In what? Myths and miracles? No.

DO YOU HAVE HOPE?

Sure do. I hope for many things.

IF YOU DO NOT HAVE THESE THEN YOU ARE FULL OF DEAD BONES AND YOU CAN NOT KNOW THE DIFFERENCE FROM TRUTH OR A LIE.

So hope is the key to discerning truth? Interesting... Just exactly how does this process work and why?

ONE THING I DO KNOW THAT IS TRUTH AND I KNOW A LIE AND SIR YOU ARE A LIAR.

Ouch! Those are pretty strong words coming from someone who describes himself as "a true Christian". If this is what faith does to a person then I will have to politely refuse your offer of faith.

THE HOLY BIBLE IS THE WORDS OF GOD AND THEY WERE GIVE TO MEN BY THE POWER OF THE HOLY GHOST.

A ghost, eh? This is one ghost that I hope never gives me any words to say. What was the ghost thinking when it told the person, later called Matthew, to write that Jesus said, "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I come not to send peace, but a sword." in Matthew 10:34?

HAVE YOU READ THE HOLY BIBLE ALL THE WAY THROUGH OR YOU LIKE SO MANY OTHER JUST GO THROUGH AND PICK WHAT YOU THINK PEOPLE WANT TO HEAR OR TICKLE THERE EARS.

I've read it cover to cover three times, the New Testament alone another three times (at least), and countless passages dozens of times. Have you read it all the way through, or do you just read the 'good parts'?

SIR YOU WOULD NOT KNOW THE TRUTH IF IT CAME UP AND LOOKED YOU IN THE EYES AND SPOKE WITH YOU. UNTIL YOU HAVE JESUS CHRIST IN YOUR LIFE YOU WILL ALWAYS BE FULL OF DEAD BONES. WHY ARE YOU SO AFRAID OF THE HOLY BIBLE THAT YOU WOULD COME AGAINST IT SO MUCH?

I wouldn't call someone who honestly examines something so many consider 'truth' 'so afraid'. I'm not at all afraid to admit when I'm wrong. I do it all the time. What if you might possibly be incorrect on your presumption that the 'Bible is the words of god'? Would you be too afraid to change your opinion, or would you place honesty above apologetics?

YOU SEE SATAN HAS YOU BLINDED TO THE TRUTH AND WE OUT CHRIST IN YOUR LIFE SATAN WILL ALWAYS KEEP YOU BLINDED. SIR I CARE WHAT HAPPENS TO YOU AND ALMIGHTY GOD LOVES YOU THAT IS WHY I HAVE COME TODAY TO TELL YOU JESUS CHRIST DIED TO GIVE YOU TRUTH BUT TO KNOW TRUTH YOU MUST KNOW HIM! JESUS CHRIST LOVES YOU SO JUST SEE THE TRUTH IT IS IN HIM!

RESPECTFULLY YOURS, A TRUE CHRISTIAN

Next time you talk to the Jesus who died to give me truth, please tell him to stop in for a visit. I'd love to chat with him.

I must have missed the meek part of your message, or are doves not very meek? ;)

SIR I FEEL SORRY FOR YOU BECAUSE YOU SAY YOU HAVE READ THE HOLY BIBLE SO MANY TIME WHY WOULD YOU READ A BOOK SO MANY TIMES IF YOU DID NOT BELIEVE IN IT. WHAT MAKED YOU READ IT DID YOU NOT THINK GOD KNOWS WHAT IS IN YOUR HEART?

Many people who don't believe in the Bible read it to find out about why Christians and Jews think and act as they do. My case is a bit different though. I was once a believer. Perhaps you should have read more of my site before sending email?

I DO NOT HAVE TO DEFEND GOD FOR HE IS ALMIGHTY AND HE WILL TAKE CARE OF ALL THINGS, BUT I'M HERE TODAY TO TELL YOU YES TRUTH IS HOPE AND FAITH. YOU HOPE FOR THINGS YOU HAVE NOT SEEN AND HAVE FAITH TO GET THEM.

OK. I have hope and faith that you will send me a million dollars. Since these things are 'truth' by your definition, should I send you my address?

I PRAY FOR YOU, BECAUSE YOU ARE IN THE FLESH AND THE FLESH WILL BLIND YOU. AS FOR WHAT JESUS CHRIST SAID IN MATTHEW HE WAS SPEAKING OF THE EVIL THAT HE WILL DO BATTLE WITH. BECAUSE EVIL WILL FIND NO PEACE.

