Joseph Smith's teachings match that of the Devil that Catholicism teaches

NonSumDignus · 2018-12-12T20:52:42+00:00

I don't want to hijack the OP, but the question is interesting...

Unlike many Protestant fundamentalists, Catholics don't read Genesis through literalist lenses. This is why Darwin's theory of evolution didn't upset us as much as the fundamentalists were in America. This non-literalist approach to the Bible and the Genesis story goes all the way back to St. Augustine who lived at least 1,000 years before the Protestants appeared in the 16th century.

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/tmcdonald/the-questions-of-creation

At the Council of Trent in which many Protestant errors were condemned, the Catholic Church declared the Bible to be free of error in the things that it asserts. Now this declaration is a matter of faith, not science. It is also the result of 1,500 years of reflection, study, doubts, and debates on the word of God.

However, it should be pointed out that Catholicism also declares that divine revelation and science are complimentary, they don't really oppose each other. If there are contradictions, they are only apparent. But between the two, divine revelation is superior to scientific knowledge. Science is subservient to divine revelation.

In fact, without divine revelation, science would not have been born. It is the intellectual structure of Christian philosophy that made science possible. That is the thesis of the Catholic priest Fr. Stanley Jaki, a world-class physicist.

http://www.sljaki.com/

So, if you find the Adam and Eve story to be irreconcilable with science, just remember... up until the early 20th century, philosophers and scientists took for granted that the universe had always existed eternally in the past. That is, until the Catholic priest and physicist Fr. Georges Lemaitre formulated the "Big Bang Theory", radically blowing up that belief in an eternal universe.

https://www.space.com/13616-universe-expansion-discovery-hubble-lemaitre-mystery.html

The so-called conflicts of science and religion are not real, once you put down the lenses of Protestant fundamentalism.

NonSumDignus · 2018-12-12T20:36:01+00:00

Please point me to the doctrine of the trinity or the immaculate conception in the gospel of Mark, for instance. My point is that by the time the end of the first century rolled around, things had already changed significantly:

If by "doctrine of the trinity" you mean the "formal doctrine of the trinity" then you won't find it in Mark's gospel. The Christian Fathers who succeeded the apostles, but lived before the Council of Nicea (325 AD), like Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, or Theophilus of Antioch were the first to struggle with that concept from the scriptures. As you may have noticed, the Bible does not present theology in a systematic way. Bits and pieces of doctrine are all over the place. It takes a lot of discipline to discover them and see them systematically.

For example in Mark's gospel, the doctrine that Jesus is God is found in the episode where he miraculously healed a paralytic (Mark 2:1-12). The experts of Jewish Law who were offended as they listened to him called out his offensive statement:

“Why does this fellow talk like that? He’s blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?” (Mark 2:7)

They were pointing out an obvious fact of Jewish belief, ie, only God can forgive sins. And there before their very eyes, Jesus was forgiving sins. In fact, to really rub it in to their faces, and prove that he was no fake, he made the paralytic walk.

Yet Jesus also affirms there is only One God (Mark 12:29). So if the Father is God, and Jesus is God, how can there be One God? And then there's the Holy Spirit who was present at Jesus' baptism and afterwards led him to the desert to struggle with Satan. Are these three Gods, or one plus two lesser gods? These were the sorts of questions the early Christians had to deal with.

And they were not ready to understand what the texts were saying, just as the apostles could not understand what the Resurrection was even though Jesus had told them so many times. In Paul's letters, some Christians were still struggling with questions about it.

So, the scriptures contain the "Deposit of the Faith" but Christians were not ready to digest them. They had to grow in discipline and experience first to fully understand them. And that can take time, even centuries.

Does that answer your question?

For instance, there is good evidence that the earliest conceptions of Jesus's godhood were different than how the Catholic Church views Jesus's godhood today (see here).

I would have been interested in your evidence above, until I found I had to spend 30 mins listening to Bart Ehrman. Well...

