Does it take more faith to stay, or to go?

[_Chap]

You just continue to hold to the belief that there is nothing wrong with anonymous argument about religion and attacks on people with real names. You're in good company here, very good company.

So far as I can make sense out of this, it amounts to an assertion that the truth-value of a proposition may be diminished in virtue of who else, other than the proposer, has proposed it.

You know, I'd rather be anonymous and make sense than have my name up written up in neon lights and talk nonsense. But that's just a statement of my personal preference, and if Yahoo Bot wants to do things differently, why should I care?

[_sock puppet]

I wonder who Yahoo is billing for the time he spends posting...?

COJCOLDS, I hope.

[_Yahoo Bot]

You continue to hold the belief that there's nothing wrong with being a whiny baby who couldn't argue his way out of a paper bag.

My arguments stand quite nicely for themselves; thank you. It is just icing on the cake to point out that your posts bespeak cowardice and hypocrisy.

[_thews]

To your point, defined by the "so what" argument, what you fail to acknowledge is that Joseph Smith claimed to see treasure hidden underground using his seer stones; the same seer stones used to "translate" the Book of Mormon ("translate" being the operative word). Treasure guardians were what was believed to guard the treasures, and they were evil. This is an important point in understanding Joseph Smith, but hold that thought, as I need to respond to your other post.

Quite the interesting post; permit me to respond.

"Magic rocks" does seem indeed absurd. But when you figure that the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures are filled with such absurdities as the Virgin Birth (a rip-off of several pagan teachings); the resurrection (same), floating axe-heads, revelation from lambskins, Urim and Thummim and other such things, Joseph Smith's gold plates and seer stones don't seem too far off. For some reason, God chooses to advance revelation through physical means (needing eyewitnesses, physical handling of a resurrected being, physical baptism) rather than Platonic out-of-the-body etherial means.

What you're doing here is very common in Mormon apologetics, which is to ignore the actual point and attempt to draw parallel analogies that negate its significance. To understand my point Yahoo, in using the term "magic rocks" it's necessary to establish a timeline for Joseph Smith's use of seer stones.

Before 1830:

Joseph Smith was taught to use seer stones by Sally Chase and Luman Walter. Both of these people were into occult magic, and when Joseph Smith used his seer stones to "see" evil treasure guardians, they were in fact, magic rocks.

1830 to 1833:

The use of "Urim and Thummim" were not used to describe Joseph Smith's seer stones until 3 years after the Book of Mormon was published, which was inserted after the fact to mask what "them" implied, which was the Nephite spectacles:.

Original version of D&C 10:3:

Book of Commandments:

http://www.irr.org/mit/changing-scripture.html

BC 9:1, p. 22 — Now, behold I say unto you, that because you delivered up so many writings, which you had power to translate, into the hands of a wicked man, you have lost them, and you also lost your gift at the same time …
[Harmony, Pennsylvania May 1829]

Current version of D&C 10:3:
http://LDS.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/10?lang=eng

1 Now, behold, I say unto you, that because you delivered up those writings which you had power given unto you to translate by the means of the Urim and Thummim, into the hands of a wicked man, you have lost them.

The point you avoid acknowledging is that before the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith's magic rocks were just that and had no biblical implications which negates your argument of what God chooses. Before 1830, by what power did Joseph Smith's seer stones (placed in hid old white stove-pipe hat) work to see evil treasure guardians (which is he was paid for his services)?

Mormons who have studied the issue don't find the story of "magic" seer stones any more absurd than spectacles with stones in them. For one thing, we don't believe in "magic," so the label is sort of meaningless.

What you believe in is up to you, but what Joseph Smith believed in is the crux of the use of "magic" to describe his seer stones. Do you believe Joseph Smith believed in magic?

As to Joseph Smith using "magic" stones to locate buried treasure, that is a somewhat different matter. Today it seems absurd and nuts. But it wasn't that way in 1820. When I was growing up PhD educated folk used divining rods, in my presence, to locate lost water pipes. Each to his own time.

