It is impossible to convince a Mormon that he is wrong!

[Wittenberger]

Have you ever debated a Mormon on the LDS beliefs? How many times have you covinced a Mormon that his "church" is wrong? How many times have you converted a Mormon? I will bet that your answer willl be: not many or none.

Why?

The reason it is so hard to convert a Mormon is because his "proof" of his beliefs is a circular argument:

"I know that the LDS are right, because the Holy Spirit tells us we are right."

If your Mormon friend believes that God tells him in an internal voice that Mormonism is correct, it will be almost impossible to make him see that he is being deceived. A well-trained Mormon will have an answer from Scripture for every criticism of Mormonism that you can think of. Trying to debate Scripture with a Mormon is a waste of time.

But, ask a Mormon for any evidence that early Christians held LDS beliefs. Ask him for Church Fathers' statements that support LDS doctrine. His reply will be one of the following:

1. We don't need historical or acheological evidence because the Holy Spirit has already told us the "truth".

2. The early Church was already apostate immediately after the Apostles. Any statements from "apostate" Church Fathers are unreliable and most likely false doctrine.

3. The "Catholics" destroyed all evidence of the early "Mormons", that is why there is no historical evidence to support Mormon beliefs.

Don't belive me? Check out what this Mormon "Apostle" says about the evidence supporting the Mormon Church:

http://dwhamby1.wordpress.com/2008/05/05/do-mormons-have-any-evidence-of-their-claims/

 

[The Biblicist]

Have you ever debated a Mormon on the LDS beliefs? How many times have you covinced a Mormon that his "church" is wrong? How many times have you converted a Mormon? I will bet that your answer willl be: not many or none.

Why?

The reason it is so hard to convert a Mormon is because his "proof" of his beliefs is a circular argument:

"I know that the LDS are right, because the Holy Spirit tells us we are right."

Wrong again! I have witnessed to multitudes of Mormons through out my ministry and they always come back to one answer when cornered. "burning in my breast" - FEELING!

I have closed the mouth of nearly every mormon missionary that has come to my door over the years (multitudes) and they run for one refuge when they cannot defend their intepretations of scripture - "burning in my breast" followed by wanting to give me their testimony (which I never allow).

He does not claim the Holy Spirit as his source of authority. He claims his PROPHET and FEELING "burning in my breast"!

But, ask a Mormon for any evidence that early Christians held LDS beliefs. Ask him for Church Fathers' statements that support LDS doctrine. His reply will be one of the following:

1. We don't need historical or acheological evidence because the Holy Spirit has already told us the "truth".

2. The early Church was already apostate immediately after the Apostles. Any statements from "apostate" Church Fathers are unreliable and most likely false doctrine.

3. The "Catholics" destroyed all evidence of the early "Mormons", that is why there is no historical evidence to support Mormon beliefs.

Don't belive me? Check out what this Mormon "Apostle" says about the evidence supporting the Mormon Church:

This is a complete distortion of Mormonism! Mormons claim to be the "LATTER DAY SAINTS" not the former day saints. They claim authority by a NEW prophet not old Prophets. They claim a NEW revelation not the Scriptues.

You obviously don't know a thing about Mormonism.

 

[Winman]

About 30 years ago two young Mormons came to my door. I invited them in and compared their doctrine with the Bible. One fellow was a new convert to Mormonism, he had been raised Roman Catholic. This fellow would become very angry and obstinate. His partner was from Utah and had been raised a Mormon since birth. He actually listened and asked questions.

These two fellows came every week for about six months. Finally, they brought an elder, a man about 80 years old. This old man was very nice and missed his wife who had passed away very much. When I showed them scripture that we would be as angels in heaven and not marry he literally cried. He never came again.

I don't know if I convinced the fellow from Utah, but I got a chance to tell him the gospel, and I could tell he was really listening. I hope he did call on Jesus to forgive his sins and save him. The other fellow seemed hopeless, he would always get angry. I don't know if this is good or not, perhaps what I told him convicted him and this is why he became angry. I can only hope for the best.

 

[TCassidy]

You obviously don't know a thing about Mormonism.

Yes, one more thing he don't know anything about! The list is getting really long! LOL!

 

[The Biblicist]

Don't belive me? Check out what this Mormon "Apostle" says about the evidence supporting the Mormon Church:

http://dwhamby1.wordpress.com/2008/05/05/do-mormons-have-any-evidence-of-their-claims/

This Video response has to do with the validity of the book of Mormon as truth. His final response is "FEELING". He pointed to his breast indicating the common Mormon testimony "I had a burning in my bosom" and I know by that FEELING the book of Mormon is true.

