• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

1 Timothy 3:15

This is not a lie.

"Christ was begotten by an immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers." (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, p. 547)

The birth of our Savior was as natural as are the births of our children; it
was the result of NATURAL ACTION. He partook of FLESH AND BLOOD--was begotten
of his father, as we were of our fathers." (JoD, vol. 8, p. 115).

there are several other teaching as well in Mormon doctrine
so there is no lie there.

they are not ignorant as they are pulling this information straight from joseph smith and his doctrine.

He is the first of the human family; and when he (Christ) took a
tabernacle, it was begotten by his Father in Heaven, AFTER THE SAME MANNER as
the tabernacles of Cain, Abel, and the rest of the sons and daughters of Adam
and Eve. Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same
character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven."
(JoD 1:50-51, also "Answers", vol. 5, p. 121).

The Saviour was
begotten by the Father of His spirit, by the same being who is the Father of
our spirits, AND THAT IS ALL THE ORGANIC DIFFERENCE BETWEEN JESUS CHRIST AND
YOU AND ME." (as quoted from 'Discourses of Brigham Young," 1925 edition, p.
77).

so please how do you address these. this is straight from the LDS literature.

It is a lie. You stated me and the Book of Mormon stated it. That is a lie. PROVE IT. Mormon Doctrine is not canonical. Anyone can have personal beliefs. It is only when it is official revelation that it is canonical. Your other responses are not worth responding to either. For example you lie above about me and the Book of Mormon in regards to the virgin birth, but you call me a liar just for not taking the time to put the book and chapter next to the scriptural verses. I cannot debate with a person like you. I'm done. It is like debating Matt Slick, a sincere and honest person is a fool to debate with someone like that. I will not read any posts you make from here on out. And this time I will stick with it, even if you bug me with quote notifications.
 
Last edited:
I apologize to everyone for not keeping the proper spirit and allowing this to turn into an argument. In the future I am going to ignore all anti-Mormons. My definition of anti-Mormon is someone that is so biased and dishonest that they attack the LDS faith with sensationalism, half truths, and untruths. When shown this, they never acknowledge any error in their attacks, and they keep throwing out mud hoping something will stick to deceive people. It is no surprise those who attack The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints have to do this. 1/it is the true church so they cannot honestly attack it, 2. it's the Lord's church and the prince of this world and false christian teachers who are under his power, will always attack it. If there is no dishonest opposition, that would be a great evidence it is not really the Lord's church.
 
Last edited:
It is a lie. You stated me and the Book of Mormon stated it. That is a lie. PROVE IT. Mormon Doctrine is not canonical. Anyone can have personal beliefs. It is only when it is official revelation that it is canonical. Your other responses are not worth responding to either. For example you lie above about me and the Book of Mormon in regards to the virgin birth, but you call me a liar just for not taking the time to put the book and chapter next to the scriptural verses. I cannot debate with a person like you. I'm done. It is like debating Matt Slick, a sincere and honest person is a fool to debate with someone like that. I will not read any posts you make from here on out. And this time I will stick with it, even if you bug me with quote notifications.

OMG i just told you right there in black and white it is in mormon doctrine etc. people that write this stuff for the LDS wrote what i wrote above and you want to call it a lie and say you are an honest debator. this proves it right there.

i didn't call you a liar i called it dishonest which it is. if you want to sight verse and scripture you include book chapter and verse. i had to spend 20+ minutes googling everything for something YOU should have provided.

as i said you can't defend your argument you resort to ad hominems when put into a corner.

i didn't know presenting facts was so offensive to you or is it for the first time someone in a while someone is actually making you realize that the LDS says isn't biblical or biblical base and you are feeling angry over it?

i posted a rebuttal and instead of debating you ad hominem which is what you seem to do in every thread.
the only reason you put me on ignore is because you can't defend.
 
