Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Godzilla
U Said: Sharing facilities is not an issue. I can enter their buildings and worship with Catholics, baptists, Presbyterians, etc. I am personna nongrata in a temple. Very useful control tool for the mormon leadership to keep mormons at large in line and under control.

There are plenty of Mormons who though they could enter the temple, never do. Obviously your "Control" idea isn't working. Next you'll say that we shun them.

U Said: But not the temple – big difference.

Quick. call a Wambulance! wambulance

I can't go into a Jewish temple, nor can I partake of the Eucharist at a Mass, or walk into meetings at the Vatican. The pentagon seems to be off limits, Can I go into Cheyenne Mountain and see the big ring they have there? I think it's called a stargate.

Seriously, why do you care? There are tons of places you can't go and tons of things you can't observe some are secular, and some are religious, that's the way the world is. I am not bothered that I can't sit in on the meeting where the cardinals vote on who the next Pope is, why do you care what people you say have no authority do in their holiest places? Or is it just a point you think you can make hay with...

U Said: Uniformly, within the context I presented, indicates that as a teaching of the denomination. One can find lots of uneducated Christians who have uncritically accepted Mormonism propaganda.

I am a measurable defined unit of measure, therefore it is uniformly accepted that you are wrong, and uneducated about Mormonism, I am also sure that should I need to increase the size of my group to be allowed to bastardize "uniform" the way you have all I will need is to know the minimum number of people I have to add and pass around a survey.

I Said: As for Joseph smith rejecting Christianity, just what are you smoking?

U Said: Pleading ignorance of your own history is not becoming of you.

I was not pleading ignorance, you have a guy powerfully testifying of Jesus, who at the same time says Jesus Said all creeds were abominations and you say he is denying Christ? Do you even know how to get to reality from where you are?

I think you'll like this sign... reality

U Said: You don’t have the correct setting, not surprising. Noetus was espousing the doctrine of modalism (to distill the history), Hippolytus defended Trinitarian doctrine. Hippolytus defense echoed that of Tertullian (216 A.D), Ignatius of Antioch (110 A.D) and the teaching of the Apostle John (John 1:1).

Yeah, right, somebody needs to follow links, so maybe I'll just include a bit from my page witch has the links.

Some others are secretly introducing another doctrine, who have become disciples of one Noetus, who was a native of Smyrna,21 (and) lived not very long ago.21 This person was greatly puffed up and inflated with pride, being inspired by the conceit of a strange spirit. He alleged that Christ was the Father Himself, and that the Father Himself was born, and suffered, and died. You see what pride of heart and what a strange inflated spirit had insinuated themselves into him.
Reader this is from the first paragraph at this link from my page on Hippolytus. More...

Here is a piece from book X by Hippolytus that I like to quote because as a summation, it contains most of the plan of salvation as taught by the LDS church.
"Such is the true doctrine in regard of the divine nature, O you men, Greeks and Barbarians, Chaldeans and Assyrians, Egyptians and Libyans, Indians and Ethiopians, Celts, and you Latins, who lead armies, and all you that inhabit Europe, and Asia, and Libya.6 And to you I am become an adviser, inasmuch as I am a disciple of the benevolent Logos, and hence humane, in order that you may hasten and by us may be taught who the true God is, and what is His well-ordered creation. Do not devote your attention to the fallacies of artificial discourses, nor the vain promises of plagiarizing heretics,6 but to the venerable simplicity of unassuming truth. And by means of this knowledge you shall escape the approaching threat of the fire of judgment, and the rayless scenery of gloomy Tartarus, where never shines a beam from the irradiating voice of the Word!

You shall escape the boiling flood of hell's6 eternal lake of fire and the eye ever fixed in menacing glare of fallen angels chained in Tartarus as punishment for their sins; and you shall escape the worm that ceaselessly coils for food around the body whose scum6 has bred it. Now such (torments) as these shall you avoid by being instructed in a knowledge of the true God. And you shall possess an immortal body, even one placed beyond the possibility of corruption, just like the soul. And you shall receive the kingdom of heaven, you who, while you sojourned in this life, knew the Celestial King. And you shall be a companion of the Deity, and a co-heir with Christ, no longer enslaved by lusts or passions, and never again wasted by disease. For you have become God:7 for whatever sufferings you underwent while being a man, these He gave to you, because you were of mortal mould, but whatever it is consistent with God to impart, these God has promised to bestow upon you, because you have been deified, and begotten unto immortality.7 This constitutes the import of the proverb, "Know yourself" i.e., discover God within yourself, for He has formed you after His own image. For with the knowledge of self is conjoined the being an object of God's knowledge, for you are called by the Deity Himself. Be not therefore inflamed, O you men, with enmity one towards another, nor hesitate to retrace7 with all speed your steps. For Christ is the God above all, and He has arranged to wash away sin from human beings,7 rendering regenerate the old man. And God called man His likeness from the beginning, and has evinced in a figure His love towards you. And provided you obey His solemn injunctions, and becomest a faithful follower of Him who is good, you shall resemble Him, inasmuch as you shall have honour conferred upon you by Him. For the Deity, (by condescension,) does not diminish anything of the divinity of His divine7 perfection; having made you even God unto His glory!7"
So between the time that Hippolytus died in 236 and the Council at Nicea in 325 AD the view of the church swung from three entities acting as one God to one God made up of three manifestations. The diefication of man is lost, and the true goal of the plan of salvation is lost so that it is preached then as a mere shell of it's former knowledge.

