[shetlan]

Originally Posted by Aequitas

Do you have a reference at all for the necromancy charge? I've gone through a lot and all I could find was a story in which Alvin Smith's grave was allegedly disturbed, and Joseph Smith Sr. denied it. Are you possibly referring to baptism for the dead?

One's I have onhand are:
Church History and Things to Come by Beka Horton
and
Bible Doctrines and the Christian Faith (written by a collection of authors).

Originally Posted by Aequitas

The Bible is a collection of documents arranged in a number of councils including the Synod of Hippo, which separated sacred scripture from the apocrypha. A bunch of bishops(excuse me for my inaccuracy) decided which writings were sacred, not God, Christ or even any of his apostles.

How surprising that you chose the Synod of Hippo as a reference - being that they where one of the councils of the early Catholic church rather than a council that actually assembled the documents now known as the Bible. The Synod of Hippo is famous for "assembling the Apocrypha" into a singular work - likely one of the least relevant acts in Christian history.

The Bible was assembled by a group known as the (First) Council of Nicea. This was the one and only time the Bible was "assembled". The Torah and Talmud where included as the founding blocks of Christianity (becoming the Old Testament) and the New Testament works where chosen based on their agreement and alignment with the teachings and doctrines of the Old Testament.

Again, I find it humorous that the first one you named was the Synod of Hippo, since the Mormon church is one of the few that often uses the Apocryphal works. This is something of a peek into the fact that your entire education on this subject has been through the tinted Mormon lense.

Originally Posted by Aequitas

Apparently you don't know much about the Book of Mormon either. The plates weren't invisible. If you look right inside the Book of Mormon there are writings from 11 witnesses who each saw and handled the plates. Several of these witnesses left the church for one reason or another, but still didn't deny that they saw the plates.

Uh huh, so these "witnesses" saw the plates then left? Again with the "convenient" nature of Smith's teachings. I assure you, the witnesses are no more real than the plates themselves.

This is a common ploy of the skilled con-man. Your own word isn't good enough, so you construct several false persons to vouch for you.

Originally Posted by Aequitas

First off, polygamy was taught by Jews long before Christ and long after. God found it most definitely "acceptable." I put the number of polygamists in the Bible somewhere around thirty.

I can find a few dozen murderers in the Bible, including King David - that doesn't make murder a good thing, or a thing God approves.

Care to cite a reference to a section where God approves of polygamy?

Originally Posted by Aequitas

Mosaic law even requires it at times. As for them being far away from their husband's daily life, the law also stated that the husband should attend to his first wife first. If you have to attend to that many spouses(or is it it spice?) in order, I'm sure a few will be left out.

Mosaic law doesn't condone or require polygamy, that's either a gross misreading or a deliberate attempt to distort the laws - dealer's choice.

Originally Posted by Aequitas

I never said that it was "good," I think it was a bad idea in the first place; what I'm saying is that it occured during Christ's time and the whole idea is that the LDS church is that it's the same as Christ's.

Then why doesn't LDS condone slavery?
Why don't they condone the sale of women and children as property?
Both aspects of society that where quite prevalent in Jesus' day.

Originally Posted by Aequitas

Just because a leader made a bad decision, doesn't necessarily mean that the the organization is bad, so long as it is fixed. That's like saying since the president makes a mistake, the entire country has gone bad. Many leaders opposed plural marriage, including Brigham Young who had 55 wives even though he strongly disliked the practice. I admit the Joseph was a crackpot on that, but still, the issue was eventually resolved.

The church didn't "fix it" Aequitas, it was outlawed.

Let's say you're a doctor and you're poisoning patients. Someone eventually finds out and takes away your medical liscence.
Did you stop? No - somebody stopped you.

Originally Posted by Aequitas

As far as throwing away teachings, Christ was a heretic who disobeyed the law of Moses, as were all of his followers.

Absolutely untrue.
From day one, Jesus followed absolutely every teaching of the Jewish faith, till the day He died.

Originally Posted by Aequitas

Paul, perhaps the greatest missionary of all time, went from an extremist Christian killing Jew, to an apostle.

That he did. Paul believed he was doing God's work by eradicating the Christians, and by Jewish law he was right. As soon as God told him he was wrong, he not only stopped, he became one of Christianity's greatest heroes.

Incidentally, Paul's story has nothing to do with tossing out doctrine, it's a conversion story. He goes from wrong to right.

Originally Posted by Aequitas

Every protestant faith went against one teaching or another, not only Mormons. To dislike Mormonism based on that is to dislike Christianity as a whole.

Both statements are utterly false.
Every Protestant faith went against one "Catholic Teaching" or another - the Catholic Church itself is a distorted and corrupted sect.

Secondly, you've totally switched from "tossing a doctrine out" to "differing on doctrine". My point was that the Mormons taught polygamy and then abandoned the teaching when it opposed the local laws.
Again, how sacred could a teaching be if you toss it out when it's challenged?

Originally Posted by Aequitas

And every religion is considered lunacy by somebody. Would you believe it if someone walked up to you on the street and said "I am the son of God and I've come to die for you and save you from sin."? From the voice of your posts I'm guessing you'd roll your eyes, call him a drunk and a moron and then push past him. May I ask what you believe in Shetlan?

Again, a totally irrelevant point with no substance - "Everyone is wrong about something, so I'm right about this."

As I've said before, I hold no denominational title.