Theological Arguments to Avoid

Aaron32

Active member
No, don’t even try that work is just learning nonsense.
I just gave you the EXACT quote you referenced. Now you're implying it doesn't mean what it says it does?
The mormon church’s works are spelled out in specific actions you have to take to earn rewards. And you know what they are as well as anyone else.
Let's unpack this statement. Where's the list of works with specific rewards? Simply getting baptized guarantees salvation? Why don't they teach infant baptism?
I believe we’ll be accountable for who we follow. Can’t use the excuse that false teachers lead you astray. Wise people follow Christ.
Agreed!
 

Magdalena

Well-known member
I just gave you the EXACT quote you referenced. Now you're implying it doesn't mean what it says it does?

Let's unpack this statement. Where's the list of works with specific rewards? Simply getting baptized guarantees salvation? Why don't they teach infant baptism?

Agreed!
If you read Smith’s speech in context, you’ll see that he wasn’t just talking about learning. Climbing a ladder, going from one step to another, one exaltation to the next, being obedient, good works, etc.

Baptism isn’t the only requirement in mormonism. You know what you have to agree to in order to be baptized, and what you have to agree to in order to go thru the temple to get ordinances that mormonism teaches are essential to your salvation and exaltation. And you know the constant expectations of you and your time, money and allegiance.

You agree that you shouldn’t follow false teachers, and yet you follow Joseph Smith, et al. You can’t do that and follow Christ at the same time.
 

Mike McK

Well-known member
Typically, I use the term with referring to specific material or actions. For example, the Wilder's book about Mormon believes is anti-Mormon because it is against what Mormons believe. Ed Decker is an anti-Mormon (as I understand it. I'm just using him as an example, I'm not personally familiar with his work, assuming Ed is a male).
If Ed Decker is "anti-Mormon" and not merely anti-Mormonism, then wouldn't the opposite also be true? That those Mormons who speak out against against Christianity are "anti-Christian"?
 

Aaron32

Active member
If you read Smith’s speech in context, you’ll see that he wasn’t just talking about learning. Climbing a ladder, going from one step to another, one exaltation to the next, being obedient, good works, etc.
Not that I'm a fan of the KFD, but yes, Mormons believe we don't stop learning, growing, and finding joy at the grave. Remember, in this context, we're not talking salvation, we're talking exaltation.
Baptism isn’t the only requirement in mormonism.
I just use baptism as an example, and widely shared among Christianity.

You know what you have to agree to in order to be baptized, and what you have to agree to in order to go thru the temple to get ordinances that mormonism teaches are essential to your salvation and exaltation. And you know the constant expectations of you and your time, money and allegiance.
Are you saying Mormons are essentially "created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." Why yes, I think I'd have to agree with that.

You agree that you shouldn’t follow false teachers, and yet you follow Joseph Smith, et al. You can’t do that and follow Christ at the same time.
Well, Joseph himself said "prophet is a prophet when acting as such." And a prophet is a prophet when speaking by the Holy Ghost, and the Holy Ghost testifies of Christ, so technically it's not Joseph Smith (the man) I follow. It's his inspired teachings. Would you rather I simply dismiss my beliefs and take your word for it, even though you can't substantiate your own claims about my church?
 

Aaron32

Active member
If Ed Decker is "anti-Mormon" and not merely anti-Mormonism, then wouldn't the opposite also be true? That those Mormons who speak out against against Christianity are "anti-Christian"?
Here's the thing about the term "anti-Mormon"...If a person does nothing but tear down Mormon beliefs, with no faith to replace it with, that's certainly not "pro-Christian", that's "anti-Mormon".
If a person is teaching Christianity, and illustrates how Christian beliefs conflicts with Mormon beliefs, that's not necessarily "anti-Mormon".
If the person is unwilling to have a discussion, and chooses to assign teachings to the Mormon religion, despite evidence to the contrary, then that falls back into the "anti-Mormon" category.

If I created a strawman that "faith alone", and that equaled "easy grace-ism", and regardless of how you defended it, and I just called you a liar because your a Christian and you're just trying to whitewash your beliefs, I think you'd most certainly agree to consider that behavior "anti-Christian". Such is the treatment of Mormons on this board.
 

