steve

@EinsiedlerKreb @briankeepsworth I think that your god needs ears to hear and a mouth to speak. Do you disagree?

@srjohnson529 @briankeepsworth What do you think?

If I can conceive of something greater than your God, then he isn’t God. In the case of Mormonism, I can definitely conceive of something greater than their definition of God. 📽️ Watch Below👇

@EinsiedlerKreb @briankeepsworth Wait. Your god doesn’t need ears and a mouth?

@srjohnson529 @briankeepsworth No. Not that this matters as Your god can’t do either so

@EinsiedlerKreb @briankeepsworth Your god needs ears to hear and a mouth to speak?

@srjohnson529 @briankeepsworth Go pray to ur god with no ear and with no mouth to respond. You will be great at death by my God either way

It’s your doctrine that Christ is the Almighty Father and Jesus is the Father and the Son? Because that’s the text but that’s not your doctrine. I know that. You’ve got the prophets, who sometimes teach authoritatively and sometimes as mere men. Sometimes their teaching shape doctrine and other times they are rejected and condemned. As a Catholic, I don’t have those problem. I have a living magisterium that governs and teaches the church and is always authoritative in matters of faith and morals.

@srjohnson529 @Eat_punchbeef @briankeepsworth

It’s Far easier to reconcile those passages with classical Christianity than the BOM passages are with your doctrine. An argument I hear made is that if one were to find the Bible, never having encountered Christian teaching, they could never get to trinitarian theology. I am sympathetic to that argument. Unitarianism is not an unreasonable position. Between Mormon theology and the BOM, at least as I grew up understanding it, there is a far wider gap. Your doctrines of God are not biblical and they are not even Book of Mormon-ical

@srjohnson529 @Eat_punchbeef @briankeepsworth No more than Isaiah 9:6, or John 14:8-10

@EinsiedlerKreb @briankeepsworth Forgive me. “You don’t use your brain” is what I should have said.

@srjohnson529 @briankeepsworth Yup. Ur god is weak and impotent. My god also speaks today. Something yours doesn’t. There is no functional difference between your god and a god that doesn’t exist

@ZachCrandall @Eat_punchbeef @briankeepsworth It was a joke. I know it doesn’t teach the Trinity, at least not orthodox doctrine. It does teach modalism though and the pre 1837 version even more so.

@srjohnson529 @Eat_punchbeef @briankeepsworth What do you think the Trinity is?

@EinsiedlerKreb @briankeepsworth Created uncreated beings? Huh? You even thinking?

@briankeepsworth Your god can’t create new gods. Flaccid limp.

@Eat_punchbeef @briankeepsworth It is taught in the BOM though.

@briankeepsworth Except the trinity is found nowhere in the Bible. So Nothing! vs The God of Scripture

@TravelbytheCoin @briankeepsworth Neither teach Mormon theology, not even close. And no ancient Jewish tradition affirms Mormon theology.

@briankeepsworth I'm sure you're really super smart and are a big deal in your own mind and all, but I think I'll go with the scriptures and prophets on this if you don't mind. lol

@StevenMackey @briankeepsworth Care to elaborate?

@briankeepsworth You worship Greek logic, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is not of Greek logic.

@ZachCrandall @briankeepsworth Clever

@briankeepsworth Well, "Mormon God" actually exists, so... I guess that makes "Mormon God" greater

@pioneerpitstop @briankeepsworth Do you know what is meant by that?

@briankeepsworth You should change it to Plato's God... who is unable to have feelings.

@America1stAnon @jardiniernormie Okay heretic

@jardiniernormie Catholicism doesn’t take itself seriously. Enjoy your faggot enjoying Pope. I’d rather be a dirty prot than support the church being fully overrun by satanists. The church is in communion with everyone but true believers of Christ

I don't think SSPXers can lmao their way out of this. If you can take a statement from the Vatican saying you are excommunicated so flippantly, then I begin to believe you don't take Catholicism itself seriously at all.

