LDS, Creeds, and the Trinity

  • Thread starter Thread starter gazelam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LDSYep said:
So, you don’t believe that Christ couldn’t make things unclean at some other point? You would limit Him? You do realize that many looked at Peter and said the same thing about foods being made clean, except it being Peter saying it was clean.
Click to expand...
"There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man." (Mark 7:15 KJV)
 
LivingWaters7 said:
Ok. But I’m still not understanding why you used them to describe the LDS belief? Because I brought them up? That doesn’t make sense to me. When I and others brought them up, we gave the specific usage of each word in the context of orthodox Trinitarian belief. We gave the specific definition and usage of “distinct”, and we gave the specific definition and usage of “not separate/inseparable”. These definitions and usages, within the context of the orthodox Trinitarian doctrine, are not redundant, because they don’t mean the same thing in this context, as they are referring to two specific concepts.
Click to expand...
Nevertheless, that is the reason why I used both terms. I was not trying to describe the LDS belief, I was trying to better understand both LDS and Catholic definitions.
My understanding of the term “separate” is that the Father and Son are two persons who occupy different locations in space. Such as Jesus on earth and the Father in Heaven, which I gave as an example. Or, as Joseph Smith described “two Personages” (side by side).
LivingWaters7 said:
When I and others brought them up, we gave the specific usage of each word in the context of orthodox Trinitarian belief. We gave the specific definition and usage of “distinct”, and we gave the specific definition and usage of “not separate/inseparable”. These definitions and usages, within the context of the orthodox Trinitarian doctrine, are not redundant, because they don’t mean the same thing in this context, as they are referring to two specific concepts.
Further, in response to one of my posts, where I brought up that orthodox Trinitiarians certainly believe that Jesus prayed to the Father, not Himself, and that He ascended to the Father, not Himself, etc, you said “No, that means they are aware that they are “distinct.” That does not address the issue of being separate.”. So here, I asked you to clarify what exactly you mean, since clearly, in the LDS/everyday usage, the words mean the same thing, and, as you say above, they are “redundant”. So, how does it address the issue of being “distinct”, but not the issue of being, or not being, “separate”? What’s the difference that you’re implying here (I know the difference according to Trinitarians, as I have given many times, but I’d like to know what you’re thinking)?
Click to expand...
I did read, and thought that I understood your definition of the term “distinct”. Here is the definition you gave me in the preivious post:
LivingWaters7 said:
Again, “distinct” means that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are not each other. The Father is not the Son nor the Holy Ghost. The Son is not the Father nor the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost is not the Father nor the Son. They are really distinct from each other, as we see at Christ’s baptism in the Bible.
Click to expand...
When I gave my example for my of the definition of the term “separate” you applied, what seemed to me to be your definition of distinct: “They are not each other”:
LivingWaters7 said:
Orthodox Christians are fully aware that the Father is not the Son, and that Christ ascended to the Father, and not Himself. Orthodox Christians are fully aware that Jesus prayed to the Father, not Himself. You are using the word “separate” in a way that is not the same as how orthodox Christians use it in the Trinity doctrine.
Click to expand...
And that may be reason for my confusion, since you said, “they don’t mean the same thing in this context, as they are referring to two specific concepts.”
LivingWaters7 said:
Oh also, if you google “separate and distinct” lds, you’ll see that the phrase “separate and distinct beings” is used all the time in LDS thought (including GC addresses). I’ve seen this many times, hence why I’m asking this. It seems as if LDS are merely using two words that, in their view, mean the same thing, and is therefore redundant? Why use both words? Doesn’t make any sense.
Click to expand...
I don’t speak for the LDS church or for the GC speakers. However, I agree with the definition of “distinct” “They are not each other” which may be a variation from my definition of “separate” which was discussed previously.
 
armyross said:
Now let me give you a little History on the Mormon Church. In 1821 a young treasure seeker named Joseph Smith claimed to have had a vision from God. First he said it was from Jesus, then he said from Jesus and many angels, and then he said that it was from Jesus and God the Father. This is what they go by today. Mormons claim that Joseph Smith was visited by Jesus and God the father; but the Bible tells us that no man can look upon the face of God and live. He was also visited by a so-called angel named Moroni, who supposedly told him about a secret manuscript, written on golden plates, telling the true Gospel.

