No Trinity for the LDS?

[Allweather]

PHEW! Good…because that’s what I did NOT say. On the contrary, it is to our damnation if God gives us a commandment we cannot fulfill.

I’d say so! Except, he came to us as a Savior. He incarnated Himself as a God-Man named Jesus. He suffered, died, was buried, and rose again on the 3d day, ascended into Heaven where he sits at the right hand of God. His blood saves us from our failures to live up to the commandments.

Can He lie?

Ah, a puzzle. I’m not good at puzzles. But then, I don’t find God puzzling. He created my soul at the instant of my conception in my mother’s womb, he died for me on the cross, he gave me a Church to lead me unto holiness and salvation, he gives me his precious body and blood in the Mass… all of these things are puzzling to one who rejects them. The foolishness of God, but to those who are being saved, the wisdom of God.

Then He’s damned us, making Him an insincere, unjust, and a respecter of persons.

I can’t relate to that. I guess in a sense he did damn us by virtue of the sin of Adam and Eve, the original sinners. He also saved us and thereby demonstrated his limitless love for us. No, I reject the claims you make that God is insincere, unjust. I’m hope you don’t mean that!

Are you really THAT pernicious to build a blatant strawman that is untrue in the most conceivable of notions? Moreover, please refrain from instructing me as to the beliefs of the Mormon majority. I daresay I am better informed than yourself and you are terribly misinformed.

It isn’t untrue, and you know it. Mormons don’t value the Bible the way we Catholics do. Now, it may very well be that you, yourself, have your own beliefs about the Bible that vary somewhat from those of other Mormons I’ve spoken with. If so, that is fine. I’m aware that there is a wide diversity of opinion among Mormons.

Understand, you aren’t the first Mormon to alight here. You aren’t even the only one here at this moment. Most Mormons come here throwing Bible to and fro. But when one goes to a Mormon source, one don’t find that much Bible being used. Mostly, Mormons among Mormons use “modern scripture.” You can deny it, but that doesn’t make it so.

I’ll allow that you’re better informed as to Mormon stuff though that is yet to be proven. But I’ll betcha I know more about Catholicism! And, after all, this is a Catholic place we’re in, and you’re here to sell your religion. Let’s start out by making clear that, when we discuss Scripture, we don’t mean the same things between us. We define words differently, we view authority differently, and we don’t even use the same scriptures. So talk about straw men if you want, but if we’re going to have a reasonable discussion, we have to be standing on the same platform. In other words, when I point out that your Scriptural interpretations are wrong because you start with a completely different view of Scripture and authority, don’t try to deny that. It is a waste of time.

The fact is, the Bible is clear that we are to be CO-HEIRS with Christ. That means, we may receive portion with Christ…that portion being ALL that the Father has. Anyway…you wanna try answering the actual question?
How 'bout that?

A Pac

Let me respond to the CO-HEIR thing you raise. It doesn’t mean what you think it means. OK? It doesn’t mean that you are going to become a god. If A Pac manages, in spite of his rejection of Jesus’ authority as exercised by the successors of the Apostles, to make it to Heaven, A Pac will share in the divinity of Christ, but A Pac will never become a god. A Pac will not rule over a planet. A Pac will not make soul babies with heavenly wives. A Pac will never, ever be equal to God. Period.

This idea of Mormons becoming gods is a blasphemous wrenching of the meanings of Scripture, and frankly it smacks of the original sin, which was in part a desire to become “like unto God.”

Look, I know this is disappointing for you to find out. You had your heart set on ruling over your very own planet. Maybe you came to the wrong place, because here you’re getting the straight poop, and it isn’t what you wanted to hear. Sorry 'bout that.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Can He lie?

God is capable of doing anything but He cannot lie. Persons interested in lies should look up Satan, who is the father of lies.

But one thing God does do is forget. Because He forgets our sins through the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

 

[Allweather]

But one thing God does do is forget. Because He forgets our sins through the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

Blessed be God Forever!!!

 

[Kristine1957]

To my understanding Mormons dont believe in the Trinity. However, in some of thier scriptures it refers to God as one?? Thats the Trinity!!

 

[MelanieAnne]

To my understanding Mormons dont believe in the Trinity. However, in some of thier scriptures it refers to God as one?? Thats the Trinity!!

