S
Help with debating a Mormon
- Thread starter Bataar
- Start date
- Status
P
placido
Guest
Experience has shown that for a Mormon, facts do count only if they can be manipulated to promote LDS beliefs, otherwise Mormons rely solely on their feelings. A lie that “feels good” easily becomes the “gospel truth”.Lets see how this sounds: As I’ve mentioned on another thread, talking to a catholic on this board is like talking to a brick wall. Nothing penetrates or gets through. No matter how hard you try to make a catholic understand, it won’t work. It’s the “My mind is made up, don’t confuse me with facts” syndrome. Very sad.
God bless.
Now I do think that a mormon could make this case. Right?
That is not the case with Catholics. They do take historical facts into acount. Not so with Mormons.
placido
A
AMDGtoo
Guest
Catholics teach Faith plus reason. Mormons just teach Faith equals feelings. They simple refuse to think that historical records (reason and logic) have anything at all to do with Faith. That’s why it is so impossible to discuss religion with them.
S
StLawrenceFan
Guest
Exactly right.
There is not a thing; not one shred of archaeological or anthropological evidence to back-up Joe’s Myth. Nada; Zilch.
What I’ve found is that mormons don’t even know their “religion” very well, at all. Of course those that have truly researched it, can be found here…
K
Kdesiel
Guest
Well said and good point. It almost seems like an inherit distrust in people in general. Facts that are represented have been misconstrued somewhere in History for some evil purpose or personal gain. Not saying that has never happened in the course of human history, but whenever you do throw facts out there they dispute it on the grounds of an Apostacy, or someone trying to deceive early christians into following a false doctrine for personal gain. They don’t trully look at the facts…the pure and simple fact is Christ said “Upon this rock shall I build my church…Hell shall not prevail against it.”
We could go into deep discourse about a lot of doctrinal subjuects but the pure and simple fact is, Our Savior and God gave an expressed promise. God does not lie, he is the source of ALL truth, he is truth.
So it boils down to who you put your faith in regarding truthfulness, Joe Smith, money digger, bar keep, polygamist, confidence man.
The other Choice…God. Put in this context I don’t see how there ever could be a dispute as to who is telling the truth.
Either Joe Smith lied…or …well Joe Smith lied because we know the other couldn’t possibly.
J
jake23
Guest
ThuriferAcolyte;5732037:
Sorry, but you are not a real catholic! you say you are lds and catholic which shows you have no education to be either since it is not allowed in either belief. You are also a heritic for the lds are an occult which is a great disrespect to us real catholics! You are saying you are somthing you obviousely know nothing about!Sure, call him Pope Benny in a tone of disrespect.QUOTE]
I am not that kind of person. I was raised differently. I believe in showing respect to the Pope and to my fellow catholics.
J
jake23
Guest
ThuriferAcolyte;5732037:
My last post was meant for this quoteSure, call him Pope Benny in a tone of disrespect.
I am not that kind of person. I was raised differently. I believe in showing respect to the Pope and to my fellow catholics.
S
StLawrenceFan
Guest
–It’s either the former or the latter…
I’m curious if anyone knows how much money Joe made selling beer from his home?
He actually took out a license to sell Beer from his home.
I wonder why in the heck he didn’t want his own church folk drinking? Did he just want to deprive them of pleasure?
What a goof 'ol Joey was. It was all about control for him.
T
twopekinguys
Guest
Personally, I would have gone for the beer. Who wants nagging frm 30+ women?–It’s either the former or the latter…
I’m curious if anyone knows how much money Joe made selling beer from his home?
He actually took out a license to sell Beer from his home.
I wonder why in the heck he didn’t want his own church folk drinking? Did he just want to deprive them of pleasure?
What a goof.
Oh wait, now I know why he had the beer.
S
StLawrenceFan
Guest
LOL.Personally, I would have gone for the beer. Who wants nagging frm 30+ women?
Oh wait, now I know why he had the beer.
There was one woman (out of the 30+ gals that Joe married), named Zina Diantha - who also married Brigham Young. She must’ve been some real cutie.
More info here…
W
why_me
Guest
W
why_me
Guest
Catholics do not feel god. They only reason God? Really?
