The Instigator
Kierkegaard
Pro (for)
Losing
45 Points
The Contender
mikelwallace
Con (against)
Winning
46 Points

The LDS church has fundamental flaws that prevent it from being the true church.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/29/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,467 times Debate No: 2279
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (21)
Votes (25)

 

Kierkegaard

Pro

Whether or not the LDS church is the closest church to whatever Jesus instilled, it still has fundamental flaws that simply prevent it from being the true church.

The first reason is simply the fact that the probability of Nephites and Lamanites populating Central and northern South America in the numbers described in the Book of Mormon is minimal at best. There has been absolutely no evidence to support this whatsoever, just empty claims in the Book of Mormon, whereas with things like Jerusalem, there's obviously evidence to at least support the claim.

Another reason is the excommunication of intellectuals from the church. I have heard a few tales of people who wrote books on the subject, who brought out the church's flaws, but not directly attacking the church since they were themselves Mormon. They quickly got excommunicated from the church, and were told they were going to hell. This is unjust, unmoral, and simply wrong.

My third reason is that Mormons are discouraged and frowned upon if they don't hold up to what they're supposed to do. The two main things I'm referring to is going on a mission and marrying a fellow Mormon and having lots of Mormon babies, and then getting sealed in the temple. These people are frowned upon in the church underneath forced smiles, when they have done nothing wrong.

Another reason is the fact that the majority of people in the church believe that whereas the world has changed dramatically from the founding of the church, the church has stayed the same. Although they can take great comfort in that false fact, this is simply not true. I remember once in sacrament meeting when the bishop announced to the congregation that one of our members had broken the law and was taken into custody for stealing thousands of dollars. I still remember to this day what he said: "I know in my heart that he did not do anything wrong." How...unchanged...

My last so far is that a fourteen year old transcribed the Book of Mormon, and it was a young man that made empty claims that he had seen God and Jesus. This...is unbelievable, to the point that I no longer believe it.

Good luck to my contender. I look forward to the debate.
mikelwallace

Con

I will simply adress each argument you have set forth.

Your first problem is the low "probability" that the people spoken of in the Book of Mormon actually polulated central and south America. For starters, there is quite a low probability and lack of evidence that Noah's ark ever existed, a very low scientific probability that a man was ressurected. We don't base faith on evidence, it would then cease to be faith. However, there is much evidence of these people. If you know the history of the Book of Mormon, it speaks of two civilizations that had cities, and wars. According to the timeline...600 B.C. to 420 A.D....it is very likely that this account is true. History has not labeled these people as "Nephites" and "Lamanites" as the Book of Mormon does, but it has shown that there were in fact cities, civilizations, and wars spanning this time period in these parts of the world.

As far as the excommunication of intellectuals go, this is simply not true. I'm sure that you have read accounts from former members who claim it is, records always indicate otherwise. Ill give you an example. There is an anti-Mormon named Ed Decker who has written many books slandering the Church. He claims that he was excommunicated for "asking questions". He was excommunicated for having several extra-marital affairs as his wife and children (still faithful members) will affirm. The absolute worst source for information on ANY Church are apostates of that Church. They are often bitter and spiteful of their former Church. Joseph Smith, the founder of the Church once said that it seemed that those who left the Church could not leave it alone. There are bitter Mormon apostates who seek to destroy the Church by distorting the truth, twisting the facts, and even blatantly lying in many cases. Believe me, I have read just about all of the anti-Mormon literature out there, about 99% of it is completely bogus, some of it actually makes me laugh, and ALL of it is put out there by people who claim to be former members who were excommunicated. That is a favorite claim of anti-Mormon bigots. Don't buy into it.