Help me to understand. You recognize that Leo is Pope, but you believe that he ought to change his perspective when your bishops violated canon law and undermined his authority. Isn’t it more likely that you are in error and the sspx is in error? Or are you certain that the pontiff and is making the mistake?

@swordofelias As an sspx attendee all I can say is the palmarians are cooked. No thanks we will continue to pray for the true pop Leo to have a change in perspective and work with Rome to be in communion with them.

Now is the time. If you are a member of the SSPX, Pastor Bpb of Chicago, the Antipope of Rome, has said you are “excommunicated”. End the schism and submit to the Palmarian Pontiff, His Holiness Pope Peter III. Crush the Romans.

@tinabambina33 @BreeSolstad You’ve excommunicated yourself. You are now certainly on the road to hell. Repent and return to the Church of Christ.

@BreeSolstad Confessions are “invalid”. I’m still attending SSPX.

I’m confused. Did the Vatican really excommunicate laypeople today or not? 🙏

@polysophical I said this same thing a short while ago. This is definitely the tactic. The text is easily reinterpretatable and the prophets are embarrassing. It's too convenient.

There is a pattern in LDS apologetics of touting how important prophets are and how they trump Sola Scriptura. Then anytime the apologist comes across a statement by a prophet they either don't like or don't understand they immediately override the prophet with Sola Scriptura.

Mormons are going sola scriptura, mark my words. It's far too convenient a way of altering the past and present to fit current sentiments. They will deny historical lds doctrine, like those you pointed out, claiming that "it isn't in the canon," while at the same time reinterpreting the face value teaching of the BOM (Jesus Christ is the Eternal Father, for instance) to retain the teachings of past prophets.

Apotheosis and Infinite Regression of Gods is the entire point of Mormonism. Without it, you dismiss Joseph and the Restoration and have nothing unique and are just another lame Protestant denomination.

@bleepbleep90966 @BishopBarron @leavingleftism Is harm intrinsically wrong then?

@BishopBarron @leavingleftism It’s truly wild how dumb you have to be to fall for this argument and yet still many christians do. Morality has no objective grounding, it never did. It’s fine. We still know killing innocent people is wrong, because we are capable of understanding harm.

In a recent interview, Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, former grand chancellor of the John Paul II Institute on Marriage and Family Life, confirmed the worst suspicions that many of us had. He admitted that the changes he made at the Institute during the Pope Francis years were designed to initiate a "very profound" reform of the idea of the natural law. Instead of absolute moral norms grounded in a keen understanding of the basic goods, he and his colleagues were proposing a moral theory rooted in historical discernment of subjective and cultural experience--not an "armchair theology" but one operating "within history and within people's lives." This, of course, is the language of trendy postmodernism, and it is dangerous indeed. Allow me to illustrate the principle with one example. Is slavery wrong? Intrinsically wrong? Wrong no matter what public opinion polls say about it, no matter what the current consensus on it might be? I imagine any decent person would say yes. But that yes is predicated upon precisely what the tradition calls the natural law and the basic goods. There are some values so fundamental that acts repugnant to them are by their very nature wicked. If you want a highly articulate presentation of this idea, go to St. John Paul II's Veritatis Splendor. If we say that this is just "armchair theologizing" and that morality is a function of ever-shifting cultural and experiential data, then why couldn't slavery be justified? One of the very smartest persons that ever lived, the philosopher Aristotle, thought it was; extremely bright and morally upright persons in our country, well into the 19th century, thought it was permissible. Who is to say whether the consensus might shift back again? Who is to say that "lived experience" might come to justify it? What any truly coherent moral program requires is the very thing that Archbishop Paglia and his colleagues were endeavoring to eliminate, namely, absolute moral norms. Ridding ourselves of these in the name of freedom or pastoral sensitivity actually renders moral discourse dysfunctional, just as relativizing the basic principle of logic would render any rational conversation impossible. The Archbishop's interview, frankly, reminded me of the discussions I had at the Synod on Synodality with some of my German colleagues. Under the rubric of the development of doctrine, they were eager to relativize or radically change the principles undergirding classical morality. If this was and is truly the game, we have ventured onto perilous seas. Link to the article below.