Was Jesus a Mormon?

[_Runtu]

But it is. Mormon theology maintains that Jesus and Satan were both children of God the Father (a mere demigod) and one of his celestial wives. Not EXACTLY Wally and the Beave, but not substantially different in terms of the fraternal relationship.

Except for it's the same fraternal relationship we are all supposed to have with Jesus. I count all humans as my brothers and sisters. That doesn't mean I have a close sibling relationship with all of them.

That is indeed the Mormon claim. The challenge here is to provide some reason to think this claim is TRUE.

That's a silly challenge, indeed. Provide some reason for me to believe that Adam and Eve were the first humans or that Abraham existed or that Paul saw Christ on the road to Damascus. Can't be done.

Same problem. Just citing the CLAIMS of Joseph Smith cannot reasonably stand as support for those very claims. This is circular reasoning.

In the same way, appeal to the Bible cannot reasonably stand as support for Christian claims. See how much fun this is?

That is simply false. The LDS doctrine of God affirms that the Father is an "exalted man" - the very definition of a "demigod".

Uh, no. Here's the definition:

demi·god noun \ˈde-mē-ˌgäd\

: a mythological being with more power than a mortal but less than a god

2
: a person so outstanding as to seem to approach the divine <the demigods of jazz>

Mormonism does not consider God to be less than a god.

It may indeed be that some Mormons have the good sense to dispute this doctrine. That does not obviate the FACT that the Mormon "prophets" most certainly DID teach it.

I know that, but it's never been canonized and accepted as doctrine, so it's unfair to say it's Mormon doctrine. It's not.

Indeed, see my refutation. Such circular reasoning as this is simply irrational.

I'll remember this the next time you appeal to the Bible.

Again, simply stating the claim I am asking you to support is not the same thing as actually supporting it.

And that is a silly request, as I said.

Simple? Yes - but none of it amounts to any REASON to think what Mormons claim is actually TRUE. Re-stating a claim, pointing out that some Mormons do not believe some of them, denying others and/or trying to back some with circular arguments hardly amounts to any actual support for those claims.

-BH

.

Then there is also no reason to think that anything in the Bible is true, is there? Why do you think some mythology is self-evident, but Mormon myths aren't? It's a double-standard.

[_emilysmith]

I'll bite.

In my previous post, I already mentioned the polytheism of the Israelites.

Brian H, do you dispute that the Israelites were polythiestic? Do you dispute that Asherah was considered to be the wife of Elohim?

Hi there Emily Smith.

There is a big difference between what some Israelites believed and what God revealed to them. I do not dispute that many Israelites repeatedly committed the ERROR of polytheism. The Bible itself provides numerous accounts of this fact. Read the book of Judges, for example. Moreover the Bible clearly records that God repeatedly PUNISHED them for that error and also that He consistently repeated His claim that He alone is the only God there was, is or ever will be.

I will also posit that early Christians, as well as modern day Christians are polytheistic in that they often pray(ed) to angels for intercessory favors. At the very best, they are monalotrous, believing in deatified (is that a word?) figures, as well as Satan, but worshipping only one God... as commanded.

Then you are confused. The simple fact is Christianity is a monotheistic faith. You appear to be confusing the ERRORS of some practices (both Christian and Jewish) with the normative theology of those religions. Nowhere does Jesus or anyone else in the Bible pray to angels. And even if they did, angles are NOT Gods, thus the term polytheism simply does not apply.

Tell me, do YOU believe in Ashoreth, or Baal, or Dagon?

-BH

.

Some versions of Christianity may be a monotheistic faith NOW, but it has not always been so. As I explained, in the times of early Christianity, it was normal for one culture to assume the existence of the Gods of other cultures, only to relegate other Gods as inferior. This puts other powerful, supernatural entities as less than one God, but gods, nonetheless. Your definition and perception of what god is, is a modern one. 2,000 years ago, it was a little different. Ultimately, praying to Saints, Angels, and Mary may not fall into your definition of polytheism, but, from the outside looking in, that is exactly what it is. It is also a great deal more pronounced than the Mormon version of polytheism in which every other supposed God is an afterthought, at best, to anyone raised in the Mormon faith. They never come up in discussion, and they are never named. The amount of information on the issue is limited and subject to a great deal of interpretation.

