Z
- Status
R
Roman_Catholic_1
Guest
I don’t understand zerinus. Is not Mormonism polytheistic? There are many gods, and we too (if we are keep the commands of the LDS church) can become gods. Am I right in saying this?
So if a Mormon said that they believe in the Trinity, they are affirming their belief in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, but are they doing so at the exclusion of all the other gods within the Mormon faith? Why would they just signal out the three that they believe make up their trinity? What about all the other gods?
God bless
So if a Mormon said that they believe in the Trinity, they are affirming their belief in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, but are they doing so at the exclusion of all the other gods within the Mormon faith? Why would they just signal out the three that they believe make up their trinity? What about all the other gods?
God bless
M
majick275
Guest
zerinus won’t give you real answers. he will try to get you over to his blog where he can preach his individual view of mormonism without opposition
Z
zerinus
Guest
That makes two of us, because I don’t understand you! The subject of the thread is the Trinity, not “many gods”.
zerinus
J
Jacob_Fenton
Guest
Here’s the thing, Latter-Day Saints believe in a trinity, but it is not like our doctrine on the trinity. At the ecumenical council of Nicea, the bishops clarified that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are triune, one in being, yet three in individuality. Latter-Day Saints, however do not believe in our concept of the Trinity. They do believe in God as the Eternal Father, His son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. But they believe all three, while working together to accomplish the same purpose, are separate and distinct individuals, not one triune being. This doctrine is most often referred to by Latter-Day Saints as the Doctrine of the Godhead. You can check out a book called The Godhead by Duane Crowther, an LDS writer who paints a fairly understandable and accurate picture of this doctrine. Hope this helps!
Z
zerinus
Guest
Wong! We believe in the Trinity—of the Bible.
That I agree.
Which makes absolutely no sense—and it is not biblical.
Agreed! No argument with that.
Agreed—which is the biblical version of the Trinity.
True!
It doesn’t! I have a better book. It is called the scriptures! I prefer to stick with that.
zerinus
J
Jacob_Fenton
Guest
I wasn’t trying to offend you and I apologize. I was merely trying to write in such a way that other Catholic readers on this forum would be able to understand. In my saying “a trinity,” I in no way meant to demean your faith. I only wished to clarify that your doctrine was different from ours. It would have been better of me to say “a trinitarian doctrine” as it more correctly refers to the subject, your doctrines, rather than the person of God. I’ll remember that next time and again, sorry.
Can you give me a New Testament verse that says that to clarify our doctrine on the trinity at Nicaea, is unbiblical? Must there be a succinct and clear passage that says we can clarify our faith, before we are allowed to do so? Lastly, even the Church of Latter-Day Saints agrees that not all was revealed in the final pages of the New Testament. It may have been known to the apostles, as you believe, but you would also believe that the New Testament alone is not clear enough without guidance through the scriptures, especially guidance from your other Testaments. The point? Your faith is not summed in the New Testament alone, either. We, as Catholics, find the roots of our belief in the trinity in the writings of the apostles. We also believe that these beliefs are more elaborated upon later by the bishops who stated them clearly and pronounced them doctrines.
Whoa-whoa. Hold on there, friend. I merely suggested an LDS source for easy understandable reading for any Catholics who may inquire as to what other Latter-Day Saints say they believe.
As to whether your version of the trinity is biblical, I and almost all Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox Christians stand firm that our doctrine of the trinity is the most biblical. The fact of the matter is that waving the “biblical” argument simply doesn’t cut it, especially for debates between Catholics and Latter-Day Saints. When it comes to arguments between us, the issue stems more from whose church is the more authoritative? Whose church still follows the teachings of the apostles? At these questions, you would say yours and I would say mine. We’re in a bit of a predicament, aren’t we? You will cite scripture verses that prove your faith and I will cite scripture verses that will prove mine. Am I incorrect in this understanding?
P
PJM
Guest
**No they do not! They simply lip-service the concept to sucker real Chrsitians in.
To LDS, the “god” is NOT a Diety, only one of many. There is No Trinity and Jesus is “just a prophet.”
However they believe that when they die, and have kids (their idea of heaven) that their will honor THEM as gods.
**
Love and prayers,
To LDS, the “god” is NOT a Diety, only one of many. There is No Trinity and Jesus is “just a prophet.”
However they believe that when they die, and have kids (their idea of heaven) that their will honor THEM as gods.
**
Love and prayers,
Z
zerinus
Guest
Thank you, I wasn’t offended.
Well, nobody argues about that, do they?
I think that the burden of proof is on you to prove that it is biblical. It is not biblical because it is not found there. Actually, the Nicene Creed does not really teach Trinitarianism—although you could argue that it was the starting point. But to the extent that it does it is not biblical. The full-blown theology of Trinitarianism is taught for the first time in the Athanasian Creed.
Not sure what you meant by that.
That was not the issue. The question was whether Mormons believe in the Trinity or not. I said that they did, according to the teachings of the Bible.
