Alaris Posted January 20, 2019 Share Posted January 20, 2019 I haven't read all four pages, so I apologize if someone has made this point already: Anti mormon propaganda usually seems to have a lie or disinformation in it somewhere doesn't it? Maybe not always. I served my mission in Texas and heard tons of anti mormon stuff. Most of it is just silly and factually incorrect. The hardest anti to counter are the ones rooted closer to truth like the mountain meadows massacre. Still most folks regurgitating this garbage aren't in a place to be persuaded or in a place where they can feel the spirit while receiving testimony. Better to walk away with a smile than to Ben Shapiro them. 1 Link to comment
cdowis Posted January 22, 2019 Author Share Posted January 22, 2019 (edited) On 1/20/2019 at 3:30 PM, Alaris said: Still most folks regurgitating this garbage aren't in a place to be persuaded or in a place where they can feel the spirit while receiving testimony. Better to walk away with a smile than to Ben Shapiro them. The "Ben Shapiro method" goal is to discredit the antiMormon narrative, the garbage, for the audience. No audience, then you are correct -- it may simply fall on deaf ears. That is why I am present on youtube rather than an antiMormon forum. I have received good feedback from the viewers, such as "I was wondering when you would show up". You may find my "blog" of interest. https://thirdhour.org/forums/topic/57532-youtube-apologetics/ Edited January 22, 2019 by cdowis 1 Link to comment
Navidad Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 On 1/20/2019 at 1:30 PM, Alaris said: I haven't read all four pages, so I apologize if someone has made this point already: Anti mormon propaganda usually seems to have a lie or disinformation in it somewhere doesn't it? Maybe not always. I served my mission in Texas and heard tons of anti mormon stuff. Most of it is just silly and factually incorrect. The hardest anti to counter are the ones rooted closer to truth like the mountain meadows massacre. Still most folks regurgitating this garbage aren't in a place to be persuaded or in a place where they can feel the spirit while receiving testimony. Better to walk away with a smile than to Ben Shapiro them. Methinks if one side is deliberately lying or using disinformation and the other side characterizes the other as regurgitating garbage, the spirit is nowhere to be felt in the conversation on either side! 1 Link to comment
cdowis Posted January 22, 2019 Author Share Posted January 22, 2019 4 hours ago, Navidad said: Methinks if one side is deliberately lying or using disinformation and the other side characterizes the other as regurgitating garbage, the spirit is nowhere to be felt in the conversation on either side! Again, it is a hobby, not a missionary event. For that reason I may suggest that they chat with the missionaries on mormon.org as appropriate. Link to comment
Alaris Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 6 hours ago, Navidad said: Methinks if one side is deliberately lying or using disinformation and the other side characterizes the other as regurgitating garbage, the spirit is nowhere to be felt in the conversation on either side! Right??? I hate that the spirit can be chased away so easily! This fact is particularly frustrating in online forums while attempting to even brandish the least of pearls. Link to comment
cdowis Posted January 28, 2019 Author Share Posted January 28, 2019 Quote According to JS, people who believe the gospel as it is written in God's word, are an abomination. Claiming the bible is unreliable is a slippery slope and a serious accusation, considering Jesus said that wouldn't happen.. >> believe the gospel as it is written in God's word You are mistaken. The abomination is their INTERPRETATION, such as the Nicene Creed heresy which is NOT written in His Word. Satan himself quotes the Bible. Peter explains 2 Peter 1 [20] Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. [21] For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man [theologians] but holy men of God [prophets] spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. According to Peter, YOU have gone down that slippery slope. God has restored His Gospel and called "holy men of God [prophets] spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." in our day. See also Eph 4:11-14 == called apostles and prophets as the foundation of His church. The Bible said it, I believe it. We are Bible believing Christians. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>considering Jesus said that wouldn't happen.. 2 Peter 3 [16] As also in all his [Paul,s] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. I quote the Bible, you quote yourself. Link to comment
cdowis Posted January 28, 2019 Author Share Posted January 28, 2019 (edited) Peter Lewis20 minutes ago Yeah didnt know that [about the Mormons] Its the same with the jehovah's witness they only are told to read and listen to their own teachings or lack thereof. Sheep to the slaughter. REPLY cdowis4 minutes ago (edited) Yeah, born agains are told to only read Paul and ignore James == that idiot talking about "faith without works is dead" nonsense. "Demons confess Christ and tremble" == can you believe it !? Lordy, makes you want to rip that book right out of the Bible.! Are they in for a shock at the judgement seat and judged by their works. 👀 But Lord, we confessed you with our mouth! "So did he devils.Your mouth cannot save you." Edited January 28, 2019 by cdowis Link to comment
RevTestament Posted February 3, 2019 Share Posted February 3, 2019 (edited) On 1/17/2019 at 10:56 AM, Stargazer said: You'll pardon me if it seems to me that you are interpreting them according to how you think they should read. In the end, however, even if what you are saying here is true, it doesn't materially change anything. The Gospel remains the Gospel. So, I don't mind if this is how you believe it is. Not that it's any of my business what you believe. True for the most part. However, whether or not it materially changes anything is another matter for debate I think. For the time being it doesn't. However, in my interpretation the time will come when those who do not believe it will be cut off from the covenant. Quote Rev, I believe some things that I understand from the scriptures which many (including probably you) would argue with me about, so I understand where you're coming from. But that which you're saying here seems to go contrary to what the Church teaches in its official publications. There is nothing therein about us having a physical body before coming to earth -- quite the contrary. On the other hand, God didn't tell Moses how the sun generates its energy, and so the concept of nuclear fusion didn't make its way into Genesis. Like Paul once said, "we see through a glass, darkly". So, live and let live! As I have inferred you are completely free and allowed to believe what you believe. I have given my interpretation, which I admit is mine, as does everyone else. As for there being nothing about this in Church teaching, I disagree. While it is not presently taught in so many words, Brigham Young taught that Adam came from another world and brought his wife with him. That necessarily implies having a body on another world where he married a woman who apparently became sealed to him. The gospel doesn't explain any other way to gain a wife. Do we marry in the preexistence? So while what I have said may not be taught in the exact words I use, it is certainly taught in principle, and in that I am not alone contrary to your implication. Again, this is not an adversarial point for me. I am merely giving my interpretation, and a little bit on how I have come to my conclusions. I believe I am merely showing that my belief is not without precedent in not only Church history, but in the gospel. The scriptures on point are many and varied, and i have discussed them several time in this forum, but imho the plainest reading of them is typically dismissed by not only orthodoxy but by the present Church. I am not stating this so as to create "a debate" per se, but just to clarify that there are other reasonable interpretations besides yours or those presently commonly held. On 1/17/2019 at 3:14 PM, Stargazer said: Yeah, I definitely agree with you. An expression I heard once concerning argumentation over any given point is "Is this hill worth dying for?" Very often, it isn't. In this thread there is a conversation between RevTestament and myself over a particular item of doctrine. I very much disagree with him. I was trying to figure out a way to convince him he was wrong when I read your earlier post. And what you wrote smacked me upside the head. As you put it here, is it "something necessary for salvation or sanctification"? The answer being "No", I decided to pull back and see if I could learn from him, rather than contend with him. There is another thread in this forum in which I had prepared a rather lengthy and (if I do say so myself) brilliant response. But in light of what you wrote, I decided upon a different, more mild approach. What I believe is not necessary for salvation, but I do believe one day will be necessary for the priesthood to accept, so it is not a trivial matter in that sense. I appreciated your attitude and demeanor. On 1/17/2019 at 3:29 PM, Navidad said: Thanks. In the whatever it is worth department, my experience is that there is much to be learned from RevTestament. I know I have. Thank you for your kind words, Navidad. You are a most unusual visitor. Edited February 3, 2019 by RevTestament Link to comment
cdowis Posted February 9, 2019 Author Share Posted February 9, 2019 (edited) South Park -- Joseph Smith cartoon Comment: "The funniest part is that the creators didn't even exaggerate." Yes, they are indeed very talented. They have the extraordinary talent to even make the Holocaust a cartoon -- factual and very entertaining. Edited February 9, 2019 by cdowis Link to comment
cdowis Posted February 10, 2019 Author Share Posted February 10, 2019 (edited) Dan Vogel has proven that he himself is a remarkable story teller, as he fills in the "details" of his naturalistic narrative of Joseph Smith and the production of the Book of Mormon. He abandons his role as a scholar and, weaving fiction with a few facts, becomes the author of a novel. While he is known for his scholarship, his imagination often trumps his ability as a scholar. Edited February 10, 2019 by cdowis 1 Link to comment
cdowis Posted February 14, 2019 Author Share Posted February 14, 2019 >>we are not to add to the word of God. You telling God that He must keep silent? Cannot add to His own word? Good luck telling him that. Link to comment
cdowis Posted February 14, 2019 Author Share Posted February 14, 2019 >>Happy to be free of Mormonism.'' You remind me of a first class passenger on the cruise ship Titanic. Link to comment
Jeanne Posted February 14, 2019 Share Posted February 14, 2019 1 hour ago, cdowis said: >>Happy to be free of Mormonism.'' You remind me of a first class passenger on the cruise ship Titanic. Ney...he jumped out of that boat when he left mormonism. Link to comment
Stargazer Posted February 16, 2019 Share Posted February 16, 2019 On 2/14/2019 at 2:59 AM, cdowis said: >>we are not to add to the word of God. You telling God that He must keep silent? Cannot add to His own word? Good luck telling him that. Where was that quote? In this thread? Anyway, there is this (admittedly not in the Bible, but the sentiment is real): 8 Wherefore murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word? Know ye not that the testimony of two nations is a witness unto you that I am God, that I remember one nation like unto another? Wherefore, I speak the same words unto one nation like unto another. And when the two nations shall run together the testimony of the two nations shall run together also. 9 And I do this that I may prove unto many that I am the same yesterday, today, and forever; and that I speak forth my words according to mine own pleasure. And because that I have spoken one word ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my work is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of man, neither from that time henceforth and forever. 10 Wherefore, because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my words; neither need ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written. 2 Nephi 29:8-10 Link to comment
cdowis Posted February 16, 2019 Author Share Posted February 16, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Stargazer said: Where was that quote? In this thread? Anyway, there is this (admittedly not in the Bible, but the sentiment is real): My response in Youtube forum for antiMormon video, citing Rev 22:18-19 Edited February 16, 2019 by cdowis Link to comment
cdowis Posted March 1, 2019 Author Share Posted March 1, 2019 (edited) <<a lot of religion is pretty ridiculous especially when we all criticize each other and defend our own hard to logically defend faiths>> Let's take another example of something that is "pretty ridiculous"...and "hard to logically defend" when it involves such basic concepts of reality, cause and effect ==>> I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics. -- Richard Feynman (wiki) When we try to match the calculations (of quantum mechanics) with observation, "the answer we get is is off by 1x120 zeros. In fact it is the biggest mismatch between theory and observation in the history of science. That is the state of our science today.... I think that means that we are driving blind" -- Neil deGrasse Tyson "The Inexplicable Universe" episode 5, minute 21 Should we believe in the world of quantum mechanics, or is this just a figment of our imagination, such as the Easter Bunny. -- cdowis Edited March 1, 2019 by cdowis Link to comment
ttribe Posted March 1, 2019 Share Posted March 1, 2019 Since when is this board a forum for the establishment of a self-serving thread where the OP gets to make responses into the ether to comments that are without attribution, without context and without the opportunity for rebuttal from their author(s)? Threads filled with real discussion and debate are shut down for the tiniest of perceived infractions on this board, but this thread - a virtual temple of narcissism for the OP - is allowed to persist in perpetuity? Link to comment
ALarson Posted March 1, 2019 Share Posted March 1, 2019 (edited) 8 minutes ago, ttribe said: Since when is this board a forum for the establishment of a self-serving thread where the OP gets to make responses into the ether to comments that are without attribution, without context and without the opportunity for rebuttal from their author(s)? Threads filled with real discussion and debate are shut down for the tiniest of perceived infractions on this board, but this thread - a virtual temple of narcissism for the OP - is allowed to persist in perpetuity? Well, this thread has made me chuckle several times. What's the point? Plus most of the responses (posted like they are real zingers or gotcha's) aren't really very effective, IMO. I also thought we were not supposed to cross post, but maybe it's ok if it's from YouTube? It's just a weird thread 😉 Edited March 1, 2019 by ALarson Link to comment
ttribe Posted March 1, 2019 Share Posted March 1, 2019 3 minutes ago, ALarson said: Well, this thread has made me chuckle several times. What's the point? Plus most of the responses (posted like they are real zingers or gotcha's) aren't really very effective, IMO. I also thought we were not supposed to cross post, but maybe it's ok if it's from YouTube? It's just a weird thread 😉 You have a gift for understatement, my friend... Link to comment
ALarson Posted March 1, 2019 Share Posted March 1, 2019 3 minutes ago, ttribe said: You have a gift for understatement, my friend... Ha! Well, there are lots of other words that come to mind to describe this thread, that's for sure!! Link to comment
Calm Posted March 1, 2019 Share Posted March 1, 2019 1 hour ago, ttribe said: Since when is this board a forum for the establishment of a self-serving thread where the OP gets to make responses into the ether to comments that are without attribution, without context and without the opportunity for rebuttal from their author(s)? Threads filled with real discussion and debate are shut down for the tiniest of perceived infractions on this board, but this thread - a virtual temple of narcissism for the OP - is allowed to persist in perpetuity? Did you report it? Link to comment
changed Posted March 1, 2019 Share Posted March 1, 2019 (edited) On 1/6/2019 at 11:10 AM, The Nehor said: To get out of the conversation. If that fails say something inflammatory and watch them sputter. I may be a bad example. Your goal is to avoid talking with anti's? Just FYI - when you are talking with anti's, quite often you are talking with someone who has been deeply wounded. Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you encounter a dog that has been abused, or even bees, what would it take for that abused creature to regain trust or faith in anything or anyone? Is the believer's goal to take the person who has been knocked around, and knock them around a little more? Make sure they have left for good? Edited March 1, 2019 by changed Link to comment
changed Posted March 1, 2019 Share Posted March 1, 2019 On 1/6/2019 at 9:47 AM, cdowis said: I am constantly engaged with the antis, and found this video on Ben Shapiro very interesting. For example, "Joseph Smith was a con man." And you know this... how? "Lots of members are upset with the church." I am still waiting to hear your point. "The Bible says that......" You are adding words to the Bible. You are quoting yourself. "Works cannot save us." We agree. I do strongly agree that appeal to authority figures is logically fallacious - can someone explain to me how the entire LDS religious system is not based on appeal to authority figures? Link to comment
ttribe Posted March 1, 2019 Share Posted March 1, 2019 20 minutes ago, Calm said: Did you report it? STOP MAKING GOOD POINTS!!! 😉 1 Link to comment
The Nehor Posted March 1, 2019 Share Posted March 1, 2019 7 minutes ago, changed said: Your goal is to avoid talking with anti's? Just FYI - when you are talking with anti's, quite often you are talking with someone who has been deeply wounded. Perhaps this is a bad analogy - but if you encounter a dog that has been abused, or even bees, what would it take for that abused creature to regain trust or faith in anything or anyone? Is the believer's goal to take the person who has been knocked around, and knock them around a little more? Make sure they have left for good? Yeah, I do not have anything to discuss with them if they are out (and not just wrestling with doubt). A debate will just harden them. An argument is unlikely to be cathartic for them and is the devil’s method anyways. So say something inflammatory and confusing. At least it breaks their script. Link to comment
Recommended Posts