Mormonism and the Trinity

[cksalmon]

I wonder if he's ever thought to rebuke Mr. White for one or two of the many really remarkable things that Mr. White has said about Mormons and Mormonism. If so, I'd love to see what he said, and how Mr. White responded.

Well, that's utterly vague. Perhaps you can provide for me one or two of the many things Mr. White has said about Mormons and Mormonism that you personally find "really remarkable," Dr. Peterson.

If you would, I hereby promise duly to opine upon it (or them) in this forum for your personal consideration and, while I can guarantee that I haven't rebuked White for it (or them)--since, for one reason, I have no idea what you might have in mind--I'll go you one better and forward my response (along with your account of one or two remarkable things) to White's senior pastor (with a link to this thread, of course--as well as forward it to AOmin.org for White's personal perusal). And, I'll post whatever responses I might happen to receive from those folks.

Best.

cks

[Daniel Peterson]

I've never, ever, understood the overpowering urge that drives some anti-Mormons and apostates to insist on defining for us what we believe.

I don't understand the gratification that it plainly gives to these folks.

I don't understand their total imperviousness to our continual protests that we, rather than hostile and almost invariably uncomprehending outsiders, get to define our beliefs.

I simply don't get it.

[cksalmon]

I've never, ever, understood the overpowering urge that drives some anti-Mormons and apostates to insist on defining for us what we believe.

I don't understand the gratification that it plainly gives to these folks.

I don't understand their total imperviousness to our continual protests that we, rather than hostile and almost invariably uncomprehending outsiders, get to define our beliefs.

I simply don't get it.

Well, that's utterly vague. Perhaps you can provide for me one or two of the many things Mr. White has said about Mormons and Mormonism that you personally find "really remarkable," Dr. Peterson.

If you would, I hereby promise duly to opine upon it (or them) in this forum for your personal consideration and, while I can guarantee that I haven't rebuked White for it (or them)--since, for one reason, I have no idea what you might have in mind--I'll go you one better and forward my response (along with your account of one or two remarkable things) to White's senior pastor (with a link to this thread, of course--as well as forward it to AOmin.org for White's personal perusal). And, I'll post whatever responses I might happen to receive from those folks.

Best.

cks

[Daniel Peterson]

Well, that's utterly vague. Perhaps you can provide for me one or two of the many things Mr. White has said about Mormons and Mormonism that you personally find "really remarkable," Dr. Peterson.

I thought it was pretty plain that I was referring, among other things, to the list that Greg Smith posted.

There were some real zingers there. Far less respectful than referring to someone claiming two doctorates as "Dr. Dr."

If you would, I hereby promise duly to opine upon it (or them) in this forum for your personal consideration and, while I can guarantee that I haven't rebuked White for it (or them)--since, for one reason, I have no idea what you might have in mind--I'll go you one better and forward my response (along with your account of one or two remarkable things) to White's senior pastor (with a link to this thread, of course--as well as forward it to AOmin.org for White's personal perusal). And, I'll post whatever responses I might happen to receive from those folks.

Truthfully, I don't really care whether you rebuke Mr. White. I can't imagine that doing so would have the slightest positive effect, in any case.

I'm more interested in the fact that, despite his years of attacking my faith in often rather catty if not contemptuous language, you've apparently never criticized him, while the thundering offense of calling him "Dr. Dr." because he claims two doctorates seems to have aroused in you a towering and righteous rage.

[Markk]

Hi Angel,

Of course the church isn't going to name the church of the devil if it were to be as specific as a denomination that would be just REALLY BAD PR. Not that we care about PR, because all we should care about is doing the will of the Father in regards to His Church. If God wanted us to publicly name the church of the Devil then we would, but I think he just wants individual members to figure that out. And then if you figure it out, you can't tell anyone because then you become the crazy doctinal nut in the ward which is who we all want to be anyways.

I mean it's not like the cross is the sign of the beast, or that God doesn't work through those denominations to further His Work on earth.

Everyone will be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints soon anyway, why fight it....

~Angel Palmoni~

That is a interesting take. Are you saying you believe that the church holds off on giving its interpretation of who the CoD is only because of PR?

I would agree to the extent that they do not build on their interpretation regularly, but they have already given an interpretation and it has precedence from teachings from past GA's build on the current interpretation. They are clear that it is "every" evil and worldly org. that perverts the true christian church.

Everyone will be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints soon anyway, why fight it....

CFR, I would love to read this one?

