Jump to content

Fair Mormon's new YouTube branding strategy


Recommended Posts

41 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I hadn't watched this before. I love how he organizes his examples on the great chain of being -- so very Catholic. I also like it when people speak in front of their bookshelves so we can see what they read. I noticed Hegel there at the bottom left, ha.

Great explanation, too. I highly recommend it for LDS who are interested in a good explanation from a Catholic point of view of doctrine of the Trinity. And posted by an LDS to boot!

(did I miss the Czech in there..?)

 

My old Latin teacher in Toronto, Canada, used to refer to himself as a "canceled Czech"! 

Because he was born there, but a naturalized Canadian, that's why!

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
34 minutes ago, juliann said:

I rarely post anymore. It has been fun to rejoin the gang lately. But even I am burned out when it comes to the term paper explanations we used to do, only to see the same stupid stuff being circulated by the same people at the next opportunity.

Back in the day, on AOL before the Fundy Christians had us kicked out for not being Christian enough, there was a corner of the Christian chat room reserved for the LDS. I remember answering an argumentative soul about how we were wrong in our beliefs, by writing a term paper on how he was wrong about us, using extensive scriptural quotations, logic and plain sense. It was a masterful essay (or so I thought, anyway), and it took me a good couple of hours to craft. His answer? "That's a load of BS!"

You can't tell people anything, sometimes.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
3 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Same being? Trinitarianism teaches 'that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another' ('The Blessed Trinity', Catholic Encyclopedia). Your understanding of the Trinity 'totally misses the mark'.

You and I clearly watched two very different videos. The one I linked to includes none of the above.

The one I watched is on page 32 of this thread.  You know the one where the two Mormons are dressed nicely in white shirts ties and suits, and the minister is dressed up in a hillbilly outfit to belittle his authority.  Just how else would you dress someone up to look as stupid as possible while making the "Mormons" looking credible.  

And did you grow up in the same Church that I did?  Because I was always taught that when Joseph Smith walked away from that grove that day, he had the right understanding of the Godhead, one that the Church still carries today.  

From LDS.org.  You know.  That official official web site of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day.  THIS is what the Church teaches.

Eight Truths From The First Vision

Quote

 

2. Jesus is a personage, separate and distinct from the Father.

“In his First Vision, Joseph Smith saw two distinct personages, two beings, thus clarifying that the then-prevailing beliefs concerning God and the Godhead were not true.

“In contrast to the belief that God is an incomprehensible and unknowable mystery is the truth that the nature of God and our relationship to Him is knowable and is the key to everything else in our doctrine.” —President Dallin H. Oaks, First Counselor in the First Presidency4

 

The Church completely disagrees with the posted video which falsely claims that Joseph Smith walked away from the first vision still believing in the Trinity as taught by the Catholic and Protestant churches.   When I referred to pretzel twisting, I wasn't referring to the explanation of what the Trinity is.  I was referring to what the two Mormons were doing to try and trick the minister into accepting that Joseph Smith could see two distinct beings and still walk away with the Catholic/Protestant concept of the Trinity.  THAT is not what the Church teaches.  (see quote above)

  • Like 1
Link to post
3 hours ago, juliann said:
3 hours ago, JAHS said:

It's just a general observation I have seen in the past. I don't have a list of them. If I find one again I will let you know.

In other words, a cheap shot. 

Yes it is, but it's an honest observation and opinion based on my experience on the site. However most of it is good stuff.  Is that a cheap shot too because I didn't give examples?

Link to post
3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I just realized that I was responding to a 10 day old post, and the discussion has wandered off into strange paths and gotten lost in the meantime. 

You summarized the FM position very well, so I appreciate the effort you put in to the post. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, JAHS said:

Yes it is, but it's an honest observation and opinion based on my experience on the site. However most of it is good stuff.  Is that a cheap shot too because I didn't give examples?

It gets extremely frustrating when people give vague complaints and then when we ask for examples so we can improve the work if it turns out we agree with them or at least understand how they got there, and they either drop out of sight or they don’t give details. 
 

How would you like to be told over and over you were doing something wrong but then the person wouldn’t tell you what that was?

People who do provide specific details are much less frustrating (even when insulting imo) and have been helpful at improving our website. 

Edited by Calm
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
36 minutes ago, Calm said:

It gets extremely frustrating when people give vague complaints and then when we ask for examples so we can improve the work if it turns out we agree with them or at least understand how they got there, and they either drop out of sight or they don’t give details. 
 

How would you like to be told over and over you were doing something wrong but then the person wouldn’t tell you what that was?

People who do provide specific details are much less frustrating and have been helpful at improving our website. 

I will try to do so as well.

Link to post
Just now, JAHS said:

I will try to do so as well.

I appreciate that, thank you. A number of changes over the years has come about because of such input. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, Calm said:
1 hour ago, JAHS said:

I will try to do so as well.

