Wanna Fight?

When you get involved in apologetics there comes a time when you really don't need to looking for an issue to discuss with someone, they come to you. Even though Ephesians 2 Ministry has made it abundantly clear that we are not here to debate apologist they seem to want to ignore that and persist anyway. For example over the last few days I have been getting emails from an apologist wanting to pick a fight with our ministry.
Before I get into the bulk of the emails I need to bring you up to speed as to the reason he claims to have emailed us to begin with. It all started a few days ago when our ministry decided to get rid our our discussion board in order to keep up with our other obligations. The one Mormon who was apparently trying to dialog on our board emails us and this is where it all begins. I will substitute the names in the email for privacy reasons.The first email he sent me was a long effort to try and continue his dialog on the discussion board. I will save you all the headache. Here is his second email.

Just thought you'd like to know that I posted the comments for which you kicked me off your Facebook discussion page on my Facebook (lucky for me I copied and pasted them to a word document before you booted me). You can hide your lies on your discussion page through your censorship, but I've got comments from a whole lot of people who recognize your cowardice, your dishonesty, and your disregard for truth.

As you can see right out of the gate he is trying to pick a fight. Somehow he thinks our discussion board should exist specifically for him. And I find it funny that he would claim that we being cowardice or dishonest because you would have to comment first in order for that to be the case. So in an effort to try and be civil with him I responded to him with this.

Dear Sir,

You were not banned from our discussion board, we got rid of it. Several members of our ministry decided it was overkill with the Facebook page, blog, and such. However as stated several times in the past our ministry isn't for debating with apologist. If you are happy being LDS that is great for you. There is nothing I can say that will change your mind if that is the case. However we are here for two big reasons. For those who feel the burden placed on them by the organization they are a part of and realize they can't do it on their own. ,as well as born again Christians who have a heart to share the Gospel with the LDS and JW's. If you wish to talk with me that is one thing but I will not have our page turn into a complaining ground for apologist. As far as the other guy is concerned he could care less about dialogging. He is only in it to argue and I won't have it as I have stated. Hope this helps clarify.

Now as you can see I clearly spell out for him the details of why the board is gone and that he is not banned from our page (yet). I even explain to him why the other person he was referring to is no longer on our page. A reason for which I have stated several times in the past and appears I will have to several times more in the future. However it doesn't end there. He continues...

You can try to justify it all you want, but there is no getting around the fact that your website caricatures our views of salvation in disgusting ways. I will certainly agree that a discussion board is not in your best interest, because your "ministry" is too easily exposed for what it is if LDS folks are allowed to share their side of the story.

Actually I don't have caricature their view of salvation. I let it speak for itself. And can anyone please explain what there would be to expose with a ministry that is out to help those who are leaving Mormonism or the Watchtower Society? It is not our research that is out there to look at. So I respond to him with this.

What is there to justify sir? I beg to differ on your opinion about our ministry however that is besides to point. And why would you care if we are out to try and help those who choose to leave Mormonism? Would you not want them to have a relationship with God? Again our ministry is not for those who are happy being LDS, it is for those who are tired of the burden and would rather rely on Jesus.

So as you can see I yet again try and explain to him what the purpose of our ministry is. I clearly state that I am not out to change his mind. Yet do you think he would leave it at that....oh no. He continues...

All of your arguments seem to be based upon misrepresenting others. For example, where did I state that I don't want you to help people have a relationship with God? I don't have a problem with you reaching out to people who've left Mormonism--I do have a problem with your misrepresenting the actual doctrines of my faith. You've just given a great example with your false claims that LDS folks don't rely upon Jesus.

Misrepresenting others or doctrines of his faith? First of all can we really be sure of what is official doctrine on some issues. If we challenge them on what has been said or what is in their scripture it suddenly becomes an opinion. Yet is there a way to reach out to someone who wants to leave Mormonism without showing them where Mormonism goes wrong? I again try and reason with him.

