@pimathbrainiac Well, in Islam you don't really have a major authority like the pope who defines how things have to be interpreted. So I'm pretty sure the interpretation of "Jihad was the Crusades" is valid, too. About the Koran endorsing holy war... I'd say most Muslims of today would argue about that.

@JuJu: The thing is, I think one would have a better chance at winning the lottery than getting harmed by a terrorist! Except for the tsa and my government spying on me, terrorists haven't wronged me none

Still true:

De-evolution makes no sense, really. If that was a pattern, that would mean that "worse" individuals would systematically be more successful (ie has more offspring that is also itself successful), which is a direct contradiction of what it means to be "worse" in evolution. Being systematically more successful by definition means better.

Also, in programming, evolution algorithms are perhaps not used widely, but they have their uses. They work on the same principles as real life evolution, and they do work - which isn't exactly proof that they have to work in real life as well, but at least an indication that it's not completely crazy. Note the step "select the best-fit individuals for reproduction" - that's the crucial part, the entire theory of evolution (and evolutionary algorithms) hinges on that very non-random selection.

Hayleia, be careful to avoid insults and sarcasm. they are both disallowed and counter-productive to you getting your point across.

Where are the biblical contradictions for mormonism? I'm genuinely curious, considering I've read quite a bit of it and haven't noticed any.

Also, the argument of macro-evolution vs micro-evolution is quite weak. There is not some magic line where alterations in physical features are under different genes.

The whole point of mormonism is that it isn't a new doctrine. It's the old doctrine, without 2000 years of corruption.

I don't see any references in that link that aren't entirely up to interpretation/misuse of either vague or context-sensitive scripture.

On his point 4: "Ask again what it is and listen closely for any hint of the free forgiveness of sins through the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. You usually hear an answer dealing with works, obedience, doing something, etc." This, while common, is incorrect doctrine. The Mormon church believes as much as anyone that we are 100% saved by Jesus. The difference is, he cleanses us, to the point where we can then be judged for our capacity to be certain exalted beings. That's not judgement in the accusatory sense.

No one goes to hell, unless they go through a fairly complex set of actions where they directly refute the savior's help, with a full knowledge of its truth. The three kingdoms often depicted are all sub-sections of a large "heaven", and even the lowest is described as wonderful.

Point 5: The church was not prevailed against during the time of Peter's service. That came after he was crucified upside down. The savior's promise was that while the church had Peter as their rock, the gates of hell would not prevail against it. No such promise for afterward. (That's 100% interpretation right there, but that enforces the point that most of this is interpretation that doesn't match the mormon interpretation)

On point 6, he argues that the priesthood after the order of Melchezidek was only ever held by the Savior. This is simply not true, as a prime example would be Melchezidek himself. The order gets its name from him, although he was not the first to have it. He was the only one to have it at the time (due to various Old Testament happenings), although he later granted the same priesthood to Peter so he could lead the church. (Matt. 16:19) Peter did not get the chance to pass it along, so it stopped there. The catholic church was later formed out of the various bishoprics, with only the Levitical/Arronic priesthood.

Point 7: While Mormonism believes in plurality of gods, there is an important distinction to be made. The only god with authority over our world is our one God. All other gods are either his children, or (depending on whether you consider our God the first or not, I'm not sure which is correct) his relatives. Since, in order to become a god, you need to become one with the Father, there is no conflict between the gods.
The scriptures he references can be classified into two groups: Rebuttal of nature worship, and situations where Jehovah is referring to himself as God. (A frequent confusion) Since mormonism believes Jesus and the Father are separate beings, it's important to understand which is speaking to get the correct context. In the Isaiah verses, he is referring to being the one and only who can redeem their sins. There will be no Savior before or after him.

Quick resolutions to the "Errors" in point 8
A. Here's the scripture, which he doesn't link to. "For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do." He claims this is an error since Nephi states that grace saves us, despite what we can do to purify ourselves being lacking. Isn't that the whole point of being saved by grace? Where is the error?

B. He claims that Moroni is quoting New Testament scripture, when in fact he is not. He is quoting prior writings of his people. If he was quoting those verses, he did so quite poorly.The confusion stems from the fact that the footnotes point to the accused New Testament verses. The footnotes are for gospel study, and only point to similar topics. They do not indicate quotation, and are not part of the actual scriptural text.

C. Once again, a "quoting problem". Those quotations are straight out of the 5 books of moses, which they had. Once again, footnote confusion.

D. He simply states that "Jesus, a Son of God" is incorrect. I can only assume that he's referring to Mormon non-trinity belief. Not an error. Besides, this is a guy remembering what his father had taught him years before, while he's going through a horrible trial. (in coma, all sins brought down upon him, etc) after being an anti-gospel preacher for years.

E. I'm not sure where he gets his reference for claiming that King Benjamin was the one who could translate foreign languages, most especially since later Mosiah is the one to do it. A translation error fixed before publication is not an error in the publication, it's an error in the original manuscript. (there have been many corrections)

F. The BoM claims Jesus will be born in Jerusalem, "The land of our forefathers", where he was born in Bethlehem. Keep in mind, it has been almost 600 years since anyone was in that area. Jerusalem was only 6-8 miles away from Bethlehem, so if we assume that they were saying "he will be born in the land of our forefathers, the land of Jerusalem" it's extremely accurate. Far more precise than many other prophecies.

Quote

No one goes to hell, unless they go through a fairly complex set of actions where they directly refute the savior's help, with a full knowledge of its truth. The three kingdoms often depicted are all sub-sections of a large "heaven", and even the lowest is described as wonderful.

Ehm, this alone already contradicts the Bible:

I won't pretend to have too much knowledge of the Bible and other Abrahamic religious texts, but it is to my understanding that Hell is never actually described in the Bible. There is a passage saying something about flames and the "gnashing of teeth", but it was only a single passage. Earlier Greek texts actually had different words for Hell, possibly referring to different "Hells" or different places altogether. In fact, I seem to recall that Hell was first considered to be more like a Hades, or "abode of the dead" where souls were placed in an endless slumber, or something similar. It wasn't the place of punishment that was popularized by Dante's Inferno and Puritan sermons. The best theory about Hell I've seen as a conclusion to this, is Hell is really just nonexistance. Which makes a lot more sense to me, personally. It's as if you're given a choice to accept God or to return to peaceful nonexistance.

Point 7: While Mormonism believes in plurality of gods, there is an important distinction to be made. The only god with authority over our world is our one God. All other gods are either his children, or (depending on whether you consider our God the first or not, I'm not sure which is correct) his relatives. Since, in order to become a god, you need to become one with the Father, there is no conflict between the gods.

I find this part very interesting, since in the past I've come to a similar conclusion about Christianity (from a theoretical standpoint, at least) to where if God is the "Father" and Humanity His "Children," it would stand to reason (continuing the analogy) that we would eventually grow up to become the "Father" of our own "Children."

Something I like about that description over other sect's (to the best on my knowledge, that is) , is it gives a continued purpose to the whole thing. Most other Christians would claim "God's plan is unknowable" as substitute for their scripture never defining a reason for God to have created us in the first place. Your scripture would imply a cycle, in which its own perpetuation would be it's own reason, and arguments can be made as to it's never having a beginning.