You also claim that Mormons are discouraged and frowned upon if they don't do what they are supposed to do. Thos could not be farther from the truth. I will tell you two things about myself.Iam a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints...and I have made PLENTY of mistakes in my life. One of my biggest points of gratitude to my Faith is that I have always been encoureged to be better. There will be individuals in any Church who will gossip or judge others, as this is a human weakness. That is a shame and reflects poorly upon all of Christianity. That does not mean that those Churches are judgemental. When an individual seeks the guidance of their Bishop after having made a mistake, they are always encouraged, taught about repentance and the Savior's Atoning Sacrifice which makes it possible to be forgiven. I know that this is true from experience. As far as the not serving a mission claim...I served a mission. Over every mission the Church calls men to preside over the mission, called 'Mission Presidents". They are given a great deal of trust by the Church and respect from its members. When I was a missionary, my Mission President, a great man whom I will always respect, did not serve a mission when he had the opporitunity. He chose to persue sports instead. Yet he was still called as a Mission President.

The next argument is perhaps the weakest. A story of a Bishop who, when speaking of someone who was arrested for stealing, said he knew in his heart he had done nothing wrong. Perhaps he believed the man to be innocent or falsely accused. If not, then he was not speaking in harmony with the teachings of the Church. Do you actually believe that the Church teaches or believes that stealing is not wrong? That one should be obvious.

Your last issue was that you simply could not believe that Joseph Smith had a vision of God and Jesus Christ. This sounds more like a personal problem with Faith than a doctrinal issue. If you believe the New Testament of the Bible, which we in the Church do, then you have heard the account of Stephen the great martyr looking up into the Heavens and seeing Jesus Christ at the right hand of God. I do not challenge Stephen's vision, nor do I challengs Our Father in Heaven's ability to bring forth great miracles according to one's Faith. On the contrary, any Church that would teach that there are no such things as visions and revalations anymore would be the Church that clearly could not be of God, for God is a God of mirales.
Debate Round No. 1
Kierkegaard

Pro

Simple enough.

I'm afraid that the majority of your first paragraph is null since I'm an atheist. However, there is absolutely no evidence that Lamanites and Nephites lived in Central America at any time. The only evidence is the Book of Mormon, and that's it. If the Lamanites and Nephites lived in such amazingly large numbers as described in the Book of Mormon, then...there'd be at least ONE piece of evidence to suggest it. If they had gigantic temples and works of wonder as described in the Book of Mormon, there'd be at least ONE piece of evidence to suggest it. However, there is not. In response to you saying that there were in fact cities, civilizations, and wars in that period of time, keep in mind that those are cities and civilizations with much smaller numbers, and with completely different cultures. If some of the amazing things that happen in the Book of Mormon were actually true, don't you believe that there'd be something in the culture or stories or ANYTHING in Mayan and other actual Central American culture describing these events? However, there is not. I might also point out that the probability of Nephi (I think, my Book of Mormon isn't exactly strong) sailing across the Pacific is close to nothing, and the probability of Jesus Christ sailing across the Pacific is to preach the gospel is even less so.

I'm afraid it is true, though. In fact, I have two distant relatives that I'd like to talk about. Both are (or were) steadfast Mormon members. One of them murdered a man, and went to prison for life. He was not excommunicated for killing another person. The other was one of these "bigots", who simply voiced his opinion on the faults in the church, and was hastily excommunicated. I'd like to clarify that my argument is not getting information from people who were excommunicated by the church, just simply pointing out the fact that the church tends not to as nice or as wonderful as they tend to be, especially when people bring out the fundamental flaws in the church. I'm sorry that it makes you laugh, however, since that helps my point that the church is not only oblivious to the real world, but also takes great comfort in the false fact that the church has not changed.

