LDS Church puts a date on the Great Apostasy

[flyonthewall]

As you have rightfully noticed, Scripture disagrees with your opinion. For:

Mark 10:27
"27 Jesus looked at them and said, “With human beings this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God.”

We need God in order to have eternal life, this is a necessity. And in reference to "nailing down a definition to the word eternal, this link should help:

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/eternal

To gain eternal life by ourselves is impossible, this is true. However, with God all things are possible. For God is an eternal being, who does have no beginning and no end, as stated in Isaiah 43:10-12:

By your own words, God is eternal and has no beginning or end, but we are not eternal. We have a beginning, therefore, we cannot have eternal life as it had a beginning…unless you are stating that God removes our beginning…?
Same thing with damnation…how can it be eternal if it has a beginning?
Your definition does not hold water…it contradicts itself.

 

[Stephen168]

I think the word “being” has been used differently than it’s common usage. I am a being. My dog is a being. My cat is a being. A being is simply a life form.

I think you understand the word being. To be is to be a being as Robert said.

Anything that exists is a being. A rock is a geological being. A homo-sapiens is a human being. A tree is a being. A dog is a canine being, etc, etc.

Each person or living entity is a separate being.

True, but each living thing is not a person as Robert said. So your dog and cat are not persons.

There is a distinction between the two terms - person and being.

Thus, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are each a separate being from the other,

No one being, three persons.

united in function and purpose.

most probably.

I think you missed Roberts post

But the concept of personhood is separate from mere being. A classical definition is that a person is an individual substance of a rational nature. (Boethius) Every intellectual substance which is complete in itself, uncommunicable and existing for itself, is a person. Essential to the “person” in theological terms are intelligence and substantiality, wholeness in oneself and especially individuality. (Catholic Dictionary) From individuality flow such features of personhood as distinctiveness, incommunicability, and uniqueness. (Ibid.) Among human persons there are also elements of responsibility, and possession of distinctive rights. (Ibid.) [Throughout history, denial of a human being’s status as “person” has been the justification for slavery, genocide, and lesser degradations of the human person.] Personhood is an important theological understanding that defines our relationship to God, and to each other and separates us from the baser elements of nature.

We know that all human beings are persons [despite the actions of some throughout history]. Angels are also persons under this definition, although they lack physical substance (their substance is pure spirit).

So, because we know of beings that are zero persons (tree, rock, dog) and beings that are one person (human being, angels), we can grasp the concept of a being that is more than one person.

It is revealed to us by OT scripture that God is a single being. Yet, the NT reveals to us God in three separate persons (Father, Son, Spirit). Conceptually, therefore, it makes sense to conclude that God is one Being in three Persons. It is hard to actually imagine it, however, because in our present state such a Divine Being is beyond our experience.

The LDS fundamental mistake of describing the three persons of the Trinity as three separate beings is that it violates the scriptural imperative that there is One God. God is not a construct of three (or more) divine beings that are unified in thought purpose and action. God - who is one in being, but three distinct persons - is the harmonization of the OT and NT descriptions of the same God of Abraham.

From my understanding, the LDS faith really gets this wrong by positing the notion of multiple divine beings and, as such, other errors (such as eternal progression) have crept in. This fundamental error makes it ever more distinct from the Catholic faith that comes to us from the Apostles. All of this is, of course, just my opinion after spending years studying the issue. I welcome any LDS response.

Peace,
Robert

 

[benidict]

im not the brightest bulb in the batch, as you all well know. however, i dont see the Trinity, as all that complex. (ok it is, but bear with me please.) nature itself, including humans, point to a Trinitarian God. we were created in his image right? nature testifys to Him right. well, take a tree for example. you have the roots, the trunk the branches. all one tree, but three distinct attributes. and these three bring forth life. (leaves!) look into the mirror. you have a body, a mind, and a spirit. 3 in one. even our physical makeup. you have the skin. the muscular system, and the bone structure, 3 in one. look at the flowers. the root the stem, and the poofy thing on top. 3 in one. its all around us. not too difficult. our Creator, is Father, Son, Holy Ghost. 3 in one. indivisibly One God. with 3 distinct attributes. ok its more complex than this. but its at least one way to help our Mormon friends out to understand the nature of the Creator. Peace and may we all have a Blessed Christmas season. Mormon, and Catholic alike. :hug3::christmastree1::tanning:

 

[SteveVH]

Instead of ignoring it, why don’t you clarify what you meant? The way you phrased your response, that is the image that entered my mind.

