Amateurs...

[mfbukowski]

Well, at least I don't spend my time tear down the faith of others.

Well at least I don't spend my time futilely attempting to tear down the faith of others.

There, I fixed it for you!

[mfbukowski]

I agree.

"Mormons aren't Christian because they reject the (Nicean) trinity".

Yup!

You fixed that one for me!

[maupayman]

That the three witnesses saw with their "spiritual eyes". This is consistent with what Moses experienced in Moses 1:11.

That's fine, the complaint from most critics is that its not consistent with their signed testimonies.

[Rob Bowman]

mfbukowski,

You wrote:

You have yet to reply to my comments on another thread where you stated that Trinity was a Neoplatonic doctrine, and that Neoplatonism started the fourth century, when I pointed out that in fact Platonism, of which Neoplatonism was a resurgence, was actually a pagan doctrine of Greek philosophy from the fourth century BC, thus making the Trinity based on pagan Greek philosophy.

You had no reply then.

You may have forgotten, but I haven't. The Trinity is based on pagan doctrine.

To me, that fits perfectly with this thread

I never "stated that [the] Trinity was a Neoplatonic doctrine"! This is the nonsense you claim I never answered?

The fact that Platonism came before the Trinity does not prove that the Trinity is based on Platonism, any more than the fact that Islam came before Mormonism proves that Mormonism is based on Islam. And since your post hoc ergo propter hoc argument is fallacious, your conclusion that "the Trinity is based on pagan doctrine" does not follow.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

You mereticious defense here does go toward your motive.

Next time, try using a word you know how to spell.

You wrote:

Well, at least I don't spend my time tear down the faith of others.

That's what every Mormon missionary does when he presents the first missionary lesson to any Christian.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You characterized critics of Mormonism as claiming:

"Mormons aren't Christian because they reject the (Nicean) trinity".

How about this: Mormons are not orthodox Christians because they worship more than one deity. Does that work?

[Vance]

Vance,

You wrote:

Next time, try using a word you know how to spell.

You wrote:

That's what every Mormon missionary does when he presents the first missionary lesson to any Christian.

That's the best you've got?

[Vance]

Vance,

You characterized critics of Mormonism as claiming:

How about this: Mormons are not orthodox Christians because they worship more than one deity. Does that work?

I very seldom see it that way.

Anyway,

"The Father is God", "The Son is God", that's TWO right there.

[Deborah]

A word does not convey every dictionary definition whenever it is used.

No, but certain words convey an impression that other words do not. To use suppress implies a purposeful negative conspiracy, which no doubt you believe it was. But unless you can prove such intention it is a pejorative you should not use. In order to prove such you have to show such intent. The fact that something might have been known but wasn't published is not proof of anything. The more likely reason is it simply wasn't considered an issue to the saints. Certainly it isn't the majority of church members who get excited about this, but the ex-Mo's, anti-Mo's and others whose sole purpose is to undermine a church which has done nothing to hurt them and has done a lot of good in the world. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

[Deborah]

That's what every Mormon missionary does when he presents the first missionary lesson to any Christian.

Thanks for bringing up another ridiculous argument against the church. When I had the missionary lessons 50 some years ago, there was no tearing down of the faith I already had. They built on what I already believed. On the other hand the pastor of the church I was attending came to my mother and told her "I don't care if she joins any church but the Mormon church" and he then proceeded to put the church down and call it of the devil, etc.

I've been in missionary lessons since then and it is the same. The missionaries are there to teach what we believe not put down others faiths. To claim to be the true restored church is stating a fact, which people can choose to agree with or not. However, many of them to accept that claim, when like me they hear truths which make sense and which they already believed but didn't know how to express.

[Questing Beast]

And it was the official, full version, which Joseph wrote to dispel the rumors and misconceptions.

Does anyone seriously think that Joseph was thinking about how the future generations would parse his words and criticize him for not telling the whole story each time? Not likely. He was addressing a specific person or persons with each accounting and telling what needed to be told at the time.

This would hold up, except that in the 1832 and 1838 versions he makes mutually exclusive statements, vis-a-vis his reason for praying in the first place, and what the "Lord" told him. In 1832 when he first wrote his "history", his memory of the event was different than in 1838: he already knew that there was no true church and nobody had the gospel - he did not go to pray and ask which church to join. In 1838, that is precisely opposite: he does not know if there is a true church, and if there is which one the Lord will direct him to. In 1832 he wants forgiveness for his sins: this is precisely what he wanted to know in "1823" when he had fallen into the levity attendant with his age group: he wanted to know that his sins were forgiven: the 1832 version clearly states that he knew God exists because he was praying to know his standing and to receive an assurance that his sins were forgiven: and this is exactly what "the Lord of glory" tells him and nothing more. In 1834, Oliver Cowdery, under direction/editorship of Joseph Smith, recounts in the Messenger and Advocate that one of Joseph's reasons for praying was to know if there is a "supreme being" - he also gets Joseph's age wrong, stating it first to be 15, and then later 17. In 1835, Joseph gives a "bridging" story to Joshua the Jewish Minister, wherein Joseph states for the first time that he was wondering: "I knew not who was right or who was wrong and I considered it of the first importance that I should be right,..."; this "bridges" to the 1838 version. Only by then does Jesus Christ appear WITH the Father, and declares that "all their creeds were an abomination in his sight". There is no request for forgiveness of sins and none is granted. He did not pray to find out if there is a supreme being. His earlier versions are populated with "many angels" but no God the Father; yet by 1838 his evolving theology recounts this first vision experience with his Lectures On Faith theology of two distinct, separate members of the Godhead.

So we have several incompatible statements throughout this period; not simply differing amounts of consistent detail, "...addressing a specific person or persons with each accounting and telling what needed to be told at the time." Instead of expanding, consistent information, we have contradictory, mutually exclusive information; and are compelled to cognitively strain to make the contradictory statements fit some "faithful" paradigm.

I agree that Joseph Smith told what was "needed at the time" of each telling. But for that reason we have evidence of his story-making being malleable to the situation/needs he faced. He is not a reliable autobiographer....

[mfbukowski]

The fact that Platonism came before the Trinity does not prove that the Trinity is based on Platonism, any more than the fact that Islam came before Mormonism proves that Mormonism is based on Islam. And since your post hoc ergo propter hoc argument is fallacious, your conclusion that "the Trinity is based on pagan doctrine" does not follow.

Rob Rob Rob

Surely you can do better than this. At least I would hope so.

Mormonism obviously has nothing whatsoever to do with Islam, other than both claiming prophetic revelation.

Neoplatonism however has everything to do with the Nicene Creed.

"Everyone knows" that the whole controversy about The Father and the Son being of "one substance" is the famous "homoousios" ("one substance") controversy, that it involved the Platonic philosophy of "substance".

Everyone knows this to the point of there being an extensive entry on even Wikipedia, the great depository of what "everyone knows". If you don't like this information, I will be glad to give you better sources for the same thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ousia

The Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle used ousia in their ontologies; their denotations are the contemporary philosophic and theological usages. Aristotle used ousia in creating animal phyla in biology, ousia denoting that which is shared: essence, form, and nature, and hypostasis denoting that which is particular: an individual instance or thing......

New Testament

The word ousia is not used in the New Testament except in relation to the substance in the sense of goods twice in the parable of the Prodigal Son where the son asked his father to divide to him his inheritance, and then wasted it on riotous living.[3][4]

[edit] Early Christianity

Origen, (d. 251) used ousia in defining God as one genus of ousia, while being three, distinct species of hypostasis: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Synods of Antioch condemned the word homoousios (same substance) because it originated in pagan Greek philosophy. The Paul of Samosata entry of the Catholic Encyclopedia says:

It must be regarded as certain that the council, which condemned Paul, rejected the term homoousios; but, naturally, only in a false sense, used by Paul; not, it seems, because he meant by it a unity of Hypostasis in the Trinity (so St. Hilary), but because he intended, by it, a common substance, out of which both Father and Son proceeded, or which it divided between them

[Vance]

This would hold up, except that in the 1832 and 1838 versions he makes mutually exclusive statements, . . .