This is not how Christians come to know the Scripture is truth. Scripture provides everything necessary for it to be interpreted contextually as well as the principles for correct interpretation. The Scripture clearly teach that the Holy Spirit does teach the believer and that the scriptures are sufficient for doctrine, correction and instruction and principles to rightly interpret them.

The issue between Rome and Baptists is not if the Scriptures are the Word of God but if the scriptures are sufficient for faith and practice and do the scriptures provide everything necessary for a child of God to know the truth. Rome says no, Scriptures say yes.

The issue is Rome's word versus God's Word! Rome and its counsels pervert the plain sense of the Word of God.

Rome is like the JW's "governing counsel" and like Mormonisms apostolic board and prophets who are the authorized interpreters of God's word instead of the common believer.

 

[Winman]

This Video response has to do with the validity of the book of Mormon as truth. His final response is "FEELING". He pointed to his breast indicating the common Mormon testimony "I had a burning in my bosom" and I know by that FEELING the book of Mormon is true.

This is not how Christians come to know the Scripture is truth. Scripture provides everything necessary for it to be interpreted contextually as well as the principles for correct interpretation. The Scripture clearly teach that the Holy Spirit does teach the believer and that the scriptures are sufficient for doctrine, correction and instruction and principles to rightly interpret them.

The issue between Rome and Baptists is not if the Scriptures are the Word of God but if the scriptures are sufficient for faith and practice and do the scriptures provide everything necessary for a child of God to know the truth. Rome says no, Scriptures say yes.

The issue is Rome's word versus God's Word! Rome and its counsels pervert the plain sense of the Word of God.

Rome is like the JW's "governing counsel" and like Mormonisms apostolic board and prophets who are the authorized interpreters of God's word instead of the common believer.

It's been a long time, but I do remember them talking about this burning in their breast.

They love to talk about the two sticks in Eze 37;

Eze 37:15 The word of the LORD came again unto me, saying,
16 Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions:
17 And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand.
18 And when the children of thy people shall speak unto thee, saying, Wilt thou not shew us what thou meanest by these?
19 Say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put them with him, even with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in mine hand.

Mormons interpret this passage to be speaking of the Bible and the Book of Mormon. This is how they justify having two books. They really know very little of the Bible except proof texts they use to attempt to prove their doctrine. They really didn't seem to know much about the Book of Mormon either, they just seemed to be trained what to think and say.

 

[Wittenberger]

Below is a link to a Mormon website in which Mormons state that the Holy Spirit guides them to the truth:

http://mormon.org/faq/the-holy-ghost

 

[The Biblicist]

Below is a link to a Mormon website in which Mormons state that the Holy Spirit guides them to the truth:

http://mormon.org/faq/the-holy-ghost

Of course that is their general SUMMARY statement. However, it is the BURNING IN THE BOSOM that is the actual indicator they are being led of the Holy Spirit into truth. The Mormon in the first video plainly told you the Holy Spirit led them by "FEELING" and pointed to his chest when he said it. I guess you know better than a 30 year veteran Mormon???? You simply do not know what you speak about.

That is not how Baptists are led by the Spirit or how Baptists come to know truth. You are trying to make an analogy between how Mormon's and JW's reach truth so you can apply it to Baptists. The analogy is false! Your information is false.

 

[Wittenberger]

Mormons believe that the early Christians during the first two or three centuries after Christ worshipped as do the Mormons today. Shortly thereafter the Church became apostate. The LDS believe that they are the restoration of the true Christian faith as practiced by the Apostles and their disciples.

http://mormonsarechristian.blogspot.com/

 

[Winman]

Mormons believe that the early Christians during the first two or three centuries after Christ worshipped as do the Mormons today. Shortly thereafter the Church became apostate. The LDS believe that they are the restoration of the true Christian faith as practiced by the Apostles and their disciples.

http://mormonsarechristian.blogspot.com/

You are not going to get through to a Mormon discussing history, you have to convince them they are a sinner going to hell like anyone else, and that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God who died for their sins and rose again, and that if they place their trust in him they will be saved.

They believe Joseph Smith recovered what was lost, so discussing church history is meaningless to them.

 

[Wittenberger]

Mormons believe that this "burning in their bosom" is the Holy Spirit speaking to them. This burning or feeling confirms to them that they have the "true" Gospel of Christ. Because they have this feeling of assurance, they have no need for any historical or archeological evidence to prove Joseph Smith really did receive Golden Plates or that Indians are descended from Jews.

