His repeated use of the question, "What does that mean?" seems to serve to water down the force of the scripture Aaron quoted. When Aaron lays out his understanding of a scripture prior to quoting that scripture, though, it's treated as illegitimate. A mindboggling technique. Well done, Aaron, for striving for a positive interaction here.

It should be studied

I had the very same thoughts. He shows such patience and love.

This guy does not represent LDS people in general. He is annoying for me to watch as a Mormon.

He is more intelligent than most members and actually understands our theology.

In my second debate with Kwaku, my cross-examination with Kwaku was awful. I was not exhibiting patience.

Me either when he was a surprise guest with my visit with missionaries. I was way less patient.

Ya he clearly doesn’t. In the first 5 minutes he is trying to hold Lds to sola scriptura, which is definitely not a doctrine of the church. He’s missing the most basic pieces and trying to act like an authority

I love God, and I love the Book of Mormon. Read it!

The last comment in the video was a quite the mic drop. At first to be completely honest I got a good laugh, but the reality is that this LDS person needs a ton of prayer.

Yeah, according to this guy, we can't know what anything means or ever did mean.

It’s impossible to pinpoint if you don’t actually learn what it is. Protestants just pick bits and pieces but never try to understand the whole so they end up making meaningless arguments about things that Lds people don’t actually care about. As an Lds person watching this, talking about Bruce mcconkie and excimmunicating those that are gay married is just totally irrelevant to us. This guy doesn’t know the very basics of Lds doctrine to start an argument in the right place

Give examples please.

Well said

I agree that he has “zero intellectual dishonesty”

Oh, they haven't stopped popping up. Even in our own church, they're are false prophets everywhere. I'll tell you how I avoid them, though; daily scripture study and prayer. When you seek God, He will reveal Himself to you. It is harder to be led astray when you are immersed in the things of God.

@@Misa_Susaki I completely agree : )

Maybe cool it with the cynicism? There were four LDS apologists (using the term loosely), and probably a dozen Christians scattered around the four corners of the intersection, busy talking to other people or handing out tracts.

@@AaronShafovaloff1​​⁠don’t act for a second that you guys aren’t doing what you’re doing. You go around trying to dissuade people from their beliefs and gaslight them. You claim it’s part of your mission but you guys are doing more harm than good despite what you think. Why don’t you take a note out of our book and do it respectfully. If people are interested, they’ll talk to you if not, move on. The reason Travis engaged you is because he knows exactly what you’re up to. You come across as harmless and friendly but you’re bent on telling people things like “you believe in a false Jesus etc”. Get out of here, man. The audacity. So you can call me cynical, but I’m stating facts like Travis. Facts that you’ll most certainly have a problem with and try to debunk or explain away. Look at you guys. Using us for clicks, money and attention. You can’t help but pick on Latterday Saints and then act like you’re the victim. What a joke, dude.

I invite you to come talk to us peacefully. We are overt: We teach the Biblical Jesus of historic, universal Christianity, and of the free grace of the gospel, and call all to repent of belonging to any other religion, including Mormonism. We want you to join Christians and even the angels in directly worshipping Jesus. You can witness for yourself our pattern of engagement, our respect, and our courtesy. God bless!

I’m an ex Mormon and agree with this statement.

Jacob, you’re of course welcome to give specifics of good arguments/points you thought were made.

@@AaronShafovaloff1 no need to repeat that here. People can watch the video and judge for themselves. Have a good Sunday.

And what are those points Jacob?

Let me at least agree with you in principle here: it’s a good discipline to consider cogent points even when a speaker is abrasive. I have been there on the other side. In my second debate with Kwaku I became caustic.

Jacob, I’d invite you to highlight even just one point. God bless.

What if I told you he currently has a massive influence on currently serving Missionaries & RM's, would that be a problem in your eyes?

Hello Travis. Welcome!

We actually don't mind if when Mormons stand up for their beliefs - we prefer it! It shows a principled love for the truth and a care for the substance of things. It provides a wonderful ground for conversation. In the case of Travis, however, his mode seems to be more of rhetorical steamrolling, which resists an exchange of extended, substantial thoughts, and disallows either party to truly make a case for their beliefs. It honestly sounds like the pro-Travis commenters are more impressed with rhetorical aggression, whereas the Christian commenters are more focused on the fruits of the Spirit and the attempted substance of conversation. Sincerely,

Most of the time it’s just easier to use two syllables. It’s not out of disrespect. There are also plenty who still don’t mind being called Mormons. This was culturally acceptable only years ago, and it is still ingrained. The abrupt change is ecclesiastical, not entirely cultural. We talk to Latter-day Saints (I don’t mind using the title in the right context) regularly. It’s actually rare to hear objections over the shorthand "Mormon." Compare the insistence on using false pronouns. It’s not kind to insist that people violate their conscience; we’d rather not dignify a misnomer. We don’t believe you are of the Church. We don't believe you are saints. We don’t believe you are true members of the Church of Jesus Christ, properly speaking. So we have to evaluate whether we’re using a term as a neutral title, or if it functions as a spiritually significant descriptor. When a term begins to function more as the latter, we reach for other designations. Imagine if we insisted that you called us “members of the holy (c)atholic Church of Jesus Christ, the communion of saints, who alone truly have the one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, one body, and one Spirit,” and then were offended when you opted instead for “evangelical” or “baptist” or “born agains.” Finally, the material we present isn’t exclusively relevant to members of the mainstream LDS Church. It’s relevant to a whole number of sects of Mormonism, or the larger Latter-day Saint movement, some of whom we interact with on a regular basis. If it offends you in the midst of a conversation, we can settle on another brief term. But it’s better that we discuss matters of substance than that we get offended by the innocent use of shorthand. Grace and peace.

@@AaronShafovaloff1 Wow! what a superb reply!

Not a contest.

😂. I would have loved to bring up Adam-God with this guy.