Youtube Apologetics

[cdowis]

CRITIC

"My stance is that no religion has met it's burden of proof. Belief and faith are not evidence, they are on the same level as assumptions and opinions. "

RESPONSE
You have answered your own question with your assumption. While technically you are correct, your use of these words is like the person who hears "spooky interaction" (in quantum physics) and thinks this means talking with ghosts, or "string theory", and talking about stinging pearls on a string.

You are saying "belief and faith"' as if you actually know what it means, based on how others have used these words.

The very first step is to forget what others have told you about religion.

Unfortunately, this topic goes beyond the scope of this forum. 
Here is something very basic that you may find helpful.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SBxUcV1L7A

[cdowis]

CRITIC

"The Mormon God was once sinful man"

RESPONSE

This is not a doctrine of our church. We believe what Christ tells us, John 5 [19]  Verily, verily, I say unto you, 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*.

The Son is following the path of the Father, and both are sinless from eternity.

Edited January 11, 2018 by cdowis

[cdowis]

CRITIC

Can you provide one scripture, which viewed through your particular lens, shows Heavenly Mother, Father, Jesus, or
the Holy Spirit became Gods through progression?  

RESPONSE

He who hath ears, let him hear.

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;

Heb 1 [2] Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

John 17:19-23, specifically [22] And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
[23] I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

Rev 3 [21] To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

[cdowis]

CRITIC

God is immutable, never changing

RESPONSE

Well, let's see.
He was a spirit, he then was born with a mortal body, he then died, AND the resurrected with a physical body.
Please explain how you believe that he was both immutable, AND changing.

Also 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;

Let's take another example -- the doctrine of the Nicene Creed, that the Father and the Son is a ONE substance entity.

But Christ Himself refutes the "one substance entity" 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.

Christ was resurrected with a physical body of flesh and bones, and Historic Christians believe that God is a spirit.
If they are ONE substance, which is it?? A body of flesh and bones or a spirit?

[cdowis]

CRITIC

God is a spirit.  Mormons worship a false God.

RESPONSE

Mormons are Bible believing Christians.  You can accuse us of worshiping a false God, but be prepared for a Biblical response.

The God that I worship literally made man in His image, even as Seth was in the likeness, in the image of Adam.

We believe that Christ was he Son of God, and declared "when ye have seen me, ye have seen the Father."  Christ made a point after the resurrection that He had a body of flesh and bones, being in the form of God,  and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men, and was seen of Stephen standing on the right hand of God the Father.

We believe in the God of that Christ taught us in John 17:19-23, the God of the Bible,  and reject the false God of  the "one substance entity" of the Nicene Creed.  Christ refuted that false God many times in the Bible, and will be happy to show you if you are interested.

 

 

Edited August 15, 2018 by cdowis

[cdowis]

bump

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, cdowis said:

bump

huh?

[cdowis]

On 2/27/2017 at 0:53 PM, Carborendum said:

huh?

cough!

[cdowis]

ACCUSATION

Hugh Nibley and accusation of rape by his daughter Martha Nibley Beck.

 

RESPONSE

Here are the facts from someone personally acquainted with the facts. Judge for yourself https://youtu.be/7dhXypt3BIc?t=1m6s

[cdowis]

CRITIC

Comoros and Moroni

RESPONSE

Lehi and family traveled thu the Arabian peninsula for many years, and certainly associated with the local tribes. Now, an interesting fact is that among the early inhabitants of Comoros were ARABS (see wiki) and Arabic is one of the official languages. While I admit the Arabic connection is rather tentative, it is possible that it connects the BOM names with the Arabic names in Comoros. There is evidence that Lehi, et al, were not the only families on the ship to America, but also included some of their Arab neighbor.

[cdowis]

CRITIC

Do not add to the Bible.  Rev 22:18-19

RESPONSE

1. A very basic question == when did he bible become available to the early Christians? As one elderly lady said, "If the King James Bible was good enough for Paul, then it is good enough for me." Do you truly understand the problem with your statement, "adding to the Bible"? .

2. For me, the Bible is like a glass. It is NOT the word of God, it CONTAINS the word of God as well as the words of man. It often refers to other books and text which are no longer extant. In First Corinthians, Paul refers to a previous epistle to them. The modern Bible has a front and back cover, and did the early Christians conceive of such a thing. To them, it was a living Bible, with no back cover. Many centuries later, for convenience they took the various scrolls which represented individual books and epistles and bound it into one book.