Mormons believe in God the Father, Jesus the Son and the Holy Spirit, so, in that sense, they believe in a Trinity within the Godhead. But their understanding about each of the 3 personages within the Godhead is radically different from other Christians. This major difference is among the reasons why many other Christian faiths do not consider Mormons to be Christian.

 

[A_Pac]

Frankly I have always been perplexed by those who have a burning need to understand God.

Are you serious? I guess that’ one way of justifying ignoarance.

'm not clear on what you mean by “transmutater.”

Have you ever read the Trinitarian definition? It makes God out to be a blob, but with separate parts…only spirit, except when he has flesh and bones. Sounds like a “transmutater” to me.

But I am familiar with Mormon confusion over what it means to be “formed in the image of God.”

This should be entertaining…

Again, as I have mentioned previously, Mormon confusion over this arises from Scripture interpretations that are askew. In the first place, Mormons don’t believe in the Bible.

OK…being ignorant is one thing, but being maliciously naïve is another. For the record, the Book of Mormon does nothing without being side-by-side with the Bible, and vice-versa. They are two testaments of Christ.

They only use it in company because it makes them seem more Christian that way.

You’re wrongs…but thank you for ignorantly stating my beliefs for me. But I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt as ask you to cite your reference.

Left to their own devices, Mormons hardly ever crack the pages of a Bible. It is all D&C, Pearl of Great Price, Book of Mormon, etc.

Again, your ignorance is glaring. So far, I have only quoted the Bible (and FYI, my wife and I are reading the NT for our personal study right now: We’re in John). I’ll happily discuss any theme using the Bible. I love the Bible. Any I would hope that you would either bone up a reference that gives you the power to speak authoritatively, or be honest enough to believe a Mormon when he tells you what they believe. You’re understanding is fallacious.

More to the point, we are to be unified in doctrine. Mormon doctrine puts Mormons out of communion with every branch of Christianity, by quite a large margin! I see that you place a very high value on your own understandings.

Huh? Better than being a lemming…

But saying that the Catholic teachings about the nature of God don’t “make sense” doesn’t “make sense.” BTW I’ve had other Mormons say the exact same thing to me, that orthodox Trinitarian teachings don’t “make sense.” Well, as we’ve already concluded, there is no making “sense” of the Trinity.

I’m glad we agree that it doesn’t make sense. The question now is, ‘why is God so incompetent to explain to us whom He is? To simply state that we’re not suppose to understand all these mysteries is like expecting a congregation to get something out of a Latin sermon. I find no bliss in ignorance and can’t believe God does either.

Says the proverb:

15 The heart of the aprudent getteth bknowledge; and the ear of the wise seeketh knowledge.

At the same time, Jesus established a visible, authoritative Church on Earth and commanded it to be unified. Do you value your intellectual abilities above God’s?

Again…huh? Are you going to introduce red herrings to evade the question? If you’d like to change the topic as to why the RCC hasn’t authority, we can do that to. I just want to take it one step at a time.

It shouldn’t seem odd. After all, Mormons must want everyone to be Mormon. I saw two sets of Mormon missionaries out on the sidewalks this afternoon. Is that a sign of Mormons being offended that most people aren’t Mormons?

No…not at all. It’s wanting to share something special with someone. To be offended that others don’t believe that same as you is intolerance and bigotry…a step away from Christians Jihadism.

That is the Mormon appraisal, and I wouldn’t expect it to be anything else, since Mormons depend on Catholics being “wrong” in order for them to be “right.”

This is nonsensical. We can tu quoque all day.

But as long as you’re intent on becoming a god, then you probably won’t like the taste of the Christian meat.

Well, at least we’ve risen above the inflammatory.

And for being a heretic…perhaps….impostor. Maybe that’s what you think of me. That or just ‘confused.’ But anyway, of course we have conclusions implicitly understood. I just want to get back to the conversation.

But here’s the thing that gets me…you talk about knowledge as almost something to stay away from. To search for truth is bad because it’s ‘obviously’ found in the RCC. That is a logical fallacy called circular reasoning. How does one honest FIND the truth without searching, studying, etc?

Anyway…do you now see the LDS definition of the Trinitarian as being practical, even if you don’t agree?

A Pac

 

[A_Pac]

Mormons don’t value the Bible the way we Catholics do.

That’s like saying that a family of 3 children love those children more than a family with 5. Non sequitur.

