Milk before meat, the mormons may have gotten it right!

  • Thread starter Thread starter why_me
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
thecourt said:
Why do you love picking on a church you do not like?

I could say things about Catholicims that I do not like, that prevent me from ever becoming a Catholic.
Click to expand...
I’m not picking on them, nor do I dislike them. I just see a lot of contradictions.
 
scipio337 said:
Seriously!

You follow a prophet who “translated” (or transliterated) a book of golden plates (that conveniently disappeared) by looking at a rock in a hat.

Do you really want to go with the “hocus pocus” angle? Ousia has been a philosophical for a millenia +.
Click to expand...
The rock in the hat has an interesting twist. For example, we have JS writing the book of mormon. He spends a small fortune on writing paper, pens, and ink. He sits down to write in places where no one can see him. No one is town ever sees him with writing paper in hand, nor a manucript. But yet, for critics he wrote the book of mormon.

Then, when the translation process comes around, he sticks his head in a hat and writes the same book that he wrote in manuscript form. How to explain it? The hat trick can actually be faith promoting, if does not believe that JS wrote the book.
 
CHRISTINE77 said:
I’m not picking on them, nor do I dislike them. I just see a lot of contradictions.
Click to expand...
All faiths have contradictions. That is just the way it is. Ask a knowledgeable former catholic if there are any contradictions in the catholic faith and they will surely find some.
 
why_me said:
The rock in the hat has an interesting twist. For example, we have JS writing the book of mormon. He spends a small fortune on writing paper, pens, and ink. He sits down to write in places where no one can see him. No one is town ever sees him with writing paper in hand, nor a manucript. But yet, for critics he wrote the book of mormon.
Click to expand...
No one in town ever saw him “translating”, other than a few close friends and relatives.

And JS didn’t spend a small fortune, he conned Martin Harris into financing his book.
Then, when the translation process comes around, he sticks his head in a hat and writes the same book that he wrote in manuscript form. How to explain it? The hat trick can actually be faith promoting, if does not believe that JS wrote the book.
Click to expand...
If you find a con to be faith promoting, well yeah, then I can see how it is that you find Mormonism appealing.
 
The purpose of this thead was not to bash mormons but rather to show that the argument that has been used against them: The mormons give milk and not meat when they teach the gospel is no longer valid since the concept is in the New Testament.
 
why_me said:
All faiths have contradictions. That is just the way it is. Ask a knowledgeable former catholic if there are any contradictions in the catholic faith and they will surely find some.
Click to expand...
A former Catholic is not a valid source. They had the Truth and chose the lie. The inverse may be true for converts to the Catholic Faith.
 
ralphinal said:
A former Catholic is not a valid source. They had the Truth and chose the lie. The inverse may be true for converts to the Catholic Faith.
Click to expand...
And what about a former Mormon? Can I claim the same for them?
 
why_me said:
And what about a former Mormon? Can I claim the same for them?
Click to expand...
If the Catholic Church holds the fullness of Truth on earth, no. The inverse statement is true for former Mormons.

If the Catholic Church does not hold the Fullness of Truth on earth, any churches that are off-shoots from it are also flawed. Even those that use any portion of the cannon of the Bible as set forth by the Church would be guilty of buying into the lie. Therefore, any and all religions that acknowledge Jesus in any form are corrupt.
 
why_me said:
All faiths have contradictions. That is just the way it is. Ask a knowledgeable former catholic if there are any contradictions in the catholic faith and they will surely find some.
Click to expand...
Maybe, but no contradictions about the Trinity!!
 
ralphinal said:
Great list.

The obvious one that came to my mind is John Paul II. He was a philosopher not a theologin by trade.

There are so many others.
Click to expand...
Thanks. The current Pope is also a philosopher.

When I made my short list I was thinking of philosophers who became Catholic.
 
Stephen168 said:
Thanks. The current Pope is also a philosopher.

When I made my short list I was thinking of philosophers who became Catholic.
Click to expand...
To my knowledge, philosophers seem to either become Catholic or agnostic/atheist. I do not know of many Protestant ones.
 
why_me said:
The rock in the hat has an interesting twist. For example, we have JS writing the book of mormon. He spends a small fortune on writing paper, pens, and ink. He sits down to write in places where no one can see him. No one is town ever sees him with writing paper in hand, nor a manucript. But yet, for critics he wrote the book of mormon.

Then, when the translation process comes around, he sticks his head in a hat and writes the same book that he wrote in manuscript form. How to explain it? The hat trick can actually be faith promoting, if does not believe that JS wrote the book.
Click to expand...
Argumentum ad logicam.

Whether he “wrote” or “translated” (or transliterated) the BOM, he would still need writing material.

According to Oliver Cowdery, Crwdery himself transcribed what Smith said.

Ensign article about the process HERE

To me, it is more concerning he “translated” those plates by not even looking at them, with his head in a hat, gazing at a stone that he also used for “money-digging” and the failed Book of Abraham translation (which actually wasn’t a translation).

Hocus pocus, anyone?
 
zerinus said:
I haven’t a clue. I wish I knew. That is what they beleive in. They say the Trinity is three persons in one substance (one God). I don’t think they know what that means any more than I do. It is a meaningless belief.

zerinus
Click to expand...
The last sentence was provocatively uncalled for. Permit me to help you. Just as our substance is flesh, whatever God is, the Trinity is all one substance - God.
why_me said:
All faiths have contradictions.
Click to expand...
Catholocism doesn’t have any. Especially not in science and history, but, even within the faith.
why_me said:
The purpose of this thead was not to bash mormons but rather to show that the argument that has been used against them: The mormons give milk and not meat when they teach the gospel is no longer valid since the concept is in the New Testament.
Click to expand...
Other’s have shown you how this is a valid argument since it’s not enough that it’s in the Bible but the historical and contextual meaning behind what was written. The Mormons don’t do what St. Paul did. Some people see the world through rose coloured glasses; please stop looking through the seer stones and see the real world.
 
😃 LOL are you inferring that he was? I may just have to look up the book and see if there are any resemblances. 😃
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top