Why dislike Mormons so much?

[Tawhano]

I would greatly prefer that you be offended than LOST. There is nothing about Mormonism except being lost…

You offend me by your preconceive notion that I in any way condone Mormonism or adhere to its doctrines and therefore I am lost. I see that you are a moderator on this site, am I to conclude that from your unwarranted offensive remarks that this site condones religious bigotry and hatred?

[nChrist]

You offend me by your preconceive notion that I in any way condone Mormonism or adhere to its doctrines and therefore I am lost. I see that you are a moderator on this site, am I to conclude that from your unwarranted offensive remarks that this site condones religious bigotry and hatred?

Hello Tawhano,

The answer to this question and everything else you've argued is already in this thread, so read it. You really shouldn't assume or conclude anything except what's already posted in this thread with more than sufficient details. I have better things to do with my time. You might also want to read the forum rules.

[Soldier4Christ]

There is nothing hateful or bigoted in telling the truth. Others use those words today in an attempt to prevent the truth from being told. In fact it is a loving act to attempt to tell the truth about cults. Loving because Christians would have all to know the truth and be saved from these false cults that do nothing but lead them into eternal death.

Magicians are illusionists who entertain with wonderful things that appear real. Of course their craft is not real magic any more than the Wizard of Oz was more than a man behind a curtain. It is masterful illusion, the art of misdirection, a play upon our credulity. A magician lures us into believing we have seen something that is not really there.

The book of mormon cannot stand up to any tests by anyone of any knowledge of the Bible, theology, archaeology, geography, or history. It has failed these tests miserably.

While there are small portions of it that replicate the Holy Bible with different names there is much left to be desired. In fact these similarities have been proven to be plagiarized from other earlier writings and some even from the King James Bible.

The theology of the Book of Mormon contradicts the theology of the Bible in some significant areas (e.g., its doctrine of the afterlife, its doctrine of the "land of promise," and its understanding of prophecy), and it contradicts itself in its prophecies alluding to Joseph Smith, Jr.

The Bible plainly states that the gospel, with its inclusion of Gentiles, was not fully revealed until after Christ's death. However, the Book of Mormon maintains that this knowledge was had in 545 B.C.

The Bible says believers were first called Christians after Paul's ministry in Antioch. However, the Book of Mormon claims people were known by this title as early as 73 B.C.

The Holy Ghost was bestowed on the Christians at the time of Pentecost. Yet the Book of Mormon claims that people received the gift of the Holy Ghost as early as 545 B.C.

In the Old Testament the only ones who could be priests were the descendants of Levi, one of the twelve sons of Israel. However, the Book of Mormon story claims that descendants of the tribe of Manasseh (Alma 10:3) were made priests.

The Old Testament teaches that the first born of the flocks were to be given automatically to the Lord. Sacrifices were to be made from their remaining animals. The Book of Mormon claims that the Nephites were keeping the law of Moses. However, the Nephites broke the law of Moses by using the first of the flocks for burnt offerings. These should have already been given to the Lord as tithing.

The Bible states that all of King Zedekiah's sons were killed. Contrary to the Bible, the Book of Mormon claims that one son of King Zedekiah escaped destruction and came to the Americas.

The Bible prophesied that Jesus would be born in Bethlehem. However, the Book of Mormon said he would be born at Jerusalem.

It has geographical inconsistencies. The book of mormon says that Jesus was born in Jerusalem.

Even though not every place named in the Bible has actually been located, enough sites have been discovered to give the Bible a considerable amount of trust.

On the other hand, Mormons must place an inordinate amount of trust in a book that has virtually no historical evidence to support its authenticity. No discoveries have been made in the New World to give credence to any of the places mentioned in the Book of Mormon. The LDS Church has yet to produce any clear evidence to support the notion that Nephites and Jaredites were real people groups that existed outside of Smith's imagination. The idea that the Indian people are Semitic ancestors of the Book of Mormon "Lamanites" also has its share of problems, both historically and genetically (DNA evidence refutes this).

There is much more evidence that the book of mormon is nothing more than a fary tale with bits and pieces of truth added in. Too much to be able post it all here. While looking at the book of mormon on the surface it may seem to be "Okay", once one delves into it they find that it is a false document that is nothing more than complete blasphemy and attempts to do nothing but discredit God's word.

[Brother Jerry]

If that is the impression you got then it was a preconceived notice from the fact that I questioned the falsehoods put forth on this thread and therefore must be the enemy come to defend Mormonism. You couldn’t have possibly understood my post and come to that conclusion especially after I said that I do not believe the Mormon Church is the ‘true church’ and that Joseph Smith was not a prophet of God which is the very core of that religion. No, the reason you came to that conclusion is because I dare to question something posted as fact when it was a falsehood.

There was not preconceived about my reply.  I read your post as well as your comments about how you found that to not be the true church.  And I still got the impression you were defending the Mormon religion.  You may not have meant it that way but that is how I perceived it by reading your post.  One reason being is that I can say I have attended a Church of God church and I would say that they are not the true church, but I would say that they are still Christians and that their doctrines are slightly different than what I interpret the Bible to indicate in those matters.  But they are still Christians.  However with Mormons I cannot say that they are Christians if they are followers of the Mormon cult.  So the statement of true church is ambiguous and thus I did not interpret it as you had meant it.

As far as questioning things that are posted as fact when they are falsehoods...I think you should take a look at my posting and you will find that I will do the same as well.  If there is something that is incorrect I will bring it to light.  As others here have said the truth should always be brought out and that it will stand in the test of time.