Who really wrote The Book of Mormon? Introducing Athanasius Kircher!

Have you ever heard of Athanasius Kircher? Neither had I! And yet he seems to be the key to understanding the true origin of "The Book of Mormon" with his references to Nephi, his Liahona-like gadgets, and his writings of spirituality-based magnetism.
Image/info credit goes to www.howthebookofmormoncametop...
/ @howitcametopass
Amazon: a.co/d/1sOqv4Z

[@tylerahlstrom4553]

When you cherry pick data points, you can make two unrelated events seem connected. Look at all the similarities of the assassinations of Lincoln and Kennedy. Were they related or just coincidences? Similarly, Nephi is a unique name, but not totally unheard of. The apocrypha mentions the name Nephi (2 Maccabee’s). While coincidental, it doesn’t show one led to other. Also, the compasses in the museum compared to the Liahona mentioned in the Book of Mormon is a stretch and made to give this tenuous relationship more credibility than it has.

[@jgoldensshadow]

I addressed this book directly on TikTok. Needless to say, it's a massive stretch to make any kind of connection to Kircher and Joseph.

[@dennisbowden3985]

Hey JGolden! We chatted on Twitter a bunch! I agree, it's a stretch. I was pretty disappointed to find the author had built his case on so many assumptions, the main one being that Professor Smith had started on a novel that he passed down to Spalding. For this theory to hold water, I gotta see the manuscript from either Smith, from Spalding, or Rigdon. Not having one, this is pure guess work. I mean, is it technically possible that Smith wrote a document that Spalding expanded, that Rigdon got a copy of, which he mistook for genuine scripture in answer to his prayers? Sure... It's also technically possible OJ didn't kill his wife... Are there Kircherisms in Mormonism? Maybe...? But taking them from the cultural milieu seems a more likely candidate than an as yet undiscovered document. Whatever the case may be, I think the author is correct that Joseph Smith had no idea who Athanasius Kircher was. I was glad to see him admit that.

[@jgoldensshadow]

@@dennisbowden3985 Unfortunately, it goes beyond the cultural milieu. The connections that Nielson tries to make between Kircher and Joseph go beyond nonsensical. To believe that certain events in Kircher's life were influential on Joseph Smith would be to suggest that Joseph gave himself a leg infection, arranged for himself to be tarred and feathered, instigated his own personal betrayal while retaining enough influence over his former followers to direct them not to betray him further, and so on. If these connections that Nielson raises are deemed by him to be coincidental, any and all connections are just as coincidental. But you're right, this entire hypothesis rests on whether or not Professor Smith's manuscript existed, that it somehow got into Spaulding's hands, where he never got around to finishing it, when Sydney Rigdon got his hands on it and then sent Parley P. Pratt to New York to convince Joseph to repent of his occultist ways. Setting aside the timeline issues of when Joseph knew Sydney and Parley even existed, that is.

[@user-og2wt3le4j]

Yep. Just like Book of the Hebrews and The Spaulding Manuscript.

[@larsnielsen1606]

@@dennisbowden3985 Who put the Kircherisms in what eventually became The Book of Mormon? Why did that person do that? Kircher wasn't in Smith's milieu (go ahead and try to establish that). But even if he was, why would he put such undermining details into his "scripture"?

[@dennisbowden3985]

@@larsnielsen1606 Hi Lars, I enjoyed your book! I agree when you say Joseph wouldn't have had knowledge of Kircher or his "isms". And maybe they weren't in his milieu either. I just think the Rigdon to Pratt to Joseph pipeline is unlikely. Are there alternatives you've considered?

[@FridaCollins-un7lu]

Was Kercher famous at the time? How would Joseph Smith have found out about him?

[@AB-ok8lu]

Ecclesiastes in the bible does say there is nothing new under sun. The world cycles on

[@scotthullinger4684]

The words "nothing new under the sun" don't appear in Ecclesiastes.

[@larsnielsen1606]

@@scotthullinger4684 Yes, they do. See the New International Version of Ecclesiastes 1:9. The words in the old King James Version are: "there is no new thing under the sun." If you wrote your comment in earnest, please recalibrate your abilities as a fact checker. If you thought your response was clever because you don't accept the New International Version, you're exposing yourself as disingenuous and duplicitous on the internet, Scott.

[@scotthullinger4684]

@@larsnielsen1606 - What the hell do you think the actual context of the scripture is? Context very MUCH matters. And by the way ... I don't give a shit about any New International version of the Bible. The King James version is the world wide standard. Every new attempt at clarification with new translations by worldly men only ends up changing the intended meaning of scripture. NO - I don't accept that version. And now, YOU must tell me why you do, and why you reject other versions. This ought to be fun and illuminating as more a reference of who YOU are, rather than what the Bible is.

[@scotthullinger4684]

@@larsnielsen1606 - Here's the FULL verse of that scripture, Ecclesiastes 1:9 - "The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun." I happen to interpret this as meaning, very clearly and simply, that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Hmm, seems to me as if THOSE words also appear in the Bible - "There is no new thing under the sun" makes NO reference whatsoever to there somehow NOT being any other scripture in existence. And just because you have a closed mind doesn't happen to make your interpretation of things any more valid, or valid at all - Even the Bible is divided into the Old Testament, and the New Testament ... A time both before the arrival of Christ, and after his arrival. Christ fulfilled all things, and he fulfilled every prophesy of his prophets. Before and after: That's Christ's story in a nutshell. The Book of Mormon is a history of Christ's dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas, a people of the House of Israel - sons of Jacob, and Issac, and Israel. It's a story of the righteous Nephites, and the wicked Lamanites - sons of Nephi, and the sons of Laman & Lemuel. They were ALL sons of their Father / Prophet named Lehi. THOSE are just a few of the handful of main characters in the first few books of "The Book of Mormon." Mormon is the man who, in the end, more or less made a compendium history unit, the grand total of The Book of Mormon. Mormon was a prophet and military leader who engraved the total history onto thin sheets of gold which the modern day prophet Joseph Smith translated with the gift and power of God. It was written in "reformed Egyptian."

[@larsnielsen1606]

@@scotthullinger4684 1) You claimed that @AB-ok8lu misquoted the Bible; you were wrong; you pretended to be a fact-checker; you revealed yourself as disingenuous in that regard; your reply to me is both defensive and disturbing. All this negatively reflects on you, not on @AB-ok8lu. 2) The King James Version is widely regarded by nearly all Bible scholars (including current Mormon bible scholars) as very inaccurate and not the best version. 3) The version that I might prefer (if I have a preference) is irrelevant. You say that I now "must" tell you certain things. In reality (not where you live), I don't have to do things that you say I "must." Perhaps I would if you would behave more respectfully online. You do not. So I will not answer your question.

[@Mike-nq7fn]

1. Historical Timeline: Athanasius Kircher, a Jesuit scholar and polymath, lived from 1602 to 1680. The Book of Mormon was first published in 1830, nearly 150 years after Kircher’s death. It is historically impossible for Kircher to have had any direct involvement in its creation due to this significant time gap. 2. Geographical and Contextual Discrepancies: Kircher spent most of his life in Europe, primarily in Germany and Italy, and was deeply involved in scholarly and religious pursuits typical of a 17th-century Jesuit priest. The Book of Mormon was written in the early 19th century in the United States by Joseph Smith, who claimed to have translated it from golden plates shown to him by an angel named Moroni. The contexts and geographical settings of the two figures are entirely different. 3. Lack of Historical Evidence: There is no credible historical evidence linking Kircher to the Book of Mormon. Scholarly research and historical records do not support any connection between Kircher’s works and the content, themes, or origins of the Book of Mormon. 4. Content and Language: Kircher was known for his works in fields such as linguistics, geology, and Egyptology, and he wrote extensively on a variety of subjects. However, the language, religious themes, and narrative style of the Book of Mormon do not align with Kircher’s known writings or interests. 5. Origin of the Claim: Claims linking historical figures like Kircher to the authorship of the Book of Mormon often stem from conspiracy theories or attempts to discredit the book’s origins. These claims typically lack rigorous scholarly support and rely on speculative or non-evidentiary arguments. In summary, the significant differences in timeline, geography, context, lack of historical evidence, and the nature of Kircher’s and Smith’s works collectively make the claim that Athanasius Kircher helped write the Book of Mormon untenable and unsupported by credible scholarship.

[@3thingsfishing427]

So you live in a world where no one in JS's circle could have ever heard about Kircher? Wow.

