Posted on 10/24/2010 9:10:56 AM PDT by Colofornian
He may TRY, but the RM has already ruled that countering the claims of mormonism as MRM does does not qualify it as a hate site.
This is more of an attempt to "poison the well". Simple review of his various posts reveal this to be one of the foundational tactics -
Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the opponent(the target) is presented by another. ("Before you listen to my opponent, it is a hate speech site.")
A subcategory of this form is the application of an unfavorable attribute to any future opponents, in an attempt to discourage debate. ("Only mormon-favoring sites can be used, and anyone who disagrees with me hates mormons.") Any person who steps forward to dispute the claim will then apply the tag to him/herself in the process.
I think both of you, GF and SZ, are probably familiar with the 'victim' mentality that can inhabit the thoughts of TBM and the desire to silence opposition a la Nauvoo Expositor. Infact I've seen posts by mormons wishing that the Danites were reinstituted.
It may prove to be amusing to see a substantiated and supported presentation of this "hate" where equivalent activities of LDS organizations wouldn't be classified as "hate" sites as well.
Thank you, Zilla...
Great info...
:)
Selected from the Comments from Readers page from mormons at MRM:
“I am a Mormon but wanted to salute you for the knowledge and research that you have done into the Mormon religion. I believe your site has more information about what is happening within the church today and in history than just about any I have seen. Thank you for an honest fairly honest representation of the many aspects and problems of the LDS church today.”
“As a practicing member of the Church of Jesus Christ I wish to thank you for an apparently sincere attempt to ‘expose’ the church; many ill-willed attempts have been made. Generally speaking, I believe that your website makes a credible case in citing quotes and providing even-handed commentary on church doctrine and practices, given the evangelical paradigm.”
“I consider myself a very devoted Mormon. I loved your site when I visited. Thank you for taking the time to point out legitimate criticisms of Mormonism in a fair and evenhanded way. The Mormon church would be a better organization if we followed many of your recommendations!”
But then there were other mormons -
“You B*******! If you had prains, you would understand that the constitution gives write of religion! The stupid hic farmers that persicuted the church had no reason for the murders and other hideous crimes commited against the church. You have no write to say this b*** s***! Leave us alone and we will leave you alone. You will do well to shut your mouth!”
“In my experience those who seek to destroy the LDS church, are usually ex-saints who had a hard time living words of morality and wisdom. Groups like yours are made up of perverts, wife beaters, and sheep who will follow the loudest bleating moron out there.”
“I think there is a word for people like you guys. yes let me think ...... BIGOT! that’s it... When it comes to religion everyone thinks they have the ‘truth’ its a shame people cant live and let live. As long as they are doing no direct harm to you. What’s next you going to start gassing the mormons... :) In hope you will help the world and rid your heart of hate.”
http://mrm.org/comments-from-readers
Which group can be more closely regarded as “hate” speech.
William Law had an opposing view and the mormon founder Joey Smith smashed his printer and burned down his newspaper building and declared martial law and closed down the whole town of Nauvoo like a Jewish Ghetto in Nazi Poland...
How about that for “fair and balanced” ???
Well the last thing we are interested in is messing with anyone's “write of religion”
What I find despicable is the mormonism apologist claiming they worship the God of Abraham, trying to deceive readers into delving into the cultic ways of Momronism. If these ‘people’ believe in the God of Abraham they wouldn’t be ploytheistic and liars about that fact to boot! They wouldn’t have as their god someone who ‘gained exaltation’ and was ‘appointed to godhood’! But what should we expect from a cult fathered by the father of lies a murderer from the start?
“I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true.”
17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!
18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.
