Mormons and the Bible

[alanjeddy]

Hate to break it to you, but you are the one who chooses to not address what I say, but how I say it.

Book of Abraham?
Kinderhook Plates?

A couple of proofs of the evidence of the bs of mormonism for you.

It is obvious that you are here for one reason. To attack the Catholic Church. And you think that if you do it by providing endless quotes from a Word doc you’ve prepared beforehand, that it makes it some sort of scholarly discussion.

I don’t go with your game, as it is bs. You want to USE CATHOLICS in your endeavor to attack the Catholic Church. So you can keep on attacking me for not pretending like you aren’t what you are. A poisonous snake in the grass. I don’t sit down and have discussions with poisonous rot. I go for lobbing its head off.

Yes, that was calling you a name. Are you going to address that alone, as you keep doing? You keep diverting off of what I am saying, to how I say it. An indication to me that you know I’ve got your number.

Rebecca, snow doesn’t know what he is talking about. I told him that polygamy was renounced by his church in 1890 because of the on going battle between the lds and the state of Utah, In fact Utah was one of the last states allowed statehood because of their reluctance to abandon their teaching. It is there for anyone to check out. They are a heretical cult steeped in polythiestic belifs. Ask them to talk about Jesus and the strictures that they put onto His Devinity/

 

[Snow]

I just want to take a moment to say I am sorry for failing to show Christian charity to Snow and any other mormon that I might have offended. May God always gude you, love you and protect you.

Alan

Cool - please accept my apologies as well. Let’s agree to disagree. I love a good debate so don’t hesitate to disagree when you think I am mistaken.

Best regards.

 

[Snow]

Hate to break it to you, but you are the one who chooses to not address what I say, but how I say it.

Book of Abraham?
Kinderhook Plates?

A couple of proofs of the evidence of the bs of mormonism for you.

Let’s see. This is a thread about Mormons and the Bible. You object to my characterization about the non-Biblical portions of the Trinity. I challenge you to prove that I am mistaken and now you claim that I am not addressing the Book of Abraham?

Are you for real? Did you not see my post about the Book of Abraham? Let me refer you to post #265. I am still waiting for your response.

Back to the topic of this thread… Please provide evidence that what you say I am mistaken about re the Trinity is in fact mistaken.

Prediction: You can’t and won’t.

It is obvious that you are here for one reason. To attack the Catholic Church.

You obviously haven’t read much of what I have posted. I think the RCC is one of the worlds great denominations, full of much richness and importance. It is worthy of thanks and appreciation. I respect it immensely.

You seem to take umbrage at a discussion of the facts. Try not to let your emotions get the better of you.

And you think that if you do it by providing endless quotes from a Word doc you’ve prepared beforehand, that it makes it some sort of scholarly discussion.

Unlike you, I provide substantiation for what I claim.

I don’t go with your game, as it is bs. You want to USE CATHOLICS in your endeavor to attack the Catholic Church. So you can keep on attacking me for not pretending like you aren’t what you are. A poisonous snake in the grass. I don’t sit down and have discussions with poisonous rot. I go for lobbing its head off.

Yes, that was calling you a name. Are you going to address that alone, as you keep doing? You keep diverting off of what I am saying, to how I say it. An indication to me that you know I’ve got your number.

Try this for a change. Stop calling names. Provide evidence for what you assert as fact.

Simple - that’s how adults debate.

 

[Snow]

Rebecca, snow doesn’t know what he is talking about. I told him that polygamy was renounced by his church in 1890 because of the on going battle between the lds and the state of Utah, In fact Utah was one of the last states allowed statehood because of their reluctance to abandon their teaching. It is there for anyone to check out

Go back and read my very first post in response to your claim that there was a “vision.” You will not that I, as well as others challenged you to provide evidence that there was a vision.

Now - find one single thing that I have said on the matter that is factually untrue. You claim that I don’t know what I am talking about - I challenge you to find one single thing about which I am mistaken.

Please do this. Please prove your assertion.

They are a heretical cult steeped in polythiestic belifs. Ask them to talk about Jesus and the strictures that they put onto His Devinity/

alanjeddy,

You were doing so well. A moment ago you apologized for your behavior and now here you are whining that I belong to a cult.

You are going to have to try harder.