With respect to your beliefs, we disagree on the very nature of what is scripture and the word of God. So, I would respond that your assumption of a closed canon fails the test. We will just have to agree to disagree, I suppose. PS Rev 22:18-19 refers not to the non-existent Bible (at that time) but the "sayings of the prophecy of this book". See verses 7, 9-10

Edited March 25, 2017 by cdowis

[cdowis]

CRITIC

Do you deny we are justified by faith (Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:8) and not by faith and a ceremony (Rom. 4:1-11)?

RESPONSE

I do not think we would agree on what the prophets mean by the word "justify".

I think you do not know what "things of the kingdom of God" that Christ taught for forty days to His disciples in Acts 1:2-43.

I think that you believe that the Bible is complete, despite these forty days of teaching doctrines, for which we have no record. I believe that those who have faith in Christ, and follow the teachings and His example, with the light that they possess, will live with Christ, will be "saved in heaven", but not in the presence of the Father.

The promise Christ gave in John 17:19-23 and Revelation 3:21 will be available to those who enter the presence and reside with the Father. If you are content with what you have, then be content that the heaven you believe in will be available to you,. I truly wish you all the best.

Edited March 25, 2017 by cdowis

[JohnsonJones]

On ‎3‎/‎19‎/‎2017 at 0:37 PM, cdowis said:

CRITIC

Comoros and Moroni

RESPONSE

Lehi and family traveled thu the Arabian peninsula for many years, and certainly associated with the local tribes. Now, an interesting fact is that among the early inhabitants of Comoros were ARABS (see wiki) and Arabic is one of the official languages. While I admit the Arabic connection is rather tentative, it is possible that it connects the BOM names with the Arabic names in Comoros. There is evidence that Lehi, et al, were not the only families on the ship to America, but also included some of their Arab neighbor.

One thing that I don't really accept is the idea that Lehi's family travelled through the Arabian Peninsula for several years.  Having spent an extended time period there once upon a time (more Particularly Saudi Arabia) I know it DOES NOT take 8 years to wander through the Arabian desert on foot.

To me, especially when you analyze the currents, it seems far more likely that if they did travel East, they probably spend some time in the Arabian area, but eventually traveled Eastward through the Asian Continent to somewhere far to the East, maybe even in the Far East itself.

From there it is far more likely and plausible that they took an ocean voyage to get to the Americas than if they had left by way of the Eastern Edge of the Saudi Desert...simply because of how much less they would tend to arrive at if they left further east then from Saudi itself.

[JohnsonJones]

On ‎3‎/‎24‎/‎2017 at 11:34 PM, cdowis said:

CRITIC

Do not add to the Bible.  Rev 22:18-19

RESPONSE

1. A very basic question == when did he bible become available to the early Christians? As one elderly lady said, "If the King James Bible was good enough for Paul, then it is good enough for me." Do you truly understand the problem with your statement, "adding to the Bible"? .

2. For me, the Bible is like a glass. It is NOT the word of God, it CONTAINS the word of God as well as the words of man. It often refers to other books and text which are no longer extant. In First Corinthians, Paul refers to a previous epistle to them. The modern Bible has a front and back cover, and did the early Christians conceive of such a thing. To them, it was a living Bible, with no back cover. Many centuries later, for convenience they took the various scrolls which represented individual books and epistles and bound it into one book.

With respect to your beliefs, we disagree on the very nature of what is scripture and the word of God. So, I would respond that your assumption of a closed canon fails the test. We will just have to agree to disagree, I suppose. PS Rev 22:18-19 refers not to the non-existent Bible (at that time) but the "sayings of the prophecy of this book". See verses 7, 9-10

You should note that Revelations was not actually originally part of the Bible.  The original Bible was compiled by the Jews and is found in their books (much of what we know of as the Old Testament).  The New Testament as it is, was not actually collected as such until a LOOOOONG time after it was written, and Revelations is not concurrent with many of the original writings for the New Testament.  If taken, as it were, the warning is to add or take away from the writings that composed Revelations.  The Atheists also use this scripture as evidence as to why, for Christians, the bible must be false, because obviously they have added to Revelations by adding it to the Bible. 

One could ask then, if Revelations are correct, should we also use the current translation (as we do not have the original manuscript as far as I know) for the Gospel of John, or should it be cast out as having been added?

Though some feel it was originally written by John himself, that is only a minority of scholars today, with the majority feeling it was actually written around 90-110 AD...far after the events of the New Testament.  Furthermore, there have been two or three redactions before what we supposedly have today, and even the most recent copies do not date from the original.  The oldest complete text that we have for it dates from the 3rd century...much later than the period it discusses, and in general scholars agree it is not congruent in writing or with the writers knowledge of the other 3 gospels.  Hence, if one suspect Revelation of addressing the entire Bible, then the most suspect book should be the Gospel of St. John.

Of course, as most are ignorant of the history of the assembly of the Bible, they'll be horrified to hear anything like this and ascribe you a heretic...but hey...what's religious fervor compared to actual history?

 

PS: For completeness, I will note we have SMALL fragments of the Gospel of John from the 2nd century, but these are ONLY mere fragments.  The complete text that we have actually comes from the later date in the 3rd century.

PPS: For those who don't understand why I use the Gospel of John, the commonly scholarly held date is between 90 AD and 110.  Revelations on the otherhand dates commonly to 68 AD - 80 AD with perhaps a renovate done under Domitian (which would place the latest it would be done at 96 AD, but probably a lot earlier during the 80s...once again, most likely being done completely between 70 AD and 90 AD...BEFORE the Gospel of John).

Edited March 27, 2017 by JohnsonJones

[cdowis]

10 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

One thing that I don't really accept is the idea that Lehi's family travelled through the Arabian Peninsula for several years.  Having spent an extended time period there once upon a time (more Particularly Saudi Arabia) I know it DOES NOT take 8 years to wander through the Arabian desert on foot.

An interesting theory has been proposed that they were not just wandering around in circles all this time, but actually lived among the inhabitants, possibly as slaves (?!).  In fact some of the natives joined up with them and were on the ship traveling to America.

I didn't read the entire article, so I don't know the details of the theory.  But it does help to clear up some of the population numbers that have been troubling.

Edited March 27, 2017 by cdowis

[cdowis]

10 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

You should note that Revelations was not actually originally part of the Bible. 

I am aware of this, but this is Youtube and any post has to be rather brief or it will be ignored.

[JohnsonJones]

1 hour ago, cdowis said:

An interesting theory has been proposed that they were not just wandering around in circles all this time, but actually lived among the inhabitants, possibly as slaves (?!).  In fact some of the natives joined up with them and were on the ship traveling to America.

I didn't read the entire article, so I don't know the details of the theory.  But it does help to clear up some of the population numbers that have been troubling.

Perhaps, but still does not make a ton of sense (and if they were slaves, they should have never been able to leave) for them to have stayed that entire time in the Arabian Peninsula.  If they left by ship, the currents should have taken them to multiple other locations.  The timing would make a LOT more sense if they actually travelled east (even a East-South East direction from Jerusalem does not necessarily take them into Saudi, but more towards Asia proper in line with Persia and those areas) like it states in the Book of Mormon.  Saudi is more towards the South, though if you aim for the Eastern edge of the peninsula you can sort of say it's the East-Southeast direction.

The timing and the currents would indicate to me that it is more likely they went through Asia during that time than spending the entire time in the Arabian Peninsula.  I know the Arabian Peninsulait is a popular opinion among many LDS scholars (along with the Central American Theory in regards to where the Nephite and Lamanite civilization dwelt which I think is also torn to shreds by non-LDS scholars...I'm more partial to the opinion of either an entire North American Continent theory or the Great Lakes Theory myself) but I think most of them are looking at too localized of an area (in my opinion, of course).

Edited March 27, 2017 by JohnsonJones

[Guest]

3 hours ago, cdowis said:

An interesting theory has been proposed that they were not just wandering around in circles all this time, but actually lived among the inhabitants, possibly as slaves (?!).  In fact some of the natives joined up with them and were on the ship traveling to America.

I didn't read the entire article, so I don't know the details of the theory.  But it does help to clear up some of the population numbers that have been troubling.

The article had virtually no evidence to back up the claim.  It was 100% conjecture and really didn't stand very strong against many other more plausible explanations.

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

The article had virtually no evidence to back up the claim.  It was 100% conjecture and really didn't stand very strong against many other more plausible explanations.

OK, please share with us those other speculative, plausible possibilities.

[cdowis]

3 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

P  I know the Arabian Peninsulait is a popular opinion among many LDS scholars (along with the Central American Theory in regards to where the Nephite and Lamanite civilization dwelt which I think is also torn to shreds by non-LDS scholars..

Perhaps you can share with us how they shrredded that theory, considering that very few, if any, non-LDS scholars have read the BOM.

In fact, tell us about those scholars == who are these mysterious scholars who have studied these issues from a book "delivered by an angel".   Suspect we will find their names prominent on youtube videos "shredding" a book that they have never read.  But let's see what you got.

[JohnsonJones]

Better counterpoint...name ONE NON-LDS scholar (credentials and university preferred) that actually supports a family wandering the Arabian peninsula around 600 BC and actually having enough of an effect that the people's would name villages, locations, and towns after that families members...

Most scholars disregard the Book of Mormon...period.  That makes it easy to say, hey, that name you think was inspired by the Book of Mormon...actually, there's a history to that village and it either predates/came a long time after...etc...than what you Book of Mormon guys think.  Much of the LDS Book of Mormon guesses are more of simple supposition rather than anything based on any strong evidence from what I've seen.

It's like the entire wandering the Arabian peninsula for 8 years.  Ever actually been there...I have...multiple times.  It's one of the areas I HAVE studied with history in a little more depth than others.  In all reality, the tribes would have killed Lehi over water.  Point blank and period.  Unless he was from their tribe (there were FIERCE wars over water in that area...dating as far back as we can record, and they were VERY protective over water) there is a high probability if he spent all that time in that peninsula wandering, he and his family would all be dead.

HOWEVER...let's assume they did spend all that time there, how was it possible?  They would have to have joined into some sort of tribe (mysteriously absent from the Book of Mormon), NOT wandering in the wilderness (being with a tribe isn't really wandering, more like dwelling with a tribe as they go through their seasonal routes), AND, more like wandering in the desert rather than an actual wilderness.

8 Years is a LOOOONG time.  I don't think many think about how long that is for someone who is travelling (obviously people know how long 8 years is), nor how realistic it is for them to be wandering in the Arabian Peninsula for 8 years unless they were suffering the same type of exile that the tribes of Israel did during their 40 years of wandering.  A family is FAR smaller than the tribes of Israel as well.

Let me ask you, from a secular scholar's point of view, which is more likely when one states they traveled East for 8 yearsas it is stated in the Book of Mormon...that they actually travelled East covering all of Asia...or went East into the Saudi Arabian desert, possibly also then went west, and finally back up North, and took so long traveling that any tribe that wished to could have massacred them along the way, yet we have no record of such a battle (and they would have had to be fierce warriors or had a LARGE tribe themselves to survive this, and if they were a large tribe, why send the sons back to Jerusalem for wives when they would already have enough people there with them if they were that big of a band) and yet we have NO histories of their persistent wanderings from that time period while we actually DO have records occasionally of other groups and encounters?

I'm not anti-Mormon, but I don't sequester myself to limited theories that try to narrow down the range of where the Book of Mormon may cover, because I feel it limits them to other options that might be possible.  We are actually on the same side, but there are times when some ideas should be vetted far more than they are in LDS communities.  I think this is a BIG reason their are those who are so flustered about discoveries in the Tehuantepec Peninsula that prove that the ideas Mormons have about the inhabitants there do not really mesh with the history discovered there.  They have closed themselves off so strongly to other ideas...that when evidence comes up they are actually wrong...they can't deal with it.

Do you even know where the current Arabian peninsula theory comes from?  My research seems to indicate it started in 1950 with the Eastern Arabian coastal descent theory from Hugh Nibley (before that was the Western Arabian coastal descent theory which Nibley himself was attempting to refute I believe), and then has been refined over the years.  Having been there... I HIGHLY doubt Lehi travelled that route for 8 years.  2 years...MAYBE...but 8 years...he'd have dwelt too long in a location and gotten killed.

However, let's assume that the absurd is possible.  Then we come across the next challenge and why Asia is much more reasonable than Arabia.  Currents and wind patterns make it so that they would have been far more likely to end up elsewhere, even if they managed to get to the Americas. we are talking about a voyage over ~580 days at best, possibly up to 2 years!  Do you know how much food and water you need to store for 2 years!?  in theory, they would all starve to death if they didn't die of thirst first (the ocean, though filled with water, is NOT palatable to drink).  Do you know how many terrible storms they would have encountered (similar to what was recorded in 1st Nephi, but it wouldn't have been just one, they would have spent at least 2 seasons in the monsoon season).  It does NOT correlate to what the Book of Mormon indicates.  You can find these conclusions on the internet without my help, in fact, if you want to go simple science you can even refer to a documentary made about it just a few years ago!  (And FAIR tries to address this, but jumps to conclusions themselves with the idea that the ship could have stopped for supplies and other ideas).

So, once again is it more likely Lehi spent 8 years travelling a trek that normally would take less than a year to travel, dawdling along the way where there were hostile tribes that may allow a passing trader but someone who spent a reasonable time would be viewed as a threat and killed, made such an impact that towns that were supposedly named 1000 years prior are now named after Lehi and followers instead despite there being a history of the place in some locations with no reference to Lehi and company otherwise, and there IS NO hunting really available (so, say good bye to that steel bow story) overall unless you are approved by the tribes (and would need a LOT of money...easier to actually just buy it from the tribes themselves) in the few locations where it might be reasonable, and then after all this, build a boat (even with technology several hundred years into the future, the boat would STILL take almost 2 years to get to the Americas) that can store two years worth of food and water, and then go on a 2 year voyage during which you would be in the water for at least 2 monsoon seasons, but only ever experience on encounter that was severe enough to nearly sink your ship that entire time?

OR, that it takes 8 years to travel from Jerusalem to the Eastern Edge of Asia, and then take a boat for a few weeks to a few months (if they went North, which isn't recorded in the book of Mormon, it actually could have been a few days voyage even) and get to the Americas that way?  Still encountering hostile tribes and peoples, but being able to have enough room to be able to flee away from them and out of their territory if necessary (not possible in the spend 8 years dawdling down the eastern Edge of Arabia theory).

I'm not discounting the Arabian theory, but I'm saying to me it is far more logical to me they went across Asia or some other route that actually TAKES 8 years rather than either dawdling so slowly in the Arabian Peninsula it defies belief for the dangers it would incur, or wandering aimlessly through the Arabian peninsula (once again the BoM never indicates they wandered aimlessly like the Children of Israel did for 40 years) for no reason at all.  It also makes more sense that the Lord, in his wisdom, would send them on a more reasonably short ocean voyage than one that covers that far of a distance for that long of a period.  Far easier to have them travel across the wilderness of Asia where there is FOOD AND WATER available rather than an ocean where you might be able to fish, but water is going to be in short supply eventually.

I would like to emphasize, we are on the same side in regards to our belief in the Book of Mormon.  We have different OPINIONS on where things may have occurred and where they occurred.  Overall, the belief is more important, but historically speaking, I am of a different opinion than you in regards to where certain events may occur.  We still probably support very similar ideas in other areas.

Edited March 27, 2017 by JohnsonJones

[SilentOne]

The most recent theories I've read have Lehi's group going into a valley inside the mountainous region in southern Arabia, possibly one that is difficult to find unless you already know how to get there, and settling there for a few years.

[cdowis]

CRITIC

Experts agree that the Book of Mormon is not historical, etc

RESPONSE

Interesting video,but based on a false premise as it applies to our religion. Let's illustrate with two examples:

1. Let us take the example of quantum mechanics. The laws in that realm are contrary to common sense, to our experience in the real world that we live. (You will have to do your own research on what I mean -- e.g. entangled particles)) So, you go to an expert on the real world (whatever that means) and you describe some of the really weird stuff that actually happen in that reality. The expert gives his expert opinion that this is utter nonsense, it just does not happen, impossible. Now you go to someone who has personal experience in this field and discover that these things happen in that world. The laws of the natural world as our previous expert knows them, do not necessarily apply in the quantum world.

I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics. ~ Richard Feynman

2. Astronomy. We want to understand and test some principles in astfonomy, so we go to a self-proclaimed expert, to a world recognized astrologer. Yes, he knows something about the heavenly bodies, but is not a credible expert on astronomy itself. Indeed, he may even distort or misrepresent what actual astronomers teach. "They don't know what they are talking about, so listen to me." The antiMormons are the astrologers who do not understand, but pretend to be experts on what Mormons believe. They quote out of context, they misrepresent their beliefs, they pretend to be experts when, in fact, they are ignorant of the facts.

Apologetics is my hobby, and doing this for over 30 years. Like quantum mechanics, I may not have all the answers, but I do know the tricks that the deceivers use.

God Himself has given us the means to test whether the Book of Mormon is true. YOU yourself them become the expert, the one who finds out form himself whether these things are true. As Christ said to Peter Matt 16 [16] And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. [17] And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

[cdowis]

On 3/27/2017 at 11:30 PM, SilentOne said:

The most recent theories I've read have Lehi's group going into a valley inside the mountainous region in southern Arabia, possibly one that is difficult to find unless you already know how to get there, and settling there for a few years.

Please start a new thread.  This topic is on apologetics.

[person0]

CRITIC

Only the grace of God can save us, your works won't save you!

RESPONSE

I agree!

CRITIC