But when one goes to a Mormon source, one don’t find that much Bible being used. Mostly, Mormons among Mormons use “modern scripture.” You can deny it, but that doesn’t make it so.

If you want the deep dark secret of our meetings, we rotate on years. One on the OT, NT, BofM, and Doctrine and Covenants. They’re all covered equally, but I could see how your view could be skewed depending on the year you may have attended an LDS Gospel Doctrine class.

I’ll allow that you’re better informed as to Mormon stuff though that is yet to be proven.

And who’s the benchmark on the subject? You?

But I’ll betcha I know more about Catholicism!

GREAT! Let’s talk about it then…as soon as you’ve run out of questions, we can get on to the questions I’ve submitted (which have been ignored) to the “apologists.”

And here to sell my religion? I don’t know where I did that….

In other words, when I point out that your Scriptural interpretations are wrong because you start with a completely different view of Scripture and authority, don’t try to deny that. It is a waste of time.

Well, rather than wax philosophical, why don’t you point one out? You sure say a lot for saying so little. The question was presented concerning the definition of God and I think I addressed that fairly well. Your rebuttal das thus been, “Well, we can’t understand it anyway,” although my explanation is not only rationale, but consistent with the Bible. So let’s cut the fluff and on to something worth talking about…

Let me respond to the CO-HEIR thing you raise. It doesn’t mean what you think it means. OK?

Who’s redefining words now?

A Pac will never, ever be equal to God. Period.

God will always be my God, and I will never be equal to him, albeit (hopefully) like him. The Bible uses the phrase “co-heir,” which has a very defrinite meaning. Don’t accuse me of not understanding what it means when you’re the one changing it. To be a co-heir is to receive the full inheritance of one’s parents. That is what I believe, and your subsequent change of definitions is yet to be juxtaposed.

Look, I know this is disappointing for you to find out…

Actually, the only thing disappointing is that you have only leveraged an argument via tradition, ignorance, mystery, and never actually discussed the topics I’ve submitted via the Bible that you supposedly hold so much more sacred than myself. You have yet to discuss how your definition of “co-heir” is somehow more complete (when it is not). You have yet to justify how we are meant to sit in the throne of Christ, which is the throne of the Father without receiving the same inheritance of Christ. Moreover, I don’t understand where you get these miserably incorrect definitions that you profess to be “Mormon” definitions.

If you’d like to engage an intellectual discussion (which apologetics is all about), please do so. This frail finger pointing is getting rather old and a waste of time.

A Pac

 

[A_Pac]

Mormons believe in God the Father, Jesus the Son and the Holy Spirit, so, in that sense, they believe in a Trinity within the Godhead. But their understanding about each of the 3 personages within the Godhead is radically different from other Christians. This major difference is among the reasons why many other Christian faiths do not consider Mormons to be Christian.

You are correct as I understand it. Again, we hold consistency between John 10 and John 17…which the typical Christian doesn’t. They make the first literal and the second metaphoric. That’s the crux of it all.

A Pac

 

[Allweather]

Are you serious? I guess that’ one way of justifying ignoarance.

Call it what you want. I am ignorant of many things. Some things I’m ignorant of because I haven’t studied them. Other things, because their comprehension is beyond my ability to comprehend. God is in the latter category. I realize that Mormons and members of some other variant sects have this burning need to bring God down to their own level. Mormons do it by making God into a mythical glorified man of flesh, bone, tooth and hair, who once was no more capable than the “typical Mormon” who walks the streets, knocking on doors. According to that view, Mormons worship a God that is not the same as the God of the Bible, the God that Christians worship, who has always been God, from all eternity, unchanging.

Have you ever read the Trinitarian definition? It makes God out to be a blob, but with separate parts…only spirit, except when he has flesh and bones. Sounds like a “transmutater” to me.

Sorry, I am unfamiliar with that term, “transmutator,” and I’ve never heard or read it with reference to God until now. I’m sure you’ve misunderstood the “Trinitarian definition” although it bears saying that there are probably several. The one I’m most interested in is the Catholic one, and I absolutely do not understand what you mean by “blob” in this context. Maybe you could elaborate?

OK…being ignorant is one thing, but being maliciously naïve is another. For the record, the Book of Mormon does nothing without being side-by-side with the Bible, and vice-versa. They are two testaments of Christ.

