Jump to content
cdowis

Winning discussions with the antiMormons -- ala Ben Shapiro

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

I can’t find the transcript, but it is very similar to this.

Quote
A Disturbing Possibility 

While the election of a Mormon U.S.President seems unlikely, it is 
highly probable under the present swing toward conventional morality 
and conservatism that a Mormon could one day become a Republican 
Vice-Presidential nominee. With the power, wealth, wide influence, 
numerous highly placed Mormons, and large voting block under their 
virtual control, The Brethren have a great deal to offer a Republican 
Presidential candidate. Let's assume that a Mormon Vice-Presidential 
candidate is on the winning ticket, and thereafter the President dies in 
office or is assassinated, causing the Mormon to succeed him as President 
of the United States. 

There is every reason to believe that the new President would 
immediately begin to gather around him increasing numbers of zealous 
Temple Mormons in strategic places at the highest levels of government. 
A crisis similar to the one which Mormon prophecies "foretold" occurs, 
in which millions of Mormons with their year's supply of food, guns, and 
ammunition play a key role. It would be a time of excitement and zealous 
effort by the "Saints" to fulfill Joseph Smith's and Brigham Young's 
"prophecy": 

The time will come when the destiny of the nation will 
hang upon a single thread. 

At that critical juncture, this people will step forth and 
save it from the threatened destruction. 

Not only does Mormonism predict the "saving" of America, but the 
precedent for an attempted takeover by force or subterfuge through 
political means has been set by the founding "Prophet" himself. In 1834 
Joseph Smith organized an army and marched toward Independence, 
Missouri, to "redeem Zion." In spite of a humiliating surrender to the 
Missouri militia that proved his bold "prophecies" false, the "Prophet" 
later formed the "Nauvoo Legion" and commissioned himself a 



224 



lieutenant-general to command it. Lyman L.Woods stated: 

I have seen him on a white horse wearing the uniform of a 
general.... 

He was leading a parade of the Legion and looked like a 
god. 

Joseph Smith was not only ordained king on earth, but he ran for 
President of the United States just before his death, at which time 
Mormon missionaries across the country became "a vast force of political 
[power]." Today's Church leaders are urging Mormons to prepare 
themselves for the coming crisis in order to succeed where past "Saints" 
have failed. A recent major article in Ensign about being prepared 
included this oft-repeated warning reminder: 

The commandment to reestablish Zion became for the 
Saints of Joseph Smith's day the central goal of the Church. 

But it was a goal the Church did not realize because its 
people were not fully prepared. 

Going back to our hypothetical crisis, what Mormons unsuccessfully 
attempted against impossible odds in the past they might very well 
accomplish with much better odds in this future scenario. Under cover 
of the national and international crisis, the Mormon President of the 
United States acts boldly and decisively to assume dictatorial powers. 
With the help of The Brethren and Mormons everywhere, he appears to 
save America and becomes a national hero. At this time he is made 
Prophet and President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 
and the Mormon kingdom of God, while still President of the United 
States. There is no provision in the Constitution to prevent this. 

With the government largely in the hands of increasing numbers of 
Mormon appointees at all levels throughout the United States, the 
Constitutional prohibition against the establishment of a state church 
would no longer be enforceable. Mormon prophecies and the curse upon 
the United States government in revenge for the blood of Joseph and 
Hyrum Smith would seemingly have been fulfilled. In effect, the United 
States would have become a theocracy exactly as planned by The 
Brethren, completing the first step in the Mormon takeover of the world. 
President John Taylor boasted of it 100 years ago: 

Let us now notice our political position in the world. What 
are we going to do? We are going to possess the earth... and 
reign over it for ever and ever. 

Now, ye Kings and Emperors help yourselves if you can. 



225 



This is the truth and it may as well be told at this time as at 
any other. 

There's a good time coming, Saints, a good time coming! 

https://archive.org/stream/TheGodMakers-AShockingExposeOfWhatTheMormonChurchReallyBelieves/The_god_makers_ed-decker_dave-hunt_djvu.txt

 

 

Edited by Bernard Gui

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

My error. George Romney.

That’s more believable, but I wonder still how true that is. George Romney is four years older than Ronald Reagan - who was already under some scrutiny for his old age when he was running.

But, who knows...

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
37 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

That’s more believable, but I wonder still how true that is. George Romney is four years older than Ronald Reagan - who was already under some scrutiny for his old age when he was running.