Mormons receive the assurance of their "salvation" by a feeling deep inside that the Holy Ghost speaks to them and tells them that their interpretation of the Bible is correct.

Any cult or Christian denomination which states that THEIR interpretation of the Bible IS the Bible, that the Holy Spirit tells them internally that they have the "truth", and that no historical evidence is needed to substantiate that the early Christians held the same beliefs, is treading on very thin ice.

For an example of how believing that your interpretation of a document must be correct without looking for corroborating historical evidence that proves that the authors really do agree with you can get you into trouble, sit down and read the Bill of Rights in the Constitution.

In the Bill of Rights are the words "all men are created equal". If a person who has no knowledge of history reads that sentence, and believes it literally, he will come away believing that the authors of that document really did mean "all" men are equal: white, black, Asian, hispanic, landowner, landless, endentured servant, slave.

Any grade schooler can tell you that this interpretation is dead wrong! When the authors of the Bill of Rights wrote that sentence what they meant was this: "all WHITE, LAND-OWNING men are created equal".

Big difference, huh?

The only way to know for sure what the authors of any document, including the New Testament, realy meant is to compare your interpretation with those of people living during the time the document was written or shortly thereafter.

A passage of Scripture may seem pretty simple and clear to you, but in its historical context it could mean something drastically different as in the case of the Bill of Rights.

 

[The Biblicist]

Mormons believe that this "burning in their bosom" is the Holy Spirit speaking to them. This burning or feeling confirms to them that they have the "true" Gospel of Christ. Because they have this feeling of assurance, they have no need for any historical or archeological evidence to prove Joseph Smith really did receive Golden Plates or that Indians are descended from Jews.

Here is the problem of your manufactured insulting scenario! Where in Scripture does it declare or teach a "burning in the bosom" is the evidence of the Holy Spirit's leadership? NOWHERE!

So your contrived little insulting scheme fails right at the foundation upon which all your following argumentation is built.

When the Mormon is faced with the same question they FLEE THE WORD OF GOD to their UNINSPIRED SOURCES just like you do and just like Rome does. So really, Lutherans and Catholics have more in common with Mormon's and JW's then Baptists.

.

 

[Wittenberger]

Here is the problem of your manufactured insulting scenario! Where in Scripture does it declare or teach a "burning in the bosom" is the evidence of the Holy Spirit's leadership? NOWHERE!

So your contrived little insulting scheme fails right at the foundation upon which all your following argumentation is built.

When the Mormon is faced with the same question they FLEE THE WORD OF GOD to their UNINSPIRED SOURCES just like you do and just like Rome does. So really, Lutherans and Catholics have more in common with Mormon's and JW's then Baptists.

.

I'm not trying to insult anyone. This is a debate forum. I am debating my point of view.

 

[The Biblicist]

I'm not trying to insult anyone. This is a debate forum. I am debating my point of view.

The very analogy you have chosen to illustrate your point is an insult as well as erroneous. You are intentionaly by design comparing the Baptist approach to scripture to that of cults and there is no factual comparison. You have failed to understand the cults you have determined to use and you are still failing but what you are not failing to do is your determination to reduce it to that level of comparison. So don't tell me you are not intentionally attempting to insult Bible believers.

 

[billwald]

I ask them, "Do you really want to be a god of your own world?"

 

[Michael Wrenn]

The very analogy you have chosen to illustrate your point is an insult as well as erroneous. You are intentionaly by design comparing the Baptist approach to scripture to that of cults and there is no factual comparison. You have failed to understand the cults you have determined to use and you are still failing but what you are not failing to do is your determination to reduce it to that level of comparison. So don't tell me you are not intentionally attempting to insult Bible believers.

He left because he couldn't win an argument, and now he comes back and picks up where he left off, again insulting Baptists by comparing them with a cult. He should have stayed away and kept his condescending and insulting thoughts to himself.

He needs to either follow his new denomination's belief in the final authority of scripture or convert to Romanism where he can equate tradition and scripture and even elevate tradition over scripture without being hypocritical.

 

[Wittenberger]

He left because he couldn't win an argument, and now he comes back and picks up where he left off, again insulting Baptists by comparing them with a cult. He should have stayed away and kept his condescending and insulting thoughts to himself.

He needs to either follow his new denomination's belief in the final authority of scripture or convert to Romanism where he can equate tradition and scripture and even elevate tradition over scripture without being hypocritical.