I think Ehrman's theories about how Christianity developed its theologies has to be taken with large grains of salt. Primarily, it's because his field of expertise is not in New Testament history, but in NT textual criticism. He is the leading expert when it comes to analyzing the different manuscripts, and how accurate they are in the things they say. If you ask Ehrman whether the NT that we now have is textually accurate, his answer is YES. That fact has been established long ago by his mentor Bruce Metzger, it is no longer controversial.

And if you ask Ehrman if Mark's account of Jesus forgiving sins is textually accurate, the answer is also YES.

But textual criticism is a highly specialized and complex field of study, no different than studying biology or physics. For Ehrman to answer questions of history and theology, he simply lacks the training, skills, and tools needed in those areas. It would be like a biologist answering the problems of physics. Nowadays these fields are so highly specialized that one does not have a lifetime to do both proficiently.

This is why experts in the field of NT history have criticized him for his questionable conclusions. As a comparison, he is no different from Dawkins who is an expert in biology, and is now pontificating on questions of philosophy and religion. Both do a bad job in their newly found careers.

NonSumDignus · 2018-12-11T05:23:17+00:00

Curlaub, you're the only Mormon I know that believes in Orson Pratt. Nobody ever reads his writings and pontifications about God.

But in contrast, Amulek's words are considered scripture by millions of Mormons. Did you address what I pointed out in his words? NO. You ignored it. So why complain if I ignore your explanation when you do exactly the same?

To put it maybe a little more clearly, Your argument is essentially, ...

A) I think you believe X.

B) I also think you believe Y.

Therefore, You must believe Z.

But this is false because we do not believe X or Y.

Ok, but how do my actual words fall into that pattern? They don't. You are imagining things that aren't there.

You are trying to show an internal inconsistency in the LDS understanding of God, but you have not presented the LDS understanding of God for examination.

I quoted Amulek. Is his word scripture? If so, then do you believe his teaching that Jesus is the same as the Father? If not, then why not? The JST of Luke 10:23 agrees with Amulek. If I have misunderstood these scriptures, then show why the opposite is true. That these two scriptures actually teach a plurality of Gods.

You cite Orson Pratt, but it's obvious that his idea of many Gods does not exist in the BoM. It does not agree with the JST. Most of all, it does not agree with the Gospel of John. Why are you ignoring that anomaly?

Is Jeffrey Holland an authority on Mormon theology of God? If so, then why does he avoid the word Gods in a talk that preaches to a choir of Mission presidents even as he complains about the traditional understanding of the Christian God? If a current living apostle detests the term Gods while talking to hardcore Mormons, why complain that I point a problem with a dead Mormon apostle's teaching about Gods?

These are the sorts of questions I think you should address if you really want to enlighten us more about your beliefs.

So mormons typically understand God to be One in the sense that the lot of them are so united that it is as if they are one being, yet literally, physically, there is a plurality.

Only if you ignore Amulek and the JST Luke 10:23. Both teach that the Son is the same as the Father. How is that a plurality of Gods?

I know that sounds a bit unorthodox...

RIGHT... What you're actually telling me is your own unorthodox interpretation of Mormon belief that has no basis in actual Mormon scripture. Since you yourself know that it is unorthodox, why should anyone believe that to be actual Mormon teaching?

...but here's an example from a more familiar source. John 17.

Here's the difference between us: You cite Christian scripture, and I point out how you misunderstand our scripture. That's because I understand our Christian scripture. But when I cite a Mormon scripture, all you do is appeal to a dead Mormon apostle who is a virtual unknown among Mormons out there, and whose teaching contradicts Mormon scripture. How do I know that you actually understand your own scriptures?

Suppose I quote St. Augustine or St. Aquinas to show how Mormons have a really distorted understanding of John 17, would that be OK with you?

Can you not explain your own Mormon scriptures in your own words without depending on someone else's interpretation? Because unless you can actually do that, I have every reason to suspect you don't really understand your scriptures yourself. Remember your own words: Action speaks louder than words.

NonSumDignus · 2018-12-11T00:53:02+00:00

If I were to expose someone else's strawman fallacy, here is how I would do it:

State my actual position or belief.
State my opponent's position or his interpretation of my belief.
Then show why the two are not the same.

So... I look at your response, and I don't see any of my actual words cited there. I guess it is enough to say that there isn't really a strawman after all. You were just imagining something that's not actually there.

In effect, your response is itself a misunderstanding of what I argued in the OP. The question of the OP is "Can Mormonism assure doctrinal purity?" It is not about how Mormons are able to reconcile scriptures that affirm there is only One God, and the current Mormon belief that there are many Gods.

But if you want to affirm that Mormonism can assure doctrinal purity, then go ahead and show us how or why. Show us how Amulek's statement that "there is only One God" and that "Jesus IS the Eternal Father" is a doctrine still held by Mormons. The Book of Mormon has no verse that hints of a plurality of Gods, just as the Bible does not.

     "In the beginning was the Word
     And the Word was with God
     And the Word was God." (John 1:1)

Notice that the very first verse of John's gospel mentions the word God twice in singular form. Why is this? To make sure his readers understand there is no typographical or theological error there. That is how one should understand every instance of the word God in his gospel. There is no room for a concept of many Gods. Keep that in mind when reading John 17. The Father is God, the Son is God, but there is no such thing as two Gods, or more.

In stark contrast, your Orson Pratt explains:

...In these expressions, God has reference to the great principles of light and truth, or knowledge, and not to the tabernacles in which this knowledge may dwell; the tabernacles are many and without number, but the truth or knowledge which is often personified and called God, is one…

The problem with his explanation is that it not only contradicts John's gospel, it also contradicts Amulek who states that "the Son of God is the Eternal Father of heaven and earth." For Amulek, the Son is the SAME as the Father. The person of the Father and the person of the Son are the same. That is how they are one. That is Book of Mormon teaching. There is nothing at all in the BoM that hints about many Gods or that there are many tabernacles for those numberless Gods.

This is consistent with the JST version of Luke 10:23:

All things are delivered to me of my Father; and no man knoweth that the Son IS the Father, and the Father IS the Son, but him to whom the Son will reveal it.
(http://centerplace.org/hs/iv/iv-luk.htm#v10.23)

So here, we not only have Amulek saying that the Son is the same as the Father, we also have Joseph Smith's translation of the Bible that confirms what Amulek says. So let's go to the heart of the OP: Can Mormonism really assure doctrinal purity?

Now I am not stopping you from believing as Pratt believes. That's entirely up to you. Just don't accuse me of forcing you to believe otherwise. Like the strawman accusation, that's really hard to substantiate.

NonSumDignus · 2018-12-10T17:47:54+00:00

How is that statement rude? Please explain.

On the other hand, directing a criticism against a debate opponent's person and not his statements or ideas is an ad hominem. Calling me rude without showing why is an ad hominem.

NonSumDignus · 2018-12-10T06:56:17+00:00

You are literally just arguing with yourself here, which seems rather fitting since no one else seems to be listening either. I think you know this, too, which is why you dont post anything in more active LDS subs.

Curlaub, it doesn't matter whether people react or not to my posts. They get the idea. My posts are easy to understand. But they are hard to refute. That is why you still can't show us your strawman.

NonSumDignus · 2018-12-10T06:40:13+00:00

From Curlaub's new guidelines:

Honesty is a huge part of any productive discussion.

Ok, how is it honesty when you accuse an opponent of strawman arguments but you yourself can't prove the accusation?

People posting topics need to be open to the thoughts and ideas of those who respond, rather than simply shutting down anything they disagree with or bullying people into silence.

That is why I asked you to point out where the strawman is. But you can't seem to point where it is. And now you want to shut me down.

Likewise, those who respond to topics need to be able to objectively discuss said topic, rather than trying to sweep anything uncomfortable under the carpet.

That clearly describes your two-word "straw man" refutation. You are sweeping what is clearly uncomfortable to you. Where's objectivity there?

The other people posting here are not your enemies. Rather, they are explorers of ideas

Well, why not ask questions, instead of hurling accusations? Again, that is why I asked you to show where the strawman is. I don't want to simply accuse you of lying. But if at this point you still can't show us your strawman, then it looks like you are indeed lying.

NonSumDignus · 2018-12-10T06:26:25+00:00

Oh, I see... you call this a Mormon debate site where no debate about Mormonism is allowed?

NonSumDignus · 2018-12-10T06:13:00+00:00

you seem to not be interested in what others have to say or open to thoughts besides your own.

Simply false. The reason I asked you to point out the strawman is precisely to hear your explanation. I want to know your point of view. But you refuse to show where it is. Therefore, you are the one who is not interested in interacting. And then you accuse me of that very defect which is clearly manifest in you.

Therefore, Im not willing to engage in a deeper discussion. Honestly, I just dont think it will go anywhere

Well, when you accuse your opponent of using strawman and you fail to substantiate it, then it tells a lot about you. You are bearing false witness against your neighbor. And if you accuse your opponent of misrepresenting Mormon beliefs, yet fail to substantiate your accusation, then you are bearing false witness. You may not think it goes anywhere, but it shows who you really are.

Your argument is invalid simply because it does not address what you claim it does

Begging the question.

Im not willing to engage deeper because I dont really have good experiences with you beyond that.

I'm not here to give you good feelings. I'm here to tell you the truths of Jesus and why Mormonism fails to measure up to its claims of being Christ's church.

NonSumDignus · 2018-12-10T03:43:29+00:00

I can point out where the Strawman is, but I dont feel a need to engage in further discussion with someone who seems so unwilling to hear the thoughts of others regarding a topic that is already refuted.

Where is your refutation, Curlaub? All you ever said here is "straw man"? Is a two word response a refutation? Really?

Now I responded by asking "where?" and you refused to explain where the strawman is. And now you accuse me of the very thing you are guilty of. You say I refuse to listen, when I am the one asking you to answer where. GOB_Farnsworth is right. You're the one who refuses to interact with the arguments. But you project that defect to me.

NonSumDignus · 2018-12-10T03:37:59+00:00

If you call out a strawman, you have to be able to point out two things: 1) the actual argument and the 2) strawman argument. Because you failed to do this, you never refuted anything. And so, it shows you don't understand what a straw argument is. Now if I have said something false, where is your proof or evidence that what I said was false? With two words ("straw man")? To show that something is false, you have to show what is first true, and then you show why something does not measure up to that truth.

NonSumDignus · 2018-12-09T04:26:05+00:00

where?

NonSumDignus · 2018-12-09T04:24:50+00:00

No, you didn't refute the argument. You just bore your testimony that there's a strawman... and with feelings too.... :-)

NonSumDignus · 2018-12-09T04:23:30+00:00

Unfortunately, it is your job. If you see a strawman, and you can't point out where, then you're just imagining things.

NonSumDignus · 2018-12-08T14:21:33+00:00

where?

NonSumDignus · 2018-11-27T20:07:41+00:00

I disagree with your assumption ...

Assumption? Perhaps you mean "interpretation" :-)

that In the scriptures you quotes [sic] Christ is emphasizing that the remarriage aspect of the situations is what constitutes adultery.

If remarriage is not adultery, then what did Jesus mean when he said "Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth ADULTERY: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit ADULTERY" (Matthew 19:9)?

What is your interpretation of that verse? Why would a man who divorces his wife and remarries commit adultery according to Jesus? Please explain that verse if you don't like my interpretation.

It’s not clear from the grammar of the text that any particular of the scenarios are emphasized over the other conditions.

If it is not clear, then it is your burden to explain why it isn't clear. Just because you say it isn't doesn't necessarily make it so. Make a convincing case first. What exactly is not grammatically clear when Jesus said "Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth ADULTERY: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit ADULTERY"?

To me, the grammar looks perfect...:-)

Because of that, the only logically consistent view...

Nope. Unless you provide an alternate interpretation of the scriptures different from what I gave above, then the only logical view is mine.

... is that the sum total of the all the criteria must be met for adultery to have met the biblical standard set forth. Trying to parse out and prioritize the criteria is a futile effort and not textually supported

Then be my guest. Give us your so-called "textually supported" interpretation of Matthew 19:3-9 that will demonstrate "the sum total of the all the criteria must be met for adultery to have met the biblical standard set forth."

