No Trinity for the LDS?

[A_Pac]

AW:

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

That’s why it’s circular. Please…go look it up. It’s a form of argument having nothing explicitly or implicitly to do with authority. But on that note, your appeal to authority is fallacious too, FYI.

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.

What method? Clearly, I’ve thought about it, studied it, and prayed about it. In summary (we can dive into it later), Clement never had the authority of Christ. The apostles did, and John the Apostle was on the island of Patmos when Peter died. He was the senior apostle, and had the keys and the binding/sealing power given by Matthew 18. There is NOTHING said of Peter or Christ that it’d be a “bishop” to succeed an apostle. On the contrary, an Apostle is greater than the Bishop and it was John who led the church. Not Linus, Cletus, or Clement.

And no…I don’t use circular reasoning.

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?

Have you ever looked for reasons why it’s not? We can play this game all day long…

You’re hanging out here in a Catholic forum trying to get Catholics to agree with your odd renderings of the Bible.

Again, rather than asking me to define my intentions you ignorantly state them. You are wrong…again. My intention is for understanding. I think I understand RCC beliefs fairly well. Clearly, not perfectly. And as much as I reject them, I respect them. I get the impression that there are poorly read folk on these boards that could be educated as to what LDS really believe…just here at your service.

You don’t see me over at any LDS sites trying to talk those poor souls into anything.

Oh…I wish you would! I think you’d get mocked via your reasoning style because of the number of Phd’s over there, but I think you should!

I’d say that makes you the weaker one of the two of us.

Then it MUST be true! ALAS!

You keep asking us to agree with you about the LDS Trinity, and you seem to be a bit worked up over that.

Let me introduce you to something called a “proof-text.” It’s a dishonest use of someone’s quote. It’s frowned upon in intellectual circles, FYI.

For the love of mary,

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.

One more junior higher entering the fray? Welcome! Thanks for a dismally meaningless response!

A Pac

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Wow. CALL FOR REFERENCES!!! What did you do, copy paste an anti- site? We forgot the HG’s name? That’s a new one…

But since we’re talking about it, I’d like someone to give me a sensible interpretation of the following:

Of course, John speak of the unity of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost giving form to the definition of the Trinity in the later councils. Believing in a strict interpretation of the the scripture, I ask for consistency.

John mentions:

In no uncertain terms, the unity that we are to have as followers of Christ is to be AS (the Greek translation is ‘exist how/just as’–this is not metaphoric) the unity of the Son and Father… To hold consistency to the Trinitarian definition of unity, how are we also to be “in” one another?

A Pac

By love of One Another, of course.​

This is an exceeding faint & incomplete shadow of the manner of the Presence of the Divine Persons in One Another - it is very incomplete, but reflects a reality of the inter-Personal & intra-Personal Loving of the Divine Persons for one another.

The Reality itself far exceeds any comparison. Even among human beings, love has this communal character, whereby we become, in a manner, present to another by being loved. “Love is strong as death” - or, as His Resurrection shows us, far stronger As a result, we are made able to share the Life of God Himself, purely as His Gift, which we can in no way receive if He does not descend to our wretchedness by His Mercy. IOW - we are made fit, despite our utter nothingness & neediness, to share in the Life of God Himself. Which is why the Church is one, unique, & indwelt by the One Holy Spirit. It is like a created “living-out” of the Life of the Blessed Trinity, in “slo mo”. So the Church is very like the Blessed Trinity

This BTW is standard Catholic Trinitarian theology - I think it is called perichoresis, or circuminsessio.

 

[A_Pac]

This is an exceeding faint & incomplete shadow of the manner of the Presence of the Divine Persons in One Another - it is very incomplete, but reflects a reality of the inter-Personal & intra-Personal Loving of the Divine Persons for one another.