Sir,
If you are wanting to pick a topic and go through it I would love to. However be mindful between the members of there ministry we have over 150 years of combined membership. We know what is "official doctrine", what is taught, and what most of it's members believe to be true. You are entitled to your opinion and you will be in our prayers.

Now again I try and show him that even though we are not here to debate we do in fact know what we are talking about. And again I let him know that he is entitled to his opinion and am not out to try and change his mind. This is where his intensity starts to pick up.

Most Christians I meet appear to believe in Modalism--but I'm smart enough to know that Trinitarianism is not Modalism, and I don't go around saying that Trinitarians are Modalists. But that is exactly the kind of thing that you're doing. As for a topic, we were doing just fine when you so conveniently made the discussion section disappear. I assume you still have my comments. Still quite interested in knowing: Am I damned to hell in your eyes? How about the majority of the world's Christians who are Synergists? All damned to hell?

Now as you can see here he assumes to know what it is I believe and fill in gaps. He is even trying to get me to try and play God. Even though I feel his words and actions speak for themselves I know better than to touch this with a 10 foot pole. So this is how I respond.

You can believe as you wish sir. I don't know how many times I have to say that. And I don't have any comments from the board. We didn't keep up with it and therefor decided it was best to get rid of it. I have no clue what a majority of the comments said nor do I care now that it is gone. And it is not my place or anyone else's to claim if someone is going to hell or not. I can only go by his standard of which Mormonism as a whole does not hold to.

I'm willing to bet that anyone reading this would agree that at no time can we claim to be the judge of ones heart. However we can take a look at what an organization teaches as a whole and see if it is Biblical. I yet again had to tell him that he was free to believe as he wishes and do you think it did any good? He continues...

You're avoiding the question--probably because you're not yet willing to admit that when you condemn the Synergistic views of the LDS church, you condemn most of today's Christians to hell, and the vast majority of history's Christians. Again, I don't mind if you want to do this, it doesn't concern me in the least, I just think you should admit it to yourself if you do.

Here were my comments:

Frankly, I don't understand why the other guy is being censored. Any ground rules I should be aware of so as to not have my comments disappear?



As for your question, we've already been over this, and you can read a good overview in Part 1 of the salvation section of my website--forgive me for linking there, but I have limited time to keep hashing out the same issues over and over. Part 1 is not terribly long. If you want sincere understanding of our views, I think it will be helpful. 


At this point he started going into a whole list of Mormon propaganda which I will spare everyone the headache of reading. However he claims I am avoiding his questions. I think I couldn't spell it out any better if I typed in braille. The problem is he is wanting to pick a fight and is getting frustrated because I refuse to do so. Usual LDS apologist tactic of which they will use against you should you fall into the trap. I again try and explain to him our stance.

As I stated before the other guy was banned because he only wanted to pick a fight. I conversed with him on other sites as well. And I did not avoid your question. That is how we as a ministry feel about it. Disagree as you may. And again I will say we understand your "Views" as you put it. However we will continue our effort to help those who are wanting it.

Even though I know this would not end the conversation I have to make sure he understood yet again the stance of our ministry. If you ask me I think that these two people could very will be one in the same. However that isn't important. This only fueled his anger even more.

And so it becomes perfectly clear why the discussion section disappeared. You wont answer my questions--because you actually cannot do so without damning nearly all of history's Christians to hell, as well as most of todays Christians, and this puts you in a bit of an uncomfortable pickle. I suppose I will see a new section on your website soon that is dedicated to Catholic and Orthodox Christians? Perhaps one even for Protestants with Arminian views?

Maybe I should ask in a less threatening way. You said: "I can only go by his standard of which Mormonism as a whole does not hold to." My next question would be this: Does Catholic Christianity (or other Synergists) "hold to" "his standard" as you see it?

