Evangelicals Against Mitt

“Grow up.”

If you quit your whining, I’ll grow up. Deal?

No Federal Law against Bigamy either.

Part of being a conservative is fighting the slow encroachment of Federal Laws. I have noticed though that most of you born againers tend to be in favor of sin laws. Like laws against drinking, smoking, gambling, drugs, etc.

The problem is that after a while those laws tend to come back and bite us :(

Pardon me for butting in; but isn’t the term “felon” only applied to the convicted? Smith was charged many times for various things, but never convicted.

You are correct. Stating that someone is a felon, under oath, when it is proven not to be true, is a felony too : ) Colorcountry should consider herself lucky that this forum isn't a court room or she would probably be in a holding cell.

I Said: “There is no way for you to know which article on New advent I am talking about without looking.”

U Said: You are referring to the newadvent entry concerning the council..yes?

I’ve read it.

There are at least five such documents that I have seen, Since I don't know what you have read, you'll have to go to the link to see if it's the one you have read.

U Said: Your “analysis” is full of insinutation and innuendo.

So is yours, Pot meet Kettle...

U Said: There is plenty of evidence concerning Constantine’s son threatening others with death (and was met with resistance regardless). There is evidence Constantine used exile as a tool - as we can see with Arius and Athanasius.

Yes, you have one Guy who was very pro Christian bookended by two guys who were very anti Christian. That said, a summons from the emperor delivered by the military would be ominous no matter how nice "this" emperor was.

U Said: There is no evidence there was swordplay at Nicaea - but there is evidence of that type of thing at a later time.

I read a record recorded by Eusibus in Greek where he said the first two to object to the new creed were put to the sword. I'll have to see where I have the source for you...

U Said: That is why I was wondering if you were confusing the two, especially considering your inaccurate claim that Constantine was baptized as an Arian...not true - but it is true of his son.

From Arianism in the Catholic encyclopedia:

the Emperor's sister, had recommended Arius, whom she thought an injured man, to Constantine's leniency. Her dying words affected him, and he recalled the Lybian, extracted from him a solemn adhesion to the Nicene faith, and ordered Alexander, Bishop of the Imperial City, to give him Communion in his own church (336). Arius openly triumphed; but as he went about in parade, the evening before this event was to take place, he expired from a sudden disorder, which Catholics could not help regarding as a judgment of heaven, due to the bishop's prayers. His death, however, did not stay the plague. Constantine now favoured none but Arians; he was baptized in his last moments by the shifty prelate of Nicomedia;

So, according the the encyclopedia... I am correct, for the prelate of Nicomedia was a known Arian.

U Said: More insinuation and innuendo. The church existed long before Constantine.

Yes, but it was a vastly different Church, for one thing, they understood the nature of God.

U Said: HISTORY declares this to be true.

Again with the "Common knowledge Fallacy"?

U Said: It is a matter of fact that Sylvester sent two representatives.
This is also included in the newadvent article on the council.

The Document in Question: The First Council of Nicaea, States:

It is not historically known whether the emperor in convoking the Council acted solely in his own name or in concert with the pope; however, it is probable that Constantine and Sylvester came to an agreement.

It's not known? They just don't want to say the pope Didn't know it was happening!

Later in the Document, it says:

Most of the bishops present were Greeks; among the Latins we know only Hosius of Cordova, Cecilian of Carthage, Mark of Calabria, Nicasius of Dijon, Donnus of Stridon in Pannonia, and the two Roman priests, Victor and Vincentius, representing the pope.

Sending two representatives instead of Going himself to a meeting where the very nature and definition of God was going to be decided for the church? What was he busy washing his hair or something? This is one of the most seminal events in the history of religion and he didn't Go? Either he didn't know the council was happening until it was too late to Go, or he didn't know what was being discussed in the council. If I were Pope, I would have been there even if I was on my death bed.

You cannot just dismiss this, IF the Pope knew what was happening, and was remotely interested in religion he would have been there. Please give me a reasonable explanation of why he would not have at least attended part of the time like a pagan emperor did! The only reasonable simple explanation is that he Didn't know what was going on. If that is true (admittedly building on a supposition) the only reason Constantine would have for keeping it from him would be to ensure the council's decision would be reached without the Pope's input and presented to him as fait accompli. You want to argue that conclusion? Great! Give me a reasonable explanation.