One of the greatest gifts that Baptists have given to American culture is their belief in religious tolerance: "I will tolerate your beliefs, you tolerate mine. I will tolerate your criticism of my beliefs, you tolerate my criticisms of yours."

I do not understand why my discussion above gets so under all of your skin? This is not my own wacky belief. This is the position of all orthodox Christian denominations: the RCC, the EOC, and Lutherans. All these denominations believe the following:

1. Baptists are a Christian denomination. Baptists are Christians.
Mormons and JW's are not.

2. Baptist baptisms are valid. These denominations do not re-baptize Baptists who join their churches.
Mormon and JW baptisms are not valid Christian baptisms. We baptize them when they join our churches.

3. However, the above denominations view the "new" Baptist doctrines of symbolic baptism and symbolic Lord's Supper in the same manner as they veiw the new doctrines of the Mormons and JW's: none of these new doctrines have any historical evidence to support that early Christians held these views.

These are the views of over a billion Christians, not just mine.

You have accused me of being a "Catholic", "Magisterial Protestant", that I give more creedance to Lutheran Confessions than the Bible, etc. You don't see me losing it over these false accusations.

I am presenting my views on your belief system. I want you to THINK about your positions. I am not trying to trash you or win an argument. My discussions should either sharpen your own positions or persuade you to change to mine. That is the purpose of debating.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

A Mormon once asked me if I read the book of Mormon. I said yes ( I was polite enough not to tell him that it was one of the most boring books I have ever read.) He then asked me about what it said at the end of the book particularily the phrase

29 And God shall show unto you, that that which I have written is true.

To which their Doctrine and Covenants explain:

8 But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.

I said I never felt that the book was true. So, the whole determiner of what is true is how I personally feel about it? Rather than it being objectively true on its own merits and by reason?

The thing is even Jesus who lived among us gave evidence that his claims were true by 1) by being objectively true even his prophesies came to pass and 2) by his miracles. the fact even though he showed his power and divinity by his miracles, people still didn't believe. He didn't ask them to rely on how they felt. The apostles witnessed his resurrection! They didn't have a burning in their bussom to know Jesus rose from the dead! They saw him with their own eyes.

 

[Yeshua1]

The very analogy you have chosen to illustrate your point is an insult as well as erroneous. You are intentionaly by design comparing the Baptist approach to scripture to that of cults and there is no factual comparison. You have failed to understand the cults you have determined to use and you are still failing but what you are not failing to do is your determination to reduce it to that level of comparison. So don't tell me you are not intentionally attempting to insult Bible believers.

He is attempting to show that Mormons/baptist make mistakes int heir theologies due to looking to scriptures as the ONLY source for doctrines/practices, and misinterprete the Bible to get some of their doctrines/practices...

Problem is thatMormons MUCH closer to RCC, as BOTH hold to extar biblical sources, and for modern prophets/Apostles giving the 'right meaning" of the Bible!

 

[Michael Wrenn]

One of the greatest gifts that Baptists have given to American culture is their belief in religious tolerance: "I will tolerate your beliefs, you tolerate mine. I will tolerate your criticism of my beliefs, you tolerate my criticisms of yours."

I do not understand why my discussion above gets so under all of your skin? This is not my own wacky belief. This is the position of all orthodox Christian denominations: the RCC, the EOC, and Lutherans. All these denominations believe the following:

1. Baptists are a Christian denomination. Baptists are Christians.
Mormons and JW's are not.

2. Baptist baptisms are valid. These denominations do not re-baptize Baptists who join their churches.
Mormon and JW baptisms are not valid Christian baptisms. We baptize them when they join our churches.

3. However, the above denominations view the "new" Baptist doctrines of symbolic baptism and symbolic Lord's Supper in the same manner as they veiw the new doctrines of the Mormons and JW's: none of these new doctrines have any historical evidence to support that early Christians held these views.

These are the views of over a billion Christians, not just mine.

You have accused me of being a "Catholic", "Magisterial Protestant", that I give more creedance to Lutheran Confessions than the Bible, etc. You don't see me losing it over these false accusations.

I am presenting my views on your belief system. I want you to THINK about your positions. I am not trying to trash you or win an argument. My discussions should either sharpen your own positions or persuade you to change to mine. That is the purpose of debating.

I'll turn the tables on you: Mormons, RCs, JWs, and Magisterial Protestants cannot substantiate their beliefs using scripture alone; they all have to resort to extra-biblical and unbiblical sources, whereas the Baptists can substantiate their beliefs based on scripture alone. So, which of these groups has introduced "new" doctrines?