McCain to get 95% of California’s delegates? Update: McCain all but clinches mathematically? Update: Brokered convention?

posted at 11:50 am on February 6, 2008 by Allahpundit

I nodded at this in the Scarborough post but it’s a big enough deal to warrant its own thread. 42-34 is the (almost) final tally from Cali this morning. The 173 delegates are awarded proportionally, which means roughly 70 for Maverick and 60 for Mitt, right? Wrong. Proportionality in this case means winner-take-all by district, so those delegate estimates work only if McCain and Romney take 42% and 34% of the state’s districts. They’re 53 separate little primaries; the statewide popular vote is largely meaningless.

So how’d they do by district? If you saw the earlier thread, you already know. We’re looking at a delegate breakdown closer to 160-10, which qualifies as, shall we say, an objectively bad day for Mitt Romney, even among serious analysts whose pundit fu is, of course, to be trusted. It has, at last, come to this.

Update: CNN puts Maverick at 615 delegates but with only 56 in his column thus far from California. Team McCain says the real number is closer to 775. Which means…

Speaking with reporters today, McCain adviser Charlie Black said, “To date, we have 775 delegates, Romney has 284, Huckabee has 205. It takes 1,191 to clinch the nomination. There are 963 left to be chosen, so Romney or Huckabee would have to have all of them — all of them — to get to 1,191. Now you can’t do that because a majority of those 963 are chosen in proportional primaries, which means you’d have to get 100% if the vote to get them all.

Update: What’s the likelihood of Mitt blowing McCain out in the remaining states?

[N]early half the coming reaces are open contests — those that allow Democrats and independents in which McCain has fared well. “To make things worse for Mitt, the open contests are in larger states (Ohio, Texas, Indiana).

Update: CPAC may be Romney’s last hurrah.

Update: Reader James P. turns Charlie Black’s logic around in an e-mail:

All Mitt (and Huckabee) need to do to deny McCain enough delegates to win the nomination is win 547 of the remaining 963 delegates – roughly 57%. Which means it will go to the convention, where anything can happen. Given that around 66% of Republicans voted for someone other than McCain last night, it’s not out of the question, especially given most of the upcoming contests are awarded on a proportional basis and McCain won’t be taking primaries outright (like he did last night).

All that does is lock up the VP nomination for Huckabee, though, doesn’t it? Maverick goes to the convention with, say, 1,000 delegates needing 191 more to win. He pulls Huck aside, the deal is done, and he gets the Huck faction in return for promising him the bottom of the ticket.

Update: Noam Askew tries to game out a brokered convention. Not all delegates are bound to the candidate they’re pledged to, he reminds us, a fact very much in Romney’s mind right now.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5

This is just silly, Hebrew. You are closing your eyes to any definitive statements having to do with Orthodox Christianity. It would interfere with your distain.

You’ve no standing to talk of having closed eyes. You’ve made it clear that you don’t consider the Mormons to be Christian. The intolerance you demonstrate speaks louder than any words you write. If you believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ then you’re a Christian. It’s as simple as that.

HebrewToYou on February 6, 2008 at 8:09 PM

What an honor to have Mike running for President of our great Nation.

It’s about WE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRK9JGu0820

apacalyps on February 6, 2008 at 8:10 PM

HebrewToYou on February 6, 2008 at 7:57 PM

Cool your jets on religion. Everyone is entitled to their own religious beliefs. An essential part of that is being entitled to think everyone who disagrees with you is a heretic who is going to hell. There are Mormons who think that. There are Christians that think that. There certainly plenty of Muslims that think that. Intellectual intolerance is built into all religion. Moral relativism asks us to ignore the parts of our faith that damns all disbelievers, but those parts are invariably there.

tommylotto on February 6, 2008 at 8:10 PM

You’ve no standing to talk of having closed eyes. You’ve made it clear that you don’t consider the Mormons to be Christian. The intolerance you demonstrate speaks louder than any words you write. If you believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ then you’re a Christian. It’s as simple as that.HebrewToYou on February 6, 2008 at 8:09 PM

You are talking like someone who has authority, Hebrew. How do you, yet others do not? Where do you receive your absolute statements?

Just asking. Just dialogue, that’s all.

Skidd on February 6, 2008 at 8:14 PM

Gotta go, guys. Hebrew, you can beat me up now, I won’t respond because I won’t be here.

By the way, it was fun. Thanks.

Skidd on February 6, 2008 at 8:16 PM

If the MSM wanted a candidate for Obama and Hillary to mop the floor with then why haven’t they been shilling for Ron Paul or Alan Keyes?

Because they have no real national exposure! At least McCain is well known from his run in 2000. The MSM knew they can get him elected and they knew he would be obliterated by the two Democrat frontrunners. It’s quite clear.

It makes much more sense to reason that the MSM actually wanted a competitive election in November, from which they will get higher viewing figures, more revenue, and more power in terms of being the brokers of power in this nation.

They get more power by proving they have the ability to “fix” the nomination process.

I won’t lie to people.

And yet csdeven has already shown you’ve done so when the subject is Mike Huckabee. Funny.

Just asking. Just dialogue, that’s all.

I’m not telling anybody what to believe. I’m just telling you that you, nor your particular denomination, are/is not the authority on who is or is not a Christian. It is beyond arrogant to suggest that!

HebrewToYou on February 6, 2008 at 8:18 PM

This is the BIG story. The media is forcing McCain and Romney onto us as the only candidates that we have to choose from. I say we do have a choice and we should not be forced into accepting the media’s candidate. Super Tuesday exposed this media bias, yet you are ignoring this.

Here’s a good example of the MSM and the Romney campaign trying to manipulate public opinion into thinking Huck was out of it. Keep in mind this was before Super Tuesday and Huckabee’s strong showing in the Southern States.

Who really won the California GOP debate?
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/8235.html

My hat’s off to the ladies (smiles).

apacalyps on February 6, 2008 at 8:19 PM

The media is forcing McCain and Romney onto us as the only candidates that we have to choose from.

Super Tuesday is over and Huckabee is still in third place. He isn’t an option. Get over it.

HebrewToYou on February 6, 2008 at 8:25 PM

apacalyps on February 6, 2008 at 8:19 PM

When you get a chance could you respond to

modin5540 on February 6, 2008 at 7:24 PM

I would like to get a better idea of your support of Huckabee from you.

modin5540 on February 6, 2008 at 8:32 PM

Please show me in Jesus’ or God’s own words … what defines a Christian. You will not find it.

Gregor on February 6, 2008 at 6:50 PM

Jesus saith unto him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” John 14:6

The exclusiveness of this claim is a stumbling block to those who are supposedly searching for truth, or who desire a different kind of life some other way. It is probably the main reason why Christians are persectued by others, a good example of this are HebrewToYou and Gregor and their posts tonight. Nevertheless, one cannot be a Christian and believe otherwise, for “there is none other name under heaven, given among men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:2) Christians are not being unloving when they try to win others to Christ, for they know that all people are eternally lost without Him. This is a quick definition in Christ’s own words what a Christian (follower of Christ) is.

apacalyps on February 6, 2008 at 8:34 PM

LOL! Really? Pretty straight forward? Please find the word Christian in the Bible, along with some sort of definition.

You know? Since it’s so “straight forward” and all.

Gregor on February 6, 2008 at 6:58 PM

I already gave you a definition, but the word Christian is first mentioned in the Bible in Acts 11:26,

“And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch (Syria).” Acts 11:26

The word Christian is found in only two other places in the Bible: Acts 26:28,

“Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.” Acts 26:28

and 1 Peter 4:16,

“Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.” 1 Peter 4:16

To the Jews in Jerusalem, the name “Christ” was a title, meaning “the anointed one,” the Jewish Messiah. However, about 2000 years ago the Greek-speaking believers in Antioch, Syria, soon became known as followers of Christ, or Christians, and this has been customary ever since.

apacalyps on February 6, 2008 at 8:50 PM

apacalyps, you can believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ and reject outright the scripture that mortals have written about him. Therefore quoting scripture does nothing to make your case.

You are a Christian if you believe in the divinity of that ol’ Jew named Jesus.

HebrewToYou on February 6, 2008 at 8:54 PM

Cool your jets on religion. Everyone is entitled to their own religious beliefs. An essential part of that is being entitled to think everyone who disagrees with you is a heretic who is going to hell. There are Mormons who think that. There are Christians that think that. There certainly plenty of Muslims that think that. Intellectual intolerance is built into all religion. Moral relativism asks us to ignore the parts of our faith that damns all disbelievers, but those parts are invariably there.

tommylotto on February 6, 2008 at 8:10 PM

As much as I vigorously agree with your assertion that everyone is entitled to their beliefs, people are not entitled to spread lies, misrepresent and assert vitriol as fact, as apacalyps is doing with the LDS faith here.

In fact, I just love people that tell me what I believe /sarc.

I will have to work over his post later when I have more time. It’s funny, we’re both quoting the same scripture as he did in his 8:50pm post as I did in my post earlier on page 4, but somehow my understanding of Jesus is fake or flawed… Oh the irony – somehow the admonition not to bear false witness wasn’t picked up by him and others that trot out those falsehoods.

SkinnerVic on February 6, 2008 at 9:23 PM

HebrewToYou on February 6, 2008 at 7:57 PM

Are you sure you want to be in bed with csdeven on this subject? The one who calls Christian ministers whores, only out to pick the pocket of the congregation?
I would rather not repeat some of the other ugly things about Christians, a group that he despises.
If you sleep with dogs, you wake up with fleas…I think you will be itching a little tomorrow.

right2bright on February 6, 2008 at 9:27 PM

The one who calls Christian ministers whores, only out to pick the pocket of the congregation?

Maybe he was referring specifically to Huckabee…?

Look, the fact is that csdeven is right to point out apacalyps bigotry. And it doesn’t stop at his disapproval of the Church of LDS. You should heard what apacalyps has to say about pro-choice folks and proponents of gay marriage.

csdeven and I disagree on much, I imagine, but that wont stop me from joining him to point out the worst sort of intolerance.

HebrewToYou on February 6, 2008 at 9:32 PM

you can believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ and reject outright the scripture that mortals have written about him.

That’s funny. How do you believe Christ is God if you reject outright the only text on which the idea is founded.

It’s like saying you can believe in the constitutional right to bear arms and yet reject entirely the Constitution.

There are sources outside the Scripture that affirm Jesus having existed, but there are no claims as to Jesus’ divinity that aren’t founded on scriptural claims. If you believe in Christ’s divinity you must accept some part of Scripture.

HTY, you’ve lost this argument. Give it up. There are no rules beyond the normal constraints of logic and reason that bind Christians on matters of doctrine. Christians make millions of varying doctrinal claims and you don’t get to be the Decider of Legitimacy. You can disagree, but that’s the end of it. There are no arguments that compel Christians to believe what others do. Give it up.

