An exercise for Mormons

  • Thread starter Thread starter DeFide
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Casen:
RE: The LDS church could be a false restoration. Perhaps the restoration came along already or hasn’t come along yet. Or the LDS church could be a failed restoration, a restored Church that failed immediately after its founders’ deaths, as it happened the first time (if the Great Apostasy actually did happen).

I don’t disagree with you. I think the point of the quote is that IF the Great Apostasy did indeed occur then a restoration was (or is) necessary (could be LDS church or something else). But there aren’t too many churches that even claim to be a “restoration church” so the LDS don’t have too much competition unless you are looking for a restoration still to come. And if the apostasy did not occur then the Catholic Church is the logical “true church”. Either way the Protestants are out in the cold…
[off topic] Iglesia Ni Cristo is another “restoration after 100% apostasy” church:

catholic.com/library/Iglesia_Ni_Cristo.asp

They have an Arian-ish theology similar to Jehovah’s Witnesses and a sizeable membership. [/off topic]
 
RE: I didn’t mean to say that you dislike Catholics or that you are attacking the Church in an unfair way; I don’t at all think you are bashing the Church.

Thanks for the clarification; I appreciate your point and have found most here to be reasonable and respectful. I just don’t want it to appear as though I’ve come into a Catholic forum to take shots at the Catholic Church. But if honest discussion is appreciated I’ll continue this a bit longer.

RE: Christ said that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church that he would build on a rock.

We interpret that to mean the gates of hell would not prevail against the Gospel. But I understand the Catholic position and admit the interpretation is plausible.

RE: According to your view, Christ founded TWO churches, both of which failed (in the Americas and in Israel) and then had to found a third church (LDS) which somehow WON’T fail? How does that work?

There have been many Restorations and Apostasies since the beginning of the world. Remember Noah and the flood? The tower of Babel? Yes, both Churches that Christ established during his ministry eventually failed. So why should the third church (LDS) somehow NOT fail? The LDS belief is that we’re living in the “Dispensation of the Fulness of Times” and the true church has been restored for the final time before the Second Coming of the Savior:

That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him
(Ephesians 1:10)

The book of Doctrine and Covenants is one of the standard works of the Church … In the revelations one hears the tender but firm voice of the Lord Jesus Christ, speaking anew in the dispensation of the fulness of times; and the work that is initiated herein is preparatory to his second coming, in fulfillment of and in concert with the words of all the holy prophets since the world began.
(Preface Introduction:3) - Quoted just to clairify our belief

A few more Apostasy scriptures:

2 Thessalonians 2:2-7

Matthew 24
verse 3: question about the sign of Christ’s coming.
4-14: the answer given
15-22: the destruction of Jerusalem, AD 70 foretold
23-25: false Christs foretold
26-35: the generation that sees the signs (i.e. the dispensation of the fullness of times)
36-51: be ready

RE: You would have to proove that the teachings of the Church by that time were wildly different from the teachings of the Apostles… as wildly different as Christianity is from Mormonism. This Catholic Church (which so vehemently attacks Gnosticism, Manichaenism, Docetism, Sabellianism and a whole host of Isms, some blatant, some very very very subtle) somehow lets an entire apostasy (a total Great Apostasy, at that) slip by, uncommented on?

