M
- Status
Stephen168
New member
By your own definition of ONE, John 17:22 does not conflict with Orthodox Christianity.
True, but as you said, that is not what Christ meant by ONE.
S
SteveVH
Guest
“My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me." (John 17:20-23)
This unity prayed for by Christ is accomplished in the Catholic Church at every Mass. When we receive the Eucharist, Christ is in us and we are in him, just as he is in the Father. The Eucharist is the unifying factor making us one with the Trinity. This is not some far off event for which we wait. Jesus has already provided the means. The kingdom of God is at hand.
This unity prayed for by Christ is accomplished in the Catholic Church at every Mass. When we receive the Eucharist, Christ is in us and we are in him, just as he is in the Father. The Eucharist is the unifying factor making us one with the Trinity. This is not some far off event for which we wait. Jesus has already provided the means. The kingdom of God is at hand.
E
eddie_too
Guest
there are more than one usages of the concept of becoming one in the new testament. not only is it used by Jesus in His prayer, but He also uses it when referring to marriage, “the two shall become one”. obviously His use when referring to marriage is not the same as His use when praying for unity in the John.
in addition, quite often people who read sacred scripture become unintentionally confused by Jesus words because on some occasions His words refer to His trinitarian relationship with His Father and His Holy Spirit while at other times He is speaking of the relationship of His human nature to His divine nature. these two relationships are not identical.
understanding this, it is best to interpret His prayer in John to be referring to how His human nature is perfectly united to His divine nature rather than interpreting them as to how the Three Persons are One in the Most Holy Trinity.
even the most learned of scripture scholars do not possess perfect and complete understanding of every verse in Sacred Sripture.
in addition, quite often people who read sacred scripture become unintentionally confused by Jesus words because on some occasions His words refer to His trinitarian relationship with His Father and His Holy Spirit while at other times He is speaking of the relationship of His human nature to His divine nature. these two relationships are not identical.
understanding this, it is best to interpret His prayer in John to be referring to how His human nature is perfectly united to His divine nature rather than interpreting them as to how the Three Persons are One in the Most Holy Trinity.
even the most learned of scripture scholars do not possess perfect and complete understanding of every verse in Sacred Sripture.
T
TexanKnight
Guest
except for the fact that the Bible is clear there is only ONE God…
how do you reconcile that?
M
MaryElizabeth22
Guest
All Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants understand that the Trinity means Three Persons in One God NOT one in purpose. Even the Book of Mormon states this but Mormons teach otherwise.
3 Nephi 11:27
And after this manner shall ye baptize in my name; for behold, verily I say unto you, that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one; and I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one.
Notice the Book of Mormon says “one” not “one in purpose”.
Notice also it says “name” not “names”.
K
Kanuckistani
Guest
I have a question. In the Bible, it says not to follow false prophets, so why do they believe Joseph Smith was a prophet, along with his successors?
T
twopekinguys
Guest
Active believing mormons do not believe he is a false prophet, even with the mountains of evidence showing otherwise.
We all know that it only takes one failed prophecy to make someone a false prophets. Mormons overlook that.
L
LivingWaters7
Guest
Because they don’t view Joseph Smith and the succeeding Prophets/Presidents as false prophets. The average Latter-day Saint is not aware of the so-called false prophecies of Joseph Smith, and even if they are, perhaps they find resolution of the issue in the various apologetic responses to the false prophecies, which allows them to continue to believe that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God.
P
Porknpie
Guest
Tex,
Doesn’t the BoM itself say that there is one God… With JS creating the idea of multiple Gods nearly 20 years later?
27 And Amulek said: Yea, there is a true and living God.
28 Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God?
29 And he answered, No.
2 Nephi 31
21 And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the away; and there is bnone other way nor cname given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the ddoctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the eFather, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.
How do Mormons reconcile the above…plus the bible…?
I
iepuras
Guest
The BOM used to be even more Trinitarian than it is today. The Mormon church made some changes to the 1830 edition of the BOM to make it less Trinitarian. For example:
1 Nephi 13:40
Original text: the lamb of God is the Eternal Father
Later editions: the lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father
1 Nephi 11:21
Original text: Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father
Later editions: Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father
1 Nephi 11:32
Original text: yea, the Everlasting God was judged of the world
Later editions: yea, the Son of the Everlasting God was judged of the world
Every lesson in Sunday School that tried to explain how the Trinitarian views in the BOM are not Trinitarian always left me confused and baffled. I have never heard anyone provide a good explanation how the Trinitarian sections of the BOM are not Trinitarian.
T
TexanKnight
Guest
People say it is meanness that scares Mormons away…I disagree…this thread, the Cumorah thread, the visions thread…all show it is FACTS that scare them away
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
What?! Mormons leave the Mormon threads because they’re insulted?
http://laurajul.dk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Im-not-insulting-you.jpg
G
Gullveig
Guest
Mormon folks, in all honesty, do you think it’s the theology or the social/family-oriented aspects of your faith that keep people in the LDS church?
I ask, because as an archaeologist and a member of a faith that’s pretty well obsessed with historicity, I can’t understand for the life of me why anyone would take the Book of Mormon seriously with absolutely no historical, archaeological, or anthropological evidence to support it and in light of what we now know about Joseph Smith’s terrible translation skills. I mean that in the nicest possible way. It makes no difference to me personally, but I can understand someone enjoying the social structure and not caring as much about the nuts and bolts of the religion.
