- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Interesting how "Evangelicals" are separating themselves from "Protestants".
Posted on 10/9/25 at 8:14 pm to Diamondawg
Posted on 10/9/25 at 8:14 pm to Diamondawg
quote:
Is it in the Book of Mormon?
Is this asked because someone here self-identified as such, or is this just probing the outer bounds?
If the latter, I believe the debate over Christianity and Mormonism was had some pages ago by others. I'll let someone else discuss that topic.
1
Posted on 10/9/25 at 8:32 pm to somethingdifferent
quote:
They came from the same people, genius. PLOT TWIST
Plot twist for you. At least you’re finally admitting this.
quote:
The Canaanites split and became polytheist.
Posted on 10/9/25 at 8:32 pm to Prodigal Son
quote:
You think I’m scared to read anything that challenges my views. I’m not. If you’d read and understood my last reply to Squirrelmeister, you’d know that.
Ok.
Posted on 10/9/25 at 9:08 pm to LockDown
Just curious. I believe it is in the Book of Revelation that nothing will be added nor deleted to the Holy Bible. How does the Book of Mormon fit into that?
Posted on 10/10/25 at 5:46 am to Mo Jeaux
quote:By what standard? You are making a judgment of good or bad behavior when you say something is “sad”, and I’d like to know where that objective standard you are using comes from.
A person not only admitting their ignorance, but also relishing it, is objectively sad.
quote:I’ve butted in to talk about truth compared to mere opinion.
Then you just butted into the conversation without context, because that wasn’t what I was discussing.
Posted on 10/10/25 at 6:14 am to Tigris
quote:When Christians (or anyone, really) says that LDS isn’t Christian, they are making that judgment by comparing LDS teaching to the teaching of historic Christianity according to the Bible.quote:I grew up in an offshoot of LDS. The idea that LDS isn't Christian is comical, but typical. But by all means cling to your particular cult ideas. It's the new way.
LDS and JW aren’t Christians at all
LDS theology asserts that God is not the infinite, eternal, and unchangeable Spirit (as the Bible teaches), but an exalted being who was once like us.
LDS theology is not monotheistic (the Bible teaches there is one God in essence, in three persons) but polytheistic, since humans can become gods, and tritheistic in terms of the Father, Son, and Spirit, since they are seen as three gods sharing one purpose rather than one God sharing one essence.
LDS theology sees Jesus not as the eternal begotten God and second person of the Trinity, proceeding from the Father from all eternity, but as the first created spirit son of God. This is essentially the Arian heresy.
LDS teaches a different gospel, whereby salvation (exaltation) is an ongoing process obtained by faith in addition to obedience rather than a once-for-all act of Christ, received by faith alone.
I could go on, but the LDS church is not a Christian church due to its deviation from biblical Christianity in major core doctrines that are essential to the faith.
The LDS church is no more Christian than Islam is Christian.
Posted on 10/10/25 at 6:24 am to Tigris
quote:Was it by chance The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints? I knew a family that were that and I even went with them a few times. They didn't to convert us or anything but I remember being confused by the Book of Mormon. That is why I asked. My friend's dad and Uncle were "lay ministers", I think.
I grew up in an offshoot of LDS. The idea that LDS isn't Christian is comical, but typical. But by all means cling to your particular cult ideas. It's the new way.
This post was edited on 10/10/25 at 7:24 am
Posted on 10/10/25 at 6:26 am to Diamondawg
quote:
Just curious. I believe it is in the Book of Revelation that nothing will be added nor deleted to the Holy Bible. How does the Book of Mormon fit into that?
Added to nor deleted from the text of Revelation or the entire canon of Holy Scripture?
Posted on 10/10/25 at 6:33 am to FooManChoo
quote:
By what standard?
Is there really any other standard?
quote:
I’ve butted in to talk about truth compared to mere opinion.
Foo’s “truth”. We’ve already had this discussion.
Posted on 10/10/25 at 6:39 am to Mo Jeaux
quote:There is objective truth that exists outside of the human experience, and there is human opinion.
Is there really any other standard?
quote:There is only the truth. I seek to be conformed to and align with the truth.
Foo’s “truth”. We’ve already had this discussion.
Posted on 10/10/25 at 7:23 am to FooManChoo
quote:
There is objective truth that exists outside of the human experience, and there is human opinion.
Ok, I guess in your opinion, being ignorant if something and openly celebrating that ignorance isn’t sad. Good luck.
quote:
There is only the truth. I seek to be conformed to and align with the truth.
As do many people, and many come to different conclusions about that truth.
Posted on 10/10/25 at 7:29 am to LockDown
quote:I guess my problem understanding how it is "adding to" what is written as the Holy Word and Hole Bible as it is complete. Is the Book of Mormon used as a study for those in LDS Churches or do they consider it an addition to the Holy Bible - if any of that makes sense.
Added to nor deleted from the text of Revelation or the entire canon of Holy Scripture?
Posted on 10/10/25 at 7:58 am to somethingdifferent
quote:
I get that people with an agenda don't understand this but, those artifacts merely reinforce the biblical narrative that they originally came from one people. The Canaanites split and became polytheist. Ditto the DNA "evidence."
Don’t take this the wrong way, but you don’t actually have any idea of the veracity of your allegations.
Ok, the biblical narrative is that the Israelites and Judahites were NOT descended from Canaanites, but rather the Chaldeans (Babylonians). Abraham was “of the Chaldeans”. Now in reality Abraham never existed, but in the Bible he is said to travel from Mesopotamia to what is now Israel, and he was supposed to have started a great nation.
If there were any truth to that, the archaeological and genetic record should show a sudden influx of Mesopotamian (east Semitic) DNA, pottery, clothing, architecture, and cultural items displacing Canaanite people and culture. Not only is there no evidence of that never happening, but there is positive evidence that it absolutely did not happen. What was found was a continuous genetic and cultural path from the Canaanites, who spoke a west Semitic language and worshipped El Elyon and Baal and Asherah. And it just so happens the Israelites spoke a west Semitic language that was mutually intelligible with all their other Canaanite neighbors and worshipped those same exact gods, and the namesake of IsraEL is the high god of the Canaanite pantheon.
quote:
Additionally, the presence of the figurines and the reference to Asherah merely corroborate the biblical testimony of idol worship but that is the exception that proves the rule.
You must’ve ever read the books of kings, and you also don’t understand or know anything about first temple theology. You see, the Israelite (and Judahite) kings were anointed by El, later Yahweh, directly chosen by their deity to rule. Their word for anointed was “messiah”. Every king was the messiah, and was the earthly incarnation of their deity. So they believed the king was divine, in the same way the Pharaoh was a god. The Israelite god-kings were in charge of everything including the religion of the people. The messiah held authority over the priestly class, because he himself WAS the high priest (in the same was Melchizedek was the king and high priest of “Salam” and “Jesus” was the messiah and Melchizedek and the high priest of heaven). The religion of the people was tied to the religion of the king. The king decided how worship, and to which deities, was to be conducted.
The archaeological evidence points to there never being anything close to monotheism until the Persian period, after they couldn’t have a Jewish king anymore and the king of Persia, Cyrus, was named messiah (Isaiah 45:1). We can go back from 6th century BCE to thousands of years before that and the record is that all cultures were purely polytheistic. The Bible corroborates this but in a unique manner.
In the books of Kings, it does on an on about how every Israelite king “did evil in the site of the Lord” and how just about every Judahite king except Hezekiah and Josiah did the same thing. So basically 98% of Israelite and Judahite kings - kings who are in charge of the state religion and temples and religious practices - were polytheists according to the books of Kings. And that matches up with the archaeological record.
