Joseph Smith's changing doctrine of deity

[lax16]

I guess you also accept all the scandals of the Catholic Church throughout its history, includind sexual scandals involving popes, inquisition and the list goes on and on! Then you tell me there was no apostasy! Sorry…too difficult to swallow that!

evanfaust - if scandal and sexual scandals define apostasty, then Mormonism is in apostasy.

 

[AtticusFinch]

Judas didn’t do what “Judas was supposed to do.”

Why in the world you ever joined and participated in the LDS church, one wonders as you show your true nature and what is in your heart.

Parker, of all people, you shopuld not be so judgmental. If I am truly as bad as you say, and if I was so bad when I was LDS, then it further shows how lost your Church is. I was called as a missionary. I met with and had as a pen pal L. Tom Perry. I was called to leadership positions in the mission field, I was called to the elder’s q. Presidency and the Bishopric, etc etc etc. How many people, including as apostle, did I fool? Truly, Parker, YOUR true nature appears when you are so judgmental. Your judgmental nature exposes your “church” as a fraud. Thank you for that.

When I said Judas did what he supposed to do, I simply referred to the fact that Judas needed to betray Jesus to fullfill Christ’s Prophesy. He needed to betray Christ just as certain as the Jews and Romans, working together, needed to crucify Christ. Christ had to die. It was fortold. I truly apologize if that escaped you.

I suppose this post demonstrates that your prayers aren’t “directly to God”.

Really? And what Scripture teaches you to judge a person;s prayers? Shame on you! You, Parker, are in no position to judge where my prayers go. The fact is, I prayed to God and He informed me the LDS Church was false. You hate that. So, to cover that God is leading people away from your false Church with its false prophets, you resort to saying my prayers are not directly to God. How sad and truly pathetic, Parker. But let me assure you, I do not take offense to your sinful conduct. For a person who follows a false prophet to tell me about my prayers is like a follower of Hitler telling me I am breaking the law by speeding.

That might be what you could work on in your life to good benefit.

Actually, I t already has. It kept me from joining a Church with the likes of you. I suggest you take your advice and pray TO God…not this ex-sinful man-god who might be Adam and who is very weak and who only speaks in King James English and who advises prophets to have sex with anyone and then cover it up with an alleged polygamy rule. I will pray for you, Parker. And I will pray directly to God.

I suggest you finally start doing the same.

 

[lax16]

Judas didn’t do what “Judas was supposed to do.”

Judas Iscariot from the Catholic Encylopedia (online) -

**All four Evangelists agree in regard to the main facts of the actual betrayal which followed so closely on this prediction, and tell how the traitor came with a multitude or a band of ****soldiers from the chief priests, and brought them to the place where, as he knew, Jesus would be found with His faithful disciples ( Matthew 26:47 ; Mark 14:43 **; **Luke 22:47 ; John 18:3 ). **But some have details not found in the other narratives. That the traitor gave a kiss as a sign is mentioned by all the Synoptics, but not by St. John, who in his turn is alone in telling us that those who came to take Jesus fell backward to the ground as He answered “I am he.” Again, St. Mark tells that Judas said “Hail, Rabbi” before kissing his Master, but does not give any reply. St. Matthew, after recording these words and the traitor’s kiss, adds: “And Jesus said to him: Friend, whereto art thou come:” ( 26:50 ). St. Luke ( 22:48 ) gives the words: “Judas, dost thou betray the Son of man with a kiss ?”

St. Matthew is the only Evangelist to mention the sum paid by the chief priests as the price of the betrayal, **and in accordance with his custom he notices that an Old Testament prophecy has been fulfilled therein ( Matthew 26:15 ; 27:5-10). **In this last passage he tells of the repentance and suicide of the traitor, on which the other Gospels are silent, though we have another account of these events in the speech of St. Peter :

**Men, brethren, the scripture must needs be fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who was the leader of them that apprehended ****Jesus : who was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this **ministry. **And he indeed hath possessed a field of the reward of iniquity, and being hanged, burst asunder in the midst: and all his bowels gushed out. And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem : so that the same field was called in their tongue, Haceldama, that it to say, the field of blood. For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take. (Acts 1:16-20 . Cf. Psalm 68:26 ; 108:8 ) **Some modern critics lay great stress on the apparent discrepancies between this passage in the Acts and the account given by St. Matthew. For St. Peter’s words taken by themselves seem to imply that Judas himself bought the field with the price of his iniquity, and that it was called “field of blood” because of his death. But St. Matthew, on the other hand, says: “Then Judas, who betrayed him, seeing that he was condemned, repenting himself, brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and ancients, saying: I have sinned in betraying innocent blood. But they said: What is that to us? Look thou to it. And casting down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed: and went and hanged himself with an halter.” After this the Evangelist goes on to tell how the priests, who scrupled to put the money in the corbona because it was the price of blood, spent it in buying the potter’s field for the burial of strangers, which for this cause was called the field of blood. **And in this St. Matthew sees the fulfillment of the prophecy ascribed to Jeremias (but found in Zechariah 11:12 ): “And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was prized, whom they prized of the children of Israel . And they gave them unto the potter’s field, as the Lord appointed to me” ( Matthew 27:9, 10 ). **

