Mormons and the Trinity

[amgid]

Thank you majick for your research. I found your quotes interesting. You have saved me the trouble of having to research them myself should I need them. I have made a note of them, and I am sure they will come in handy some day.

majick275:

I don’t know what “eternal progression” is. It is not a concept that is contained in LDS scripture, and I don’t know what it means.
amgid
August 20, 200

Believe it or not, I still don’t understand what “eternal progression” is on the basis of your quotes. The only kind of “eternal progression” that I understand (if that term is applicable) is the scriptural one I had given previously. I stand 100% by that statement which I had made.

amgid

 

[majick275]

Well even at that I find anything that a man “saw” when he put a rock in a hat to not be scripture. Section 132 of the D&C is particularly problematic and an example of outright deception. When it was being practiced it was NOT canonized scripture. In fact it directly contradicted canonized scripture. (section 110 of the 1835 edition of the D&C) Which specifically prohibited polygamy and sternly denounced it as a crime. By the definitions you have given that would make Joseoh Smith Jr. and Brigham Young both false prophets as they taught and practiced something that was in direct contradiction to the “standard works”. Of course they just went and changed the “scriptures” as it suited them about 40 years later. All the while the “anti-polygamy” section of the D&C was a blatant lie. Of Course you would also have us believe that Lectures on Faith (containing the teacings that the Father was a personage of spirit and that only he and Jesus were Gods wiht the Holy Ghost being their “shared mind”) was somehow not really canonized when it wasn’t removed until 1921 during which time there were numerous general conferences affirming by common consent that the standard works as published were accepted as scripture.

I think there has been some misunderstanding on just how “binding” the words of the LDS prophet outside of the standard works are as well. The caveats of “when moved upon by the Holy Ghost” or when approved by common consent apply to all LDS priesthood leaders EXCEPT the president of the church.

For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.
D&C 21:5 current edition

Notice the difference in how the president of the church is dealt with.

You understand perfectly well what eternal progression means as does anyone who has studied LDS doctrine. Trying to dicredit the teachings and practices of LDS prophets and still hold them up as true prophets of God who lead the church by divine revelation is hilarious. The lengths you go to render the pronouncements of your leaders virtually meaningless and then doing the same with your scriptures so that you can basically define your own doctrine individually is painful ot watch. (those mental gymnastics could lead to a pulled neuron )

But by all means keep showing us how the LDS “prophets” aren’t really inspired and just “make things up” that are meaningless speculation. Show us how the “special witnesses of Christ” don’t really know who or what he is and how they don’t speak for him.

Remind us how only the standard works are binding on LDS but that the LDS leaders can teach, act and direct things that directly contradict them and when pressed just change them. (years later)

You have also done an excellent job showing us how this works by giving us a written address from the first presidency and quorum of twelve apostles to support what you “Claimed” was the doctrinal position of your church and then you turned around and disagreed with the position stated in it and tried to tell us it wasn’t really doctrine. Then you tell us that you don’t know what their explanation of eternal progression means. What did you think of James Faust’s talk on Honesty?

Yes, we owe you thanks for showing in such detail just what the LDS church is all about.

 

[majick275]

I mistyped the 1835 D&C reference it was section 101 not 110. Here is the text:

“Inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife; and one woman but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again.”

It was removed 1876.

now compare this with the beginning of the curent section 132:

Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded July 12, 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant, as also plurality of wives. HC 5: 501—507. Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, it is evident from the historical records that the doctrines and principles involved in this revelation had been known by the Prophet since 1831.

I still point out that the lectures on faith(critical to this discussion on the Trinity) WAS canonized properly:

The Lectures were published in 1835 as the Doctrine portion of the volume entitled Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of the Latter Day Saints: Carefully Selected from the Revelations of God (better known simply as the Doctrine and Covenants). The Lectures were selected for that volume by a committee appointed on September 24, 1834 by a general assembly of the church to arrange the doctrines and revelations of the church into a single volume. That committee of Presiding Elders, consisting of Joseph Smith, Jr., Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, and Frederick G. Williams, stated that the Lectures were included “in consequence of their embracing the important doctrine of salvation,” and that the Lectures, together with the church-regulatory sections that followed, represent "our belief, and when we say this, humbly trust, the faith and principles of this society as a body. (See 1835 D&C, Preface.) Accordingly, the church body accepted the committee’s compilation on August 17, 1835 as “the doctrine and covenents of their faith, by a unanimous vote.” (History of the Church 2: 243-6).