I apologize to everyone for not keeping the proper spirit and allowing this to turn into an argument. In the future I am going to ignore all anti-Mormons. My definition of anti-Mormon is someone that is so biased and dishonest that they attack the LDS faith with sensationalism, half truths, and untruths. When shown this, they never acknowledge any error in their attacks, and they keep throwing out mud hoping something will stick to deceive people. It is no surprise those who attack The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints have to do this. 1/it is the true church so they cannot honestly attack it, 2. it's the Lord's church and the prince of this world and false christian teachers who are under his power, will always attack it. If there is no dishonest opposition, that would be a great evidence it is not really the Lord's church.

then i suggest not posting on this section and only post on LDS boards. i am sorry that you don't like what real facts and evidence look like.

definition of anti-Mormon is someone that is so biased and dishonest that they attack the LDS faith with sensationalism, half truths, and untruths
Good thing no one did this. all information came from the book of mormon or the LDS on publications.

It is no surprise those who attack The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints have to do this. 1/it is the true church so they cannot honestly attack

The only true church is based on the death burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ not the words of joseph smith.

it's the Lord's church and the prince of this world and false christian teachers who are under his power, will always attack it. If there is no dishonest opposition, that would be a great evidence it is not really the Lord's church.

showing inconsistancies in the LDS belief system is not attacking it is what it is pointing out the inconsistancies.
 
This does not address anything that i said. Jesus was God made Flesh. yes he was resurrected in a body of flesh until he ascended. once he ascended he no longer needed his physical body.

Jesus' humanity is still fully intact.
 
We have parts of the original manuscript penned by Joseph's scribe Oliver Cowdery as Joseph read aloud the translation of the plates by the power of God. We have the printer's manuscript taken directly form the original translation, penned by Oliver Cowdery. The Bible has nothing close to first hand copies from the prophet that penned or translated it. So just another stupid argument made by your "geniuses".

Oliver Cowdery is the same one who wrote of Joseph Smith predicting the return of Christ in fifty-sex years. Cowdery was dependable then but not in this instance?
 
I know. I've made zero case, and you made a non fallible case. This debate has gone on in multiple threads, and anyone wanting to know my case can check my posts over the last week or two since it has been going on and make up their own minds.

The case is quite fallible. Show that the apostles and their descendants all died leaving no one in their place. Show that the authority of the Church died. You haven't. In fact, you previously stated that authority died with the apostles. When I showed you conclusively that the apostles passed on their authority (with the example of St. Paul and St. Timothy), you then dodged and said that all of the descendants of the apostles died and didn't leave successors and left it with that with no evidence. You're the one who is making a non-fallible case.
 
never said it wasn't.

Isn't that what this means: "Jesus was God made Flesh. yes he was resurrected in a body of flesh until he ascended. once he ascended he no longer needed his physical body."
 
Isn't that what this means: "Jesus was God made Flesh. yes he was resurrected in a body of flesh until he ascended. once he ascended he no longer needed his physical body."

Nope. he can keep his humanity in his spiritual form as well. That doesn't mean that he gives up the title of Son of man.
if you read both daniel and Revelation they give the same type of account. the person they see is Christ but he doesn't look the way he did after the resurrection.
that doesn't mean he gave up his humanity he can still hold the title the Son of Man as well as the Son of God.
 
Nope. he can keep his humanity in his spiritual form as well. That doesn't mean that he gives up the title of Son of man.
if you read both daniel and Revelation they give the same type of account. the person they see is Christ but he doesn't look the way he did after the resurrection.
that doesn't mean he gave up his humanity he can still hold the title the Son of Man as well as the Son of God.

I'm not so sure. What part of their account is inconsistent with his glorified body after resurrection?
 
Oliver Cowdery is the same one who wrote of Joseph Smith predicting the return of Christ in fifty-sex years. Cowdery was dependable then but not in this instance?

Fifty sex years?? Oh. That explains Mormon polygamy!
 
Back
Top Bottom