Безопасен ли lds-mormon.com?

There's a lot of interesting information here that I wouldn't have found elsewhere. But I really wish the site owner hadn't combined the two official mormon site names to produce "lds-mormon.org" and then touted it as "The most comprehensive site on the internet dealing with the LDS church--otherwise known as the Mormon church. Find out everything you need to know about the Mormons. " The latter simply isn't true, this is most definitely a skeptic site and its VERY dishonest to associate it with the official ones. That said, it confirmed a number of oddities that I encountered myself when looking into this strange religion, and gave me some more food for thought to boot. Its clear that a lot of time and research went into this site. There are no viruses or explicit images.

Another web site by critics of the Mormon Church that apparently was downrated by a bunch of Mormons who took offense, not for any objective reason, but because they disagree with the contents. Don't leave your critical thinking skills behind when you read this site, but I'd recommend that with any web site. You don't need to worry about getting a virus or being spammed, however.

The site is quite accurate with the different accounts that even Mormon Scholars acknowledge. It draws no conclusions except normal human memory behavior. The BYU channel on TV talks about the accounts and says when put together, it tells a more complete history and does not seem to have a big problem with the differences.

Since it declares itself to be a resource on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), I would warn people that it is an Anti-LDS website which seeks to dispute the LDS interpretation of scripture and its doctrines, as opposed to an objective or candid discussion of the LDS religion. To the extent it claims to be the latter, it is deceptive. I find it ironic that so many evangelical Christians claim that the Bible is inerrant, i.e. free of error and self-explanatory. If that were true, why is this site needed? There could be no variance in interpretations of Blblical verses. I came here as part of a search for the identity of Lucifer in Isaiah 14. In many interpretations, this is considered a reference to Satan, but this site asserts that it refers to the king of Babylonia, without citation of authority for that view. I am not claiming that this is necessarily a false view, only that it illustrates an instance where the Biblical meaning is not self-explanatory. The very fact that there so many groups have felt that new translations of the traditional Hebrew and Greek manuscripts illustrates that these sources are not inerrant. Further study will show that there are many manuscripts of Biblical texts containing differences from one another. Interestingly, the item which brought me here also refers to 2 Peter 1:19 which in the King James Version refers to "the more sure word of prophecy," or personal revelation as the source of Peter's teachings, illustrating the need for continuous revelation to lead the Church in doctrine and policies and comparing it to "a light that shineth in a dark place." Continuing current revelation through living prophets and apostles is "inerrant" not manuscripts which are copies of copies of copies spanning thousands of years. I have not labeled this site to be useless, or deceitful, but it is not an objective source of information on LDS doctrine. I'm not sure there can every be one. As Jesus said, "He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad." Matthew 12:30. It seeks to attack the LDS faith, and is informative in stating arguments against it, but should not be viewed as true authority for anything other than what it is.

This site is a very anti-Mormon site with many inaccuracies. While I believe in freedom of expression, I feel that the publishing of inaccurate information is ethical, and this site certainly isn't a place to "find out everything you need to know about the Mormons".

excuse me, I've visited and investigated the site and find it to be an anti-mormon site. I hope that it is not rated badly just due to that as they have to right to dissent. They do blast the privacy of church members in the things they hold sacred. I have no idea if they do ad-ware spyware attacks. I definitely would not send a child to this site. Their ads are disceptive. I'm sure they consider their arguments trustworthy.

Very truthful from an famous authority who worked in media Mormons fail to address current and historical controversies in their cult. When you try to question or challenge them to reasonable debate, they get offended and won't or cannot answer. Unfortunately, they act as a dangerous group which will lie, cheat, and steal, or protect their own members as they have done historically.

Those who rate this site negatively are people who disagree with the information it contains, and are likely Mormons. I am very familiar with this site. It is one of the best (and oldest) sites dealing with Mormonism, counteracting Mormon propaganda and misinformation.

The only thing about this site that would send someone away unhappy would be if they were devout Mormons. It is an excellent, simple site, with no ads to speak of, and is not malicious in any way. It is, however, critical of certain actions of the LDS Church, so devout members might be offended. While you may not agree with the conclusions on the site, you cannot really label the site as untrustworthy. It is just critical of a certain religion.

There are much better places to get much more accurate information about the Mormons. Not an official source of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (doesnt claim to be I know but thats just my comment) Site contains A LOT of personal opinion (which is okay). I'm not saying its a bad site (notice the neutral category) I'm just saying that it isn't "The most comprehensive site on the internet dealing with the LDS church--otherwise known as the Mormon church. Find out everything you need to know about the Mormons." I am not attacking the site at all. Most comments are from users only rating and commenting on sites similar to this.