But, who knows...

The whole premise is out there, so why not another unreasonable claim? (I am not saying Bernard is unreasonable, I have seen similar claims made myself from time to time).

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

That’s more believable, but I wonder still how true that is. George Romney is four years older than Ronald Reagan - who was already under some scrutiny for his old age when he was running.

But, who knows...

It really doesn’t matter. It’s a minor detail that has no bearing on the point of the story. I may remember incorrectly, but Romney sticks in my brain. Are you saying I am making this up?

Edited by Bernard Gui

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
42 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

That’s more believable, but I wonder still how true that is. George Romney is four years older than Ronald Reagan - who was already under some scrutiny for his old age when he was running.

But, who knows...

The kind of people who make these claims are the kind that think the Godmakers is an accurate picture of the Faith.  The claims themselves don't have to be reasonable for most people to appeal to that group.  See for example Abanes' One Nation Under Gods, which was popular for awhile.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
36 minutes ago, Calm said:

The whole premise is out there, so why not another unreasonable claim? (I am not saying Bernard is unreasonable, I have seen similar claims made myself from time to time).

Unreasonable? How?

I simply told of an event where a sworn anti-Mormon was disseminating false information about the Church and my response to it.

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Unreasonable? How?

I simply told of an event where a sworn anti-Mormon was disseminating false information about the Church and my response to it.

I meant the claims some make about the pending attempt to overthrow the government by the Church are unreasonable, not your report.  I added a ( ) to clarify.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

I can’t find the transcript, but it is very similar to this.

 

I think we are okay as long as we ave a steady supply of mentally subnormal reality TV show hosts to pick from instead.

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I think we are okay as long as we ave a steady supply of mentally subnormal reality TV show hosts to pick from instead.

In my community, Godmakers became a big deal in local churches. My son Cellisissimo went to one of their presentations with a school friend. As a result, the friend joined the Church and is happily married to a great LDS guy with a beautiful family. Go figure. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
46 minutes ago, Calm said:

I meant the claims some make about the pending attempt to overthrow the government by the Church are unreasonable, not your report.  I added a ( ) to clarify.

Thanks. It was not clear to me what you were saying. By their call-in comments, it was clear the radio audience was eating it up.

Edited by Bernard Gui

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

Ben Shapiro has helped me come to believe that common moral values might be more important than theological differences.   So I don't see the need to Bible bash with other Christians.  Its more productive to have civil discussions about our commonalities as well as differences.

Edited by Rivers
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

It really doesn’t matter. It’s a minor detail that has no bearing on the point of the story. I may remember incorrectly, but Romney sticks in my brain. Are you saying I am making this up?

No - I don’t think you’re the kind to intentionally deceive anyone. I’m just skeptical about ‘Mormon legend’ stories.

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm in support of challenging assumptions, and I would apply this all across the board, to every segment of society.  I think critics of the church often challenge the assumptions of church goers, and this can be a positive exercise.  Where things go wrong, with challenging assumptions is with the tone and engagement with the other side. 

Influencing others is important and approaching things diplomatically and engaging with others is a skill that is necessary to be effective.  This is where I see Shapiro's method as flawed, and for that matter the method of harsher critics of the church as well.  I'm interested in effective engagement and dialogue in an increasingly polarized society. 

As for misconceptions on the internet, I would agree that people could try to correct the misconceptions, but again, do you think the Shapiro method is the right way to go about this?  

1

What is effective engagement?

Share this post


Link to post

Have we won a discussion if the other person hasn’t reconciled with the Lord?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Yes, Shapiro isn't the topic of the thread, but...

The "crushing" videos are not a good intro. If you watch one of the complete campus addresses he gives that will give you a better view. Like this one at the University of Utah, which includes the Q&A. I suggest that you also have a listen to Shapiro's show on The Daily Wire. Try this one.

This is in the nature of a FYI, not a call to discuss Shapiro.

I think he's trying to say that he's not expecting the mind of his interlocutor to be changed, but that he be given food for thought, and that onlookers see a rational debate instead of an "uncontested slam dunk".

Thanks for the links, I'll check them out.  

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

What is effective engagement?

I'm thinking pragmatically here.  What is effective could be judged at various different levels, the way I would judge effectiveness is whether or not the engagement results in any increased understanding by the people and observers of the exchange, which could lead to changed minds and hearts.  

Edited by hope_for_things

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

No - I don’t think you’re the kind to intentionally deceive anyone. I’m just skeptical about ‘Mormon legend’ stories.

Intentionally??

That’s a non-answer. Did you not read the quote from Godmakers? Hunt wrote it. He said the same thing with embellishments on a public radio show that I heard, recorded, transcribed, and responded to. Either I made it up or I did not. Which? 

Edited by Bernard Gui
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
44 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Intentionally??

That’s a non-answer. Did you not read the quote from Godmakers? Hunt wrote it. He said the same thing with embellishments on a public radio show that I heard, recorded, transcribed, and responded to. Either I made it up or I did not. Which? 

I do not think you made it up.

You seem to be hazy on the details (which is fine - I am, too!).  But, people have a tendency to pass on stories we hear without verification.  I don't think that's intentionally lying, but I do think we have a responsibility to know the facts of something for ourselves before we share it.

But maybe I am misunderstanding your original intent.  Maybe you were showing how ridiculous the Godmakers is because it claims that Ronald Reagan considered George Romney as a running mate when (you know) he clearly did not.

Share this post


Link to post

Here's an interesting video discussing how an interviewer attempts to manipulate a person by straw manning and assuming the sale:

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

Have we won a discussion if the other person hasn’t reconciled with the Lord?

Who won in Alma versus my namesake? I guess being executed could be considered a form of reconciliation. Same with Korihor. Sherem May have repented and found mercy but I have my doubts there.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Who won in Alma versus my namesake? I guess being executed could be considered a form of reconciliation. Same with Korihor. Sherem May have repented and found mercy but I have my doubts there.

And it came to pass that they took him; and his name was Nehor; and they carried him upon the top of the hill Manti, and there he was caused, or rather did acknowledge, between the heavens and the earth, that what he had taught to the people was contrary to the word of God; and there he suffered an ignominious death. Alma 1:14

It may have come in his death bed but he did acknowledge the truth

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

I do not think you made it up.

You seem to be hazy on the details (which is fine - I am, too!).  But, people have a tendency to pass on stories we hear without verification.  I don't think that's intentionally lying, but I do think we have a responsibility to know the facts of something for ourselves before we share it.

But maybe I am misunderstanding your original intent.  Maybe you were showing how ridiculous the Godmakers is because it claims that Ronald Reagan considered George Romney as a running mate when (you know) he clearly did not.

I’m somewhat hazy on one small detail. A minor and inconsequential one. Yes you are grossly misunderstanding. Apparently intentionally. 

I was responding to a statement that anti-Mormons often use false information to make hay against the Church. That’s what Hunt did In the broadcast, He presented the scenario on the radio similar to the way he did in his book, The Godmakers. He added to the scenario the possibility that Reagan would select a Mormon, Romney, to do as I described. The false information was not that Reagan chose Romney but that if he did it would be a way the Church could take over the country. The statement that Mormons have a year’s supply of guns and ammunition is inflammatory and dangerous in addition to being a lie. The whole scenario he painted was a despicable lie intended to arouse anger and mistrust against Latter-day Saints. Whether it was Romney or someone else pales in significance and matters not at all. You clearly know that.

Hope that clears it up.

Edited by Bernard Gui

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

intentionally. 

I think that unlikely given his usual posts, I think it was one of those mistakes where he read it one way, that such caused him to read other comments the same and there were no blatant " obviously I read that wrong signs"to catch it.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I’m somewhat hazy on one small detail. A minor and inconsequential one. Yes you are grossly misunderstanding. Apparently intentionally. 

I was responding to a statement that anti-Mormons often use false information to make hay against the Church. That’s what Hunt did In the broadcast, He presented the scenario on the radio similar to the way he did in his book, The Godmakers. He added to the scenario the possibility that Reagan would select a Mormon, Romney, to do as I described. The false information was not that Reagan chose Romney but that if he did it would be a way the Church could take over the country. The statement that Mormons have a year’s supply of guns and ammunition is inflammatory and dangerous in addition to being a lie. The whole scenario he painted was a despicable lie intended to arouse anger and mistrust against Latter-day Saints. Whether it was Romney or someone else pales in significance and matters not at all. You clearly know that.

Hope that clears it up.

Thanks for clarifying, man!

Share this post


Link to post
23 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

What is effective engagement?

When the other person is stunned into silence -- they are utterly speechless and  slink away in shame.  The audience roars  their approval.

Edited by cdowis

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×