Posted on 07/31/2014 9:01:53 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
The Book of Abraham Papyri and Joseph Smith
by Matt Slick
There are many proofs that Joseph Smith was a false prophet, but Mormons typically will not accept them. From the biblical evidence that contradicts Mormon theology to the contradictions within its own history and doctrine, proofs abound. But Mormons, completely dedicated to their religion and their testimony, cannot and will not see the evidence. They rely not on biblical evidence--not on historical evidence but rather trust a 'testimony' that Mormonism is the restored church and Joseph Smith its true prophet.
One of the tests of whether or not a belief is grounded in reality is whether or not it can be proven to be true or false. If someone says, "I don't care what evidence you show me, I will always believe," then that person's faith is not rooted in reality. And since Christianity is a religion of history, crucifixion, resurrection, an empty tomb, etc., it is a religion rooted in reality. If it could be proven beyond doubt that Jesus did not rise from the dead, then Christianity is a false religion. Likewise, if it could be proven that Joseph Smith was a false prophet, then Mormonism is a false religion. It just so happens that there is such a proof.
The Book of Abraham
Joseph Smith claimed that an angel appeared to him and revealed the location of some golden plates on which was written the account of the ancient people of the Americas. Joseph Smith later translated those plates into what is now known as the Book of Mormon. This translation was done by the power of God through special means. Joseph Smith, being the Lord's chosen instrument, became the prophet of the Mormon church and held the office of Seer. A Seer, according to the Book of Mormon in Mosiah 8:13, can translate records that are untranslatable. Hence, Joseph Smith was able to translate the golden plates into the Book of Mormon. But his Seer abilities did not stop there.
In July of 1835, an Irishman named Michael Chandler brought an exhibit of four Egyptian mummies and papyri to Kirtland, Ohio--then the home of the Mormons. The papyri contained Egyptian hieroglyphics. In 1835 hieroglyphics were unreadable.
I told you I would fail your criteria. I didn't think it would be two-tiered, though. That's pretty slick, defining your particular beliefs as "normal." That way you get to include psychological deviancy into your evaluation of religious purity.
And your dismissal of Christ as the Savior, by devaluing the meaning of anointed into a splash of oil - breathtaking.
Wow, and to think I actually believed in the mercy and love and forgiveness of Christ, and thought I was living a spiritual life by studying Jesus's teachings, when all I was doing was becoming abnormal. Let's see, what to do, continue to pray to Jesus for guidance, or throw away a lifetime of spiritual experience, in favor of the details of your personal approval and judgment of normalcy? I mean, shall I keep going down the dark and sinful path to hell by following my prayers to a Christ that you've clearly proven doesn't even exist?
My God, to think I've been praying to a smear of oil all these years, it's downright embarrassing. And all those experiences of mercy and love and guidance were just... fantasies!
Matthew 7:5
The ex-Mormons who have been victims of shunning and other forms of abuse wouldn’t think so. And no dead Mormon would either, on account of all the fire .
I was merely rejecting your phrase "the full incarnation of Christ." There is no such thing. Christ is not the incarnation of Christ. It's just silly. He is "Immanuel," God with us. Please do not distort what I say.
Wow, and to think I actually believed in the mercy and love and forgiveness of Christ, and thought I was living a spiritual life by studying Jesus's teachings,
This is an interesting use of language and I can kind of guess what kind of doctrines you hold, and they are entirely heterodox. Do you deny the deity of Christ?
When I talk of "normal" people, I mean rational people. A rational person does not condemn Christianity for being, essentially, based on a "edited" and unreliable text, with no proof, and then, apparently, reveal they have a new-agey or some other strange view they describe as "Christian" (by what standard?) that (from their own perspective should be) is equally without proof.
It is a contradiction, and if there are contradictions in the belief system you hold, it is simply invalid.
You do not fail my criteria. You fail your own, and you fail the scriptures'.
I don't mind that you disagree with my faith. But your refusal to even own your own judgments makes uyou a moral coward. Criteria do not float in the ether - they are created and defended by someone, are subject to examination, and applied within limits. What you are calling correct Christianity, and supposedly practicing, is nothing other than the need to somehow damn my soul, to crawl into my head with your twisted words and invalidate my relationship with Christ by making your own imagined presumptions about me. That's not religion - that's hate. and it's irrational hate under the guise of logic and proof, pursued by fear and insecurity and the desire to do serious damage. Where most people want to win and argument, you want to judge my very soul.
I don't know how to break this to you, but you need help, and I suggest you get it before you influence someone who believe your pronouncements and you do real harm. I don't think your a poor Christian - I think you are mentally and emotionally ill. Christ is not a weapon to hurt people with, but by pursuing that aim, especially while claiming love, you have seriously damaged yourself. Again, get help - you are no teacher, and you do not represent the Good News.
