No Trinity for the LDS?

[FCEGM]

Really?

Given Mormon beliefs, “He-Man” and “Master of the Universe” seem more in the line of wishful thinking.

 

[A_Pac]

Given Mormon beliefs, “He-Man” and “Master of the Universe” seem more in the line of wishful thinking.

Cute!

Wait…how is something “more in the line of wishful thinking?” Is that like ‘He-Man’s’ standing there and ‘wishful thinking’s’ trying to get by? I didn’t know that ‘wishful thinking’ actually had a ‘line.’ Huh. How 'bout that.

 

[MelanieAnne]

I hope everyone noticed that A Pac ignored the bit about the magic rocks Joseph Smith used to “translate” the book of mormon.

I guess we’re just supposed to ignore it too?

 

[Jerusha]

Horses were in North America and died out long before any humans got here.

I won’t deny that the Vikings probably had small horses on Greenland, and maybe brought them to the continent, but they also died out. But, then, that is a different debate.

I guess we’re just supposed to ignore it too?

Definitely a subject worth one’s attention.

 

[A_Pac]

I hope everyone noticed that A Pac ignored the bit about the magic rocks Joseph Smith used to “translate” the book of mormon.

I guess we’re just supposed to ignore it too?

No…on the contrary, we simply can’t address every subject as whimsically as they’re brought up. I’d prefer sticking to the thread-considering the topic is the trinity. I’m still waiting for someone to explain how not only LDS doctrine is contra Acts 7, but how RCC is consistent with it. As far as these other notions, we can talk about it.

BTW, considering these “rocks” were used in the Old Testament by the Israelites, what’s the problem?

A PAc

 

[MelanieAnne]

I have never seen any evidence that magic rocks were used in the Old Testament to translate scripture, so that would appear to be a red herring.

A returned missionary has also shared other red herrings that missionaries are taught to use should this subject be raised by any person inquiring about the church.

There are many reasons to find fault with the Book of Mormon and much scholarly work has been done on that subject. But to me, the magic rocks used by Joseph Smith to translate the Book of Mormon are enough to arrive at the conclusion that he made the whole thing up.

One of the things I like about being Catholic is that you don’t have to check your brain at the door.

In contrast, the LDS concept of the Trinity & Godhead, and many other LDS beliefs, when you have all the details, make no sense to me at all. What I find most unfortunate is that many of these odd things ~ such as the magic rocks but there are many others ~ are hidden by the Mormons.

If the church were “true”, as Mormons claim, why would anything need to be hidden?

I mean that as a rhetorical question. I’m not interested in endless debate.

 

[FCEGM]

Cute!

Wait…how is something “more in the line of wishful thinking?” Is that like ‘He-Man’s’ standing there and ‘wishful thinking’s’ trying to get by? I didn’t know that ‘wishful thinking’ actually had a ‘line.’ Huh. How 'bout that.

:yawn:

But, if you can only interpret “line” that way, how about “he’s cutting-into line ahead of Mr. Talmadge for He-Manhood”?

 

[A_Pac]

MA:

I have never seen any evidence that magic rocks were used in the Old Testament to translate scripture, so that would appear to be a red herring.

A returned missionary has also shared other red herrings that missionaries are taught to use should this subject be raised by any person inquiring about the church.

I don’t think red herring means what you think it means. And, what you have seen or not has absolutely no impact on what does exist.

One of the things I like about being Catholic is that you don’t have to check your brain at the door.

Right…that’s a good one. Considering mass was delivered in Latin for how many years? But, I guess you don’t have to check your brain at the door if you have no intention of using it anyway.

What I find most unfortunate is that many of these odd things ~ such as the magic rocks but there are man others ~ are hidden by the Mormons

If we hide them, why do you know about them? But please…what are you talking about?

If the church were “true”, as Mormons claim, why would anything need to be hidden?

Absurdum.