So you are championed by a Trinitarian apologist.

Not hardly. You state, excerpt and state, but you never link, I can find excerpts from any sufficiently large work to support any position, but in context the quotation can mean something entirely different. I link because my quotations are in context, you posted a carefully cut section without linking because... well, I'll let the Lurkers decide.

Please note that my links refute what you are saying, I have refuted you with scriptures, with definitions, and with documents, yet you are sure of your position because it is founded on faith not reason. I find it amusing that that is exactly what you accuse me of.

I submit to you that there is no surer way to keep someone from the truth than to teach them that truth is finite and that they have it already. Mormons believe in continual study, It's included in the 13th article of faith
"We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things."
U Said: Mormon Doctrine was republished with revisions while he was an apostle (most recent edition is 1991). At the time of the first edition, McConkie was a member of the 70, one step away from apostleship (which MD did not appear to affect).

So what? My statements still stand so he was an apostle soon after the last revision, that still doesn't make it Cannon, just a very good study Guide.

I Said: A question, do you use any concodenances, or the internet while studying the Bible? Are they definitive for you, or merely study helps?

U Said: Both. Within my evangelical community I accept most. However, I am not a Catholic, therefore I don’t accept all their material as definitive for me, same for Baptist, Methodist, etc. There is only one Mormonism.

Great, Mormon Doctrine is and was designed to be a study Guide for those learning about Mormonism, but it's not cannon, if it conflicts with cannon, then it is wrong, if it conflicts with the brethren, it is wrong. I know of many places it makes factual errors, but that is OK, Bruce R McConkie was not a perfect man, just a good one, who was called because the Lord saw him even as imperfect as he was as a tool he wanted to use at that time..

U Said: I represented this accurately. This god had to be procreated as some time prior by other gods

Maybe, even probably, but this has not been revealed, it is a logical construct just as the couplet, "As man is God once was, as God is Man can become" is. Do lots of Mormons believe this? Sure, is it doctrine? No.

U Said: I was correct here too. Jesus cannot become god until he is perfected, which you indicate above has not happened yet (by the end of time).

I told you, Jesus is the exception for he became a member of the Godhead before time was, thus he is God, from all eternity to all eternity. We came here to work out our salvation, Jesus was already "saved" or perfect when he as God created Time and later, the Earth, big difference.

U Said: High sounding, but deceptive. Your ‘seminary’ training, if compatible with other mormons, consisted of a theology classes taken during your high school years (hence 4 year). My equivalent experience – 30+ years.

2 Tim. 3: 7 "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."

I could argue my credentials, the only reason I listed them was you said I had none (you were wrong) but I don't believe years of study (Even though I have them) can equal spiritual experience and that, I have had, knowledge gained by dint of cracking books is great, but pales in comparison to revelation from God. If you know so much, why am I handily wining this debate? I am making you look foolish, because You make unsubstantiated assertions and I prove them wrong, you tell me what I believe, and I prove that wrong too. This is funny.

U Said: Attending does not equal study or knowing

But having their ministers try to recruit me into their ministry because of my knowledge does. (man you are batting ZERO today.)

I Said: While on a two year mission to Taiwan I graduated from a Buddhist monastery run by the translator for the living Buddha in Taiwan, and I read at 1500 WPM with measured 92% comprehension rate, I love to study religions. You?

U Said: That might have something to do with the price of tea in china, but it doesn’t indicate you’ve know Christian doctrine. I have looked at the teachings of Mormonism over the past 20 years, have a copy of the BOM that I’ve read on my book shelf and have engaged in discussions like this for over 30 years.

I may not be a professional theologian, but I stayed in a Holiday Inn last night...

I have been a Mormon for more than your 30 years, I have suffered the ignorant, misinformed, ill advised attacks from every preachers son in every town we moved to (which is a lot of towns), I have had co-workers ask me questions that their mother would have made them wash their mouths out with soap if she'd heard it. I have been in more discussions like this than you can possibly know, and My faith is intact for God sustains me. I have taught and baptized orthodox Jews and ministers of other faiths, why? is it because I am some great bastion of cerebral knowledge? Is it because I am smoother, faster, or slicker? No, it is because I have been called of God to do his work by the laying on of hands and by the authority he has placed here on the earth, have I done these things? Yes, I have because Jesus was guiding my lips, and my hands. I do not fear your 30+ years, or your paid ministry, I am called of God, I will go and do that which he wants me to do and I will fear no blogger, I will be as kind as I can while refuting your every misstatement about my church, rest assured if I wanted to, I could haul out the big guns, and you would probably cease to respond to me, or I'd get banned or some such, but I am content to just shoot your six-shooter out of your hand every time you draw. Why am I content to do this? Simple, having a discussion like this leads lurkers to read my page. Some who read my page will ask for a Book of Mormon. Some of those will read it. Some of those will pray about it, Most of those will get Baptized. Thanks for helping me to move the work along.

Reread the sentence, emphasis on the last half vicarious because He was the only one who could do it.