I appreciate that, thank you. A number of changes over the years has come about because of such input. 

OK I quickly found one example regarding the subject of windows in the Jaredite barges.  

23 And the Lord said unto the brother of Jared: What will ye that I should do that ye may have light in your vessels? 
For behold, ye cannot have windows, for they will be dashed in pieces; neither shall ye take fire with you, 
for ye shall not go by the light of fire." (Ether 2: 23)

Fair Mormon said:
"It seems likely that Ether 2:23 means that the barges themselves would break if they had windows or openings built into them. In the next verse, the Lord explains that this is because they would go through extremely turbulent conditions at sea, sometimes being buried beneath the waves. Windows would mean weakening the wooden structure, by creating openings, making it more fragile and thus liable to be "dashed in pieces." If we read only the sentence containing the word "windows" and read it out of context, then the antecedent of "they" would, indeed, be "windows." But it is probable that the antecedent is "vessels," the last word in the preceding sentence."

This is a real stretch and mostly speculation and saying "it seems likely" and words like "probable", sounds more like guessing than providing a logical conclusion. The subject of this scripture and the one preceding it is having light in the vessels and so the word "they" is obviously speaking of the windows to provide the light which would be dashed to pieces and is not speaking of the entire vessel itself. This seems more likely to me. 

But I guess if you also want to present opinions on Fair Mormon then something like this is OK. It doesn't seem to jive with the purpose of Fair Mormon though:

"FairMormon is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Edited to add. The reference at the end of this subject is FARMS which doesn't exist at the link provided. 
 

Edited by JAHS
  • Like 1
Link to post
Quote

The reference at the end of this subject is FARMS which doesn't exist at the link provided. 

Unfortunately the webpages and therefore the links have been changed by BYU or NAMI so many times, it has been difficult to keep up. The last changed them to scholarsarchive, but there were some lost in the transfer and I don’t know if they ever got them restored. 
 

I will point it out to our FM Answers people. 

Edited by Calm
  • Like 2
Link to post
12 hours ago, Maureen said:

In the Trinity, all "persons" of the Trinity are indeed distinct from each other, but they are one "being", because there is only one God.

Exactly, but one can see the Father and Son as distinct persons in vision, as Stephen did in Acts 7:56 -- and as clearly portrayed in Christian art over the centuries.

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
Link to post
7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The only post of yours on page 32 links to one of the MIckey Mouse videos and does not mention that Joseph did not believe in an embodied God after the first vision.

I think you may be mistaking me for someone else? I haven't posted links to any Disney videos ...

But here are the links appearing on p. 32 that go to old discussions:

Quote

One of the points that I have repeatedly tried to make in this forum is that there was nothing in the First Vision experience to 'cure' Joseph of his Trinitarianism.

 

Quote

As noted above, I have written on this misunderstanding multiple times in this forum, including on a common Latter-day Saint misreading of 'one substance' in the Nicene Creed.

The links go to specific posts, but there is much more scattered throughout the discussion.

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
Link to post
7 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I was confused at first, because I thought it was going to attack the doctrine of the Trinity, but it was doing something else. Subsequent posts here clarified that was attacking the CES letter, so that made a little more sense.

Thank you for watching the video with an openness to its actual content! 

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I think you may be mistaking me for someone else? I haven't posted links to any Disney videos ...

But here are the links appearing on p. 32 that go to old discussions:

 

The links go to specific posts, but there is much more scattered throughout the discussion.

Hamba my friend, I fear we are not communicating well.  First of all I was using the "Mickey Mouse" reference to refer sarcastically  to the new FAIR videos

And I have no problem with your videos about the Trinity at all- except the Trinity came forth in a CONTEXT of ancient philosophy and so your suggestions of meanings do not take that into account.  But for contemporary Catholics, I think there is some fruit for understanding their own faiths the way Bishop Robert Barron does, and I think that your points are in some ways quite like his.  I also enjoyed the Art show on that link that I missed when you posted it. 

BUT!!!:

My question was about your statement I quoted here -to which you referred me- 

Quote

 On the contrary, there seems to be abundant evidence that Joseph only understood and began to teach the corporeality of God after he had received this information much later via revelation.

My first and only question was- where WAS this "later revelation"?

I have now asked I think 3 times still have not seen a reference to this point.  What am I missing?

Is there anyone else who can verify where and when Joseph realized that I would appreciate it.

 

 

 

 

 

'

  • Like 1
Link to post
19 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

You actually summed up my point perfectly! @3DOP has a good word or phrase for it that I wish I could remember, something like an "intelligent error."

Miserere...Hey thanks for the mention! The "successful error" is necessarily consistent in its parts to careful examination. It is indeed intelligent. The superficial examination, will assume different premises than the ones upon which the error is built. This is why successful errors, and even truth itself is susceptible of being labelled as ridiculous, absurd, or even stupid. Sadly, it seems to me that in important matters of religion and politics, there is a strong desire in many people to be able to say to themselves and others, that what is not right (in their opinion) is also obviously illogical. The father of lies is usually more clever than that.

satan hates our powers of reason, but to make slaves of us, and even to make us believe and behave in a way that is compatible with completely irrational points of view has not in my opinion been accomplished for a long time except in isolated conditions that could not be considered successful, as I use the term. It would certainly be a great achievement for the king of malice. Its symptoms can be seen in the actions of poor souls who are so filled with fury and anger about a perceived injustice that they have become precisely mad. Anger uncontrolled, that does not subside, must blind the intellect. This is why God tells us to NOT let the sun go down on our anger. We are not told that anger is always to be suppressed at all times. But it can be abused. The evil one sees value in feeding the anger of Christ's followers, as well as his own. For the purpose of raising souls to be courageous in the battle against darkness, anger is a necessary part of the human make up. We see how to master and employ this emotion when our example in all things, Christ Jesus, turned over the tables of the money changers:

"And he found in the temple them that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting. And when he had made, as it were, a scourge of little cords, he drove them all out of the temple, the sheep also and the oxen, and the money of the changers he poured out, and the tables he overthrew. And to them that sold doves he said: Take these things hence, and make not the house of my Father a house of traffic. And his disciples remembered, that it was written: The zeal of thy house hath eaten me up."   ---Jn. 2:14-16

Much could be said about this passage regarding our Lord's obligation to make a scene. But special note should be taken as to how He does not allow anger to rule Him. With silent calm, He makes some kind of handicraft, if you will, and shows how we should not react in burning fury and immediate tempest when we feel anger rising. Present in His Father's house, is Jesus, the King of all things, including His own emotions. The King makes anger serve Him, under His rule, rather than the other way around.

I do believe that it is prophesied that a time will come when a very successful error will take root in a majority of souls who being governed by anger, and having become mad, will believe things that are truly crazy. If my theory is correct, those of God's children who have their wits in such a time would feel pity and compassion for such as these, while rejoicing at one of the signs that Jesus is coming soon!  

3DOP

PS: Hey New Mexico boy...A belated Feast of Guadalupe to you! I wish to have said this last night when my post disappeared because of a lost internet connection. (I saved it this time before posting)  

Edited by 3DOP
  • Like 4
Link to post
7 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

have failed to find the link tonight, but we have evidence that missionaries were teaching the corporeality of God by 1832 if I'm not misremembering. I'll have to look again later if someone else doesn't provide the source first.

What is significant is that Joseph Smith himself never once used the First Vision to clarify or support anything he ever taught on the nature of God. We can surmise what the experience may have given him to understand, but that's the best we can do.

I can't find any 1832 reference but he may have understood it sometime after 1835. An 1836 news article stated the following about the Mormons:
"They believe that the true God is a material being, composed of body and parts; and that when the Creator formed Adam in his own image, he made him about the size and shape of God himself."
(Truman Coe, “Mormonism,” Cincinnati Journal and Western Luminary (25 August 1836))

Joseph Smith said he only saw the Father and the Son but he did not touch them, so He could not tell from the first vision if The Father had a physical body.

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
8 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

The Wikipedia entry actually gives a pretty good summary. Good grab quote: 'However, founder Joseph Smith's teachings regarding the nature of the Godhead developed during his lifetime, becoming most fully developed in the few years prior to his murder in 1844. Beginning as an unelaborated description of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as being "One", Smith taught that the Father and the Son were distinct personal members of the Godhead as early as 1832. Smith's public teachings later described the Father and Son as possessing distinct physical bodies, being one together with the Holy Ghost, not in material substance, but in spirit, glory, and purpose'.

Most scholars both within and without the Church seem to accept the fifth Lecture on Faith (1835) as indicative of the gradual increase of understanding of the Prophet on this point. Some important grab quotes: 'There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power over all things ... They are the Father and the Son: The Father being a personage of spirit, glory and power: possessing all perfection and fulness: The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made, or fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and likeness of man ... possessing the same mind with the Father, which mind is the Holy Spirit ...' Though FairMormon takes some exception to what has been written on these passages.

John W. Welch provides good context for the 1843 statement that was later canonised as D&C 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'), though many of his conclusions that accompany this outline are contested.

I have failed to find the link tonight, but we have evidence that missionaries were teaching the corporeality of God by 1832 if I'm not misremembering. I'll have to look again later if someone else doesn't provide the source first.

What is significant is that Joseph Smith himself never once used the First Vision to clarify or support anything he ever taught on the nature of God. We can surmise what the experience may have given him to understand, but that's the best we can do.

Hope this helps!

It does- thanks mucho!!

And here is an article written in contemporary English about Aquinas' metaphysics which discusses human flesh as a substance.

https://iep.utm.edu/aq-meta/#:~:text=According to Aquinas%2C substances are,are not identical with existence.&text=This captures the fundamental notion,either of or in them.

I think it is presentism to see Aquinas' position on substance to justify the idea that the Savior's post resurrection body was "flesh and bone" as ours is.

But as always seeing the ancients as if they thought as we do today is always an error.

Bishop Robert Barron on the other hand gets away with it because he openly modifies and re-explains the philosophy using the terminology of Aquinas, but buddy that stuff is NOT what Aquinas would teach.   

Aquinas as a post modern?

Good luck! ;)

 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to post
1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

PS: Hey New Mexico boy...A belated Feast of Guadalupe to you! I wish to have said this last night when my post disappeared because of a lost internet connection. (I saved it this time before posting)  

Thank you! We have a wonderful fiesta here celebrating Our Lady of Guadalupe. It lasts for three days (12/11 - 12/13) and includes an early morning pilgrimage on 12/12 up a (small) mountain to a shrine where priests hear confession and Mass is said by the bishop. It originates in the village of Tortugas (just south of where I live), a native pueblo that converted long ago, and includes a wonderful cultural combination of native traditions that have been adapted as venerations of Our Lady, the patron of the village. This includes amazing dances in Her honor. The pilgrimage up the mountain is led by the village priest and we pray the Rosary the entire way. The image of Our Lady is taken from her shrine in the village and carried to the shrine on the mountain. We then spend the day on the top celebrating La Virgen. When night comes, the village lights bonfires to guide us back and people light fires along the path to show the way down the mountain. In the morning, Mass is celebrated and then everyone is fed by the village. It is really a wonderful tradition. I didn't go this year because of the pandemic (there were severe restrictions and I don't live in the village).

The fiesta has been celebrated for over 100 years.

Here is a cool article explaining the entire fiesta: The Pilgrimage

You can also image google search "tortugas pilgrimage" to see pictures.

I recommend LDS check it out, too, because it shows a VERY New Mexican culture, which is interesting from a non-Catholic point-of-view, too.

We take La Virgen very seriously around here :) 

Edited by MiserereNobis
  • Like 2
Link to post
5 hours ago, JAHS said:

so He could not tell from the first vision if The Father had a physical body.

We don’t know everything the Father did though. What if he physically moved something?  Brushed off a leaf that had fallen onto his shoulder, for example. 

Link to post
9 minutes ago, Calm said:

We don’t know everything the Father did though. What if he physically moved something?  Brushed off a leaf that had fallen onto his shoulder, for example. 

The Doctrine & Covenants states: "No man hath seen God at any time in the flesh, except quickened by the Spirit of God" (D&C 67:11). 

The only thing that would have been able to see God and Jesus would have been Joseph, having been quickened by the spirit of God. I am pretty sure that not even a bird sitting on the branch of a tree saw Him and a leaf falling down would pass right through the same space. But that's just my opinion. 

Link to post
2 minutes ago, JAHS said:

The Doctrine & Covenants states: "No man hath seen God at any time in the flesh, except quickened by the Spirit of God" (D&C 67:11). 

The only thing that would have been able to see God and Jesus would have been Joseph, having been quickened by the spirit of God. I am pretty sure that not even a bird sitting on the branch of a tree saw Him and a leaf falling down would pass right through the same space. But that's just my opinion. 

If a leaf falls through him, then it would seem he is likely a projection or in an alternate dimension sci-fi wise and therefore not really physically there anyway. 
 

How about him putting an arm around Christ like many loving fathers do. Since Christ has a physical body, that would have implied the Father did too.  

Link to post
1 hour ago, Calm said:

If a leaf falls through him, then it would seem he is likely a projection or in an alternate dimension sci-fi wise and therefore not really physically there anyway. 
 

How about him putting an arm around Christ like many loving fathers do. Since Christ has a physical body, that would have implied the Father did too.  

Yep that probably would have proven it pretty well. Unfortunately nothing exists in the records or history about what else happened there. 
If, according to the scriptures,

Jesus has a resurrected body (Luke 24: 39),
He and His Father are separate beings (Acts 7:55)
He is like His Father in every way (John 14: 9),
We are made after His image (Gen 1: 27), 

Add these together with this scripture:
"The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise." (John 5: 19)

All these scripture say to me that God the Father has a separate body of flesh and bone.
If the Son has a physical resurrected body and He does everything the Father does then the Father must also have a physical body.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post

Dehlin, I would assume not having any luck whatsoever with police (assuming he called them at all), says he filed an FBI report.  Cause they don't have enough to do without referreeing his ongoing squabbles with Mormons. I am waiting with bated breath for the arrests. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...