When God revealed the Commandments to Moses, it was originally written with Asherah at God's side and then later changed by the Deuteronomists. Do you believe that the Bible, as it currently is written, is inerrant? Or do you believe it has been changed over the passage of time?

It comes down to definitions. Which is why I used monolatrous. The Mormons are monolotrous in the same way the Catholics are. Both believe in Satan and angels and the super powers of Jesus. Slice it any way you want, the Trinity is also polytheistic to outsiders. The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost? Satan is even named in the Bible as the god of this world.

Also, you very selectively addressed my responses, so it is noted that you still are not able to justify any of your own position. Either that, or you didn't bother to read what I wrote. FYI I was raised Mormon, but am currently more of a disbeliever in the God of Abraham than most.

In short, you are wrong when you think Mormons are any less monolatrous than the rest of Christianity. You may quibble about what your definition of a God was, but we are talking about early Christianity, right? Not the 21st Century.

Growing up in the LDS church, I can say that no one ever worshipped, in any way, any other God. Early Mormons did name Joseph Smith Jr. "The King of the Kingdom of God," but, like every religion, their beliefs went through growing pains and has settled firmly where they are now. Where the Mormon church is now, it is closer to being Christian than many other groups of Christians that I have encountered. Certainly, every Mormon I have ever met has been more Christ-like than you. Even Wade Englund, Pahoran, and Zerinus have you beat, and that is saying something.

[_BrianH]

BH>>But it is. Mormon theology maintains that Jesus and Satan were both children of God the Father (a mere demigod) and one of his celestial wives. Not EXACTLY Wally and the Beave, but not substantially different in terms of the fraternal relationship.

R>Except for it's the same fraternal relationship we are all supposed to have with Jesus. I count all humans as my brothers and sisters. That doesn't mean I have a close sibling relationship with all of them.

What you believe, and the fact that you believe it neither denies nor supports the fact that Mormonism teaches what Jesus never did - the Jesus-Satan brotherhood. The challenge here is to show that Jesus taught such a thing. Your sibling relationship with the rest of humanity could only be metaphorical, since your father was one human being and mine was another, and the same is true of our respective mothers.

BH>>That is indeed the Mormon claim. The challenge here is to provide some reason to think this claim is TRUE.

R>That's a silly challenge, indeed. Provide some reason for me to believe that Adam and Eve were the first humans or that Abraham existed or that Paul saw Christ on the road to Damascus. Can't be done.

Changing the subject will not do. While there is abundant reason to believe the Bible the logical fact is that even IF the Bible was lying when it described Adam and Eve, and Abraham, etc. that STILL would not amount to any reason to think that Jesus revealed the content of D&C 132 (or indeed anything else) to Joseph Smith. D&C 132 is simply the source of the Mormon assertion of the doctrine in question. The challenge here is to simply provide reasons to think that assertion is TRUE. Dismissing it as "silly" does not constitute an answer.

BH>>Same problem. Just citing the CLAIMS of Joseph Smith cannot reasonably stand as support for those very claims. This is circular reasoning.

R>In the same way, appeal to the Bible cannot reasonably stand as support for Christian claims. See how much fun this is?

It is interesting to me how consistent this phenomenon is. When Mormons cannot provide any reasons to think that they are telling the truth, they almost invariably turn and attack the Bible. Again, logically speaking, the veracity of the Bible is as irrelevant to the truth of the claims of the D&C as the veracity of the Bagivad Gita, the Communist Manifesto or descriptions of last year's Rose Bowl Game.

