XCiles ☦️

“People act like [enter ideological/religious/devotional/belief system here] is easy to dismiss. Then explain the [non-falsifiable, superficially uncontested but credulous witness testimony here]. Explain [how something complex could be fictive or untrue, as if immensely popular multi-volume sagas of high fantasy cleverly mimicking long-standing literary tropes don’t line bookshelves everywhere] Explain [how someone could create a plausible narrative, and then by dint of conviction, charisma, persuasion and shared incentive convince others to adhere to it with striking uniformity] Explain [the set of beliefs, which are mostly just iterated on close study of the Torah, New Testament and the millennia-old faith traditions that produced them] Explain [statements by men who claim to have an epistemically privileged access to divine revelation, by which, incidentally, they derive significant power, prestige and prerogatives amidst their community] Explain [why “millions” have done what “billions” of others have done in other faith traditions, most of which are partially or entirely contradictory of or advocate for positions antithetical to the one being defended].” True, mockery isn’t an argument; but a litany of vague insistences isn’t an argument, either.

That account is a unique one, in that he/it/they are the epitome of their “SaintsonX” founder/leadership role. Very “rally the base” with a carefully graded 1) mix of pious/devotional “the saints go marching on” edification and 2) a few sturdy, tired apologetic tropes: • Monday: post about JS being the real deal no matter what the haters think. • Tuesday: post about how some knuckle-dragger Protestant said something wildly inaccurate, abstract from that to all “Creedalists” •Wednesday: post about how bananas the Trinity is •Thursday: follow up with a post about Apostasy->Creedalism->Restoration • Friday: post some general “you feel me?” screed tapping into the persecution complex zeitgeist amongst fellow LDS, with an affirmation that because [reason] LDS shall prevail. Etc. Not saying it’s a bot, though it/he is obvs getting an assist; but it does seem like he’s on a mission with a directive from higher up, perhaps as part of a campaign overseen by “the head office”.

I’m convinced some of these newer apologetic accounts are AI driven from the correlation committee. Just such basic surface-level, in-group type of slogans repeated.

Glad to see LDS asking this question. Among other things, they stand to learn quite a bit about the assumptions underlying their theology.

In the way these terms are classically/historically defined and used? No. In the way LDS prefer to use them? Yes. Does this question also assume metaphysical categories and language that LDS derides as non-biblical, particularly when criticizing Trinitarian doctrine and “creedalism”? Absolutely.

Can something be both "created" and "eternal?"

Your observation presumes Joseph Smith was a prophet, or (and?) an apostle, meeting specific criteria and with specific corroboration. Most critics likely believe he doesn’t meet those criteria and that his claims/claims made about him are not corroborated. In fact, some will assert there is evidence to counter these claims. On the other hand, claims about Moses, Peter and Paul don’t suffer from the same problems. All that has to get sorted before a “measuring prophets by the same standard.” Once it is, the popular conception of JS would slowly but inevitably change.

@PhilosophyBeard You are doing the exact thing I was talking about. Not measuring prophets by the same standard, but loading one side with the most hostile framing available.

A lot of critics of Joseph Smith ask questions they never ask of Moses, Peter, or Paul.

@MattTestifies The idea that Jesus established a Church and then everyone immediately got it wrong for 1800 years is the wildest assumption about Christianity.

The idea that Jesus established a Church and then everyone immediately got it right for 2000 years is one of the wildest assumptions in Christianity.

You said: “many”. That is a strong claim, yet not definite. I asked why that meant and how you knew. The burden is not on me to establish anything about “many” there. I pressed you because, far too often, claims like “many” are made, and they rarely have foundation. I don’t think you’re being disingenuous, and given your bona fides I’m sure you can appreciate the need for rigor, or to acknowledge when a claim is actually tentative after all. Many a false narrative is spun on smudges like that - and at least some people exploit the imprecision to advance their argument. Of course there wasn’t full unanimity at any general/ecumenical council. No serious theologian or church historian (except maybe you Eusebius of Caesarea!) claims otherwise. I also wouldn’t say there was “such a diversity” (this is a vague “many” again) which suggests some panoply of “homoousioses” - there were in fact a bare few key positions at Nicaea, and as you seem to know the following 56 years were spent deep in refinement by the Cappadocians/Meletians and others. My point isn’t granularity, at all. In fact, it is “granular” to assume an affinity based on “we both reject homoousios”, when the Arians, for example, absolutely would have balked at the idea that God the Father has been a man. Making a negat-ive claim (this is what we don’t believe) doesn’t suggest any affinity on what you do believe. The latter is the much tougher claim to support. On the post-Nicene question, I’m not sure we disagree: When you say “change in dynasty”, to which do you refer? I’m not sure exactly what you mean by a “historical not inevitable” development. Thanks for the discussion, btw. All submitted respectfully, in case tone seems kind of terse.

