Paul,
To repeat, no evidence for
gods in earlier times of for
God as claimed in more recent times (as per 200,000 years of evolution) has been established. Your assertion is a
claim subscribed to by Mormons
only. It lacks any consensus among
other Christian groups.
The claim
here by you:
Paul stated:
Joseph Smith was special, he saw God the Father face to face. No religious group other than
Mormons agree to this Mormon dogma. It is
not established as fact. It is
your assertion (or Smith’s) not an assertion shared by the
hundreds and hundreds of groups which claim their own truths
by assertion.
Failure to establish
“God” negates Smith’s claim that “he saw God..” No evidence supports his claim for
“God” or that “he saw God…”
You appear to fail to recognize the difference between
claims and consensus. There is no general consensus among
Christians that your above claim has any validity what so ever.
Your use of “special” can be applied as generalized conclusion to the spider I used in example with you. Smith made unsubstantiated claims with regard to claims about “God.” My claims for the spider have
evidence. I can call multiple individuals
to see the evidence of my claim.
Furthermore, I can call in
objective observers to see what I claimed on the spider. Furthermore, informed, educated people
have seen a spider. It is NOT an extraordinary claim. J. Smith’s claim is
extraordinary.
A principle of evidence: The more extraordinary the claim, the
greater evidence that is required to support the claim. This is a
principle about which you seem entirely uninformed.
Pope Benedict XVI does not agree with you. Compare the gravitas of Pope Benedict XVI with Roger Morrison. This is no criticism of Roger, but rather
a comparison of just who
Pope Benedict XVI is in present history.
The Roman Catholic Church is recognized as “the largest single Christian body." Neither the Roman Catholic Church nor its leadership recognizes
Smith as a credible, relevant character.
This is not to argue in favor to the Roman Catholic Church. It is to point out to you, Paul, that J. Smith
is not recognized as credible by the largest
Christian denomination or by Protestant denominations which number well over 1,000. Smith is a relatively recent blip in the
protest of previous doctrines which occurred well before the 1800s.
No large groups which are part of the Protestant Reformation since 1517 recognize J. Smith as a relevant source with the exception of Mormons or those who are a split post J. Smith and/or are some
version of Mormon.
The historical, documented record since the 1500s is fundamentally well established.
You have offered
no refutation either to the points made or to the sources linked for you.
You have not in the least addressed the points of information which were provided for you.
Instead, you merely make assertions for religious dogma
not shared even by other religious groups, many of which I have mentioned by name for you.
JAK