“If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed.”*
by Fred W. Anson
Personally, and speaking only for myself and no other author in this series, I have a hard time finding a religious system that’s less tethered to reality than Mormonism – that is with the possible exception of its close cousin, Scientology. And over the course of the last few months, we have shown you why.
The Ten Myths that we have analyzed and scrutinized over this series aren’t just interesting trivia points of Mormon Culture, they are foundational to the very religion. Endemic to them all are Latter-day Saint dogmas that must be believed and accepted in order to justify either basic religious distinctives in particular or Mormonism in general. In some cases, as was stated in the introduction to this series, if the myth isn’t true then Mormonism no longer has any justification for existing at all. Let’s consider them again along with their epigraphs one last time, shall we?
The 10 Myths Mormons Believe About Christianity
-
- “Biblical Christianity apostatized”
Neither the Bible nor Christian Church History support Restorationist Great Apostasy claims - “The Bible has been corrupted.”
We have a Biblical text that is faithful to the original - “Biblical Christians believe in cheap grace.”
Justice Isn’t a Myth. But neither is Grace and Mercy - “Biblical Christians believe Christ prayed to Himself.”
Biblical Christians fully acknowledge the one-ness and the three-ness of God - “The Biblical Christian God is a monster who sends good people to hell…”
We are, as Paul declares, “without excuse” - “Biblical Christians worship the cross and the Bible.”
If using symbols and scripture is worshiping them then Mormonism has a beam-in-eye problem - “Biblical Christians have no priesthood.”
Our authority to act in God’s name comes from His call on our lives - “Bibical Christian Pastors and Apologists practice Priestcraft – they’re only in it for the money.”
“If we’re in it for the money, we’re doing a very bad job of it” - “Biblical Christians hate Mormons.”
“I bear my testimony that Biblical Christians love Latter-day Saints” - “Biblical Christianity is divided into 10,000+ sects, all believing in different paths to salvation.”
God’s way is unity in diversity
- “Biblical Christianity apostatized”
Returning to my opening statement, it is with good reason that L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology, has been dubbed, “The Joseph Smith of the 20th Century” – the two religious systems share far more similarities than differences.1
A key difference between the two is that Hubbard learned from Smith’s mistakes and chose to disconnect his new religion from any extant religion (other than perhaps Scientism)2 and placed its origins in unknown alien space rather than known human earth history. Thus Hubbard’s truth claims and religious origin story couldn’t be discredited by objective historical and empirical evidence.
Mormon “Plan of Salvation” (circa the 1950s) v. Scientology “Bridge” (circa the 1970s)
Nonetheless, both systems of epistemology, with their basis in confirmation-driven, “Come to the conclusion first and then bend the facts to fit” modus operandi, are nearly identical. While Mormonism relied heavily on extant 19th Century American Restorationism, Scientology was literally derived from L. Ron Hubbard’s original Science Fiction narratives to support its claims.3 Thus Scientology is epistemologically set in the realm of one’s man fiction and nothing more making it a religion that is entirely dependent on that man. And since he is now dead, the system is now completely closed, self-contained, and circular.
On the other hand, the fact that Mormonism can so easily be discredited by hard empirical evidence – including its own documented history from its own archives – is what makes it the reigning king of unreality. Mormons must not only ignore discomforting, and discrediting evidence from objective, disinterested sources, but they must also deny it too in other to remain in the system. The old image of a petulant child plugging his ears with his fingers, closing his eyes, and loudly and endlessly chanting, “La! La! La! La!” comes to mind.
Thus in both systems, one must detach from reality and accept a fantasy that then becomes the unifying principle by which one filters the world. However, Mormonism does Scientology one better by not only adopting this confirmation bias-driven epistemology but actually denying any and all evidence that might pop the Mormon fantasy bubble. For example, one can’t definitively prove that Scientology’s Xenu didn’t bring billions of his people to Earth in DC-8-like spacecraft 75 million years ago, stack them around volcanoes, and kill them with hydrogen bombs because any evidence to the contrary would have been decimated long ago. It’s not falsifiable.
However, it can easily be proven that Joseph Smith’s Book of Mormon Jaredites, Nephites, and Lamanites with their resulting ancient civilizations of millions and millions of Jewish emigrates were never on the North American continent preaching stock and standard 19th Century Protestant American Restorationism. Take your pick: Scientifically, Linguistically, Historically, and Theologically, The Book of Mormon can easily be deconstructed and debunked thus revoking Joseph Smith’s Prophetic credential and the keystone of Mormonism. Thus Mormonism is easily falsified.
In the end and in both cases, one must literally come to the conclusion first and then bend the facts to fit it. As one former Mormon (a former Bishop to boot) once said so well:
“I have become convinced that each individual Mormon must have his or her own personal epiphany which comes from uncertainty and questioning that arises along the way. Until something triggers the desire to ‘seek’, a member will never ‘find’ the ultimate truth.
If you try to face a believer with the truth, that person invariably rejects the messenger and the message. Something may get through sometimes, but generally, members will not thank you for trying to ‘destroy’ their testimony. The messenger is under the influence of Satan, the message is fraught with lies, and members already ‘know’ and cling to the truth – just as they were taught to. That is called faith.
As long as people want the Mormon Church to be true, more than they are willing to face the possibility that it is not, they will not entertain evidence or reason. Delusion becomes a choice.”
(Jim Whitefield, “The Mormon Delusion: Volume 4: The Mormon Missionary Lessons – A Conspiracy to Deceive”, Kindle Locations 10297-10305)
Brigadier General of the Nauvoo Legion, Joseph Smith (left); Commodore of the Scientology Sea Org, L. Ron Hubbard (right).
The same can’t be said for Judeo-Christianity which not only is tightly knit into human history and empiricism but demands that its adherents stay tethered to both just as the Apostle Paul stated so plainly in his first letter to the Corinthians. It was there that he emphatically asserted that if Christ wasn’t resurrected then Christianity is a fraud and a sham. In other words, in Judeo-Christianity, objective, empirical evidence trumps religious subjectivity and confirmation bias:
“If Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up—if in fact the dead do not rise. For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable.”
(1 Corinthians 15:14-19, NKJV)
And this same principle is expounded in the Old Testament by the Preacher of Ecclesiastes who challenged his readers with this admonition:
“It’s best to stay in touch with both sides of an issue. A person who fears God deals responsibly with all of reality, not just a piece of it.”
