sigmadds

@msheron @Sola_GPT @CapturingChrist God breathed

A puppet christ with the near word-for-word recording of the KJV sermon on the mount. despite the Book of Mormon's events supposedly taking place in the ancient Americas, over a thousand years before the KJV Bible was ever translated into English. This represents a glaring anachronism: the text reflects not ancient Hebrew or Reformed Egyptian, but the early 17th-century English of the KJV, down to its phrasing, punctuation, and translation quirks.

Upcoming debate: Ethan Muse (Christian) will be debating Hayden Carroll (LDS) on the Book of Mormon. Is it from God or the Devil?

@seekingtruth325 It would be a more thought-provoking comment if you simply subtract out the grammatical errors and focus on the ones that might matter in your argument. By using 28,000, then admitting most are grammatical in nature, you weaken your own argument. Do the honest math first.

@HereToSipTheTea @ShabbosK So would it be okay with Sipping the Tea if the article read, 7 Reasons why Saint Linus was a false Pope?

@ShabbosK Saying, I think the Mormon religion is wrong it not Mormon hate. I think the way Catholics worship is wrong as a Christian, but it is not Catholic hate either.

Disappointed to see yet another act of normalization of Mormon hate within the Conservative movement. Leaving aside the religious bigotry, the LDS Church is the *MOST* Republican-leaning religious group in America. We should be thanking them, not mocking them.

Haha

@ThoughtfulSaint Perfect Maddy!!! Galatians for the win!

@JohnLom61042395 @ImKingGinger Yep, the OG cult before the philosophies of men were mingled with scripture.

@DdsRockdent @ImKingGinger Boy, Bednar would have had qualms with the apostle Paul because he debated like a champ. Sounds cultish not to engage in debate.

10 years ago we had a layover in SLC for a few hours, so we rented a car and randomly made this Gospel For Mormons video. It now has nearly half a million views. I've been told they play it in LDS missions classes to teach students how to rebut it. 😅 youtube.com/watch?v=IQNObk…

@bryce BA in Anthropology, dentist for 20 years!😂🤣

Having fun making these with my daughter. Today- marketability of non-traditional majors

@DRRomanosDaniel @RandomLDS I’m glad we can agree on these Heavenly visitors - the Angel (Moroni), Moses, Elijah and Elias already came to the prophet Joseph Smith and restored their keys of the priesthood to usher in the greatest and last dispensation to prepare the world for the Second Coming of Christ.

I think that you will find very clearly your assumption is wrong. Hebrews 1:2 makes it 100% clear that the final revelation is in. God Himself became flesh and dwelt amongst us and spoke to us very very clearly. And yes, the very Word of God - the Bible - was right there to "clarify doctrine" and it did. You point to a major fallacy of Islam, the lds, and any other religion that purports to have "new" revelation. The only new revelation beyond this will come during the tribulation when God will literally send an angel to preach continuously and 144,000 virgin Israelites along with (probably) Moses and Elijah.

A lot of people don’t realize how much the early Christian creeds shaped the way the world talks about God. They were sincere attempts to protect faith in a time when revelation had faded and no prophets were around to clarify questions about doctrine. People were trying to hold on to what they had, and I respect that. But those efforts also pulled Christianity in directions that don’t line up with what the scriptures teach. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three distinct divine beings, two with glorified physical bodies and one a personage of spirit, who are perfectly united in purpose as one Godhead. Without living prophets to settle questions about doctrine, including the nature of God, believers were left to rely on the best reasoning and philosophies available to them, which meant human insight often had to stand in for divine revelation. As the centuries passed, those debates were increasingly shaped by Greek philosophical ideas about essence and substance, and when Emperor Constantine pushed for a unified creed to stabilize his empire, the process took on political urgency as well. The result was language that reflected both philosophical categories and imperial priorities, which were well‑intended, but far removed from the plain, personal way scripture describes the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. These were the affects of the Great Apostasy, and that’s where the Restoration matters. When God the Father and Jesus Christ visited the 14 year-old boy Joseph Smith, it wasn’t to tear down everything that came before. The restoration brought new light to the world. In one morning, humanity learned more about the nature and disposition of God, than all the combined learned men, philosophers, and scholars over the last 2,000 years. The Restoration gave back the simple, scriptural truth that God is the literal Father of our spirits, that Jesus Christ is His Son, and that the Holy Ghost is a real companion who can teach and comfort us. That clarity changes everything in Christendom.

