G
geraldffff
Guest
Ya but! Do you believe God the Father was a man! Answer yes or no or are you afraid of the question.
- Status
R
rmcmullan
Guest
Uh, the reason you failed at understanding Mormonism is your obsession with unimportant minutae. It’s called “looking beyond the mark”. Take out your rusty old Book of Mormon and turn to Jacob 4:14.
If you can’t or won’t accept basic Mormon teaching, fine, just say so, but don’t try to justify your unbelief by complaining about things that don’t really matter. Please be honest with yourself. Are you trying to tell me if only you could understand this doctrine then you would jump back to ride the LDS train? Can you really, honestly say that? Can any of you?
A
Allweather
Guest
Uh oh, Zerinus is showing his scaley Protestant underbelly again. This is the same Zerinus who rejects the Protestant paternity over Mormonism, yet when he writes of Scripture vs Tradition, he sounds like any run-of-the-mill storefront preacher.
I most certainly DO reject your Protestant-type interpretations of Scripture. They are absolutely incorrect, because they are divorced from the Church that wrote the Bible, and gave it life for 2,000+ years. Because you and your Protestant forebears reject the teaching authority of the Church that Jesus founded upon the Apostles, you are doomed to run hither and thither in the cage that Luther and Calvin built. What I stated, quoted directly, word-for-word from valid, imprimatured, Catholic sources, are the truth that you’re looking for. But, since you insist on being confused, so you shall remain. I might also point out… again… that orthodox Protestantism shares the Catholic view on pre-existence, and finds the Mormon theories objectionable.
N
Nan_S
Guest
Actually, that quote from Alma expresses it pretty well: “Time only is measured unto men.” Time is not measured unto God, because God created time and is not Himself limited nor bound by time.
What you ask about was their whole delimma as to why the man had been born blind. They believed blindness to be a sin penalty, but they couldn’t figure out why that particular family was being punished.
Was it the father, who according to all outward appearances was a pious man? Was it someone else in the family? Was it some secret sin that only God know about? They themselves could see no trace of serious sin in the family. The only one left who could have sinned, then, was the blind son, but that notion was ridiculous. How could an unborn baby have sinned?
Faced with an unanswerable dilemma, and knowing nothing about spiritual pre-existence, they ask Jesus to account for the blindness.
How easy it would have been for Jesus to answer, ‘You fools, the sin was committed before the son’s pre-existing spirit received his body.’ I notice Jesus didn’t mention that answer.
Nan
A
Allweather
Guest
Lemme get this straight: The Mormon theories about God having once been a man, like unto rmcmullan and Zerinus, is “unimportant minutae.” I’ve got to sort of choke back a snort on that one! Among the pantheon of Mormon heresies, I’d rank the God-evolved-from-a-man theory more ridiculous and dangerous than the polygamy that Mormons still believe in. I notice that Mormons don’t talk much about polygamy anymore, either. Just another embarrassing doctrine that Mormons wish never happened, but did, and in fact, still exists there in the dusty bins of Mormon “revelation.”
And, no. If I found myself giving serious consideration to such outlandish theories, I’d just throw myself UNDER the train.
R
rmcmullan
Guest
Allweather, wouldn’t it be more accurate just to say you don’t like anything Mormon? You like the two points you mentioned because they’re more sensational but isn’t it correct to say that you reject *all *Mormon teachings? If that is not so, please list the uniquely-Mormon teachings you approve of.
K
Karin
Guest
Not to be rude…but you where asked some rather direct questions by several posters, why do you and Z keep avoiding them?
R
rmcmullan
Guest
Karin, I am not supposed to be proseltyzing as you know. And nobody is really searching for any answers here. I have said long ago that I don’t expect to change anybody’s mind here and I don’t expect anyone here to change mine. What generally happens is all the haters keep rehashing the same issues over and over and it’s not very interesting. Zerinus gives lots of good answers that anyone who really wants a proper answer can follow up. Also, there are tons of other resources for someone who really wants to understand can pursue. But much of this banter is meaningless and insincere.
Also, I would really appreciate it in the future if you would make longer posts. I cannot recall you making a post of any significant length. You’re very good at graphics, a unique resource really, but why is it you never make any long posts?
