That was an interesting question that finally made sense to me as i began to question TSCC and ultimately leave. I thought, why did Joseph have so many revelations and yet today, we really never hear of them. Then as I queried other TBMs, so many came to the defense of the church with the idea that indeed the prophet and Q12 see and get direction from Christ, but it is too "sacred" to discuss or reveal to the general public. What!? I am supposed to believe that Jesus leads this church, and he meets with the leaders as needed, but its too "sacred" to reveal or discuss with the members or general public?? Wouldn't that be one of the best missionary tools for the church? It seems to me they would want to reveal and share such a glorious thing with the entire world.

So no, the prophet or Q12 do not visit with, see or receive visitations from Christ. They never have and I guess that means that all of Joseph's visions were a fabrication.

I bet the General Authorities get tired of questions from TBM family and friends wanting to know about what it's like to see and hear from Christ. It must get old constantly having to dodge those kind of questions.

Faust claimed that although he felt inadequate to be called to the Quorum of the 12, he knew that he was "qualified" as a special witness of Jesus Christ.

I heard it with my own ears at a fireside talk. He happened to single me out afterward and approach me to shake my hand. His hand was small, soft, and felt swollen! He was a very humble man in his demeanor.

paisley70 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Faust claimed that although he felt inadequate to
> be called to the Quorum of the 12, he knew that he
> was "qualified" as a special witness of Jesus
> Christ.
>
> I heard it with my own ears at a fireside talk. He
> happened to single me out afterward and approach
> me to shake my hand. His hand was small, soft, and
> felt swollen! He was a very humble man in his
> demeanor.

They always say they are special witnesses of christ. Bednar said it at a fireside i was at. But that guy is a majjor dick, there is no way in hell that the jesus from the bible chose that guy, no f#cking way.

I understand that they always say this. I was just very surprised that they would say things like this in a very public way, insinuating that it actually happened. It was in the Q&A period at the end, sometime after someone asked him the if he had ever been contacted by one of the three Nephites. Haha! I was slapping my knee with the hilarity of the question!

paisley70 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I understand that they always say this. I was just
> very surprised that they would say things like
> this in a very public way, insinuating that it
> actually happened. It was in the Q&A period at the
> end, sometime after someone asked him the if he
> had ever been contacted by one of the three
> Nephites. Haha! I was slapping my knee with the
> hilarity of the question!

Yep mine was a Q&A with the audience as well. It must be something they all do and then close with i am a special witness of christ. I wanted to ask him a dumb question like what did christ look like if he saw him but i didn't. I was called one of the 3 nephites once because i returned to the mormon scene out of nowhere when i came back to the church. I really wanted to know if the church was actually legit so i took a ton of institute classes. And one of the teachers called me one of the 3 nephites because i came out of no where and very few knew my background. And did not exist on the internet at the time. It was pretty funny and another called me the holy ghost because i came and went as i pleased. Just vanishing from class out of no where sometimes if i was bored haha.

Now days it’s a special witness of the NAME of Christ.... frauds all

If you can get a few drinks into any of the apostles, you'll finally have it confided what it's like to sit across the table from Jesus.

Apparently Jesus is constantly asking when's the last time they wanked and when they plan on doing it again. And apparently Holy McGhost is an annoying little busybody.

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you can get a few drinks into any of the
> apostles, you'll finally have it confided what
> it's like to sit across the table from Jesus.
>
> Apparently Jesus is constantly asking when's the
> last time they wanked and when they plan on doing
> it again. And apparently Holy McGhost is an
> annoying little busybody.

Apparently jesus is a perv. Who has time for the important questions? Not jesus. He wants to know if you have playing with yourself every other day.

Ironically the Bible warns against false prophets claiming to see Jesus in a secretive area like the Mormon Temples.

Matthew 24:26 "Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not."

Once again the Bible tells us not to believe in Mormonism.

I say unto you, "Behold, if anybody claims to be talking to Jesus, who probably never existed, have them locked up in the loony bin. They're either outright liars or dangerously delusional."

Amen.

@ificouldhietokolob, Name calling is not a valid argument. It just makes you seem childish and unsophisticated.

isthechurchtrue Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @ificouldhietokolob, Name calling is not a valid
> argument. It just makes you seem childish and
> unsophisticated.

@isthechurchtrue, I didn't call anybody any names.
You, however, did above ("childish and unsophisticated").
Try your own advice.

@ificouldhietokolob, You said you never called anybody any names but your reply to my comment called anybody who claims to be talking to Jesus a "liar" or a "delusional" person who deserves to be locked up in a loony bin. So people should be locked up for their religion huh. Honestly wow.

You literally just called some religious people liars or delusional then you said you didnt engage in name calling. wow.

isthechurchtrue Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @ificouldhietokolob, You said you never called
> anybody any names but your reply to my comment
> called anybody who claims to be talking to Jesus a
> "liar" or a "delusional" person who deserves to be
> locked up in a loony bin. So people should be
> locked up for their religion huh. Honestly wow.

I really wish you wouldn't pretend I said something that I didn't.
I didn't say "people should be locked up for their religion," did I? Or even imply it.
Your characterization above is extremely dishonest.

> You literally just called some religious people
> liars or delusional then you said you didnt engage
> in name calling. wow.

I said people who claim to talk to (as in a two-way conversation) supernatural beings are liars or delusional.
Psychiatrists and psychologists would agree with me.
If you've got evidence of someone who makes that claim and isn't either of those, by all means: present it. I'll be happy to look at it.

Yes, I get it. You believe, and so if anyone doesn't agree with you, you try to bully them into shutting up, by being outraged, using ad-hominems, and making things up.
It's not a very effective discussion/debate tactic.

I have no problem calling anyone who claims to converse with Jesus delusional.

@CrispingPin, the point is that calling someone a name isnt an argument. That was my point. ificouldhietokolob literally called people names then said he didnt call people names. Talk about magical thinking wow...

isthechurchtrue Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @CrispingPin, the point is that calling someone a
> name isnt an argument. That was my point.
> ificouldhietokolob literally called people names
> then said he didnt call people names. Talk about
> magical thinking wow...

"You're an idiot" is calling someone a name.

Stating that people who hear voices in their heads they claim are from Jesus are delusional is psychological diagnosis.

You can assail me for not being a psychologist if you'd like, but not for "calling people names."

Incidentally, these christians claim Jesus doesn't speak to anybody -- and they give scriptural references aplenty to back up their claim. If that's the case, my "liar or delusional" diagnosis is spot on.

https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/595-does-god-speak-directly-to-man-today



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 01/23/2018 09:06PM by ificouldhietokolob.

I certainly don’t consider it name calling if the “name” fits. If someone robbed a convenience store, it’s not name calling to refer to them a criminal. If someone claims to have visited the North Pole and met Santa, I think “delusional” is a pretty accurate description. If someone claims to speak face-to-face with Jesus....That’s the same category as the guy who “met” Santa.

@ificouldhietokolob, you specifically called people who claim to have spiritual experiences "LIARS". LIAR is not a psychological designation! It is no different from calling someone stupid. You should know that! Instead of debating the facts you name call and distort everything. You misrepresented what I said. You misrepresented what the Wikipedia article said that I posted. You have a real problem understanding what words mean for some reason.

You literally engage in name calling then act like you didnt engage in name calling. Its pathetic.

isthechurchtrue Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @ificouldhietokolob, you specifically called
> people who claim to have spiritual experiences
> "LIARS".

If you'll read what I said (instead of "paraphrasing" it dishonestly like you just did again), you'll notice that I said people who claim to have conversations with Jesus are EITHER liars OR delusional.

I didn't say "spiritual experiences." I referred to having conversations. Nothing else.

In the context here, it was also specifically aimed at the Q15 of the mormon church. So it wasn't "complete."

In the interest of completeness, I'll admit that it was a false dichotomy -- there are other possibilities.