Again you attempt to negate the "absurd" use of stones to see evil treasure guardians, by drawing parallel lines through a supposed analogy for the use of divining rods by "PHD educated folk." What you again fail to realize is that the use of occult magic was the actual "power" Joseph Smith claimed to use, and this has nothing to do with what you believe in, but rather what Joseph Smith believed in.

For the sake of argument I've had a NDE and have seen my dead body outside of it. No one but me lived this, and I don't expect you to believe me... I wouldn't believe you if you had a similar experience and claimed to meet Joseph Smith. The point is that I accept the fact that my experience may be wrong, or rather it didn't happen like I remember it did. Nuff said...

I think NDE experiences are either lies, exaggerations or delusions. I don't see them as having any analogue to understanding Joseph Smith's experiences; many of his "physical" truths are backed up by eyewitnesses.

Ok, believe what you wish... it wasn't the point and you missed it. The point is, is that even an experience I had is one I don't blindly accept as absolute truth. When a feeling is used as a foundation for belief that God sent someone a sign that Mormonism is true, objectivity is required to acknowledge that feeling may not have been as conclusive as it's perceived.

Your "answer" referenced in the above is vague. Mormons are told they will feel the burning in the bosom, and when they do, they feel it's confirmation that what they felt was real.

Of course, this is the Christian formula for experiencing real truth, at least as how John and Luke describe it.

Do you acknowledge it's possible for a human to be hypnotized? I've been to a comedy act at the Improve in LA, and aside from the show being very entertaining, it proved to me without a shadow of a doubt that it is in fact possible for the human mind to be hypnotized. The power of suggestion using "I know the church is true" by fellow Mormons was the foundation for the external influence in the supposed feeling.

When I heard this story I immediately concluded she was in some sort of hypnotic state and it was all manufactured.

And the New Testament points to experiences with magicians trying to duplicate the Christian experience, and it seems that Simon Magus was able to do so. That doesn't discount the Christian experience, any more than lies of perjurers discount the efforts of honest eyewitnesses to recount the truth.

Why do you use "Christian experience" in the above to describe your "Mormon" argument? The doctrine of Joseph Smith is not Christian... it's Mormon (or LDS). If you believe it's Christian based on being LDS, ok, but it doesn't make Mormon doctrine Christian. The external influences in an experience was the point, and your parallel lines attempting to negate them doesn't nullify the argument, which is hearing "I know the church is true" thousands of times can lead one to be influenced by hearing this hypnotic repetitious untruth, as no one "knows" the church is true, but rather they believe it is.

What part of logic would dictate that Jesus Christ would live and die, without referencing the supposed golden plates that were buried in the ground while he was alive, along with the papyrus? Why were people kept from the "truth" for over 1800 years? Does this make sense? Why would God allow Joseph Smith to die before the Book of Joseph (which was supposedly lost) or the JST was completed if it really was God will?

Similarly, one could ask why the Hebrew scriptures just don't plainly come out and describe Jesus Christ's future ministry. One could ask why the 11 apostles were required to cast lots to pick the 12th apostle rather than having Jesus just appear to them and tell them. The "truth," as you describe it, is buried in the scriptures which require the Spirit to reveal it.

And once again we get a parallel analogy that's supposed to sidetrack the relevance of the question asked. Jesus Christ was alive when the supposed golden plates and pagan papyrus were buried in the ground. To claim a "restored" version of Jesus Christ would require to acknowledge why the Mormon part was left out. In other words, it's not a "restored" version of the teachings of Jesus Christ, but rather it's the doctrine of Joseph Smith.

This is the part where we must acknowledge what the null hypothesis is. In statistics, the null hypothesis is assumed to be the data is wrong. Using data, once the null hypothesis is rejected, it's proven to be correct, or a fact = true. This is where we differ regarding Mormonism, as I assume the null hypothesis is that Mormonism is false, and you assume the null hypothesis is that it's true. With enough data you can get a p value greater than .05, but to do this the data has to be skewed. My point here is to define what is assumed to be true vs. false.

