Posting 95 LDS Theses on the Church Doors

[_Tobin]

I dunno, it worked really well for the Protestant Revolution. There are many people now that belong to Protestant religions. They would all be Catholics now if not for Martin Luther. Even Mormons.

Fascinating. So protestantism to you is all about denying the Bible is inspired and proclaiming to the world that Jesus was a fraud. But, at least they aren't Catholic.

[_thews]

Just because I have no interest in discussing the topic with you further means none of those things actually.

You made the claim that this list of 95 was "absurd" and failed to explain why. As you tuck tail and again choose to avoid answering questions on a discussion board where you made this claim, it's because you're wrong... again. Your statement has no foundation and is untrue... I understand why you need to resort to dodging questions you simply cannot answer. Post another retort and again give an excuse... it's expected.

[_Tobin]

Just because I have no interest in discussing the topic with you further means none of those things actually.

You made the claim that this list of 95 was "absurd" and failed to explain why. As you tuck tail and again choose to avoid answering questions on a discussion board where you made this claim, it's because you're wrong... again. Your statement has no foundation and is untrue... I understand why you need to resort to dodging questions you simply cannot answer. Post another retort and again give an excuse... it's expected.

It is absurd. You really must be delusional to think Mormons are going to start a discussion with the premise that the Book of Mormon is fiction and that Joseph Smith was a fraud as a launching point.

[_Quasimodo]

I dunno, it worked really well for the Protestant Revolution. There are many people now that belong to Protestant religions. They would all be Catholics now if not for Martin Luther. Even Mormons.

Fascinating. So protestantism to you is all about denying the Bible is inspired and proclaiming to the world that Jesus was a fraud. But, at least they aren't Catholic.

?! I really don't have a dog in this fight. As far as I know, Protestants don't deny the Bible or claim Jesus was a fraud. Personally, I don't care what anyone believes.

Martin Luther's theses were pointing out the things that he found objectionable in Roman Catholic beliefs. Many people agreed with him. This led to numerous new religions. Just history.

[_thews]

It is absurd. You really must be delusional to think Mormons are going to start a discussion with the premise that the Book of Mormon is fiction and that Joseph Smith was a fraud as a launching point.

You are nothing short of comical Tobin. What is delusional is to make the claim that a published set of facts is "absurd" without giving one single reason why. You made this claim, but have yet to give one single reason regarding one single entry (out of 95) why you think you're correct... because you're not correct and know you'll be proven incorrect if you do respond with a specific argument. So keep it up Tobin. Keep making baseless claims and failing to address why you feel they are "absurd" as you assert. You must tire of getting squashed when it comes to the truth, but at least you have ldsfaqs there with you to :highfive: when you dodge the questions. What was your excuse again?

[_Tobin]

It is absurd. You really must be delusional to think Mormons are going to start a discussion with the premise that the Book of Mormon is fiction and that Joseph Smith was a fraud as a launching point.

You are nothing short of comical Tobin. What is delusional is to make the claim that a published set of facts is "absurd" without giving one single reason why. You made this claim, but have yet to give one single reason regarding one single entry (out of 95) why you think you're correct... because you're not correct and know you'll be proven incorrect if you do respond with a specific argument. So keep it up Tobin. Keep making baseless claims and failing to address why you feel they are "absurd" as you assert. You must tire of getting squashed when it comes to the truth, but at least you have ldsfaqs there with you to :highfive: when you dodge the questions. What was your excuse again?

I highly doubt you have the ability to show I'm wrong. I seem to remember the last discussion we had about Joseph Smith resulted in you stating the ridiculous theory that if Joseph Smith stated something later in his life about an event, we needed to ignore what he said, even though he was a witness to the events themselves (and often the sole witness). I'm still laughing about your dismissal of what Joseph Smith said in the History of Church that showed how very wrong you are about the U&T. So, if this is all I can expect from you as proof, where you ignore evidence that contradicts you, then I'll pass.

[_Servant]

You can make the same argument for the Christian Church: "either God established the CHRISTIAN Church as an organization that would never need reformation or He didn't. If God is God, and Omnipotent and Omniscient, why could He not preserve the Church established by His Son, Jesus? Why preserve an organization established by Joseph Smith, whose life was far from sinless as we all know?

What do you all think of this modern-day LDS Martin Luther?