@ldsabuse Not joking

@ldsabuse Probably saw into the future when Tesla’s Optimus humanoids will build Starbase, with proper maintenance, 1,000 years is possible…

You don’t believe in the moon landing because of a phone call to Nixon. Mormons don’t believe in the moon landing because Joseph Smith saw the Quaker moon people, and we’ve never met them, so we can’t have gone to the moon. It’s logic. We are not the same.

@antiantimormon They’ll show up on Antiques Roadshow😉

Do you think the "Lost 116 Pages" are still out there somewhere, or were they destroyed? It would be epic if they were found some day.

@LatterDayCool @Latterdaytruth Mine too, AP Rockwood

@Latterdaytruth Not that I know of.... But my 3rd great grandfather was a body guard to his son, JS, Jr.

Is anyone here on X a direct descendant of Joseph Smith, Sr.?

@Latterdaytruth Most likely won’t find a way, but you can make a way!

I want to find a way to spend an hour studying the scriptures like I did on my mission...

@reachinglost_ @HwsEleutheroi @GodLogic_GL The church itself doesn’t debate, it invites.

@HwsEleutheroi I’m honestly surprised he debated you after he debated @GodLogic_GL he wasn’t prepared for that either and looked foolish. When will the LDS church provide someone who speaks for the church to debate?

Quick note on the debate last night against Jacob Hansen, neo-Mormon/Oslerite. I used one term during the debate a number of times, and repeated it with almost every person I talked to afterward while greeting folks: reprehensible. “deserving censure or condemnation.” Irresponsible. Dishonest. And in this case, based upon a clear and obvious prejudice, bias, and animosity, not so much toward me, but toward “Calvinism.” His opening statement was, quite honestly, below Dave Hunt. Seriously. And for those who listened to the debate review we did with Joe Heschmeyer, that was truly surprising. Hansen is smart. He was prepared to address the Papacy. But last night? Nothing but emotional mud slinging. All the standard heart-string pulling “oh its about the babies” tripe that you can find in any corner of YouTube. And the entire night the man did not raise a single verse that I had not addressed, fully, in _The Potter’s Freedom_ a quarter century ago. Yet he did not give the slightest evidence of knowing what I had written, though he quoted from the book. I am convinced Hansen’s “crew” put most of his notes together. At one point he “quoted” Aaron Shafovaloff (who was seated in the back row) and Aaron literally interrupted him, “I never said any such thing.” Before the cross ex Hansen asked to have time to apologize and admitted the quote was “second or third hand.” Then, during cross, he “read” me a quote from _The Potter’s Freedom.” I was sitting right next to him and I asked, “Are there any dots (ellipses) in that quote?” and asked for a page number. I watched him scanning his computer screen like he had never even seen the citation before. He admitted there were ellipses. I said, “Of course there are.” And he never gave me the citation. A kind young lady in the first row happened to have TPF with her, and she handed it to me. So he decided to go on to the next question. My conclusion is others “quote mined” the book and gave him a file with “good quotes to use.” As I pointed out, he never even attempted to refute the exegesis in the book because he lacks the capacity to do so. And he clearly did not read it seeking to understand the position. When he presented what “Limited Atonement” meant in his opening, it wasn’t even close. Jack Chick level silliness. So, I gave him no quarter. I was not going to play “buddy buddy” with someone who showed so little respect for simple honesty as to behave and speak as he did. He is not an orthodox Mormon on any level, and that came out when I tried to get him to at least admit that his god became a god by obedience to gospel ordinances and principles. I wanted to make the point (and did) that a finite god who became a god is insufficient grounding for transcendent principles and morality, hence undercutting the claim of his thesis. Oh, and the first question from the audience to him was whether God had killed every man, woman, and child in Noah’s flood. Not exactly surprising, he rejected the flood story on the basis of “science.” (Joseph Smith accepted the flood story as history). I am looking forward to the video coming out. If you think the cross-ex with Heschmeyer or Austin was “hot,” well…nothing compared to last night. But if you were hoping for a really thought out presentation from the LDS side…nothing. Think of the 1 million “John Calvin was a heretic” videos done by KJVO fundies on YouTube: same stuff. So when you see how I let him get away with nothing in cross-ex, the reason is simple: I knew he was capable of serious interaction, but had chosen the cheap way of dishonesty and misrepresentation, joined with emotional appeals to the audience. I have zero respect for such behavior. None. When I wrote TPF, I showed Geisler the utmost courtesy in researching his position, accurately representing it, etc. Hansen showed me, and the position, and the audience, nothing but smarmy condescension and disrespect. Finally, it is truly enlightening to watch neo-Mormonism, or maybe Oslerism, developing. Why the GAs are not only allowing this, but seemingly, promoting this, is beyond me.

