Youtube Apologetics

[cdowis]

CRITIC

They have added to Scripture due to Joseph Smith and Any decent Scholar will expose it.Dr. A.T. Robertson excellent scholar, Dr.Walter Martin, Dr.James White,

 

RESPONSE

Actually you mean  "Dr" Walter Martin and "Dr" James White, 

You might want to check out their credentials.  Were you aware that you can get  PhD quite easily from an NONaccredited school.  And then you can become a scholar as well, "Dr" Dixon.  It's called a paper mill.

http://www.lightplanet.com/response/martin.htm#doctor
https://www.google.com/search?q=james+white+doctorate&oq=james+white+doctorate&aqs=chrome..69i57.6520j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=0&ie=UTF-8

[Guest]

CRITIC

They have added to Scripture due to Joseph Smith and Any decent Scholar will expose it.Dr. A.T. Robertson excellent scholar, Dr.Walter Martin, Dr.James White,

 

RESPONSE

Actually you mean  "Dr" Walter Martin and "Dr" James White, 

You might want to check out their credentials.  Were you aware that you can get  PhD quite easily from an NONaccredited school.  And then you can become a scholar as well, "Dr" Dixon.  It's called a paper mill.

http://www.lightplanet.com/response/martin.htm#doctor

https://www.google.com/search?q=james+white+doctorate&oq=james+white+doctorate&aqs=chrome..69i57.6520j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=0&ie=UTF-8

 

I don't think it's a good response to attack the credentials of the scholars rather than addressing the issue raised.

[Jamie123]

I don't think it's a good response to attack the credentials of the scholars rather than addressing the issue raised.

 

Indeed. Also an unaccredited school is not necessarily a diploma mill - as the Daily Mirror found out to their cost a few years ago!

 

Having said that though, I think there's something to be said for the British system, where a school can only call itself a "university" and award degrees like "master of arts" etc. with permission from the queen. You know where you are then.

Edited August 19, 2015 by Jamie123

[cdowis]

I don't think it's a good response to attack the credentials of the scholars rather than addressing the issue raised.

 

You need to understand that I am only giving part of the conversation.  "Addressing the issues" is done during the flow of discussion IF I feel it is productive depending on each individual.  I've learned by painful experience to avoid going down some rabbit hole and getting into a debate. 

 

In apologetics, I explain, I clarify, answer meaningful questions.  

 

In this thread, it is my intention to post specific topics that come up during the discussion. 

Edited August 19, 2015 by cdowis

[cdowis]

Also an unaccredited school is not necessarily a diploma mill.

 

Please note that I gave him links to research and make up his own mind.

[Vort]

I don't think it's a good response to attack the credentials of the scholars rather than addressing the issue raised.

 

When the resolution of the issues is based on an appeal to the authority of the "scholars", as in a field where the layman cannot reasonably form an opinion, attacking false credentials is not only reasonable, it is required.

[Guest]

When the resolution of the issues is based on an appeal to the authority of the "scholars", as in a field where the layman cannot reasonably form an opinion, attacking false credentials is not only reasonable, it is required.

 

Sure.  But I didn't see that in the post.  The issue was presented as Joseph Smith adding to Scripture, not necessarily the proof shown by any scholar.

 

But even then, appealing to scholarship - real or fake - has no bearing on what is Scripture.  So it is pointless to address the validity of such credentials.

Edited August 19, 2015 by anatess

[cdowis]

But even then, appealing to scholarship - real or fake - has no bearing on what is Scripture.  So it is pointless to address the validity of such credentials.

 

I appreciate your suggestions.

I really think you should participate in those discussions to see how things work.  Select an antiMormon video based on how many views it has (at least 5,000).

 

Find a post and do a reply.  Be sure you are logged into google+ so that it will been seen by a larger audience.

 

Have a good time!  Tell us about it.

Edited August 20, 2015 by cdowis

[cdowis]

CRITIC

Questions our belief in the Bible

 

RESPONSE

We do indeed accept all of the Word of God, including the Bible and modern revelation.

Both the New Testament and Old Testament are studied extensively in Sunday School, and the youth early morning seminary program. 

We are Bible believing Christians.

 

You might find the three part series on the history of the English translation of the Bible, including the KJV.

http://www.byutv.org/show/123d4a82-3d47-488e-beda-2496a5a1ff2c/fires-of-faith

Here is televised a discusson of the New Testament.  I suggest that you click on "list view"
http://www.byutv.org/watch/7f017296-b27e-49d1-9158-dc2b362cfc27/the-acts-to-revelation-discussions-on-the-new-testament-king-of-kings-and-lord-of-lords

Bible videos on the life of Christ as told in the New Testament
http://www.mormonchannel.org/watch/series/bible-videos

Edited August 20, 2015 by cdowis

[cdowis]

QUESTION

If the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are actually three separate gods why does the the book of Morman affirm that that there is only one God: 

 

RESPONSE

Christ explains this in John 17:19-23.   This is somewhat similar to the concept of "power of attorney", or patrimony.

This gives us an understanding of the meaning of "in my Father's house there are many mansions."
Anyway, an example of this is Hebrews 1:1-2, Christ is "appointed heir of all things" and one of his assignments was the creation of the worlds.  

 

See also Rev 3:21

Edited August 21, 2015 by cdowis

[cdowis]

The Challenge from a Catholic

 

CRITIC

 

Your church is heretical because blah blah blah

 

RESPONSE

I have made a decision a long time ago not to engage in a discussion on LDS vs the Catholic church.  It simply comes down to a basic assumption -- does the RCC represent the continuation of authority of the church that Christ organized.  

If yes, there is nothing to talk about.  If not, there is nothing to talk about.
 Basically you believe that the Pope has the "key" of authority passed down from Peter, and we believe that key of authority was restored to a prophet in our day.  That key of authority  is held today by the LDS church.

This whole discussion of who's the heretic is just a side show.  It's all about authority from God.

In any case, our two churches have a great deal in common and work together on many worthy projects. 
If you want to know more about us and our doctrines, go to mormon.org  You can also start a chat there.

I wish you all the best.

++++++++++

He responded, asking if we can be friends.

Edited August 26, 2015 by cdowis

[Guest]

The Challenge from a Catholic

 

CRITIC

 

Your church is heretical because blah blah blah

 

RESPONSE

I have made a decision a long time ago not to engage in a discussion on LDS vs the Catholic church.  It simply comes down to a basic assumption -- does the RCC represent the continuation of authority of the church that Christ organized.  

If yes, there is nothing to talk about.  If not, there is nothing to talk about.

 Basically you believe that the Pope has the "key" of authority passed down from Peter, and we believe that key of authority was restored to a prophet in our day.  That key of authority  is held today by the LDS church.

This whole discussion of who's the heretic is just a side show.  It's all about authority from God.

In any case, our two churches have a great deal in common and work together on many worthy projects. 

If you want to know more about us and our doctrines, go to mormon.org  You can also start a chat there.

I wish you all the best.

++++++++++

He responded, asking if we can be friends.

 

Perfect answer!

 

Yes, it all hinges on whether the authority of the Apostles to lead the entire Church was given to the Bishops.  Bishops preside over their areas as established by the Apostles.  When the Apostles died without new ones being ordained, there was confusion on who gets to lead the entire Church.  The Catholics chose the Bishop of Rome to lead the entire Church as Rome was the seat of Peter.  He becomes the Pope.  The priesthood keys of the Bishop of Rome is the same as those of all other Bishops.  The Catholics believe this decision was inspired by God.  If this is true, then the Catholic Church is the Church of Authority as the line of authority of the Bishops have been preserved.

 

If Apostolic authority did not transfer to the Bishops then the Apostasy was ongoing, if not completed, by the time Pope Linus (a Bishop, not an Apostle - as believed by the Catholic Church) took over the seat of Rome.  Hence, the restoration of the prophetic keys in Joseph Smith is possible.

