LDS: King Follett Sermon - WOW! WOW! WOW!

[hamspam]

*For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity. *Moroni 8:18

But Vinny, If you believe this to be true, then how can what Jesus Christ (who is God) said be wrong or changed by more “modern prophets”? If Jesus said there is only one God (as I quoted in an earlier post…a point which you never directly addressed), then how can Smith or anyone else come back and say that there are multiple Gods…that in fact we can be Gods? The two just don’t jive. Please help me understand the rationale behind this.
Thanks.

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

Hello HamSpam,I believe they use the verses in the old and new testement Gen:3:5,Ps:82:6,John:10:34,35,Acts:14:11,19:26,1st Cor:8:5 Let him give his explination,and see what you get. I do not believe in the Book of Mormon, love of Christ Nancy

 

[Ahimsa]

I originally askedart of God’s perfection is atemporality. How do you plan to become atemporal?Since God is unchangeable He is necessarily atemporal.

How do you plan to become atemporal?

The idea of God being absolutely unchangeable is a Greek notion. The Hebrews had a dynamic view of God, a God with whom one could wrestle, argue, and downright shout at.

 

[PaulDupre]

The idea of God being absolutely unchangeable is a Greek notion. The Hebrews had a dynamic view of God, a God with whom one could wrestle, argue, and downright shout at.

We Catholics believe in wrestling, arguing and shouting at God, too. God wants us to approach Him personally, not hold Him at a distance. But how can wrestling, arguing and shouting at God change Him? I should think it would change us. Which, of course, is what God wants to do.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

The idea of God being absolutely unchangeable is a Greek notion. The Hebrews had a dynamic view of God, a God with whom one could wrestle, argue, and downright shout at.

The point of those passages is to show God is personal with man, they use our language to help us finite creatures understand who God is. They are not to be confused with theological definitions, which guard truths such as the fact God does not change. He has nothing to ‘learn’, nothing to ‘grow old’, etc, etc.

 

[Ahimsa]

We Catholics believe in wrestling, arguing and shouting at God, too. God wants us to approach Him personally, not hold Him at a distance. But how can wrestling, arguing and shouting at God change Him? I should think it would change us. Which, of course, is what God wants to do.

The fact that you believe that God can in fact communicate with you, means that your idea of God is not the same as the Greek notion of an unchangeable absolute.

No need to be ashamed of that fact.

 

[PaulDupre]

The fact that you believe that God can in fact communicate with you, means that your idea of God is not the same as the Greek notion of an unchangeable absolute.

No need to be ashamed of that fact.

I never thought our idea of God was the same as the pagan Greek notion of gods. It is not. Our idea of God came from God’s revelation of Himself, not from Greek philosophers.

 

[Scriptorian]

Our idea of God came from God’s revelation of Himself, not from Greek philosophers.

Actually the Catholic idea of God was voted upon in a Roman council in Nicaea by Christian Bishops and Pagan leaders alike who were looking for a uniform description of God to be used by the new Roman religion adopted by Constantine. It was then “updated” to be even more confusing in the Athanasian Creed a few centuries later, which added even more Pagan ideology into the nature of God. God’s revelation of himself really had nothing to do with it.

The Nicene Creed has been the divine standard for Christianity’s idea of God ever since.

 

[1holycatholic]

Actually the Catholic idea of God was voted upon in a Roman council in Nicaea by Christian Bishops and Pagan leaders alike who were looking for a uniform description of God to be used by the new Roman religion adopted by Constantine. It was then “updated” to be even more confusing in the Athanasian Creed a few centuries later, which added even more Pagan ideology into the nature of God. God’s revelation of himself really had nothing to do with it.

The Nicene Creed has been the divine standard for Christianity’s idea of God ever since.

The writings of the Early Church Fathers disagree with your assessment. The First Council of Nicea specifically addressed the heresy of Arius.

Other Christological heresies, like the heresy of subordinationism had been refuted long before the First Council of Nicea.

 

[Scriptorian]

The writings of the Early Church Fathers disagree with your assessment. The First Council of Nicea specifically addressed the heresy of Arius.

Other Christological heresies, like the heresy of subordinationism had been refuted long before the First Council of Nicea.

And what of the second council of Nicaea and subsequent “councils”? Were so many councils necessary to establish such a fundamental principle of Christianity? The very fact that a debate was necessary to determine whether Jesus Christ was an eternal being clearly showed the sheer depth of the apostasy the church was already in. If one priest could cause a rift of such proportion to call the bulk of so-called Christian authority together to debate his ideas, there has to be something wrong with that picture.

What about the successor to Peter? Where was the apostle that held the authority to bind and loose on earth and in heaven? Surely, that man could simply receive the Word from God and present it to the people. Peter did it when he saw his vision concerning the Gentiles. Why not Peter’s successor? If the chain of authority is as unbroken as so many here claim, why was it not present at that pivotal moment in the church’s history?