I'm afraid that this IS the truth. (About the mission president thing, you don't need to clarify LDS things since I once was a member of the church, and my parents are still strong.) First of all, you completely dodged my getting married and sealed in the temple with your family thing. My brother and sister WILL always be frowned upon BECAUSE they married non-Mormon people. This is...the most disgusting thing about the church: That people think it a sin to marry someone who is not a member and not try and convert them. Back when I was a Christian, I believed that love was one of the greatest gifts that God gave humanity. I couldn't stand to hear someone tell me that some love was incited by the DEVIL. As for your example of your Mission President, (out of curiosity, where did you serve your mission?) I'd like to say at least that...he may have wanted to serve a mission when he had the chance, he just couldn't do that AND pursue sports as well. Or, if not, he felt guilty about it (most likely BECAUSE of people in the church), about not going, so he got to be a mission president later. Nonetheless, I'm referring to people who don't want to serve a mission, have no plans of ever doing so in their life, and who feel no guilt because of it (which, again, is hard to do, since the church incites guilt on this particular subject).

The weakest, yet still strong. I'd like to clarify that the man who was taken into custody confessed his actions, and the bishop said to the congregation that he had not done anything, that he was not guilty...when the man DID do it. Not only was this disgusting, but even more disgusting when I saw that the majority of the congregation...agreed with him. Except for a few choice people, of course.

I believe your argument on this is ALSO null, since I don't believe in God.

I'd also like to bring up the topic of patriarchal blessings. I was also disgusting when I heard what these actually are. A blessing that tells you what will happen to you if you stay strong in the church? Although I vowed to never get one, I assume that things are so general that...they would most definitely happen. Seriously, though. Fortune telling in the church? That's essentially what a patriarchal blessing is.

I'm extremely glad I got to debate a Mormon and not some bumbling idiot. Thanks.
mikelwallace

Con

First, I would like to adress you saying that two of my arguments were "null" simply because YOU are an atheist...well then since this debate is about religous truth, i.e. the true Church, then your arguments about evidence are null because I am a believer. Sound illogical? Why start a debate that argues a Church is not the true Church, (meaning there is possibly a such thing as a true Church) and then just dodge your opponents arguments because the principle of Faith does not apply? That would be like if I wanted to debate what the best solution for global warming was, and when you presented your argument i simply desregard it because I think that global warming is bogus. Your lack of faith does not null my arguments, plenty of those reading this debate will agree with me on that one, eternal truth and the faith in its existence are central to this debate given its nature.

Now you said several times that there is absolutely NO evidence, not one shred that the lamanites or nephites could have existed, not the way the Book of Mormon says they did. You then follow that up with the statement that your Book of Mormon is not that strong...? Since this is the case, I will give you some sources to educate yourself, because saying that there is not one shred of evidence is setting yourself up for failure, because it is so far from the truth it is rediculous, there is plenty of evidence that has been written about by plenty of scholars.

http://www.fairlds.org...

http://www.jefflindsay.com...

http://www.the-book-of-mormon.com...

I am sure that you have heard of Hugh Nibley and F.A.R.M.S. (Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies) I would highly reccomend their writings. I would also reccomend that you read and study the Book of Mormon in its entirety. Clearly the claim that there is NO evidence is false.

As far as your excommunicated friend, I know how the Church works, people are excommunicated only when they have commited some sin of a serious nature and are completely unwilling to repent. People do not get ex'd for asking questions, if they told you that they lied, simple as that. However, if a member teaches false doctrine or teaches against the Church and will not stop of course they will be excommunicated, why wouldn't they be, they are seeking to lead people away. They obviously don't want to be a part of the Church.

As far as my Mission President ( I served in Harrisburg, Penn.) Your assumptions about him are wrong. He could have served, he was raised in the Church, he simply chose not to. He didn't have any desire to. He was never frowned upon by anyone, and neither have I been when I have made mistakes. About marrying in the Church...We strongly encourage marrying in the Church, obviously. What Church doesn't. Everything points to the fact that families are more stable when parents share the same faith. We also believe that families can be together forever, so yes we encourage that. We do not condemn or frown on people who do not. Your brother and sister are still welcome to Church and activities, as are their spouses. If there are individuals who have judged them, than I am sorry for that, they do not represent the Church, and you will find people like that in every congregation of every Church. But the Church and an overwhelming majority of it's members would acept them with open arms. I know MANY people who are married outside of the Church but are themselves still active members who serve with callings and full acceptence. They go to the Temple, give talks, and are active. To say the Church froens on them is simply not true, it is an overgeneralization of maybe a few individuals. And where did you get your idea that some love is created by the devil? That is not even relatively close to anything ever taught in the Church. We believe that lust outside of wedlock comes from the devil, but not love. I can refer you to www.lds.org or any Stake President for clarification on that one.