The Apologist on February 6, 2008 at 9:38 PM

How do you believe Christ is God if you reject outright the only text on which the idea is founded.

Because Jesus Christ existed before the books about his life did. One doesn’t have to hear the story as it was written down and approved by the Catholic Church to have faith that Jesus Christ is divine.

Of the many forms of Christianity the tie that binds is the belief in Jesus Christ’s divinity. Quoting a book doesn’t prove that someone else is or is not a Christian. It is the faith beyond mere words that determines whether one is a Christian or not.

There are sources outside the Scripture that affirm Jesus having existed, but there are no claims as to Jesus’ divinity that aren’t founded on scriptural claims. If you believe in Christ’s divinity you must accept some part of Scripture.

So you’re saying an oral history of the life of JC wouldn’t count? That’s hilarious. I thought the Christian religions meant more than just the words in a book written by men. How silly of me.

Christians make millions of varying doctrinal claims and you don’t get to be the Decider of Legitimacy.

You’re totally missing the point. I think ANYBODY who believes in the divinity of JC has the right to call themselves a Christian. It is the other side of the argument, those who believe THEY have the right to determine who is or isn’t a Christian, that are trying to some Decider of Legitimacy.

Ultimately I just want to see this anti-Mormon garbage being spouted by Mike Huckabee and his minions put to rest. I think it’s disgusting to try and tell someone they aren’t a Christian simply because their specific religion is different than yours. But maybe that’s just me.

You don’t have to believe the words written by men in The New Testament to believe in the divinity of Jesus.

HebrewToYou on February 6, 2008 at 10:02 PM

Cool your jets on religion. Everyone is entitled to their own religious beliefs. An essential part of that is being entitled to think everyone who disagrees with you is a heretic who is going to hell. There are Mormons who think that. There are Christians that think that. There certainly plenty of Muslims that think that. Intellectual intolerance is built into all religion. Moral relativism asks us to ignore the parts of our faith that damns all disbelievers, but those parts are invariably there.

tommylotto on February 6, 2008 at 8:10 PM

Mormons don’t think that. Mormons think everybody has a chance to go to Heaven and they will do the proxy/vicarious baptism to insure every son or daughter of God has the chance.

PrettyD_Vicious on February 6, 2008 at 10:16 PM

Lots of interesting, and bizarre stuff, so I’m going to deal with it piecemeal while I have a minute.

The the imaginary jesus of Joseph Smith is not God incarnate as the Bible teaches. The Mormon jesus was not supernaturally conceived by the Holy Ghost, but the natural offspring of their “god” Elohim who had sex with Mary, meaning he is a created being no different than you and I…

apacalyps on February 6, 2008 at 7:47 PM

So much has been written on this topic, I will link to many sources. This is false. I think a passage in the Book Of Mormon best clarifies this point, ” Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God… And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms.” If you read that she’s STILL a virgin holding Jesus – pretty crystal clear the intent of that passage.

I love the quote in the conclusion of that previous link, where it states, “Critics of the Church like to dig up quotes like those from Brigham Young for their shock value, but such statements do not represent the official doctrine of the Church.”

BTW, Elohim is a widely recognized in Hebrew as the plural of El and is the first name for God given in the Tanakh (Gen 1:1). I know Old Testament is hard to read man, but we didn’t coin that term – it really is the same God the Father.

SkinnerVic on February 6, 2008 at 10:16 PM

As much as I vigorously agree with your assertion that everyone is entitled to their beliefs, people are not entitled to spread lies, misrepresent and assert vitriol as fact, as apacalyps is doing with the LDS faith here.

I’m glad to see another link, since there’s been a good deal of vitriol thrown at apacalyps without any hard evidence to back it up. Perhaps someone would like to point out what part of his post was lies, bigotry, and vitriol, since apacalyps only seems to be debating theological issues, and presenting facts. Namely, that in mainstream LDS theology Jesus was a created being, was a spirit brother of Lucifer until they fell out in the War in Heaven, and the son of a deity called Elohim from the planet Kolob: these things seem to be standard theological interpretations arising from the holy texts. All religions are going to have different set of doctrines and theological perspectives. The fact he gives, that Romney believes himself to be a god, was already self-evident.

Pax americana on February 6, 2008 at 10:18 PM

SkinnerVic on February 6, 2008 at 10:16 PM

Thank you, SkinnerVic – this is helpful.

Pax americana on February 6, 2008 at 10:23 PM

Pax americana on February 6, 2008 at 10:18 PM

Defend a gibot and be a gibot yourself.

apacalyps is a vile disgusting gibot. He started his gibotry a long time ago. I linked to one thread that proves his total intolerance for others religious beliefs. He believes he can decide who is a “real” Christian.

csdeven on February 7, 2008 at 12:38 AM

HebrewToYou on February 6, 2008 at 6:26 PM
MB4 on February 6, 2008 at 6:31 PM

Let’s hope the doctor who performs an operation on you does not think that way.
You have a heart problem, but the other doctor calls it a liver…I mean who is he to say what to call the organ.
So your doctor operates on the liver, and you die. Too esoteric?
How’s this, I think a tail of a dog should be called a leg. So how many legs does my dog have, and if you owned it how many legs would it have?
Words and definitions are important. How important?
Who are you (generic you) to say that McCain is not conservative…you are quick to define conservative, and liberal…but can’t define a Christian?
I think bigotry comes from not defining them. It is easy to define a Christian…if you are not a bigot. Bigotry comes from ignorance, and there is no excuse not to know what defines a Christian.

right2bright on February 6, 2008 at 7:38 PM

Cute analogy. I like cute analogies. Too bad it doesn’t fit the subject at hand.

Save it though as maybe you can find something it fits some day later on.

MB4 on February 7, 2008 at 2:15 AM

apacalyps is a vile disgusting gibot. He started his gibotry a long time ago. I linked to one thread that proves his total intolerance for others religious beliefs. He believes he can decide who is a “real” Christian.

csdeven on February 7, 2008 at 12:38 AM

He should have been born a Muslim.

He would have made a good one.

MB4 on February 7, 2008 at 2:17 AM

Cute analogy. I like cute analogies. Too bad it doesn’t fit the subject at hand.

Save it though as maybe you can find something it fits some day later on.

MB4 on February 7, 2008 at 2:15 AM

I should have said what some have made the subject at hand.

Jesus wept.

MB4 on February 7, 2008 at 2:26 AM

tom, it’s an election. Yes, I much prefer Fred! to the others, and really, really liked Duncan Hunter on the issues. If conservatives had fought for Hunter, thus fulfilling the Professor Blather suggestion, rather than creating their cipher in a good suit and good hair (Romney) things could have been quite different.

But that train left the station over a year ago.

Certainly you wouldn’t mandate having people be forced to choose tom’s favorite candidate in an election? I mean, why have the election at all?

funky chicken on February 6, 2008 at 3:48 PM

I think that was the point. If you just vote for the candidate you like, but ignore the fact that nobody else likes the candidate, then how can you complain when the candidate doesn’t win?

So maybe you’re a national defense conservative, and don’t care much about the fiscal conservatives and social conservative issues. But if you pick a good national defense conservative that the social conservatives will not vote for — Rudy — then you’re basically doing your small part to tear apart the Republican party.

Take that same dynamic and multiply it by millions, and you have an entire political party that can’t agree on a candidate.

This is one reason McCain is a horrible candidate. He denigrated the social conservatives that are crucial to winning elections. He paid for it by 8 years in the wilderness watching Bush be president. But this time, it looks like he’ll get away with it.

theregoestheneighborhood on February 7, 2008 at 3:45 AM

If you don’t vote for John, you’re a nativist and hate brown skinned people. There is no other explanation.

a capella on February 6, 2008 at 12:07 PM

Fine, I am a nativist and I hate brown-skinned people. I will not vote for John McCain. Anything else?

http://www.dailypundit.com/AmericanConservativeParty

annexwcp on February 7, 2008 at 6:47 AM

Says YOU! You cannot tell someone else that their belief is not a form Christianity. That is absolutely absurd, apacalyps, and most certainly a form of bigotry. Listen to csdeven. He’s trying to help you.
…..
HebrewToYou on February 6, 2008 at 7:57 PM

Think through to the end of what you’re saying here. If Christianity has NO defining beliefs at all, then anyone who says, “I am a Christian” is automatically a Christian.

So if someone believes that Jesus is divine, but so is everybody, and that it’s just as “Christian” to worship Lucifer or Moses as it is to worship Christ says, “Oh, I am a Christian,” by your standard, it would be bigotry to say, “No, you’re not.”

That way lies intellectual chaos.

I don’t have much sympathy here for Huckabee supporters playing the “Christian” card, and I don’t know that the whole discussion is appropriate for hotair.com, but there have been heresies and cults trying to call themselves Christians since the 1st century AD. See Galatians 1, for example.

Bottom line: Not everyone who says, “I am a Christian,” is.

theregoestheneighborhood on February 7, 2008 at 9:48 AM

MB4 on February 7, 2008 at 2:15 AM

I didn’t write it for you, I knew you wouldn’t understand that not defining words can be dangerous. Applying whatever definition you choose may be the only way some can win an argument.
Christian? what’s a Christian, can’t be defined…conservative? McCain is no conservative

Get it now?

right2bright on February 7, 2008 at 9:57 AM

If Christianity has NO defining beliefs at all, then anyone who says, “I am a Christian” is automatically a Christian.

Anyone who believes in the divinity of Jesus Christ is a Christian. A Church is just an organizational structure. A book is just a written record. Neither defines all that is your faith.

That way lies intellectual chaos.

Chaos my rear end! That way lies tolerance and acceptance, two ideals I believe Jesus Christ would have been pretty fond of.

Bottom line: Not everyone who says, “I am a Christian,” is.

And why do you perceive yourself as some arbiter of who is or isn’t a Christian? Why can’t anyone who believes in the divinity of JC call themselves a Christian? Who is that hurting? It’s not like Mormons are calling themselves Episcopalians. They have their own brand of Christianity and they’re stickin’ to it.

Leave them alone.

HebrewToYou on February 7, 2008 at 10:25 AM

Thank you, SkinnerVic – this is helpful.

Pax americana on February 6, 2008 at 10:23 PM

No problem – I’m always good for a positive, intellectually honest debate. As for your request citing wikipedia, I’ll be honest – it’s not the greatest place for information as some is true, some is false, and some is just distorted this side short of a smear. First sentence for your link to Kolob reads, “In the Latter Day Saint movement…” Last time I checked (considering we’re on the topic of definitions and all), movement is a trend or tendency and makes us sound like were suffrage. I personally consider that a dig, but that’s Wikipedia (not neutral, never been neutral).