In contrast, the LDS concept of the Trinity & Godhead, and many other LDS beliefs, when you have all the details, make no sense to me at all.

Great, then for at least the fourth time, please explain how Acts 7 proves the LDS concept of the trinity incorrect…or at least doesn’t support it. For people that talk so much of the “details,” some of you sure don’t actually site very many of them.

I’m not interested in endless debate.

Nor do I…and I think people actually answering question I pose might help in ending it.

A Pac

P.S. Mr. Talmadge? I don’t know that I’ve had the privledge…

 

[majick275]

what is it about acts 7 that you find so definitive?

Stephen gives us his experience. He was mortal and could only relate what he experienced within those limitations. Is is surprising that Trinitarians would experience all 3 persons of God at the same time? it shouldn’t, after all we’re not modalists. The Father, son and holy Spirit are 3 persons. We can experience them singly or together. That they are co-equal and co-eternal doesn’t seem problematic here. Perhaps you think this means they aren’t consubstantial? Why? What is it about Stephens vision that precludes that? I have no problem with that scripture at all.

 

[A_Pac]

what is it about acts 7 that you find so definitive?

Stephen gives us his experience. He was mortal and could only relate what he experienced within those limitations. Is is surprising that Trinitarians would experience all 3 persons of God at the same time? it shouldn’t, after all we’re not modalists. The Father, son and holy Spirit are 3 persons. We can experience them singly or together. That they are co-equal and co-eternal doesn’t seem problematic here. Perhaps you think this means they aren’t consubstantial? Why? What is it about Stephens vision that precludes that? I have no problem with that scripture at all.

The issue is that is substantiates the LDS interpretation. That’s all I’m saying. To many are gripping and groaning at how ridiculous it all is, when the interpretation is much easier to come by via the scriptures that that of the RCC.

Oh…on the seer stones, they were called “Urim and Thumim.” Just so you know, and were one of three ways used by ancient Hebrews to find the will of the Lord. The other two were prophetic utterances, and dreams…Just so you know. And some phrases I really like to use over and over again…just so you know.

A Pac

So you know who wrote this…just so you know.

 

[PaulDupre]

There is no evidence that the ancient Hebrews used urim and thummim as “seer stones” the way Joseph Smith claimed, especially to translate unknown languages. Most Hebrew scholars consider urim and thummim to have been stones used to cast lots in order to get a yes/no answer, to choose between two outcomes or to determine a person’s guilt/innocence.

Joseph Smith was already a practitioner of the folk magic popular during his day, including seer stones, and possessed a stone he used for that purpose (found by his brother Alvin while digging a well), long before allegedly coming into possession of the “huge spectacles in metal rims” that he said came with the gold plates. Joseph just assumed that urim and thummim were “seer stones” rather than primitive dice. Check out Early Mormonism and the Magic World View by D. Michael Quinn. It’s very good reading.
Paul

 

[A_Pac]

Paul,

There is no evidence that the ancient Hebrews used urim and thummim as “seer stones” the way Joseph Smith claimed, especially to translate unknown languages.

Really? Two scriptures:

1 Samuel 28:6. “And he (Saul) consulted the Lord, and he answered him not, neither by dreams, nor by priests (Hebrew, Urim, LXX delois), not by the prophets.”

So a Seer consults some stones…but they’re not Seer Stones?

Numbers 27:21: “If anything be to be done, Eleazar the priest shall consult the Lord for him” (Heb. “and he [Eleazar] shall invoke upon him the judgment of Urim before the Lord”).

From the Catholic Encyclopedia…

newadvent.org/cathen/15224a.htm

Most Hebrew scholars consider urim and thummim to have been stones used to cast lots in order to get a yes/no answer, to choose between two outcomes or to determine a person’s guilt/innocence.

So since they don’t really know, that’s some great evidence?

