ARG220 and Mormonism

Okay, Adam, I’ve started a whole new thread just for discussing LDS doctrine with you, as you have repeatedly said that I don’t see the contradictions in the points you have raised about Mormonism. Here are the rules:

  1. You bring up a point. ONE point, not a dozen, not a few, but ONE.

  2. You give me sufficient time to research and answer that ONE point, as I’m not all-knowing in regards to Mormonism.

  3. We only move on to another point when both of us feel we have said all we can say about the previous point.

Let the games begin!

Bill, do you remember when I gave you ample Scripture that refuted your claims that Satan is Jesus’ brother? And do you remember how it had no effect on your beliefs in the least? Really, I don’t want to do this. And having you try to coerce(sp?) me into an argument is hardly a good idea. Believe me, the temptation to give you a thousand examples is overwhelming, but I just don’t think it will affect your heart.


“Life is hard…but God is good”

Okay, Adam, but this means you can’t say that I didn’t try to be reasonable with you and listen to your words, and you can’t say that I ignored the “contradictions” you are so fond of pointing out in other threads.

Put up or shut up. And I don’t mean that in a mean way, just don’t go around telling people how Mormons are so unwilling to listen to you, when you are given this golden opportunity to discuss, to your heart’s content, all those things that bother you about Mormonism. You forfeit the right to credibility when you refuse to discuss the issues.

Why don’t you guys discuss it? One issue, gone over calmly…I like it. Do the Satan/Jesus thing if you like. If y’all keep it civil and logical I might learn something.

However, since Adam does not accept the BOM as scripture Snark will have to stick to the NT/OT. Can you do it under those circumstances? I know the BOM is scripture to you, but since it isn’t to Adam you cannot prove anything to him through it. It’s like Adam trying to reinterpret the Jewish reading of the OT by citing the NT. Snark can certainly give the Mormon interpretation of the NT/OT, but cites from the BOM won’t do any good towards convincing Adam.

Geez, I sound like a referee.

“Eppur, si muove!” - Galileo Galilei

It would be very hard indeed to discuss Mormonism without referring to scriptural references in the Book of Mormon. But this wouldn’t necessarily be a debate or an attempt to convert each other. It would just be a discussion. Maybe we could select a referee to keep things civil.

Well, folks; I’ll list a few references here and y’all can use the handy link below to check them out if you don’t have a Bible handy at the moment. And they’ll only be references from the Old and New Testaments (King James Version (Protestant) unless otherwise indicated).

Job 38:7
Numbers 24:17 (NASB)
Revelations 22:16 (NASB)
Isaiah 14:12 (NASB)
Job 1:6 (NASB)
Job 1:7-12
Jude 6
Revelations 12:7-9
John 20:17

These are the verses which one LDS author uses to describe what he sees as the fact of Lucifer’s family relationship to not only Jesus but also to all humanity. This of course does not imply that Jesus and Lucifer are on the “same side” so to speak. It’s like it was pointed out before on this board–JC and Luci are at odds just like siblings, one of whom becomes a priest and the other who becomes a robber. The fact that one brother is a robber does not make the other any less of a priest.

It would be valid to use the BOM to clarify the Mormon perspective, but the NT/OT is the only common ground you two have; otherwise you two will just say, “this is true”“no it’s not”. I am not even sure how someone outside the conflict, like an atheist, would judge; you both believe your books are correct. How could someone judge whose books are more correct, without belief in either one? I guess you would have to judge which books/interpretations were the most logical, straightforward and internally consistent.

“Eppur, si muove!” - Galileo Galilei

Guadere: why don’t you be the ref and I can be one of the coaches?

Maybe we can work it this way:
-The contestants will be Snarkberry and ARG220.
-They’ll each take turns posting.
-If one feels that a posting might be out of line or off the topic of the moment, he’ll check with his coach and then post at the bottom of that posting “coached” so’s we know he thought about it.
-If you, as referee think something’s not all the way there or maybe too much there, you can state that and ask the contestant to reword the post.
-Given the nature of the internet, the next response from the other contestant should’t appear for say 12 hours after your recommendation.
-Let’s limit the discussion to just that: discussion or observation. This should be a description of “that” and “why” for the most part; not an evaluation of “right” and “wrong.”
-You, as the referee, will be more like a judge in a small claims court.

And most important, since I’ve been using the term “contestant,” C3 is not one of the parties to the contest!


Gaudere: The thing is that Mormons think that the BOM is JUST AS VALID as the Bible. They think BOTH books are the word of God. They think BOTH are just as infalible as the other. So, even an atheist could dismantle the very foundations of the LDS church, by simply pointing out how the teachings of the BOM, and D&C (which they also base their religion on) don’t line up with the Bible. Only one book can be correct, right? You can’t have two books that contradict each other, and still hold that BOTH of them are God’s true Word, right? Yet that is exactly what Mormons do. Go ahead Gaudere, read the Bible, and BOM. Then maybe you can talk to the mormons, and show them the contradictions.

Note: Did you notice how both Monty and Bill failed to address any of the issues that Smiling Jaws mentioned in Ancient History, I Know, But…?

How about all of those?

Go for it boys. Twist God’s Word until your heart’s content. Rationalize the night away. I’m out of here, and for now, I’m shutting up. you guys can handle this without me for a while.

“Life is hard…but God is good”

I’m game. Maybe Furt could coach Adam. But there is one problem: Adam has promised not to talk about Mormonism any more on the SDMB. If we can get him to change his mind, fine. If not, we’ll have to respect his decision not to discuss the subject.

Adam wrote:

I did reply to that post, Adam. I said, “I disagree.” As in, “I disagree with practically everything you just said.” I felt that a short reply was preferable to a 500-page essay refuting every point he raised (g).