I meant what I said. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit do not operate independently of each other. They cannot, because they are the same “being”. Where one is, there the others are also. But, they are very definitely three persons. What you fail to understand is that God has a different nature than us. I know this is difficult for you because you have been told that God is like us, He has just progressed further. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are separate persons in relationship. The nature of God is that He is a family. That is one way in which we have been made in His image and likeness. The Father is called the Father because of His relationship with the Son. The Son is called the Son because of His relationship with the Father. This has been so from eternity. The Father does not depend upon us for His Fatherhood. He invites us to become His adopted sons and daughters but we will never be sons in the way that Christ is the Son because we will never be God. To think otherwise is a violation of the first commandment.

I think the word “being” has been used differently than it’s common usage. I am a being. My dog is a being. My cat is a being. A being is simply a life form. Each person or living entity is a separate being. Thus, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are each a separate being from the other, united in function and purpose.

No. His nature is completely different than His creation, which is everything you mentioned above, other than Father, Son and Holy Ghost. God is one being in three persons and the fact that you cannot or refuse to grasp this does not make it untrue.

So if I am understanding you correctly, God is not bound by rules or laws. Does that mean God is not bound by Justice? If He is not bound by justice, then He cannot be just, which would contradict scripture about Him.
God is only as good as His word. If God is not even bound by His own word, then that makes for a lot of contradictions. God is Holy, but not bound by Holiness. God is righteous, but not bound by righteousness. God is Love, but is not bound by Love.

Nice try. First of all, we were talking about the physical laws of nature, not moral laws. I have already told you that this is not a justice issue yet you are attempting to bend the conversation in that direction. No, we were discussing whether or not God would be subject to gravity? He is not. The Creator is not subject to His creation, His creation is subject to Him. This really is not a difficult concept so address the issue and stop trying to muddy the waters.

Where did He say He would not?

Are you asking me to prove a negative? You made the assertion and so I asked for evidence. This is your evidence? Again, nice try.

Heaven can be a place or a state of mind.

Well, if we go by your definition, without beginning or end, then it is not used consistently in the scriptures. As I pointed out before, we are promised eternal life or eternal damnation. Both are impossible for us by your definition. So, did God lie about eternal life and damnation? Eternity simply means beyond my ability to see or comprehend, outside of my scope of vision.

I am not saying we are equal, but that we look like God. God is perfected and exhalted, we are not.

No, God IS perfection and has been from eternity. He had no need to be perfected. You believe in a small god, indeed, and if anyone had any doubts before, I think it is plain to see, based upon your statement, that we do not believe in the same God. So you should not be shocked when the rest of the Christian world has a difficult time calling the LDS Christians.

How is it that God has a presence? If He has no body, and is everywhere, then we are continually in His “presence”, or He has no presence at all.

There are many ways in which we can be in the presence of God. But scripture tells that we presently see only as a shadow, but then we shall see him “face to face”, in other words, as He truly is.

I can walk by someone and cover their eyes with my hand so that they only see my back.
The Glory of God, was seen by many in the Bible
Ex. 16:10, Lev. 9:23, Deut. 5:24, Ex. 24:17, Ex. 40:34
Your explaination does not fit. There were many that saw this “invisible” God, and His glory.

Yes, I am aware of this, but did anyone ever explain what exactly what it was that they saw? God can reveal Himself to anyone He wishes and to the degree that He wishes. But there is nowhere that any of those that “saw” God described Him as having a body of a man.