All religions are going to have different set of doctrines and theological perspectives.

Thank you for acknowledging that.

The fact he gives, that Romney believes himself to be a god, was already self-evident.

As for your citing fact, I don’t think there is an LDS member that believes that today they are a god, and that is both pious and disingenuous (not to mention a mis-quote of apaca). Exaltation, as described by LDS theology, is somewhat complex topic and has been discussed decently here.

As a side note on definitions, I understand where MB4 and R2B are coming from on the peril of definition (or lack thereof). As an experiment, get a definition of this word (Patriotism) from the following people:

Stormfront members
DailyKos readers
HA readers

I guarantee that it’s a bit more complex than defining a “liver” or a tangible item. The relativism of who’s right out of the three is the thorn. I have my opinion and act accordingly…

SkinnerVic on February 7, 2008 at 10:52 AM

Yeah. And this after the polls showed Romney winning California by 7%.

Gregor on February 6, 2008 at 11:53 AM

Time for a new era of poll-ish jokes??

landlines on February 7, 2008 at 12:16 PM

I wasn’t going to respond to this thread any further, but SkinnerVic, you’ve made some claims I’d like to address. Can someone please tell me how to post long links? I have a link I want to post, but it’s too long to put up. And SkinnerVic before I comment I want understand where you’re coming from. Are you arguing that Mormons are Christians?That the god Mormons worship is the same God of the Bible that Christians worship? I want to be clear on your position. Thank you.

apacalyps on February 7, 2008 at 1:36 PM

apacalyps – Can’t help you on link length. Send me an email (mdeason –at silverside –dot net), we’ll take the discussion offline from this dead thread.

SkinnerVic on February 7, 2008 at 2:23 PM

If it’s alright with you, SkinnerVic, I’d like to address your comments here for the record. I noticed you have accused me of spreading lies about the Mormon faith and you defend those who call me a bigot for simply pointing out the differences between Christianity and Mormonism. I really don’t think that’s fair. It’s fine by me that this is a dead thread. That makes our discussion even better because no one will bother us. I’ll be back later on, but in the meantime will you please answer my questions above. Are you arguing that Mormons are Christians? That the god Mormons worship is the same God of the Bible that Christians worship? I want to be clear on your position. Thank you.

apacalyps on February 7, 2008 at 2:49 PM

Are you arguing that Mormons are Christians? That the god Mormons worship is the same God of the Bible that Christians worship?

apacalyps, why do you ask that when SkinnerVic already answered your comments directly?

SkinnerVic on February 6, 2008 at 10:16 PM:

BTW, Elohim is a widely recognized in Hebrew as the plural of El and is the first name for God given in the Tanakh (Gen 1:1). I know Old Testament is hard to read man, but we didn’t coin that term – it really is the same God the Father.

Elohim is certainly a Hebrew word used to represent G-d. Others are Adonai and, incorrectly, Yahweh. Yahweh doesn’t have an oral representation. It is read as “Yud Chey Vav Chey.”

HebrewToYou on February 7, 2008 at 3:32 PM

apacalyps, why do you ask that when SkinnerVic already answered your comments directly?

HebrewToYou on February 7, 2008 at 3:32 PM

With all due respect, HebrewToYou, I would appreciate it if you kept out of this. I asked SkinnerVic a question, not you. We are going to settle this matter “mono et mono”. Thanks.

apacalyps on February 7, 2008 at 5:55 PM

We are going to settle this matter “mono et mono”.

Nah, I think I’m going to stick around. As they say in the NBA, there are no easy buckets. Your anti-Mormon bigotry isn’t going to be left unanswered.

HebrewToYou on February 7, 2008 at 6:02 PM

Are you arguing that Mormons are Christians? That the god Mormons worship is the same God of the Bible that Christians worship? I want to be clear on your position. Thank you.

apacalyps on February 7, 2008 at 2:49 PM

I’m more than happy to have it on the record, and being a dead thread we can keep it civil and paced.

You have two questions. First question: “Are you arguing that Mormons are Christians?” Yes I am. We are using the same definition base from your post at 8:50 PM last night and my earlier post at 7:05PM, both of which cite the same scripture from the Bible and mine additionally citing the Book of Mormon. It’s pretty clear that a person believing and taking the name of Christ upon them, who is a Disciple of the Lord Jesus, meets the criteria spelled out by both Acts and Moroni in Alma. Additionally, this is a good article on the subject.

I’m going to rephrase/clarify your second question because it could be interpreted as a slur of sorts with the capitalization, or lack thereof, etc…
“Is God the Father refered to in the Book Of Mormon the same God the Father referred to in the Bible?
We are refering to the same God, but probably have a difference in our understanding compared to other Christian denominations. If you’re looking for a heavy compare/contrast read on this topic, this is a good read. A lighter read is here, on the nature of God from a LDS Theological perspective verses traditional Christian theology. Specifically, the simple answer being that it’s that important, it is the First Article Of Faith describing there are three distinct personages of Godhead. This is also a good article on the topic.

SkinnerVic on February 7, 2008 at 6:10 PM

Dude.. I just spent 30 minutes and it got wiped out…
I will do it piecemeal.

SkinnerVic on February 7, 2008 at 6:12 PM

will you please answer my questions above. Are you arguing that Mormons are Christians? That the god Mormons worship is the same God of the Bible that Christians worship? I want to be clear on your position. Thank you.

apacalyps on February 7, 2008 at 2:49 PM

I’m more than happy to post on a dead thread, that way we can keep it respectful, civil and paced. You have two questions, let’s tackle them one at a time.

First question: “Are you arguing that Mormons are Christians?”
Yes, and we are using the same scripture to define the basis for doing so. You referenced similar passages in your 8:50PM post as I did in my earlier 7:05PM post. The link in that post specifically denotes that a person who takes upon them the teachings of Christ, and is a Disciple thereof, can claim the mantel of such term, both in the Bible and the Book Of Mormon. Another good read on this topic is found here.

I will tackle the second one later, as it’s a bit more complex and I need to get all the links/effort I just flushed down the Submit button back. It might be tomorrow at my current pace!

SkinnerVic on February 7, 2008 at 6:39 PM

My browser is ALL jacked – Sorry for the double posting. I’m going to give it an enema.

SkinnerVic on February 7, 2008 at 6:47 PM

— If Christianity has NO defining beliefs at all, then anyone who says, “I am a Christian” is automatically a Christian.

Anyone who believes in the divinity of Jesus Christ is a Christian. A Church is just an organizational structure. A book is just a written record. Neither defines all that is your faith.

— That way lies intellectual chaos.

Chaos my rear end! That way lies tolerance and acceptance, two ideals I believe Jesus Christ would have been pretty fond of.

— Bottom line: Not everyone who says, “I am a Christian,” is.

And why do you perceive yourself as some arbiter of who is or isn’t a Christian? Why can’t anyone who believes in the divinity of JC call themselves a Christian? Who is that hurting? It’s not like Mormons are calling themselves Episcopalians. They have their own brand of Christianity and they’re stickin’ to it.

Leave them alone.

HebrewToYou on February 7, 2008 at 10:25 AM

This is probably a dead thread, but I had to go to work and was not able to answer your post before now, so I guess I’ll post this anyway.

I stand by the phrase, “Intellectual chaos”, regardless of your rear end, because you’re trying to maintain that “Christian” has no definition, and can apply to anyone who uses it. But if that’s true, then Satanism is a branch of Christianity, as is Islam or Judaism. All that’s required is for a follower of that religion to say, “Yes, I’m a Christian.”

You don’t even believe this yourself. Two sentences later, you’re defining a Christian as anyone who believes that Christ was “divine.”

Says who? You’ve rejected all definition of Christianity, so why would that now be the definition?

Muslims believe that Jesus was a prophet of God who never did anything wrong. Since this claim is something never true of any man, it’s only logical to presume that Muslims are Christians by your definition. Muslims reject only the claim that Jesus is God, not the claim that he was a great prophet who had the spirit of God on him. In fact, the Koran teaches that Jesus stood in the crib and spoke on the day he was born. Sounds more than human.

You ask why I perceive myself as an arbiter of who is or isn’t a Christian. But you make yourself an arbiter, and label anyone who doesn’t accept your judgement as a bigot.

I think at this point you’re being somewhat of a “rear end,” to hijack a phrase.

You don’t have to be a bigot to reject the claim that Mormonism is a branch of Christianity. Frankly, not only is Mormonism not Christianity, it doesn’t really even qualify as monotheism. After all, monotheism believes there is one God: Mormon doctrine is that there are many gods.

theregoestheneighborhood on February 7, 2008 at 9:26 PM

You don’t have to be a bigot to reject the claim that Mormonism is a branch of Christianity.

bigoted: obstinately convinced of the superiority or correctness of one’s own opinions and prejudiced against those who hold different
-Oxford English Dictionary

Yeah, actually you do.

HebrewToYou on February 7, 2008 at 10:48 PM

BIG´OT, BIG´OTED, a. Obstinately and blindly attached to some creed, opinion, practice or ritual; unreasonably devoted to a system or party, and illiberal towards the opinions of others.
–Noah Webster’s first edition of An American dictionary of the English language. Reprint of the 1828 ed.

This is the way I’ve always understood what a bigot was. There are a few differences in the defining of the word.

Unreasonably devoted implies that there is no real basis for your position on a matter. Orthodox Christians have the basis of God’s Word–The Holy Bible.

Illiberal towards others opinions implies that you refuse to discuss the issue you are bigoted about. Orthodox Christians are willing to discuss issues openly. As I and others stated earlier on the thread, logic, reason and rationality aren’t anathema to discussion. We Christians don’t just close our eyes and mutter, “Faith, faith, faith, (makes no sense, but..) faith!”

Skidd on February 8, 2008 at 12:44 AM

You don’t have to be a bigot to reject the claim that Mormonism is a branch of Christianity. Frankly, not only is Mormonism not Christianity, it doesn’t really even qualify as monotheism. After all, monotheism believes there is one God: Mormon doctrine is that there are many gods.

theregoestheneighborhood on February 7, 2008 at 9:26 PM

Once again, I love when people tell me what I believe. Let’s clarify that for you since we’ve already been having that discussion about defintions, and you’re all in favor for them (as I am). See my 6:10 or 6:39 posts above (sorry for the double) where you can see that Apacalyps, apparently Skidd (from 12:44AM is using the same basis), and myself are all using the Bible (KJV). In addition I am using the Book Of Mormom (which you’ll see in that link) is consistent with such definintion of what is a Christian.

I too reject the claim that LDS Theology is a branch of Christianity. Rather than being a branch of some currently existing denomination or understanding, it is a restoration of something lost due to apostasy. This is also a fair read.