And I informed you that what Latter-day Saints believe is derived from the standard works of the Church—our scriptures. That is the ultimate source of LDS theology.
Well, within that confines of that narrow framework it is still possible to discuss religion, theology, and doctrine—which to us is based on scripture. If even that was not possible, we would be wasting our time. Discussing this subject altogether.
zerinus
C
CJ_Nick
Guest
Hi Zerinus,
I am a little confused.
What do you do with the teachings of your first prophet at the king Follet Sermon ???
Are those teachings in the LDS " standard works "??? Is that a part of the ultimate source of LDS theology??
Thanks in advance for your reply.
Peace.
CJ
R
Roman_Catholic_1
Guest
Z
zerinus
Guest
No, they are not. By the standard works we mean the canonized scriptures of the Church, which consist of the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. The King Follett discourse or the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith do not come under that classification.
To the extent that they conform to the standard works they are. Their position as a source of our theology is similar to Tradition in Catholicism. You have two main sources of Catholic theology: Scripture and Tradition. We have something roughly equivalent to that. To us the teachings of Joseph Smith and other Church leaders past and present occupy a position roughly equivalent to your Tradition. The main difference is that to you Scripture and Tradition occupy an equal place in determining Catholic theology. To us Scripture is the primary source, and Tradition is a secondary source. In other words, if a discrepancy is discovered between Scripture and Tradition, Scripture always wins. That is how LDS doctrine is established.
You are very welcome.
zerinus
Z
zerinus
Guest
Okay, I will be nice to you and give you a better answer this time!
No! It is no more polytheistic than early Christianity is polytheistic, or the Bible is polytheistic. They believed there were many gods too; but they did not worship them as such, and neither do we. That is polytheism.
Yes! See above.
Because we believe that God is a God of gods and Lord of lords (see Deuteronomy 10:17; Joshua 22:22; Psalms 136:2; Daniel 2:47; Daniel 11:36). The existence of “many gods” does not remove or challenge the position of the Great God of heaven who is the Father, or that of His Son Jesus Christ, or of the Holy Ghost—relative to the rest of mankind, or relative to the other deities that exist in heaven. The Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost have a unique relationship relative to each other, and to the rest of creation; and that unique relationship is not altered by the existence of numerous deities in heaven.
zerinus
R
ralphinal
Guest
zerinus,
It has been a while. I hope all is well with you and your family leading up to Easter.
Anyway, would the LDS be considered henotheistic as the early Jews might have been?
It has been a while. I hope all is well with you and your family leading up to Easter.
Anyway, would the LDS be considered henotheistic as the early Jews might have been?
C
CJ_Nick
Guest
Hi Zerinus,
First, thanks for taking the time to reply to me. ( I appreciate your efforts )
If I may ask a follow up.
You offer that that Scripture is your ( LDS ) primary source to determine how LDS doctrine is established and that this indeed always wins over " tradition "… This confuses me further. Where in scripture is there anything mentioned about much of the LDS doctrine that is taught???
God was once a mere man of an Earth before he became God of our Earth.
Jesus is the " spirit brother " of the Devil.
God had physical relations with mary leading to the conception of Christ.
Different levels of Heaven ( what if the man achieves the highest level and the wife does not?? How will they be sealed forever if they are not in the same place?? How will that man populate his Earth with children with no wife??
These are just a few of the LDS teachings that confuse me as to Scripture support " winning " over current and past LDS prophets teachings.
At any rate, I do appreciate your willingness to share with us ( me ).
Thanks again and God bless
CJ
J
Jacob_Fenton
Guest
I would agree with the label of henotheism for the LDS church. I had not heard the “God of gods” explanation before, although it’s certainly easy to grasp how they interpreted it that way. An explanation I have always heard is how they interpret Greek, thinking that theosis is literally the process of becoming a god (whereas we would understand it as the process of conforming to God).
Z
zerinus
Guest
I am very well, thank you. I hope all is well with you too.
If you want to use those terminologies that is fine by me; but I would rather not use them, because they are unscriptural, and may carry philosophical and theological nuances that do not conform to LDS doctrine. All I need say is that according to our theology men can become gods, and hence there is a plurality of gods; but they are all subject to the Supreme Deity of heaven, who is the Father. If you want to invent special terms for that you can; but I won’t use them. I prefer to stick to the terminologies used by the scriptures themselves.
zerinus
R
Roman_Catholic_1
Guest
So why are you trying to prove that Mormons believe in the Trinity? Is not the ‘Trinity’ a term not used in scripture? After all it, “may carry philosophical and theological nuances that do not conform to LDS doctrine.”
By the way thanks for taking the time and answering my first question. Greatly appreciated.
God bless
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Because zerinus really, really, really, really, really, wants his beliefs to be true. He could come to where the truth actually is, or, create amazing convoluted mental gymnastics to make truth conform around error. All the while, fighting the relativism that this embodies.
It has to be exhausting.
It has to be exhausting.
- Status