 

[Javl]

So you have no idea why the resurrection is important? Only that God determined it? Kinda like nailing down a definition of “eternal”.
I will throw this question out there concerning “eternal”…Can you obtain eternal life? Can someone be subject to eternal damnation?
Scriptures say both these are possible for us…but how can that be if we are not eternal? If eternal means without beginning or end, then eternal life is not possible for us, and neither is eternal damnation.

The trouble is fly that when you read scripture you read it literaly when it should not be, and not literal when it should be. Like the majority of non-Catholic religions the use of “sola scriptura” results in a myriad of mis-interpretations and mis-understandings.

When you read scripture you should keep in mind the times it was written in, who it was written for, and what is the reason for the message. Go back and try again.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Cruxis117]

By your own words, God is eternal and has no beginning or end, but we are not eternal. We have a beginning, therefore, we cannot have eternal life as it had a beginning…unless you are stating that God removes our beginning…?
Same thing with damnation…how can it be eternal if it has a beginning?
Your definition does not hold water…it contradicts itself.

There is more than one meaning to eternal, if you read the dictionary link that I showed you. Here, I’ll copy it and paste it to explain.

adjective

1. Being without beginning or end; existing outside of time. See Synonyms at infinite.
2. Continuing without interruption; perpetual.
3. Forever true or changeless: eternal truths.
4. Seemingly endless; interminable. See Synonyms at ageless, continual.
5. Of or relating to spiritual communion with God, especially in the afterlife.

noun

1. Something timeless, uninterrupted, or endless.
2. Eternal God. Used with the.

Lets focus on the adjective. God is the first one, “being without beginning or end, existing outside of time.” When referrring to eternal as in eternal life or eternal damnation, we can refer to the second meaning. (Or of the fifth meaning, obviously, but for the sake of playing a game of semantics…)

God is eternal, he has no beginning and he has no end. Isaiah 43:10-12:

• 10Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. * (King James Version)

We are able to recieve eternal life, or suffer eternal (or endless, perpetual) damnation. For one whose belief system includes the idea that “what man is, God once was, what God is, man may become”, the Scriptures certainly deny it, and therefore your theology does not hold water when claiming to recieve the Scriptures as inspired revelation, which counter your own theology. Your own belief system contradicts itself.

 

[catholic-rcia]

The only way we can have eternal life with God is to have Jesus engraft Himself into us. Without Him we will receive eternal damnation. Hell were you will not be able to pin down anything of truth, a confusing life where things will make sense, then they won’t make sense, illusions and delusions forever. To be an alcoholic forever without anything to drink, a golfer with no golf balls, a family that will never get along. Doors that lead somewhere but no where at all. A life without Jesus because the choice was for self.

Don’t be fooled, do not be spun.
Come home on this Christ-mass season
And watch these commercials
http://www.catholicscomehome.org/

 

[PJM]

=flyonthewall;7391384]So you have no idea why the resurrection is important? Only that God determined it? Kinda like nailing down a definition of “eternal”.
I will throw this question out there concerning “eternal”…Can you obtain eternal life? Can someone be subject to eternal damnation?
Scriptures say both these are possible for us…but how can that be if we are not eternal? If eternal means without beginning or end, then eternal life is not possible for us, and neither is eternal damnation.

*** Fiend hre is both why nd how…

Physical Bodies die

Our Souls [along with our minds, inetlects, frewills] are Spirtal and do not and canotnot.***

 

[KathleenGee]

So – according to the LDS…Christianity ended at its beginning. Whew…

The event of Christ’s death and resurrection changed time, broke the power of sin and death, and gave new life to sinners. But His power stopped.

Christ did not have the ability to set up His church. Because there was something lacking in His Godhead?

Mormons believe like all of us that, Christ Who is God, however, was unable to chose Apostles who were unable to have successors.

Subsequently Christianity ended. Except there were some real Christians around, and for sure they could and no way would be Catholic celibate clerics.

True Christianity was resurrected by some people with questionable backgrounds by the mainstream locals, and had ties to new forms of ‘hellfire for all Christians except them religion’ in the MIdwest 1800 years later.