Let me just state, I’m here to correct basic tenets that are being mis-represented, smeared or otherwise and I would expect you to do the same for your faith. I don’t intend to bust out Theo-nerd status on any of you either – that’s not the point. I think the point is best made here.

As a little background on me, I was an hardcore agnostic for over 25 years before I converted LDS. I’ve railed against a bunch of faiths before my humble contrition. Seriously, I get Saul – more than you probably know.

SkinnerVic on February 8, 2008 at 10:40 AM

Glad to know I’m not completely out of it.. I remembered this good article and a quote therein,

We believe The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a restoration of the original Church established by Jesus Christ, which was built “upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone.” It is not a breakoff from any other church.
James E. Faust

SkinnerVic on February 8, 2008 at 1:11 PM

As a little background on me, I was an hardcore agnostic for over 25 years before I converted LDS. I’ve railed against a bunch of faiths before my humble contrition. Seriously, I get Saul – more than you probably know.

SkinnerVic on February 8, 2008 at 10:40 AM

Hey, SkinnerVic.

I’d like to respond, but I’m trying to figure out how you and some of the others post your links the way you do. Do you use the blue link button? I’ve got this link I wanna put up, but man it’s too long it won’t fit on the screen. What do you guys do to post your links in the way of “words?”

Oh, and PS, you seem like a nice person. I appreciate the way you handle yourself. But you are falsley mislead. Mormons believe they are the church of God, but Satan has transformed himself into an angel of light and they are really really blind. It’s true nice people like you can have false beliefs. My hope is you will eventually separate yourself from those beliefs. I would love to help get you saved by the time this is over.

Link help please?

apacalyps on February 8, 2008 at 3:54 PM

First, let’s deal with your link woes. If I want to make a link work here, I first need to have a word, or phrase to put it against because it’s all just simple HTML.

Steps are 1) type your link or word. 2) Select/Highlight word and press blue link button, may have to allow temporary script windows. 3)Paste your link into the window and press return. It will auto-generate the HTML in the comment window for you around the highlighted word. Mileage may vary depending on browser and security settings.

SkinnerVic on February 8, 2008 at 5:00 PM

Thanks SkinnerVic. Appreciate it.

Will give er a try.

Thanks.

apacalyps on February 8, 2008 at 5:16 PM

As for your compliment, I do my best to be civil, humorous and try to add to the conversation and for that I appreciate your kind words. To give you a little background, I take spiritual matters quite seriously, hence 25 YEARS of agnostic wandering and battling those of faith taught me a thing or two before my conversion. I also appreciate your concern for the welfare and salvation of my soul – everyone should have such. I’ll state something here in simple terms, and we’ll get along fine: I’m not here to convert you and you’re not here to save me, kapish?

That said, I will abstract this out to 50K ft to explain where I come from with my conversion and MY view of LDS theology. The basis for the LDS Church was eloquently stated by our recently departed President Gordon B. Hinckley in 2002 this way,


Our whole strength rests on the validity of that vision. It either occurred or it did not occur. If it did not, then this work is a fraud. If it did, then it is the most important and wonderful work under the heavens.

Reflect upon it, my brethren and sisters. For centuries the heavens remained sealed. Good men and women, not a few —really great and wonderful people — tried to correct, strengthen, and improve their systems of worship and their body of doctrine. To them I pay honor and respect. How much better the world is because of their bold action. While I believe their work was inspired, it was not favored with the opening of the heavens, with the appearance of Deity.

Then in 1820 came that glorious manifestation in answer to the prayer of a boy who had read in his family Bible the words of James: “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him” (James 1:5 KJV).

Upon that unique and wonderful experience stands the validity of this Church.

When I asked about this very topic, I was told something that has resonated in my mind since: “No righteous man would have conjured up the Book Of Mormon, and no evil man could have.” That being said, I did significant study to come to such conclusion, that I believe he did in-fact have such vision, it has manifested a marvelous work and wonder, and it could have only been derived my a means far greater than the capacity an unlearned farm boy at 22 to produce such work from Dec 1827 to June 1929.

That said, I’m more than happy to field questions to the best of my ability (I’m not looking for a second job here ;)

SkinnerVic on February 8, 2008 at 5:40 PM

I’ll state something here in simple terms, and we’ll get along fine: I’m not here to convert you and you’re not here to save me, kapish? SkinnerVic on February 8, 2008 at 5:40 PM

Really, how can a Christian not evangalize in some sense seeing as how that is the very last thing Jesus commanded his followers to do.

“And he (Jesus) said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.” Mark 16:15

But, I will take your words into consideration. Remember though, from a Christians point of view if you believe in the Jospeh Smith jesus you’re going to hell for eternity. Kinda hard for us to keep quite if you see where I’m coming from.

(Mormon) strength rests on the validity of that vision. It either occurred or it did not occur. If it did not, then this work is a fraud. If it did, then it is the most important and wonderful work under the heavens.

Skinner, that’s not correct buds. The test for Christian faith and practice is always that of complete fidelity to Scripture and only Scripture, not the validity of a “vision” from man. That’s why we line everything up with the Bible so when a guy like Joseph Smith comes along in the 1800′ we can use the Word of God to determine whether or not he is a false prophet.

“As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” Galatians 1:8-9

Galatians 1:8-9 stresses that the so-called gospel that was misleading the Galatians was not really one with just minor variations from the true gospel, but was altogether opposite to it, a false gospel. The same thing can be said for Joseph smith and his “new” gospel.

I’ve got something I wanna post. Will be back.

apacalyps on February 8, 2008 at 6:05 PM

PART 1

The idea though here is often in the discussion we are talking about Jesus Christ and it has become very apparent to me that the Jesus I’m talking about and the jesus you are talking about are completely two different people. Why is that important? Because the power of faith does not just rest in the act of believing. That is very much a core part of it, but more so what you’re putting your faith into. The greatest faith in someone false is not gonna be faith that saves you. A false messiah, a false jesus, does not bridge the chasm between God and man, only the Jesus of the Bible does that. The real Jesus.

2 Corinthians 11:3-4 says, “But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.”

Paul warned against believing any man or even any angel who came preaching some other gospel than the true saving gospel of Christ which he had preached (Galatians 1:6-9).

“If they speak not according to this word (Biblical Scripture), it is because there is no light in them.” Isaiah 8:20

Just the undelying theme here of what I want to get across is not to attack the Mormon religion, uhm, if the Mormon religion said that they were not Christian then that’s fine by me, but they claim that they are, uhm, and it makes me wonder if they’re actually reading the doctrinal books that come out cuz it’s quite contradictory to the Bible, and I’m not sure they’re aware of this. But, anyway, I’d like to bring a couple points up, first one being the physical aspects of God. Mormons believe He has a human-like body. According to Joseph Smith, God has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s.

‘The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also.’ (Mormon Doctrine and Covenants section 130:22)

However, in John chapter 4 we’re told, “God is a spirit and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth”. John 4:24

Psalm 90:2 says, “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.”

God has existed for eternity. He alone is the the Eternal, Omnipotence, Omniscience, and Omnipetent, Creator. Amazingly, in the “Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith,” page 345, we are told,

“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 will take away and do away the vail, so that you may see… 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.” Mormon founder Joseph Smith

Joseph Smith, (1805-1844) was the founding prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (or Mormon Church). Members of the religion (Mormons) revere him as a prophet because they believe he was called by God to restore the truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ. According to the Bible, his declaration is blasphemy. This is quite obvious for all to see.

apacalyps on February 8, 2008 at 6:39 PM

PART 2

Mormons claim to worship Jesus Christ, but you worship a different jesus christ than mainstream Christianity. Uhm, let me tell you what I mean by that. Uhm, you do believe some very “different” things about Jesus Christ. Mainstream Christianity believes in the Trinity. The Trinity is the doctrine that there is only one God in all the universe and that He exists in three, eternal, simultaneous person: God the Father, the Son Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. The Trinity is 1 God made up of 3 persons. Mormons believe that these three are separate individuals, physically distinct from each other. That the Trinity is three separate Gods. You believe that Jesus Christ and God the Father are seperate and distinct beings both with bodies of flesh that are perfected, who are gods, uhm, but seperate nonetheless. Okay, that’s a very.. that’s.. you must admit that is a very different belief than mainstream Christianity. You also believe as I mentioned that Jesus Christ, you believe different things about him. You believe that He visited other people. He didn’t just visit people in Jerusalem and die and return to heaven, uhm, Mormons believe He spent time on earth visiting people in the America’s and establishing His church. Where in the Bible does it say that after Jesus’ death, burial, resurrection and ascent to heaven, He came back for another visit and witnessed to the American Indians? Uhm.. so these are very different beliefs. Another big one is you believe Jesus Christ communicates with living LDS prophets today like Gordon B. Hinckley who just passed away, and you believe that Joseph Smith was his prophet, uhm, who after finding engraved plates of copper in the early 1800′s, which he declares he found under a stone, restored the gospel and brought Mormons the “The Book of Mormon” which they believe stands as yet another testament of Jesus Christ. You don’t believe the Bible is God’s final word. You believe it is in error and God has sent more complete and accurate scripture in the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. Mainstream Christianity doesn’t recognize these writings. You also believe He continues to talk with you and that these texts can be edited and ‘changed’ which some say is very convenient for the Mormon church. This is very different from mainstream Christianity which believes God’s Word cannot be added to or taken away. The apostle John, in the last book of the Bible, warns, “I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:” (Revelation 22:18-19). Both Christ and the apostles repeatedly warned against false prophets, and here is the criterion by which to recognize them. And one last thing as I’m running out of space, the true teachings of the Mormon Church is that “Jesus and the devil are brothers”. This is not made up. This doctrine is the basic theological foundation of Mormonism. See Morman scripture here (scroll down). These are only a few examples showing Mormons believe in a different Christ. This is a very different view not only from historic Christianity, but from the Bible.

apacalyps on February 8, 2008 at 6:41 PM

And I’m not going to post such long messages again (smile).

apacalyps on February 8, 2008 at 6:45 PM

Thanks for paying consideration to my request. I think it fair to say we believe the either side is at a spiritual disadvantage for their beliefs (or lack thereof), and I as I said before your concern is noted. Let’s move along and try to stay focused… we could be here forever.

Let us stay to one thing specifically you’ve brought up here…

Skinner, that’s not correct buds. The test for Christian faith and practice is always that of complete fidelity to Scripture and only Scripture, not the validity of a “vision” from man. That’s why we line everything up with the Bible so when a guy like Joseph Smith comes along in the 1800′ we can use the Word of God to determine whether or not he is a false prophet.

President Hinckley’s quote was not a/the test of validity, rather a statement: It’s either false and therefore a fraud, or true and glorious. A or B, black or white.