U Said: This reveals a basic misunderstanding of how the church works on your part.
There were many councils of many different types.
Bishops had jurisdiction over their own territory.
They made decisions in their own area. If those decisions caused controversy or other problems appeals could be made “over their head”. It was similar to our court system...local courts, state courts, appellate courts.
Rome was considered the final stop - their version of supreme court.

Yes, yes, the final stop was Rome, but forgive my incredulity that you think anything approaching this level of importance would be ignored by a pope who knew it was going on. This is like saying well, we called a constitutional convention and only conservatives showed up... so now we have a much more conservative government... only if the Liberals weren't interested in government. Who here believes that could even remotely happen?

I just don,t buy it, not only that, but your STILL changing the definition of God or Applying a definition that wasn't there in the Bible by "Clarifying it". All this while claiming revelation has stopped.

Look at it this way, in AD 324 Arius was a Christian because of his views and beliefs, but according to the "collection" in 326, he was not because of the same beliefs and views?

U Said: The pope didn’t have to personally attend as long as he sent representatives and approved of the final decisions.
If he did not approve, he had the authority to annul the decisions.
It is silly to presume he did not know about the council when his representatives were present.

It is silly to assume he would have sent representatives if he knew in time to be there, or knew what the topic was going to be. IMHO, if he knew what it was about, it was at the last minute.

I Said: “The difference is that I don’t, he did and the Catholic church committed Blasphemy by changing the Doctrine of who God was in 325 AD and lost the authority to act in God’s name.”

U Said: You clearly want this to be accepted as actual history, but innuendo and jumping to conclusions does not prove a point.

The Protestant Churches by their very existence mens the agree with me, on some point or another, why protest and leave if the church never lost her way? If the Catholic church did lose the authority, can that authority be recovered by a man's reformation, worse yet a man any man who claims that revelation has ceased?

The obvious answer is no.

With the Catholic church and the Trinitarian view falls all the protestant Churches for if the Catholic church lost the authority, at any time before they broke off, then the protestants never had it. If the Catholic church had the authority and the Protestants broke away, then they are heretics and need to repent and return to the Catholic church. There simply is no logical way for them to be "right" about this.

As John A. Reiner, a Catholic Theologian said:

“You Mormons are all ignoramuses. You don’t even know the strength of your own position. It is so strong that there is only one other tenable in the whole Christian world, and that is the position of the Catholic Church. The issue is between Catholicism and Mormonism. If we are right, you are wrong; if you are right, we are wrong; and that’s all there is to it. The Protestants haven’t a leg to stand on. If we are wrong, they are wrong with us, for they were a part of us and went out from us; while if we are right, they are apostates whom we cut off long ago. If we really have, as we claim, the apostolic succession from St. Peter, there was no need for Joseph Smith and Mormonism; but if we have not that succession, then such a man as Joseph Smith was necessary, and Mormonism’s attitude is the only consistent one. It is either the perpetuation of the Gospel from ancient times, or the restoration of the Gospel in latter days.”

Source : A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, p. 3 I Said: “You had stated that Constantine didn’t stay at the meeting (Which meant that meant he didn’t affect it?),...”

U Said: He wasn’t there in the very beginning - there were preliminary meetings before his arrival. He was present at the official opening and was an observer throughout. The council took 2-3 months where some matters of great importance were resolved and matters of not so great importance. There isn’t evidence he was present every day - or threatening anyone - or demanding a particular outcome. If I had to bet - I would guess he would have been present when Arius was called to speak, because that was the main controversy, and it would have been very interesting.

I never said he was the first in and the Last out, just that he attended which you denied until I beat you over the head with the record, now you are attacking the Straw man that I said he was there every waking minute of every day. The months long meeting, in a word Boring! with brief interludes of excitement. If the emperor of Rome could find the time to attend when Arius was called in to speak, why didn't the Pope show up? As you said it would have been interesting. Was he specifically not allowed to attend or something (that is an explanation which if It could be substantiated might cause me to believe he was aware of what was going on, but could only send representatives.)

I Said: ”My observations also tell me that you are afraid I am right. your behavior on this thread is that of someone who is avoiding a truth so they can stay in denial. It is very interesting to watch.”

U Said: I’m sorry to inform you that you are wrong.

Of course your going to deny it, that's why it's called Denyal.

