Amillia, A Few Questions.

[Jason]

I won't be chatting with you anymore Jason. Jenda doesn't think I have a right. So enjoy talking to yourself.

Probably for the best. You're denial of the great Christian martyrdoms of the first three centuries AD is the moral equilvalent to denying the Nazi holocaust. Im really not interested in continuing this conversation until such time as you recant.

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

Originally posted by Amillia@May 3 2005, 06:51 PM

Which part is not a historical fact?

I won't be chatting with you anymore Jason. Jenda doesn't think I have a right. So enjoy talking to yourself.

I don't know what Jenda said to you...but my guess is that she said it was ok to talk to us as long as you don't make personal attacks.

I don't see a problem with you telling us what you read about the Orthodox Church and then reading Jason's responses.

[shanstress70]

Originally posted by Amillia@May 3 2005, 12:33 PM

You don't keep your toddler in a walker after he learns to walk, but you do use one to start out with to strengthen his legs.

"Contrary to popular belief, baby walkers neither promote muscle development nor increase a child's walking skills. In fact, there's no real benefit to using one, but there can be real danger."

http://www.kohldesigns.com/safebaby/walkers.htm

[Guest bizabra]

Originally posted by Amillia+May 3 2005, 03:48 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Amillia @ May 3 2005, 03:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--ExMormon-Jason@May 3 2005, 04:47 PM

So you believe in THE NICENE - CONSTANTINOPOLITAN CREED

Of course.

Wasn't this created some 1000 or so years after Christ?

Nope. The Creed came about in 381 AD.

Under Constantinopol?

CONSTANTINE was Emperor of Rome, which had been moved to CONSTANTINOPLE, which was previously known as Byzantium. It was renamed after "guess who" when he made it his capital in 326. We now know it as Istanbul, which it was renamed to after it was captured by the Turks in the mid 1400's, I believe.

Here is a useful link: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/...randt/nicea.htm

[Guest bizabra]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@May 3 2005, 04:01 PM

Yes, it was Saint Constantine who got the Bishops together to formulate once and for all the true and pure doctrine of Christology.

We believe that God worked through St. Constantine much like he did with the Babylonian kings. Using them to motivate his people.

So you believe he was a true adherent and not simply a political genius who used the Christian faith to unite his kingdom, after enforcing the council to come to agreement re: the "orthodox" beliefs of this "new" faith?

When I read The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, I felt it was Gibbons position that Constantine saw that this religion was gathering adherents right and left, and that the belief in the Pagan gods was waning. This was bad for Rome, because part of political life in Rome was the ceremonial and official veneration of the gods and the feast days, which had once had a unifying effect until the rise of Christianity started to supercede paganism.

Constantine saw that if he could make Christianity the new "State Religion", it might be a powerful force for cohesiveness in his vast polyglot empire. First, though, he had to unify and solidify Christianity, since it was in danger of fracturing off into many different splinter groups, all following a slightly different interpretation of the faith. To this end, he forced several councils to form and come to agreement. He held the bishops and patriarchs as veritable hostages for months on end until they could form a compromise and formulate a "creed", and refine orthodox belief.

Elaine Pagels book: Adam, Eve, and the Serpent, reinforced this idea I gained from Gibbons.

I think Constantine was a wily politician and a pragmatic leader. His widely hailed vision of a cross in the sky could easily have been manufactured. The populace, as always and forever, was supertition and seeing signs and wonders everywhere, (just like today, note all the "Mary" images people see in windows, cheeze puffs, freeway underpasses, sandwiches) so it would be very convincing to spread the word that this miraculous vision converted the Emperor. And if the Emperor then made it the OFFICIAL belief, and it was celebrated and protected the same way belief in the Pagan gods had formerly been, then most citizens would follow suit.

It actually worked to the benefit of both institutions, the Roman Empire continued on for much longer than it might otherwise have, and we know what happened to Christianity. It became a formidible presence on the world stage, a powerful force on all aspects of Western Civilization, when otherwise, it might simply have devolved into a multitude of sects and cults that were all claiming the "truth".

wait. . . . . . sort of like what eventually has happened! Constantine jusy helped postpone the seemingly inevitable. heh heh

[Guest bizabra]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@May 3 2005, 04:19 PM

So it took three hundred years after Christ, for His leaders to teach a clear doctrine?

Haha. No.

The Church taught the truth from the beginning as received from the Apostles themselves. However, heresy is also a part of the Church. Wheat and Tares.

