Mormons prefer to prey on which? - Catholics or Protestants?

[Finrock]

Good evening RC_Matt. It is a pleasure to meet you!

In your post, you quoted a question I posed to Harpazo:

“If I may, let me ask: If my Church teaches me that Jesus Christ is the Savior and Redeemer of the world, that Jesus is God, and that I should have faith in Jesus Christ and try to pattern my life after His, then would you not call me a Christian?”

You’ve responded with the statements below:

Christians do not believe that there are multiple gods.

Christians do not believe that men become gods.

Christians do not believe in a godhead comprised of three distinct physical entities, two
of which are corporeal and live a plant near the star Kolob.

Christians do not believe that knowledge of secret handshakes and passwords are necessary in order enter God’s heaven,

Christians do not believe that Joseph Smith’s approval is necessary to enter God’s heaven.

Christians do not believe the BOM, or any of the other standard works, are scripture any more than they believe the Koran is scripture.

Christians do not believe that one must accept the concept of celestial polygamy to enter God’s heaven.

Now, here is my dilemma; namely I’m having a difficult time understanding how your statements are relevant to the question I asked of Harpazo? Although you aren’t making the claim directly, I believe you are asserting that these statements you have made somehow correctly reflect what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches or believes. If that is the case, then I must inform you that you are mostly incorrect.

I’d be more than happy to help you to understand the correct view and/or provide the correct perspective of false or misunderstood beliefs you have about the belief’s of the Church of Jesus Christ. Before that, however, if you feel so inclined, do you mind explaining why these statements of yours are relevant to the content of my question? In other words, I would very much like for your response to deal with the content of the question I’ve asked, and perhaps, if you feel so inclined, would you please answer the question I asked of Harpazo?

“If my Church teaches me that Jesus Christ is the Savior and Redeemer of the world, that Jesus is God, and that I should have faith in Jesus Christ and try to pattern my life after His, then would you not call me a Christian?”

There are two, and only two, responses to my question. Given the conditions I provide in the question, would you call me a Christian or would you not call me a Christian? I would ask, for the sake of logic and reasonable discussion, that you deal exclusively with the assumptions provided in the question, and forgo any other assumptions you may have about the Church of Jesus Christ.

Thank you very much for your time.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[guanophore]

Maybe you should be studying the Bible. You would learn a lot more.

Scripture study would not help me in this case, zerinus. Joseph Smith is not mentioned in the Scripture! As a matter of fact, Mormons are not either! So, I think I am in the right place right now to learn all these things that are not found in Scripture, but thanks anyway.

 

[Finrock]

Good evening mjf001! I hope you’ve been doing well.

Thanks for taking the time to read and respond to my post.

On the contrary, rejecting the evidence as false, because it is false, is saying the claims made by certain LDS on these boards are unproven.

This seems like question begging to me (i.e., The LDS claims are false, because they are false). Technically a valid argument, but still a logical fallacy. But, perhaps my point here isn’t as important because judging from the rest of your post, I believe you have misunderstood the position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The evidence should speak for itself. It shouldn’t say one thing to one group, with one particular bias, and another thing to everyone else who looks at it. The only group who looks at an Aztec, Incan, or Mayan temple and immediately exclaim, “Well, now I’ve seen proof of the Book of Mormon,” are the LDS. This is not proof. LDS see it one way, the rest of the world sees it another.

I mean no disrespect,
Michael

You must be careful in how you are applying terms. Proof and evidence do not mean the same thing. I’ve come across no claim by a member of the Church which says there is historical/archaeological “proof” as to the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Certainly I would not make that claim. However, there is “evidence”. If you will be so kind as to consider an example:

In the past, critics of the Church have asserted that, “[t]here is zero archaeological evidence that any kind of cement existed in the Americas prior to modern times” (John L. Smith). This was thought to be an anachronism in the Book of Mormon, and it was then postulated that the Book of Mormon must therefore be false. Well, as more and more was discovered about the ancient inhabitants of the Americas, it turns out that, “…the presence of expert cement technology in pre-Hispanic America is a well-established archaeological fact” (Matthew Roper).

So, in fact, the mention of cement in the Book of Mormon isn’t evidence against it, but rather it is an example of “evidence” for the authenticity of the book.

This is just one example, but there are many such evidences, that when taken individually they may not amount to much, but when taken together, you begin to have much in archaeology that collaborates with the Book of Mormon account. Now, none of this is “proof” but it certainly qualifies as “evidence”.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[guanophore]

You basically asked the SAME question THREE times in the SAME POST.

I was responding to the number of statements you made. That is how many times you accused people of not responding according to your expectations.