U Said: The more of history that I read - the more assured I am of the christian position.

Yeah, me to; specifically The Christians who are Mormons, their position is the best and most supportable.

(to give an even better example of your Fallacious mode of argument, I could add "anyone who disagrees is of course an idiot" but you probably wouldn't get that either.) U Said: Furthermore, the more I learn of Mormonism, the more I see there is absolutely no evidence of Mormon teaching regarding the nature of the Father, and of Jesus in the early church.

Ezekiel 12:2-3.

U Said: That you would assume you can read my mind concerning my motivations confirms my observations about you - that you jump to conclusions very easily based on your own bias, and that you rely on innuendo to make a point.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with using innuendo to make a point, as long as you can back it up with facts which I have.

You keep telling me X is not in that document, so I post the Quote and the Source.

you say X never said Y then I post the link.

I state patently obvious things and you claim they are not defined.

Fine, Explain the Los Lunas Decalogue Stone, a 3,000 year old stone stone in the americas that has the ten commandments carved in it in Paleo Hebrew, a language that we figured out how to read and translate in the 19th century, the stone has been known of since the 1850's.

This stone directly supports the Book of Mormon. We were saying there were Hebrew speaking peoples here long before this stones significance was understood. Here is another page with comparisons to this stone and one like it found in Israel. There are other stone that have been found in America with Both Hebrew and Egyptian writing on them, There have been other influences, According tot he Book of Mormon, the Lord often brought differing people here, you should read up on Burrows cave, yet another archaeological piece that doesn't fit with "Orthodox Christianity" or "Orthodox history", but fits perfectly with Mormonism. I Said: “Constantine was indeed baptized an Arian right before his death, which means at the end, he agreed with Arius, but by then he had already set the church on the road to Tinitarianism so the Greeks and the Hellinists would be happy.”

There is no evidence Constantine was baptized an Arian - and you still have not provided any.
I think you are still confusing him with his son.

Again? OK.

From Arianism in the Catholic encyclopedia:

the Emperor's sister, had recommended Arius, whom she thought an injured man, to Constantine's leniency. Her dying words affected him, and he recalled the Lybian, extracted from him a solemn adhesion to the Nicene faith, and ordered Alexander, Bishop of the Imperial City, to give him Communion in his own church (336). Arius openly triumphed; but as he went about in parade, the evening before this event was to take place, he expired from a sudden disorder, which Catholics could not help regarding as a judgment of heaven, due to the bishop's prayers. His death, however, did not stay the plague. Constantine now favoured none but Arians; he was baptized in his last moments by the shifty prelate of Nicomedia;

So, according the the encyclopedia...

BTW , this is Constantine, not Constantius.

U Said: Constantine did not formulate the trinitarian doctrine - reading scripture as well as reviewing the early writings of the church from the first century onward ought to clear that one up.

And I would not be writing law if I invited senators to my home, set the topic of discussion, monitored it when I wanted to, and had the power to kill anyone there who disagreed with me without repercussion (not that I would have, because Hey, I'm a nice Guy, besides, people always seem to agree with me.) But I would not be affecting things in any way, yeah.

I Said: “Have you heard of the Coliseum? The law under which Christians were killed there had not been “Repealed”, it just was not being acted upon...”

U Said: Constantine was not killing christians in the coliseum.

Because he was such a nice guy he could never kill anyone, wait, how did he gain power? War.

U Said: One reason christians were killed in the coliseum prior to Constantine was because they had a tendency to resist those emperors.

My point exactly, they Didn't resist Constantine, ipso facto. Thanks for admitting it... finally.

I Said: “But, But, You said Constantine wouldn’t mess with the Church...”

U Said: I said he didn’t mess with doctrine.

Right, un huh. Next please...

I Said: “Constantine could not read greek, Eusebius kept records in both, the ones in Greek paint Constantine in a, well different light.”

U Said: Documentation?

You asked where i got the idea the the first two were put to the sword, I told you, and I said I'd have to look for the Documentation if you wanted it, now I am wondering which you want.

The Book "Pagans and Christians",R.L.Fox,Penguine,1986, says:

the -XR- symbol that appeared to Constantine`s sky before the battle is not a well Known symbol of the Christians at this time as it is never found in any Christian context till then. Also Constantine could not read Greek language as to interpret the "by this conquer" slogan. The "XR" symbol is well attested as a note on a passage by Greeks meaning "xriston" and by this "useful". Could all this mean that this symbol had some "double meaning" for at least a while?