(Ecclesiastes 7:18, The Message)
In summary, the difference between Christianity and Mormonism is that in Mormonism one must deliberately and intentionally ignore and deny reality in order to remain an adherent, while Judeo-Christianity demands that you remain firmly rooted and grounded in reality lest you be “of all men the most pitiable.” Christianity is not only falsifiable, but insists that its adherents, employ logic, reason, and sound evidence in adhering to it.
Still, doubt me? If so, then consider these Bible verses that demonstrate the Judeo-Christian God’s admonition and insistence that His followers rely on both proof and reason:
“Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD…”
(Isaiah 1:18, KJV)
“Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.”
(1 Thessalonians 5:21, KJV)
“Unto thee [Jews who were delivered from slavery in Egypt via the Exodus] it was shewed, that thou mightest know that the Lord he is God; there is none else beside him.”
(Deuteronomy 4:35, KJV)
“…he [Christ] shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days…”
(Acts 1:3, KJV)
“…the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.”
(Romans 1:20, KJV)
“…Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.”
(John 20:26-27, KJV)
“…many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.”
(John 20:30-31, KJV)
“…if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.”
(Galatians 1:8, KJV)
“The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going.”
(Proverbs 14:15, KJV)
As the late Francis Schaeffer so correctly pointed out, Judeo-Christianity is so tethered to objective, physical time-space historical reality that unless we truly accept that “…Jesus died in the sense that if you had been there that day, you could have rubbed your finger on the cross and got a splinter in it” you’re not really ready to become a Christian yet.4
This isn’t to say that some faith isn’t required in Christianity 5 but as the cited passages demonstrate that faith should be reasoned (belief with some measure of logical or evidential support) rather than blind (faith with no logical or evidential support). Mormonism epistemology is even worse than Blind Faith as it lapses into what theologians have dubbed “Unreasonable Faith” which is faith in spite of evidence to the contrary. Scientology, generally speaking, stops at Blind Faith and goes no further.
“If Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.” (1 Corinthians 15:17-19 KJV)
A common question that both Ex-Mormons and Christians often ask True Believing Mormons (aka “TBMs”) is this: “If the truth claims of the Mormons weren’t, in reality, true, would you want to know?” So we, the authors of this series, would simply ask you, our readers that question now. We, who are both a combination of Ex-Mormon and Never-Mormon, responded in the affirmative which is why we aren’t Mormons – it simply does not hold up to scrutiny when analyzed against the commitment to hard reality that the Bible demands of us.
As this is being written, LdS Church’s growth is not only flat and most analysts are of the opinion that it is teetering on verge of decline. Yes, other religions are certainly seeing this type of attrition too but not at the rapid rate of decline that we’re seeing in the LdS Church in particular and Mormonism in general at the moment. It is our opinion, that this hard “reality check” is a big factor in that.
If this were a horse race, it’s over. The stands are empty and harsh reality begins to set in. If you’re Mormon, the horse you bet your life savings on lost by a longshot. All your friends’ tales of a creature that had no equal and could run with the force of a hurricane were mere fabrications. In reality, it didn’t perform anywhere close to that.
Losing a horse race that you bet your whole life on is certainly what it feels like to see that the claims of the LdS church are false. But that’s ultimately not what matters. What matters is what you do with that loss.
Do you clench your fists and try again? Do you bet on the same horse even though you know it can’t win? Do you accuse the system of cheating you out of victory? Do you pretend that you won in order to save face? Do you plug your fingers in your ears, close your eyes, and bear your testimony yet again for the umpteenth time?
Or do you change your wager to the winning horse? Everyone in town told you that horse was sickly, and only a fool would cheer for it. But when it was let loose, it stampeded with the strength of a typhoon. You’d never seen such a magnificent creature. It is undeniably a winner. So why wouldn’t you change your allegiance? Something to think about, I suppose.
Perhaps you prefer the words of Paul over mine when it comes to these 10 myths, I know that I do. If so, in closing, maybe these will suffice: “Refuse profane and old wives’ fables, and exercise thyself rather unto godliness.” (1 Timothy 4:7, KJV).
“…Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.” (John 20:26-27, KJV)
NOTES
1 I first explored the similarities between Mormonism and Scientology – including the similarities of their two founders – in detail in my 2018 article, “Mormonism and the Aftermath”. They are true, close cousins in more ways than one.
2 According to Merriam-Webster, Scientism is defined as, “an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)” (see https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scientism)
3 One need only consider the Xenu narrative of Scientology’s Operating Thetan III training course to see this. From Wikipedia:
“Xenu (/ˈziːnuː/), also called Xemu, is a figure in the Church of Scientology’s secret “Advanced Technology”, a sacred and esoteric teaching. According to the “Technology”, Xenu was the extraterrestrial ruler of a “Galactic Confederacy” who brought billions of his people to Earth (then known as “Teegeeack”) in DC-8-like spacecraft 75 million years ago, stacked them around volcanoes, and killed them with hydrogen bombs. Official Scientology scriptures hold that the thetans (immortal spirits) of these aliens adhere to humans, causing spiritual harm.
These events are known within Scientology as “Incident II”, and the traumatic memories associated with them as “The Wall of Fire” or “R6 implant”. The narrative of Xenu is part of Scientologist teachings about extraterrestrial civilizations and alien interventions in earthly events, collectively described as “space opera” by L. Ron Hubbard. Hubbard detailed the story in Operating Thetan level III (OT III) in 1967, warning that the “R6 implant” (past trauma) was “calculated to kill (by pneumonia, etc.) anyone who attempts to solve it”.
(“Xenu”, Wikipedia website, retrieved 2023-02-10)
4 Speaking of what he called “Prevangelism” – an explanation of the set of the basic, underlying presuppositions that form the Christian worldview – Schaeffer stressed that we must make sure that the non-Christian that we are speaking to understands that we are asserting objective historical reality in Christianity and not just creating our own subjective guilt relief therapy via religious feelings, opinions, or dogmas:
“…we must make sure that the individual understands that we are talking about real truth, and not about something vaguely religious which seems to work psychologically. We must make sure that he understands that we are talking about real guilt before God, and we are not offering him merely relief for his guilt feelings. We must make sure that he understands that we are talking to him about history, and that the death of Jesus was not just an ideal or a symbol but a fact of time and space. If we are talking to a person who would not understand the term ‘space time history’ we can say: ‘Do you believe that Jesus died in the sense that if you had been there that day, you could have rubbed your finger on the cross and got a splinter in it?’ Until he understands the importance of these things, he is not yet ready to become a Christian.”