However, whereas the Bible has been indubitably confirmed in many of its claims, the source of the Mormon "revelations", Joseph Smith (and Joseph Smith alone), remains highly questionable. The man was a twice-convicted occult con artist who pretended to have a magic rock in his hat and whose ~60 predictive prophecies rendered "in the name of the Lord God of Israel" all failed to come to pass as he said they would.

BH>>That is simply false. The LDS doctrine of God affirms that the Father is an "exalted man" - the very definition of a "demigod".

R>Uh, no. Here's the definition:

demi·god noun \ˈde-mē-ˌgäd\

: a mythological being with more power than a mortal but less than a god

2
: a person so outstanding as to seem to approach the divine <the demigods of jazz>

Mormonism does not consider God to be less than a god.

1. a mythological being who is partly divine and partly human; an inferior deity.
2. a deified mortal. - Random House

The child of sexual intercourse between a deity and a mortal, a man raised to divine rank, or a minor god. - Harper's Etymology

A "deified mortal", a "man raised to divine rank" and even a "minor god" describes the LDS "Heavenly Father" perfectly. He is exactly that in LDS theology, even a "minor god" since the "God" who made him a "God" would necessarily have been a superior "God".

In any case the term is simply shorthand for the Mormon belief that God the Father was once a man, an ontological human creature like you and me. It is THIS doctrine that absolutely IS uniquely Mormon and which I have challenged you to demonstrate was ever taught by Jesus Christ, whose gospel and doctrine the LDS church claims to have "restored".

BH>>]It may indeed be that some Mormons have the good sense to dispute this doctrine. That does not obviate the FACT that the Mormon "prophets" most certainly DID teach it.

R>I know that, but it's never been canonized and accepted as doctrine, so it's unfair to say it's Mormon doctrine. It's not.

The word doctrine simply means "teaching". The Mormon "prophets", particularly Brigham Young, claiming divine authority by means of his office, "taught" that Adam was God. Was he right? Mormons in Young's day understood him, but seem to have been divided. Today this doctrine (or "teaching" if you prefer), has been abandoned because Mormons are free to create their own beliefs as they go. But at one time it most certainly was a part of the teaching of the LDS church which claimed to have "restored" the gospel of Christ.

BH>>]Indeed, see my refutation. Such circular reasoning as this is simply irrational.

R>I'll remember this the next time you appeal to the Bible.

Again, both irrelevant and weak. The veracity of the Bible has nothing at all to do with the LDS claim that they restored the gospel of Christ with claims such as this one, UNLESS a Mormon can appeal to the Bible where the teachings of Christ are most evident. Your "remembering" this is nothing but an impotent rhetorical threat - hardly a meaningful defense of the LDS claim.

BH>>Again, simply stating the claim I am asking you to support is not the same thing as actually supporting it.

R>And that is a silly request, as I said.

Mocking the challenge to support your claims is no more sufficient as a defense for that claim than simply re-stating the claim is. It remains obvious that you simply have no answer and cannot provide any reasons to think that the LDS claim to have "restored" the teachings of Christ with doctrines involving secret handshakes, passwords and supernatural underwear.

BH>>Simple? Yes - but none of it amounts to any REASON to think what Mormons claim is actually TRUE. Re-stating a claim, pointing out that some Mormons do not believe some of them, denying others and/or trying to back some with circular arguments hardly amounts to any actual support for those claims.


Then there is also no reason to think that anything in the Bible is true, is there? Why do you think some mythology is self-evident, but Mormon myths aren't? It's a double-standard.

Actually there is abundant evidence that confirms that the Bible is telling the truth on countless points. Far from mere mythology, the Bible has proven to be sufficiently accurate in its record of the ancient Levant that historians and archaeologists have used it as a guide to Middle Eastern history since the beginning of their professions. By contrast the LDS "scriptures" have never been shown to connect to reality at any objective point. Obviously you are having trouble distinguishing the Bible from mythology - which would be consistent with your experience as a Mormon.

