P
Help with debating a Mormon
- Thread starter Bataar
- Start date
- Status
J
jake23
Guest
Wow! thats a long story! to make it short as possible I was baptized prtestant in my youth, became Mormon in my latter teenage years. I left the occult after my studies showed that the Bible and the occult did not coincide. I went back to my protestant beliefs and went to school at Liberty university to become a pastor and came out catholic instead! I repent often for the mistake of being mormon but also found it has been a great and succesful tool to help mormons leave the occult and come to Christ. glad to hear you found your way home too!
T
twopekinguys
Guest
I’m afraid you’re not doing so well here.
- Again, we have “(I** think perhaps **Randy Carson posted this on one of the threads he responded to)” Nothing that can be verified there, now is there? Also, I don’t see anything that even comes close to your comment that the Bishop of Rome said, “I am in charge”. Bolding is mine.
- Are you serious with this? When in doubt, he was misquoted? If that is the case, why is it in your church history? If there is any possibility that good ol JS was misquoted, that misquote would be in every source but your church history don’t you think?
Even if we go with the possibility that he was misquoted (which I don’t believe for a nano-second), you are basing your opinion and defense of him on invalid material, that your church supports.
Again, you aren’t doing so well here. That whole thing of misquotes, incorrect transcription is old, and really doesn’t hold water.
As far as his “stress”. Don’t you think he brought the vast majority on himself. Looking at the history of the church where his boast is contained, he also states: “What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one”
Yet I saw on a video on youtube where at a recent temple open house, in Manti, there were individuals dressed up, and with signs depicting which of JS wive’s they were.
So was he lying for the Lord?
youtube.com/watch?v=b3nL-SMzWgE
See, it’s not so hard to provide links to where you get material.
Again, good try though.
N
NewSeeker
Guest
Yes, there are. I’m also a former missionary (two years), was temple-married (SLC temple), a former life-long Mormon, and am now a Catholic.
NS
T
ThuriferAcolyte
Guest
If you browse through FAIR, a number of the responses to critiques are “it was a clerical/transcription/misquote error”. 
A
Arandur
Guest
Not so “easy to figure out.” The idea that a restoration might be necessary was a fairly recent, contemporary innovation not long prior to Smith. Smith just took it and ran with it, in the context of the multi-denominational competition of the religious revivalism of his time. I’ve even seen Mormons using quotes from other Protestants to justify Smith, quotes that show that the idea of the restoration came from fairly recent contemporaries, as did the end-times prophetic talk and millenialism (as in the Seventh-Day Adventists of the time) and many other things. Joe had variations on things, but scarcely an original thought. Lost Hebrew tribes had been posited before in a nationalistic sense, and indeed, the American Exceptionalism Smith played off of greatly helped and still helps his cause–it’s rather appealing to think one can essentially join in a proud ancient heritage while proclaiming Zion and such specialness in one’s own nation and time. Of course, most of the doctrines and even the Word of Wisdom were borrowed, too.
More importantly, as others have pointed out here, the assertion of a Great Apostasy and the end of revelation (which isn’t discussed historically in the first 1500+ years of the Church–no one seems to even think this might be occurring) rely on circular reasoning. One proves the other because of the other. And your definition of both comes from one MAN, Joseph Smith. Frankly, and I know this really pushes buttons among you guys, you really worship Joseph Smith, choosing to believe his word and version of things over anything else.
And that’s what it comes down to. LDS appeal to authority is to Smith and your later prophets, but that authority has to be proven. Catholic appeal to authority is in Jesus Christ through the original Apostles and continuing as an express part of Christ (we are His Body, He is our Head, the Spirit is our Soul). How do you know which authority to believe?
Well, consider the evidence behind the authority. LDS have to explain not just matters surrounding Joseph Smith and his works, but history. And even IF LDS could somehow prove their definition of revelation outside of their own church (exiting the circular reasoning to prove it in history), even IF they could prove a Great Apostasy, this would be far from sufficient to support Joseph Smith. As they say, others have asserted similar ideas–how do we know it’s not their sects or one to come yet?
Catholics, on the other hand, can refer to history and Scripture to demonstrate their claims. And even to secular histories and the histories, traditions, and teachings of other sects. Many find these evidences to be sufficiently objectively convincing that they convert (as it has been said by Protestants, to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant).
So if one wants to consider evidences and to use our God-given gift of Rationality, a Gift that surely God intended to lead us TO Him, to be a way of coming to know and understand Him, to be used along WITH faith, we should investigate the evidence surrounding claims to authority. And, firstly, the claims of the Catholic Church. For since no other Church claims such authority straight from Christ in 33AD, it has a prime claim that must be considered before any others. I would argue that such a singular institution must even be given the benefit of the doubt before turning to others. It has, after all, remained intact longer than any other human institution and constitutes the largest body of humans on earth, a great sign (for God creates; Satan’s work would fall apart, as it destroys) and an appropriate one following Christ’s Victory, His personal constitution of the Church and promises to it, and the Church’s gift of the Holy Spirit in a manner unique in history.
If the Church fails to meet the evidence, woe is the world, but still you cannot find support for the LDS. First you must examine the Orthodox, and then many others.
We see what Smith was trying to do (same old trick’s men and devils have pulled before, just a repetition of heresies through history–and very similar in origin to how Muhammed got his start, by the way). We just would rather trust in and believe in Jesus than some man whose arrogance and foolishness are so easy to see, whose words so clearly fly in the face of both the Scriptures and known science and history.
You are asking us to believe an “angel message,” when we are several times in the NT expressly forbidden from accepting the words of even angels, are warned quite clearly that Satan could be behind such attempts, are even more often warned against false prophets and false teachers (never that they would overcome the Church–an impossibility declared by both Jesus and in the Revelation to John), and are instead told of Jesus’ promises and parables, to hold to our traditions, that to reject those He sends (His Apostles–hence our apostolic succession) is to reject Him, and the Father.
You would have us believe not just that the gates DID prevail against the Church, but that Jesus is the foolish man in His own parable, the one who built His house on sand so that the storms and floods swept it away. You would have us believe that Jesus is the fool that we should all laugh at, the one who did NOT count the cost of building His tower and could not finish it.
Frankly, the Smithian or any other assertion of the Great Apostasy*** is rank blasphemy, a direct and extreme personal insult against Jesus Christ Himself.*** Which is why I get so emotional about the subject.
K
Kdesiel
Guest
Awesome! Well I don’t know a whole lot of RM’s who’ve left for the true faith, but there really isn’t a whole lot of RM’s where I live so …go figure I guess.
Wow…this is awesome to find others who’ve felt and traveled a similar path, its just nice not to feel alone in that aspect.
K
Kdesiel
Guest
Jake that is awesome.
NS is also an ex-Mormon who found Christ as well.
I guess I just felt so alone in that regard, but like I told NS it is nice to see others who’ve traveled similar paths to the truth.
Great story Jake, thank you for sharing.
God be with you.
T
twopekinguys
Guest
Which is funny when you think about it.If you browse through FAIR, a number of the responses to critiques are “it was a clerical/transcription/misquote error”.
They change the BoM to correct things, but they can’t/won’t change the History of their church?
Not to mention the numerous versions of the “First” vision.
All of that can be changed, but not the history of the church.
Go figure.
P
ParkerD
Guest
Agreed that Linus as the bishop of Rome did not say he was “in charge” at all. I think people later said the bishop of Rome was “in charge.” Why should I care to look any of that up? I just don’t care. It isn’t worth my time, at all.
JS had scribes who had been asked to keep minutes of what he said. That does not mean they kept perfect minutes. It’s no big deal to me whether he was quoted correctly or not on that statement. I just don’t care.
Nor do I care about his plural marriages. Of course I realize that plural marriage was one of the issues that turned William Law against him who ended up starting the Nauvoo Expositor that published against him to rile up the community.
What I do care about is the impact what Joseph Smith did has had on my life, and it is large. I enjoy the Book of Mormon as a book to read and learn from. I enjoy the Lectures on Faith. I enjoy the King Follett Discourse. I enjoy the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price. I like reading them. I learn from them. Not everyone will–many won’t, but I do. To each their own.
T
ThuriferAcolyte
Guest
If you don’t care, then you shouldn’t comment on such matters, especially when you say “I think people later said the bishop of Rome was ‘in charge’.” You think, but you don’t know, because you don’t care, because it isn’t worth your time.
J
jake23
Guest
LOL! a mormon with absalutley no proof of anything truth in his beliefs, infact more proving against has the odassity to question the authenticity of the holy catholic church! thansk for the laugh!
P
ParkerD
Guest
I had been asked a question, so I commented. But now that I know you won’t be expecting responses, that 's fine. All the best to you.If you don’t care, then you shouldn’t comment on such matters, especially when you say “I think people later said the bishop of Rome was ‘in charge’.” You think, but you don’t know, because you don’t care, because it isn’t worth your time.
T
ThuriferAcolyte
Guest
Yep, on a Catholic forum, you shouldn’t really state things about Catholicism that you don’t care to look up or show your evidence for.
A
Arandur
Guest
You guys, many of you have gotten unnecessarily hostile or harsh. You can call me on it, too, if I do it, but I try to keep my harsh words or criticisms to ideas/beliefs or sometimes to general groups. There’s no need to be harsh with people; I’d rather beat up on ideas 
. Call them out on something you think they may be being dishonest or hypocritical about, but that can all be done in an acceptable tone.
Tough love does not mean harsh love. I know it can be a difficult line to walk, but I think that line has been crossed several times on this forum. We should try not to use the truth as a sledgehammer.
I haven’t named names. I can get worked up over things too. Let’s all just try to be more charitable.
. Call them out on something you think they may be being dishonest or hypocritical about, but that can all be done in an acceptable tone.Tough love does not mean harsh love. I know it can be a difficult line to walk, but I think that line has been crossed several times on this forum. We should try not to use the truth as a sledgehammer.
I haven’t named names. I can get worked up over things too. Let’s all just try to be more charitable.
T
twopekinguys
Guest
So are you saying you made up the comment about the Bishop of Rome?
If you didn’t make it up, I would think it would be important to provide the reference to keep any credibility intact.
As far as the JS quote. Explain to me why The most complete book ever written has been re-written/edited/changed so many times, but a document that “may” have been transcribed incorrectly has never been re-written/edited/changed, and is sanctioned by your church?
The thing I find most interesting about your comment(s) is, how the impact JS had on your life is more important that God, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit.
Early on, you said you were here to clear up misconceptions/lies/half truths about the LDS. Which is good. Everyone should be informed.
However, your response on another thread (The Chruch was in Hiding) clearly shows you are only here to impart your information, and aren’t particularly interested in any feedback.
Seems a little disingenuous don’t you think?
P
ParkerD
Guest
Two Pekinguys,
Here is what I had said that you commented on:
“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.”
I used the word “supposedly” deliberately. I have agreed that Linus didn’t say he was “in charge”. I have never read who first said the bishop of Rome was the head of the earthly Catholic Church, nor do I care. The usurping took place when anyone who had authority recognized by others, said a bishop of Rome should be in charge of more than the church in Rome. I take it that that happened at some point. I just don’t care when–the point is, it happened and that is how the case is presented today to the world.
It was important that the Book of Mormon be corrected back to the “original intent” of the prophets whose words were being transmitted to us. You may think that should have been a perfect, impeccable process in order to be believed. I just don’t agree. The process of correcting it worked.
The book can be read on its own. The original version was fine, also. So what if the grammar wasn’t perfect. I can think–I can understand imperfect grammar, misspelled words (a lot on this website). The “correctness” of the book had to do with the teachings, not the grammar.
A history presents a point of view at a certain point in time. That is all. It is merely an attempt to capture a point of view.
My relationships with Christ and the Father and the Holy Spirit have been greatly impacted by the reading I have done contributed to my life through what Joseph Smith did. That is exactly why his writings are important to me.
The Church in hiding thread was a response to a question from Placido, followed by other questions that led to other responses. I never led off without there first having been a question asked that led to the response. I read the feedback. It was mostly quite enjoyable, especially to find a group that was for the most part cordial.
That thread lasted far longer than I ever would have thought when I first responded. I kept looking back, and there were more questions or issues to clarify. I think it was a pretty straightforward thread.
Good evening to you both.
J
Javl
Guest
Parker:
What do you mean that John was alive at that time? Peter was in Rome and Linus was in Rome. Linus succeeded Peter and was given the same authority as Peter. John may have been alive at the time, but he was not in Rome., he was miles away at Patmos.
Just because John was still alive does not mean that he automatically became the head of the church. For all we know he may not have wanted that position and blessed Linus.
The onus was not put on John.
PAX DOMINI
Shalom Aleichem
T
ThuriferAcolyte
Guest
Why did Peter have primacy in the ancient Church?
So much for talking about revelation
So much for talking about revelation
T
ThuriferAcolyte
Guest
The theory for Mormons is that the senior apostle presides over the Church (aka becomes the President). So, in this theory, John would become the “Pope” before Linus, because John had more authority as an apostle. Therefore, for them, the church of Rome having primacy is irrelevant.Parker:
What do you mean that John was alive at that time? Peter was in Rome and Linus was in Rome. Linus succeeded Peter and was given the same authority as Peter. John may have been alive at the time, but he was not in Rome., he was miles away at Patmos.
Just because John was still alive does not mean that he automatically became the head of the church. For all we know he may not have wanted that position and blessed Linus.
The onus was not put on John.
PAX DOMINI
Shalom Aleichem
- Status