Here are a few things found in the original Church that Christ established that are also found in the LDS church:
  1. Has the same organization as the primitive Church with 12 Apostles, the seventy, prophets, teachers, etc.
  2. Carries the name of Christ
  3. Priesthood authority traced directly back to Jesus Christ (Catholic Church also claims this but protestants do not)
  4. Continuing revelation through a prophet (Catholic Church also claims this through the Pope but protestants do not)
  5. Biblical doctrine that God and Jesus are separate and distinct divine beings espoused (John 20:17, Matthew 27:46, 2 Corinthians 11:31, Ephesians 1:3, 17)
  6. Belief that the Savior was literally resurrected and lives today with spirit reunited with his body which is now glorified and perfected. He is a real tangible person with a physical body as taught in the New Testament
  7. Law of tithing practiced (tithe = one tenth)
  8. LDS Church possesses the additional scripture prophesied of in the Bible (Ephraimite record called the stick of Joseph is the Book of Mormon).
  9. LDS Church is a missionary church, as was the Savior’s ancient church (other church’s obviously also fit this)
  10. LDS Church has a lay local clergy as did the Savior’s church. As late as AD 200 “the idea of fixed clerical salaries was considered an outrage… in both Rome and Asia” Robin Lane Fox, PAGANS AND CHRISTIANS, New York: Alfred Knopf, 1987, p. 505
  11. LDS Church teaches baptism is essential for salvation as taught in the New Testament (I think Catholics also teach this but many protestants do not but what about those that die without baptism?)
  12. LDS Church teaches that we are not saved strictly by grace alone but that our thoughts and deeds also count toward salvation (I believe the Catholic Church also teaches this but Protestants generally do not)
  13. Baptism for the dead as mentioned in the New Testament and practiced by early Christians is also practiced
 
Some more evidence Baptism for the Dead was practiced by early Christians:

In the fourth century Epiphanius describes the Marcionite rite as follows:

*In this country–I mean Asia–and even in Galatia, their school flourished eminently and a traditional fact concerning them has reached us, that when any of them had died without baptism, they used to baptize others in their name, lest in the resurrection they should suffer punishment as unbaptized. * (Heresies 8:7)

*St. Chrysostom tells of how the Marcionites, when one of their catechumens died without baptism, would place a living person under the dead man’s bed and ask whether he desired to be baptized. The living person would respond in the affirmative and was then baptized as a proxy for the deceased * (Homily XL on 1 Corinthians 15).

From *Baptism for the Dead: the Coptic Rationale * by John A Tvedtnes

*That baptism for the dead was indeed practiced in some orthodox Christian circles is indicated by the decisions of two late fourth century councils. The fourth canon of the Synod of Hippo held in 393, declares, “The Eucharist shall not be given to dead bodies, nor baptism conferred upon them.” The ruling was confirmed four years later in the sixth canon of the Third Council of Carthage.

The monophysitic church of Egypt was not represented at these minor councils and hence did not feel bound to discontinue the practice. To my knowledge, only two Christian congregations have continued to practice proxy baptisms for the dead through the centuries. These are the Mandaeans of Iraq and Iran and the Copts of Egypt. Two modern churches–The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) and some of the Neo-Apostolic congregations of Europe–have revived the practice during the last century and a half.

The vast majority of Christianity, however, rejected proxy baptism. In some cases, as in the Roman Catholic faith, it was replaced by prayers and masses for the dead. As early as the fourth century, prayers of this nature were known, as evidenced by the Lectures on the Mysteries by Cyril of Jerusalem.

The Acta Pilati, in its present form from the fifth century, has a later appendage (Part II, The Descent into Hell) that probably predates the first sections. It tells how, when Christ descended into hell, he removed therefrom the spirits of the righteous and of the repentant. The latter were then baptized in the Jordan River.

The Gospel of Bartholomew, extant only in Coptic, tells of how Siophanes, son of the apostle Thomas, had died. His soul was taken to heaven by Michael, who washed him three times in the Acherusian lake beforehand. This lake plays a similar role in other pseudepigraphal works. E.g., in the Apocalypse of Moses 37:3, we read that when Adam died, “one of the six-winged seraphim came and carried Adam off to the Lake of Acheron and washed him three times in the presence of God.” He was then conducted to the third heaven (vss. 5-6) *

NOTE: “third heaven” sounds a lot like the LDS celestial kingdom or third degree of glory.

*A similar idea is found in the Apocalypse of Peter, known from both Ethiopic and from a 5th century Greek text in the Bodelian Library. A portion of the Greek version was also found at Akhmim and is now called the Gizeh Manuscript. Though the latter breaks off before the others, the original text reads of the judgment day, when men are brought before God and receive a baptism in the “field of Akrosja.”