From what I know about the BoM I agree that the BoM fairly conforms to the Bible. After all, most of the BoM, it seems to my eye, is lifted directly OUT of the Bible, but let’s leave that particular argument alone for now. Some of the ex-Mormons 'round about these parts are very good at pointing out that the Mormonism practiced by the LDS, Salt Lake City Department, is quite different from the one described in the pages of the BoM. I hope those experts will fill you in on those details, in case you’re “ignorant” of them.

You’re wrongs…but thank you for ignorantly stating my beliefs for me. But I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt as ask you to cite your reference.

My source is me, from my own eyeball observation. For the past several months I’ve been carefully observing the difference between the way TBMs who appear on this forum present their arguments, and the way the Mormon program is presented in Mormon church, on BYU TV, and in Mormon publications and blogs on the internet. Mormons often appear here to push their religion among the Catholics and others, and usually they rarely, if ever, mention any of the standard works. When I go over to a Mormon blog, or watch BYU TV, or go to Mormon church, the mix is reversed 180-degrees. Almost NEVER do they mention the Bible, but quote verse after verse of the standard works.

Maybe you’re a Mormon of a different type, and I’ll allow for that possibility, since I do realize that there is quite a wide variety of style among Mormons. If this is the case, then I stand corrected with respect to you, although I do take note that, so far as I can see, you have not yet quoted a single verse from any of the standard works. Surely it isn’t because you’re “ignorant” of them.

I love the Bible. Any I would hope that you would either bone up a reference that gives you the power to speak authoritatively, or be honest enough to believe a Mormon when he tells you what they believe. You’re understanding is fallacious.

Wonderful! I love the Bible, too. So we certainly have something in common. OK, tell me this: I’ve been made to understand by other Mormons that Mormons don’t trust the Bible. They think it has been corrupted by a variety of means. I’m assuming that you, being a Mormon, believe the same thing (correct me, if I’m wrong). If you do believe this, then why are you studying John right now? How do you know what you’re studying isn’t corrupted and useless?

 

[Allweather]

The question now is, ‘why is God so incompetent to explain to us whom He is? I find no bliss in ignorance and can’t believe God does either.

God is not incompetent, but human beings are. I could explain myself to an ant until the cows come home, but the ant is not ever going to understand me, or probably even know that I exist. The same type of chasm exists between man and God. God has revealed himself to man gradually, over a very long period of time (long to a man, a moment to God). Now, in the last days, God has revealed himself to us AS a man. He actually BECAME the ant, so as to speak to us in words we could almost understand, and even with this, we have great difficulty in comprehending things. Things like Trinity. Jesus spoke of the nature of God, and we’ve been chewing on that for 2,000 some years, and still are unable to grasp it. That’s because we’re like ants. “Now we see as through a glass, darkly.”

I agree with you that God probably doesn’t find bliss in ignorance, but neither does he find bliss in human arrogance. To claim that you comprehend God is to be ignorant of the Scriptures and arrogant of your own perceptive abilities, which is to say, deluded. God comprehends man, but man does not comprehend God, except to the degree that God makes himself known, and even then, as Scripture tells us, man has great difficulty with it.

But here’s the thing that gets me…you talk about knowledge as almost something to stay away from. To search for truth is bad because it’s ‘obviously’ found in the RCC. That is a logical fallacy called circular reasoning. How does one honest FIND the truth without searching, studying, etc?

It only seems paradoxical to you. It isn’t really. I study my rear end off. I’m Catholic because of study and prayer, but beginning with study. It was study that started me realizing that the Protestants I was hanging around with are deluded about the nature of the Church. Knowledge is not to be avoided… far from it. But there are limits to our abilities to understand certain things about God, and that is what this thread started out about… the Trinity according to Mormon rules.

Anyway…do you now see the LDS definition of the Trinitarian as being practical, even if you don’t agree?

A Pac

No, I don’t see it as practical at all, because it leads to a wrong characterization of the nature of God. But let’s make sure I’m on the right track here. My understanding (correct me where I’m wrong) is that Mormons believe that God the Father once was a man as we are. He progressed to become a god. Jesus is his son via sexual intercourse between he and the Blessed Virgin Mary. Is that true?