Also, I would really appreciate it in the future if you would make longer posts. I cannot recall you making a post of any significant length. You’re very good at graphics, a unique resource really, but why is it you never make any long posts?
K
Karin
Guest
If that is the case then why even answer questions or ask them?? It would seem that you and Z are attempting to explain the LDS mentality to us non-lds and ex-lds but if you feel your wasting your time why bother? I do think that the banter from the ex-lds and others is not meaningless…they are attempting to show you the error of your cults ways.
LOL!
Why should I make longer posts when my short posts convey exactly what I mean? Or what I want to ask? Or is there a new Forum rule that posts have to be a certain length?
A
Allweather
Guest
It isn’t a question of there being anything I “like” about Mormonism. I like many Mormon people. I like the family-oriented emphasis of Mormonism. I like the apparent patriotism of Mormon people. Etc. There are many things I “like” about Mormonism. But what we’re generally talking about here is doctrine and dogma. Christians can’t tolerate the crazy heretical ideas promoted by Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, et al, many of which, BTW, are now considered closet material by modern Mormons. Polygamy, God-was-once-a-man, Ye may become gods, rejection of the valid teaching authority of the Church, and many other things, are on face of them, unacceptable by Christians, and therefore, unacceptable by me. Whether I “like” them or not is beside the point.
As for me rejecting “all Mormon teachings” yes, that is probably fair to say. I also reject many, if not most, Protestant teachings, especially those that relate to the validity of the teaching authority of the magisterium. See, I’m not smart enough to be my own Pope, unlike you and Z. You are smart enough to interpret Bible according to your own burning bosom. I do NOT trust my burning bosom. In my nearly 60 years, I’ve been led astray by my bosom (and other bosoms, too, LOL) many times. I trust the teaching authority of the Church to interpret and lead me, and it does so very well. Where I find myself “not liking” something, or “liking” something, I have clear teaching to hold my feelings up against to determine whether they are valid or not.
A
Allweather
Guest
That’s right! I’m STILL waiting for rmcmullen to tell me what he thinks about #67 of the Catechism, which I quoted much earlier, relating to public revelation.
I’d also like to know what Zerinus could do to refute claims made by others as to the specific falsity of many Joseph Smith (and other so-called “Prophets”) prophesies, which did not turn out to be true. He called the Abanes book “worthless” and I invited him to elaborate exactly in what ways it could be shown to be “worthless” but, so far, he has been noticeably silent in response to my invitation. I take it from his characterization of the book as “worthless” that he is familiar with it, so it doesn’t seem to me to be out of line to wonder why, and to enjoy his observations in print.
R
rmcmullan
Guest
Karin, a two-paragraph post, why thank you!
Why even post here? That’s actually a pretty good question and there is an active thread on that subject. There’s probably better answers in* that *thread than I can give you but I wasn’t taring everyone with the same brush.
Reread my last post more carefully. Much of the discussion here is very worthwhile and I’ve learned a lot just listening. Nan S is particularly interesting to hear and a good faithful Catholic too. I find that admirable. But, as I said, lots of these threads bog down with people who pretend to want to discuss something and really they’re just haters and they all pick same targets to launch their attacks. Zzzzz, boring! After awhile it’s just all so much blah, blah, blah, blah.
Why even post here? That’s actually a pretty good question and there is an active thread on that subject. There’s probably better answers in* that *thread than I can give you but I wasn’t taring everyone with the same brush.
Reread my last post more carefully. Much of the discussion here is very worthwhile and I’ve learned a lot just listening. Nan S is particularly interesting to hear and a good faithful Catholic too. I find that admirable. But, as I said, lots of these threads bog down with people who pretend to want to discuss something and really they’re just haters and they all pick same targets to launch their attacks. Zzzzz, boring! After awhile it’s just all so much blah, blah, blah, blah.
R
rmcmullan
Guest
Then why do you want me to explain something that you know you’re going to reject? Why do you keep wanting me (or my missionary companion Elder Zerinus) to explain to you something that you’ve made up your mind to reject out of hand? Do you hope to suddenly “get it” and convert to Mormonism? I really, really doubt that! Do you hope to convince us of how ridiculous it is? Dream on!