but it was removed in 1921 without a vote. Now how does that happen?
It was thought by Elder James E. Talmage, chairman, and other members of the committee who were responsible for their omission that to avoid confusion and contention on this vital point of belief, it would be better not to have them bound in the same volume as the commandments or revelations which make up the Doctrine and Covenants.’ " (as told to John William Fitzgerald, A Study of the Doctrine and Covenants, M.A. Thesis, Brigham Young University, page 344). Now was a he a 2nd tier or a 3rd tier source when he did this?

It seems not all apostles agreed:

One theologian in the LDS Church has praised the Lectures as follows:

*"In my judgment, it is the most comprehensive, inspired utterance that now exists in the English language - that exists in one place defining, interpreting, expounding, announcing, and testifying what kind of being God is. It was written by the power of the Holy Ghost, by the spirit of inspiration. It is, in effect, eternal scripture; it is true." (Bruce R. McConkie, lecture at Brigham Young University). *

Was common consent applied? Did the President of the Church make a pronouncement on this?

LDS leaders obviously don’t know much about God:
But I don’t know a lot about it and I don’t know that others know a lot about it.
Gordon B Hinckley
August 4, 1997 issue of Time.

That’s because they are false prophets deceiving people.
2 Peter 2:
1But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. 2Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. 3In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.

Scriptures kept secret…
God not always God…
Scriptures that lie…
Made up stories…seer stone in a hat… changing first vision account…
Greed, LDS church publishes no fiancial staments…

Wow, I saw a sign!

 

[majick275]

The Lie:
The trinity is three separate Gods
(Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 35)

*Hinckley: Well, as God is, man may become. We believe in eternal progression. Very strongly.
*
Gordon B. Hinckley, San Francisco Chronicle, April 13, 1997, p 3/Z1

*“There is a statement often repeated in the Church, and while it is not in one of the Standard Church Works, it is accepted as church doctrine, and this is: ‘As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become.’”
*
LeGrand Richards (private letter to Morris L. Reynolds, July 14, 1966)

“President Brigham Young taught … that God the Father was once a man on another planet who ‘passed the ordeals we are now passing through…’”
Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young (published by the church as an official lesson manual 1997 [text “approved 10/95”], p. 29)

The truth:

“You are my witnesses,” declares the LORD,
"and my servant whom I have chosen,
so that you may know and believe me
and understand that I am he.
Before me no god was formed,
nor will there be one after me.
Isaiah 43:10

“[T]here are many other things which most properly can keep me in [the Catholic Church’s] bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep [John 21:15–17], up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house”
Augustine (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 4:5 [A.D. 397]).

Let all know the truth by the power of God so that all glory be to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit as it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be world without end.

 

[amgid]

I can see that you are now reduced to raving and ranting and gnashing your teeth. Well, you are an apostate from the LDS Church, and you are acting true to your character. Neither I, nor anybody else on this board expects you to act any differently. Regular Catholics never act that way. Therefore I respond to you according to the word of the Lord:

“Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.” (Matthew 23:32.)amgid

 

[Brad_Haas]

I would like to point out at this time that it may not be profitable to discuss Catholic beliefs with those who hate the Catholic faith.

 

[majick275]

amgid:

I can see that you are now reduced to raving and ranting and gnashing your teeth. Well, you are an apostate from the LDS Church, and you are acting true to your character. Neither I, nor anybody else on this board expects you to act any differently. Regular Catholics never act that way. Therefore I respond to you according to the word of the Lord:

“Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.” (Matthew 23:32.)amgid

raving? how? ranting? I told the truth and provided verifiable references. Your response? Well now…who’s raving and ranting gnashing the teeth? as to the Matthew scripture. I think it’s obvious who’s living up to the deceitful legacy of Joseph Smith Jr.

 

[amgid]

Brad Haas:

I would like to point out at this time that it may not be profitable to discuss Catholic beliefs with those who hate the Catholic faith.

You can say as you please. I certainly would not describe myself as someone who “hates the Catholic faith”. At the same time, you can be assured that I am not one to pull any punches when it comes to telling the truth as it is either. The truth is that the early Christian church apostatized; and the Catholic Church, respected though it is, is a remnant of that apostate institution. Fortunately for the rest of the world, that true Church has now been restored on earth by revelation, by ministration of angels, by miracles, by priesthood authority, and by the gift and Power of the Holy Ghost; and there are thousands upon thousands who are recognizing that truth every year, and joining it in droves. It is the fastest growing Church in the world. So who cares if there are a few detractors who don’t? They existed in the early days Christianity too. The answer to them is found in the Book of Mormon:

Alma 42:

27 Therefore, O my son, whosoever will come may come and partake of the waters of life freely; and whosoever will not come the same is not compelled to come; but in the last day it shall be restored unto him according to his deeds.
amgid

 

[JPII_GenXer]

A church founded on Joseph Smith or a church founded on Peter? Hmmm…

I dont know about any of you but i think Jesus was on to something when he gave Peter the Keys to the Kingdom. So i think ill stick with Peter.

Even if the Catholic Church was reduced to a few handful, we would still possess the fullness of Christianity. Numbers dont mean anything. Dont forget the Garden of Gethsememe… all the apostles abondoned him there… and dont forget many droves that left him in John 6:60 when Christ first taught the Eucharist. If they abondoned Him then of course they will abandon him now and follow all kinds of strange teaching that do nothing more than tickle the ears.

Plus, I hardly believe the Mormon church can produce souls like Mother Teresa, Therese of Lisiuex, Francis of Assisi or a witness like John Paul the Great who’s lives were fueled by the life giving power of the Eucharist!

 

[Mike_D30]

LDSGuy:

Oh don’t worry, I didn’t think you were being offensive I just find similarity in the Latter-Day Saint view of baptism and the Catholic view of the Eucharist.
I’m actually a relatively recent convert to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints from the Catholic Church. I find much beauty in Catholicism, as I find in all religions. However, after much prayer, reading, research, discussing, I came to be baptized into the CoJCoLDS. I hope you find peace in your spiritual quest.

I don’t mean to knock your religion at all, as I’ve read the Book of Mormon, and explored the religion, and actually it’s a nice book. However it teaches nothing about the following

Plural Gods
Plural Marriage
God the Father being a Man
Man becoming a God
God having Boens and flesh
Jesus and Satan as spirit brothers’
Aaronic priesthood
Malchizidek preisthood
Celestial Kingdom
etc…

That is all taught later, (i.e. after someone converts) don’t you feel that’s dishonest?

Look at this Gif here it has an excert from the King James Bible, and the book of mormon.

mazeministry.com/resources/books/beyondtext/is53compare.gif

(You have to save it and open it, and then increase to like 150% to read it.)

But the KJV was translated from the original Greek texts about 2000 years after the Book of Mormon was written. Why does the Book of Mormon have EXACT passages verbatim INCLUDING text added for continuity like ‘the’ ‘at’ etc. The text added is highlighted in Red in the KJV. If this text was added in the 1600’s, how in the world would they end up verbatim in the ancient book of mormon?

I think a lot of people convert to Mormonism because they are nice people, and have a nice Church community. But really ther teaching’s do not hold true at all. That’s why they rely on getting a warm and fuzzy constantly. No matter what, no matter how impossible, they have a warm and fuzzy. Well I’ve gotten warm and fuzzies from reading The Lord of the Rings, that doesn’t make it true.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Mike_D30:

I don’t mean to knock your religion at all, as I’ve read the Book of Mormon, and explored the religion, and actually it’s a nice book. However it teaches nothing about the following

Plural Gods
Plural Marriage
God the Father being a Man
Man becoming a God
God having Boens and flesh
Jesus and Satan as spirit brothers’
Aaronic priesthood
Malchizidek preisthood
Celestial Kingdom
etc…

That is all taught later, (i.e. after someone converts) don’t you feel that’s dishonest?

Look at this Gif here it has an excert from the King James Bible, and the book of mormon.

mazeministry.com/resources/books/beyondtext/is53compare.gif

(You have to save it and open it, and then increase to like 150% to read it.)

