Mormons As "blind Followers"

[Doctor Steuss]

Anyone else noticed how this thread has progressed?:

RM: Claim #1 (along lines of OP)

LDS: Refute Claim #1

RM: Claim #2 and #3 and #4

LDS: Refute Claims #2, #3, and #4

RM: This is about Claim #1, stop changing the subject (mixed with some weird logic and drunken rambling).

LDS: Refute Claim #1 again.

RM: Claim #5

LDS: Refute Claim #5

RM: This isn't about Claim #5, it's about #1 (then gives Claims #6, #7, and #8 ).

Doctor Steuss: Fills out prescription for ADD medication, and sighs because the IQ level was just beginning to recover and a semblence of intellegence was beginning to emerge.

[rocmonkey]

One more note- If they LDS god is really the one true God why is the Bible unchanged in its doctrines (2,000 years strong) and almost every edition since the first one has been changed? And, the Bom is only a very short 177 years old. Whoa! That speaks volumes in itself.

Even the newest ed. says things have been changed because "errors" have been perpetuated. They say its "now" the whole truth. However, they published a duplicate of the original in 1980 (150th Anniversary ed.) and the new one is nothing like the original. Which ed. is the most correct and who is trying to deceive (lie to) the members and the world?

These are the evidences that tell the truth of this story.

[jwhitlock]

I answered every cfr and no one has responded to them with evidence, only to say its being said by someone who doesn't know Mormonism. Ok, answer this, If someone claims a return date for Jesus and claims to be a prophet of Jesus' Father [God- who never lies, changes and knows everything before He created anything (1 Ne.9:6)] how is it possible for him to give a false prophecy? Either Jesus returned in 1890 or JS gave a false prophecy. Which is it?

More logical disconnects. Read the thread again about responses to you.

Joseph Smith did not prophecy that Christ would come in 1890. It's been explained, and you choose to reject that explanation. Another logical disconnect; rejection of an explanation does not automatically make the straw man you set up right.

This is all one need know to see if Mormonism is true or not. If it was founded by a man whose prophecy never happened then its all false.

Another straw man fallacy, and an oversimplification ("all one need know") to boot. Given your very flawed perspective on how logic flows, I'm not surprised.

If, as you claim, a man cannot be a prophet who gives a false prophesy (and you have set yourself up to be judge by your own biased criteria as to what that false prophecy is), then you must, out of necessity reject the Bible and the Judeo-Christian belief system. Otherwise, your application of a double standard reveals your willingness to bend and ignore facts for your own benefit.

From II Kings 20:

1 In those days was Hezekiah sick unto death. And the prophet Isaiah the son of Amoz came to him, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Set thine house in order; for thou shalt die, and not live.

Hezekiah recovered and lived another 15 years.

From Jonah 3 & 4:

4 And Jonah began to enter into the city a day's journey, and he cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown.

Nineveh was not overthrown.

From II Chr 18:

13 And Micaiah said, As the LORD liveth, even what my God saith, that will I speak. http://""' target="_blank">14 And when he was come to the king, the king said unto him, Micaiah, shall we go to Ramoth-gilead to battle, or shall I forbear? And he said, Go ye up, and prosper, and they shall be delivered into your hand.

Ahab (the king) died in the battle and did not prevail.

All three of these passages demonstrated additional insight about what prophets say that you in your narrow, self-defined deception would discard. Why are you so adamant about ignoring the truth and persisting in a deception that will only turn out badly for you in the end?

Joseph Smith was indeed a prophet of God. As you reject him, you reject the message the Lord has sent in our day.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I answered every cfr and no one has responded to them with evidence, only to say its being said by someone who doesn't know Mormonism. Ok, answer this, If someone claims a return date for Jesus and claims to be a prophet of Jesus' Father [God- who never lies, changes and knows everything before He created anything (1 Ne.9:6)] how is it possible for him to give a false prophecy? Either Jesus returned in 1890 or JS gave a false prophecy. Which is it?

