This seems to be the new line used for me when I bring up JS and BY. "Your stuck back in the 1800's. I don't care anything about that time period. I just care about the church today." This is supposed to circumvent any argument I have put together. As this is now the new line used on my (and more than twice), I need a really good comeback line.

me. not my. I can never get a sentence out without messing it up

"That isn't necessary for salvation, I don't have to understand why that happened."

I'm not sure there is a way to pry that kind of defense off a person who doesn't want to think.

Fortunately we have lots of lovely issues like the lack of accuracy in the Book of Mormon, and the appearance of evil in financial nondisclosure.

You could say: No, you are stuck in the 15th century. Here in the 21st century we no longer believe in magic and alchemy.

that is so good! Good one!

"Really? How did you pass 9th grade American history class?"

(snicker)

Yes, there are many things I can bring up other than polygamy and whether JS found the gold plates or not. This is an angle that I am seeing used quite a bit with the 1800's line and belief in "modern day revelation". The first angle used on me was that I left the church but I can't leave the church alone. Very first cliche used on me.

...you could say "No, I'm stuck in the 0030's, when it all started." That should shut them up for a second. :-)

Seriously, if someone builds a house on a rotten foundation, I would think that they would be more concerned about that than putting on a new coat of white & delightsome paint....

Thread Killer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Seriously, if someone builds a house on a rotten
> foundation, I would think that they would be more
> concerned about that than putting on a new coat of
> white & delightsome paint....

Right there is your snappy comeback.

Lacking Lamanite DNA, Egyptology, race and the priesthood, prop h8, Polyandry records.

These are all late 20th to early 21st century developments. You want to remain between the 1930s and 1950s, after polygamy died out and before any other negativity came to light from science.

You might say, "If I was stuck in the 1800's, I'd probably still be saying that I know that Joseph Smith...."

The ¢hurch™ is what it is today because of the ideas and doctrines that were taught back then. Without a "then" you can't have a now.


I guess things like the first vision aren't important to you either then.

Wasn't it the incorrect teachings of the past, and people's failure to pay attention to them,that led to the Great apostasy in the first place.


Those are some "shot from the hip"(spur of the moment) replies that just came to me. They may not be that good, but at least the ball is rolling now, right?

but this is the same group that does trek re-enactments, geneology, has many many church history sites, and tells and retells the story of the pioneers.

Seems to me that they kind of like their history. I just want the whole history.

"Do you believe Smith was a prophet? Then how can you not be interested in any facts that might undermine that assertion? It sounds to me like you don't really have a testimony"

Say, "That's what the Catholics used to say to me when I told them about the apostacy!"

The church's whole raison d'etre is the argument that the early christian church established by Jesus became corrupt and needed to be restored. They love to talk about how you can't get good fruit from a dead tree. The church trumpets their ability to trace their priesthood authority back to Peter James and John, but so can the pope. If the Catholic priesthood is invalid because of the wickedness of their past, why doesn't this apply to the Mormon church? Oh because a prophet said god will never let them lead the church astray? Why didn't he do that for the Catholics?

I think it has been re-corrupted again and we need some more plates down here quick.

Many believe their way of being was right back then, but not now. So we can't judge the things those two prophets did by today's standards because of modern day revelation and the changing times.

suckafoo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Many believe their way of being was right back
> then, but not now. So we can't judge the things
> those two prophets did by today's standards
> because of modern day revelation and the changing
> times.

So why doesn't this apply to the Catholic church? The Mormons claim "plain and precious" things were lost. Why can't Catholics say it was due to changing times? I doubt many mormons would argue that polyandry was right back then. That idea is not backed up anywhere in scripture.

I'm just tracing back to see how it got that way."

Or, even better, hang out less with people whose brains are trapped in Mormonism!

Impossible! Its my husband. And we carpool! Oh Lordy lordy lordy.

I think you are waisting your time with anyone who would use this argument, but you could bring up the problems tscc has right now.

No accountability for Tithing funds.
bad investment in life insurance.
Prop 8.
Gods shopping mall.
DNA.
No artifacts from BOM.
Changes in endowments.
Changes to BOM.
BOA.
Unsold Condos.
White and Delightsome
perverted questions from Bishop.


If all that fails, show them your bra and panties, and ask to see theirs, then say "Who did you say was living in the 1800's?"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/09/2010 04:26PM by jon1.

I'd say "Oh, so you're more interested in the problems in the church today? Let me enlighten you ..."

Of couse here is the obvious answer, but I fear anyone who would use this argument won't understand.

If Joseph Smith is not a true profit, how can the organization he established be true? If Brigham Young was corrupt, how can anything he touched not be corrupted?

jon1 Wrote: [in part]


>
> If all that fails, show them your bra and panties,
> and ask to see theirs, then say "Who did you say
> was living in the 1800's?"


LOL! That's a classic. After all, sacred Mormon skivvies are just reincarnations/adaptations of the old-fashioned, one-piece union suit.