(Francis A. Schaeffer, “The God Who is There”, p. 139)
5 Christianity can’t for example, prove a talking serpent or talking donkey; the Tower of Babel; a floating axe head; a burning bush; the parting of the Red Sea, or any number of other fantastic claims of the Bible. However, it can easily prove that a literal Jewish people, a literal land of Israel, and a literal city of Jerusalem existed when and where the Bible claims that they did. Thus even the irreligious, secular Israeli Biblical Archaeologist, Eilat Mazar, could confidently say, “I work with the Bible in one hand and the tools of excavation in the other,” as she once told the Jerusalem Post. She went on to say, “The Bible is the most important historical source and therefore deserves special attention.” (see John Burger, “Archaeologist known for using Bible as historical text dies”, Aletia, June 1, 2021)
And turning to the New Testament, Christian Scholars can and have produced a mountain of evidence for the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ (such as Gary Habermas’ superb Credo House series on the subject among many, many, many others) in addition to the fact that the places and historical figures in the New Testament are easily verified from historical records external to the Bible.
Thus Judeo-Christianity is, minimally, credible even though not entirely provable. Reasoned Faith is still required in order to become and remain a Christian in addition to any subjective experience. It’s not either/or, it’s both.
* The epigraph quote is from J. Reuben Clark who was a First Presidency Counselor in the David O. McKay administration from 1951-1961. The full quote is as follows: “If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed.” (D. Michael Quinn, “J. Reuben Clark The Church Years”, p 24. Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press)
Beggar's Bread 
Thanks for this. I find myself witnessing to Mormons an unexpected development. Next thing I found myself in FB in comment thread with a group of LDS participants and this was said about me … in short, I am a Mormon “hater.” As I see it part of the shroud of deception they live in. I did search for “ex Mormon” material and found your blog.
My approach to one person I am directly witnessing to is simply to Evangelize him … he doesn’t know scripture so giving him verses is the approach I am using. “Faith cometh by hearing … and hearing by the Word of God …”
It seems for a Mormon to become an ex-Mormon has a common track. The life issues they face cannot be explained by Mormon doctrine if they pursue this dilemma they ask questions of church leadership and they are not offered acceptable answers.
The outcome has several possibilities; they leave the Mormon Church and have no faith experience (I think they are tired of the spiritual abuse), or they can find faith in another cult (I talked to one woman recently who left LDS to JW), or they come to faith in Christ.
LikeLike
Have you considered that Mormons are just like you? I mean to say, have you considered that Mormons aren’t actually this blind sheep of a faith? I’m what they call a TBM, I frequent anti material all the time. I seek scholarly discussion, i fear that looking down upon your brother in Christ is what is making it difficult to evangelize him. If you feel that he is wrong let the Holy Spirit guide you, do not walk in pride, pride is not one of the fruits of the Spirit. I wish all people would come unto Christ. Whether its LDS, Catholicism, Protestantism, or my second favorite Orthodoxy, I want every knee to bow willingly when Christ comes. When your goal becomes Christ and not which denomination has more Christ, you’ll find that denomination I promise you of that
LikeLike
lordveximus365 wrote, “Have you considered that Mormons are just like you?”
Exactly who said that they weren’t just like us and where did they say it?
lordveximus365 wrote, “I mean to say, have you considered that Mormons aren’t actually this blind sheep of a faith?”
Again, exactly who said that Mormons ARE “actually this blind sheep of a faith” and where did they say it?
lordveximus365 wrote, “I’m what they call a TBM, I frequent anti material all the time. I seek scholarly discussion, i fear that looking down upon your brother in Christ is what is making it difficult to evangelize him. If you feel that he is wrong let the Holy Spirit guide you, do not walk in pride, pride is not one of the fruits of the Spirit.”
And? What does ANY of this have to do with this set of articles? You DID read them before you commented, didn’t you?
If not, why didn’t you?
lordveximus365 wrote, “I wish all people would come unto Christ. Whether its LDS, Catholicism, Protestantism, or my second favorite Orthodoxy, I want every knee to bow willingly when Christ comes. When your goal becomes Christ and not which denomination has more Christ, you’ll find that denomination I promise you of that.”
OK, now I’m even more confused. You claim to be a True Believing Mormon (TBM) yet you seem to have no problem with the non-Mormon churches of which, your canonized scripture (The Pearl of Great Price) claims, God said this about?
Joseph Smith – History 1
18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)” and which I should join.
19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”
20 He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time.
So, lordveximus365, can you help me understand why you seem to have no problem with people being churches whose creeds are an abomination in God’s sight; whose professors are all corrupt; who draw near to God with their lips, but their their hearts are far from Him, and; who teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof?
A little help here?
Thanks.
LikeLike
Most of these “myths” are just theological disagreements, but the last point is just flat out wrong and here’s the proof:
Followers of Jesus span the globe. But the global body of more than 2 billion Christians is separated into thousands of denominations. Pentecostal, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Baptist, Apostolic, Methodist — the list goes on. Estimations show there are more than 200 Christian denominations in the U.S. and a staggering 45,000 globally, according to the Center for the Study of Global Christianity. (https://www.livescience.com/christianity-denominations.html)
LikeLike
lordveximus365 wrote, “Most of these “myths” are just theological disagreements…”
With that statement you have just proven that you didn’t bother to actually read any of the articles before you commented here. For example, the very first article (“The 10 Myths Part 1: “Biblical Christianity apostatized” by Fred W. Anson) which proves, not from theology but from historical fact, that the Great Apostasy simply did NOT occur.
It is demonstrably a myth, not a “theological disagreement”. THAT is what the body of historical evidence (again, not theological, but historical, evidence) shows us.
So maybe, just maybe, you should actually read the articles before you comment on them, eh?
lordveximus365 wrote, “…but the last point is just flat out wrong and here’s the proof:
Followers of Jesus span the globe. But the global body of more than 2 billion Christians is separated into thousands of denominations. Pentecostal, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Baptist, Apostolic, Methodist — the list goes on. Estimations show there are more than 200 Christian denominations in the U.S. and a staggering 45,000 globally, according to the Center for the Study of Global Christianity. (https://www.livescience.com/christianity-denominations.html)”
Which, once again, proves that you didn’t bother reading the article before you commented on it, since that EXACT argument is directly addressed in the article and then countered with this point:
“First, it’s hypocritical. Mormon Leaders who use this myth as a mallet to bludgeon other churches with are deliberately ignoring the 400+ Mormon denominations that have existed over the 190+ years of Mormon History – which is a rate of fracturing, fragmenting, and splitting that far exceeds what was seen in Christian Church History. Stated plainly, given the current rate of fragmentation Mormon denominationalism will easily surpass Christian denominationalism at some point in the future.1 The publisher of the definitive book on the subject noted well in their product description:
“That so many groups and individuals have been unsatisfied with the more mainstream Mormon churches, yet cling to tenets of the Smith–Rigdon movement, speaks to the strengths of the restoration concept and the naïve view that one denomination can successfully meet all the needs of believers.”