Prof. Hugh Nibley has dealt with the subject of baptism for the dead in Coptic pseudepigrapha, notably in the third century document known as Pistis Sophia. This esoteric work, describing the afterworld, notes:

They will all test that soul to find their signs in it, as well as their seals and their baptisms and their anointing. And the virgin of the Light will seal that soul, and the workers will baptize it and give it the spiritual anointing.

Nibley further notes that the document speaks of how those who remain in the place of testing, the “in-between” place (i.e., the earth) should perform the ordinances of baptism, anointing and sealing for those who died without the opportunity to receive them in this life.

Viewed in this light, one can see why the Copts, of all the early Christian churches, retained baptism for the dead.*
 
Casen,

In reference to baptism for the dead please see the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon does not teach a person has a second chance after death to hear the gospel and to accept the LDS truths. It teaches you only have the time while alive to accept the truth. The Book of Mormon is considered by the LDS to be the the fullness of the everlasting gospel and the most perfect of all books, but it does not have any reference to the doctrine baptism for the dead.

Please read: Alma 34:33-35

33 And now, as I said unto you before, as ye have had so many witnesses, therefore, I beseech of you that ye do not procrastinate the day of your repentance until the end; for after this day of life, which is given us prepare for eternity, behold, if we do not improve our time while in this life, then cometh the night of darkness wherein there can be no labor performed.

34 Ye cannot say, when ye are brought to that awful crisis, that I will repent, that I will return to my God. Nay , ye cannot say this; for that same spirit which doth possess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world.

35 For behold, if ye ave procrastinated the day of your repentance even until death, behold ye have become subjected to the spirit of the devil, and he doth seal you his; therefore, the Spirit of the Lord hath withdrawn from you, and hath no place in you, and the devil hath all power over you; and this is the final state of the wicked.

2 Nephi 15-16 does not support the doctrine of baptism for the dead. There is no second chance for the dead.

15 And it shall come to pass that when men shall have passed from this first death into life, insomuch as they have become immortal, they must appear before the judgement seat of the Holy One of Israel; and then cometh the judgement, and then must they be judged according to the holy judgment of God.

16 And assuredly, as the Lord liveth, for the Lord God hath spokenit, and it is his eternal word which cannot pass away, that they who are righteous shall be righteous still, and they who are filthy shall be filthy still; wherefore, they who are filthy are the devil and his angels, and they shall go away into everlasting fire, prepare for them; and there torment is as a lake of fire,and brimstone, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever and has no end.

The Book of Mormon teaches God is unchanging. See Moroni 8:18.

For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchageable from all eternity to all eternity.

Since the Book of Mormon has the everlasting gospel, and God has not change then the bible must be wrong when it comes to baptism for the dead. Or does the bible support the book of mormon.

Paul states "they" in that bible passage. He does not include himself or his sheep under his charge. If Paul where teaching baptism for the dead he would have used us or we etc. He excludes God’s church (Roman Catholic Church) from this practice by using** they**. It is another group not God’s people.

In closing the Book of Mormon and the Bible support each other. By the way, the teaching of the Book of Mormon related to this issue is very Catholic. Strange!

Respectfully
 
JRR,
Here’s an explanation of what “Fulness of the Gospel” means to us :

*In order to understand what the scriptural phrase “fulness of the gospel” means, we must first know what is meant by the term gospel. While some people use the term in a broad sense to include all revealed teachings and truth, the scriptures employ the term in a more restricted sense to refer to the good news of Christ’s atonement and resurrection-his triumph over sin and death that opened the door of salvation to mankind. This particular definition is found in the Book of Mormon as well as in the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price (see, for example, 3 Nephi 27:13?21; D&C 76:40?42; Abraham 2:11).

The Book of Mormon also equates the reception of the fulness of the gospel with “com[ing] to the knowledge of the true Messiah” (1 Nephi 10:14; see also 15:13?14; 3 Nephi 20:30?31; D&C 19:27). Coming to Christ is possible through “obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel,” with “the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel” defined as faith in Christ, repentance, baptism, and the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost (see Articles of Faith 1:3?4). This parallels part of the Savior’s definition of the gospel in 3 Nephi 27, where the declaration “this is my gospel” (v. 21) refers at least in part to the preceding verse, which speaks of repentance, baptism, and sanctification “by the reception of the Holy Ghost” (v. 20; compare D&C 39:6).

The Book of Mormon can quite properly be said to contain the fulness of the gospel because it contains the most lucid explanation of the atonement of Christ found anywhere and explains in plain detail the means by which one can come unto Christ to partake of that atonement (see especially 2 Nephi 2; 9; Mosiah 15; Alma 34; 42).*
(*The Book of Mormon Contains the ‘Fulness of the Gospel’ *
By Ehab Abunuwara)

The Book of Mormon (and the Bible as well) contain the fulness of the gospel in the scriptural sense but neither proports to contain all revealed knowledge. In fact, Book of Mormon prophets invite us to look forward to additional precepts, teachings, truths, and scriptures to be revealed in the Lord’s due time through God’s prophets. So, we don’t see it as inconsistent that doctrines such as Baptism for the Dead would not be included in the Book of Mormon, but rather were revealed later, such as in the Doctrine and Covenants.

Those scriptures you quoted from the Book of Mormon are accurate and do not contradict the LDS belief in baptism for the dead. You see, baptism for the dead is available for people that never had the chance to be baptized during their mortal life. For example, if a child is born in a remote village in Afghanistan and never hears anything about Christ and never has the chance to be baptized what of them when they die?

I travel to China regularly for business and many people I talk to know almost nothing of Christianity. What of them? Christ taught that baptism is essential for salvation. Would it be fair if those people that never hear of Christ were damned just because of where they were born? Would that be just? That is the reason God revealed baptism for the dead. It’s not to give people a “second chance” as you suggest. It’s to give people a first chance, who didn’t get one during their mortality.
 
Casen,

You need to reread Alma 34:33 especially the last sentence;

“for after this day of life, which is given us prepare for eternity, behold, if we do not improve our time while in this life, then cometh the night of darkness wherein there can be no labor performed.”

“'There can be no labor performed!” What does that mean? There is no statement in the above concerning the unbaptized being treated differently after death than the baptized. It just says there can be no labor performed after death. So taking the word of Alma to heart it means I cannot perform any religious ritual to change the judgement of God which would include baptism for the dead.

“Change of subject”
Casen, I remind you of the LDS articles of faith. Article 8 states We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. Please don’t say the bible has the fullness of the gospel as the book of mormon. Your faith does not teach that.
 
40.png
Casen:
*St. Chrysostom tells of how the Marcionites, when one of their catechumens died without baptism, would place a living person under the dead man’s bed and ask whether he desired to be baptized. The living person would respond in the affirmative and was then baptized as a proxy for the deceased *(Homily XL on 1 Corinthians 15).

.
Ah-hem… Perhaps you should read these Fathers in context and for yourself. Chrysostom called these people HERETICS!:

St. John Chrysostom
Homilies on First Corinthians

HOMILY XL.

1 Cor. xv. 29.

Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead? if the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for the dead?