 

[lax16]

judas didn’t do what “judas was supposed to do.”

why in the world you ever joined and participated in the lds church, one wonders as you show your true nature and what is in your heart.

i suppose this post demonstrates that your prayers aren’t “directly to god”. That might be what you could work on in your life to good benefit.

Parker - why would you say these things here?

Stick to the comments/questions about Judas.

 

[AtticusFinch]

Because he was doing the LDS tactic of saying very rude and incidiary things hoping I would fly off the handle so he could complain and either have me banned or get the thread closed. It is how LDS posters operate.

We need to pray them, Lax.

 

[ParkerD]

lax16:
Parker - why would you say these things here?

Stick to the comments/questions about Judas.

Lax16,
If you read the comment you showed that you were responding to, and the comment that it was responding to, then I think you would be able to figure out why I responded in the way that I did, since a man I love (a man, indeed, with the same free choice capability and the same opportunity to learn by sometimes trusting the wrong people and thus allowing them to show their own “true colors” by what they do with their own choices in their own lives) was being wrongly accused.

I agree that if people want to discuss Judas Iscariot, that is fine and especially well if done as you did by drawing from the Biblical accounts. But the comparisons or thinking that God is going to never allow a leader to make a personal misjudgment using their own free will plus giving free will to others who are themselves allowed to make mistakes even though those mistakes cause more need for the atonement in the world, should not be made by comparing with Judas Iscariot. His was a singular sin, very grievous, in the very presence of the Lord who was extending His perfect love and example at all times to all those who knew Him.

But thanks again for sharing the insights about Judas Iscariot.

 

[lax16]

Lax16,
If you read the comment you showed that you were responding to, and the comment that it was responding to, then I think you would be able to figure out why I responded in the way that I did, since a man I love (a man, indeed, with the same free choice capability and the same opportunity to learn by sometimes trusting the wrong people and thus allowing them to show their own “true colors” by what they do with their own choices in their own lives) was being wrongly accused.

I agree that if people want to discuss Judas Iscariot, that is fine and especially well if done as you did by drawing from the Biblical accounts. **But the comparisons or thinking that God is going to never allow a leader to make a personal misjudgment using their own free will plus giving free will to others who are themselves allowed to make mistakes even though those mistakes cause more need for the atonement in the world, should not be made by comparing with Judas Iscariot. His was a singular sin, very grievous, in the very presence of the Lord who was extending His perfect love and example at all times to all those who knew Him.**But thanks again for sharing the insights about Judas Iscariot.

Parker - Thanks for clarifying. I agree that we should all be very careful when comparing anyone to Judas.

But I’ve got to ask this question (again) - “If Mormon church leaders make a personal misjudgment using their own free will…” (as you stated) and Mormonism is not in apostasy, then why when Catholic Church leaders make mistakes, that proves an apostasy?

 

[AtticusFinch]

Lax16,
If you read the comment you showed that you were responding to, and the comment that it was responding to, then I think you would be able to figure out why I responded in the way that I did, since a man I love (a man, indeed, with the same free choice capability and the same opportunity to learn by sometimes trusting the wrong people and thus allowing them to show their own “true colors” by what they do with their own choices in their own lives) was being wrongly accused.

I have not made a single false or wrong accusation. I think you know that.

I agree that if people want to discuss Judas Iscariot, that is fine and especially well if done as you did by drawing from the Biblical accounts. But the comparisons or thinking that God is going to never allow a leader to make a personal misjudgment using their own free will plus giving free will to others who are themselves allowed to make mistakes even though those mistakes cause more need for the atonement in the world, should not be made by comparing with Judas Iscariot. His was a singular sin, very grievous, in the very presence of the Lord who was extending His perfect love and example at all times to all those who knew Him.