[cdowis]

CRITIC

Book of Mormon vs the Bible

 

RESPONSE

Lynn Ridenhour, a Baptist minister, compares the Book of Mormon with the Bible. https://youtu.be/Ldu4XnQOP08

[cdowis]

CRITIC

Shows the cartoon version of our beliefs

 

RESPONSE

Let me show you what they are doing by twisting and distorting our teachings ==>>

 

Creepy music

Knock knock, door opens

--Hi, we are from the local church and want to teach you about Jesus 

 

 Jesus? I heard you people are cannibals.  You eat his flesh and drink his blood in church.

 

--True, but ...but that doesn't make us cannibals.  That makes us Christians.

 

I understand that you can say some magic words, and that gives you a free pass to heaven no matter what you do.  You just say, "I believe in Jesus", and then live anyway you want.  If you commit adultery, that's ok because you said that you said with your mouth that you believed in Jesus.

 

--Well, uh..... We follow the teachings of the prophet Paul. We are saved when we confess our belief in Christ with our mouths.  Nothing can take that away from us.  We are saved by grace and not by any of our works.  Following the Ten Commandments is doing works and that denies the grace of Christ.  We are Christians and have been saved. Hallelujah!!

+++++++++++++++++++

 

Of course this is not the real Christianity but a cartoon version which distorts what Christians really believe. If you want to know what we really believe, go to mormon.org You can have a chat there.

   

 

 

Edited August 27, 2015 by cdowis

[cdowis]

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

Upton Sinclair

Edited September 21, 2015 by cdowis

[cdowis]

CRITIC

DNA and the Book of Mormon.  Quotes Southerton.

 

RESPONSE

It just so happens that Dr. Southerton is a PLANT GENETICIST unlike Dr. Ugo Perego. Southerton is speaking outside his area of expertise . His current research involves the molecular biology of flowering and wood development in eucalypts http://mormoncurtain.com/topic_simonsoutherton.html

 

Here is a presentation on the latest DNA research on this issue by Dr. Ugo Perego. Dr. Perego was a Senior Researcher at the Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation (SMGF) and a Scientific Consultant for GeneTree.com, He has received PhD in Genetics and Biomolecular Sciences from the University of Pavia (Pavia, Italy). (see wiki)

The presentation is very detailed.
https://youtu.be/MlB16Grvb-4

 

 

The arm bone of a three-year-old boy from the Mal'ta site near the shores of Lake Baikal in south-central Siberia (map) yielded what may be the oldest genome of modern humans ever sequenced. DNA from the remains revealed genes found today in western Eurasians in the **Middle East** and Europe, as well as other aspects unique to Native Americans, 
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/11/131120-science-native-american-people-migration-siberia-genetics/

Here is an article from Scientific American regarding research on haplogroup x as found in the Native Americans http://www.pbs.org/saf/1406/features/dna2.htm

But the surprise was that about 3 percent of the Native Americans tested had mtDNA from a different haplogroup, called X. Some populations, such as the Ojibwa from the Great Lakes region, have a high concentration of X - 25 percent. How did haplogroup X get to North America? Some X has been found in Mongolia, but it's definitely not common in modern Asia. It can, however, be found in about 4 percent of the present day European population. Genetic anthropologists suggest that the presence of X in North America points to an early migration westward from Europe...... Scientists have also done some testing on pre-Columbian Native American skeletal remains from before 1300, and found haplogroup X in the same proportion it's present in modern Native American populations.

++++++++++++

 

The only Eurasian ethnic group possessing a relatively high percentage of haplogroup X are the Druzes of Lebanon, Syria and Israel, among whom X makes up 15% of maternal lineages

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_X_mtDNA.shtml

Edited October 3, 2017 by cdowis

[Vort]

To be blunt, people are idiots. "You claim some Jews came to the New World 2500 years ago, so therefore there must be all sorts of identifiably Jewish DNA all over the place among American Indians! So if we can't find any, that proves you wrong!"

 

Idiots, I tell you.

[cdowis]

"We also cannot find any Hebrew or Egyptian writing."

[cdowis]

I have not used this argument, but it has interesting possibilities.

 

CRITIC

Mormons are racist.  Brigham Young said blah blah blah

 

RESPONSE 

 

Mormons denied the priesthood to blacks. And the Southern Baptists owned blacks as slaves.