I guess it’s time to bring out one of my missionary stories (you Catholics should totally be serving missions too you know!) We met with a JW family and were discussing whether or not it is possible to see God. We brought out scripture after scripture to “show” that this was not really a true teaching (JW’s believe it is not possible to see God). We thought we really had it clinched when we brought out
But they stubbornly resisted the scripture (and a bucket more of similar ones) without any explanation. I think this is the ultimate end of any further discussion of doctrine with you Allweather. Perhaps it’s the Gladitor in you that wants to know which of the two of us will end up clinging to a belief they cannot explain but in my book that’s okay anyway.
G
geraldffff
Guest
So!! the nature of God is unimportant minutae! Ya but do you personaly believe that God was once a man? Simple question is it not? Yes or no please.
G
geraldffff
Guest
Ya but I was not familuar with Mormon stuff untill I started reading this fourm titled “any former mormons”. I heard like they were guilty of genocide of the indians on their way to Utah but brushed that aside as I try not listen to and consider negative stories about any person I do not know. Ya but do you believe that God was once a Man? Yes or no response please! How bout you Z yes or no response please. I have as far as I know never met or talked to a mormon. A forthright answer to this question would be a nice first impression.
Z
zerinus
Guest
Alma doesn’t say that God created time. Nobody knows whether God created time or merely makes use of it. Elsewhere in LDS scripture it is stated that God “dwells in the bosom of eternity” (D&C 88:13). So where did “eternity” come from? Did God create eternity as well? If God made eternity, then there must have been a time when He wasn’t eternal! To be eternal means to have a spatial relationship with eternity. So eternity must have existed before God, or at least simultaneously with God. And what is eternity except time extended into infinity? You are venturing into a lot of imaginative speculations which we simply don’t know anything about, and serious discussion about something which we know so little is a futile waste of time and indeed impossible.
There is absolutely no justification for reaching such a conclusion. There is absolutely nothing in the context of those scriptures to suggest remotely that they were wondering about the righteousness of his parents. They were asking a very simple question: “Who sinned, this man or his parents that he was born blind?” They were not wondering about the righteousness of his parents or anything. They could think of only two possible reasons why he was born blind: his own sin, or the sins of his parents. So they ask Jesus which, and He tells them neither, but gives a third explanation. The fact that they ask that question implies their belief in his ability to sin before he was born; and Jesus’ answer serves only to reaffirm that belief.
Well if you genuinely believe all of this, then I have to conclude that you have an extremely illogical mind; and debating with someone like that is a near impossible task.
zerinus
G
geraldffff
Guest
Ya but it is not an illogical or unreasonable question. Do you believe that God was once a man? You know the one the Isralites did not want to see the face of, was he once a man . Yes or no please?
A
Allweather
Guest
Interesting way to put it: “boring.” It has always seemed to me that those who put so much emphasis on burning bosoms (and I include an awful lot of orthodox Protestants in that group) get bored easily. They’re always looking for the new and exciting thing. They have itchy feet and itchy ears. They need constant religious stimulation. Things are either “boring,” or “amazing.” I think that this is part and parcel of any church which claims an on-going revelation. That type of church is able to provide something new whenever something new is required. Need new marriage rules? Give the guys multiple sex partners and call it divine. Need some pie in the sky? Tell 'em they can become gods with their own planets if only they’ll follow the rules faithfully. Etc. When old revelations become inconvenient for any reason (such as when Utah wanted statehood, polygamy became a no-no) then the Prophet can have a new revelation, and bingo! God speaks a new thing.
G
geraldffff
Guest
Thank you for this and you previous comedic relief even though I can see the serious thread in what you say. You cracking me up. I sure wish I could get a yes or no answer to a serious and simple question? Let me ask you, Do you believe God was once a man?
A
Allweather
Guest
Actually, what I was hoping for was your commentary on Catholic teaching with regard to revelation. I quoted a section of the Catechism and asked for your commentary. I wasn’t asking for Mormon teaching. I think I already know the Mormon teaching on that. I was wondering how a Mormon reacts to Catholic teaching. If you’ve already addressed this particular issue, then forgive my ignorance. I’ve only been here since October.
- Status