Nothing you said changed the truth of what I said about Judas. And Judas’ greatest crime was his suicide. Now, Hinkley lied to authorities about mark Hoffman. He tried to cover up the fact his “god” was fooled by Mark Hoffman. The LDS Church paid a lot of money to hide documents the leaders felt were dangerous to Church to hide them from the public and then found out their god let them waste all that money on forgeries. I have heard that LDS Apostles have claimed they have conversations with Jesus where they talk back and forth like you and I would. Apparenely, in those conversations, their god did not see fit to say, “Hoffman is a fraud, do not waste the LDS members tithing on this fake stuff”.
But thanks again for sharing the insights about Judas Iscariot.

 

[AtticusFinch]

Parker - Thanks for clarifying. I agree that we should all be very careful when comparing anyone to Judas.

But I’ve got to ask this question (again) - “If Mormon church leaders make a personal misjudgment using their own free will…” (as you stated) and Mormonism is not in apostasy, then why when Catholic Church leaders make mistakes, that proves an apostasy?

For the record, the first person to bring up Judas was a Mormon trying to justify the conduct of a false apostle with that of a fallen apostle

 

[ParkerD]

Parker - Thanks for clarifying. I agree that we should all be very careful when comparing anyone to Judas.

But I’ve got to ask this question (again) - “If Mormon church leaders make a personal misjudgment using their own free will…” (as you stated) and Mormonism is not in apostasy, then why when Catholic Church leaders make mistakes, that proves an apostasy?

Lax16,
That is a very good and logical question. The answer has to do with the inspired structural set-up whereby there are Twelve Apostles who thus provide a system of checks and balances in terms of both doctrinal aspects of decisions or teachings, and other checks and balances including that each member is asked at every level of leadership whether they “sustain” the other levels of leadership, meaning that if they have personal knowledge that a leader is not following the Savior’s example in that they are going astray themselves, then that member knows they can come forward to a “next level” leader and explain the situation and ask that it be looked into. The apostles had a particular, special and unique calling which included to preserve the pure and true doctrine of the gospel. They were to do that by sitting in council together, and then by teaching the pure and true doctrine. When one died, a new one would be called by the guiding influence of the Holy Spirit, just as when Matthias was called and when Paul was called. When that stopped happening with apostolic leadership, then the doctrines could drift from their purity.

 

[lax16]

Lax16,
That is a very good and logical question. The answer has to do with **the inspired structural ****set-up whereby there are Twelve Apostles who thus provide a system ****of checks and balances in terms of both doctrinal aspects of decisions or teachings, and other checks and balances **including that each member is asked at every level of leadership whether they “sustain” the other levels of leadership, meaning that if they have personal knowledge that a leader is **not following the Savior’s example in that they are going astray themselves, **then that member knows they can come forward to a “next level” leader and explain the situation and ask that it be looked into. The apostles had a particular, special and unique calling which included to preserve the pure and true doctrine of the gospel. They were to do that by sitting in council together, and then by teaching the pure and true doctrine. When one died, a new one would be called by the guiding influence of the Holy Spirit, just as when Matthias was called and when Paul was called. When that stopped happening with apostolic leadership, then the doctrines could drift from their purity.

Parker - without famous Catholic early Church fathers, such as St. Athanasius (whose epitaph is Athanasius contra mundum, “Athanasius against the world”) standing for such things as the Trinitarian doctrine, true Christianity would have been lost.

There is a long history of Catholic saints fighting to keep Christ’s message intact. St. Jerome painstakingly copying the Bible so it would remain as true to it’s original teachings as possible…St. Patrick bringing Christianity to a pagan Ireland…St. Francis humbly fighting against the errors that people and priests in the Catholic Church were living…

How does that add up to apostasy? It adds up to a struggle that was bound to happen and has always been handled by saints through the ages. Always.

Now, as far as Mormon leadership having a system of checks and balances, how does that eliminate error? There has been error. So doesn’t that mean there is an apostasy, by your definition?

Also, are you saying that the Catholic Church does not have a system of checks and balances? If so, please explain when it stopped (names and dates).

 

[ParkerD]

Lax16,

The method whereby the Nicene council decided on the description of the Trinity rather than saying simply that the specific words of the Bible show the doctrine of the Godhead, lead to a system of leadership that did not have a council of apostles but had a council of leaders with their own views. Either at that point or earlier than that, the key doctrine that Christ is the sole holder or “bearer” on His shoulder of the key of David, always, was lost, leading to a teaching that the keys of the kingdom were the same as the key of David. This opened up the opportunity for other doctrinal changes to please the people and to retain authority and leadership within the grasp of those who said they “held” the “keys of the kingdom”. It eventually would lead to the idea sent out that any change in the early church was directed by the Holy Spirit.