HE takes in hand again another topic, establishing what he said at one time from what God doeth, and at another from the very things which they practice. And this also is no small plea for the defence of any cause when a man brings forward the gainsayers themselves as witnessing by their own actions what he affirms. What then is that which he means? Or will ye that I should first mention how they who are infected with the Marcionite heresy pervert this expression? And I know indeed that I shall excite much laughter; nevertheless, even on this account most of all I will mention it that you may the more completely avoid this disease: viz., when any Catechumen departs among them, having concealed the living man under the couch of the dead, they approach the corpse and talk with him, and ask him if he wishes to receive baptism; then when he makes no answer, he that is concealed underneath saith in his stead that of course he should wish to be baptized; and so they baptize him instead of the departed, like men jesting upon the stage. So great power hath the devil over the souls of careless sinners. Then being called to account, they allege this expression, saying that even the Apostle hath said, “They who are baptized for the dead.” Seest thou their extreme ridiculousness? Is it meet then to answer these things? I trow not; unless it were necessary to discourse with madmen of what they in their frenzy utter. But that none of the more exceedingly simple folk may be led captive, one must needs submit to answer even these men. As thus, if this was Paul’s meaning wherefore did God threaten him that is not baptized? For it is impossible that any should not be baptized henceforth, this being once devised: and besides, the fault no longer lies with the dead, but with the living. But to whom spake he, “Unless ye eat My flesh, and drink My blood, ye have no life in yourselves?” (John vi. 53.) To the living, or to the dead, tell me? And again, “Unless a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John iii. 5.) For if this be permitted, and there be no need of the mind of the receiver nor of his assent while he lives, what hinders both Greeks and Jews thus to become believers, other men after their decease doing these things in their stead?

Besides, the Marcionites weren’t Mormon either:
newadvent.org/cathen/09645c.htm

More reading:
catholic.com/library/Mormonism_Baptism_for_the_Dead.asp
 
Moving on to the list of your similarites with the early Church. Some of the things you mentioned were similar, but others were different. But you did not mention at all the Eucharist, I’d like to know your stance on that.
40.png
Casen:
  1. Has the same organization as the primitive Church with 12 Apostles, the seventy, prophets, teachers, etc.
You forgot Paul, the thirteenth apostle. And what position did “The First Presidency” and the two counsellors occupy in the early Church? I’ve read on LDS pages that “All members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles are apostles and prophets.”

So in that case you have 15 apostles.

So then we’re both in the same boat in that we don’t have ~exactly~ the same structure as in the apostolic times.
40.png
Casen:
  1. Biblical doctrine that God and Jesus are separate and distinct divine beings espoused (John 20:17, Matthew 27:46, 2 Corinthians 11:31, Ephesians 1:3, 17)
You quote New Testament passages written and compiled by a Trinitarian Church. Maybe then there is a deeper meaning that that Trinitarian Church wanted to perserve. Perhaps you misunderstand them?
40.png
Casen:
  1. Law of tithing practiced (tithe = one tenth)
Actually, that tithe was offered twice a year, and there were additional times of giving, so the real tithe is about 23%.
40.png
Casen:
  1. LDS Church possesses the additional scripture prophesied of in the Bible (Ephraimite record called the stick of Joseph is the Book of Mormon).
I offer this quote from jewsforjudaism.org/web/Mormons/sticks.htm
Jews for Judaism:
The greatest problem, however, for the Latter-day Saint interpretation of Ezekiel 37:15-17 is that its true meaning is explained in verses 18-22:

And when the children of your people shall speak to you, saying: Will you not tell us what you mean by these? say to them: Thus says the Lord God: Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his companions; and I will put them with him together with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in My hand. And the sticks on which you write shall be in your hand before their eyes. And say to them: Thus says the Lord God: Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the nations, where they have gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land; and I will make them one nation in the land, upon the mountains of Israel, and one king shall be king to them all; and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all.
So it would seem that the stick of Joseph + stick of Judah = united Israel, not the Bible and the Book of Mormon.
40.png
Casen:
  1. LDS Church teaches baptism is essential for salvation as taught in the New Testament (I think Catholics also teach this but many protestants do not but what about those that die without baptism?)
You are correct that the Church teaches this.

But you go on to say
40.png
Casen:
Would it be fair if those people that never hear of Christ were damned just because of where they were born? Would that be just? That is the reason God revealed baptism for the dead. It’s not to give people a “second chance” as you suggest. It’s to give people a first chance, who didn’t get one during their mortality.
“But what if the Mormons can’t baptize every dead person before the end of the world? So then all those people would be damned just because they were last in line to get the baptism of the dead? Would that be just?” You see that this line of thinking doesn’t really help alleviate the “injustice” caused by the necessity of baptism.