One other one is that they're simply mistaken: they either hear or think they hear a "voice," and simply assume (with no evidence) that it came from "Jesus."

Another would be that they actually had a conversation with Jesus...but as there's no evidence a disembodied "Jesus" thing exists, nor any evidence such a thing can or does speak to anyone, that's so implausible that I have no problem dismissing it entirely.

> LIAR is not a psychological designation!

Actually, it is. Pathological lying is a psychological diagnosis.

> It is no different from calling someone stupid.

I didn't call "someone" anything. I made a categorical observation.

I almost never do, by the way (call someone 'stupid'), mostly because the term is so imprecise. However, if someone acts stupidly, I have no problem whatsoever stating that they're acting stupidly. And that's not "name calling."

> You should know that! Instead of debating the
> facts you name call and distort everything. You
> misrepresented what I said. You misrepresented
> what the Wikipedia article said that I posted. You
> have a real problem understanding what words mean
> for some reason.

Look, the only person who's called anybody any names in this discussion has been YOU. You did it at least twice in your previous posts. And you just did it again above. People who disagree with you don't lack understanding -- claiming they do is "name calling." And you're naming a specific person (me).

And the person "misrepresenting" has also been YOU. You quote-mined a small part of that wiki page that you felt supported your beliefs, and you left out multiple paragraphs above and below the part you cut out which mentioned the problems with the "generally accepted" list you posted, thereby giving the impression that they were more "generally accepted" than the article you linked to shows. That's YOU "misrepresenting," not me.

Incidentally, Bart Ehrman (who you gave as supporting your position earlier) is one of the "scholars" who does NOT "generally agree" with that list. I notice you didn't mention that, either...

> You literally engage in name calling then act like
> you didnt engage in name calling. Its pathetic.

You are the only one engaging in name-calling. Over and over and over.

Why does it anger you so much that I don't accept your unsupportable claims? Or that I point out factual errors in your posts? It appears to anger you to the point that you're happy to engage in dishonest tactics and the very "name-calling" you claim to hate so much.

I'm more than happy to continue discussing, but I'd prefer you do so honestly and without adding personal insults in every post. The personal insults don't really bother me (as every one of them has been false), but they're not at all productive to the conversation.

@ificouldhietokolob
You didnt say "Pathological liar". You just said liar. You could add pathological to anything to make it a psychological condition. But that isnt what you said. Again. You said "liars".

You just play fast and loose with the truth while trying to bully others on this board. Its pathetic.

I'm not sure, from your response, that you read anything I wrote.
Oh, well.

But let's be clear: I didn't engage in any "name calling" or bullying. I didn't insult you, call you names, imply you lacked understanding, or any of the things that you did in your responses. For someone who apparently doesn't like "bullying" or "name-calling," you sure do a lot of it. It doesn't bother me personally, because frankly I don't care what you think of me -- especially since your posts to me have been so irrational and hypocritical. But I'll still point it out.

Probably best to end this discussion.

isthechurchtrue Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ironically the Bible warns against false prophets
> claiming to see Jesus in a secretive area like the
> Mormon Temples.
>
> Matthew 24:26 "Wherefore if they shall say unto
> you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth:
> behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it
> not."
>
> Once again the Bible tells us not to believe in
> Mormonism.


Wow, i will definitely remember this one hie. Just another scripture to add to my arsenal.

@Badassadam1, there is a meme put out by unsophisticated atheists that Jesus was never a real historical person.

But actual historians atheist or otherwise disagree. For example, atheist Bart Ehrman wrote a book called Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth in which he explains why Jesus was a real person.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Did_Jesus_Exist%3F_(Ehrman)

You get a completely different perspective when you hear from actual scholarly historians on the New Testament.

Many atheists just have an emotional ax to grind with the idea of Jesus' existence.

isthechurchtrue Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @Badassadam1, there is a meme put out by
> unsophisticated atheists that Jesus was never a
> real historical person.

A meme? It's an honest question.

