Let’s Talk w/ Hayden Carroll

The god of Calvinism wants to save every and doesn't want to save every at the same time....? #calvinism #jesus #bible #christian #christianity #lds #mormon

Was Joseph Smith inspired by the devil to bring something about so good? #mormon #lds #christian

What does the actual historical record say about Joseph Smith?

Does the histortical evidence show that Joseph Smith was a power-hungry libido-driven cult leader? #lds #mormon #josephsmith #jesus #christian

Do Mormons worship Joseph Smith? #lds #mormon #christian #josephsmith

The double standard just keeps getting better and better.

How did Joseph Smith write the Book of Mormon? #mormon #bookofmormon #lds #jesus

The good ol’ news of Calvinism.

Can a personally ever lie morally? #mormon #lds #christian

@GoWithJordan_ @ThoughtfulSaint As a Calvinist, what’s the good news for people who God could have saved but chose not to?

@ThoughtfulSaint If the gospel, the "good news" as defined in the new testament is not present, can you be a Christian? Can there even be such a thing as Christianity without the gospel?

Latter Day saints, can you be a Christian without the gospel?

Did the devil prompt Joseph Smith to create such a Christian-fruitful religion? How Christian do you have to look before you are actually a Christian? #mormon #lds #jesus #bible #christian

@busy_bee_me Let’s set it up

Here’s the thing. If all I knew about Joseph Smith was what most people know about plural marriage, I’d probably land where they do—thinking he was a fraud. But I don’t. Because that’s not all there is. Yes, polygamy goes on the “reasons to doubt” side of the scale. No point pretending otherwise. But the real question is whether it’s a defeater. And when you actually examine it closely—historically, theologically, contextually—it isn’t, even if mistakes were made. But this is what people don’t do. They don’t account for everything else: the theology, the ecclesiology, the soteriology, the internal coherence with scripture, and—more than anything—the lived spiritual power of the restored gospel. It’s still changing people. Still transforming families. Still bringing individuals into a real relationship with Jesus Christ. It a religious system that produces better outcomes than any other system on earth. That is not something that just happens by chance. And when you put all of that on the scale it changes the math. Look…. If you only know the headlines, it looks like the same old story: a religious figure using God as a cover for sex. That’s an easy conclusion to reach. But if you’re willing to dig deeper, the picture gets a lot more complicated—a lot more interesting… and in the end…. downright miraculous. Look I know what I’ve experienced. I have seen people transformed. And I believe God when He tells me that the fullness of His gospel has been restored.

Is God a contradiction? #christian #bible #jesus #lds #mormon

@Gale_Buer @UtahNationalist @Mormonger Did Abraham intend to deceive?

@UtahNationalist @Mormonger Looks like there's some debate over what the actual family relation is, some argue cousin, some half-sister. Either way, that's what he said. It wasn't a lie.

If you can't imagine a scenario where lying is justified, the problem is your imagination

Does God's justice extend to those who never hear of Jesus? #christian #bible #jesus #lds #mormon

Why did the Trinity doctrine arise? #christian #bible #jesus #lds #mormon

Here’s what happened with the debate situation. I’m happy to release the emails if the involved parties claim I’ve misrepresented anything. @CapturingChrist @emuse1955 The original invitation from Cameron was for me to debate Ethan on whether Joseph Smith was a false prophet. Ethan then clarified that he wanted to focus on Joseph’s moral character and the moral circumstances of his revelations. I suggested we debate whether a naturalistic explanation for the Book of Mormon was plausible. Ethan responded that he already agrees the Book of Mormon is not naturalistically explicable. He thinks it was “preternatural,” and later clarified that his position would be that a malevolent entity better explains the Book of Mormon than God. He continued pressing for a debate on Joseph’s moral character. I said I would do that debate if we also compared Joseph’s moral character/actions with the moral character/actions of Catholic leadership throughout history. Ethan declined that topic and suggested we compare Joseph’s character to specific individuals he had in mind from his faith tradition. I responded by asserting that the whole moral character of Catholic leadership would be relevant. Ethan then proposed: “Is the moral character of Joseph Smith a bigger problem for Mormonism than the moral character of historical popes is for Catholicism?” I responded by saying I would prefer to debate the Book of Mormon prompt. I believed I had made it clear that the character arguments on both sides were going to be set aside. I later realized that was not the case. We came to the resolution: “The Book of Mormon is inspired of God, rather than the devil” Ethan agreed, and we set a day and time. Throughout that day, I began looking through Ethan’s X posts to better understand him and his position, since I had first heard of him only a few days earlier. As I did, I realized the debate was likely going to become the original Joseph Smith character debate repackaged under a Book of Mormon title. The next morning, I emailed and asked for two things: first, to push the debate back a month because of my schedule leading up to the original date; and second, to have a discussion with Ethan beforehand so we could better understand each other’s positions before the debate and prepare accordingly. I made it clear that I was not asking for a word-for-word preview of his opening statement. I also made it clear that I would share my position openly. Both requests were declined. I believe the best debates happen when both parties understand the other person’s position, rather than when either side is hoping to surprise the other with a “slam dunk.” I also think it’s both irresponsible and unwise to enter into a debate before you actually understand the position of the person you’re debating. I think I made that mistake and take full responsibility for doing so. I then posted an apology for accepting too quickly before the angle and scope of the debate were clear. I do not apologize for wanting to better understand my opponent’s position before jumping into a debate with him. And given how the situation has been framed since then, I’m confident I made the right decision. Okay, enough online drama for today. Go touch grass, everyone lol.

Is God a Trinity? #christian #bible #jesus #lds #mormon

@emuse1955 @NiceanRick @CapturingChrist Hey Ethan. I apologize if there was confusion on my part regarding you not wanting to be transparent with your position when I asked for clarification. I think that ship has sailed, but I wish the best to you!

You weren't denied clarification. I would have been happy to clarify my position if you had asked. What happened was that we agreed to a resolution and announced a debate. Then you wanted to change the wording of the resolution. I said let's stick to the resolution we agreed to, but assured you that I was going to argue that the BoM was demonic. The next day, you send an email the date you proposed no longer works and you are insisting on a meeting where I preview my arguments or the debate can't move forward. At this point, it seems like we couldn't count on you not to endlessly defer/keep coming up with new terms/conditions if we agreed to a July date. If all you need is clarification and you are willing to move forward with the agreed terms, then I will give you that clarification. Are we back on for June 2nd?

I’d like to apologize to @CapturingChrist and @emuse1955 for prematurely accepting this debate. I agreed to participate in good faith and was open to a substantive, productive debate. However, I have not been able to get clarification on the other side’s position or what exactly will be argued. Without that basic foundation, it’s not really possible to have a meaningful or productive debate. It could turn into talking past each other rather than engaging on the issues being presented on both sides. In any debate, it’s my goal to understand the other side’s position to fairly address it. Based on these circumstances, I have decided not to proceed with the debate in order to avoid any misunderstandings about the topic at hand. Cameron and Ethan have been gracious to me in the exchange and I appreciate their goodwill.