Billy and the BoM

Tawhano · Mar 3, 2006

newyorksaint said:
The results are different for each person, yet each thinks that their results are the correct ones.

I agree. On the other hand if your interpretation of scriptures contradicts itself then that should be a signal to you that you need to rethink your interpretation.

BTW: I should add that by ‘you’ I do not mean you personally but ‘you’ the one interpreting. In other words if you or I find contradictions in our interpretation we should come to the conclusion that we have interpreted something incorrectly. I wanted to be clear that my statement wasn’t a personal accusation of your interpretations is all.

chipmunk · Mar 3, 2006

Tawhano said:
Explain to me how Joseph Smith could claim all religions are wrong if they cant be proven wrong.

His claim isn't really provable. He can and did make the claim, but that doesn't mean that using the scientific methods available today that it's a provable claim. He made the claim b/c he did believe he saw God and God told him that. It's impossible to verify claims where people talk to a deity (unless of course you can prove the person was somewhere else at the time). People can either believe or disbelieve them, but it's a scientific unkown.

People certainly believe the claim by JS and for different reasons. Someone may have prayed and felt led by God that it was right. Perhaps, others still searched several religions and found that the couldn't believe the doctrines. There are certainly doctrines in other churches I could never accept. These are all subjective though. And certainly there are thousands of people who simply reject the claim for their own reasons--maybe the prayed and received a different answer.

newyorksaint · Mar 3, 2006

Tawhano said:
I agree. On the other hand if your interpretation of scriptures contradicts itself then that should be a signal to you that you need to rethink your interpretation.

BTW: I should add that by ‘you’ I do not mean you personally but ‘you’ the one interpreting. In other words if you or I find contradictions in our interpretation we should come to the conclusion that we have interpreted something incorrectly. I wanted to be clear that my statement wasn’t a personal accusation of your interpretations is all.

Thank you for that clarification (not that I thought you were personally attacking me). But, I agree with your statment 100%.

Tawhano · Mar 6, 2006

chipmunk said:
His claim isn't really provable. He can and did make the claim, but that doesn't mean that using the scientific methods available today that it's a provable claim. He made the claim b/c he did believe he saw God and God told him that. It's impossible to verify claims where people talk to a deity (unless of course you can prove the person was somewhere else at the time). People can either believe or disbelieve them, but it's a scientific unkown.

Okay, that makes sense. I concur with your explanation.

Let me make the assumption (correct me if Im wrong) that you would agree that even if I could prove something that doesnt mean it will be accepted as proof ; for instance if I could prove a persons religion wrong it doesnt mean that that members of that religion will see it as proof. This isnt what I mean by proving a religion wrong.

Lets say a religion teaches that the world is flat (yes there are such religions today) and I prove it is round by mathematical computations. Those members will not accept my proof. My question to you is; is this proving a religion wrong or not?

chipmunk · Mar 6, 2006

Tawhano said:
Okay, that makes sense. I concur with your explanation.

Let me make the assumption (correct me if Im wrong) that you would agree that even if I could prove something that doesnt mean it will be accepted as proof ; for instance if I could prove a persons religion wrong it doesnt mean that that members of that religion will see it as proof. This isnt what I mean by proving a religion wrong.

Lets say a religion teaches that the world is flat (yes there are such religions today) and I prove it is round by mathematical computations. Those members will not accept my proof. My question to you is; is this proving a religion wrong or not?

Well, not everything is accepted as proof by everyone. People disagree on things. Some people will put on blinders to scientific facts.

I know there are groups that believe the earth is flat. I wasn't aware it was religious in nature, but I shouldn't be surprised. I would say you definitely have proof one of their doctrines is wrong. At the most I would say the religion contains errors.

Tawhano · Mar 7, 2006

chipmunk said:
I know there are groups that believe the earth is flat. I wasn't aware it was religious in nature, but I shouldn't be surprised. I would say you definitely have proof one of their doctrines is wrong. At the most I would say the religion contains errors.

You and I are worlds apart. You would believe a habitual liar; I would not and say that liar must earn my trust before I would believe his words. You say a religion can contain errors and still be true; I say a religion that is found to be false in one thing is a false religion. There can be no lie in truth.

1 John 2:21 I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.

There is no sense in continuing our discussion with such a gulf between us. Thank you for your responses.

Deraj · Mar 7, 2006

Tawhano said:
You and I are worlds apart. You would believe a habitual liar; I would not and say that liar must earn my trust before I would believe his words. You say a religion can contain errors and still be true; I say a religion that is found to be false in one thing is a false religion. There can be no lie in truth.

1 John 2:21 I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.

There is no sense in continuing our discussion with such a gulf between us. Thank you for your responses.

Can you back up such allegations against Chipmunk?

buddy mack · Mar 7, 2006

Tawhano said:
You and I are worlds apart. You would believe a habitual liar; I would not and say that liar must earn my trust before I would believe his words. You say a religion can contain errors and still be true; I say a religion that is found to be false in one thing is a false religion. There can be no lie in truth.

1 John 2:21 I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.

There is no sense in continuing our discussion with such a gulf between us. Thank you for your responses.

i'll love to continue discussing anything with a pretty lady,

chipmunk · Mar 7, 2006

Tawhano said:
You and I are worlds apart. You would believe a habitual liar; I would not and say that liar must earn my trust before I would believe his words. You say a religion can contain errors and still be true; I say a religion that is found to be false in one thing is a false religion. There can be no lie in truth.

1 John 2:21 I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.

There is no sense in continuing our discussion with such a gulf between us. Thank you for your responses.

For clarification and explanation: My younger sister is a habitual liar (I suspect this is only a result of her mental condition--they placed her at around 7 or 8 years of age though she is now 22). If my experiences with her have taught me anything it is that you do not have to distrust everything she says. That does not mean you accept everything either. It is a balance. If I misunderstood anything it was possibly the use of "everything," which perhaps you meant in an exaggerated tone.

Claims go in 3 categories for me: ones that are verifiable on first hearing, the ones that aren't verifiable on first hearing, and the ones that will never be verifiable. Having to live with someone you have to constantly verify claims on has made me do the same to people who don't have penchants for lying. Why? Because sometimes genuinely honest people get their facts messed up. Certainly, you don't have to believe habitual liars on their word alone, but it seems a bit shortsighted to completely discount them or not check the claims at all because they had previously lied.

Religions are left to us fallible humans to carry out, thus I suspect some errors are likely to come into play. Many religious claims aren't as easily verifiable as whether the earth is flat. Thus we are left with what we have faith in. Do people believe everything their religion of choice proclaims? I don't really. I am extremely not perfect (especially in regards to following of religion), and I don't expect perfection of the people at the top of my religion, but I do trust God not to let them lead us into an abyss of no return.

newyorksaint · Mar 8, 2006

Tawhano said:
You and I are worlds apart. You would believe a habitual liar; I would not and say that liar must earn my trust before I would believe his words. You say a religion can contain errors and still be true; I say a religion that is found to be false in one thing is a false religion. There can be no lie in truth.

1 John 2:21 I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.

There is no sense in continuing our discussion with such a gulf between us. Thank you for your responses.

Question-what about the errors between the differing denominations of OC? If one believes one thing, and another believes something different, isn't one of them wrong? Therefore, that whole sect is wrong. If you keep applying this, you've effectively eliminated all but one denomination.

newyorksaint · Mar 8, 2006

LDS view our Church as the one True Church-the one without doctrinal errors, insofar as that doctrine is given. We see other churches as ont being the one true church, yes, but they have truth in them-for they are in error in some point or another. But, that does not denote the fact that they have true information, true doctrine.

logichopper · Mar 8, 2006

newyorksaint said:
LDS view our Church as the one True Church-the one without doctrinal errors, insofar as that doctrine is given. We see other churches as ont being the one true church, yes, but they have truth in them-for they are in error in some point or another. But, that does not denote the fact that they have true information, true doctrine.

Actually, the mormon church professes through their claim in the "first vision" that the creeds of all other chuches are an "ABOMINATION IN THE EYES OF GOD"! When one looks at the definition of "abomination", it is difficult to comprehend how anything good can come from "abominable beliefs".

Similarly, as I have found out from leaders in the lds church, it is difficult to get from any lds to specifically explain what is "abominable" about other church's creeds/beliefs.

Perhaps yet another indication demonstrated by a rather, unanswered and yet, paricularly valid question as to the truthfulness of Smith's claim!!!

Swart · Mar 9, 2006

logichopper said:
Actually, the mormon church professes through their claim in the "first vision" that the creeds of all other chuches are an "ABOMINATION IN THE EYES OF GOD"! When one looks at the definition of "abomination", it is difficult to comprehend how anything good can come from "abominable beliefs".

Slippery slope argumentation with a dose of guilt by association.

I've dealt with this claim a few dozen times. It is the creeds that are abominable to God. There are many things abominable to God. You only have to read the OT to find out how 'abominable' the children of Israel were. To use your logic, Moses would have left the children of Israel to rot in Egypt.

I suggest you don't read Leviticus either, for that matter.

[bible]Leviticus 11:11-13[/bible]

Tawhano · Mar 9, 2006

Deraj said:
Can you back up such allegations against Chipmunk?

What allegations?