@ThoughtfulSaint John 17:3 LDS theology = 2 Simple Articles of Faith Creedal Christianity = Thousands of pages of the philosophies of men mingled with scripture.

It’s was wild to watch Avery commit heresy multiple times in the debate. Like this one. Trinitarian dogmas holds that Jesus had two minds (a divine mind and a human mind). But the problem is if you have 2 minds you have 2 people. (A person is at minimum an individual center of consciousness) Was Jesus one person? Or two? Avery knew it’s insane to say Jesus has two minds (because Jesus was obviously one person) so he decided to commit heresy against the trinitarian creeds by claiming Jesus only had one mind. Avery has the right intuitions… to reject the creeds. But unfortunately the trinitarian creeds force you to believe things that are incoherent. I don’t think he even realized he was even committing heresy.

@Christian_Kafir @ExMosPostingLs Actually, it’s repeatedly mentioned, taught and clarified by living prophets all the time. Thank goodness God is the same yesterday, today and forever and provides us with His word!

The only place “baptism for the dead” is mentioned is 1 Corinthians 15:29, and Paul doesn’t command it or teach it—he just refers to something some people were doing. Notice his wording: “What do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead?” He doesn’t say “we” or instruct the church to practice it. He’s using it as an argument for the resurrection, not establishing a doctrine. If it were something Christians were supposed to do, it would be clearly taught elsewhere—but it isn’t. In fact, the rest of Scripture teaches the opposite: - Salvation is personal and happens in this life, not after death (Hebrews 9:27). - You are saved by your own faith, not someone else’s action on your behalf (Romans 10:9). - Baptism follows personal belief (see Acts 2:38), not proxy rituals. So Paul isn’t endorsing baptism for the dead—he’s basically saying: “Even those people act like the resurrection is real—so why are some of you denying it?” A doctrine that affects salvation would never be built on one unclear verse, especially when the rest of the Bible consistently teaches personal accountability before God. So biblically, “baptism for the dead” is something Paul mentions—not something he commands or supports.

ExMo Paul Gee wants you to know you are evil for doing your ancestor’s temple work. 😂

@TylerSCrypto Literally the best TA I’ve ever seen! Who even cares about what the X and Y axis represents, as long as there are tips touching - I’m in!

the tips have touched i repeat the tips have touched the last time bitcoin tips touched bitcoin experienced a 500% move to the upside i'm literally shaking

@Bar_tolmi So like when we willingly give of our means to build the Kingdom of God on the earth to bless the lives of His children?

I clearly remember reading where Jesus said, "take money from the poor and build expensive gaudy temples."

@Bar_tolmi @Forrest_LDS So, just like our ward and stake buildings?

"Or perhaps, rather than church buildings, what we really ought to be building around the world are ‘JESUS MISSION CENTERS’ where the “hungry” can come to be fed, where the “sick” can come to be healed, where the “homeless” can come to be sheltered, where the “abandoned” can come to be cared for, where the “wronged” can come to be redressed, where the “stricken” can come to be comforted, where the “unschooled” can come to be educated, where the “lost” can come to be enlightened, where the “crooked” can come to be straightened, and the “dejected” can come to be enlivened." -Rodolfo Martin Vitangcol