Latter-day Saints launch "I'm a Mormon" ad campaign

Reuters ^ | Oct. 02, 2011 | Keith Coffman

[Saundra Duffy]

Thank you.

[af_vet_rr]

Over and over and over and over again folks on this site have said that I and all members of my church are members of a cult, that we are not Christians, that we are eternally lost, that our souls are doomed, etc., etc., etc., etc. These are all euphemisms for “Saundra, you are going straight to hell”.

It doesn’t seem to matter how many times I state my sincere Testimony of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and my belief in Him and my love for Him.

You're a very intelligent woman (and brave), but even you have to admit that the problem is not whether you believe in Jesus Christ, it's that you believe that Joseph Smith was an Apostle of Jesus, and a prophet, and that you believe in the Book of Mormon, and the other texts.

By trying to make this about you just being another person who believes in Christ and acting like you don't understand why people don't see your point of view, you're assuming a martyr complex or you're trying to turn this into a discussion of Jesus Christ. But to be honest, you're no more a martyr than Joseph Smith or his brother was, and this is not about Christ, it's about whether or not somebody can come along in the 19th century, declare themselves an Apostle of Christ and a prophet, and start adding to the Bible, and think it's going to end up well.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“It doesn’t seem to matter how many times I state my sincere Testimony of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and my belief in Him and my love for Him.”

And no matter how often you are asked to clarify WHICH Jesus you are referring to, you refuse to say...

I’m guessing you mean the created spirit-being of mormonism - ie, the false one

[HKMk23]

You remind me of the guy who read parts of the Bible and went around saying it is a silly work of fiction and only idiots would buy into it. Nothing but a crutch for simple-minded people to lean on. A bunch of morons.

Blah blah blah

Your analogy doesn't hold up, because "the guy who read parts of the Bible" is rejecting it based upon portions of its CONTENT.

By stark contrast, I lay actual content aside, and reject the Book of Mormon based entirely upon its nakedly fraudulent LINGUISTICS.

The Book of Mormon is a work translated in the early 1800's in America that somehow failed to be written in 19th Century American English. Worse, the pretension to 17th Century English is so embarrassingly dismal; how can anyone insist the book is to be taken seriously without blushing?

Had the first English translation of the Bible been produced in the United States in 2011, is there any sane person who thinks it would have been published in a shoddy style of language pretending to that of the early 19th Century; the American English of Noah Webster? Of course not; that would be absurd! What person in their right mind would expect anyone to believe a word of such a sham? And yet, that is the same as what has been done with the Book of Mormon; it was translated in the early 19th Century, but written in a form of English pretending to be that which had been out of common use for some 200 years!

So it is that I adjudge the Book of Mormon is transparently fraudulent; a barenaked hoax, balderdash, poppycock, pure bunkum and tummyrot. It is — quite literally — unbelievable.