Wow…that’s really complicated. Why can’t the Bible be consistently metaphoric when it talks of “oneness?” Why can’t the Father and the Son really be 2 people like they are in Acts 7? Was Stephen hallucinating there? Sounds kind of like the Joseph Smith experienence if you ask me…

A Pac

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Wow…that’s really complicated. Why can’t the Bible be consistently metaphoric when it talks of “oneness?” Why can’t the Father and the Son really be 2 people like they are in Acts 7? Was Stephen hallucinating there? Sounds kind of like the Joseph Smith experienence if you ask me…

A Pac

It’s not complicated at all - it’s too simple for words And that is part of the problem for us.​

The problem for us is, that we are:

• created
• limited
• material
• body-soul unities
• & do not know by direct intellectual vision
• but by indirect means - such as the use of concepts
  To make things really serious , we are also:
• born in original sin
• • therefore we are:
• sinners ourselves
• weakened in will
• blinded in intellect
• as well as liable to many temptations
  So it is not possible for us, as we are, to see God - let alone to say, fully & truly, Who He Is. It is impossible for a mere creature to do this - & even more impossible (as it were) for sinful man to do so. If it were possible, we would not be having this exchange.

So we have to use comparisons, which are always insufficient. God can overcome this insufficiency - because He can come down to our condition, & become one of us. As He has. But we cannot ascend to God. If we are to go up to God at all, He must draw us up, by His Grace.

The Bible can point to the reality of the Blessed Trinity, it witnesses to it, but it cannot describe it. Only God can describe God, only God can interpret God - Jesus Christ is said in John 1 to have “exegeted” the Father: that is the word behind the words “He has made Him known”. God cannot be put into words - He can be known, & be loved: but not put into words. That is why metaphors & other figures of speech are so plentiful in the Bible

In this life, we cannot see God face to face - the Blessed in Heaven do

 

[Allweather]

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.

Please go into more detail from the part that I bolded. What are all the particulars of this god-becoming that you think you will be doing?

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!

Where in the Bible is this immortal-body sex described?

You don’t seem to know very much about Mormon polygamy.

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.

If your definitions of Trinity are so far different from those of Christianity, then they are certainly not consistent with the Scriptures, and by Scriptures I do not mean D&C or any other accessory Mormon writings. Detailed examples can be better provided by others than me, and I’m sure they will be forthcoming as this proceeds. My intent is not to deal with nuts and bolts, but rather to draw your attention to your disconnection from the ancient faith of which Mormonism is a shabby misrepresentation.

Don’t tell Father Abraham!

I’m sure Father Abraham is better aware of the bad things that result from not waiting on the Lord than either you or me. He certainly suffered, and so has mankind, from the results of that union between he and Hagar. Here is a pretty good example, BTW, of Mormon misinterpretations. You see that polygamy as a happy thing. We see it as sad.

It’s simply that your posts are sometimes incoherent, so I really don’t know what you’re talking about.

So, you said you don’t know what I’m talking about when I referred to the separate being-edness that Mormons interpret upon the Trinity. Then, rather than discuss that issue in detail, you tell me again that you can’t figure out what I’m talking about. I’m sorry, that just isn’t believable.

I don’t get the feeling that English is a second language for you, brother, or sister, or whatever you are. But my words are just too clear to be misunderstood. So I’m going to just go on assuming that you’re avoiding the discussion by honing in on me in the form of personal attacks. That’s OK with me, BTW, because it helps to point up some of the Mormon sensitivity about Mormon beliefs, unwillingness to present them clearly in a Christian forum, and also illustrates the rather mean-spirited nature of some Mormons. Considering you think of yourself as an “apologist” it might be that you’re in the wrong line of work.

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

Not fully. Reminding you again, I’m most interested in the gods of other planets aspect. I’d like for you to go into that in full detail.

Just so you know, I’m perfectly OK with you thinking of yourself as intellectually superior to me. Maybe you are. But I’ve got this sneaking suspicion that if you really were all that superior, you wouldn’t be wasting so much time on a “junior higher” but rather would just move on. Should I be flattered that such a master of the universe is condescending to blow so much useless dust in my direction? Let’s just say that I am flattered, and you go right on as you are. I’m perfectly OK with that.

Now, about that gods of other planets thing…

 

[MelanieAnne]

Gentlemen ~ may I be so bold as to interject a point?

Since A Pac is consistently referencing the Gospel of St. John and using the inconsistencies he percieves to exist in two passages of John to validate his view of the nature of the Godhead, may I inject some historical information?