I would have to dig to find where I read the Greek version.

I Said: “Constantine approved first, then everyone else rubber-stamped the approval.”

U Said: More innuendo and insinuation without proof.
Sylvester still had the power to annul - and did not.

We agree that he signed it, what's your problem?

I Said: “Or Found at home when the Military arrived. Some went into hiding, etc.”

U Said: Proof? Anything other than your own addition from your personal imagination?

IT's call opinion, I did not try to offer proof, I believed that from CONTEXT I would be known to be just that, do I need to add tags for you or something?

I Said: “When else in the history of the catholic church has any political leader called a council of bishops, spoken at the Start, set the agenda, attended whenever he wanted and the Pope Didn’t attend? You keep trying to paint this as “Normal” and it just isn’t.”

U Said: There were many councils the pope didn’t attend.

Called by someone else to define God?
U Said: They were called local councils.

This was not a local Council, Straw-man again?

U Said: There were other councils where the pope sent representatives.

I'm sure there were, there were also many he attended, this was clarifying the definition of God! U Said: If memory serves me correctly, Nicaea was not the first council called by Constantine.

Fine, what other Councils of all the Bishops in the church did he call before Nicea?

U Said: Constantine was the first emperor to do this, because he was the first one interested enough in the faith - as well as the first one to desire bringing about peace among the christians. Previous emperors could have cared less about christian infighting.

Yeah, he cared all right, they were better off when the Emperor didn't care...

<Snip>

U Said: OK...I thought you were talking about physical assault - with swords - which there is no record of

I can't help what you think...

I'll handle Hippolytus in another post.

Oh, By the way, do you like candidate McCain? That armageddon you were talking about, well here's one aspect of it. By being useful idiots and attacking religion of one of the candidates, we are going to end up with someone worse, than Romeny in My opinion. Utah (luckily for me Utah will never go Dem) so I am free to write in Fred Thompson. I hope you guys enjoy your choice.

Dear Delphi...

my apologies, when I first responded to you I was under the assumption I was approaching someone who was somewhat reasonable.
Then I saw your post about how you were going to destroy all other religions.
Your posts are full of conspiracy theory and obvious contempt.

Clearly this is a waste of time,and as I have had more important matters come up these last few days, your groundless accusations are not at the top of my list, and I’m not interested in having a conversation with someone who is so delusional as to think they are going to destroy all non-mormon religions.

Maybe you could look up Tom Cruise and have a lively discussion.

Adios.

Fine, Explain the Los Lunas Decalogue Stone, a 3,000 year old stone stone in the americas that has the ten commandments carved in it in Paleo Hebrew, a language that we figured out how to read and translate in the 19th century, the stone has been known of since the 1850's. This stone directly supports the Book of Mormon. We were saying there were Hebrew speaking peoples here long before this stones significance was understood. Here is another page with comparisons to this stone and one like it found in Israel. There are other stone that have been found in America with Both Hebrew and Egyptian writing on them, There have been other influences, According tot he Book of Mormon, the Lord often brought differing people here, you should read up on Burrows cave, yet another archaeological piece that doesn't fit with "Orthodox Christianity" or "Orthodox history", but fits perfectly with Mormonism. ”

Scottswife - This is the BEST that mormon archaeology can offer - hoax sites. The decalogue stone is a mish mash of hebrew and greek letters - where any good hebrew writer would have used Hebrew only. Furthermore, that the stone is '3000 years old' is completely unsubstantiated and results from a WAG given by a geologist absent any empirical testing or evaluation.
This other 'cave' is more of the same. What is MISSING are the substantial CITIES, armor, chariots, and artifacts that spread across this country from sea to sea, and a population in the millions. No, he can only provide these Weekly world new - like 'finds' that respectable archaeologists find laughable but is the meat of the desire for mormons to be able to 'prove' the bom is true. Shuck, du still has yet to tell me where Hill Cumorah is located at.

Careful there, you’ll tweak his paranoia. Then we will have no rest from the endless postings.

Careful there, you’ll tweak his paranoia. Then we will have no rest from the endless postings.

What! the bane of Fluffy paranoid!?! So thats what it is called.

U Said: And now onto Hippolytus....

