings, but are distinct Persons within the one Triune Godhead. Throughout the New Testament the Son and the Holy Spirit, as well as the Father are separately identified as and act as God (Son: Mark 2:5-12; John 20:28; Philippians 2:10,11; Holy Spirit: Acts 5:3,4; 2 Corinthians 3:17,18; 13:14); yet at the same time the Bible teaches that these three are only one God (see point 1). --By contrast, the Mormon Church teaches that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three separate Gods (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 370; Mormon Doctrine, pp. 576-577), and that the Son and Holy Ghost are the literal offspring of Heavenly Father and a celestial wife (Joseph Fielding McConkie, Encyclopedia of Mormonism, vol. 2, p. 649). --The Bible teaches that the disobedience of our first parents Adam and Eve was a great evil. Through their fall sin entered the world, bringing all human beings under condemnation and death. Thus we are born with a sinful nature, and will be judged for the sins we commit as individuals. (Ezekiel 18:1-20; Romans 5:12-21). --By contrast, the Mormon Church teaches that Adam’s sin was "a necessary step in the plan of life and a great blessing to all of us" (Gospel Principles, p. 33; Book of Mormon — 2 Nephi 2:25; Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, pp. 114-115). --The Bible teaches that apart from the saving work of Jesus Christ on the cross we are spiritually "dead in trespasses and sins" (Ephesians 2:1,5) and are powerless to save ourselves. By grace alone, apart from self-righteous works, God forgives our sins and makes us worthy to live in His presence (Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:5-6). Our part is only to cling to Christ in heartfelt faith. (However, it is certainly true that without the evidence of changed conduct, a person’s testimony of faith in Christ must be questioned; salvation by grace alone through faith, does not mean we can live as we please — Romans 6:1-4). --By contrast, the Mormon Church teaches that eternal life in the presence of God (which it terms "exaltation in the celestial kingdom") must be earned through obedience to all the commands of the Mormon Church, including exclusive Mormon temple rituals. Works are a requirement for salvation (entrance into the "celestial kingdom") — Gospel Principles, p. 303-304; Pearl of Great Price — Third Article of Faith; Mormon Doctrine, pp. 339, 671; Book of Mormon — 2 Nephi 25:23). --The Bible teaches that the purpose of the atoning work of Christ on the cross was to provide the complete solution for humankind’s sin problem. However, those who reject God’s grace in this life will have no part in this salvation but are under the judgment of God for eternity (John 3:36; Hebrews 9:27; 1 John 5:11-12). --By contrast, the Mormon Church teaches that the purpose of the atonement was to bring resurrection and immortality to all people, regardless of whether they receive Christ by faith. Christ’s atonement is only a partial basis for worthiness and eternal life, which also requires obedience to all the commands of the Mormon church, including exclusive Mormon temple rituals (Gospel Principles, pp. 74-75; Mormon Doctrine, p. 669). --The Bible teaches that the Bible is the unique, final and infallible Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16; Hebrews 1:1,2; 2 Peter 1:21) and that it will stand forever (1 Peter 1:23-25). God’s providential preservation of the text of the Bible was marvelously illustrated in the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. --By contrast, the Mormon Church teaches that the Bible has been corrupted, is missing many "plain and precious parts" and does not contain the fullness of the Gospel (Book of Mormon — 1 Nephi 