up for discussion how to talk to Mormon missionaries and trinity videos


#1

Hi everyone!

I wanted to post these videos from you tube.

I think they are really neat and lets discuss a bit

The first four are the missionary ones

youtube.com/watch?v=gPsWcLEKIos&mode=related&search=

youtube.com/watch?v=Dc3BQnFQpg8&mode=related&search=

youtube.com/watch?v=5uOBYSpDl_I&mode=related&search=

youtube.com/watch?v=2ygEMNG5OZY&mode=related&search=

this one is on examining Joseph smith’s vision

youtube.com/watch?v=0muuIE4Y27c&mode=related&search=

the other 2 are on the trinity from a man who was Jewish but became Christian

youtube.com/watch?v=3tIg94FKpuo

youtube.com/watch?v=63xmQVV1p34&NR=1

Would love discussion


#2

I haven’t watched all the videos, but I probably will in the next few days. Thank you for posting them.


#3

I had the chance to just watch the first one…and it is very good…I am going to share it with others for sure. Thanks for the links.


#4

So I gave in. A couple notes from #1:

LDS admit the Catholic Church was given the authority by Christ…untrue.
Give a date on the Apostasy…red herring and a Strawman. It wasn’t a singular event, but a process.
Mormons have issue with Paul as an apostle…untrue.
Apostolic Authority to successors (bishops). Says this is in the scriptures…untrue.
2 Tim 2:2 Keep the knowledge getting past on. This is most tangential to the Great Apostasy, at best.
John the Apostle died…untrue
The creation of the Bible through the divided Christians proves…what?
Mormons don’t know about the creation of the Bible…most I know certainly know.


#5

#2

Mormon church is one of the fastest growing…true.
12 million members…incorrect, 13 members.
Drop in the bucket…so why worry about it?
Mormon missionaries evade this guy…actually, missionaries have strict boundaries and pretty poor at passing along the reference.

8 minutes and not touching the subject

Mormon training school…the MTC is for language acquisition and only 2 months at that
Show me when it was lost…when the Apostles died; better question is, show me that the authority was maintained by lesser posts. Apostolic power isn’t maintained by anyone other than Apostles

This is really slow…no wonder its meant for geriatrics. Any chance of getting this guy on the forum? I’d love to talk to him?
A Pac


#6

#3

We don’t know if the RCC or LDS church is true…incorrerct
Prove when authority was lost…confounding the Apostasy as a singular event rather than process
Commercials make them sound Christian…well, we are
Mormons not Christian…huh?
Christians need to believe the Trinity and RCC message…says who? Your bigoted position makes you authorized to say who is and is not, Christian?
The old lady’s experience with the missionaries…I’d love to talk to her
Apostasy and the Bible (from the Catholics) are not logically connected…the Bible was written previous to the Apostasy, so the date or means of compilation are completely irrelevant.

A Pac


#7

#4

Satan and Jesus are brothers…yes.
She is Satan’s sister…yes. If God made her and Satan, why wouldn’t they be? Beside’s, it’s in the Bible.
God impregnated Mary…strawman-untrue
Satan was an angle and a man…strawman, we don’t think he was a man but an angle whom fell…
Satan kicked out for being like God…untrue…it was for rebellion
No scientists have said there are extra planets and universes out there…Are you serious? Turn the news on once in a while
Angel Moroni told Joseph to start the church but changed the story to God and Jesus…untrue, she’s conflating stories
<>

A Pac

P.S. Anything got anything more substantial than an old person pep rally?


#8

Hi Patty, thanks for the links. I found the first four quite interesting, but wasn’t very impressed by the rest. I will briefly comment on the first four clips. The man in the clips basically raises two objections to the LDS position: One is on the LDS doctrine of the Apostasy; and the other is the origin of the Bible.

On the subject of the Apostasy, he states that it is the “foundational premise of Mormonism;” and he goes on to say that “that is what the entire religion is based on”. I am afraid he is wrong about that. The Apostasy is neither the “foundational premise” of Mormonism; nor is it what “the religion is based on”. The “foundational premise” of Mormonism is the Restoration, not the Apostasy. I am not a Mormon because I believe in the Apostasy. I believe in the Apostasy because I am a Mormon. I am a Mormon because the spirit of the Lord witnesses to me that it is true. When I read the Book of Mormon, or listen to General Conference, the Spirit of the Lord witnesses to me that it is true, and that its leaders are inspired of God and speak by the power of the Holy Ghost. Having determined (independently) that Mormonism is true, I am led to the (inevitable) conclusion that an Apostasy must have occurred for the Restoration to be made necessary. That is how I come to believe in the Apostasy. Joseph Smith didn’t start Mormonism from the premise of the Apostasy. He didn’t say, “Christianity is apostate; therefore let’s start a new church”. That may be the Protestant position, but it is not the LDS position. Joseph Smith was not even 14 years old when he had his First Vision; and he didn’t go to the woods in order to start a new religion. He went there to inquire of the Lord which church was right, so that he could know which church to join. It was the Lord who then told him that none of the church were right (implying that there had been an apostasy), and that he should join none of them; and that God would soon Restore His true Church on earth. So the first objection he raises to Mormonism is based on a “false premise” on his part, not on our part.

