Clarification on Mormon Belief

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jay53
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
soren1 said:
Catholic Doctrine has been grossly misrepresented in official LDS doctrine, including General Conference addresses presented by Apostles. The most important recent example is the presentation given by Elder Jeffrey Holland at the October 2007 General Conference, The Only True God and Jesus Christ Whom He Hath Sent, in which he travestied Trinitarian doctrine in the following words:

In the year A.D. 325 the Roman emperor Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea to address—among other things—the growing issue of God’s alleged “trinity in unity.” What emerged from the heated contentions of churchmen, philosophers, and ecclesiastical dignitaries came to be known (after another 125 years and three more major councils) as the Nicene Creed, with later reformulations such as the Athanasian Creed. These various evolutions and iterations of creeds—and others to come over the centuries—declared the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to be abstract, absolute, transcendent, immanent, consubstantial, coeternal, and unknowable, without body, parts, or passions and dwelling outside space and time. In such creeds all three members are separate persons, but they are a single being, the oft-noted “mystery of the trinity.” They are three distinct persons, yet not three Gods but one. All three persons are incomprehensible, yet it is one God who is incomprehensible.

We agree with our critics on at least that point—that such a formulation for divinity is truly incomprehensible.

To first two words I underlined are objective errors. God is not abstract but supersubstantial. Abstraction is a derivative mode of being. In thinking about God, we do employ the mental faculties of abstract thought, but the persons are not abstract. Thomas Aquinas is particularly clear on this point, because the divine substance is “immaterial not by abstraction, but of itself.”

The second claim of “separate persons” is a heresy that was actually condemned by the councils to which Elder Holland attributes it. The amount of documentation that exists to disprove Elder Holland’s claim here is overwhelming. (Athansius himself identified this error as the Arian heresy.) The correct creedal account of the relations of the persons is “distinct but not separate.” Anyone who studies the Trinity seriously should know this, and should know that it is no small detail but a fundamental principle in Trinitarian theology. Elder Holland, as former Dean of Religious Studies and later President of BYU, cannot claim ignorance as an excuse.

The third word I underlined is orthodox in itself, but it becomes heretical in the way Elder Holland interprets it. He uses “incomprehensible” as if it means “unintelligible,” when in fact it means that God cannot be known by his creatures to the extent to which he knows himself, because his self-knowledge is as infinite as his substance. God can be seen by our minds, but he cannot be circumscribed by our minds. Correctly understood, divine incomprehensibility indicates infinite intelligibility. Yet Elder Holland hijacks this terms, takes it with an opposite meaning, and wields it as a verbal skewer to pillory an account of Conciliar teaching that would have been seen as heretical by the Council Fathers themselves. He then claims this as a point of “agreement.” (The rest of his presentation is no better, by the way.)

This speech is official, inspired LDS doctrine.
Click to expand...
the speech is not “official, inspired LDS doctrine.” Sorry, but Conference talks, though they may well be inspired, and are certainly ‘official’ inasmuch as they are given in the semi-annual General conference, do NOT rise to the level of official doctrine.

…unless you want to admit that Papal Bulls are 'official, inspired Catholic doctrine?"
 
dianaiad said:
the speech is not “official, inspired LDS doctrine.” Sorry, but Conference talks, though they may well be inspired, and are certainly ‘official’ inasmuch as they are given in the semi-annual General conference, do NOT rise to the level of official doctrine.

…unless you want to admit that Papal Bulls are 'official, inspired Catholic doctrine?"
Click to expand...
Dian:

I’d be interested in knowing how to determine the official doctrine from unofficial. How does a Mormon know one from the other?

🤷
 
usingreason said:
Diana, what do Mormons consider the Journal of Discourses to be?
Click to expand...
Using Reason,
I’m a Mormon (member of the LDS church), and I consider the Journal of Discourses to be a historical record of what some leaders said or were quoted to have said, nothing more, nor am I interested in reading it. There are so many more important books and talks to read–it has absolutely no bearing in my life, nor do I ever care to own a copy.

As to the talk by Elder Holland that Soren1 referred to, I’ve read many entries in this Forum where Catholics have insisted that the Trinity is comprised of Three Separate Persons in One Being. I would guess the number is at least ten and perhaps twenty different people who think that way. I still don’t understand what they really do believe, since it comes across differently nearly every time I read something on the subject. (I think TheosisM had the most understandable description I’ve seen. I appreciate those who have explained their concept of the Trinity.)