I have given LDS sources for everything I have said. Its you who blindly live by fabrications, I live by what's been recorded. If there's a contradiction, always use the oldest source for the truth.

This is all one need know to see if Mormonism is true or not. If it was founded by a man whose prophecy never happened then its all false.

One more note to examine. Someone said the men on moon thing was by a 10 year old boy given 50 or so years ago. Are you saying the LDS church accepted a 10 year old boys word for its stand on what JS prophesied? Are the good ol boys up there that far gone as to accept a crazy story like that as fact and then print it? I find that harder to believe than the true one- the one I 'quoted'. Can you CFR your 10 year old boy story from non-LDS sources? LDS sources would be too biased to accept- unless its dated at the same time the LDS magazine is that says such outrageous stuff.

Rocmonkey Im glad you are here. You really know how to brighten up someones day. Thanks for your discusion on the subjects. THis board would be not quit as happening if people like you didnt show up.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Ah, yes, Stu, that post was just what the Doctor ordered.

[structurecop]

One more note- If they LDS god is really the one true God why is the Bible unchanged in its doctrines (2,000 years strong) and almost every edition since the first one has been changed? And, the Bom is only a very short 177 years old. Whoa! That speaks volumes in itself.

I am so drooling over you like a cat about to eat a mouse.

[Doctor Steuss]

One more note- If they LDS god is really the one true God why is the Bible unchanged in its doctrines (2,000 years strong) and almost every edition since the first one has been changed? And, the Bom is only a very short 177 years old. Whoa! That speaks volumes in itself.

Even the newest ed. says things have been changed because "errors" have been perpetuated. They say its "now" the whole truth. However, they published a duplicate of the original in 1980 (150th Anniversary ed.) and the new one is nothing like the original. Which ed. is the most correct and who is trying to deceive (lie to) the members and the world?

These are the evidences that tell the truth of this story.

You are aware that no two surviving manuscripts of the Bible agree with each other 100% aren't you? Did you happen to find that out in your "research"?

Did you happen to find in your "research" that of the surviving manuscripts for the Gospel of Mark, only 45.1% (less than half) of the verses are varient free?

I'm sure in your "research" you have discovered such things.

And thus we reach claim #12. And now, feel free to repeat yourself that this thread is really about "blind obedience" and then change the subject yet again.

[rocmonkey]

Haha, nice. First you say "context is outlawed," and now "all LDS sources" are out of the question, as well.

Stacking the deck, but not even trying to hide it! I love this guy!

Sadly, this is always the kind of answer Christians get when they bring evidence to the table with the LDS.

I thought it was standard policy to cfr? I guess that only applies to non-Mormons. Figures. But we can't discuss (on a 'discussion' board) if you don't reply back with evidence.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

One more note- If they LDS god is really the one true God why is the Bible unchanged in its doctrines (2,000 years strong) and almost every edition since the first one has been changed? And, the Bom is only a very short 177 years old. Whoa! That speaks volumes in itself.

Even the newest ed. says things have been changed because "errors" have been perpetuated. They say its "now" the whole truth. However, they published a duplicate of the original in 1980 (150th Anniversary ed.) and the new one is nothing like the original. Which ed. is the most correct and who is trying to deceive (lie to) the members and the world?

These are the evidences that tell the truth of this story.

The Bible is unchanged?? That is a new one to me. And the BOM is what exactly. Your claim that it is some how false because it wasnt perfectly translated the first time. So there might be a few punctuation and grammatical errors. SO what did the book make a claim to be perfect in that regard? So much for studing.

[structurecop]

You are aware that no two surviving manuscripts of the Bible agree with each other 100% aren't you? Did you happen to find that out in your "research"?

http://www.ezekiel-lied.com

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Sadly, this is always the kind of answer Christians get when they bring evidence to the table with the LDS.

I thought it was standard policy to cfr? I guess that only applies to non-Mormons. Figures. But we can't discuss (on a 'discussion' board) if you don't reply back with evidence.

You have brought no such evidence. That is what is the great part of this thread.

[Doctor Steuss]

I am so drooling over you like a cat about to eat a mouse.