 

[Allweather]

If you want the deep dark secret of our meetings, we rotate on years. One on the OT, NT, BofM, and Doctrine and Covenants. They’re all covered equally, but I could see how your view could be skewed depending on the year you may have attended an LDS Gospel Doctrine class.

I’ve been to two such classes. Not very impressive, sad to say. Maybe things are better where you are. I never claimed there is anything secret about this. I merely observe that many, if not most, Mormons de-emphasize the Bible in favor of the “modern scriptures” and a heavy dose of personal testimony.

Well, rather than wax philosophical, why don’t you point one out?

You wrote this in reply to my statement that Mormons and Catholics view Scripture and Church authority differently. Are you actually going to sit there and claim that we don’t have any differences in these areas? Please. If we have no differences, then why aren’t you Catholic?

The question was presented concerning the definition of God and I think I addressed that fairly well.

Honestly I’m not seeing where you did. But, I asked a specific question on this nature of God thing in another post, so I’ll wait for your reply. Sorry if I’m making you repeat yourself, but I must’ve missed your earlier layout.

Your rebuttal das thus been, “Well, we can’t understand it anyway,” although my explanation is not only rationale, but consistent with the Bible. So let’s cut the fluff and on to something worth talking about…

You’re mischaracterizing and oversimplifying my “rebuttal.” My rebuttal consists of pointing out that Mormon notions of the Trinity are based on claimed visions and aberrant interpretations of the Sacred Scriptures. Within that “rebuttal” rests the truth that man cannot fully comprehend God, but that truth is not the “rebuttal” but rather a small, clarifying piece of it. Mormons arrive at erroneous notions of the nature of God because they start out by rejecting the authority of the Catholic Church, and all that has been revealed to and through that Church. Mormons want to reinvent the wheel, so to speak. Unfortunately, they end up with a broken wheel because they started out with the wrong tools and bad ideas about what the wheel should look like.

God will always be my God, and I will never be equal to him, albeit (hopefully) like him. The Bible uses the phrase “co-heir,” which has a very defrinite meaning. Don’t accuse me of not understanding what it means when you’re the one changing it. To be a co-heir is to receive the full inheritance of one’s parents. That is what I believe, and your subsequent change of definitions is yet to be juxtaposed.

I don’t think I accused you of not knowing what co-heir means. Heck, my secular understanding is that it means I split the inheritance with the other heirs. That’s different than receiving the entire inheritance. But I realize Mormons have their own particular interpretation of that. I’m under the impression that Mormons generally believe that this co-heir idea leads them to believe that they may become gods and rule over their own planets. If I’m wrong about that, then correct me, but that is what I’ve been made to understand about Mormons from arguing with them, and reading various materials.

Moreover, I don’t understand where you get these miserably incorrect definitions that you profess to be “Mormon” definitions.

OK, I will wait for you to correct my incorrect definitions. I’ve already posed the questions to you in a few places, and am waiting for the corrections.

 

[A_Pac]

I’ve been to two such classes. Not very impressive, sad to say.

Well, aren’t you just a little ray of sunshine!

I merely observe that many, if not most, Mormons de-emphasize the Bible in favor of the “modern scriptures” and a heavy dose of personal testimony.

On the contrary, you haven’t the experience to observe anything with regard to “many, if not most, Mormons.”

But, I asked a specific question on this nature of God thing in another post, so I’ll wait for your reply.

I thought I had addressed every question. Shoot it to me again.

You’re mischaracterizing and oversimplifying my “rebuttal.” My rebuttal consists of pointing out that Mormon notions of the Trinity are based on claimed visions and aberrant interpretations of the Sacred Scriptures.

Which does what to explain it? Nothing! You making commentary on alleged visions and “aberrant interpretations” does little to address the matter. You are evading it, yet again. I find it humorous that your relativism for objective discussion is your definition of truth. It might be fine within your circle of friends, but it is a scholastic disaster.

Within that “rebuttal” rests the truth that man cannot fully comprehend God, but that truth is not the “rebuttal” but rather a small, clarifying piece of it. Mormons arrive at erroneous notions of the nature of God because they start out by rejecting the authority of the Catholic Church, and all that has been revealed to and through that Church.

Great. So your great and grand proof is the logical fallacy of circular reasoning? What reason do I have to take this seriously? Your personal dedication, I’m sure, is sincere. But if you can’t come to grips that others reject your authoritative notions, a meaningful dialog is impossible.

