Help with debating a Mormon

[Kdesiel]

LOL! The Truth hurts.

Maybe you’ll grow into it.

This is a Catholic site. Jesus founded the Catholic Church. It is the One True Christian Church. Please research this fact if it is new to you.

mormons are not Christian; they are a cult. Same with JeehovaH’s.

Facts is Facts.

The truth on mormons is here. If you need the truth on jeehovaH’s, I’ll get that for you, too.

Break free of the bubble.

Thanks.

Hey hey ease up on the little guy. Its a hard pill to swallow when you learn the truth, but as we know the truth will set you free.
Facts are facts Mormons are a cult in all definitions of the word.
Whyme didn’t seem so “Happy Go Lucky” when sent that thought to him…hmmmm must of struck a nerve.

 

[ParkerD]

It is pointless to debate with Mormons about whether there was a Great Apostasy. We know there is no evidence that one occurred and that this fact negates Mormonism’s reason for existence. Mormons will never accept any amount of historical evidence or historical reasoning since they base their view on what Joseph Smith told them God told Joseph in the woods in 1820. “Well we said so, so it must have happened” comes from their personal testimony, which is based on a personal feeling that no one can possibly gainsay or contradict using evidence. They know Joseph Smith is a prophet and that what he said about a Great Apostasy is true because they believe the Book of Mormon is true since they prayed about it and God revealed its truthfulness to them by stimulating an emotional response within them. They feel good about it, it “feels right”, they have a feeling of peacefulness, they received a “burning in the bosom”, etc. etc. It all comes down to their personal testimony, which is rooted in a feeling that Mormons interpret as having come from God. When push comes to shove, Mormons will always just go back to their testimony and that special feeling they have inside. It just a big waste of time to debate the Great Apostasy with Mormons since nothing can possibly overcome the fact that they have an impenetrable shield wall that no amount or reasoned argument or evidence can breach - they prayed about the Book of Mormon, God told them it was true, so they feel good about Joseph Smith and Joseph told them there was an Apostasy. End of discussion. They don’t need any historical evidence since God told them Joseph Smith was a prophet.

As has already been stated, we’ll always end up back on first base in discussion such as this. Catholics and Mormons use completely different methods to arrive at truth, so we just end up talking past each other.

NS

NS,
The loss of authority happened when men lost the trust God had placed in them by taking authority on themselves. The apostle John was still alive when a bishop in Rome supposedly said, “I’m in charge now.” That is called usurping authority.

That occurrence is so obvious that Joseph Smith wasn’t the first one to figure that out, of course. It is an easy thing to figure out, and John prophesied the true church would be lost from the earth and later be restored through an angel flying “in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth,…” (Rev. 14:6)

But people like you won’t see it. It is hidden from your view by your choice, which is just fine–choose as you wish. That’s what this life is all about. Free will.

 

[pismopal]

Mormons have a practical need…they are practical you know…for continuing revelation. Examples of these revelations are their changed position on Blacks being inferior in the eyes of God and their reversal on the issue of plural marriages…especially in light of the fact that Utah was not going to be admitted to statehood as long as the mormons practised plural marriage. They know how to get by in the real world for sure. Their position that the Church founded by Christ is “apostate” is easy to understand. How can you start a new movement when the other one is still valid?

 

[RebeccaJ]

NS,
The loss of authority happened when men lost the trust God had placed in them by taking authority on themselves. The apostle John was still alive when a bishop in Rome supposedly said, “I’m in charge now.” That is called usurping authority.

That occurrence is so obvious that Joseph Smith wasn’t the first one to figure that out, of course. It is an easy thing to figure out, and John prophesied the true church would be lost from the earth and later be restored through an angel flying “in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth,…” (Rev. 14:6)

But people like you won’t see it. It is hidden from your view by your choice, which is just fine–choose as you wish. That’s what this life is all about. Free will.

A religion based on conspiracy theories, at best.

 

[NewSeeker]

I reread what I wrote and, as usual, I rambled quite a bit. Let me try to put it succinctly:

It’s a waste of time to debate Mormons using historical evidence since they have a testimony that Mormonism is true. God told them so through the witness of the spirit, which is always described as a feeling or perhaps thoughts in the mind. That is an impenetrable defense, the perfect mental barrier that keeps all disconfirming evidence out. It just doesn’t matter since God told them the Mormon Church is true.

This raises another point I want to make. It is impossible to persuade Mormons there was no Apostasy through an appeal to the evidence since they have a testimony. But they come here and attempt to persuade Catholics there was an Apostasy through an appeal to the evidence. They refuse to be persuaded by the evidence, yet they attempt to use evidence to persuade us to give Mormonism a try. Doesn’t this seem to be hypocritical or a double standard?

NS

 

[AMDGtoo]

God told them it was true, so they feel good about Joseph Smith and Joseph told them there was an Apostasy.

Just a tiny clarification: They think that God “told them”. Won’t even entertain the possibility that that “nice, warm” feeling could be from another source. (Even though we know that even drug addicts get a nice warm feeling after their fix.)

BTW for some unknown reason there are some LDS that know all about the fact that there was no Great Apostasy and also the truths about Joseph Smith and the LDS church, but still claim to be loyal LDS. Boggles my mind. Or maybe it shows that we are dealing with “powers and principalities”. Don’t know.

 

[NewSeeker]

The loss of authority happened when men lost the trust God had placed in them by taking authority on themselves.

What is your evidence that “men lost the trust of God”? When did that happen? What’s the date? Which men? All men? Or just a few men? Which man or men “[took] authority on themselves”? When did that happen? What’s your evidence from the historical record that any of this happened? There is none, save for the word of Joseph Smith and his successors. Why do you trust that word? You have a testimony, that’s why.

The apostle John was still alive when a bishop in Rome supposedly said, “I’m in charge now.” That is called usurping authority.

Which bishop in Rome said this? When did he say it? What’s your source that he said “I’m in charge now”? Are you referring to Clement? To my knowledge, he was the only bishop in Rome alive while John was alive who wrote anything we still possess today. I’ve read his letter to the Corinthians and nowhere does it say “I’m in charge now”. In fact, his letter sounds very Catholic. It’s ironic you mention him, if indeed that is who you are referring to.

That occurrence is so obvious that Joseph Smith wasn’t the first one to figure that out, of course. It is an easy thing to figure out, and John prophesied the true church would be lost from the earth and later be restored through an angel flying “in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth,…” (Rev. 14:6)

You’re reading Moroni into John’s intent when he wrote, but there’s no evidence to support this apart from your testimony. John certainly didn’t write the word “Moroni”. Why do you think that’s what he meant? Oh, Joseph Smith said so. It always comes down to that testimony, doesn’t it?

But people like you won’t see it. It is hidden from your view by your choice, which is just fine–choose as you wish. That’s what this life is all about. Free will.

You’re right, I won’t see it. I don’t have that vaunted Mormon testimony that allows me ignore the need to point to ancient documents when considering whether there was an Apostasy. What I have instead regarding the Apostasy is the weight of the evidence and the evidence is on my (Catholic) side.

NS

 

[StLawrenceFan]

Having seen and used the site “exmormon.org”, I can honestly recommend that most people seeking truth about the mormon faith visit mormonthink.com instead.

Actually, that site just offers more indoctrination. It’s written by LDS members.
They do not offer the truth; they praise false prophets and they do not fully explain the truth that mormons are not Christian. Not even in the slightest.

They have Gordon Hinckley quoted on the homepage. That’s a big red flag right there.
See more of Hinckley’s confused quotes HERE.

The truth on mormons is offered HERE and HERE.

Nothing of Joe’s Myth can be anthropologically or archaeologically proven; not one shred of a piece of evidence. Zilch; nada.

Joe Smith was just a con man who thumbed his nose at Christianity and created his own religion because he wanted to be in charge. He thought at the time Christianity had crumbled. He was horrifically wrong and confused, but given the time and date that he dreamed-up his own religion I don’t really fault others for believing in Joe. They knew no better.

**But now they do. **

 

[NewSeeker]

Just a tiny clarification: They think that God “told them”. Won’t even entertain the possibility that that “nice, warm” feeling could be from another source. (Even though we know that even drug addicts get a nice warm feeling after their fix.)

BTW for some unknown reason there are some LDS that know all about the fact that there was no Great Apostasy and also the truths about Joseph Smith and the LDS church, but still claim to be loyal LDS. Boggles my mind. Or maybe it shows that we are dealing with “powers and principalities”. Don’t know.

Yea, the “nice, warm” feeling can often be come another source external to ourselves. It can also be self-generated (I want it to be true) or arise from the subconscious. That’s why Mormons really need to be careful when they think they’ve received their “witness of the Spirit”. There are many possible sources for that feelings-based witness. The bare fact of its occurrence is not evidence that it came from God. The only way that can* really know* is if they personally witness God stimulating the emotional response within them. Of course, this is impossible. Instead, they just assume the feeling came from God and go from there.

I know lots of Mormons like the once you described. It may be nothing more than staying in their comfort zone. Mormonism is what they know, what they are comfortable with. Their friends and family are all Mormon, and that can be a very powerful impetus for staying.

NS

 

[ParkerD]

What is your evidence that “men lost the trust of God”? When did that happen? What’s the date? Which men? All men? Or just a few men? Which man or men “[took] authority on themselves”? When did that happen? What’s your evidence from the historical record that any of this happened? There is none, save for the word of Joseph Smith and his successors. Why do you trust that word? You have a testimony, that’s why.

Which bishop in Rome said this? When did he say it? What’s your source that he said “I’m in charge now”? Are you referring to Clement? To my knowledge, he was the only bishop in Rome alive while John was alive who wrote anything we still possess today. I’ve read his letter to the Corinthians and nowhere does it say “I’m in charge now”. In fact, his letter sounds very Catholic. It’s ironic you mention him, if indeed that is who you are referring to.

You’re reading Moroni into John’s intent when he wrote, but there’s no evidence to support this apart from your testimony. John certainly didn’t write the word “Moroni”. Why do you think that’s what he meant? Oh, Joseph Smith said so. It always comes down to that testimony, doesn’t it?

You’re right, I won’t see it. I don’t have that vaunted Mormon testimony that allows me ignore the need to point to ancient documents when considering whether there was an Apostasy. What I have instead regarding the Apostasy is the weight of the evidence and the evidence is on my (Catholic) side.

NS

NS,
Are you saying no Catholic bishop of Rome has said they are in charge of the Catholic church, nor any other Catholic bishop?

A few men, the leaders who did not look to John for leadership. The ones who changed baptism to infant baptism. The ones who invented the idea of the “Trinity.” The ones who started charging money for ordinances or implying that money was part of gaining forgiveness for anyone. The ones who brought images into the belief system, and praying in front of those images. Those few key leaders who changed the doctrines. That’s who.

You name the angel, then. You tell what Revelation meant by its plainly understood language. A restoration was needed, and an angel was needed to help bring it about. Simple as that.

 

[NewSeeker]

Are you saying no Catholic bishop of Rome has said they are in charge of the Catholic church, nor any other Catholic bishop?

Not at all. I only said no Catholic bishop of Rome said this while John was alive, which is what you said.

A few men, the leaders who did not look to John for leadership. The ones who changed baptism to infant baptism. The ones who invented the idea of the “Trinity.” The ones who started charging money for ordinances or implying that money was part of gaining forgiveness for anyone. The ones who brought images into the belief system, and praying in front of those images. Those few key leaders who changed the doctrines. That’s who.

Again, which men? Which leaders? Which ones? Do you have any names of these “few key leaders who changed the doctrines”? Can you date the changing of these doctrines? For that matter, how do you know there wasn’t infant baptism or images or remuneration for ministers of the gospel in the 1st century church? Apart from your testimony, what’s your evidence that these things didn’t occur? Just because infant baptism isn’t specifically mentioned as such doesn’t mean it never took place.

You name the angel, then. You tell what Revelation meant by its plainly understood language. A restoration was needed, and an angel was needed to help bring it about. Simple as that.

A restoration wasn’t needed since there was never an Apostasy. The angel certainly wasn’t Moroni. Moroni never existed. Joseph Smith made him up. I don’t know what the angel’s name was. John didn’t say. Anything more than that would be speculation.

NS

 

[placido]

Just a tiny clarification: They think that God “told them”. Won’t even entertain the possibility that that “nice, warm” feeling could be from another source. (Even though we know that even drug addicts get a nice warm feeling after their fix.)

BTW for some unknown reason there are some LDS that know all about the fact that there was no Great Apostasy and also the truths about Joseph Smith and the LDS church, but still claim to be loyal LDS. Boggles my mind. Or maybe it shows that we are dealing with “powers and principalities”. Don’t know.

Be sure: we are dealing with "powers and principalities. The same liar of the Garden of Eden is trying to persuade man to strive to achieve godhood.

placido

 

[twopekinguys]

NS,
The loss of authority happened when men lost the trust God had placed in them by taking authority on themselves. The apostle John was still alive when a bishop in Rome supposedly said, “I’m in charge now.” That is called usurping authority.

LOL,

How about JS saying: “I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it.”

Wanna talk about usurping authority?

This is in History of the Church Vol. 6, p. 408-412, where all you have is “supposedly said”.

Your arguments (if you can call them that), grow weaker and weaker.

 

[twopekinguys]

NS,
Are you saying no Catholic bishop of Rome has said they are in charge of the Catholic church, nor any other Catholic bishop?

You are the one who made the claim, you back it up.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

A Catholic bishop(s) changed baptism to infant baptism. LOL.

I always wish the Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox could hear these comments.

 

[twopekinguys]

Actually, that site just offers more indoctrination. It’s written by LDS members.
They do not offer the truth; they praise false prophets and they do not fully explain the truth that mormons are not Christian. Not even in the slightest.

They have Gordon Hinckley quoted on the homepage. That’s a big red flag right there.
See more of Hinckley’s confused quotes HERE.

The truth on mormons is offered HERE and HERE.

Nothing of Joe’s Myth can be anthropologically or archaeologically proven; not one shred of a piece of evidence. Zilch; nada.

Joe Smith was just a con man who thumbed his nose at Christianity and created his own religion because he wanted to be in charge. He thought at the time Christianity had crumbled. He was horrifically wrong and confused, but given the time and date that he dreamed-up his own religion I don’t really fault others for believing in Joe. They knew no better.

**But now they do. **

I think mormonthink.com is very good. From what I read, it provided a very level headed approach at disputing mormonism, and showing it for what it truly is. (especially they lying for the Lord section)

I do like exmormon.org too. Reading some of the stories from ex-mormons, they all seem to hold a common thread.

 

[ParkerD]

You are the one who made the claim, you back it up.

Actually, I’m glad to know the bishop of Rome is not in charge. I had thought that all along. Thanks for agreeing.

 

[twopekinguys]

Actually, I’m glad to know the bishop of Rome is not in charge. I had thought that all along. Thanks for agreeing.

You are too funny.

Do you really think your statement proves your position?

You made a totally unfounded claim, and you got called on it. You can’t prove it, so you try to turn it into something else. How sad for you.

You failed to address how good ol JS, makes an even more outragous claim than the one you posted about the Bishop of Rome. The neat thing is, his ludicrous claim is documented in your own church history, while you have no documentation to back up your absurd statement.

I am suprised at you. You used to present somewhat coherent arguments, but as time goes on, we see you falling into standard mormon tactics. Again, how sad for you.

Oh, and by the way, the Bishop of Rome is in charge of Christ’s church on Earth. That is why he is the Vicar of Christ. The difference between him, and JS is that he doesn’t have to brag about it.

Good try though.

 

[RebeccaJ]

It is the usual twisting of truth that has to be done in order to remain Mormon. Some Mormons think this is clever. It really is sad.

 

[Kdesiel]

You are too funny.

Do you really think your statement proves your position?

You made a totally unfounded claim, and you got called on it. You can’t prove it, so you try to turn it into something else. How sad for you.

You failed to address how good ol JS, makes an even more outragous claim than the one you posted about the Bishop of Rome. The neat thing is, his ludicrous claim is documented in your own church history, while you have no documentation to back up your absurd statement.

I am suprised at you. You used to present somewhat coherent arguments, but as time goes on, we see you falling into standard mormon tactics. Again, how sad for you.

Oh, and by the way, the Bishop of Rome is in charge of Christ’s church on Earth. That is why he is the Vicar of Christ. The difference between him, and JS is that he doesn’t have to brag about it.

Good try though.

I always enjoyed the quote from Brigham Young, “No one has done more for the Salvation of Mankind save Jesus Christ than Joseph Smith.”

Nice! I enjoyed you’re thread with …Parker?
I find when debating a member of the LDS faith a lot of thier points are based on undocumented sayings, or heresay, or they try to prove their points with scriptures they’ve written. Must be nice to just write your own version of things and use them to support your facts.
Just thought it was funny that s all.