On being called "Mormons"

[Nemesis]

Thews knock it off now. You know that is not what he is saying, so stop your games now.

Nemesis

[thews]

Thews knock it off now. You know that is not what he is saying, so stop your games now.

Nemesis

I honestly don't know that's not what he's saying... I'm telling you the truth.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I honestly don't know that's not what he's saying... I'm telling you the truth.

Putting me on ignore or ignoring my comments does not let you off the hook for my CFR.

[Nemesis]

I honestly don't know that's not what he's saying... I'm telling you the truth.

This is the type of behavior that disrupts dialogue. Stop your silly game, and if you honestly can't figure out what he is saying then maybe you shouldn't be participating here.

Nemesis

[thews]

This is the type of behavior that disrupts dialogue. Stop your silly game, and if you honestly can't figure out what he is saying then maybe you shouldn't be participating here.

Nemesis

Nemesis,

I'm a critic and my comments are critical. If apologetics needs critics, then I don't see how my question was out of line? I'm trying to abide by the rules, and when LeSellers says, "Absolutely not. Quite the contrary. According to any definition derived from the Bible, "Christianity" must include the doctrines or the Restoration through Joseph Smith" and uses a bold type to define must, how is my question out of line? This would seem to imply Christianity "must" include the doctrine of Joseph Smith, which is not Christian theology, but rather a Mormon theology, which was the point of the OP. Please tell me what exactly I'm doing wrong in this exchange of dialog, as I really don't understand?

[Nemesis]

Nemesis,

I'm a critic and my comments are critical. If apologetics needs critics, then I don't see how my question was out of line? I'm trying to abide by the rules, and when LeSellers says, "Absolutely not. Quite the contrary. According to any definition derived from the Bible, "Christianity" must include the doctrines or the Restoration through Joseph Smith" and uses a bold type to define must, how is my question out of line? This would seem to imply Christianity "must" include the doctrine of Joseph Smith, which is not Christian theology, but rather a Mormon theology, which was the point of the OP. Please tell me what exactly I'm doing wrong in this exchange of dialog, as I really don't understand?

1. You have a CFR to answer, which incidentally is why you haven't been kicked out of the thread yet. So your next post better be answering it.

2. If you don't know what you are doing maybe you need some time to figure it out, I'm thinking maybe six months?

3. There are many critics that are critical. So what? What makes you special?

Nemesis

[thews]

CFR that Jesus ever taught that all other churches are wrong outside of Mormonism.

Since I must answer your official CFR, OK, I'll do it again. I'm not saying Jesus ever claimed that all other churches were wrong outside of Mormonism, but rather Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and John Taylor did. I have provided you with the data, but I'll do it again.

"Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the Church of the Lamb of God and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore whoso belongeth not to the church of the lamb of God belongeth to that great church; which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth." (The Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 14:10)

"Nothing less than a complete apostasy from the Christian religion would warrant the establishment of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." (Documentary History of the Church, Introduction, xl)

"I was answered that I must join none of them (Christian Churches), for they were all wrong...that all their creeds were an abomination in His sight" (Joseph Smith History 1:19).

This is tiring thews. All that God/ or rather Jesus claimed was that their creeds were an abomination. THere is more to a church then a creed. And what does the text state in 1st Nephi 14:10 What churches are named?

more....

"The Christian world, so called, are heathens as to their knowledge of the salvation of God." (Brigham Young, JD 8:171)

"The Christian world, I discovered, was like the captain and crew of a vessel on the ocean without a compass, and tossed to and fro whithersoever the wind listed to blow them. When the light came to me, I saw that all the so-called Christian world was grovelling in darkness." (Brigham Young, JD 5:73).

"I spoke of the impropriety of turning away from the truth, and going after a people so destitute of righteousness as the Methodists." (Joseph Smith, DHC 2:319)

"What! Are Christians ignorant? Yes, as ignorant of the things of God as the brute best." (John Taylor, JD 13:225)

"What does the Christian world know about God? Nothing...Why so far as the things of God are concerned, they are the veriest fools; they know neither God nor the things of God." (John Taylor, JI) 13:225)

"...brother Heber C. Kimball was beset by a number of Baptist priests who had been attending a conference. He read them all down out of the New Testament....With regard to true theology, a more ignorant people never lived than the present so-called Christian world." (Brigham Young, JD 8:199).

"...all the priests who adhere to the sectarian religions of the day with all their followers, without one exception, receive their portion with the devil and his angels." (The Elders Journal, Joseph Smith Jr., editor, vol.1, no.4, p.60)

"Brother Taylor has just said that the religions of the day were hatched in hell. The eggs were laid in hell, hatched on its borders, and then kicked on to the earth." (Brigham Young, JD 6:176)

The church of God and the church of the Devil. And what church is the church of devil? What does the text say Thews?