As far as the Bishop thing, I think I already addressed this one enough. I don't think anyone is gonna buy that we encourage people to steal...that is rediculous and quite frankly I don't believe we are geting the full truth on that story...notice how I have sources and facts to back up what the Church actually believes, not just unverifiable stories and hearsay...again I refer you to lds.org or a local Stake President for clarification on the stealing issue.

A Patriarchal Blessing is a guideling for living your life and a promise that if one remains faithful, they willbe blessed with all of the blessing promised to the faithful. Any "specific" promises are very personal and for the individual they are given to, not to be exploited for argument. It is not "fortune telling."

I almost missed something...We do not teach that Jesus sailed across the sea. You clearly have not educated yourself on the doctrine. We believe after his ressurection he appeared to those in the Americas...(Other Sheep I have which are not of this fold, them too I must bring...) And for the record, I have read the Book of Mormon several times, and I have visited many of the ruins in the ancient mayan cities such as Talum. The cities and temples described in the Book of Mormon give no specifications on the size of the buildings, so to say that the buildings from the same exact time period that we have deicovered can not be the same as the ones from the Book of Mormon is an argument with no foundation. How do you know that they are not the same? Where does it say exactly what size they were?
Debate Round No. 2
Kierkegaard

Pro

Well, I think since I adressed the arguments nonetheless, I'm afraid your whole argument on me saying things were "null" is...null. I really see no reason to adress this agument since...I adressed all of the other arguments nonetheless.

In response to "Your lack of faith does not null my arguments", your lack of evidence nulls your arguments, not my lack of faith.

I was actually expecting some reasonable evidence when I first read what you said, but was let down when you gave three links, all of them obviously with religious background. By "evidence", I'm referring to a non-bias study or research paper or book that proves that every single claim in the Book of Mormon is true, not a professor from BYU or someone who is strong in the faith, and not anyone who devotes ALL of their time and effort in attempting to prove that it's true.

So, let my clarify. I meant to say there is not one shred of non-bias, TRUE evidence supporting the Book of Mormon.

I'm glad you think you know how the church works, but...you apparently don't. I mean, possibly if you were a member of the twelve apostles or the prophet and you weren't completely bias, then I'd believe you. But you're obviously not. The plain truth is that the church blinds people to obvious truth and fact to prevent them from leaving the faith. If anyone even appears to look into it and bring out its fundamental flaws, they are immediately banished from the church.

My main assumption, however, was not wrong, and you didn't adress it. This was that the church used and uses guilt to pressure people into doing things. And I'm afraid I didn't clarify: my brother and sister are no longer members. They are frowned upon. Period. I remember a young lady who told me about her sister who married a Catholic and converted to the Catholic faith. She never talked to her anymore, and...everyone around me agreed with her. I was surprised to find out that this is the norm, and glad that my family has enough sense to not practice this.

As far as the Bishop thing, you completely and utterly missed my point. I never said or implied that the church encouraged people to steal. My point was that people were blinded by their faith to the point that they refused to admit the obvious, refused to admit that he was guilty. This was utterly disgusting.

A patriarchal blessing is incentive to keep in the faith, pure and simple as that. And I'm afraid any part of the church can be used in this argument, one of them being a patriarchal blessing.