That's a unique interpretation not supported by the context or the verse itself. Why couldn't Jesus (speaking through a guy later dubbed Matthew) explain himself a little better?

BUT IF YOU ALSO READ WHAT GOD SAID ABOUT CAUSING THE SUN TO RISE AND SET ON THE GOOD AND THE BAD THE JUST AND THE UNJUST. SO YOU GO BACK AND READ THE HOLY BIBLE ONE moRE TIME AND YOU WILL SEE THE TRUTH, BUT JESUS WILL NOT COME AND TALK WITH YOU UNTIL YOU ASK HIM WITH YOUR HEART AND NOT YOUR MIND.

Too late. I've asked with my heart countless times--no visits. :( Perhaps he hates me. I'm not sure why though since I wasn't using my mind in those days.

I AM AND ALWAYS WILL BE AND WILL DIED A CHRISTIAN 100%. I KNOW WHERE I'M GOING AND I KNOW WHERE I HAVE BEEN. AND BELIEVE ME I KNOW THE TRUTH

Oh, I believe that you think you know the truth. The problem is that anybody who thinks they know the whole truth obviously doesn't. The rigid dogma you are stuck in will be tough to get out of. No help from me, or anyone else, will be able to break through such a mindset. I hope, if nothing else, that it at least makes you happy.

AND IF YOU DID IT WOULD SET YOU FREE FOR I'M FREE INDEED! JESUS CHRIST WILL BE COMING BACK BUT I PRAY THAT IT WILL NOT BE TO LATE FOR YOU, FOR EVEN SATAN AND ALL HIS FOLLOWERS WILL BOW BEFORE THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD AND HIS NAME IS KING OF KINGS, LORD OF LORDS, HIS NAME IS JESUS CHRIST.

A FAITHFUL SERVANT OF FATHER, SON, AND HOLY GHOST

Thank you,

A Faithful Servant of and non-believer in--Satan, Unicorns, and Casper the Friendly Ghost (based on your description, the Holy Ghost is far too mean and contradictory for me to serve him) ;)

You can read about it in the "History of the Church" (see Chapter 6 of Volume 7). This account includes most of the items you don't normally hear about in Sunday School or church manuals even though it was written by a faithful member and future prophet. Taylor claims that Joseph Smith shot and wounded two or three--killing two of those. Others have since said that Taylor was exaggerating and no one was actually killed by Joseph Smith's shots.

D&C 135 certainly tells it differently, and I don't remember learning this detail in Sunday School or Seminary, but maybe I've forgotten. At what level do you think the Church accepts this as historical fact? Are they public about it and I'm just forgetting?

The church leaders and instructors usually don't say anything they don't have to--especially when it is not faith promoting or not a building up of the 'near-perfect Joseph Smith' myth. When you hear about Joseph Smith's death from the church it almost always omits such details as Joseph Smith drinking wine soon before his death, his having a gun, and some of the attackers getting shot too. Obviously (in this instance) Joseph wasn't the aggressor (unless you go back to what happened to the Expositor). In any event, if the church wants the event to be looked at honestly and truthfully, they should include all the significant events around the death of the church's founder in the popular histories. Unfortunately, this isn't usually the case. As shown by D&C 135, they show only a very distorted, inaccurate view of the events. Why not include everything John Taylor said in D&C 135? I think the answer is obvious.

That's why I liked it. The 'secrets' weren't all given away from page 1 which I think a different style wouldn't be able to achieve as effectively.

I thought that the ending could have been a little bit longer.

I agree. It was abrupt and could have developed into something more interesting.

I thought the book was very good and I would like to read another one of Ayn Rand's books.

Try "Atlas Shrugged". I didn't like the ending of it either, but most of the rest of "Atlas Shrugged" makes it well-worth reading.

I've heard even later dates from both conservatives and liberals. I've heard some conservatives say 71-75 and liberals say 75-80.

The Gospel of John is usually dated 85-90 CE by most scholars. Paul's letters are dated 50-60 CE. Conservatives regard all of Paul's letters as coming from him, liberals only Romans, I & II Corinthians, Galatians.

Again, I think only the most rigidly conservative scholars say that all Paul's letters were written by him, and their logic for this reasoning takes them out of the realm of what I would consider 'scholarly'.

Most scholars agree that Paul's [authentic] letters were written [at least] 10-15 years before the Synoptics and some 30 years before John's Gospel. In other words, Paul had written his letters and died before any of the Gospel accounts were composed.