(Amazon product description for Steven L. Shields, “Divergent Paths of the Restoration: An Encyclopedia of the Smith–Rigdon Movement”)
Equally hypocritical is the fact that all of those 400+ Mormon Denominations have not accepted or recognized the other groups as legitimate churches since they all claim to be the only true and living church and all others apostate. I think that this is largely due to the impossibility of developing a set of Essential Doctrines for the Latter-Day Saint movement due to the dogma of continuing revelation. Hence, what’s essential for the Brighamite Mormons in Salt Lake City isn’t essential for the Josephite Mormons in Independence, Missouri.”
NOTES
1 See Steven L. Shields, “Divergent Paths of the Restoration: An Encyclopedia of the Smith–Rigdon Movement” for an encyclopedic breakdown of the 400+ Mormon denominations to date. And please compare and contrast those 400+ LDS Denominations over just 190+ years to this:
Independents: 22,000 denominations (2,016 years)Protestants: 9000 denominations (499 years)Marginals: 1600 denominations (duration varies)Orthodox: 781 denominations (963 years)Catholics: 242 denominations (1,799 years)Anglicans: 168 denominations (483 years)(see http://www.ncregister.com/blog/scottericalt/we-need-to-stop-saying-that-there-are-33000-protestant-denominations ; the durations as of the date of this article, February 9, 2016)
So you can see that my claim that the LDS Movement will easily outpace the denominationalism of other churches isn’t an empty claim – the numbers speak for themselves, don’t they?
(see “The 10 Myths Part 10: “Biblical Christianity is divided into 10,000+ sects, all believing in different paths to salvation.”’ by Fred W. Anson)
So, respectfully, lordveximus365, it would appreciated if going forward, you would show us the courtesy and respect of actually reading the articles before you comment on them out of blind assumption and willful ignorance.
Thanks.
LikeLike
why do you assume they didn’t read the article? They just didn’t come up with the same conclusions that you did.
this is what happens in all religions. They all think they’re reading it accurately this is the main problem. The belief is not the problem
LikeLike
@Robert Samilijan wrote, “why do you assume they didn’t read the article? They just didn’t come up with the same conclusions that you did.”
I explained why I could say that in my comment and it had NOTHING to do with coming up with different conclusions. It has everything to do with the FACTS of historical reality that’s contained in the objective, empirical historical record.
So I’m tempted to say, why didn’t you read my comment?
(there I just did, didn’t I?)
@Robert Samilijan wrote, “this is what happens in all religions. They all think they’re reading it accurately this is the main problem.”
Again, he clearly DIDN’T read even the very first article in the series that I cited from. If he had he would have addressed the evidence presented with countering evidence – which didn’t happen, did it?
This wasn’t a matter of different interpretations of the same data because he obviously, blatantly didn’t consider the data that was presented, did he?
@Robert Samilijan wrote, “The belief is not the problem”
I didn’t argue from or to subjective belief, I argued from objective, historical and empirical fact, didn’t I?
Again, why didn’t you read my comment? This is all there, isn’t it?
LikeLike
to piggyback on what Robert said, I definitely read the article just like you. There’s no need to treat me differently because you don’t believe me, what would Jesus say about the way you are talking down to me right now?
LikeLike
lordveximus365 wote, “to piggyback on what Robert said, I definitely read the article just like you. There’s no need to treat me differently because you don’t believe me…”
I don’t believe you because you STILL haven’t addressed the historical evidence that was presented in the article. If you’ve read it, why is that?
lordveximus365 wote, “… what would Jesus say about the way you are talking down to me right now?”
Please explain to me how arguing from logic and reason is “talking down to you”?
And since Jesus was the enemy of neither logic nor reason, I believe that this is what He would say:
“Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD…”
— Isaiah 1:18 (JST)
“Test all things and hold fast to that which is good”
— 1 Thessalonians 5:21 (NKJV)
“A simple man believes anything, but a prudent man gives thought to his steps.”
— Proverbs 14:15 (ESV)
“The heart of the discerning acquires knowledge; the ears of the wise seek it out.”
— Proverbs 18:15 (NIV)
“It is not good to have zeal without knowledge, nor to be hasty and miss the way.”
— Proverbs 19:2 (NIV)
You seem to be really good at making baseless accusations but little else. If you have countering historical evidence in response to what was presented in the article, let’s see it (and without a constant string of ad-hominem driven accusations, please).
Please proceed.
LikeLike
2 thes 2:3 says an apostasy must occur to proceed the second coming of Jesus Christ and there must be a restoration of all things as well. Dispensationalist Protestants also believe in this divine fact. To say it’s factually untrue is merely a speculative comment that is asserted by your own pride, again if you adopt a more humble attitude we should have no issues!
LikeLike
lordveximus365 wrote “2 thes 2:3 says an apostasy must occur to proceed the second coming of Jesus Christ and there must be a restoration of all things as well.”
So let me get this straight, you claim to have read the article yet make an argument that is directly and fully addressed in the article like this…
“A further problem is that the proof texts used by the LdS Church to support Great Apostasy claims fall short of a complete, universal, apostasy themselves. I am specifically referring to passages like these:3
“Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.”
— 1 Timothy 4:1-3 KJV
“This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.”
— 2 Timothy 3:1-7 KJV
“That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition.”
— 2 Thessalonians 2:2-3 KJV
But as Latter-day Scholar and BYU Professor, Charles Harell has noted well:
“On careful examination, none of the New Testament passages referring to heresies within the church or persecution from without seems to predict a wholesale departure from the faith; all seem to assume that there would be faithful saints who remain on the earth until Christ comes”
(Charles R. Harrell, “This is my Doctrine’: The Development of Mormon Theology,” p. 34)
To validate, Professor Harrell’s point, consider how in each of these passages it’s not just assumed but explicitly states that apostasy would only touch some members of the Christian faith not all (“some shall depart from the faith”; “this sort are they”; “Let no man deceive you by any means”). Furthermore, consider the biblical passages that Restorationists conveniently ignore when they are cherry-picking the bible to support their Great Apostasy case:4
“I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
— Matthew 16:18b KJV
“Therefore let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, and thus let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe, for our God is a consuming fire.”
