L
lax16
Guest
I hope you have a really big bowl of popcorn!
I hope you have a really big bowl of popcorn!
Move over and pass that popcorn.I hope you have a really big bowl of popcorn!![]()
I think we all might be here a while.Move over and pass that popcorn.
Yup. I see our lds brethren get online but do not post in defense of the comments made. how many Superbowls has the Catholic Church won now?I think we all might be here a while.![]()
I could use a nice Amaretto Sour tooI think we all might be here a while.![]()
Does that go well with popcorn?I could use a nice Amaretto Sour too![]()
After one or two, who caresDoes that go well with popcorn?![]()
LOL!After one or two, who cares![]()
We have to remember that when we refute mormonism, especially when using their own sources, we are planting seeds.So, it does not make it much of a game when the other team hides in the locker room after they get stopped on third and longā¦
Since lax16 posts with style and Iām ready for another CAF pummelling Iāll take a crack at #4.thanks!
- It seems that the BoM has a more traditional view of the Trinity than current LDS teaching- why is that?
For example, Alma 11:44, Mosiah 15:5-7, and 2 Nephi 31:21.
Also, in The Testimony of Three Witnesses at the beginning of the BoM, it says: āAnd the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.ā
You must believe this in order to maintain some consistency, however the historical fact is that the early Church did not come close to even considering the Mormon view of the nature of God and it was later this same Church that judged the texts making up the New Testament against what they already believed through Sacred Tradition; what they had received from the Apostles. So the Church that gave you the New Testament did not believe in the least that God was one only in purpose and I have no idea what you mean when you say āone in unityā. No offense, but it seems like kind of a senseless statement, donāt you think?I disagree that the BofM verbiage on this topic supports a ātraditionalā (read āNicene Creedā?) view of the Trinity. It supports the idea of one God in purpose and unity, just like the Bible does.
The source and summit of the Catholic faith is the the Eucharist. In each one of those verses a Catholic recognizes the Eucharist. He is in us and we are in him, litrerally, with every fiber of our being. We truly become one as He and the Father are one. As a matter of fact, we become one with the Father and the Holy Spirit as well as Jesus because we have only one God.John 17:21-23 (KJV) states:
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
Christ became consubstantial with mankind through his incarnation. When we consume the Eucharist we are consuming the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. He becomes us and we become him. There is no closer unity than this and we have it right now. Its fulness will be realized when we fully share in the very life of the Trinity for eternity.I assume that Catholics do not believe that we mere mortals can become consubstantial with Christ. (I may be wrong.) The same kind of unity that Christ prays to have with his followers is the same unity he has with the Father - and consubstantial clearly aināt it if you believe these verses.
It seems readily apparent that Mr. Holland has approached the scriptures with the pre-conceived Mormon notion against the Trinity; The reason it isnāt in the scriptures is ābecause its not trueā. I have already addressed how preposterous it really is to consider that the Church that chose the very texts making up the New Testament, based upon how well they lined up with what the Church already believed, would choose texts that actually contradict what the Church believes. That is what Elder Holland has to be saying, maybe without realizing it, but still. The entire notion is just flat out unreasonable.Elder Holland states the LDS believe well:
We believe these three divine persons constituting a single Godhead are united in purpose, in manner, in testimony, in mission. We believe Them to be filled with the same godly sense of mercy and love, justice and grace, patience, forgiveness, and redemption. I think it is accurate to say we believe They are one in every significant and eternal aspect imaginable except believing Them to be three persons combined in one substance, a Trinitarian notion never set forth in the scriptures because it is not true.
The Catholic Church understood the concept of the Trinity well before the bible was canonized. The āDeposit of Faithā, both the Oral Tradition and the Written Word are consistent: three persons in one God. Below are just a few examples of the early Church beliefs, the same Church that would canonize the bible that you are usingā¦for instruction, teaching and to have a universal set of readings for Mass.I disagree that the BofM verbiage on this topic supports a ātraditionalā (read āNicene Creedā?) view of the Trinity. It supports the idea of one God in purpose and unity,** just like the Bible does**.
We believe these three divine persons constituting a single Godhead are united in purpose, in manner, in testimony, in mission. We believe Them to be filled with the same godly sense of mercy and love, justice and grace, patience, forgiveness, and redemption. I think it is accurate to say we believe They are one in every significant and eternal aspect imaginable except believing Them to be three persons combined in one substance, a Trinitarian notion never set forth in the scriptures because it is not true.
Link is here ā lds.org/general-conference/2007/10/the-only-true-god-and-jesus-christ-whom-he-hath-sent?lang=eng
āAnd the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.ā
Since you are unable to respond to my points, I will agree with you that truth, to you, appears to be a pummeling. As such, I would recommend you leave a church where truth you offends you soSince lax16 posts with style and Iām ready for another CAF pummelling Iāll take a crack at #4.
I disagree that the BofM verbiage on this topic supports a ātraditionalā (read āNicene Creedā?) view of the Trinity. It supports the idea of one God in purpose and unity, just like the Bible does.
John 17:21-23 (KJV) states:
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
I assume that Catholics do not believe that we mere mortals can become consubstantial with Christ. (I may be wrong.) The same kind of unity that Christ prays to have with his followers is the same unity he has with the Father - and consubstantial clearly aināt it if you believe these verses.
Elder Holland states the LDS believe well:
We believe these three divine persons constituting a single Godhead are united in purpose, in manner, in testimony, in mission. We believe Them to be filled with the same godly sense of mercy and love, justice and grace, patience, forgiveness, and redemption. I think it is accurate to say we believe They are one in every significant and eternal aspect imaginable except believing Them to be three persons combined in one substance, a Trinitarian notion never set forth in the scriptures because it is not true.
Link is here ā lds.org/general-conference/2007/10/the-only-true-god-and-jesus-christ-whom-he-hath-sent?lang=eng
Pummel away!!!
Do Catholicās on this forum have a right to express their opinion without intimidation?
Yes, you do, but I donāt see how intimidation is possible on this forum. Do you have any examples?intimidation- to make timid or fearful : frighten; especially : to compel or deter by or as if by threats
Truth also seems to be intimidation to some.Since you are unable to respond to my points, I will agree with you that truth, to you, appears to be a pummeling. As such, I would recommend you leave a church where truth you offends you so
"intimidation- to make timid or fearful : frighten; especially : to compel or deter by or as if by threats "Do Catholicās on this forum have a right to express their opinion without intimidation?
Stereotypical response #1. Persecution card.Yes, you do, but I donāt see how intimidation is possible on this forum. Do you have any examples?
You have a great sense of humor, gazelam!Since lax16 posts with style and Iām ready for another CAF pummelling Iāll take a crack at #4.
Where in the BoM does it say āOne God in purposeā?I disagree that the BofM verbiage on this topic supports a ātraditionalā (read āNicene Creedā?) view of the Trinity. It supports the idea of one God in purpose and unity, just like the Bible does.
Pummel away!!!
They will most likely resort to the āburning in the breastā; the notion that the Holy Spirit has given them a personal testimony of the truth of the BoM. Its a safe place to hide because an interior experience can neither be proven or disproven. They see no need to discern which āspiritā was speaking to Joseph Smith, or whether any spirit at all spoke to him. They know its true and that is that and there is nothing you can do to prove their āfeelingsā wrong.how do mormons know that the entity that brought the book of mormon to joseph smith was not a devil sent by lucifer?
i know that this is off topic, but i do not have many mormons in my life and i have often wondered about this.
anyone reading this know the answer that mormons give to this question?