> But actual historians atheist or otherwise
> disagree. For example, atheist Bart Ehrman wrote a
> book called Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical
> Argument for Jesus of Nazareth in which he
> explains why Jesus was a real person.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Did_Jesus_Exist%3F_(
> Ehrman)

Yes, Ehrman believes there was an actual "Jesus." He doesn't, however, explain "why Jesus was a real person" -- he explains why he *believes* Jesus was a real person. And the explanation he gives is pretty weak (the one and only "historical" use of the "criteria of embarrassment"). And he can't tell us anything verifiable about the "actual Jesus" he believes in.

Other historians (atheist and christian) disagree with Ehrman. I notice you didn't quote any of them...why is that?

For example, christian historian Philip R. Davies says that "the rather fragile historical evidence for Jesus of Nazareth should be tested to see what weight it can bear," and criticizes scholars like Bart Ehrman who write with near certainty about Jesus' existence. He also thinks that "a recognition that his existence is not entirely certain would nudge Jesus scholarship towards academic respectability."

> You get a completely different perspective when
> you hear from actual scholarly historians on the
> New Testament.

Especially when you read what lots of scholars have to say, not just one who agrees with you (and yes, I've read everything Ehrman has ever written).

> Many atheists just have an emotional ax to grind
> with the idea of Jesus' existence.

And many theists think the existence of Jesus is certain when it isn't.

isthechurchtrue Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @Badassadam1, there is a meme put out by
> unsophisticated atheists that Jesus was never a
> real historical person.

Academic and theological argument about whether a single-person Jesus did or did not exist goes far beyond "unsophisticated atheists"---I was taught that a multi-person "Jesus" is one of the major hypotheses within Jewish academia...some of whom are likely atheist, but at least most of whom are hardly "unsophisticated." I imagine that academics from Hindu and Buddhist (etc.) backgrounds would probably have similar hypotheses and conclusions (assuming that they seriously considered this question at all).


> But actual historians atheist or otherwise
> disagree. For example, atheist Bart Ehrman wrote a
> book called Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical
> Argument for Jesus of Nazareth in which he
> explains why Jesus was a real person.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Did_Jesus_Exist%3F_(
> Ehrman)
>
> You get a completely different perspective when
> you hear from actual scholarly historians on the
> New Testament.

I am not personally familiar with Bart Ehrman or his work, but his personal conclusion does not stretch to include the conclusions of all "actual scholarly historians" on the planet.


> Many atheists just have an emotional ax to grind
> with the idea of Jesus' existence.

It is undoubtedly true that SOME atheists may have "an emotional ax to grind" on this issue...but this says nothing about the undoubtedly even LARGER number of atheists who do NOT have "an emotional ax to grind" on this issue.

This is still a question which remains open, both historically and theologically, pending more evidence and data. (There are a great many caves in the greater area of today's Israel and its surroundings, and there are also new archaeological finds constantly being dug up (on virtually a daily basis). Proof of the existence of a single-person, historical Jesus may exist, but at the present moment, there is no additional data to add to what has been evident and accepted for at least the past few decades.

Formal archaeological digs continue...and in addition, in Israel it is common for ordinary Israelis to just "stumble on" new archaeological material when they dig on their own property or go hiking in the hills.

Fifty or a hundred years from now, who knows what new archaeological material, or new records, will have been found???

Those potential new discoveries may exist SOMEWHERE, but just haven't been found YET.

Events generally accepted as historical

1. Jesus was a Galilean Jew.
2. His activities were confined to Galilee and Judea.
3. He was baptized by John the Baptist.
4. He called disciples.
5. He had a controversy at the Temple.
6. Jesus was crucified by the Romans near Jerusalem.[13][76]
7. After his death his disciples continued.
8. Some of his disciples were persecuted.[13][76]

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

You forgot the sentence right after that list -- from the very page you linked to:

"Scholarly agreement on this extended list is not universal."

And if you'll read more, you'll find why there are very good reasons for not agreeing with that list.

@ificouldhietokolob, I didnt forget anything. If you understood what the words "generally accepted" meant then you would understand what I posted. I never said it was universally accepted.

Strange how you nearly always misrepresent what I say when responding.

isthechurchtrue Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @ificouldhietokolob, I didnt forget anything.

So you intentionally left out the qualifier then?
Once again, not very honest.

> If you understood what the words "generally accepted"
> meant then you would understand what I posted. I
> never said it was universally accepted.

You know, people who don't agree with you don't lack understanding. It's another ad-hominem to claim they do.

I did understand what you posted -- a quote-mined, incomplete "argument." Leaving out the part that doesn't support your belief.

> Strange how you nearly always misrepresent what I
> say when responding.

Pot, meet kettle. See above.

@ificouldhietokolob, I didnt misrepresent the article. Anyone can click on the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

and read "While there is widespread scholarly agreement on the existence of Jesus,[46][48] and a basic consensus on the general outline of his life,"

and "Nearly all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[46][48][49][nb 9][95] There is no evidence today that the existence of Jesus was ever denied in antiquity by those who opposed Christianity."

If one restricts the life of Jesus to the list of annodine events you posted: he lived there, he had disciples, he was killed, his disciples went on without him, etc. Who cares if this person existed 2,000 years ago or not? Scores of people throughout history would fill this bill.

The claim for Jesus is really not whether or not a man named Jesus lived in Palestine and taught some disciples who continued after him. It's that he's a man-god. Even if there was an historical Jesus, I can say with confidence that he wasn't a man-god--there aren't unicorns either--so it doesn't matter whether the actual man lived or not. His teachings clearly exist, and that's enough.

If they really did they would not be running a multi-billion dollar scam for the benefit of themselves and friends/relatives.

spiritist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If they really did they would not be running a
> multi-billion dollar scam for the benefit of
> themselves and friends/relatives.

You got that right. The jesus from the new testament would never be a part of this organization. I have told mormons this many times, he would be totally against this operation if he was alive today. Don't think he exists though in the first place. But i do think some correct things were said in the new testament.

Also: remember that when Joseph Smith saw Jesus, either (1) he was all alone (First Vision) or (2) he went behind a (literal) curtain so only he and a friend (Sidney Rigdon, IIRC)could actually see what was going on (Kirtland Temple). Now, if I were Jesus, I would make damn sure everybody in the world knew I had arrived. But that's just me. Maybe Jesus prefers to be just as cryptic and enigmatic as he possibly can be, to deliberately confuse people. Or maybe it's all made up. Just sayin'.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/23/2018 12:06AM by slskipper.

"Now, if I were Jesus, I would make damn sure everybody in the world knew I had arrived."

But we wouldn't have a need for faith if he did that; and faith, or rather the fear of not having faith, is necessary for keeping Mormonism afloat.

GregS Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Now, if I were Jesus, I would make damn sure
> everybody in the world knew I had arrived."
>
> But we wouldn't have a need for faith if he did
> that; and faith, or rather the fear of not having
> faith, is necessary for keeping Mormonism afloat.

Yep if you lose the faith of crazy sh#t, then mormonism will die quickly in your mind and will be replaced by logic. It all depends on the faith of crazy sh#t that people claim that have happened that keeps it all rolling in that hamster wheel.

Jesus's behavior is very confusing according to the people that have seen him when nobody else is around.

I heard it on good authority that Jesus and the holyprofitogawd have coffee in the upper room of the temple every Thursday morning at 8:00. I can't give you any more details without the secr.... err, I mean... sacred password.

No!...!

Easy. No!

Self-proof:

"PROFILES OF A PROPHET" HUGH BROWN

No LDS "PROPHET" has even come close...

You see, their claims are only understood as metaphorical!

Of course not!

They are too busy discussing pressing spiritual matters; like the dangers of becoming pirates.

messygoop Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Of course not!
>
> They are too busy discussing pressing spiritual
> matters; like the dangers of becoming pirates.


Or loving gays while also secretly loathing them and not allowing the LGBT community to be married. Ya know, normal stuff.

You know what is hella funny? I was told BY BEDNAR at a conference that my generation would see Jesus. Guess what? That same "revelation" was also told to my father and his father and I believed it when I was younger!

Ezra Taft Benson declared to my generation that we would see the 2nd coming. Or maybe he said it in a more discreet way with an "out". But it certainly sounded like we were supposed to expect it to happen.

Two documents that might be relevant to your question:

Mar 25, 1950 - President George Albert Smith writes, "I have not
seen the Father or the Son, neither have I heard their voices in
an audible way, but I have felt their presence and have enjoyed
the whispering of the Still Small Voice that comes from them,
the result of which has given me a testimony of the truth."

At this point in his life, George Albert Smith had been
president of the Church for five (5) years and before that had
been an apostle for over forty (40) years.


President Heber J. Grant answered a letter of Mrs. Claud Perry,
on 13 April 1926. The letter is found in the First Presidency
Letterpress Copybooks, Vol. 72, CHD, and reads as follows:

"Dear Sister: Answering your letter of the 12th. I know of no
instance where the Lord has appeared to an individual since His
appearance to the Prophet Joseph Smith, Sincerely, your brother,
(signed) Heber J. Grant"

At this point in his life, Heber J. Grant had been president
for over seven (7) years, and before that had been an apostle
for over thirty-six (36) years.

Jesus doesn't make appearances in the upper rooms of the Temple or magically appear when summoned by the so-called "Prophet."

Front 242 -- "Welcome To Paradise"
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=muGBCYRwzqc

One of my ward missionaries, 6'5" Elder Ward was in the Provo MTC around 2009-10. The MTC had (has) weekly devotionals, usually with GAs speaking. On one occasion Apostle Richard G. Scott spoke. Afterwards E. Ward was standing next to a missionary with long hair (he hadn't trimmed it sufficiently for missionary guidelines). He was speaking to Elder Scott.

Apostle Scott instructed the long-haired missionary to get a haircut.

The missionary said that Jesus had long hair in all the portrait paintings, so why couldn't he. Elder Scott said, "His hair was short the last time I saw him."

Lying for the Lord of LD$ Inc.

I can just see Scott on the next Temple Thursday, in the apostles' locker room, regaling the guys with this story, ending with, "...and you should have seen how big his eyes got!!!"


Would he have the courage to make this same implication in a setting where intelligent, non-mormons were present, with recording devices?

I thought that they changed it from "special witness of JC" to "special witness of the NAME of JC"?

Any one verify this?

the MORmON ASSpostHOLE leadershiT breathUrine definitely did give that particular BS tactic a trial run
http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon590.htm

IF they have then it only makes Hinckley hiring the Edelman PR Consulting Firm to do the Lord's Church's PR work even MORE stupid.

PRofit Hinckley: Well, Jesus, Lord, Master,so how should we handle the current PR upheaval over MORmON racism, MORmON polygamy, and the rather embarrassing bloody gory MORmON Temple ceremony? The stuff that seems to be hurting our growth so much!

Jesus Christ, God Almighty, Creator of the Universe: Hell, IF I know, Gordon! I really do not have a clue !!!! My specialty was creating the universe, creating various life forms from simple to complex, atoning for all mankind's sins, miracles, healing ....to the point of being able to resurrect myself from the dead.....so that the chains of death will be broken for all man kind...... yah, I told some really poignant parables and gathered some big crowds from time to time during my earthly ministry, but that does NOT mean that I am a PR expert, .....better get a good PR firm for those trouble some matters .... I hear the Jews are great on that stuff !!!!! ....oh, and speaking of bloody, like the temple ceremony, you need to get a better rug and carpet cleaner, something with more steam power and chemical action, I can still see old blood spots in the carpet from the last couple of times that I was here before.

PRofit Hinckley: but won't that Jewish PR consulting thing include some hefty fees???

(MORmON) Jesus: just do it, Gordon !!! Sure, I just had my baptism done in the Jordan river by my cousin for free, but unlike that, this latter day PR deal is very important. Spend whatever it takes !!!!