Joseph Smith made up this whole religion because he did not want to honor the vow of marital fidelity that he made to his wife. He could find nowhere in then Christian America that would accept his philandering so he just made up a story and created his own religion. And, naturally, he found some other guys in the community who liked the idea for the same reason. If he were alive today, he would just convert to Islam so that he could have multiple wives.
It is called 2,000 years of Christianity. If you feel it damns your soul, you should act on that and repent.
Christ is not a weapon to hurt people with, but by pursuing that aim, especially while claiming love, you have seriously damaged yourself.
Christ also is not a cushion for the vanity of someone who apparently denies His deity, but covers it up under accusations of "hate" and whatnot.
Your problem is not with me, but with the God of the Bible.
Your misrepresentation of my words and beliefs with your judgments is offensive, and your hypocrisy and arrogance are ugly and reflect no humility. I find nothing of Christ in what you say. Rather the opposite. It’s no wonder you use the Bible as a hammer.
But I will give you this - your choice of FReep name perfectly represents your true personality.
Be specific. What are my "misrepresentations"?
***Well, as cults go, it’s a pretty functional and loving one, not like those, such as Islam which kill people and such.***
They didn’t used to be that way.
MOUNTAIN MEADOWS MASSACRE
MORRISITE MASSACRE
Did you know that the Mormons also attacked two other wagon trains? The Shepherd Train and the Miltmore train, both which had people killed by the mormon attackers.
You mean besides your claiming that you don't know what your misrepresentations are? Nothing.
Enough of this nonsense, I'm out of here.
Yes I know that, however, Christianity has it’s bloody history too. We stopped, so did the Mormons, the Muzzies have not. Perhaps we should realize alies when we see them. Salvation wise, they’re possibly doomed but they are great people and most are so misled they have no idea what their religion teaches.
It seems I am entirely on target. But if you won't get specific, maybe I will:
1) Do you believe that Jesus is God?
2) Do you believe there are many different "incarnations of the Christ"?
3) If not, what, exactly, IS your theology? What church are you a member of? What is your position on the essential doctrines of Christianity such as: The Trinity, soteriology, etc?
Enough of this nonsense, I'm out of here.
You wrote much, but said nothing. It was like you were never here to begin with.
So damning my soul isn’t enough, now I need to never have existed, unless I answer your religious inquisitory by first accepting your premise that I haven’t already said anything.
Are you a Jesuit?
It doesn’t surprise me that you can’t see me. To the contrary, why should you be able to?
LOL
You accused me of misrepresenting you from my inferences based on what you yourself wrote. If you won't disprove my conclusions, then you can't accuse me of misrepresenting you.
Furthermore, you can't accuse me of arbitrarily "damning" your soul (I have no power for that anyway), since issues such as the Trinity are universal to all Christians, and those who reject such sound teachings have been condemned by Christianity for hundreds of years. If you call me all sorts of names because of this, then, by extension, you do this to all of Christianity, since I am only reporting the perspective of orthodox Christianity, and not doing anything novel.
now I need to never have existed
I never said that you don't exist period. I said that you wrote posts, but said nothing. IOW, your posts are meaningless and serve no purpose.
nless I answer your religious inquisitory
I am a Spaniard, so maybe it's in the blood.
Are you a Jesuit?
The Jesuits are liberal and wouldn't care what you believed. It's like you're literally wrong about everything.
Whatever.
You betcha.
The folks that have the chutzpah to criticize others' religious beliefs - other than folks who believe God gave them a right to kill others - make me ill.
They can't prove a damn thing, they have weird beliefs themselves, but never see the "pot calling the kettle black" argument.
It's sad, yet maddening at the same time. The Bible contains some excellent moral principles. It doesn't include crapping on your neighbor's most dearly held beliefs. I think their "backbiting" and snarky attitudes suck.
Your words are like those described by Lewis in The Screwtape Letters. Jesus is either fully God or He is not. The ‘Christ’ that you refer to is a title, a descriptor. It is not meaningful when speaking of being a ‘Christian’. The followers of the Nazarene believed ( as mainstream Christians do today) that He was incarnate, He was fully God and fully human while on earth. That He was crucified, suffered and was buried. On the third day he rose again
Perhaps you ought to at least read the Nicene creed to see what orthodoxy is.
I don’t laugh at people’s ignorance. I feel sorry for them
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
What exactly can't we prove? Is it particular doctrines like the Trinity, or is your attack more general? If your attack is against Christianity itself that "can't be proved", then all you're saying is that you, who do not value Christianity, cannot understand why Christians value Christ and His church. You don't really offer anything to whether or not Mormonism is really wrong or not. I can certainly disprove its doctrines, and this thread proves Joseph Smith is a false prophet.
For us it is quite serious, souls are at stake, although, naturally, you guys can find no reason why we might want to "criticize others religious beliefs," since your souls are among the totally lost.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.