And that he was to translate this into the Book of Mormon. Let me truly begin here and tell you what they believe. They believe that long ago from an unknown god ,and goddess, was born a man named Elohim who was later born to human parents, and he lived his life and became a god like his father. He is also claimed to have fathered many children. Two of them in particular are named: one is Jesus, and the other is Lucifer.

They decided to put all of Elohim’s many children on a planet, and that the planet needed a savior the bid, for it came down to Jesus and to Lucifer. But Jesus won out because he had unselfish reasons. But then Lucifer revolted and turned many of Elohim’s children against him, and they were banished to the earth, never to have physical bodies. The people who were on the side of Jesus were very light skinned. And the people who remained neutral in the battle, their skinned turned black and this is the Mormon explanation for the black race. Mormons believe after that battle, the people were sent to Earth, and Elohim came to earth, and had sex with Mary, and that is how Jesus came to Earth.

They also believe that Jesus took three wives while on Earth: Mary, Martha, and Mary Magdalene. They also believe that Jesus fathered many Children during his time on Earth, and that Joseph Smith their founder was a direct descendant of Jesus. They believe that after a life of Mormonism and a Mormon marriage has taken place, that when they die they will become gods too. They also believe that they will have their own planet, and many goddess wives, and their job for eternity will be to populate the planets. I know how far fetched this all sounds, but these people actually believe this mess.

Mormonism is a sex cult. And we never would have guessed any of this from those sweet family-oriented Mormon commercials on TV. People please be aware of these dangerous occults. These people are lost and on there way to Hell. They desperately need Jesus.
Click to expand...
People of African descent were not allowed to receive the LDS priesthood until 1979. Hmmm about the time of the social justice movement? I think they felt the pressure.
 
LDSYep said:
So, you don’t believe that Christ couldn’t make things unclean at some other point? You would limit Him? You do realize that many looked at Peter and said the same thing about foods being made clean, except it being Peter saying it was clean.
Click to expand...
What about all of the other things I mentioned?
 
mtolympus said:
Nevertheless, that is the reason why I used both terms. I was not trying to describe the LDS belief, I was trying to better understand both LDS and Catholic definitions.
My understanding of the term “separate” is that the Father and Son are two persons who occupy different locations in space. Such as Jesus on earth and the Father in Heaven, which I gave as an example. Or, as Joseph Smith described “two Personages” (side by side).

I did read, and thought that I understood your definition of the term “distinct”. Here is the definition you gave me in the preivious post:

When I gave my example for my of the definition of the term “separate” you applied, what seemed to me to be your definition of distinct: “They are not each other”:

And that may be reason for my confusion, since you said, “they don’t mean the same thing in this context, as they are referring to two specific concepts.”

I don’t speak for the LDS church or for the GC speakers. However, I agree with the definition of “distinct” “They are not each other” which may be a variation from my definition of “separate” which was discussed previously.
Click to expand...
I love how you dodge soooo many posters and points…it shows you have no answers.

Much like js dodged and ran whenever he had the chance…even the day he was shot while trying to leave his friends behind and jump from a window…after using an illegal gun shooting wildly at people
 
TexanKnight said:
I love how you dodge soooo many posters and points…it shows you have no answers.
Click to expand...
Sorry Tex,
The ratio of Catholics to Mormon posters is about 20 to 1, and I don’t have time to respond to every poster. And I certainly don’t claim to have all the answers. As I have said before, I have no obligation to respond to every poster.
 
mtolympus said:
Sorry Tex,
The ratio of Catholics to Mormon posters is about 20 to 1, and I don’t have time to respond to every poster. And I certainly don’t claim to have all the answers. As I have said before, I have no obligation to respond to every poster.
Click to expand...
You sure don’t. And I do not expect you to. You have shown you have no answers and no rational basis for following your false prophet. The points regarding archeology, multiple versions, the false and failed prophesies, the changeable god, the conflicting teachings…have gone without rational responses.

And it is not your fault. None exist. That is the problem with following false prophets.

Be Blessed
 
SteveVH said:
"There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man." (Mark 7:15 KJV)
Click to expand...
We don’t believe that breaking the Word of Wisdom makes one unclean. We believe the WoW is there to help and protect us. Disobeying God though, that does make a person unclean.
 