13:26-29; Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 3, pp. 190-191). --The Bible teaches that the true Church was divinely established by Jesus and could never and will never disappear from the earth (Matthew 16:18; John 15:16; 17:11). Christians acknowledge that there have been times of corruption and apostasy within the Church, but believe there has always been a remnant that held fast to the biblical essentials. --By contrast, the Mormon Church teaches that there was a great and total apostasy of the Church as established by Jesus Christ; this state of apostasy "still prevails except among those who have come to a knowledge of the restored gospel" of the Mormon Church (Gospel Principles, pp. 105-106; Mormon Doctrine, p. 44)."" here's a few... There is only one God, who has eternally existed: Isaiah 43:10-11: "I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, and the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour." Isaiah 44:6: "Thus saith the LORD...I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God." Isaiah 45:22: ...and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me....I am God, and there is none else." Isa 42:8: "I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images." Christians believe that there is one God by nature revealed through three distinct persons. No Christian believes in three gods. The Bible teaches there is only one God which we are to follow and believe in. (Isaiah 43:10, Isaiah 44:6-8, Isaiah 45:22) The Bible teaches that God is one in nature not one in person. (Genesis 1:26, Genesis 11:7, Genesis 19:24, Deuteronomy 6:4, Isaiah 48:12-18, Amos 4:10-12) The Bible teaches God is one in unity. (Deuteronomy 6:4) " The Hebrew word here for one is "echad" which means a compound unity. Places which show this in context for the word "echad" are in Genesis 2:24, Ezra 2:64, Ezekiel 37:17 and other references." The Bible teaches that there is only one God. (Isaiah 43:10, Isaiah 44:6-8, Isaiah 45:22) The Bibles teaches that there is one who is called the Father and is identified as being God. (1 Peter 1:2) The Bible teaches that there is one who is called Jesus and is identified as being God. (John 1:1-3&14-18, John 20:28-29, 1 John 1:1-4&5:20, Philippians 2:5-8, Revelation 1:17-18, Revelation 22:12-20) The Bible teaches that there is one who is called the Holy Spirit and is identified as being God. (John 14:16-17, John 15:26, John 16:7-15, Acts 5:3-4, Acts 13:2, 1 Corinthians 12:4-18, Hebrews 9:14, Hebrews 10:15-18) God said, “Is there a God beside me? Yea, there is no God; I know not any”. How can there be Gods who are Elohim’s ancestors? Surely an all-knowing God would know this and wouldn’t speak falsehoods. (See Isa. 44:8 and Journal of Discourses Vol. 1, pg. 123) If a spirit is a being without a body (See Luke 24:39), why do Mormons teach that God the Father has a body of flesh and bones? (See John 4:24) If the Father is Elohim, and Jesus is Jehovah (as the Mormons teach), how does a Mormon explain Deuteronomy 6:4, which in the Hebrew says, “Hear, O Israel: Jehovah our Elohim is one Jehovah”? Here's the first definition for you... a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs Let me illistrate that better for you.... Many Mormons I have encountered on this site (in this very thread)claim to believe in the Bible, but when pressed to prove how the Bible supports any Momon claims, they quickly turn the conversation into proving the Bible is corrupt and untrustworthy. That sounds like hypocritical to me... How is that irrelevant? Especially when the Bible's accuracy has been questioned in this very thread? Actually an honest position would be that LDS beliefs are out of sync with the Biblical interpretation of thousands of Biblical scholars, Hebrew scholars, Greek scholars etc.

If this is truly the case...That we "need more" because of hundreds of different denominations, How do you explain the hundreds of different denominations of Mormonism? All the new revelation from LDS has done nothing to ammend the situation.

Let us look further... . . "In the original Greek, however, there is no real contradiction between these two statements. Greek makes a distinction between hearing a sound as a noise (in which case the verb "to hear" takes the genitive case) and hearing a voice as a thought-conveying message (in which case it takes the accusative). Therefore, as we put the two statements together, we find that Paul's companions heard the Voice as a sound (somewhat like the crowd who heard the sound of the Father talking to the Son in John 12:28, but perceived it only as thunder); but they did not (like Paul) hear the message that it articulated. Paul alone heard it inteligibly (Acts 9:4 says Paul ekousen phonen--accusative case); though he, of course, perceived it also as a startling sound at first (Acts 22:7: "I fell to the ground and heard a voice [ekousa phones] saying to me," NASB). But in neither account is it stated that his companions ever heard that Voice in the accusative case. " -- Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, by Gleason L. Archer, p. 382. if we look in the Septuagint version we read the following: "And they saw the place where the God of Israel stood." God cannot be seen by men when in his full glory, that is Biblical no need for Josephs clarification. God can be seen when in lesser form...

Funny.... You have trouble believing thousands of pieces of evidence that attest to the accuracy of the Bible, even from MORMON scholars... How about some evidence from MORMON scholars attesting to the inaccuracy of the BOM? in regard to what book is more trustworthy I found this interesting article: Since the Book of Mormon is claimed to be the Word of God, and Joseph Smith stated, "I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on the face of the earth" (History of the Church, vol. 4, p.461), the implication is that this work is perfect in form and content. This has also been the understanding of LDS Church authorities during the last 150 years. Joseph Fielding Smith, sixth President of the Church, stated in a sermon: "Joseph did not render the writing on the gold plates into the English language in his own style of language as many people believe, but every word and letter was given to him by the gift and power of God...The Lord caused each word spelled as it is in the book to appear on the stones in short sentences or words, and when Joseph had uttered the sentence or word before him and the scribe had written it properly, that sentence would disappear and another would appear. And if there was a word wrongly written or even a letter incorrect, the writing on the stones would remain there. Then Joseph would require the scribe to spell the reading of the last spoken and thus find the mistake and when corrected the sentence would disappear as usual." (Journal of Oliver Huntington, 1881, p. 168) Joseph Fielding Smith, tenth President of the Church, has likewise stated: "Inspiration is discovered in the fact that each part, as it was revealed, dovetailed perfectly with what had come before. There was no need for eliminating, changing, or adjusting any part to make it fit, but each new revelation an doctrine and priesthood fitted into its place perfectly to complete the whole structure, as it has been prepared by the Master Builder." (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1954, vol. I, p.170) It would seem reasonable to assume, in light of such teachings by Church authorities, that current editions of the Book of Mormon would be identical to the 1830 edition, particularly since God made the translation. The following are a few examples of such corrected errors: 1. "Adam and Eve, which was our first parents." (p.15) grammar 2. "...and loosed the bands which was upon my wrists." (p.49) grammar 3. "As I was a journeying." (p.249) - grammar 4. "...they had began to possess the land of Amulon, and had began to till the ground." (p.204) -- grammar It is difficult to understand how a translation, superintended by the power of God, could contain such basic errors. It also cannot be said that these errors crept in through poor proof-reading or type-setting. Noted Mormon historian, Francis Kirkham, had this to say when considering the vast majority of changes in the original text: "Such is the nature of the errors in question, and so interwoven are they throughout the diction of the book, that they may not be disposed of by saying they result from inefficient proof-reading or referring them to the mischievous disposition of the 'typos,' or the unfriendliness of the publishing house. The errors are constitutional in their character, they are of the web and woof of the style and not such errors as may be classed as typographical. Indeed, the first edition of the Book of Mormon is singularly free from typographical errors." (Francis W. Kirkham, A New Witness for Christ in America, The Book of Mormon, 1942, pp.200-201) "Far more serious and troublesome are the substantive errors; those that have been corrected which were found to be in conflict with Mormon doctrine. The following are two illustrations. In the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon, on page 32, it reads, "And the angel spake unto me, saying: 'These last records...shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people that the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father and the Saviour of the World; and that all men must come unto Him, or they cannot be saved.'" This corresponds to 1 Nephi 13:40 in modern editions. Then on page 25 of the 1830 edition it reads, "And he said unto me, 'Behold, the virgin which thou seest, is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh...' And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms. And the angel said unto me, 'behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father.'" This corresponds to 1 Nephi 11: 18-21. The problem in these sections, and two others, is that Jesus is said to be the Eternal Father, contrary to current Mormon teaching. In later editions, "the Son of God" has been inserted before "the Eternal Father." Then I came across these remarks made by Dr. Dee Green, Mormon scientist and former editor of U.A.S. Newsletter. In the journal, Dialogue, he states in regard to no archaeological evidence supporting the BOM: "There have been no spectacular finds, no Zarahemlas discovered, no gold plates brought to light, no horses uncovered, and King Benjamin's tomb remains unexcavated... The first myth we need to eliminate is that Book of Mormon archaeology exists. Titles on books full of archaeological half truths, dilettanti on the peripheries of American archaeology calling themselves Book of Mormon archaeologists regardless of their education, and a Department of Archaeology at BYU devoted to the production of Book of Mormon archaeologists do not insure that book of Mormon archaeology really exists. If one is to study Book of Mormon archaeology then one must have a corpus of data with which to deal. We do not. The Book of Mormon is really there so one can have Book of Mormon studies, and archaeology is really there so one can study archaeology, but the two are not wed. At least they are not wed in reality since no Book of Mormon location is known with reference to modern topography. Biblical archaeology can be studied because we do know where Jerusalem and Jericho were and are, but we do not know where Zarahemla and Bountiful (nor any other location for that matter) were or are. It would seem then that a concentration on geography should be the first order of business, but we have already seen that twenty years of such an approach has left us empty handed." (Dialogue, Summer 1969, pp. 77-78)" Why would there be a need to change such dramatic doctrines? like : "the Son of God" has been inserted before "the Eternal Father? Thats not just "gramatical"

Why does the Mormon church NOT place the same disclaimer on the BOM? Yes, I do believe the BIble is the correct word of God. The Bible has been tested and tried for THOUSANDS of years and there has never been one single provable falshood in the WHOLE book. This is an amazing book, as your Mormon scholars at BYU have so eloquently stated (outlined in my last two posts) There are plenty of websites that list the archeological evidences as well as the amazing history of the Bible if one were so inclined... Further....How can you take some of the BIble and not all other parts? How do you decide what IS correct? You being a Mormon obviously BELIEVE in the BIble as stated repeatedly, so what parts do you NOT believe in? And how do you come to those conclusions? Again, I would like to point to richlittles post on this....

In 1835 Joseph Smith also said it was necessary to have a correct idea of God's character, perfections and attributes if you wanted faith in God unto life and salvation. I was wondering where you get those particular ideas, cosidering they are matters of eternal salvation... Is this also the case for the rest of your cannon? BOM? D&C ETC.? Why does the Mormon church place a disclaimer on the Bible in other languages but they do no such thing for the BOM? I'm sorry but what exactly DOES it mean? When your apostle Orson Pratt calls Catholics and Protestants the "Whore of Babylon"? Maybe you can enlighten me... I'll just quote ritchlittle here: "In all fairness to xanmad, I had listed the General Conference talks as part of our canon, along with the Bible and BofM, DC, etc.. I tend to use "scripture" "canon" "doctrine" all interchangeably. Nevertheless, Joseph F. Smith gave new doctrine in General Conference (DC 138), and if you do a search on lds.org, you'll see that our prophets constantly refer to our canon as "open canon" or "open scriptural canon" (as opposed to "closed canon") And since we are instructed that General Conferences are the place where the apostles and prophet give us specific instruction for the needs of our time, I would say they are canon, for where else do we recieve ongoing revelation or direct counsel to our times? However, others may disagree, so I think I'll start another thread and get some input on this from others (as we are already digressing quite a bit from the original topic of this post).

A complaint is an expression of displeasure. Not an expression of opinion And to your "newsflash" , I pointed out earlier a very real fact that seems ignored Do Mormons consider Christians Mormon? Can I attend Temple? Can my pastor speak at your church? No!.... LDS rejects Christianity as wrong (doctrinally speaking) just as Christianity rejects LDS as doctrinally unsound. That's just a fact Regardless of "what you think" Its a fact. How bout you show me that in the Bible, maybe start a new thread, make it all about proving Mormon beliefs in the BIble, just a thought... Please don't tell me what I do or do not believe. Again the oneness of God is of paramount importance to a Christian, the "trinity" is a word used to describe the different designations for God. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (or Holy Ghost) are different designations for the one God. God is the Father. God is the Holy Spirit. The Son is God manifest in flesh. Believe it or not, that is my belief First, I would like to point out how hypocritical it is to claim to believe in the Bible and claim to hold it just as dearly as the BOM, believeing it's words are true, but at the same time to blast it as if it's a totally contaminated book, not worthy to live by... How about instead of me pointing out all the thousands of inconsistancies of the BOM, and rebuttaling with pages and pages of Biblical scholars on the subject, I just offer you a quote from one of your own... "Mormon scholar, Dr. Richard Anderson, of BYU: "Mormon writers have often taught that the Bible is a wholly unreliable record in matters of doctrine and history. This is because many "plain and precious truths" were either lost, removed, or corrupted by early Church leaders and later generations. However, modern Mormon scholarship has recently aligned itself with the findings of non-Mormon scholars around the world. Dr. Richard Anderson, of BYU, stated: "In studying a particular author in antiquity, the classical scholar typically works with a few principal manuscripts, together with a few more extensive fragments or portions of manuscripts. The New Testament scholar, however, faces the wonderful but impossible prospect of attempting to comprehend a text preserved in about 3,000 manuscripts...Nor is sheer quantity most impressive, for the antiquity of his manuscripts should be the envy of all ancient studies...With such an early collection, the question naturally arises how the text is different from the traditional one. Differences lie in numerous details, but the outstanding conclusion is that there is little, if any, significant change" It is easy to get lost in debate on details and fail to see the overwhelming agreement of all manuscripts to the historical record of the New Testament...This survey has disclosed the leading textual controversies, and together they would be well within one percent of the text. Stated differently, all manuscripts agree on the essential correctness of 99% of the verses in the New Testament...There is more reason today, then, to agree with him (Sir Frederic Kenyon) that we possess the New Testament 'in substantial integrity' and to underline that 'the variations of the text are so entirely questions of detail, not of essential substance.' It is true that the Latter-day Saints have taken the position that the present Bible is much changed from its original form. However, greatest changes would logically have occurred in writings more remote than the New Testament. The textual history of the New Testament gives every reason to assume a fairly stable transmission of the documents we possess." (Fourteenth Annual Symposium of the Archaeology of the Scriptures, BYU, 1963, pp. 52-59) If you believe in the Bible, which you say you do, and it obviously came WAYYYYY before the BOM or D&C etc... Why did God need to send another revelation to Joseph Smith that was so vastly different than the one already recieved in the Bible? Shouldn't you bring all claims BACK to the Bible to see if they are truly in sync with what God has already revealed? Heres a link to an earlier thread that coveres much of this Bible debate :) www.lds.net/forums/christian-beliefs-board/10132-some-questions-mormons-5.html

There is so much to say with regard to all those verses, context, original language, what the rest of scripture says etc...I'm off to bed so I'll just start here... (an EXCELLENT read btw! :)) quoted from "The oneness of God": "John 1 beautifully teaches the concept of God manifest in flesh. In the beginning was the Word (Greek, Logos). The Word was not a separate person or a separate god any more than a man's word is a separate person from him. Rather the Word was the thought, plan, or mind of God. The Word was with God in the beginning and actually was God Himself (John 1:1). The Incarnation existed in the mind of God before the world began. Indeed, in the mind of God the Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world (I Peter 1:19-20; Revelation 13:8). In Greek usage, logos can mean the expression or plan as it exists in the mind of the proclaimer - as a play in the mind of a playwright - or it can mean the thought as uttered or otherwise physically expressed - as a play that is enacted on stage. John 1 says the Logos existed in the mind of God from the beginning of time. When the fulness of time was come, God put that plan in action. He put flesh on that plan in the form of the man Jesus Christ. The Logos is God expressed. As John Miller says, the Logos is "God uttering Himself." [10] In fact, TAB translates the last phrase of John 1:1 as, "The Word was God Himself." Flanders and Cresson say, "The Word was God's means of self disclosure" "In His divine nature, however, Jesus is a Spirit; for Romans 8:9 speaks of the Spirit of Christ. In His divinity, Jesus was and is omnipresent. For example, in John 3:13 Jesus referred to "the Son of man which is in heaven" even though He was still on earth. His omnipresence explains why He could say in the present tense while on earth, "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them" (Matthew 18:20). In other words, while the fulness of God's character was located in the human body of Jesus, the omnipresent Spirit of Jesus could not be so confined. While Jesus walked this earth as a man, His Spirit was still everywhere at the same time. Jesus is also omniscient; for He could read thoughts (Mark 2:6-12). He knew Nathanael before He met him (John 1:47-50). He knows all things (John 21:17), and all wisdom and knowledge are hidden in Him (Colossians 2:3). Jesus is omnipotent; He has all power, is the head of all principality and power, and is the Almighty (Matthew 28:18; Colossians 2:10; Revelation 1:8). Jesus is immutable and unchanging (Hebrews 13:8). He is also eternal and immortal (Hebrews 1:8-12; Revelation 1:8, 18). "

I never said we have the Bible in it's PUREST form, but no matter because The Bible is 98 percent textually pure. Through all the copying of the Biblical manuscripts of the entire Bible, only 1% has any question about it. Nothing in all of the ancient writings of the entire world approaches the accuracy of the biblical documents!!! NOTHING! The 1 percent that is in question does not affect doctrine. The areas of interest are called variants and they consist mainly in variations of wording and spelling. The NT has over 5000 supporting Greek manuscripts existing today with another 20,000 manuscripts in other languages. Some of the manuscript evidence dates to within 100 years of the original writing. There is less than a 1% textual variation in the NT manuscripts. You tell me then why the BOM is considered the "Most Correct Book"? Am I clear that what you are essentially saying is that both books are of equal trustworthiness? Yes you are right many revisions are normal but why do Mormons put a disclaimer on the Bible for that, but not on the BOM??? From wiki: "The Whore of Babylon is one of several Christian and Rastafarian allegorical figures of supreme evil mentioned in the Book of Revelation in the Bible. The Whore is associated with the Antichrist and the Beast of Revelation by connection with an equally allegorical kingdom. That's pretty damning!!! You don't consider the Antichrist blasphemous!? wow... You said earlier that general conferences are considered doctrine...so the fact that this was EVER said means that it IS in fact doctrine correct?

