Mormons vs Mormonism

[Aaron32]

When are we going to discuss all things Mormon Bonnie?

That’s what we’ve been asking the Mormons here.

Apperantly, Mormons seem to be the cause of why Mormonism isn't being discussed here.

This thread is a repository for any time the subject diverts off "Mormonism" (the beliefs) and starts talking about "Mormons" (the people).

Hopefully, this will help keep discussion on topic.

 

[Magdalena]

The issue is actually mormons refusing to discuss mormonism.

 

[Theo1689]

The issue is actually mormons refusing to discuss mormonism.

Exactly.

1) They repeatedly post their "proof-texts" with no exegesis, and refuse to address the Biblical passages which contradict their theology.

2) They attack Evangelical Christianity.

3) They attack Evangelical Christians.

4) If we try to bring up something Mormonism teaches, they simply respond, "That's not what we believe, you're all liars!!!", instead of actually responding with something productive, such as, "I know what you're referring to, but you made a minor error in your description, let me explain to you what we actually believe".

 

[Richard7]

Exactly.



2) They attack Evangelical Christianity.

3) They attack Evangelical Christians.

Attack? oh my as we read a post by Theo....

"Did God show you His photo-ID, so that you know it was Him who answered your prayer?"

 

[Theo1689]

Attack? oh my as we read a post by Theo....

"Did God show you His photo-ID, so that you know it was Him who answered your prayer?"

How is a question an "attack"?

And you still haven't answered this imaginary "attack".

 

[Richard7]

How is a question an "attack"?

And you still haven't answered this imaginary "attack".

I don't really respond to snakiness attacks

 

[Theo1689]

I don't really respond to snakiness attacks

I'm glad you have an excuse for not defending your bogus claims.

P.S. I have no idea what "snakiness" means.

 

[Richard7]

I'm glad you have an excuse for not defending your bogus claims.

P.S. I have no idea what "snakiness" means.

• of the supposed nature of a snake in showing coldness, venom, or cunning: a snaky friend.

 

[Mesenja]

The issue is actually Mormons refusing to discuss Mormonism.

Magdalena that's because like Theo1689 said we are snarky and insulting. We think it's "being meek." (#12)

 

[Mesenja]

I'm glad you have an excuse for not defending your bogus claims.

P.S. I have no idea what "shakiness" means.

The quality of being snarky.

Wow...So you think that being snarky and insulting is "being meek"? What dictionary are you referencing?

 

[Mesenja]

Attack? oh my as we read a post by Theo....

"Did God show you His photo-ID, so that you know it was Him who answered your prayer?"

Do as I say not as I do.

 

[Theo1689]

Do as I say not as I do.

I'm not sure why you guys are so offended by my valid question.
You teach Heavenly Father has a body of flesh and bone, "as tangible as a man's".
So why can't he get a photo ID?

 

[dberrie2020]

Exactly.

1) They repeatedly post their "proof-texts" with no exegesis, and refuse to address the Biblical passages which contradict their theology.

2) They attack Evangelical Christianity.

3) They attack Evangelical Christians.

I don't consider this an attack on Christianity:

Revelation 22:14---King James Version
14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

It just doesn't fit the theology pawned here by the critics.

 

[dberrie2020]

P.S. I have no idea what "snakiness" means.

I looked it up for you:

Snakiness meaning--Dictionary definition​

The state or condition of being snaky.

 

[Mesenja]

I'm not sure why you guys are so offended by my valid question. You teach Heavenly Father has a body of flesh and bone, "as tangible as a man's". So why can't he get a photo ID?

Theo1689 it's a result of our being snarky and insulting. We think it's "being meek." (#12)

 

[Theo1689]

I don't consider this an attack on Christianity:

Revelation 22:14---King James Version
14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

That's not an attack on Christianity.

It just doesn't fit the theology pawned here by the critics.

That false statement IS an attack on Christianity.

And for the 101, 396th time, what "critics" believe is OFF-TOPIC here.

 

[Mesenja]

That's not an attack on Christianity. That false statement IS an attack on Christianity. And for the 101, 396th time, what "critics" believe is OFF-TOPIC here.

It doesn't get much clearer than this Theo1689. (Post #523) And it doesn't veto your so called far clearer passages, such as Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:5, 2 Timothy 1:9, Romans 4:1-6, Romans 11:5-6. The Bible isn't contradictory.

But are you willing to acknowledge, you foolish person, that faith without works is useless? James 2:20

​

 

[Theo1689]

It doesn't get much clearer than this Theo1689. (Post #523) And it doesn't veto your so called far clearer passages, such as Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:5, 2 Timothy 1:9, Romans 4:1-6, Romans 11:5-6. The Bible isn't contradictory.

But are you willing to acknowledge, you foolish person, that faith without works is useless? James 2:20

You're right.
The Bible isn't contradictory.
And that's precisely why MORMONISM is false.

James 2:20 does NOT say, "works are required for salvation". If it did, it would CONTRADICT Eph. 2:8-9, 2 Tim. 1:9, Tit. 3:5, Rom. 4:1-6, 11:5-6, etc. etc. etc.

I've addressed the meaning of James 2 here:

- James 2:24

A particular Mormon loves to quote James 2:24 as the "be-all-and-end-all" verse of Scripture, even using it to try to "veto" far clearer passages, such as Eph. 2:8-9, Tit. 3:5, 2 Tim. 1:9, Rom. 4:1-6, Rom. 11:5-6, etc. etc. etc.) When a Mormon interprets a verse in a way that contradicts...

forums.carm.org

And you have NOT addressed the above "not by works" passages.
You stand refuted.

 

[Mesenja]

You're right. The Bible isn't contradictory. And that's precisely why MORMONISM is false.

Am I also correct in saying that God would make the subject of salvation equally clear and understandable throughout the Bible? Yes or no.

James 2:20 does NOT say, "works are required for salvation". If it did, it would CONTRADICT Ephesians 2:8-9, 2 Timothy 1:9, Titus 3:5, Romans 4:1-6, 11:5-6, etc. etc. etc.

I never argued that this is a proof text for salvation = faith + works. I wonder what you call giving the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one. ?
​

I've addressed the meaning of James 2 here:

- James 2:24

A particular Mormon loves to quote James 2:24 as the "be-all-and-end-all" verse of Scripture, even using it to try to "veto" far clearer passages, such as Eph. 2:8-9, Tit. 3:5, 2 Tim. 1:9, Rom. 4:1-6, Rom. 11:5-6, etc. etc. etc.) When a Mormon interprets a verse in a way that contradicts...

forums.carm.org

How is this an explanation?

And you have NOT addressed the above "not by works" passages.

See my analysis of Ephesians 2:8-10 (#331) , and 2 Timothy 1:9 (#456)

You stand refuted.

No you stand confused in your unfounded certainty.

 

[Theo1689]

Am I also correct in saying that God would make the subject of salvation equally clear and understandable throughout the Bible? Yes or no.

What does your question have to do with Mormonism?
Stop trying to derail discussion.

I never argued that this is a proof text for salvation = faith + works. I wonder what you call giving the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one. ? ​

Well, if you're not going to explain why you cited James 2, how do you expect anyone to have a discussion with you?

You see, Lurkers, this is what Mormons do. They quote Scripture, but they will never explain to you what they think it MEANS. They simply want readers to assume their own meaning, and if it agrees with Mormonism, then you're right, and if it doesn't agree with Mormonism, then you're wrong.

How is this an explanation?

Well, it's a post that walks through every verse of James 2, and explains what they mean, and how each verse relates to the next.

See my analysis of Ephesians 2:8-10 (#331) , and 2 Timothy 1:9 (#456)

Well, I read #331, and basically all you did was cite the Christian understanding, claim it was a "minority" view (as if that's relevant to anything), made some ridiculous conclusions (eg. "If salvation can be without works, then we have to see Paul condemning ALL works!"), and then twist the passage to try to force it to agree with your misinterpretation of James 2.

That is NOT how you exegesis.

No you stand confused in your unfounded certainty.

Worthless rhetoric by Mormons again.