The second objection he raises—that the Catholic Church wrote or even “compiled” the Bible (and therefore no one else has the right to lay claim to it but the Catholic Church)—is even sillier and more nonsensical than the first. The Catholic Church neither wrote, nor even compiled the Bible. The Bible was written by the Jews. Both the OT as well as the NT was written by the Jews. The canon of the OT was well known and established among the Jews long before the Catholic Church came along. For the Catholic Church to lay exclusive claim to the Bible, would be like the Jews claiming the exclusive right to the Old Testament! Even they have enough sense not to do that! The NT was also written by the Jews. Jesus was a Jew. The Apostles, who wrote down His words, were all Jews. In the early days of the Christian church, it was pretty well established what was true NT scripture and what was not. If you read the writings of the earliest and most dependable Early Church Fathers, you will find that they quote quite a bit from NT Scripture; and there is general consensus among them as to what is true scripture and what is not. The text of the NT that they quote is pretty close to the canon of the NT that we have today. The fact that disagreements arose among various disparate and fragmented groups in the Christian world as to what was true NT scripture; and the Christians eventually converged on what historically had been recognized as true NT scripture, is neither here nor there.

Interesting clips though. I quite enjoyed watching the first four.

Best regards

zerinus


#9

#10

Thank you weatherman. I hope you have been enjoying good weather in your part of the world, and have not been struck down too much with global warming! I have decided to hang around for a little while, just to clear my goods name and restore my good reputation. It looks like some people can’t leave Z-man alone, even when he is gone! I wonder why!

Had you ever read of, or been informed about, a report via Joseph Smith Sr. that Joseph Jr, “was baptized, becoming thus a member of the Baptist Church” in 1824?

Or, that Jr. was involved with the Methodists between beginning around 1821?

Or, that he sought membership with the Methodist Episcopal Chruch in Harmony, PA in or around June of 1828?

Forgive if this is old news for you. I’m sure you can dispose of these reports easily. Just that I’ve recently been reading about this subject in connection with the First Vision, and your post reminded me of it.

This information is presented (with references) in the Abanes book, One Nation Under Gods. I realize that this is a very anti-Mormon book. Frankly, I’ve found some problems with it. I’d like to know if this information it gives about Joseph’s association with Christian churches subsequent to the First Vision are true according to what you know.

No; I am not acquainted with those reports, and I do not consider them of sufficient interest or importance to me to want to research them out. I have not read that book, and it is unlikely that I ever will. It holds no interest for me that I should want to acquire it or read it. On the subject of Joseph Smith’s association with the churches of the day, before his First Vision, his own comments are as follows:

During this time of great excitement my mind was called up to serious reflection and great uneasiness; but though my feelings were deep and often poignant, still I kept myself aloof from all these [religious] parties, though I attended their several meetings as often as occasion would permit. In process of time my mind became somewhat partial to the Methodist sect, and I felt some desire to be united with them; but so great were the confusion and strife among the different denominations, that it was impossible for a person young as I was, and so unacquainted with men and things, to come to any certain conclusion who was right and who was wrong. My mind at times was greatly excited, the cry and tumult were so great and incessant. The Presbyterians were most decided against the Baptists and Methodists, and used all the powers of both reason and sophistry to prove their errors, or, at least, to make the people think they were in error. On the other hand, the Baptists and Methodists in their turn were equally zealous in endeavoring to establish their own tenets and disprove all others. In the midst of this war of words and tumult of opinions, I often said to myself: What is to be done? Who of all these parties are right; or, are they all wrong together? If any one of them be right, which is it, and how shall I know it? (JS–H 1:8-10.)

That I take to be a true and accurate representation of the course of events. If other people have a different story to tell, it is up to them to provide hard historical data to prove their case.

zerinus


#11

Which Early Church Fathers would you consider dependable?


#12

All of them are dependable. But for the purpose of the subject at hand, I would say that the closer they are to the time of Christ, the more dependable they are.

zerinus


#13

I don’t suppose he ever went to a Catholic church during that time :wink: I’m not serious…I know that even if there was one in the area doing that would probably have been considered worse than what actually happened :slight_smile:


#14

We’ve had wonderful weather here in the high desert. Cool, wet spring, now hot summer, and hoping for a nice wet monsoon beginning next month. No sign of global warming here.

I have decided to hang around for a little while, just to clear my goods name and restore my good reputation. It looks like some people can’t leave Z-man alone, even when he is gone! I wonder why!