I ask, because as an archaeologist and a member of a faith that’s pretty well obsessed with historicity, I can’t understand for the life of me why anyone would take the Book of Mormon seriously with absolutely no historical, archaeological, or anthropological evidence to support it and in light of what we now know about Joseph Smith’s terrible translation skills. I mean that in the nicest possible way. It makes no difference to me personally, but I can understand someone enjoying the social structure and not caring as much about the nuts and bolts of the religion.
P
Porknpie
Guest
G
Gullveig
Guest
Oh, dude, I could write you a book. Southeastern US archaeology is my specialty, but I was lucky enough to go to a university that had a major pre-contact Mesoamerican scholar on faculty, so I took all of her courses I could. In the interest of brevity, though, my three main problems with the BoM are:
- Anachronistic use of flora and fauna that according to every bit of verifiable evidence did not exist in the Americas pre-contact. There is that one guy who claims that those species might have survived and just gone extinct later, but no credible paleontologist or archaeologist will back him up and his scholarship is terrible. If we believe him we might as well believe the Ancient Aliens guy, too. I don’t buy the “well, it was translated as ‘horse’, but it was actually a tapir” argument either. It just creates a lot of additional problems, like why I should believe someone who can’t tell the difference between a horse and a tapir. Basically, whoever wrote the BoM had a post-contact Eurocentric understanding of agriculture and animal husbandry in the Americas.
- Anachronistic references to metallurgical technologies. Because I do blacksmithing and historical recreation as a side hobby, this is the thing that really gets me. Metallurgy was extremely under-developed throughout all of the Americas up until around 800 AD and what there was was primarily geared towards precious metals like gold and copper and used for ornamentation. Bronze was uncommon until much later and they never got around to iron. What metalwork they did was primarily coldwork and I’d rather use my fists than use a coldworked sword, even if you could get one off the anvil without it shattering. Even if we give the BoM the benefit of the doubt by saying that we just haven’t found all those chariots and swords and whatever yet, why haven’t we found the mines, the smelting dross, and the forge middens that went along with it? Producing something a simple sounding a sword takes some serious social organization and a big resource supply chain and a LOT of people to do all that mining and refining and feeding the miners and refiners. It’s both unverifiable and highly unlikely during the period specified by the Mormons. Maybe they meant obsidian “swords”, but there are several references to rusty weapons and obsidian doesn’t rust. Again, the way its discussed in the BoM seems to be based on post-contact Euro-centric assumptions about resource availability.
- Genetics evidence contravenes a Middle Eastern origin in the Americas. Until someone turns up a Y-chromosome or mitochondrial DNA link between native populations in the Americas and the Middle East, I have to call BS. There’s only so far the “we just haven’t found it yet” argument can stretch, and if there was settlement on the scale necessary to produce the BoM cultures, there would be certainly be biological descendants somewhere and the Amerindians very clearly aren’t those people.
S
SteveVH
Guest
Great post.
L
LivingWaters7
Guest
Thank you, that was very interesting.
I think many Latter-day Saints (not all) view Mesoamerica as the setting of the Book of Mormon (besides the parts that happen in the Middle East), and it seems as if the popular LDS apologists and scholars support that view. Indeed, there’s a new 800+ book by John L. Sorenson (emeritus professor of anthropology at BYU) called “Mormon’s Codex: An Ancient American Setting”, coming out in the next week or two (he also wrote an earlier book on the same subject). A preview of its contents can be found at that link, as well as a pdf link here. If you have time, I’d be curious as to your thoughts on that from an archaeologist’s perspective. I doubt most LDS will read this 800+ page book, but just the fact that it exists would be cause for some LDS to think that there’s archaeological evidences for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon and the civilizations and events it describes. I know that’s how I looked at such things when I was a member.
B
Boulder257
Guest
I think you raise a really interesting point. Many LDS look at the amount of “evidence” and assume that their faith must be true because that amount of “evidence” exists; however, they have never actually delved into the “evidence” itself or treated it with an objective perspective. Although, I should be honest and admit that this can probably be said about many people and many faiths. It’s probably not limited to Mormons.
P
Porknpie
Guest
So I found the following link to John L Sorensen which presents his testimony. Link is here.
Some very interesting comments excerpted below. Truth is not found in science but through spiritual manifestations. What? No. Science and reason can help us understand and illuminate God.Throughout this varied career I have been faced with no issues that have called into question the assurance I have had since childhood that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the divinely-originated institution its adherents claim it is. This is simply not a matter of argument for me. The truth of the matter has been affirmed to me in spiritual manifestations countless times
And *I knew of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon from the manifestations of the Holy Spirit to me throughout my life as an active Church participant and leader, to which I add my “scholarly testimony.”
*
And *I knew of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon from the manifestations of the Holy Spirit to me throughout my life as an active Church participant and leader, to which I add my “scholarly testimony.” My years of study of the archaeology of Mesoamerica, in the field, of endless pages of relevant scholarly writings, and of critical consideration of the book itself have affirmed that it is authentically ancient and deserves careful consideration as a truthful record.
*
So here we have an archeologist who can not support the Book of Mormon through science, who instead speaks to being led the by Holy Spirit to know it is true. As I sit here, I wonder what do they do in the Brigham Young archeology department. What science do they do? Does their science include the absence of reason? I would have expected an archeologist to have supported the BoM with science, and not with feelings.
- Status