T
ThuriferAcolyte
Guest
He did not say that.
P
PaulDupre
Guest
This kind of “health science” was all the rage during the early-middle 19th century (as it is today) and rode the coat tails of the then-powerful temperance movement. Emma Smith was a firm believer in it. LDS church history acknowleges that Emma Smith was the impetus behind the Word of Wisdom. I believe that D&C 89 was Joseph’s “payment” to Emma in exchange for what later became D&C 132 (revelation on polygamy).
The WoW condemns the use of alcohol, tobacco, “hot drinks” and meat. All of these were popular health fads of the time. Modern LDS are at a loss to understand the prohibition on “hot drinks”. That is because they don’t know their history.
The WoW statement about hot drinks came from the popular medical notions of the time. The book Colon Hygiene: Comprising New and Important Facts Concerning the Physiology of the Colon, by John Harvey Kellogg (of Corn Flakes and The Road to Wellville fame) stated in 1915:
The LDS have been trying to justify the mysterious “hot drinks” proscription ever since. Since about 1920, “hot drinks” has been interpreted to mean coffee and tea, though they’ve never been able to explain what is wrong with these substances. The WoW is about health. There is nothing unhealthful about coffee or tea - quite the opposite in fact. The LDS interpretation of “hot drinks” has resulted in the LDS shunning and demonizing coffee and tea, which have been proven to be healthful, and guzzling down cases of Mountain Dew and other sodas, which is known to be very unhealthy (some doctors call it poison), with their church leaders’ approval.
Paul
W
why_me
Guest
Have you read the life of Pope John XIII? It is not a pretty picture. He was an adulturer and was said to have died at the hands of an outraged husband.
Biography:
Pope John XIII was, for the most part, a embarrassment to the Roman Catholic Church and remains so even to this day. His pursuit of women was so extensive and unashamed that the Latern Palace came to be known as a little more than a brothel.
His handling of political disagreements was disasterous, forcing him to ask German leader Otto for help. Otto was able to restore order in Northern Italy and, in return, John crowned him Emperor in the West on Februrary 2, 962. John, however, didn’t even handle this situation very well because after Otto left, John started to conspire with the son of the King of Italy, Berengar, with whom Otto was at war. This naturally infuriated Otto, who promptly returned to Rome, deposed John, and had Pope Leo VIII installed in his pace.
So who was John’s legitimate successor, Leo VIII or Benedict V? Who was simply an antipope? That is an open question. When John died, the Roman people disregarded Leo and ensured the election of Benedict, and today he is treated as the legitimate successor of John.
atheism.about.com/library/glossary/western/bldef_johnxiii.htm
See how fun this game is? Or is it?
W
why_me
Guest
Nice try Paul. Yep you certainly nailed it that is for sure. Ihave noticed that many people are drinking decaf these days. And I am not sure if women who are having a baby should drink coffee. But yes, Paul, she certainly nailed it. Another buffoon thing the lds are doing.
en.fairmormon.org/Word_of_Wisdom
W
why_me
Guest
Nice try Paul. Yep you certainly nailed it that is for sure. Ihave noticed that many people are drinking decaf these days. And I am not sure if women who are having a baby should drink coffee. But yes, Paul, she certainly nailed it. Another buffoon thing the lds are doing.
en.fairmormon.org/Word_of_Wisdom
fairlds.org/Misc/misc22d.html
Word of Wisdom Highlights
A new revelation:
Called “a Word of Wisdom” in the introduction, the revelation was given to Joseph Smith at Kirtland, Ohio, on February 27, 1833, when the School of the Prophets was meeting at his home in the Whitney Store. It came in response to the Prophet’s inquiry about tobacco, which was being used by some of the men attending the school. The revelation states that it is specifically for the latter days because of “evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men” (D&C 89:4).
Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 1-4 vols., edited by Daniel H. Ludlow (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 1584.
Word of Wisdom as scripture:
The revelation was first printed in December 1833 or January 1834 on a broadsheet and was included in the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants.
Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 1-4 vols., edited by Daniel H. Ludlow (New York: Macmillan, 1992
Canonized on 17 August 1835:
A conference of the Church in Kirtland was called for 17 August 1835. In this conference the Saints were to vote on this edition of the revelations and accept them as scripture. Prior to this conference, reference was made to the compilation by title, section, part, and paragraph by the Prophet Joseph Smith. Since the book did not return from the bindery at Cleveland until mid-September, the Prophet must have been using unbound pages from the book itself. Such copies also must have been given to priesthood quorum leaders to peruse; for in the conference several of them testified of the truth and correctness of the revelations and the “Lectures on Faith,” because they had read them all or in part. Based on these testimonies, the whole conference assembled voted as quorums and as general church membership in favor of accepting the book as arranged. Two other documents were voted on by the congregation to be put into the publication, and unanimously accepted. The original minutes of this conference are found in the Kirtland Council Minute Book. These minutes were then published in the Latter-day Saint Messenger and Advocate, and they were also included in the Doctrine and Covenants.
The whole compilation was then sent to Cleveland, Ohio to be bound. William W. Phelps recorded that the book was available by the second week in September. Shortly after that, Orson Pratt and others, as missionaries, distributed them in the branches of the Church.
Robert L. Millet and Kent P. Jackson, eds., Studies in Scripture, Vol. 1: The Doctrine and Covenants [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1989], 7.
Definition of “hot drinks” as coffee and tea:
"Joel H. Johnson, with whose family the Prophet was intimate, relates that on a Sabbath day in July (1833) following the giving of the “Word of Wisdom,” when both Joseph and Hyrum Smith were in the stand, the Prophet said to the Saints: “I understand that some of the people are excusing themselves in using tea and coffee, because the Lord only said ‘hot drinks’ in the revelation of the Word of Wisdom. Tea and coffee are what the Lord meant when he said ‘hot drinks.’”
John A. Widtsoe and Leah D. Widtsoe, The Word of Wisdom: A Modern Interpretation [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1937], 85.
Word of Wisdom a commandment:
Although the revelation of the Word of Wisdom was received on 27 February 1833, its acceptance by the individual members of the Church was gradual. On 9 September 1851, some eighteen years after it was given, the Patriarch to the Church, John Smith, delivered a talk to the Saints on the Word of Wisdom. Following his address, President Brigham Young arose and proposed to the general conference that all Saints formally covenant to abstain from tea, coffee, tobacco, whiskey, and “all things mentioned in the Word of Wisdom” (“Minutes of the General Conference,” Millennial Star, 1 Feb. 1852, p.35). The motion was accepted unanimously and became binding as a commandment for all Church members thereafter.
Doctrine & Covenants, Student Manual (Institute), p. 207
Word of Wisdom and admission to the Temple:
In 1921 Church leaders ended years of discussion on interpreting the Word of Wisdom by making adherence to this important principle a requirement for admission to the temple.
James B. Allen and Glen M. Leonard, The Story of the Latter-day Saints, 2nd ed., rev. and enl. [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1992], 496.
There is no current Church policy that would preclude a bishop issuing a temple recommend to a person who consumes cola beverages.
S
StLawrenceFan
Guest
Kdesiel;5737151:
en.fairmormon.org/Great_and_abominable_church
I think that response was for someone else…
Please check above.
K
Kdesiel
Guest
S
StLawrenceFan
Guest
First of all, I think you mean Pope John XXIII? He was Pope for 5 years.The funniest thing is that you attempt to point facts from some goofy ATHIEST site. LOL.
But I digress. We’ve had 2,000 years of unbroken succession of Popes. You might find someone who was not perfect along the way. None of us are perfect human beings.
The trouble with your argument (the glaring inadequacy) is that the Pope didn’t found his own religion; God founded the Catholic Church; the Popes just carry it forward, and will continue to carry it forward until the end of Time.
Joe Smith DID create his own religion - about 1, 840 years after God created the one true Church.
Joe Smith and his church leaders were about as much as prophet as Jim Baker was.
Clown boys - all of 'em.
But thats’ OK. Who cares what their girations are in the ‘religious’ world? I don’t care if they want to pray to Joseppi Smith or to a Twinkie. The beef is that they have the unmitigated gall to call themselves “Christian”; yet one thing for certain is that they are not “Christian”.
- Status