Youtube Apologetics

[Guest MormonGator]

5 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I'd also say:

STOP TELLING US WHAT WE "DON'T KNOW" ABOUT OUR OWN FAITH!!!

Is it insulting to anyone else when people try to tell us that we've been duped simply because we "don't know" XYZ?  I've found that 99.9% of the time, I already did know it and I learned it through official Church channels.  

Yup.  They're doing a great job at hiding things from us.

Agree. It's obnoxious when people think they can debunk or destroy your faith with a few quick data points. These are things most of us have been confronted with our entire lives-the good, the bad and the ugly. After all, we all can do a Google search.  Do you think I'm going to say, "Well, Joe explained it to me and I get it now. Thanks Joe. I'm an atheist because of you" Doesn't work like that. 

Edited February 12, 2018 by MormonGator

[cdowis]

> God is a man

Well, let's see what the Bible says
He was a spirit, he then was born with a mortal body, he then suffered physical death, AND then resurrected with a physical body.

John 14 [9] he that hath seen me hath seen the Father
Luke 24 [39] Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
[40] And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.

Genesis 1 [26] And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: 
[27] So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Christ LEARNED obedience and was MADE perfect. He progressed in this life.
Heb 5 [8] Though he were a Son, yet *learned he obedience* by the things which he suffered;
[9] *And being made perfect* he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him

Edited March 26, 2018 by cdowis

[Blossom76]

48 minutes ago, cdowis said:

> God is a man

Well, let's see what the Bible says
He was a spirit, he then was born with a mortal body, he then suffered physical death, AND then resurrected with a physical body.

John 14 [9] he that hath seen me hath seen the Father
Luke 24 [39] Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
[40] And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.

Genesis 1 [26] And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: 
[27] So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Christ LEARNED obedience and was MADE perfect. He progressed in this life.
Heb 5 [8] Though he were a Son, yet *learned he obedience* by the things which he suffered;
[9] *And being made perfect* he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey hi

Great point and don't forget Genesis 3:8 "And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden".  Walked, on his legs.

[cdowis]

GREAT NEWS!!!!!!!!!

Hidden cities in mesoamerica
National Geographic has this article https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/02/maya-laser-lidar-guatemala-pacunam/  that uses new laser technology to see things through the dense vegetation and are finding interesting stuff.  Among the things

"In what’s being hailed as a “major breakthrough” in Maya archaeology, researchers have identified the ruins of more than 60,000 houses, palaces, elevated highways, and other human-made features that have been hidden for centuries under the jungles of northern Guatemala."

" At its peak in the Maya classic period (approximately A.D. 250–900), the civilization covered an area about twice the size of medieval England, but it was far more densely populated.  Most people had been comfortable with population estimates of around 5 million,” said Estrada-Belli, who directs a multi-disciplinary archaeological project at Holmul, Guatemala. “With this new data it’s no longer unreasonable to think that there were **10 to 15 million people there** ncluding many living in low-lying, swampy areas that many of us had thought uninhabitable.”

Edited February 14, 2018 by cdowis

[cdowis]

"spiritual eyes" -- Martin Harris

 

 

1. Stephen Burnett is repeating a story which he alone is a witness and is contradicited by every statement by Harris .In the very same year that he left the church.
I find it interesting that you can give it any credibility.  If Harris had indeed made such a statement IN PUBLIC, there should be many witnesses to such an "amazing" story.  but NADA, NOTHING, NOBODY ELSE MENTIONS IT
In this public meeting of members of the church he stands alone.
2. Gilbert's account was given many years afterward but pretends to give the entire conversation word of word.  We can only guess the exact words that Harris said,  but  I agree he probably did use the phrase "spiritual eyes".
3. You missed these accounts
"Well, just as plain as you see that chopping block, I saw the plates; and sooner than I would deny it I would lay my head upon that chopping block and let you chop it off.[1]

George Mantle recalls what Martin Harris said while he was in Birmingham on a mission for the Strangites. This was well after Martin had left the Church:

When we came out of the meeting Martin Harris was beset with a crowd in the street, expecting that he would furnish them with material to war against Mormonism; but when he was asked if Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God, he answered yes; and when asked if the Book of Mormon was true, this was his answer: 'Do you know that is the sun shining on us? Because as sure as you know that, I know that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God, and that he translated that book by the power of God.'[1]

Edited March 1, 2018 by cdowis

[JohnsonJones]

10 hours ago, cdowis said:

"spiritual eyes" -- Martin Harris

 

 