Maybe you are angry or embarrassed about the “STALKING Zundrah” comment

Not a bit! Everytime I log on, I go to Zundrah’s closest post, then click on her username,a nd choose “find all posts by Zundrah”. Then I go through them, and respond to all of them that appear to need a response. I have taken a special interest in her, and I monitor her postings closely. I am pleased to provide this service, and it does not embarass me in the least.

or the criticizing Catholics and defending mormons

I am criticizing behaviors. Certain behaviors are wrong, whether they are done by Catholics, or others.

and my wondering how many Catholics have fallen away because of you.

LOL. No, I have no delusions that I have that much power over anyone.

If you’re angry or embarrassed, get over it.

Thanks for the advice.

You think I’m “sensitive” and you still called be a “troll”.

No, actually, I think I said that what you did was characteristic of what trolls often do here. You posted some quotes with no comment, not engaging in any discussion or saying what you wanted, then scolded the people on the thread for not meeting your needs. This is common troll behavior.

How very charitable of you,

excuse me while I go into the corner and cry. (sarcasm)

I call 'em as I see 'em.

 

[guanophore]

If you find withholding information when you know that information might make someone not buy your product, acceptable, then you are very "honest" indeed.

I didn’t claim it was honest, I just stated it is a commonly used sales technique. I recently had a lender spend about three weeks trying to get me to refinance the house. At the last minute, I found out they were running a scam the whole time. I almost fell for it! Withholding certain information can be a very effective way of roping people into things.

When Jesus The Christ told his disciples that they would have life if they eat his body and drink his blood, many of his disciples LEFT Him!

I guess YOU would prefer that Jesus The Christ KEPT those “hard sayings” to HIMSELF so he could keep and get more followers.

I am not sure why you are making so many inaccurate assumptions about me.

 If you don't think that saying that "I repeatedly go to great lengths to provide misinformation" is a personal attack, then you are naive, or intentionally trying to make me look bad bacause I said you like to stalk Zundrah and may possibly have caused some Catholics to fall away.

Well, ok. I don’t know you personally, so I don’t know why you would go to such great lengths to provide misinformation. Perhaps you have some higher and more holy purpose with which I am unfamiliar. Perhaps it is an apologetics technique that you learned, or you are playing the devil’s advocate?

I don’t see how you can be made to “look bad” because of something you said.

I notice that you waited until now to stick up for ParkerD, probably because of the “wolves preying on sheep” statement, ask ParkerD if he was not talking about the Great Apostasy and that the flock was not spared meaning that there was no true Church until the LDS Restoration, guess who those “wolves” are.

No, thanks. Been there, done that. This is not my first bout with ParkerD. I have learned quite a bit about Mormon’s on CAF. I just learned a new shocking thing yesterday! I disagree with the way the Mormon’s conceptualize history.

You are just mad becaue of my post about you STALKING Zundrah, and about you criticizing Catholics and defending mormons, thats why you are “engaging” the mormons now, because of my post, since you admitted that you “don’t engage the mormons on the forums”.

You know, you started out this post criticizing me for repeating myself three times. Here you have said the same thing three times. I find that interesting.

Prove that what I posted is misinformation.

It seems that our interaction is too emotionally charged to be of benefit to either of us. Besides, if and when you ever take any courses in logic or debate, you will quickly discover that it is impossible to prove a negative.

Why do you get to DECIDE what is personal and what is not, are you the next best thing since God?

I am sharing my observations with you. I have a belly button, so I am allowed to have an opinion.

I thought the quotes were self explanatory and people would figure out the connection with the thread title like RC_Matt below with the “milk before meat”, but I guess you could’nt figure it out. Maybe I’ll try to make my posts easier for someone of your level of intelligence to understand.

Well, ok. I suspected there was some higher or lofty purpose at work. No, I don’t think it is necessary for you to lower yourself to my meager abilities. I am not the one that needs convincing, anyway.

 

[guanophore]

I did’nt know you were the MASTER of the internet.
You’ll excuse me if I don’t bow down to your supremacy of the internet.

You seem to have quite a sarcastic and impudent tone in this post. We are all members of CAF,and in order to retain posting privileges here, there are certain rules we need to follow. It behooves us all to help one another to comply with them. Failure to do so will result in sanctions, and possibly loss of posting privileges.

I find you STALKING Zundrah around just so you can be her “holier than thou” corrector OFFENSIVE.

If you are offended by my posts, then I suggest you use the “Ignore” feature. That way, you will not have to look at them.

How many other people do you STALK?

Not more than 3-4 at a time. I locate the most inflammatory, or the most offensive, and track their posts.

I guess I’m sensitive to “holier than thou” STALKERS and people who may have been responsible for Catholics falling away.

You might want to get some help with that.

Whether I’m sensitive or not, judge the sin not the sinner.