And yes, I’m very well aware of Joseph’s early history. And I’m more aware that you have yet “proved” anything. Given your standard of argumentum ad ignoratium, I daresay it’s just as equitably a proof of Joesph’s veracity.

A Pac

 

[PattyPryor]

have you all ever noticed that when talking to A Pac he keeps going to one verse or chapter and never the whole?

okay A Pac did you watch the videos?

Also all us Catholics want to know. Why do Mormons use the bible if it is so corrupted? I mean they placed it together around 400 AD and all the apostles had died by then surely it is aposte book then

and how come the book of mormon has the word Bible? Seems to me back in BC that word wasn’t even known

I personally feel A Pac and correct me if i’m wrong you only have been reading church material and when you go to the temple with all its beautiful whiteness and purity and go WOW I feel the spirit yet it has been proven that the commericals made for the book of mormon give the same warm fuzzys because they are like Hallmark commericals. Personally my favorite is for 3 simple ways book…

People have LIED about how they act to get in the temple. I know for a fact

I don’t know much but i thought the world wasn’t even supposed to have temples? Anyone know about that? I’m not much clear on that

I wonder why you are on this board every day wanting the same answer as though your seeking some sort of truth. Why not accept we are wrong and you are right and go happily to your Mormon meetings temple etc and leave us alone?

You say you don’t get answers… I don’t know I just question why you are here when oviously we don’t help you at all.

We are Catholics and as Catholics we know there are just some things we are not supposed to know. honestly I don’t want to know everything. Thats the thing with mormonism always an answer

My Priest ALWAYS says at every mass. Let us gather together and celebrate only one thing that matters- God is truely in love with us.

I don’t see how the Mormon God is deeply in love with you if you have to somehow be worthy of him. and how your Jesus died on the cross yet that doesn’t really matter its that he came and taught in America. and don’t say i’m wrong it was taught every time I was in the mormon church

I know your going to break down everything I say cuz you do that with everyone but let me ask you this… Have you watched the videos?

And if you have can you explain all of our questions that they gave to the missionaries and also explain how the jewish man who became Christian is wrong?

I would love to know why you think that


hey everyone i forgot to ask have you all ever heard of Steve Benson? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Benson

Prophets grandson left the mormon church then became athiest. Hes okay I have spoken to him a bit on exmormon.org

 

[majick275]

The issue is that is substantiates the LDS interpretation. That’s all I’m saying. To many are gripping and groaning at how ridiculous it all is, when the interpretation is much easier to come by via the scriptures that that of the RCC.

only if you choose to interpret it that way. trinitarians still believe in 3 persons, one God so I don’t see the issue here.

Oh…on the seer stones, they were called “Urim and Thumim.” Just so you know, and were one of three ways used by ancient Hebrews to find the will of the Lord. The other two were prophetic utterances, and dreams…Just so you know. And some phrases I really like to use over and over again…just so you know.

A Pac

So you know who wrote this…just so you know.

note exactly. the urimm and thummim of the BoM doesn’t seem to be used the same way as the one in the bible and doesn’t even appear to have the same description. the biblical ones were a black stone and a white stone fastened to the breastpiece of the high priest. They were used to get yes or no answers as in “casting lots”. The BoM ones are described more like spectacles which were used for reading the text to be translated. Furthermore, a reading of the D&C along with some LDS history and the photos of when it was displayed at BYU tells us there was another “seer stone” besides the U&T that provided most of Joseph Smith Jr.'s stone “crystalomancy”. The U&T are assumed to be “hidden away” with the golden plates and the library of plates they were abridged from and the sword of laban. the “seer stone” is said to be in the possession of the LDS in a “safe place”. One wonders why it is no longer used in the same manner as it was in the D&C by the subsequent “prophets”.

 

[A_Pac]

Patty,

have you all ever noticed that when talking to A Pac he keeps going to one verse or chapter and never the whole?

As opposed to everyone else that avoids the scriptures like the plague? But since you’re such a smarty, why not show everyone where my interpretation was so wrong. Come on…you can do it.

okay A Pac did you watch the videos?

