Announcement

Collapse

LDS - Mormonism Guidelines

Theists only.

Look! It's a bird, no it's a plane, no it's a bicycle built for two!

This forum is a debate area to discuss issues pertaining to the LDS - Mormons. This forum is generally for theists only, and is generaly not the area for debate between atheists and theists. Non-theists may not post here without first obtaining permission from the moderator of this forum. Granting of such permission is subject to Moderator discretion - and may be revoked if the Moderator feels that the poster is not keeping with the spirit of the World Religions Department.

Due to the sensitive nature of the LDS Temple Ceremonies to our LDS posters, we do not allow posting exact text of the temple rituals, articles describing older versions of the ceremony, or links that provide the same information. However discussion of generalities of the ceremony are not off limits. If in doubt, PM the area mod or an Admin


Non-theists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

7up reminded me of our friend Robert Millet

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by seven7up View Post
    But since you brought it up....

    As the context of Robert Millet's speech provides, this is a stranger on the street who is "antagonistic" towards the Latter Day Saint. His point is that there is no reason to engage with a person a approaches you with that kind of mindset.
    OK, so why play goofy games with them?

    Jesus Christ put it this way:

    "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." Matt 7:6

    Proverbs puts it this way: "Do not speak to fools, for they will scorn your prudent words."

    And Paul put it this way, "And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Christ. 2 I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able, 3 for you are still controlled by your sinful nature. ." (1 Corinthians 3)

    So, was the Apostle Paul "lying for the Lord" when dealing with the Corinthians?
    Yeah, NONE of that addresses the goofy idea of "never answer the question they ask --- answer the question they SHOULD have asked".

    Anti-Mormons will pretend that LDS are trying to keep secret the doctrine of exaltation. Yet , it is right there in the "Gospel Principles" manual that is taught to investigators.

    You all just have a lot of huffing a puffing about nothing, and it all smacks of hypocrisy as well.
    How does it "smack of hypocrisy" to show your Millet teaching these people how to be deceptive?
    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
      Yes, which reminded me of Robert Millet teaching to "invent" a question and answer that, instead of the question that was asked.

      So, you are saying that Bill was just using Robert Millet's tactics?

      -7up

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by seven7up View Post
        So, you are saying that Bill was just using Robert Millet's tactics?

        -7up
        Wow!

        No, I'm saying that what YOU said, and the way you said it, reminded me of Millet's "Lying for the Lord" tactics.
        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
          OK, so why play goofy games with them?
          It ISN'T a goofy game. Robert Millet goes straight to the heart of the issue. You don't even get the point being made.

          He is saying that IF you discuss with the antagonistic person concerning how Joseph Smith was called by God to be prophet, then the teachings in the LDS church, including exaltation, are true. That is just another way to answer the question about whether or not man can be like God, but it brings in the entirety of the LDS religion.

          - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
          Jesus Christ put it this way:
          "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." Matt 7:6
          Proverbs puts it this way: "Do not speak to fools, for they will scorn your prudent words."
          And Paul put it this way, "And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Christ. 2 I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able, 3 for you are still controlled by your sinful nature." (1 Corinthians 3)

          So, was the Apostle Paul "lying for the Lord" when dealing with the Corinthians?

          Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
          Yeah, NONE of that addresses the goofy idea of "never answer the question they ask --- answer the question they SHOULD have asked".
          Yes it does. It addresses the concept on multiple levels.

          Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
          How does it "smack of hypocrisy" to show your Millet teaching these people how to be deceptive?
          It isn't deceptive. See above. Also, consider how Jesus handles this question:

          23 And when he was come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came unto him as he was teaching, and said, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority? 24 And Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ask you one question, which if ye tell me, I likewise will tell you by what authority I do these things. 25 The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven or from men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why then did ye not believe him? 26 But if we shall say, From men; we fear the multitude; for all hold John as a prophet. 27 And they answered Jesus, and said, We know not. He also said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things.


          While you are considering this, let's say that you are going to teach a class on the gospels. Would you start with Jesus violently overthrowing the money changers in the temple?

          How about a Christian history class. Would you start with indulgences or the crusades?

          -7up

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
            Wow!

            No, I'm saying that what YOU said, and the way you said it, reminded me of Millet's "Lying for the Lord" tactics.
            Then you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

            Go back to the original thread and read it again. If you have a reasonable accusation to make against me, then state your case clearly and in detail.

            -7up

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by seven7up View Post
              Then you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
              Sure I do! You said something, and for whatever reason, it reminded me of our old friend Robert Millet.

              Go back to the original thread and read it again. If you have a reasonable accusation to make against me, then state your case clearly and in detail.

              -7up
              "Accusation to make against you"???? I'm not accusing you of ANYTHING! Nor did I SAY I was. Sheeeeesh... are you think skinned or WHAT?
              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                It ISN'T a goofy game. Robert Millet goes straight to the heart of the issue. You don't even get the point being made.
                Yes, I do. He wants to save the wackier stuff for AFTER they get overinvested in Mormonism,

                There is NOTHING that I preach than cannot be shared on DAY ONE with an inquirer. NADA. I don't have to say, "well, gee, let's talk about THIS instead.... I don't have to be shifty or secretive. IN FACT -- I can point you to a pretty comprehensive outline of our fundamental beliefs, IN DETAIL!
                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                  While you are considering this, let's say that you are going to teach a class on the gospels. Would you start with Jesus violently overthrowing the money changers in the temple?
                  It's not about "where I would start" teaching a class -- it was about ANSWERING A QUESTION asked by an inquirer. So, if an inquirer STARTED by asking about Jesus (interesting way you worded that) cleansing the temple -- I would be happy to show them the scriptures, and even share the fact that I MAY have stood in the very temple where that happened last October.

                  NOTHING TO HIDE!!!!! NADA
                  The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                    Sure I do! You said something, and for whatever reason, it reminded me of our old friend Robert Millet.



                    "Accusation to make against you"???? I'm not accusing you of ANYTHING! Nor did I SAY I was. Sheeeeesh... are you think skinned or WHAT?
                    I told you he would get snarky.
                    That's what
                    - She

                    Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                    - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                    I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                    - Stephen R. Donaldson

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                      I told you he would get snarky.
                      You must be a true profit*.





                      *yeah, i meant it that way!
                      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        If someone antagonistic to Christianity asks me a question about my faith. I will try my best to answer THAT question. If that doesn't satisfy them, then that is their problem. I don't use it as an opportunity to answer the question they SHOULD have asked. That would be pure arrogance on my part. If they asked, for example, "So you believe Jesus rose from the dead like a zombie?" (antagonistic right?) - I would say "Well, not like a zombie, but yes I believe Jesus rose from the dead after lying in a tomb for 3 days after being crucified."

                        I would not say "Well, in the spring of the year -4AD there was a young virgin named Mary who..." and try to give them the entire gospel. It would not be what they asked and would just make them more antagonistic. At least if I answer their question directly, I am opening up a dialog and eventually I could give them the background on who Jesus was and how he came to save us.

                        If they are not actually interested in listening to my answer, and just attacking me, I will just tell them that I won't play their game. But I won't avoid answering to the best of my ability. I am not ashamed of what I believe or the doctrines of my faith.

                        Apparently mormons are though.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                          If someone antagonistic to Christianity asks me a question about my faith. I will try my best to answer THAT question. If that doesn't satisfy them, then that is their problem. I don't use it as an opportunity to answer the question they SHOULD have asked. That would be pure arrogance on my part. If they asked, for example, "So you believe Jesus rose from the dead like a zombie?" (antagonistic right?) - I would say "Well, not like a zombie, but yes I believe Jesus rose from the dead after lying in a tomb for 3 days after being crucified."

                          I would not say "Well, in the spring of the year -4AD there was a young virgin named Mary who..." and try to give them the entire gospel. It would not be what they asked and would just make them more antagonistic. At least if I answer their question directly, I am opening up a dialog and eventually I could give them the background on who Jesus was and how he came to save us.

                          If they are not actually interested in listening to my answer, and just attacking me, I will just tell them that I won't play their game. But I won't avoid answering to the best of my ability. I am not ashamed of what I believe or the doctrines of my faith.

                          Apparently mormons are though.
                          Yeah! Nothing to hide!
                          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                            Yeah! Nothing to hide!
                            Yeah that is always a giveaway to a cult. They have "secret knowledge and practices" that only the initiated are allowed to know.

                            Jesus had nothing to hide and neither do real Christians. It's all there in the bible! Ask us anything! No secrets.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                              If someone antagonistic to Christianity asks me a question about my faith. I will try my best to answer THAT question. If that doesn't satisfy them, then that is their problem.
                              And if somebody asked me, "hey, aren't you Southern Baptists a bunch of racists?", I would begin by TOTALLY admitting that there was rampant racism, and many in our denomination bought into that -- it was wrong, and we denounce it as such. I wouldn't try to pretend that it didn't happen, and I COULD honestly say that it was never a "doctrine" of our Church ... just rampant stupidity and bigotry. The TRUTH works SO well.
                              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                                Yeah that is always a giveaway to a cult. They have "secret knowledge and practices" that only the initiated are allowed to know.

                                Jesus had nothing to hide and neither do real Christians. It's all there in the bible! Ask us anything! No secrets.
                                But, remember OC used to counter with the notion that they had "sacred" beliefs, and ours obviously weren't "sacred" because we had nothing to "hold back"? He really tried his best to equate "sacred" with "secret" or "hidden".
                                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X