Hippolytus never had the authority to speak on behalf of the whole church...

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07360c.htm Funny, the page you list has him among the "Church Fathers".

He was a presbyter (priest) a bishop, made a Saint, and was tasked with writing the rebuttals to several heretics Noetus among them. Maybe you should read this chapter from the Very Link you gave:

Hippolytus was a presbyter of the Church of Rome at the beginning of the third century. There is no difficulty in admitting that he could have been a disciple of St. Irenæus either in Rome or Lyons. It is equally possible that Origen heard a homily by Hippolytus when he went to Rome about the year 212. In the reigh of Pope Zephyrinus (198-217) he came into conflict with that pontiff and with the majority of the Church of Rome, primarily on account of the christological opinions which for some time had been causing controversies in Rome. Hippolytus had combated the heresy of Theodotion and the Alogi; in like fashion he opposed the false doctrines of Noetus, of Epigonus, of Cleomenes, and of Sabellius, who emphasized the unity of God too one-sidedly (Monarchians) and saw in the concepts of the Father and the Son merely manifestations (modi) of the Divine Nature (Modalism, Sabellianism). Hippolytus, on the contrary, stood uncompromisingly for a real difference between the Son (Logos) and the Father, but so as to represent the Former as a Divine Person almost completely separate from God (Ditheism) and at the same time altogether subordinate to the Father (Subordinationism). As the heresy in the doctrine of the Modalists was not at first clearly apparent, Pope Zephyrinus declined to give a decision. For this Hippolytus gravely censured him, representing him as an incompetent man, unworthy to rule the Church of Rome and as a tool in the hands of the ambitious and intriguing deacon Callistus, whose early life is maliciously depicted (Philosophumena, IX, xi-xii). Consequently when Callistus was elected pope (217-218) on the death of Zephyrinus, Hippolytus immediately left the communion of the Roman Church and had himself elected antipope by his small band of followers. These he calls the Catholic Church and himself successor to the Apostles, terming the great majority of Roman Christians the School of Callistus. He accuses Callistus of having fallen first into the heresy of Theodotus, then into that of Sabellius; also of having through avarice degraded ecclesiastical, and especially the penitential, discipline to a disgraceful laxity. These reproaches were altogether unjustified. Hippolytus himself advocated an excessive rigorism. He continued in opposition as antipope throughout the reigns of the two immediate successors of Callistus, Urban (222 or 223 to 230) and Pontius (230-35), and during this period, probably during the pontificate of Pontianus, he wrote the "Philosophumena". He was banished to the unhealthful island (insula nociva) of Sardinia at the same time as Pontianus; and shortly before this, or soon afterward, he became reconciled with the legitimate bishop and the Church of Rome. For, after both exiles had died on the island of Sardinia, their mortal remains were brought back to Rome on the same day, 13 August (either 236 or one of the following years), and solemnly interred, Pontianus in the papal vault in the catacomb of Callistus and Hippolytus in a spot on the Via Tiburtina. Both were equally revered as martyrs by the Roman Church: certain proof that Hippolytus had made his peace with that Church before his death. With his death the schism must have come to a speedy end, which accounts for its identification with the Novatian schism at the end of the fourth century, as we learn from the inscription by Damasus.

I will probably refer back to this one paragraph several times through your "Rebuttal", for it seems to me that you read headings, but not the whole works, and those with an eye only to what you expect to find.

U Said: I have not seen evidence he was related to John...but whatever.

In his writings he was addressing heresies that were monarchian and/or modalist in nature.Modalism is not trinitarian doctrine. Hippolytus did not condemn trinitarianism.

No, he did not specifically say Trintarinaisem is wrong, but that is because it did not exist yet, however, he was most specific about God and Jesus being separate physically.

U Said: At times while refuting them, he drifted into subordinationism. While his writings clearly accept the 3 persons in one God - he made a subtle distinction with the Logos being internally present within the Father from eternity and then being brought forth later as the word during creation. This subtle distinction was later rejected by the Church.

Yep, when they changed the definition of God, they rejected a lot of things...

As for internally present, I have not seen that, Refence?

U Said: Hippolytus DID teach that God never had a beginning. That he created out of nothing using His Word.

Mormons believe this also, you just have to understand temporal mechanics, which your posts leave me to believe you don't

U Said: Does this sound like something “restored” by Smith?