Yep, that is Momrons Doctrine too, Jesus, or his servants wielding his power, for they are one... Something you obviously don't understand, for it was lost from the Bible. Here it is in the D&C:
D&C 1: 38
38 What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.
When Jesus gives you a command, he gives you a way to keep that Command, and we have been commanded to save out ancestors by allowing the righteous among them to chose to accept the ordinances they didn't have the opportunity to receive here while alive, thus they can be judged according to their works..

Consider an infant who lives two day and dies, he has Adam's sin washed away By Jesus' atonement, can he get into heaven? No. He has not been baptized, so he is damned to hell by a just God for no fault of his own? This is not justice. God is Just. He set up a way for this child to receive Baptism and thus be free to enter in at the Gate. Anyone who claims to know Jesus and yet believes that he who loved the children so much would treat a child this way has been deceived, and God have mercy on their dry and embitterd soul.

Revelation 20:12-15
12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
I know this does not agree with what your theology teaches, but the Bible clearly teaches that Hell will be destroyed and that people will come out of it first to be judged...

This must be upsetting to you to see that your theology does not match with your scriptures. this is exactly what Jesus was talking to Joseph smith about. Many churches teach "simplified" stories and concepts from the scriptures, not the scriptures themselves, that's OK as far as it goes, it's a start. But then to make things fit that they don't understand, they take shortcuts, they have to lop off pieces of the Gospel. and that's a problem. Mormons speak of having the " Fullness of the Gospel", does that mean we know everything? No. I means we have the minimum pieces needed to get into heaven, and as soon as we have them, we are commanded to help those who didn't have those pieces

U Said: You are predictable. While there are 4 possible interpretations of the passage (none support Mormon theology)

Stop right there, so I used an impossible interpretation? ROTFLOL! there's got to be a tag line in here somewhere. So since you don't agree with my interpretation, it does not exist, or is impossible and thus you don't have to refute it? really this is funny! and the whole rest of your argument is just self congratulation on how right your interpretation is, so I won't include it here.

I Said: Mormons believe in Grace and works, lets not leave out the grace...

U Said: Under Mormon theology, I covered that with the etc.

So if someone says about your church, they believe in Satan, etc. you are "OK" with that because they included God in the etc? Again ROTFLOL!

Have you ever been referred to as a member of the "group" Boys, or maybe Girls? did you get upset if someone said there are 23 boys, and 31 girls and you were included, but say over 18? God is a spirit, and he also has a body of flesh and bones, Jesus is a spirit, he also has a body of flesh and Bones. Christians understand the Dual nature of Spirit and Body

You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body. -- CS Lewis.

I Said: My uncle speaks Greek...

U Said: He stands contrary to most other true greek scholars, not just speakers of questionable ability.

I am quite sure that both you and I could find scholars aplenty who support our views, through the miracle of the internet and google, however your stance of "there are only four possible interpretations and none agree with Mormonism" will be just as destroyed if I only point out that it is my interpretation, therefore it's possible, therefore your use of absolutes makes you wrong.

"Don't use words too big for the subject. Don't say "infinitely" when you mean "very"; otherwise you'll have no word left when you want to talk about something really infinite." -- CS Lewis (I just love his insights)

"I never speak in absolutes..." -- Me <Foghorn leghorn Voice>It's a joke son!</Foghorn leghorn Voice>

I Said: There are many places throughout the Bible that can be used to support my claim a summary dismissal like you are now making is common, but hey the gospel is about Change, stay stagnant if you want to.

U Said: There is no changing in my God.

I said nothing about Changing God, but about changing us, Repent, it's a word for change, be careful that in your rigidity you do not refuse to change for God.

U Said: Your problem is that you are claiming that my Christian faith is invalid by invoking your prophets.

I have specifically tried hard not to "invalidate" your faith. You have been trying to prove that I am not a Christian (which means I believe in Christ). I have been defending that. I am, a man who follows the teachings of Jesus as I understand them, that should make me a Christian. You say I am not, and post specific doctrines that you say refute that claim. You seem to expect that I will bow my head and just shuffle off, muttering, but I wanted to be right... Human nature wold dictate another course. I will of course begin to defend my position, I will quote scriptures and documents that support my position. Since you are the one saying that i am not a Christian, then the burden of proof is on you to prove it. I am not trying to say that you are not a Obviously, I am forced by your attacks to bring up history and doctrine that supports my view which means it invalidates yours. Don't want this stuff aired? Stop attacking. If I were indeed attacking your faith, you would no longer be reading my posts, trust me, and I would probably have been banned to boot. Luckily for you, attacking Momrons and Mormonism seems to be OK in todays society, where a similar attack on Jews, blacks or women would get you (metaphorically) tied to a stake in the public square and horse whipped.

Please Believe me when I say I am really good at invective, if I were attacking you, you would most defintatly know it, Instead I am merely defending my right to believe as I wish without others defining my faith for me.

As my Mom once told me, when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging! Don't want us to defend (because you look bad?) stop attacking.

U Said: I have presented Mormon doctrine that you have confirmed although ‘fact filled’ has been selective.

I have no idea what you are talking about almost everything you have said about us is flawed in some respect, yet you claim to know more about my faith than I do. (Chuckles)

U Said: Your statements to date are not logical, but founded upon sand as your following statement show.