The book of Judges is a collection of short stories written in the post exilic period about their “heroes” which were deities they had worshipped for centuries or more, but in the time of monotheism they couldn’t have those other deities, but they wanted to retain those stories and heritage. So deities became men, and stories of things in the heavens became stories of things on earth. Take the story of Samson (the sun god) and Delilah (the moon god). Simply look at the Hebrew word for “Samson” and the word for “Shemesh” which is the word for “sun” (the big hot yellow ball in the sky) that the Canaanites worshipped. Samson is just Shemesh with one letter added to the end. “Shemeshon” would be a better English pronunciation of the Hebrew word for Samson. And Delilah… Lilah means “darkness”.
Anyhow, just like Judges, the book of kings is fictive history. It doesn’t mean there’s nothing historical at all contained within them, but that as a whole the author was writing fiction. I don’t believe in Spider-Man just because the author set the story in a real city with some historical references. The authors of the books of Kings were writing a fictive history for a couple of reasons.
1. Justify the priestly class as being superior to the old god-kings (messiahs)… no more Jewish messiahs - the priests rule now but under the authority of Persia
2. Provide a basis for the new monotheism (worshipping Yahweh alone to exclusion of others without denying the existence of the others). “Look at all these prophets from hundreds of years ago.. if the kings would have only listened to them!”
quote:
The Jews were monotheistic for potentially thousands of years before that.
Again man, you haven’t a clue what you are talking about. We have written records going back to around 3500BCE and the first time the word “Israel” is ever mentioned is on the Pharaoh Merneptah stele from about 1208BCE. And during that time they were simply a band of nomadic Canaanites who worshipped the Canaanite gods and were named after the Canaanite high god “El”, who they often called “El Elyon” meaning the highest god - the chief deity of the pantheon.
An interesting tidbit is that no one in Israel began to have theophoric names for Yahweh until the 9th century BCE. That’s when we start to see in the archaeological record of theophoric names moving from El to Yahweh. Names such as Ezekiel, Michael, and Daniel fall out in favor of names like Hezekiah, Josiah, Adonijah, Jeremiah, and Isaiah. You even have in between names as the Israelites transitioned from primarily El worship to Yahweh worship. Names like Elijah, meaning Yahweh is my El.
So the official position of the priestly class sometime during the Persian period became to only worship one deity - Yahweh. In practice, they never completely stamped out polytheism at all, and some of those polytheistic sects became the first Christians.
quote:
The historicity of the Torah/Bible has been vindicated many, many times over.
Who are you listening to? What books are you reading? If you only listen to Christian apologists, you will only feel validated when they pour on you a fictive history. It’s what apologists do - it’s their jobs - not to determine what is real and factual, but to feed you a line of hot garbage to make you feel validated in what you believe because you really really really want to believe it anyway.
quote:
They inserted versesProve it. Squirrel. You have nothing. You have no proof.
I’m not a scholar. But it’s been proven. You just have to pick up a real book written by someone who is actually knowledgeable on the subject matter and not crackpot.
quote:
Jewish DNA is Canaanite DNAThey came from the same people, genius. PLOT TWIST
Not according to the Bible, genius.
Posted on 10/10/25 at 8:15 am to Diamondawg
quote:
I guess my problem understanding how it is "adding to" what is written as the Holy Word and Hole Bible as it is complete. Is the Book of Mormon used as a study for those in LDS Churches or do they consider it an addition to the Holy Bible - if any of that makes sense.
Yes, I understand the questions about the Mormon beliefs; but to be frank, I am not a Mormon, nor have I attended a church affiliated with the Latter Day Saints organization.
Maybe there is someone else on here who is a member of that organization or who is more familiar with them that can answer. I think we all can read online about it, but if we are all open for learning, it might be beneficial to hear from an actual attendee.
Posted on 10/10/25 at 8:40 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:
Squirrelmeister
In this thread so far, you’ve gotten somethingdifferent to state that the inerrant word of God is wrong about the Canaanites/Israelites and that Mohammad actually did receive a divine revelation.
I’m starting to like that guy.
