Why are people mormon considering it is obvioulsy fabricated?

[placido]

I think the Master Teacher, Who was the literal Son of God, Perfect in every way, really meant what He taught.

No. You DON’T think “the Master Teacher really meant what He taught”.
Do you need some evidence?

placido

 

[ParkerD]

St Lawrence Fan,
I take it that you consider trying to “be like Jesus” is blasphemy. Perhaps you consider it better to try and be like “St Lawrence”?

 

[wussup]

With all of the evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that mormonism is a sham, why do people still buy into it? It almost makes me think that reason will not always work in apologetics. its as if mormonism (and islam among others) trivialize faith by making it appear unreasonable.

Deep sigh…
I add to this with the deepest reservations. I do not know your heart, how humble is it? If I deem my entry is not read with respect and actual interest to get an anwer to your question (is your question rhetorical? Is there any answer that will make you say, ohh, I see?)

I have read ALL of the anti-Mormon ‘evidence’. There are 3 types of ‘evidence’:

1-Falsehoods (I include deliberate misrepresentations here)
2-argumentum ad verecundiam
3-True principals that are hard to swallow (feeding meat to babies, as it were)

A humble seeker will read the gospel, pray to His Heavenly Father in the Name of Jesus Christ, and the Father will answer his humble prayer by the power of the Holy Ghost.

Then the seeker will encounter trashy rhetoric (yes, that is an ad hominem) and feel the testimony waver. A diligent gardner will look into the rhetoric and discern either it is false in the case of the first 2 types, or look into a principal that is true, and grow in the faith and be able to eat the meat.

This is a description of the sower. This happens even in Catholicism.

Dee Dee, regardless of your religion, reason and faith will never meet. You can reason a religion into a position where your interest is peaked only because God has left a small part of our Faith in Him within us at birth. Faith is the belief in something true that cannot be proven. If you want to read of a powerful faith, read of St. Thérèse de Lisieux. Her faith was in a doctrine of worship in the Lord, not in reasoned logic. St. Thérèse de Lisieux is a Doctor of the Church. While ‘reason’ and ‘logic’ are fun and important, they do not convince the unbeliever. Only the Holy Spirit of God can do so.

If you legitamately want an answer to any of the multitudinous of bovine field dust out there, private message me one message at a time. I will be more than happy to answer any questions. However, if you only want to denigrate and demean, having not a desire to learn of my faith (in a purely academic manner), don’t bother.

 

[placido]

I have read ALL of the anti-Mormon ‘evidence’. There are 3 types of ‘evidence’:

That is only fair that you do the same with the anti-Catholic ‘evidence’ and tell us how many types are there.

1-Falsehoods (I include deliberate misrepresentations here)
2-argumentum ad verecundiam
3-True principals that are hard to swallow (feeding meat to babies, as it were)

In the “LDS lingo”, feeding meat to babies means telling lies and with holding the truth till later.

A humble seeker will read the gospel, pray to His Heavenly Father in the Name of Jesus Christ, and the Father will answer his humble prayer by the power of the Holy Ghost.

Humble seekers do that always and the Father answers their humble prayers by the power of the Holy Ghost.
I hope you can see the error of believing that the Father gives different (indeed contradictory) answers to different seekers.

placido

 

[RebeccaJ]

Deep sigh…
I do not know your heart, how humble is it?If I deem my entry is not read with respect and actual interest to get an anwer to your question (is your question rhetorical? Is there any answer that will make you say, ohh, I see?)

I have read ALL of the anti-Mormon ‘evidence’. There are 3 types of ‘evidence’:

1-Falsehoods (I include deliberate misrepresentations here)
2-argumentum ad verecundiam
3-True principals that are hard to swallow (feeding meat to babies, as it were)

A humble seeker will read the gospel, pray to His Heavenly Father in the Name of Jesus Christ, and the Father will answer his humble prayer by the power of the Holy Ghost.

Then the seeker will encounter trashy rhetoric (yes, that is an ad hominem) and feel the testimony waver. A diligent gardner will look into the rhetoric and discern either it is false in the case of the first 2 types, or look into a principal that is true, and grow in the faith and be able to eat the meat.