Okay, well if you want a number on many, I can't give you that off the top of my head, but it was definitely not a few. Are you asking for a list? Or a definite number? I can't give that even if it did exist in the record somewhere, which I don't think it does. But we definitely have many bishops and regions, especially in the east continuing in their quasi-Arianism, and that includes people who were almost certainly at Nicaea. So are we quibbling about numbers? How many is many to you? 30? 50? 80? I think we can say there were at least that many with concerns over the final verdict. If that's not "many" what is? The same is true on the other issue, we are really getting granular here and you are applying a standard of affinity I think is a bit convenient. If I can't prove 100% affinity, or even 90% affinity I can't claim "closer?" And of course I can turn this around on you in the same way. If there was such a diversity of though regarding Homoousianism then how can you be certain you are the right branch that won out? You can't. But I think this proves we are on my turf in the argument. The Homoousian consensus that emerged in 381 was by no means unanimous, obvious or universal in 325. There were large areas of concern, and no immediate change in praxis or dogma for most of the church, especially in the east. The move to the stronger form of Homoousian did not happen until we have a change in dynasty. That's all solidly on my side of the argument, and the side of homoousianism being a historical and not an inevitable development. Are you willing to concede all that?

Yet another good video on the Trinity, this time from Ward Radio. It brings up several more important points. I repeat this to everyone that listens, but it's important to remember that the Council of Nicaea solved exactly...NOTHING. The Arians didn't disappear, in fact more than half the church remained "Arian" or "Quasi-Arian" (The extent to which they agreed with Arius is unclear but we know they disagreed with how they were categorized) and would remain so for 60 years. There was no univerasl agreement on what "homoousian" or "consubstantial" actually meant and many who thought they were in agreement with the creed were shocked to later see the creed used against them. Many of the bishops who signed on to the creed were probably closer in belief to LDS theology than current creedalists. It wasn't until a new council (and not coincidentally a new dynasty) in Constantinople in 381, that anything was actually settled, and even then, not completely. Don't let anyone tell you that Nicaea settled the matter of the Trinity. The Trinity was an evolving process that emerged over centuries, and there are still profound disagreements between Catholics and Orthodox to this day. youtu.be/kwIpqdMHGXg?si…

I agree with you that the historical record is tricky on this. Not many people have any idea who Eutyches was, or why Monophysite is a pejorative rather than an apt descriptor like miaphysite. Even “non-Chalcedonian” is better. Alas, I have a child named after a miaphysite that the (Eastern) Orthodox Church refers to as a saint.

On the issue of history, I wish we had an opposing record for the quasi-Arians as we do for the Nestorians and Maiaphysites, because those records tell a VERY different story than the one presented by the Catholic and EO churches. Not that you would know that. My textbook as an undergrad was still calling Copts. "Monophysites" as late as the 80s. I know we have resolved some of those differences and misunderstandings today, which is good, but I seriously wonder what quasi-Arians actually believed. We treat the dyophysite/maiaphysite divide as largely semantic today, but we certainly didn't for more than a thousand years. I wonder what creedalists would think if a branch of quasi-Arians had survived and we got to hear them in their own words? We know what they said about Maiaphysites and it was not accurate, shall we say.

Eusebius of Nicomedia is an interesting character; but not the primary topic. Suffice it to say, his “rep” as an Arian/Arian-adjacent is fair and well-earned. I doubt he would protest that characterization were he here. You said “many”. I asked, not for a reaffirmation of many - the claim is understood - but why ‘many’? There’s no implication there. That Nicaea didn’t “finish” the work and that some had misgivings (some also didn’t believe 325 went far enough) isn’t contentious. Your claim - not mine - is “many”. This would be a significant figure amidst a field of over 300 clerics. So far, I don’t see anything to support that. That both groups object to “homoousios” means you have something in common, but that doesn’t mean they’re “closer”. Even if you are not implying that there is a specifically affinity between LDS and these “reluctant Nicenes” there are many ways in which LDS and such a group significantly deviate on positive claims about what/who Christ is. Rejecting the same thing does not mean affirming the same thing.

The evidence on Eusebius is entirely mixed, but that is true of all characters of the era. Sozomen does not give nearly the laudatory view of Constantine for example that Eusebius of Caesarea for example. As in all cases, you make your best case and my case for Eusebius is more than defensible. As for "many" yes, many. You seem to be implying something else here. Care to clarify what you mean? It's a matter of record that not everyone who signed on to the Nicene Creed did so with whole enthusiasm or support for the full-throated homoousianism that would define the Creed at Constantinople in 381. On "probably closer." Okay, this is a matter of speculation, but they were clearly not as enthusiastic for the homoousian position as some. We are also, not enthusiastic about it, to put it bluntly. How is that not closer? The prevailing view of most secular scholars on this matter is that some variety of social Trinitarianism was at least as popular as the homoousian view. There are a few other social Trinitarians out there today, but not many. The LDS chuch is certainly the largest chunk of them. How is that not closer? Again, you seem to be intent that I am saying that their view must 100% like the current LDS position, but I never said that. Only that it was closer, which it clearly was.

Not the clearest representation of Eusebius of Nicomedia, but your point about “history being written by the victors” is sound. Your claim was about something else though. You said: • “Many of the bishops who signed”. Why “many”? • “Were probably closer”. On what do you base this probability? • “in belief to current to LDS theology than current creedalists”: what, other than maybe the negative claim of disagreeing with homoousios, suggests this?

Let's start with Eusebius, the bishop and baptizer of Constantine (not the historian). He was a quasi-Arian that joined in the condemnation of Arius at Nicaea and signed on to the creed, but then later came under attack for being Arian himself. It was clear he had apprehensions about some homoousian terminology and its implications, but felt fine signing the creed. But that didn't prevent him from later coming under suspicion. Alas, we can only say "probably" however, because we do not have the writings or testimonies of quasi-Arians, like we have for say, Copts and Nestorians, who had other branches which survived and preserved a better understanding of their beliefs. We only had the testimonies of their critics, who, like the critics of Nestorians and Maiaphysites, most likely didn't represent their opponents' views accurately.

This argument always reminds me of the child who covers their eyes, and assumes because they can’t see someone as a result, that someone also can’t seem them. The brute lack of sophistication here isn’t “wrong” or “evil”, but feels more like a product of theological developmental regress. Which, come to think of it, fits Mormonism quite well.

Creedal Christians: Man is made in the image of God Me: What's God's image like? Creedal Christians: He doesn't have one Me:

This argument always reminds me of the child who covers their eyes, and assumes because they can’t see someone as a result, that someone also can’t seem them. The brute lack of sophistication here isn’t “wrong” or “evil”, but feels more like a product of theological developmental regress. Which, come to think of it, fits Mormonism quite well.

@evbbot @Mormonger @riceslicer Women were made in the image of Heavenly Mother, apparently - which makes complete sense and is entirely biblical, of course.

@Mormonger @riceslicer Is God a man or a woman?

@Mormonger @TomorrowsWar Yet? Not following….

@TomorrowsWar Take an extra second to think next time 😂 Yes, God is spirit. YOU are spirit also. When your body dies, YOU will continue to exist You are spirit yet you have a body God is spirit yet...

God is the one, eternal, uncreated, absolutely simple, immutable, infinite Creator of all that exists. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, three Persons in one divine essence. He has no body, no beginning, no progression from a prior state, and there are no gods before or after Him. One is apostolic Christianity the other isn't

@Mormonger @BruceSaiFun Poorly kept secret: one of these things doesn’t preclude the other. 😉

@BruceSaiFun "Who is God?" Sam: The absolutely simple, timeless, impassible First Cause Mormons: Our Heavenly Father, who loves us

If you want to see how evil, wicked and satanic Mormonism and its' false prophets were/are, then make sure to read these posts, since you will see it is more polytheistic and pagan than Islam: samshmnthelogy.net/post/joseph-sm… samshmnthelogy.net/post/joseph-sm… samshmnthelogy.net/post/joseph-sm… samshmnthelogy.net/post/mormon-po… samshmnthelogy.net/post/mormon-pr… samshmnthelogy.net/post/adam-the-… samshmnthelogy.net/post/the-mormo… samshmnthelogy.net/post/the-mormo… samshmnthelogy.net/post/who-is-th… samshmnthelogy.net/post/mormon-go… samshmnthelogy.net/post/the-bibli… samshmnthelogy.net/post/the-mormo…

Who’s going to tell him?

Oof. By Jake’s math, Catholics started wronging when Jesus was only 20 or so.

@TheresaArueyin1 “Beads” are a devotional aid, not a medium. There are many such things documented throughout the Bible.

Random question: Why do so many religions use prayer beads? Catholics have the Rosary. Muslims carry Tasbih beads. Hindus and Buddhists use Malas. But when you read the Bible, Jesus never told believers to use objects to reach God. John 4:24 says, “God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” Why do people feel the need for something in their hands when talking to God? What are your thoughts?

@CerebralCereal0 Think of it as yet more continued revelation. For example, I, too, never really gave much thought to JS’s hobby as a stargazer until this week, but here we are.

Things I learned about my Church that its kept from me my entire life this week: Joseph Smith's prophesy about the 1833 meteor shower is merely because he was an astronomer! It happens every 33 years everyone knows that! It keeps getting worse for the American Mohammed, Joseph Smith. The Internet will be the death of the isl*mic d*ath c*lt Mormonism. Surely it will collapse this time! Being a missionary is merely being part of a church wide feel good sales team! They recruit to get that sweet sweet 10 percent tithing money. We are Athiests. Heritage members are being crowded out by the DEI ways of the new Church. So sad what it has become. Creation happened Ex Nihilo AND Ex Materia after the material was made Ex Nihilo THEN God organized it. creatio per formationem DUH Millionaires in the church are the most underrated business network in America. Apostles are forced to have their wives travel everywhere with them to show off a feminist front.