I'm so tempted to unleash the Tyler upon him... but there is something within me that pities him.

What to do, what to do...

I guess, unsheathe your sword if you wish. But I will not be held accountable if rocmonkey cries after being intellectually slapped by your Biblical Greatness.

*Bowing, and digging a grave*

http://www.ezekiel-lied.com

Brilliant!!!!

Oh, the joys of evil.

[structurecop]

So much for studing.

Studing? I hope rocmonkey is not studing. The mares will probably run away.

[structurecop]

I guess, unsheathe your sword if you wish. But I will not be held accountable if rocmonkey cries after being intellectually slapped by your Biblical Greatness.

I guess the sheer volume of smackdown that is occuring should be sufficient to counteract whatever meager rebuttal I could offer... I will not shed intellectual blood this day. Carry on men!

[selek]

Studing? I hope rocmonkey is not studing. The mares will probably run away.

Actually, that would be "studding"- to stand at stud.

Although I happen to agree with you in the hopes that Rocmonkey does not breed.

[Lamanite]

I think this thread wins the Heavy Weight Title for "ad homs" in a discussion award.

[rocmonkey]

You are aware that no two surviving manuscripts of the Bible agree with each other 100% aren't you? Did you happen to find that out in your "research"?

Did you happen to find in your "research" that of the surviving manuscripts for the Gospel of Mark, only 45.1% (less than half) of the verses are varient free?

I'm sure in your "research" you have discovered such things.

And thus we reach claim #12. And now, feel free to repeat yourself that this thread is really about "blind obedience" and then change the subject yet again.

Yes I knew that but that isn't the point- you are trying to be deceptive. Do they teach that at the MTC?

The doctrines are all the same and none have ever changed. Minor variations in some words exist as does grammar and misspelling have occurred. But never any doctrinal changes like the LDS do pretty much every few years.

Also, I didn't differ from the thread, others did. I just followed their lead by compulsion to answer the cfr's or be stopped by the moderator. So, its not me 'shot-gunning'. Let's stick to the original thread, then. It works good either way.

Still, nobody answered the CFR about JS or Jesus in respect to Jesus' return. Hmmm, Moderator are you there?

[Avatar4321]

Oy. I've never seen a finer pack of wild dogs.

There are two temple recommend questions that are relevant to the questions in the OP.

2. Do you sustain the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the prophet, seer, and revelator; and do you recognize him as the only person on the earth authorized to exercise all priesthood keys?

3. Do you sustain the other General Authorities and the local authorities of the Church?

If anyone agrees that you can sustain, but not obey, please provide me an example. Otherwise, there appears to be a clear stipulation with following your leader. If you do not, you do not get access to the temple with its higher laws and blessings.

I think one is more inclined to put their obedience on autopilot with these types of stipulations. As is the case with anyone employed by the church. You must keep a temple recommend which means you must answer in the affirmative to the above mentioned questions. If you do not keep a temple recommend, you lose your job.

Sustaining does not mean obey. Although I am sure there are some circumstances that obedience would be necessary in order to sustain the leaders.

I see sustaining as acknowledging their position of authority and doing what we can in our own callings and as members of the Church to help them move forward the work of the Lord.

Honestly, Ive never really been instructed or taught that i need to be blindly obedient. In fact, most of the time the leaders teach in principle and not commandments. And those principles are good and I see wisdom in following those principles.

[jwhitlock]

One more note- If they LDS god is really the one true God why is the Bible unchanged in its doctrines (2,000 years strong) and almost every edition since the first one has been changed? And, the Bom is only a very short 177 years old. Whoa! That speaks volumes in itself.

Bible is old, has been changed. BofM not as old, speaks volumes in itself. (Analysis - rambling, illogical disconnect.)

Bible is unchanged in its doctrines. (Analysis - disconnect from reality, perhaps reflecting bizarre fantasy world where all Christian churches are in unity about all doctrines of the Bible.)

Even the newest ed. says things have been changed because "errors" have been perpetuated. They say its "now" the whole truth.