This loss of doctrinal purity is exactly why John had the vision he had that there was going to be a departure of the church into the wilderness, and that the dragon would be making war with those seeking to keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus. (Revelation 12:16-17) It is why John or the other apostles weren’t directed by the Holy Spirit to choose new apostles after the first few were chosen during the post-Ascension period of leadership by Twelve Apostles as shown in the New Testament. John was the last living apostle on the earth, yet his leadership was not being sought as the key leadership position at the time he wrote the book of Revelation from his vision, yet he still held the apostolic keys of the kingdom at that point, and no one else did.

Having a testimony of Jesus is the focal point of the Bible. The idea that the words “a nail in a sure place” (Isaiah 22:22-23) is not talking about the crucifixion, when placed in conjunction with the key of David when it is known that Christ fulfills Davidic prophecies, is a departure from doctrinal purity.

The “Keys of the Kingdom” is not the same expression as the “key of David.” Christ couldn’t delegate the atonement, which is what was being prophesied in Isaiah 22:22-23.

The name “Eliakim” from Isaiah 22 means “God shall cause to arise.” This goes right along with John’s vision about the key of David in Revelation 3:7. We can arise in resurrection and can arise in a new birth because of the Savior’s atoning sacrifice and His resurrection and triumph over death.

Note in Revelation 3:5 that the vision John has shows that the Person who is talking and saying “I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels” in that verse is the same Person who is “he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth;”

This is not a reference to Peter. It is a clear reference to Christ as the One who said “I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.” (Revelation 1:17-18)

The Key of David is the same thing as the “keys of hell and of death”. This is why the opening and shutting can’t be done by a “man”. It can only be done by Christ, who suffered the atonement and crucifixion so He could open those gates with His key–the Key of David, which was laid “upon his shoulder” and the “government” will be “committed into his hand.” (Isaiah 22:21)

Those words I just cited ought to bring immediately to mind the passage a student of the Bible ought to love–“For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom,…” (Isaiah 9:6, 7)

Peace to you and all. Have a good day.

 

[AtticusFinch]

Judas didn’t do what “Judas was supposed to do.”

Why in the world you ever joined and participated in the LDS church, one wonders as you show your true nature and what is in your heart.

I suppose this post demonstrates that your prayers aren’t “directly to God”. That might be what you could work on in your life to good benefit.

Parker, I understand that you were just very rude and judgmental in violation of the Scriptures in an effort to get me angry and post something you did not like so you could report me and get me banned in an effort to keep me quiet. I know you tried this because I actually KNOW what the LDS Church is all about, and it bothers you that I am not just some guy who got his info off the net.

Suffice to say that I forgive you for your out-of-line comments. I am glad that, contrary to your judgmental comments, I pray to God. I pray directly to God. It was those prayers that led me out of the LDS Church, a false Church, and it was those prayers that recently kept me from being lured back in.

Sadly, your post shows us YOUR true nature. I will Pray for you, Parker. I hope your heart is open to the truth and that you will someday come to the truth.

 

[lax16]

Lax16,

The **method **whereby the Nicene council decided on the description of the Trinity rather than saying simply that the specific words of the Bible show the doctrine of the Godhead, lead to a system of leadership that did not have a council of apostles but had a council of leaders with their own views. QUOTE]

What “method” was used? Why was this method “faulty?”

What exactly is wrong with the definition of the Trinity that was defined by the Nicene Council? Are you saying that Mormons agree with the definition of Arius? If not Arius, then whose definition do Mormons believe?

I think it is a well-known fact that the word Trinity is not mentioned explicitly in the Bible. Why do you object to a system of leadership that must take a stand when beliefs are challenged?

How were **the views **of the early leadership inconsistent with the Bible? (Please provide examples, not just opinion).

 

[ParkerD]

ParkerD;6620315:

Lax16,

The **method **

whereby the Nicene council decided on the description of the Trinity rather than saying simply that the specific words of the Bible show the doctrine of the Godhead, lead to a system of leadership that did not have a council of apostles but had a council of leaders with their own views. QUOTE]

What “method” was used? Why was this method “faulty?”

What exactly is wrong with the definition of the Trinity that was defined by the Nicene Council? Are you saying that Mormons agree with the definition of Arius? If not Arius, then whose definition do Mormons believe?

I think it is a well-known fact that the word Trinity is not mentioned explicitly in the Bible. Why do you object to a system of leadership that must take a stand when beliefs are challenged?

How were **the views **of the early leadership inconsistent with the Bible? (Please provide examples, not just opinion).