LOL, your reputation is like the cheshire cat’s grin… it lingers for awhile. No need to “clear” anything, I think your name and reputation here are in good standing.

“Well! I’ve often seen a cat without a grin,” thought Alice; “but a grin without a cat! It’s the most curious thing I ever saw in all my life!”

No; I am not acquainted with those reports, and I do not consider them of sufficient interest or importance to me to want to research them out. I have not read that book, and it is unlikely that I ever will.

Fair enough. I frankly am a little surprised that you’d never read of these reports that Joseph sought associations with Christian churches subsequent to the First Vision, during which God told him not to do that. The apparent “fact” that one of these reports came from his father, Joseph Smith, Sr. as to his son being baptized Baptist in 1824 seems significant. But, I suppose things like this are hard to verify 180 years down the road.

During this time of great excitement my mind was called up to serious reflection and great uneasiness; but though my feelings were deep and often poignant, still I kept myself aloof from all these [religious] parties, though I attended their several meetings as often as occasion would permit. In process of time my mind became somewhat partial to the Methodist sect… In the midst of this war of words and tumult of opinions, I often said to myself: What is to be done? Who of all these parties are right; or, are they all wrong together? If any one of them be right, which is it, and how shall I know it? (JS–H 1:8-10.)

I cut a bit out for brevity and added my own emphasis. I notice you said that Joseph made this statement PRIOR to the First Vision. It would appear, then, that he had already done quite a bit of thinking about the divisions among Christian churches in his region PRIOR to the First Vision. Do you think that this is significant in any way?

That I take to be a true and accurate representation of the course of events. If other people have a different story to tell, it is up to them to provide hard historical data to prove their case.

zerinus

I’ll take that as an invitation to provide you with the references. I’m not at home just now, but later today I’ll dig up the precise sources for the three instances I mentioned having to do with Joseph Jr. both seeking, and having, associations with Baptists and Methodists subsequent to the First Vision.


#15

That is an interesting question. It appears that the Catholic Church was not involved in that “religious revival” that Joseph Smith encountered. All the “sects” he mentions were Protestant sects. The Catholic Church, I am pleased to say, is generally too dignified to get involved in that kind of activity. That is a typical Protestant/Evangelical kind of behaviour. That area was very much Protestant territory in those days; and Joseph Smith’s contact with the Catholic Church at that time would have been very limited.

I’m not serious…I know that even if there was one in the area doing that would probably have been considered worse than what actually happened :slight_smile:

That is another very astute observation. You are probably right! Religious animosity between Protestants and Catholics (perhaps more accurately, by Protestants against Catholics) was very high at that time, and in that part of the world. Interestingly, Joseph Smith never had anything bad to say about the Catholic Church. Although he speaks quite scathingly about the Protestant sects of the day; on the few rare instances that he does mention the Catholic Church by name, he only has good things to say about the Catholic Church. Joseph Smith was heavily persecuted throughout his life, since his first encounter with the Deity; but that persecution always originated from Protestantism. It never came from the Catholic Church.

zerinus


#16

That is because that kind of information holds little interest for me.

The apparent “fact” that one of these reports came from his father, Joseph Smith, Sr. as to his son being baptized Baptist in 1824 seems significant. But, I suppose things like this are hard to verify 180 years down the road.

That is a very doubtful “fact”. It is highly unlikely (almost impossible in fact) that he would have joined one of those churches (or even that they would have accepted him) all the while that he was being persecuted by them for asserting that he had seen a vision.

I cut a bit out for brevity and added my own emphasis. I notice you said that Joseph made this statement PRIOR to the First Vision. It would appear, then, that he had already done quite a bit of thinking about the divisions among Christian churches in his region PRIOR to the First Vision. Do you think that this is significant in any way?

No. The only significance it has is that it led him to think hard about which church was right, which led him to inquire of the Lord, which led to his first vision.

I’ll take that as an invitation to provide you with the references. I’m not at home just now, but later today I’ll dig up the precise sources for the three instances I mentioned having to do with Joseph Jr. both seeking, and having, associations with Baptists and Methodists subsequent to the First Vision.

Feel free to do so if you wish; but I don’t think that they will hold much interest for me. Their validity and accuracy is likely to be in doubt. Joseph Smith himself tells us a different story, and I am inclined to believe him. If hard, indisputable evidence existed to contradict his own account of the events, they would have been made common knowledge by now in reliable literature written about him, which they are not. I am not terribly studied in Church history. I am more inclined towards theology and doctrine. I am not acquainted with the finer details of historical research. If you are seriously interested in discussing that aspect of things, you would be better off discussing it with someone more knowledgeable than I am, such as with Alma for example.

zerinus


#17

Alrighty, then, brother. There’s another thread open which is more to this point, and Alma has already contributed there. I’ll keep it over there and not derail this thread.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.