Joseph Smith Fraud

[AxisMundi]

I don't understand how this still stands against my testimony, since I'm one of the people doing the targeting. Do you have some point of reference stronger than first-hand experience?

Do you have a point of reference stronger than your first hand experience?

I have yet to see your missionaries in rich, affluent neighborhoods.

I see them cosntantly in poor neighborhoods though, and I travel through both on the two hour bus ride to college.

 

[Katzpur]

Do you have a point of reference stronger than your first hand experience?

I have yet to see your missionaries in rich, affluent neighborhoods.

I see them cosntantly in poor neighborhoods though, and I travel through both on the two hour bus ride to college.

Well, I guess you've obviously just missed them then. Seriously, we send missionaries to every country in the world that will permit us to enter legally. (The JWs figure the laws of the land are made to be broken, but if we can't go in the front door, we just want until we can.) Once we are in a country, we teach anyone who is interested in listening. A huge amount of our work nowadays comes from referrals. A person who knows a Mormon asks him for information, the Mormon asks if he'd like missionaries to call on him, and they often meet at the member's house. It is entirely possible that you would not see them walking the streets and knocking on doors. It could be something as simple as the fact that the people who live in the more affluent areas are holding jobs and aren't home during the period of time you're on the bus. The ones without jobs might be living in poorer areas and have more time on their hands to talk about the Church.

The truly funny thing about your assumption, though, is that a lot of people seem to be of the opposite opinion -- that Mormons are all white, upper-middle class people and that the Church makes no effort to proselytize to the poor, who aren't going to be contributing large sums of money to the church once they've converted. The truth is that we couldn't care less about people's financial status when we contact them.

 

[AxisMundi]

Well, I guess you've obviously just missed them then. Seriously, we send missionaries to every country in the world that will permit us to enter legally. (The JWs figure the laws of the land are made to be broken, but if we can't go in the front door, we just want until we can.) Once we are in a country, we teach anyone who is interested in listening. A huge amount of our work nowadays comes from referrals. A person who knows a Mormon asks him for information, the Mormon asks if he'd like missionaries to call on him, and they often meet at the member's house. It is entirely possible that you would not see them walking the streets and knocking on doors. It could be something as simple as the fact that the people who live in the more affluent areas are holding jobs and aren't home during the period of time you're on the bus. The ones without jobs might be living in poorer areas and have more time on their hands to talk about the Church.

The truly funny thing about your assumption, though, is that a lot of people seem to be of the opposite opinion -- that Mormons are all white, upper-middle class people and that the Church makes no effort to proselytize to the poor, who aren't going to be contributing large sums of money to the church once they've converted. The truth is that we couldn't care less about people's financial status when we contact them.

Again you make my point for me, like your LDS cohort.

 

[Katzpur]

Again you make my point for me, like your LDS cohort.

That point being what? That you have only seen Mormon missionaries in poor neighborhoods? How did I make that point for you? I'm not disputing what you said. I'm only pointing out that the fact that you have never seen missionaries in an affluent area is not proof that they don't spend time in those areas, too. How did I misunderstand you, if I did?

 

[Watchmen]

Do you have a point of reference stronger than your first hand experience?

Do you?

 

[tomato1236]

Well, I guess you've obviously just missed them then. Seriously, we send missionaries to every country in the world that will permit us to enter legally. (The JWs figure the laws of the land are made to be broken, but if we can't go in the front door, we just want until we can.) Once we are in a country, we teach anyone who is interested in listening. A huge amount of our work nowadays comes from referrals. A person who knows a Mormon asks him for information, the Mormon asks if he'd like missionaries to call on him, and they often meet at the member's house. It is entirely possible that you would not see them walking the streets and knocking on doors. It could be something as simple as the fact that the people who live in the more affluent areas are holding jobs and aren't home during the period of time you're on the bus. The ones without jobs might be living in poorer areas and have more time on their hands to talk about the Church.

The truly funny thing about your assumption, though, is that a lot of people seem to be of the opposite opinion -- that Mormons are all white, upper-middle class people and that the Church makes no effort to proselytize to the poor, who aren't going to be contributing large sums of money to the church once they've converted. The truth is that we couldn't care less about people's financial status when we contact them.

Most of my mission we had a car, and most of my mission was in the wealthy parts of the SF bay area. People seldom saw us walking, either.

 

[idea]

So, if we're going to reason that the fact that many people join the church means something positive about its doctrines, we would also have to conclude that the fact that so many leave within a year says something negative.

(New Testament | Matthew20:16)
many be called, but few chosen.

(Book of Mormon | 3 Nephi27:33) see also Matt. 7:13 (13–14); Luke 13:24;
for strait is the gate, and narrow is the way that leads to life, and few there be that find it; but wide is the gate, and broad the way which leads to death, and many there be that travel therein...

(New Testament | Luke12:32)
32 Fear not, little flock...


it's not a popularity contest... the true church is a "little flock"

 

[Dan4reason]

(New Testament | Matthew20:16)
many be called, but few chosen.

(Book of Mormon | 3 Nephi27:33) see also Matt. 7:13 (13–14); Luke 13:24;
for strait is the gate, and narrow is the way that leads to life, and few there be that find it; but wide is the gate, and broad the way which leads to death, and many there be that travel therein...

(New Testament | Luke12:32)
32 Fear not, little flock...


it's not a popularity contest... the true church is a "little flock"

Thanks for making the point. The fact that many people join or leave an organization does not mean it is good or bad by default.

 

[Dan4reason]

Do you have a point of reference stronger than your first hand experience?

I have yet to see your missionaries in rich, affluent neighborhoods.

I see them cosntantly in poor neighborhoods though, and I travel through both on the two hour bus ride to college.

You will need more than first hand experience to say that. Mormons will go anywhere for converts and will go to poor and rich families alike.

 

[Autodidact]

(New Testament | Matthew20:16)
many be called, but few chosen.

(Book of Mormon | 3 Nephi27:33) see also Matt. 7:13 (13–14); Luke 13:24;
for strait is the gate, and narrow is the way that leads to life, and few there be that find it; but wide is the gate, and broad the way which leads to death, and many there be that travel therein...

(New Testament | Luke12:32)
32 Fear not, little flock...


it's not a popularity contest... the true church is a "little flock"

So you reject Katzpur's argument that the purported growth in LDS membership says something positive about LDS beliefs?

 

[tomato1236]

So you reject Katzpur's argument that the purported growth in LDS membership says something positive about LDS beliefs?

That's one. Just 7 more to go and you can get this thread closed for moderation, too.

 

[Autodidact]

That's one. Just 7 more to go and you can get this thread closed for moderation, too.

Pardon?

 

[AxisMundi]

Do you?

Why would I need a stronger point of reference to convince myself of something?

In essence, we have a "guilty party" so to speak attempting to justify their actions, a justification that runs contrary to my personal experiences.

 

[Leahcim]

I am a former member of the LDS church and will like to display one thing that convinced me that religion is not true. The mormon church was founded in America in the early 1800s by a man named Joseph Smith who claimed to had seen a vision from God and Jesus. He claimed to be a prophet and was supposedly appointed to lead God's church. He managed to convert thousands of people but they were having to move from place to place because of bad relations with other people.

He was later shot in a jail by a mob and the mormons moved out west to Utah. Joseph Smith supposedly translated the Book of Mormon which is supposedly a record of the previous inhabitants of the Americas. These people supposedly had technology and resources such as iron, swords, steel, silk, ships, armor, walled cities, and horses.

He claimed to be a seer which means that he can translate documents in unknown languages with the gift of the spirit. Joseph Smith found some papyri found among Egyptian mummies and claimed that these papyri contained the Book of Abraham. He then preceeded to translate them. He actually made some copies of some of the things on these papyri and translated them. These facsimiles are given in this link

One facsimile I want to focus on is this below.


EXPLANATION
Fig. 1. Abraham sitting upon Pharaoh’s throne, by the politeness of the king, with a crown upon his head, representing the Priesthood, as emblematical of the grand Presidency in Heaven; with the scepter of justice and judgment in his hand.
Fig. 2. King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head.
Fig. 3. Signifies Abraham in Egypt as given also in Figure 10 of facsimile 3.
Fig. 4. Prince of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, as written above the hand.
Fig. 5. Shulem, one of the king’s principal waiters, as represented by the characters above his hand.
Fig. 6. Olimlah, a slave belonging to the prince.
Abraham is reasoning upon the principles of Astronomy, in the king’s court.

Notice that he incorrectly thought that the two women in the picture were Pharoah and his son. What do you think?

Hi Dan, I know this thread has kind of gone on a tangent, but I was curious about your original inquiry about the fascimile. Where did you read that those two figures were women? I understand they look like women, but (and I am definitely not educated in this matter), is that the only basis for your question? I would be interested to know what the criteria for egyptian men and women were in their hieroglyphics so we could make have a more clear foundation on which to base our questioning. P.S. I had to delete the links in the above quotation of your previous post because I have don't have enough posts yet to have links in my messages.

 

[Watchmen]

Why would I need a stronger point of reference to convince myself of something?

In essence, we have a "guilty party" so to speak attempting to justify their actions, a justification that runs contrary to my personal experiences.

All you've done is place your personal experience against another's. It's a wash. I find it hypocritical of you to demand more than personal experience when that's all you have to share yourself.

 

[AxisMundi]

All you've done is place your personal experience against another's. It's a wash. I find it hypocritical of you to demand more than personal experience when that's all you have to share yourself.

Not only do I have personal experience, I have one of the basic criteria for a relgiion on my side, ie "go out and spread the word".

 

[Watchmen]

Not only do I have personal experience, I have one of the basic criteria for a relgiion on my side, ie "go out and spread the word".

Your fallacy is amazing.

 

[AxisMundi]

Your fallacy is amazing.

Thansk for the non-answer.

 

[Dan4reason]

Hi Dan, I know this thread has kind of gone on a tangent, but I was curious about your original inquiry about the fascimile. Where did you read that those two figures were women? I understand they look like women, but (and I am definitely not educated in this matter), is that the only basis for your question? I would be interested to know what the criteria for egyptian men and women were in their hieroglyphics so we could make have a more clear foundation on which to base our questioning. P.S. I had to delete the links in the above quotation of your previous post because I have don't have enough posts yet to have links in my messages.

My argument is mostly an appeal to intuition. Just the general appearance of figures 2 and 4 indicate that they are women. Both of them have sleaker, more "curvy" figures than the men. They both have very long hair. And their apparel covers most of the breast while the male figures' apparel goes to the waist. It isn't just one characteristic that gives them off.

Women in ancient Egypt are portrayed as thinner than men even though there are some men who are also shown as very thin. Some Egyptian men have their bellies and breast covered even though that is not seen that often. Men are sometimes portrayed with long hair even though the length is shown as substantially shorter than that of women, and most men are shown with short hair. Men are also sometimes shown with facial hair.

It is not just one characteristic that defines the women in the picture because there are exceptions. It it the combination of female characteristics in one figure. Here is other egyptian art that will give you a better idea of the way they portray the sexes.