My version of Christianity is simply the accepted foundations that every true Christian "denomination" believes. Regardless of their differences on various doctrinal issues like wearing head coverings, or not having musical instruments in church, or infant baptism, or whether you can fall from grace, etc...when it comes to the core doctrines, particularly pertaining to God and Jesus Christ, their beliefs are the same.

 

As for Joseph Smith, I'm not going to delve too deep into this, particularly the questions regarding his character in life. I'll just say this...any man who claims to receive a revelation from God that contradicts the Bible and supersedes the Bible is a fraud. That's what Joseph Smith did. End of Story.

 

 

 

Jesus Christ is the author of Christianity. He was both God and a man.

Joseph Smith is the founder of Mormonism. He's only a man.

Muhammad founded Islam. He's only a man.

Any other religion you want to name was founded by a man.

 

 

When they proselytize potential converts, what exactly do they tell them? Do they tell people that God was a man from another planet who became a god? That he has a wife (a goddess, if you will) and that they produced spiritual offspring? That Jesus, Satan and the rest of us are part of those offspring? Thus, Jesus is a created being, not the eternal creator as the Bible tells us. Do they tell people that they too can become a god? Just curious.

 

 

 

No offense taken. And, hopefully I haven't offended you. But, I'm just telling you what I believe. A person can argue all they want about Mormonism and Joseph Smith being right and true. That's fine. I don't believe that and never will. I just take exception to Mormonism being grouped in with Christianity. Guess I take Jude's command to "earnestly contend for the faith" serious in this instance...

A lot of the other religions would disagree with you and say that Jesus was only a man as well.

Guys, can we move the Catholic vs. Protestant debate to another thread? I love the debate, but would like to focus more on Mormonism in this thread.

:thumb:

Here's a couple of thoughts to ponder over.

 

If we could magically go back to the time of Jesus and see how things were. I bet that many people felt the same way about him as people now do towards Joseph Smith.

 

Or think about what would happen if someone claimed to be the son of God today. The last that I can remember was David Koresh and things didn't turn out to well for him.

 

My belief is that if any new religion came about today it would be laughed at and never regarded as serious (See Scientology).

 

My main point is, because Mormonism is so new, a lot of the things can easily be proved wrong.

A lot of the other religions would disagree with you and say that Jesus was only a man as well.

 

Obviously, they would disagree. They'd have no choice. If they acknowledged otherwise, they would be denying their own religion by default and forcing themselves to accept or reject Christ.

 

To further the point...

 

Niether Joseph Smith nor Muhammad claimed to be anything more than a man. Jesus Christ was a man who claimed to be God.

 

So, regardless of what you believe, the claims of the founders themselves are different. There are people who profess to be Christians who deny the divinity of Christ. By definition, that's impossible. The two are not compatible.

Obviously, they would disagree. They'd have no choice. If they acknowledged otherwise, they would be denying their own religion by default and forcing themselves to accept or reject Christ.

 

To further the point...

 

Niether Joseph Smith nor Muhammad claimed to be anything more than a man. Jesus Christ was a man who claimed to be God.

 

So, regardless of what you believe, the claims of the founders themselves are different. There are people who profess to be Christians who deny the divinity of Christ. By definition, that's impossible. The two are not compatible.

Check this out.

Here's a couple of thoughts to ponder over.

 

If we could magically go back to the time of Jesus and see how things were. I bet that many people felt the same way about him as people now do towards Joseph Smith.

 

Or think about what would happen if someone claimed to be the son of God today. The last that I can remember was David Koresh and things didn't turn out to well for him.

 

My belief is that if any new religion came about today it would be laughed at and never regarded as serious (See Scientology).

 

My main point is, because Mormonism is so new, a lot of the things can easily be proved wrong.

 

And, if it can easily be proven wrong, how on earth could a person believe it to be true?

 

Can you give me one example of something the Bible says about Christ or otherwise that can or has been proven wrong?

Check this out.

 

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

 

Jesus said that many false christ's would come claiming to be Him.

 

How do I know they're false? Because they contradict the Bible. Additionally, any of them who have died and stayed dead are disqualified.

And, if it can easily be proven wrong, how on earth could a person believe it to be true?

 

Can you give me one example of something the Bible says about Christ or otherwise that can or has been proven wrong?

