LDS, Creeds, and the Trinity

[LivingWaters7]

I don’t know if I’ve ever heard an LDS defense of that verse. I’d be very interested in hearing it, if any of our LDS posters have the time

Well the common LDS response to that would be that the gospel as understood by the LDS faith, and as contained in the Book of Mormon isn’t a different gospel than that preached in the Bible, but is the same gospel, even the gospel as received since the days of Adam (they believe that the gospel of Jesus Christ was revealed to Adam, and since then has undergone periods of apostasy and subsequent restoration). So, it wouldn’t be an issue of an angel delivering the gospel or a book purporting to contain the gospel (I’m sure you know that Mormons frequently refer to Revelation 14:6, where we read of an angel flying in the air, having the everlasting gospel to preach), but whether that gospel is the same as that discussed in those verses. Mormons believe they are one and the same.

 

[TexanKnight]

But there is a test that proves the Book of Mormon:

1 John 4:1-3

1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

The angel Moroni states that Christ did come in the flesh. In the first vision God presents Christ in his resurrected form.

depends on which versions of his stories you accept. Glad my faith does not have to be based on which version of a story I want to believe on any given day

 

[Porknpie]

There is an enormous difference between the two. In a Trinitarin understanding it is not possible for The Son and Satan to be brothers, there is no place for a heavenly mother. That our beliefs are close in this area is really nothing short of a lie perpetrated by LDS apologists and missionaries (sorry) to lull non-LDS into accepting Mormonism as just another Christian religion like the Methodists, or Lutherans or Baptists.

Z -

The theory of non-contradiction would hold that one thing can not be two things at the same time.

There is one God - Christianity
There are multiple Gods - LDS (whether it be 2, 3 or a billion)

There are enormous differences between the two statements above.

One is the essence of belief in Christianity and one is not.

 

[Porknpie]

But there is a test that proves the Book of Mormon:

1 John 4:1-3

1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

The angel Moroni states that Christ did come in the flesh. In the first vision God presents Christ in his resurrected form.

So how did JS try the Spirit Maroni? How do you know that Maroni was not a false spirit? And how do you know that there were ever a spirit named Maroni, that JS didn’t just make it up?

 

[TexanKnight]

So how did JS try the Spirit Maroni? How do you know that Maroni was not a false spirit? And how do you know that there were ever a spirit named Maroni, that JS didn’t just make it up?

better yet, how did Moroni appear in all that brightness and wake no one else up in that small house?

I have been in that house. Had JS been visited by an angel, everyone in that house would have known

 

[Phntm]

But there is a test that proves the Book of Mormon:

1 John 4:1-3

1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

The angel Moroni states that Christ did come in the flesh. In the first vision God presents Christ in his resurrected form.

What about the context of this quote? Could it relate to false prophets of the era? Can it be that simple, just claim one thing and your a good spirit? Would it not be pretty easy to claim this one right point? Taken literally, does it not show just one simple test? Or could it be shorthand for those that do not teach the Gospel as given by the Apostles? How were the LDS spirits tested?

 

[mtolympus]

God is One being, of three persons. We accept this because this is what God has revealed about Himself. Scripture (the Bible) tells us there is One God, and no other. God has revealed Himself as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Being and substance are ideas that come from metaphysics. Aristotle is a good place to begin a study on their meanings.

Why would Greek philosophy influence the definition of the Trinity?

 

[TexanKnight]

Why would Greek philosophy influence the definition of the Trinity?

why would a Mormon read “study” and see “influence”?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Why would Greek philosophy influence the definition of the Trinity?

Philosophy and theology are tools used for describing what is believed. Studying philosophy helps understand the tool and how it is used.

Influence on belief is not how the tool is used. That idea comes across as an irrational fear.

As an analogy, I can use ruler to measure and describe a shape of an object. Doing so does not change the object. To see a ruler in a persons hand, and fear an object is influenced into a new shape by the person or tool, is irrational.

The object of faith is described using philosophy. Philosophy, the tool, does not change (influence) the object.

Hope that helps.

