Youtube Apologetics

[Guest MormonGator]

Are you able to answer my question to Vort?

 No, Vort can take care of himself. He's totally awesome like that.

[cdowis]

My post has been revised.  Did my own checking.

Edited September 23, 2015 by cdowis

[Guest]

I must have missed it... what's the critique on the Book of Abraham you're having trouble responding to?

[cdowis]

I must have missed it... what's the critique on the Book of Abraham you're having trouble responding to?

 

Here is an article from lds.org. See the section titled "Papyri"

https://www.lds.org/topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng

 

Unfortunately, this article gives credence to the so-called catalysis theory, which is IMO baloney.

 

If you want to discuss the issue of the translation of the Book of Abraham,  please start another thread.

Edited September 24, 2015 by cdowis

[Vort]

I am not big on the "catalyst theory", either, but I don't completely discount it.

[Guest]

Here is an article from lds.org. See the section titled "Papyri"

https://www.lds.org/topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng

 

Have you seen these videos?  What do you think about what he says?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuxTDeElxlo&list=PLG--jawxOdNUeRnM5dKyZphHnFRojpQAv

[cdowis]

I think this issue deserves an entirely  new thread.  You should open it, and ask the question there.

Edited September 24, 2015 by cdowis

[Blackmarch]

Have you seen these videos?  What do you think about what he says?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuxTDeElxlo&list=PLG--jawxOdNUeRnM5dKyZphHnFRojpQAv

I like this guy. he's got quite a lot of interesting insight into ancient egyptology.

[Guest]

I think this issue deserves an entirely  new thread.  You should open it, and ask the question there.

 

You introduced the issue on the Book of Abraham and even gave a link to it... on this thread.  I simply asked if you've seen Muhlestien's videos and if you feel he is credible or not.  I have no intention of discussing the Book of Abraham here.

 

I'm not interested in discussing controversies on the Book of Abraham.  I've already made up my mind on that long time ago.

[cdowis]

No, I have not.

 

In apologetics, one tends to specialize in certain areas -- but you can become "familiar" enough with other issues to make a tentative conclusion.  Let's just say that I have been in several discussions on this issue, and other apologists have strongly discouraged me from pursuing this particular issue.

Edited September 25, 2015 by cdowis

[cdowis]

AN EXTENDED CONVERSATION-- I feel this is instructive in dealing with hostile critics.

 

CRITIC

Did you know that all Cults have the same testimony , and yet all Cults are contrast in their doctrine and beliefs, also they all have the same claim that we are THE ONLY true church. So how can your divine manifestation is true and someone from the Jehovah Witness who have the same divine manifestation is wrong?

 

RESPONSE

"Seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened go you."

Now, you can read, study and ask God whether the Book of Mormon is true. Or make a bunch of excuses, and do nothing because you don't believe what Christ said.

Each of us are personally responsible for the decisions that we make.  Don't blame it on other people.

 

CRITIC

you are a real Mormon who wanted so bad the LDS to be true,if you have guts to defend your church give me your phone number and I will call you and we will settle the matter.

 

RESPONSE

>> have guts to defend your church 

 That's between you and the Lord.  I'm not your mother.

I do my talking here in a public forum.  I will be happy to answer questions but I have no interest in getting in an argument with you. 

 

CRITIC

you can call it argument or whatever, so if you are happy to answer question than here is my question, Why God gave revelation to Joseph Smith to marry a few women who already married?

 

RESPONSE

That's a fair question.
Are you familiar with the two forms of marriage in the LDS church --
1. the temporal marriage -- which normally involves physical intimacy, and is "til death do us part"

2.the "eternal" marriage or sealing.  This takes effect only after the death of both parties, and is for eternity.  Sometimes she is referred to as the "sister wife".  A sister in this life, and the wife in the next life.

You are referring to women who were already in a temporal marriage, and they became "spiritual" wives to Joseph Smith.