LDSYep said:
We don’t believe that breaking the Word of Wisdom makes one unclean. We believe the WoW is there to help and protect us. Disobeying God though, that does make a person unclean.
Click to expand...
you mean like disobeying Christ when He said to use unleavened bread and wine?
 
LDSYep said:
I believe Joseph Smith and his successors in the LDS Church to be prophets of Christ, as such, the word that Joseph Smith gave came from Christ Himself.
Click to expand...
How is Joseph Smith a prophet… when Jesus Christ never came to the Americas? And if he did, as you claim, then you Mormons think Jesus failed TWICE.

I still don’t believe that the Book of Mormon is another testament of Jesus Christ. There’s no archaeological, or genetic proof. I would love to see the LDS Church dig up Cumorah, and find some bones of the “Nephites” etc.
 
Kanuckistani said:
How is Joseph Smith a prophet… when Jesus Christ never came to the Americas? And if he did, as you claim, then you Mormons think Jesus failed TWICE.

I still don’t believe that the Book of Mormon is another testament of Jesus Christ. There’s no archaeological, or genetic proof. I would love to see the LDS Church dig up Cumorah, and find some bones of the “Nephites” etc.
Click to expand...
The sad thing is, they NEED a Jesus who failed twice to justify their existence

Catholics have the TRUE Christ who is all-powerful
 
LDSYep said:
We don’t believe that breaking the Word of Wisdom makes one unclean. We believe the WoW is there to help and protect us. Disobeying God though, that does make a person unclean.
Click to expand...
But that’s the whole point. We were told in the scriptures by the verse that was referenced that God would not restrict what we ate or drank again. I have a hard time understanding how you can say that, but turn around and believe that someone that lives according to the gospel perfectly except they may occasionally have a glass of wine is not “clean” enough to enter the temple.

Wibbly-wobbly logic: what you eat does not make you unclean, but God said that certain things that you eat can make you unclean, so don’t eat anything that is unclean because then you’d be disobeying God. But it’s not because it’s unclean, it’s because God said not to. Trying to reason through LDS thought is painful sometimes.
 
This is a random question but applies also.

Does the Catholic church restrict members from taking communion in any instance?

I’m just curious.

The LDS church will advise members to not take the sacrament on certain issues.
 
TheIrishman said:
This is a random question but applies also.

Does the Catholic church restrict members from taking communion in any instance?
Click to expand...
Yes. Catholics may not receive communion if they have mortal sin on their souls.

Also, we are required to “fast” for one hour before receiving.
 
pablope said:
I suggest that you address what LW said with your own understanding.
Click to expand...
Originally Posted by mtolympus
“No, that means they are aware that they are “distinct.” That does not address the issue of being separate.”

I have addressed the issue of my above comment and LW7’s reply in Post #120. Thank you for your interest!🙂
 
mtolympus said:
Originally Posted by mtolympus
“No, that means they are aware that they are “distinct.” That does not address the issue of being separate.”

I have addressed the issue of my above comment and LW7’s reply in Post #120. Thank you for your interest!🙂
Click to expand...
define separate…do you mean separate like one version of his first vision saying only one “personage” was present? or the one saying two were present? or the saying angels only were present? or the one saying…(pretend I go one for a total of 9 or 10 versions…I do not have the energy js had. He could invent 9 or 10 versions, I have no energy to type them all)
 
I believe its their essense that make them unique. Are they one in the same? Sure. Can they be seperate when they want to be? Yes. But I dont believe they are 3 beings made seperate from each other. God is God, God is Christ & the Holy Spirit. As for the response from LDSYEP, God can be what He wants when He wants. Doesnt mean man can do the same. Why need a god if we are to become god?
 
kimg901 said:
I believe its their essense that make them unique. Are they one in the same? Sure. Can they be seperate when they want to be? Yes. But I dont believe they are 3 beings made seperate from each other. God is God, God is Christ & the Holy Spirit. As for the response from LDSYEP, God can be what He wants when He wants. Doesnt mean man can do the same. Why need a god if we are to become god?
Click to expand...
Actually they can never be separate and never are separate. Where the Father is, there also are the Son and the Holy Spirit. Where the Son is, there also are the Father and the Holy Spirit. Where the Holy Spirit is, there also are the Father and the Son. “If you have seen me you have seen the Father.”

The Persons of the Trinity are distinct only in relationship; Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Each of them is God, whole and entire. God, by his very nature cannot separate himself. A house divided cannot stand.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top