So here we go. Because we focus on just 2 groups he has to try and say we need to include everyone. So he wants me to list a groups standard as if it might justify Mormonism un-biblical doctrine. I have to caution everyone when they try and take this approach. For it will only go down an endless road for which the issue with Mormonism will be lost in the background. I quickly bring him back to the issue at hand.

Condemn...not hardly. I know where I stand before God. I can't speak for anyone else. If you choose to do so that is on your head. And as far as to why we only go over the 2 we do. My wife was LDS for 20 years and I had a good friend of mine leave the Watchtower society. I do not nor does anyone else on our team have the experience to speak about any other.

As far as your question. Why don't you tell me what you feel your "Standard" is and I can fill in the gaps that you choose to leave out.

This is where he had an open door to debate if any. I made sure it was going to be about Mormonism. Do you think he took it? For if we are going to discuss anything it will be Mormonism, not a religion for which neither one of us are a part of. He responds...

Do you have any idea how obvious is that you are not willing to address the issues I'm raising? I can't say that I blame you, because again, if you claim that LDS doctrine "falls short of the standard" of salvation for its views of faith and works, then you would clearly say the same about most of the world's Christians who are Synergists. You do realize that your Monergistic "standard" of salvation puts you in a quite small minority among the history of Christianity, right?

No, I don't claim to know who is going to hell, and who is not. However, there are people running rampant on your discussion page who do just that--but they are not the ones who get censored--only those who point out your deception. I'll add that you may have realized that it is absurd to categorically declare that various religious groups are hell-bound (as Evangelicals have made a habit of doing), but you essentially do the same thing by claiming that I am not a Christian if I believe LDS doctrines. Surely, in your eyes, I cannot be saved if I am not a Christian, right? So what about other Synergists--are they "Christian." What is it that makes you able to say that you're a Christian, and I'm not? Please do enlighten me.

I've already answered your question about the LDS "standard" of salvation, and answered your previous question on the discussion page where you asked if I must "do my part." I've been patiently waiting for you to let me know just where you think they "fall short of the standard." Once again, my previous comments are below, and I do hope you'll see Part 1 of my website if you really want to understand. It's really not too long, and it clears up the core of your distortions of our doctrine.

At this point he yet again fills the email with Mormon propaganda which I will spare you the headache of. As you can see he again want me to claim to speak on matters of the heart. You can tell he is getting desperate. He also claims to have answered my question however I don't see it. He would rather me go to his website where he goes in circles. For if any of you have spent anytime on FAIR, FARMS, or any other LDS site you know exactly what I mean. So at this point I have to make a decision. Because it is clear that trying to explain things in English isn't working. I make it clear to him for the last time that the conversation is pointless.

Sir,

Why would you think I would waist that kind of time with you? I have gone rounds with people much more experienced than you and you know where it all ends up? We both have to agree to disagree. So let me save you the time shall we. Because your points are fruitless, just like faith + works.

And seriously man you need to get over the discussion board issue for no one was censored as you put it. You may have countless hours to spare but we don't. Your acting like a child. If we as a ministry were here for the likes of you (being an apologist) that might be a completely different story. However we are not for the upteenth time. And as I have said before I can't speak about the heart of an individual to include yourself, however Mormonism is NOT Christian. And I would take a closer look at what Jesus did to say those people who are hell bound? I would suggest you re-read his words without LDS filters in place, because it also includes those who call out "Lord, Lord".

I would also beg to differ that you answered my question about the "Standard" of Mormonism. However it may also be too long to go over, which is why you are still waiting for my answer, as I stated I would have filled in the gaps. I would have started on what it takes to get into the temple but we will never know now.

I can tell that you are extremely angry at those who stand up against your church and in some ways I don't blame you. In others I see no point. When someone attacks my faith I will defend it. I will bring out scripture and let Gods word to the work. However at some point if it is clear that the other party is only out to pick a fight then at some point you have to wash your hands of the situation. For someone such as yourself I can see already that facts mean nothing to you. I'm sure your well aware of the evidence there is against Joseph and would rather trust that a prayer is the answer for truth instead. I would also love to go through that with you however again at this point would it get either one of us anywhere. For I doubt that you will ever get to the point to see that Mormonism isn't all it's cracked up to be.