Speaking for myself, I think a huge problem comes from the fact that the FOUNDER of your religion has made some pretty heavy statements about things I would consider matters of eternal salvation and Joseph Smith himself claimed they WERE! ******* " I will go back to the beginning before the world was, to show what kind of a being God is. What sort of a being was God in the beginning? Open your ears and hear, all ye ends of the earth, for I am going to prove it to you by the Bible, and to tell you the designs of God in relation to the human race, and why He interferes with the affairs of man. God himself. was Once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by His power, was to make himself visible,—I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with Him, as one man talks and communes with another. In order to understand the subject of the dead, for consolation of those who mourn for the loss of their friends, it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how He came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. 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. These are incomprehensible ideas to some, but they are simple. It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God, and to know that we may converse with Him as one man converses with another, and that He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did; and I will show it from the Bible." That was just a taste! This sermon is chock FULL of "new revelation" How do LDS NOT consider this a matter of eternal consequence when your first prophet said as much?!

And who decides what was translated correctly? Has the BOM been reliably translated into German? French? Or do we need a disclaimer on them? ****So General Conference Talks are doctrine? I think maybe you have misunderstood.... I was reaching out to Ceboo because I understand his point. He was explaining his beliefs and how he feels like some Mormon beliefs are blasphemous when compared to his. I was not discoursing with you as if you are ignorant I promise! Sorry if it came out that way! It's not that I am "choosing to disagree" that a Mormon is not a Christian but let me put it another way... Can an LDS church call a Protestant "bishop"? No. Can a Protestant attend church at the Temple? Nope. LDS rejects Christianity as wrong (doctrinally speaking) just as Christianity rejects LDS as doctrinally unsound. I don't think anyone called Mormons blasphemous, I do know that some have said according to the Bible's teachings and according to their faith it does seem or feel blasphemous... Not the same thing... And to your point "no one should label any others' religion blasphemous" Would you hold your own religion to that same statement? Apostle Orson Pratt proclaimed: "Both Catholics and Protestants are nothing less than the 'whore of Babylon' (The Seer, p. 255).

What was my complaint? I don't recall that one... I have covered the irreconcilable differences at length, in post's past. You may like to go read them? IDK? I didn't feel it was warranted in my last response. But I assure you I can, and I have. (That is why I wrote that some LDS here have conceeded that very fact) True, but I was referring to the beliefs that are contrary to the Bible. (becoming "gods" etc.--) Actually your right, the word "trinity" is not in the Bible, but the concept is. The oneness of God is of paramount importance to a Christian, the "trinity" is a word used to describe the different designations for God. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (or Holy Ghost) are different designations for the one God. God is the Father. God is the Holy Spirit. The Son is God manifest in flesh. The term Son always refers to the Incarnation, and never to deity apart from humanity--Hope that helped :) Actually such a belief IS in The Bible, in many places.. 2nd Timothy 3:16 is a great example: "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness" But you already knew that right? I mean after all, You ALREADY believe the Bible to be a source of truth, correct? Joseph Smith even understood the importance of reconciling his words to The Bible.

Do these all hold equal weight? To a Christian (myself), this statement is completely false, it's probably also one reason I think maybe Ceboo said what he did. One simply cannot in good conscience truly reconcile Mormon doctrine's found in the POGP, D&C, BOM, and J&D (not to mention countless prophets who have "heard" countless revelations from God) to The Holy Bible. Mormons on this very site have already admitted as much, claiming that to be the precise reason you NEED more books (as Mormons have)... Because the teachings of Mormonism are just not there. Maybe that was his point about blasphemy, which I'm sure you could understand was not (at least the way I read it) a "dig" at Mormons but rather I think a statement of his personal faith...JMO :) Is the Bible considered as correct as the BOM in your view? Thanks!