Mike McK

Well-known member
If a person is teaching Christianity, and illustrates how Christian beliefs conflicts with Mormon beliefs, that's not necessarily "anti-Mormon".
That's what Ed Decker does, and you called him "anti-Mormon".

If the person is unwilling to have a discussion, and chooses to assign teachings to the Mormon religion, despite evidence to the contrary, then that falls back into the "anti-Mormon" category.
And what if he uses Mormon sources to back up his claims?
If I created a strawman that "faith alone", and that equaled "easy grace-ism", and regardless of how you defended it, and I just called you a liar because your a Christian and you're just trying to whitewash your beliefs, I think you'd most certainly agree to consider that behavior "anti-Christian".
OK. What "straw man" has he created?
Such is the treatment of Mormons on this board.
Aw, you poor little princess. Imagine people doing to the Mormons here what the Mormons here do to them every day.
 

Aaron32

Active member
That's what Ed Decker does, and you called him "anti-Mormon".
Really? Because that's not what comes to mind when hearing anything about "the Godmakers". Maybe you can cite the section where he's teaching Christianity.
And what if he uses Mormon sources to back up his claims?
Bias can be seen in selective sources.
OK. What "straw man" has he created?
I really don't know. It's been a while since I've read anything by Ed Decker. I can probably guarantee he's omitted teachings regarding the "Doctrine of Christ" found in the Book of Mormon, and jumps the the temple cermony as a baseline to describe our beliefs.
Imagine people doing to the Mormons here what the Mormons here do to them every day.
Yeah, trust me - I know. I'm fairly certain I've been open about how Mormons treat others.
See here: https://forums.carm.org/threads/what-brought-you-to-mormonism.2147/post-225325

Yet, an eye-for-an-eye is NOT Christian, and the bad behavior should, and has, be condemned by their leaders.
 

Mike McK

Well-known member
Really? Because that's not what comes to mind when hearing anything about "the Godmakers". Maybe you can cite the section where he's teaching Christianity.
So, your only experience with Ed Dekker is one movie, in which he exposes Mormon heresies, and without doing any research at all, you blast him for ONLY exposing Mormon heresies?


jumps the the temple cermony as a baseline to describe our beliefs.
And yet, when I ask a question about the Temple Endowment Ceremony, you say, "Oh, we consider that holy so we don't talk about it", but here you are telling us it's not an important part of your beliefs?
 

Aaron32

Active member
So, your only experience with Ed Dekker is one movie, in which he exposes Mormon heresies, and without doing any research at all, you blast him for ONLY exposing Mormon heresies?
I'm sorry, I didn't know this was the Ed Decker board. All I know are the arguments presented against Mormons and the sources from which they are cited.
And yet, when I ask a question about the Temple Endowment Ceremony, you say, "Oh, we consider that holy so we don't talk about it", but here you are telling us it's not an important part of your beliefs?
On the contrary, it's a very important part of our beliefs. Yet, "Milk before Meat" is a biblical principle. (1 Cor 3:2; John 16:12; Hebrews 5:12; 1 Peter 2:2)

Things taught in the temple at principles of exaltation, not salvation. If you want salvation, read the Book of Mormon.
If you can can't accept the Book of Mormon (earthly things), then what good is it to discuss Temple teachings (heavenly things)? (John 3:11-12)
 

Mike McK

Well-known member
I'm sorry, I didn't know this was the Ed Decker board.
You're the one who brought him up.
On the contrary, it's a very important part of our beliefs.
Then it's a legitimate subject for criticism.
Things taught in the temple at principles of exaltation, not salvation. If you want salvation, read the Book of Mormon.
There's no salvation to be found in the Book of Mormon.
If you can can't accept the Book of Mormon (earthly things), then what good is it to discuss Temple teachings (heavenly things)? (John 3:11-12)
You just admitted that the Temple Endowment Ceremony is an important part of Mormon beliefs. If it's an important part of Mormon beliefs, as you say, then it's a legitimate subject for criticism when criticizing Mormonism.
 