Actually, Yes, Hippolytus would feel very at home in a sunday school class in my ward anyway.

U Said: He wrote on the existence of one God -He treated the Father and Son, and Spirit as “God” as well - which is implicitly trinitarian (just like the baptismal command is implicitly trinitarian)

Actually Trinitarian Sole from "this treatment" Hippolytus predated the term trinity.

God the Father is God. Jesus is God, the Holy spirit is God, and someday though the Grace of Jesus Christ, I too may be God. Hippolytus, the apostles, Jesus and the LDS church agree, it is the "Trinitarians who have departed and the LDS who are restoring truth and Knowledge

U Said: It is recorded he fell into the Novation heresy, but reconciled with the Church prior to his death.

See my Section above, he was also elected antipope while two popes came and went, when a new pope was elected who's views matched his, he returned.

I Said: “Hippolytus’s works were never translated bedcase they refuted much of what the church was doing in that day...) “

U Said: More innuendo with no proof.

Another Quote from

Hippolytus was the most important theologian and the most prolific religious writer of the Roman Church in the pre-Constantinian era. Nevertheless the fate of his copious literary remains has been unfortunate. Most of his works have been lost or are known only through scattered fragments, while much has survived only in old translations into Oriental and Slavic languages; other writings are freely interpolated. The fact that the author wrote in Greek made it inevitable that later, when that language was no longer understood in Rome, the Romans lost interest in his writings, while in the East they were read long after and made the author famous. His works deal with several branches of theology, as appears from the aforementioned list on the statue, from Eusebius, St. Jerome, and from Oriental authors. His exegetical treatises were numerous: he wrote commentaries on several books of the Old and New Testaments. Most of these are extant only in fragments. The commentary on the Canticle of Canticles, however, has probably been preserved in its entirety ("Werke des Hippolytus", ed. Bonwetsch, 1897, 343 sqq.); likewise the fullest extant commentary on the Book of Daniel in 4 books (ibid., 2 sqq.). Eight of his works, known by their titles, dealt with dogmatic and apologetic subjects, but only one has come down entire in the original Greek. This is the work on Christ and Antichrist ("De Antichristo", ed. Achelis, op. cit., I, II, 1 sqq.); fragments of a few others have been preserved. Of his polemics against heretics the most important is the "Philosophumena", the original title of which is kata pason aireseon elegchos (A Refutation of All Heresies). The first book had long been known; books IV to X, which had been discovered a short time previously, were published in 1851. But the first chapters of the fourth and the whole of the second and third books are still missing.

So lets see, we have Constantine who makes the Catholic church the state church of Rome, he does not read greek (as we have already established) and he causes all the "Works" of the church that the church is going to use to be translated into Latin (which is why there are so many translations by esibus) and conspicuously Hippolytus is left out by Esibus after he has said that Hippolytus was the most prominent theologian of his day. The works directly refute the Trinity, and the idea that any man could be inerrant (which is why it was not until after his works were no longer in use that the Catholic church was finally able to assume the doctrine of the infallibility of the Pope. Saying that it was what was in the works is why they were not translated is not much of a leap, more like a hop, but OK, you tell me why they weren't translated.

U Said: As far as your link goes, I found out why I got confused.

You were wrong... that tends to confuse people who assume they are right.

U Said: There are two writings concerning Noetus.

Your quote belongs in the Refutation of All Heresies, but your link goes to the other book.

Please Give links, I know of several books about Noetus in the Encyclopedia on line.

You know, I think I'll make this point here, you keep saying "IT's not in there", well, "you can't prove this", and "X is all supposition on your part..." I keep coming back with reference after reference and backing up my statements with cold hard electrons (that's humor folks). I am getting tired of being your research assistant, start actually reading the links I give, it's all in there.

I Said: “”having made you even God unto His glory!”, Wow, This is the Teaching of The Great Grandson of John the Beloved , this is the dieification of Man this is the apostolic teaching of old, this is the teaching of the LDS church for it is a restoration of the true church, as taught by the apostles. This is beautiful stuff, pray about Hippolytus’ words please, ask God if he was right, then come talk to us.”

Link for inquiring minds, the quote is at the bottom of the page... U Said: I’m sorry to rain on your parade - and I know that you are very excited about this passage, but.....

U Said: If you read the entire Refutation...you will see your error.