But that is all totally beside the point here, since the Bible is not the issue and is, in fact, irrelevant to the challenge I have posed here, unless you can show me FROM the Bible that Jesus Christ taught the doctrines the LDS attribute directly to him every time they claim to have "restored" his doctrine.

-BH

.

[_Runtu]

What you believe, and the fact that you believe it neither denies nor supports the fact that Mormonism teaches what Jesus never did - the Jesus-Satan brotherhood. The challenge here is to show that Jesus taught such a thing. Your sibling relationship with the rest of humanity could only be metaphorical, since your father was one human being and mine was another, and the same is true of our respective mothers.

So, let me get this straight. You are insisting that Mormons prove that Jesus taught something, but they can't use what they believe are Jesus' words. And you see nothing problematic with that. And frankly, insisting that I believe things I don't actually believe is, well, a bit presumptuous.

Changing the subject will not do. While there is abundant reason to believe the Bible the logical fact is that even IF the Bible was lying when it described Adam and Eve, and Abraham, etc. that STILL would not amount to any reason to think that Jesus revealed the content of D&C 132 (or indeed anything else) to Joseph Smith. D&C 132 is simply the source of the Mormon assertion of the doctrine in question. The challenge here is to simply provide reasons to think that assertion is TRUE. Dismissing it as "silly" does not constitute an answer.

Again, here's that double standard. Without the Bible, there is no reason to believe that Jesus is the Son of God. Without LDS scriptures, there would be no reason to believe LDS doctrines. I dismiss your demands as silly because they are silly.

BH>>Same problem. Just citing the CLAIMS of Joseph Smith cannot reasonably stand as support for those very claims. This is circular reasoning.

R>It is interesting to me how consistent this phenomenon is. When Mormons cannot provide any reasons to think that they are telling the truth, they almost invariably turn and attack the Bible. Again, logically speaking, the veracity of the Bible is as irrelevant to the truth of the claims of the D&C as the veracity of the Bagivad Gita, the Communist Manifesto or descriptions of last year's Rose Bowl Game.

The problem here is that you don't have a Mormon attacking the Bible (I love that meme, though, because it's so predictable). What you have here is an agnostic saying that I have no more reason to believe your myths than you have to believe Mormon myths. The relevance here is that you, for some reason, insist that Mormon texts must have some sort of outside proof of their veracity, but the Bible does not. That you can't see how this is a fatally flawed argument is not my problem.

However, whereas the Bible has been indubitably confirmed in many of its claims

Surely, you can't be serious.

the source of the Mormon "revelations", Joseph Smith (and Joseph Smith alone), remains highly questionable. The man was a twice-convicted occult con artist who pretended to have a magic rock in his hat and whose ~60 predictive prophecies rendered "in the name of the Lord God of Israel" all failed to come to pass as he said they would.

No argument here, Brian. I find the Bible highly questionable too. Is there some reason I should find its myths more believable than Mormon myths?

1. a mythological being who is partly divine and partly human; an inferior deity.
2. a deified mortal. - Random House

The child of sexual intercourse between a deity and a mortal, a man raised to divine rank, or a minor god. - Harper's Etymology

A "deified mortal", a "man raised to divine rank" and even a "minor god" describes the LDS "Heavenly Father" perfectly. He is exactly that in LDS theology, even a "minor god" since the "God" who made him a "God" would necessarily have been a superior "God".

Huh. I had no idea that folks like you believe Jesus was a demigod. I'll have to remember that.

In any case the term is simply shorthand for the Mormon belief that God the Father was once a man, an ontological human creature like you and me. It is THIS doctrine that absolutely IS uniquely Mormon and which I have challenged you to demonstrate was ever taught by Jesus Christ, whose gospel and doctrine the LDS church claims to have "restored".

This is getting tiresome. Maybe you should spell this out for me. You want Mormons to demonstrate that Jesus taught something, so they point to Mormon scripture, which they believe comes from Jesus. You say that doesn't count. What does? What kind of source are you looking for, if you refuse to accept that religious people base their beliefs on their own scriptures and teachings?