I don't say that to irritate you. For as I have stated before if it works for you then more power to you. I myself would rather trust in him instead of Joseph. Good luck my friend, for at this point all I can say is that we will both stand before him one day. I will stand before him and say that I have nothing to offer but my faith in your Son. You will stand before him and say that you are an honorable man, that you have lived your covenants, I have gone through the temple, this is me...this is me. So in ending I bid you good luck. For to continue this pointless conversation will get neither of us anywhere. Your attitude and state of mind is not the focal point of our ministry and my time is better spent with those who are honestly seeking.

God Bless and you will be in my prayers

As I'm sure you can guess he wouldn't leave it there. However if I respond to him yet again the conversation will never end. He then ask a serious of questions trying to get me to go down countless rabbit holes.

Apologetics is something that you can't take lightly. If you are going to get involved you have to be prepared that those you are trying to reach may not care for truth and are comfortable with their ignorance. In concluding I ask that you take heed and be prepared when people such as this guy start wanting to argue. LDS apologist aren't out for truth. They only want to get those who stand up against their church to quit. Then they are free to distort things without opposition. May God be with you and hopefully this can help you understand what you will run into as you venture into apologetics.

Common Ground?

Is it possible for Mormons and Christians to share common ground in anything? You will often here when they come to your door or even here on the internet that "We believe in Jesus". But do they really? Can you change even one small part of a definition and still consider it to be the same? We will look at some common words used between Christians and Mormons to see if there are any. Most of this will not be new to most of you but it is extremely important. If you are talking to the average Mormon on the street they may not see a difference in terms until you tell them. However if you are dealing with an apologist they will be well aware of them and will be made clear from the start. So please, when talking with someone who is LDS don't instantly assume they are lying to you. Ignorance of the truth is not the same as lying. A persons intentions will come out soon enough.

Before getting to that I would like to bring up something most of you may be aware of. For years now the LDS church has been trying desperately to blend in right beside mainstream Christianity. So much so they have started an advertising campaign showing various everyday people in different part of life and they all respond with "And I'm a Mormon". So what could they possible want by trying to blend in with a group of people they have wanted to separate from since their very beginning? I think that all comes down to one very important key. The lust for money and power. Think about it. What has Mormonism done since it began. Joseph demanded that everyone turn over everything they own to the church. He tried starting a bank. Even ran for President of the United States.

Let's go to the very beginning of Mormonism. It claimed that all our professors were corrupt and our teaching(doctrine) was an abomination. Now they will claim that it wasn't Joseph that said that it was God. But how do you test to see if something is of God or not? Remember it isn't by feelings that we know anything and Jesus proved this. Because when he was being tested he always responded with "It is Written." So because it is evident on how we test if something is of God let's look at some big terms that both groups use to see if we have anything in common.

God the Father
Christianity
1 Eternal God (Isa 43:10-11; 44:6,8) in 3 Persons: Father - Phil 2:11, Son - John 1:1, Holy Spirit - Acts 5:3-4 Spirit Essence who fills Heaven and Earth is not a Man - Jn 4:24; 1 Kings 8:27; Hos 11:9

Mormonism
3 Separate Gods - Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, by Joseph Fielding Smith, 1976, p. 370 God has not always been God. He is not a spirit but is an "exalted Man" -Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345-346; D&C 130:22; Millennial Messiah, by McConkie, p. 77

Jesus Christ
Christianity
The Eternal God the Son - Jn 1:1-3,18; Phil 2:5-9; John 20:28; Heb 1:8; Heb 7:3; Isa 9:6; Jn 8:58; Col 2:9; 2 Pet 1:1, Tit 2:13; Jn 5:18; 19:7
Creator God of "all things" including the angels and Lucifer - Jn 1:3; Col 1:15-17; Jn 8:23; Heb 1:5,13; 2:5,8; 4:16-17