 

[SpeSalvi]

Philosophy and theology are tools used for describing what is believed. Studying philosophy helps understand the tool and how it is used.

Influence on belief is not how the tool is used. That idea comes across as an irrational fear.

As an analogy, I can use ruler to measure and describe a shape of an object. Doing so does not change the object. To see a ruler in a persons hand, and fear an object is influenced into a new shape by the person or tool, is irrational.

The object of faith is described using philosophy. Philosophy, the tool, does not change (influence) the object.

Hope that helps.

Fantastic analogy- I may steal it some time!

 

[SteveVH]

What about the context of this quote? Could it relate to false prophets of the era? Can it be that simple, just claim one thing and your a good spirit? Would it not be pretty easy to claim this one right point? Taken literally, does it not show just one simple test? Or could it be shorthand for those that do not teach the Gospel as given by the Apostles? How were the LDS spirits tested?

This is what happens when one separates the Bible from the faith that gave birth to it. What is worse is the belief that where Scripture contradicts Mormon belief, it is Scripture that has been corrupted. Its called looking at Scripture through the lens of preconceived notions rather than seeking the truth and conforming one’s belief to that truth.

 

[LivingWaters7]

Why would Greek philosophy influence the definition of the Trinity?

It’s merely a tool to help explain concepts. Also, doesn’t the LDS Church teach that truths can be found outside of it, and that we’re to bring those truths with us? Would elements of Greek philosophy be excluded from that?

I find it similar to the usage/influence of Freemasonry in the Endowment.

Also, I’m still curious to your reasoning behind this that I asked earlier: "Also, I’m curious as to why you say “they were separate and distinct”. Why do you use both words? "

 

[pablope]

But there is a test that proves the Book of Mormon:

1 John 4:1-3

1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

The angel Moroni states that Christ did come in the flesh. In the first vision God presents Christ in his resurrected form.

But you stopped several verses too soon…go on reading and get to v 6:

4 Little children, you are from God and have overcome them, for he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world.
5 They are from the world; therefore they speak from the world, and the world listens to them.

6 We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error.

V6 gives a way to know who is truth and who is not…obedience to an apostle, and their successors.

 

[mtolympus]

Also, I’m still curious to your reasoning behind this that I asked earlier: "Also, I’m curious as to why you say “they were separate and distinct”. Why do you use both words? "

I am not sure what my point was at the time. But it seems to me that the main difference between Mormon and Catholic understanding of the Father and Jesus is that Mormons believe they are “separate and distinct” and Catholics believe they are “distinct but not separate.”

Steve’s post helped me understand the Catholic definition of the term “being.” But I still don’t understand how the term would be used, or why it is needed, in understanding the various scriptural interactions or relationship between the Father and the Son. I know that the Greek phrase “one subtance with the Father.” was used in the Nicene Creed. Was that to describe the Trinity as One God/Three Persons “distinct but not separate”?

I believe it is OK to think outside book (scriptures) as long as the concluding doctrine doesn’t conflict with the teachings of the apostles.

 

[SteveVH]

I am not sure what my point was at the time. But it seems to me that the main difference between Mormon and Catholic understanding of the Father and Jesus is that Mormons believe they are “separate and distinct” and Catholics believe they are “distinct but not separate.”

Steve’s post helped me understand the Catholic definition of the term “being.” But I still don’t understand how the term would be used, or why it is needed, in understanding the various scriptural interactions or relationship between the Father and the Son. I know that the Greek phrase “one subtance with the Father.” was used in the Nicene Creed. Was that to describe the Trinity as One God/Three Persons “distinct but not separate”?

I believe it is OK to think outside book (scriptures) as long as the concluding doctrine doesn’t conflict with the teachings of the apostles.

What is important to understand is that the Trinity is a divinely revealed truth. It is not a concept that originated with mankind. The Church, however, must do its best to define it within the limits human language and human intellect. In order to do this, some words, such “being” and “person” were defined using philosophical terms and concepts.