However, Elder Holland never even suggested that he was describing Catholic doctrine. It would be more likely that he was challenging Evangelical beliefs, since the Evangelicals/SBC are the larger United States population group.

Peace to all. Thanks for ever having read what I as one LDS member have had to say on this forum. Take care, everyone! God bless you all.
 
spockrates said:
Yes, Parker, that is certainly my desire that Christ would set me free from the power of sin. It seems likely, I think, that there’s an added benefit to receiving such precious freedom. For when I’m set free *from * sin, I’d also be set free *to *obey. I suppose then that it’s really two freedoms for the price of one! Don’t you agree?

🙂
Click to expand...
Parker:

Not sure if you missed this reply.

🙂
 
spockrates said:
Parker:

Not sure if you missed this reply.

🙂
Click to expand...
Good morning, Spockrates, and wishing you a peaceful Sabbath Day,

I certainly do agree with your comment. “Freedom to obey” may sound to some like a paradox, but true it is that obedience to the commandments brings ultimate freedom to the individual, whereas if one has sins still lingering in their life from the past (not from the present, since we all come short of the “glory of God” in the present), there are many ways in which those sins do hold one back and bind one. God knows what will bring us the most happiness, and that is why He commands obedience, yet that obedience must come from the heart and be freely chosen by the person. Obedience means we will be changing every day, righting our wrongs and reaching upward toward the light and toward the life Christ has urged us to live.

Have a wonderful day, Spockrates. Thanks for the exchange of ideas.👍
 
spockrates said:
Parker:

Not sure if you missed this reply.

🙂
Click to expand...
Spockrates,
Put another way, gaining truth is gaining the freedom to pursue the very best that is in us–to reach upward toward our potential without being hindered by ideologies that would encumber us, bind us, or hold us back.

Gaining truth is the ultimate empowerment–to become a son of God because that is what He wants us to become and sees as our potential.

Peace, all.
 
ParkerD said:
Spockrates,
Put another way, gaining truth is gaining the freedom to pursue the very best that is in us–to reach upward toward our potential without being hindered by ideologies that would encumber us, bind us, or hold us back.

Gaining truth is the ultimate empowerment–to become a son of God because that is what He wants us to become and sees as our potential.

Peace, all.
Click to expand...
Yes, I believe you have captured Christ’s meaning–at least as far as I am able to understand Him, in His words:

Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;

And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

(John 8:31-32)

👍

Now, I think it goes without saying that Jesus tells us it is the truth that sets us free to trust and obey God. That is, understanding what is the truth is a necessary cause of the effect of trusting and obeying Christ. (For example, until I know the truth about who Jesus is and what He wants me to do, I suppose I’ll be likely to fail at living my life according to His perfect will for me.)

I think it also goes without saying that a cause is not its own effect; neither is an effect its own cause. For an effect is never the cause of that which causes it to be. And a cause is never the effect of that which it affects.

Do you agree?

🙂
 
spockrates said:
Yes, I believe you have captured Christ’s meaning–at least as far as I am able to understand Him, in His words:

Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;

And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

(John 8:31-32)

👍

Now, I think it goes without saying that Jesus tells us it is the truth that sets us free to trust and obey God. That is, understanding what is the truth is a necessary cause of the effect of trusting and obeying Christ. (For example, until I know the truth about who Jesus is and what He wants me to do, I suppose I’ll be likely to fail at living my life according to His perfect will for me.)

I think it also goes without saying that a cause is not its own effect; neither is an effect its own cause. For an effect is never the cause of that which causes it to be. And a cause is never the effect of that which it affects.

Do you agree?

🙂
Click to expand...
Spockrates,
I don’t quite agree on that, inasmuch as I view the process of trusting Christ, really deeply trusting Him, as a “primary cause” that if we’ll take that step in our lives, He will guide us toward more knowledge of “who He is” and “what He wants us to do”. The verse that says “We love Him, because He first loved us” (1 John 4:19) could also be written “We trust Him, because He first trusted us.” He trusts us to find our way to Him, and gave us so many ways to do that, so many signposts and gentle reminders and encouragement–and if we in turn trust Him to guide us in really seeking Him, then we will surely and most certainly find Him and come to know absolutely His will in our lives through the Holy Spirit. Then we will continue to need to trust, and we will keep learning new truths about ourselves and about how best to serve Him, and thus be on a spiral upward with no ultimate “arrival” until He calls us home.