Anyway, take care

Mark

John 1:12

[cksalmon]

I thought it was pretty plain that I was referring, among other things, to the list that Greg Smith posted.

There were some real zingers there. Far less respectful than referring to someone claiming two doctorates as "Dr. Dr."

Truthfully, I don't really care whether you rebuke Mr. White. I can't imagine that doing so would have the slightest positive effect, in any case.

I'm more interested in the fact that, despite his years of attacking my faith in often rather catty if not contemptuous language, you've apparently never criticized him, while the thundering offense of calling him "Dr. Dr." because he claims two doctorates seems to have aroused in you a towering and righteous rage.

Well, that's utterly vague. Perhaps you can provide for me one or two of the many things Mr. White has said about Mormons and Mormonism that you personally find "really remarkable," Dr. Peterson. [The emphasis is on what you personally find "really remarkable." That's what I'm interested in. Not a general reference to a list someone else posted. Or, I suppose, you might distill from that list one or two things White has said that you find "really remarkable." That would work, too.]

If you would, I hereby promise duly to opine upon it (or them) in this forum for your personal consideration and, while I can guarantee that I haven't rebuked White for it (or them)--since, for one reason, I have no idea what you might have in mind--I'll go you one better and forward my response (along with your account of one or two remarkable things) to White's senior pastor (with a link to this thread, of course--as well as forward it to AOmin.org for White's personal perusal). And, I'll post whatever responses I might happen to receive from those folks.

Best.

cks

[Daniel Peterson]

Well, that's utterly vague. Perhaps you can provide for me one or two of the many things Mr. White has said about Mormons and Mormonism that you personally find "really remarkable," Dr. Peterson.

I thought it was pretty plain that I was referring, among other things, to the list that Greg Smith posted.

There were some real zingers there. Far less respectful than referring to someone claiming two doctorates as "Dr. Dr."

If you would, I hereby promise duly to opine upon it (or them) in this forum for your personal consideration and, while I can guarantee that I haven't rebuked White for it (or them)--since, for one reason, I have no idea what you might have in mind--I'll go you one better and forward my response (along with your account of one or two remarkable things) to White's senior pastor (with a link to this thread, of course--as well as forward it to AOmin.org for White's personal perusal). And, I'll post whatever responses I might happen to receive from those folks.

Truthfully, I don't really care whether you rebuke Mr. White. I can't imagine that doing so would have the slightest positive effect, in any case.

I'm more interested in the fact that, despite his years of attacking my faith in often rather catty if not contemptuous language, you've apparently never criticized him, while the thundering offense of calling him "Dr. Dr." because he claims two doctorates seems to have aroused in you a towering and righteous rage.

[Markk]

I've never, ever, understood the overpowering urge that drives some anti-Mormons and apostates to insist on defining for us what we believe.

I don't understand the gratification that it plainly gives to these folks.

I don't understand their total imperviousness to our continual protests that we, rather than hostile and almost invariably uncomprehending outsiders, get to define our beliefs.

I simply don't get it.

Hi Dan,

It starts with the Vision and what Jesus supposedly told JS in the Grove, and then snow balls out of control from there, although at least one anti-Mormon apostate I know personally, very well, would never do that, he would only reveal what he was taught as a member, and what LDS theology teaches; because what a saint might believe is all over the "board", pun intended. If you understand this, whether it be right or wrong, it might help get past any anxiety you have that may occur. This apostate also informed me that if he had not been a member for years he would have the same feelings as to why the LDS church would spend millions of dollars a year telling the world that they alone are the only true Church and that all others are lost and broken.

Creech, creech, creech, as the can or worms open!

Take care Dan

Mark

Take a break from your sneering, Mark. = mods

[Daniel Peterson]

I feel no "anxiety," Markk.

I just think your enterprise is bizarre. That's all.

[Markk]

Hi Greg,

Most denominations on earth do not "pervert" the gospel--they've never HAD it to pervert. As I said earlier, they're victims of the apostasy of the 1st-2nd centuries.

Everyone of their creeds (belief and teachings) do. If indeed the LDS church is what it claims, the only true form of Christianity, then every time a so-called christian converted a person to their false church, then that would both pervert and attack the one true church and would qualify them for the CoD.

Name me one denomination or religious org that does not pervert the true and perfect gospel of Jesus according to the LDS standards of the Gospel? Not ten, twenty,or more...just one?

Take care

Mark

[Daniel Peterson]

It just goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on.

Impervious to reason.

[cksalmon]

It just goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on.

Impervious to reason.

Well, that's utterly vague. Perhaps you can provide for me one or two of the many things Mr. White has said about Mormons and Mormonism that you personally find "really remarkable," Dr. Peterson. [The emphasis is on what you personally find "really remarkable." That's what I'm interested in. Not a general reference to a list someone else posted. Or, I suppose, you might distill from that list one or two things White has said that you find "really remarkable." That would work, too.]

If you would, I hereby promise duly to opine upon it (or them) in this forum for your personal consideration and, while I can guarantee that I haven't rebuked White for it (or them)--since, for one reason, I have no idea what you might have in mind--I'll go you one better and forward my response (along with your account of one or two remarkable things) to White's senior pastor (with a link to this thread, of course--as well as forward it to AOmin.org for White's personal perusal). And, I'll post whatever responses I might happen to receive from those folks.

Best.

cks

[Markk]

I feel no "anxiety," Markk.

I just think your enterprise is bizarre. That's all.

Hi Dan,

Great, high fives for everyone! But for one to defend what they believe in is not really bizarre, it's well...a defense of what they beleive! As far as an enterprise, na, not even close, just me, a lap top, a bunch of LDS books collected over the years from the local DI, and a recliner with the TV on, and a occasional cookie break. That is certainly no match for the corporation of the Prophet of the COJCOLDS.

Take care

Mark

PS...Sleepless in Seattle is on the TV, it's almost to the part where I shed a tear.

[Markk]

It just goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on.

Impervious to reason.

I know Dan, you guys just don't get it?, Hey but I'll hang in here until you do,,,you can count on that!

Got to love it!

Mark

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Hi Greg,

Name me one denomination or religious org that does not pervert the true and perfect gospel of Jesus according to the LDS standards of the Gospel? Not ten, twenty,or more...just one?

Take care

Mark

Non of them do that is the point, as has been pointed out they are a victim of that that took place years before. How about you name one (specifically) from an offical (either the scriptures or from a recent GC talk taht can be verified becuase of TV or radio I am not talking about something BRM may have said at some devotional.)source and we will start there. That is were you seem to be failling.

I think I will regret this not because Markk will actually produce a real source, but because Markk will not accept what is being taught.

[zerinus]

Hi Z,

None the less, it is an official LDS teaching, and the definition the LDS church chose for "the church of the Devil". It also agrees with other teachings by past GA. It is a Church teaching, yours is not.

The LDS church teaches they are the only true Church, and the only true Christianity on the earth today scene 1830, that seems to be right in line with the LDS definition. The BoM teaches that Church of the Lamb of God are the saints, is there saints in other church's, in that the LDS definition of a saint is one that has been baptized and confirmed in the church. The problem here is that the LDS church teaches that no other church has the authority (priesthood) to baptize and confirm, so again, this is a problem for your interpretation, remember in the same chapter in question the BoM says that the Church of the Lamb of God are the saints.

Your method of interpretation here is eisegesis, your interpretations are based on your own preconceived ideology, and your ignoring past teachings by those that have authority to speak for the church in doctrine when you do not. This does not make your interpretation wrong, or theirs right, but your is not an official LDS teaching while the other interpretations are. That said we should continue to test your interpretations with theirs and see if yours compliment or contradict LDS official doctrine.

Thanks for your time

Mark

John 1:12

I think that talking to you is a complete waste of time. I came to that conclusion a long time ago. The only reason why I continue to respond to your posts is becsuse other people do. I do it more for their benefit than yours.

[Markk]

HI Mola,

Non of them do that is the point, as has been pointed out they are a victim of that that took place years before.

So in other words you believe that they aren't the original "perverters", they are just copy cat or some kind of robotic "perverters" with no free agency to make a choice on their own? Either way what they believe, teach, and practice would have to be a perversion to LDS doctrine. Did you even think this out Mola? Tell me in detail what you mean here?

How about you name one (specifically) from an official (either the scriptures...

If you want "one" specifically by name..."I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true.â? (JS History POGP) If Presbyterianism is not true, then it is certainly perverts the true and perfect gospel of the LDS faith.

As far as "recent" GC talks, I can look and see, but I can think of a few in the past by LDS prophets that would fit the bill, one in 1924 by JFS comes to mind. If you really want I will type it out, I'll have to look it up, it is in DoS.

Mark

[Skylla]

I think this thread has outlived its usefulness.

Skylla