This was a very unusual distinction when this combination of polygamy and sealing was just started.  Today they are combined into one marriage.  Although, under certain circumstances, it is possible to seal a deceased man and deceased woman even though they were never married in this life -- they were engaged, for example, and one or both died before their marriage.

 

===This person just doesn't give up===

 

CRITIC

that answer is definitely a Cult not Christianity,so next ? is why God stop polygamy

 

ANSWER

And this is where you stop asking and begin arguing.

I wish you all the best.

Edited September 28, 2015 by cdowis

[cdowis]

INSTRUCTIVE CONVERSATION -- Critic was upset about my comments on Hitchens

 

CRITIC

 

Yes, Hitchens was seriously flawed - he chose reason and logic over faith and credulity. He was able to see religion for what it is: man made nonsense. Hitchens also readily admitted what you stated about Newton, amongst others. He never avoided that fact. However, comparing Newton to Joseph Smith is like comparing red wine to marsh water.

 

cdowis

 

 >>comparing Newton to Joseph Smith is like comparing red wine to marsh water.

Logic based on flawed assumptions and ignorance is garbage -- "garbage in, garbage out".   Hitchens was seriously flawed that he could simply avoid a serious study of Mormonism -- "a book delivered by an angel!!!  You can't be serious."  He could attack and nobody would notice that he was seriously ignorant of the subject.

May I also point out that red wine was used by those who poisoned their enemies -- in that case, perhaps swamp water is the preferable drink. 

 

CRITIC

Mormonism is not to be taken seriously by any thinking person. It's the record of a successful con - it's not even a religion but a scam - believed by not only the credulous but the morally weak and intellectually suspect. It's racist, to boot. If you believe in the teachings of Mormonism then you're willing to believe in almost anything - which would explain why you find the sober common sense of Mr. Hitchens so baffling. 

 

 

cdowis

My friend, you have just demonstrated my point ====>>>>>>

This is not logic, but hysterical ranting and mindless hate mongering.  Get back to us when you grow up and you are able to have an adult conversation.

[My last comment was intended to be provocative -- to issue a challenge to have an intelligent conversation]

Edited September 29, 2015 by cdowis

[Guest MormonGator]

INSTRUCTIVE CONVERSATION -- Critic was upset about my comments on Hitchens

 

CRITIC

 

Yes, Hitchens was seriously flawed - he chose reason and logic over faith and credulity. He was able to see religion for what it is: man made nonsense. Hitchens also readily admitted what you stated about Newton, amongst others. He never avoided that fact. However, comparing Newton to Joseph Smith is like comparing red wine to marsh water.

 

cdowis

 

 >>comparing Newton to Joseph Smith is like comparing red wine to marsh water.

Logic based on flawed assumptions and ignorance is garbage -- "garbage in, garbage out".   Hitchens was seriously flawed that he could simply avoid a serious study of Mormonism -- "a book delivered by an angel!!!  You can't be serious."  He could attack and nobody would notice that he was seriously ignorant of the subject.

May I also point out that red wine was used by those who poisoned their enemies -- in that case, perhaps swamp water is the preferable drink. 

 

CRITIC

Mormonism is not to be taken seriously by any thinking person. It's the record of a successful con - it's not even a religion but a scam - believed by not only the credulous but the morally weak and intellectually suspect. It's racist, to boot. If you believe in the teachings of Mormonism then you're willing to believe in almost anything - which would explain why you find the sober common sense of Mr. Hitchens so baffling. 

 

 

cdowis

My friend, you have just demonstrated my point ====>>>>>>

This is not logic, but hysterical ranting and mindless hate mongering.  Get back to us when you grow up and you are able to have an adult conversation.

[My last comment was intended to be provocative -- to issue a challenge to have an intelligent conversation]

 If someone uses an ad hominem attack like "You are all idiots" how can you respond? Nod your head, pass by, and let that person deal with their anger issues, which they clearly have. 

 

Just my thoughts. 