Not only that, but a new discovery in America----the foundations of authentic Judaism’s origins found with North American Indians…containing What? More secret discoveries…

And that the discoveries continue…many writings of the past 100 years of Mormonism have changed, and with Mormons beginning to study Catholic thought and using it to develop its Mormon doctrines more in depth, the new discoveries in thought do not look like Mormon’s past teachings.

But there are a number of Mormons out there who still hold on to the old ideas of Adam, Satan and Christ…

So we are confused as to what Mormons believe as they continue to change or … cover up…and still comes across obsessed in dealing with Catholicism.

 

[flyonthewall]

I meant what I said. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit do not operate independently of each other. They cannot, because they are the same “being”. Where one is, there the others are also. But, they are very definitely three persons. What you fail to understand is that God has a different nature than us. I know this is difficult for you because you have been told that God is like us, He has just progressed further. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are separate persons in relationship. The nature of God is that He is a family. That is one way in which we have been made in His image and likeness. The Father is called the Father because of His relationship with the Son. The Son is called the Son because of His relationship with the Father. This has been so from eternity. The Father does not depend upon us for His Fatherhood. He invites us to become His adopted sons and daughters but we will never be sons in the way that Christ is the Son because we will never be God. To think otherwise is a violation of the first commandment.

You are right, the Father is called the Father for a reason, and it is His relationship with the Son. The Son is called the Son for a reason too. The Father IS the Father of the Son. Jesus tells us that the Father is His Father and our Father. I believe Him.

No. His nature is completely different than His creation, which is everything you mentioned above, other than Father, Son and Holy Ghost. God is one being in three persons and the fact that you cannot or refuse to grasp this does not make it untrue.

This is fine. You can continue to be a creature if you would like. I know I am a child of God. I hope one day you will realize that too.

Nice try. First of all, we were talking about the physical laws of nature, not moral laws. I have already told you that this is not a justice issue yet you are attempting to bend the conversation in that direction. No, we were discussing whether or not God would be subject to gravity? He is not. The Creator is not subject to His creation, His creation is subject to Him. This really is not a difficult concept so address the issue and stop trying to muddy the waters.

I told you that the laws of nature on this earth may not apply elsewhere. You may be referring to gravity, I am not. I am referring to any law, rule, principal etc that God adheres to.
You have mentioned gravity, so I will use that. We have been able to figure out how to suspend gravity. If we can do that, then God certainly knows how to do that…without breaking any laws of gravity or nature or anything else.

Are you asking me to prove a negative? You made the assertion and so I asked for evidence. This is your evidence? Again, nice try.

It is my belief per the words of a prophet. Scriptures do not address it.

No, God IS perfection and has been from eternity. He had no need to be perfected. You believe in a small god, indeed, and if anyone had any doubts before, I think it is plain to see, based upon your statement, that we do not believe in the same God. So you should not be shocked when the rest of the Christian world has a difficult time calling the LDS Christians.

Your God is bigger than my God…is that the angle you are going for? ooookay.

There are many ways in which we can be in the presence of God. But scripture tells that we presently see only as a shadow, but then we shall see him “face to face”, in other words, as He truly is.

Or, it is not a literary device, but a literal description. I know you cannot accept it as you are limited to the esoteric philisophical description as put forth in the creed you follow.
Tell me, if you were to see God the Father as He truly is, if the Father were right in front of you right now, what would you see?

Yes, I am aware of this, but did anyone ever explain what exactly what it was that they saw? God can reveal Himself to anyone He wishes and to the degree that He wishes. But there is nowhere that any of those that “saw” God described Him as having a body of a man.

Yet the scriptures describe God as having a face, a hand, back parts, feet, AND, Jesus states that if we have seen Him, we have seen the Father.

 

[Stephen168]

I know I am a child of God.

And you seem to think your cat is a person. I guess Mormons think God(s), humans, and cats are all persons; therefore all have the same nature.

 

[KathleenGee]

I am thinking I need to pull out the Summa…erudite…philosophy…but not now.