That said, how do we determine “if a man preach any other gospel than that ye have received” which is contained in the Holy Bible? What is the “biblical” method of determining the truth? It is asked of LDS investigators that they should pray to know from God whether Joseph Smith was a true prophet. If this were not true, however, the promise of James 1:5 is false, along with Jesus’ promise that those who ask will receive (Matthew 7:7) and that “all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive” (Matthew 21:22).

So, in short, I have asked of God and I received witness – what part of that is inconsistent with what the Bible has instructed of me?

What other measures in scripture are you suggesting for a means of validation?

SkinnerVic on February 8, 2008 at 6:49 PM

That said, how do we determine “if a man preach any other gospel than that ye have received” which is contained in the Holy Bible? What is the “biblical” method of determining the truth?

SkinnerVic on February 8, 2008 at 6:49 PM

That’s very simple. What did the Bible say for 2000 years before Joseph Smith come along in the 1800′s? That’s your standard. The word “another” means a “another of a different kind.” That is, any gospel that is not centered on “the grace of christ” is an alternative gospel, it is a false gospel–no gospel at all.

apacalyps on February 8, 2008 at 7:02 PM

We crossposted there – I have a dinner engagement. I’ll tackle it probably tomorrow morning. From my read, many points. Try to distill it down to say 5 – 10 points and number/letter them like:

D – The apostle John, in the last book of the Bible, warns, “I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:” (Revelation 22:18-19). (Read: Isn’t the Book Of Mormon violating this?)

It helps us stay on topic. Thanks again for the healthy dialog.

SkinnerVic on February 8, 2008 at 7:03 PM

It helps us stay on topic. Thanks again for the healthy dialog.

SkinnerVic on February 8, 2008 at 7:03 PM

No prob. Have fun.

apacalyps on February 8, 2008 at 7:09 PM

Hi SkinnerVic

Hi apacalyps

I just stopped by to tell you two that I think it’s really neat, really wonderful what you’re doing. The internet is being used in increasingly numerous ways, but I think what you two are doing is just about the finest way it can yet be utilized.

Sharing and learning of one another from differing worldviews in an open, civil, adult manner. It’s great.

From my previous posts, Skinner, you already know that I’m a born-again Christian. You probably inferred that I see the Mormon faith from a different light than yourself. But I’m not here to butt in this discussion. I just–very quickly–want to share a bit of my testimony as a “Hello” for (hopefully) friendly future postings with eachother on various threads.

I was a self-centered, angry, frustrated person until about 4 1/2 years ago. A lot of problems and addictions in my life only added to my frustrations. The more I tried to manipulate, coax, force and change myself, friends and family, even moreso heartache and anger wrapped about me.

My life was losing meaning because everything was futile. I’m in my mid-forties. I tried a million times to change my ways throughout many years. EVERY SINGLE TIME I failed.

Then Christ Jesus entered my life. Everything changed! Everything. Not over night, but amazingly fast.

Every bad habit that I tried so hard and so many times to change and failed to do so, just disappeared. It just went away, guys. Poof!

People just don’t understand. God is very real. He changed my life, my life’s goals, my happiness, my entire worldview. He’s beyond amazing. And I was beyond repair–until He touched me.

I’m gonna be praying for you, SkinnerVic. Your life means a lot to me. Which is something else that God changed in me through prayer and Bible study.

5 years ago I didn’t care much for anyone. I thought of me first, second and third. Now, I care for everyone. People that make fun of me, annoying people, angry people, and people that I don’t even know much at all.

I understand the precious nature of life now. Something that’s impossible to understand when separated from God.

Good luck, guys. Be nice.

Skidd on February 9, 2008 at 12:36 AM

…many nice words and commentary…
Good luck, guys. Be nice.

Skidd on February 9, 2008 at 12:36 AM

I appreciate your testimony. I think all of us here have one or we wouldn’t even give a rip to have such a discussion. Bookmark this, check in and read what we’re up to… I don’t mind at all – it’s my goal to have an intelligent, peaceful discussion that at the end, we’ll probably agree to disagree, but at least you’ll walk away with an understanding of some points in LDS Theology.

SkinnerVic on February 9, 2008 at 1:02 PM

5 years ago I didn’t care much for anyone. I thought of me first, second and third. Now, I care for everyone. People that make fun of me, annoying people, angry people, and people that I don’t even know much at all. I understand the precious nature of life now. Something that’s impossible to understand when separated from God.

Good luck, guys. Be nice.

Skidd on February 9, 2008 at 12:36 AM

That’s a great testimony, Skidd. The Bible says, “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Romans 6:23) I’ll be looking for you in heaven.

In the meantime, yeah, I always try to be nice, but it’s important to recognize that “Some have compassion, making a difference: And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire.” Jude 22-23

What that means is our witnessing should normally be with “compassion” but sometimes with sober warnings of hell, depending on circumstances. It should, of course, always be biblical, truthful, and done in loving concern. So if I come across agressive fighting the scoffers to help get them saved this might fall into the, “saving with fear” category. Others, including yourself, may want to take a more compassionate approach. I don’t see any problem with either. Both are Scriptural. Thanks for your nice post.

apacalyps on February 9, 2008 at 4:03 PM

From my read, many points. Try to distill it down to say 5 – 10 points and number/letter them like:

SkinnerVic on February 8, 2008 at 7:03 PM

I think it’s fair to say Skinner, and surely you must admit, that I’ve already shown clearly with my two posts above that Christians and Mormons worship a different Jesus. The issue of the Trinity alone proves that. I mean, that’s a HUGE difference. I don’t see any reason for me to list them 1 thru 5, etc.

You know our little discussion here has me doing a little reading about Mormonism again, and y’know, the more reading I do, the more dumber it gets. Is there any such thing as endless rabbit holes upon rabbit holes? Read about Mormonism. This little exchange with you has reminded me of something called the “Mormon Maze.”

For mainstream Christians we have one Book, the Bible. Very easy to understand. One Book. Very clear. End of story. Mormon’s though, teach that the Bible is in error and Scripture was not closed when the Bible was completed. You guys have three other sources in addition to the Bible, all of which they believe contain God’s revelations — the Book of Mormon 2 (changed in more than 4,000 places since 1830), Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price… and you guys follow the teachings of these three books even when they contradict the Bible. For example, Mormons teach that the Bible is the Word of God “as far as it is translated correctly.” Then whenever a Mormon belief contradicts Scripture, the Mormons say that particular part of Scripture is translated incorrectly, and that the correct translation is in one of the Mormon scriptures. Thereby, the Bible is rejected as the infallible Word of God. And if that wasn’t enough, you have other books in your history you refer too! This is what’s called the MORMON MAZE.

Christian’s have one Book and one Book only – The Holy Bible.

Anyways, as I said Skinner, I think it’s fair to say that I’ve already shown with my two posts above that Christians and Mormons worship a different Jesus. The issue of the Trinity alone proves that. This alone proves Mormons worship a different god than Christians do. What say you?

apacalyps on February 9, 2008 at 4:50 PM

What say I? Sorry man, I’ve been busy up until now and been thinking about the totality of your post. I’m going to focus on a point that seems clearly important to you:

The issue of the Trinity alone proves that. This alone proves Mormons worship a different god than Christians do.

I have a couple issues to deal with in your assertion here. First, we do not hold a “conventional” view of Godhead – there are MANY denominations claiming to be Christian (Catholic, Lutheran, etc), based on the diverse view of that, many based on the Nicene Creed. One of the best articles on this is a talk by Jeffrey R. Holland entitled, The Only True God and Jesus Christ Whom He Hath Sent. I highly suggest reading this before we go further on this point. He does far greater justice than I ever will. Ultimately, you may not consider them “Christian” either – but we already established (and recounted in my 6:10pm post that we are using the Bible the same way to define a Christian. From where I sit, there’s no conflict, as we seemingly meet the requirements detailed in that Scripture.

As for this “Mormon Maze” you speak of, I can possibly see it being confusing if you’re holding on to a lot a views that are contrary, but I will state unequivocally in 10 years of knowing about the LDS Church, 5 years of watching it from being married to a member (while I was a NON-MEMBER AGNOSTIC), and finally months of hardcore investigation before my baptism – it’s one of the clearest doctrinal views of the Bible, not marred from centuries of apostasy, that I have ever come across. So much so, it was the first faith that was actually able to answer questions that I had for decades with no avail. I would suggest that Bible is not as clear you say it is, and all the denominations with differing interpretations is indicative of that.

That being said, and from reading your post to Skidd, if you’re going the fire & brimstone route you can forget it; save that action for someone that doesn’t know better. I’m not interested in arguing and slinging that crap around is a straw man at best and contentious at worse. I’m not having it. Back to getting focused on one issue at a time, let’s work Godhead over.

SkinnerVic on February 9, 2008 at 6:06 PM

PART 1

I have a couple issues to deal with in your assertion here. First, we do not hold a “conventional” view of Godhead

Of course you don’t. It’s completely different from mainstream Christianity like I said. That’s what I’ve been saying from the start, but you won’t admit it. See, this why Christians think Mormons are tricky and deceptive. Praise God, there’s nothing that the Christian needs to hide. Mormons have to continually hide the dark side of their religion from the naive public. They don’t believe in Christ’s deity. They deceitfully claim to believe in the Godhead; BUT, they only believe that Jesus is “a god,” not God Almighty. Jesus clearly declared that He and the Father were ONE (John 10:30, 1st John 5:7).

Look Skinner, we can debate whether or not Jesus is God Almighty, or just “a god,” like the Mormons believe, but I want to put things into perspective first. For almost two millennia Christians used the King James Bible for virtually all gospel preaching. It was the universal standard for Bible believing Christians of the world. Christians believe it to be the infallible, inspired, inerrant word of the living God. In it, there are clear warnings about changing it’s Words (Revelation 22:18-19) and false prophets claiming to have a different gospel other than the true saving gospel of Jesus Christ. The apostle Paul in his letter to the Galatians wrote about this:

“I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him (God) that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” Galatians 1:6-9

The book of Galatians clearly warns us about any man or angel bringing another gospel, while claiming that it is the same gospel. This is precisely what the Book of Mormon does. The angel called Moroni in Mormonism allegedly gave the golden plates to Joseph Smith who was to translate them into English. This was supposed to be the “restoration” of the gospel, which assumes that the gospel needs to be restored. Dear friend, approach carefully when you tread upon areas that God forbids. How much clearer does God need to make it other than what is in Galatians?

There is another Scripture passage that is important to our discussion. In 2 Corinthians 11:3-4, we are warned a second time about “another gospel.” “But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent (Satan) beguiled (tricked) Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.”