But the KJV was translated from the original Greek texts about 2000 years after the Book of Mormon was written. Why does the Book of Mormon have EXACT passages verbatim INCLUDING text added for continuity like ‘the’ ‘at’ etc. The text added is highlighted in Red in the KJV. If this text was added in the 1600’s, how in the world would they end up verbatim in the ancient book of mormon?

I think a lot of people convert to Mormonism because they are nice people, and have a nice Church community. But really ther teaching’s do not hold true at all. That’s why they rely on getting a warm and fuzzy constantly. No matter what, no matter how impossible, they have a warm and fuzzy. Well I’ve gotten warm and fuzzies from reading The Lord of the Rings, that doesn’t make it true.

The BoM doesnt mention those things, where are they mentioned then?

 

[Mike_D30]

Catholic Dude:

The BoM doesnt mention those things, where are they mentioned then?

They have other scripture such as “The Doctrines and Covenants”, “The Pearl of Great Price”, "Journal’s and Discourses;, “Book of Abraham Papyrus”, and any Revelation from the “Prophet, Seer, and Revelator” becomes scripture, it’s always changing. Like when threatened with not being admitted into the union, the Prophet at the time had a convienent revelation banning polygamy. Or when they were under a ton of pressure for not admitting black’s into their priesthood, the prophet in the 1970’s had another convenient revelation allowing black’s into the priesthood now. Nevermind what another prophet said that it will never happen, and anyone who sleeps with a black person will be killed on site (Brigham Young).

The Book of Mormon, teaches things much in line with the Bible (much more than I thought it would at least), such as One God. Yet later the Mormon’s will say “One God for THIS world” not necesarily one God for the entire universe. It’s later you get the acutal ‘meat’ of their religion. They call it the “milk before the meat”…

 

[mormon_fool]

Plural Gods – discussed in Alma 11, Gen. 3:22, Deut 32:8-9, Psalms 82, John 10
Plural Marriage – discussed in Jacob 2, Deut 25, throughout the OT
God the Father being a Man – not an emphasized teaching
Man becoming a God – 3 Ne. 28:10
God having Boens and flesh –
Jesus and Satan as spirit brothers’ –
Aaronic priesthood – OT
Malchizidek preisthood[sic] – Alma 13, Heb. 7
Celestial Kingdom 1 Cor 15:40
etc…

That is all taught later, (i.e. after someone converts) don’t you feel that’s dishonest?

I only counted 2 subjects that aren’t mentioned or alluded to in the Bible or Book of Mormon. Let us see what is taught before conversion.

Plural Gods – Many passages point out how Mormons believe in one God, some should be read before conversion.
Plural Marriage – not taught because it is not practiced
God the Father being a Man – not a emphasized teaching
Man becoming a God – Perhaps this vocabulary isn’t used, but the concept “exhaltation” certainly is
God having Boens and flesh – taught in discussions
Jesus and Satan as spirit brothers’ – implied in discussions
Aaronic priesthood – taught in discussions
Malchizidek preisthood[sic] – taught in discussions
Celestial Kingdom-- taught in discussions
etc…

So no. I don’t think there is any dishonesty with LDS investigators. No more than Jesus having his followers drop their nets, and then continuing to teach them new things for up to 3-4 years later, including how they were all going to die because they followed him. That would have been nice info to know up front.

Look at this Gif here it has an excert from the King James Bible, and the book of mormon.

mazeministry.com/resources/books/beyondtext/is53compare.gif

(You have to save it and open it, and then increase to like 150% to read it.)

Yes, very amazing that a modern translator would choose to translate the same ancient Isaiah text the same way other translators did.

But the KJV was translated from the original Greek texts about 2000 years after the Book of Mormon was written.

None of the KJV was translated from original manuscripts. The Isaiah portion here was based on a Hebrew text, not Greek.

Why does the Book of Mormon have EXACT passages verbatim INCLUDING text added for continuity like ‘the’ ‘at’ etc. The text added is highlighted in Red in the KJV. If this text was added in the 1600’s, how in the world would they end up verbatim in the ancient book of mormon?

see my short explanation above and a longer one I posted over several posts on a prior thread, as did Amgid, and mighty Casen.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=69273

I think a lot of people convert to Mormonism because they are nice people, and have a nice Church community.

Thank you.