To your last point, I'd like to say a few things:

1. In my class and in the book from which EVERY Mormon Sunday school teaches, it said that Jesus sailed across the sea. However, if this is not true, then...how did he get there? He never teleported whether through resurrection or not anywhere else in any of the books, so...he just appeared there?

2. The cultures described in the Book of Mormon are completely different from ones of the Mayan and other cultures that were actually in Central America. Also, there were never as many people in Central America as described in the Book of Mormon. Also, the cultures that were actually there never describe any of the important events in the Book of Mormon in their own history. AND the cultures in Central America got there from going across from Russia to Alaska and moving down, this is proven, unlike the Book of Mormon.

How do you know that YOU are the same? You don't, nor do you have any evidence supporting such claims.
mikelwallace

Con

Im sorry if you feel that you can't accept any of the evidence that I presented and you were forced to change your statement around from "no evidence" to "no unbiased evidence". With that technique you should be able to successfully dodge any argument that ever comes at you. But the studies have been done and the evidence is there. It is your biased anti-Mormon opinion that prevents you from accepting that.

The following is an offical Church statement on excommunication:

Church Disciplinary Councils
Bishops and branch presidents and stake, mission, and district presidents have a responsibility to help members overcome transgression through repentance. The most serious transgressions, such as serious violations of civil law, spouse abuse, child abuse, adultery, fornication, rape, and incest, often require formal Church discipline. Formal Church discipline may include restriction of Church membership privileges or loss of Church membership.

Additional Information

"Formal Church discipline begins when a presiding priesthood leader determines that it is necessary to hold a disciplinary council. The purposes of disciplinary councils are to save the souls of transgressors, protect the innocent, and safeguard the purity, integrity, and good name of the Church.

"Church discipline is an inspired process that takes place over a period of time. Through this process and through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, a member can receive forgiveness of sins, regain peace of mind, and gain strength to avoid transgression. Church discipline is designed to help Heavenly Father's children in their efforts to be purified from sin through the Atonement, return to full fellowship in the Church, and receive the full blessings of the Church." www.lds.org (official church website)

Glossary Definition
Excommunication
A disciplinary process used only in extreme situations. This includes removal of an individual's name from the records of the Church. Excommunicated individuals have the opportunity to return and have their Church membership restored through the process of repentance and baptism by immersion for the remission of sins. www.mormon.org (official church website)

Individuals can be excommunicated for preaching and teaching false doctrine or anti-Mormon literature and teachings with intent to persuade others. People who ask questions are not excommunicated, they are taught. Excommunication is only used in "extreme" situations. I refer you to the above sites or again a local Stake President for clarification. This is what the Church believes. Your isolated and unverifiable "stories" are not evidence, I am sorry. I have presented here how the Church actually works.

Are the promised blessings in a Patriarchal Blessing an incentive to keep one's faith? You will find that in any religeon, there are things called "blessings" which are incentives to keep your faith. Perhaps the most well known in any religeon would be the concept of Heaven. The doctrine of salvation could be called an incentive for one to keep their faith. This absolutely does not make it a fundumental flaw.

You claimed that the LDS Church has always taught that Jesus sailed across the ocean. You also did not present a credible source from any Church publication teaching that. This is likely because that does not exist. The Church does not teach that, you have no writings from the Church that we do, just your unverifiable story once again. The Church has never taught that. Any member or one who has studied the doctrine knows that.

Again you claim that the cities from the Book of Mormon could not have been the same cities discovered there from the same time period. However once again you have given no evidence or source for that claim. It is just your opinion and has not been backed up as mine has been.