This is a description of the sower. This happens even in Catholicism.

Dee Dee, regardless of your religion, reason and faith will never meet. You can reason a religion into a position where your interest is peaked only because God has left a small part of our Faith in Him within us at birth. Faith is the belief in something true that cannot be proven. If you want to read of a powerful faith, read of St. Thérèse de Lisieux. Her faith was in a doctrine of worship in the Lord, not in reasoned logic. St. Thérèse de Lisieux is a Doctor of the Church. While ‘reason’ and ‘logic’ are fun and important, they do not convince the unbeliever. Only the Holy Spirit of God can do so.

If you legitamately want an answer to any of the multitudinous of bovine field dust out there, private message me one message at a time. I will be more than happy to answer any questions. However, if you only want to denigrate and demean, having not a desire to learn of my faith (in a purely academic manner), don’t bother.

Perfect. Absolutely perfect example of all Mormonism has to offer. Not truth. Not even evidence. Only one statement really, in all that you have to say: “If you aren’t Mormon, something is wrong with you.” Delivered in typical Mormon passive-aggressive fashion. All the while, proselyting. Click your heals three times, say I believe loud and often, and bing.bang.boing I BELIEVE! Bring on the steak!

Your Mormon bishop would give you an A+. ParkerD is cheering the validation of himself, I am sure.

Of course, this only adds to the question, why would anyone aspire to be a Mormon when this is all it is?

 

[wussup]

That is only fair that you do the same with the anti-Catholic ‘evidence’ and tell us how many types are there.

In the “LDS lingo”, feeding meat to babies means telling lies and with holding the truth till later.

Humble seekers do that always and the Father answers their humble prayers by the power of the Holy Ghost.
I hope you can see the error of believing that the Father gives different (indeed contradictory) answers to different seekers.

placido

Deep(er) sigh…

1. I am not a bigot. If you read my entry’s at the Catholic Forum (mostly in the philosophical section) you will see I am exceedingly respectful of of the Catholic Faith. I have NEVER made a single ‘anti-catholic’ statement in my life. I have great respect for the faith of the RC. I am very careful not to denigrate the Catholic Faith (though, like many Catholics, I am critical of some of the logic and philosophy used to rationalize the faith because much of that same logic is used by people of my own faith). As to your point of evidence, the exact same formula is given regardless of who the bigot is trying to bear false witness. An anti-catholic bigot will do the exact same thing as the anti-mormon bigot, only he will use different letters in the sentence to tell the same types of lies.
2. By ‘LDS Lingo’ of ‘feeding meat to babies’ I am referencing 1 Corinthians 3:1-2 in the Bible; “1 And I, brethren, could not speak to you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal. As unto little ones in Christ, 2 I gave you milk to drink, not meat: for you were not able as yet. But neither indeed are you now able: for you are yet carnal”. Perhaps you have heard of it?

Perfect. Absolutely perfect example of all Mormonism has to offer. Not truth. Not even evidence. Only one statement really, in all that you have to say: “If you aren’t Mormon, something is wrong with you.” Delivered in typical Mormon passive-aggressive fashion. All the while, proselyting.

Huh, read and apply the former. I specifically will not cast pearls before swine. If you are not a swine, and you legitimately want to know if something you heard is true, you will find no better source than me. Feel free to ask. However, I am not proselyting. That would be crass. A question was asked. It was answered. The answer is, because the ‘evidence’ you refer bears false witness. A humble seeker will see this and respond appropriately. On another thread there is a statement by an atheist (along with a famous graph) that establishes a correlation between Low IQ and High Importance of Religion. In the LDS community, this correlation is reversed. Certainly not evidence, but it should give you pause to think that perhaps you have been mislead.

And so we see here evidence of two bigots who bear false witness, yet hypocritically claim foul when the same rhetoric is used against the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[wussup]

Your Mormon bishop would give you an A+. ParkerD is cheering the validation of himself, I am sure.

