Response to Anti-Mormon Cartoon (part 3)

[jennbradbrooke777]

I am very sad for anyone who has been duped by the Mormon religion and LDS.

From the Holy Bible:

For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone ADDS to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; And if anyone takes away from the words of this book of prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Revelation 22: 18-19

[smpf38]

@jennbradbrooke777

en . fairmormon . org /Bible/"Adding_to"_or_"taking_­away_from"

[LDSTrueChurch]

James 1:5-6

If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God that giveth to all liberally and upbraideth not, but let him ask in faith, and it shall be given him.

Joseph Smith offered up his humble prayer and it was answered by Jesus Christ and was called of God. Joseph Smith was God's instrament and restored the Truthfulness of the Everliving Gospel of Jesus Christ to the Earth.

Come UNTO Christ, and be baptized by one called of God, by revelation thru prophecy.

FAIRLDSdotORG

[smorud]

You are awesome

/clap

/applause

/thank

Even though you may not see me, I am giving you a standing elevation!

[britabee86]

Bravo!!!

[antihil]

Much thanks is deserved of this man. I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints as well. The God Makers is a mockery of our beliefs.

[modestlyhothomsar]

Good on you, mate!

That cartoon was so malevolently twisted, and it made me hurt to think that people are getting this perception of our church. I'd try to clear it up myself, but I wouldn't even know where to begin.

You make a good missionary.

[smpf38]

Byron: Whatever the present Prophet says supersedes the previous. And so on.

Interestingly enough, I can give you quotes of prophets who have taught that if anything they say contradict scripture, then we should throw it aside, so it isn't as clear cut as you try to paint it.

[smpf38]

Byron: here is one of the enduring mysteries of Mormonism, the undeniable fact that MANY things have been taught that were not in the original canon

No doubt. But I assure you that none of them included the idea of biological babies being made by carnal sex in heaven. The concept of spiritual children is entirely different. I am not just talking about the canon, I am talking about outside the canon as well in this case.

[fubecabr]

In order for you to preserve your own personal integrity, you need to admit that LDS Inc lies about the history of JS.

We have BKP in particular that has made statements that only faith-promoting history is to be taught. That's misleading, which is deceptive, which is lying.

You also need to admit that JS was a liar because of his public denials of polygamy. Never once did he publicly admit it.

[smpf38]

Fube: We have BKP in particular that has made statements that only faith-promoting history is to be taught.

I think it is fine for only faith-promoting history to be taught IN SUNDAY SCHOOL. (Even in those cases, we openly discuss the mistakes of the past. These leaders have no problem with LDS scholars raking over the history, even the the non-faith promoting parts and writing books, essays, etc.

[smpf38]

Byron: There would not even be a PURPOSE for God to have many wives UNLESS there was sex involved.

This statement truly reveals your complete ignorance of Mormon theology. LDS doctrine teaches that it requires both a man AND a woman in order to achieve exaltation. Mormons assume that IF there were equal numbers of men and women who would achieve exaltation, then polygamy wouldn't happen at all.

[smpf38]

Byron: Smpf, "babies" are the result of biological activity, aka sexual relations. So a Spiritual Baby would be so, as well.

Show me any place in Mormon doctrine where spiritual "babies" are mentioned at all in the first place. Furthermore, if they are "spiritual", then that would be a little bit different than "biological".

[fubecabr]

"Show me any place in Mormon doctrine where spiritual "babies" are mentioned at all in the first place."

Maybe you should read D&C 132:19, 30--31

"continuation of the seeds forever and ever."

The promise of abraham is yours.

And don't forget to read verse 4 also. You are damned if you don't engage in polygamy.

[smpf38]

Fube: Maybe you should read D&C 132:19, 30--31

I was talking to the guy who said "babies" MUST mean biological and therefore physical sex. Nobody is doubting that Mormons believe in spiritual children.

Fube: And don't forget to read verse 4 also.

It says "a wife". That is singular. Nice try.

[smpf38]

Fube: Jesus making a bid to become savior of the world does not contradict what JS and others taught.

I explained it very well in the video. Christ was CHOSEN by God and Christ was willing to do the Father's will. It wasn't a "bid". Nuff said.

