"Chat Live with a (Mormon) Missionary"... fails.

[hmm]

You will have to do it out of your own intellect—or not do it at all. You appear to me to be one of those kinds of people. You started off by pointing me to an article in CA (without putting any intellectual (name removed by moderator)ut into it yourself); and when I gave you my response to that, you are now referring me to a two volume book! That is not a discussion. It is not debate.

haha good points all, zerinus. So far, I’ve said nothing controversial, just referred you to others who have. Truly, this is not a discussion, or a debate… just an exchanging of personal opinions. To be honest, I’m not sure I want a debate. I like to present a case, like I did with that CA article, and hear the response. I’m not out to convert (as I’ve already said), but to invoke thoughtfulness on a particular subject… and in doing so, learn more myself. I refuse to go spouting off things from my “own intellect” that I can’t even be sure of, in this stage of my research. So I’ll keep doing what I have been doing, until I’m more sure of myself and the whats/whys/wheres/hows of the subject at hand.

Sorry to disappoint.

P.S. I took your advice with the MADB

And I am really curious to know what you were hoping to achieve by seeking such a discussion with Mormon missionaries on the LDS website?

The people on the website are much more at my level… or at least, my age. But I was wrong. With them, it’s exceedingly easy to get them going in circles, and that’s what I don’t want - I want a reasonable discussion on a subject that explores the fundamentals of our contrasting theologies… truthfully, that’s all I’m up to.

Were you thinking of telling them to go and read 20 books to prove to them how wrong they are? Are you serious about that?

Haha not at all. They have proven to be well-versed in their doctrine, but not in the “whys” of their doctrine, especially concerning well-known contradictions.

However, I refer you to the books, articles, etc. because I haven’t the gumption to debate with you, point by point, every issue you defend in your blog. That was a compliment

Hmm.

 

[zerinus]

haha good points all, zerinus. So far, I’ve said nothing controversial, just referred you to others who have. Truly, this is not a discussion, or a debate… just an exchanging of personal opinions.

The problem I have with that is that none of the “opinions” that you have so far expressed have been very “personal”. They have not been your own opinions, but other peoples’ opinions! I have yet to hear what is your opinion about anything.

P.S. I took your advice with the MADB

Interesting! I hope you will have your questions answered.

However, I refer you to the books, articles, etc. because I haven’t the gumption to debate with you, point by point, every issue you defend in your blog. That was a compliment

Well, if you find the arguments in my Blog post so convincing, why don’t you just agree with it, instead of trying to disagree with it by hook or crook!

zerinus

 

[hmm]

Hmm… that’s interesting that you say that my opinions haven’t been personal. I believe the words in the link I sent you, therefore making someone else’s “opinion” my own as well. Hope that clears that up.

Haha and it’s not that I find your blog so convincing to agree with it, it’s that, as a “baby” per se in the world of religious debate, I need to learn how to chew before I can eat a stick of gum

I’d like to be able to comprehensibly refute all the issues instead of just one or two here and there.

Hmm.

 

[zerinus]

Hmm… that’s interesting that you say that my opinions haven’t been personal. I believe the words in the link I sent you, therefore making someone else’s “opinion” my own as well. Hope that clears that up.

Haha and it’s not that I find your blog so convincing to agree with it, it’s that, as a “baby” per se in the world of religious debate, I need to learn how to chew before I can eat a stick of gum

I’d like to be able to comprehensibly refute all the issues instead of just one or two here and there.

Hmm.

That is okay; an honest religious discussion, however, should about more than hoping for a “comprehensive refutaion”. I hope it is also about the discovery of the truth, its comprehension, and acceptance.

zerinus

 

[hmm]

That is okay; an honest religious discussion, however, should about more than hoping for a “comprehensive refutaion”. I hope it is also about the discovery of the truth, its comprehension, and acceptance.

zerinus

most definitely an honest religious discussion should be more than hoping to be refuted… however, as we’ve already established, this is not quite a discussion. It’s an exchange of personal opinions.

Thanks for your thoughts.

 

[RebeccaJ]

hmm, please don’t ever take the advice, from anyone, to stop reading and learning and listen to them alone. Not anyone.

This will give you some insight as to why your interaction with Mormons is not what you are expecting.

Deflection is the number one rule of Mormon dialog.

 

[hmm]

hmm, please don’t ever take the advice, from anyone, to stop reading and learning and listen to them alone. Not anyone.

This will give you some insight as to why your interaction with Mormons is not what you are expecting.

Deflection is the number one rule of Mormon dialog.

ahh… it makes so much more sense. My MTC supervisor must have known Robert Millet personally

Thanks for being concerned, RebeccaJ. I’m a work in progress, but have a nice little goal of becoming a Catholic apologist, with particular interest in the LDS and various Protestant faiths.

It’s a humbling experience to be out-researched, however, I’m confident this won’t always be the case

 

[CassiusLonginus]

Hi Zerinus,

In the blog you linked to I found this:

But there is one thing that no one will argue about: the Roman Empire did fall! We know that it fell because we can see that it is not around any more. But ask two different people for a date, and you are likely to get two different answers. The same applies to the early Christian church. We know that it apostatized because we can see that the same church, with its original doctrinal and organizational characteristics, no longer exists in the world; but putting an exact date on it will not be possible for obvious reasons.

So far I haven’t gone much further as I wanted to ask about it since it’s fresh in my mind. We see, as is stated in the blog, that the Roman empire fell, but I cannot, for the life of me, figure out how you can jump to the similar conclusion that the early Christian church also ‘fell’. You claim that the original doctrinal and organizational characteristics no longer exist but this is so far from the truth.

I’m not sure if you’ve heard of the ‘Church Fathers’, but their writings coincide with the perennial Catholic teachings which have been upheld and reaffirmed these last two thousand years. From the apostles to the ‘apostasy’ it seems strange that there is such a uniformity in belief, in dogma, from before and after this apostacy is supposed to have taken place. Moreover, from the mouth of Christ himself the Church is given a guarantee that it would not fail. So, on the one hand we have prophets whose words one can apply anywhere, and on the other we have Christ’s specific promise.

Another issue to confront would be the Bible itself. The Catholic Church produced this book. Yes, 1st c. authors wrote the individual books, but the bible as a whole was codified long after this apostasy is supposed to have occured. Why do the LDS accept the ‘apostate’ Catholic table of contents for the New Testament? How would apostates discern, from hundreds of gospels and letters and testimonies, which are inspired by God? Moreover, the Catholic Church guarded this book these last two millenia. Early Catholic transators translated from originals, and later translators translated from the earlier ones. Who are you (the LDS, that is) to make any sort of authoritative judgement on whether it was translated correctly? I’ve heard LDS people say many times that they accept the bible ‘insofar as it is translated correctly’. As I recall, Joseph Smith had access to a King James, which is DEFINITELY not translated correctly. Some of the same errors that Smith made are the ones that the Protestants made. Wouldn’t Smith have known better if he were a prophet?

That leads me to my last question. I asked a mormon girl recently about prophecies regarding Joseph Smith (just so that we can prove he is what he claims to be) and she provided me with one (1…!!!) prophecy that could be applied to almost any man. Who’s claiming Joseph Smith is even a prophet??? What is this claim all about? For instance, Christ is the fulfillment of TONS of prophecies regarding Him (the other day I saw a poster on the wall of a classroom “100 Prophecies fullfilled by Christ” with O.T. verses etc.), so what are the prophecies regarding Smith? Where are they written, etc. The reason I ask is because ANYBODY can claim to be a prophet of God, but God wouldn’t send a prophet without already having prophecies for him to fulfill so the people know he’s true.

 

[bookgirl32]

From the video posted above:

Whenever a person asks me antagonistic question, I never answer that question, but I answer the question they should have asked.

Well that’s helpful.

 

[Tonks40]

So to all those Catholic/Mormon apologists… converts… or even Mormons themselves, my questions is: How do you start a real conversation with these 20-somethings (at the Missionary Training Center in Provo, Utah) that is based on the FACTS of history, science, etc. and not just on a “burning in the bosom” feeling?

You can’t. And it’s not even limited to the young Mormon missionaries. I recently had a discussion with a good friend of mine who stated that he wanted to know more about Catholicism. Instead, it turned out to be an effort for him to convert me.

The conversation became uncomfortable for him when I gave him contradictions from his own BOM and the Bible. He ended the conversation there.

I came to the conclusion - not only are they good at denial and self-deception, but any sort of same-level dialogue of doctrine cannot be accomplished between a Mormon and a Christian because there are two completely different languages being spoken…IOW - you cannot achieve common ground on doctrinal issues.

Just my :twocents:

 

[RebeccaJ]

You can’t. And it’s not even limited to the young Mormon missionaries. I recently had a discussion with a good friend of mine who stated that he wanted to know more about Catholicism. Instead, it turned out to be an effort for him to convert me.

This is not an unusual experience. Mormon “interest” in another person’s religious belief is often, if not usually, a conversion effort. Zerinus is showing that here, in this thread.

That is okay; an honest religious discussion, however, should about more than hoping for a “comprehensive refutaion”. I hope it is also about the discovery of the truth, its comprehension, and acceptance.

zerinus

Truth, to a Mormon is their belief in their Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith.

Zerinus is hoping that hmm comprehends and accepts this “truth”, ie, trolling for converts (as usual).

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

Zerinus is looking for a mormon “bishop” to pass this [another] hot potato question off to: either that or he needs another dose of “burning in the bosom” before sallying forth with his goofy pantheology.

Robert

 

[GTNJNightingale]

I will tell you what is wrong with that. You are trying to tell Mormon Missionaries how to do their job! Well, if they are not doing their job properly (in your estimation), why should you worry about that? That is their problem, not yours! If you believe in Mormonism, and think that you can do a better job of preaching its gospel, then by all means, join the Church, and preach it according to how you think it best should be done! If you are not interested in doing that, then I think your criticism of how Mormons do their own job is a bit out of place. The best answer that one can give to that is to say, Thank you for your advice! We will look into that, and if there is anything we can do to improve our performance will implement it.

Thank you again for your acvice! Maybe you are right, and the Church isn’t doing a very good job of it! If you are really concerned about that, you are welcome to write a letter to the Church headquarters, and present them with your suggestions on how they can improve! I am sure your suggestions will be gratefully received.

zerinus

that’s just the problem> it is just a job to them !. also Mormons like to put a lot of play on the whole Bible is incorrect thing and Joseph Smith somehow came and restored it! that bull ****. there are many many many translated bibles and some of them are incorrect(especially the one that they use) but to say something like that and to not have a deeper yearning to search and find the truth…to just settle at “oh the bible is translated wrong”…is having no faith what so ever in God and his word…and falling into fallacies of another man who “claims” he has the answers. (like Joseph smith)… if anyone is really concerned about the translation of a particular bible…there are thousands and all it takes is a little research…and if that isnt enough …you can always learn the language of the bible and read those!! so it is never ok to just settle at oh the bible is incorrect so im going to believe this other man and what he says …no faith! and blindly might i add!