 

[alanjeddy]

Cool - please accept my apologies as well. Let’s agree to disagree. I love a good debate so don’t hesitate to disagree when you think I am mistaken.

Best regards.

When I THINK you are mistaken.???

Did you ever consider being a stand up comedian?

 

[alanjeddy]

Why are you the only mormon who won’t acknowledge the polygamy issue and the 50 year battle of your church for Utah statehood. My brother-in-law is an elder in the mormon church and he even knows about the lds 1890 decision to abandon polygamy. Are you aware that the U.S. Gov. had to even send troops into Utah??? So sad. I guess you cannot admit when you have lost a debate.

 

[Snow]

Why are you the only mormon who won’t acknowledge the polygamy issue and the 50 year battle of your church for Utah statehood. My brother-in-law is an elder in the mormon church and he even knows about the lds 1890 decision to abandon polygamy. Are you aware that the U.S. Gov. had to even send troops into Utah??? So sad. I guess you cannot admit when you have lost a debate.

alanjeddy,

Would you please read my responses.

I never said that polygamy wasn’t an issue. Of course it was an issue. A huge issue. The Church nearly lost all it’s assets over the issue.

As I specified in my very first post to you and the very last post above - my issue is that you fabricated that there was a “vision.”

That (your claim of a vision) is what I am debating. You can tell that is what I am debating because I keep saying that is what you are mistaken about.

So - tell me HOW have I “have lost a debate” when you haven’t proved your claim of a vision?

 

[alanjeddy]

Snow without a doubt you are the weakest apologetic debater that I have ever encountered. You have not once given me any mormon dogma or belifs that could refute any criticism that I have given you. You have circumnavigated away from refuting everything that I have challenged you with. All you are given me is stupid, uninformed rhetoric.You say very inarticulate , puerile (for your diminutive vocabulary that means "childlike) things like: "prove it, instead of giving me compelling evidence that can refute what I am saying…If you truely love your mormon faith …then don’t you think you should learn how to at least try to defend it???

 

[alanjeddy]

alanjeddy,

Would you please read my responses.

I never said that polygamy wasn’t an issue. Of course it was an issue. A huge issue. The Church nearly lost all it’s assets over the issue.

As I specified in my very first post to you and the very last post above - my issue is that you fabricated that there was a “vision.”

That (your claim of a vision) is what I am debating. You can tell that is what I am debating because I keep saying that is what you are mistaken about.

So - tell me HOW have I “have lost a debate” when you haven’t proved your claim of a vision?

Check with the Elders of your church.

 

[alanjeddy]

Ok Snow now you admit that your church had a huge problem with the polygamy issue.

Now let’s move to God’s First Commandement. Are you ready? Do you really want to debate me on this one?

 

[adrift]

Snow

I want you to know how much I appreciate the change in tone.

There is a difference in vision and revelation but they are so close I hope you can see where someone might confuse them or believe them to be one and the same. They do not necessarily “make it up” but misinterpret.

To get back to the discussion:

In Warren Carroll The Building of Christendom, it states that

Ossius, who had already made a stuy of this term during his visit to Alexandria the previous fall, seized upon it. There is reason to believe that he already knew it to be looked upon with favor at Rome. In alll probability it was he who insuced Constantine-whose understanding of it was,at best limited-to call for its acceptance by council.

 

[Snow]

Check with the Elders of your church.

That’s not a rebuttal of anything. I am an Elder of my Church. I have read and studied more on plural marriage in the Church this week alone than you will read in lifetime.

Obviously you cannot prove your claim.

My question now is - why make assertion of fact you cannot prove?

 

[Snow]

Ok Snow now you admit that your church had a huge problem with the polygamy issue.

Now let’s move to God’s First Commandement. Are you ready? Do you really want to debate me on this one?

What I want you to do is prove your claim or apologize for misstating yourself.

If you then want to open up a thread about the commandments - go ahead. If your thread looks interesting, I may stop in.

 

[Snow]

Snow

I want you to know how much I appreciate the change in tone.

It is difficult when the name-calling and denigration start. When I talk about, the apostasy, for example, the intent is not to denigrate or marginalize the RCC, but rather to explain our belief.

My feelings about the RCC, though I disagree with it, are that is good and worthy of much respect and appreciation.

There is a difference in vision and revelation but they are so close I hope you can see where someone might confuse them or believe them to be one and the same. They do not necessarily “make it up” but misinterpret.