Posted on 10/10/25 at 8:56 am to Diamondawg
quote:It's my understanding that the LDS church believes the Bible--as non LDS have it--is corrupted and that the pure version of it was lost until the truth was revealed to Joseph Smith.
I guess my problem understanding how it is "adding to" what is written as the Holy Word and Hole Bible as it is complete. Is the Book of Mormon used as a study for those in LDS Churches or do they consider it an addition to the Holy Bible - if any of that makes sense.
The teaching is that the Bible was corrupted not long after the Apostles died, and core teachings about God and Jesus were removed or changed. Joseph Smith had to restore the Bible through revelation using his own translation, and added the Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price as additional authoritative revelation from God. The Book of Mormon is at the top of the revelational hierarchy with the Bible being further down the list.
The LDS church definitely adds to and takes away from the Bible.
This post was edited on 10/10/25 at 10:11 am
Posted on 10/10/25 at 9:19 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:He does not say he's quoting from 1 Enoch. You are reading something into the text that's not there which is eisegesis. He quotes the prophet who the Bible says is prophetic. Just because 1 Enoch draws from the same source material does not mean it is inspired itself. There's a reason why it was never included in the canon and is to this day called deuterocanonical.
Jude doesn’t merely quote from 1 Enoch. He calls it a prophetic work
Why do you have such a strong need to rewrite history? Is it an emotional problem for you?
Posted on 10/10/25 at 9:23 am to Mo Jeaux
quote:And this is of course a logical fallacy called argumentum ad verecundiam
below is the bio of someone whose book somethingdifferent thinks is “stupid”
Notice how Mo and squirrel have yet to outline the contrasting position/advocates which completely undermines the claim of "consensus"
Posted on 10/10/25 at 9:33 am to Mo Jeaux
quote:
you’ve gotten somethingdifferent to state that the inerrant word of God is wrong about the Canaanites/Israelites and that Mohammad actually did receive a divine revelation.
I’m starting to like that guy.
Like most on this site, they are unaware of their own incompetence but act as if they are very confident and sure of themselves. And many of those are fine with it because what they believe gives them comfort and belonging to their social group. They don’t want to learn and don’t want to know the truth. They’d rather believe in a false reality.
In any other situation, people like this would be classified as delusional brought on my psychosis, but if their false reality is about a Superman in the sky who created the universe, society gives them a pass and calls their delusions a “religion”.
It’s kind of like that bald white guy in the matrix. He’s good with the matrix and wants to go back into it and wants to be made rich and powerful in the false reality, so he’s going to get agent smith to hook him back up to the machines. Not many people on this site, or in the general population for that matter, would take the red pill. Somethingdifferent, FooLaneCraig, and my bud ProdigalSon and others would take the blue pill.
Posted on 10/10/25 at 9:46 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:Which proves nothing, of course.
Paul for example so many times in his letters uses and agrees with ideas found in 1 Enoch
quote:You can't prove that any such verses serve as a "root"
a verse in the NT and its root in 1 Enoch
quote:Correct. Do you know what that authority is? As in how something made it into the NT as opposed to things that were excluded, even though they were popular, helpful and didn't even contradict scripture, unlike the apochryphal books which have errors. The actual criteria for canonical inclusion
The canon was set by an authority
quote:Historically false. Do you know why he was excommunicated?
there wasn’t one until Marcion of Sinope made a canon
quote:Since your prior assertion was historically inaccurate, this one is also
that later got co-opted by the Roman Catholic Church in the 3rd and 4th centuries CE.
quote:Apparently, you don't understand basic literary principles, such as why a certain work was produced. The question you aren't even addressing is why they needed to cover that ground again. And don't say they were later because they are clear theological developments of the preceding synoptics and John
The seven letters of Paul, plus Ephesians and Colossians, plus Hebrews, 1 Peter, James, and Jude talk nothing about any of the stories of Jesus on earth because they were written before those later myths existed
Squirrel, is there ANYTHING you can't misunderstand? Can you try to get even 1 thing right without some lunatic, fantastical rewriting of history?
Page 28 of 33
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News