Scott

@allred_alma @ATrueMillennial Oh the fake scroll of Abraham that's just a funerary scroll. Evidence like that?

Look at the other side of the coin. If there were archaeological evidence, they still wouldn't accept it any more than they accept the Doctrine and Covenants with all its historicity (plenty of validation for Kirtland, Nauvoo, and Salt Lake City); They'd never accept "A Tale of Two Cities" (London and Paris); or the Quran (Mecca). Archaeology doesn't have anything to do with validating miracles.

"If the Book of Mormon were true, we'd see archaeological evidence for it!" Common attack. Let's address it: 1. Don't hold Old World standards to New World archaeology In the arid desert, things stay well preserved. We know the language, it's been consistently inhabited, and we've had millennia to research it. So of course you're going to find some corroborating evidence of 6,000 years of history of large, multidynastic people groups. Contrast that to the humid volcanic jungles of Mesoamerica, where the forest consumes abandoned cities in just a few years. We've only been digging a few decades; archaeologists have set foot in less than 1% of the known ancient sites from Book of Mormon times (and they're finding entirely new, unknown, extinct civilizations under the jungle floor every year using LIDAR). And we're likely talking about a relatively small people group in the middle of a larger tribal ecosystem, lasting only 1,000 years before most of them were extinguished. Holding an Old World archeological standard for New World archaeology is either ignorant or disingenuous. Of course you're going to see less archaeological evidence for specific Book of Mormon cities, peoples, and events this early in the game. Whining that "we haven't found Zarahemla" is like my kid whining that he can't find his toy when the only place he's searched is the broom closet. 2. "Scant evidence" doesn't mean "no evidence" Critics overplay their hands all the time: "There's no evidence for the Book of Mormon." And yet there is, particularly in the Old World where the first 1% of the Book of Mormon is set (again, where conditions are ideal for that). When Latter-day Saint apologists bring up Nahom, Bountiful, Shazer, the seal of Mulek, the river of Laman, and the valley of Lemuel, critics sometimes get flustered and say, "Well, that's a possibility but not concrete!" Be very careful holding the standard that "a lack of compelling archaeological evidence disproves religious texts." That sword cuts two ways. Historical and archaeological evidence of Eden, a global flood, a mass Israelite migration out of Egypt, or even Jesus is pretty sparse, too. 3. Look at the trend of evidence Critics feel pretty smug throwing all the Book of Mormon anachronisms at you. "Hebrew in ancient America? Advanced metalworking? Ha!" But if they took a moment and did their research, they'd feel far less anguine. When the Book of Mormon was produced in 1830, there were hundreds of these supposed anachronisms. But as research has advanced, 90+% of that original list of contradictions is now debunked: Turns out some tribes were using cement during that time. Turns out there was a cousin of the horse before Columbus. Turns out Alma was sometimes a male name in Hebrew. Turns out some Old World Jews and New World tribes did record on metal plates. The ocean of anachronistic "slam dunks" critics swim in has shrunk during the past 190 years to a little puddle (though they'll still arrogantly strut in it every chance they get). This isn't an archaeology problem anymore so much as a statistics problem. Suppose you take the critics' view that "some things [he] may have guessed right among so many." The likelihood of him correctly "guessing" so many supposed anachronisms as he did is astronomical. As in "it's more likely you'll find a specific electron in the universe" level (there's a great study on the math here: scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewconten…). The trend is our friend. The purpose of all this That's just archaeology, to say nothing of the doctrine, the Hebraisms, the poetry, the Tolkien-level world-building, the genius-level yet consistent intertextual complexity, chiasms, and most importantly, the undeniable fruits of the text on its readers. I love the research, the science, and the studies, and I love using them to defend the Book of Mormon. But there can never be enough evidence to convince an atheist that Jesus is the Christ. And there will never be enough evidence to convince some Christians (whose arguments are often indistinguishable from atheists') that the Book of Mormon is true. If we found a certified ancient monument "to Nephi, son of Lehi" Central America, critics would pivot their argument to: "Sure, the Nephites existed, but maybe the devil inspired Joseph Smith to mix true history with his false theology to lead people to a different Jesus!" Because convincing people isn't the point. God doesn't want people to be "convinced" (forced into belief because all other options are removed). No, the purpose of research is defensive-- to show that there is space for faith, that believing doesn't make you an idiot. As Austin Farrer taught: "What no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish."

@sister_slay @Christian_Kafir No only born again believers are children of God.

@Christian_Kafir Aren’t we all children of God?

God didn’t forget about half the world

@sister_slay Well that's why he instituted the Great commission.

@Latterdaytruth Where's this mentioned in the Bible?

Before we were born, we lived as spirits with our Father in Heaven.

@OrangeBubb43389 @dustinharding Translated a fake language reformed Egyptian.

@dustinharding Why is it so hard? Joseph Smith, the one who translated the Book of Mormon, said it happened in the areas of the northeast US. We don't know what the geography looked like during the Book of Mormon times.

BIG NEWS A NEW Book of Mormon geography theory just hit on the Stick of Joseph Podcast. Location? The Baja, California Peninsula. There's actually a lot of impressive scientific research behind this theory. Here's Part I from the podcast (more to come): youtube.com/watch?v=aIeBFt… The research can be explored here: achoiceland.com

Not projecting it's a fact I have encountered with dealing and talking to Mormons. "The gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18) is a promise from Jesus to Peter that death and the powers of evil will not conquer or hold back his church. It signifies that the Church is on the offensive, and the resurrection of Christ ensures the victory of life over death.

@Chastatch @ChrisBurchfiel6 @TeancumRockwell Always projecting Death did not prevail over Jesus, even though he was dead for three days. The same is true of his church just been dead for a little longer.

Mormons are outchristianing the Christians in many ways. Stronger families. Cleaner lives. 70k+ missionaries preaching Christ daily. Temples rising everywhere. Radical humanitarian aid. Living prophets and fresh revelation. We don’t just believe in Jesus, we’re actually becoming like Him with real priesthood power. The atonement actually works! Catholics & Protestants have creeds and traditions. We have the restored Gospel. By their fruits ye shall know them. 🔥🙏

@ChrisBurchfiel6 @CTRyoda @TeancumRockwell What do Mormons think prevail means because Mormons like to redefine terms?

@Chastatch @CTRyoda @TeancumRockwell What does “prevail” mean?

One God, three persons with different roles. Father, Son, Holy Spirit. The Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) represents one God in three co-equal, co-eternal Persons, working in perfect unity with distinct roles: the Father plans and initiates creation/salvation, the Son executes this plan through incarnation and redemption, and the Holy Spirit applies this work, empowering believers and revealing truth. Jesus does the will of the Father, and the Holy Spirit testifies of Jesus.

@Chastatch @RestoredTruth8 It’s funny that y’all think our teachings are so unbelievable, when you believe in someone who continually prayed to himself. Make that make sense. Why would Jesus teach about God, and then pray to himself? To each their own.

Sadly, their bigotry blinds them. They don’t realize that when they say this, they undermine their own position.

Exactly I used to be in the World Wide Church of God cult. I was lied to by them. Then the Lord opened my eyes to the truth. I used to not believe in the Trinity. It's hard to accept the things you believed all your life is a lie but that's where we have to deny our pride and put our faith and trust in Jesus. We are called to deny ourselves pick up our cross follow Jesus everyday. This means prioritizing God's will over selfish desires, accepting potential suffering or societal shame for the sake of the Gospel, and emulating Jesus's life of sacrificial love. There are so many contradictions in the Book of Mormon and the Mormon religious writings. Reformed Egyptian a made up language with no evidence of it ever. Glaring inconsistencies all over Mormon church doctrine compared to the Bible. Last thing I would say is do some research on some of the things brought up and compare the Churches and outside the churches take on the topics. I can't make you change your mind all I can do is try to share a message of the truth of Jesus Christ from the Bible. Good luck and God bless you.

@Chastatch @RestoredTruth8 Friend, we’ve all been lied to. Funny thing is that a big part of our faith is revelation. We believe that through faithful prayer, you may know the truth. We don’t just say, “believe me”. Y’all keep saying it’s a different Jesus. It’s the one from the Bible, so… 🤷‍♂️

@BlackBlessedLDS Can do all those things but can't maintain the body of Christ "The Church" for 1700 years.

Apparently Jesus can: - Be conceived from a Virgin - Heal the sick and the blind - Raise the dead - Be God of the Old Testament prior to his condescension - Be raised from the dead - Turn water to wine - Help a man walk on water - Etc But Jesus cannot: - Visit and teach the Gospel to other parts of the world when He was here - Call Prophets today like He did of old and give ongoing revelation Yet, “our” God is limited? Got it.

@ChrisBurchfiel6 @CTRyoda @TeancumRockwell Joseph Smith claims that hell did prevail for 1700 years though, until he came along.

@Chastatch @CTRyoda @TeancumRockwell We agree that “even the gates of Hell shall not prevail.” The Church is restored.

@BruceNorth46058 @Lets_Talk_HC No but men say it's a requirement for salvation. The Thief on the cross wasn't baptized but his faith in Jesus saved him.

@Chastatch @Lets_Talk_HC Men added baptism? What was John doing in Jordan River? Why did Jesus get baptized? I witnessed Christians unable to come to one faith, one Lord, and one baptism. After Joseph Smith's inquiry God reestablished His baptism. I question those who won't accept the Lord's prophet.

Show this to the next person who says the LDS Church hoards or misuses its funds.

The core, "set in stone" beliefs of Christianity, the cornerstone of faith, center on the divinity, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, who serves as the immovable foundation for believers. These foundational tenets include the belief in one God, the Trinity, salvation through grace, and the authority of Scripture. Joseph Smith has perverted Jesus. The Jesus that Mormons believe in is not the Jesus of the Bible. I honestly care for the Mormons on here I interact with. I feel sorry for Mormons because you have been lied to. I pray for all mormons that their eyes and hearts would be open to the truth.

@Chastatch @RestoredTruth8 I appreciate the prayers. But just remember, you may be the one who’s wrong. Then what’s will matter, that you were Christlike, or that you denied the true gospel? Be better.

I'm not Catholic. I believe Christ when he said "Not even the gates of hell will prevail" (or "shall not prevail against it") is a declaration by Jesus in Matthew 16:18, promising that his church will not be defeated by death or evil. Interpreted as a guarantee of the church's ultimate victory and endurance against spiritual opposition and death.

@Chastatch @TeancumRockwell That might have something to do with the fact that the Catholic Church would murder you if you taught anything against the creed for 1500 years. Thank God for the restoration and God bless America for protecting it.

@TripDynasty @RestoredTruth8 It's ok to be in denial. I hope that one day you see and understand the truth. I'll add you to my prayers friend.

@Chastatch @RestoredTruth8 Incorrect

The very fact that God reveals Himself using multiple names in the Old Testament could be a clue pointing to His triune nature. Two of the names show up right away: Elohim in Genesis 1:1, and Yahweh in Genesis 2:4. Some scholars believe the multiple names for God imply a diversity within the Godhead. One of the Hebrew names for “God” in our Bible, Elohim, is plural in form. The -im suffix is plural, and elohim, when not referring to the One True God, is translated as “gods” (plural) in Scripture. The plural form of a name for the One God could be seen as implying a perfect unity of Persons and is certainly consistent with the New Testament teaching of the Trinity. Adonai, translated in our Bibles as “Lord,” occurs about 300 times in the Old Testament. This title for God is also plural. One writer comments on the word Adonai, “It is significant that it is almost always in the plural and possessive, meaning ‘my Lords.’ It confirms the idea of a trinity as found also in the name of Elohim” (Stone, Nathan, The Names of God, Moody Publishers, 2010, p. 35).

Actually, modern Trinitarianism is totally divorced from the original Nicene Creed. Several Catholics turned Latter-day Saints have pointed out that modern Trinitarianism started after 700 AD. In 1054, the Great Schism occurred between Catholics and Orthodox Christians. You're peddling historical nonsense.

You believe in Jesus then you receive the holy Spirit and are justified and are now a new creation. We get baptized as a outward profession of dieing in Christ and be razed up with him. The works we do don't save us but are the fruits of our faith and love for God. Belief is enough from a sincere heart. God knows all our hearts, can't lie to God. Belief in Jesus saves by trusting in his substitutionary death and resurrection as the only payment for sins, offering eternal life as a gift of grace. It involves sincere faith (not just intellectual agreement), repentance from sin, and submitting to him as Lord. This faith transforms a believer's life and restores their relationship with God. Transformation for a believer in Christ by grace through faith is a journey of sanctification, moving from self-lordship to Christ-centered living. It involves a continuous cycle of beholding Jesus, receiving grace, and relying on the Holy Spirit, resulting in changed desires, identity, and behavior. Man always likes to always add things to God to heap glory up for themselves. The Pharisees did this and it's been all through history. Man-made rules added to God’s commands often stem from a desire for personal glory, pride, or self-indulgence, rather than true godliness. Jesus challenged this by stating those who speak on their own authority seek their own glory, while those seeking God’s glory speak truth. Such regulations often prioritize human traditions over divine commandments

@Chastatch @Lets_Talk_HC Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Matthew 7:21-23 Belief is not enough. What does Jesus teach us to do? Are we doers of the word, or hearers only?

Baptism for the dead Paul does not explain, command, or endorse the practice; he uses the pronoun "they" to refer to others who were doing it, not himself or the church as a whole. Many Christians interpret the rest of the Bible (Hebrews 9:27, Ezekiel 18:20) to mean that salvation is individual and based on one's own faith and actions in life, not on proxy works performed after death. No where in the Bible does it say the Father was once a man. Only groups that like to add and take from scripture don't hold to sola scriptura and make up unbiblical beliefs from single verses out of context.

@Chastatch @antiantimormon There is a verse about baptism for the dead. There is no verse about sola scriptura. Both are theologies developed long after the Bible was written.

There is more evidence in the Bible of Baptism for the Dead than there is for Sola Scriptura. -Dr. Diirkmaat