[cdowis]

 If someone uses an ad hominem attack like "You are all idiots" how can you respond? Nod your head, pass by, and let that person deal with their anger issues, which they clearly have. 

 

Just my thoughts. 

 

Of course, if it is just a drive by insult.  I simply wish then well, and then mute or block them.

 

But this is different.  This is a "thoughtful" insult based on his previous comments.  Hitchens is his hero, and I pointed out his flaws.  He was frustrated that he was unable to defend him, so he just lashed out.

 

I'm giving him a second chance.  It's an intuition thing that some good could come of this.  That's why I called it an instructive conversation.

Edited September 29, 2015 by cdowis

[cdowis]

CRITIC

KJV Translation Errors in the BM Isaiah

 

RESPONSE
You have merely stated the obvious.  But you have given a very simplistic, one-sided view of this issue.
 
More than half of the 400 verses quoted from Isaiah are different from the KJV test.  So what about the differences in the texts?  What do these changes tell us about the text.
http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/the-bible-and-the-book-of-mormon

For example, many of these differences are found in the Septuagint as welll as other Greek codices.  See footnote 8.

"Both English translations of the Septuagint are from the Codex Vaticanus. Passages marked with an asterisk indicate that the two English versions differ and the Book of Mormon agrees only with Lancelot Brenton’s version. It would have been impossible for Joseph Smith to fake these passages since Brenton’s translation was published 21 years after the Book of Mormon. Some passages in the Book of Mormon agree with other Greek codices such as Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus. Some of those parallels are pointed out by Sperry, p. 403."

 

CRITIC

Why did Joseph Smith copy directly from the KJV?

 

RESPONSE

One possible answer has been proposed, based on the translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
"Even academic translators sometimes copy a previous translation if it serves the purpose of their translation. For example, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) provided previously unknown texts for many Biblical writings. However, in some translations of the DSS, approximately 90% is simply copied from the KJV.
Surely we are not expected to believe that the DSS translators dropped back into King James idiom and just happened to come up with a nearly identical text! They, in fact, unabashedly copied the KJV, except where the DSS texts were substantially different from already known Hebrew manuscripts.[17]
Why was this done? Because, the purpose of the DSS translation is to highlight the differences between the newly discovered manuscripts and those to which scholars already had access. Thus, in areas where the DSS manuscripts agree with the Biblical texts that were already known, the KJV translation is used to indicate this.
This is not to argue that there may not be a better way to render the text than the KJV—but, it would be counterproductive for the DSS committee spent a lot of time improving on the KJV translation. A reader without access to the original manuscripts could then never be sure if a difference between the DSS translation and the King James (or any other) translation represented a true difference in the DSS text, or simply the choice of the DSS translators to improve existing translations.
The situation with the Book of Mormon is likely analogous. For example, it is possible that most of the text to which the Nephites had access would not have differed significantly from the Hebrew texts used in later Bible translations. The differences in wording between the KJV and the Book of Mormon highlight the areas in which there were theologically significant differences between the Nephite versions and the Masoretic text, from which the Bible was translated. Other areas can be assumed to be essentially the same. If one wants an improved or clearer translation of a passage that is identical in the Book of Mormon and the KJV, one has only to go to the original manuscripts available to all scholars. Basing the text on the KJV focuses the reader on the important clarifications, as opposed to doing a new translation from scratch, and distracting the reader with many differences that might be due simply to translator preference."
http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms/Translation_Errors_from_the_KJV

[cdowis]

CRITIC

Joseph Smith made false prophecies.

 

RESPONSE

Each of these Biblical prophets give UNCONDITIONAL prophecies.  **We agree that there are no excuses even as you give no excuses to Joseph Smith** Is that a fair test?

1. Jonah prophecy -- Jonah 3 [4] And Jonah began to enter into the city a day's journey, and he cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown. result -- Jonah gave an UNCONDITIONAL prophecy, and it failed.

2. Isaiah prophecy -- Isa 38 [1] In those days was Hezekiah sick unto death. And Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz came unto him, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Set thine house in order: for thou shalt die, and not live. result -- Isaiah gave an UNCONDITIONAL prophecy, and it failed. Hezekiah did not die for another fifteen years

3.Nathan -- prophecy -- 2 Sam 7 [2] That the king said unto Nathan the prophet, See now, I dwell in an house of cedar, but the ark of God dwelleth within curtains. [3] And Nathan said to the king, Go, do all that is in thine heart; for the LORD is with thee. Nathan result -- Nathan gave an UNCONDITIONAL prophecy, and it failed. David did not build the temple, but his son built it.

These three Bible prophets failed your test. YOU say they are false prophets, but GOD says they are true prophets. YOU are the one who has failed the test by renouncing God's true prophets.

Edited March 25, 2019 by cdowis

[cdowis]

CRITIC (regarding the previous post)

Mormons appear to be hostile to the Bible.

 

RESPONSE

 

 I'm merely pointing out that the arguments by the antiMormons are based on ignorance.  
The scripture you quoted does not contradict the several instances of where God "changed His mind" -- it only appears that way.  Just as Christ asked, "Who touched me", He already know who it was.

Now this is also the case of the "false prophecies" of Joseph Smith.  I'm not going to waste time explaining each one of these. 

Remember that the antiMormons not only are believers but also godless atheists and agnostics as well.  The only requirement to join that club is a hatred and disdain for Mormonism -- anyone can join in the attacks.

You will notice that they use the same arguments against Mormonism as they do against the Bible and Christianity -- they are blind and deaf to the things of the spirit.  They use archaeology and historical analysis to disprove the Bible -- claiming it is based on mythology.

But the Lord has given us the way to find the truth -- when Christ said, "Seek, and ye shall find, ask and it shall be given to you", He was not talking about archaeology or philosophical debates,

Matt 16 [15] He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
[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.**

Edited September 17, 2018 by cdowis

[Guest MormonGator]

Of course, if it is just a drive by insult.  I simply wish then well, and then mute or block them.

 

But this is different.  This is a "thoughtful" insult based on his previous comments.  Hitchens is his hero, and I pointed out his flaws.  He was frustrated that he was unable to defend him, so he just lashed out.

 

I'm giving him a second chance.  It's an intuition thing that some good could come of this.  That's why I called it an instructive conversation.

 I think I understand. 

Hitchens is one of my heroes too for his irreverence and fearlessness.  Obviously I don't agree with his atheism. His brother is outstanding too. 

Edited October 6, 2015 by MormonGator

[Vort]

Hitchens is one of my heroes too for his irreverence and fearlessness.  Obviously I don't agree with his atheism. His brother is outstanding too. 

 

I used to admire Hitchens for his clear, rational thought and his willingness to express his opinion forcefully. Then I realized that he was not merely a jerk, but a dishonest one. He applied to religious folks the evils he believed about them, then refused to consider his own biases. I can respect an atheist if he's honest. Hitchens was not honest. His hatred of religion blinded him.

[Guest MormonGator]

I used to admire Hitchens for his clear, rational thought and his willingness to express his opinion forcefully. Then I realized that he was not merely a jerk, but a dishonest one. He applied to religious folks the evils he believed about them, then refused to consider his own biases. I can respect an atheist if he's honest. Hitchens was not honest. His hatred of religion blinded him.

I totally agree with that, word-for-word. 

[cdowis]

CRITIC

Mormon church is a cult -- 

 

 

RESPONSE

Chartismatic leader

That is why the Jews called Christians a cult. They had a charismatic Messiah who preached, healed, etc, and their leaders were very dedicated. Look at Paul. Can you blame them for calling the Christian church a cult or sect?? Acts 24:5. And the Christian church almost worships Paul, reading his epistles and when he disagrees with what Christ taught, well that's just too bad. Just ask them whether baptism is necessary for salvation -- what did Christ say and what do they teach -- the gospel of Paul. Obviously the antiMormons are NOT Christians because.... well, that is a cult with a charismatic leader.