Worshiped as God - Heb 1:6; Jn 5:23; 14:14; Rev 5:11-14

Resurrected as a man in His glorified physical body - John 2:18-22; Acts 17:31

His blood is sufficient to cover "all" sin including murder - Heb 7:25; 1 Jn 1:7,9; 1 Tim 1:13-15; c.f. Acts 8:1

Mormonism
Jesus earned His godhood and salvation - Mormon Doctrine, McConkie, p. 129; Mortal Messiah, vol. 4, p. 434

Contended with Lucifer His "spirit brother" for the appointment as Savior - Gospel Principles, pp. 17-18

Certain sins for which Jesus' blood cannot atone - including murder - Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, pp. 134-135

Gospel
Christianity

Gospel = Death, Burial, Resurrection of Jesus Christ - 1 Cor 15:1-4

Free gift of Eternal Life by faith in Jesus Christ alone (apart from works of personal worthiness) - Rom 4:4-6; 6:23; 10:9; 11:6; Eph 2:8-10; Isa 64:6; Phil 3:9

Eternal Destiny in either Heaven or Hell - No Second Chance - Heb 9:27; Matt 25:46; Rev 20:12-15

Only a "few" will be "saved" - Matt 7:13-14

Spiritual authority for adoption out of Satan's family into God's family is given to "everyone" who believes (trusts) in Jesus Christ - 1 John 5:1; John 1:12

Mormonism

Gospel = Faith in Jesus Christ + Works of obedience to LDS Gospel "laws" - The Miracle of Forgiveness, Spencer W Kimball, p. 6

All people (regardless of religion or lack of it) will be “saved” except for the few who leave Mormonism - Joseph Smith—Seeker After Truth, John A Widtsoe, p. 178; Mormon Doctrine, p. 778, 351

Highest level of Salvation (i.e., Eternal Life) is only for those who do their part in working for their salvation - 2 Nephi 25:23, Book of Mormon; The Miracle of Forgiveness, p. 206; Mormon Doctrine, p. 669

Man
Christianity

Man is a creation of God whose "spirit" was formed "within" him - not in a spirit world - 1 Cor 15:46; Jn 8:23; Zech 12:1

Immediately upon death, the conscious soul/spirit of the Christian will dwell with God - 2 Cor 5:6-8; Phil 1:21-23; Rev 6:9-10

Mormonism

Physical offspring of Celestial Parents - Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother - in a spirit world - Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, p. 97; Mormon Doctrine, p. 589

“We are gods in embryo” and “you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves…the same as all Gods have done before you.…” - Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, p. 21; Teaching of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345-346

Second chance in a "spirit prison" for those who haven't heard the Mormon "gospel" - Gospel Principles, 1992, p. 292

O.K. So since we don't seem to have any big words in common how about some smaller ones? I will even keep these definitions simple and to the point.


Grace
Christianity
The unconditional, undeserved, unfathomable love on God's part that moved him to save us.

Mormonism
The power God gives people to save themselves, which he grants only after they have done everything they can do.

Hell

Christianity

A place of eternal punishment.

Mormonism

The regret the inhabitants of the lower kingdoms of heaven will experience as they see the glories of the celestial kingdom.

Only Begotten Son

Christianity

An expression of Christ divinity.

Mormonism

The only person Heavenly Father physically begat on earth.

Sabbath

Christianity

Saturday

Mormonism

Sunday

Works

Christianity

What comes as a result of our faith in Christ.

Mormonism

It almost exclusively with trying to overcome sin.

So not to beat a dead horse into the ground but this is just a small list that proves there is nothing in common. In fact I don't think there is a definition unturned. There is no possible way for Mormonism to share any common ground with Christianity. Which would make one wonder why Mitt Romney already refuses to talk about Mormonism in his next presidential campaign. Or why the LDS church is trying so hard to blend in with community events, Christian councils, and trying to swing the Christian vote. Me mindful my friends, be mindful.