I asked in my very first response about “vision.” The poster could simply have clarified rather than sayng I was ignorant about LDS beliefs/history.

To get back to the discussion:

In Warren Carroll The Building of Christendom, it states that:

“Ossius, who had already made a stuy of this term during his visit to Alexandria the previous fall, seized upon it. There is reason to believe that he already knew it to be looked upon with favor at Rome. In alll probability it was he who insuced Constantine-whose understanding of it was,at best limited-to call for its acceptance by council.”

Interesting that you bring up Carroll. Do you have his book(s)? I do not but I understand that he is a serious scholar - if his citations and footnotes are any guide. He is someone who dissents from more consensus scholarly opinion about Nicea but, as I said, he appears to be a serious scholar.

Yes - as I can see from your quote, he suggests that Constantine got the idea for his promotion of the the idea of “homoousious” from Ossius of Cordova. However, that is speculation, may or may not be correct, and not found in the primary sources.

He does state, and I agree, that Constantine who presided at Nicea and participated in the debates probably didn’t understand the significance of it all… as can be inferred from Constantine’s characterization to the doctrinal matters there as “trifling.”

 

[adrift]

Yes I have his books. His citations are a book into themselves. He documents everything. Sometimes his citations are more interesting than the main text. I am sorry about the typing the computer weired out on me and by the time I got it fixed it was past time to edit.

I am working on the Trinity but please go back to 426

Is that an accurate quote?

 

[alanjeddy]

What I want you to do is prove your claim or apologize for misstating yourself.

If you then want to open up a thread about the commandments - go ahead. If your thread looks interesting, I may stop in.

all you keep doing is bailing out of the aircraft

The first commandement says you will love the Lord with all your heart and you will not have strange Gods before me.

Snow for everyone to see would you say mormons honor that commandement???

 

[Snow]

Yes I have his books. His citations are a book into themselves. He documents everything. Sometimes his citations are more interesting than the main text. I am sorry about the typing the computer weired out on me and by the time I got it fixed it was past time to edit.

I am working on the Trinity but please go back to 426

Is that an accurate quote?

I didn’t check it but I assume it is accurate. I did speak to it in an earlier post.

Certainly some Mormons interpreted Nephi’s great and abominable church as being the RCC. Early LDS understanding took it’s cues from Protestant historians who were often anti-Catholic. However, they are/were wrong. The abominable church arose before we believe the Roman Catholic Church came into being and existed simultaneously with along with Church of God as can be seen in 13:5.

 

[Snow]

all you keep doing is bailing out of the aircraft

The first commandement says you will love the Lord with all your heart and you will not have strange Gods before me.

Snow for everyone to see would you say mormons honor that commandement???

Just go away. I am not in the mood for childish taunting.

 

[alanjeddy]

Yes I have his books. His citations are a book into themselves. He documents everything. Sometimes his citations are more interesting than the main text. I am sorry about the typing the computer weired out on me and by the time I got it fixed it was past time to edit.

I am working on the Trinity but please go back to 426

Is that an accurate quote?

I have studied some Trinitarian theology and I believe that the mormon understanding of the Trinity is different than the Catholic definition. Mormons would therefore believe in a polytheistic Godhead.

 

[alanjeddy]

True to form. You avoid the issue/question and name call.

This is what I said:

“The Trinity - the modern concept of the Trinity as decided upon by the Creeds and Councils of the 4th and 5th century is not found in the New Testament and can only be arrived at through philosophical reasoning or assumption. Indeed, the issue of homoousios cannot, to my knowledge even be inferred from anything in the NT and was, in fact, put into the creedal doctrine of the Trinity by a non-Christian at Nicea.”

You keep saying it is false but refuse to provide evidence for your counter assertion.

Why? Because you can’t so, like always, you’ll avoid the issue and name call.

Once again my friend (I am using that as a figure of speech only)
You are making an erroneous assumtion that the bible alone or Sola Scriptura is the only source of Devine communication with God’s creatures. There is also Sacred tradition and magisterial teaching. All three of these communicative, religeous dynamics are in place in Christ’s only church and collectively form the Sacred Deposit of Faith… Only the Catholic church can trace its genesis to Peter.

Do you know how many mormon missionaries have told me that only the Catholic and mormon faith can be Christ true church? Heaven forbid.