[fubecabr]

Was chosen by god? According to JS, there was a vote. Who are you to question the profit?

"The contention in heaven was—Jesus said there would be certain souls that would not be saved; and the devil said he could save them all, and laid his plans before the grand council, who gave their vote in favor of Jesus Christ. So the devil rose up in rebellion against God, and was cast down, with all who put up their heads for him" (TPJS, p. 357).

[smpf38]

I already answered this in my video smart guy. I addressed the concept that liars like yourselves present such that is was a "democratic vote". (See my video again if you missed it.) You misuse what Joseph meant by vote (another deception on your part). LDS scripture and Joseph Smith made it very clear.

[fubecabr]

I'm a liar? It's your "church" that lies. It's your opinion that it was not a democratic vote. The word vote implies that it was democratic.

Why would God need to simply allow the Grand Council to take a vote to give a formal expression of opinion? That would then imply that they did have a say in what God would decide. Why would God need to do that anyways if he was omniscient?

[smpf38]

Fube: Why would God need to simply allow the Grand Council to take a vote to give a formal expression of opinion?

God NEVER said, let's take a vote. Lucifer expressed his plan and others supported it. That was it. You are fighting a straw man.

[fubecabr]

Ok, tell me how that makes any sense whatsoever. Why would satan and his hosts rebel against an all-powerful god? What good would that do? Wouldn't that be like kicking against the pricks?

[smpf38]

Fube: Ok, tell me how that makes any sense whatsoever. Why would satan and his hosts rebel against an all-powerful god?

Pride. God presented a plan from the beginning, with Christ as the Savior. It involved free will. However some would choose poorly. Lucifer did not understand that forced love is not true love, not true happiness. He opposed God thinking his plan was better.

[smpf38]

vote-a formal expression of opinion or choice, either positive or negative, made by an individual or body of individuals.

THAT is what "vote" means. There was NEVER any indication that having more people giving support to one plan or the other would change God's mind. Hence it was not a "democratic vote" as you deceptively argue.

[fubecabr]

Why have a vote in the the first place if it has no power whatsoever??? The whole point of a vote is for a group of people to decide something.

[smpf38]

Fube: Why have a vote in the the first place if it has no power whatsoever?

Because it wasn't a democratic type "vote". The way your are trying to use the word isn't the actual definition of the term "vote". 29 of 30 students in a classroom could show their support (vote) for the idea (brought up by a student) of automatically giving all the kids in the class an A automatically, but that doesn't mean the support for such an idea would change school policy.

[fubecabr]

Your analogy would be as pointless as the kind of vote you're talking about at the grand council.

[smpf38]

Fube: Wouldn't that be like kicking against the pricks?

People do it every day and I'm sure you've seen it yourself.

Fube: Your analogy would be as pointless as the kind of vote you're talking about at the grand council.

The council and gathering was given to present God's plan, and subsequently how the plan would be carried out (see Abr4:26). It was not to determine which plan would be used.

[fubecabr]

One thing you have realize is that this video was released over 20 years ago and at the time, more accurately represented mormon belief.

LDS theology is a moving target, and there's a great chasm between what the past profits taught, what the membership currently believes, and what the apologists believe.

This cartoon is very accurate to what the past profits taught, but not so accurate as to what mormons currently believe.

[smpf38]

Fube: One thing you have realize is that this video was released over 20 years ago and at the time, more accurately represented mormon belief.

Almost all of my rebuttals in these 3 videos were just as valid 20 years ago.

[fubecabr]

JS being in the middle of JC/HF at the judgement is another example of artistic license and is quite funny, especially in light of the mormon holiday called "Smithmas."

The claim that JS "shed his blood for us" refers to D&C 135:3. You really ought to know better than to call JS a martyr as well. You are more educated than most mormons and know that he did not die as a martyr. Murdered yes. Martyred, no.

[smpf38]

Fuber: JS being in the middle of JC/HF at the judgement is another example of artistic license ...

Not only in the middle, but higher. License has nothing to do with it. It is purposeful deception and you know it.

Fube: The claim that JS "shed his blood for us" refers to D&C 135:3.