Tawhano · Mar 9, 2006

newyorksaint said:
Question-what about the errors between the differing denominations of OC? If one believes one thing, and another believes something different, isn't one of them wrong? Therefore, that whole sect is wrong. If you keep applying this, you've effectively eliminated all but one denomination.

I eliminate all denominations. All regions are mans interpretation of what we must do to satisfy God. Anything man puts his hand to has some degree of error in it. There is no such thing as a true church in regards to organized religion in my book.

logichopper · Mar 9, 2006

Swart said:
Slippery slope argumentation with a dose of guilt by association.

I've dealt with this claim a few dozen times. It is the creeds that are abominable to God. There are many things abominable to God. You only have to read the OT to find out how 'abominable' the children of Israel were. To use your logic, Moses would have left the children of Israel to rot in Egypt.

I suggest you don't read Leviticus either, for that matter.

[bible]Leviticus 11:11-13[/bible]

Swart,

Could you post at least "ONE" creed that is "abominable in the eyes of God" and explain SPECIFICALLY what or why such creed is "abominable"?

How about the Nicene Creed. As most on this message board are probably familiar with this creed, would you, or any other lds poster please specifially tell us what parts, or why specifically it is an "abomination"!

If you, or any other lds poster, cannot provide the specifics of what makes the Nicene Creed abominalbe, I think we can safely conclude that the story of the "claimed first vision" was probabaly the real "abomination". Fair enough?

newyorksaint · Mar 9, 2006

Tawhano said:
I eliminate all denominations. All regions are mans interpretation of what we must do to satisfy God. Anything man puts his hand to has some degree of error in it. There is no such thing as a true church in regards to organized religion in my book.

Organized religion is only a casing to house the body of true believers, and His Priesthood. Organized relgion is not the body of believers, but a system by which the body of believers are brought together.

If you eliminate all relgions, you have effectively eliminated over 95% of all self-proclaimed Christians. For they follow the tenants of their denomination, and if their denomination is eliminated, so are they.

newyorksaint · Mar 9, 2006

logichopper said:
Swart,

Could you post at least "ONE" creed that is "abominable in the eyes of God" and explain SPECIFICALLY what or why such creed is "abominable"?

How about the Nicene Creed. As most on this message board are probably familiar with this creed, would you, or any other lds poster please specifially tell us what parts, or why specifically it is an "abomination"!

If you, or any other lds poster, cannot provide the specifics of what makes the Nicene Creed abominalbe, I think we can safely conclude that the story of the "claimed first vision" was probabaly the real "abomination". Fair enough?

Abomination-defining something as one thing, when it was declared from on High as another. (Or understood as one thing as something other than what it was declared). The Trinity for example. Non-biblical, but still believed, according to the Creed.

baker · Mar 9, 2006

newyorksaint said:
Abomination-defining something as one thing, when it was declared from on High as another. (Or understood as one thing as something other than what it was declared). The Trinity for example. Non-biblical, but still believed, according to the Creed.

As logichopper said about Swart's response, this sounds more like a "non-answer". It seems that mormons always try and redefine words to fit their needs!

Abonmination (the correct definition):

Function: noun
1 : something abominable
2 : extreme disgust and hatred : LOATHING

See here

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/abomination

Now, please tell us what you find disgusting or loathsome about the concept of the trinity and the Nicene Creed. Again, this is a claim of the lds church, therefore I think it's quite fair to ask them what it is, specifically, that is so disgusting, or brings about so much hatred with this creed?

Frankly, I think the entire Christian world find much more disgust with the notion that God was a man first and had to learn to become a God. Such a teaching as that really is "abominable".

newyorksaint · Mar 9, 2006

baker said:
As logichopper said about Swart's response, this sounds more like a "non-answer". It seems that mormons always try and redefine words to fit their needs!

Abonmination (the correct definition):

Function: noun
1 : something abominable
2 : extreme disgust and hatred : LOATHING

See here

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/abomination

Now, please tell us what you find disgusting or loathsome about the concept of the trinity and the Nicene Creed. Again, this is a claim of the lds church, therefore I think it's quite fair to ask them what it is, specifically, that is so disgusting, or brings about so much hatred with this creed?

Frankly, I think the entire Christian world find much more disgust with the notion that God was a man first and had to learn to become a God. Such a teaching as that really is "abominable".

Well, the Church has no statement on what is abominable, but according to our understanding of the nature of God, the Trinity would be considered an abomination to Him, as I stated.

That wasn't a non-answer.

Billy and the BoM

Northland Highwayman

burrow dwelling nut hunter

Well-Known Member

Northland Highwayman

burrow dwelling nut hunter

Northland Highwayman

Well-Known Member

buddy mack

Guest

burrow dwelling nut hunter

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

ÜberChristian

Northland Highwayman

Northland Highwayman

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads