Z
Zakuska
Guest
Christ was “begotten” by God before the foundation of the world… thus Chist was brought forth. Created by God.
- Status
C
Catholic_Guy
Guest
Begotten not created. Man is created not begotten by god. The definitions are completely different.
In Christ,
Catholic Guy
T
Tmaque
Guest
It’s good to see that you have moved from your previous statement that Christ was a created being for the first 100 years. I agree that Christ was “begotten, not made”. There is nothing in Justin Martyr’s dialogue with Trypho that I cannot accept as a Catholic.
Z
Zakuska
Guest
Catholic Guy:
Gen. 2: 7
7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and eman became a living soul.
Mans spirit was a part of God.
Wrong man was “formed” by God without hands.
Gen. 2: 7
7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and eman became a living soul.
Mans spirit was a part of God.
M
majick275
Guest
Don’t see how you get that from this scripture. Forming sure seems like creating to me. Begotten is obviously different. Man only became a living soul when God made him.
M
mormon_fool
Guest
Edmond asked an interesting philosophical question.
edmondhall:
I find it interesting that someone things there is any one “smoking gun” or “silver bullet” that can put mormonism out of its misery. I think some people leave mormonism based on a network of evidences, ideas, and experiential wisdom. That is there is such a variety of ex-mormons each with their own unique issues with the LDS church, although there is a considerable amount of overlap in what is viewed as counter-evidence. Certaintly your list is a good start of things that make you go hmmmmm. However I can’t grant any one known individual item "smoking gun " status. Hypothetically such an item might surface some day, such as a letter from Joseph Smith–that turns out not to be a forgery–that says “I made it all up, but thanks for all the fish.” I would also be extremely disappointed if the Book of Mormon turned out to not be historical, but proving a negative is extremely problematic. As they say “The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
When scientists find things that falsify existing theories, they don’t immediately create new theories to fill in the gap. Rather they modify and add sophistication to the existing scientific models to account for the anomaly. A consensus switch to a radical new theory only happens if it does a superior job of accounting for all the data better without all the ad hoc baggage.
So it is with my current postion. I find anomalies that challenge my pro-mormon stance all the time. However I apply the tools of my chosen paradigm, which include studying things out in my mind, and praying for understanding and confirmation for decisions I make. Even so, complex questions don’t have immediate resolutions and I can only work on so many problems at once.
If mormonism is false, then I would need to trade it in for a paradigm I valued as superior. I am reminded of the NT apostles who witness the multitude rejecting Jesus over some unpopular doctrines. Jesus asks the apostles if they will leave him too. I think it is Peter that asks the rhetorical question to the effect “Who else shall we go to?”.
later,
fool
I will make a few starts at this question but I don’t plan on tying up all the loose ends.
I find it interesting that someone things there is any one “smoking gun” or “silver bullet” that can put mormonism out of its misery. I think some people leave mormonism based on a network of evidences, ideas, and experiential wisdom. That is there is such a variety of ex-mormons each with their own unique issues with the LDS church, although there is a considerable amount of overlap in what is viewed as counter-evidence. Certaintly your list is a good start of things that make you go hmmmmm. However I can’t grant any one known individual item "smoking gun " status. Hypothetically such an item might surface some day, such as a letter from Joseph Smith–that turns out not to be a forgery–that says “I made it all up, but thanks for all the fish.” I would also be extremely disappointed if the Book of Mormon turned out to not be historical, but proving a negative is extremely problematic. As they say “The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
When scientists find things that falsify existing theories, they don’t immediately create new theories to fill in the gap. Rather they modify and add sophistication to the existing scientific models to account for the anomaly. A consensus switch to a radical new theory only happens if it does a superior job of accounting for all the data better without all the ad hoc baggage.
So it is with my current postion. I find anomalies that challenge my pro-mormon stance all the time. However I apply the tools of my chosen paradigm, which include studying things out in my mind, and praying for understanding and confirmation for decisions I make. Even so, complex questions don’t have immediate resolutions and I can only work on so many problems at once.
If mormonism is false, then I would need to trade it in for a paradigm I valued as superior. I am reminded of the NT apostles who witness the multitude rejecting Jesus over some unpopular doctrines. Jesus asks the apostles if they will leave him too. I think it is Peter that asks the rhetorical question to the effect “Who else shall we go to?”.
later,
fool
M
majick275
Guest
interesting post. I find myself in agreement with you on your observations regading former LDS. My experience is similar. Many LDS believe for different reasons as well. That being the case they really don’t care so much about things that cast doubt on the elements of Mormonism that aren’t significant to them. Just as there are cafateria catholics there are cafateria mormons. Further, it is very common to wave off problematic teachings of LDS leaders as “speculation”. That controversial practices have been changed in the past gives many hope that elements they disagree with will change in the future. That being the case most LDS who leave the church are either running “to” something as mfool mentioned or running “away” from something as attested by the many bitter exmormons who post their problems with the LDS church. There are also many who don’t “leave” but just fade away into inactivity not wanting to be Mormon but scared/confused enough to wonder “what if it’s true?” and thus hoping to “hedge their bet” by not actually “leaving”.
In all of these cases there seems to be a lengthy “buildup” of reasons for their choices rather than a single “epiphany”. (although I have seen one of those too when a man claimed to be the beneficiary of a miracle and resigned his membership publicly during a testimony meeting)
In all of these cases there seems to be a lengthy “buildup” of reasons for their choices rather than a single “epiphany”. (although I have seen one of those too when a man claimed to be the beneficiary of a miracle and resigned his membership publicly during a testimony meeting)
M
mormon_fool
Guest
I believe that Joseph Smith did indeed believe in his clairvoyant abilities. I have not said he “wasn’t a gold digger (or treasure seeker)”. If you will re-read the part you quoted from me you will see have said just the opposite. If I can clarify my position I believe the difference between Joseph Smith’s pre-prophet teenage and early 20’s years and the more mature Joseph Smith after 1830 was that he became much more spiritually discerning. The new Bushman book walks us through the milestones. PM me if you want me to hook you up with a free copy.
later,
fool
M
majick275
Guest
I consider Bushman to be one of the most accurate active Mormon historians. His writings show a skillful ability to present true facts objectively without getting exed (yet) by the Packerites. I would gladly recomend any of his books as worth reading for those intersted in LDS history.
- Status