Perhaps you were saying that, but in a different way. All the very best to you, kind and thoughtful friend.🙂
 
ParkerD said:
Spockrates,
I don’t quite agree on that, inasmuch as I view the process of trusting Christ, really deeply trusting Him, as a “primary cause” that if we’ll take that step in our lives, He will guide us toward more knowledge of “who He is” and “what He wants us to do”. The verse that says “We love Him, because He first loved us” (1 John 4:19) could also be written “We trust Him, because He first trusted us.” He trusts us to find our way to Him, and gave us so many ways to do that, so many signposts and gentle reminders and encouragement–and if we in turn trust Him to guide us in really seeking Him, then we will surely and most certainly find Him and come to know absolutely His will in our lives through the Holy Spirit. Then we will continue to need to trust, and we will keep learning new truths about ourselves and about how best to serve Him, and thus be on a spiral upward with no ultimate “arrival” until He calls us home.

Perhaps you were saying that, but in a different way. All the very best to you, kind and thoughtful friend.🙂
Click to expand...
Yes, I understand. What I’m thinking, though, is that if knowing the truth is the cause of knowing how to obey Christ, then knowing how to obey Christ cannot be the cause of knowing the truth. One must know the truth of how to obey before one knows how to obey.

For example, the Bible tells you and me:

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

(Proverbs 1:7)

That was certainly the state of my relationship with God when I was much younger. I did not love God, for I had no earthly idea that He loved me. I felt only fear of Him, you see?

It was not until I learned the truth that,

We love Him, because He first loved us.

(1 John 4:19)

that I was able to love Him. It was the truth that Jesus loves me that set me free to love Him. It was *not *my love for Him that set me free to receive the truth that He loves me. My love followed truth. Truth did not follow my love. Does that sound true to you?

🤷
 
spockrates said:
Yes, I understand. What I’m thinking, though, is that if knowing the truth is the cause of knowing how to obey Christ, then knowing how to obey Christ cannot be the cause of knowing the truth. One must know the truth of how to obey before one knows how to obey.

For example, the Bible tells you and me:

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

(Proverbs 1:7)

That was certainly the state of my relationship with God when I was much younger. I did not love God, for I had no earthly idea that He loved me. I felt only fear of Him, you see?

It was not until I learned the truth that,

We love Him, because He first loved us.

(1 John 4:19)

that I was able to love Him. It was the truth that Jesus loves me that set me free to love Him. It was *not *my love for Him that set me free to receive the truth that He loves me. My love followed truth. Truth did not follow my love. Does that sound true to you?

🤷
Click to expand...
Spockrates,
Yes, it does sound true to me. I appreciate those thoughts. I may use that sometime for teaching youth–great example of the principle.👍
 
dianaiad said:
the speech is not “official, inspired LDS doctrine.” Sorry, but Conference talks, though they may well be inspired, and are certainly ‘official’ inasmuch as they are given in the semi-annual General conference, do NOT rise to the level of official doctrine.
Click to expand...
If the General Conference addresses are inspired and official, your Church is responsible for them. Because you do not explain why they are not official doctrine, I am left to guess at your reasons. My best guess (and tell me if I’m wrong) is that you are thinking of the distinction between doctrine and counsel in LDS teaching. I think I should have just said “counsel.” Even so, inspired is still inspired, regardless of which category of content you are talking about. If it comes from God, it is to be believed, is it not?

In any case, your point does not respond to the argument of my post. You said you have never been to a Church meeting where Catholic doctrine has been discussed at all. Yet I have provided an example of a Church address attempting to explain and critique Catholic Councils (and some Protestant documents too), which was broadcast to LDS wards around the world, with a potential audience of many millions. Just look at how many languages they have got it in at the website. If you missed that broadcast and didn’t read Ensign that month, ok, but you can no longer claim that criticism of Catholic teaching is absent from LDS Church meetings. I have documented a recent example from the highest level of LDS Church meetings. That this example contains misrepresentation and ridicule while later demanding respect and fairness from the LDS Church’s critics hardly warms my heart, particularly since the main purpose of counsel is moral guidance.
…unless you want to admit that Papal Bulls are 'official, inspired Catholic doctrine?"
Click to expand...
The comparison to a papal bull is not mildly relevant, because the popes have never claimed the bulls are “inspired,” whereas Mormon prophets have claimed that General Conference addresses are. Thus I am not using an inconsistent standard since my standard is to judge to authority of each Church’s leadership according to the particular claims they make about themselves. By that standard, General Conference addresses can be evaluated as inspired without demanding the same for papal bulls.
 