Mormons want to reinvent the wheel, so to speak.

No…but we did restore it…so to speak.

Unfortunately, they end up with a broken wheel because they started out with the wrong tools and bad ideas about what the wheel should look like.

Great. Then instead of delving into logical fallcies, why don’t you start addressing them critically? Why don’t you explain how an inconsistent use of John 10 & 17 is somehow superior to the consistent use of them, as used by us? Again, you don’t have to agree with me…but it’d be a quick conversation indeed if you could say, “Oh…I guess that makes some sense.”

I split the inheritance with the other heirs. That’s different than receiving the entire inheritance.

What’s infinity divided by 2? Yup…still infinity. Splitting the inheritance of the Lord is to receive it all. It’s like inheriting the flame of a fire where nothing is lost. Not like passing someone a cookie.

ut I realize Mormons have their own particular interpretation of that. I’m under the impression that Mormons generally believe that this co-heir idea leads them to believe that they may become gods and rule over their own planets. If I’m wrong about that, then correct me, but that is what I’ve been made to understand about Mormons from arguing with them, and reading various materials.

That’s pretty close…but we don’t just get it from the Bible. Understand, I love the Bible and think it’s the greatest witness of the restored church. All the same, the truth isn’t limited to ink and paper. Now…the part where you going to get me correcting you, again, is when you assume this somehow negates the position of God. He will always be my God, and superior to me. The relationship between God the Father and my earthly Father are very, very similar…just on a much grander scale.

Thanks,
A Pac

 

[majick275]

okay. show me from Mormon scriptures even that uniquely mormon doctrines and practices were practiced by the early Christian church. Show me in the Bible (including JST) or the BoM where they practiced eternal marriage for example.

 

[Allweather]

On the contrary, you haven’t the experience to observe anything with regard to “many, if not most, Mormons.”

 

[A_Pac]

Majk (?),

OK…sounds good. First, are we clear on how the LDS definition of the trinity is the one that’s actually consistent with the Bible? I don’t want to do multiple topics at a time…one at at a time.

But thanks for that concerning the eternal marriage. It’s one of my favorites.

A Pac

 

[A_Pac]

AW:

So, you could hardly be expected to know what sorts of converstations have evolved in your pre-existence.

That’d actually be cute, except for the fact that due to the veil, your “pre-existent knowledge of Mormons” is not only non-existent, but anachronistic as well.

Brother, you sure do waste a lot of airtime beating around the bush. Are you going to deny that Mormons base their Trinitarian ideas on claimed revelations?

No. Such revelations that are included in the BoM, OT, NT, D&C and PoGP.

Seems to me I’ve read in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism that you take as significant what Joseph Jr claimed he saw in the form of two spectres during what should’ve been a memorable First Vision, but which Joseph had trouble remembering accurately during coming years and tellings.

And I can’t wait for you to try and back this up with sources and prove yourself a twit. The fact of the matter is Joseph’s accounts never contradicted each other. I don’t know what you’re going to prove, but I hope you certainly try.

And speaking of beating around the bush…are we clear that the LDS definition of the Trinity is consistent with the Bible? Considering that was the initial point of our conversation, I’d like to make sure we’re clear.

OK, then. Just come right out and tell us the Mormon Party Line about how you arrive at the separate and distinct gods of Mormonism.

I honestly don’t know what you’re talking about.

Circular reasoning is your claim, and isn’t the case here.

Then you haven’t the foggiest as to what circular reasoning is. Good defense.

You’re not rejecting Allweather’s authoritative notions, you’re rejecting the Catholic Church’s authoritative statements.

Again, that’s circular reasoning. To prove the RCC authority via it’s authoritative statements is pretty lame. It’s circular, and I’m sorry if you don’t understand that. I’m not interested in teaching you a class in deductive logic. But no….you’re statement is incorrect. I don’t reject the RCC’s authoritative statements. It’s not authoritative in the first place, and thus I reject their statements—just to be clear.

You’re confused, because you reject the authority of God as vested in the Church that he established and guides.

This would indeed be interesting to discuss, because I’ve never seen any compelling reason to believe that God indeed vested the RCC with anything.

The same isolated misinterpretations of history and scripture that lead Mormons to believe in a so-called restoration also cause Mormon befuddlement over the nature of God.

Remember, you’re the one that needs to juxtapose an inconsistent biblical definition, not me.

I never argue Scripture. That’s just my own personal policy.

Well, I’m not interested in arguing juvenile rhetoric. I suppose I will wait until someone that is at least minimally well-read on the subject comes to dialog. Hollow banter full of blatant logical fallacies is useless. I don’t think we have much more to discuss.

Next….

My authority is the Catholic Church,…

Say it a hundred times and stomp your feet. I reject that notion and find it untenable.

Your “apologetic” tactic is to twist Scripture to mean something it doesn’t mean.

Well, considering I’m the only one willing to engage the scriptures rather than ad hominem, I’m a bit confused.

I take a more overhead view of things. Rather than engage in the Scriptural nuts and bolts of my interpretation vs yours, I wonder why you aren’t obeying Jesus when He calls for unity.

Huh? Are you for real? Do you realize what babble this is? I agree…why don’t you repent and join the TRUE church of Christ (pretty lame mode of argument, huh?)?

If you only used the Bible, and if you restrained yourself to use the interpretations of Biblical meanings that Christians were using for the 1700 or so years before Joseph Smith, Jr. went into the woods…

I’d be an apostate too! Not to mention, completely hold to an untenable position! No thanks.

A Pac

P.S. Calling a RCC Apologist….

 

[Allweather]

That’d actually be cute, except for the fact that due to the veil, your “pre-existent knowledge of Mormons” is not only non-existent, but anachronistic as well.

Well, brother, I’ve been here several hours today, patiently waiting for you to elaborate your beliefs. Questions have been put, but all you seem to be doing is meandering. When are you going to lay out what you as a Mormon believe concerning the nature of God? whether you are hoping to become one, have your own planet to rule over and populate with the soul children born of relations between you and your plural celestial wives…etc. Surely you aren’t ashamed of these beliefs!!!

No. Such revelations that are included in the BoM, OT, NT, D&C and PoGP.

Right. That’s what I said. You not only twist Sacred Scripture into meanings it never had, you also have manufactured additional “scriptures”, full of “revelations” which are necessary to add in the various things that are so out of whack with orthodox Christianity that they can’t be twisted out of Scripture alone. Like polygamy.

And I can’t wait for you to try and back this up with sources and prove yourself a twit. The fact of the matter is Joseph’s accounts never contradicted each other. I don’t know what you’re going to prove, but I hope you certainly try.

LOL, lordy, such language… twit. OK, I will research this and get back to you. Note to self…

And speaking of beating around the bush…are we clear that the LDS definition of the Trinity is consistent with the Bible? Considering that was the initial point of our conversation, I’d like to make sure we’re clear.

What was not clear in my earlier-today saying regarding that that no, it doesn’t make any sense? Under no, repeat, no circumstances do I, would I, could I ever agree that the Mormon fantasy about the Trinity/nature of God is consistent with the Bible. I can agree that there are areas of the Bible that can be wrenched out of whack by someone deliberately intending to make the LDS definition of Trinity seem logical. But when you take the complete Bible into account, carefully reading all of it, and viewing it within the context of the Jewish and Christian understanding of the nature of God, then no, the LDS fantasies amount to science fiction.

I honestly don’t know what you’re talking about.

A Pac, it takes a lot of humor to get me to laugh out loud, so I wish you could hear me laughing right now. You are going to sit before your keyboard and claim that you know nothing about Mormon teachings that the persons of the Trinity are separate BEINGS rather than distinct persons. Amazing.

Then you haven’t the foggiest as to what circular reasoning is. Good defense.

You may’ve noticed that I’ve mostly been ignoring these types of statements, and I will continue to do that. I’m not the least affected by criticisms of my logical capabilities coming from a religionist who might (we’re waiting for the details, mind you) believe that he will become a god ruling his own planet if he’s a good boy. I may not be a whiz kid debater, but beeruther, Kolob? Where is THAT in the Bible?

What I am trying to figure out with you is, why are you running around blowing so much smoke? Questions have been posed to you, and yet you do not answer them.

 

[Allweather]

Again, that’s circular reasoning. To prove the RCC authority via it’s authoritative statements is pretty lame. I don’t reject the RCC’s authoritative statements. It’s not authoritative in the first place, and thus I reject their statements

Brother, I don’t recall even BEGINNING to make the case for the authority of the Catholic Church. I merely stated it, without getting into any particular defense. Earlier you said you’d enjoy such a conversation, and by all means, let’s do that, but it hasn’t been done yet here by me, so your saying that about “circular reasoning” just doesn’t come across very well.

But, since we’re on the subject, just momentarily, if you don’t mind… You say “it’s not authoritative in the first place.” By what particular method, and I hope you will be detailed in this, do you arrive at that determination? Are you accepting what your church has taught you regarding the authority of the Catholic Church? Or have you arrived at that opinion after personal consideration of the facts? I trust that you won’t be guilty of any circular reasoning.

This would indeed be interesting to discuss, because I’ve never seen any compelling reason to believe that God indeed vested the RCC with anything.

Has the possibility ever occurred to you such that you investigated it with prayer and an open mind? Have you ever actually LOOKED for reasons?

Remember, you’re the one that needs to juxtapose an inconsistent biblical definition, not me.

I don’t need to juxtapose anything. I know the Bible is perfect and complete just as it is, and that Catholic interpretations of it are perfect and infallible. If I had to depend on my own powers of juxtaposing, why, I’d be in terrible straits… sort of like you are.

You’re hanging out here in a Catholic forum trying to get Catholics to agree with your odd renderings of the Bible. You don’t see me over at any LDS sites trying to talk those poor souls into anything. I’d say that makes you the weaker one of the two of us. You keep asking us to agree with you about the LDS Trinity, and you seem to be a bit worked up over that.

Say it a hundred times and stomp your feet. I reject that notion and find it untenable.

Waiting… sound of tapping fingers on desktop…

Well, considering I’m the only one willing to engage the scriptures rather than ad hominem, I’m a bit confused.

Meandering, wasting time and space.

Huh? Are you for real? Do you realize what babble this is? I agree…why don’t you repent and join the TRUE church of Christ (pretty lame mode of argument, huh?)?

When is A Pac going to answer the questions about his becoming a god and owning his very own planet? Ever?

I’d be an apostate too! Not to mention, completely hold to an untenable position! No thanks.

Well, at least he’s getting around to the apostasy thing. We’re making progress.

 

[love4mary]

From what has been written here,the Mormon faith runs and runs in circles and sadly, sucks people in the “whirlpool” created.

What cruelty to tell half truths and out right lies just to increase their numbers.

 

[A_Pac]

AW:

For a summary, here we go then:

God is so powerful and loving, that His work and glory is to make His righteous children just like Him. That being said, He sent His only begotten to atone for the sins of those that repentant so they may become perfect through Him. If they are faithful in obeying His commandments, they may gain His glory and follow Him in His role as an exalted God; yet always glorying God the Father as the almighty God to whom we love and respect. As such our happiness is magnified in having children, and helping them become perfected.

As far as polygamy, etc., I really don’t know what is expected. But I certainly look forward to the binding and sacred act of sex with my wife, with an immortal body!

You not only twist Sacred Scripture into meanings it never had

You continue this tandrem, yet you never illustrate it. Considering my definition of the trinity is consistent with the scriptures, how is that twisting anything? On the contrary…you’re doing the wresting.

Like polygamy.

Don’t tell Father Abraham!

What was not clear in my earlier-today saying regarding that that no, it doesn’t make any sense?

Exactly!

Under no, repeat, no circumstances do I, would I, could I ever agree that the Mormon fantasy about the Trinity/nature of God is consistent with the Bible.

So when the Son and Father are one, that’s literal. Yet when we are one like the Father, that’s gotta be metaphor? And the fantasy’s mine? Right…you’re a funny one!

A Pac, it takes a lot of humor to get me to laugh out loud, so I wish you could hear me laughing right now. You are going to sit before your keyboard and claim that you know nothing about Mormon teachings that the persons of the Trinity are separate BEINGS rather than distinct persons. Amazing.

No. It’s simply that your posts are sometimes incoherent, so I really don’t know what you’re talking about.

You may’ve noticed that I’ve mostly been ignoring these types of statements, and I will continue to do that.

Well…I guess I would too if logical fallacy was the base of my apologetic defense. Or unless I simply didn’t know the meaning of such, said fallacies.

Did I answer your previous question? I want to make sure I do that.

A Pac