 

---This is old news. Blacks can hold the priesthood and they serve in leadership positions in the church. The Baptists no longer own slaves.

 

It's time to move on for everyone instead of wallowing in the pit of recrimination and hate speech.

Edited August 30, 2015 by cdowis

[cdowis]

CRITIC

Do you believe in the God of the bible or the God of the book of Mormon.

 

RESPONSE

We believe in ONE God, the Trinity as Christ taught in the Bible 
John 17: [20] Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; [21] **That they all may be ONE; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be ONE IN US** that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. [22] **And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, EVEN AS WE ARE ONE** 

Are the disciples to become a "one substance entity" with the Father and Son? We reject this nonsense,  the "one substance entity" heresy of the Nicene Creed. 
Christ Himself refutes this false  doctrine:
 --Not my will, but thine be done
--  Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father (after the resurrection)
--   The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
--   John 7 [16] Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.[17] If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

Are these the words of a one substance entity? Think about it.

Are you going to worship the God of the Bible, or the false god  of the NIcene  Creed.?

Edited March 24, 2019 by cdowis

[Vort]

I would avoid all use of the term "trinity", which is widely understood as defined in the Nicene Creed and is nowhere mentioned in the Bible.

[Guest MormonGator]

I actually think most people should NOT go into apologetics. You need a strong faith, thick skin and the ability to debate and argue without being a jerk. It's tough! 

 

 

[cdowis]

Vort

You are generally correct.  

 

But I often couch my arguments using a rhetorical device called "irony" -->> using  the person's own weapon against him.   It's like giving the dagger a twist, showing him that I can use his own lingo against him.  

 

In this case I am using irony using "one substance entity" to define his use of the word Trinity.   Trinity == one substance entity of the Nicene Creed.

 

In case you haven't noticed, I use irony bordering on sarcasm in many of my posts.

 

Mormongator

Been doing this for thirty years -->>  got it all down except for the "being a jerk" part.  Still working on that.

 

The "thick skin" comes from knowing that this is just a hobby, a sport like chess plus wrestling.  You win some, you lose some but you get better at it with practice.  You learn some things such as when an antiMormon gives their summary of a quote, you need to go to the source, the EXACT quote.  They have a habit of misquotes, or taking them out of context.  A nice way of saying that they are liars.

 

IT'S JUST A HOBBY!

 

But I agree it's not for everybody.  And that's one reason I opened this thread that the Gospel really can be defended on an intellectual basis.

Edited September 3, 2015 by cdowis

[jerome1232]

Maybe I shouldn't even post, but I think you just touched on why most avoid apologetic like activity on social media formats. All of those keyboard warriors aren't out to get a better shared understanding of each others beliefs, they are there to publicly humiliate each other and display their intellectual prowess in public. I don't believe such situations are conducive to the spirit teaching. I also don't believe such behavior is something I would encourage in a disciple of Christ.

[cdowis]

I agree for the most part, but there are those who know very little about us except to view these very negative videos and comments.  People make false assertions and claims.  If we don't correct this information,  who will?

 

Perhaps the term "apologetics" has gotten a bad reputation.  Then call me a  "fact checker".

I try to be an influence for good, not only to the posters, but to the readers of those posts.  I invite them to find out "what we really believe" on mormon.org, and giving links to appropriate church videos, etc

 

Church leaders have encouraged us to make our voices known on social media.  We have had combined RS and priesthood lessons on how to be active in encouraging others.  There are videos on the subject.

https://youtu.be/G7dTmsuuRT0

https://youtu.be/aUHMqlpccEM

https://www.youtube.com/user/MormonMessages/search?query=social+media

 

As you point out, it needs to be done in a positive way.  I have had several individuals who have responded in a very positive way, and have thanked me for correcting some of the misinformation.

 

Finally, if becomes clear that if this person just wants to argue, I just "mute" or "block" the person.  End of discussion with that person.

 

I invite you to try it yourself and see if you can use social media to bring someone to Christ in your own way.

Edited September 3, 2015 by cdowis