In Descartes' meditation, he concluded that once he threw out all preconceived knowledge of what he believed was true and started from scratch, the only thing he could conclusively prove was that he existed, as he was the only one processing his thoughts. I urge you to do this, as you are the only one who can logically conclude what you believe... you don't "know" anything but what you process.

Not very fruitful in discussing the religious experience, which does not depend upon statistical analysis or the vanities of philosophers. Indeed, your formulation of Descartes (as well as how I could describe Plato) depends more upon the humanistic experience rather than faith in God and, for that reason, they are the antithesis of faith.

The point, which you again missed, is that the null hypothesis is that Mormonism is not true, and data available to you should be used to reject the null hypothesis. Instead of constantly relying on parallel analogies to negate what doesn't make sense in Mormonism to force it to be true, the data clearly shows it's not true. For example:

1) Seer stones used to see evil treasure guardians is not Christian... it's occult magic.
2) The translation of a language is done to translate what it meant using the language it was written in. The Book of Abraham papyrus is 100% wrong and has nothing to do with Abraham.
3) Polygamy is not God's will. Aside from the absurd notion that God left it out of the Book of Mormon which required a pagan document to bring it to Joseph Smith, Mormons clearly reject polygamy now. Why? How can it be God's will then, but it's not now?
4) The Book of Mormon clearly uses "White and delightsome" to describe race. Why, if it was the "most perfect book ever written" did it need to change?

You are choosing the path of distortion here. William's cryptic theory based on nothing is the path you're choosing in my opinion. The Egyptian language is translated into what it actually meant, and Joseph Smith's translation is wrong. This isn't a function of debate... it's wrong and that's a fact. If you wish to argue this fact, do so with data. The fact is, Joseph Smith claimed to "translate" the pagan book of the dead and was wrong. The distortion introduced by people like Jeff Lindsay and Will do not acknowledge the translation (which Joseph Smith claimed to do) is 100% incorrect.

The fact remains that Joseph Smith did not explain his translation process and, thus, we cannot accept the assertion that he used secular means to translate.

You're just using the only means available to you to answer the point, which you have failed to do, as you only responded to it. The Book of Abraham was "translated" by Joseph Smith:

http://mormonthink.com/book-of-abraham-issues.htm

"... with W. W. Phelps and Oliver Cowdery as scribes, I commence the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics, and much to our joy found that one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt, etc. - a more full account of which will appear in its place, as I proceed to examine or unfold them. Truly we can say, the Lord is beginning to reveal the abundance of peace and truth." (History of the Church, Vol. 2, p. 236).

What part of "translate" escapes you? Is that not specific enough to warrant your argument?

This young girl, who was married to Joseph Smith by her father at 17, under the pretense that her family would have a place in heaven (something only God is supposed do dictate), was then assigned to Heber... a supposed "prophet" in Mormonism.

Her father, Newel K. Whitney, performed the ceremony: “You both mutually agree to be each other’s companion so long as you both shall live, preserving yourselves for each other and from all others and also throughout all eternity, reserving only those rights which have been given to my servant Joseph by revelation...If you both agree to covenant and do this, I then give you, S.A. Whitney, my daughter, to Joseph Smith, to be his wife, to observe all the rights between you both that belong to that condition...”

A seventeen-year-old had the capacity to consent.

This past week I tried a case in a federal court against two 50-year-old women, one of whom held a masters' degree in psychology, who were accused of stealing trade secrets. Their principal defense was that they were manipulated by a charismatic person into stealing. One wonders why two college-educated women with a long history of successful business ownership could make such claims. Thus you credit a 17-year-old woman the inability to make up her own mind.

The reality here is that these people knew what they were doing and had the capacity to consent. Repeated references to Whitney "giving" his daughter to Joseph Smith is meaningless; that very phrase is used in Christian marriage ceremonies.

You completely avoided the point (again), and attempt to downplay the significance of of Joseph Smith using Mormonism to fulfill his lustful desires. Do you have a daughter Yahoo? If you do, she's far more mature than a girl of 17 was in 1840. Would you choose the life of Sarah Ann Whitney for her?

