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

Mormons Have Their Own Gruber!!!!

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • #1

    Mormons Have Their Own Gruber!!!!

    Remember this guy?



    I never even knew about this guy til [a Mormon "apologist"] asked me something about "lying for the Lord"... I Googled that, and found THIS guy!
    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Millett is a 100% Mormon apologist. Truth be damned if it means defending Mormonism.
    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

    • #3
      Which means, of course, that our Tweb apologists are obligated to......

      under the bus.jpg
      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

      Comment

      • #4
        Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
        Which means, of course, that our Tweb apologists are obligated to......

        [ATTACH=CONFIG]2772[/ATTACH]
        I don't think I or anyone else needs to throw somebody under the bus because we may disagree with them on something. We all will disagree on things. What I think he says here is wrong and I would not follow his advice.

        Comment

        • #5
          Originally posted by carbon dioxide View Post
          I don't think I or anyone else needs to throw somebody under the bus because we may disagree with them on something.
          Cool

          We all will disagree on things.
          That happens.

          What I think he says here is wrong and I would not follow his advice.
          Your predecessors defended him vigorously.
          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

          Comment

          • #6
            Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
            Remember this guy?



            I never even knew about this guy til [a Mormon "apologist"] asked me something about "lying for the Lord"... I Googled that, and found THIS guy!
            I'm not sure I'm 100% against what he's saying here. The Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias actually does something like this as well. Often at a college campus talk, when the audience has a time to ask him questions, sometimes he'll get that crazy eyed skeptic who asks something that Ravi really has no problem answering (usually something to do with the POE, or God's ontology or something), but the speaker will ask it in a sort of smug and condescending way, as though Christians are complete idiots, and often times Ravi will not answer the question asked to him directly, instead he'll talk to the individual and attempt to figure out where he's coming from to have wanted to ask that question. Basically trying to determine the intent, or the actual spirit of the questioner. And honestly, for some people, I think this is a good apologetic.

            This brings up an interesting side question though. How much of what we condemn in Mormon apologetics are we also guilty of in Christian apologetics? And how can we work to avoid bad apologetics so that we're not guilty of the same?
            Last edited by Adrift; 11-22-2014, 09:56 PM.

            Comment

            • #7
              Originally posted by Adrift View Post
              I'm not sure I'm 100% against what he's saying here. The Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias actually does something like this as well. Often at a college campus talk, when the audience has a time to ask him questions, sometimes he'll get that crazy eyed skeptic who asks something that Ravi really has no problem answering (usually something to do with the POE, or God's ontology or something), but the speaker will ask it in a sort of smug and condescending way, as though Christians are complete idiots, and often times Ravi will not answer the question asked to him directly, instead he'll talk to the individual and attempt to figure out where he's coming from to have wanted to ask that question. Basically trying to determine the intent, or the actual spirit of the questioner. And honestly, for some people, I think this is a good apologetic.
              To a point, I would agree... it's just the - in my opinion - smarmy way he presents it. Kind of like the inquirer is stupid, and doesn't know to ask the right questions. Couple that with the fact that Christianity doesn't really have anything to hide - there's nothing I can't answer "straight up", including an occasional, "I honestly don't know".

              The point is that there are a lot of things the Mormons don't WANT you to know until after you've been "reeled in".

              As I have pointed out to the Mormons numerous times, we have our "Baptist Faith & Message" that you can read online, and there will never be "hidden doctrines" like 'man becomes God' (he actually refers to that as something NOT to answer).

              This brings up an interesting side question though. How much of what we condemn in Mormon apologetics are we also guilty of in Christian apologetics? And how can we work to avoid bad apologetics so that we're not guilty of the same?
              Again, I can hand an inquirer a copy of our Baptist Faith & Message, or point to it online, and there's no "hidden doctrines".

              Of course, with the internet, it's much more difficult for Mormons to hide their more "interesting" doctrines these days.
              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

              Comment

              • #8
                Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                Remember this guy?



                I never even knew about this guy til [a Mormon "apologist"] asked me something about "lying for the Lord"... I Googled that, and found THIS guy!
                And the Mormons got that video taken down already once. I don't know what power they have, but it seems Youtube jumps when they tell them to.

                Comment

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