— Hebrews 12:28-29 KJV
“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
— Matthew 28:18-20 KJV
Could Christ have been any clearer: The Church that He was establishing could not be shaken nor would the gates of hell prevail against it. Why? Answer: Because He would be with us always to the end of the age. Therefore, to suggest that there was a complete, universal apostasy as Mormon leaders have in light of the words of Jesus is to suggest that He was lying in the above passages, isn’t it?”
(Fred W. Anson, “The 10 Myths Part 1: “Biblical Christianity apostatized”’)
So, again, if you have read the article as you claim, then why aren’t you addressing the arguments IN the article rather than acting like they don’t exist?
lordveximus365 wrote “Dispensationalist Protestants also believe in this divine fact.”
Dispensationalists believe in a FUTURE apostasy, not a past, historical, universal one as Mormons do. So, speaking of “facts” perhaps you should get yours right, eh?
lordveximus365 wrote “To say it’s factually untrue is merely a speculative comment that is asserted by your own pride…”
AGAIN, you claim to have read the article but don’t seem to know what it says. Why is that?
The article shows from objective, empirical, historical EVIDENCE – not “speculation” – that no Great Apostasy of the type and nature that the LdS Church teaches ever occurred. Again, not speculation, historical FACT, as these Mormon Scholars have clearly stated:
“The narrative of widespread apostasy ignores evidence that good Christians continually served each other and worshipped God throughout the history of Christianity.”
(Latter-day Saint Scholar, Jason R. Combs and an editor of “Ancient Christians: An Introduction for Latter-day Saints” (Neal a Maxwell Institute) quoted in The Salt Lake Tribune; https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2023/01/23/what-latter-day-saints-get-wrong/)
“On careful examination, none of the New Testament passages referring to heresies within the church or persecution from without seems to predict a wholesale departure from the faith; all seem to assume that there would be faithful saints who remain on the earth until Christ comes”
(BYU Professor Charles R. Harrell, “‘This is my Doctrine’: The Development of Mormon Theology,”p. 34; https://smile.amazon.com/This-My-Doctrine-Development-Theology-ebook/dp/B005FRGAFM)
So… what that you were saying about prideful speculation again? Would you have me believe that these Latter-day Saint scholars are engaging in prideful speculation too? Or are we (both they and I) simply stating historical fact based on the body of historical evidence?
lordveximus365 wrote “…again if you adopt a more humble attitude we should have no issues!”
Thus saith the man who flings around accusations like confetti. I call Psychological Projection.
“Psychological projection or projection bias (including Freudian Projection) is the unconscious act of denial of a person’s own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, such as to the weather, a tool, or to other people. Thus, it involves imagining or projecting that others have those feelings.
Projection is considered one of the most profound and subtle of human psychological processes, and extremely difficult to work with, because by its nature it is hidden. It is the fundamental mechanism by which we keep ourselves uninformed about ourselves.”
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection )
Again for emphasis: “It [Psychological Projection] is the fundamental mechanism by which we keep ourselves uninformed about ourselves.”
Just something to think about, I suppose, lordveximus365.
LikeLike
quoting Wikipedia for psychological projection and citing the article in any attempt to use circular reasoning against me is just solid evidence that you’re not following Jesus Christ in your day to day life.
I had already began to skim your comments because they are just walls of text but now I will be ignoring them, have a great day Fred. I hope your day is as bright as your attitude Is!
LikeLike
lordveximus365 wrote, “quoting Wikipedia for psychological projection and citing the article in any attempt to use circular reasoning against me…”
Exactly how did I use circular reasoning against you? What I did was call you on your Psychological Projection using the Wikipedia citation as supporting evidence – in other words, a stock and standard debate response. There was nothing circular about it, it was plain, it was pointed, and it was direct, wasn’t it?
And for the record, the definition of “circular reasoning” is as follows, since you seem to be unclear on the concept:
“Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, “circle in proving”; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy, but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion. As a consequence, the argument becomes a matter of faith and fails to persuade those who do not already accept it.”
(see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning )
And since I didn’t use my conclusion as my premise, I simply DIDN’T engage in circular reasoning, did I, lordveximus365?
lordveximus365 wrote, “…is just solid evidence that you’re not following Jesus Christ in your day to day life.”
Again, exactly how is using logic and reason indicative of “not following Jesus Christ in your day to day life”? Once again, I will ask you: Would you have us believe that Christ is against, and/or the enemy of logic and reason?
lordveximus365 wrote, “I had already began to skim your comments because they are just walls of text…”
So let me get this straight, I am addressing your arguments in detail and on a point-by-point and that’s somehow a problem exactly? Would you prefer that I DON’T show you the respect of giving you complete responses?
lordveximus365 wrote, “… but now I will be ignoring them…”
How about addressing them as I have shown you the respect of doing instead? Yet again, please proceed.
lordveximus365 wrote, “…have a great day Fred. I hope your day is as bright as your attitude Is!”
I’m having a wonderful night (I’m in US Pacific Time and it’s nearly midnight) thank you.
I look forward to seeing and responding to your evidence in the morning, lordveximus365, please proceed.
LikeLike
reading comprehension isn’t your strong suit I guess. Quoting the article as your source was the circular reasoning. Then again you just might be too prideful to understand where you went wrong. You’ve came off like a Reddit mod for the past week you’ve been responding to everything I say.
Again, get a more constructive hobby, maybe clean your room too, everything you say reeks of “I reply to Internet chat rooms all day and a judge my success as a person by how many people rage quit from the conversation”
LikeLike
lordveximus365 wrote, “reading comprehension isn’t your strong suit I guess. Quoting the article as your source was the circular reasoning.”
Yet again, you’re unclear on the concept. Citing from a source isn’t circular reasoning, it’s stock and standard scholarship. Circular reasoning is using your conclusion as your premise as the Wikipedia article I cited from stated.
lordveximus365 wrote, “Then again you just might be too prideful to understand where you went wrong.”
Again, as I was saying about a steady stream of accusations. Thank you again for proving my point.
lordveximus365 wrote, “You’ve came off like a Reddit mod for the past week you’ve been responding to everything I say.”