You didn't answer the question. Don Bradly's recent acknowledgment of Joseph Smith's attempt to translate the Kinderhook plates doesn't negate the fact that he did attempt to. If Joseph Smith was being guided by God, wouldn't he know they were fake?

Once again you point to Bradley. Many of us don't accept his analysis and I don't. We remember that he was once an unbeliever writing against the Church and now has reentered the fold, remaking himself. He is entitled to change, and we are entitled to disagree with him. Joseph Smith made no attempt to translate the Kinderhook plates, otherwise his official diarist would have so noted. He didn't.

What point are you making? Is it your same stance that the Kinderhook plates were actually 7 inches tall and not 2? You've made this argument in the past, so do you believe the Kinderhhook plate that exists is not authentic, even though the LDS church acknowledges it is? Mormon history dictates the account of William Clayton is accurate, but since it doesn't bode well with your preconceived belief that Joseph Smith really was a prophet of God, you find any excuse to reject it. Give me some fact to prove otherwise. You can't, and it's just another way you selectively reject the truth.

I have a lot of data to prove Joseph Smith was a bad man. The letter to the parents of Sarah Ann Whitney is a prime example. The only condition that is stated in that letter is it wasn't safe if his wife (Emma) was present. The Mormon apologists can attempt to spin its intent, but in reading the actual words the only condition it was not safe for the then 38 year old Joseph Smith and 17 year old Sarah was if his wife was there. This is a fact, and one you should consider in placing faith in a man who used his magical seer stones to see evil treasure guardians through the same rocks he used in his stove-pipe hat to give you the Book of Mormon. If you had a daughter Kevin, would you choose the path of Sarah Ann Whitney for her? Is that what God wanted for Sarah Ann Whitney?

The letter's meaningless to me if you first accept the notion that plural marriage was commanded by God and Emma reneged upon her assent to it. She clearly had things wrong in her mind with her persistent denial for years thereafter that Joseph Smith engaged in polygamy (or, at a minimum, had relations with other women).

If you can't accept the notion, then yes, there are things wrong with the letter.

The letter is "meaningless" to you, because it's another data point to prove Joseph Smith was a false prophet of God. Do you believe your wife would openly accept you marrying a 14 year-old girl like Joseph Smith did? Do you believe polygamy is an everlasting covenant?

Finally, as a post-script to the above, please permit me to get on my hobby horse again. What value are your anonymous rants and personal attacks? Should we really credit them? Aren't the more credible arguments made by people with real names and positions in life?

I'd like to point out your complete ignorance of the actual points made, followed by the pity card. Does your pity card work... ever? This is a discussion board, and your argument is based on how you respond to the actual points made by acknowledging the data. If you fancy yourself as a good spin doctor to appease itching ears, that's one thing, but reducing anyone who disagrees with you as having bad intent is merely a mechanism you continue to use to as a way to divert the actual topic being discussed. I'm not attacking you; I'm completely disagreeing with your logic... let me prove it to you by asking a direct question that doesn't require a parallel analogy. You can choose to answer it, or you can choose to run away with your pity card in your back pocket.

By what power did Joseph Smith's seer stone work before the Book of Mormon? When Joseph Smith was being paid $14 a month to see evil treasure guardians, was it of God?

[_Pollypinks]

Why must NDE's be correlated with any religion? Can it be that some type of energy from the body moves on? Or, if it is truly a religious experience, can it not be a religious experience of all religions? Quite frankly, being a liberal universalist, I thoroughly enjoy seeing some psychics. Love John Edwards. Does that make me a freak? Oh, I hope so.

[_Some Schmo]

You just continue to hold to the belief that there is nothing wrong with anonymous argument about religion and attacks on people with real names. You're in good company here, very good company.

So far as I can make sense out of this, it amounts to an assertion that the truth-value of a proposition may be diminished in virtue of who else, other than the proposer, has proposed it.

You know, I'd rather be anonymous and make sense than have my name up written up in neon lights and talk nonsense. But that's just a statement of my personal preference, and if Yahoo Bot wants to do things differently, why should I care?

You stole the words right out of my keyboard.

It's a good thing this yahoo thinks his arguments work. It would be a shame if nobody did.