My Bishop would most likely tell me to stop wasting my time on prideful bigots. You see, Bible Bashing, and denigrating another religion is not the way you are glorifying Catholicism, but rather it is your insecurities leading to a desire for self-aggrandizement. In essence you say, oooh, look at me, how glorious I am, see me shout at the mean ol’ mormon! There is nothing of humility in your statement. I see nothing of the glory and strength that is Catholicism in your vain repetition of false hoods. If you want to read of a great exemplar to the Catholic faith, read of the Doctor of the Church, St. Thérèse de Lisieux. Nothing of what you say makes me want to look to the RCC as a source of faith, but, if I were ignorant of the Catholic Faith, I would say, yeesh, what a church of Bigots.

 

[twopekinguys]

And here comes the name calling and attacks.

That didn’t take long.

Calling someone a bigot, or even implying it is your idea of being a christian?

I think you owe Rebecca an apology.

Also, I don’t think you realize that she is former lds, and quite aware of what she experienced while lds.

 

[placido]

I am not a bigot.

Oh no. I did not call you a bigot. Secondly, I did never ever meet someone who admitted of being a bigot.

If you read my entry’s at the Catholic Forum (mostly in the philosophical section) you will see I am exceedingly respectful of of the Catholic Faith. I have NEVER made a single ‘anti-catholic’ statement in my life.

But you are supposed to know that facts speak louder than words …

I have great respect for the faith of the RC. I am very careful not to denigrate the Catholic Faith …

… yet you are not careful enough to avoid denigrating faithful Catholics, whom you call “the prideful bigots”, unworthy of your time. And to add insult to injury, you give them “milk” because you consider them to be immature … that is denigrating.

As to your point of evidence, the exact same formula is given regardless of who the bigot is trying to bear false witness. An anti-catholic bigot will do the exact same thing as the anti-mormon bigot, only he will use different letters in the sentence to tell the same types of lies.

Thank you very much. That is what I wanted to hear from you because in your previous post you only mentioned the anti-Mormon bigots, conveniently omitting mention of the existence of the anti-Catholic bigots.

1. By ‘LDS Lingo’ of ‘feeding meat to babies’ I am referencing 1 Corinthians 3:1-2 in the Bible; “1 And I, brethren, could not speak to you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal. As unto little ones in Christ, 2 I gave you milk to drink, not meat: for you were not able as yet. But neither indeed are you now able: for you are yet carnal”. Perhaps you have heard of it?

Yes, I am aware of 1 Corinthians 3:1-3, but …
You can show me no evidence of a practice in the early days of the church where the truth was deliberately withheld “till later” like it is done in the LDS. Paul was not talking about using deceptive practices to lure unsuspecting people into a cult they would otherwise reject. You know (and your missionaries admit it openly) that people would be scared if you revealed to them all that Mormonism has to offer; so you tell them something other than the truth (lies perhaps?).

placido

 

[wussup]

Oh no. I did not call you a bigot. Secondly, I did never ever meet someone who admitted of being a bigot.

That’s actually a pretty funny statement! Read it to yourself out loud. Last chance…a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance-that is a bigot. Read the tone of this conversation to yourself. Who is it here who is regarding another’s beliefs with hatred and intolerance. It is certainly not me. I love catholics, and not in the ‘you must love them not hate them so you can proselyte them’ type of love, but in the respect for their love of God, love of Faith, devotion to their beliefs while under constant attack by bigotted ‘papist’ haters. Their love of family is legendary, they are just great people.

But you are supposed to know that facts speak louder than words …

Huh? The facts are I am receptive to hearing the beliefs of a Catholic as given by a Catholic. I don’t know what you are talking about.

… yet you are not careful enough to avoid denigrating faithful Catholics, whom you call “the prideful bigots”, unworthy of your time. And to add insult to injury, you give them “milk” because you consider them to be immature … that is denigrating.

I don’t know how faithful the Catholics are here, they sure aren’t very tolerant or respectful as ordered to be by the Pope. And I haven’t given any LDS teaching here, thus I have not given milk, meat, beer, candy, single malt scotch (ohhh, how I sometimes long for that lovely heavy taste of a good McClellan Single Malt Scotch, preferably the Cast Strength yummy, uhhm, but I digress) or any other edible substance. What I said was that is a tactic used by bigots to attack another faith be it LDS, Catholic, etc…

Thank you very much. That is what I wanted to hear from you because in your previous post you only mentioned the anti-Mormon bigots, conveniently omitting mention of the existence of the anti-Catholic bigots.