 

Secret Rites

He's being cute and clever. If Christ really taught secret rites and doctrines, how we we know? Well, they are secret, right. But there is a couple of clues in the Bible that tell us about that-- Acts 1:4-5 tells us that after the resurrection of Christ, He went to the disciples and taught them for 40 days. Now, my clever friend, what EXACTLY did He teach them? Did he simply repeat the Sermon on the Mount 5,000 times? Forty days is a very long time to be teaching. Give us some quotes from that sermon, please. Silence? Well, we get clues from the apostles. Peter tells us that the gospel will be preached to the dead so that they will be judged equally with those who heard the gospel preached in this life. Just think how many billions of people have never even heard of Christ -- Peter tells us that they will also have that opportunity. And Paul, he tells us about the three kingdoms of glory. He tells us that the Christians did baptisms for the dead -- after all, Christ told us that this was necessary for salvation. Yes, antiMormons are not Christian, because... well, it is a cult with secrets and at least one secret rite -- baptism for the dead.

There are those who call these “secrets”, but Christ said, “it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.” They are indeed sacred, and Christ has commanded us to keep them from the world.

Edited May 29, 2016 by cdowis

[cdowis]

CRITIC

Mormons are racist, blah blah blah

 

RESPONSE

 

Growth in Africa

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865638671/Major-LDS-growth-in-Africa-unaffected-by-priesthood-restriction-Elder-Sitati-says.html

 

http://www.ldsliving.com/Church-Announces-Temple-Groundbreakings-in-Africa-and-South-America/s/80772?utm_source=ldsliving&utm_medium=email

Elder Bednar Dedicates New Missionary Training Center in Ghana

Dedication services were held today in Ghana at the new missionary training center (MTC) of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The new facility is located next to the Accra Ghana Temple in the African

country where the Church is flourishing.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.com.gh/elder-bednar-dedicates-new-missionary-training-center-in-ghana

 

A contribution to Black History and Ancestry

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/historic-freedmen-records-released

 

Here is Elder Dube, a General Authority in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, speaking in the world-wide General Conference 

 

Here is what we believe
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/racial-remarks-in-washington-post-article

 

 

Here are some videos you might find of interest  regarding the church and Africa and blacks.

 

 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/one-hundred-thousand-africans-find-joy-in-continent-wide--mormon-helping-hands--project

 

 

 

 

Edited October 31, 2017 by cdowis

[Guest MormonGator]

CRITIC

Mormon church is a cult -- 

 

 

 

I get this one too. It's not even close. When a cult leader dies, 99% of the time the cult dies with them. Smith Jr has passed away and we're still going strong. There is absolutely no merit to this argument at all.  

[jerome1232]

Well technically, all religions are cults based on two of it's definitions. Listen to an archeologist sometime.

[cdowis]

CRITIC

The Book of Mormon is racist -- quotes scriptures that the dark skin is a curse

 

 

RESPONSE

Can I assume that you have never actually read the Book of Mormon completely because the book itself addresses that issue.

The antiMormons's favorite technique is to quote out of context.  They "forget" to give the full context of the text of the Bookof Mormon, so let's look at what it says.

Jacob 3 [5] Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins, are more righteous than you
....
[7] Behold, their husbands love their wives, and their wives love their husbands; and their husbands and their wives love their children; and their unbelief and their hatred towards you is because of the iniquity of their fathers; wherefore, how much better are you than they, in the sight of your great Creator?
[8] O my brethren, I fear that unless ye shall repent of your sins that their skins will be whiter than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God.
Hel 6 [1]...the Lamanites had become, the more part of them, a righteous people, insomuch that their righteousness did exceed that of the Nephites because of their firmness and their steadiness in the faith.

Also see Alma 25 and 27.  It tell us that many Lamanites were converted (Alma 17-23), and they sacrificed their lives for their belief in Christ.

The antiMormons have poisoned your mind, my friend