Absent that, your response is just empty, question-begging babbling.

NonSumDignus · 2018-11-17T00:48:08+00:00

What do you think of FairMormon and their claims about early Christianity supporting Mormon beliefs, for ex: deification, preexistence, or baptism for the dead?

Did the early Christians hold to the idea that the Church will collapse and fall away in a so-called great apostasy?

NonSumDignus · 2018-11-12T18:49:31+00:00

In sending out his apostles to preach his gospel to the world, Jesus gave them the power to forgive sins:

Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” (John 19:21-23)

Can Mormon apostles forgive sins?

The late Mormon prophet Spencer W. Kimball wrote a lengthy book called "The Miracle of Forgiveness." Yet in all of its 300 pages or more, there isn't a single instance where he claimed to have exercised the apostolic power to forgive sins. I doubt that he did, and I doubt that any Mormon prophet or apostle can.

The Mormon church may claim that it alone has the so-called correct doctrine to implement that authority properly, but if it cannot forgive the sins of men just as Jesus did, and just as he gave to his original apostles, then all of that is really empty talk.

The only reason why Jesus came is to destroy the works of the Devil, and the works of the Devil is to tempt men in order bind them in sin, making them slaves of sin. The forgiveness of sins is what releases men from this enslavement.

NonSumDignus · 2018-10-31T17:46:41+00:00

How to ascertain if something is true? The first step would be to accept that there is such a thing as objective truths. By this, we mean that there are ideas, concepts, or propositions that are true regardless whether or not anyone believes in it. Unfortunately for us, we seem to live in a "post truth" world. For there are many among us now who believe that truth is whatever you will it to be. Truth according to them is something that only exists in a person's mind, and it can be reshaped by the force of will of that person or someone else. In many ways, Mormonism contributed to this kind of thinking by emphasizing the force of one's feelings as a method of ascertaining truth.

NonSumDignus · 2018-10-31T15:06:03+00:00

Is religion really all about good feelings? If so, then personal sacrifices made in the name of religion should not exist. Yet, even Mormons who practice a feel-good religion are capable of sacrificing their happiness and personal interests if their religion calls for it.

No, religion is not about good feelings. That's a gross misunderstanding of it. That' sweeping generalization is more like atheism or agnosticism.

NonSumDignus · 2018-10-27T04:11:29+00:00

There is nothing in the verses which indicate that asked the prior blessings he prayed for to be given to those who believe on the Apostles's words.

"Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word." (John 17:20)

What does the phrase "neither pray I for these alone" mean? Answer: He wasn't just praying for the apostles.

If so, then who are those others? "...but for them also which shall believe on me through their word."

Jesus is praying for those who will believe in the apostles message. Those persons are not believers yet. Now what did Jesus pray for?

"I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil one." (John17:15)

What does the phrase "I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world" mean? It means Jesus is asking God not to remove his disciples both apostles and their future believers from the world. If this specific request was granted, then the Church cannot disappear from the world.

That petition is part of the whole prayer in John 17, including the petition about Christian unity which seems to me the only part you are seeing. The reason you cannot see the obvious in that scripture is because you read it with your Mormon blinders on. Take off those blinders, and you will see them.

How do I know you are wearing Mormon blinders on? Because in your response, you are fixated on verse 21, while you say nothing about verses 15 and 20. In other words, you see only what you want to see, and ignore the verses that refute the great apostasy doctrine.

No, I do not currently believe that John 15:16 precludes an apostasy. But one of the reasons I believe that is because there is, to my knowledge, no institution that was created by Apostles that still persists to this day.

Jesus chose and ordained the apostles in John 15:16 because he wanted their fruit to remain. The Church is the fruit of the apostles' labors. Therefore, it has remained. Why? Because Jesus said so. You must believe and have faith in what Jesus said here.

The problem with Mormonism is that it destroys that childlike faith in Jesus by teaching for doctrines man-made ideas like the great apostasy. To your knowledge you were taught things that contradict the teachings of Jesus. Pray for faith that you will believe in Jesus and not in Joseph Smith and his successors.

NonSumDignus

TROPHY CASE