People who don't know the context are PURPOSEFULLY meant to interpret this as Joseph replacing Jesus. I can't believe you are defending this garbage.

[fubecabr]

"People who don't know the context are PURPOSEFULLY meant to interpret this as Joseph replacing Jesus."

The beginning of the cartoon mentions Jesus in the plan for earth.

Secondly, LDS Inc PURPOSEFULLY misleads people about JS. Show me where on josephsmith dot net that it mentions his 3 dozen wives. Show me a church film that mentions this fact.

Instead, he's portrayed as a monogamist.

[fubecabr]

Have you ever heard of the term 'artistic license?' That's what the eery music, the magical transitions of Jesus appearing, babies in diapers, "starbase kolob," and "celestial sex" are.

LDS Inc takes great liberties with artistic license in its artwork and videos to the point of lying for the lord. It shows JS as the husband of one wife when he had at least 33 wives.

[smpf38]

Fube: LDS Inc takes great liberties with artistic license in its artwork and videos to the point of lying for the lord. It shows JS as the husband of one wife when he had at least 33 wives.

I can't think of well known LDS artwork that even depicts 1 wife. Any videos made have been so brief that many, many aspects of Joseph's life (even "good" aspects) weren't covered at all.

[fubecabr]

So you're basically saying that BY didn't really mean that Adam was God because lds profits never contradict themselves or their successors and predecessors or the scriptures????

ROTFLMAO.

[smpf38]

Fube: So you're basically saying that BY didn't really mean that Adam was God because lds profits never contradict themselves...

I am not saying that at all. IF Brigham Young contradicted himself, then he was also contradicting scripture. And if THAT is the case, then he was wrong. There is also the possibility that he meant something else entirely, which I find to be much more likely considering the fact that Adam being Michael the archangel is such a clear and well known doctrine.

[fubecabr]

"as has been done on other planets" DOES appear in LDS teaching. You should go do an endowment session or checkout a transcript of the endowment on the web.

Your past profits TAUGHT that God and Jesus are polygamists. They taught that while pretending to be prophets.

If they were wrong about this, then they're false prophets.

[smpf38]

Fube: "Celestial Sex" is a term of mockery for the creation of endless spirit and physical children in eternity.

It isn't just mockery. This video pushes people to assume that Mormons believe these "spiritual babies" are procreated by carnal sex. That is deception.

Fube: If they were wrong about this, then they're false prophets.

I don't buy that for a second. There are many things that prophets (both Biblical and modern) have done and said that I don't agree with.

[fubecabr]

"I don't buy that for a second. There are many things that prophets (both Biblical and modern) have done and said that I don't agree with."

It's precisely because of this that I don't believe in the bible. I can't believe in a book that advocates genocide, rape, pillaging, murder, torture, slavery, sexism, racism, and homophobia.

[ste3021878]

Like I said in an earlier post, I found the cartoon demeaning because I respect people of faith (including Mormons). You seem like an articulate, intelligent person. I'd be curious to hear your response to DNA evidence which links North American Indians to Asians, not Middle Eastern Semites (Israelites). This totally discounts the central premise of the Book of Mormom that Indians are actually descended from one of the lost tribes of Israel.

[smpf38]

A youtube poster named "HiveRadical" has made several good video responses to explain this very misused so-called evidence. The videos are a little slow, but have some great charts and explanations (v=F3xKwhwF-hk). To be short, Mormons recognize that the Book of Mormon text itself gives evidence that existing populations on this continent (Asian linked) mingled extensively with Lehi's family and outnumbered them. See also fairwiki (dot) org and their article "Book of Mormon and DNA evidence"

[fubecabr]

The problem with the LGH (Limited Geography Hypothesis) is that it contradicts what lds profits have taught for 177 years and what the BoM clearly states.

It also contradicts moroni in saying that the BoM is a history of the "former inhabitants of this continent."

[smpf38]

Fube: The problem with the Limited Geography Hypothesis is that it contradicts what lds profits have taught for 177 years and what the BoM clearly states.

The BoM text itself lends to the idea that it was limited Geography. Can someone walk across North and South America in a dozen days? The more Mormons analyzed the text, the more evident it became.

