Brian Holman

Proud of my LDS heritage 🐝 Seeking God ☦️ Studying Finnish 🇫🇮 Supporting Liberty 🇺🇸

[Brian Holman @brianjholman]

I discuss because it helps me work things out in my head. Sometimes I’m wrong and that’s okay. And banter is always acceptable.

[Brian Holman @brianjholman]

@realMaalouf @grok please translate

[Brian Holman @brianjholman]

@Protestia I honestly thought that was Palpatine before seeing the title

[Brian Holman @brianjholman]

This has become a dumb and dishonest argument. I can only conclude that you’re not LDS, but a subversive.

For everyone else, unless Dre can provide some evidence to support his claim of a third option no LDS leader ever taught, the binary choice was the plan of salvation or Lucifer’s plan. You picked a side. Picking Heavenly Father’s side meant mortality because that was part of the plan.

You could not, like Dre is weirdly arguing, pick heavenly father’s plan and then not follow heavenly father’s plan.

Picking The Plan of Salvation = coming to earth.

[Brian Holman @brianjholman]

The LDS belief that everyone in the premortal existence chose a side is the support for Drew’s claim.

If you chose Lucifer’s plan, you’re cast out. If you chose HF’s plan, you move on to mortality. There was not third option to be a premortal zoomer, hanging out with god dad while everyone else grew up.

You have any evidence that remaining with god in the pre existence was an option?

[Brian Holman @brianjholman]

@drewdavidh @ContraHeresy @jacelala Except for that war in heaven where everyone chose a side (or was allegedly cursed with dark skin and sent to mortality anyways 😉).

[Brian Holman @brianjholman]

@ContraHeresy Yep. Most LDS arguments come down to “my Mormon assertion applies to your non-LDS worldview”

[Brian Holman @brianjholman]

@piersmorgan Reveals everything + rats out others involved = protection while he serves life

[Brian Holman @brianjholman]

@SethDillon Oi vittu, Suomi 🤦🏼‍♂️

[Brian Holman @brianjholman]

@Rach4Patriarchy @Nero

[Brian Holman @brianjholman]

@TubbyFrankie @paleochristcon You wish you could be as fat as me. You just jelly.

[Brian Holman @brianjholman]

Any writing requires an interpretive authority outside the Bible because neither of our worldviews accepts Sola Scriptura.

LDS has two extra hurdles with their worldview. First, they can’t accept the Bible actually say what Amos says because you hold that the Bible is fallible (maybe Amos got it wrong or wrote it incorrectly).

Second, LDS also holds there have been multiple periods of apostasy that required restoration prior to the Great Apostasy (or at least Jacob Hansen claims that’s LDS doctrine). Absent any additional sources, Amos could be referring to any of those other periods of apostasy.

[Brian Holman @brianjholman]

@ScottLake543694 @John_Stone_ @MattTestifies The question really is, do other early sources, during when LDS believe there was still proper church authority (Amos through Apostle John), support the LDS claim?

[Brian Holman @brianjholman]

@USNewsReport @thaddeusthought This is interesting. Ever since hearing about apophatic theology in catechumen classes, the thoughts been going through my head that the nicene creed wasn’t necessarily trying to define God. Instead, was it primarily defining what God is not (to instead define heresies)?

[Brian Holman @brianjholman]

“They are taught the doctrine and then thy see it in the Bible because they are looking for it.”

If I understand, I think you’re writing this as a refutation. Instead, you’re accidentally stumbling into the historical truth of Christianity.

Christ taught. The Apostles taught. Some, not all, of the teachings were later written down.

Christ established His Church, not a writing or a person, as the means for preserving His Way. Scripture is a compilation for worship, and it is only one piece within the larger, well-maintained Tradition of His Church.

The doctrines are fully within the Tradition, not full within scripture. So you will find not find the doctrines fully spelled out in scripture, but rather fully taught within Church Tradition.

[Brian Holman @brianjholman]

Doesn’t incapable of being designated = no ontology?

In other words, the ontology of “thing” is that it has no ontology itself. It’s just a label. Substitute the actual “thing” into your argument and you simply end up with Mark’s original argument.

God is not a created.

AKA

God is no-created.

AKA

God is uncreated.

(Not atheism in more steps)

[Brian Holman @brianjholman]

A “thing” is a generic non-descriptive term. It doesn’t have an ontology or being itself. It can only point to something with ontology and cannot have existence on its own.

The original comment “God is not a thing” in context obviously meant that God is not a creature / something created / a created thing.

[Brian Holman @brianjholman]

If it’s just about the branding, then they should withdraw the lawsuit… because didn’t he already change the branding?

Mormon stories podcast has been called Mormon stories podcast, and been putting out non-affiliated content, since 2005.

[Brian Holman @brianjholman]

@HornsScottish @ThoughtfulSaint Apparently you copy/paste the same replies. Might I suggest engaging in good faith with people and showing the respect of trying to address the specific discussion?

[Brian Holman @brianjholman]

LDS Heavenly Father is omnipotent, omniscient, and exalted. His children are not. Until the vale is removed and you too are exalted, Heavenly Father cannot be fully understood/known by his children. Unknowable & ineffable ≠ contradiction. It’s mean unknowable & ineffable. Triune God is unknowable & ineffable.

You guys are mixing worldviews. Jacob proposes an incoherent scenario to non-LDS Christians and then you guys try to answer it with the LDS assumptions. It was a bad proposition and it’s a bad response. Jacob is saying something as incoherent as “the fish hiked Everest”. Fish don’t hike. God doesn’t make not good.