19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”
20 He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time. When I came to myself again, I found myself lying on my back, looking up into heaven. When the light had departed, I had no strength; but soon recovering in some degree, I went home. And as I leaned up to the fireplace, mother inquired what the matter was. I replied, “Never mind, all is well—I am well enough off.” I then said to my mother,
Joseph Smith continues: "for the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible" (from Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith-History 1:12). "What is it that inspires professors of Christianity generally with a hope of salvation? It is that smooth, sophisticated influence of the devil, by which he deceives the whole world" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.270).Questions put to Joseph Smith: "'Do you believe the Bible?' [Smith:]'If we do, we are the only people under heaven that does, for there are none of the religious sects of the day that do'. When asked 'Will everybody be damned, but Mormons'? [Smith replied] 'Yes, and a great portion of them, unless they repent, and work righteousness." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 119).Brigham Young stated this repeatedly: "When the light came to me I saw that all the so-called Christian world was grovelling in darkness" (Journal of Discourses 5:73); "The Christian world, so-called, are heathens as to the knowledge of the salvation of God" (Journal of Discourses 8:171); "With a regard to true theology, a more ignorant people never lived than the present so-called Christian world" (Journal of Discourses 8:199); "And who is there that acknowledges [God's] hand? ...You may wander east, west, north, and south, and you cannot find it in any church or government on the earth, except the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p.24); "Should you ask why we differ from other Christians, as they are called, it is simply because they are not Christians as the New Testament defines Christianity" (Journal of Discourses 10:230).Orson Pratt proclaimed: "Both Catholics and Protestants are nothing less than the 'whore of Babylon' whom the Lord denounces by the mouth of John the Revelator as having corrupted all the earth by their fornications and wickedness. Any person who shall be so corrupt as to receive a holy ordinance of the Gospel from the ministers of any of these apostate churches will be sent down to hell with them, unless they repent" (The Seer, p. 255).Pratt also said: "This great apostasy commenced about the close of the first century of the Christian era, and it has been waxing worse and worse from then until now" (Journal of Discourses, vol.18, p.44) and: "But as there has been no Christian Church on the earth for a great many centuries past, until the present century, the people have lost sight of the pattern that God has given according to which the Christian Church should be established, and they have denominated a great variety of people Christian Churches, because they profess to be ...But there has been a long apostasy, during which the nations have been cursed with apostate churches in great abundance" (Journal of Discourses, 18:172).President John Taylor stated: "Christianity...is a perfect pack of nonsense...the devil could not invent a better engine to spread his work than the Christianity of the nineteenth century." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p.167); "Where shall we look for the true order or authority of God? It cannot be found in any nation of Christendom." (Journal of Discourses, 10:127).James Talmage said: "A self-suggesting interpretation of history indicates that there has been a great departure from the way of salvation as laid down by the Savior, a universal apostasy from the Church of Christ". (A Study of the Articles of Faith, p.182).President Joseph Fielding Smith said: "Doctrines were corrupted, authority lost, and a false order of religion took the place of the gospel of Jesus Christ, just as it had been the case in former dispensations, and the people were left in spiritual darkness." (Doctrines of Salvation, p.266). "For hundreds of years the world was wrapped in a veil of spiritual darkness, until there was not one fundamental truth belonging to the place of salvation ...Joseph Smith declared that in the year 1820 the Lord revealed to him that all the 'Christian' churches were in error, teaching for commandments the doctrines of men" (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 3, p.282).More recent statements by apostle Bruce McConkie are also very clear: "Apostasy was universal...And this darkness still prevails except among those who have come to a knowledge of the restored gospel" (Doctrines of Salvation, vol 3, p.265); "Thus the signs of the times include the prevailing apostate darkness in the sects of Christendom and in the religious world in general" (The Millennial Messiah, p.403); "a perverted Christianity holds sway among the so-called Christians of apostate Christendom" (Mormon Doctrine, p.132); "virtually all the millions of apostate Christendom have abased themselves before the mythical throne of a mythical Christ whom they vainly suppose to be a spirit essence who is incorporeal uncreated, immaterial and three-in-one with the Father and Holy Spirit" (Mormon Doctrine, p.269); "Gnosticism is one of the great pagan philosophies which antedated Christ and the Christian Era and which was later commingled with pure Christianity to form the apostate religion that has prevailed in the world since the early days of that era." (Mormon Doctrine, p.316).President George Q. Cannon said: "After the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was organized, there were only two churches upon the earth. They were known respectively as the Church of the Lamb of God and Babylon. The various organizations which are called churches throughout Christendom, though differing in their creeds and organizations, have one common origin. They all belong to Babylon" (Gospel Truth, p.324).President Wilford Woodruff stated: "the Gospel of modern Christendom shuts up the Lord, and stops all communication with Him. I want nothing to do with such a Gospel, I would rather prefer the Gospel of the dark ages, so called" (Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p.196).
Really Godzilla, I expected better.So, I didn't say Godhead, I said compare with others... I dunno, I guess you are even more of a literalist than I am which is quite an accomplishment since I am autistic.