Yes, you do seem very sensitive, and angry. However, it is not my place to judge you. I am responding to what you have posted in a public forum. Part of the directions for posting here state that you should not post things that you do not want to appear in public for a long period of time. I want my responses to Zundrah to be close to her posts, and available to others reading them. I have now responded to your sarcastic, accusatory, and impudent tone in your posts.

I ask again (same question but DIFFERENT REASON) are you the next best thing since God that you can decide who is “sensitive” and who is not?

I can respond to what I read. I may be wrong, of course. I think I was wrong once before…Anyway, that question is off topic in this thread! If you wish to discuss off topic issues such as you have brought up in this post, I think it would be more appropriate to do it by PM.

You basically asked the same question twice in the same post, a sign of great intellect indeed.

I notice you did not answer it.

You have a history of criticizing Christians and defending mormons, that is “shill” behaviour since you declare yourself to be Catholic.

Is that right? I never knew I had such a history. What is “shill” behavior? Mayb I will learn something else new on this thread.

The very nature of DEBATE is CONTENTION.dictionary.reference.com/browse/contention
con⋅ten⋅tion  [kuhn-ten-shuhn]
Use contention in a Sentence
–noun

1. a struggling together in opposition; strife.
2. a striving in rivalry; competition; contest.
3. strife in debate; dispute; controversy.
4. a point contended for or affirmed in controversy.

This may come as a shock to you, but it is not necessary to be contentious in order to have a debate.

We are to avoid strife, striving in rivalry, and struggling against unbelievers. All these proscriptions are clear in scripture.

I guess Jesus The Christ should have used a “less inflammatory” description of the Pharisees when He called them “whitewashed tombs” and "“filled with hypocrisy and evildoing”, he should have said that they were “just misguided” in order to “promote good discussion”. (sarcasm)

Jesus was certainly more inflammatory when He was addressing those who claimed to believe. However, a bruised reed He did not break, and a smoldering wick, He did not put out. Perhaps you see yourself in the sandals of Jesus, and that it is your God given duty to rail at people who don’t believe what you do.

 

[Finrock]

Hi Love, First understand I love and admire you just disagree.

That is very sweet of you to say, thank you.

Now no links. I show you my scripture and talk from my heart, now your turn. You show me and tell me the evidence in your words. Thanks.

I generally would agree with your sentiment here, but one thing is that any evidence I provide comes from the “subject matter experts”, which I am not. But, the biggest reason I suggested to provide links is that there is simply so much material that I wouldn’t be able to speak thoroughly to all of it using this medium. So, researching the material from a site that is dedicated to providing such information will provide you a thorough presentation and understanding of the data. Having said that, however, I can provide a few examples. You can start by looking at my post #162. I’ve given one example of Book of Mormon evidences. I’ll post a couple of more examples as time permits in the next few days and discuss any points that might come up.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[mjf001]

Good evening mjf001! I hope you’ve been doing well.

Thanks for taking the time to read and respond to my post.

This seems like question begging to me (i.e., The LDS claims are false, because they are false). Technically a valid argument, but still a logical fallacy. But, perhaps my point here isn’t as important because judging from the rest of your post, I believe you have misunderstood the position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

You must be careful in how you are applying terms. Proof and evidence do not mean the same thing. I’ve come across no claim by a member of the Church which says there is historical/archaeological “proof” as to the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Certainly I would not make that claim. However, there is “evidence”. If you will be so kind as to consider an example:

In the past, critics of the Church have asserted that, “[t]here is zero archaeological evidence that any kind of cement existed in the Americas prior to modern times” (John L. Smith). This was thought to be an anachronism in the Book of Mormon, and it was then postulated that the Book of Mormon must therefore be false. Well, as more and more was discovered about the ancient inhabitants of the Americas, it turns out that, “…the presence of expert cement technology in pre-Hispanic America is a well-established archaeological fact” (Matthew Roper).

So, in fact, the mention of cement in the Book of Mormon isn’t evidence against it, but rather it is an example of “evidence” for the authenticity of the book.

This is just one example, but there are many such evidences, that when taken individually they may not amount to much, but when taken together, you begin to have much in archaeology that collaborates with the Book of Mormon account. Now, none of this is “proof” but it certainly qualifies as “evidence”.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

I can say you haven’t proved it, because no valid evidence has been produced. Conjecture is not proof, no matter how much you want it to be. I’m asking for empirical (this means it must be able to be reproduced independently, using the methods arrived at to prove a hypothesis). If you will, right now, from the LDS community, we have an unproven hypothesis. One or more of the meso-american civilizations are decendants, in some form or fashion, of the Lamanites.

Before you can use this archaeology to back up the claims of the BoM, you must first tie, the meso-American civilizations to the Lamanites. So, what are the ties? Do you have evidence which suggests a similar language, or at least a language which shows its origins in either Hebrew or reformed-Egyptian? Do you have evidence which ties the architecture to the middle east? Does the architecture show similarities to other ancient cultures? How about the tools they used?

I love science. I’m not deeply schooled in any one area of scientific thought, but I love science nonetheless. Show me a peer reviewed paper (from LDS and non LDS sources) which ties meso-american civilizations to the Lamanites. Without that, I for one, will not give any credence to the assertions made in this regard.

In Christ,
Michael

 

[Finrock]

Good evening guanophore. I’m sorry that you are having to deal with Answersplease’s posts. I do hope, however, that the rest of your day has been wonderful!

I’d like to respond to a comment you said in response to a post by zerinus quoted below:

zerinus:

Matthew 10:40 He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.

John 13:20 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.

Anyone who rejects Joseph Smith rejects Jesus Christ who sent him, and anyone who rejects Jesus rejects the Father Who sent Him.

Wow. You know, I learn something new every day on this forum!

I don’t believe that zerinus’ comments reflect the position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Please understand that if you learned something new, then what you learned is the opinion of one member of the Church. I certainly do not agree with the sentiments expressed by zerinus, or at least not within the apparent context that they were stated.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[guanophore]

Good evening guanophore. I’m sorry that you are having to deal with Answersplease’s posts. I do hope, however, that the rest of your day has been wonderful!

Yes, thank you, and I apologize to all for posting off topic.

I’d like to respond to a comment you said in response to a post by zerinus quoted below:

I don’t believe that zerinus’ comments reflect the position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Please understand that if you learned something new, then what you learned is the opinion of one member of the Church. I certainly do not agree with the sentiments expressed by zerinus, or at least not within the apparent context that they were stated.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

I appreciate this, as I did assume that they were representative of the Mormon faith, so the correction is helpful to me.

 

[guanophore]

Are you saying that if they have’nt studied their Faith, and you play a part in their falling away it’s their fault not yours?

I think there is plenty of fault to go around.

Are you connecting infant baptism with not being brought up in the Faith?

No, but I do connect the failure of parents and Godparents who do not keep their baptismal vows with not being brought up in the faith.

Are you against infant baptism?Would you rather your Church forget its custom and become more protestant and wait to baptize members until they are older?

Not a bit, but what has that got to do with the topic?

So people can be swayed by calumny but you don’t engage mormons on the forums, I guess you think no mormon is ever dishonest.
Your course of action seems to say Joseph Smith was honest and all mormons are honest and the mormon religion is true.

You are making inaccurate assumptions about me. Most of the Mormon’s that I have met in person,and online, are very sincere about their faith. I believe that they honestly feel called to evangelize, and they work at being successful at it.

Either they’re Catholic or they’re not, are you saying that “so-called Catholics” are’nt “real” Catholics because they don’t know much about their Faith?

I disagree with Zundrah’s premise. I don’t think that most Catholics (at least those here in America) do NOT accept an earthly authority. If they did, there would be no such thing as “cafeteria” Catholics. I think these people, despite their claims, are not really Catholic. They are Protestant, and don’t know it.

If your that sensitive, then why do you stay on this forum?

It is an exercise in humility for me.

So you react when you see an anti-Catholic misinformation, unless it is from a mormon.

When I discover the poster is a Mormon, or an SDA, I usally abandon the discussion.

As I said earlier following someone around is “stalking”.

You have some very skewed perceptions of reality, Answers. My puppy follows me around constantly, and is not stalking. I think he is attached to me!

How nice, the “Thought Police” have arrived, (everyone don’t post anything offensive they’re watching)!

I was responding to your behaviors, not your “thoughts”. However, you do seem to have authority problems yourself. Does it bother you that there are rules here? Why are you finding it so difficult to refrain from your personal attacks, and stay on topic?

Then don’t post. You’re only engaging the mormons now because of one of my previous posts.

I know this might be a blow to you, Answers, but you are not the center of my world, and you are not the motive for my posting or not. I am on this thread because Zundrah started it, and I go to all the threads she starts.

 

[Finrock]

Hello again mjf001!

I can say you haven’t proved it, because no valid evidence has been produced. Conjecture is not proof, no matter how much you want it to be. I’m asking for empirical (this means it must be able to be reproduced independently, using the methods arrived at to prove a hypothesis). If you will, right now, from the LDS community, we have an unproven hypothesis. One or more of the meso-american civilizations are decendants, in some form or fashion, of the Lamanites.

Before you can use this archaeology to back up the claims of the BoM, you must first tie, the meso-American civilizations to the Lamanites. So, what are the ties? Do you have evidence which suggests a similar language, or at least a language which shows its origins in either Hebrew or reformed-Egyptian? Do you have evidence which ties the architecture to the middle east? Does the architecture show similarities to other ancient cultures? How about the tools they used?