Paul here asserts and confirms that the Genesis record of Eve’s temptation and fall is true and historical, and not allegorical. The “serpent” in Genesis is explicitely identified as Satan, the arch deciever (2 Corinthians 11:14) who turned Adam’s bride against her Maker, in similar fasion to what he was doing at Corinth, using false apostles (instead of a serpents body) to turn the Christian church away from Christ (see Revelation 12:9). Much can be written about the contradictions between the Bible and all the different Books of Mormonism.

In Isaiah, we see that when someone claims to be hearing from God, and it does not agree with the Bible, this disagreement proves they have no light within them. “And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead? To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word (Bible), it is because there is no light in them.” Isaiah 8:19-20

All throughout Scripture, the Lord unequivecally condemns consultations with spirit mediums, fortunetellers, astrologoers, witches, and all other occult sources of supposed knowledge and guidance. The “law and testimony” –that is, the written Word of God — provide all the counsel and guidance we need (2 Timothy 3:15). See Joseph Smith’s use of the Seer stone he used to write the Book of Mormon here and here and here.

Continued below…..

apacalyps on February 10, 2008 at 8:05 PM

This is a test post – ignore.

apacalyps on February 10, 2008 at 8:06 PM

I tried posting a longer message. Let’s see if they go through. I know, I wanted to keep it short, but I this important for you to read Skinner. I’m just waiting. I pushed refresh and it’s not posted yet. Maybe it was too long. We’ll see. After that we can get into specific doctrinal issues if we must.

apacalyps on February 10, 2008 at 8:23 PM

PART 2

A search for “seer stone” in the Gospel Library at lds.org turned up these articles and many others. David Whitmer was one of the Three Witnesses who saw the Book of Mormon written. The majority of the translation work took place in the Whitmer home. Here’s his testimony:

“I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man. I, as well as all of my father’s family, Smith’s wife, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris, were present during the translation. . . . He [Joseph Smith] did not use the plates in translation.” (An Address To All Believers In Christ, by David Whitmer, Richmond, Missouri, 1887, p. 12)

Emma Hale Smith, Joseph’s wife, was the first person to serve as his scribe. Here is her testimony as recounted to her son Joseph Smith III:

“In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us.” Eyewitness Accounts

He’s looking at a MAGIC ROCK folks. Any flags going up here!! He’s looking at a magic rock that he found while digging a well with his brother Hyrum. He put a rock in a hat. And holds this hat up to his face to translate the Book of Mormon. It’s really folk magic, folks. that’s what it is. This is the kind of character we’re dealing with here.

Video: A Seer Stone and a Hat – “Translating” the Book of Mormon

Continued below… Part 3

apacalyps on February 10, 2008 at 8:55 PM

PART 3

After finishing the Book, Joseph Smith said, “I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.” (History of the Church, 4:461).

This is the EXACT kind of person we were warned us about. Jesus Himself said, “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits”… from such turn away.” (Matthew 7:15-20 and 2 Timothy 3:5).

Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormon Church:

“I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet…When they can get rid of me, the devil will also go.” (History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 408-409) [Whole sermon click here.] – Joseph Smith: founder, prophet, seer, and revelator of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

If these Mormons would devote even 5% of their error-detecting attention to Mormonism like they do to Christianity, they would see the lies, wild exaggerations and distortions used to support the silly idea that Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon Church, was a prophet called by God to give mankind the truth about the plan of God. Joseph Smith (1805-1844), the founding prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, claimed that as a 14-year-old boy he had a vision of God the Father and Jesus Christ. The official account of this first vision found in Mormon Scripture (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith — History, 1:14-20). Smith proclaimed in the year 1820 God Himself had designated the Mormon Church as “the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth” (Doctrines & Covenants, Sec. 1:30).

Joseph Smith’s mother, Lucy Mack Smith, gives some insight into Joseph’s imagination even before he supposedly received the “gold plates”:

“During our evening conversations, Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined. He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of travelling, and their animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life with them.” History of Joseph Smith by his Mother, 1954 edition, p. 83)

If you’re a Mormon get out of this cult. Converted Mormons make great Christians.

apacalyps on February 10, 2008 at 8:58 PM

Now that has GOT to be the last long message I post. Whew! I like shorter message myself like we all do, but I just had to get this 3 Part message out. Thank you for your patience. Christians and creationists need to work to be accurate, of course, at the same time we need to realize the Mormons are not the enemy, Satan is the enemy. It may be hard at times, but we need to love the sinner while we hate the sin. God is not willing that any should perish but that all come to the knowledge of the truth. Converted Mormons make great Christians. We can’t wait for you to join us Skinner.

apacalyps on February 10, 2008 at 9:00 PM

Yea, lots of post there. I take Sundays off – Sabbath or no Sabbath, I need to be off the computer at least one day of the week.

If I didn’t know any better from shotgun blast of material, you’ve been drinking good dose of Decker, Tanner, et al. Anti-Mormon Kool-Aid. I sincerely appreciate your last post where you state, “Mormons are not the enemy, Satan is the enemy.” Here here. Let’s work from the place, it’s less contentious.

That said, you’ve got a lot of lies, inaccuracies, smears and I’m going to work, paragraph by paragraph, of which I may lump a couple together because they are related. Please stay with the flow of we’re discussing, it will help put some thoughts together.

SkinnerVic on February 11, 2008 at 11:12 AM

Of course you don’t. It’s completely different from mainstream Christianity like I said. That’s what I’ve been saying from the start, but you won’t admit it. See, this why Christians think Mormons are tricky and deceptive. Praise God, there’s nothing that the Christian needs to hide. Mormons have to continually hide the dark side of their religion from the naive public. They don’t believe in Christ’s deity. They deceitfully claim to believe in the Godhead; BUT, they only believe that Jesus is “a god,” not God Almighty. Jesus clearly declared that He and the Father were ONE (John 10:30, 1st John 5:7).

OK, couple points (and I’m going to integrate/copy some things from previously quoted material because I’m figuring you’ve not read it).

1) Mormons have nothing to hide, and if we did – would I be here discussing it? (rhetorical)

2) LDS believe Jesus is the Christ, and therefore is divine. If you don’t believe my testimony, look at the testimony of the leaders of our Church in 2000.

3) So, by your scriptural reference to ONE God, I’m expecting you hold a Strict Monotheist view of Christianity. Let’s consider the following:

a. There is only ONE God (Assumption of Strict Monotheism).

b. The Father is God.

c. The Son is God.

d. The Father is not the Son.

The affirmation of any three of these premises entails the denial of the fourth. From premise a, b, and c it follows that the Son and Father are identical. That said, some people view that the Father and the Son are merely different modes of manifestation of the only God. But such a view must deny the very fundamental Christian assertion that the Father is not identical to the Son. The mediator between the Father and humankind cannot be identical to the Father.

A clear distinction between the divine persons allows a coherent notion of three divine persons united as one God. For example, it is coherent to assert the conjunction of: (a) There is only one Godhead;
(b) the Father is a divine person;
(c) the Son is a divine person, but
(d) the Father is not identical to the Son.
The reason that these propositions are conjointly coherent is that the word “God” functions differently when it refers to the Godhead than when it refers to the individual divine persons.

It also stand to reason that such a structure is Biblical and shown rather clearly in Matt 3, 16-17, where all three divine personages are shown separate, beings (Jesus in the water, a Dove (Holy Ghost), and a voice (God the Father).

Therefore, LDS theology states very clearly, “We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.”

So, are we understanding (not necessarily agreeing) on this topic and can I move along?

SkinnerVic on February 11, 2008 at 12:05 PM

I just remembered something to add something, since you brought it up in that paragraph too, 1 John 5:7:

For there are three that bear record in heaven
the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost
and these three are one
and there are three that bear witness in earth

the spirit and the water and the blood
and these three agree in one

The text in bold derives from the Vulgate (the Latin translation made chiefly by Jerome) and is found nowhere else in the ancient textual sources for 1 John. The inserted text introduces a strong statement in favor of the doctrine of the Trinity and is clearly secondary. Erasmus later added this passage to his published Greek text of the New Testament, but only after some individuals had produced a New Testament Greek manuscript with this reading. This intrusive text ended up in the King James Bible. [cited]

But don’t take LDS sources word on the subject that the passages in 1 John are corrupted, look here at this third party evaluation.

Hint: Don’t hinge a weak argument on a point which is known to be false.

SkinnerVic on February 11, 2008 at 2:27 PM

That said, you’ve got a lot of lies, inaccuracies, smears…. 1) Mormons have nothing to hide, and if we did – would I be here discussing it? (rhetorical)

SkinnerVic on February 11, 2008 at 12:05 PM

I have NOT lied or distorted any information in our debate, and I don’t appreciate you calling me a liar. Everything I’ve posted here is factual. We’ll get into the Trinity in a moment, but I want to challenge your assertion first that I’ve lied and distorted things. Mormon’s have EVERYthing to hide and you know it.

Are you trying to tell us that Joseph Smith didn’t put a rock in a hat and hold it up to his face to translate the Book of Mormon?

apacalyps on February 11, 2008 at 3:21 PM

I have NOT lied or distorted any information in our debate, and I don’t appreciate you calling me a liar. Everything I’ve posted here is factual. We’ll get into the Trinity in a moment, but I want to challenge your assertion first that I’ve lied and distorted things. Mormon’s have EVERYthing to hide and you know it.

I’m not calling you personally a liar – It’s disengenous to pass off that anti-Mormon Kool-Aid rhetoric as fact, especially when I’m here to call it out. This exercise is about determining the validity thereof. I don’t tolerate proof by assertion and neither should you.

Don’t let your feathers get ruffled because I disagree with your assertions, and please don’t “own” that rhetoric as you will find it’s not that reliable (as shown in my 2:27PM post above with 1 John). As for LDS “hiding” everything, see my answer below…

Are you trying to tell us that Joseph Smith didn’t put a rock in a hat and hold it up to his face to translate the Book of Mormon?

Aw shucks, you know we were trying to keep this secret in public view. /sarc

As an person of reason, I’m far more inclined to focus on the product of an event verses the process. Even though much has been written about that process, let’s stay focused on discussing the product shall we?

Have we flogged that Trinity topic enough with my 12:05PM and 2:27PM posts? If so, I’m going to throw a question at you from my hardcore agnostic days arguing with street preachers. It will be an object lesson that will answer a couple of the next paragraphs in part 1 of your 3 part post.

SkinnerVic on February 11, 2008 at 4:39 PM

I’m not calling you personally a liar – It’s disengenous to pass off that anti-Mormon Kool-Aid rhetoric as fact, especially when I’m here to call it out.

SkinnerVic on February 11, 2008 at 4:39 PM

Sorry, it’s just that you have repeatedly insinuated I am a liar and I’ve distorted facts about Mormonism. Looks kinda like you’re trying to spin it now. If you want to disagree with me fine, but don’t call me a liar when I’m providing legitimate evidence for my argument.

Regarding your claims about 1 John 5:7:

See, you make my point for me Skinner about Mormons beliefs about the Holy Bible. Mormons claim the Bible (and I’m referring to the 1611 King James version, not these modern day watered down versions) has errors. You believe 1 John 5:7 shouldn’t be in the Bible. Thus, the Bible is corrupt. That’s blaspemous to Christians. You wrote, “This intrusive text ended up in the King James Bible.” First of all, I don’t agree with the Mormon claim, this passage is called the Johannine Comma and is a wonderful testimony to the Heavenly Trinity.

“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” 1 John 5:7

Obviously, this verse carries the clearest and most explicit statement of the doctrine of the Trinity to be found in the Bible. You’re arguing because there isn’t much manuscript evidence for it, it shouldn’t have been included in the Bible. That’s not quite true. There is sufficient evidence. Read here. Besides, your argument does not eliminate it as genuine. This verse fits in quite nicely with the verses before and after it. The continuity and sense are beautifully structured and sequenced if it is included. You’re not proving a thing. The Trinity does not depend on this verse, of course, it is implied in many other Scriptures (Matthew 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14).

Look, Joseph Smith and the Mormons have to attack the Bible and come up with this lie such as this, otherwise Smith’s fantastical ideas and “new religion” would be exposed as fraudulent because it doesn’t line up with the Bible, but, I mean, you don’t see that… Skinner, Joe HAS TO say the Bible is corrupt or he’s a conman and a fraud. We can debate 1 John 5:7 a little later, but I can assure you it is not an error. Here is a short history how the King James Bible came to be. Please watch it. Also, we have NOT agreed on the Trinity at all. We’re miles apart. Let’s go one topic at a time. You are skipping WAY ahead here and missing a whole bunch. There’s no point debating the Trinity when there are other HUGE differences between Mormons and Christianity. We will deal with the Trinity all by itself a bit later. Skinner, if we want to learn the truth about a subject we have to start at the beginning. You say Mormons have nothing to hide. That is just ridiculous. I mean, how can you say that with a straight face. Please wait until I respond to the other half of you post. We’ll start from there if it’s okay. Thanks.

apacalyps on February 11, 2008 at 6:06 PM

START DEBATE FROM HERE.

Aw shucks, you know we were trying to keep this secret in public view. /sarc(asm)

You’re being a little disingeneuos. How many people know Joseph Smith put a rock into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face, and then wrote the Book of Mormon that way? Are you kidding me. Hardly anybody knows that! Your answer just reinforces the idea that Mormons are tricky and deceptive. The Mormon Church have published many pictures of Joseph Smith dictating the Book of Mormon. They show Smith seated at a table looking at down at the gold plates examing them carefully and translating what he saw to write the Book of Mormon. But, this scenario does not square with the testimony of those who were eyewitnesses to Joseph Smith dictating the Book of Mormon. They include Joseph Smith’s wife, Emma Hale Smith who say Joseph dropped a magical seer stone into his hat, then buried his face in the hat and proceeding to dictate the Book of Mormon. Show me one picture where the Mormon church has published Joseph Smith dictating the Book of Mormon like that.

And Smith clearly violates Galatians 1:6-9 by writing the Book of Mormon. The angel called Moroni in Mormonism allegedly gave the golden plates to Joseph Smith who was to translate them into English, thus making the Book of Mormon. They made a different gospel other than ther Bible. How much clearer does God need to make it other than what is in Galatians?

“But though we, or an ANGEL from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” Galatians 1:6-9

I’m far more inclined to focus on the product of an event verses the process. Even though much has been written about that process, let’s stay focused on discussing the product shall we?

This is standard for Mormons, they want to ignore their past. You say “focus on the product”. I think you’re being a little sophmoric about the history of the Mormon church Skinner. You said, Mormons have nothing to hide. I’m calling you out on that. I think Mormon history is an embarrassment. Throughout the years in the church Blacks were a cursed people. This changed after the great Civil Rights laws were passed and the Mormons looked like fools to still call them cursed of God.

That is just silly. Okay.

apacalyps on February 11, 2008 at 7:17 PM

If you want to disagree with me fine, but don’t call me a liar when I’m providing legitimate evidence for my argument.

I don’t consider proof by assertion as proof. Secondly, just posting a scripture expecting that everyone has your(correct) interpretation reeks of arrogance.

See, you make my point for me Skinner about Mormons beliefs about the Holy Bible. Mormons claim the Bible (and I’m referring to the 1611 King James version, not these modern day watered down versions) has errors. You believe 1 John 5:7 shouldn’t be in the Bible. Thus, the Bible is corrupt. That’s blasphemous to Christians. You wrote, “This intrusive text ended up in the King James Bible.” First of all, I don’t agree with the Mormon claim, this passage is called the Johannine Comma and is a wonderful testimony to the Heavenly Trinity.

OK, who’s spinning now. Let’s formalize what you said above into points:

1) Mormons claim the Bible has errors. You believe 1 John 5:7 shouldn’t be in the Bible.

I do think it’s questionable as do many others as I posted in my 2:27PM post, which you poo-pooed as being a Mormon bias. How about this guy? – he’s not LDS and comes to the same conclusion. I read your link, and I can understand why people fight with such knee-jerk reaction about it when it disrupts their sense about the Bible (KJV) being the “infallible Word of God”.

2) Thus, the Bible is corrupt.

That is both cataclysmic and intellectually dishonest to assert that’s my position when I have said nothing of the sort. You later used this to springboard into an anti-Mormon rant (see #5).

3) That’s blasphemous (sp) to Christians.

Now you’re spinning that I’ve insulted someone (when I haven’t).

4) Obviously, this verse carries the clearest and most explicit statement of the doctrine of the Trinity to be found in the Bible.

Must not be that obvious to the many sources that refute your assertion with empirical study of the texts.

5) Look, Joseph Smith and the Mormons have to attack the Bible and come up with this lie such as this, otherwise Smith’s fantastical ideas and “new religion” would be exposed as fraudulent because it doesn’t line up with the Bible, but, I mean, you don’t see that… Skinner, Joe HAS TO say the Bible is corrupt or he’s a conman and a fraud. We can debate 1 John 5:7 a little later, but I can assure you it is not an error.

I appreciate you trying to “assure” me, but the premise for your current logical argument is flawed given you’ve based your whole conclusion on a false premise of 2) above (of which I didn’t even say – you did). People (not just Mormons) call that a logical fallacy.

some rant about seer stones, dictation after a pre-mature mulligan call.

First, it wouldn’t matter what mechanism he translated the Book Of Mormon to you – you don’t believe he was divinely inspired anyway! The history surrounding it you can’t even get right as I can’t find any source where Emma was ever quoted about the stone/hat – that’s David Whitmer. If you’re going to slur my beliefs, get it straight!

And Smith clearly violates Galatians 1:6-9 by writing the Book of Mormon.

Once again, you keeping bringing this passage up not knowing what it means. First, let’s replay the Eight Article of Faith for you…

“We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.”

1) Nowhere do you see us stating that we believe the Book Of Mormon to be the word of man. This is an important point, because your being disingenuous like it’s some fantasy of Smith. Later in Gal 1:11, Paul talks about the gospel he’s preaching is not of man. LDS claims of divinely inspired translation of the Book Of Mormon – that means it’s from God (not man). Ergo, it’s consistent on that point. An even better way to see if it’s the same Gospel is a look at the underlying beliefs, laws and ordinances to see how well they actually do align with the Church of Paul’s day.

2) I think I will quote scholar Stephen Gibson, where he discusses the problem that Paul was actually having (not the perversion you’re alluding to):

Paul was writing to the Galatians to warn them about what he perceived as a growing problem within the Church itself. People had entered his flock, attempting to mislead it by preaching another gospel, a perverted one, different from the one that Paul himself had preached to these Gentiles who had just joined the Church.

Who were these people? Were these pagans or some other brand of non-Christians preaching a perverted gospel? It was neither. In fact, they were fellow Christians from the Church at Jerusalem who were trying to solve what they saw as a growing problem among the non-Jewish converts. The brethren from Jerusalem wanted all male converts, Jewish and Gentiles alike, to comply with the requirement of circumcision and to make a commitment to keep the Law of Moses.

Earlier, Paul had been upset when Peter entered Paul’s mission field teaching “another gospel”–a gospel of circumcision, while Paul advocated the gospel of uncircumcision (Gal. 2:7). It was Peter who received the vision to widen the ministry to all people, including the Gentiles. This was a marked change from the ministry of Christ, who took his message only to the House of Israel. Yet Peter still wasn’t convinced, as evidenced in Galatians 2, that there should be full fellowship with the uncircumcised Christians. Paul therefore referred to what Peter was teaching as another gospel–the gospel of circumcision.

Students of the Bible know that circumcision was a divisive issue in the New Testament church for many years, even after Peter’s vision of the “unclean” animals when he was told “what God hath cleansed, that call not thou common” (Acts 10:15-35). This controversy over the gospel of circumcision (Gal. 2:7) caused so much of a disruption in the church that the Apostles once gathered in Jerusalem to resolve the issue and to determine and write their unified position (Acts 15).

But back to Galatians–Paul was upset with Peter, who had beet dining with the Gentile Christians until some of the Jewish Christian–came into the area. Peter then separated himself from the Gentiles which was so upsetting to Paul that he “withstood him to the face,” or in other words, discussed it openly with Peter at Antioch (Gal. 2:11).

Paul continued to be angered by Peter and certain others who were still preaching the gospel of circumcision to the uncircumcised Gentile Christians. Noted Christian theologian F. F. Bruce adds his comments on the issue Paul was addressing in Galatians chapters 1 and 2:

“If God’s redeeming grace was to be received by faith, and not conformity with the Law of Moses, then it was available on equal terms to Jew and Gentile and to make a distinction in practice between Jewish and Gentile believers, as Peter and the others were doing, was in practice to deny the gospel (Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free, p. 178).”

Galatians 1:6-9 has to do with a specific doctrinal problem confronting the early Christians. To apply this scripture to any other doctrine with which detractors disagree is to wrest the scriptures.

FWIW: F.F. Bruce isn’t LDS either – he’s Evangelical.

As for your contention from Revelation that we’re adding to Bible, you seriously need to read this.
He was clearly referring to his book, the Book of Revelation – as there WAS NO BIBLE (as you have it exists like the KJV) in mid first century – it was a collection of Canon and Apocrypha. I’m going to pull a statement you made earlier to make a point about this (@6:06PM):

“For almost two millennia Christians used the King James Bible for virtually all gospel preaching. It was the universal standard for Bible believing Christians of the world.”