So, we start with the truth that has been revealed concerning the nature of God. We know that there is only one God. That is a divinely revealed truth. We also know that the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God. This is also a divinely revealed truth. How can this be? Yet because it is divinely revealed we must believe it. And in order to believe it we must define exactly what it is that we do believe. Considering the truth that has been given to us we must conclude there is one God and only one God, and that He is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. They cannot be separate because they are one. They must be distinct because they are Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

In short, we are using human language to describe a divine mystery and philosophical language helps us do that.

A problem that I see with Mormon theology is that the entire idea of God as an exalted human being precludes one from realizing that God is "wholly other’. He is the only divine Being, and is eternally Father, Son and Holy Spirit. He is the Creator and everything else is his creation, including angels and humans. He is eternally beyond our ability to grasp.

“‘For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,’ declares the Lord. ‘As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.’" (Isaiah 55:8-9)

 

[Kanuckistani]

But there is a test that proves the Book of Mormon:

1 John 4:1-3

1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

The angel Moroni states that Christ did come in the flesh. In the first vision God presents Christ in his resurrected form.

Could you please respond to my post, about Galatians. I would like to hear your defence of that verse. Or any Mormon for that matter.

 

[LivingWaters7]

I am not sure what my point was at the time. But it seems to me that the main difference between Mormon and Catholic understanding of the Father and Jesus is that Mormons believe they are “separate and distinct” and Catholics believe they are “distinct but not separate.”

Ok. I’m still curious as to why you used both words, especially since above you make a distinction (ha) between Mormon “separate and distinct”, and Catholic “distinct but not separate”. Can you clarify what you mean by that? I provided an extrapolation of what the Catholic phrase means, so what does the Mormon one mean?

I only ask this because quite frequently in LDS writings on the Godhead, I see “separate and distinct” mentioned, and I’ve always wondered why they use both words, and when I saw you use that same phrase, I wondered if you could provide reasoning for using both words.

Steve’s post helped me understand the Catholic definition of the term “being.” But I still don’t understand how the term would be used, or why it is needed, in understanding the various scriptural interactions or relationship between the Father and the Son. I know that the Greek phrase “one subtance with the Father.” was used in the Nicene Creed. Was that to describe the Trinity as One God/Three Persons “distinct but not separate”?

Well don’t LDS say that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three distinct and separate “beings”? It seems as if both groups use the word. The issue is on how it is being used. The LDS “three beings” cannot be compared to the orthodox “one being”, because there isn’t a mutual understanding or same usage of the words “person” and “being” between both groups.

For Trinitarians, “being” is merely an English word that is the translation of the Greek “ousia”. Ousia is frequently also given as “essence” or “substance” or “nature”. It, along with the “of one substance with the Father”, or “consubstantial with the Father” of the NIcene Creed, merely demonstrates that the Son (and the Holy Ghost) is Divine just like the Father. He is God. The Nicene Creed countered the Arian heresy that the Son was created by the Father. Saying He is of the same substance demonstrated that the Son was not a creature, a creation of the Father, but, like the Father, has eternally existed.

Distinct but not separate could be inferred from that, but I don’t think that was the explicit reason why those words were used. “Distinct but not separate” means, as I mentioned, that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are not each other, and they have eternally existed together as one God, the Trinity. There never was a time when the Trinity did not exist, so they are inseparable (you can’t have one Person without the others, since they’re essentially an eternal Family).

I believe it is OK to think outside book (scriptures) as long as the concluding doctrine doesn’t conflict with the teachings of the apostles.

Yes. The problem I see though is whether the Trinity existed as such for all eternity, as the orthodox Christians believe, or whether the Godhead had a point of beginning, after the Father and Mother spiritually begot the Son, the Holy Ghost (and all of us), and the three then entered into a covenant relationship. The issue then is which one is conflicting with the teachings of the apostles.

 

[LivingWaters7]

Could you please respond to my post, about Galatians. I would like to hear your defence of that verse. Or any Mormon for that matter.

I provided the typical LDS view of that scripture in this post.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10883439&postcount=41

 

[mtolympus]

What is important to understand is that the Trinity is a divinely revealed truth. It is not a concept that originated with mankind. The Church, however, must do its best to define it within the limits human language and human intellect. In order to do this, some words, such “being” and “person” were defined using philosophical terms and concepts.