 

[Mike_D30]

mormon fool:

Plural Gods – discussed in Alma 11, Gen. 3:22, Deut 32:8-9, Psalms 82, John 10
Plural Marriage – discussed in Jacob 2, Deut 25, throughout the OT
God the Father being a Man – not an emphasized teaching
Man becoming a God – 3 Ne. 28:10
God having Boens and flesh –
Jesus and Satan as spirit brothers’ –
Aaronic priesthood – OT
Malchizidek preisthood[sic] – Alma 13, Heb. 7
Celestial Kingdom 1 Cor 15:40
etc…

I only counted 2 subjects that aren’t mentioned or alluded to in the Bible or Book of Mormon. Let us see what is taught before conversion.

Plural Gods – Many passages point out how Mormons believe in one God, some should be read before conversion.
Plural Marriage – not taught because it is not practiced
God the Father being a Man – not a emphasized teaching
Man becoming a God – Perhaps this vocabulary isn’t used, but the concept “exhaltation” certainly is
God having Boens and flesh – taught in discussions
Jesus and Satan as spirit brothers’ – implied in discussions
Aaronic priesthood – taught in discussions
Malchizidek preisthood[sic] – taught in discussions
Celestial Kingdom-- taught in discussions
etc…

So no. I don’t think there is any dishonesty with LDS investigators. No more than Jesus having his followers drop their nets, and then continuing to teach them new things for up to 3-4 years later, including how they were all going to die because they followed him. That would have been nice info to know up front.

Yes, very amazing that a modern translator would choose to translate the same ancient Isaiah text the same way other translators did.

None of the KJV was translated from original manuscripts. The Isaiah portion here was based on a Hebrew text, not Greek.

see my short explanation above and a longer one I posted over several posts on a prior thread, as did Amgid, and mighty Casen.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=69273

Thank you.

You said I was wrong that the Book of Mormon does teach the what I said it didn’t. But I’ve read the Book of Mormon it doesn’t, unless you provide an EXTREME liberal interpretation of what the passage means. That’s false. The doctrines most consider “out there” are brought out in the Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price etc…

Your explanation on the verbatim passages taken out of the KJV Bible are not very good.

It ISN’T the SAME EXACXT text. Like I said there were clarifying words added in the 1600’s like ‘the’ and ‘at’. It isn’t true what you say. The only logical explanation is that the Book of Mormon isn’t an ancient document and Joseph Smith palagerized the KJV Bible. That would also explain why the translation was in old English rather than the English spoken in Joseph Smith’s day.

You’re a believer and that’s fine, but don’t post half truth’s and fallacies. In fact there si no good answer how verbatim passages from the New Testament of the KJV Bible are in the much older Book of Mormon. Especiallly including words that were added in the 1600’s. You can only believe it on faith and that is it, there is no other explanation.

 

[mormon_fool]

Mike_D30:

You said I was wrong that the Book of Mormon does teach the what I said it didn’t. But I’ve read the Book of Mormon it doesn’t, unless you provide an EXTREME liberal interpretation of what the passage means. That’s false. The doctrines most consider “out there” are brought out in the Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price etc…

If you will notice I provided references. Some of them are Bible references instead of Book of Mormon ones. None of my BoM passages require a liberal interpretation to see that they adress the subject matter. Don’t you think it is a little odd to challenge a mormon about what’s in the Book of Mormon? I may be a mormon fool but I wasn’t born yesterday.

Out of all 4 scriptures the most “out there” teachings are found in the Bible.

Perhaps the difficulty is you haven’t been specific about what it is exactly that LDS teach on the subjects you list that are not found in the Book of Mormon. I am perfectly willing to concede that some aspects of LDS belief are not found in their entirety in the Book of Mormon.

Your explanation on the verbatim passages taken out of the KJV Bible are not very good.

I realize that, that is why I pointed you to Catholic Answers thread where I have addressed it better as have two of my LDS friends.

It ISN’T the SAME EXACXT text.

Please be more specific by what you mean by “it” Even if Abinadi’s copy contains a variant reading of Isaiah (which can’t be proved for the simple reason that we don’t have a Abinidi’s copy) it still stands to reason that Abinadi’s copy and the Masoretic Isaiah derive from the same original text and a good translator would recognize that and consider using the same translation as a companion volume does.

It isn’t true what you say.

Try asking me what I mean before labeling it untrue. What is more likely is that you simply misunderstood me.