Your commentaries are always funny...

I Said: Like the Trinity that was added to the Biblical teaching of the Godhead that we believe? (The word Godhead is in the KJV Bible, the trinity is not.)

Well, the Word Godhead is in the Bible, the early christians believed in a sperate God and Jesus (Godhead), the Greek and Hellinistic influences on the Catholic Church are irrefutable to anyone who will actually look at the record. (Yes, I am linking Wikipedia because I don't want to add a ton of links here, this has already gotten too long.)

U Said: The fact that theotes is used here...<Snip>
IMHO, the rest of your argument boils down to "IF you were right we (Trinitarianists) would have interpreted the scriptures that way while we were translating them, since we didn't you are wrong."

I am just going to chuckle, as this is a self refuting argument.

U Said: Only when applying flawed, non-contextral interpretation. But here are a few that I’m thinking of:

What is the correct context for the Bible? Reading it with the Spirit, anything else is just natural man aggrandsement.


I am going to skip a bunch of blovation here...


U Said: The Book of Enoch was well known during the time of Jesus. It was generally considered a part of the Jewish scripture immediately prior to and during the first century (until it was removed by the Sanhedrin in AD 90).

So why did that stop it from being added to the Old Testament by the "Christian Church"?

U Said: Why isn't this wonderful book included in the Bible? The answer is that Jesus and the apostles never called it scripture.

That is funny, every time Jesus refers to himself or the Disciples refer to him as "The Son of Man" they are referencing a specific Messianic Prophecy in the Book of Enoch.

U Said: It is important to note that a few early church fathers highly valued the book of Enoch but they never referred to it as scripture.

Catholic church fathers? or other churches, funny that the Book of Enoch was used all the way up until well after the OT was compiled, and only fell out of use when everything including the services were moved into Latin the Pope did not have the Book of Enoch translated into Latin, so it gradually fell out of use.

U Said: Therefore, we cannot view it as authoritative since it is not the Word of God.

So it was good enough for Jesus and all the disciples to quote, but not good enough for you, I see.

U Said: To simply mention an extra-biblical document doesn’t canonize it.

To me that would depend on who is mentioning it, and for me, the Savior quoting from it is good enough.

U Said: Oh, and this book isn’t ‘lost’, it is available for review.

You've read it?, here, read it online, I have. (the relevance of the speed of reading thing, take your time, I'll wait and read other stuff...)

U Said: Then he misrepresented the book when it was printed. The manuscript was copied as it was read by Smith. The Lord supposedly dictated the Book of Mormon letter by letter. To go back without the plates for reference and ‘mark up’ means his mark-up were of man and not plates or god.

Joseph dictated it like a story, word by word, sometimes faster, sometimes slower, not letter for letter. the differences of the spelling of words by the different scribes should be proof enough of that for you since apparently his word is not.

U Said: A lot of words for a few grammar changes.

you can see how a scribe would miss that too.

U Said: They were presented to President Eldon Tanner, who accepted the on behalf of the church. The Mormon church has never issued a proclamation that denies that these were Smith’s papyri.

They were his papyri, just not the one from which the book of Abraham was translated, they don't even match the Description of those papyri by Joseph, or third parties.

U Said: Again, you show your ignorance of Christian theology. When I refer to God, I refer to the whole personage – Father, Son and Spirit. Trinitarianism is not modalism.

I can see how you might think that, but you are mistaken modalism is basically the Belief that God just changes form to be either Christ, God, or the holy Spirit (like a shape shifter), Trinity (as I understand it) is the belief that God is simultaneously God, Christ and the Holy spirit, but that they are of the same substance (which is impossible in physics, but hey this is religion...) Where the Godhead is the belief that God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost are separate spirits and that God and Jesus now possess physical immortal bodies, but are so in tune with each other that they are one in heart might mind and strength. Of these three perspectives on the scriptures Modalisem and Trinitarianism are more closely related than the Godhead is to either one.

Here are some further Quotations from Hippolytus' book Against one Noetus:
Now they seek to exhibit the foundation for their dogma by citing the word in the law, "I am the God of your fathers: you shall have no other gods beside me; " and again in another passage, "I am the first," He says, "and the last; and beside me there is none other." Thus they say they prove that God is one. And then they answer in this manner: "If therefore I acknowledge Christ to be God, He is the Father Himself, if He is indeed God; and Christ suffered, being Himself God; and consequently the Father suffered, for He was the Father Himself." But the case stands not thus;
Gee, this sounds to me a lot like the arguments Trinitarians try to make with Mormons.

Let us look next at the apostle's word: "Whose are the fathers, of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever."21 This word declares the mystery of the truth rightly and clearly. He who is over all is God; for thus He speaks boldly, "All things are delivered unto me of my Father."21 He who is over all, God blessed, has been born; and having been made man, He is (yet) God for ever. For to this effect John also has said, "Which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty."21 And well has he named Christ the Almighty. For in this he has said only what Christ testifies of Himself. For Christ gave this testimony, and said, "All things are delivered unto me of my Father; "21 and Christ rules all things, and has been appointed22 Almighty by the Father.
It Looks to me like Hippolytus understands that Jesus was appointed to be God by his father before time began.

Now for the Finishing nail in the "Hippolytus was a Trinitarian Hogwash".
If, again, he allege His own word when He said, "I and the Father are one,"22 let him attend to the fact, and understand that He did not say, "I and the Father am one, but are one."22 For the word are22 is not said of one person, but it refers to two persons, and one power.22 He has Himself made this clear, when He spoke to His Father concerning the disciples, "The glory which You gave me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and You in me, that they may be made perfect in one; that the world may know that You have sent me."22 What have the Noetians to say to these things? Are all one body in respect of substance, or is it that we become one in the power and disposition of unity of mind?22 In the same manner the Son, who was sent and was not known of those who are in the world, confessed that He was in the Father in power and disposition.
Now this proves that Hippolytus was no more a trinitarian than I am, let me also point out that Hippolytus understood God's oneness the way I do. (One in heart might mind and strength)
These things then, brethren, are declared by the Scriptures. And the blessed John, in the testimony of his Gospel, gives us an account of this economy (disposition) and acknowledges this Word as God, when he says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." If, then, the Word was with God, and was also God, what follows? Would one say that he speaks of two Gods?25 I shall not indeed speak of two Gods, but of one; of two Persons however, and of a third economy (disposition), viz., the grace of the Holy Ghost. For the Father indeed is One, but there are two Persons, because there is also the Son; and then there is the third, the Holy Spirit. The Father decrees, the Word executes, and the Son is manifested, through whom the Father is believed on. The economy25 of harmony is led back to one God; for God is One. It is the Father who commands,26 and the Son who obeys, and the Holy Spirit who gives understanding:26 the Father who is above all,26 and the Son who is through all, and the Holy Spirit who is in all. And we cannot otherwise think of one God,26 but by believing in truth in Father and Son and Holy Spirit.
What is really amazing to me is this was translated by the Catholics, and they left in it the refutations of their Creeds and Dogma (They also translated Economy as Trinity everywhere they could, but it still refutes them).

U Said: How do you find the lds website - type in www.believe.org.

Interesting, I followed back to post #285, where it says www.mormons.org, Somehow in cut and pasting it, it was changed to www.believe.org. I have no idea how that happened, believe.org is not a site I would frequent, it appears to be an evangelical site. The following comments are supposed to be about http://www.mormons.org. U Said: Actually, that is a missionary site we set up because Anti's wanted to put stuff there and tell people it was "our site" it's a very shallow site which exists solely for missionary efforts.

U Said: It is an abuse to deliberately misquote an individual. I did not say the above. My response was as follows:

The misquote was not deliberate, I assure you, I am amending it here, my comments were intended to be about the www.mormons.org site.

www.momrons.org is indeed owned by the church (as new advent the site I keep quoting about things early Obviously is Catholic owned), thus it is an "official" site of the Church. Many churches have more than one web site, http://catholic.org/ for example is yet another Catholic web site. I do not know if the Catholics have a "Main" web site, but as for the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, it's http://www.LDS.org, not http://www.mormons.org.
360 posted on 01/13/2008 11:54:58 AM PST by DelphiUser ("You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 307 | View Replies ]


To: DelphiUser

“why do you care what people you say have no authority do in their holiest places? Or is it just a point you think you can make hay with...”

It does not matter...

Those people who are entittled to go into the mormon cult building are no closer to a God than a dog outside in the alley so you are not missing anything...God does not dwell in temples made with hands Acts 7:48-50 We are the living stones of the church of Christ 1 Peter 2:5

The moment Jesus died, the curtain to the Holy of Holies was torn down signifying that there was no longer a barrier between God and man Matthew 27:51, Mark 15:38, Luke 23:45...Ordinary people no longer have to stand outside and wait for the High Priest to come out of the Holy of Holies in order to hear from the man what God had said..

Because of Jesus, we now all hear from God for ourselves..Hebrews 4:16


365 posted on 01/13/2008 12:48:06 PM PST by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 360 | View Replies ]

To: DelphiUser
Very good points DU. Hyppolytus’ writings are a fascinating read to say the least. When he refered to a trinity, he obviously referred to the idea of 3 separate & distinct Gods making up the “trinity”, trinity meaning 3 Gods, not 3 Gods in one. People will unfortunately often only see what they want to see. It’s not a search for truth w/ some here, but a win at all costs. A shame really. Thanks for your input today. It added to my studies for the day.
370 posted on 01/13/2008 6:26:48 PM PST by Reno232
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 360 | View Replies ]

To: DelphiUser
Everyone stand back, he’s figured out how to post pictures in html!

I can't go into a Jewish temple, nor can I partake of the Eucharist at a Mass, or walk into meetings at the Vatican. The pentagon seems to be off limits, Can I go into Cheyenne Mountain and see the big ring they have there? I think it's called a stargate.

Bogus examples. There currently is no Jewish temple, only synagogues which you can go and attend services. You can attend Mass and observe Eucharist, but I cannot attend temple and observe your ceremonies. Your other examples are just stupid do comment on.

I was not pleading ignorance, you have a guy powerfully testifying of Jesus, who at the same time says Jesus Said all creeds were abominations and you say he is denying Christ? Do you even know how to get to reality from where you are?

2Co 11:14 - And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.

Yeah, right, somebody needs to follow links, so maybe I'll just include a bit from my page witch has the links.