Once again, a patently false statement as it’s pretty hard to “preach” something for 2000 years with a translation that’s been, by your own admission later dating the KJV at 1611 (which is correct). Most of the KJV translation (~80%) came directly from William Tyndale, and we know what fate he received for that…
That said the KJV, even with it’s faults, is what the LDS used for their Bible as it’s the most widely-published text in the English language. But to call it “the universal standard” for everyone Christian, when other faiths clearly use a variety of Apocrypha and Canon in addition to common Canon, is a real insult to Orthodox Christians, Catholics, Protestants, and Mormons alike since each has their own take, none of which diminish or alter the Book of Revelation.

Phew.

SkinnerVic on February 12, 2008 at 12:38 PM

With that post out of the way to tie a bow on a couple points, I bid you adieu as I warned you about getting contentious and saucy with me!

You have a lot of chutzpah to “bear false witness” on something you obviously know nothing about, yet tell ME what I believe, repeatedly. I can tell you’re not listening, nor interested in having an intellectually honest dialog, and you’re attempts at “converting” me and showing me “Christian Love” are the type that’ll put anyone straight into intensive care. Good luck with converting that way…

That said, I’m suggesting an article that exemplifies our discussion here, a parody if you will. It’s a must read and the irony is delish.
Cya.

SkinnerVic on February 12, 2008 at 1:05 PM

Just posting a scripture expecting that everyone has your (correct) interpretation reeks of arrogance.

SkinnerVic on February 12, 2008 at 12:38 PM

I am only forwarding what the Bible says. It’s not my interpretation. I don’t change God’s Word like Mormons do. Of course, I expect this kind of response from you though. Mormons MUST make the Bible say something other than it does, otherwise they are exposed as heretics. Thing is, the requirements for being a Christian is that he/she believes and accepts the whole teaching of the Bible. A Christian cannot just ignore part of the Scripture and still claim to be a Christian.

I read your link, and I can understand why people fight with such knee-jerk reaction about it when it disrupts their sense about the Bible (KJV) being the “infallible Word of God”.

See. There ya go again denying the Bible is the infallible, inspired, inerrant word of the living God. You prove my point again. A Mormon MUST attack the Word of God in order to defend his beliefs. Why? Because Mormonism and the Bible contradict each other. God is unchangeable. God’s Word is unchangeable too. In Matthew 24:35, the Lord Jesus said, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.” Psalms 12:6-7 says, “The words of the LORD are PURE words… Thou shalt KEEP them, O LORD, thou shalt PRESERVE them from this generation for ever.” This is a whole nother debate, “which Bible is the correct version”, but when Mormons say the Bible has “errors” they are essentially calling God a liar when the Bible says, “it was impossible for God to lie” (Heb 6:18). Jesus Christ, in the parable of the sower and the seed, said, “The SEED is the word of God… then cometh THE DEVIL, and TAKETH AWAY the word…”.

Look what we find at the LDS website:

The Lord inspired the Prophet Joseph Smith to RESTORE TRUTHS to the Bible text that had become LOST OR CHANGED since the original words were written. THESE RESTORED TRUTHS CLARIFIED DOCTRINE AND IMPROVED SCRIPTURAL UNDERSTANDING.

Also this:

The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as does the Bible, the fulness of the everlasting gospel. Concerning this record the Prophet Joseph Smith said: “I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.”

The Mormon Church was founded by a con man named Joseph Smith who stole from the Bible.

apacalyps on February 12, 2008 at 7:04 PM

First, it wouldn’t matter what mechanism he (Joseph Smith) translated the Book Of Mormon to you – you don’t believe he was divinely inspired anyway! SkinnerVic on February 12, 2008 at 12:38 PM

Of course I don’t. Are you nuts! Joseph Smith was a lying cheating sod with a magic stone and and some golden plates and some books he wrote for Satan. What if Joe went on Larry King Live tonight and said that by placing a rock into a hat, and with his face in the hat, he got messages from God he needed to write the sequel to the Bible. What’s wrong with you man! you’re placing your faith into a liar! I suspect that the magic rocks aren’t often mentioned in LDS conversation because they make Joseph Smith seem peculiar (in a bad way) and reinforce the fact that Joseph was heavily involved in folk magic practices. Click here (scroll down page) to learn about the 1826 court trial held in Brainbridge, New York where Joseph Smith was arrested, tried, and found guilty of using a magical stone for the purpose of finding hidden treasure buried in the earth.

The history surrounding it you can’t even get right as I can’t find any source where Emma was ever quoted about the stone/hat – that’s David Whitmer. If you’re going to slur my beliefs, get it straight!

The history surrounding it? Joey dropped a magic rock into his hat, then buried his face in the hat and proceeded to dictate the Book of Mormon. That’s really REally REALLY strange man. Show me one picture where the Mormon church has published Joseph Smith dictating the Book of Mormon like that. They hide it. Here’s your Emma source: (History of the RLDS Church, 8 vols. (Independence, Missouri: Herald House, 1951), “Last Testimony of Sister Emma,” 3:356.)

“We (Mormons) believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.”

Yes, I know that. You’re heretics. No Christian would EVER say what you just said. Mormon Article of Faith #8: “We Believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.” Why do you only add the phrase, “as far as it is translated correctly” to describe the Bible and not after the book of Mormon when in fact there are far more translating errors in the Book of Mormon than the Bible?

LDS claims of divinely inspired translation of the Book Of Mormon – that means it’s from God (not man).

The book of Mormon is from Satan, not from God. But, another point I want to bring out, when we look at David Whitmer’s explanation of how it was translated, where he says, “and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.” If that’s really how it happened, why do we have so many editions of the Book of Mormon with corrections made to it? There’s no margin for error if that’s really how it happened. Remember, it would not go on to the next set of characters until it was read back correctly. So why does the Mormon church feel it necessary to make corrections to this book, that was supposedly translated by the gift and power of God?

apacalyps on February 12, 2008 at 7:09 PM

Galatians 1:6-9 has to do with a specific doctrinal problem confronting the early Christians. To apply this scripture to any other doctrine with which detractors disagree is to wrest the scriptures.

SkinnerVic on February 12, 2008 at 12:38 PM

Thanks for proving my point once more. Mormons have to change what the Bible says because it conflicts with their beliefs. Let’s break it down Galatians 1:6-9, and show you where you’re wrong Skinner. Here’s the biblical passage (it’s split up with commentary between each verse):

“I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:” Galatians 1:6

Verse 1:6 another gospel – The word “another” in this verse is heteros, meaning “another of a different kind.” That is, any gospel that is not centered on “the grace of Christ” is an alternative gospel, it is a false gospel–no gospel at all.

Next verse:

“Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. Galatians 1:7

Verse 1:7 not another – In verse 7, on the other hand, the word for “another” is allos, which means “another of the same kind.” Galatians 1:6-7 stresses that the so-called gospel that was misleading the Galatians was not really one with just minor variations from the true gospel, but was altogether opposite to it, a false gospel. Thus, it is very appropriate to apply this Scripture to other doctrine!

The last part of the passage:

Verse 1:8-9 – “But though we, or an ANGEL from heaven, preach ANY OTHER GOSPEL UNTO YOU than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach ANY OTHER GOSPEL unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” Galatians 1:8-9

The book of Galatians clearly warns us about any man or angel bringing another gospel, while claiming that it is the same gospel. This is precisely what Joey Smith did when he wrote the Book of Mormon. The angel called Moroni in Mormonism allegedly gave the golden plates to Joseph Smith who was to translate them into English. This was supposed to be the “restoration” of the gospel, which assumes that the gospel needs to be restored. We are warned about false prophets like Smith and demonic angels like Moroni. How much clearer does God need to make it other than what is in Galatians? Think about it man, are you blind!!!!

But, as I wrote before, there are other clear warnings in the Bible about false prophets that you clearly ignore Skinner.

“But there were false prophets (ie, Joseph Smith) also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies (Mormonism), even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.” 2 Peter 2:1

All throughout Scripture, the Lord unequivecally condemns consultations with spirit mediums, fortunetellers, astrologoers, witches, and all other occult sources of supposed knowledge and guidance. For you to ignore God’s warnings just to follow a blaspheming, plagiarizing, lying, heretic with a magic rock and a hat, is… is…. it’s just mind-boggling.

apacalyps on February 12, 2008 at 7:31 PM

With that post out of the way to tie a bow on a couple points, I bid you adieu as I warned you about getting contentious and saucy with me!

SkinnerVic on February 12, 2008 at 1:05 PM

Fine by me. I’m glad I won’t be wasting my time on you anymore. I tried to help, but you just won’t listen. Funny though, you decide to take off just when I bring up Mormon history and the racial statements in LDS scriptures. I wanted to ask you why African men weren’t allowed to hold the priesthood until 1978? I also wanted to know if Mormons believe that people with dark sv

apacalyps on February 12, 2008 at 7:53 PM

Spelling error up top.

I wanted to ask you why African men weren’t allowed to hold the priesthood until 1978? I also wanted to know if Mormons believe that people with dark skin are cursed?

apacalyps on February 12, 2008 at 7:55 PM

You have a lot of chutzpah to “bear false witness” on something you obviously know nothing about, yet tell ME what I believe, repeatedly.

SkinnerVic on February 12, 2008 at 1:05 PM

Mormons are tricky and deceptive. Instead of honestly and openly telling people what Mormons believe (like Jesus is Satan’s brother) people like Skinner point out what they think are flaws in our soul, and how such bad we Christians are for rebuking the cult of Joey Smith and his magic rock. Mormons have to continually hide the dark side of their religion from the naive public. You’ve proven that in our debate Skinner by time and time again dancing around what Mormons really believe and not just coming out just telling us. You try to intertwining Mormonism with Christianity in some sick twisted infatuation in an attempt to get everyone thinking you’re Christians when that couldn’t be further from the truth. Mormons are NOT Christians.

I can tell you’re not listening, nor interested in having an intellectually honest dialog, and you’re attempts at “converting” me and showing me “Christian Love” are the type that’ll put anyone straight into intensive care. Good luck with converting that way…

It’s the doctrine found in any and all of the various books and official communications from the LDS Church that I find blasphemous (at the very least). What is done to my Lord by the Mormon doctrine goes well beyond a different interpretation. It’s sickening. It angers me greatly. The entire character of God is changed by the LDS Church (He is just one of many gods, but he is only special because he is our god), along with the changing of the divinity of Christ, and a twisted idea the Bible. And to make matters worse, good Mormon folks have no clue why Christians are genuinely shocked by any of this. Look at skinner, he genuinely believes it’s a personal attack to question their Mormon beliefs as a cult – and if I didn’t read the LDS Church doctrine either, I might honestly feel the same way. Folks, it’s doctrinal, not personal.

apacalyps on February 12, 2008 at 8:18 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5