Aaron32

Active member
You're the one who brought him up.
No. BrotherofJared did in Post #3 of this thread
Then it's a legitimate subject for criticism.
Sure. If you can present it in context.
There's no salvation to be found in the Book of Mormon.
If that's what you believe, then you should have no interest in the Temple Ceremony.
You just admitted that the Temple Endowment Ceremony is an important part of Mormon beliefs. If it's an important part of Mormon beliefs, as you say, then it's a legitimate subject for criticism when criticizing Mormonism.
Sure. But few actually understand it, much less people that haven't even read the Book of Mormon.
So, yeah, I welcome the criticism, but first you have to put it into context. If you consider the Temple necessary for SALVATION, as many do, you're already missing the mark. Or, if you're likening the Temple to a Jewish Temple as another poster has, as justification to call it 'unbiblical' and therefore heresy, then again, you're missing the mark.

What you can't do is completely ignore all teaching on Christ and the atonement, and focus strictly on the temple ceremony. Most anti-Mormon literature, that I'm aware of, does that.
 

Magdalena

Well-known member
Not that I'm a fan of the KFD, but yes, Mormons believe we don't stop learning, growing, and finding joy at the grave. Remember, in this context, we're not talking salvation, we're talking exaltation.

I just use baptism as an example, and widely shared among Christianity.


Are you saying Mormons are essentially "created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." Why yes, I think I'd have to agree with that.


Well, Joseph himself said "prophet is a prophet when acting as such." And a prophet is a prophet when speaking by the Holy Ghost, and the Holy Ghost testifies of Christ, so technically it's not Joseph Smith (the man) I follow. It's his inspired teachings. Would you rather I simply dismiss my beliefs and take your word for it, even though you can't substantiate your own claims about my church?
We’re talking about what you have to do in this life. Not the next.

You obviously have no intention of taking the discussion seriously since you’re jumping all over the place instead of the questions asked and comments made.

Joseph Smith’s idea of a prophet conflicts with the Bible’s. It’s not my opinions you should agree with. It’s Christ’s.
 

Aaron32

Active member
We’re talking about what you have to do in this life. Not the next.
Again, I'm referring to the quote you were referencing. Maybe YOU can post the quote you were referencing, and then we can see if he was talking about this life or the next.
You obviously have no intention of taking the discussion seriously since you’re jumping all over the place instead of the questions asked and comments made.
What question haven't I answered?

You said "Baptism isn’t the only requirement in mormonism. You know what you have to agree to in order to be baptized, and what you have to agree to in order to go thru the temple to get ordinances that mormonism teaches are essential to your salvation and exaltation. And you know the constant expectations of you and your time, money and allegiance."

And I pointed to Eph 2:10. Standards exist both in Mormonism and Christianity regarding time, money, and allegiance. Just because ours are different then yours doesn't make them inherently wrong.

What speficially do you feel I'm not taking seriously?
Joseph Smith’s idea of a prophet conflicts with the Bible’s. It’s not my opinions you should agree with. It’s Christ’s.
Considering that you don't even believe prophets exist in the Church, when Paul taught differently (1 Cor 12:28) then I can't say your idea of a prophet is Biblical either, therefore, you have no place to judge Joseph's idea of a prophet.
 

Mike McK

Well-known member
Sure. If you can present it in context.
In what way has he taken it out of context?
If that's what you believe, then you should have no interest in the Temple Ceremony.
Why? You just said it's very important to Mormon doctrine.
Sure. But few actually understand it, much less people that haven't even read the Book of Mormon.
So, it's not like Christian baptism, where you're actually taught about it and vetted first to make sure you understand it and have a basic understanding of doctrine?
What you can't do is completely ignore all teaching on Christ and the atonement
I agree that we shouldn't ignore the Mormon teachings that Christ is a man who was elevated to godhood (ironically, without meeting the requirements), that Christ is supposed to be the "spirit brother of Lucifer", that we are saved by grace "only after all we can do", that man must shed his own blood to be saved, that Christ's atonement occurred in the Garden of Gethseman, or any of that crazy, Satanic nonsense.
, and focus strictly on the temple ceremony. Most anti-Mormon literature, that I'm aware of, does that.
And I've found just the opposite: That even though the Temple Ceremony is discussed, because, as you admit, it's an important part of Mormon theology, most Christian authors critical of Mormonism tend to focus on all of the damnable heresies surrounding the Mormon beliefs about Jesus.
 

Aaron32

Active member
In what way has he taken it out of context?
Again, I'm not an expert on Decker. But, generally speaking, Anti-mormon theology states that the purpose of existence is to become gods and join the panteon of gods with our multiple goddess wives. That's a gross mischaracterization.
Why? You just said it's very important to Mormon doctrine.
Because you said there's no salvation to be found in the Book of Mormon. If you're not willing to understand or aleast Mormons believe basic gospel principles in how salvation is found in the Book of Mormon, then explaining the Temple Ceremony is like explaining advanced Calculus to a 1st grader. You have to first have an agreement on the basics of what Mormons believe. If you're simply going to blow it off, then you don't really want to have an honest conversation, you just want to believe in your strawman, and it gets us no where.
So, it's not like Christian baptism, where you're actually taught about it and vetted first to make sure you understand it and have a basic understanding of doctrine?
No. The temple ceremony being like baptism is like the Book of Revelation being like the Book of Romans. The lessons taught are not given by man, but by the spirit.
Before you go to the temple you should have a basic understanding of the gospel doctrine, and be willing to take upon the name of Christ.
I agree that we shouldn't ignore the Mormon teachings that Christ is a man who was elevated to godhood (ironically, without meeting the requirements), that Christ is supposed to be the "spirit brother of Lucifer", that we are saved by grace "only after all we can do", that man must shed his own blood to be saved, that Christ's atonement occurred in the Garden of Gethseman, or any of that crazy, Satanic nonsense.
Lol! And here we go.
1) Jesus is the brother of Satan
2) Works based salvation
3) Blood Atonement

Parroted like every other person indoctrinated in anti-mormon literature.
The next thing you're going to say is that you know Mormonism better than I do. I've heard it all before.
Feel free to start a thread on each of those if you really want to discuss it and to prove how legitimately "mormon" these beliefs are.

It's evident you're not here for an honest conversation, but seeking to rant about what you think you already know about us. Sorry, I don't want to here it, you've been lied to.

And I've found just the opposite: That even though the Temple Ceremony is discussed, because, as you admit, it's an important part of Mormon theology, most Christian authors critical of Mormonism tend to focus on all of the damnable heresies surrounding the Mormon beliefs about Jesus.
Most Christians have no idea what we believe about Jesus because all they've heard are from Mormon "experts". I've seen the poster hanging up in Christian churches that describe Mormonism and other cults. It's the epidemy of a strawman fallacy.

This is what we actually believe: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org...christ-the-testimony-of-the-apostles?lang=eng
 

Magdalena

Well-known member
Again, I'm referring to the quote you were referencing. Maybe YOU can post the quote you were referencing, and then we can see if he was talking about this life or the next.

What question haven't I answered?

You said "Baptism isn’t the only requirement in mormonism. You know what you have to agree to in order to be baptized, and what you have to agree to in order to go thru the temple to get ordinances that mormonism teaches are essential to your salvation and exaltation. And you know the constant expectations of you and your time, money and allegiance."

And I pointed to Eph 2:10. Standards exist both in Mormonism and Christianity regarding time, money, and allegiance. Just because ours are different then yours doesn't make them inherently wrong.

What speficially do you feel I'm not taking seriously?

Considering that you don't even believe prophets exist in the Church, when Paul taught differently (1 Cor 12:28) then I can't say your idea of a prophet is Biblical either, therefore, you have no place to judge Joseph's idea of a prophet.
For some reason, I thought you were further along in your understanding, but you seem to be sliding backwards into beligerism again. I’m not going to go there with you.

I do believe in prophets, but Joseph Smith wasn’t one. According to what Christ told us about them.
 

Aaron32

Active member
For some reason, I thought you were further along in your understanding, but you seem to be sliding backwards into beligerism again. I’m not going to go there with you.

I do believe in prophets, but Joseph Smith wasn’t one. According to what Christ told us about them.
Ad homs now, eh? Well, I guess there's further to discuss.
 

Mike McK

Well-known member
Again, I'm not an expert on Decker.
And yet, you made claims about him.
But, generally speaking, Anti-mormon theology states that the purpose of existence is to become gods and join the panteon of gods with our multiple goddess wives. That's a gross mischaracterization.
Here you go:

“The Lord created you and me for the purpose of becoming Gods like Himself; when we have been proved in our present capacity, and been faithful with all things He puts into our possession. We are created, we are born for the express purpose of growing up from the low estate of manhood, to become Gods like unto our Father in heaven. That is the truth about it, just as it is” (Journal of Discourses 3:93).

“We believe in a God who is Himself progressive, whose majesty is intelligence; whose perfection consists in eternal advancement — a Being who has attained His exalted state by a path which now His children are permitted to follow, whose glory it is their heritage to share” (The Articles of Faith, p. 430).

“Each God, through his wife or wives, raises up a numerous family of sons and daughters; indeed, there will be no end to the increase of his own children: for each father and mother will be in a condition to multiply forever and ever. As soon as each God has begotten many millions of male and female spirits, and his Heavenly inheritance becomes too small, to comfortably accommodate his great family, he, in connection with his sons, organizes a new world, after a similar order to the one which we now inhabit, where he sends both the male and female spirits to inhabit tabernacles of flesh and bones. Thus each God forms a world for the accommodation of his own sons and daughters who are sent forth in their times and seasons, and generations to be born into the same. The inhabitants of each world are required to reverence, adore, and worship their own personal father who dwells in the Heaven which they formerly inhabited” (The Seer, p. 37).

“Sin is upon every earth that ever was created, and if it was not so, I would like some philosophers to let us know how people can be exalted to become sons of God, and enjoy a fulness of glory with the Redeemer. Consequently every earth has its redeemer, and every earth has its tempter; and every earth, and the people thereof, in their turn and time, receive all that we receive, and pass through all the ordeals that we are passing through” (Journal of Discourses 14:71-72).

But, I guess you know better than they do.


If you're not willing to understand...
You've yet to show what I have "misunderstood".
You have to first have an agreement on the basics of what Mormons believe. If you're simply going to blow it off, then you don't really want to have an honest conversation, you just want to believe in your strawman, and it gets us no where.
Literally, every time I've said "Mormonism teaches _______", I've provided Mormon sources to back it up. If you continue to claim, after I've provided these sources, that Mormonism does not teach these things, then it's you don't want to have an honest conversation.
Isn't that kind of irresponsible? To have someone participate in such an important ceremony without knowing what it is, or even the basic doctrines of Mormonism?
Before you go to the temple you should have a basic understanding of the gospel doctrine, and be willing to take upon the name of Christ.
You just said no. Now, you're saying yes.

Which is it? Do you know what the Bible says about a double minded man?
Lol! And here we go.
1) Jesus is the brother of Satan
2) Works based salvation
3) Blood Atonement

Parroted like every other person indoctrinated in anti-mormon literature.
How are the Mormon sources I cited "anti-Mormon literature"? Have you warned your fellow Mormons that the Book of Mormon is actually "anti-Mormon literature"?
The next thing you're going to say is that you know Mormonism better than I do.
It's not about how well I know it. It's about how well the Mormon sources I cited know it, as opposed to you, who just called the Book of Mormon "anti-Mormon literature" know it.
Feel free to start a thread on each of those if you really want to discuss it and to prove how legitimately "mormon" these beliefs are.
I've already proven it when I cited Mormon sources that show it.
It's evident you're not here for an honest conversation
...says the guy who has been shown from Mormon sources what Mormonism teaches and still denies it.
but seeking to rant about what you think you already know about us. Sorry, I don't want to here it, you've been lied to.
Why do you feel the Mormon sources I've cited lied? Why have no other Mormons accused these sources of lying?
Most Christians have no idea what we believe about Jesus
That's why I cited Mormon sources, so that the evidence would come from Mormons, not from Christians.
 
Top