I would like to see these "mutually exclusive statements", so consider this a CFR.

[mfbukowski]

He is not a reliable autobiographer....

This very phrase is very interesting, implying that there exists somewhere an Idea of what we actually did, and our motivations when we were young- a Record in Heaven which precisely records every thought and deed.

That may be the case, but guess what- we don't get to see that until later. What we remember we remember the way we remember it.

I could tell you endless stories of my youth, and have no idea if they actually happened the way I remember them. What "actually happened" is unknowable since half of it is interpreted already by being recalled to memory.

The whole notion of anyone being a "reliable autobiographer" is rather suspicious if you ask me.

[sjdawg]

the ex-Mo's, anti-Mo's and others whose sole purpose is to undermine a church

Certain words convey an impression that other words do not. This statement implies a purposeful negative conspiracy, which no doubt you believe exists. But unless you can prove such intention it is a pejorative you should not use.

[zelder]

That's fine, the complaint from most critics is that its not consistent with their signed testimonies.

It seems like a goofy complaint to me because it does not contradict their signed testimonies. It only adds information about what happens when someone sees a heavenly messenger. Since their account of what happens is consistent with the scriptures, it actually adds credibility to the tesimony.

[sjdawg]

Thanks for bringing up another ridiculous argument against the church. When I had the missionary lessons 50 some years ago, there was no tearing down of the faith I already had. They built on what I already believed. On the other hand the pastor of the church I was attending came to my mother and told her "I don't care if she joins any church but the Mormon church" and he then proceeded to put the church down and call it of the devil, etc.

I've been in missionary lessons since then and it is the same. The missionaries are there to teach what we believe not put down others faiths. To claim to be the true restored church is stating a fact, which people can choose to agree with or not. However, many of them to accept that claim, when like me they hear truths which make sense and which they already believed but didn't know how to express.

This is usually taught to investigators within minutes of meeting them. I think it tears down other religions. It calls all other creeds an abomination in God's sight.

My object in going to ^ainquire 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)

[Vance]

This is usually taught to investigators within minutes of meeting them. I think it tears down other religions.

Other religions? Like Islam? Buddhism? Hinduism?

It calls all other creeds an abomination in God's sight.

ALL other creeds?

Really?

Or is it limited to the creeds of the sects to which Joseph had been exposed?

[Vance]

Certain words convey an impression that other words do not.

Yup! Like "suppression".

This statement implies a purposeful negative conspiracy, which no doubt you believe exists.

Just like a statement using the word "suppressed", right?

But unless you can prove such intention it is a pejorative you should not use.

Like using the word "suppressed" when "not released" would be more accurate?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

This is usually taught to investigators within minutes of meeting them. I think it tears down other religions. It calls all other creeds an abomination in God's sight.

This is false. And to think some one gave you a rep point for something false.

I hope you can figure out which part of your post is false.

[sjdawg]

Other religions? Like Islam? Buddhism? Hinduism?

ALL other creeds?

Really?

Or is it limited to the creeds of the sects to which Joseph had been exposed?

Not sure. The quote says all so I used all. Doesn't really matter. The dispute was whether or not missionaries tear down other religions. I think they do. Others think they don't.

[sjdawg]

I hope you can figure out which part of your post is false.

I don't actually care which part of my post you think is false.

[Vance]

Not sure. The quote says all so I used all. Doesn't really matter. The dispute was whether or not missionaries tear down other religions. I think they do. Others think they don't.

"Text without context is pretext" to paraphrase some wise person.

[sjdawg]

"Text without context is pretext" to paraphrase some wise person.

The question was do the missionary lessons tear down other faiths. I think they do. Whether the quote referred to all religions or a handful of religions is irrelevant to the particular discussion. If the question was do the missionary lessons tear down the Muslim faith then the specific context and pretext would be much more important.

[Vance]

The question was do the missionary lessons tear down other faiths. I think they do. Whether the quote referred to all religions or a handful of religions is irrelevant to the particular discussion. If the question was do the missionary lessons tear down the Muslim faith then the specific context and pretext would be much more important.

I would like you to explain EXACTLY how it "tear(s) down other faiths".