The Gospel of John was the last Gospel written. The earliest Gospel is thought to be Mark, although it appears second in the Canon. After that Mathew and Luke, and then John.

According to Biblical scholars that I have studied with (this was BEFORE THE INTERNET EXISTED so I don’t have their internet citations, and they are most likely DEAD now! sorry!) the Gospel of John was written the way it was to clarify the truth of the nature of God as John understood it as opposed to certain heresies about the nature of God that were, if not widespread, were at least problematic at the time. The Gospel of John was, at least in part, an exercise in refuting a heresy. It was not meant to be inconsistent. Indeed, it was meant to clarify.

That someone perceives an inconsistency where none exists may be another problem.

As long as there is going to be lengthy debate on this subject, it might be useful to inject some scholarship into the mix. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Allweather]

Clearly, I’ve thought about it, studied it, and prayed about it.

Clearly? What makes you think that anything you’ve written in the past week makes it clear that you’ve “thought, studied, or prayed about” the legitimacy of the Catholic Church? I thought I’d read all of your posts carefully. I’m sorry. I missed the one where you described your deep-hearted search for Catholic Truth. Could you direct me to it?

In summary (we can dive into it later), Clement never had the authority of Christ. The apostles did, and John the Apostle was on the island of Patmos when Peter died. He was the senior apostle, and had the keys and the binding/sealing power given by Matthew 18. There is NOTHING said of Peter or Christ that it’d be a “bishop” to succeed an apostle. On the contrary, an Apostle is greater than the Bishop and it was John who led the church. Not Linus, Cletus, or Clement.

I’m afraid you’re betraying your ignorance of Apostolic succession. Briefly (we can dive into it later), each Apostle held an office, the office of Bishop. This is seen in the process of replacing Judas Iscariot. The Apostles fanned out across the world, teaching all that Jesus had commanded them to teach. Each Apostle and their Bishop successors held authority over a geographical area. Bishop succeeded Apostle, and Bishop succeeded Bishop, in a mostly orderly process. Now, the Bishop of Rome, called the Pope, holds primacy over the other Bishops, but it is not some sort of absolute dictatorship, which you should know if you’d actually studied this subject. But the successor of Peter, who just happens to be the Bishop of Rome, holds the primacy of Peter, and is called Pope. It has nothing whatever to do with anyone being the “senior Apostle.” Maybe Mormons do their Apostle thing via seniority, but Catholics never have.

Have you ever looked for reasons why it’s not? We can play this game all day long…

Oh! Absolutely! I wasn’t always Catholic, my friend. I was a fundamentalist Protestant, with some experience in pentecostalism. I came out of a fervently anti-Catholic religion, so yes, I did look for the reasons “why not.” And, it is not a game for me.

Again, rather than asking me to define my intentions you ignorantly state them. You are wrong…again. My intention is for understanding. I think I understand RCC beliefs fairly well. Clearly, not perfectly. And as much as I reject them, I respect them. I get the impression that there are poorly read folk on these boards that could be educated as to what LDS really believe…just here at your service.

Excellent! I truly do want to learn about Mormonism. My most beloved one is an ex-Mormon, which is why I developed a need to know about this religion of yours. I am always pumping people for information about Mormonism. I’ve got a long way to go! One maddening factor in this is that there seems to be a very wide variety of beliefs among Mormons. One says this, another says that. Since you don’t have a catechism, it is hard to nail down what your church actually teaches authoritatively. Often, questions here are answered like this: “That is speculation, of course.”

Oh…I wish you would! I think you’d get mocked via your reasoning style because of the number of Phd’s over there, but I think you should!

That may be. Fortunately, I have no time or inclination to do that. There are enough Mormons coming over here that things stay fairly lively most of the time. Here you are, after all!

Let me introduce you to something called a “proof-text.” It’s a dishonest use of someone’s quote. It’s frowned upon in intellectual circles, FYI.

Have you not been pestering us to affirm your sayings about the LDS Trinity?

For the love of mary,

We would ordinarily spell Mary with a captial M, and speak more reverently of her. Just so you know.

One more junior higher entering the fray? Welcome! Thanks for a dismally meaningless response!