Martin Luther might have had more success if instead of posting 95 theses he had concentrated on five or six. It couldn't hurt for this appeal for reformation of the LDS Church too. I started reading the 95 theses listed and I thought, do I really have time to read all 95 of these? Frankly I don't.

Although I find it amusing that people are thinking of reforming the LDS Church. Either God established the LDS Church as an organization that would never need reformation or He didn't. If He did, then the 95 theses are pointless. If He didn't, then the LDS Church is still not an organization that needs reforming; in such a case it would be an organization that needed abandoning. The whole appeal of the LDS Church is that it is led by men who God has chosen to lead His own personal organization. If they are as completely out of touch with what is good and right as the 95 theses would have us believe, why be a part of the LDS Church at all? I can tell you right now that if I knew the LDS Church was as out of touch with God's will as they imply I wouldn't be a part of it.

[_consiglieri]

#28 is actually wrong, as Joseph Smith attempted to join the Methodist church, but was denied for being a practicing necromancer.

That will be #1 on my 95 Methodist Theses.

[_consiglieri]

All I can gather from this exchange is that Ldsfaqs is convinced that he knows the relevant facts on the issues, while Gadianton is convinced that instead he knows them. How in the world does someone like me determine which is right?

There is actually a pretty straightfoward way to resolve this question.


(Hint--It has to do with the fact that one of the two parties is ldsfaqs.)

[_thews]

You are nothing short of comical Tobin. What is delusional is to make the claim that a published set of facts is "absurd" without giving one single reason why. You made this claim, but have yet to give one single reason regarding one single entry (out of 95) why you think you're correct... because you're not correct and know you'll be proven incorrect if you do respond with a specific argument. So keep it up Tobin. Keep making baseless claims and failing to address why you feel they are "absurd" as you assert. You must tire of getting squashed when it comes to the truth, but at least you have ldsfaqs there with you to :highfive: when you dodge the questions. What was your excuse again?

I highly doubt you have the ability to show I'm wrong.

I'll leave that up to you Tobin, as you're very adept at digging yourself in a hole you can't climb out of. For the record, your continued excuses as to why you refuse to answer questions defines your position that you simply can't.

I seem to remember the last discussion we had about Joseph Smith resulted in you stating the ridiculous theory that if Joseph Smith stated something later in his life about an event, we needed to ignore what he said, even though he was a witness to the events themselves (and often the sole witness).

As your main foundation for a retort is to misstate my position, I'll let you post some data to explain what the hell you're even talking about. You "seem to remember" things not only incorrectly, but the complete inverse. I understand it's your tactic Tobin, as you have nothing to say, so you say what's incorrect in order to divert. Regarding your idle threats to ignore those who continuously squash your "God told me" responses, remember one thing... keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

I'm still laughing about your dismissal of what Joseph Smith said in the History of Church that showed how very wrong you are about the U&T.

I'm not wrong at all and posted numerous data points to make my argument (which you ignored and failed to respond to), but it doesn't surprise me how easily you discount numerous facts in order to grasp onto one entry in church history (written by an unknown author after Joseph Smith died) to make your supposed point. In other words, you "LOL" a lot at your own ignorance. Anytime, anywhere Tobin... you're my favorite kind of apologist. Much like Simon Belmont when he came in here with guns blazing, in time you'll tire of winding up on the bottom of the shoe. You'll selective place people on ignore, then, after you spiral into a flaming ball, will make a post to proclaim you're leaving. You'll come back, maybe 10 times like Droopy did, or take the Simon Belmont route and fade to black. I may be wrong, but I don't think so. Once you acknowledge you may have been mistaken about what God supposedly told you, you'll delve into the facts to come to a logical conclusion... I hope, for your sake, this happens sooner rather than later.

You have nothing to support your arguments, which is why you try so hard to avoid answering questions, but what you do have is some limited knowledge. The fact that you at least acknowledge Joseph Smith couldn't translate Egyptian is an indicator, as it's the first step in understanding the wall of your cognitive dissonance that protects you. The more you attempt to use facts, the more you'll realize the facts don't support your argument. It may happen in a year or 20 years from now, but eventually you'll have to digest what you've learned in attempting to defend your hero in Joseph Smith.

So, if this is all I can expect from you as proof, where you ignore evidence that contradicts you, then I'll pass.

You pass at everything with the same tired "I'm rubber and you're glue" retorts, so this isn't the exception, but the rule. Acknowledging questions and answering them would put you in a position of credibility... you should try it sometime.