Unsupportable claim that the BofM is now the whole truth. CFR. (Analysis - disconnect from facts.)

However, they published a duplicate of the original in 1980 (150th Anniversary ed.) and the new one is nothing like the original.

Unsupportable claim that new edition is nothing like the original. (Analysis - excessive use of unsupported hyperbole; observer assumes that poster has never read the BofM with any degree of comprehension.)

Which ed. is the most correct and who is trying to deceive (lie to) the members and the world?

Inability to see big hole that occurs in logic from beginning of the post (Bible has been changed) to end of post (BofM has been changed) - therefore BofM is false. (Analysis - short attention span to detail.)

These are the evidences that tell the truth of this story.

Jumping to conclusions without any reasonable support. (Analysis - conclusion was preconceived, and any boilerplate will do to bolster it. If questioned, just claim that Mormon apologists have made no intelligent responses and provided no evidence to the contrary. Also, loose usage of the word "truth" in a way that undercuts our confidence in the poster's real understanding of the term.)

[Doctor Steuss]

I think this thread wins the Heavy Weight Title for "ad homs" in a discussion award.

Sorry. 90% of them probably came from me.

[rocmonkey]

You have brought no such evidence. That is what is the great part of this thread.

Again I will restate- for those who missed it. Following someone into a belief system even after the evidence clearly shows him to have been wrong in prophesying the return of Jesus is, indeed, blindly following folks. In this case, obviously, a false prophet- by the fact that Jesus did not return, of course. That is evidence in overdrive. I am sorry you missed it before.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Studing? I hope rocmonkey is not studing. The mares will probably run away.

I didnt mean to type that, oh well i think I'll leave it there.

[jwhitlock]

I think this thread wins the Heavy Weight Title for "ad homs" in a discussion award.

We have yet to come anywhere near the level of AH that can be found on some of the other anti-Mormon boards.

Sorry. 90% of them probably came from me.

You have seemed uncharacteristically edgy with this.

[selek]

Again I will restate- for those who missed it. Following someone into a belief system even after the evidence clearly shows him to have been wrong in prophesying the return of Jesus is, indeed, blindly following folks. In this case, obviously, a false prophet- by the fact that Jesus did not return, of course. That is evidence in overdrive. I am sorry you missed it before.

And blindly restating an erroneous supposition in the hopes it will be accepted is a text-book example of DISHONEST RHETORIC.

Your interpretation is WRONG, Roc! It doesn't say what you think it does.

For all your name calling and attempt to incite us, you still haven't addressed the fact that your primary example is WRONG!

[Doctor Steuss]

Yes I knew that but that isn't the point- you are trying to be deceptive. Do they teach that at the MTC?

Not that it's your business, but I didn't go on a mission.

The doctrines are all the same and none have ever changed. Minor variations in some words exist as does grammar and misspelling have occurred. But never any doctrinal changes like the LDS do pretty much every few years.

I agree. The doctrines in the Bible haven't changed. Christians however have changed the interpretation of those doctrines to create new ones (such as ex nihilo popping up in the second century during the battles with the Gnostics). Now, the LDS Church is a living Church, still receiving revelation; and as such we would expect things to change as more and more light is given. How exactly does your brand of religion explain the creation of doctrines that weren't around in the first few centuries of Christianity? We have an explanation for ours, a living Christ... what's your excuse.

Also, I didn't differ from the thread, others did.

Ha!

I just followed their lead by compulsion to answer the cfr's or be stopped by the moderator. So, its not me 'shot-gunning'. Let's stick to the original thread, then. It works good either way.

Ok, we'll stick to the original thread.

Still, nobody answered the CFR about JS or Jesus in respect to Jesus' return. Hmmm, Moderator are you there?

Ok, you want it to remain on the OP, and then the very NEXT SENTENCE you change the subject! And, BTW, I answered your question. You have said how apt you are at "research," so I provided an answer that required a minimal amount of "research." I can hold your hand if you wish, but I thought you'd be able to handle it.