There you go again…

 

[Allweather]

According to Biblical scholars that I have studied with (this was BEFORE THE INTERNET EXISTED so I don’t have their internet citations, and they are most likely DEAD now! sorry!) the Gospel of John was written the way it was to clarify the truth of the nature of God as John understood it as opposed to certain heresies about the nature of God that were, if not widespread, were at least problematic at the time. The Gospel of John was, at least in part, an exercise in refuting a heresy. It was not meant to be inconsistent. Indeed, it was meant to clarify.

That someone perceives an inconsistency where none exists may be another problem.

Thank you, Melanie! Of course, there are no inconsistencies in Scripture. Where there sometimes appear to be those, they are result of faulty reading and interpreting. Fortunately, our infallible Church gives us infallible interpretations of Sacred Scripture.

Speaking of John, I think the opening verses speak directly to this Mormon idea of Jesus being a lesser god, separate from God the Father:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (my paraphrase, but I think I’m close). The Word is clearly Jesus, and John is clearly saying that Jesus is God. Not a god, but God.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Thank you, Melanie! Of course, there are no inconsistencies in Scripture. Where there sometimes appear to be those, they are result of faulty reading and interpreting. Fortunately, our infallible Church gives us infallible interpretations of Sacred Scripture.

Speaking of John, I think the opening verses speak directly to this Mormon idea of Jesus being a lesser god, separate from God the Father:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (my paraphrase, but I think I’m close). The Word is clearly Jesus, and John is clearly saying that Jesus is God. Not a god, but God.

You are completely correct. Actually the opening words of the Gospel of John is where the refutation of the heresy (the one that existed at the time ~ I think it was the Arian heresy, but it’s been a long time… ) begins.

Jesus is THE WORD. The WORD was “with God” and the WORD was GOD.

I don’t want to participate in this argument that you have going with A Pac, mostly because I don’t have your fortitude, but I agree with you. A Pac, please do me the courtesy of respecting that. I will not argue with you.

And I will go further, please always remember that “Mormon” scripture, even the Bible, is the “Joseph Smith translation” of the King James Version of the Bible. It may be signficantly different from YOUR Bible (and mine! ). So please, be careful to define your terms as long as you choose to participate in this lengthy (I’m weak, so I would call it EXHAUSTING) debate.

Glory be to the Father, the Son and to the Holy Spirit. As it was IN THE BEGINNING, is now and ever shall be, world without end.

Love, Melanie

 

[Allweather]

And I will go further, please always remember that “Mormon” scripture, even the Bible, is the “Joseph Smith translation” of the King James Version of the Bible. It may be signficantly different from YOUR Bible (and mine! ). So please, be careful to define your terms as long as you choose to participate in this lengthy (I’m weak, so I would call it EXHAUSTING) debate.Love, Melanie

Yes, that is true, and I’ve raised that point in a roundabout way by saying that Mormons don’t trust the Bible. Proof of that is found, in part, by the sayings of Mormons (plain and precious parts… removed) as well as the Joseph Smith, Jr project in which he made voluminous alterations of the King James Bible, supposedly under inspiration. That project was interrupted by his murder.

We never really know whether the LDS Mormons are using that Inspired Translation or not. The ownership is held by the RLDS (Community of Christ) Mormons, but LDS Mormons have some Bibles that contain the Smith alterations in a separate section. But one thing we can know for sure, is that LDS Mormons don’t trust the Bible, even though they may claim to when arguing in polite company.

BTW thank you for the support. God bless.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Never fear, I will ALWAYS support you.

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit. As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.

 

[PattyPryor]

I would really like to share these videos with you all

The first couple are a Jewish man who became Christian.

the second are just neat videos on how to talk to Mormon missionaries

Enjoy!