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

And what of the second council of Nicaea and subsequent “councils”? Were so many councils necessary to establish such a fundamental principle of Christianity? The very fact that a debate was necessary to determine whether Jesus Christ was an eternal being clearly showed the sheer depth of the apostasy the church was already in. If one priest could cause a rift of such proportion to call the bulk of so-called Christian authority together to debate his ideas, there has to be something wrong with that picture.

What about the successor to Peter? Where was the apostle that held the authority to bind and loose on earth and in heaven? Surely, that man could simply receive the Word from God and present it to the people. Peter did it when he saw his vision concerning the Gentiles. Why not Peter’s successor? If the chain of authority is as unbroken as so many here claim, why was it not present at that pivotal moment in the church’s history?

the same reason that it could not today be rid of all the heresy that would interfere with mans free will.

 

[Scriptorian]

the same reason that it could not today be rid of all the heresy that would interfere with mans free will.

This was not just “some heresy.” This was the bedrock foundation of all Christendom. The nature and mission of God and his son Jesus Christ should have been not only the most fundamental teaching of the early church, but the universal bond between all Christians. How they could they be Christian if they did not understand who Christ is?

This “heresy” should have been as easy to refute as the worshiping of statues, the selling of indulgences, and the slaughter of men, women, and children for political gain. Christ did not lie when he said there would be wolves in sheeps clothing among you. You have had some doozies over the years… and these were the Holy Successors to Saint Peter?

 

[Catholic_Dude]

This was not just “some heresy.” This was the bedrock foundation of all Christendom. The nature and mission of God and his son Jesus Christ should have been not only the most fundamental teaching of the early church, but the universal bond between all Christians. How they could they be Christian if they did not understand who Christ is?

This “heresy” should have been as easy to refute as the worshiping of statues, the selling of indulgences, and the slaughter of men, women, and children for political gain. Christ did not lie when he said there would be wolves in sheeps clothing among you. You have had some doozies over the years… and these were the Holy Successors to Saint Peter?

It’s very easy to attack the Early Church teachings when you don’t have to answer for your own. The very first page of this whole discussion was designed specifically to stop and address that. What we find is so twisted that LDS for quite a while in this discussion were desperate to paint is as not official teachings. The notion of God once being man and the progressing to godhood is straight out of pagan theology. The Trinity on the otherhand was Divine Revelation, and people throughout history have sought to oversimplify it and thus bring out heresies. Joseph Smith was no exception in regards to this false approach to theology: if the human mind cannot grasp it, it must be false.

 

[RebeccaJ]

And what of the second council of Nicaea and subsequent “councils”? Were so many councils necessary to establish such a fundamental principle of Christianity?

You know the mormon belief, that God guides His Church in this age? Guess what, we hold that belief too. There is One Faith, over time, people come along and develop ideas that are contrary to this One Faith. The councils address these contrary ideas, firm the faithful in right belief.

The Arian heresy arose, it was not the original. The council addressed the error. The Church addresses all errors that come to Her attention. JS is just more, in a long line.

The very fact that a debate was necessary to determine whether Jesus Christ was an eternal being clearly showed the sheer depth of the apostasy the church was already in.

Care to back that up with some facts? The Western church, in Rome, had declared Arian a heretic and excommunicated him, long before the council at Nicaea. He moved to the East, and continue to spread his heresy. All Constatine cared is that there be peace in his domain. The majority of the bishops as Nicaea were from the Eastern Church, there was not much of a debate other than Arius and a handful of his supporters. Less than 5 men. The rest of the bishops voted his heresy as just that, a heresy.

If one priest could cause a rift of such proportion to call the bulk of so-called Christian authority together to debate his ideas, there has to be something wrong with that picture.

He caused no such rift. He caused a lot of people to leave truth for heresy, but he did not cause a rift.

What about the successor to Peter? Where was the apostle that held the authority to bind and loose on earth and in heaven? Surely, that man could simply receive the Word from God and present it to the people.

The Western Church, where the Pope recides in Rome, did declare Arius a heretic and excommunicated him. He warned the Eastern bishops of his activities.

Peter did it when he saw his vision concerning the Gentiles. Why not Peter’s successor? If the chain of authority is as unbroken as so many here claim, why was it not present at that pivotal moment in the church’s history?

All the church, East and West, confirmed the creed developed as Nicaea as the belief of all Christians from the beginning. It is fantasy to believe that something else was believed by everyone, and everyone changed their mind for Constantine. Fantasy, and absolutely no historical backing whatsoever.

God did indeed guid His Church through this crucial period. Ridding her of a heresy. Solidify the Faithful in right belief. Continuing the apostolic teachings.

It is you who chooses to see victory as defeat.

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

The idea of God being absolutely unchangeable is a Greek notion. The Hebrews had a dynamic view of God, a God with whom one could wrestle, argue, and downright shout at.

Ahimsa,What kind of a Catholic is that? I never herd of it before,is it a new Catholic beleif? Where can i find information to see what you beleive and when you started? thank You Nancy Love of Christ

 

[1holycatholic]

Ahimsa,What kind of a Catholic is that? I never herd of it before,is it a new Catholic beleif? Where can i find information to see what you beleive and when you started? thank You Nancy Love of Christ

It’s not Catholic.