1. Stephen Burnett is repeating a story which he alone is a witness and is contradicited by every statement by Harris .In the very same year that he left the church.
I find it interesting that you can give it any credibility.  If Harris had indeed made such a statement IN PUBLIC, there should be many witnesses to such an "amazing" story.  but NADA, NOTHING, NOBODY ELSE MENTIONS IT
In this public meeting of members of the church he stands alone.
2. Gilbert's account was given many years afterward but pretends to give the entire conversation word of word.  We can only guess the exact words that Harris said,  but  I agree he probably did use the phrase "spiritual eyes".
3. You missed these accounts
"Well, just as plain as you see that chopping block, I saw the plates; and sooner than I would deny it I would lay my head upon that chopping block and let you chop it off.[1]

George Mantle recalls what Martin Harris said while he was in Birmingham on a mission for the Strangites. This was well after Martin had left the Church:

When we came out of the meeting Martin Harris was beset with a crowd in the street, expecting that he would furnish them with material to war against Mormonism; but when he was asked if Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God, he answered yes; and when asked if the Book of Mormon was true, this was his answer: 'Do you know that is the sun shining on us? Because as sure as you know that, I know that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God, and that he translated that book by the power of God.'[1]

Uhmm...can you give us some context. I can see your answers, but I'm not sure what they were answer in relation to.  It sounds like it could have been an interesting debate there.

[Guest]

On 3/2/2018 at 3:45 AM, JohnsonJones said:

Uhmm...can you give us some context. I can see your answers, but I'm not sure what they were answer in relation to.  It sounds like it could have been an interesting debate there.

Supposedly someone asked Martin in his account of seeing the angel and the plates whether he saw them with his "natural eyes" or his "spiritual eyes".  He replied "spiritual".  

Assumption #1: Let's pretend we actually believe this conversation took place and was accurately related to us.
Assumption #2: The anti-Mormon will say that "spiritual eyes" simply meant that he received some vague impression and thought in his mind. And therefore, he didn't actually see anything.

I personally wonder about Assumption #1.  Maybe it happened as related.  Maybe it didn't.

Assumption #2, as a Mormon I obviously see the meaning of "spiritual eyes" in the context of Moses talking about seeing God.

Quote

Not my natural, but my spiritual eyes.  For my natural eyes could not have beheld.

Any Mormon would have spoken thus about a celestial visitation.  So, yes, he actually saw what he said he saw.

[cdowis]

Joseph Smith bragged --  bragged greater than Christ

 

RESPONSE

 

John 14 [12] Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

 

Edited January 7, 2019 by cdowis

[Vort]

8 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Joseph Smith bragged -- greater than Christ

RESPONSE

John 14 [12] Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

There is a large pool of anti-Mormon arguments that I consider simply not even worth my time to respond to*, no matter how simple or obvious the response. This is one of them.

*This may possibly be one reason I don't really almost ever respond to anti-Mormon arguments.

[cdowis]

The Maya began trading in the Pre-Classic period, about 300 BC, and continued to do so with increasing enthusiasm throughout the Classic period (A.D. 250-900). Trade intensified even in the Post-Classic period, when the culture was in decline, and only stopped completely when the Maya themselves ceased to exist as a political entity. The Maya traded both luxury items and objects designed for everyday use: feathers, gold, jade, amber and quartz, honey, animal pelts, manta, vegetable dyes, copal incense, herbal medicines, dried chile peppers and household ceramics. 

http://www.mayankids.com/mmkpeople/mksailing.htm

[Sunday21]

On 2018-02-13 at 8:30 PM, Blossom76 said:

Great point and don't forget Genesis 3:8 "And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden".  Walked, on his legs.

Who is this? Jesus Christ or Heavenly Father? I think perhaps Jesus Christ because of the ‘Lord’? 

[Blossom76]

2 hours ago, Sunday21 said:

Who is this? Jesus Christ or Heavenly Father? I think perhaps Jesus Christ because of the ‘Lord’? 

Never thought of it like that, I always thought Jesus was in heaven with God,  until he was born to Mary

Edited March 12, 2018 by Blossom76

[Sunday21]

5 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

Never thought of it like that, I always thought Jesus was in heaven with God,  until he was born to Mary

Jesus created the earth under the guidance of Heavenly Father. Jesus is the Lord of the Old Testament.

