why does asking for dna evidence have to be the most ironic thing said on this post? Only an atheist would even suggest something so stupid. Faith and reality are either the same or different. That goes for atheists too, either their faith in a negative is in accordance with reality or not. It is no more ironic to ask a mormon for dna evidence, than it is someone to ask an atheist for evidence that God does not exist (in fact I would say the later is by far much more ridiculous)

Merkin, you said: "You are holding a double standard. You accept the authority of the Bible on faith. There is no evidence that any of the major claims in either Testament are true. Sure you can find some tedious examples of historically accurate details if you look for them, but that hardly redeems the rest of the wildly extravagant stories. Presumably you literally believe the absurd story of Noah's ark to be historically accurate? Sorry, but that is at least as silly as anything in the book of Mormon. "

Merkin, you've got to be joking. Seriously, it is basically a joke to say what you just did. I am not going to speak for the book of Mormon, it has some serious answering to do about a lot of historical inaccuracies, but the Bible is not comparable. The New Testament alone is the most, by far, corroborated peice of historical writing from ancient times. If you deny the NT, you might as well throw out all of history before Christ and after for over 600 years, because nothing comes close to the NT's accuracy and corroborative evidence (check out "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell) Then the Old Testament is also extremely historically accurate. Examples are the Hittites, the wall of Jericho, the exactness of the names of kings given at the right time period, and so on. I would hardly call these insignificant or "tedious" examples. As far as the story of the flood, it is historically plausible, if not probable that a flood of epic proportions did occur, it is no coincidence that every major world culture from the Americas to China has an ancient flood story. Anyway, comparing the book of Mormon to the Bible is like comparing apples to tomatoes. They are both red on the outside, and classified as fruits, but the rest is completely different.

Merkin wrote:

"Presumably you literally believe the absurd story of Noah's ark to be historically accurate? Sorry, but that is at least as silly as anything in the book of Mormon. "

Merkin, yes I believe in the biblical account of Noah, and there's more scientific, historical, and archaelogical proof to prove a Flood in the Book of Genesis, a young earth, and a literal Creation by God, than there is in an evolutionist finding a monkey jaw bone, drawing a picture around it, calling her "Dolly" and charging the federal government millions to show unsubstansiated bluff to our school kids paid for by our hard earned tax payer money, and to top off THE MOST ABSURDLY IRONIC PIECE OF INFORMATION IN THE HISTORY OF THE HUMAN RACE STATING THAT MAN EVOLVED FROM A MONKEY. Evolution at best is a theory; it can't even be backed up by biology. And before you go off and say that true scientists aren't Christians, or can't be Christians, I would like for you to read up on the story of history's most respected scie4ntists - Isaac Newton. So indeed the Scriptures are so wise in pointing out that the fool has said in his heart "there is no God". There you go, the Bible itself says that stheism is foolish.

And seriously dude, now you're demanding that the Mormon's beliefs be corroborated with DNA evidence?? That has got to be THE MOST ironic piece of reasoning posted on this site to date.

jesus4me,

You are holding a double standard. You accept the authority of the Bible on faith. There is no evidence that any of the major claims in either Testament are true. Sure you can find some tedious examples of historically accurate details if you look for them, but that hardly redeems the rest of the wildly extravagant stories. Presumably you literally believe the absurd story of Noah's ark to be historically accurate? Sorry, but that is at least as silly as anything in the book of Mormon.

jimb, I never refuted the existence of the Mayan's, or the Aztecs. YOu seem to be reading only what you want to read. I asked you to prove where there is DNA evidence to suggest the popular mormon teaching that the indian people groups in the America's have a link to the 12 tribes of Judah. And, please do not dodge this portion of my question. The Mormons celebrate great battles of people groups never heard of in history. Please name those people groups by name as well as the battles waged. Don't dodge my question. The people groups I am refering to are made up of other people groups; not the Mayans, or Inca's, as the mormo's teach. Also, what do you have to say about the mormon teaching that says that white people are superior to blacks; or that Jesus is Lucifer's brother? Do you want me to bring up proof of these heresy's? If not, please expose them yourself, because they are being taught, and Bringman Young University and other's in the Mormon faith have failed to answer many of these questions adequately. Although, i think you won't be able to expose them without exposing your own beliefs in which you have been drawn into believing that go contrary to the Bible, and Sound Biblical Doctrine.