Actually, I did…and I quote:
From post #5742180:

This happens even in Catholicism

From post #5742498

As to your point of evidence, the exact same formula is given regardless of who the bigot is trying to bear false witness. An anti-catholic bigot will do the exact same thing as the anti-mormon bigot, only he will use different letters in the sentence to tell the same types of lies.

and again in the same post,

And so we see here evidence of two bigots who bear false witness, yet hypocritically claim foul when the same rhetoric is used against the Roman Catholic Church

What I see here is someone so full of hate and loathing that they cannot read the words before their very eyes. How sad. I am not saying this out of pity, or anything but sincerity.

Yes, I am aware of 1 Corinthians 3:1-3, but …
You can show me no evidence of a practice in the early days of the church where the truth was deliberately withheld “till later” like it is done in the LDS. Paul was not talking about using deceptive practices to lure unsuspecting people into a cult they would otherwise reject. You know (and your missionaries admit it openly) that people would be scared if you revealed to them all that Mormonism has to offer; so you tell them something other than the truth (lies perhaps?).
placido

That actually is a great question. What doctrine do you think was so difficult to apprehend that Paul would liken it to ‘feeding meat to babies’. Here is a chance to teach. Turn down the rhetoric knob, and speak civilly so we can have a civilized conversation, one human to another.

 

[wussup]

And here comes the name calling and attacks.

That didn’t take long.

Calling someone a bigot, or even implying it is your idea of being a christian?

I think you owe Rebecca an apology.

Also, I don’t think you realize that she is former lds, and quite aware of what she experienced while lds.

What is a ‘twopekingguys’? Are you really as this suggests, two Chinese folks from Peking who are using one nume de plume?

It doesn’t matter what the present or former religion of a person is, a bigot is a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance. My idea of a Christian is to accept Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, as my Lord and Savior. And yes, calling a person to repentance is part of being a Christian. Let’s use the JWs as an example. Clearly I have some issues with a JW. But I do not go about trying to preach the faults of another religion. Particularly if I knew what I was teaching was incorrect. I am not into the current vogue of apologizing to someone for being offended, nor am I asking for an apology for being offended myself. As was stated previously in this thread, a person can ‘be a member’ and not really be that informed. They can also be a Korihor and know the truth, but in the pride of their heart, reject the word of God. This is also not a “Mormon” thing, but is endemic of any cultural group. Any how.

I reiterate, the reason people believe and worship according to the doctrine of the LDS is because it is true. The reason the ‘evidence’ does not seem to work is because the evidence is wrong. If someone has a question, or has a little piece of anti-mormon talking point they would like addressed, personal message me. As I have noted before on other posts, there is one stipulation: When I answer the question and it is shown to bear false witness, I ask the person to honor their covenants with their Heavenly Father and not bear that false witness again and they promise to never use that tainted source for information regarding any religion again. I think that is fair.

 

[twopekinguys]

What is a ‘twopekingguys’? Are you really as this suggests, two Chinese folks from Peking who are using one nume de plume?

It doesn’t matter what the present or former religion of a person is, a bigot is a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance. My idea of a Christian is to accept Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, as my Lord and Savior. And yes, calling a person to repentance is part of being a Christian. Let’s use the JWs as an example. Clearly I have some issues with a JW. But I do not go about trying to preach the faults of another religion. Particularly if I knew what I was teaching was incorrect. I am not into the current vogue of apologizing to someone for being offended, nor am I asking for an apology for being offended myself. As was stated previously in this thread, a person can ‘be a member’ and not really be that informed. They can also be a Korihor and know the truth, but in the pride of their heart, reject the word of God. This is also not a “Mormon” thing, but is endemic of any cultural group. Any how.

I reiterate, the reason people believe and worship according to the doctrine of the LDS is because it is true. The reason the ‘evidence’ does not seem to work is because the evidence is wrong. If someone has a question, or has a little piece of anti-mormon talking point they would like addressed, personal message me. As I have noted before on other posts, there is one stipulation: When I answer the question and it is shown to bear false witness, I ask the person to honor their covenants with their Heavenly Father and not bear that false witness again and they promise to never use that tainted source for information regarding any religion again. I think that is fair.

