Help with debating a Mormon

[twopekinguys]

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.

Kind of sounds like Lying for the Lord to me. A tactic I have seen from some Mormons on here.

I will say there is at least one Mormon poster that hasn’t fallen into these tactics, and I do appreciate that.

 

[twopekinguys]

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.

That’s why it’s written in pencil, and disappearing ink. Or so it seems. OK, that was bad. Even for me.

I really find it interesting how they hound a Catholic poster for facts, documentation, dates, times, places. But yet they cannot/will not provide the same.

They talk about coming on here to clear up misconceptions and lies about their church, yet they resort to tactics like the one Parker used. How really sad.

I have noticed that when confronted with something that can’t be explained they resort to attacks, absurd unfounded claims, or simply ignore questions posed to them.

It really is sad.

But, as I said earlier, there is one LDS poster on here that I have not seen stoop to these antics, and I applaud them for that.

You do bring up an interesting point with Brigham’s statement.

Most people of faith believe they are an “instrument” of, or for the Lord. Evidently, JS did it himself.

 

[Kdesiel]

That’s why it’s written in pencil, and disappearing ink. Or so it seems. OK, that was bad. Even for me.

I really find it interesting how they hound a Catholic poster for facts, documentation, dates, times, places. But yet they cannot/will not provide the same.

They talk about coming on here to clear up misconceptions and lies about their church, yet they resort to tactics like the one Parker used. How really sad.

I have noticed that when confronted with something that can’t be explained they resort to attacks, absurd unfounded claims, or simply ignore questions posed to them.

It really is sad.

But, as I said earlier, there is one LDS poster on here that I have not seen stoop to these antics, and I applaud them for that.

You do bring up an interesting point with Brigham’s statement.

Most people of faith believe they are an “instrument” of, or for the Lord. Evidently, JS did it himself.

I think it was in pencil, easier to keep on record and change as time and social climate change.

I find it funny as well, “Give me dates, Give me names” even “Show me in the Bible” They can not provide names dates or scriptural evidence because it ALL stands against them.

My other question, with all their noice about the “Great Apostacy” what about the apostacy within their own church?

Mormon doctrine is all about continuing revelation, revelation from GOD, so what about the revelations they’ve received and now DO NOT follow?

Isn’t that an apostacy, given if what they were teaching was true of course?

 

[twopekinguys]

I think it was in pencil, easier to keep on record and change as time and social climate change.

I find it funny as well, “Give me dates, Give me names” even “Show me in the Bible” They can not provide names dates or scriptural evidence because it ALL stands against them.

My other question, with all their noice about the “Great Apostacy” what about the apostacy within their own church?

Mormon doctrine is all about continuing revelation, revelation from GOD, so what about the revelations they’ve received and now DO NOT follow?

Isn’t that an apostacy, given if what they were teaching was true of course?

BINGO!!! We have a winner!!!1

For me, the easiest example of the LDS having their own Great Apostacy, is the death of JS.

There was no “electing” of BY. It was a power grab.

They claim the RCC fell into apostacy with the death of the last Apostle. So, applying the same standard to them, their church fell into Apostacy at that time.

At least that is the way I see it.

Scripture shows that Judas’ replacement was elected by the remaining Apostles. That didn’t happen with BY.

Let’s compare apples to apples. But many of these LDS debators don’t want to do that.

 

[StLawrenceFan]

…But many of these LDS debators don’t want to do that.

–Hard to debate using thin air; zero proof and a guy named Joe who was a flagrantly fake prophet.

 

[Kdesiel]

BINGO!!! We have a winner!!!1

For me, the easiest example of the LDS having their own Great Apostacy, is the death of JS.

There was no “electing” of BY. It was a power grab.

They claim the RCC fell into apostacy with the death of the last Apostle. So, applying the same standard to them, their church fell into Apostacy at that time.

At least that is the way I see it.

Scripture shows that Judas’ replacement was elected by the remaining Apostles. That didn’t happen with BY.

Let’s compare apples to apples. But many of these LDS debators don’t want to do that.

True tru, LDS church History reads like a bad Soap Opera script in regards to the events after the death of Joseph Smith.

Power Grab for sure, Between Strang, Cowdery, Rigdon, and B.Young it was nothing more than a poker game and who ever had the strongest hand wins. B. Young had all the cards, Rigdon gave him a run but in the end Public Opinion elected Young. There was no resemblence to what J.S. taught about succession of a Prophet. Just from the lone event the Mormon Church shows its true colors, all of the events surrounding J.S. Death, even the Murder of Strang, and other enemies of the church…

LDS won’t go apples to apples because all they have are oranges, and you can only take that debate so far until you just have bow out or change the subject due to not having FACTs or the ability to back up an argument.

Anyway didn’t want to keep beating a dead horse here but I just had to respond.
For LDS Readers address some of these issues.
The Election of B.Young in the absence of most of the Twelve?
Why the “Three Witnesses” all fell away, Cowedry came back but was never elected to the prominece he once had held, Rigdon started his own splinter group? These men were witnesses to the fact of J.S calling supposedly saw angels, yet fell away, can you trust what they teach or say?
What about Strang, he was in the first Presidency and had legitamate claim, then started his own splinter group, then was Murdered?

What about Gov. Boggs and the failed assination attempt at the hands of the Danites? Body Gaurds to J.Smith sworn to do whatever he required of them with out question.

The changing of the Temple ordinances? What happens in the temple, the wording ect is not even close to the inital temple ceramonies? If it is somthing so sacred and esscential to SALVATION why has it been changed?

Ok I’m done now.

 

[Javl]

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.

It reminds me a lot of the same tactics used by the Jehovahs Witnesses and the moonies
of the Unification Church ( notice how the UC has just about disappeared? ).

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[NewSeeker]

What about Strang, he was in the first Presidency and had legitamate claim, then started his own splinter group, then was Murdered?

Good list. It should also be noted that Strang discovered his own set of ancient plates, produced his own “scriptures” from them, and had his own set of 11 witnesses signing affidavits that they saw and handled the plates - exactly like Joseph Smith. But Mormons don’t think Strang’s plates were authentic; they do think Joseph Smith’s plates were authentic. To them, Strang lied, but Joseph was a true prophet. The Josephite and Strangite sets of witnesses cancel each other out. The testimony of the Book of Mormon’s witnesses is thus worthless.

NS

 

[Javl]

twopekinguys

I have noticed that when confronted with something that can’t be explained they resort to attacks, absurd unfounded claims, or simply ignore questions posed to them.

It really is sad.

Tell me about it. I’m still waiting for answers to my questions and responses to my comments. I guess I’m just ignored.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[ParkerD]

twopekinguys

Tell me about it. I’m still waiting for answers to my questions and responses to my comments. I guess I’m just ignored.

Shalom Aleichem

JAVL,
I wasn’t attacking anyone. The statement attributed to Joseph Smith has been talked about many times on threads just like this one on this website. Somewhere someone posted a comment that Linus was the successor of Peter, on this website. They said that was because Peter was in Rome, and Linus was bishop of Rome. They said that made Linus the Pope. They said the early history they cited showed that.

John was still alive at that time.

Have a nice day.

 

[PaulDupre]

Joe Smith and any of his zany followers were never “prophets”; they were “FAKE” prophets; exactly what God warned us of.

Joe Smith was just a con man and a fraud.

Can we deal with facts, ladies and gentlefriends?

Please.

I was being facetious. Lighten up.

 

[PaulDupre]

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.

Please cite your source for this bishop of Rome who said “I’m in charge now”.

Your ignorance of history is astounding.

 

[Kdesiel]

Good list. It should also be noted that Strang discovered his own set of ancient plates, produced his own “scriptures” from them, and had his own set of 11 witnesses signing affidavits that they saw and handled the plates - exactly like Joseph Smith. But Mormons don’t think Strang’s plates were authentic; they do think Joseph Smith’s plates were authentic. To them, Strang lied, but Joseph was a true prophet. The Josephite and Strangite sets of witnesses cancel each other out. The testimony of the Book of Mormon’s witnesses is thus worthless.

NS

True, the Strang story is sorted and eerily similar to that of J.Smith. I was a farid I was going to run out of room with post, but yes what about Strangs plates, his witnesses?

 

[twopekinguys]

Tell me about it. I’m still waiting for answers to my questions and responses to my comments. I guess I’m just ignored.

Shalom Aleichem

JAVL,
I wasn’t attacking anyone. The statement attributed to Joseph Smith has been talked about many times on threads just like this one on this website. Somewhere someone posted a comment that Linus was the successor of Peter, on this website. They said that was because Peter was in Rome, and Linus was bishop of Rome. They said that made Linus the Pope. They said the early history they cited showed that.

John was still alive at that time.

Have a nice day.

“Somewhere, someone posted”? Come on now, you can do better than that.

If you can’t back it up, don’t say it.

If you made it up, admit it.

And yes, that statement attributed to JS has been discussed many times, because it is ludicrous. Again, it is in your church history, but you have nothing, I repeat…nothing… to back up your statement other than “somewhere, someone posted”.

Again, your arguments are getting weaker and weaker by the post.

Please provide the reference you are using, or retract the statement.

Also, going back to my previous question. Isn’t JS statement that I quoted usurping power?

I mean, that is what you are accusing the Bishop of Rome doing, right?

 

[SimonArizona]

Tell me about it. I’m still waiting for answers to my questions and responses to my comments. I guess I’m just ignored.

what are your questions?

 

[twopekinguys]

Tell me about it. I’m still waiting for answers to my questions and responses to my comments. I guess I’m just ignored.

Shalom Aleichem

JAVL,
I wasn’t attacking anyone. The statement attributed to Joseph Smith has been talked about many times on threads just like this one on this website. Somewhere someone posted a comment that Linus was the successor of Peter, on this website. They said that was because Peter was in Rome, and Linus was bishop of Rome. They said that made Linus the Pope. They said the early history they cited showed that.

John was still alive at that time.

Have a nice day.

Again, you are failing to address a couple of things.

1. “someone, somewhere posted a comment”…Who?, When?, Where?
2. Isn’t the statement by JS usupring power (your words)?

Or don’t you want to address these things?

 

[jake23]

I’m having a friendly debate with some Mormon friends and the argument they kind of have me stumped on is their concept of continuing revelation. Obviously, as Catholics, we believe that everything we need for salvation has been revealed by the Deposit of Faith and that we don’t need ongoing revelation.

I mention the fact that Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would guide the church and they say that means the Holy Spirit would continue to provide revelation to the church and the fact that the Catholic church relies on councils to determine things proves that we don’t have the spirit revealing the truth to us.

As an exmormon who has found his way home to Christ the first thing I can tell you is that the occult is built on lies and therefore you will never get an correct or honest answer otherwise the whole batch of 14 million of the occult would exist. A great couple of dvd’s for you to watch are “the Bible vs. the book of mormon” and the book of mormon vs. DNA" You can also pull these up on youtube! most of the historians, scientists, etc… on here are ex-mormons who went out to prove the occult right and came out with the truth instead and answered the call from christ to share the truth! great information for you that might help!

 

[jake23]

As an exmormon who has found his way home to Christ the first thing I can tell you is that the occult is built on lies and therefore you will never get an correct or honest answer otherwise the whole batch of 14 million of the occult would exist. A great couple of dvd’s for you to watch are “the Bible vs. the book of mormon” and the book of mormon vs. DNA" You can also pull these up on youtube! most of the historians, scientists, etc… on here are ex-mormons who went out to prove the occult right and came out with the truth instead and answered the call from christ to share the truth! great information for you that might help!

You can also find the DVD’s in some catholic stores, especialy in Utah where we catholics do our best to help proclaim the truth as we are responsable for doing!

 

[ParkerD]

Again, you are failing to address a couple of things.

1. “someone, somewhere posted a comment”…Who?, When?, Where?
2. Isn’t the statement by JS usupring power (your words)?

Or don’t you want to address these things?

1. Here you go (I think perhaps Randy Carson posted this on one of the threads he responded to):

"From newadvent.org:
Pope St. Linus
tt=21

(Reigned about A.D. 64 or 67 to 76 or 79).

All the ancient records of the Roman bishops which have been handed down to us by St. Irenaeus, Julius Africanus, St. Hippolytus, Eusebius, also the Liberian catalogue of 354, place the name of Linus directly after that of the Prince of the Apostles, St. Peter. These records are traced back to a list of the Roman bishops which existed in the time of Pope Eleutherus (about 174-189), when Irenaeus wrote his book “Adversus haereses”. As opposed to this testimony, we cannot accept as more reliable Tertullian’s assertion, which unquestionably places St. Clement (De praescriptione, xxii) after the Apostle Peter, as was also done later by other Latin scholars (Jerome, Illustrious Men 15). The Roman list in Irenaeus has undoubtedly greater claims to historical authority. This author claims that Pope Linus is the Linus mentioned by St. Paul in his 2 Timothy 4:21. The passage by Irenaeus (Against Heresies III.3.3) reads:

After the Holy Apostles (Peter and Paul) had founded and set the Church in order (in Rome) they gave over the exercise of the episcopal office to Linus. The same Linus is mentioned by St. Paul in his Epistle to Timothy. His successor was Anacletus.

We cannot be positive whether this identification of the pope as being the Linus mentioned in 2 Timothy 4:21 goes back to an ancient and reliable source, or originated later on account of the similarity of the name.

Linus’s term of office, according to the papal lists handed down to us, lasted only twelve years. The Liberian Catalogue shows that it lasted twelve years, four months, and twelve days. The dates given in this catalogue, A.D. 56 until A.D. 67, are incorrect. Perhaps it was on account of these dates that the writers of the fourth century gave their opinion that Linus had held the position of head of the Roman community during the life of the Apostle; e.g., Rufinus in the preface to his translation of the pseudo-Clementine “Recognitiones”. But this hypothesis has no historical foundation. It cannot be doubted that according to the accounts of Irenaeus concerning the Roman Church in the second century, Linus was chosen to be head of the community of Christians in Rome, after the death of the Apostle. For this reason his pontificate dates from the year of the death of the Apostles Peter and Paul, which, however, is not known for certain."

1. Joseph Smith was perhaps mis-transcribed in that “quote”, but if not my goodness he was under a great deal of stress in 1844 and was indeed feeling the effects of that stress, so he probably reacted in a human way. (He was human.) That statement was not Joseph Smith being a prophet, it was Joseph Smith being a human with weaknesses just like anyone else. Mormons don’t say he was perfect. He was also alluding to Paul when he made whatever statement he made using the word “boast”. That was Paul’s word choice, and JS seemed to relate to Paul, who also was imprisoned a lot and ridiculed a lot. The Bible was on his mind a lot. (A literary allusion means a writer alludes to some other writer, and that usually means there is a whole set of meanings associated with an allusion.)

 

[Kdesiel]

You can also find the DVD’s in some catholic stores, especialy in Utah where we catholics do our best to help proclaim the truth as we are responsable for doing!

Jake!!!
Well I’m new to this forum so when I find a fellow ex-Mormon who’s learned the truth it is always nice. I would like, that is if it’s not too much trouble, to hear your conversion story. Also what it must be like not only to convert but to convert in Utah…wow.
Anyway I would like very much to swap stories.
Great to hear I"m not the only one…not that I ever really thought that but you get what I’m saying.
God Bless