Maybe Jeffery could be Adam’s coach. He has been very sensible to me. I agree that it shouldn’t be a matter of “right” or “wrong”, but you should be able to say “and that’s why my interpretation makes the most sense”. Use logic and scripture; your priest’s or church’s views can be mentioned, but they are opinions and not The Truth.

No insults here (or at least tone it down!). We don’t need “You are twisting God’s words.” Try, “No, that interpretation is not the best, because look at x, y, z”. Don’t bring in side topics.

And could you post the scripture you are referring to? I can look it up, but it gets hard to remember what people are referring to 12 posts later, and I think the other SDMBers feel the same.

I am amenable to being the ref; as an atheist, for me it is much like arguing over the color of Santa’s boots. I do not want to have to declare a “winner”; I am a ref, not a judge. If your logic is clear and your cites strong, it will speak for itself.

I admit I like some of the LDS ideas, but I think some are truly bizarro (no offense, my beliefs would appear bizarro if taken out of context and reduced to one sentance). Adam sometimes annoys me, but I bear him no deep grudge. I have read a fair amount of the Bible (I’ll finish it someday) and a tiny little bit of the BOM, but I will mostly depend on you guys for cites. Is that “full disclosure” enough? Is David B gonna get miffed if I infringe on his baliwick?

“Eppur, si muove!” - Galileo Galilei

Adam wrote:

Note: Did you notice how Adam backs out of every attempt I make to discuss religion with him? I’ve tried e-mail–he didn’t respond to me. Now I’ve tried the SDMB repeatedly. He wiggles out of every invitation for discussion, saying things like, “I could talk until I’m blue in the face and you still wouldn’t listen.” Okay, Adam, so talk till you’re blue in the face and prove that I won’t listen. Otherwise, I’ll have to call your bluff and say that you’re just too insecure in your religion and too ignorant of Mormonism to be confident in such a discussion as I propose. Sad.

Heh heh. I vote that after Snark and ARG’s Mormanism Discussion that ARG has to have a Christianity Discussion with one of the Jewish posters using only the Jewish Bible (Old Testament) to back Christianity.

Because we know that never happens with the Old Testament and the New Testament, right?

Bill: -Sigh- Do you want to know the truth? Or do you just want to argue. I’m really good at arguing, and I love it, but it never does any good.

Look, if you’re looking for the truth, then go out and buy those books I told you about. You know, the ones at your local Bible bookstore? They will show you each Mormon contradiction, in step by step detail. Just seek God for yourself my friend. Go to your local Pentecostal church, or even Baptist church, or even Catholic church and ask to speak to a pastor about the contradictions in your religion. You’ll find that face to face communication will do a thousand times what I can do here, or even, what SoxFan, or Pickman…etc could do here.

Just calm down, stop the hate, and seek the Father.


“Life is hard…but God is good”

Snark, you and/or Adam should pick a topic. Just one. And Adam should keep in mind that I will slap him down if he cites a human author as if they possess The Truth. An author saying “this is not so” is no proof without reasons to back it up. You get scripture and your brain; that’s all. You can cite an author or priest if they say something particularly well, but they are not the word of God.

And Snark, if Adam is backing out we’ll know; you don’t need to mention it. He hasn’t “officially” agreed to this anyhow.

Ahh! I think the power has gone to my head!! :wink: :wink:

“Eppur, si muove!” - Galileo Galilei

Hey Kat, you slipped that post in underneath mine.

Well Kat, I’m game with that. Except that it’d be a LOT tougher that anything Bill could throw at me.

Right! Now you’re catching on. :wink:

Gaudere: If I wanted to go against Bill, and all the Mormons, you wouldn’t be able to stop me. You wouldn’t even be able to contain me. :wink: I’d rock the very foundations of their religion to the core, and they’d all be weeping from guilt and sorrow when I was through with them. BUT, I really don’t have the millenia that it would take to fully convince these guys, so I think it’s best that they find out the Truth for themselves, by buying those books, and seeking help IRL, outside the SDMB.

“Life is hard…but God is good”

Adam wrote:

Oh, I know the truth, Adam. And no, this would not necessarily be an argument, just a discussion.

Which books are you talking about? Jerald and Sandra Tanner’s book, Mormonism: Shadow or Reality, or maybe Ed Decker’s The Godmakers? Perhaps Floyd McElveen’s (sp?) The Bible: Final, Infallible and Forever? That Ed Decker really writes a hilarious book. And the Tanners? :::Snort::: Maybe Fawn Brodie’s book, No Man Knows My History? Walter Martin’s Kingdom of the Cults? You see, Adam, I’m familiar with at least some of the works of anti-Mormons, and they have not impressed me as being truthful. Or did you have some other books in mind?

I will once again offer to make a deal with you. You’re so concerned about my soul, put your money where your mouth is and order a Book of Mormon and read it. I’ll read yours if you’ll read mine. C’mon, isn’t my cooperation with your suggestion worth a few nights’ worth of reading the BoM? Or would that be too traumatic for you?

I don’t hate you.

Uh, Adam, ever hear of “pride goeth before a fall”? I’m not half so arrogant with my atheism. I know you’re kidding and all, but when I run across an intelligent person who believes something I think is insane, I think “Hm, maybe I don’t understand. I should look into this further, and talk to them.” Then I do some research on the topic, and discuss it with them. Then talk with some other people who believe the same. Then some more research. Then, I can say I think they’re misguided. But not before.

You’re not a terribly good debater, Adam. You rely too much on the words of others and not on reason and facts. :frowning: Snark may do so as well, I don’t know. I think it would be good for your skills to debate, and certainly do no harm. After all, think of this as practice for the Jew/Christian debate!

“Eppur, si muove!” - Galileo Galilei

Adam wrote:

Now THIS is funny! :::giggle:::