ParkerD said:
Spockrates,
Yes, it does sound true to me. I appreciate those thoughts. I may use that sometime for teaching youth–great example of the principle.👍
Click to expand...
I’m glad to hear you say that, Parker! (But please, don’t give me the credit. I’m sure I heard it from someone far wiser than myself.)

🙂

So then, it seems (if we are correct in determining the truth about the truth thus far) that obedience is the result of truth, and truth is the reason for obedience. Truth is the cause. Obedience is the consequence. Obeying God is *never *the cause nor the reason for receiving the truth about God, for obedience is merely the effect of the truth that causes it. I suppose that whatever act of obedience you or I might investigate, we would find a truth that precedes it. Thus the meaning of Christ’s words:

“And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”

The upshot, I think, is that if one is to be successful at this life of following and obeying Jesus, one must first be successful at seeking and finding the truth, and sorting the truth from lies. For truth is a prerequisite for obedience. Don’t you think?
 
spockrates said:
Hey, Parker:

I find Mormonism fascinating and have a relative who is a member of the LDS Church. How can I learn that what you believe is true?

🙂
Click to expand...
Hi, and thanks for your honest inquiry. First, forgive me for having joined this discussion rather late. For this reason I have not read through all the thread, so I am not familiar with all the exchanges you have had with other LDS. But to answer your question, Joseph Smith was a young boy (aged 14) who was confused by the many contending (mainly Protestant) churches which had created a kind of religious revival in the community he lived, and wanted to know which one of the contending sects were right. After reading James 1:5 in the Bible, he felt inspired to inquire of God to know which church was right, so he knew which one to join. To cut a long story short, as a result of that prayer he had a personal encounter with God in which the Father and the Son appeared to him as two separate personages, and advised him not to join any of them, but that at some future date the fullness of the truth would be revealed to him. Again to cut another long story short, this led eventually to another encounter with an angel who revealed to him the plates on which the Book of Mormon was written, and he was commanded to translate it into English by the gift and power of God. That is how the Book of Mormon came to be. Subsequently he had many more revelations and encounters with heavenly messengers who instructed him how to organize the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. So in answer to your question of how you can know that it is all true, the best answer is though the study of the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon is a book of scripture just like the Bible, and the main purpose of its revelation is to be a new witness to Jesus Christ, and a witness to the restoration of the gospel through Joseph Smith in the last days. Anybody who studies the Book of Mormon sincerely and impartially, with a genuine desire to know of its truth, will know by the power of the Holy Ghost that it is true. That is the promise that it contained within the book. So that is the answer to your question. Study the Book of Mormon, and you will know for yourself whether it is true or not.
 
spockrates said:
I’m glad to hear you say that, Parker! (But please, don’t give me the credit. I’m sure I heard it from someone far wiser than myself.)

🙂

So then, it seems (if we are correct in determining the truth about the truth thus far) that obedience is the result of truth, and truth is the reason for obedience. Truth is the cause. Obedience is the consequence. Obeying God is *never *the cause nor the reason for receiving the truth about God, for obedience is merely the effect of the truth that causes it. I suppose that whatever act of obedience you or I might investigate, we would find a truth that precedes it. Thus the meaning of Christ’s words:

“And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”

The upshot, I think, is that if one is to be successful at this life of following and obeying Jesus, one must first be successful at seeking and finding the truth, and sorting the truth from lies. For truth is a prerequisite for obedience. Don’t you think?
Click to expand...
Spockrates,
What you have written here is a profound thought, and I agree with it 100%. I appreciate the way you have explained this principle. Thank you! I think you are being given great insights. I know they will serve you well, and hopefully will help others who will appreciate their clarity as I have.

Have a terrific week, kind friend.👍
 
ParkerD said:
Spockrates,
What you have written here is a profound thought, and I agree with it 100%. I appreciate the way you have explained this principle. Thank you! I think you are being given great insights. I know they will serve you well, and hopefully will help others who will appreciate their clarity as I have.

Have a terrific week, kind friend.👍
Click to expand...
Hope you have a good week, yourself! I suppose you have other obligations, so please don’t feel obligated to answer. And I’d like to ask this next question of anyone who would care to answer:

If it is true that truth precedes obedience, then what is the truth that precedes the act of obedience of becoming a Latter Day Saint? That is, what is the essential truth that, once believed, will cause me to see converting to Mormonism the obvious decision?

🤷
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top