I love science. I’m not deeply schooled in any one area of scientific thought, but I love science nonetheless. Show me a peer reviewed paper (from LDS and non LDS sources) which ties meso-american civilizations to the Lamanites. Without that, I for one, will not give any credence to the assertions made in this regard.

In Christ,
Michael

I just wanted to acknowledge that I’ve read and understood your post. With your stated unwillingness to consider and deal with the evidence provided, then that pretty much ends the discussion. Your position doesn’t provide a reasonable foundation to build upon. First, your post ignored the evidence of cement in the Americas. Second, it is expecting something from history and archaeology that history and archaeology cannot provide. In fact, expecting empirical ancient historical data is expecting the fulfilment of an impossibility. How does one collect empirical data (empirical data is not as you’ve defined it, but rather it is “observable data”) about events that took place thousands of years ago? Third, because we do not have all the answers, does not mean we do not and cannot consider the corroborating evidence we do have. Misdirecting the discussion by ignoring the valid evidence and then speaking to the missing parts, is logically fallacious and unproductive. Lastly, your criteria that before we can use Mesoamerican archaeology as evidence for the Book of Mormon, we must definitively tie the Mesoamerican civilization to the Lamanites is just nonsensical and unreasonble. First, there is no such required scientific standard that needs to be met before evidence can be considered. More astonishingly, how do you suppose we tie the Mesoamerican civilization to the Lamanites if we are precluded from using the archaeological evidence? Again, that just doesn’t make any sense.

I regret that this discussion has come to such an untimely death, but at this point I don’t see any good reason to continue, although I am always open to discuss it in the future if you do decide to explore this reasonably and logically.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[mjf001]

Hello again mjf001!

I just wanted to acknowledge that I’ve read and understood your post. With your stated unwillingness to consider and deal with the evidence provided, then that pretty much ends the discussion. Your position doesn’t provide a reasonable foundation to build upon. First, your post ignored the evidence of cement in the Americas. Second, it is expecting something from history and archaeology that history and archaeology cannot provide. In fact, expecting empirical ancient historical data is expecting the fulfilment of an impossibility. How does one collect empirical data (empirical data is not as you’ve defined it, but rather it is “observable data”) about events that took place thousands of years ago? Third, because we do not have all the answers, does not mean we do not and cannot consider the corroborating evidence we do have. Misdirecting the discussion by ignoring the valid evidence and then speaking to the missing parts, is logically fallacious and unproductive. Lastly, your criteria that before we can use Mesoamerican archaeology as evidence for the Book of Mormon, we must definitively tie the Mesoamerican civilization to the Lamanites is just nonsensical and unreasonble. First, there is no such required scientific standard that needs to be met before evidence can be considered. More astonishingly, how do you suppose we tie the Mesoamerican civilization to the Lamanites if we are precluded from using the archaeological evidence? Again, that just doesn’t make any sense.

I regret that this discussion has come to such an untimely death, but at this point I don’t see any good reason to continue, although I am always open to discuss it in the future if you do decide to explore this reasonably and logically.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

I regret you feel this way. By the way, please re-read my post, I specifically suggested using archaeological evidence to attempt to tie the civilizations. Also, the civilizations of the Old Testament Civilizations are older than the civilizations in question for the BoM, and there is evidence that links them to the cultures described in the Bible, so I didn’t think I was asking for the impossible.
I will continue to pray for you and all those in the LDS community,
In Christ,
Michael

 

[Answersplease]

I was responding to the number of statements you made. That is how many times you accused people of not responding according to your expectations.

No you were not, I made 1 post directed at ParkerD and you made 1 post directed at me,
in your 1 post you KEPT asking the SAME question THREE times.
Either you delude yourself, OR a lying to make me look bad.

SHOW me the exact statements that you were responding too,
your lies reflect poorly on the religion you claim to represent.

Not a bit! Everytime I log on, I go to Zundrah’s closest post, then click on her username,a nd choose “find all posts by Zundrah”. Then I go through them, and respond to all of them that appear to need a response. I have taken a special interest in her, and I monitor her postings closely. I am pleased to provide this service, and it does not embarass me in the least.

How nice that you can rationalize STALKING.

I am criticizing behaviors. Certain behaviors are wrong, whether they are done by Catholics, or others.

And yet you said you “don’t engage the mormons on the forums”, and did not start to engage them on this thread until I EMBARRASSED you into doing so.

LOL. No, I have no delusions that I have that much power over anyone.

Then go back to old actions, ctriticize the Catholics and defend the mormons instead of engaging the mormons.

