Youtube Apologetics

[cdowis]

An interesting form of apologetics.

 

http://lds.net/forums/topic/57532-youtube-apologetics/

[Robert F. Smith]

Looks like the mirror image of this MDDB forum, in which people sometimes insert YouTube videos.  So what else is new?

[sunstoned]

An interesting form of apologetics.

 

http://lds.net/forums/topic/57532-youtube-apologetics/

I am not sure what you are referring to when you say an interesting form.  From the link I gather this is just another discussion board that is not so much different from this one.  

[cdowis]

Apologize for the confusion.

 

Youtube videos normally have a discussion for each video, based on Google+  Google+ gives you notification of those who respond to your posts.

I gave a link to a summary of some of those discussions rather than duplicating them here.  Youtube apologetics is somewhat different because the responses have to be "quick and dirty", so to speak.  Also there are links to some videos which would appeal to these posters.

Finally, if a participant gets "ugly", you have a choice of "mute" or "block" to stop notifications.

 

Anyway, I admit that the firs page of the linked thread is abit rough, but if you are looking for quick and dirty apologetics on a wide range of subjects, you may find this helpful.

 

false prophecies of Joseph Smith

slavery and mormon history

JS and polygamy

BOM DNA (again, quick and dirty)

various Bible versesn used against the church

One God

[Tacenda]

http://authorgrantpalmer.weebly.com/seer-stone-debate.html

Thought this would be of interest. I attended this debate between Alma Allred and Grant Palmer with Jason Wallace as the moderator. I think they both made good points. Except I thought it unfair that Alma said it's the member's fault for not knowing about JS's polygamy or about the seerstones being used instead of the plates.

[cdowis]

http://authorgrantpalmer.weebly.com/seer-stone-debate.html

Thought this would be of interest. I attended this debate between Alma Allred and Grant Palmer with Jason Wallace as the moderator. I think they both made good points. 

 

It's obvious that Alma was not prepared for this discussion. For example, Palmer quotes Addison Austin, and when Alma questions his credibility, Palmer replies that he was "under oath". What was missing here was that Addison admitted this was a private conversation, no confirming witnesses, and we know nothing about his agenda in this trial, and whether he was indeed credible. Addison had no fear of contradiction when he took the oath, but Alma did not bring up that point.

 

The problem was that Palmer was controlling the course of the discussion, and Alma felt compelled to follow his lead and to be always on the defense. This means that preparing for the discussion would have been very difficult -- for example, the Addison testimony.  Also, in showing whether the church attempted to hide the "stone in the hat" method of translation.  No mention on how this method would refute the antiMormon argument when we consider how JS could have dictated for hours with his face in the hat.  

 

He just let Palmer run the show and he was "polite" in his answers.

 

I have never participated in such discussions because its too easy for the "gotcha" questions, so I personally only engage in a written forum where we can check out assertions and do extensive fact checking before making a response. Alma was unprepared for such a discussion where both the "moderator" and the opponent were on the same side, and it showed.

 

He does not represent the church, and he did not even represent himself very well.  He needs to stick with teaching Institute and writing articles.

Edited November 24, 2015 by cdowis