And you go to China!
Ni keneng shuo Zhongwen ma?
I used to live in Suzhou, just outside of Shanghai.
40.png
Casen:
  1. Baptism for the dead as mentioned in the New Testament and practiced by early Christians is also practiced
Early quasi-Christian heretics. You talk about the Marcion rite. Marcionism was basically Gnosticism. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcionism
 
You keep me on my toes Casen, I’ve had a heck of a time looking all your references up.
40.png
Casen:
There have been many Restorations and Apostasies since the beginning of the world. Remember Noah and the flood? The tower of Babel?
Both of which occured before “Emmanuel”: “God is with us”. When Christ, God the Son, came down to earth, things changed. He Himself now lived among us. He founded a Church.
40.png
Casen:
Yes, both Churches that Christ established during his ministry eventually failed. So why should the third church (LDS) somehow NOT fail? The LDS belief is that we’re living in the “Dispensation of the Fulness of Times” and the true church has been restored for the final time before the Second Coming of the Savior:
I think you misinterpret the passage from Ephesians. Does it not give you pause, though, that Christ could fail twice to found a Church? How could God fail twice, when He came down here Himself to supervise the founding?!
 
JRR,
You’re private interpretation of Alma 34:33 is simply incorrect. Alma is warning that THIS LIFE is the time to prepare to meet God, not the next. In other words, you can’t be a bad person in this life, performing bad works (or “labors”) and then repent and perform good works in the next and expect to be ok. Look at the audience Alma is speaking to! He’s speaking to people that already HAVE heard the gospel! It has nothing to do with baptism for the dead or other vicarious ordinances for those that never had the chance to hear the gospel in this life. I find it humorous when people that don’t believe in our scriptures try to tell us what them mean.

RE: Please don’t say the bible has the fullness of the gospel as the book of mormon. Your faith does not teach that.

Wrong again. See the introduction to the Book of Mormon…

The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as does the Bible, the fulness of the everlasting gospel.
(*Book of Mormon * | Preface Introduction:1)

You seem to think you know a lot about LDS belief and scriptures but you keep getting it wrong over and over again. Are you a former member that never really understood the doctrine or are you simply someone who has visited too many anti-mormon websites?
 
DeFide: Ah-hem… Perhaps you should read these Fathers in context and for yourself. Chrysostom called these people HERETICS!

Agreed. My point in posting that quote was to show that some early Christians were practicing baptism for the dead, just as the LDS do today. Obviously Chrysostom considered them heretics. My belief is that the establishment to which Chrysostom belonged was apostate by then and the Marcionites were continuing the true practice. You of course will disagree. In any case, I was only pointing out another example of early Christians practicing something currently done in the LDS church as your original post in this thread challenged someone to do. I think that quote illustrates that fact.
 
40.png
Casen:
DeFide: Ah-hem… Perhaps you should read these Fathers in context and for yourself. Chrysostom called these people HERETICS!

Agreed. My point in posting that quote was to show that some early Christians were practicing baptism for the dead, just as the LDS do today. Obviously Chrysostom considered them heretics. My belief is that the establishment to which Chrysostom belonged was apostate by then and the Marcionites were continuing the true practice. You of course will disagree. In any case, I was only pointing out another example of early Christians practicing something currently done in the LDS church as your original post in this thread challenged someone to do. I think that quote illustrates that fact.
Did you not read the link on the Marcionites? They weren’t Mormon. Both roads (Chyrsostom/Marcionites) lead to dead ends.
 
I’m having trouble keeping up with all the counter arguments. Admitedly you all make some good points and you’re a bunch of smart people!

RE: But you did not mention at all the Eucharist, I’d like to know your stance on that.

I must admit that my understanding of this is basically limited to the textbook definition. Perhaps you can enlighten me and tell me where you’re headed with it.

RE: You quote New Testament passages written and compiled by a Trinitarian Church. Maybe then there is a deeper meaning that that Trinitarian Church wanted to perserve. Perhaps you misunderstand them?

You could be right… or maybe I’m right. You know, I used to work with a colleague that was an Evangelical Christian and we used to go to lunch together and discuss religion at length. He was a smart guy and knew the Bible very well but it seemed we always ended up back on the topic of the Trinity and neither of us ever made any headway. You interpret those scriptures I posted differently then me. The traditional Trinitarian doctrine with three in one and one in three never made any sense to me. A very confusing God if you asked me. Christ says to Mary not to touch him because he hasn’t visited his Father yet. What does this mean if they are the same person! And when Jesus was baptized we hear God the Father proclaim from heaven that he is proud of his beloved son. Where is this voice coming from if Jesus and the Father are the same person? Is God saying he’s proud of himself? That’s a strange thing to do. But if the Father is a separate personage and is watching from the heavens his son be baptized I can understand him being proud and proclaiming such from the heavens. And the Holy Ghost appears in the very same baptismal scene descending like a dove, also as a separate being. So in one scene in the Bible we have all three parts of the Godhead manifesting themselves as unique entities. The Trinitarian doctrine just doesn’t make sense to me. Anyway, I suspect that neither of us will convince the other so we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

RE: But what if the Mormons can’t baptize every dead person before the end of the world?

We’re building temples and working as fast as we can. And we’ll get an extra thousand years during Christ’s millennial reign so that should give us enough time to get it covered.

RE: Early quasi-Christian heretics. You talk about the Marcion rite. Marcionism was basically Gnosticism.

Yes, perhaps Marcionism was apostate but could it be that some of the pure doctrine and ordinances were preserved by them?

RE: Ni keneng shuo Zhongwen ma?

I travel to Asia regularly for business; China, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Japan, and Taiwan. But I’m not much of a linguist and a typical brute American so I make our suppliers speak English.

RE: *There have been many Restorations and Apostasies since the beginning of the world. Remember Noah and the flood? The tower of Babel?

Both of which occured before “Emmanuel”: “God is with us”. When Christ, God the Son, came down to earth, things changed. He Himself now lived among us. He founded a Church.*

I believe God has established his gospel in every dispensation and there is a lot of evidence of this in the Bible. That does not mean that everything has always been present. God seems to speak to the people and reveal truth based on their capacity to understand and their level of righteousness. In any case, there is a repeating cycle in the scriptures: Prophets teach truth – people live it – people prosper due to righteousness – people become prideful and wicked – God finally humbles them or destroys them (through war, pestilence, famine, flood, etc.) – people repent – and the cycle continues. This cycle has been continuing since the beginning of the world.

Re: Does it not give you pause, though, that Christ could fail twice to found a Church? How could God fail twice, when He came down here Himself to supervise the founding?!

God didn’t fail to establish his Church but as the people eventually became prideful and wicked, they failed, and the cycle continued.

Remember the rich man that came to Jesus and was challenged to sell his possessions and follow him and the man couldn’t part with them and went away sorrowful? Did Christ fail or the rich man?
 
RE: Did you not read the link on the Marcionites? They weren’t Mormon. Both roads (Chyrsostom/Marcionites) lead to dead ends.

Yes, they sadly end in apostasy but they started with Christ and some of the pure doctrine of Christ remained with them, though it became twisted and perverted over time. Just one more example of apostasy.
 
casen,

that stuff from LDS scholars doesn’t hold any weight. i can read into any historical statement if my mind is already made up before i read it. if the “mormon revelations” were true, then we would see scholars describe a mormon church before it existed when observing the historical record. the fact that nobody before joe smith ever deduced his teachings from the early writings of the church tells you that it was fabricated entirely by joe smith.
God didn’t fail to establish his Church but as the people eventually became prideful and wicked, they failed, and the cycle continued.
what makes the LDS any different? what assurance do we have that the LDS haven’t become prideful and wicked?
 
40.png
Casen:
The traditional Trinitarian doctrine with three in one and one in three never made any sense to me. A very confusing God if you asked me. Christ says to Mary not to touch him because he hasn’t visited his Father yet. What does this mean if they are the same person! And when Jesus was baptized we hear God the Father proclaim from heaven that he is proud of his beloved son. Where is this voice coming from if Jesus and the Father are the same person? Is God saying he’s proud of himself? That’s a strange thing to do. But if the Father is a separate personage and is watching from the heavens his son be baptized I can understand him being proud and proclaiming such from the heavens. And the Holy Ghost appears in the very same baptismal scene descending like a dove, also as a separate being. So in one scene in the Bible we have all three parts of the Godhead manifesting themselves as unique entities. The Trinitarian doctrine just doesn’t make sense to me.
I think you misunderstand Trinitarian doctrine.

In his book The Forgotten Trinity James White gives an excellent definition of what the Trinity is.

“Within the one Being that is God, there exists eternally three coequal persons, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” (TFT, p. 26)

White goes on to explain that this definition relies on three essential foundations.

Foundation One: Monotheism: There is only one God
Foundation Two: There are three divine Persons
Foundation Three: The three Persons are coequal and coeternal

TFT p. 28
"If we were going to put it in a simple logical format it would look like this:

There is only one God
There are three equally divine, distinct and eternal Persons called God
Therefore these three equally divine and eternal Persons are the one God
This form of logic is called a syllogism. It consists of two premises and a conclusion. As long as the two premises are true then the conclusion is also true. In this case our first premise is that only one true God exists. "

There really is no problem with any part of the NT making sense in regards to mainstream Trinitarian doctrine once you understand it. LDS believe in three persons, one Godhead. Most Christians believe in three persons, one God. LDS also believe that the Son is subordinate to the father. Other than those two distinctions, the understandings are not that different in my mind.
 
40.png
Casen:
RE: Did you not read the link on the Marcionites? They weren’t Mormon. Both roads (Chyrsostom/Marcionites) lead to dead ends.

Yes, they sadly end in apostasy but they started with Christ and some of the pure doctrine of Christ remained with them, though it became twisted and perverted over time. Just one more example of apostasy.
Actually, we know exactly when the Marcionites started and it wasn’t with Christ, and from the beginning they weren’t Mormon. These were the guys you cited as your pre-apostate group of “pure faith” that was supposed to vindicate Mormonism’s claim of be the restoration of that “pure faith”.

newadvent.org/cathen/09645c.htm
 
RE: What makes the LDS any different? what assurance do we have that the LDS haven’t become prideful and wicked?

No difference. That was Brigham Young’s greatest fear:

*The worst fear that I have about this people is that they will get rich in this country, forget God and his people, wax fat, and kick themselves out of the Church and go to hell. *

And I suspect pride and wickedness exists withing all churches and amoung all people. Hence apostasy is always a real threat. But as I stated before, the LDS belief is that we’re living in the “Dispensation of the Fulness of Times” and the true church has been restored for the final time before the Second Coming of the Savior:

That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him.
(Ephesians 1:10)

But we’re certainly not imune to wickedness and pride individually and central control is necessary to keep the doctrine pure.
 
Tamque: *I think you misunderstand Trinitarian doctrine.

In his book The Forgotten Trinity James White gives an excellent definition of what the Trinity is.

“Within the one Being that is God, there exists eternally three coequal persons, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” (TFT, p. 26) *

I agree that I don’t understand Trinitarian doctrine. So, if there are three coequal persons and hence we see all three showing up at Jesus’s baptism, is it possible that Joseph Smith could have seen God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ as seperate persons standing next to each other? Or am I still not understanding correctly?
 
40.png
bengeorge:
So it would seem that the stick of Joseph + stick of Judah = united Israel, not the Bible and the Book of Mormon.
Funny…I just finished having a rather large discussion with an LDS about whether Ezekiel 37 prophecies the BoM or not. It was truly amazing to me how much evidence is contrary to the LDS position. I spent hours looking through all the research about what those verses mean. Not a single thing I found could even possibly refer to the BoM. Another interesting thing I found (pointed out by another LDS) is that even ‘bigwig’ LDS do not espouse that these verses predict the BoM.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top