I suggest you look inward. You need some real self examination, your soul is in danger, in more ways than one.

I also don’t take kindly to your little snide pot shots at my perceived heritage.

I have nothing further to say to you in any form until you can carry on a civil conversation, one that does not contain name calling,(which you have demonstrated), and bigotry, (which you have demonstrated)

 

[wussup]

I suggest you look inward. You need some real self examination, your soul is in danger, in more ways than one.

I also don’t take kindly to your little snide pot shots at my perceived heritage.

I have nothing further to say to you in any form until you can carry on a civil conversation, one that does not contain name calling,(which you have demonstrated), and bigotry, (which you have demonstrated)

Chill out Dude(s). I am half-American Indian (Niitsitapi, or Blackfoot). In this case an apology is extended for any perceived slight. You must admit, it is a very unusual thing for two folks to use on name on a forum.

Ok, ok…you show me where I made a bigoted statement and I will ask my name be dropped from the roles of the Catholic Forum. Besides decrying bigoted behavior (of any faith, my Great Grandpa loathed the Crow and called them all kinds of mean and nasty names), I will do the same for name calling. Show where I have called someone a derogatory name, and I will again remove myself from the roles of the Catholic Forum…

 

[jake23]

Deep sigh…
I add to this with the deepest reservations. I do not know your heart, how humble is it? If I deem my entry is not read with respect and actual interest to get an anwer to your question (is your question rhetorical? Is there any answer that will make you say, ohh, I see?)

I have read ALL of the anti-Mormon ‘evidence’. There are 3 types of ‘evidence’:

1-Falsehoods (I include deliberate misrepresentations here)
2-argumentum ad verecundiam
3-True principals that are hard to swallow (feeding meat to babies, as it were)

A humble seeker will read the gospel, pray to His Heavenly Father in the Name of Jesus Christ, and the Father will answer his humble prayer by the power of the Holy Ghost.

Then the seeker will encounter trashy rhetoric (yes, that is an ad hominem) and feel the testimony waver. A diligent gardner will look into the rhetoric and discern either it is false in the case of the first 2 types, or look into a principal that is true, and grow in the faith and be able to eat the meat.

This is a description of the sower. This happens even in Catholicism.

Dee Dee, regardless of your religion, reason and faith will never meet. You can reason a religion into a position where your interest is peaked only because God has left a small part of our Faith in Him within us at birth. Faith is the belief in something true that cannot be proven. If you want to read of a powerful faith, read of St. Thérèse de Lisieux. Her faith was in a doctrine of worship in the Lord, not in reasoned logic. St. Thérèse de Lisieux is a Doctor of the Church. While ‘reason’ and ‘logic’ are fun and important, they do not convince the unbeliever. Only the Holy Spirit of God can do so.

If you legitamately want an answer to any of the multitudinous of bovine field dust out there, private message me one message at a time. I will be more than happy to answer any questions. However, if you only want to denigrate and demean, having not a desire to learn of my faith (in a purely academic manner), don’t bother.

Great dvd’s to watch on the occult and its false doctrines are ‘the book of mormon vs. the Bible’ and ‘the book of mormon vs. DNA’ you can alos pull it up on youtube! a great book to read also is ‘The 26th wife’ it was a book written by brigham youngs 26th wife that expose things about the occult they do not wish you to know!

 

[jake23]

St Lawrence Fan,
I take it that you consider trying to “be like Jesus” is blasphemy. Perhaps you consider it better to try and be like “St Lawrence”?

ahh, another confused and manipulating occult member! everyone should stride to be like Christ, but not one person will acomplish it for we are simply human and he is God in flesh!