Hyam Maccoby's book is very good for those interested in tracing Paul's influence on the four gospels. Although I haven't read it yet, I understand that the new book "James the Brother of Jesus" by Robert Eisenman is also very excellent on this subject.

Since Paul's letters were composed first, they provide us accurate insight into the doctrines and theology of the earliest Christian community and are also the mainstay of all Christian dogmas today, both Catholic and Protestant as well as Mormon and Jehovah's Witnesses. If one reads the New Testament chronologically (Paul's letters first, then Mark, then Matthew, then Luke and finally John), there arises a peculiar paradox: Paul does NOT mention the virgin birth, nor any miracles, nor any of the events surrounding the crucifixion (e.g. Judas' supposed suicide, the dead walking the streets of Jerusalem), nor does he mention the empty tomb and therefore no PHYSICAL resurrection (cf. I Corinthians 15 the oldest resurrection account), nor the ascension, nor the Pentecost.

Just because he doesn't mention the specifics doesn't mean that some people in Paul's time didn't believe in all (or some of) these things. I do agree with you though that the story obviously builds and becomes more miraculous (and unbelievable) with time and the retelling of the story by non-eyewitnesses.

According to Paul, there were 12 Apostles after the resurrection (I Cor. 15:5). The questions arises: Why does Paul NOT mention these [other] things if these were [also] historical facts?? I have yet to read any conservative scholar who can explain this appropriately without resorting to lame apologetics. I challenge any conservative reader of this website to offer an explanation for this phenomena. Or perhaps we should refer this to the X-Files.

I'm sure Mulder and Scully could come up with a more entertaining answer than the apologists, but the answer is not likely to be any more correct. ;)

This is not an attack on you, ergo, no ad hominems will be used. I am especially curious, though, about your response to The Proclamation on The Family. It appears you approach the Proclamation with more than a jaundiced eye.

For example, you take issue with the design of the family, being traditional with a father and mother.

I don't take issue with a family including both an involved father and mother. I take issue with commanding others to have children, insinuating that fathers aren't primarily responsible for the nurture of their children, and making the absurd notion that gender is eternal.

I think social science (which altar I suspect you kneel before) would argue that for the most part, that a traditional family is the way to save American (indeed, any) society.

The way to 'save America' is to get rid of superstition and blind allegiance to authority. Education and responsible parenting is a far better help to society than churning out as many babies as possible even when the parents are not financially or emotionally able.

Death, divorce, and catastophic illness are great disruptors, it is true. But it occurs to me that divorce is far more likely than death. Could the Proclamation be asking for responsible, loving behavior of husbands and wives?

Sure it could be if you ignore the threats, commands to multiply, and misinformation on gender.

Further, could the Proclamation be asking that people not engage in unchastity, bearing children out of wedlock, etc.? To both of these questions, I answer yes.

You see only what you believe (and ignore the rest). Take a larger look at the picture being painted before you. It isn't about making stronger, better people. It is a message of intolerance towards others and control for those perceived to be in authority (males in the case of Mormonism).

I must close this message now (probably to your relief <g>).<------LDS-er who does not take himself too seriously.

But I do want to determine what your angle is. Are you as harsh on so-called 'Christendom' as you appear to be on so-called 'Mormonism'?

Even more so. The biggest problem with Mormonism Imo is that it is riding on Christianity. As I state on this page, (in the paragraph beginning, "Shortly after this Joseph founds"), Joseph Smith had the chance to create a religious movement that didn't contain all the errors, inconsistencies, and blatant falsehoods of Christianity. Instead he incorporated most of the Christian problems into his new religion.

The 'Christian' religion held to so fervently by Southern Baptists, Episcopals, Pentecostals, 'born-agains', etc. appears to have far more tenuous ground on which to stand. Their chief argument is that anyone who has died without accepting the gospel is damned. Thus, the pigmies, the people of the Khan dynasty, are coals for Hell's barbecue in the next life. Thus, God is a partial god, setting many of His creatures up for failure.

I agree. It will be interesting, however, to see how Mormons attempt to 'save' those born 500,000 years ago. Are homo erectus worthy of having their ordinance work done for them? What about australopithecus? The whole idea of trying to 'save' people for some non-existent future life is something Joseph Smith shouldn't have bothered to create in his new religion if he were truly prophetic.

Do you take issue with this tenet of so-called 'Christianity'?

Sure do. See these links for some of my views on Christianity.

