My Take on Why Mormons Become Athiests

[Sir]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Why should I believe that the Book of Mormon contains REAL history?

You should only believe what the Holy Spirit tells you.

See?

Without LDS in this forum who would you post all your questions to?

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Sir

You should only believe what the Holy Spirit tells you.

See?

And the Holy Spirit has shown me that the teachings of Mormonism are false.

Any other reasons why I should believe the Book of Mormon is real history?

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Sir

Without LDS in this forum who would you post all your questions to?

Why don't you and theway make good on your threat and go away?

[Sir]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Why don't you and theway make good on your threat and go away?

Where did I threaten to leave?

Or are you purposely misrepresenting me?

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Sir

Where did I threaten to leave?

Or are you purposely misrepresenting me?

It is implied by statements such as this

Originally Posted by Sir

If no Mormons were here to 'discuss' with you, then there would be no discussions at all. It would be all critics talking to each other and you would get bored and leave.

[Sir]

Originally Posted by Billyray

It is implied by statements such as this

Oh, I see. You simply came to your own incorrect conclusion of my comment and presented it as fact.

Nothing new from the LDS-critic crowd.

[neverending]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Another tactic thrown around. I asked you if you agree with the Christian site you often refer to.

"it becomes apparent that the Bible teaches the earth to be about 6000 years old, give or take a few hundred years."

Do you agree with this statement Billyray?

See, you can't prove that the earth was created in 7 days and you will not even acknowledge whether or not these christians (who you often quote) are right or not.

The Bible deals ONLY with 6,000 yrs. of history. We know better that the earth is millions if not billions of years old. We have the remnants of dinosaurs to prove that the earth was millions of years old. As for how long it took God to create earth, he says it was 6 days but what is time to God? He created time and is not subject to it, it was created for man. A day to the Lord could be a million years for all we know, a twinkling in His eyes. Genesis 2:4, "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens..."

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Sir

Oh, I see. You simply came to your own incorrect conclusion of my comment and presented it as fact.

Nothing new from the LDS-critic crowd.

Sir
"If no Mormons were here to 'discuss' with you, then there would be no discussions at all. It would be all critics talking to each other and you would get bored and leave."


Did you have a point in your statement above.

[Sir]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Sir
"If no Mormons were here to 'discuss' with you, then there would be no discussions at all. It would be all critics talking to each other and you would get bored and leave."


Did you have a point in your statement above.

I guess i can see how that statement i made would be confusing to you.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Sir

I guess i can see how that statement i made would be confusing to you.

Because it is a veiled threat to leave and yet you say it is not. Nobody is forcing you to post here. If you want to leave please do so and drop the theatrics.

[Sir]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Because it is a veiled threat to leave and yet you say it is not. Nobody is forcing you to post here. If you want to leave please do so and drop the theatrics.

It is simply a statement of fact, not a "veiled threat". Just like my comparison of a hospital with only doctors and no patients. That isn't a threat to take all the patients away from a hospital. It simply acknowledges that you can't have one without the other without it falling apart.

[Russianwolfe]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Why should I believe that the Book of Mormon contains REAL history?

Its not a history book, Billyray. The purpose of the book is to testify of Jesus Christ. History is a vehicle to that end. A history book to suppose to explain history. The Book of Mormon testifies of Christ not history.

I do not have a testimony of the historicity of the Book of Mormon. I have a testimony of Jesus Christ.

Marvin

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Russianwolfe

Its not a history book, Billyray. The purpose of the book is to testify of Jesus Christ. History is a vehicle to that end. A history book to suppose to explain history. The Book of Mormon testifies of Christ not history.

I do not have a testimony of the historicity of the Book of Mormon. I have a testimony of Jesus Christ.

Marvin

So you would be OK if the book of mormon history was made up as long as you feel the spiritual message was correct?

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by neverending

The Bible deals ONLY with 6,000 yrs. of history. We know better that the earth is millions if not billions of years old. We have the remnants of dinosaurs to prove that the earth was millions of years old. As for how long it took God to create earth, he says it was 6 days but what is time to God? He created time and is not subject to it, it was created for man. A day to the Lord could be a million years for all we know, a twinkling in His eyes. Genesis 2:4, "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens..."

Thank you for responding---now, here is the next problem in scientific findings. Down in the Labria Tar pits is a skeleton of a woman who carbon dates to 10,000 years old. How can a woman end up in California who is 4,000 years older than the Bible states there should be a woman?

(I am not saying I do not believe the Bible, but Billyray seems to think that the Bible can hold up to "evidence" while the Book of Mormon cannot. I am merely pointing out the criticism used at the Book of Mormon can also be used to criticize the Bible.)

[Russianwolfe]

Originally Posted by Billyray

So you would be OK if the book of mormon history was made up as long as you feel the spiritual message was correct?

No, that is not correct. But your question is based on the false ***umption that the Book of Mormon is a history book. It is not. It is a witness that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God and the Savior of mankind. If it has history in it, it is because the book is talking about men who by their example and lives are witnesses of Christ.

Marvin

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Russianwolfe

No, that is not correct. But your question is based on the false ***umption that the Book of Mormon is a history book.

Marvin

It is suppose to contain accurate historical information Marvin.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

(I am not saying I do not believe the Bible, but Billyray seems to think that the Bible can hold up to "evidence" while the Book of Mormon cannot. I am merely pointing out the criticism used at the Book of Mormon can also be used to criticize the Bible.)

The criticism that I have used to compare the Bible verses the Book of Mormon was never about evidence surrounding evolution or the age of the earth. It is based on m****cript evidence, lack of historical evidence for the book of mormon etc. When comparing these facts there is no comparison between the two.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Down in the Labria Tar pits is a skeleton of a woman who carbon dates to 10,000 years old.

Your ***uming that the carbon dates are correct.

[Libby]

Why would you ***ume they are not?

[Russianwolfe]

Originally Posted by Billyray

It is suppose to contain accurate historical information Marvin.

Where does the book ever claim 'to contain accurate historical information'? Please provide chapter and verse.

Marvin

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Libby

Why would you ***ume they are not?

J brought it up so I want to argue it with her.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Russianwolfe

Where does the book ever claim 'to contain accurate historical information'? Please provide chapter and verse.

Marvin

Marvin the only thing I can take from your comment is that you don't believe the book of Mormon contains real history.

[Russianwolfe]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Marvin the only thing I can take from your comment is that you don't believe the book of Mormon contains real history.

You are the one who claims that it is suppose to be history. You are making a claim for the book that the book does not make for itself.

You can conclude nothing from my comment because I am asking a question about your statement. So you can take your twisted reasoning somewhere else.

Why don't you just answer the question? You made the claim, so backup your statement with real evidence.

Marvin

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Russianwolfe

You are the one who claims that it is suppose to be history. You are making a claim for the book that the book does not make for itself.

Is the church now teaching that the book of mormon does not contain true history? WOW! Things have certainly changed.

[Russianwolfe]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Is the church now teaching that the book of mormon does not contain true history? WOW! Things have certainly changed.

I can understandy why you keep avoiding the claim you made and try to make it look like I have said something that I never said. I can understand that you are embar***ed by what you have said and find that you cannot back it up with any support. I can understand it and feel pity for the way you are handling this siuation in your life.

Now, can you man up and support your claim. I think it would be expecting far too much to expect you to actually admit the truth and withdraw the claim.

Or is this just a game to you and you can say anything you want because nothing you say is really serious?

Marvin