Throughout this entire debate, you have neglected to present any shred of evidence or any source at all whatsoever to back up any of your arguments. All you have given us are some stories from a few ex-members (not a great source for unbiased opinions or truth on the Church). Another problem is that I am araid that early on you strayed from the point of the debate. You were contending that the LDS Church has fundamental flaws that prevented it from being the true Church. Yet you spent most of your time telling of stories of people who claimed to be treated unfairly and were obviously disgruntled and bitter against the Church. You spoke of only one actual teaching of the Church, but presented no evidence or sources to show where you were coming from. And you presented absolutely no doctrine beyond that. Perhaps the debate should have been titled "Prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt that the LDS Church is true". My duty was never to completely prove that the Church is true, just to debunk the things that you claimed were "fundumental flaws" which I did. Thank you for the debate.
Debate Round No. 3
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Kierkegaard 8 years ago
Kierkegaard
The fact that I'm losing this debate makes me cry at the nature of individuals in our society today.
Posted by mikelwallace 9 years ago
mikelwallace
I think that the problems with religeon do not lie in the religeon, but in the human nature of the individuals practicing it. Given that we are all imperfect, some days more than others, offenses will come. Even leaders in the Church are imperfect. I believe that the only perfect man to ever walk the earth was the Savior himself. No doubt people will do things, say things, imply things that will inevitably offend you and I, I just think that it is important to realize that the true Church is still filled with humans, and not let their errors disturb our faith in the teachings.
Posted by Rousseau 9 years ago
Rousseau
To Thoreau: Keeping to your namesake, you missed my point. Indeed, evidence from the church about the church is biased, however I argue another point. The criticisms about religion in general, come from the practice of it. That's the one problem with religion: In practice, it becomes susceptible to failure. In theory, almost all religions sound great. This is important to realize because this is what the leaders of a church will sell to you. They will not cover things like methodology, but rather the conceptual arguments. This is the crux of the issue. This is what makes church leader's bad evidence. Of course the intense bias adds to it, but the fact of the matter is that the leaders don't always convey the "semantics" of the church.

As for the burdens of the debate, it really just depends on what school of debate you subscribe to. You won't be able to keep to all voter's paradigms and as such, you shouldn't try. A good thing to do would be to placate to as many paradigms as possible. Making more than enough arguments won't ever hurt your position, it'll just help. As such, Pro appealed more to my paradigm today, although you are chipping away at the support I have.

Just a note: I appreciate the demeanor being reciprocated throughout the comments. It makes things better overall.

I look forward to seeing your arguments soon.
Posted by Kierkegaard 9 years ago
Kierkegaard
By materialistic I mean things on Earth. And promises of blessings and salvation if you stay in the church if you believe in the church is the same thing as saying that if you get all the right answers on a test, you're going to get a 100%...
Posted by mikelwallace 9 years ago
mikelwallace
Just for clarification, patriarchal blessings do not promise materialistic rewards. They promise rewards of family blessings and salvation, etc...not promises of monetary gain or fame, wealth, etc...

That was a good analysis from you thoreau, and I appreciate it. Where I am coming from is in the title of the debate, that the flaws prevent the LDS Church from being THE TRUE CHURCH, insinuate to me that there could be a true Church but flaws in this one mean it can't be it. My only duty in that case was never to prove that the Church is actually true, (that can't be done with any Church) but simply to address his specific concerns and show that it still could be. What say you? Do you see where Im coming from?
Posted by Kierkegaard 9 years ago
Kierkegaard
Thoreau:

Good advice, save the patriarchal blessings thing.

Keep in mind that whereas the Bible and other such things promises an everlasting and eternal reward in heaven, a patriarchal blessing gives you promises of materialistic rewards rather than spiritual ones. The things given in a patriarchal blessing also tend to be extremely general and...obvious things.

How was I overexaggeratory (is that even a word??)?
Posted by Thoreau 9 years ago
Thoreau
(continued)

Patriarchal blessings: I see no real problem with them, it's not like you have to pay money to get them so it's not a matter of raw greed. It's a part of the church, and that's really it. Nothing too disgusting there. The Bible tells you how to live your life as well, and also promises rewards. It's nothing new, and it's arguably the basis of all religion.

