Mormonism; there are many ways of proving it wrong.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zundrah
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
dianaiad said:
No. Personally, I hope that they come in and follow your example. There is, after all, a huge difference between defending the Catholic faith, debating honest disagreements about doctrine----and all out nasty attacks, Jack Chick and Ed Decker style. (shrug)
Click to expand...
Ed Decker?

Wasn’t he the commander of the USS Constellation on the Star Trek episode where the planets were being eaten by a giant eclair? :hmmm:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

He was anti-Mormon? :confused:
 
Ghoti said:
Ed Decker?

Wasn’t he the commander of the USS Constellation on the Star Trek episode where the planets were being eaten by a giant eclair? :hmmm:

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/m...mb/f/f9/Matt_decker.jpg/292px-Matt_decker.jpg

He was anti-Mormon? :confused:
Click to expand...
No, that was Matt Decker…or Will, his son. That family didn’t do well when combined with James Kirk…andno, as far as I’m aware they were not…are not? Will not be? anti-Mormon. Too busy being eaten by giant eclairs, engaging in interspecies diplomacy with bald sexy women and machines.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Don’t resemble each other much, do they?

Do NOT mess with a 60 year old who saw the first episode of Star Trek, on the first season…and who knows how to mess with the internet. 😉

Ed Decker…nah, you don’t want to see a picture of him.
 
dianaiad said:
No, that was Matt Decker…or Will, his son. That family didn’t do well when combined with James Kirk…andno, as far as I’m aware they were not…are not? Will not be? anti-Mormon. Too busy being eaten by giant eclairs, engaging in interspecies diplomacy with bald sexy women and machines.
http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/startrek/images/thumb/b/bb/Will_Decker.jpg/200px-Will_Decker.jpg

Don’t resemble each other much, do they?

Do NOT mess with a 60 year old who saw the first episode of Star Trek, on the first season…and who knows how to mess with the internet. 😉

Ed Decker…nah, you don’t want to see a picture of him.
Click to expand...
LOL - I don’t even know what you guys are talking about!
 
Zundrah said:
This is just one of many proofs against mormonism.

youtube.com/watch?v=D0u6clxJmI8&feature=related
Click to expand...
With all due respect Zundrah, your tactics of “debate” resemble those of conspiracy theorists. I’ve known no other to post entire videos expecting us to view them in their entirety and either offer agreement or criticism.

If you want to discuss something, try being a little more concise and actually TYPE something by which we can fact check, otherwise the thread turns into a huge mess.
 
Zundrah said:
…you talk in jargon, I have never heard of these; The Awful Disclosures of Maria Monk" and "Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

P.S. That link is meant for catholics and protestants, to see about your “church” Dianaiad.
Click to expand...

Not heard of either ? That’s amazing. And probably a good sign.​

 
Zundrah said:
There was no “great apostasy” and there is absolutely no proof of it either.
Click to expand...
Zundrah,
I suppose you realize that by posting the way you are on this website, including this entire thread and the statement above, that the person you most seem to be trying to convince is yourself. You will never be able to fully convince yourself of this statement, because deep down you realize that the New Testament and Catholicism don’t have a one-to-one comparative relationship, and the fact that “something has changed” is an indication that “something changed at some point in time to bring about these changes.”

Have a peaceful day.
 
dianaiad said:
Well, I’ll have to think a bit before 'going away." It all depends upon who nipped me in the butt.
Click to expand...
Of course, you realize that I wasn’t referring to you but to threads such as this. These threads are only designed to stir the pot of hot sauce…nothing more. But it seems that even the more usual antimormon posters are ignoring it. That is a good sign.
 
zaffiroborant said:
Is he any relation to Willard Decker also of Star Fleet?

Edited to add:

I came late to the party and didn’t finish the thread before posting.:o

I will not mess with the viewer of the original series.
Click to expand...
Very logical decision.

Live long and prosper.
 
ParkerD said:
Zundrah,
I suppose you realize that by posting the way you are on this website, including this entire thread and the statement above, that the person you most seem to be trying to convince is yourself. You will never be able to fully convince yourself of this statement, because deep down you realize that the New Testament and Catholicism don’t have a one-to-one comparative relationship, and the fact that “something has changed” is an indication that “something changed at some point in time to bring about these changes.”

Have a peaceful day.
Click to expand...
Would you please elaborate on the red bolded part, esp the underlined bit? Thx.
 
Ghoti said:
Would you please elaborate on the red bolded part, esp the underlined bit? Thx.
Click to expand...
Ghoti,
I’m going to keep this simple because as far as I’m concerned, it is a simple matter to write down all of the characteristics of the New Testament church (including the organization and the membership group and their beliefs as recounted or taught) and then compare those characteristics with the current church.

First, let me remind since I haven’t interacted with you before that I think your church is doing good things in the world for its people as followers of Christ, and I was answering “Zundrah” because she keeps coming back with some searching comment about Mormonism when she should be so engrossed in her own positive studies and so uplifted by the Holy Spirit during those studies that she would not even have a thought about Mormonism. Your question was very kind, and I appreciate that more than you know.