It may indeed be that some Mormons have the good sense to dispute this doctrine. That does not obviate the FACT that the Mormon "prophets" most certainly DID teach it.

The word doctrine simply means "teaching". The Mormon "prophets", particularly Brigham Young, claiming divine authority by means of his office, "taught" that Adam was God.

I'm with you so far, though "doctrine" has a different meaning to Mormons. I suspect you knew that, though.

Was he right?

Obviously, I don't think he was.

Mormons in Young's day understood him, but seem to have been divided. Today this doctrine (or "teaching" if you prefer), has been abandoned because Mormons are free to create their own beliefs as they go.

I believe Mormons call that "continuing revelation." Seems to me that, if revelation is ongoing, understanding will change.

But at one time it most certainly was a part of the teaching of the LDS church which claimed to have "restored" the gospel of Christ.

Sure, it was taught. Again, so what?

Again, both irrelevant and weak. The veracity of the Bible has nothing at all to do with the LDS claim that they restored the gospel of Christ with claims such as this one, UNLESS a Mormon can appeal to the Bible where the teachings of Christ are most evident. Your "remembering" this is nothing but an impotent rhetorical threat - hardly a meaningful defense of the LDS claim.

Ah, so that's what you're on about. You want Mormons to show the lost teachings of Christ by appealing to the Bible, the book such teachings are supposed to have been lost from. You could have saved me a lot of typing if you had been clear in the first place.

Mocking the challenge to support your claims is no more sufficient as a defense for that claim than simply re-stating the claim is. It remains obvious that you simply have no answer and cannot provide any reasons to think that the LDS claim to have "restored" the teachings of Christ with doctrines involving secret handshakes, passwords and supernatural underwear.

I'm not mocking the challenge. It is silly on the face of it. That you can't see the problem doesn't mean there isn't one.

Actually there is abundant evidence that confirms that the Bible is telling the truth on countless points. Far from mere mythology, the Bible has proven to be sufficiently accurate in its record of the ancient Levant that historians and archaeologists have used it as a guide to Middle Eastern history since the beginning of their professions.

What you're saying, then, is that the Bible is demonstrably an ancient document that reflects the culture and geography of its time. Fair enough. But I doubt you read the Bible for its historical accuracy and insight into ancient culture; you, and most others, read the Bible because it teaches of God's interaction with humans. Of course, that interaction is the part that cannot ever be "confirmed."

By contrast the LDS "scriptures" have never been shown to connect to reality at any objective point. Obviously you are having trouble distinguishing the Bible from mythology - which would be consistent with your experience as a Mormon.

Keep the insults coming. They're awesome.

But that is all totally beside the point here, since the Bible is not the issue and is, in fact, irrelevant to the challenge I have posed here, unless you can show me FROM the Bible that Jesus Christ taught the doctrines the LDS attribute directly to him every time they claim to have "restored" his doctrine.

To recap:

Mormons: God has restored doctrines that were lost from the Bible.
BrianH: Show me where Jesus taught these lost doctrines.
Mormons: He taught them right here in our scriptures.
BrianH: That doesn't count. Show me where they are taught in the Bible.
Mormons: Uh, didn't we just say they were lost from the Bible?

You really don't see a problem with your "challenge"?

[_emilysmith]

BrianH.

Were you able to come up with any direct evidence of a physical Jesus before the 2nd Century?
Were you able to come up with evidence that the Israelites were enslaved in Egypt, as an entire race?
Is there any direct evidence to support the existence of a historical King David?
Is there any direct evidence to support the existence of a historical Abraham?
Do you believe the Bible is inerrant, as it exists today?

I suppose you can continue to ignore some of the problems of historical inaccuracy of the Bible, but that would make you as bad as the Mormons. You may as well take all of those insults and direct them right back at yourself.