What videos? I expect people in forums to be intelligent to discuss things themselves. If they’re not, I’m not going to waste my time chasing their illogical summaries around the web.

Also all us Catholics want to know. Why do Mormons use the bible if it is so corrupted? I mean they placed it together around 400 AD and all the apostles had died by then surely it is aposte book then…

STRAWMAN.

I personally feel A Pac and correct me if i’m wrong you only have been reading church material and when you go to the temple with all its beautiful whiteness and purity and go WOW I feel the spirit yet it has been proven that the commericals made for the book of mormon give the same warm fuzzys because they are like Hallmark commericals.

All I can say is, Huh? That’s completely incoherent. Mind sending it again?

People have LIED about how they act to get in the temple. I know for a fact

And they will go to hell just like the Popes that proclaimed papal Bulls to torture people. What’s your point?

I don’t know much but i thought the world wasn’t even supposed to have temples? Anyone know about that? I’m not much clear on that

You’re not clear on a lot of things…

I wonder why you are on this board every day wanting the same answer as though your seeking some sort of truth.

I’m here for meaningful discussion, which only 2 posters have yet to give me. So…how about everyone else ignore me, alright?

We are Catholics and as Catholics we know there are just some things we are not supposed to know. honestly I don’t want to know everything. Thats the thing with mormonism always an answer

Ignorance is only bliss for the lazy…

My Priest ALWAYS says at every mass. Let us gather together and celebrate only one thing that matters- God is truely in love with us.

He’s, “in love with us?” That’s kind of weird. Watch that priest…

I know your going to break down everything I say cuz you do that with everyone but let me ask you this… Have you watched the videos?

Yes! OK. I lied. No…still haven’t.

And if you have can you explain all of our questions that they gave to the missionaries and also explain how the jewish man who became Christian is wrong?

Because even good people are stupid and these “questions” are too easy. I want something challenging.

hey everyone i forgot to ask have you all ever heard of Steve Benson?

Yes. I know his Father. His Dad’s an incredible individual. But keeping talking to Steve so you can be an atheist. Good plan.

A Pac

note exactly. the urimm and thummim of the BoM doesn’t seem to be used the same way as the one in the bible and doesn’t even appear to have the same description. the biblical ones were a black stone and a white stone fastened to the breastpiece of the high priest. They were used to get yes or no answers as in “casting lots”. The BoM ones are described more like spectacles which were used for reading the text to be translated. Furthermore, a reading of the D&C along with some LDS history and the photos of when it was displayed at BYU tells us there was another “seer stone” besides the U&T that provided most of Joseph Smith Jr.'s stone “crystalomancy”. The U&T are assumed to be “hidden away” with the golden plates and the library of plates they were abridged from and the sword of laban. the “seer stone” is said to be in the possession of the LDS in a “safe place”. One wonders why it is no longer used in the same manner as it was in the D&C by the subsequent “prophets”.

Honestly, considering you have no citation to back up this ridiculous, I’m not going to engage it. The fact was that the U&T WERE used for “divination” in the OT, and NO ONE knows exactly what that means. To make some distinction between that and Joseph’s Seer Stones is highly irresponsible and highly naïve because it is all, 100% based on supposition. Good luck with that type of scholarship.

A Pac

 

[PattyPryor]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=164038&page=4

on page 4 is where the videos are if anyone would like to watch them. If you all want to discuss them further I will make a thread for them

 

[Allweather]

Could you please tell me what “being-edness” is? Certainly, you are much too clear to be misunderstood…so please help my intellectually inferior faculties understand these sensible notions.

I’ll take this in bite-sized pieces and hope for less dust-kicking by our animated Mormon friend.

I’m pretty sure you know exactly what I’m talking about. You’d just rather kick dust than get to the point. That’s OK, though, because I think this tactic of yours damages your personal, if not your Mormon, credibility.