My usual response is to express surprise that such lurid and unethical behavior on the part of JS DOESN'T bother TBMs.

suckafoo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This seems to be the new line used for me when I
> bring up JS and BY. "Your stuck back in the
> 1800's.

I usually come back with "You are absolutely right, Brigham Young and Joseph Smith were completely full of B.S. I agree with you."

that it only contains 1 official declaration (not even a revelation) from the 1900s, all the rest is from the 1800s.

Don't care about anything in the D&C either?

No, he doesn't. I pointed out many of the doctrines that are in D&C that are not in the fullness of the gospel book (BOM) but it doesn't phase him. I brought up the funeral texts, I've brought up much in the Journal of Discourses, DNA research, why the BOM is never on the history channel, footnotes in Wikipedia whenever you wiki a person in the BOM, all reference the book itself or BYU or some other Mormon resource, but never any real historical references. Nothing matters. He doesn't hear me at all. I've said "Come on, what purpose would an angel have to deliver this benign book that adds nothing new. Nothing works! I don't get it.

Okay then. Time to quit banging my head against the cement. I'm done and I give up.

End statement.

"The 1800's? That's when it all started. If you don't know your history then how do you have a testimony?"

bar sinister. n. 1. A heraldic bend or baton sinister, held to signify bastardy. Not in technical use. 2. A hint or proof of illegitimate birth. ...

Like Simon Bar Sinister the evil nemesis of Underdog?

For almost half a century, I've been saying, "Simon says, GO SNOW." I had no idea of his illegimate parentage!

Too funny. Thanks!

"Me? No, it is not me that is stuck in the 1800's. You see, I stopped believing in the fraud that was committed by JS and BY back then. I believe in the facts as they have been reveled to us in 2010. Looking at the evidence we have available in 2010, we know the founder of TSCC was a fraud and the church he founded was a fraud. No, it is not me stuck in the 1800's, it is thous that refuse to look at the evidence available in 2010 that are stuck in the fraud committed in the 1800's."

pioneer parade in 2011?" since the church now is all that matters.

Good point. The Bros. are always referring the faith of the pioneers. All these damn treks are undertaken just because people like to walk around pullin' a handcart.

The First Vision especially. And while I think Hinckley's statements might be a little too black and white I think it gets at a key idea— If Joseph lied about key events then despite everything Mormonism is now and regardless of the feelings people have had about it's claims...it is a fraud.

I mean, look at how missionaries work. They have investigators read the BoM (ancient according to LDS, 19th book at best) and pray to know if it's true. If they get a yes, then they're told they should then assume that Joseph Smith was a prophet. When, you ask. Well 1820ish-1844....the 19th century. If he was a prophet (in the 1800s) then you should conclude that the 21st century church is Gods true church.

Currently the claims of the LDS Church all rest on 19th century people and events— even by LDS accounting. So perhaps you should ask anyone who accuses you of being stuck in the 1800s why they are avoiding 19th century Mormonism. According to LDS leaders that's what it's all about.

"Our entire case as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints rests on the validity of this glorious First Vision. ... Nothing on which we base our doctrine, nothing we teach, nothing we live by is of greater importance than this initial declaration. I submit that if Joseph Smith talked with God the Father and His Beloved Son, then all else of which he spoke is true. This is the hinge on which turns the gate that leads to the path of salvation and eternal life."
- Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley, Ensign Mag., Nov. 1998, pp.70-71



"Well, it's either true or false. If it's false, we're engaged in a great fraud. If it's true, it's the most important thing in the world. Now, that's the whole picture. It is either right or wrong, true or false, fraudulent or true. And that's exactly where we stand, with a conviction in our hearts that it is true: that Joseph went into the Grove; that he saw the Father and the Son; that he talked with them; that Moroni came; that the Book of Mormon was translated from the plates; that the priesthood was restored by those who held it anciently. That's our claim. That's where we stand, and that's where we fall, if we fall."

- Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley, Interview "The Mormons"; PBS Documentary, April 2007

So where is the 'Mormonism for dummies' - T. Monson edition?

That's all you need right? Nothing that dead prophets said matters, which includes the prophets of the bible and BoM.

Why even listen to anything Monson has to say? He'll probably be dead before me.

How about "Really? I'm not the one wearing a union suit."

The church of today claims that it does not believe the teachings of its prophets from years gone by. It even edits the words of its prophets in order to be more pleasing.

The church of today teaches practically nothing, its leaders only remind us to work harder and sacrifice more, and gives nothing but free manuals in returns.

And members of today are all but commanded to forget the words they heard when they were raised as the rising generation.

The church of today is really nothing more than a way of life for its followers and the new converts adopt the new way of life without ever hearing the essential doctrines that we were raised with.

At least in the 1800's whackadoo teachings were important enough to kill for.

That's one of the suckiest justifications for continued belief EVER.