What Anti-Christians (LDS apologist) won't tell you- Part 2

Ok. So as you can see from my previous article that this apologist is doing everything in his power to get people to believe that those who oppose the church have no clue what they are talking about. Because after all to him they have the whole truth which leads me to his next comment...

Comment 7
"as there a need to restore the Church? Yes, there was a need to restore the Church. Here is why. The New Testament is replete with verses after verses calling the Early Jewish and Gentile Christians back to the sound doctrines that had already been established. Not only that, but the organization of the Church was founded upon the principle truth that Christ did not leave his Church without leadership, guidance, and counsel. Who were these men? They were the Apostles, Peter, James, and John making up what we would call the First Presidency. Now, ask yourself this. After the ascension of Christ, in Acts chapter 1, what did the disciples do? They went to prayer and presented two names of those who were considered appropriate to fill the vacancy of an office that Judas of Iscariot had abandoned. Now, why would they do this? Simple, because it is Christ’s church and it is how it would be organized. Therefore, as the Apostles were murdered, there was no one called to fill the vacancy. It is said that John was the last apostle to live and we do not know exactly what happened to him. When the destruction of Jerusalem happened, the Christians, heeding the warnings given by Christ, and the Apostles, fled from the city. As the nation of Israel became no more, and the temple of Jerusalem became no more, the authority of the Church also became no more. Spiritual darkness seeped into the church because there was no longer an apostle or prophet who was called by divine authority to lead the church. Because of this, those Christians who survived and were dispersed throughout the Roman Empire, began to develop their own ideas, teachings, and doctrines. This included the nature and person of Christ and the Father. Gnosticism came to rise up in competition to Christianity, as well as many other different factions of Christianity. This is all evident in History."

Response:
Restore a church? Which church would that be? The church at Corinth, the church at Ephesus, or a different one? Because each of them didn't answer to a central hub. And what are the last days he is referring to? The authority of the Church in which he is talking about is the body of Christ and it is no more because it will be removed from the earth before Gods wrath is pored out on the Earth. So yet again they want insert ideas into Biblical passages to justify their cause. As far as his bit about competition with Christianity I will leave it at this. What is the one thing any group will do to try and justify their stance about God. That is they attack the credibility of the Bible. So what does Mormonism do...Let's see "We believe in the Bible as far as it is translated correctly." I haven't even gotten into major doctrinal issues yet and we can see the affects of Mormonism.

Comment 8
"Another argument that already has been answered. The reality is, we do need modern day Prophets. That is because God has spoken to the children of men through Prophets in times past, and has spoken through prophets in the First Century, and has restored the Church to speak through prophets today. The fundamental purpose of a Prophet is to speak and administer on behalf of God. Critic’s then employ the Hebrews 1:1-2 verse when they really do not understand the historical context of it all. When the term last days is referenced in the New Testament, it is specifically speaking of the last days in that of the given generation. Meaning, Hebrews 1:1-2 is correct that God had spoken through Prophets in times past and that he had spoken to the people in these last days through His Son Jesus Christ. Notice the term these last days and notice that the writer of Hebrews is referring to his time as these last days. That is because the end of the age and judgment coming upon the First Century Jews was imminently upon them."

Response:
Well what are these last days? If he is talking about Jesus speaking to us and Jesus isn't dead or his presence gone would he not still be speaking to us? And is there anyone who isn't LDS that can see any validity to his claim? He is correct on one point and that is that the point of a prophet is to speak and administer on behalf of God however if that is his justification for a prophet then how would he justify 1 Timothy 2:5,6? One thing you will see an apologist do when they realize this argument doesn't work is to try and bring up how it is speaking of prophets in Revelation. However we need to go back to another point I have already made and that is when that occurs the Church(Body of Christ) isn't here. So again to the hamster wheel they go.