I will distill my comments for both here and the latter of your post concerning Hippolytus. To your credit, you link to the documents hosted on a Catholic site. To your discredit you blindly recite regurgitated material found on dozens of similar mormon sites promulgated by FARMS. Hippolytus must be evaluated in the context of what he was arguing against. Thus Noetus is key to understanding the backdrop. Secondly, the term “Trinity” first appeared in the east in AD 180 used by Theophilus. Trinity was first used in the West around A.D. 213, by, Tertullian. So in your arguments, you not only align yourself with modalists like Noetus, but Jehovah witnesses too.

Not hardly. You state, excerpt and state, but you never link, I can find excerpts from any sufficiently large work to support any position, but in context the quotation can mean something entirely different. I link because my quotations are in context, you posted a carefully cut section without linking because... well, I'll let the Lurkers decide.

Oh, I get it, you made a joke. We’ll see later how well you do with ‘context’ later

Please note that my links refute what you are saying, I have refuted you with scriptures, with definitions, and with documents, yet you are sure of your position because it is founded on faith not reason.

I can hardly call canned arguments ‘refutation’. Certainly not with scriptures (as we will see), or definitions (though wrapped in Christianese), and documents (or lack there of for BOM)

what? My statements still stand so he was an apostle soon after the last revision, that still doesn't make it Cannon, just a very good study Guide.

As a member of the 70, he taught directly from your doctrinal standard works, as an apostle his instruction continued, he is not an authority on your doctrine, then who is?

Great, Mormon Doctrine is and was designed to be a study Guide for those learning about Mormonism, but it's not cannon, if it conflicts with cannon, then it is wrong, if it conflicts with the brethren, it is wrong. I know of many places it makes factual errors, but that is OK, Bruce R McConkie was not a perfect man, just a good one, who was called because the Lord saw him even as imperfect as he was as a tool he wanted to use at that time.

Remarkable, because he uses your standard works and the teachings of the prophet to ‘teach’ your doctrine. It is sanctioned by the mormon church, so if it is so flawed, why haven’t they directed the “factual errors” corrected? (crickets) So if you own apostles don’t know mormon doctrine correctly, who can I believe?

Maybe, even probably, but this has not been revealed, it is a logical construct just as the couplet, "As man is God once was, as God is Man can become" is. Do lots of Mormons believe this? Sure, is it doctrine? No.

This was taught by none less than Smith himself! Similar teaching was carried on by Young. Even McConkie understood that this is what was taught. IF their teaching was NOT based upon mormon doctrine or inspired voice of the prophet, then the who fundamental base of an active prophetic voice is flawed and the basis of your standard works. These are not flunkies, but the top mormon leaders, to refresh your memory:

"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!.... I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see... he was once a man like us... and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves..." (T. of P.J.S., p. 345-346).
Apostle Orson Pratt said, "The Gods who dwell in the Heaven from which our spirits came, are beings who have been redeemed from the grave in a world which existed before the foundations of this earth were laid. They and the heavenly body which they now inhabit were once in a fallen state. They were exalted also, from fallen men to Celestial Gods to inhabit their Heaven forever and ever" (The Seer, p. 23).
Pratt also wrote "We were begotten by our Father in Heaven; the person of our Father in Heaven was begotten on a previous heavenly world by His Father; and again He was begotten by a still more ancient Father, and so on, from generation to generation, from one heavenly world to another still more ancient, until our minds are wearied and lost in the multiplicity of generations and successive worlds" (The Seer, p. 132).
Although not of apostle or prophet status Milton R. Hunter, wrote on behalf of the LDS General Authorities: "Mormon prophets have continuously taught the sublime truth that God the Eternal Father was once a mortal man who passed through a school of earth life similar to that through which we are now passing... He became God - an exalted being - through obedience to the same eternal Gospel truths that we are given opportunity today to obey"

The logical construct in mormonism requires a god to father god.

I told you, Jesus is the exception for he became a member of the Godhead before time was, thus he is God, from all eternity to all eternity. We came here to work out our salvation, Jesus was already "saved" or perfect when he as God created Time and later, the Earth, big difference.

Simple dodge to the dilemma that your christology fails when it comes to practical application. Since the ‘father’ of Jesus, according to your theology, had to have a ‘father’ to procreate the spirit child, who according to the prophet Smith himself followed the path of eternal progression makes it impossible for Jesus too to be eternal. As Jesus’ ‘father’ had to enter time to be a man and obtain his physical body, time had to be already created, so Jesus could not accomplish what had already been done. So where in your standard works does this work out for you – the Jesus exception?

I could argue my credentials, the only reason I listed them was you said I had none (you were wrong) but I don't believe years of study (Even though I have them) can equal spiritual experience and that, I have had, knowledge gained by dint of cracking books is great, but pales in comparison to revelation from God.

Deficient memory. Please review http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1950542/posts?page=307#301 and refresh your memory (or even post 250 via link). I said as you quoted me:
U Said: You really don't know Christian doctrine very well do you.

You volunteered and still your ‘credentials’ are lacking in any adequate study of Christian theology, in fact the immediate context of my original comment was your equating the simple attendance of a Christian church service and equaling the knowledge of Christian doctrine. What you have shown me in the above that you and other mormons don’t really have a grip on your own theology, let alone Christian.