 

[ComeHome2Rome]

If there were no successors of the original Apostles than why did St. Peter, the first Pope of the Catholic Church, as recorded in the book of the Acts of the Apostles in the New Testament Chapter 1 Verses 15-26 replace the Apostle Judas, who had died, with the new Apostle Matthias?

 

[flyonthewall]

If there were no successors of the original Apostles than why did St. Peter, the first Pope of the Catholic Church, as recorded in the book of the Acts of the Apostles in the New Testament Chapter 1 Verses 15-26 replace the Apostle Judas, who had died, with the new Apostle Matthias?

That is the thing now isn’t it…The Apostles started to appoint successors, as it evident by those two being selected, but that processed stopped, and the Apostles eventually died without any successors being appointed…only congregational leaders.

 

[flyonthewall]

And you seem to think your cat is a person. I guess Mormons think God(s), humans, and cats are all persons; therefore all have the same nature.

I did not say my cat is a person, but a separate being from me…that is a non-issue but I see you would like to create an issue with it.
I am a being, my wife is a being. Even though we are united in marraige, we are still two separate beings. I suppose we could call ourselves the Bi-une parent…there is one parent in two persons…

 

[Azurestone]

That is the thing now isn’t it…The Apostles started to appoint successors, as it evident by those two being selected, but that processed stopped, and the Apostles eventually died without any successors being appointed…only congregational leaders.

Really?

Not only in the various Patriarchal regions did the Apostles appoint bishops (successors to the Apostles), with these successions well documented in numerous sources, but the idea requires a belief that the Apostles didn’t make any effort to teach the faith to the flock.

The purpose of the Apostles was to spread and proclaim the faith, for they were men who knew Jesus themselves. The disciples of the Apostles received that faith and continued the Church with that faith and tradition that they were taught. We don’t have Apostles today, because the faith has been proclaimed and revealed. The Apostles had a different role in history. The successors of the Apostles are, therefore, Bishops. Bishops don’t reveal the faith, they maintain the faith.

 

[KathleenGee]

Again,

The Apostles knew Christ but didn’t have the motivation like the Mormon successors had to their leaders and founders?>…What happened to the Holy Spirit?

 

[Stephen168]

I did not say my cat is a person, but a separate being from me…

But you did say it.

I think the word “being” has been used differently than it’s common usage. I am a being. My dog is a being. My cat is a being. A being is simply a life form. Each person or living entity is a separate being.

You just made person and being the same; therefore you are saying your cat is a person.

that is a non-issue

It is THE issue. It is knowing the God of the Old and New Testament. It is knowing the difference between the God of Christianity and the God of Joseph Smith.

I am a being, my wife is a being. Even though we are united in marraige, we are still two separate beings. I suppose we could call ourselves the Bi-une parent…there is one parent in two persons…

No, if I understand the current desire for Mormons to claim the belief in one God, I would think you would call yourself the Parent-head; two separating persons, two separate beings with the same mission. It is for this reason that Mormons are polytheists; they believe in more than one being as God; more than one God. Christians are not polytheist; therefore Mormons are not Christian.

 

[KathleenGee]

I am going to also see if I can get a copy of the introductory geneology of Christ that was chanted at beginning of Mass…

 

[flyonthewall]

Really?

Not only in the various Patriarchal regions did the Apostles appoint bishops (successors to the Apostles), with these successions well documented in numerous sources, but the idea requires a belief that the Apostles didn’t make any effort to teach the faith to the flock.

The purpose of the Apostles was to spread and proclaim the faith, for they were men who knew Jesus themselves. The disciples of the Apostles received that faith and continued the Church with that faith and tradition that they were taught. We don’t have Apostles today, because the faith has been proclaimed and revealed. The Apostles had a different role in history. The successors of the Apostles are, therefore, Bishops. Bishops don’t reveal the faith, they maintain the faith.

Bishops are not successors of the Apostles. They were congregationall leaders appointed by the Apostles. They were not appointed to lead the whole church, just the congregation they were put in charge of.
I can understand why they were promoted from congretational leaders to successors to the Apostles…the need was there.