Merkin, I am a BIble Believing Born again Christian who believes that both the Old Testament and the New Testament Scriptures are the God Inspired Infallible Absolute Truth of God. To add to it or take away from it is heresy. We do not need a companion book to teach us how to live apart from biblical teachings. As for your presumption or subtle accusations about my faith: YOU CANNOT REFUTE THAT All THE PEOPLE GROUPS IN THE OLD AS WELL AS NEW TESTAMENT HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE TRUE AND EXISTING AT ONE TIME OR ANOTHER IN HISTORY. MANY HAVE BEEN FOUND UNDER ARCHAELOGICAL FINDINGS. FURTHERMORE, THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS PROVE THAT THE OLD TESTAMET BOOK OF ISAIAH WAS WRITTEN WHEN IT WAS WRITTEN. So you did nothing to make me feel as if I had no idea of what i was talking about, because I do know what i'm talking about, and can stand on the firm truth of God's Word for my beliefs.
As for Jimb, would you like to expound as well on the extrabiblical teachings of the mormon church as related to the Book of Genesis and Adam, as wel as your beliefs that Jesus Christ was married? Please expound on those heresies and humor me some more with your dodgings of direct questions.

By the way, Happy New Year Everyone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

‘The Bible is true, inasmuch as it is translated correctly.’

In that case, what translations do you agree with and is this according to your own personal convictions?

‘The Book of Mormon is also true.’

If the Bible is true, and the Book of Mormon is also true, then what about the Quran? Is that also true?

‘The fullness of the gospel has been restored.’

When was it never complete? Before the Book of Mormon?

‘We seek to make bad men good and good men better.’

You see, this is where Christianity differs from all other religions. We know that no man or woman is ‘good’ apart from Jesus Christ. You state that ya’ll seek to make bad men good and good men better… but I ask you, ‘How is this possible’? How can ya’ll make anyone better at anything?

‘I support other Christians in their pursuit of right, as they try to live their faith.’

I support Christians pursuing The Truth, not their pursuit and possible corruption to obtain that Truth. To be a Christian and then to say that the Book of Mormon is correct is blasphemy. This is not a hard issue to understand.

Are Mormons Christians? The answer is NO. Now lets move on.

Another important point which I neglected. I do not seek to tear down another's faith. I seek to build on it. The Bible is true, inasmuch as it is translated correctly. The Book of Mormon is also true. Other churches have many things right, but those things can be built on and error can be dispelled. The fulness of the gospel has been restored. We seek to make bad men good and good men better. I support other Christians in their pusuit of right, as they try to live their faith.

jimb writes, "...Archeology is constantly being disproven. It is not a good source for evidence on which to base your faith."

Yes, there is much to be discovered in all this dirt. And the story that's being pieced together will necessarily continue to change. Personally, I don't understand how anybody could be content to say they've got all the answers — and the answers were all written down long ago in a book...that's faith, I know. But if you've already got the answers, why even try to compare notes with the scientists? Intelligent design "theory", for example, looks awfully like a project built on shaken faith. Anyway, my point is that trying to justify your faith with empirical evidence is self-defeating — the whole enterprise of faith requires that there be no evidence, right?

Oh, and one other thing. About that Bering Straits theory. The cover story of Newsweek, April 26, 1999, presents a host of findings that dispute that the primary ancestors of the American Indians came by that route, although some may have. Newsweek is not a Mormon magazine. The article, "The First Americans," compiles archeological information that points toward western Asia and/or Europe for sources from where most of the ancient Americans came. Of course, archeology is constantly being disproven. It is not a good source for evidence on which to base your faith.

That irony was not lost on me either, Merkin. Nevertheless, I shall indulge him or her. Jesus4me, have you truly never heard of the civilizations that existed in ancient America? Long before I knew anything of the Book of Mormon, even in grade school, I learned of the civilizations that we now call Aztec and Inca and others. See http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-09/ci-air090903.php to read about the ancient roadway to which I referred (this is not a Mormon website). Search google for Olmec, Inca, Aztec, and Maya and you will be able to find an abundence of information detailing what modern scientists conclude of them. There is really no question of their existence, although the archaeologists' conclusions on the details of their existence may not be entirely accurate or at all consistent. The dates that they think they lived vary greatly between different reports. To learn of some ancient temples, see http://www.tourbymexico.com/yucatan/chichen/chichen.htm. Note that this website says, "The conquerors found the buildings partially in ruins and their names and real use were unknown; this is why the present names are suppositions." This brings me to a final note of astonishment: if, after a civilization falls into ruin, the names of their cities are not preserved intact but are changed, do you actually believe that proves that they never existed? Even the city of Jerusalem has had different names throughout its history. It was called Jebus, for example, in 1 Chronicles 11:4.

jesus4me:
I think it's more than a little ironic that you demand jimb's beliefs should be backed by archeological evidence while at the same time you expect that everyone should take the claims of your own beliefs on good faith. Tsk tsk.

jimb, again i ask you, all the ancient civilizations with the different names mentioned in the book of mormon can't be found anywhere on the planet. The book teaches that out of the 12 tribes of Judah, the American Indians are part of those tribes. I am asking you once more, please do not dodge my question. Where on this planet have there been archaelogical findings of the wars taught in the book of mormon which the mormons subsequently celebrate in big plays, etc? Where has the DNA evidence produced a link between the Mayans, the Aztecs, and the native american peoples of North and South America to the 12 tribes of Judah? It is your faith my friend that is teaching an extrabiblical gospel with it's companion to the Bible from the book of mormon. Have the mormon archaelogists and historicists been able to link any of those people groups with people groups in the Bible? The answer to that is no. The book of mormon is a fabrication by a "latter day prophet" who received a vision from an angel named "moroni" who supposedly gave Joseph Smith a "special revelation" or "special interpretation" into the scriptures than all the Apostles. Be not deceived my friend, the Bible talks about false prophets and false teachers. And by the way, Jesus is not the brother of Lucifer as the mormon church also subsequently teaches. The people in the lower eschelons of the mormon faith are not aware of many of the doctrinal heresies taught in the mormon faith. What about the fallacies about white people being greater than darker skin people taught by the mormon faith?

This is mainly for Citizen, so I hope he or she still sees it. It is also to educate Jesus4you. J, it sounds like you were not aware of this, but the Revelation of John was not the last book in the Bible, chronologically. It was placed last when the various books were compiled long after the time of Christ. So saying that no scripture written after Revelation is valid is to invalidate much of the Bible, including the epistles of John, and even the Gospel of John, which were all written after Revelation. The Sadducees said the same thing of any scripture written after Deuteronomy, because of Deuteronomy 4:2, which says, "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you." The gospel of Jesus Christ was restored in its pure and original form through modern day prophets. Therefore it is not a different gospel than was preached by Jesus Christ, to which Paul referred, but it is certainly a different gospel than what is being preached today by many ministers of religion. The true gospel makes clear the immeasurable love and mercy of God the Father and His son Jesus Christ. It is something in which we should rejoice. I understand, Citizen, why it does not sound loving the way it is usually preached.

Citizen: if you are still reading this, don't worry about what Jesus4me said. God loves all His children. He is just and merciful. He does not punish someone for the sins of another. The doctrine of original sin is the product of Augustine, bishop of Hippo, at the start of the 5th century A.D. "For modern readers of Augustine, few of his teachings are more difficult to assimilate than his doctrine of original sin." - Augustinian Studies 23 (December 1992): 125-147. It was not taught by Jesus. As such, it is a "private interpretation" of scripture, which has been widely promulgated throughout modern mainstream Christianity. Becoming popular does not make it correct. "Private interpretation" means any time people change the meaning of scripture from what was originally intended. Scripture is when holy men of God, or prophets, write as moved upon by the Holy Ghost. Because God loves his children, he chooses prophets, or spokesmen, through whom He speaks. He continues to do that, because He continues to love us, and we continue to need it. "Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but He revealeth His secrets unto His servants the prophets." - Amos 3:7. The Book of Mormon is just one example of His continuing to work through prophets. Because Christianity was so dramatically altered by philosophers after Jesus walked the earth, it needed to be restored in its original form. This was foretold in the Bible - see Revalation 14:6, Isaiah chapter 29, 2 Timothy 4:3-4, and Acts 3:19-21. In ancient days, writing was done upon scrolls rolled on sticks. Ezekiel 37:16-17 foretells the coming forth of the "stick of Joseph," or Book of Mormon, as a companion to the "stick of Judah," or the Bible. Jesus later spoke of going to visit his "other sheep, which are not of this fold" - he was referring to the ancient Americans, as recorded in the Book of Mormon - see John 10:16. Because He loves all of His children, He did not limit His visit to one small culture in Israel. Of course, most people have heard of the archaeological evidence of ancient advanced civilizations in the Americas. They have been called, in modern names, Aztec, Maya, Inca, and Olmec. Ancient temples have been found in the Yucatan and elsewhere. Remnants of roads have been found, such as the 8,500 km Gran Ruta Inca.

People get so hung up Mara because they place too much importance on what they think "wise" man can teach them. Becoming a believer and disciple of Yeshua is not a corporate thing, it is a very personal and solitary thing which is why we are to study God's Word for ourselves. Common bible study with other believers is good for teaching and learning, but those doing the teaching should be checked through scripture as those in Berea checked behind Paul. There will be NO ONE who will stand on Judgement Day with a lawyer, best friend, parent or pastor by their side to explain an individuals beliefs. God expects us all to know His Word in truth, not man's version of it.

"...a teaching shared by Calvinists that says whatever is not specifically set out by God in Scripture should not be included in worship services. Proponents of the principle have appealed to it to bar the use of contemporary praise songs in public worship and to eliminate musical intruments."

Hmmm ... do Calvinists not know that musical instruments were used to worship God from antiquity, even in the days of Moses? And that the Psalmists and Jesus (in Revelation) advocated worshipping God with a "new" song?

I don't understand how people can get so hung up on such a minor issue.

Why is Darwinism and Atheism Unscientific and Mythical?

http://evolutionfacts.blogspot.com

Jimb, I'm sorry if I sounded rather poignant and harsh, but you should really study up a little on the mormon faith and it's many fallacies. None of the people groups involvd in these huge battles mentioned in the Book of Mormon have ever existed neither in the America's or in Europe, so this revelation from Joseph Smith is not true.

jimb:

jimb, i know there may be many sincere mormons out there who think they are following the true Jesus of the Bible. However, the jesus the mormons teach is not the Jesus Christ of the Bible. I have a few questions for you. Where in the BIble does it tell you to have a companion manual to it? Does not the Apostle Paul state clearly in the Word that if he or even a angel from heaven should preach to you any other gospel other than the one that was passed on to them, that whoever is preaching it should be anathema? Also Jimb, could you please let me know if the places and people mentioned in the Book of Mormon have ever been historically, and archaelogcally found anywhere in the America's; specifically South America? You see Jim, this may be what the "latter day" exclusive revelation to Joseph Smith from the angel "moroni" may have said, but no where in the Scriptures does it teach that the North American Indians are part of the 12 tribes of Judah, and nowhere in Scripture does it teach that we should listen to or follow any teachings from any "companion manuals" to the Scriptures. See Jimb, the Bible tells us that no propesy of Scripture is of private interpretation, and if anyone comes ot me or any other born again Christian claiming they have some "secret revelation" or a new way of translating the Scriptures, the Bible tells me that is false doctrine and false teaching. See, Jimb, the Bible says that we are not to add or take away from the Word of God. You see Jimb, because original sin is a biblical doctrine and not man made, we need to flow what God says in His Word, and not what theologians or the "latter day revelations of Joseph Smith tell us, etc. Jimb, I think this is because the Book of Mormon is a flase doctrine and a heresy, and to compare the mormon faith with Christianity is false and ignorant. I exhort you Jimb by the mercies of God to repent of your sins, ask Jesus to be Lord and Savior of your life, seek after Him and He will Lead and Guide you in all TRUTH in the Scriptures. Religion will never save you. It is a relationship with God thru the Lord Jesus Christ that will restore man's fallen nature. Please get out of that cult my friend.