• Creator. Jesus Christ, under the direction of the Father, created the earth and everything on it. Elder Nelson says, “This hallowed Creator provided that each of us may have a physical body, uniquely individual . . . We honor Jesus as our Creator, divinely directed by His Father.”
• Jehovah. Elder Nelson cites numerous scriptures in both the Old and New Testament, showing that Jesus Christ of the New Testament is indeed the same God worshipped by Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
• https://thomasmonson.com/1402/roles-of-jesus-christ

[Sunday21]

@Blossom76 Here is a link to Jesus the Christ which goes through the roles of Jesus https://www.google.ca/search?q=jesus+the+christ+lds&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-ca&client=safari

[cdowis]

CRITICIZING THE CHURCH LEADERS

The role of the Brethren is to represent God to His people, as all prophets have done in the past. These men, past and present, are the first to say they are not perfect, but, like all members, they are striving to become as the Savior commanded. *Some people will hold up a yardstick of perfection to them and find them wanting. That measure is just a distraction from the real question. Christ, after all, was the only perfect person who lived on the earth. The real question is, “Did these men have and fill a divine mission?”*

The fact that these men are not perfect does not bother me. It actually gives me hope in my quest for exaltation to know that the Lord does bless, guide, and honor them. Following the teachings of the prophets is our test, not theirs.

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/allan-f-packer_finding-your-way/

Edited March 18, 2018 by cdowis

[cdowis]

BRAINWASHING THE MEMBERS

Elder D. Todd Christofferson recently taught the following:

God will not live our lives for us nor control us as if we were His puppets, as Lucifer once proposed to do. Nor will His prophets accept the role of “puppet master” in God’s place.

You are not expected to be a puppet of God, the Church, or anyone else, but you are expected to take responsibility for your future. You are the only one who can earn your exaltation.

There are important decisions to be made. President Packer said:

The crucial test of life . . . does not center in the choice between fame and obscurity, nor between wealth and poverty. The greatest decision of life is between good and evil.The Book of Mormon teaches us that “men are instructed sufficiently that they know good from evil.”⁸ The Holy Ghost will help you know all things you need to know and do.

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/allan-f-packer_finding-your-way/

 

 

[cdowis]

"like how there were no horses here before the Spanish brought them in the 1500s"
1. Horses were in the Americas, but the issue is WHEN they went extinct.
https://rtfitchauthor.com/2011/11/05/another-study-verifies-wild-horses-in-north-america-eons-ago/

Among the Mayans?
https://academic.oup.com/jmammal/article-abstract/38/2/278/934315?redirectedFrom=fulltext

Evidence of modern era pre-Columbian horses in Carlsbad?
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-centuries-old-bones-of-horses-unearthed-in-2005jul17-story.html

2. Horses were last mentioned in the Book of Mormon in about 50AD.  It does not claim horses were in America after that time.
 

 

 

Edited March 28, 2018 by cdowis

[Guest]

34 minutes ago, cdowis said:

"like how there were no horses here before the Spanish brought them in the 1500s"
1. Horses were in the Americas, but the issue is WHEN they went extinct.
https://rtfitchauthor.com/2011/11/05/another-study-verifies-wild-horses-in-north-america-eons-ago/

Among the Mayans?
https://academic.oup.com/jmammal/article-abstract/38/2/278/934315?redirectedFrom=fulltext

Evidence of modern era pre-Columbian horses in Carlsbad?
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-centuries-old-bones-of-horses-unearthed-in-2005jul17-story.html

2. Horses were last mentioned in the Book of Mormon in about 50AD.  It does not claim horses were in America after that time.

It may interest you to know that several Native American Tribes claim they always had horses.  But when the Europeans came around they kept them hidden because they didn't want them stolen.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

It may interest you to know that several Native American Tribes claim they always had horses.  But when the Europeans came around they kept them hidden because they didn't want them stolen.

Not to mention America took how long for Europeans to completely explore - several hundred years?

How do we know there were no wild horse populations in the entirety of America over that time?

[Vort]

1 minute ago, DoctorLemon said:

Not to mention America took how long for Europeans to completely explore - several hundred years?

How do we know there were no wild horse populations in the entirety of America over that time?

Primarily because no recent horse remains have been found for that period of time. Horse remains are either ancient or post-Conquistadores.

Now, lack of evidence is not necessarily evidence of lack. But finding zero equine remains for any Book of Mormon period certainly casts doubt on the idea that horses were common in the Americas during the period between 600 BC and 400ish AD.

[Guest]

41 minutes ago, Vort said:

Primarily because no recent horse remains have been found for that period of time. Horse remains are either ancient or post-Conquistadores.

Now, lack of evidence is not necessarily evidence of lack. But finding zero equine remains for any Book of Mormon period certainly casts doubt on the idea that horses were common in the Americas during the period between 600 BC and 400ish AD.

I was trying to reconcile that with the statements from Native Americans.  What i can guess is that one documentary said how The American Indians would use up every part of every animal they ever killed.  It might stand to reason that if a horse died, they would make use of their bodies as well.  They have no evidence because the remains were all used up.