Would love your comments

youtube.com/watch?v=3tIg94FKpuo

youtube.com/watch?v=63xmQVV1p34

youtube.com/watch?v=gPsWcLEKIos&mode=related&search=

youtube.com/watch?v=Dc3BQnFQpg8&mode=related&search=

youtube.com/watch?v=5uOBYSpDl_I&mode=related&search=

youtube.com/watch?v=2ygEMNG5OZY&mode=related&search=

actually I have to tell you all that it drives me NUTS I have read D&C BOM Pearl of great price and the Holy Bible (this is true it was a goal of mine)

Anyway what drives me nuts are words like

Jesus Christ
Apostles
Baptism

I have talked to MANY people on these words and the foot notes of The book of mormon say they were in B.C. time yet those are new testiment words

and no A Pac I don’t believe God inspired Joseph Smith to say words people would understand. Thats a load of **** because then he would have done that with the translation of the Bibles old testament

Adieu

Lets through in one french word in the book of mormon

but what REALLY gets me is the Honey Bees

let me tell you people this much I know en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honey_bees

they were not even around in the book of mormon time

this is from wikipedia

In 1622, first European colonists brought the sub-species Apis mellifera mellifera to the Americas. Many of the crops that depend on honey bees for pollination have also been imported since colonial times. Escaped swarms (known as wild bees, but actually feral) spread rapidly as far as the Great Plains, usually preceding the colonists.

There is soo much more. But you tell these things to Mormons (trust me I have) they come up with such dumb excuses like we don’t have any knowledge

Disagree or not but I think that if Honey bees were in America long before 1622 I think someone would have wrote it down

this is where I loose my faith in Mormonism. I mean if your gonna write a book at least get your stuff right

I’m not even gonna get into the swords…

 

[Kristine1957]

PattyPryor Honey bees what about the ELEPHANTS? The BOM said there were elephants in the America’s ( BoM Ether 9:19) and there were not! Let alone the HORSES! They didnt even exist in America until the 16th century.(BoM 2nd Nephi 12:7) and believe me theres more…

I just don’t understand how so many GOOD INTELLEGENT people can just ignore things like this??:doh2:

 

[PattyPryor]

PattyPryor Honey bees what about the ELEPHANTS? The BOM said there were elephants in the America’s ( BoM Ether 9:19) and there were not! Let alone the HORSES! They didnt even exist in America until the 16th century.(BoM 2nd Nephi 12:7) and believe me theres more…

I just don’t understand how so many GOOD INTELLEGENT people can just ignore things like this??:doh2:

oh i KNOW! And they wonder why people QUESTION the book of Mormon at all.

it makes me sad to think that you can throw all the biblical old and new testaments chapters out there but really just look at the wrong words and ideas

 

[A_Pac]

Gottle of Geer,

It’s not complicated at all - it’s too simple for words And that is part of the problem for us.​

As philosophically sexy as that sounds, it makes no sense.

So it is not possible for us, as we are, to see God - let alone to say, fully & truly, Who He Is. It is impossible for a mere creature to do this…

Phil 4:13. I personally don’t find any religion, unable to explain God in comprehensible terms, to be particularly compelling.

I’d like you to juxtapose the fact that John 10 is taken literally, while John 17 is taken metaphoric. Why not treat both the same in defining God?

Please go into more detail from the part that I bolded. What are all the particulars of this god-becoming that you think you will be doing?

I did…summarily speaking, we will be doing that which God has done. Now, I have yet to be a God, so I can’t tell you the daily “to-dos.” I don’t know what “particulars” you’re talking about. More importantly, I don’t see how it’s particularly important to the conversation. So instead of baiting, you can come out and ask a leading question.

Where in the Bible is this immortal-body sex described?

Tu quoque. Where is it not?!

You don’t seem to know very much about Mormon polygamy.

Coming from the oracle of all knowledge, that hurts.

If your definitions of Trinity are so far different from those of Christianity, then they are certainly not consistent with the Scriptures…

See…you say lame things like this but never address it. I’ve addressed it multiple time. The LDS understanding IS consistent. So let’s do this…why don’t you explain how the LDS definition as I’ve defined it contradict John 10, 17…oh, and stop avoiding Stephen’s experience in Acts 7.

Detailed examples can be better provided by others than me,

Then, I’d stop wasting all of our time.

I’m sure they will be forthcoming as this proceeds.

I can’t WAIT!

My intent is not to deal with nuts and bolts,

You mean, not deal with scriptures that you have no idea how to juxtapose? I don’t think that Acts 7 is a nut, nor a bolt. Give it a go…you’ll do better than you think.

I don’t get the feeling that English is a second language for you, brother, or sister, or whatever you are.

Hehehe… And I don’t get the feeling you know a thing you’re talking about. Yes…English is my first language, and Spanish, Italian, and Mandarin Chinese are my second, third, and fourth languages.

But my words are just too clear to be misunderstood.

Hmm…let’s consider:

So, you said you don’t know what I’m talking about when I referred to the separate being-edness that Mormons interpret upon the Trinity.

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.

Reminding you again, I’m most interested in the gods of other planets aspect. I’d like for you to go into that in full detail.

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

Should I be flattered that such a master of the universe is condescending to blow so much useless dust in my direction?

For not engaging the scriptures, you sure do talk a lot. But yes, you may call me “He-Man.”

‘Master of the Universe.”

A Pac

 

[Jerusha]

:coffeeread: ON top of everything else, our new resident mopologist has a sense of humor!!

 

[MelanieAnne]

PattyPryor Honey bees what about the ELEPHANTS? The BOM said there were elephants in the America’s ( BoM Ether 9:19) and there were not! Let alone the HORSES! They didnt even exist in America until the 16th century.(BoM 2nd Nephi 12:7) and believe me theres more…

I just don’t understand how so many GOOD INTELLEGENT people can just ignore things like this??:doh2:

Good point Kristine, and while we’re on the subject of what is reasonable for intelligent people to believe, remember how the Book of Mormon was “translated” by Joseph Smith ~ using magic rocks that he held at the bottom of a hat ~ he peered at them and words were “revealed” to him.

Of course they don’t tell people that part when they are trying to get them to join the church.

 

[MelanieAnne]

:coffeeread: ON top of everything else, our new resident mopologist has a sense of humor!!

Really?

 

[Jerusha]

What was I saying about a sense of humor??? Perhaps he is one of those who takes his religion with a liberal sprinkle of salt.

 

[A_Pac]

MelanieAnne,

Yes, John was written last. But I don’t understand how that fact juxtaposes the literal and metaphoric interpretations of John 10 and 17. Hey…take a jab at Stephen’s account in Acts 7…I’ll be interested in that.

AW:

I’m sorry. I missed the one where you described your deep-hearted search for Catholic Truth.

Yawn. I’m not going to address oxymorons.

I’m afraid you’re betraying your ignorance of Apostolic succession.

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

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.

MelanieAnee,

A Pac, please do me the courtesy of respecting that. I will not argue with you.

On the contrary, arguing isn’t my hope. I hope people can arrive to the point and say, “You know, I disagree…but I understand how that’s a respectable understanding.” I just don’t like intolerant bigots.

And I will go further, please always remember that “Mormon” scripture, even the Bible, is the “Joseph Smith translation” of the King James Version of the Bible.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but you’re wrong. The JST is actually in the footnotes, so contrary to your understanding, we DO use the KJV.

AW:

Yes, that is true, and I’ve raised that point in a roundabout way by saying that Mormons don’t trust the Bible.

You say a lot of things concerning others’ beliefs that you don’t know really know. Keep the lip service going though…it’s a break from intellectually stimulating conversation I get elsewhere.

We never really know whether the LDS Mormons are using that Inspired Translation or not.

Well, then it’s because you’re too lazy to 1) ask, and 2) check it with the KJV. As I said, we use the KJV and the Joseph Smith Translations are in the footnotes.

But one thing we can know for sure, is that LDS Mormons don’t trust the Bible, even though they may claim to when arguing in polite company.

Could you permit me the respect of defining my own beliefs? Thanks,

PattyPryor,

Wow…you showed me! If you’d like a coherent conversation about any of it, I’d be happy to join.

Kristine1957,

Not that I care much about horses anyway, but they actually found horses in both California and Florida (I think it was) that pre-dated Columbus.

And it’s really easy to ignore when less ‘good intelligent [sic]’ people are structuring the arguments.

PattyPryor,

it makes me sad to think that you can throw all the biblical old and new testaments chapters out there but really just look at the wrong words and ideas

Well, here I am. Explain Stephen’s experience in Acts 7 then get back to me.

A Pac