Help with debating a Mormon

[ThuriferAcolyte]

The Catholics who call Mormons pro-choice realize that the Mormon church allows abortion in certain situations, after counseling and revelation, that are not life-threatening.

And you should really read these websites before commenting ignorantly on what the Catholic Church allows and doesn’t allow:

cuf.org/Faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=57
prolifephysicians.org/rarecases.htm
vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

There is quite a bit of difference between direct abortion (which the LDS church allows in certain, rare cases after counseling and personal revelation), and indirect abortion.

 

[sdtouchton]

Satan will give you 99 truths if he can get you to swallow one lie.

---

“And I will ask the Father and He will give you another Advocate to dwell with you forever, THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH WHOM THE WORLD CANNOT RECEIVE, BECAUSE IT NEITHER SEES HIM NOR KNOWS HIM. BUT YOU SHALL KNOW HIM, BECAUSE HE WILL DWELL WITH YOU AND BE IN YOU.”
John 14:16-17

“Many things yet I have to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when HE, THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH, has come, HE WILL TEACH YOU ALL THE TRUTH. For He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He will hear He will speak, and THE THINGS THAT ARE TO COME HE WILL DECLARE TO YOU.”
John 16:12-13

What message do these verses convey?
*To whom did Jesus speak in these verses?
This dialogue was during the Last Supper and the only ones’ present with Him were the Apostles. He told them that the Holy Spirit will dwell within the Church which He will found. He was not speaking to the masses here.
*That ALL is NOT in the Bible since there will be future declarations.
*That since truth is ONE, and is the person of Jesus Christ (John 14:6), that the Spirit certainly cannot declare a differing truth to each of 37,000 divisions of His Body.

So how do we answer each of those 37,000 divisions when they make the claim that “The Holy Spirit told them”?​

For those who claim that “The Holy Spirit told them”, I must ask, “Are there 37,000 Holy Spirits telling each division a different truth, or is there only one Spirit which speaks truth to the only Church which Jesus Christ founded and speaks lies to the rest?” Which option would answer the question? It is obvious that neither does, for Holy Scripture gives us the answer.

“We are of GOD. He who knows GOD listens to us; he who is not of GOD does not listen to us. BY THIS WE KNOW THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH AND THE SPIRIT OF ERROR.”
1John 4:6

---

There are three spirits, anyone one of which could be the one who is prompting a person.

1. There is first the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, and His prompting is from GOD.
2. Then there is the human spirit which manufactures the prompts through the imagination and other human traits.
3. Finally, there is the evil spirit and its prompting is straight from Satan.

The Spirit of truth is in the Church of truth, the Church which Jesus Christ founded.

How do we determine which Spirit is prompting each of us? Holy Scripture gives us the answer.

“And we are witnesses to these things, and SO IS THE HOLY SPIRIT, WHOM GOD HAS GIVEN TO ALL WHO OBEY HIM.”
Acts 5:32
All who obey Him are prompted by the Holy Spirit. The disobedient are prompted by one of the other spirits.
“Obey your prelates and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls: that they may do this with joy and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you.”
Hebrews 13:17
This is a command from GOD.
Was Martin Luther and the other reformers obedient to their superiors?
Did they obey GOD’s command in this verse? No? Then which of the other two spirits was guiding them?

We obey GOD by keeping His Commandments and His Word whether by word or by letter. In the first Commandment, GOD tells us that He must be first in our lives.
What is most important in our lives is the god of our lives. Do we put GOD first, or do we put money, or power, or worldly things, or the flesh first? If GOD is first in your lives, it is a good sign that the Holy Spirit is prompting you.

home.inreach.com/bstanley/

 

[twopekinguys]

What part of 'the only incest that could qualify here is rape" did you not get? A woman who 'decides to have sex with her brother" isn’t going to worry about asking the church authorities for counseling in this matter.

No, they obviously are not, because when you are faced with this situation, it’s OK…you perform a medical procedure that is required to save the life of the woman, and if that procedure is 100% fatal to the fetus, it’s still not abortion. However, if a MORMON woman, after counseling, decides to have the same procedure, you call it an abortion.

and that, sir, is why I am disgusted with those Catholics who call us ‘anti-life’ or ‘pro-choice,’

It’s the hypocrisy.

If a person went in for open heart surgery and died on the table, would you call it murder?

 

[placido]

I don’t recall denying that.

If you never denied that, then you have to rescind your earlier claim that the number of apostles was fixed at 12. You can’t have it both ways.

We know of at least one other apostle who died early on, and that was James who was put to death by Herod (Acts 12:2). There may have been others.

Then, that means the number was not fixed at 12 as you said earlier. Thank you for the admission.

It takes revelation to know of these things, since the information does not exist in the Bible. Church government is sufficiently important that it requires revelation to know how to do it properly.

Wrong. No revelation is needed on how to run an institution. That is why there is no mention of “First Presidency” in the Bible, but you have it nevertheless.

I was talking about the Twelve in the ancient church, when most of the original members including Peter were still alive. In those days Peter was the presiding officer of the Twelve. Nowadays others serve in that capacity.

But the “others in that capacity” came there without a quorum … I hope you know that.

It is not “whatever reason”. I gave you the reasons which were logical and made sense.

To you at least, but not to me and many others.

Peter, James, and John came down as angelic ministers to restore the priesthood on earth.

You are free to believe in fiction as if it was non-fiction, but please don’t force it down our throats.

When Jesus ordained the Twelve Apostles during His ministry, He ordained them one at a time, not all at once.

And your sources for that is … yourself.

In the early days of the LDS Church too things had to be done one step at a time, while the Church was being organized. The Apostles couldn’t be ordained all at once; it had to be done one at a time. Once the organization was complete, however, it remained complete to this day—new members being added as older ones have passed away (or apostatized).

You may not know it but that is one more admission that the ways things are done in your church differs from how things were done in the ancient church … so much for the alleged restoration.

placido

 

[why_me]

If a person went in for open heart surgery and died on the table, would you call it murder?

But on the other hand, if the mother knows that she will die if she gives birth to the baby, could it be considered suicide since she knowing took her own life?

I think in Mormon theology, an abortion does not abort the spirit that is waiting for a body. That spirit will gain another body. Now if the baby is born, the spirit is there. But not until the birth. But I am not sure about this.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

But on the other hand, if the mother knows that she will die if she gives birth to the baby, could it be considered suicide since she knowing took her own life?

I think in Mormon theology, an abortion does not abort the spirit that is waiting for a body. That spirit will gain another body. Now if the baby is born, the spirit is there. But not until the birth. But I am not sure about this.

Is that definitive or your speculation?

lightplanet.com/family/children/spirit_womb.html
lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=3a1a71ec9b17b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

 

[zerinus]

If you never denied that, then you have to rescind your earlier claim that the number of apostles was fixed at 12. You can’t have it both ways.

By that I meant that the Twelve Apostles form a quorum which can only have 12 members. I did not mean that none of them could ever die. If one (or more) of them dies then obviously there is a vacancy in the quorum which needs to be filled. Until that vacancy is filled the number of Apostles will obviously be less than 12.

Then, that means the number was not fixed at 12 as you said earlier. Thank you for the admission.

See above. The death of the Apostle James means that after the ordination of Paul there were still 12 Apostles, not 13 as you had erroneously suggested.

Wrong. No revelation is needed on how to run an institution. That is why there is no mention of “First Presidency” in the Bible, but you have it nevertheless.

The organization of the LDS Church came by revelation, period. Whether you choose to believe it or not does not alter the reality of that fact.

But the “others in that capacity” came there without a quorum … I hope you know that.

No I don’t. Sorry placido, but you are one of the most illogical debater I have ever come across. I give up.

 

[placido]

By that I meant that the Twelve Apostles form a quorum which can only have 12 members. I did not mean that none of them could ever die. If one (or more) of them dies then obviously there is a vacancy in the quorum which needs to be filled. Until that vacancy is filled the number of Apostles will obviously be less than 12 … The death of the Apostle James means that after the ordination of Paul there were still 12 Apostles, not 13 as you had erroneously suggested.

And don’t forget that Paul was apostle (Acts 9) before James was killed (Acts 12). Now, if Judas had a successor why do you think James did not? That brings the number back to 13.

The organization of the LDS Church came by revelation, period.

Yes, but from a very strange source.

No I don’t. Sorry placido, but you are one of the most illogical debater I have ever come across. I give up.

That is well-known face-saving tactic. BTW, that would have surprised me a lot if you praised me for refuting what you said. You said a quorum of apostles (seven) is needed to transfer authority, yet only Peter, John and James supposedly transferred authority to Joseph Smith. Three out of 12 is no “quorum” my dear. Just accept that reality.

placido

 

[why_me]

Is that definitive or your speculation?

lightplanet.com/family/children/spirit_womb.html
lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=3a1a71ec9b17b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

I have never heard it actually discussed and so I am speculating. But if mormons have a preexistence made up of spirit children of heavenly father and heavenly mother, and these spirits are waiting for a body to possess, it would make sense that when a fetus is aborted it would have no affect on that spirit waiting for a physical body.

 

[ParkerD]

And don’t forget that Paul was apostle (Acts 9) before James was killed (Acts 12). Now, if Judas had a successor why do you think James did not? That brings the number back to 13.

Yes, but from a very strange source.

That is well-known face-saving tactic. BTW, that would have surprised me a lot if you praised me for refuting what you said. You said a quorum of apostles (seven) is needed to transfer authority, yet only Peter, John and James supposedly transferred authority to Joseph Smith. Three out of 12 is no “quorum” my dear. Just accept that reality.

placido

Placido,
Paul was not called as an apostle during the time being discussed in Acts 9. He had his vision on the road to Damascus as described in Acts 9, but that did not make him an apostle, nor was he referred to as such.

 

[placido]

Placido,
Paul was not called as an apostle during the time being discussed in Acts 9. He had his vision on the road to Damascus as described in Acts 9, but that did not make him an apostle, nor was he referred to as such.

Okay, now tell me: when did he become an apostle?

placido

 

[AMDGtoo]

If there was no Total Apostasy (as we claim) there would be no need for LDS revelation (as you claim) and so there would be no "well our revelation claims that there must be a “quorum” of 7 now but 12 then. No argument about whether Paul was considered to be an Apostle (making things 13 at what date) or whether James was killed early on (I believe that ancient records make that date around 64 AD and reducing the number of living original apostles.) IOW we don’t need to be caught up with numbers if historical records show that there was no Total Apostasy. And as two missionaries admitted to me–no need for the LDS church.

 

[why_me]

If there was no Total Apostasy (as we claim) there would be no need for LDS revelation (as you claim) and so there would be no "well our revelation claims that there must be a “quorum” of 7 now but 12 then. No argument about whether Paul was considered to be an Apostle (making things 13 at what date) or whether James was killed early on (I believe that ancient records make that date around 64 AD and reducing the number of living original apostles.) IOW we don’t need to be caught up with numbers if historical records show that there was no Total Apostasy. And as two missionaries admitted to me–no need for the LDS church.

The lds church is a restorationist church. The Luthern church is a reformist church. For a restorationist church it is important to stress the apostacy and the need for a restoration. For a reformist church it is necessary to tell why luthern needed to reform the catholic faith and when that failed begin his own reformist church.

When one looks into catholic history we can see the need for reform and the need for a restoration. Many things were happening after the apostles died. The question is: did the church become corrupt and lose its direction as time moved on?

 

[placido]

The lds church is a restorationist church. The Luthern church is a reformist church. For a restorationist church it is important to stress the apostacy and the need for a restoration. For a reformist church it is necessary to tell why luthern needed to reform the catholic faith and when that failed begin his own reformist church.

When one looks into catholic history we can see the need for reform and the need for a restoration. Many things were happening after the apostles died. The question is: did the church become corrupt and lose its direction as time moved on?

That is a very good question.

placido

 

[AMDGtoo]

The question is: did the church become corrupt and lose its direction as time moved on?

No. The question is was Jesus a liar when He stated in Matthew 16:18 “…upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” What do historical records say (records from many sources, secular–like those of the Roman Empire, Jewish–like the Jewish historians, Catholic–like the records held in all the communities mentioned in the Bible or the letters of the Early Church Fathers many who gave their lives for Jesus)? The question is also whether Jesus was a failure–twice for the LDS since the LDS claim that Jesus failed in the Church He founded and also in the one He supposedly started in America. (I guess the question then would be "is He who He said He was–God.)

 

[NewSeeker]

For a restorationist church it is important to stress the apostacy and the need for a restoration.

There never was a Great Apostasy and thus no need for a restoration. This makes the entire debate about Mormonism’s validity moot. There is nothing to justify its existence, which is not to say that individual Mormons aren’t great people and that the Mormon Church doesn’t do good things. It does do good things; it just isn’t True.

NS

 

[Stephen168]

What part of 'the only incest that could qualify here is rape" did you not get? A woman who 'decides to have sex with her brother" isn’t going to worry about asking the church authorities for counseling in this matter.

If a person went in for open heart surgery and died on the table, would you call it murder?

It would depend on if the person got counseling for the Mormon Church. They have the arrogance to declare themselves to holders of life and death over unborn babies. Killing innocent human beings (murder) is no longer intrinsically evil in the Mormon Church.
The point of this thread is the fallacious belief mormons have about the need for new revelation. Their revelation has added nothing but harm. The most recent example of the fruits of this fallacious revelation is the idea it is OK to murder unborn babies. Other fruits are canonizing works of fiction believing they were non-fiction at the time.

Christ left us with his Church, the Catholic Church, and everything we need to know for salvation. No Mormon has shown any NEED for new revelation for the whole Church.

 

[Kdesiel]

There never was a Great Apostasy and thus no need for a restoration. This makes the entire debate about Mormonism’s validity moot. There is nothing to justify its existence, which is not to say that individual Mormons aren’t great people and that the Mormon Church doesn’t do good things. It does do good things; it just isn’t True.

NS

Agreed!

 

[Kdesiel]

If there was no Total Apostasy (as we claim) there would be no need for LDS revelation (as you claim) and so there would be no "well our revelation claims that there must be a “quorum” of 7 now but 12 then. No argument about whether Paul was considered to be an Apostle (making things 13 at what date) or whether James was killed early on (I believe that ancient records make that date around 64 AD and reducing the number of living original apostles.) IOW we don’t need to be caught up with numbers if historical records show that there was no Total Apostasy. And as two missionaries admitted to me–no need for the LDS church.

It all boils down to that one point, was there an Apostasy or wasn’t there? Was there need for a restoration or not? Did the ancient church become corrupted and fall into Apostasy requiring a need for a “Restoration?”
The Lord God gave and expressed PROMISE, his word, that he had come, he had established a church where as men can be redeemed that through his Grace they may be with him in salvation. I don’t see that God would lie, wouldn’t that put a monkey wrench in things if he did?
So Was Joseph Smith a Prophet restroing the True and Everlasting Gospel? How can you restore an EVERLASTING anything!? or Was Our Saviour, our God a liar?
I’m going out on a limb here and saying that Jesus is true to his word. All the evidence points that way.

I enjoyed your pints on the post, I didn’t want to take away from the excellent point that you had made, just wanted to add my two cents.

 

[Kdesiel]

What part of 'the only incest that could qualify here is rape" did you not get? A woman who 'decides to have sex with her brother" isn’t going to worry about asking the church authorities for counseling in this matter.

No, they obviously are not, because when you are faced with this situation, it’s OK…you perform a medical procedure that is required to save the life of the woman, and if that procedure is 100% fatal to the fetus, it’s still not abortion. However, if a MORMON woman, after counseling, decides to have the same procedure, you call it an abortion.

and that, sir, is why I am disgusted with those Catholics who call us ‘anti-life’ or ‘pro-choice,’

It’s the hypocrisy.

20+years ago the Mormon Church stated that LIFE began at conception. Now The Church shy’s away from that statement due to this shift in their stance on abortion. Life is life. Taking said life is spilling of innocent blood, regardless of the circumstances, or in other words MURDER.
Spin it however you like you can’t escape what it is. With all of the adoption services, LDS Family services, ect why would the Mormon Church even consider abortion as an option, or as a resource to a “Troubled” situation? 20 years ago it was pretty cut and dry, no abortion period! Now…well not quite the same stand.
The real reason for this thread was the Mormons claims to continued revelation. “By their fruits ye shall know them.” This divine “Revelation” in the LDS church now states that “we now believe MURDER is ok depending on circumstance.” Sounds very Christ like to me.
I love the cliché…WHAT WOULD JESUS DO? Would he if he were in the room when that troubled woman who was raped by her brother condone an abortion? Would the Savior tell her it’s ok? Would he condone that His CHURCH teach that doctrine to its members?

I don’t think so. Like the scriptures state, “By their Fruits…” if it this revealed doctrine goes after the one of the founding principles of Christian teaching, “Thou shalt not commit Murder” is it a doctrine of God, or perhaps of …let’s say MEN or by another source?
Most of your ongoing “revelations” have been contradictory in nature and in practice; they pander to the social norms, trying to make Mormonism more palatable to the prospective convert and to the general public. It’s a marketing scheme pure and simple.
You can put all the lipstick you want on a pig, but in the end, it’s still a pig.