Up until St. Constantine, Christianity was illegal in the Roman Empire. Heavily persecuted, many lost their lives in the arenas of the Empire. Meetings were held in the Catacombs (crypts) just to keep out of sight of the Imperial guards. Gatherings were small, and generally anyone who attempted to be vocal in favor of Christianity lost their lives to the lions or the flames.

Due to this unfortunate time, it was impossible to gather the Bishops (successors of the Apostles) together from around the Roman Empire to convene a council to renounce heresy.

That's why it took so long.

Interestingly, more PAGANS (and other heretics) were killed and persecuted by CHRISTIANS after it became the official religion than the other way round. Do some research and you will find this to be too terribly true.

So sad. I guess, though, the "winners" always discount the losses of the "enemy" and always hype how "persecuted" THEY themselves were, instead.

Ooops! Sounds like THE CHURCH to me!

heh heh heh

[Guest bizabra]

Originally posted by Amillia+May 3 2005, 06:12 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Amillia @ May 3 2005, 06:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--ExMormon-Jason@May 3 2005, 07:04 PM

Yeah right. You know the LDS church hasn't even been around for 150 years and fraught with persecutions of every kind and we still have done better than that. 

It's a matter of historical fact, Amillia.

The LDS church, on the other hand, has undergone relative mild persecution in comparison. Correct me if Im wrong, but I don't recall a mormon being burned at the stake, crucified, or thrown to the lions just for being mormon. And all of that done under the auspicies of the US Government.

I don't agree. I think you are not facing facts. Too bad.

Please back this up.

Thank you.

[Guest bizabra]

Originally posted by shanstress70+May 4 2005, 03:49 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (shanstress70 @ May 4 2005, 03:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Amillia@May 3 2005, 12:33 PM

You don't keep your toddler in a walker after he learns to walk, but you do use one to start out with to strengthen his legs.

"Contrary to popular belief, baby walkers neither promote muscle development nor increase a child's walking skills. In fact, there's no real benefit to using one, but there can be real danger."

http://www.kohldesigns.com/safebaby/walkers.htm

Thanks for proving my point, Shantress!

The facts on that web page reinforce the analogy of walkers with THE CHURCH.

Thanks again!

[Jason]

So you believe he was a true adherent and not simply a political genius who used the Christian faith to unite his kingdom, after enforcing the council to come to agreement re: the "orthodox" beliefs of this "new" faith?

When I read The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, I felt it was Gibbons position that Constantine saw that this religion was gathering adherents right and left, and that the belief in the Pagan gods was waning. This was bad for Rome, because part of political life in Rome was the ceremonial and official veneration of the gods and the feast days, which had once had a unifying effect until the rise of Christianity started to supercede paganism.

Constantine saw that if he could make Christianity the new "State Religion", it might be a powerful force for cohesiveness in his vast polyglot empire. First, though, he had to unify and solidify Christianity, since it was in danger of fracturing off into many different splinter groups, all following a slightly different interpretation of the faith. To this end, he forced several councils to form and come to agreement. He held the bishops and patriarchs as veritable hostages for months on end until they could form a compromise and formulate a "creed", and refine orthodox belief.

Elaine Pagels book: Adam, Eve, and the Serpent, reinforced this idea I gained from Gibbons.

I think Constantine was a wily politician and a pragmatic leader. His widely hailed vision of a cross in the sky could easily have been manufactured. The populace, as always and forever, was supertition and seeing signs and wonders everywhere, (just like today, note all the "Mary" images people see in windows, cheeze puffs, freeway underpasses, sandwiches) so it would be very convincing to spread the word that this miraculous vision converted the Emperor. And if the Emperor then made it the OFFICIAL belief, and it was celebrated and protected the same way belief in the Pagan gods had formerly been, then most citizens would follow suit.

It actually worked to the benefit of both institutions, the Roman Empire continued on for much longer than it might otherwise have, and we know what happened to Christianity. It became a formidible presence on the world stage, a powerful force on all aspects of Western Civilization, when otherwise, it might simply have devolved into a multitude of sects and cults that were all claiming the "truth".

wait. . . . . . sort of like what eventually has happened! Constantine jusy helped postpone the seemingly inevitable. heh heh

As much as I enjoy reading Gibbons, he bases much of his writing on Mosheim, who, as a Lutheran, was a rabid anti-catholic.

Much of Mosheim's work has been discredited (and hence Gibbons). So I wouldn't put too much stock in them.

As for Saint Constantine, yes, I do believe that God worked His will through him. And in case what you've read didn't mention it, Constantine's mother, Helen, was instrumental in both converting her son to Christianity, and in preserving various holy sites throughout Jerusalem and surrounding areas.

[Jason]

Interestingly, more PAGANS (and other heretics) were killed and persecuted by CHRISTIANS after it became the official religion than the other way round. Do some research and you will find this to be too terribly true.

Your source is slightly flawed. The pagans were persecuted by the State, not the Church. (Yes, I've read Robin Lane Fox's book too.)

[Dale]

Hi,

Jason thanks for you being more specific in details.

Here's my responses:

1.The Bible is not the final authority in faith or practice. So if health was an additional benifit added to the practice then that's ok. Why can't a prophet of God baptize for health?

2.I have no problem with spiritually adopting other men's children as adults in the ressurection. The reason was so that the person could beget more children than plural marriage would allow.

3.The word approved & not cannot be changed was used in regards to the garment.

4.The D.&C. is not the final authority in faith or practice.

5.1st Quote

FAR West Record 25th October 1831-Terminology ambeguity. The quote is about elders being ordained to the High Priests office. I am not aware of any statement by David Whitmer who wrote An Address to All Believers in Christ that the Elders office was part of the Aaronic Priesthood. High Priesthood was what was meant by the term High Priesthood. This was corrected later. David Whitmer was Joseph's chief critic of the High Priests office. I used to have his book.

John Whitmers history, Chapter vii,June 3,1831-Same explanation. As the office wasn't a part of the Aaronic priesthood & they just learned about the High Priests office they called it the High Priesthood.

John Corril Brief History Of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Chapter 10. This citation means as John Tvedtnes explained terminolgy was different because it was not yet developed. Terms like "High Priesthood" & Melchizedek were used sole in describing High Priests. Later on the term developed a broader meaning covering the elders office as well. So they were in 1831 were first ordained to be Melchizedek Priests. Organize My KIndom, A History of Restored Priesthood by John Tvedtnes page 42,43 gives a masterful explanation of this problem.

The History of the Church, volume 1,175,176 used that terminolgy the same.

Do my answers help you now? My experience problems in Mormonism are like bad Bible contradictions I have seen. I used to me impressed by them as proof innerancy was false. Then reality hit me when I bought Gleason's Archers Encyclopedia. Many of those contradictions bit the dust under further study. Perhaps you need to rejoin the LDS Church.

Sincerely,

Dale

[Dell]

Dear jason

if your not mormon hwy are you on a mormon chat line i am trying to learn more about this religion because i want to be baptized in it you are making it really akward for me you are strating to sound like my dad no matter what religion yoou should never argue about religion cause then every one is wrong you and amilia would you plz explain to me ehy yall are fighting?

[Jason]

Dell,

if your not mormon hwy are you on a mormon chat line

I've been using this board off and on ever since I was a Mormon. I just like it here.

i am trying to learn more about this religion because i want to be baptized in it

Freedom of Religion is a beautiful thing.

you are making it really akward for me

How?

you are strating to sound like my dad

Well....Im a dad too. I've got three kids, as a matter of fact.

no matter what religion yoou should never argue about religion cause then every one is wrong

Truth is not relative. Or in other words, either Mormonism is true, or it is not. There can be no middle ground. I assume that's what you're here to find out.

you and amilia would you plz explain to me ehy yall are fighting?

Amillia has issues with anyone who doesn't believe Mormonism is true. I happen to be (along with the other 6 billion people on earth) one of them.

[StrawberryFields]

Originally posted by Dell@May 10 2005, 07:14 PM

Dear jason

if your not mormon hwy are you on a mormon chat line i am trying to learn more about this religion because i want to be baptized in it you are making it really akward for me you are strating to sound like my dad no matter what religion yoou should never argue about religion cause then every one is wrong you and amilia would you plz explain to me ehy yall are fighting?

Dell you should know that this website is not limited to just Mormons.

Anyone may post just as long as they obey this as stated at the top of the board index page.

"Any post which contains profanity, obscenities, or anything which would be found offensive to the majority of those who are LDS members will result in the post being removed, and the poster being banned from the site. There is a zero tolerance policy in place for those who choose to break those guidelines."

[Dale]

Hi,

Although I feel differently about the issues than Jason I see nothing wrong with his presenting his issues. I much prefer to have him hang out here & post. I hate the idea of having pro-Mormon only boards. He's decent in his presentations.

Sincerely,

Dale

[Maureen]

Originally posted by Dell@May 10 2005, 06:14 PM

...hwy are you on a mormon chat line....

Isn't there a distinct difference between a chat line and a message board?

M.

[Jason]

Although I feel differently about the issues than Jason I see nothing wrong with his presenting his issues. I much prefer to have him hang out here & post. I hate the idea of having pro-Mormon only boards. He's decent in his presentations.

Thanks Big D.