I had expected that you would try to explain yourself, but I see now that, that won't happen as you get too long when you do, you tried to quote people who while they talked about the Trinity a lot, like a teenager, the never got over their beliefs to compare with others. At the risk of sounding patronizing. Godzilla, people will ask you this again, let me give you a few better sites.
11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.So, how is Christ using "one" here? When people join the church do they become of one substance? While physically separate, are they still part of the body?
12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.
13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
14 For the body is not one member, but many.
15 If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
16 And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
17 If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?
18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.
19 And if they were all one member, where were the body?
20 But now are they many members, yet but one body.
21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.
22 Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary:
23 And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness.
24 For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked:
25 That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.
26 And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it. 27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.
4 For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office:So, how is "one" used here? As a side not, notice, the members of the Body have different offices? so not everyone is ready to see, hear or receive revelation for the church...
5 So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,So, how does Jesus use "one" here? How did the Pharisees respond? they were trying to catch Jesus in some link error, oops er, verbal trap. Did they jump all over his usage of the word one to mean more than one person joined in a way other than substance? No they did not, they came back with so why are we allowed to divorce our wives?
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; 5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.So, lets see the body and spirit are one substance... no they get separated at death.
OK, just got here in the posts....
The despicable apologist ... “It’s ALIVE!”
The despicable apologist ... “It’s ALIVE!” And it’s puttin’ on the Ritz for us today!
I call shotgun! I want a clear view of
the “massacree” out the windshield!
[Even birds that fly into a window eventually
figure out it doesn’t work... we are watching
a rare “flat-beaked mormonic fledgling” who
has been born into a bubble, grown up believing
he will be a god too! and loves fauxfacts
that provide comfort to buttress the sensitive
bosmatic burnings. Each time they are refuted,
he takes a breath and flies into his reflecdtion
again. Bang. Bang. Bang. Apparently, he does not
like his reality reflected so publicly, but
doesn’t know it is just a picture of what his
cult teaches ... BANG! Oops, got to go. Show’s
starting again.]
And you must be a good dancer too, for the two-step everyone has seen.
LOL! OK, so some sites are banned because they promote hate, and I'll just concede that the site I quoted from has "hate speech on it" I didn't quote hate speech, but I'll just concede that because I have no intent of defending them and it's irrelevant to my point, OK?
That is fine, except it is representative of your level of applied ‘scholarship’.
As for an "expositor" reflex, Nobody is advocating the web site be taken down, and no one is proposing to do it by force. I could just as easily accuse you of Hauns mill massacre reflex, or Extermination order reflex, but let's just drop the hyperbole, OK?
No, you’ve been advocating the banning of other sites from FR because they publish thoughtful posts that pull the curtain back from mormonism and reveal the underlying falsehoods. Hyperbole - LOL, one can almost see the foam around what you've posted regarding MRM in particular LOL.
I read the article I was referencing, not the rest of the site. Are you seriously saying that to quote from Wikipedia, you have to have read the whole site?
I don’t rely upon Wiki as an authority on anything because of its lax internal editing policies that allow most any kind of junk to be posted as ‘fact’. Investigating a site involves identifying their biases and depth of, in this case, scholarship and the reliability of the material presented. Doing a simple google search and throwing up some links is a very amateurish method, and in this instance it bit you on the rear.
Not really worried about my reputation, I think your standards for me are way higher than the standards you expect from yourself or anyone else. AKA Double standards.
Hardly DU, you were the one lecturing me on ‘scholarly’ sources – right.
Really? Fine, so you posted one scripture and I posted John 17:21-22, I then talked about without linking (If you don't think it's in there, LOL, ask.) scriptures, God telling Adam and Eve to be one flesh, God tells members to be one Body, Jesus telling the Apostles to be one, and Jesus drawing a simile (Linked above) to his oneness and the Fathers.
I would say that you are ignoring a plethora of other scriptures that also address this issue and provide greater context on it, such as Jhn 10:30 KJV - I and [my] Father are one. Further, such a singular citation fails to refute Trinitarian doctrine, but ignorantly ignores that the scripture is a component OF the doctrine – the economy of the Trinity- and not the ontology of the Trinity. AFA Adam and Eve – you would have to prove from the Hebrew the application in context. Again, it does not refute the doctrine of the Trinity.
Let's explore a few usages of "One" in the bible, shall we?
Oh please don’t throw me into the briar patch, oh please!!!
1 Corinrians 12:11-27
So, how is Christ using "one" here? When people join the church do they become of one substance? While physically separate, are they still part of the body?
Lurkers will note the sad lack of scriptural understanding displayed by trying to apply this passage in an attack against the doctrine of the Trinity . Apparently, metaphors in the scripture are one of many things they don’t teach in mormon seminary now a days. Second epic fail is that the context of the passage is by no means an attempt by Paul to define the Trinity – he is speaking specifically about the relationship of the members of the universal body of Christ. But even if he WAS trying to make a comparison – DU still loses as the mormon peepstone interpretation requires completely SEPARATE beings. Lurkers can note – does the arm just jump off and act on its own, or the leg? No, they are seamlessly joined with the whole of the body – sharing the common substance of that being. The arm or legs have no independent life-giving organs. LOL DU - fail #1
How about Romans 12:4-5
So, how is "one" used here? As a side not, notice, the members of the Body have different offices? so not everyone is ready to see, hear or receive revelation for the church...
Oh boy – a twofer! But ah man, same flawed presentation of the scripture. Lurkers will note – one (“heis”) is an ordinal number. Lurkers will also note the failed logic because the passage once again is a metaphor. Context, context, context DU – just doing searches on ‘one’ is grossly inadequate as you’ve made evident. AFA offices go – Lurkers will note that there is nothing in the passage that would indicate any ‘readiness to see, hear or receive’ anything. The greek word here is “praxis“ - a very simple word which Vines indicates is nothing more than a “function”.
Then, here is Jesus responding to a challenge about divorce from the Pharisees...
Still digging away I see.
Matthew 19:4-6
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
So, how does Jesus use "one" here? How did the Pharisees respond? they were trying to catch Jesus in some link error, oops er, verbal trap. Did they jump all over his usage of the word one to mean more than one person joined in a way other than substance? No they did not, they came back with so why are we allowed to divorce our wives?
I retained the whole passage for clarity. Lurkers will note – continuing attempt to force a metaphor into a literal statement. Immediate context – Pharisees challenging Jesus regarding divorce. So was Jesus using the occasion to present teachings on the ontology of God – NO. Was Jesus saying that the husband and wife become ONTOLOGICALLY a single being – NO. Jesus states “For this cause. . . “ reminded the Pharisees of Adam’s awareness that Eve was made out of his bone and flesh – and that she was related to him in the most intimate manner. Once again, context drives the interpretation and understanding of the words in the passage.
"One" is used this way throughout the Bible, and all the sudden, when God says "1 Timothy 2:5: 5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;" You think Aha! he means he and god are one substance, no wait, the then speaks in the same sentence of Jesus as a separate individual, hmm must be promoting polytheism then... LOL!
Lurkers will note AGAIN, a juvenile interpretation of the passage, driven by the simple dishonest representation of the doctrine of the Trinity as applied to this passage. For someone who has CLAIMED to have studied the doctrine, this statement demonstrates the utter lack of knowledge. For had he even a smidgen of knowledge, he would know that this passage shows not only is factored into the understanding of the economy of the Trinity, but is backed up through the many verses on the incarnation of Christ.
Col 2:9 KJV - For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead (theotēs – the state of being God) bodily.
Or maybe Ephesians 4:4-6
4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; 5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
So, lets see the body and spirit are one substance... no they get separated at death. OK, On lord one faith, one baptism... hmm how to make that one substance... Nah!
One God STOP READING!! JUST STOP HERE BEFORE THE BIBLE MESSES IT UP. Dang, now it talks of God the Father as as separate being in the SAME SENTENCE!
More oxygen deprivation eh? Context – Paul presents 7 elements that unite BELIEVERS within the church (Eph 4:3). This is not a thesis on the ontology of God. Lurkers are well advised to read the whole chapter, since it is apparent that DU hasn't.
Honestly, I have a hard time seeing how the trinity is the "prevailing" view among "Orthodox Christianity" there is so much evidence against it IN THE BIBLE!
Lurkers will note that the verses he selected do not within the context of the passage address the ontological aspects of the Trinity. Yet what is more telling are the omission of those passages that do directly relate to the ontology. For instance -
Jhn 1:1 KJV - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
But that is too simple for DU. Since he has a fixation with the word ONE, lets examine a passage that both the context and verbiage is directed towards and understanding of the make up of God.
Jhn 10:24 KJV - Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.
Jhn 10:25 KJV - Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.
Jhn 10:26 KJV - But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
Jhn 10:27 KJV - My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
Jhn 10:28 KJV - And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any [man] pluck them out of my hand.
Jhn 10:29 KJV - My Father, which gave [them] me, is greater than all; and no [man] is able to pluck [them] out of my Father's hand.
Jhn 10:30 KJV - I and [my] Father are one.
Jhn 10:31 KJV - Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
Jhn 10:32 KJV - Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
Jhn 10:33 KJV - The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
The jews wanted Jesus’ credentials, so to speak as to the basis – was he the messiah (vs 24). Jesus points to his miracles (vs 25) and notes that these who questioned him were rejecting that message of miracles. Verses 27-29 Jesus repeats his earlier revelation (Jhn 10:3-5, 14) with his claim that NOTHING can remove his believers from within his hand. He puts his holding power on par with the Father (vs 29). The Jesus uses the word “one” in the context of the Father. This meant that Jesus was beyond unity of purpose, but towards essence. Why? The very next verses provide the understanding of the people – they wanted to stone him for making himself to be God.
Lurkers, lets pause and let that sink in, kick some dirt over it. IF Jesus was just stating that he was one in “purpose”, the crowd would not have reacted as such – for a righteous Jew, it was proper to be one in purpose with God. Clearly the Jews understood Jesus to be claiming more than simple agreement with God in thought and purpose but equality with the Father as deity. This was a case of a man not making Himself out to be God, but that God had made Himself a man.
Of course there are other verses that call Jesus “God”
Isa 9:6 KJV - 6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
Jhn 20:28 KJV - 28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
Act 20:28 KJV - 28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
Rom 9:5 KJV - 5 Whose [are] the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ [came], who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen
Tts 2:13 KJV - 13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
Hbr 1:8 KJV - 8 But unto the Son [he saith], Thy throne, O God, [is] forever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness [is] the sceptre of thy kingdom.
If the Father is God (theos), and as these verses prove – Jesus is God (theos), and there is only one TRUE God (theos), then the Trinitarian explanation to resolve this conflict is that though separate Persons, they (including the Holy Spirit), share an undivided ‘divinity’ or substance (for lack of a better word). The bible does not grant that there are three true Gods – only ONE TRUE God in all existence.
OK, Godzilla, you have said you could prove this to me, prove to me that the Trinity is the correct interpretation of the Bible (when the word isn't even in there) and the Godhead (which is in the Bible) isn't the correct interpretation
Lurkers will note, DU is setting a false argument here. I never said I could ‘prove’ it to him, in part because there is no displayed desire on his part to have it ‘proven’. As evidenced from his earlier posts, there is little motivation otherwise. The only motivation appears from these posts is to try to throw as much stuff on the wall and hope that something sticks.
Furthermore – lurkers will note the false attempted dichotomy, trying to be established – Trinitarians do not reject the use of the word “Godhead” in reference to the ontological nature of God, but in fact generally find the terms interchangeable.
Lurkers will also note (again) the mormon intellectually dishonest attempt to ‘define’ the Godhead as a committee versus a unified, singular God that the Bible contains. Du has failed to show that the use of “theotēs”, translated “Godhead”, as anything remotely resembling a committee. Once again, for a follower of a religion who’s articles of faith emphasize the ‘correct translation’ of the bible, the total refusal to show how theotēs matches mormon usage says volumes. It clearly states that the scholarship of mormonism’s defenders is incapable of rightly dividing the Word, and rely upon eisegesis whereby they interpret a text in such a way that it introduces one's own ideas, reading into the text.
The Trinity is far more biblical than a pantheon of ‘true’ gods in mormonism. God Himself testifies to His uniqueness :
Isa 44:6 KJV - Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I [am] the first, and I [am] the last; and beside me [there is] no God.
Isa 44:8 KJV - Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared [it]? ye [are] even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, [there is] no God; I know not [any].
There is only one TRUE God, and that God contains the Persons of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, one God in the Trinity and the Trinity in unity, neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the substance. This is the true testimony of God to the world.
Okay, you’ve located supper, now what? It doesn’t know it’s running on a wheel ya know.
As I go back and read over the “opposing viewpoint” I find it really funny how it is actually a Trinitarian Position being hammered into a mold to allow for Polytheism.
Really funny.
Is this what you mean?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.