Comment 9:
"Did Brigham Young teach that men lived on the moon?

This is a very old argument from the Anti-Mormons. Didn’t Christians at one time believed that the Earth was flat? Yes. Were they wrong? Yes. Therefore, we shall conclude that Christian thinkers at that time were liars and deceivers. This is a prime example of taking a quote that was made by someone and then putting it into a modern understanding and then attempt to interpret it from a modern perspective."

Response:
I can't speak about what prior Christians believed however I can state that if they did choose to believe this it wasn't based of scripture. The issue he is forgetting to mention is that Brigham had stated that his very words were scripture.

Comment 9:
"The problem that many run into when it comes to the Anti-Mormon’s, is that they only give part of the story. They do not give you the full story. They utilize mockery, ridicule, and half-truths in an attempt to denounce the teachings of the Mormon Church. They then call members of the Mormon Faith, unchristian, lost souls, and the caveat blind sheep who follow wolves in sheep clothing."

Response:
They only give part of the story? That is the pot calling the kettle black isn't it? Let's all prove this by asked common everyday Mormons how many wives Joseph had. Most are ignorant of this to no fault of their own. So if they won't tell their own people the whole story how can we expect any less when it comes to a debate with Christians? And if you attempt to change the definition of Christian to include yourself that doesn't mean you fit in with the mold. Just because you believe in "A" Jesus doesn't make you Christian. I by no means am saying that Mormons are bad people however as I like to say "Going to church doesn't make you Christian, anymore than eating beef makes you a cow."

I hope this helps everyone if you should choose to engage with LDS apologist. Be mindful that you will be pre-labeled Anti-Mormon and that at some point their anger will be made clear. I love the Mormon people and I hope that everyone reading this does as well. May God bless you and keep you safe.

What Anti-Christians (LDS apologist) won't tell you- Part 1

A basic yet simple definition of apologetics is defending the faith. However if you interact on the internet for any great length of time you will soon realize that you are only going over the same issues with the same people. Every now and then you get a new face or so you think however it could very well be the same person again underneath a different name. In this posting I am going to show you some of the comments made by one of these Anti-Christians so that you know what you will be facing on the internet.

Comment 1:
"when the adequate and objective response is given, many critics brush it off with simple insults, ridicule, mockery, and more logical fallacies instead of addressing and providing substantial reasoning toward how and why there could possibly be errors in the argument."

Response:
Well I see more insults, ridicule and mockery from LDS apologist than anyone else. For it might be a simple question about how to test the spirit and because the apologist knows the direction the conversation is going and they don't want to answer it with a proper response they will sidestep. Therefor when we make it clear we are wanting to stay on topic or have to re-ask the question because it wasn't answered the first, second or 8th time in a row it is taken as mockery.

Comment 2:
"The critics do not care. If they did care, they would realize that the tiresome arguments they employ repeatedly is fruitless. For example, it would be like someone pointing out the same arguments as to the earth being flat and that those who believe that the earth is spherical are in the wrong – despite the scientific and academic data we have available. Yet, they still propose their arguments, ask people to take them seriously and not to rely on the biased scientific information that supports a spherical earth."

Response:
We don't care huh? I don't know about you but I highly doubt that anyone would spend as much time as we do trying to reach even one lost soul if we didn't care. While the purpose of an LDS apologist is to defend the church at all cost. The purpose of a Christian apologist is to not only defend the cross and what it stands for, but to try and reach those who are burdened by religion with the message of the cross. It is these LDS apologist that try and remind them of how unworthy they are that keeps them on the endless hamster wheel.

I love his attempt to use the Earth being flat as an argument. First off a Christian would never use an argument that isn't supported by scripture. And Scientific evidence has only further supports the Bible in everything that science has tried to refute. The problem then stems from the LDS apologist wanting to somehow claim that science supports a novel. Which if you think about that then maybe Star Wars is true.