No, actually, I think I said that what you did was characteristic of what trolls often do here. You posted some quotes with no comment, not engaging in any discussion or saying what you wanted, then scolded the people on the thread for not meeting your needs. This is common troll behavior.

Your provacative posts are troll behaviour, you are also a shill for the mormons.

I call 'em as I see 'em.

How nice that your vision so superior to everyone elses.(sarcasm)

 

[Answersplease]

I didn’t claim it was honest, I just stated it is a commonly used sales technique. I recently had a lender spend about three weeks trying to get me to refinance the house. At the last minute, I found out they were running a scam the whole time. I almost fell for it! Withholding certain information can be a very effective way of roping people into things.

I am not sure why you are making so many inaccurate assumptions about me.

You said “those are JUST good marketing practices”.
Why bring it up if your were not trying to say that “milk before meat” is OK.

I don’t see how you can be made to “look bad” because of something you said.

You twist my words around, I made 1 post and you asked the same question 3 times in the same post, then you lied and said you were responding to 3 different statements that I made.

You know, you started out this post criticizing me for repeating myself three times. Here you have said the same thing three times. I find that interesting.

Yes it is interesting that you ask the SAME QUESTION 3 times about my 1 post,
I on the other hand made 3 STATEMENTS since I saw what level of intelligence you had.

Besides, if and when you ever take any courses in logic or debate, you will quickly discover that it is impossible to prove a negative.

How charitable of you to make such a presumption, it is just more of your trying to make me look bad.

Its not hard to know that it is impossible to prove a negative, for example to prove that God does not exist you would have to check every single place in the entire universe at the same time.

It is possible to prove someone has lied, given the right circumstances.

I guess you could’nt figure that out, maybe if and when you take any courses in logic or debate you will finally understand.

I am sharing my observations with you. I have a belly button, so I am allowed to have an opinion.

Yes you everyone is allowed to have an opinion, exept those you find offensive since you follow people around just to criticize them so the will be quiet and not say the things uou find offensive

No, I don’t think it is necessary for you to lower yourself to my meager abilities. I am not the one that needs convincing, anyway.

If you don’t need convincing then don’t pay attention.

 

[guanophore]

You said “those are JUST good marketing practices”.
Why bring it up if your were not trying to say that “milk before meat” is OK.

They are good marketing practices. Don’t you think the Mormons do pretty well with their growth? Perhaps they worked on you at one point, and that is why you now have this axe to grind?

You twist my words around, I made 1 post and you asked the same question 3 times in the same post, then you lied and said you were responding to 3 different statements that I made.

No, the same statement three times, not three different ones. You were complaining that no one was giving you the responses you wanted. Why are you pursuing this off topic bantering?

I on the other hand made 3 STATEMENTS since I saw what level of intelligence you had.

Thank you for breaking it down for me. Now, maybe you can continue by explaining what this has to do with the topic?

it is just more of your trying to make me look bad.

No need for that! You seem to have it covered.

It is possible to prove someone has lied, given the right circumstances.

Is that your goal on this thread? Do you wish to prove that Mormons lie? That seemed to be the focus of the quotes you posted.

Yes you everyone is allowed to have an opinion, exept those you find offensive since you follow people around just to criticize them so the will be quiet and not say the things uou find offensive

It is true that everyone is allowed an opinion. However, it is not always appropriate to share them here at CAF. There are forum rules that we are all expected to observe. Since the mods are busy, it benefits all of us to let one another know when their expressions are offensive. When the OP makes remarks that could be considered offensive, I give her this feedback. Many people inform me when they consider my expressions offensive. It is iron sharpening iron. You don’t have to accept the feedback, or agree with it. You don’t have to make any effort to get along better with others. You don’t have to improve your style of apologetics, so that it will be more effective.

If you don’t need convincing then don’t pay attention.

It would seem irrelevant at this time in any case, since you are not addressing the topic of the thread. It appears you would prefer to revel in your contentious style of interaction.

 

[Answersplease]

I think there is plenty of fault to go around.

If you don’t have any fault in the matter, then why did you say “I have no delusions that I have that much power over anyone”.

You are making inaccurate assumptions about me.

You agreed that people can be swayed by calumny, but it did not interest you to engage mormons, from that it can be said that you either don’t care or think that all mormons are honest so therefore you don’t engage them.

I disagree with Zundrah’s premise. I don’t think that most Catholics (at least those here in America) do NOT accept an earthly authority. If they did, there would be no such thing as “cafeteria” Catholics. I think these people, despite their claims, are not really Catholic. They are Protestant, and don’t know it.

That is not what you said, see the quote below:

I have met some Protestants here who know more about Catholicism than the so-called Catholics.