Baptism always followed belief by the person being baptized, never preceded it.
The gift of the Holy Spirit closely followed baptism.
There was no pageantry–there was instead simplicity.
There were no prayers to other than to Father in Heaven.
The leaders were always seeking to build faith and keep the members with the Holy Spirit in their life, including enjoying the fruits of the spirit in great abundance that could be felt, and seeking to bring peace to all people they interacted with. One always comes away from reading the New Testament with that feeling of peace, never a feeling of contention.

If a person lists all of the important descriptive words used in their current church beliefs and compares with all of the important descriptive words used in New Testament beliefs, they may find words that were not used within the New Testament that are now “major words”, and vice versa. (I’m going to hold off from giving examples so as not to offend.)

I think I’m going to leave it at that. I appreciate your kindness, and also your “pen name”. I am very grateful to Him who is the greatest “Fisher of men” Who has lived on the earth, and Who is still doing that. I hope peace and peacemaking will continue to be a prominent quality of your life. Have a great day.
 
ParkerD said:
Baptism always followed belief by the person being baptized, never preceded it.
.
Click to expand...
A summary of Mormon baptism:
A. Mankind is born sinless
B. Sins can be forgiven
Therefore: Baptize for the forgiveness of sin. Baptize at eight years old, because given point A and B, baptizing an infant would be silly.

But,

If mankind is born without sin, and there are other means to forgive sin, then logically there is no reason to get baptized. There is no reason to select eight years as the age for baptism because there is no reason to get baptized at all.
 
Stephen168 said:
A summary of Mormon baptism:
A. Mankind is born sinless
B. Sins can be forgiven
Therefore: Baptize for the forgiveness of sin. Baptize at eight years old, because given point A and B, baptizing an infant would be silly.

But,

If mankind is born without sin, and there are other means to forgive sin, then logically there is no reason to get baptized. There is no reason to select eight years as the age for baptism because there is no reason to get baptized at all.
Click to expand...
Stephen,
I can see your point here. We might as well take a look at Acts 2:37-38, “Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”

The word “remission” is used here rather than the word “forgiveness”. “Remission” means that a penalty that would otherwise be applicable, has been paid or is no longer required. The “forgiving” was done after a person has repented. People forgive each other, and God forgives the person who had done a wrong thing.

The “remission” was done by Christ through His atoning sacrifice. A person is baptized unto the “remission” of sins, meaning to have the penalty of their sins remitted (paid by someone else–Christ–and no longer required of that person).

So four steps have happened. The person has felt inclined toward repentance, they have repented, they have received forgiveness, and the fourth step is that they receive a “remission” of their sins by being baptized. They also make important covenants by being baptized.

Of course baptism is essential after belief and after repentance by the person who wants to receive the great joy and peace of the gift of the Holy Ghost in their life.
 
ParkerD said:
Stephen,
I can see your point here. We might as well take a look at Acts 2:37-38, “Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”

The word “remission” is used here rather than the word “forgiveness”. “Remission” means that a penalty that would otherwise be applicable, has been paid or is no longer required. The “forgiving” was done after a person has repented. People forgive each other, and God forgives the person who had done a wrong thing.

The “remission” was done by Christ through His atoning sacrifice. A person is baptized unto the “remission” of sins, meaning to have the penalty of their sins remitted (paid by someone else–Christ–and no longer required of that person).

So four steps have happened. The person has felt inclined toward repentance, they have repented, they have received forgiveness, and the fourth step is that they receive a “remission” of their sins by being baptized. They also make important covenants by being baptized.

Of course baptism is essential after belief and after repentance by the person who wants to receive the great joy and peace of the gift of the Holy Ghost in their life.
Click to expand...
Remission and forgiven are synonymous. Yes, sins can be forgiven. But you did not explain away the irrational Mormon understanding of baptism.
 
Stephen168 said:
Remission and forgiven are synonymous. Yes, sins can be forgiven. But you did not explain away the irrational Mormon understanding of baptism.
Click to expand...
Stephen,
I can understand why the “Mormon understanding of baptism” would seem irrational to you, but it is completely rational and completely in accordance with the New Testament. It is a plain doctrine in the New Testament, not obscure at all. It didn’t need to be re-defined by anyone or to be explained to be something other than what the New Testament says it means and says why it is to be administered and received.
 
ParkerD said:
Zundrah,
I suppose you realize that by posting the way you are on this website, including this entire thread and the statement above, that the person you most seem to be trying to convince is yourself. You will never be able to fully convince yourself of this statement, because deep down you realize that the New Testament and Catholicism don’t have a one-to-one comparative relationship, and the fact that “something has changed” is an indication that “something changed at some point in time to bring about these changes.”

Have a peaceful day.
Click to expand...
Elder ParkerD, go proselyte somewhere else.
 
cthulhubryan said:
And Kirk, McCoy, Sulu and Uhura all went to the University of Utah 😃
Click to expand...
(laughing really hard…)

I had NO idea that Star Fleet Academy was a division of the University of Utah. 😉

Never mind… Nurse Chapell, is a USU grad…and Spock? Doctorates from ALL THREE BYU campuses.

So there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top