So, we start with the truth that has been revealed concerning the nature of God.

I assume you are speaking of what we can read in the Bible.

We know that there is only one God. That is a divinely revealed truth. We also know that the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God. This is also a divinely revealed truth. How can this be? Yet because it is divinely revealed we must believe it. And in order to believe it we must define exactly what it is that we do believe. Considering the truth that has been given to us we must conclude there is one God and only one God, and that He is Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
They cannot be separate because they are one.

How can you say they are not separate when it has been revealed that they are separate? The Bible says they are one, but it also says they are separate! Just one example is when Jesus on earth prays to His Father who is in heaven:

“These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee.” (John 17:1) Other examples can be found in the Bible.

They must be distinct because they are Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

We agree on this point!

In short, we are using human language to describe a divine mystery and philosophical language helps us do that.

A problem that I see with Mormon theology is that the entire idea of God as an exalted human being precludes one from realizing that God is "wholly other’. He is the only divine Being, and is eternally Father, Son and Holy Spirit. He is the Creator and everything else is his creation, including angels and humans. He is eternally beyond our ability to grasp.

Jesus prayed that we might know God and Jesus Christ:

“And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” (John 17:3)

“‘For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,’ declares the Lord. ‘As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.’" (Isaiah 55:8-9)

If so, perhaps we should rely on his thoughts more fully to understand Him as Paul did:

“And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.” (1 Corinthians 2:4-5)

 

[RebeccaJ]

Jesus prayed that we might know God and Jesus Christ:

“And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” (John 17:3)

To get a clear understanding, one should always look at the context. Who is the audience? What is the occasion? The audience is the Father, the occasion is Jesus looking forward to the Cross; His death, resurrection and ascension. Knowing He was going to be leaving the company of His friends.

The second thing is, this particular verse is considered to have been added by the author of John, or perhaps even later, as nowhere in the NT does Jesus ever refer to Himself as “Jesus Christ”. He always references Himself in relationship to the Father as Son. Such as "Son of Man, “Son of God”, “My Father”, etc.When referencing Himself scripture always uses first person pronoun, “I”, “Me”, “My”.

So, this verse is considered a third person addition. A statement of belief, from an author, which is in harmony with first person statements of Jesus, such as later in John 20:

21 [Jesus] said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.”

John 17:3 Now this is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ.

---

Both express the teaching of Jesus and the Apostle’s that Jesus is sent by the Father. Verse 3 is not a first person expression with ontological implications.

If we then continue in John 17 to verse 6:

“I revealed your name to those whom you gave me out of the world. They belonged to you, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word."

Which is seen in light of an earlier point in the Gospel of John, chapter 8, where Jesus reveals the name of God that was given to Moses, “I AM”, several times and ultimately references the name of God to Himself.

58 "Jesus said to them,“Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I AM.”

Further, if we look to what John 17:6 again:

“I revealed your name to those whom you gave me out of the world. They belonged to you, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word."

Jesus reveals to the world God’s name, and in so doing reveals Himself as the Word of God. There is distinction between the Father and Son, as they are distinct Person’s. There is One God, Who Jesus reveals as “I AM”, saying that He is the name of God (I AM) revealed. When looked at in light of John 1:1,

In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God.

We undertand that Jesus Himself is God’s Word, revealed.

One’s word is not something that exists separate from you. If you give your word about something, you are giving something of yourself, something that when the person who has received your word, views it is distinct from you “I have your word”, but not separate from you (you are held to your word). You are not your word and your word is not you, but when you give your word, you are giving a part of yourself.

---

As Christians, we begin our understanding of God with Jesus Christ, as He reveals Himself, and the Father. The Father and Son reveal the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit testifies of Jesus Christ. Put in the context of the Old Testament, which teaches us there is One God, we then accept by Faith what God has revealed about Himself. God is three Persons. God is One. This is what scripture teaches.

Scripture does NOT teach that God is three separate Gods, among a council of who knows how many Gods. That belief is a result of human imagination and conscience formed outside of Apostolic teaching.