For additional resources, see: Mormonism: Same Language, Different Meanings rsn.pub/3XVydnp Is Mormonism to Christianity as Christianity Is to Judaism? rsn.pub/4gUiyxm How Joseph Smith’s First Vision Changed over Time rsn.pub/3BJz5E4 The Bible or the Book of Mormon? rsn.pub/4gSEclD
Excellent presentation Robby…looking forward to the following classes….Can i recommend, since I and many others across the world are surrounded daily by Roman Catholicism (I live in Italy) - that in the future there could be a similar set of classes to engage with Roman Catholics? (If indeed it hasn’t already been done). Thank you again and God bless! David
the plates Joseph Smith carried are estimated to be 200 pounds under each arm, and while carrying them he was able to fight off multiple people, he jumped over a log, ran away with a limp, but somehow the attackers can't catch him??
lol. The only way this is true is if you disregard all of the first hand accounts from people who handled the plates. High end estimates were 70 pounds. Whoever gave you your info seems to like making up facts.
Since I am the only one who stated where I got my information from, I find your comment comical. I will give you a chance to redeem yourself by asking, whose research should I look at that has better arguments then the individuals who handled the plates?
Also, what chemicals were in the HAT, from its making process? The Mad Hatter is this named BECAUSE the chemicals used to make those hats would sometimes make them go insane, thus "Mad"
If, according to Joseph Smith, the original church was "lost" after the apostles, then who preserved/copied new testament documents in the intervening 1900 years? That begs the question....
Why where the plates written in a form of Egyptian? No Hebrew, Greek, Arabic? Why did Joseph need an occult stone? Where did the sear stone come from? He was a prophet but could not speak in tongues? Why did neither God the Father or Jesus just give him the information in a vision. Like Revelation. Knowing how many false teachings popped up while the apostles were still alive. It seems easier to believe, the gold plates were more likely another false teaching. It the teachings had already been corrupted. Why would the plates need to be taken away? Who is the 2nd witness? Is Joseph a Jew? Why bring the plates to US and bury them? Why wait so long to correct corruption? (closer to 1700 years rather than 1900 years)
I don't answer the door unless I'm expecting someone. Everyone that knows me knows me well enough to call or message first. Don't you dare think about coming to my door without notifying me first. 🤣
Not once did you call The Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-Day Saints by it's actual name, you intentionally used nicknames and half-abbreviations like "LDS" and "Mormonism". I am a member of the Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-day Saints and have been following Greg for many years as I appreciate his intellect and reasoning on many subjects, which I have found very helpful in my own engagements with proponents of evil and false ideas. I encourage whoever reads my comment here to read the Book of Mormon (Another Testament of Jesus Christ) to determine whether or not it is a testament of Jesus Christ (as the subtitle exclaims), as opposed to listening to a voice claiming it is false. I have read the Book of Mormon many times and can verify that it teaches of Jesus Christ and from Jesus Christ, and the focus of the book is to lead the reader to Christ - read it and you will know for yourself. This does not mean that I reject the Bible in favor of the Book of Mormon; rather it strengthens my belief in the Bible (a collection books witnessing of Christ).
The church itself went through a period of time producing "The Mormons" videos to promote itself to the world. Then the current president was "voted" in and directed members of the church to use the full name. Given that he has no authority beyond the borders of mormondom, such directives don't apply to us. By the way, Joseph Smith originally called his construct the Church of Christ, yes? I have also read the Book of Mormon multiple times and found it to be derivative and merely a product of its time. In no way whatsoever is it comparable to the true Word of God - except perhaps where Smith copied verbatim from the KJV translation of Isaiah. Too bad we don't have the original manuscript Martin Harris reportedly lost. I suspect it would have proven to be yet another product of a very creative and imaginative young man with a penchant for regaling friends and family with fanciful tales. Better reads (aside from the Bible, of course) would be "Emma Hale Smith: Mormon Enigma" and "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View." Granted, you're dissuaded from doing so, but others not under the direction of Salt Lake City would benefit greatly, particularly if you find yourself under the spell of those young men and women knocking on your door.
In your 2nd paragraph you say "teaches of Christ" and "lead the reader to Christ". The Book of Mormon teaches that Jesus Christ is a created being. So, according to the Book of Mormon, Jesus was first made, then progressed, then eventually became exalted to godhood, where he’s now united in purpose and power with Heavenly Father. Jesus was a man who became a god, as opposed to the eternal Son who took on flesh. That is Mormon doctrine and that is contrary to the Bible. So if you do not reject the Bible then you must reject the Book of Mormon because they are not congruent. Please remember the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints claim that after the apostles died is when the church became corrupted. The Bible was inspired and written down before the apostles died. You can trust the Bible. The Bible needs no supplementary writings.
A couple of things here: Thing 1. We don’t have to call Mormonism by the full name of the church, as Dr. Nelson so requested. You automatically know what church we’re talking about, so using the full name of the church is not necessary. It’s like telling us “you failed to address me as ‘Your Majesty.’” Thing 2. Perhaps you should spend more time reading the Bible, rather than the Book of Mormon, so that you’ll know where we’re coming from. I’ve read the Book of Mormon, and while there are some nice things in it, it simply does not stand up to the same evidential scrutiny that the Bible does in terms of verifiable facts with regard to archaeological evidence and historical evidence.