Lax16,
The method was by debate and consensus, and the council was called by the governmental authority (Constantine). Consensus without specific divine direction (rather than just men coming together doing their best to agree but sort of “expelling” those who disagreed with the majority vote) is not a way to keep doctrine pure.

Mormons definitely do not agree with the definition of Arius. There does not need to be a “definition”. The Holy Bible amply describes God, the Savior, and the Godhead without a new definition.

The example I have already provided about the key of David is a very pertinent example. You of course can say any such example is an opinion, but it is so fully and plainly clear straight from the Bible that there is no need to call that an opinion.

Have a great afternoon and evening.

 

[AtticusFinch]

lax16;6620654:

Lax16,
The method was by debate and consensus, and the council was called by the governmental authority (Constantine). Consensus without specific divine direction (rather than just men coming together doing their best to agree but sort of “expelling” those who disagreed with the majority vote) is not a way to keep doctrine pure.

Mormons definitely do not agree

with the definition of Arius. There does not need to be a “definition”. The Holy Bible amply describes God, the Savior, and the Godhead without a new definition.

The example I have already provided about the key of David is a very pertinent example. You of course can say any such example is an opinion, but it is so fully and plainly clear straight from the Bible that there is no need to call that an opinion.

Have a great afternoon and evening.

Yes, what you type is just opinion. Whether it is about to whom I pray or about the Bible, it is just opinion, and unsubstantiated opinion at that. I had also hoped an apology would be in order for your out-of-line comments, but then I remembered, you are LDS.

Have a good evening, Parker.

 

[lax16]

lax16;6620654:

Lax16,
The method was by debate and consensus, and the council was called by the governmental authority (Constantine). **Consensus without specific divine direction **

(rather than just men coming together doing their best to agree but sort of “expelling” those who disagreed with the majority vote) is not a way to keep doctrine pure.

Mormons definitely do not agree with the definition of Arius. There does not need to be a “definition”. The Holy Bible amply describes God, the Savior, and the Godhead without a new definition.

The example I have already provided about the key of David is a very pertinent example. You of course can say any such example is an opinion, but it is so fully and plainly clear straight from the Bible that there is no need to call that an opinion.

Have a great afternoon and evening.

Parker - How do you know that concensus was arrived at without specific divine direction? Please cite specific examples.

How did Mormons decide that the Sabbath should be celebrated on Sunday? It is not in the Bible. Was it a concensus among a group of leaders? Is it written in the Book of Mormon? How do you know that the decision was arrived at with specific divine direction?

Mormons don’t “expel” those who disagree with them? Don’t they excommunicate members that are not in agreement? Is it not church leadership that makes these decisions?

So Mormons don’t have a definition of the Trinity? I thought it was called the Godhead?

Yes, there was a need for a definition of the Trinity!!
Are you saying that the early church fathers were to allow other churches to crop up with their own definitions of things?

**C.S. Lewis **states in the Introduction of On the Incarnation by St. Athanasius:

about Athanasius: “He stood for the Trinitarian doctrine, “whole and undefiled,” when it looked as if all the civilised world **was slipping back from Christianity into the religion of Arius-into one of those “sensible” synthetic **religions which are so strongly recommended to-day, and which, then as now, included among their devotees many highly cultivated clergymen. It is his glory that he did not move with the times; it is his reward that he now remains when those times, as all times do, have moved away.”

I think the opinion of C.S. Lewis is important, don’t you (Mormons)?

(Your arguments of David, the keys, etc have been **well-disputed **on other threads and are not good arguments, just your opinions).

 

[RebeccaJ]

LDS have diverted from the topic, and as usual, their diversions turn towards attacking the Catholic Church and non-LDS individuals.

 

[Robert_Bay]

Please remember to discuss the issues and not each other

 

[twopekinguys]

I have said this before in other discussions, but I think it applies here as well.

I have seen it said, and even implied that many people who left mormonism studied their way out.

Before anyone says “I studied my way out of the Catholic Church”, we aren’t discussing the Catholic Church.

I have also noticed that many lds posters either want to automatically dismiss a former mormon, or they want to discredit them personally, in any way possible. Which in actuallity just diverts the conversation/discussion. Either way, it isn’t a very flattering thing to do.

I also find it terribly sad that almost any source not officially endorsed or issued by the lds church, or one that shows it in anything else but a glowing light is automatically “anti”.

In my dealings on this forum, I have noticed many mormons making posts that fall just short of being “completely” offensive to the Catholic church , but yet yell foul at even the slightest unkindness by others. (Catholic and non)

It is just sad all the way around.

It’s funny, I started typing this response, and got called away for a few minutes, and more than one person has noticed the same thing I did.