However, I don't believe there is NO evidence.  I believe it is just so scarce that it is often overlooked or whatever.

https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/hard-evidence-ancient-american-horses

Even if we follow the non-Mormon narrative that "only Mormons believe..."  I find it interesting that we continue to close the gap with mainstream archaeology.  It used to be before the last ice age -- attributing extinction with the ice age.  Then it was 12,000 years ago.  I heard a while back that something was found 1000 BC.  And that wasn't even Dr. Steven Jones either.  It was quoted by a professor at some Virginia or West Virginia university IIRC.

Now, just hot off the presses (2005):

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-centuries-old-bones-of-horses-unearthed-in-2005jul17-story.html

It sure is seeming like both the Native American oral history as well as the Book of Mormon were right after all...

Edited March 28, 2018 by Guest

[Vort]

When it comes to shutting up the anti-Mormons, few things would please me more than finding two-thousand-year-old horse bones in the Americas. Maybe a sign saying, "Welcome to Zarahemla."

[NeuroTypical]

I'm afraid you would end up mostly unpleased.  From my archives:

Quote

Here's a thought experiment: Let's say tomorrow, non-mormon archaeologists announce they have found the grave of Lehi, the sword of Laban, the city of Zarahemla, horse and elephant bones, steel swords, breastplates, and evidence of the massive battles talked about in the BoM.  Let's say they unearth additional records that strongly support events described in the BoM - especially Christ's visit.  If all this happened, would you believe Joseph Smith and the BoM are what they claim to be, and would you go to a mormon church and get baptized?
---
Tchild2: “Problem is, that "tomorrow" never arrives, it exists as a hypothetical fantasy. What if Jesus came down and said that the Catholics had and always had the sole power to effect the ordinances of Christianity, would you then become Catholic, or whatever religion had their fantasy evidences and proofs materialize?
"Tomorrow" is an artifice and construct of fantasy that doesn't exist, and never has with religious claims.”
---
Sleepyhead: “The book of mormon being true doesn't automatically indicate that any of the reorganization chruches are true. Each step has to be looked at logically.”
---
AZNative: “Let me know when they find Moroni's horse wrapped in the Title of Liberty, then we'll talk...”
---
Oceanblue: “OK, BoM is true and Joseph was a fallen prophet. Power went to his head. Something like that. Saul, anyone?”
---
Agnostimorm: "If something like what you describe happenned I would be thrilled to accept such a thing."
---
"If God were a real being and he corresponded to the many things reported about him by Christians, it is likely I would not want anything to do with him."
---
FormerLDS: "Honestly, I don't think it would change my opinion about the LDS organization.  With respect to seeing archaeological evidence, and believing, think about this:
Have you ever seen the a devil cast out of a man? Certainly, that would be very convincing evidence.
Have you ever personally witnessed prophecy? That too would be very convincing evidence.
Have you ever seen wonderful works? Yet more evidence that might convince one to believe.
All of these and more are done in the name of Jesus Christ by those who accepted a false gospel (Matt 7:22).
Therefore, evidence can be very misleading where the truth of the gospel is concerned. How much cyanide kills? Likewise, a gospel that is 99.99% grace and .001% works will send a man's soul to the lake of fire for eternity, regardless the "evidence".

The only gospel that will save is Believe WITHOUT works."
---
Cinepro: "I'm still baptized, but it would certainly change the direction I'm heading."
---
Roman: "Never because your little drama would never happen"
---
Oprichnik (LDS): "It's in the Christian world's best interest that that scenerio not occur. Their agency would evaporate in a heartbeat."
---
JustCurious: "Well anyone who would not would be a fool..."
---
A Random Catholic: "As I said the first time Wunna posted that scenario, if it happened, I would almost certainly seek to be baptized. I would retain a pretty liberal view of the origin of the Book of Abraham and tend to believe that there's a degree of Old Testament hyperbole at work in that "2,230,000 dead Nephites" bit, but apart from that, I would accept the CoJCoLDS as being exactly what it claims to be and gratefully submit myself to its leadership."
---
BAMMER: "I've already given my life over to the Lord and been reborn through faith. I confess Him daily. And I would never accept anything or anyone that taught another gospel.

 

Edited March 28, 2018 by NeuroTypical

[person0]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

When it comes to shutting up the anti-Mormons, few things would please me more than finding two-thousand-year-old horse bones in the Americas. Maybe a sign saying, "Welcome to Zarahemla."

The 'Mound Builders' designed the following in Ohio:

It's no horse, but it's most definitely a menorah and oil lamp and one could argue the sign of the compass and square.  Pretty cool either way.  I'll show them evidence of a horse when they show me what a cherubim and a behemoth.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I'm afraid you would end up unpleased.  From my archives:

What the heck is "CoJCoLDS"?

EDIT: Oh.  duh.

Edited March 28, 2018 by Guest