But, let’s just accept for a moment that you’re denser than you seem to be, and don’t know what I meant in describing the Mormon trinity as “separate being-edness.” (and BTW, I do tend to make up words now and again, which hasn’t been a problem for anyone else here, including Mormons, until now) (and BTW again, as long as we’re talking about words, you might turn your spell-checker on, because your haste is causing you to fairly butcher the language you profess as your first).

Anyways, the apparent Mormon misinterpretation that the Holy Trinity is not three persons in one being, but three separate beings. That’s what I mean. I can’t remember the context in which I used this difficult-for-YOU-to-understand phrase, “separate being-edness” but I trust you will ignore that in any case. I don’t have time just now to go back and reconstruct the original. Do with it what you will.

That’s the problem…there is no full detail to go into. Sorry to disappoint. Not all anti-mormonism is true. Sorry.

I’m learning that, more and more, every day. That’s why I’m happy to have exchanges with TBMs, because they teach me, and I like to be taught. BTW I might also point out that the same holds true of anti-Catholicism.

For not engaging the scriptures, you sure do talk a lot.

Yes I do! And so do you! But I didn’t say that I don’t “engage the scriptures.” I said I don’t argue (as in try to prove my interpretation over anyone else’s) Scripture. Two main reasons. First, I don’t think of myself as qualified to argue Scripture. Second, these types of arguments are usually a waste of time, almost always ending up in angry draws. So I don’t see the point of them. I do engage Scripture, though, in my life. Scripture and Tradition, properly interpreted, teach me about Jesus, and He is the King of my life.

 

[A_Pac]

AW:

I’m pretty sure you know exactly what I’m talking about. You’d just rather kick dust than get to the point.

1. No.
2. I’m the one asking for scriptures which you STILL haven’t done…so, I don’t know why you’re complaining about kicking dust.

<<Why am I still having this stupid conversation with you??>>

(and BTW, I do tend to make up words now and again, which hasn’t been a problem for anyone else here, including Mormons, until now)

Glad to know that your creativity put in quotes is somehow my problem.

BTW I might also point out that the same holds true of anti-Catholicism.

Accept, I don’t frequent those anti-Catholicism sights. LDS don’t support them as a practice, and my arguments are certainly NOT with a Protestant bent…FYI.

But I didn’t say that I don’t “engage the scriptures.”

I know. I did…because you haven’t yet.

First, I don’t think of myself as qualified to argue Scripture. Second, these types of arguments are usually a waste of time, almost always ending up in angry draws.

1. Then stay out of them. I want to have these types of discussion.
2. People only get angry when they have something to loose and do. I’ve had some marvelous discussions with others of different faiths. In fact, one of my good friends is a devout Catholic, x-Franciscan monk. Fascinating individual. I can promise, we never get angry in our discussions but realize where exactly we disagree then respectfully leave it at that.

A Pac

 

[PattyPryor]

why are you fighting everyone A Pac? Your being rude don’t you realize that in any way? Your not just arguing your being rude. Mormonism aside be a little nicer

 

[Allweather]

How does one betray their ignorance? If one is ignorant, and betrays it, doesn’t that mean they are no longer…ignorant?

Since you’d rather play word games than deal with your ingorance, let me expand that just a bit for you: You betray (reveal unintentionally) your ignorance of Apostolic succession by making statements that you apparently believe are true, but are not. And no, your ignorance is not necessarily nullified by your unintentionally revealing it to others. It might be nullified by your having some instruction, and we can hope for that.

AW…don’t worry. I’ll speak with Nita, Genesis, etc. Since you don’t like addressing questions nor the scriptures, I don’t know that there’s much usefulness in dialoging with you anymore.

I’m not worried, Pacman. The proof is in the pudding. Feel free to ignore me. I’m perfectly OK with that. I of course will feel free to comment on your stuff as I see fit.