The only logical explanation is that the Book of Mormon isn’t an ancient document and Joseph Smith palagerized the KJV Bible.

Hardly. Again please see my link.

That would also explain why the translation was in old English rather than the English spoken in Joseph Smith’s day.

Or that the language of holy writ is Joseph Smith’s day was respectable Jacobean English.

You’re a believer and that’s fine, but don’t post half truth’s and fallacies.

I will retract any half-truths if you can demonstrate them.

In fact there si no good answer how verbatim passages from the New Testament of the KJV Bible are in the much older Book of Mormon. Especiallly including words that were added in the 1600’s. You can only believe it on faith and that is it, there is no other explanation.

I beg to differ.

–fool

 

[Mike_D30]

mormon fool:

I beg to differ.

–fool

First off claiming that that the KJV Bible isn’t palagerized is more than a half truth. Claiming missonairies aren’t a bit dishonest when they show Mormonism to a prospective convert is a fallacy “milk before meat” remember?

I looked into Mormonism very thoroughly, I met the missonaries, read the Book of Mormon, went to services so I’m not easy to pull the wool over.

The Book of Mormon does not teach what I listed, I know it doesn’t. I read the thing.

It doesn’t teach:

“as man is God once was, as God is man can become”

Who said that again? That is downright heresy, and if the missionaries proclaimed this and were upfront about their intention that man will be become a God and God was once a man, people would run for the door and you know it.

I posted my post as a simple warning for Catholic’s to be able to see what Mormonism is really about, rather than read the Book of Mormon and have it appear Biblical and a literal another testament of Jesus Christ.

I have nothing agaisnt Mormon’s their very nice people and the community they have is great. But I do consider the teachings heretical, and people should know upfront all of the deals with Mormonism, the secret handshakes, underpants, priesthoods, spiritual wifery etc…

 

[mormon_fool]

Mike_D30:

First off claiming that that the KJV Bible isn’t palagerized[sic] is a half truth.

I don’t believe I have said anything on this thread about whether the KJV was plagiarized. Sorry, no half truths in something I haven’t said anything about. I wouldn’t say the KJV translators plagiarized prior translations, but:

This, the most famous of English versions, is named after King James I of England who initiated the work. It is basically a revision of previous translations: Tyndale’s, Coverdale’s, the Great Bible and the Geneva Bible.
ibs.org/bibles/translations/index.php

The pioneer of the English Bible is William Tyndale who published the New Testament in 1525. Complete Bibles appeared as early as 1535 such as Miles Coverdale’s edition. Thomas Cromwell had the Matthew Bible another English version of the time revised by Coverdale to become the Great Bible in 1539. It is interesting to note that about 90 percent of Tyndale’s original translation made it into the King James Version that we know today. King James had sponsored a new translation of the Bible at request of the Puritans in 1604. It appeared in 1611, but apparently drew heavily on previous translations.
netministries.org/Bbasics/BBVer.htm

It was translated out of the original tongues and with previous translations, including that of William Tyndale, diligently compared and revised. In the preface of the 1611 edition, the translators stated that it was not their purpose to make a new translation but to make a good one better. It is a revision of the Bishop’s Bible of 1568.
http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Scriptures/KJV.htm

Claiming missonairies aren’t a bit dishonest when they show Mormonism to a prospective convert is a fallacy “milk before meat” remember?

What fallacy have I committed? Does it have a name? Do you know what a fallacy is?

I admit that investigators aren’t taught everything there is to know about mormonism before being invited to join. I am still learning. You have yet to address my concern that your accusation works against Christ’s method of attracting followers without telling them everything. And as I note your entire list is taught or implied in the discussion except the exceptions that I noted.

I looked into Mormonism very thoroughly, I met the missonaries, read the Book of Mormon, went to sevices so I’m not easy to pull the wool over.

I am not trying to. I am trying to help you understand.

The Book of Mormon does not teach what I listed, I know it doesn’t. I read the thing.

Please demonstrate that the Book of Mormon does not address Plural Gods, Plural Marriage, Men becoming Gods, and the Melchizedek Priesthood when I was able to provide references from the top of head where these topics are addressed.

Now if your point is that all LDS teachings on the subjects immediately above are not found in the Book of Mormon I will concede (AGAIN!). But then all catholic teachings are not found in the Bible either.

In order to prove me wrong you need to demonstrate my references in fact do not give mormon teachings on the topic I claim they refer to.

It doesn’t teach:

“as man is God once was, as God is man can become”

It doesn’t teach the first part, but it most certainly does the latter as my reference to 3 Ne. 28:10 clearly shows.

Who said that again?

Nobody. But Lorenzo Snow did say:

’As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become.'

That is downright heresy, and if the missionaries proclaimed this and were upfront people would run for the door and ou know it.

If it is than the early Christians were in trouble.

Irenaeus: “If the Word became a man, It was so men may become gods.”

Saint Clement of Alexandria: `Yea, I say, the Word of God became a man so that you might learn from a man how to become a god,’

Just so I don’t get accused of another half truth, I note that these quotes refer to Jesus instead of Jesus’s Father.

I posted my post as a simple warning for Catholic’s to be able to see what Mormonism is really about, rahter than read the Book of Mormon and have it appear Biblical and a literal anotehr testament of Jesus Christ.

Thanks for explaning your intentions. I would say that the Book of Mormon does appear Biblical and it is quite literally Another Testament of Christ. I am confused why you think you unsubstantiated claims demonstrate otherwise.

–fool

 

[Mike_D30]

mormon fool:

Thanks for explaning your intentions. I would say that the Book of Mormon does appear Biblical and it is quite literally Another Testament of Christ. I am confused why you think you unsubstantiated claims demonstrate otherwise.

–fool

It’s very simple, the Book of Mormon doesn’t show the “meat” of Mormonism. It comes off as being in line with Christianity. It isn’t until you get the Pearl of Great Price, the Temple, Doctrines and Covenants, that all the other stuff came about. The ONLY way you can say the Book of Mormon teaches, the stuff I listed is taking a very liberal rendering of a certain passage. Check it out:

There is only one God
Mosiah 15:1,5; Alma 11:28; 2 Nephi 31:21

The Trinity is one God
Alma 11:44; Mosiah 15:5; 2 Nephi 31:21

God is unchanging
Mormon 9:9,19; Moroni 8:18; Alma 41:8; 3 Nephi 24:6

God is spirit
Alma 18:24,28; 22:9,11

Eternal hell
Jacob 3:11; 6:10; 2 Nephi 19:16; 28:21-23.

Polygamy condemned
Jacob 1:15; 2:23,24,27,31;3:5; Mosiah 11:2,4; Ether 10:5,7

---

ACTUAL MORMONISM:

Mormonism teaches there are many gods.
Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p. 5

The Trinity is three separate gods.
James Talmage, Articles of Faith, p. 35. 1985.

God is increasing in knowledge.
Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p. 120.

God has the form of a man.
Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p. 3.

Hell is not eternal.
James Talmage, Articles of Faith, p. 55.

Polygamy was taught and practiced.
Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, p. 266

I’m not going to argue semantics with you, you say you prove the Book of Mormon does teach the following:

Church organization
Plurality of Gods
Plurality of wives doctrine
Word of Wisdom
God is an exalted man
Celestial marriage
Men may become Gods
Three degrees of glory
Baptism for the dead
Eternal progression
The Aaronic Priesthood
Melchizedek Priesthood

I say it clearly doesn’t. The burden of proof is on you. I’ve read Mormon apologetics on FAIR, they don’t hold up to scrutiny. You are showing how Mormon’s are masters in double speak. It’s the only way your religious doctrines can make sense I’m sorry but that’s the truth.

Peace be with you

 

[Catholic_Dude]

mormon fool:

If it is than the early Christians were in trouble.

Irenaeus: “If the Word became a man, It was so men may become gods.”

Saint Clement of Alexandria: `Yea, I say, the Word of God became a man so that you might learn from a man how to become a god,’

Just so I don’t get accused of another half truth, I note that these quotes refer to Jesus instead of Jesus’s Father.

Do you have the sources for those quotes?

 

[FCEGM]

Catholic Dude:

Do you have the sources for those quotes?

Not to worry, CD; though the quotes are accurate it is a very Catholic understanding that the Fathers quoted are reflecting (unfortunately misunderstood by LDS). This article should help:

bringyou.to/apologetics/a124.htm