I may not be a professional theologian, but I stayed in a Holiday Inn last night...

Heretic, thought only Marriott was allowed for mormons :)

… I could haul out the big guns, and you would probably cease to respond to me, or I'd get banned or some such, but I am content to just shoot your six-shooter out of your hand every time you draw.

I am shaking in my bunny slippers

Yep, that is Momrons Doctrine too, Jesus, or his servants wielding his power, for they are one...

You conviently added to stated Christian doctrine “or his servants….etc”. That is not Christian doctrine, so it is incorrect to add ‘too’.

Something you obviously don't understand, for it was lost from the Bible. Here it is in the D&C:

Ah yes, the ‘ol left out of the Bible routine. Do you have proof, such as an early MS that contains this great gem of wisdom?

Consider an infant who lives two day and dies……..

You do not understand the character of God. He will not hold accountable those who are unable to make moral decisions. Examples:
"Moreover your little ones and your children, who you say will be victims, who today have no knowledge of good and evil, they shall go in there; to them I will give it and they shall possess it" (Deuteronomy 1: 39)
"So he said, 'While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, 'Who can tell whether the Lord will be gracious to me, that the child may live? But now he is dead; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me" (2 Samuel 12: 22-23)
“But Nineveh has more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot tell their right hand from their left, and many cattle as well. Should I not be concerned about that great city?" (Jonah 4:11)
“Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."( Matthew 19:14)

There are many other Biblical references to permit one to conclude that it is within God's power and scope to extend His loving grace and favor to small children just as He does to the committed believer. Revelation 20:12-15

Well here is a new twist, I though every one except the son of perdition got to make it to at least one level of heaven. And when you read the greater context this extract is placed within, you will find that there is no reference to any during this judgement not being cast into hell. In the context of Phillipians 4:3, and Revelation 3:5, 13:8, and 17:8 the names in the book were already there because of belief in Jesus, not of any works. So how could Paul claim he was in the book of life when his ‘works’ were not tried, because he accepted Jesus Christ by faith and not of works.

Stop right there, so I used an impossible interpretation? ROTFLOL! there's got to be a tag line in here somewhere. So since you don't agree with my interpretation, it does not exist, or is impossible and thus you don't have to refute it? really this is funny! and the whole rest of your argument is just self congratulation on how right your interpretation is, so I won't include it here.

In a word – yes, here for the ‘lurkers’ is the first example of your inability to argue within the context of the passage. That context was clearly presented. Only one citation in the entire bible regarding this act and clearly from the context Paul was speaking within he was referring to people OUTSIDE of the church and not a practice of the church itself. All 4 of the interpretations make this link firmly.

I am quite sure that both you and I could find scholars aplenty who support our views, through the miracle of the internet and google, however your stance of "there are only four possible interpretations and none agree with Mormonism" will be just as destroyed if I only point out that it is my interpretation, therefore it's possible, therefore your use of absolutes makes you wrong.

You can’t even follow your on posts. I provided greek words in an earlier example that could have conveyed the subject. The word used didn’t support your assertion. That is not ‘interpretation’ but simple dictionary work. In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul uses first person plural (i.e., "our," "us," "we") to refer to Christians but when he gets to verse 29, he then switches using second person ("they"). Hence, he does not include himself or the Corinthian church with this practice (v. 29: "what will they do" Not: "what will we do"). Lurkers will see that you cannot handle context.

I have specifically tried hard not to "invalidate" your faith.

ROTFLAICGU

You seem to expect that I will bow my head and just shuffle off, muttering, but I wanted to be right...

Talking about yourself again I see.

Obviously, I am forced by your attacks to bring up history and doctrine that supports my view which means it invalidates yours. Don't want this stuff aired? Stop attacking. /I>

You know, you threw down an awful big challenge to look to the word of the witnesses regarding the bom’s authenticity but only here crickets in reply. Is this an example of not wanting this stuff aired? I also note that thought you could explain off the top of your head changes in the bom over time I still hear crickets churping. And we haven’t even begun to scratch bom (non)archaeology and gross contradictions between D&C, bom and POGP let alone the Bible. If this is what is sticking in your craw, perhaps you shouldn’t be playing in the kitchen.

Luckily for you, attacking Momrons and Mormonism seems to be OK in todays society, where a similar attack on Jews, blacks or women would get you (metaphorically) tied to a stake in the public square and horse whipped.

Maybe it is you that need the Waaaaaaambulance.

Please Believe me when I say I am really good at invective, if I were attacking you, you would most defintatly know it, Instead I am merely defending my right to believe as I wish without others defining my faith for me.

Lessee, this is the second threat of this kind in this posting. I certainly hope it is of the caliber of Smith’s against the three ‘witnesses’, if so I’ll have the popcorn ready. Such ad homem attacks are usually the refuge of the desperate. But then, of course you are free to define my faith for me, hmmmm. But then you have your sacred underwear, mine are asbestos.

As my Mom once told me, when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging!

Isn’t that what Smith’s mommy told Smith and his dad after digging throughtout New York state with their funny little stone?

Well, the Word Godhead is in the Bible, the early christians believed in a sperate God and Jesus (Godhead), the Greek and Hellinistic influences on the Catholic Church are irrefutable to anyone who will actually look at the record. (Yes, I am linking Wikipedia because I don't want to add a ton of links here, this has already gotten too long.)

Right, wiki the infallible resource. And irregardless that your biblical proof texts don’t stand the test of scrutiny even at the usage of the greek. Further more the first Christians were Jews who accepted the monontheistic teachings of the faith and would flatly reject polytheistic beliefs (don’t believe that, ask the Romans).

IMHO, the rest of your argument boils down to "IF you were right we (Trinitarianists) would have interpreted the scriptures that way while we were translating them, since we didn't you are wrong."

Here is another fine example for the lurkers out there on how mormon apologists fail context and common sense 101 and why so much anger is being generated towards me. The passage in question again is:
Colossians 2:9 For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form
hoti en auto katoikei (3SPAI) pan to pleroma ten theotetos somatikos,

This is one of mormonism proof texts to prove that the ‘godhead that they believe’ listed here, negates and contradicts the Trinitarian understanding of God. For reference, the mormon definition of ‘godhead’ is:
Doctrine and Covenants 130:22: The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.

Thus they teach that Father God is a resurrected man with a physical body. He has a Father-God above Him. Christ is a separate resurrected man with a physical body; Holy Ghost is a separate man with a spiritual body. These three are totally separate Gods. Is this what is really being said by this passage? The dispute can be focused upon the Greek word here for Deity – Theotes.
Theotes refers to the essence and nature of the Godhead, not merely the divine perfections and attributes of Divinity (which is a different Greek word (theiotes). Christ, as Man, was not merely God-like, but was in the fullest sense, God. Greater detail can be found at http://www.preceptaustin.org/colossians_28-15.htm#2:9.
Here mormons fail because they try to rely upon the translation absent the underlying greek word. Godhead is only found in the KJV as well as Douay-Rheims and Young’s literal) it is generally translated ‘Deity’ in all modern translations. So, relying upon King James English, mormons have fashioned an argument that avoids the actual pesky greek that denies their positions and assertion of their ‘godhead’.
The proper application of the greek in this instance provides one of the strongest Trinitarian statements found in the Bible. For Christians Godhead and Trinity are interchangeable and the same.

I am going to skip a bunch of blovation here...

What is skipped here is a short list of mormon scriptures that he challenged me earlier to produce. I encourage everyone to go back and re-read this list that he is ducking in his reply.

That is funny, every time Jesus refers to himself or the Disciples refer to him as "The Son of Man" they are referencing a specific Messianic Prophecy in the Book of Enoch.

Now we enter a funny little phase about the psudeographic book of Enoch. As I stated, it was around at the time of Christ, but did Jesus refer to this or the Book of Daniel (7:14). The phrase ‘son of man’ is specifically referenced within Similitudes of Enoch (1 Enoch 37-71). The Similitudes of Enoch do not appear in early versions of Enoch, and is unlikely that this was the specific reference Jesus was speaking of. Greater discussion found in Harper’s Bible Dictionary.

Catholic church fathers? or other churches, funny that the Book of Enoch was used all the way up until well after the OT was compiled, and only fell out of use when everything including the services were moved into Latin the Pope did not have the Book of Enoch translated into Latin, so it gradually fell out of use.

Again, lacking knowledge you stick your foot into your mouth. Ireanus (150) and Eusabus (325) considered it scripture, but the majority of others at the time didn’t. The Jews dropped Enoch by AD 90, and it was not found in the LXX (greek version of the OT). As the church in AD 90 still had a strong Jewish background, and concurred with the Jewish decision. While Jude quotes from it, that in itself doesn’t necessarily endue it as a canonical book. To follow mormon logic on this manner, the greek philosophers Paul quoted should also be canonized.

Joseph dictated it like a story, word by word, sometimes faster, sometimes slower, not letter for letter. the differences of the spelling of words by the different scribes should be proof enough of that for you since apparently his word is not.

Again, I am not talking about ‘spelling’ changes or minor grammar. What I am talking about are significant re-writes that I posted and you some how failed to answer ‘off the top of your head’. Readers lose out, but some of these discrepancies are listed on the previous post. Far to many for simple scribal error.

They were his papyri, just not the one from which the book of Abraham was translated, they don't even match the Description of those papyri by Joseph, or third parties.

Again from the November 27, 1967, the Mormon-owned Deseret News announced:
Included in the papyri is a manuscript identified as the original document from which Joseph Smith had copied the drawing which he called "Facsimile No. 1" and published with the Book of Abraham.

In fact the papyri was turned over to the famous mormon Egyptologist Hugh Nibley. Upon further investigation at a meeting held at the University of Utah on May 20, 1968, Dr. Nibley made these comments:

Within a week of the publication of the papyri, students began calling my attention... to the fact that, the very definite fact that, one of the fragments seemed to supply all of the symbols for the Book of Abraham. This was the little "Sensen" scroll. Here are the symbols. The symbols are arranged here, and the interpretation goes along here and this interpretation turns out to be the Book of Abraham.

Here is your irrefutable MS for one of the standard works.

404 posted on 01/14/2008 4:07:25 PM PST by Godzilla (Lets put the FUN back in dysfunctional)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 360 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson