Amateurs...

[Vance]

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

Well, if you don't care what HE thinks, why should we care what YOU think?

[PacMan]

Rob,

It is crazy because it is premised on the ridiculous notion that Joseph Fielding Smith had any obligation to read or reply to the Tanner

[sjdawg]

Well, if you don't care what HE thinks, why should we care what YOU think?

I don't actually believe that most people here care about what I think and I'm ok with that. If he wishes to point out where I am wrong that is fine but I'm not going to go back and do it.

[sjdawg]

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

If you are going to say that God told you that the other religions are "all wrong", their creeds were an abomination in God's sight, their leaders were corrupt, and that the hearts of the leaders are far from God doesn't that tear down another Faith? It may or may not be denouncing the specific Faith of the person the missionaries are teaching but it is absolutely tearing down the various beliefs and religions that were in place in Palmyra at the time Joseph Smith claimed to have the First Vision. Have all of those religions ceased to exist? If not, that statement tears down that Faith.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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

I see, so you admit that you don;t really care about being accurate or truthful.

[sjdawg]

I see, so you admit that you don;t really care about being accurate or truthful.

I don't think I admitted that at all. I don't care which portion of my post you think is false. You and I may disagree on the veracity of anything. One of us may be right, or we may both be wrong.

[LeSellers]

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

I said that. (Unfortunately, not first.)

Lehi

[Vance]

If you are going to say that God told you that the other religions are "all wrong", their creeds were an abomination in God's sight, their leaders were corrupt, and that the hearts of the leaders are far from God doesn't that tear down another Faith?

Well, I could break it all down for you (which I actually did, but then it got vaporized). Let me give you some examples of what "tearing done faith" actually entails.

Murdering their members and leader, chasing them out of the country, sending the army against them, putting them in jail, having numerous professional critics (who use less than honest methods) write volumes against them, preaching falsehoods against them from your pulpits, harassing them outside their meeting halls, temples, and activities, creating numerous web sites full of falsehoods, and stuff like that, is tearing down their faith.

Do the missionaries do those things? No, they don't.

It may or may not be denouncing the specific Faith of the person the missionaries are teaching but it is absolutely tearing down the various beliefs and religions that were in place in Palmyra at the time Joseph Smith claimed to have the First Vision.

And this makes you case? How exactly?

Have all of those religions ceased to exist?

Not likely. But those people are all dead.

If not, that statement tears down that Faith.

Not much of a case, but it's all you've got.

[Vance]

I said that. (Unfortunately, not first.)

Lehi

Well, I DID say a "wise person".

[sjdawg]

Well, I could break it all down for you (which I actually did, but then it got vaporized). Let me give you some examples of what "tearing done faith" actually entails.

Murdering their members and leader, chasing them out of the country, sending the army against them, putting them in jail, having numerous professional critics (who use less than honest methods) write volumes against them, preaching falsehoods against them from your pulpits, harassing them outside their meeting halls, temples, and activities, creating numerous web sites full of falsehoods, and stuff like that, is tearing down their faith.

.

wow....that is quite a definition you have creating for tearing down faith. Leaves a person with a helluva a lot of wiggle room. Good to know.

[Rob Bowman]

Deborah,

You wrote:

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.

I doubt it. How about you tell me what your faith was that you already had? What denomination or religion were you?

You wrote:

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.

Is there something wrong with describing someone else's church as a church "of the devil"? Is that tearing down another person's faith? Please answer yes or no.

You wrote:

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.

You're skipping over a little point mentioned in the first missionary lesson. It's the "Great Apostasy." Are you skipping this point because you forgot about it, or what?

Claiming to be the true restored church is not stating a fact unless it's actually true. Even if it is, it is also a fact that teaching that everyone else's church is not a true church and is part of the Great Apostasy is criticizing other people's faiths.

[Rob Bowman]

mfbukowski,

Remember this statement that you made earlier in this thread?

You have yet to reply to my comments on another thread where you stated that Trinity was a Neoplatonic doctrine....

I pointed out that I never said any such thing. In fact, I denied that the Trinity was a Neoplatonic doctrine. Your recent reply to me ignores this part of our exchange. You could at least admit that you misspoke, or something.

You wrote:

Neoplatonism however has everything to do with the Nicene Creed.

That statement, coming from a Mormon, is absurd. Mormons claim to agree with most of what the Nicene Creed affirms. Your objection comes down to one word: homoousious. Other than that one word, you have offered no case whatsoever for your claim.

I won't get dragged into a debate about this one word with you if you can't keep the issue in proper perspective.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

ALL other creeds?

Really?

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

Huh? Are you suggesting that there were churches in the nineteenth century that had sound doctrinal teaching, but Joseph was simply not exposed to them? Then why the need to restore the one true church to the earth? Why not just inform Joseph that he needed to travel to Boston or New York or wherever so he could connect up with a good church?

[Rob Bowman]

PacMan,

The point that you are missing is that we have evidence that JFS did read the Tanners' letter. The Tanners were already known to him (and to a lot of other people). Their efforts to find and publish rare documents pertaining to LDS history was already well known in Salt Lake City. They wrote to him in 1964 requesting a copy of the First Vision account. They got no reply. One year later, a 133-year-old document that had never been acknowledged publicly mysteriously shows up in an appendix to the master's thesis of a BYU student. His adviser and other scholarly supporters immediately become the leading published experts on the First Vision. This isn't at all like you writing a letter to Monson asking for a copy of something.

Rob,

It is crazy because it is premised on the ridiculous notion that Joseph Fielding Smith had any obligation to read or reply to the Tanner

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

Let me give you some examples of what "tearing done faith" actually entails.

Murdering their members and leader, chasing them out of the country, sending the army against them, putting them in jail, having numerous professional critics (who use less than honest methods) write volumes against them, preaching falsehoods against them from your pulpits, harassing them outside their meeting halls, temples, and activities, creating numerous web sites full of falsehoods, and stuff like that, is tearing down their faith.

Glad to hear that this is what it means to tear down someone else's faith, because by your description I am not guilty of doing so.

[mfbukowski]

I pointed out that I never said any such thing. In fact, I denied that the Trinity was a Neoplatonic doctrine. Your recent reply to me ignores this part of our exchange. You could at least admit that you misspoke, or something.

I was actually being charitable. If you want to call that "misspeaking" I will acknowledge it for what it was- a total blunder on you part.

Actually what you said is that Neoplatonism started in the 4th century AD, which ignores that it was NEO-platonism, or a resurgence of Platonism which indeed started in the 4th century- but BC! I found it astounding that you would make such a statement (Scroll down to post 245 after you follow the link)

Neoplatonism is too late to explain the origin of the doctrine of the Trinity. At most it can shed some light on the philosophical cultural context of the formal development of the doctrine in the fourth century. Neoplatonism originated in the middle of the third century. By that time, Christians were already using the term

[Rob Bowman]

mfbukowski,

You wrote:

I was actually being charitable. If you want to call that "misspeaking" I will acknowledge it for what it was- a total blunder on you part.

You are desperately trying to divert attention from your false statement, which, since you won't even acknowledge that you said it, I will now call a lie. What you said, which I suggested you might admit as misspeaking, was the following (emphasis added):

You have yet to reply to my comments on another thread where you stated that Trinity was a Neoplatonic doctrine....

As I pointed out to you, I never stated that the Trinity was a Neoplatonic doctrine. That was a lie.

You wrote (emphasis added):

Actually what you said is that Neoplatonism started in the 4th century AD, which ignores that it was NEO-platonism, or a resurgence of Platonism which indeed started in the 4th century- but BC! I found it astounding that you would make such a statement (Scroll down to post 245 after you follow the link)

You then quoted me as saying (emphasis added):

Neoplatonism is too late to explain the origin of the doctrine of the Trinity. At most it can shed some light on the philosophical cultural context of the formal development of the doctrine in the fourth century. Neoplatonism originated in the middle of the third century. By that time, Christians were already using the term

[Vance]

Huh? Are you suggesting that there were churches in the nineteenth century that had sound doctrinal teaching, but Joseph was simply not exposed to them? Then why the need to restore the one true church to the earth? Why not just inform Joseph that he needed to travel to Boston or New York or wherever so he could connect up with a good church?

Context, Bowman, context. Joseph didn't ask about some church in Boston or New York that he didn't know about. DUH!

If this is the best you've got, then we have a good position and you do not.

[Vance]

Glad to hear that this is what it means to tear down someone else's faith, because by your description I am not guilty of doing so.

I guess you didn't read it carefully.

You missed this part.

having numerous professional critics (who use less than honest methods) write volumes against them

[Vance]

I assumed that you would agree, or at least claim to agree, that the Father is the Almighty;

Yup.

. . . that he is the maker of heaven and earth;

Technically, No.

That would be Jesus Christ that created the heavens and the earth, (from preexisting material).

. . . that you believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God; that he came down from heaven, was born of the virgin Mary, . . .

Yup.

and became a man;

Yes, just like you became a man.

. . . that he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; that he died, was buried, rose from the dead, ascended into heaven, and will return in glory;

Yup.

. . . that the Holy Spirit is the giver of life . . .

???

Where does THAT come from?

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God -- one eternally existent Divine Being.

Sorry, but the bolded part is NON-Biblical.

[Questing Beast]

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.

I went through them in the post you are snipping from....

[PacMan]

Rob,

Whether JFS read the Tanners

[Vance]

I went through them in the post you are snipping from....

You mean YOUR EDITORIAL?

Because you certainly didn't provide ACTUAL quotes that were "mutually exclusive".

The CFR is yet to be addressed.

[mfbukowski]

mfbukowski,

You wrote:

You are desperately trying to divert attention from your false statement, which, since you won't even acknowledge that you said it, I will now call a lie. What you said, which I suggested you might admit as misspeaking, was the following (emphasis added):

As I pointed out to you, I never stated that the Trinity was a Neoplatonic doctrine. That was a lie.

You wrote (emphasis added):

You then quoted me as saying (emphasis added):

As you can see, I did not say that Neoplatonism started in the fourth century AD. I said it started in the third century (AD).

There is nothing astounding about me saying that Neoplatonism originated in the third century. It is a fact. The term Neoplatonism does not mean a mere "resurgence of Platonism," any more than neoorthodoxy means a resurgence of orthodoxy or neo-Darwinism means a resurgence of Darwinism. The term Neoplatonism refers to the philosophical system originating with Plotinus (204-270 AD). Obviously, it had its roots in Plato--Plotinus thought of himself simply as a Platonist--but it went beyond Plato in significant ways. Wikipedia, which you quoted earlier, makes this very point:

"Neoplatonism (also called Neo-Platonism) is the modern term for a school of religious and mystical philosophy that took shape in the 3rd century AD, based on the teachings of Plato and earlier Platonists, with its earliest contributor believed to be Plotinus, and his teacher Ammonius Saccas. Neoplatonists would have considered themselves simply Platonists, and the modern distinction is due to the perception that their philosophy contained sufficiently unique interpretations of Plato to make it substantially different from what Plato wrote and believed. Neoplatonism attempted to reconcile the nascent Christian doctrine with the classical philosophies of Greek and Roman society." "Neoplatonism," Wikipedia (emphasis added).

The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, a peer-reviewed academic reference work, agrees:

"Plotinus is considered to be the founder of Neoplatonism. Taking his lead from his reading of Plato, Plotinus developed a complex spiritual cosmology involving three foundational elements: the One, the Intelligence, and the Soul. It is from the productive unity of these three Beings that all existence emanates, according to Plotinus. The principal of emanation is not simply causal, but also contemplative. In his system, Plotinus raises intellectual contemplation to the status of a productive principle; and it is by virtue of contemplation that all existents are said to be united as a single, all-pervasive reality. In this sense, Plotinus is not a strict pantheist, yet his system does not permit the notion of creatio ex nihilo (creation out of nothingness)." Edward Moore, "Plotinus," Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2001; updated 2008; emphasis added).

I pointed out that Mormons claim to agree with most of what the Nicene Creed says. You replied:

Let's get it in black and white:

I assumed that you would agree, or at least claim to agree, that the Father is the Almighty; that he is the maker of heaven and earth; that you believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God; that he came down from heaven, was born of the virgin Mary, and became a man; that he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; that he died, was buried, rose from the dead, ascended into heaven, and will return in glory; that the Holy Spirit is the giver of life who spoke through the prophets; that there will be a future resurrection of the dead and a life of the world to come. In short, I assumed you would at least claim to agree with most of what the Nicene Creed affirms. I never suggested you accepted its understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity.

Regarding homoousious, you wrote:

Now, that is laughable. I don't need the word homoousious to believe in the Trinity, let alone keep me from being a Mormon. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God -- one eternally existent Divine Being. This is what the Trinity affirms. I don't need the technical Greek term homoousious in order to have an orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. That having been said, I agree with what the term means in its Nicene context.

You wrote:

I'm not avoiding anything.

You wrote:

That's another lie. I do not know that to be a fact, or that your assertion is true.

Retract your false statements about me, and we can talk. Otherwise, we're done.

I am quoting your post in full for a reason. It shows the structure of your argument, even though the quotes are not included. I will get to those in a minute.

Let me say that I found the old thread actually after I posted my last post, and the edit I made was to link to it, so I had no evidence of what you actually said until after I made that last post, and I made the edit and link.

As far as me "lying", I will admit that I mis-remembered your statement of three months ago. Your vigorous defense of Neoplatonism, as not being somehow magically "Platonic", which you continue in this post, caused me to mis-remember that indeed you never DID say that the Trinity was a Neoplatonic doctrine. In all fairness, I freely admit that. I got that wrong.

I don't really need to argue the point much more. I am beating a dead horse, and you are blowing smoke. It is clear from your defense that you are trying to avoid the central issue, that the cornerstone of your practice of Creedal Christianity is based on the notion that three beings can be "one" being based on the notion of homoousios which is based on Platonic philosophy.

The fact is that the prefix "neo" attached to any word means nothing more than the word "new". So "Neoplatonism" simply means "new Platonism". Pick any dictionary and you will see that I am right.

Even your quotes which you use to prove me wrong actually have the opposite effect.

Here is one of YOUR quotes, but this time I will put in the emphasis.

"Neoplatonism (also called Neo-Platonism) is the modern term for a school of religious and mystical philosophy that took shape in the 3rd century AD, based on the teachings of Plato and earlier Platonists, with its earliest contributor believed to be Plotinus, and his teacher Ammonius Saccas. Neoplatonists would have considered themselves simply Platonists, and the modern distinction is due to the perception that their philosophy contained sufficiently unique interpretations of Plato to make it substantially different from what Plato wrote and believed. Neoplatonism attempted to reconcile the nascent Christian doctrine with the classical philosophies of Greek and Roman society." "Neoplatonism," Wikipedia

That is one of YOUR quotes, word for word, to justify the notion that Neoplatonism is different from Platonism.

Here is another of YOUR quotes which you cite, my emphasis:

The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, a peer-reviewed academic reference work, agrees:

"Plotinus is considered to be the founder of Neoplatonism. Taking his lead from his reading of Plato, Plotinus developed a complex spiritual cosmology involving three foundational elements: the One, the Intelligence, and the Soul. It is from the productive unity of these three Beings that all existence emanates, according to Plotinus. The principal of emanation is not simply causal, but also contemplative. In his system, Plotinus raises intellectual contemplation to the status of a productive principle; and it is by virtue of contemplation that all existents are said to be united as a single, all-pervasive reality. In this sense, Plotinus is not a strict pantheist, yet his system does not permit the notion of creatio ex nihilo (creation out of nothingness)." Edward Moore, "Plotinus," Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2001; updated 2008; emphasis added).

Perhaps the name "Plotinus" appears in your bible, but not mine.

Perhaps in YOUR history he was a church leader of some kind. I would appreciate you showing me that

The fact is that the notion of "three in one" originates in Platonic philosophy, as revamped by Plotinus, now called "Neoplatonism" by your own quotes.

I don't know how you could possibly maintain that the Trinity is a Biblical doctrine. It is not, using your own quotes. It was invented by Plotinus.

You perhaps will find some excuse to discontinue this discussion.

Oh, and the other "lie" I supposedly made was that you knew that the Trinity and "homoousious" is based on pagan, Platonic Greek philosophy.

If you didn't know that, I officially apologize. The problem is that I cannot conceive how you could NOT know that, and I cannot read your mind, but if you didn't know that, I apologize. Perhaps that will change if you can just look objectively at it, but I will not hold my breath. We often ignore what we don't want to see.

[mfbukowski]

I just had to follow up with this quote from Bowman's source which he used to attempt to show that the notion of the Trinity is NOT Greek Philosophy. This is a quote about Plotinus, I have added underlining.

The Intelligence (Nous) is the true first principle