Although I haven't read it yet, I understand "The Tree of Life: The Wonders of Evolution" is good.

Last night I saw "The Evolution Book" in B&N which looked pretty good although I don't know if it meets all your criteria below. It shows the various animals alive at any given time in history more than give a good detailed description of how evolution works. I just skimmed it though so I could be wrong.

I've even been considering attempting to write one myself. It seems that we are lacking a book that can explain the basics of evolution in fairly simple terms for an audience of children. I think it would have to :
be entertaining (no child would willingly read a boring book).
explain what is meant by "theory", and give a brief description of the scientific method.
demonstrate how "evolutionary arms races" work.
make no mention of religion or creationism.
illustrate the enormous timescales involved.
give some sort of experiments or games that illustrate the theory.
explain rather than assert.
say what evolution is *not*.

I agree. Check out the above books and see if they meet these needs and criteria. If not, write such a book and if it's a good one I'll be glad to plug it for you 'til my face turns blue.

I feel great. I'd ask you the same question, but you didn't leave me a valid email address.

Look at the world...look around...look at that plant outside...the tree outside. Can you not feel something...something more than just us?

If 'just us' includes the tree, plant, and everything else in the world then 'no' is my answer.

Can you truthfully tell me that the whole universe is just an accident.

Yes, or more appropriate than 'accident', I prefer to call it the wonders of natural life.

How did we get here?

Apparently, you haven't read any of the books I've recommended. :( Perhaps you should start there.

What's our purpose?

Whatever you make it out to be. What is the purpose of the spider climbing up the wall in front of me? I say it is to survive and reproduce. What would your god say it is?

How old is the universe?

Best estimates are at about 16 billion years. To be safe, I'd estimate 10-20 billion years.

What started it?

The Big Bang. (Perhaps you should ask for a telescope and a subscription to an astronomy magazine for Christmas instead of another Bible.)

What was here before?

Good question. Maybe nothing--maybe a previous universe that collapsed in on itself like ours may do someday.

Its all inconceivable without something/someone else.

No, something or someone else just raises more difficult questions like 'where did it/they come from and how did it/they become powerful enough to create us'? And more importantly and to the point, 'why is/are it/they now hiding and where'?

Can you look me straight in the eye, and tell me its useless to live?

No. I find life to be very useful. I enjoy nearly every moment. If I found life useless I'd have killed myself long before now.

One more half-scientific thing...how did we get morales.

The same way we got philosophy and a host of other concepts and disciplines.

Is that part of evolving?

You bet.

Even canabalistic tribes know its wrong to kill one of their own.

I don't think so. If such were the case, they probably wouldn't be cannibalistic anymore now would they.

This is pretty much a given throughout the world. Prove me wrong if you can, I would like to see if you could.

For me to prove you wrong, you would first have had to make a case (which you haven't), and second you would have had to have left me with your email address.

I've heard that tribes of Indians/Natives all around the world have a old story of a flood that covered the earth. What's your view on that?

They were flooded and then told the story. What is so significant about that? What's your view on ancients who didn't live near flood planes who didn't tell flood stories?

Have you heard anything about that?

Sure have. Even devoted a page to it.

I don't see how morales could evolve. I don't see how if we were never told about it, how we would feel bad for killing something.

Perhaps you haven't read the Bible very carefully . It is a great place to see how morals evolved between about 1000 BC and 200 AD in one part of the world.

How if we didn't know about "a better place" we would still be affected when someone/something died.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

Can you perform your supernatural powers of healing, etc. when skeptics are around? If so, you can collect a tidy some for your ministry by taking up the Randi challenge. I'm not sure what you mean by them feeding and strengthening my beliefs. I've yet to witness any such supernatural occurrence.

I will not tell you that you must repent,and that you are going to hell and all the other cliches most preachers will tell you because I read the bible continually,and I know that there are people who are created to live for the other side and there is no message that can reach them,I am not saying you are one of those people,I am merely saying that it is between you and the Creator,and ONLY you can find the truth and come to know the Lord.

And how exactly do I do that? Suspend my intellect?

No one can bring you to Him,indeed the bible says"no man can come to me unless my Father draws him to me" One must be chosen of God,not everyone is,regardless of what the religious right would have you believe.

So God is a respecter of persons then?

Jesus himself addressed some of his jewish accusers as "of the devil", so it must be understood that there will always be that number wich are unreachable,and if you truly have read all you say you have then the only way for you to know the truth is if the Father calls you to know the truth.Continue your quest

Next time you talk to the Father, tell him to give me a call. He can send me an email if he doesn't do the calling thing anymore. ;)

Secondly, and however, I must respond to a statement made by Brad N. Clark in his essay Acts of God and Other Disasters.

Mr. Clark discusses various tragedies, such as jetliner crashes, and the insipid statements that survivors make to reporters, such as "Thank God, the Lord must have been looking out for me," etc., while all around them lie the bloody, broken bodies of little children and their decapitated mothers and fathers. Mr. Clark then states flatly, and without evidence, "Whenever the press can find them, it loves quoting religious survivors."

Well, I've been a reporter for 12 years, friend. I've written just about every kind of disaster story there is: floods, fires, earthquakes, plane crashes, mass murder and on and on. And like every other reporter, when encounter someone who, standing in the middle of carnage, nonetheless thanks God for his mercy, I have to cringe. First, such quotes are so common, they're cliche; and as every good reporter knows, cliches make for boring news stories. And secondly, the statement is indeed cruel, given that other people, believers, no doubt, did not receive their portion of mercy and thus died. But the greater point is this: Our job as journalists, when covering disasters, is to record the facts surrounding the disaster and chronicle for posterity the initial reactions of people who survived it. What we think personally about someone's beliefs is immaterial. We don't seek out or shun 'religious survivors.' We don't seek out or shun atheistic survivors, either, or white survivors, or black survivors, or red-headed survivors. We just try to talk to as many survivors as we can. And when they talk to us, we don't censor their comments because they're religious or anti-religious or conservative or liberal or old-fashioned or new-fangled.

The press is a mirror held up to society. And if you look in the press and find reams of quotes from people thanking God for sparing their lives, then that isn't a reflection of media bias, friend: That's a warts-and-all look at the way people think.

In short, people may be silly. They may believe in fairy tales. But newspaper stories try to be objective, and that sometimes means a reporter has to swallow hard and type whatever drivel spews from someone else's mouth.

Thanks for the comments from an 'insider'. I agree with you totally (although I don't know if all reporters try to be as objective as you may try to be). Probably the only journalists who would purposefully seek out the religious are the type you see on the 700 club. Even more ironic to me (than those that say 'Thank God I'm still alive' after a plane wreck or other natural disaster) are the athletes who say 'I thank God for this victory' after winning a brutal football game or knocking out an opponent in boxing (Evander Holyfield for example). Makes one wonder if they apply reason to any aspect of their life.

Thanks for the feedback. I had complaints in the past that it wasn't graphical enough so I added a little 'eye candy' with the book covers and such. Hopefully, it isn't too over or underdone.

I agree. I think the point with the file is not to encourage the reading of the Bible out of context, but to realize that the Bible itself contains much content that would cause Bible believers to boycott, protest, and ban if it were included in media that their children were reading.

And then there is the glaring errors (and I do hope you post this one).

I'm posting this entire message. ;)

Case in point: 1 Timothy 3:2,12. It states that this verse supports, "More than 1 wife OK, except for bishop, deacon". Hello? I checked my KJV and my NASB, and neither support such a reading...indeed, they seem to contradict it. Both verses (v.2 & 12) state that the office holder must be the husband of one wife, and nowhere does it state that "More than 1 wife OK". Nowhere.

I agree and have nuked this scripture from the page. I did a random check of about 6 or 7 of the scriptures before posting the file and they all matched the descriptions. If you come up with any other inaccurate ones, let me know and I'll correct the errors. I wish I received more specific criticisms like this about the site.

Now, if the AA can be wrong about this single verse it leaves me to wonder how much more than can be wrong about. It was just these sorts of mistakes that lead me out of Mormonism.

AA is famous for overgeneralizing and exaggeration. I take everything they say with a big grain of salt. I haven't joined their organization for this reason.

Yes, the history of the Old Testament is ugly and violent, make no mistake about that. But for a world where human sacrifice was de riguer, and where an effort was being made to eliminate such evil, such violence was and remains regrettable. Would you prefer the civilizations that gloried in human sacrifices? I know I wouldn't.

No, I wouldn't either. I readily admit that some of the ideas that Jews and later Christians (and later Mormons) introduced to their societies were an improvement upon what was before (yet some teachings were decrements Imo). The problem is that the fundamentalists still make claims like the Bible (or Book of Mormon) being a perfect literal history or "God's Word"--yet they have to ignore or apologize away much of the scriptural content to come to this false conclusion.