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

The point of those passages is to show God is personal with man, they use our language to help us finite creatures understand who God is. They are not to be confused with theological definitions, which guard truths such as the fact God does not change. He has nothing to ‘learn’, nothing to ‘grow old’, etc, etc.

hello i just wanted to say that God can change (his mind if he chooses to) And often does.Look at 2Chronicals chapter 7 and he also either is just old or grew old because he is discribed alot as of having white hair and eyes as coal Rev:1:12-18Why do you think God so enjoys us worms? because he does learn from us alot. That is why he came here then he realy got to knew how it felt to die and hurt in the physical,if he hadent come to earth he would have never have known how realy sorrowful this earth realy is like and he cried in Gesemnie,he loved those people Lasurus,John,Peter,ETC it must have been hard to leave them behind. He does direct our paths but we are free willed and we can dissapoint him for he was sorry he ever created man he flooded the earth by water,then becuse of his love and mercy he said he would never do that again. Love of Christ Nancy

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

This was not just “some heresy.” This was the bedrock foundation of all Christendom. The nature and mission of God and his son Jesus Christ should have been not only the most fundamental teaching of the early church, but the universal bond between all Christians. How they could they be Christian if they did not understand who Christ is?

very easy they were men and as such comprehension of the divine is not completely possible. Also as this being one of the founding points of Christianity and so very complicated to understand for the humana mind of one God in three perosn it it really that amazing that false teaching on it arose and had to be dealt with over and over again? The fact is as these heresies arose they were dealt with.

This “heresy” should have been as easy to refute as the worshiping of statues, the selling of indulgences, and the slaughter of men, women, and children for political gain. Christ did not lie when he said there would be wolves in sheeps clothing among you. You have had some doozies over the years… and these were the Holy Successors to Saint Peter?

yes we have had some real doozies to use your word as Pope over the last 2000 years. To their shame and that of the church. But God had his prpose for them at that time as well. Let us not forget that those that lead Gods chosen people were not alsways the most righteous of people, but God used them to a purpose. Even St Peter made mistakes. Non but the Lord Christ himself has been perfect. So why should we expect that those leading the church from time to time may not make errors. the Only thing we know it that the Church itself can not error. The Pope or any Bishop for that matter is not above making a mistake even really big mistakes. And the only time the Pope is infallible is when specking from the "Chair of St Peter ", that is on matter of Dogmatic truth. To my knowledge this has only happened twice in all of Church History.

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

very easy they were men and as such comprehension of the divine is not completely possible. Also as this being one of the founding points of Christianity and so very complicated to understand for the humana mind of one God in three perosn it it really that amazing that false teaching on it arose and had to be dealt with over and over again? The fact is as these heresies arose they were dealt with.

yes we have had some real doozies to use your word as Pope over the last 2000 years. To their shame and that of the church. But God had his prpose for them at that time as well. Let us not forget that those that lead Gods chosen people were not alsways the most righteous of people, but God used them to a purpose. Even St Peter made mistakes. Non but the Lord Christ himself has been perfect. So why should we expect that those leading the church from time to time may not make errors. the Only thing we know it that the Church itself can not error. The Pope or any Bishop for that matter is not above making a mistake even really big mistakes. And the only time the Pope is infallible is when specking from the "Chair of St Peter ", that is on matter of Dogmatic truth. To my knowledge this has only happened twice in all of Church History.

:DWOW! that's the first time i ever herd a Catholic admit that the leaders of the church can be wrong and that is true. I left the church because i knew that they were wrong but nothing could be said back then. I just came back last week and i am glad i did there is nothing out there and tooooo many other churches that it is so confusing. I should have never left the church then i wouldn't have so much to get caught up with. I know some LDS and they are nice people but they would gain alot if they would leave the lier Smith out,you can't join unless you admit Smith was a prophet and I would never it's all a myth.I know where their church comes from REV:2:8-10 Love of Christ Nancy

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

WOW! that’s the first time i ever herd a Catholic admit that the leaders of the church can be wrong and that is true. I left the church because i knew that they were wrong but nothing could be said back then. I just came back last week and i am glad i did there is nothing out there and tooooo many other churches that it is so confusing. I should have never left the church then i wouldn’t have so much to get caught up with. I know some LDS and they are nice people but they would gain alot if they would leave the lier Smith out,you can’t join unless you admit Smith was a prophet and I would never it’s all a myth.I know where their church comes from REV:2:8-10 Love of Christ Nancy

God Bless it is great that you have come home. I have no proplem with see the Priest and Bishops as men who can and do make mistakes just like the rest of us.

If we look at the way that things have gone over the just the last 40 years yo can see that. I am not saying that VII was an error I am saying that A lot of mistakes have been made in bringing the Church in line with VII. IM going to stop there cause i say things that sound good in my head but when they leave there are not exactly what i meant.