10 And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the bother is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth.

here is the text. I really hope you can figure out the meaning of this verse.

I can. If there are two churches mentioned, and one of them is Mormonism, thenthe other must be the church of the devil. If the church of the lamb is Mormonism, then all other churches must be outside of this definition. How do you interpret it, based on the above quotes? CFR.

[thews]

3. There are many critics that are critical. So what? What makes you special?

Nemesis

I'm not special... I'm trying to abide by the rules and want to know what I'm doing wrong... I honestly mean this.

[Molloch]

I'm not special... I'm trying to abide by the rules and want to know what I'm doing wrong... I honestly mean this.

You're not admitting that you're completely wrong about everything.

[thews]

You're not admitting that you're completely wrong about everything.

By what data do you make this claim? CFR.

[Molloch]

By what data do you make this claim? CFR.

lol

[thews]

lol

Are critics the only ones who have to answer CFR's? I gave you a lot of data and I don't understand your respond. Please give me some reasons why you make this claim.

[Walden]

Nathair:

There MIGHT be a Mormon Church somewhere. I don't know nor do I particularly care if there is. But I don't belong to it. My experience with the critics is that they do it for one of two reasons.

1. Ignorance, this is the most easily cured by telling them the proper name of the Church.

2. Maliciousness, deliberately telling a lie in order to conflate the Church with non Christian groups.

This argument and the others like it seem to me to be a bit ridiculous. I have regularly heard LDS members refer to baptists, pentacostals, etc. as "evangelicals" or "EV's" and I find the term "Mormon Church" no different than using the term "Lutheran Church" or "Catholic Church"......have you ever referred to an Episcopalian as being a member of the Anglican Communion of the United States, as that is their official designation. Yes, I thought so.

As Mormons are fond of stating, those looking to be offended can find offensive things in many places.

[LeSellers]

when LeSellers says, "Absolutely not. Quite the contrary. According to any definition derived from the Bible, "Christianity" must include the doctrines [my new emphasis] or the Restoration through Joseph Smith" and uses a bold type to define must, how is my question out of line? This would seem to imply Christianity "must" include the doctrine of Joseph Smith, which is not Christian theology, but rather a Mormon theology, which was the point of the OP. Please tell me what exactly I'm doing wrong in this exchange of dialog, as I really don't understand?

Can (or do) you not recognize a difference between the "doctrineS of Joseph Smith" and the "doctrine of Joseph Smith"?

The doctrines of the Restoration (or what you might call the doctrines of Joseph Smith) are the doctrines of the Bible. They are essentially identical. However, the doctrine of Joseph Smith (whatever that may be, for I have never heard of it) seems to be something related explicitly to Joseph Smith.

Words mean things. You have demonstrated an inability to differentiate among similar terms.

Lehi

[thews]

Can (or do) you not recognize a difference between the "doctrineS of Joseph Smith" and the "doctrine of Joseph Smith"?

The doctrines of the Restoration (or what you might call the doctrines of Joseph Smith) are the doctrines of the Bible. They are essentially identical. However, the doctrine of Joseph Smith (whatever that may be, for I have never heard of it) seems to be something related explicitly to Joseph Smith.

Lehi, this is what Mormons believe. Just because Mormons believe this, doesn't make it generic "Christian" theology. I have no issues with you believing this, but it is "Mormon" theology that not all Christians accept, but rather far from it, as all "Christians" reject the Mormon doctrine, which is why there's different definitions.

Words mean things. You have demonstrated an inability to differentiate among similar terms.

Lehi

I would say you are unable to differentiate your Mormon (LDS) beliefs from generic Christian theology that rejects Joseph Smith as a prophet of God... there is a difference from "restored" doctrine and the bible.

[Nathair/|\]

Did someone leave a jet engine running?

Oh no, it's just John.

Regards,

Pahoran

You, too, can become FOD.

Yours under the Airedale oaks,

Nathair /|\

[Nathair/|\]

Lehi, this is what Mormons believe. Just because Mormons believe this, doesn't make it generic "Christian" theology. I have no issues with you believing this, but it is "Mormon" theology that not all Christians accept, but rather far from it, as all "Christians" reject the Mormon doctrine, which is why there's different definitions.

I would say you are unable to differentiate your Mormon (LDS) beliefs from generic Christian theology that rejects Joseph Smith as a prophet of God... there is a difference from "restored" doctrine and the bible.