Google "Penn and Teller bible". A quick search can find many other examples, Penn and Teller just happens to be my favorite.

 

I think committing to any religion requires an act of faith which enables you to look past some things.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

 

Jesus said that many false christ's would come claiming to be Him.

 

How do I know they're false? Because they contradict the Bible. Additionally, any of them who have died and stayed dead are disqualified.

My point is, you said that JC was the only one to claim to be the son of God. I'm just saying that claiming to be the son of God isn't an exclusive group. :sssh:

Wow, I have never heard of the magic stones, the magician, or none that crap :ohbrother:you are saying. Smith's occupation at the time was what most in his time were, farmers. I guess as he grew older, he could have changed the occupation on his 1040 to minister or preacher, but I doubt that magician and treasure hunter was among them. I would be very interested in seeing the actual arrest record if you could find it (pm it to me). I doubt seriously there is one.

 

The arrest record was located in 1971 and has been acknowledged by the Mormon Church as being true. Smith was absolutely known to be a treasurer seeker and used magic "seer" stones to help locate buried treasure. It is this very activity that apparently led to his arrest. Smith himself acknowledged his legal troubles in his book, The Pearl of Great Price. It is also fact that he used these magic stones to help translate the Book of Mormom. None of this is apparently in dispute by the Mormom church and there are many websites out there to confirm this. Here is one I looked at that contains an actual image of Smith's arrest record.

 

http://www.truthandgrace.com/mormonjoearrest.htm

The arrest record was located in 1971 and has been acknowledged by the Mormon Church as being true. Smith was absolutely known to be a treasurer seeker and used magic "seer" stones to help locate buried treasure. It is this very activity that apparently led to his arrest. Smith himself acknowledged his legal troubles in his book, The Pearl of Great Price. It is also fact that he used these magic stones to help translate the Book of Mormom. None of this is apparently in dispute by the Mormom church and there are many websites out there to confirm this. Here is one I looked at that contains an actual image of Smith's arrest record.

 

http://www.truthandgrace.com/mormonjoearrest.htm

 

I am shocked that someone would follow a church that was founded by someone with an arrest record. I am told that there are some folks that follow a church that was founded by a fellow that was not only arrested, but was executed for his crimes.:eek:

Obviously, they would disagree. They'd have no choice. If they acknowledged otherwise, they would be denying their own religion by default and forcing themselves to accept or reject Christ.

 

To further the point...

 

Niether Joseph Smith nor Muhammad claimed to be anything more than a man. Jesus Christ was a man who claimed to be God.

 

So, regardless of what you believe, the claims of the founders themselves are different. There are people who profess to be Christians who deny the divinity of Christ. By definition, that's impossible. The two are not compatible.

 

He is also the only religious leader that was executed and rose from the dead. There is that, also.

My main point is, because Mormonism is so new, a lot of the things can easily be proved wrong.

To me (an objectivist, which I assume you are as well), there is absolute good and absolute evil in the world. I guess this is more a religious point of view, but I think that the things that are true stand the test of time, whereas the things that do not have truth fail. This is not in regards to only religion but everything, i.e., the failing of communism. Freedom is good and coercion is bad- therefore, the system based on coercion failed and the systems based on freedom do not. To me, the fact that Christianity has survived so long (while not being a proof in and of itself of its validity) is a reassurance to me. I do not think that it got lucky in the beginning and therefore is now harder to disprove (as you are inferring Mormonism would be should it become widespread after these earlier, skeptical stages).

I think committing to any religion requires an act of faith which enables you to look past some things.

I won't disagree with that. This is due to the imperfection of our own abilities to reason, not on the truth of something itself. For example, your have faith that life luckily assembled (as outlined in the other thread) instead of their being some Intelligent Creator. From what I gather, you have faith in the powers of chance.

 

The existence of faith is due to our own inability to 100% prove anything. Even in science, where faith is supposedly nonexistence, each new idea is contingent upon the truth of something else, which is contingent on another theory, etc. We have faith that our past theories are true so that we can discover new ones based on them.

Yay or Nay?

 

And if possible list cite your religious/spiritual affiliation as well.

 

Nay.....but I do think they are a bit odd with the exception of Steve Young. :lol:

 

Catholic