I have read the whole thing, I don't quote from things that I have not read, considered and read again.

There is no error.

U Said: And - if you read his other writings - you will see this is not the teaching of Smith.

Actually, I have read all the books from "a Refutation of all heresies" except for 2 and three (which are missing.) and Hippolytus would feel very at home in the LDS church.

U Said: Part of the problem stems from the different language Mormons and chrisitians use.

Actually, part of the problem is the different language you use and the language God uses. If you have to pretend that Jesus while on th cross asking his Father why he has forsaken him is actually talking to himself. IF you have to pretend that Jesus when instructing the apostles to Go and Baptize he is basically saying me myself and I (when he clearly is not) If you have to pretend that Jesus is practicing ventriloquism at his baptism, If you have to pretend that Jesus lied to us throughout the Bible by pretending to have a father in heaven, then my FRiend, you and Jesus just don't speak the same language.

Just becasue you and Jesus don't see eye to eye, does not mean we don't.

U Said: Will we - indeed - become “God”?

Yes because he unto whom all power is given is God.

U Said: Well, christians believe we are adopted into God’s family through faith in Christ.

you don't speak for all Christians, you are not Jesus Christ, you do not have the authority to speak for him, that would make you a prophet which you don't believe exists today.

U Said: We believe we will receive a resurrected glorified body like Christ did (and in evangelizing to the Romans and Greeks, christians made this comparison against their “gods”)

We will indeed have a resurrected, and Glorified Body, and I don't care what other people believe.

U Said: We believe our resurrected, glorified bodies will be immortal - which was something the greeks and Romans used to attribute to their “gods”.

OF course, what's the point of being resurrected if you are just going to die or in anyway be separated from your body again.

Which makes me wonder...

Why if God is perfect and has no body do we want one?

What did God do with his body after he resurrected it that he is a spirit only today?

If God's resurrected Body can be removed so the he today is a spirit, then is our resurrection really going to be permanent? What exactly are we going to do for the eternities, I mean you can only sing praises fro so long before God will get sick of hearing them... so what then? These are questions that are gaping holes in your theology, of course, you have never seen them.

U Said: Did Hippolytus teach will be able to create out of nothing like God? no.

Sure, we will Be God, and that means in every way.

U Said: Did he make a distinction between men and God? yes.

Sure, for right now I am a man, later maybe not if I obey I can row up to be like my father, God.

U Said: Did he teach we would somehow overcome the gap between creation and creator - become eternally existent(having no beginning)? No..that gap can never be breached.

Nice answer, but it's wrong. You lack the knowledge of Temporal mechanics for something that escapes from time and can move freely through the eternities can never be said not of have existed at some point in time for it can simply go there.

U Said: Did he teach we would rule over our own universe? or our own world? no.

Jesus said we would inherit all that God hath. So yes. (God has everything)

U Said: When Jesus was asked a question about marriage after death, he replied there is no marriage after death and we would become “like angels”.

That is a very orthodox interpretation of what Jesus said, but here is what he did say and to what Question:

Luke 20:

27 ¶ Then came to him certain of the Sadducees, which deny that there is any resurrection; and they asked him,
28 Saying, Master, Moses wrote unto us, If any man’s brother die, having a wife, and he die without children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.
29 There were therefore seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and died without children.
30 And the second took her to wife, and he died childless.
31 And the third took her; and in like manner the seven also: and they left no children, and died.
32 Last of all the woman died also.
33 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife of them is she? for seven had her to wife.
34 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world amarry, and are given in marriage:
35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:
36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.
37 Now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.
38 For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him.
39 ¶ Then certain of the scribes answering said, Master, thou hast well said.

So, you had some men who were leaned in the ways of the world, who were spiritually blind who were trying to ask Jesus Questions to stump him with "logical impossibilities" much as you keep trying to stump me. Jesus answers with the statement that this life is the place where marriage happens, and Goes on to teach about God being a God of the living.

Mormons believe that this passage is very important you see, Marriages for all time and eternity must be preformed by Mortals. Mormons do geology so that we can perform these ordinances, yes these saving ordinances for our ancestors, fulfilling the Prophecy in Malachi 4:6 U Said: So, while christians agree with some of the notions about achieving certain godlike attributes, there is still a large distinction with Mormon doctrine.