What you want is to prove the Mormon church wrong. Easily done. Just as easily done is proving Christianity, at large, wrong. You can't have it both ways. Jesus didn't write any of his own words down, and there are no first hand accounts of his words. This is a problem for you, since whatever you think Jesus said, he didn't say it. So, when you use Jesus' words to justify your own beliefs, you are basing your own beliefs from lies. So, how does that make you different from the Mormons. We are all still dying to know.

[_Runtu]

What you want is to prove the Mormon church wrong. Easily done. Just as easily done is proving Christianity, at large, wrong. You can't have it both ways. Jesus didn't write any of his own words down, and there are no first hand accounts of his words. This is a problem for you, since whatever you think Jesus said, he didn't say it. So, when you use Jesus' words to justify your own beliefs, you are basing your own beliefs from lies. So, how does that make you different from the Mormons. We are all still dying to know.

Yep. It's fascinating to hear someone say that we need to "distinguish the Bible from mythology." Should we do the same for the Koran? Why or why not? And why should we not distinguish the Book of Mormon from mythology?

He's insisting that it's wrong for Mormons to believe certain things because "Jesus said so." But that's precisely his position. Pot. Meet kettle.

[_BrianH]

BH>>What you believe, and the fact that you believe it neither denies nor supports the fact that Mormonism teaches what Jesus never did - the Jesus-Satan brotherhood. The challenge here is to show that Jesus taught such a thing. Your sibling relationship with the rest of humanity could only be metaphorical, since your father was one human being and mine was another, and the same is true of our respective mothers.

R>So, let me get this straight. You are insisting that Mormons prove that Jesus taught something, but they can't use what they believe are Jesus' words. And you see nothing problematic with that. And frankly, insisting that I believe things I don't actually believe is, well, a bit presumptuous.

No. Mormons cannot use what they believe are Jesus' words UNLESS they can SHOW some reason to think those really are Jesus' words. I already know WHAT Mormons believe. The challenge here is for them to provide a basic apologetic to DEFEND this belief, which simply means some reasons to think that WHAT they have been told to "think" is actually TRUE. And I nowhere insisted that YOU believe anything.

BH>>Changing the subject will not do. While there is abundant reason to believe the Bible the logical fact is that even IF the Bible was lying when it described Adam and Eve, and Abraham, etc. that STILL would not amount to any reason to think that Jesus revealed the content of D&C 132 (or indeed anything else) to Joseph Smith. D&C 132 is simply the source of the Mormon assertion of the doctrine in question. The challenge here is to simply provide reasons to think that assertion is TRUE. Dismissing it as "silly" does not constitute an answer.

R>Again, here's that double standard. Without the Bible, there is no reason to believe that Jesus is the Son of God. Without LDS scriptures, there would be no reason to believe LDS doctrines. I dismiss your demands as silly because they are silly.

There is no double standard here at all. The simple logical fact is, no matter what the Bible says, unless it records Jesus teaching what Mormons say he taught, then it is irrelevant to this discussion. The challenge here should have been simple, if the LDS organization was telling the truth. The challenge here is for Mormons to simply provide some REASONS to think that they are telling the truth when they claim that Jesus taught the distinctive Mormon doctrines I listed above.

BH>>Same problem. Just citing the CLAIMS of Joseph Smith cannot reasonably stand as support for those very claims. This is circular reasoning.

It is interesting to me how consistent this phenomenon is. When Mormons cannot provide any reasons to think that they are telling the truth, they almost invariably turn and attack the Bible. Again, logically speaking, the veracity of the Bible is as irrelevant to the truth of the claims of the D&C as the veracity of the Bagivad Gita, the Communist Manifesto or descriptions of last year's Rose Bowl Game.

R>The problem here is that you don't have a Mormon attacking the Bible (I love that meme, though, because it's so predictable). What you have here is an agnostic saying that I have no more reason to believe your myths than you have to believe Mormon myths. The relevance here is that you, for some reason, insist that Mormon texts must have some sort of outside proof of their veracity, but the Bible does not. That you can't see how this is a fatally flawed argument is not my problem.