You were also a tad overexaggeratory, but that's not really a problem either.
Posted by Thoreau 9 years ago
Thoreau
mikelwallace:
If I may clarify, I think what Rousseau is trying to say here is that you were trying to use Mormon sites to justify Mormon teachings. Obviously these sites are biased towards the Mormon church.
Besides this, the first site basically states that archaeological evidence is inconclusive. This quite clearly does not PROVIDE and actual evidence, and actually somewhat supports Kierkegaard's stance in that the undertone of the article is that there IS no archaeological evidence. And once again, the other two were from sites that were made by Mormons and often used evidence from other Mormons as THEIR supporting evidence, meaning that they are highly biased towards the LDS Church.

What you were saying, if I'm not mistaken, is that you of course would find out about a church from its leaders. But the problem with that is, the evidence you were using was supposed to be conclusive evidence that Mormonism is the true religion, that it EXISTS. The evidence was NOT meant to clarify beliefs.
You had good arguments regardless.

Kierkegaard:
While mikelwallace provided flawed evidence, you provided NO evidence. It would be a good thing if you could atleast find some online sources to back up your personal stories, which really aren't evidence so much as examples which, while I don't doubt their truth, can't be held as absolute fact given that there is no credible, non-biased source behind them.

Also, your nullifying his arguments simply based on your atheism doesn't work. Clearly there are those who believe these things, if you don't then that's your decision. But that's not all you said against his arguments, so it wasn't a major problem, and the one argument that you DID respond with that as your major argument, it was actually a matter of raw belief and couldn't be proven, so the entire point is kind of null.
Posted by mikelwallace 9 years ago
mikelwallace
I appreciate the compliment, I guess I just disagree that the writings of the Church are not credible when expressing the views of the Church. I firmly believe in going to the source for evidence,views, teachings, and then making yor decision. "anti-Mormons" simply can not be trusted as authorities on the Mormon Church, neither can bitter ex-members.
Posted by Rousseau 9 years ago
Rousseau
If you want to know what Catholics believe in theory, ask the church authorities. That statement is true, however that isn't what you said. You left out the key word there: "theory". It's the same with a presedential candidate. If you want to know all about what they, in theory, believe in: ask the candidate. However, if you want to know what they actually do: look to their record. While the church has no such record, the point remains... evidence from a church in a debate about the church isn't too credible.

As for your first post, you misunderstand the burden of rejoinder. The burden of rejoinder is to disprove the resolution and the case made for it. This would involve not only refuting Pro's points, but making your own.

And again, if a religion were true, chances are... there would be scientific evidence supporting it in some way.

Furthermore, when it comes to calling your opponent a liar, you beter have reasons to prefer your opinions/evidence more than his. Simply saying "that isn't true" doesn't do squat.

Again, I'm not voting off what I think is right, or off of basic knowledge on the church in question. I'm commenting purely on arguments.

That said, I think you did an admirable job defending the religion, as many times it is hard to defend (any) religion. The point I was trying to make clear was that evidence from a church about how it is the right church isn't to be held in high regards. This links to my vote because you need to provide non-biased evidence to fufill your burden as the con.
25 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by apologia101 6 years ago
apologia101
KierkegaardmikelwallaceTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by mikewildcat15 7 years ago
mikewildcat15
KierkegaardmikelwallaceTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by SexyLatina 8 years ago
SexyLatina
KierkegaardmikelwallaceTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Kierkegaard 8 years ago
Kierkegaard
KierkegaardmikelwallaceTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by cooljpk 8 years ago
cooljpk
KierkegaardmikelwallaceTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by yoon172 9 years ago
yoon172
KierkegaardmikelwallaceTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Randomknowledge 9 years ago
Randomknowledge
KierkegaardmikelwallaceTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by cinderella1992 9 years ago
cinderella1992
KierkegaardmikelwallaceTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by zjack3 9 years ago
zjack3
KierkegaardmikelwallaceTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by eighthourlunch 9 years ago
eighthourlunch
KierkegaardmikelwallaceTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30