Well, Jesus, and the apostles and the early saints agree with me, it's too bad you don't agree with them a bit more.

U Said: There certainly is nothing in early writings about the Father once being a man with flesh and bones with spiritual wives who only “organized” the universe without actually creating it out of nothing.

You need to understand Mormon teleology better, there was matter there because God had already created it, however, it is indeed he who created it, and yes, out of nothing.

U Said: you look to Arius and Hippolytus as being “restored” by Joseph - but taking a closer look shows that not to be the case.

Only if you look with your perspective glasses on, take them off if you can, let me introduce you to reality.

We could list similar flip flops on the part of Huckabee, all except abortion. What makes Huckabee’s flip flops more acceptable to you?

See what I mean?

MHGinTN suggested I answer your question, but I was busily chewing through one of Godzilla's monster posts and didn't see it until now.

U Said: I have a question

Correct me if I’m wrong but the 12 leaders ??? would be like Roman Catholic cardinals and they will choose one of their group to replace Hinckley as president...

Tradition (which is not binding) says that the apostles who has been an apostles the longest becomes the prophet. The mechanism for selecting a new prophet goes as follows: the 12 Apostles together with the two counselors meet, (there are now technically 14 apostles , but that will be remedied shortly) they fast and pray asking the Lord to direct them to the person who should be called to be the next prophet. When the Quorum has received inspiration and can unanimously select a single person (from witching, or without the Quorum), that person is called as the prophet. The prophet then calls his two councilors and the Quorum then sets them apart. this usually leaves the Quorum with only 11 apostles which will be remedied at the next general conference.

The Apostles have all had the same Keys given to them that the presidency has, these keys are just not active while there is a prophet leading the church. The D&C reveals this doctrine in D&ampc 107:36-37 U Said: Of course I know that not all the cardinals vote for a new Pope, just some representatives that the rest elect for the job

But 12 is a small amount

OK that being so (if it is) there needs to be someone chosen to replace the new president as a member of the 12

Wil a woman or a black or a minority person be chosen

A woman cannot be called because in the LDS church Women do not hold the priesthood.

As for a black man, or some other minority, that is up to the Lord...

U Said: It is now 30 years since black men were finally allowed to be priests and semi leaders...

A black man has just as much "right" if I can use that word to be called to any position as I do. it's all up tot he Lord.

U Said: Now in the 1994 debate with Ted Kennedy, Romney went on and on and on how he had single handedly helped women “break through the glass ceiling”

I would assume Romney will be around to help women and blacks break through this “glass ceiling” or at least comment on his dismay at the continuing discrimination...

Or was Romney lying 14 years ago ?????

I Can't answer For mitt, he has never been my Guy anyway. But the Priesthood is supposed to be for men only, it would take a revelation from God to change that. As for lobbying for a black, feel free to pray, but it's up to God.

The Church has already made the announcement of who the Quorum felt was called. It can be found at: Thomas S. Monson Named 16th Church President I hope my belated response was of some help.

Thanks Tant, yours was better than mine...

DU

Thank you for your candid answer...

Yes it was helpful...

Nana

Delphi, Was Joseph Smith polygamist?

Joseph smith had more than one wife.

Polygamist has taken on too many meanings for me to just say "yes" without a definition. I hope "more than one wife" will do.

U Said: To LDS posters:

Did Joseph Smith practice polygamy while he was on earth? Please respond.

I should think you would like to agree with, or correct, amend or discount the record that Legrande is portraying, that there is no evidence that Joseph Smith was married to more than one woman, Emma.

Here’s your chance. If you don’t respond can we assume you agree with LeGrande?

Joseph smith was indeed married to more than one woman, but the questions you two seem to be mulling is Did he have Sex with these additional wives.

Some evidence says yes (like diaries and accounts I have read.) Some says no (like other diaries, and accounts I have read), however, I think Legrande is saying no sex because there are no offspring, well it's just not a causal relationship.

Either way does not really bother me though.

Cumorah

Sounds Gaelic

I have noticed though that most of you born againers tend to be in favor of sin laws.

While I have noticed though that most of you atheists tend to be against sin laws.

Up until just a few years ago it was against to the law to be a Mormon and the penalty was death in at least one State.

Is that the state that Emma Smith resided in along with a whole lot of other Mormons?

(luckily for me Utah will never go Dem)

Never say Never.