Just because a Catholic may not be knowledgeable about every aspect of their Faith, does NOT mean that they reject an earthly authority.

It is an exercise in humility for me.

Seems you like the posts in the forum, I guess thats why you follow people around and criticize them so they can post something that makes you more humble.

When I discover the poster is a Mormon, or an SDA, I usally abandon the discussion.

Thats nice, to know that you like to criticize or correct everyone except mormons and SDA.
So you were lying when you said you react when you see anti-Catholic misinformation, you reaaly only react sometimes.

You have some very skewed perceptions of reality, Answers. My puppy follows me around constantly, and is not stalking. I think he is attached to me!

I’m sure that some people who stalk are attached to the people they stalk as well.
You intentionally follow people around just to correct them, if that is like your puppy following you then, that speaks volumes of how you live.

I was responding to your behaviors, not your “thoughts”. However, you do seem to have authority problems yourself. Does it bother you that there are rules here? Why are you finding it so difficult to refrain from your personal attacks, and stay on topic?

How nice that you have taken it upon yourself to be an authority by criticizing people except for mormons and SDA.
And I did’nt mention anything about the official forum rules, you just brought it up to make it seem that I had a problem with authority, no not authority in general, just your self imposed authority over everyone here except the mormons and SDA.
As for the personal attacks, your the one who lied and twist my words around.

I know this might be a blow to you, Answers, but you are not the center of my world,

Like I care.
I’ll just go cry some more.(sarcasm)
Your supposed christian charity speaks volumes.

and you are not the motive for my posting or not.

For someone who says they don’t post because of me, you seem to answer my posts often enough.

I am on this thread because Zundrah started it, and I go to all the threads she starts.

You need help for that.

 

[Answersplease]

They are good marketing practices. Don’t you think the Mormons do pretty well with their growth?

I said WHY BRING IT UP IF YOU DID"NT THINK IT WAS OK.

Perhaps they worked on you at one point, and that is why you now have this axe to grind?

Debating is axe grinding according to you.

No, the same statement three times, not three different ones. You were complaining that no one was giving you the responses you wanted.

More of your twisting, I made 1 post to ParkerD ,you responded to that post with 1 post and asked the same question 3 times in that post (see the following 3 quotes):

Now you are sinking to Zerinus’s level, personal attack when you can’t provide an answer.
Instead of saying that those articles I quoted are wrong, PROVE that they are wrong.
SHOW me that they are liars.
Your personal attack reflects poorly on your Mormon religion, and just shows the weakness of your position.
You talked about polygamy (and did’nt prove it was a lie), but what about the other things like Robert Millet?
I don’t agree with the Mormon religion, but if you can show me that the things I quoted from those articles are lies, then I will admit that they are false and I will stop using those examples.

These are just good marketing principles. All good sales representatives use these - especially those on commission!
That was not a personal attack. All that was said is that what you posted was misinformation. What did you expect? I do the same thing when people post anti-Catholic misinformation. It is nothing personal.
You posted articles with no message. How was anyone to know that was what you wanted? You posted no question, no query, no statement. That is troll behavior.
I find such a position just as offensive as the topic of the thread.
If you are so overly sensitive, what are you doing on this thread, and why are you posting provocative material with no discussion on the content?
In fact, I think he did the oppposite! I found the reply quite charitable and reasonable.
I find this position contentious, as I have said, the use of the word “lies” does not promote good discussion. The term used was “misinformation”, which seems less inflammatory. Also, you did not post an invitation of this sort with the material, so how was anyone to know your intentions? I did not.

Break down of above post showing basically the same 3 questions.

You posted articles with no message. How was anyone to know that was what you wanted? You posted no question, no query, no statement.
…
and why are you posting provocative material with no discussion on the content?
…
you did not post an invitation of this sort with the material, so how was anyone to know your intentions? I did not.

No need for that! You seem to have it covered.

More of your Christian charity, how nice.

It is true that everyone is allowed an opinion. However, it is not always appropriate to share them here at CAF. There are forum rules that we are all expected to observe. Since the mods are busy, it benefits all of us to let one another know when their expressions are offensive. When the OP makes remarks that could be considered offensive, I give her this feedback. Many people inform me when they consider my expressions offensive.

You go beyond what is not allowed and try to silence ANYTHING you consider offensive.

It is iron sharpening iron. You don’t have to accept the feedback, or agree with it. You don’t have to make any effort to get along better with others. You don’t have to improve your style of apologetics, so that it will be more effective.

You should take your own advice.

It appears you would prefer to revel in your contentious style of interaction.

No need for that! You seem to have it covered.

For someone who does’nt like to revel in a contentious style you seem to enjoy snide remarks

I know this might be a blow to you, Answers, but you are not the center of my world, and you are not the motive for my posting or not.

You seem to like answering my posts, you don’t live up to the above statement you made was it another lie?

 

[Answersplease]

You seem to have quite a sarcastic and impudent tone in this post.

How judgemental of you.

We are all members of CAF,and in order to retain posting privileges here, there are certain rules we need to follow. It behooves us all to help one another to comply with them. Failure to do so will result in sanctions, and possibly loss of posting privileges.

You should follow your own advice.

If you are offended by my posts, then I suggest you use the “Ignore” feature. That way, you will not have to look at them.

Not more than 3-4 at a time. I locate the most inflammatory, or the most offensive, and track their posts.

Again, you should follow your own advice and use the ignore feature.
Especially since you like to follow people around and see if they post anything offends you. I hope your not obsessed with this disturbing behaviour of following people around.
Some people might say it’s stalking.

You might want to get some help with that.

Your sarcastic and impudent tone is showing, again follow your own advice and get some help with that.

Yes, you do seem very sensitive, and angry.

Says the person who stalks people to see if they post anything that offends him.
If you are not overly sensitive and angry then don’t stalk them, let them be, the Lord will judge them not you.

However, it is not my place to judge you.

Says the person who just made judgements in many of his posts.

I want my responses to Zundrah to be close to her posts, and available to others reading them.

Public chastisement and humilliation, you outdo yourself.

I have now responded to your sarcastic, accusatory, and impudent tone in your posts.

You descibe yourself, with your snide remarks.

I think I was wrong once before…Anyway, that question is off topic in this thread!

How humble of you to be wrong ONCE before.

If you wish to discuss off topic issues such as you have brought up in this post, I think it would be more appropriate to do it by PM.

I don’t PM stalkers.

I notice you did not answer it.

I brought it up in my next post afterwards which said you asked the same question 3 times instead of just the 2.

Is that right? I never knew I had such a history.

Oh sure, you don’t engage mormons on the forum but are now all the sudden engaging them just out of nowhere. It was because I said you criticize Catholics and defend mormons (see the next 2 posts of you criticising Catholics and defending mormons):

No, I don’t think so. dianaid is correct. The vows say “until death do us part”.

You have to admit, Catholicism has plenty of history of tearing down other religions. It also has a flourid history of apostasy in all spheres.

You certainly seem to feel strongly about this. Do you get that upset when someone says “your mother wears combat boots”?

Do you think that the LDS “apostles” inaccurately explain the Catholic notion of Trinity?

I don’t think that most Catholics (at least those here in America) do NOT accept an earthly authority. If they did, there would be no such thing as “cafeteria” Catholics. I think these people, despite their claims, are not really Catholic. They are Protestant, and don’t know it.

When I discover the poster is a Mormon, or an SDA, I usally abandon the discussion.

What is “shill” behavior? Mayb I will learn something else new on this thread.

Your ignorance of what a shill is speaks volumes about you, or maybe it’s because shills don’t want to give themselves away by admitting that they are shills.

This may come as a shock to you, but it is not necessary to be contentious in order to have a debate.

Your impudent and contentious tone is showing in the above quote.
You obviously did not understand the definition of contention, go read it again.
A debate does not have impudence like in your tone, but it is still a contest hence contention.

Perhaps you see yourself in the sandals of Jesus, and that it is your God given duty to rail at people who don’t believe what you do.

You make presumptions again, are you angry or something, perhaps you should get some help?

Perhaps you see yourself in the sandals of Jesus since you admit that you follow people around just to correct them if you see anything that offends you, and it is your God given duty to censor and silence people.

And as far as railling, your judgmentalism is impudent and contentious.

 

[Answersplease]

By the way, the “wolves” did come, and they didn’t spare the flock, and it happened in about 100 AD-200 AD.

Are you OR are you not saying: that the church leaders are the wolves and they did’nt spare the flock in about 100AD - 200AD by committing the mormon theory of the “great apostasy”?

“Ravening wolves” or “wolves in sheep’s clothing” would be anyone who, though appearing to be powerful and perhaps feigning righteousness, has a different agenda than following Christ and His pure gospel.

If you don’t think there were power struggles within the early church, then I don’t suppose you’ve read the epistles very much.

You put words in my mouth, that is deceptive, I never said I don’t think there were power struggles in the early church, and your supposition is judgemental.

It is clear reading the epistles that there were “wolves” among the “sheep”, and the apostles were worried about that and sought to help the members of the church stay strong in their faith and strong in seeking to be guided by the Holy Spirit in their lives rather than be disrupted by “ravening wolves” who would seek the power over the flock.

The wolves would have us not seek that healing, but instead follow their cries for power.

In these modern times, who are the “wolves” with cries for power and would have us not seek healing, are you saying it is the Catholic Church?