You have an interesting logic system. Might be something I can use around the sidhe. They like those types of games and I can never play on their level. Where can I learn more about it?

Yours under the otherworldly oaks,

Nathair /|\

[Nathair/|\]

Nemesis,

I'm a critic and my comments are critical. If apologetics needs critics, then I don't see how my question was out of line? I'm trying to abide by the rules, and when LeSellers says, "Absolutely not. Quite the contrary. According to any definition derived from the Bible, "Christianity" must include the doctrines or the Restoration through Joseph Smith" and uses a bold type to define must, how is my question out of line? This would seem to imply Christianity "must" include the doctrine of Joseph Smith, which is not Christian theology, but rather a Mormon theology, which was the point of the OP. Please tell me what exactly I'm doing wrong in this exchange of dialog, as I really don't understand?

Actually, that was not the point of my OP, but since I got the information I wanted early on, and since I find weasels entertaining when nobody is getting hurt, carry on.

Yours under the oaks,

Nathair /|\

[Pahoran]

I've been banned from the other threads for having the wrong opinion, so keep your hot air to yourself. Your endless blathering responses and support from the same tag team are nothing more than a diversionary tactic to hide the fact that you don't have anything other than your opinion to back up your argument of why all the facts should be discounted, and you don't address the facts that support the counter argument, because they don't exist. If I could respond I would, but the facts remain the same and ultimately define the truth.

And the relevant facts in view are these:

1. You previously asserted that you were adhering to a biblical definition of "Christian"; and
   
2. When you could no longer ignore the CFR's for this alleged biblical definition, you produced a definition from Wikipedia.
   

Really? Wikipedia?

Granted that it's a useful reference, but when did it become part of the Bible?

Perhaps Lloyd or someone will now come along and pronounce you the winner, but the fact remains, and has remained from the beginning, that the Bible does not define "Christian." Nor does it define "Christianity." The Bible mentions the word "Christian" just three times, and "Christianity" never. Not even once.

Now you can flail about and abuse everyone who disagrees with you, perhaps because you think it may distract from the fact that you've stuck your size 12's in your cakehole yet again, but it might just be better to man up and admit that you got it wrong.

Regards,

Pahoran

[thews]

And the relevant facts in view are these:

1. You previously asserted that you were adhering to a biblical definition of "Christian"; and
   
2. When you could no longer ignore the CFR's for this alleged biblical definition, you produced a definition from Wikipedia.
   

Really? Wikipedia?

I presented a lot of data to Mola's CFR... do you have anything to say about the data presented?

Granted that it's a useful reference, but when did it become part of the Bible?

You aren't talking to the data presented that was asked for. Please be specific... what part(s) of the data presented do you disagree with?

Perhaps Lloyd or someone will now come along and pronounce you the winner, but the fact remains, and has remained from the beginning, that the Bible does not define "Christian." Nor does it define "Christianity." The Bible mentions the word "Christian" just three times, and "Christianity" never. Not even once.

And as you blather on about nothing, as usual, you ignore the actual data presented and claim victory by picking some nuance you claim to find fault with while presenting nothing in retort. From post #82:

"Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the Church of the Lamb of God and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore whoso belongeth not to the church of the lamb of God belongeth to that great church; which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth." (The Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 14:10)

"Nothing less than a complete apostasy from the Christian religion would warrant the establishment of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." (Documentary History of the Church, Introduction, xl)

"I was answered that I must join none of them (Christian Churches), for they were all wrong...that all their creeds were an abomination in His sight" (Joseph Smith History 1:19).

"The Christian world, so called, are heathens as to their knowledge of the salvation of God." (Brigham Young, JD 8:171)

"The Christian world, I discovered, was like the captain and crew of a vessel on the ocean without a compass, and tossed to and fro whithersoever the wind listed to blow them. When the light came to me, I saw that all the so-called Christian world was grovelling in darkness." (Brigham Young, JD 5:73).

"I spoke of the impropriety of turning away from the truth, and going after a people so destitute of righteousness as the Methodists." (Joseph Smith, DHC 2:319)

"What! Are Christians ignorant? Yes, as ignorant of the things of God as the brute best." (John Taylor, JD 13:225)

"What does the Christian world know about God? Nothing...Why so far as the things of God are concerned, they are the veriest fools; they know neither God nor the things of God." (John Taylor, JI) 13:225)

"...brother Heber C. Kimball was beset by a number of Baptist priests who had been attending a conference. He read them all down out of the New Testament....With regard to true theology, a more ignorant people never lived than the present so-called Christian world." (Brigham Young, JD 8:199).

"...all the priests who adhere to the sectarian religions of the day with all their followers, without one exception, receive their portion with the devil and his angels." (The Elders Journal, Joseph Smith Jr., editor, vol.1, no.4, p.60)

"Brother Taylor has just said that the religions of the day were hatched in hell. The eggs were laid in hell, hatched on its borders, and then kicked on to the earth." (Brigham Young, JD 6:176)

Now you can flail about and abuse everyone who disagrees with you, perhaps because you think it may distract from the fact that you've stuck your size 12's in your cakehole yet again, but it might just be better to man up and admit that you got it wrong.

Regards,

Pahoran

And again, to the critical thought process, look at the lack of data presented in Pahoran's argument and the lack of data acknowledged. I complied with the CFR and presented the enclosed. What do you think of the actual data that isn't comprised of opinion?

Thanks

[thews]

Actually, that was not the point of my OP, but since I got the information I wanted early on, and since I find weasels entertaining when nobody is getting hurt, carry on.

Yours under the oaks,

Nathair /|\

Sticks and stones Nathair... sinking to that level wasn't what I expected from you.

[Nathair/|\]

Sticks and stones Nathair... sinking to that level wasn't what I expected from you.

You do realize I am a trickster druid right?

Yours under Dagda Mhor's oaks,

Nathair /|\

[Pahoran]

I presented a lot of data to Mola's CFR... do you have anything to say about the data presented?

I say that the data doesn't support the existence of a biblical definition of Christianity.

As you perfectly well know, Thews, your latest bunch of anti-Mormon prooftexts is not what I was commenting on.

You aren't talking to the data presented that was asked for. Please be specific... what part(s) of the data presented do you disagree with?

Note to those with critical thought processes: Thews relies here upon the fallacy of the false dilemma: either we agree with his conclusions or we have to reject his data. He seems to think that by this transparent ruse, he can keep the questionable part of his argument -- the selection of the "data" and the interpretation thereof -- out of sight and scrutiny.

Just how gullible does he think we all are, really?

And as you blather on about nothing, as usual, you ignore the actual data presented and claim victory by picking some nuance you claim to find fault with while presenting nothing in retort. From post #82:

Umm, Thews: who do you think is going to be that stupid? Do you really think you can fool people into thinking I was responding to post 82 when everyone can see that I was responding to your post 53?

Regards,

Pahoran

[thews]

I say that the data doesn't support the existence of a biblical definition of Christianity.

As you perfectly well know, Thews, your latest bunch of anti-Mormon prooftexts is not what I was commenting on.

What data are you claiming is wrong? You use blanket statements that claim to address specific data posted. I posted a lot of data. What data do you disagree with... specifically?

Note to those with critical thought processes: Thews relies here upon the fallacy of the false dilemma: either we agree with his conclusions or we have to reject his data. He seems to think that by this transparent ruse, he can keep the questionable part of his argument -- the selection of the "data" and the interpretation thereof -- out of sight and scrutiny.

Note to the critical thought process... without data... it's just another opinion. Note the lack of data referenced.

Just how gullible does he think we all are, really?

Who is this "we" you speak of? Are you sending out the :highfive: request here? It's real simple Pahoran, I posted a lot of actual facts which you disagree with. Why.. .what facts do you disagree with?

Umm, Thews: who do you think is going to be that stupid? Do you really think you can fool people into thinking I was responding to post 82 when everyone can see that I was responding to your post 53?

Regards,

Pahoran

And here we have more words to play dodgeball... it's so obvious. If what I posted to Mola's "official" CFR is wrong, then please elaborate by addressing it specifically with something other than bad sarcasm and opinion based on nothing.

Thanks

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Since I must answer your official CFR, OK, I'll do it again. I'm not saying Jesus ever claimed that all other churches were wrong outside of Mormonism, but rather Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and John Taylor did. I have provided you with the data, but I'll do it again.

more....

I can. If there are two churches mentioned, and one of them is Mormonism, thenthe other must be the church of the devil. If the church of the lamb is Mormonism, then all other churches must be outside of this definition. How do you interpret it, based on the above quotes? CFR.

Thanks for answering my CFR. It would seem that I mis-spoke. I knew this stuff, Yes Jesus did indeed says that all of the churches were wrong and that their creeds were an abomination. Sorry about that. Mistakes happen. Oh and sorry but 1st nephi 14:10 does not mention anything about the church of Christ being the LDS church. And that all other churches are of the devil. I think you should think on what those verse of scripture are really trying to say. Remember that a person taht is LDS can still belong to the church fo the devil.

What I really want is a definition of what a christian is from the bible. You claimed you could produce one. All you did was pull a wikipedia for a source and that is not the same as the bible.