And exactly how is a point-by-point response a problem? Would you prefer that I cherry picked?
lordveximus365 wrote, “Again, get a more constructive hobby, maybe clean your room too, everything you say reeks of “I reply to Internet chat rooms all day and a judge my success as a person by how many people rage quit from the conversation”’
Yet again, more accusations (spiced with insults to boot). Thank you for making my case for me, I appreciate it.
LikeLike
Fred, there isn’t any historical data here, it’s just mansplaining my beliefs to me lol
it’s flat out wrong and you refuse to listen to me
LikeLike
@lordveximus365 wrote, “Fred, there isn’t any historical data here…”
A statement which AGAIN proves that haven’t bothered to read the article which is full of historical evidence.
And I’m wondering if you know how to read since what I did was present countering evidence for your claims about 2 Thessalonians 2:2-3 – which was a hermeneutical issue, not a historical one. So your accusation makes no sense given the context of the conversation that it’s referencing.
@lordveximus365 wrote, “… it’s just mansplaining my beliefs to me lol”
Actually, I think you meant to said that not one, but TWO Latter-day Saint scholars (Charles Harrell and Jason R. Combs) explained historical reality to you. No one “mansplained” your beliefs to you, rather two Mormon Scholars refuted them.
BTW, how does one “mansplain” to someone who’s not a woman LORDveximus365? Lord is a male title, isn’t it? And “mansplaining” is defined as follows:
mansplain
verb
1: to explain something to a woman in a condescending way that assumes she has no knowledge about the topic
(see https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mansplain )
@lordveximus365 wrote, “it’s flat out wrong and you refuse to listen to me”
Exactly WHAT is “flat out wrong” and why should I listen to you when you have failed to produce any evidence for your claims except for glossing on a proof text, which I addressed with evidence. Not opinion, evidence. And then there’s your non-stop stream of baseless accusations which fail to address any presented evidence, let alone the arguments that they’re supporting.
So tell you what, present cogent, credible evidence and I will listen. But, no, you’re right, I really don’t care about your (or anyone else’s) personal opinion. After all, opinions are like heads – everyone has at least one and some of them stink.
So let’s see your credible, countering evidence to my arguments and evidence.
Please proceed.
LikeLike
Fred this is going to come as a shock, but on the internet you can name yourself whatever you want. Lordveximus isn’t my name, I see you didn’t do such a great job with your nettiquette cuz not only are you being rude and condescending but you named yourself your Government name with initial 💀
seriously bro get a healthier hobby, I do body building 🙏🏻
LikeLike
lordveximus365 wrote, “Fred this is going to come as a shock, but on the internet you can name yourself whatever you want.”
Which misses my point. “Lord” is a male title yet you accusing me of “mansplaining” which is something that men do to women. Are you telling us that behind your alias, you are actually female?
lordveximus365 wrote, “Lordveximus isn’t my name, I see you didn’t do such a great job with your nettiquette cuz not only are you being rude and condescending…”
As a I was saying about a constant stream of accusations… thank you for proving my point.
lordveximus365 wrote, “…but you named yourself your Government name with initial 💀”
No, I don’t hide behind an alias on the Internet, I use my real name as a point of accountability. And that’s a problem why exactly?
lordveximus365 wrote, “…seriously bro get a healthier hobby, I do body building 🙏🏻”
Says the man (we assume) who just accused his debate partner of being rude and condescending. Again, I call Psychological Projection.
LikeLike
all I’ve seen you do Fred is name call, maybe you should take a break.
you’re name calling me and my religious leaders. I don’t feel like if I engaged with your points you’d be in the proper headspace to take them on at the moment
LikeLike
lordveximus365 wrote, “all I’ve seen you do Fred is name call…”
Really? Where? Please show me where I have done so.
lordveximus365 wrote, “…maybe you should take a break.”
No thank you. But you can take a break from making baseless accusations any time – now would be good. Thanks.
lordveximus365 wrote, “you’re name calling me and my religious leaders.”
Again, really? Where? I can’t seem to find anywhere that I have called you or your religious leaders names. Where it is?
lordveximus365 wrote, “I don’t feel like if I engaged with your points you’d be in the proper headspace to take them on at the moment”
That’s an interesting cop out. Tell you what, let’s see your evidence and then we can BOTH see I’m in the proper headspace to take it on.
So yet again, please proceed.
LikeLike
no basesless accusations have been made, man up Fred. Take accountability for what you’ve said and continued to say, you’re being a hypocrite, telling me I’m not Christian’s but acting like a Pharisee.
LikeLike
lordveximus365 wrote, “no basesless accusations have been made,”
Really? Then can’t I find any supporting evidence for your accusations?
lordveximus365 wrote, “man up Fred. Take accountability for what you’ve said and continued to say, you’re being a hypocrite, telling me I’m not Christian’s…”
I see. And I said this where exactly? I can’t seem to find it. So exactly how can I be accountable for something that I didn’t say? How does that work exactly?
lordveximus365 wrote, “…but acting like a Pharisee.”
Again, you seem to be unclear on the concept. Hebrew scholar and former Pharisee, Dr. Nehemiah Gordon has identified five pillars of Pharisaism. The five pillars are:
1) Two Torahs
2) Absolute Authority of the Rabbis
3) Right of Irrational Interpretation
4) Sanctified Tradition
5) Right to Add to the Torah
(see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tddCNY6U77Y )
By “two torahs” they meant the written Torah and the alleged oral Torah contained in and eluded to in #4: Jewish Tradition. By “Right of Irrational Interpretation” they meant that it was OK to insert words and meanings into the text of the Bible that the author didn’t originally intend to say, or say at all. This is a process called, “eisegesis”.
Those are the attributes of the Pharisees. Exactly how have I exhibited any of them?
LikeLike
Fred you’ve lost the plot. The article made no claims that are backed up with historical evidence, what two Mormon scholars say is useless and even then that’s an appeal to authority fallacy.
all you’ve done is needless less correct grammar and insult others.
“Exactly WHAT is “flat out wrong” and why should I listen to you when you have failed to produce any evidence for your claims except for glossing on a proof text”
you, Fred, you’re flat out wrong, I don’t need to produce evidence against an article which has only made theological claims such as “the apostasy ever happened” etc
If I wanted to deal with people like you on religion, I’d go on r/atheism and deal with some actual dedicated people
LikeLike
lordveximus365 wrote, “Fred you’ve lost the plot. The article made no claims that are backed up with historical evidence…”
Again something that only someone who has never read the article would say. From the article:
“The interior of St. Thomas Syro-Malabar Church, in Palayur, India. This East Indian church building has serviced Christian worshipers continuously since, it is claimed, it was established in 52AD by Christ’s Apostle Thomas.”