Comment 3:
"They take something said online against the Church, or read it in a pamphlet or book on Mormonism, and then present it as valid truth. They do not take into consideration of researching and thinking through whether or not there is support for the assertion being made or if there is an adequate rebuttal. If they do, they quickly dismiss it, or refuse to accept it. Had they done this, they would have to develop better arguments to answer the rebuttal’s already provided."

Response:
Well the fact is with Mormonism truth is relative. Apologist from within the church can't even agree on which argument to use on different issues and when called out it is only their opinion. The only pamphlets or books used are those officially published by the church. After all why use a book that is used by an apologist if it is only their opinion. The most common quotes used are by those of your prophets because they are the voice of the church. A problem that comes from a result of that is once the prophet is dead it is then only their opinion.

I would like to know what research he is referring to. Because any "research or thinking" as he puts it usually is from LDS apologist and I think I have covered that already. And I would ask why there would be a need for a better argument when the original is really never answered honestly. For example if anyone has ever spent time on fair you will often see an argument that would try and link the Green Bay Packers winning the Superbowl to the earthquake in Japan by way of high gas prices. I realize that is an extreme but the point is they get any honest reader so confused that they give up and they take that as an victory, which in a way could very well be.

Comment 4:
"Anti-Mormon’s heavily rely on Anti-Mormon sources to heighten the gross misdemeanor of their arguments. In short, this means that Kim does not utilize any form of persuasion, he just shows how quoting something that is said elsewhere."

Response:
Well for starters I would like to clarify what an Anti-Mormon is. I have never met someone involved in Ministry to the LDS that has anything against those who are LDS. That would be better classified as Anti-Mormonism. After all it is the extra Biblical doctrine we stand against and not the person who believes in it. However that isn't the main point. The point is they want to try and ignore the homework done by people such as Bill McKeever, Sandra Tanner, Rocky and Helen Hulse and yet ignore that they rely so heavily on FAIR and FARMS for their counter claims. For I have yet to be in a long conversation with an apologist without them giving a link to FAIR or one of it's authors. Which the whole "Do as I say, not as I do."

Comment 5:
"the Test of a Prophet argument fails on two premises: 1) Critic’s utilization is out of proper context of the passage itself and, 2) They refuse to utilize the same argument, logic, and criticism to fairly support or condemn Biblical Prophets. Because, if they had, many of the Old Testament Prophets would be disposed of as much as the critic’s wish to dispose of Joseph Smith."

Response:
1) Out of context? They like to claim things are taken out of context by constantly trying to change the definition of words like generation for example. I don't need to go through them all, you just need to google his false prophecies and they are readily available. 2)Didn't he just say earlier that they constantly change arguments? Anyway, I have yet to see any Christian apologist change their stance on any issue. However Joseph gave timelines for his prophecies and are easily tested as a result.

Comment 6:
"Now, the question that he asks is adding to the Bible not changing it, but adding to the Bible. Here is another question – what did the Apostle Paul add to the Bible? What did the Gospel Writers add to the Bible? How many times did the Bible have changes made to it? This is called special pleading. Inerrantists hold near and dear that there are no errors in the Bible. That to add to the Bible, it is dangerous. The problem with this is that they fail to grasp that the Bible is not one singular book. The term Bible means Biblia, which means a book of books. It is adequately named because there were many different books written by many different men in many different times of the past. Again, more special pleading is what we see here. Now, for some real facts on the nature of the Bible as it had been added too and taken away from"

Response:
Now what is the Bible meaning about adding to his word? Does it mean additional books? After all who had the authority to write Scripture in the New Testament. Only those who were the original apostles. Once they were gone written scripture stopped. Not once did any of their writings change or add to what God's intentions were. So they are trying to say that a book written by John should not be included in the cannon if Josephs isn't.

Stay tunned for more as I share what Anti-Christians try and do to justify their stance.