[_Buffalo]

You continue to hold the belief that there's nothing wrong with being a whiny baby who couldn't argue his way out of a paper bag.

My arguments stand quite nicely for themselves; thank you. It is just icing on the cake to point out that your posts bespeak cowardice and hypocrisy.

Error: weak attempts at personal insults while ignoring substantive debate do not constitute arguments.

[_KevinSim]

I wish you'd stop putting my name in quotes... makes me feel somewhat, um, omnipotent.

Sorry about that! Can I at least capitalize your name? I won't if you don't want me to; I think I just have an inhibition about calling someone by a name that isn't capitalized, which is why I usually put such names in quotes.

To your point, defined by the "so what" argument, what you fail to acknowledge is that Joseph Smith claimed to see treasure hidden underground using his seer stones; the same seer stones used to "translate" the Book of Mormon ("translate" being the operative word). Treasure guardians were what was believed to guard the treasures, and they were evil.

Thews, how did you go about determining that treasure guardians are evil?

For the record Kevin, I like you. You don't have to like me, but I admire your moxie. You defend your beliefs based on experience, but in discussion we must rely on fact, as I don't share your experience nor do you mine.

Actually, Thews, I like you as much as I like anybody on this forum. I haven't been posting on "www.mormondiscussions.com" long enough to cast in concrete any opinions on other posters to this forum, but I certainly don't dislike you or anybody else I have seen post so far.

I have no problem with the idea of using facts to draw conclusions about God, if any such facts were to exist. Are you aware of any such facts? I have formed the opinions I have formed, that you say I've defended from my experience, because I've tried to discover facts that have anything at all to say about God, for a very long time, and am starting to doubt that any such facts exist. So if you can tell me what some of those facts are, I'd really appreciate it.

This is a confusing answer. Are you claiming that while other religious options are inherently flawed, the LDS faith has fewer flaws; therefore, the lesser of two evils is somehow balanced in the scales of your options?

I don't see any flaws at all in the idea that the only way someone can gain a kernel of truth that someone can use as a certain foundation for that someone's own personal theology is to get that kernel of truth directly from God as a yes or no answer God directly gives that someone to a question asked, assuming that someone was willing to base the whole rest of her/his life on whatever answer God provided.

As for "other religious options," to be perfectly honest I don't know of any other means theologians use to explain how they know God endorses their theology. Like I say, I've been trying to find some other way of getting a certain foundation for one's theology for a long time, without coming up with any credible method, to the extent that by now I've grown pretty seriously suspicious that any such method exists.

The Egyptian language is translated into what it actually meant, and Joseph Smith's translation is wrong.

Nobody disputes that Joseph Smith's translation doesn't bear any remote resemblance to the actual contents of the papyrus found. The only question is whether the papyrus found actually is the papyrus Joseph translated in order to produce the Book of Abraham. There is solid evidence that it was at least among the documents Joseph used, but has anyone determined with any degree of certainty that the documents found were all the documents that Chandler sold Joseph Smith?

[_KevinSim]

Joseph Smith's doctrine is that of Joseph Smith and not from Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ existed while the supposed golden plates and the papyrus were buried in the ground. Back to logic and reason, logically, does it make sense to you that God (whichever God you choose to believe in according to Joseph Smith's doctrine) would allow Joseph Smith to die before the Book of Joseph and the JST were translated? Conversely, what does the Bible state on false prophets:

http://biblelight.net/false-prophets.htm

Deu 18:20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.
Deu 13:1 If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder,
Deu 13:2 and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, "Let us follow other gods" (gods you have not known) "and let us worship them,"
Deu 13:3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul.
Deu 13:4 It is the LORD your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him.
Deu 13:5 That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he preached rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery; he has tried to turn you from the way the LORD your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you.

Thews, as a Latter-day Saint I believe that God wants us to treat the Bible as scripture. But the reason I believe that is because the LDS Church teaches that God wants us to treat the Bible as scripture. Why do you believe that God wants us to treat the Bible as scripture? How have you concluded that God considers the Bible to be His word?

[_thews]

To your point, defined by the "so what" argument, what you fail to acknowledge is that Joseph Smith claimed to see treasure hidden underground using his seer stones; the same seer stones used to "translate" the Book of Mormon ("translate" being the operative word). Treasure guardians were what was believed to guard the treasures, and they were evil.

Thews, how did you go about determining that treasure guardians are evil?

Let's start with the concept of what type of spirit would be assigned to guard a treasure underneath the ground. If you lived back in 1830 and believed in folk magic, would you conclude angels guarded treasure? What would an angel need gold for? This is a byproduct of occult magic, and for those that believed in occult magic, rituals had to be performed to appease the treasure guardian guarding it. Joseph Smith claimed a dead Indian was thrown into the hole in the ground to guard the treasure during his glass looking trial. Are you claiming the dead Indian was some sort of angel?

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=18852

The 1826 Trial record spelled out:

“… he [Joseph Smith] discovered distinctly the two Indians who buried the trunk; that a quarrel ensued between them, and that one of said Indians was killed by the other, and thrown into the hole beside of the trunk, to guard it, as he supposed.” (1826 Glass Looking Trial, Jonathan Thompson testimony, Tuttle account)

more...
http://www.janishutchinson.com/joeoccult.html

For example, William Stafford, a contemporary of Smith tells how Joseph said there was a buried chest of gold watches guarded by an evil spirit. To pacify the spirit, he ordered stakes set up in the form of a circle. He then sent a man to obtain a long knife, or sword, and to march around the spot with drawn weapon to guard against any Satanic assaults. (Treasure spirits were usually considered evil and were thought to have the power to kill a person unless appeased by magic circles and blood sacrifices.)

In this activity, Joseph and his father worked in conjunction with each other. Often, while his father was performing this service for customers, Joseph would be in the house using his peep stone to keep track of what the evil spirit was doing. William Stafford again gives an account:

Joseph, Sr. first made a circle, twelve or fourteen feet in diameter. This circle, said he, contains the treasure. He then stuck a row of witch hazel sticks, around the said circles, for the purpose of keeping off the evil spirits. Within this circle he made another, of about eight or ten feet in diameter. He walked around three times on the periphery of this last circle, muttering to himself something which I could not understand. . . .[He then] asked leave of absence, and went to the house to inquire of young Joseph the cause of our disappointment. He soon returned and said, that Joseph had remained all this time in the house, looking in his stone and watching the motion of the evil spirit - that he saw the spirit come up to the ring and as soon as it beheld the cone which we had formed around the rod, it caused the money to sink.

For the record Kevin, I like you. You don't have to like me, but I admire your moxie. You defend your beliefs based on experience, but in discussion we must rely on fact, as I don't share your experience nor do you mine.

Actually, Thews, I like you as much as I like anybody on this forum. I haven't been posting on "www.mormondiscussions.com" long enough to cast in concrete any opinions on other posters to this forum, but I certainly don't dislike you or anybody else I have seen post so far.

Well thanks Kevin. In past discussions with Mormons, I've found most will attack the person making the point rather than address the issue. I apologize if I assumed you would take this path.

I have no problem with the idea of using facts to draw conclusions about God, if any such facts were to exist. Are you aware of any such facts? I have formed the opinions I have formed, that you say I've defended from my experience, because I've tried to discover facts that have anything at all to say about God, for a very long time, and am starting to doubt that any such facts exist. So if you can tell me what some of those facts are, I'd really appreciate it.

The are no facts to prove/disprove the existence of God. There are, however, facts to prove the truth claims of Joseph Smith are false. There never was an Urim and Thummim in Mormonism, as the only tools used by Joseph Smith to translate every single word of the Book of Mormon were his seer stones. Why does the LDS church hide this fact? Why do they hide the EAG and papyrus along with the seer stones (they have both of them) now? The basic concept of the Nephite spectacles being taken back as punishment doesn't make sense. The concept of the lost 116 pages doesn't make sense. If one translates a language into a different language, it's going to be the same every time. Why would Jesus Christ leave out the Mormon part in the first place? The supposed gold plates and pagan papyrus were buried in the ground while he was on earth while he was alive. Why was the Book of Abraham left out of the golden plates?

in my opinion, your null hypothesis is that Mormonism is true and the truth claims made by Joseph Smith are based on truth. If Joseph Smith was telling the truth, then why is there no tangible evidence to prove one single thing in the Book of Mormon as historically accurate? Why is there no evidence where Zelph was killed? If you change your perspective and assume the Book of Mormon is not true and Joseph Smith was not telling the truth, then the evidence you have to prove it is true doesn't have to be rationalized. It is either true and the Book of Mormon is of God, or it is not true and Mormonism is a myth.

This is a confusing answer. Are you claiming that while other religious options are inherently flawed, the LDS faith has fewer flaws; therefore, the lesser of two evils is somehow balanced in the scales of your options?

I don't see any flaws at all in the idea that the only way someone can gain a kernel of truth that someone can use as a certain foundation for that someone's own personal theology is to get that kernel of truth directly from God as a yes or no answer God directly gives that someone to a question asked, assuming that someone was willing to base the whole rest of her/his life on whatever answer God provided.

I'm still confused. I understand you believe God gave you an answer that Mormonism is true, but I don't believe you've taken into account that you may have been wrong regarding this "answer" you believe you received.

As for "other religious options," to be perfectly honest I don't know of any other means theologians use to explain how they know God endorses their theology. Like I say, I've been trying to find some other way of getting a certain foundation for one's theology for a long time, without coming up with any credible method, to the extent that by now I've grown pretty seriously suspicious that any such method exists.

I agree. My beliefs (I am a Christian as I believe Jesus Christ was God) are based on what I believe and not based on what I'm told I should believe. I don't subscribe to any organized religion, because I don't believe the point of life is to pass some sort of test. If there was a religion that was 100% verifiable based on fact, then we would all subscribe to it. If God poked his head out of the clouds and told us all to become Jews, we would... as least I would if I had confirmation from God.

The inverse of buying into an organized religion is, to some, to reject the concept of God (God defined only as an entity). I find logic in the Atheist that doesn't reject the concept of God, but doesn't accept it either. To blindly claim that we exist based on matter just *happening* and random chemicals mixing together is illogical in my opinion. Based on logic, I also find the concept of hell illogical, so I don't believe in it. What if I'm wrong? OK... I'm good with that, as it is what I believe. The point of this, is that what you believe is what you really believe, and anyone who tells you what's going to happen to you based on what you believe is based on their opinion. Find truth to back up what you believe and you have your answer. If it's based on doctrine from a glass-looker through seer stones placed in a hat, then that's where you found truth.

The Egyptian language is translated into what it actually meant, and Joseph Smith's translation is wrong.

Nobody disputes that Joseph Smith's translation doesn't bear any remote resemblance to the actual contents of the papyrus found. The only question is whether the papyrus found actually is the papyrus Joseph translated in order to produce the Book of Abraham. There is solid evidence that it was at least among the documents Joseph used, but has anyone determined with any degree of certainty that the documents found were all the documents that Chandler sold Joseph Smith?

Look at the source of the documents Kevin. The pagan faith used a papyrus to aid the person who died in the afterlife. The Egyptian documents and 4 mummies Joseph Smith bought from Michael Chandler were smuggled out of Egypt. The papyrus was inserted into the mummy. I've heard claims by some LDS posters that claimed they were "as big as a room" and were all lost. This doesn't make sense, and the Book of Joseph being lost doesn't either. What happened to the Book of Joseph? The papyrus Joseph Smith used is in the possession of the LDS church and they hide it from you. It has a map of Kirkland glued to the back. Joseph Smith's Egyptian Alphabet and grammar is 100% wrong. Your argument from silence based on what is not, ignores what is. Does it really make sense to you that God would send Joseph Smith the golden plates, but leave out the henotheistic (vs. the monotheistic Book of Mormon) part? Does any of this make sense from a Christian perspective?

Food for thought...
http://mormonthink.com/book-of-abraham-issues.htm