“The interior of St. Thomas Kottakavu Church in Kochi, India. This is another East Indian church that was founded by the Apostle Thomas and has been in continuous use since.”
“Coptic Christians worship at The Monastery of Saint Simon (also known as the Cave Church) located in the Mokattam Mountain in southeastern Cairo, Egypt. The Coptic Egyptian Church is traditionally believed to be founded by St Mark around AD 42.”
And not to be content with just words, I also provided photographs of these historical venues. So what was that you were saying about no historical evidence again?
lordveximus365 wrote, “what two Mormon scholars say is useless and even then that’s an appeal to authority fallacy.”
I see. So again, citing the expert assessment from credentialed scholars on Church History is “useless”? Am I getting this right? And I have provided evidence that supports their claims rather than simply relying on their expert opinion in the article. You know, things like this citation from 180 AD, for example:
“It is possible, then, for everyone to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors [down] to our own times; men who neither taught anything like these heretics rave about.”
(Against Heresies Book III, ch.3, p.1)
And as the Catholic scholar that I cited in the article said so well:
“If Mormons want their claim of a complete apostasy as to be taken seriously, they must evince biblical and historical evidence supporting it. So far they’ve come up empty-handed. Honest investigators will see the unavoidable truth: The Mormon “great apostasy” doctrine is a myth. There never has been—nor will there ever be—a complete apostasy. Jesus Christ promised that his Church, established on the solid rock of Peter, will remain forever. We have his Word on it.”
(Patrick Madrid, “In Search of ‘The Great Apostasy’”, EWTN website)
Again from the article:
“In reality, the only way that Mormon Great Apostasy dogma works is if one first makes modern Mormonism the standard for what constitutes, “True Christianity” and then compares everything else against it. And guess what, using that confirmation bias driven, “come to the conclusion first and then bend the facts to fit it” methodology everything really is apostate, it would be amazing if it weren’t so blatantly fallacious, wouldn’t it? And in fact, this isn’t the way that all Restorationist churches claim that all other churches but theirs are apostate?
However, when one uses both the Bible and Christian Church History as the objective standard then this methodology fails because Mormonism (past or present) simply can’t be found anywhere in the body of historical evidence that we have for the primitive Christian church. This is just as I noted in another article:
“The hard fact of the matter is this: No trace of the unique distinctives that Mormonism declares as “restored” can be found in Church History prior to the advent of Joseph Smith. Further, those distinctives contradict what we find in recorded Early Church History up to and including the Didache.”
(Fred W. Anson, “The Didache v. Mormonism”, Beggar’s Bread website, July 5, 2020)’
(see Fred W. Anson, “The 10 Myths Part 1: “Biblical Christianity apostatized”; https://beggarsbread.org/2022/08/28/the-10-ten-myths-part-1-biblical-christianity-apostatized/ )
lordveximus365 wrote, “all you’ve done is needless less correct grammar and insult others.”
Again, I call Psychological Projection. It seems to be your favorite defense mechanism from what I’ve observed.
lordveximus365 wrote, “you, Fred, you’re flat out wrong, I don’t need to produce evidence against an article which has only made theological claims… ”
Please see above. The case was made on primarily HISTORICAL evidence. Again, I will ask: If Mormonism has restored pure and primitive Christianity, then why can’t we find modern Mormonism in the historical record for the primitive Church?
I would suggest that the reason why you can’t produce any evidence is that you don’t have any to produce. How am I wrong?
lordveximus365 wrote, “such as “the apostasy ever happened” etc”
And yet you can’t seem to produce a shred of evidence that it did while I can produce volumes of evidence that it didn’t. Why is that, lordveximus365?
lordveximus365 wrote, “If I wanted to deal with people like you on religion, I’d go on r/atheism and deal with some actual dedicated people”
And we have an Ad-hominem folks! And we all know what that means, don’t we?
“Ad hominem attacks are signs of victories of reason over unreason.”
— Edzard Ernst, MD, PhD, FMedSci, FRSB, FRCP, FRCPEd
(see source: https://edzardernst.com/2012/12/ad-hominem-attacks-are-signs-of-victories-of-reason-over-unreason/)
So, thank you. Your tacit acknowledgement that my reason has been victorious over your unreason is noted, lordveximus365.
Thank you.
LikeLike
So, thank you. Your tacit acknowledgement that my reason has been victorious over your unreason is noted, lordveximus365.
You couldn’t have made my point any better, have a good night little bro.
LikeLike
@lordveximus365 wrote, “You couldn’t have made my point any better, have a good night little bro.”
Excuse me? You were the one who engaged in the Ad-hominem attack, aren’t you?
Again for your reference:
“Ad hominem attacks are signs of victories of reason over unreason.”
— Edzard Ernst, MD, PhD, FMedSci, FRSB, FRCP, FRCPEd
(see source: https://edzardernst.com/2012/12/ad-hominem-attacks-are-signs-of-victories-of-reason-over-unreason/)
Thus, you tacitly acknowledged that my reason has been victorious over your unreason via your Ad-hominem, didn’t you?
I’m not quite sure what point there is other than that, lordveximus365.
So thank you for conceding your defeated unreason in the face of the reason that has triumphed over it, I appreciate it.
Again, thank you.
LikeLike
you engaged in ad hominem, when you said I clearly didn’t read the article, nice tu quo que tho I guess
LikeLike
lordveximus365 wrote, “you engaged in ad hominem, when you said I clearly didn’t read the article”
Nope. I made a deductive argument supported by evidence and then directly addressed your argument with further evidence. That’s an argument to evidence not “not the man”, isn’t it?
For your reference since you seem to be unclear on the concept:
From the Merriam-Webster’s 11th Collegiate Dictionary:
ad hominem
1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent’s character rather than by an answer to the contentions made
(see https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad%20hominem )
lordveximus365 wrote, “…nice tu quo que tho I guess”
Actually the person who just engaged in a Tu Quoque was you, not I. Again, since you seem to be unclear on the concept:
“Tu quoque (/tjuːˈkwoʊkwi, tuːˈkwoʊkweɪ/; Latin Tū quoque, for “you also”) is a discussion technique that intends to discredit the opponent’s argument by attacking the opponent’s own personal behavior and actions as being inconsistent with their argument, therefore accusing hypocrisy. This specious reasoning is a special type of ad hominem attack… “Whataboutism” is one particularly well known modern instance of this technique.”
(see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque )
Thanks.
LikeLike
yes just like I made the deductive reasoning that your a reddit moderator who hasn’t seen the light of day in six weeks
LikeLike
lordveximus365 wrote, “yes just like I made the deductive reasoning that your a reddit moderator who hasn’t seen the light of day in six weeks”
Which is a textbook Ad-hominem. Thank you again for proving my point for me.
Again, I repeat, if you have read the article then why do you keep making arguments that are refuted in it? Rather, why aren’t you presenting countering evidence to the evidence that’s been presented in the article? The latter is what someone who has read the article would do, the former is what someone who hasn’t would do, isn’t it?
Logical conclusion via deductive reasoning: Even this late in the game you have yet to actually read the article.
LikeLike
no it’s tu quo que lol 😆
you’re not as smart as you think you are
LikeLike
lordveximus365 wrote, “no it’s tu quo que lol 😆”
OK, fair enough. Prove it. I have already explained why it’s not, please explain to us why it is rather than flinging out yet more bald accusations.
Please proceed.
lordveximus365 wrote, “you’re not as smart as you think you are”
And the Ad-hominems continue. So thank you again for proving that reason has triumphed over unreason, it’s appreciated.
LikeLike
that wasn’t an ad hominem because I didn’t attack your character as an argument I just attacked your character.
you want to engage in argumentation but I’m just smarter than you.
tu quo que is you did it first so I did it back, which is still an ad hominem style attack but not an ad hominem 🤓👆
calling you a Redditor isn’t an argument it’s the reason j won’t engage with your childish nonsense. Your talking points are garbage and you wouldn’t listen if I debunked them, may Allah guide you.
LikeLike
lordveximus365 wrote, “that wasn’t an ad hominem because I didn’t attack your character as an argument I just attacked your character.”
The latter IS a textbook case Ad-hominem because it’s still an appeal to emotion or prejudice rather than the other party’s presented arguments, reason, and/or evidence. Again, you seem to be unclear on the concept so let me help:
From the Merriam-Webster’s 11th Collegiate Dictionary:
ad hominem
1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent’s character rather than by an answer to the contentions made
(see https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad%20hominem )
lordveximus365 wrote, “you want to engage in argumentation but I’m just smarter than you.”
Well, it’s just good to know that you’re not arrogant or condescending (not to mention grandiose and full of hubris). As for just wanting to engage in argumentation, I call Psychological Projection (again).
lordveximus365 wrote, “tu quo que is you did it first so I did it back, which is still an ad hominem style attack but not an ad hominem 🤓👆”
Sigh… yet again, you seem unclear on the concept. So again…
“Tu quoque (/tjuːˈkwoʊkwi, tuːˈkwoʊkweɪ/; Latin Tū quoque, for “you also”) is a discussion technique that intends to discredit the opponent’s argument by attacking the opponent’s own personal behavior and actions as being inconsistent with their argument, therefore accusing hypocrisy. This specious reasoning is a special type of ad hominem attack… “Whataboutism” is one particularly well known modern instance of this technique.”
(see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque )
So, again, you engaged in a textbook case of a Tu Quoque fallacy, didn’t you?
lordveximus365 wrote, “calling you a Redditor isn’t an argument it’s the reason j won’t engage with your childish nonsense. Your talking points are garbage and you wouldn’t listen if I debunked them, may Allah guide you.”
Yet more Ad-hominems? Thank you yet again for proving that reason has triumphed over unreason. I really appreciate your implicit concession.
Thank you for your time, lordveximus365.
LikeLike
Furthermore, and to illustrate my point @lordveximus365, let’s look at some specifics of the Didache and compare and contrast them to the modern LdS Church shall we? If you need a primer on the Didache, perhaps this will suffice:
“The Didache” (also called the “Teaching of the Twelve Apostles”) was written around 65 – 80 A.D. and is supposed to be what the twelve apostles taught to the Gentiles concerning life and death, church order, fasting, baptism, prayer, etc. There is debate as to its authenticity. The work is cited by Eusebius who lived from 260 – 341 and Athanasius 293-373. It seems to be referenced by Origen who lived from 185-254. In the Didache, 16:2-3 is quoted in the Epistle of Barnabas in 4:9, or vice versa. The Epistle of Barnabas was written in 130-131 A.D. The Didache is not inspired, but is valuable as an early church document.”
(from “The Didache” by Matt Slick; lightly edited for this format)
Now with that groundwork laid, let’s compare and contrast the LdS Church with what we find in The Didache, shall we?
DIDACHE
“Concerning Teachers, Apostles, and Prophets. Whosoever, therefore, comes and teaches you all these things that have been said before, receive him. But if the teacher himself turns and teaches another doctrine to the destruction of this, hear him not.”
LDS
Teaches another Jesus, and another gospel than that taught in the Bible. Rejects historic Christian – including the orthodoxy that was taught during the time that the Didache was written and applied.
DIDACHE
“Let every apostle who comes to you be received as the Lord. But he shall not remain more than one day; or two days, if there’s a need. But if he remains three days, he is a false prophet. “
LDS
Mormon Apostles have certainly stayed in Salt Lake City for more than two days haven’t they?
DIDACHE
“And when the apostle goes away, let him take nothing but bread until he lodges. If he asks for money, he is a false prophet. And every prophet who speaks in the Spirit you shall neither try nor judge; for every sin shall be forgiven, but this sin shall not be forgiven.”
LDS
All Mormon Apostles receive a stipend that’s certainly more than “nothing but bread” isn’t it?
DIDACHE
“But not every one who speaks in the Spirit is a prophet; but only if he holds the ways of the Lord. Therefore from their ways shall the false prophet and the prophet be known.”
LDS
Joseph Smith most certainly did NOT “hold the ways of the Lord” did he?
DIDACHE
“And every prophet, proved true, working unto the mystery of the Church in the world, yet not teaching others to do what he himself does, shall not be judged among you, for with God he has his judgment; for so did also the ancient prophets.”
LDS
Joseph Smith and several other Mormon Prophets said one thing in public and practiced the opposite in private. The most blatant example is how they lied about and denied practicing polygamy publicly while practicing it privately.
(all Didache selections from — Didache 11-13, Roberts-Donaldson English Translation; http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html)
So again, what was that you were saying about a lack of historical evidence again, @lordveximus365?
Oh, and BTW, that’s the short analysis. A deeper and more detailed analysis can be found here: https://beggarsbread.org/2020/07/05/the-didache-v-mormonism/
LikeLike