Okay so you are not a Mormon. But you ARE attacking the Bible. But the problem is, no matter who you are, the Bible is IRRELEVANT to the topic of this debate, UNLESS you or someone can show that it records Jesus teaching the doctrines I listed above. What I do or do not believe is not the issue here. The issue here is what the LDS organization has claimed. And yes, I insist that Mormons provide some outside evidence to support their claims that Jesus taught things like the Jesus-Satan brotherhood, and polytheism, etc. as listed above. Let me help you begin to develop an understanding of basic rhetorical logic: simply repeating a claim does not constitute the provision of evidence in support of that claim. One must go outside the assertion itself to provide evidence that the assertions you make are true. Now, I can do that with the Bible, but that is irrelevant. Even if I could not - in fact even if the Bible was a complete and total hoax, invented in 1956, logically speaking, that STILL would not in any way even address the topic of THIS trhead, let alone provide any reason to think that the Mormon claims are true.

However, whereas the Bible has been indubitably confirmed in many of its claims...<conveniently interrupted and edited out>

R>Surely, you can't be serious

.

Of course I am. Apparently you are unfamiliar with the entire field of Biblical archaeology, which has fully confirmed uncountable numbers of historical details recorded in the Bible. Just because YOU are uninformed does not mean that I cannot be serious. In any case, the Bible is not the issue here unless it can be shown that its pages record Jesus teaching the doctrines I listed in the OP.

BH>>the source of the Mormon "revelations", Joseph Smith (and Joseph Smith alone), remains highly questionable. The man was a twice-convicted occult con artist who pretended to have a magic rock in his hat and whose ~60 predictive prophecies rendered "in the name of the Lord God of Israel" all failed to come to pass as he said they would.

R>No argument here, Brian. I find the Bible highly questionable too. Is there some reason I should find its myths more believable than Mormon myths?

The fact that you cannot distinguish between the myths of Mormonism and the many thousands of indisputable historical facts recorded in the Bible has no bearing on the topic here. But now that you have made it clear that you do not believe the claims of Mormonism, there is no reason for you to pretend to be defending them. Obviously YOU do not have any reason to believe that the LDS really have restored the supposedly "lost" teachings of Christ. You appear to be here only to try to change the subject to drive YOUR agenda of complaining about the Bible - a topic with which you are are obviously unfamiliar. But again, unless the Bible records Jesus or perhaps his apostles teaching the doctrines that Mormons attribute to him, it is irrelevant to this challenge - a challenge you are obviously not here to even try to meet.

So there is really nothing left to discuss here. So ...<snip>

Next!

-BH

.

[_consiglieri]

The fact that Mormons have not been able to answer such an obvious question and the kind of treatment I have received here and elsewhere for daring to ask it is what is truly ridiculing Mormonism and those Mormons who have behaved as they have.

Translation--If you "Mormons" dare stand up to my ridicule, you ridicule your own religion.

I have been thinking BrianH must have suffered some severe culture shock when he waded into a discussion board he thought was packed with faithful, clean mouthed Mormons; only to find he got better than he gave.


All the Best!

--Consiglieri

P.S. In case BrianH didn't see my post responding to his claim number seven in a separate thread and simply ignored it, I would like to call it to his attention.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=21944

[_LDSToronto]

R>No argument here, Brian. I find the Bible highly questionable too. Is there some reason I should find its myths more believable than Mormon myths?

The fact that you cannot distinguish between the myths of Mormonism and the many thousands of indisputable historical facts recorded in the Bible has no bearing on the topic here. But now that you have made it clear that you do not believe the claims of Mormonism, there is no reason for you to pretend to be defending them. Obviously YOU do not have any reason to believe that the LDS really have restored the supposedly "lost" teachings of Christ. You appear to be here only to try to change the subject to drive YOUR agenda of complaining about the Bible - a topic with which you are are obviously unfamiliar. But again, unless the Bible records Jesus or perhaps his apostles teaching the doctrines that Mormons attribute to him, it is irrelevant to this challenge - a challenge you are obviously not here to even try to meet.

So there is really nothing left to discuss here. So ...<snip>

Biblical myths not supported by historical sources other than the Bible (from Wikipedia)

1 Marriage at Cana John 2:1-11
2 Exorcism at the Synagogue in Capernaum, Mark 1:21-28, Luke 4:31-37
3 Miraculous draught of fishes, Luke 5:1-11
4 Young Man from Nain Luke 7:11-17
5 Cleansing a leper Matthew 8:1-4, Mark 1:40-45, Luke 5:12-16
6 The Centurion's Servant Matthew 8:5-13, Luke 7:1-10, John 4:46-54
7 Healing the mother of Peter's wife, Matthew 8:14-17, Mark 1:29-34, Luke 4:38-41
8 Exorcising at sunset, Matthew 8:16-17, Mark 1:32-34, Luke 4:40-41
9 Calming the storm Matthew 8:23-27 Mark 4:35-41 Luke 8:22-25
10 Gerasenes demonic Matthew 8:28-34 Mark 5:1-20 Luke 8:26-39
11 Paralytic at Capernaum Matthew 9:1-8 Mark 2:1-12 Luke 5:17-26
12 Daughter of Jairus Matthew 9:18-26 Mark 5:21-43 Luke 8:40-56
13 The Bleeding Woman Matthew 9:20-22 Mark 5:24-34 Luke 8:43-48
14 Two Blind Men at Galilee Matthew 9:27-31
15 Exorcising a mute Matthew 9:32-34
16 Paralytic at Bethesda John 5:1-18
17 Man with withered Hand Matthew 12:9-13 Mark 3:1-6 Luke 6:6-11
18 Exorcising the blind and mute man Matthew 12:22-28 Mark 3:20-30 Luke 11:14-23
19 An Infirm Woman Luke 13:10-17
20 Feeding the 5000 Matthew 14:13-21 Mark 6:31-34 Luke 9:10-17 John 6:5-15
21 Walking on water Matthew 14:22-33 Mark 6:45-52 John 6:16-21
22 Healing in Gennesaret Matthew 14:34-36 Mark 6:53-56
23 Canaanite woman's daughter Matthew 15:21-28 Mark 7:24-30
24 Deaf mute of Decapolis Mark 7:31-37
25 Feeding the 4000 Matthew 15:32-39 Mark 8:1-9
26 Blind Man of Bethsaida Mark 8:22-26
27 Transfiguration of Jesus Matthew 17:1-13 Mark 9:2-13 Luke 9:28-36
28 Boy possessed by a demon Matthew 17:14-21 Mark 9:14-29 Luke 9:37-49
29 Coin in the fish's mouth Matthew 17:24-27
30 Man with dropsy Luke 14:1-6
31 Cleansing ten lepers Luke 17:11-19
32 The Blind at Birth John 9:1-12
33 Blind near Jericho Matthew 20:29-34 Mark 10:46-52 Luke 18:35-43
34 Raising of Lazarus John 11:1-44
35 Cursing the fig tree Matthew 21:18-22 Mark 11:12-14
36 Healing the ear of a servant Luke 22:49-51
37 Catch of 153 fish

Oh, never mind the virgin birth and the Resurrection of Jesus...

Show us why we should believe in these historically unsupported biblical myths and *then* we can start talking about why your rejection of Mormon myths is acceptable.

H.

[_consiglieri]

You are so, like, not getting BrianH's argument, LDST.

Brian's goal is to get Mormons to stop believing their own historically unsupportable myths so they can start believing in his.

Of course, by and large, Mormons already do believe in Brian's HUM's, so it is not clear what his long range plan might be.

Oh, wait, I'll bet I know.

Brian's goal is to ridicule Mormons into believing Brian's personal interpretation of his historically unsupportable myths.

Nothing wrong with that.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri