Zone1 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints the only true and living Church today

[RetiredGySgt]

Its a Cult of kid fuckers.

Liar. The Church is no such thing. Prove your claim you ass wipe.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Ask the US Army
.

The army has nothing to do with your ignorant claim. Now provide evidence or admit you are a liar.

 

[Hector12]

Its a Cult of kid fuckers.

Mormons are the most chaste Christian denomination. That is one of the things I admire about them, and one of the reasons I wanted to become a Mormon.

 

[Cougarbear]

Instead of claiming more knowledge you should demonstrate it.

You began this thread by claiming, "The Lord has only one true and living church. One reason The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a “living church” is that the living God reveals His will to living prophets and apostles."

When I called you out on this claim, you told me to read a long and turgid essay that you claimed substantiates your initial assertions.

Nevertheless, you are unable to explain the arguments used in that essay in your own words. That means that you do not understand it yourself.

I posted a much briefer and very lucid essay presented by the Smithsonian. Then I posted my own summary of that essay.

When I was proselytized by those two Mormon missionaries they told me that the ancient Egyptian manuscript from which Joseph Smith claimed to translate the Book of Abraham had been recently discovered.

At that time I still believed that the claims of Joseph Smith were likely to be true, but I needed more evidence. I asked for information about the ancient Egyptian manuscript.

I was given an article by Hugh Nimbly. As you probably know, Hugh Nimbly was a Mormon linguist who could read many ancient languages, including ancient Egyptian.

I expected Hugh Nimbly to have a proud, triumphal attitude, and to write, "Here is the proof we have been waiting for."

Instead Hugh Nimbly was troubled, and wrote about "the problem of the Book of Abraham."

I wondered "What problem? The manuscript either proves that Joseph Smith is an authentic prophet of God, or that he is a religious charlatan."

At the time I knew the Egyptian mummies were often buried with a document that is entitled "The Book of the Dead." I thought the manuscript Joseph Smith sounded like The Book of the Dead. Later on I found confirmation of my theory.

The consensus of non Mormon scholars of ancient Egypt is that the manuscript Joseph Smith had, and which has been re discovered, is The book of the Dead.

Even many Mormon scholars are becoming uneasy about the manuscript, as was Hugh Nimbly. When the manuscript was re discovered all Hugh Nimbly needed to do was to look at the manuscript to know that it told nothing about Abraham's travels in Egypt.

I've said that since the 1980's (And much earlier as with Hugh Nibley whom I met at BYU), much more has been found and written about. All you have are comments by so-called scholars who haven't done an in depth study on this. Nibley did not have what we have today.
The term "translation" is also misunderstood by members and non-members as well. If you read Jeff Lindsey's work on the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price, you would know exactly what I'm talking about. It has many references and is quite long on each subject for me to be able to give to you in here. That's why I'm having you read it yourself, if you can read. Very quickly, neither book was completely translated from the writings from which the claims come from. Much was written by revelation through the power of the Holy Ghost and the seer stones of the Urim and Thummim. While Joseph had the plates for 3 years before publication, he only had about 50 total days to do the translation work. Thus, not everything was a direct translation.
And, as I stated, I know these works to be of God by the Holy Ghost testifying this to me. You are the one that needs to have empirical proof, not me. I already know enough empirical proof that it is all true. Joseph Smith was a prophet, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is Christ's church and the Gospel scriptures are the true and full doctrine of Christ. You don't know how to get that. And, if you partially did at one time, you didn't know how to keep it. that's your problem. I have been patient and everything is or has been proven to be true.

 

[bodecea]

Having been raised near Palmyra, NY...we locals know that Joseph Smith was just a con-man.

 

[Hector12]

Having been raised near Palmyra, NY...we locals know that Joseph Smith was just a con-man.

What you say is true. Nevertheless, the religion he founded is full of decent, moral, and law abiding people.

 

[Hector12]

I've said that since the 1980's (And much earlier as with Hugh Nibley whom I met at BYU), much more has been found and written about. All you have are comments by so-called scholars who haven't done an in depth study on this. Nibley did not have what we have today.
The term "translation" is also misunderstood by members and non-members as well. If you read Jeff Lindsey's work on the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price, you would know exactly what I'm talking about. It has many references and is quite long on each subject for me to be able to give to you in here. That's why I'm having you read it yourself, if you can read. Very quickly, neither book was completely translated from the writings from which the claims come from. Much was written by revelation through the power of the Holy Ghost and the seer stones of the Urim and Thummim. While Joseph had the plates for 3 years before publication, he only had about 50 total days to do the translation work. Thus, not everything was a direct translation.
And, as I stated, I know these works to be of God by the Holy Ghost testifying this to me. You are the one that needs to have empirical proof, not me. I already know enough empirical proof that it is all true. Joseph Smith was a prophet, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is Christ's church and the Gospel scriptures are the true and full doctrine of Christ. You don't know how to get that. And, if you partially did at one time, you didn't know how to keep it. that's your problem. I have been patient and everything is or has been proven to be true.

You have still not explained why the document from which Joseph Smith claimed to translate the Book of Abraham makes no mention of Abraham, and discusses ancient Egyptian deities.

You have still not explained where there is no independent evidence of any of the events mentioned in the Book of Mormon, and much evidence that none of the events happened.

Just because you want to believe something does not mean that it is true. I wanted to believe Mormonism too.

 

[Hector12]

You did not read it so until you do, no need to go further. See, anti-Mormons will freeze when we stick up to date scholarship in their faces because they can only use very old outdated attacks like you have. If you truly value scholarship studies, then read.

You have presented no up to date scholarship. You keep repeating what what you want to believe, and what I have disproved. You do not seem to know how to evaluate evidence.

 

[Cougarbear]

You have still not explained why the document from which Joseph Smith claimed to translate the Book of Abraham makes no mention of Abraham, and discusses ancient Egyptian deities.

You have still not explained where there is no independent evidence of any of the events mentioned in the Book of Mormon, and much evidence that none of the events happened.

Just because you want to believe something does not mean that it is true. I wanted to believe Mormonism too.

You did not want to know. Instead, you had a double mind and never asked God with real intent with your faith not wavering. I’d invite you to really use all evidence before making a commitment either way so you don’t have a double mind while going to God for a witness that the Book of Abraham is true. Read all what Jeff Lindsey writes and even the references he uses including Fair Mormon.com. If you don’t, don’t ask me to make a decision before I really check out the LDS side. Fortunately, I did along time ago. Now, your turn. Be single mind and eye to this study and leave the double mindedness to the others in hear.

 

[Hector12]

You did not want to know. Instead, you had a double mind and never asked God with real intent with your faith not wavering. I’d invite you to really use all evidence before making a commitment either way so you don’t have a double mind while going to God for a witness that the Book of Abraham is true. Read all what Jeff Lindsey writes and even the references he uses including Fair Mormon.com. If you don’t, don’t ask me to make a decision before I really check out the LDS side. Fortunately, I did along time ago. Now, your turn. Be single mind and eye to this study and leave the double mindedness to the others in hear.

I did too want to know, but I was determined not to be swayed emotionally, but to make a rational investigation of Mormon claims.

It has been said "The Lord helps those who help themselves." I helped myself by calmly using reason. I have talked to many Mormon missionaries since. I usually find that I know more about their religion than they are.

If you understand what Jeff Lindsey wrote, explain it using your own words. Anyone can find something on the internet that they like.

I can find plenty of material on the internet, much of it written by former Mormons, that claims that Joseph Smith was a conscious, deliberate charlatan. I do not ask you to read it. Instead I explain how I came to that conclusion on my own.

Mormon missionaries say that after reading the Book of Mormon one should pray to the Holy Ghost and ask if it is true. If one feels a "burning in the bosom, it is supposed to be true. I did that and I did not feel a burning in my bosom, so I concluded that The Book of Mormon was the creation of a brilliant charlatan.

If Joseph Smith was alive today I can see him with a mega church, and a nationally broadcast television ministry, that was mainly financed, as those things usually are, by contributions from lonely, unmarried, poor, elderly women. Eventually he would be ruined by a sex scandal involving under aged girls.

 

[Cougarbear]

I did too want to know, but I was determined not to be swayed emotionally, but to make a rational investigation of Mormon claims.

It has been said "The Lord helps those who help themselves." I helped myself by calmly using reason. I have talked to many Mormon missionaries since. I usually find that I know more about their religion than they are.

If you understand what Jeff Lindsey wrote, explain it using your own words. Anyone can find something on the internet that they like.

I can find plenty of material on the internet, much of it written by former Mormons, that claims that Joseph Smith was a conscious, deliberate charlatan. I do not ask you to read it. Instead I explain how I came to that conclusion on my own.

Mormon missionaries say that after reading the Book of Mormon one should pray to the Holy Ghost and ask if it is true. If one feels a "burning in the bosom, it is supposed to be true. I did that and I did not feel a burning in my bosom, so I concluded that The Book of Mormon was the creation of a brilliant charlatan.

If Joseph Smith was alive today I can see him with a mega church, and a nationally broadcast television ministry, that was mainly financed, as those things usually are, by contributions from lonely, unmarried, poor, elderly women. Eventually he would be ruined by a sex scandal involving under aged girls.

There in your statement is your double mind. You search out only anti-Mormons for your information. Former members are anti. Double mindedness.
There is nothing wrong with using logic and reason as long as you have exhausted your information gathering from member scholars who remain with a testimony too. If you don’t then your reasoning is one-sided or double mindedness. The Holy Ghost cannot witness truth until you overcome double mindedness. See, I’ve seen members go inactive and leave because they only had their scholarly study and never requested the Holy Ghost to confirm truth. Theory and technical personalities have a difficult time with this. To let go with their pride and humble themselves to with the Lord and let the Spirit teach truth.
So, study Jeff Lindsey’s sight because he doesn’t try to force his beliefs on you. He explains quite technically and scholarly the possibilities with current information including scientific information as well. So far, I’ve briefly shared some information but it’s way to extensive to state in a short explanation.

 

[Meister]

The Lord has only one true and living church. One reason The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a “living church” is that the living God reveals His will to living prophets and apostles. All other churches are dead and mourn constantly and this is the reason for the cross on all other Christian Churches. The worship the dead Christ while TCOJCOLDS worships the living Christ and has a spire pointing to the resurrecting living Christ.
"Three features—(1) fulness of doctrine, (2) power of the priesthood, and (3) testimony of Jesus Christ—explain why God has declared and why we as His servants maintain that this is the only true and living Church upon the face of the whole earth." - Dallin H. Oaks. Here is the entire massage from Elder Oaks, a current day Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ: The Only True and Living Church

Do not be threatened? Be humble: "Because of this declaration of the Lord, we refer to this, His Church—our Church—as the “only true Church.” Sometimes we do this in a way that gives great offense to people who belong to other churches or who subscribe to other philosophies. But God has not taught us anything that should cause us to feel superior to other people. Certainly all churches and philosophies have elements of truth in them, some more than others. Certainly God loves all of His children. And certainly His gospel plan is for all of His children, all according to His own timetable."

Many consider it a cult. All I know is that Joseph Smith altered the Bible by changing or adding over 2500 versus in the Bible.
Not only that but, injected his name into the Bible.
So, call the church what you want, but, to most you will get push back.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You have still not explained why the document from which Joseph Smith claimed to translate the Book of Abraham makes no mention of Abraham, and discusses ancient Egyptian deities.

There's a pretty short, obvious answer.

Joseph Smith is known to have been in possession of a collection of Egyptian artifacts, that included several mummies, at least two very-well preserved scrolls, and an assortment of scraps of papyrus.

Some time after Joseph Smith's death, the entire collection was thought to have wound up in a museum in Chicago, which was destroyed in the great fire of 1871.

What has emerged, since then, are a few scraps of papyrus, reliably having been identified as having been part of that collection. The assumption is being made that these scraps were what Joseph Smith claimed as the source of The Book of Abraham. The claim against The Book of Abraham is based on assuming that it came from these scraps, entirely, and not from any of the other materials now lost.

 

[Cougarbear]

There's a pretty short, obvious answer.

Joseph Smith is known to have been in possession of a collection of Egyptian artifacts, that included several mummies, at least two very-well preserved scrolls, and an assortment of scraps of papyrus.

Some time after Joseph Smith's death, the entire collection was thought to have wound up in a museum in Chicago, which was destroyed in the great fire of 1871.

What has emerged, since then, are a few scraps of papyrus, reliably having been identified as having been part of that collection. The assumption is being made that these scraps were what Joseph Smith claimed as the source of The Book of Abraham. The claim against The Book of Abraham is based on assuming that it came from these scraps, entirely, and not from any of the other materials now lost.

Which means that the found stuff isn’t where the translation came from. But, the jealous anti-Mormons will try to force people to believe it all came from what was left. Really sad cooon people’s morals.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Which means that the found stuff isn’t where the translation came from. But, the jealous anti-Mormons will try to force people to believe it all came from what was left. Really sad cooon [sic?] people’s morals.

Indeed. Given the clear descriptions that exist of the whole of the collection, it is really rather absurd to assume that the scraps that have been found are at all representative of what else is known to have once existed of that collection.

 

[Hector12]

There's a pretty short, obvious answer.

Joseph Smith is known to have been in possession of a collection of Egyptian artifacts, that included several mummies, at least two very-well preserved scrolls, and an assortment of scraps of papyrus.

Some time after Joseph Smith's death, the entire collection was thought to have wound up in a museum in Chicago, which was destroyed in the great fire of 1871.

What has emerged, since then, are a few scraps of papyrus, reliably having been identified as having been part of that collection. The assumption is being made that these scraps were what Joseph Smith claimed as the source of The Book of Abraham. The claim against The Book of Abraham is based on assuming that it came from these scraps, entirely, and not from any of the other materials now lost.

What you seem to be saying is that manuscripts still lost confirm Joseph Smith's translation.

Even before the partial manuscript was discovered, in pages 28, 36, and 41 of the Book of Abraham Joseph Smith copied pictures from the manuscript, with his explanations of the pictures.

These were identified as coming from The Book of Breathing. The Book of Breathing was a funeral text that was sometimes included with mummies. The facsimiles on pages 28, 36, and 41 of The Book of Abraham have have been identified and translated as part of the Book of Breathing. The real translation, made by scholars of ancient Egyptian writing, bears no similarity to Joseph Smith's claimed translation.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

What you seem to be saying is that manuscripts still lost confirm Joseph Smith's translation.

Without knowing their contents, we cannot say, with any confidence, what they would confirm or refute.

 

[Hector12]

There in your statement is your double mind. You search out only anti-Mormons for your information.

The first thing I read about the Book of Abraham was a fairly long essay by Hugh Nimbly. That, and that alone, led me to suspect that the Book of Abraham was a fraud.

 

[Hector12]

Without knowing their contents, we cannot say, with any confidence, what they would confirm or refute.

We do know that Joseph Smith claimed that the facsimiles on pages 28, 36, and 41 of the Book of Abraham came from the manuscripts he had in his positions. We also know from the writing of credible scholars of ancient Egyptian writing that they came from the Book of Breathing, and that Joseph Smith's explanation was fraudulent.

Egyptian scholars working independently came to the same conclusions.

In other words, it was not necessary to have a fragment of the manuscript Joseph Smith claimed to translate to prove that he was a fraud. All that was needed was a copy of The Book of Breathings and the ability to translate it.

 

[Cougarbear]

Which means that the found stuff isn’t where the translation came from. But, the jealous anti-Mormons will try to force people to believe it all came from what was left. Really sad cooon people’s morals.

I really hate the spell check. That’s not what I typed. It was “Really sad commentary on people’s morals.