 

[jake23]

My Bishop would most likely tell me to stop wasting my time on prideful bigots. You see, Bible Bashing, and denigrating another religion is not the way you are glorifying Catholicism, but rather it is your insecurities leading to a desire for self-aggrandizement. In essence you say, oooh, look at me, how glorious I am, see me shout at the mean ol’ mormon! There is nothing of humility in your statement. I see nothing of the glory and strength that is Catholicism in your vain repetition of false hoods. If you want to read of a great exemplar to the Catholic faith, read of the Doctor of the Church, St. Thérèse de Lisieux. Nothing of what you say makes me want to look to the RCC as a source of faith, but, if I were ignorant of the Catholic Faith, I would say, yeesh, what a church of Bigots.

Sorry mormonism is not a religion but a blasphemouse occult and it is Christians duty to proclaim truth about such venom with the hopes the the occult will open there eyes and the possible converts are saved from damning themselves.

 

[twopekinguys]

a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions(you’ve clearly shown this, by you yourself calling others on this forum bigots.) and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance-that is a bigot. ( What is a ‘twopekingguys’? Are you really as this suggests, two Chinese folks from Peking who are using one nume de plume?

There wasn’t any need to bring up my perceived heritage in relation to this conversation whatsoever.

I also love the back handed apology concerning “perceived slight” That isn’t an apology, that is merely stating you are sorry I have perceived something in a particular way.

An apology would have been something to the effect of… I am sorry if I have offended you.

But good try.

I look forward to you having your name removed from the roles.

Have a nice day.

PS Since I know you have no intention of having your name removed, I have now put you on my ignore list.

 

[jake23]

There wasn’t any need to bring up my perceived heritage in relation to this conversation whatsoever.

I also love the back handed apology concerning “perceived slight” That isn’t an apology, that is merely stating you are sorry I have perceived something in a particular way.

An apology would have been something to the effect of… I am sorry if I have offended you.

But good try.

I look forward to you having your name removed from the roles.

Have a nice day.

PS Since I know you have no intention of having your name removed, I have now put you on my ignore list.

LOL! the occult would not allow black men join the priesthood until just 40 years ago and also say that one of the twelve tribes and Christ where/are blond hair, blue eyed, and fair skinned! talk about ignorant bigots! another sign of blindness and lack of God!

 

[StLawrenceFan]

St Lawrence Fan,
I take it that you consider trying to “be like Jesus” is blasphemy. Perhaps you consider it better to try and be like “St Lawrence”?

—LDS practice no clarity on the Jesus of the Bible.

They believe in a whole other Jesus; not the Jesus of the Bible.

It’s Joe’s Myth that got things off on the wrong foot for the mormons. Joe should have just gone in to the Beer Business. He would’ve been a lot better off. No religious criticisms that way.

 

[NewSeeker]

The reason the ‘evidence’ [regarding Mormonism - *my addition

] does not seem to work is because the evidence is wrong.

Facts are facts; it’s folks’ interpretation of the evidence that can be wrong. And, for those isolated instances when Mormons even consider the evidence of history and the trail of documents, it is LDS interpretation of the facts of history that is generally wrong. Mormons don’t believe what they believe because Mormonism is true (it isn’t). They believe what they believe because they prayed and feel good about it and they interpret those good feelings as coming from God. But the facts of history contradict the official LDS view of history (which is largely a whitewash, with many glaring omissions sprinkled with selected facts to support the notion that all is well in Zion). A few examples can be cited to contract the official LDS view of history: there never was a great Apostasy; the papyrus fragments on which much of the Book of Abraham (including Facsimile 1) was based were found and translated and have nothing to do with Abraham, ipso facto the BoA is a forgery; and Joseph Smith had many more wives than he let on, lied to his wife about them, and actually secretly married many women who were already married to other men at the time - some of whom were away on missions when Joseph married their wives “celestially”. These are all indisputable facts. Now Mormons will attempt to explain all of them away with grandiose, post hoc hypothesizing, multiplying ingenious theories to account for and reconcile all of the contradictions with the official version of events taught in Gospel Doctrine class.

Mormonism is not true. It’s a 19th century American invention, the same as Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Seventh Day Adventists. All of them came out of the ferment of early 19th Century American revivalism. Joseph Smith’s is only the most notable, in large part because it survived thanks to the common purpose and identify created by severe persecution, Brigham Young’s organizing genius and the fact that when Mormonism was on the brink, the Mormons fled the US to set up an independent kingdom in Utah.

NS