It also contradicts moroni in saying that the BoM is a history of the "former inhabitants of this continent."

[fubecabr]

"The BoM text itself lends to the idea that it was limited Geography."

LMAO!!  Then why did your prophets and everyone else for 170 years teach the opposite??? Why does Moroni say the opposite???

"Can someone walk across North and South America in a dozen days?"

No, and the BoM doesn't say that. It does say that it was a 1.5 day journey for a nephite from the east sea to the west sea in Alma 22:32.

The problem is that Panama is more than a 1.5 day journey. So scratch that.

[smpf38]

Fube: Then why did your prophets and everyone else for 170 years teach the opposite?

The focus of Mormon leaders was never on the GEOGRAPHY of the Book of Mormon. To pretend otherwise and to pretend that Mormons believed there was some kind of "Geographical revelations" given is dishonest on your part.

[fubecabr]

Sure geography was a focus. The book was sold as being the history of the indians and the source from which they sprang.

JS and others certainly taught a hemispherical geography. JS and the D&C used the terms indians and lamanites interchangeably. He and others also said that Cumorah in NY was the scene of the final battle in the BoM. That rules out a limited geography.

[thuggie1]

did u see the light flash look fulty but other than that it is a good reprosentaion

[22jaden22]

Thank you for your videos they helped me understand a lot of stuff.i belive common sense should tell a person that the cartoon was a load of Bologna thanks

[snotface7]

chuchlehead? did you make that up? thats funny "Ahh, come on...how 'bout a (caffeine free) soda" dont forget "diet"

[snotface7]

remimber the conversation thet we had a wile back? i can laugh at  myself

[snotface7]

infact you are the only anti that i would concider liking(because of your since of humor). but i still dont trust you. :)

[snotface7]

hi byron, still bitter i see.

[sgrant82]

Thank you so, so, sooooo much! I really appriciate you going through the trouble and effort making this, its great! you rock!

[SM1901]

Well I'm glad you clarified some errors in the video, but personally still find it difficult to understand why Mormons choose to believe in their book when, according to my research (although not as extensive as it could be) shows no evidence of anything found in the Book of Mormon at all. Perhaps you could create one of these videos for the show "The Bible vs. The Book of Mormon"

[smpf38]

SM: Perhaps you could create one of these videos for the show "The Bible vs. The Book of Mormon"

As far as evidence goes, it isn't a good comparison. Native Americans did have many records, but most were burnt and destroyed by the conquistadors and those who followed. The people were devastated by war and disease. The climate (unlike the Mideast) is not suitable for the preservation of as many artifacts. Despite all this, there are evidences. I will leave that to FAIR and FARMS for now.

[SM1901]

I wasn't so much concerned with written evidence as the claims of steel weapons, horses, elephants, and white men as claimed by Joseph Smith in the book of Mormon, but you're absolutely right, nearly all records were destroyed by Conquistadors, as well as the majority of the Indian population.

[smpf38]

The answers to those questions have been thoroughly examined by FAIR and FARMS.  Go to the FAIR topical guide and click "Book of Mormon" and then click on "anachronisms".

[snotface7]

can you address the whole blacks being cursed thing.

[smpf38]

Yes. I decided to make an entire video on that topic. There is no way I could have fit that on this video.

[snotface7]

good:)

[snotface7]

is this going to be a series( i guess it sorta already is)? are you making more?

[SeraphimTheApologist]

You know I've been doing research in apologetics for years and I actually learned a few things from your videos. You did a great job with them and should really keep them coming even if it has been all refuted before. That's my frusteration wioth the work... I feel, when talking to Fundamentalist Evangelists, like I am talking to a brick wall... I still have hopes that they can one day learn to tolerate us.

[wayman29]

Excellent expression of views. Well done.

[smpf38]

If you want to see what I am talking about with the "teleport" made to be like known sci-fi shows, watch the "Dorm room teleport" and the "Star Trek teleport" videos on You Tube, pay attention to the SOUND too. Then watch that part in the Godmakers video. Compare to 3Nephi 11:8. I rest my case.