[@HowItCameToPass]

@Mike-nq7fn 1) I do not claim that Kircher had any direct involvement in the creation of The Book of Mormon. 2) The Book of Mormon was not written by Joseph Smith. Spalding wrote a text that fell into the hands of Sidney Rigdon, who mistook it for genuine ancient American scripture, as Spalding had intended with his Bible-based fan fiction. Rigdon sought out Smith to find the cave of plates because he believed Spalding's text to be real. Smith said he could find the plates--just as he always did. The contexts and geographical settings need not be the same; knowledge of one can influence the production of the other. 3) Tenured history professors have assured me that my hypothesis is scholarly (that Nephi, the spiritually magnetic compass, etc. were deliberately placed in the text by someone sufficiently educated on Kircher). 4) I'm afraid you don't know how "influence" works. I can write a book that is clearly influenced by Beyonce without having to echo all her views and opinions. 5) My theory is no conspiracy theory. It is data-driven. 6) You deliberately or ignorantly mischaracterize my thesis by saying that it is a "claim that Athanasius Kircher helped write the Book of Mormon." That is not my claim at all. Please consider becoming informed before spewing gross misinformation on the internet.

[@HowItCameToPass]

@@3thingsfishing427 I live in the real world and vet statements with scholarly research. The specific Kircherisms that I discuss were not in Joseph Smith's milieu. I encourage you to try to find evidence that they were. Deep details on Kircher's life were only known to a handful of linguistics professors, like Professor John Smith, who was a college librarian and a rare-book dealer. Remember to try to conduct research before posting knee-jerk reactions.

[@josephromer1626]

My question is why Nibley purchased all things Kircher and then immediately put into church vault?

[@HowItCameToPass]

@@josephromer1626 A great question, indeed! I explore that in the book, but the short answer is likely that he bought as much as he could initially because he wanted to understand the apparent Kircherisms so that he could find a faith-promoting defense. When he couldn't make sense of them, he decided to bury his observations with smoke and mirrors.

[@MrArtist7777]

Some 15 different men in ancient America, wrote the Book of Mormon, with Mormon combining their records into one set of plates. Joseph Smith translated the plates from Egyptian to English. There's the answer to your question.

[@thuggie1]

Athanasius Kircher and joseph smith work while sounding similar in nature cannot be compared Kircher while his work was inaccurate was set in a purely academic mode on the other hand Smiths is purely based along spiritual and supernatural claims and should be treated as such. also there is no evidance in the works that they have any realo cross over which indicates Smith never read Kircher 's work.

[@andrewreed4216]

Chief midegah of the ojibwe nation and the birch bark scrolls. The nemenhah records. Worth checking out both these.

[@TheYarnman]

No one was around in genesis ether, the angles told him what to write,

[@daneastill2058]

U really need to do your homework and the history behind the book of mormon and the man who translated it not wrote it.

[@Jjj53214]

You said Joseph Smith never had an original idea in his life. Really? I challenge you to discuss Smith’s interpretation of the gospel of Christ as presented in the Book of Mormon. I know you will not do that. You are only focused on the side point of historicity, like so many other superficial critics.

[@RyanWhetten]

I read the book and my mind was blown at all the connections he found.

[@laurabeauchamp1215]

Have you tried reading the Book of Mormon? When someone makes a number of statements like "might be" and "It appears", you can be sure he's innuendoing himself right into the Anti-Mormon Hall of Fame with Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Hank Hannegraf, Walter Martin and many others. Why is it ok to slam the Mormons, but not Jews, Catholics and so forth? I don't hear or read any loud criticism about the Midrash or the Post Nicene Fathers.

[@ryanjosiah]

​@@laurabeauchamp1215Why would someone who spent their whole life in Mormonism talk about how harmful Catholicism is? Or why would someone who grew up as an Orthodox Jew talk about how harmful Mormonism is? There are communities of former believers of ALL faiths. You just see the exmormon community because that's YOUR world.

[@yasaf934]

In laura's defense, she said "anti"​ not "exmo". A person doesnt need to have left a religion to be critical of said religion. I live in a region surrounded by Protestants, some of which preach to their congregants about how much of a cult the Church is. Also, I've talked with people who are no longer members and could care less as to what the Church teaches or its history. @ryanjosiah

[@scotthullinger4684]

@@yasaf934 - Anti and Exmo are essentially the same thing, quite seriously.

[@GldnClaw]

@@ryanjosiah plenty of non-jews talk about harms of jews, but usually it looks like "[Comment Removed]"

[@RichardHolmes-ll8ii]

Peer reviewed research from the Berkeley group confirm only a 1 in a 15 trillion chance that Nephi and Alma were written by the same author.

[@brucenorth5337]

There cannot be any connection to Kircher. The history of Joseph's translation makes it logically impossible. @ryanjosiah is grasping at straws, and I wish him the best in his faith journey.

[@scotthullinger4684]

The entire book has MANY multiple authors. That's no secret. Hmm, and as if those idiots could actually calculate the "odds" of who wrote which chapters in any event? Just a dumb shit number they pulled out of thin air.

[@RichardHolmes-ll8ii]

​@@scotthullinger4684I don't understand.

[@scotthullinger4684]

@@RichardHolmes-ll8ii - What don't you comprehend that I can clear up for you? Maybe the fact that the Book of Mormon had several authors? If so, then yes indeed - it surely does - just like the Bible also has several authors. Both books are records of history as much as records of scripture. Now, it of course makes me curious about what that Kircher guy had to say about the translation? Nephi is a man, just like Alma is. They each authored their own portion of the book explaining their personal experiences, and those of their families with regard to God. Think of Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John. Four different men, each expressing his own observations and personal experiences. There are many unknown details, of course, but the problem is when people only pay heed to mysteries, rather than learning doctrine. You know ... the sort of idiot who constantly denies the miracles of Jesus. And Jesus was resurrected, just as we shall be upon our death. He is the advocate to the Father, and does his work. His sacrifice was NOT on the cross, but was accomplished previously in the Garden of Gethsemane, where his suffering for the pain of our sins caused him to bleed from every pore as a result of his expiatory agony ... His sacrifice was entirely voluntary & vicarious - very specifically for our benefit.

[@scotthullinger4684]

"Peer reviews" means "personal opinion."

[@Mike-nq7fn]

It is historically impossible for Kircher to have had any direct involvement in its creation due to this significant time gap. 1. Historical Timeline: Athanasius Kircher, a Jesuit scholar and polymath, lived from 1602 to 1680. The Book of Mormon was first published in 1830, nearly 150 years after Kircher’s death. 2. Geographical and Contextual Discrepancies: Kircher spent most of his life in Europe, primarily in Germany and Italy, and was deeply involved in scholarly and religious pursuits typical of a 17th-century Jesuit priest. The Book of Mormon was written in the early 19th century in the United States by Joseph Smith, who claimed to have translated it from golden plates shown to him by an angel named Moroni. The contexts and geographical settings of the two figures are entirely different. 3. Lack of Historical Evidence: There is no credible historical evidence linking Kircher to the Book of Mormon. Scholarly research and historical records do not support any connection between Kircher’s works and the content, themes, or origins of the Book of Mormon. 4. Content and Language: Kircher was known for his works in fields such as linguistics, geology, and Egyptology, and he wrote extensively on a variety of subjects. However, the language, religious themes, and narrative style of the Book of Mormon do not align with Kircher’s known writings or interests. 5. Origin of the Claim: Claims linking historical figures like Kircher to the authorship of the Book of Mormon often stem from conspiracy theories or attempts to discredit the book’s origins. These claims typically lack rigorous scholarly support and rely on speculative or non-evidentiary arguments. In summary, the significant differences in timeline, geography, context, lack of historical evidence, and the nature of Kircher’s and Smith’s works collectively make the claim that Athanasius Kircher helped write the Book of Mormon untenable and unsupported by credible scholarship.

[@GldnClaw]

Ah man, it's just the recycled tropes with a layer of dramatic insinuation. Why aren't Ex-mo's more interesting and fun with the theories? Like, tackle the Oahspe bible angle. I found that a few weeks ago and it's at least new material for you guys.

[@thomasfischer9259]

Fine line between cope and hope

[@scotthullinger4684]

The actual TRUTH of the world generally isn't too much "fun" for the most insane in the world. Such people make it there everlasting GOAL to absolutely DESTROY all access to genuine truth. They do so because they simply CANNOT tolerate the TRUTH - These days, most people deny the truth even when it's staring them in the face. Take the world of politics, for example. People declare genuine lies as truth, and they also declare genuine truths as full blown lies. Satan is the father of LIES ... and such people follow SATAN. It works the same exact way in the world of Ex-Mormons.

[@HowItCameToPass]

@@scotthullinger4684 You are still more than the comment you just made (and the one you made on here the week before). Scientists and historians are not out to destroy genuine truth; we try to uncover it through established, reliable, and productive methodologies. Rather than engage with this new information, you're finding reasons to not engage with it (which are fear-based and conspiratorial). I wish you the best of luck in maintaining/improving your mental health. I genuinely want you to be healthy and happy.

[@charlesnunno8377]

Beautiful.

[@Jsppydays]

Bought the book Lars Nelson wrote. Love it and very enlightening. Serious truths...

[@davidjohnmiller4849]

What about the book “ View of the Hebrews” written by Ethan Smith , published in 1823 , in Vermont ! ... and very it’s interesting to look up the publisher ...and this book and it’s author’s connection to Oliver Cowdery , ya that guy ! ... there’s no such thing as coincidence

[@HowItCameToPass]

@davidjohnmiller4849 In fact there are some coincidences; they exist. But you're right that some apparent coincidences stem from a common source. Such is the case here. Ethan Smith and Solomon Spalding were both students of Professor John Smith at Dartmouth. They had similar educations, worldviews, and ambitions. I discuss the Ethan Smith connection well. The most important observation is that Ethan Smith lived for two decades after The Book of Mormon was published. If Ethan Smith had written a fiction that was somehow stolen/transmogrified into The Book of Mormon, one would have expected him to say something on the subject in those 19 years, especially given how hard he evangelized against Mormonism.

[@scotthullinger4684]

@@HowItCameToPass - Take note that Ethan Smith waited a few decades before he wrote a book about his observations and opinions, at a time when Joseph Smith had already been dead for YEARS - It's of course always easy to talk shit about a dude after he's DEAD, and can no longer defend his own opinions and absolute facts - The rest you take on faith. Not too different from how a court of law works.

[@scotthullinger4684]

Yes, what about it? What's the actual point? Make it CLEAR - And tell me what difference it makes if the author has a connection to Oliver Cowdery?

[@grayman7208]

LOL idiotic nonsense. but, keep trying. we can all use a laugh once in awhile.

[@billiondollarsworthofgame]

Or maybe he found it or had it first

[@RichardHolmes-ll8ii]

The Book of Mormon was written by multiple authors eons ago.

[@KendraAndTheLaw]

Bwahahaha

[@RWSProductions55]

I totally agree, Joseph did NOT write the BOM, he plagiarized/stole it like he did everything else he wanted. it Sounds like Tartarian high tech gadgets - and the museum is TOTALLY a tartarian structure! I don't think Kircher created it, but maybe "inherited it" and tried to figure out how it worked hahaha. Thanks for your research, I have been trying to figure out where Joseph heisted his information.

[@charlesmendeley9823]

I read the book and found it entertaining. But in the end, the facts don't add up and are not the simplest solution (Occam's razor). A simpler silution: Luman Walters has supposedly studied "animal magnetism", aka. Mesmerism in France and Europe. He could have easily picked up the idea and taught it zo Joseph. However, Mesmerism was em vogue anyway (cf. D. Michael Quinn's Magic Woldview book). The issue with the Spalding Rigdon theory is that the Book of Mormon is an inherently oratory book. Joseph dictated it on the fly with all its errors. It is not complex at all, but has many unrelated narratives and new starts (multiple migrations to America). The main issue is that it has many details pinpointing it to the 1820s, e.g. antimasonry.

[@brucenorth5337]

After reading about Luman Walters, I can't see him as a positive influence in Joseph's life. Since the Book of Mormon only teaches us to believe in Jesus Christ and follow Christ's gospel, I don't see this as any connection.

[@charlesmendeley9823]

@@brucenorth5337 the discussion is not about a positive influence, but about specific details in the book of Mormon which Lars Nielsen considers to be Kircherisms, i.e. stemming from Athanasius Kircher. Luman Walters could have picked them up while studying in Paris.

[@brucenorth5337]

@@charlesmendeley9823 replied, "...specific details in the book of Mormon which Lars Nielsen considers to be Kircherisms, i.e. stemming from Athanasius Kircher. Luman Walters could have picked them up while studying in Paris." Maybe, Charles. There's no documented proof Walters ever studied anything, or even traveled from the States to Europe. This is hearsay at best: all repeated decades later, and probably originating from the same source: Walters own claim. Whether he did or not is inconsequential, as I will explain. The theory of Joseph being influenced by Kircher's writings, no matter the means, supposes Joseph wrote the Book of Mormon himself. Joseph did not, nor did any contemporary. This has been proven may times and from many angles. • We have original manuscripts from Joseph's dictation of the Book of Mormon. There are no revisions and few corrections. There is only one draft. The entire process was completed in well under 90 days. All of this is documented. • There are several documented witnesses to the translation process. No one said Joseph used any notes of any kind. After any break, Joseph picked up from exactly where he had left off, with no reading back of previously transcripted words. The only explanation, that isn't a supernatural one, is that Joseph memorized the whole thing-well over a quarter million words-perfectly, with no edits and few corrections. What he was supposed to have memorized cannot be explained by any critic: the hebraisms that were unknown by Joseph or his contemporaries, or the statistically proven multiple authors of the various books within the Book of Mormon, or many other features that would be impossible for a 23-year-old rural farmboy (or his contemporaries) to have understood and therefore intentionally included. The Book of Mormon has a stated purpose, ignored by every critic: "the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations." Few take on the actual doctinal content. Why is that? If the Book of Mormon teaches faith in Jesus Christ, then Joseph Smith can only be a true prophet of God. For some reason, that seems to be the actual problem.

[@larsnielsen1606]

No, The Book of Mormon is not "inherently" an oratory book. Joseph Smith read or dictated parts of it to scribes (maybe even most of it). But that doesn't mean that he composed the original story. He did make errors during dictation, yes, but that is expected under all subtheories. Masonry was a hot topic long before 1820. Most of the influences in The Book of Mormon text fit better with Spalding than with Smith.

[@danvogel6802]

The book sucks

[@danvogel6802]

@@Eric-vy1ux No, I don't think they had any ulterior motive. All rare books and manuscripts at BYU are kept in the safe. Nibley was interested in Kircher in association with the Egyptian papyri and JS's ideas about translating pre-Champolion. Lars Nielsen wants to stir up controversy for his book.

[@ryanjosiah]

Wow, thanks for that super insightful comment.

[@larsnielsen1606]

@@ryanjosiah @danvogel6802 Hi Ryan, Dan pretends to understand my motivations; he does not. Unfortunately, he has decided to take the lower road and be rude on multiple forums online. I invited him to discuss his concerns calmly and privately. He declined. I have catalogued all his online comments. From day one, they have displayed biased thinking, fallacious reasoning, and juvenile reactions. Scholars (who actually have higher degrees) are looking into the Kircherisms and their implications. If Dan were to take the high road, he would start there. Dan has collected many a document, which contribution is invaluable. However, if he is not careful, history may remember him as a sole-authorship apologist in the end.

[@YahisMyLife]

​@danvogel6802 that's very sad you act like that but by their fruits ye shall know them. I saw all of your videos and they helped me leave the church. Now that I see you act that way ..... I will never recommend your videos again. This is the second person I have seen that asked to talk to you on their show and you declined. Why? If you have the truth why worry? . Makes me wonder 🤔 who is truly behind this. Controlled opposition.

[@HowItCameToPass]

@@YahisMyLife @danvogel6802 I guess I would say that we all have our biases. Dan doubled-down on the sole-authorship theory a long time ago, so it is especially hard for him to digest new information that challenges his publications, which is understandable. But understandable is not the same thing as excusable or laudable. All we can do is our best and try to set the example of how to politely interact with our fellow men online.

[@Monkee7779]

Keep up the work. The cognitive dissonance is a powerful enemy.

[@user-gy6sx7md7z]

You and a million others have tried to disprove the Book of Mormon with tons of different kinds of Blah Blah. The only true test is to read the Book of Mormon, pray and ask God the Father if it is true or not. Let Him tell you thru the power of the Holy Ghost. Don't try to give a book report on a book you have not read and put to the test. You get an "F"

[@scotthullinger4684]

That's how it works with God and spiritual matters. God is not a Jr. high school project unless you approach the topic as such, which you have very clearly done. Your mind is very deliberately CLOSED. More like tightly sealed shut.

[@crackshot_cashew9385]

How would you respond to someone who prayed if it was true and felt they had a response that it was not true?

[@WatchingwaitingG2D]

Get a haircut. Start following commandments. And make a second appointment with the Wizard. You forgot something.

[@rogerpreble440]

Looooooser

[@larsnielsen1606]

Did you say "loser" in the name of Jesus Christ? Remember, you do all things in his name. Please do him better.