Ask @WelperHelper99 about mormon shit - Cope and Seethe edition

[ShinyStar]

Lol. Imagine saying that the sacrament wasn't instituted by Jesus in the Bible when there's this whole passage demonstrating how he did it, and how he told his disciples to eat and drink in remembrance of him, and then turning around and saying that Jesus did explicitly tell his disciples that the gentiles didn't need to follow Jewish dietary restrictions when there's no such Biblical passage, and the story the Bible tells is of Paul having a dream about it.

And then imagine telling someone that they don't understand the scriptures.

Lol.

 

[Yamaha YM2612]

To see if you read the Bible for one.

You misunderstood. I wasn't asking why, I'm asking WHAT you want biblical citations for

 

[WelperHelper99]

You misunderstood. I wasn't asking why, I'm asking WHAT you want biblical citations for

To see if you can cite any you obtuse retard

 

[Yamaha YM2612]

Imagine saying that the sacrament wasn't instituted by Jesus in the Bible when there's this whole passage demonstrating how he did it, and how he told his disciples to eat and drink in remembrance of him

that's not a sacrament. It's communion. It was a passover meal. Something we don't need under the new covenant

, and then turning around and saying that Jesus did explicitly tell his disciples that the gentiles didn't need to follow Jewish dietary restrictions

He did say that. Matthew 5 17. Not only did he, but peter and paul also elaborate on this.

when there's no such Biblical passage,

there is. Matthew 5 17 for starters

and the story the Bible tells is of Paul having a dream about it.

I'm not sure how you think this contradicts yhe new covenant

To see if you can cite any you obtuse retard

For what? What topic? What question?

you're thinking I'm asking why.

Is this why you're a Mormon? Because you can barely read?

 

[One Angry Computer]

I came here to ask a True Mormon™ about mormon stuff, instead I'm watching a theological slap fight between christians, as always.

Never change, sons of Abraham and loyal flock of Jesus.

 

[Roboute Guilliman]

instead I'm watching a theological slap fight between christians

Highly optimistic to call it anything approaching even this.

 

[Roboute Guilliman]

Foolishness

So I want to start by apologizing for my use of insults and slurs. That is all I am apologizing for but I do mean it. You are however extremely extremely ignorant, if you aren't lying about your reading of the Bible (I find this highly doubtful) you are actually developmentally disabled. That is not an insult that is the truth, the things you have said in this thread about the Bible and it's contents would get you the exact same treatment or worse at any Non-Protestant or Protestant church that is steeped in the Bible, rather than what the popular political trend for the day. So with that in mind I issue you a challenge; Read the the NT from the KJV, NKJV, NIV, or NSAB version all of which are available full and free here.

As you read take notes any time you find a verse that states the same thing as a claim, that you have made here in this thread. Use verses that stand on their own, it can be a single verse or an entire chapter. The only addition from you should be the subject of one of your statements in this thread as a heading. If for example, you want to prove your claim that Paul was quoting Jesus in his correction of Peter, it is not enough that you quote Paul; You must quote Jesus from where you claim Paul is quoting him. No commentary, just Bible verses. I will respond in kind, subtitle of your claim, verse or verses that show you claim to be false, or scriptures that from the Bible the contradict your interpretation of what you find. After my response we can then start discussing why we interpret things differently and open it up to citations from inside or outside the Bible that support our individual claims.

So two rounds; First: Bible only, no commentary from either of us. Second round: Bible and commentary.

Anything other than this and I'm just not responding too you. You are either incredibly dishonest (Likely) or extremely developmentally disabled (less likely) this exercise should you choose to undertake it will prove one of those things. I suspect you will just keep making bad claims or go back to attacking our doctrine based on things that we do not count as our doctrine. Hopefully you pleasantly surprise me. I will also engage with anyone else willing to do this as a challenge.

Edit Formatting

 

[Yamaha YM2612]

You are however extremely extremely ignorant,

I am. Which is why I rely on Jesus christ and the prophets and apostles to clarify things.

if you aren't lying about your reading of the Bible

This accusation makes no sense. If I hadn't read the bible, I would only be able to be this accurate on its contents by a miracle

would get you the exact same treatment or worse at any Non-Protestant or Protestant church that is steeped in the Bible rather than what is the popular political trend for the day.

But it wouldn't get me this treatment from The Father. I dont care about incorrect faggots opinions in my theology. God is right, jesus is right, Moses is right, Paul is right. If you think they are wrong, you're a faggot and your opinion is invalid

Read the the NT from the KJV, NKJV, NIV, or NSAB version all of which are available full and free here. As you read take notes any time you find a verse that states the same thing as a claim you have made here in this thread.

All of them say the same thing I said. That's literally where I got all my statements

Again, for me to have not done this, yet be so accurate would be a miracle

If for example you want to prove your claim that Paul was quoting Jesus in his correction of Peter, it is not enough that you quote Paul

Where did I claim this?

No commentary, just Bible verses.

This is a bold stipulation from a Mormon, your whole religion is based on commentary.

After my response we can then start discussing why we interpret things

Speak for yourself, I have no biblical interpretations. That's the difference between someone like you and me. You have interpretations, I go strictly off of what the messiah, prophets and apostles have taught

suspect you will just keep making bad claims or go back to attacking our doctrine based on things that we do not count as our doctrine.

You observe dietary laws and build temples and think god had sex with Mary. In regards to Mary, that IS your doctrine, that is what your prophet Brigham young says. Whether he was lying or your cults theology "evolved" in inconsequential. One one hand, either young, and thus your cult, is lying, and on the other hand, if your cults doctrines have "evolved" that makes them invalid, since God's doctrines, nature, laws don't change (this is how omnipresence works)

All of this is defiant of what how the law works, defiant of Christ's teaching and defiant of the apostles commentary on said teachings

I don't care if you respond or not, I'm not the one you hate, I'm not the one you have to answer to. When christ stands before you with His sword, you'll have to explain all of your doctrine to Him, not me. Good luck

I will quote my God here: "get behind me, satan".

 

[Roboute Guilliman]

Lies and foolishness

Anything other than this and I'm just not responding too you. You are either incredibly dishonest (Likely) or extremely developmentally disabled (less likely) this exercise should you choose to undertake it will prove one of those things. I suspect you will just keep making bad claims or go back to attacking our doctrine based on things that we do not count as our doctrine. Hopefully you pleasantly surprise me. I will also engage with anyone else willing to do this as a challenge.

 

[Yamaha YM2612]

^^^Mormons calling jesus and His word lies. Many such cases

Very cowardly move to accuse one of lying and not pointing out said lies

 

[Otterly]

I have another question. What is the Mormon opinion of those outside the church? For example how do you view atheists? What about Jews/hindus/muskims? And how do you view the regular Christians? Are any religious or branches seen as better than others or particularly sinful or bad?
Are there any restrictions on mixing with non Mormons socially?

 

[WelperHelper99]

I have another question. What is the Mormon opinion of those outside the church? For example how do you view atheists? What about Jews/hindus/muskims? And how do you view the regular Christians? Are any religious or branches seen as better than others or particularly sinful or bad?
Are there any restrictions on mixing with non Mormons socially?

I think that's more a personal question more than anything. Some people are very insular, some are outgoing. That extends to peoples views on other religions. There's no real restriction on mixing with non mormons, that would be a pretty lonely life.

 

[Roboute Guilliman]

I have another question. What is the Mormon opinion of those outside the church? For example how do you view atheists? What about Jews/hindus/muskims? And how do you view the regular Christians? Are any religious or branches seen as better than others or particularly sinful or bad?
Are there any restrictions on mixing with non Mormons socially?

I think that's more a personal question more than anything. Some people are very insular, some are outgoing. That extends to peoples views on other religions. There's no real restriction on mixing with non mormons, that would be a pretty lonely life.

Agreed with WelperHelper99. Personally I try to get along with everyone I have friends that are, atheist, agnostic, protestant, catholic, LDS, and even have friends who are former or lapsed LDS. I have great conversations and debates with all of them.

I have a personal dislike of Muslims because of an experience I had on my mission. We were teaching a pregnant woman who was protestant whose boyfriend was Muslim. When we started teaching her, he was in jail. When he got out we did meet him once, and had a conversation with him that went nowhere. She was actually going to get baptized, but when we came back the next couple of times after he got out, we noticed bruising, after the third time she told us that she was going to marry him and thus convert to Islam. She said she knew what we had taught her was true, but that she wanted the father in the baby's life. We were already thinking of stopping, because we suspected that some of the abuse was because of her visiting with us, (the religious aspects) so we did not give any push back. I still don't know if that was the right decision, but I do know that every interaction with a member of the religion of peace since has been with men of the exact same phenotype of her boyfriend, and has left me with a lasting near hatred of Islam.

I get along fine with most Atheists, and I get along exceptionally well with most agnostics. I have never really had any interactions with Hindus or Indians f any stripe for that matter. I've had good and bad interactions with Jews and find that they are either very good and moral people or fit the Nazi stereotypes to a tee. So these are my personal thoughts.

Edit: Formatting

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

Do you believe the Book of Abraham to be authentic and divinely inspired? If so, what do you understand Kolob to be?

 

[Not 6 Foot]

Typical that anything religious-discussion in nature turns into dick measuring, goal shifting, and people belittling each other.

Mormons are not typically invited to the big boy Christian clubs because everyone knows Joseph Smith just made some stuff up and rolled with it. It's the same with Jehovah's Witnesses.

Most Mormons I meet are good people, though, so I really don't care as long as they don't try to convince me their fake prophet said anything worth listening to.

 

[Neodanthril]

everyone knows Joseph Smith just made some stuff up and rolled with it.

well that and them being white muslims in every sense of the word.

 

[Roboute Guilliman]

Typical that anything religious-discussion in nature turns into dick measuring, goal shifting, and people belittling each other.

Mormons are not typically invited to the big boy Christian clubs because everyone knows Joseph Smith just made some stuff up and rolled with it. It's the same with Jehovah's Witnesses.

Most Mormons I meet are good people, though, so I really don't care as long as they don't try to convince me their fake prophet said anything worth listening to.

It's more likely to win Powerball 180 time in a row than it is for Joseph Smith or his contemporaries to have written The Book of Mormon. Text print analysis has been done comparing The Book of Mormon to a body of sermons letters and journals of his contemporaries and the highest match was Martin Harris with some part matching him linguistically and stylistically 20% and that is the highest most of the Book doesn't even match that much. It has also only become more plausible over time that it is what it purports to be. Though the apologetics rabbit hole if far to deep to touch on more than that.
There are at least 11 people who saw and handled the golden plates, most of which who left all of which reiterated their testimony up to their death despite leaving. He had the plates. It was impossible for him or his contemporaries to have written the Book of Mormon. Every time someone suggests something for plagiarism the options do not remotely match the content of the Book of Mormon it is more likely to win Powerball 3 times in a row than for it to be plagiarized. It is impossible that it was plagiarized from any known sources while people have been searching for possible options since it's publication.
If you say he did it for money; He went into debt to run the church, and he died poor and in debt. So much so that Emma (his primary wife) had to sell off their personal property and remarry admittedly to a man she did not love.
If you say he did it for the sex with the polygyny, 1 it was practiced anciently and by early Christianity. 2. He only had sexual relation with 16 of his at least 45 wives.

The things he "made up" are all things that are at the very least hinted at or even explicit in the Bible. In fact given his education you are more likely to win Powerball 7 times in a row than it is that Joseph was able to come up with such a cohesive all encompassing theology, that is so heavily rooted in the bible, and ancient Israeli, and early Christian traditions, practices, and worship.
Your claim that he made stuff up is considerably more unlikely than his claims that he was a prophet called by God are. If you think he made it all up you are only showing that you have never engaged with the ideas, and doctrines taught by him.
Those good people you meet are good people because of those things the man you accuse as a fake prophet said and taught. We are the fruits of Joseph Smith. Our knowledge of the bible which scores higher than any other religious group (both old and new testament), our willingness to serve and help those around us, our kindness and generosity, our higher religiosity, our families, those are all the fruits of us living the things that you say aren't worth listening to. In short if they aren't worth listening too why are the fruits of living them so facially good?

 

[Not 6 Foot]

There are at least 11 people who saw and handled the golden plates

Yes. But there is no proof they existed. The Bible, at large, has proof many of the events at least happened. Maybe not as fantastical as the text might imply, but there is, at least, proof the tales are based on something, if not a direct document.

Everything related to the book of mormon, minus the author(s) themselves, is based on Things That Totally Happened and no amount of apologetics will suddenly will a fake language into existence, a supposed person that became an angel (this isn't how angels work), or golden plates that have only been seen by an extreme few.

 

[Roboute Guilliman]

well that and them being white muslims in every sense of the word.

FLDS are not Members of the Church, they are an apostate branch that is basically dead for all intents and purposes because of their rejection of the end of Polygyny by the main body of the Church, comparing their practices is bearing false witness against Christ's actual church. Polygyny has been practiced all throughout biblical times even through the first century and a half of Christians.
If you were actually familiar with what happened at Mountain Meadows you would not be trying to compare us to Muslims. MM was an atrocity committed by a group of members who ignored the council of their priesthood leaders and let their anger over rumors (that we still don't even know if they were false or not) about the caravan poisoning a well and treatment of people who had given them hospitality in general, lead them to commit said atrocity. There were also rumors that men who were involved with the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawn's_Mill_massacre were in the wagon train ( this is also still unconfirmed whether this was false or not). Brigham Young specifically tried to prevent it but his letter arrived too late. Comparing one atrocity that the head of the Church tried to prevent from occurring, to the daily atrocities committed by Islam is once again bearing false witness as well as a complete false equivalence. In short you are demonic and Satanic for your dishonesty about Christ's church.

 

[Roboute Guilliman]

Yes. But there is no proof they existed. The Bible, at large, has proof many of the events at least happened. Maybe not as fantastical as the text might imply, but there is, at least, proof the tales are based on something, if not a direct document.

Everything related to the book of mormon, minus the author(s) themselves, is based on Things That Totally Happened and no amount of apologetics will suddenly will a fake language into existence, a supposed person that became an angel (this isn't how angels work), or golden plates that have only been seen by an extreme few.

The plates were actually shown to many more people who wrote of their experiences in their own Journals or in letters I believe the current count of people who had such experience is around 26. So now you have to say that there were 26 people who lied in the face of public and financials ostracization and who were willing to die on that testimony "just because".
You are also just wrong no language was invented Nephi specifically says it was "called by us reformed Egyptian". Coptic for example could easily be classified as a reformed Egyptian as it has been reformed and repurposed to write Greek with Egyptian hieroglyphs. There are many other cases of the Egyptian Hieroglyphs being repurposed for foreigners who regularly engaged with the Egyptian empire. "Made up language" plausible.
As for the rest after less than 200 years since it's publication and realistically only 70+ years of archaeological interest in the Book or Mormon it is becoming more and more plausible with at least one provable hit with Nahom/NHM versus over 2000 years of interest in the NT alone. IT's of note that that one hint is in the Old World yet was only discovered in the 90s. You may want to believe that no amount of apologetics will make it real the problem is that you don't realize that it is real and the apologetics are just slowly showing that it was real. With all the criticism about evidence for the Book of Mormon which has been criticized and since it's publication, the fact that it continually becomes more plausible with only again about 70 years of solid scholarship looking for it should give one pause with claims like this. Here is a website full of things that make the Church and it's teaching more plausibly a restoration including the Book of Mormon https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/journal/