Milk before meat, the mormons may have gotten it right!

[po18guy]

What a horribly offensive twisting of Scripture.

Paul is NOT telling us to lie or conceal. He is likening the new Christian to a small child, who must be nourished along the way to spiritual maturity. It’s so straightforward; a person really has to mangle it to get to the Mormon interpretation.

Mormons do not sin in using lies or deception in promotion of the LDS organization. This tells me everything I need to know.

The OP and at least one other are likely Mormon missionaries seeking converts. Both claim to be Catholic/Mormon. This is not only impossible, but stands as an example of their deception.

Christ’s peace.

 

[adstrinity]

They don’t mix it up. Your confusion stems from the fact that the Bible does not teach the Trinity. That is your own inventions—and I agree, it is confusing.

zerinus

What does the Holy Spirit do and what is the relationship between Him and the Father and the Son? Do the Mormons view the Holy Spirit as gendered or as an it?

 

[CHRISTINE77]

They don’t mix it up. Your confusion stems from the fact that the Bible does not teach the Trinity. That is your own inventions—and I agree, it is confusing.

zerinus

Then what was Tsukuki talking about when he illustrated that Mormons believe in the Trinity too?

“And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.” - 2 Nephi 31:21

“Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen.” - D&C 20:28

 

[scipio337]

Actually it does, take a look:

zerinus.blogspot.com/2007/07/deification-of-man-and-plurality-of.html
zerinus.blogspot.com/2007/07/more-on-deification-in-early.html

zerinus

“G*d of gods” is a mark of “plurality of gods” and the oft ridiculed “council of the gods”?

Too funny.

Again: more proof that there was no “Great Apostacy”. Wouldn’t such passages that could be interpreted to find those “plain and simple truths” that were removed also be removed from Canon.

A poor apostacy, indeed.

Occam’s Razor, dude.

 

[zerinus]

What does the Holy Spirit do and what is the relationship between Him and the Father and the Son? Do the Mormons view the Holy Spirit as gendered or as an it?

We believe that the Godhead, or what you call the Trinity, consists of three distinct and separate personages (i.e. in human form); they are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. The Father and the Son have physical bodies of flesh and bones; the Holy Ghost is a personage of Spirit, and does not have a physical body of flesh and bones.

We also believe that there is a Spirit that proceeds or emanates from the presence of God by means of which God exercises His power and dominion in the universe. In the scriptures the expressions “Holy Ghost,” Holy Spirit,” “Spirit of God,” etc. are often used to refer to either of these two entities. But to answer your question, we believe that the third member of the Godhead, the Holy Ghost, is a distinct personage like the other two; with the difference that He is a Spirit being, and does not have a physical body like them.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

Then what was Tsukuki talking about when he illustrated that Mormons believe in the Trinity too?

“And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.” - 2 Nephi 31:21

“Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen.” - D&C 20:28

We beleive in a Trinity of three distinct and separate beings. They are one in the same sense that the Bible says they are one—one in mind, purpose, and will—not one in substance.

zerinus

 

[CHRISTINE77]

We beleive in a Trinity of three distinct and separate beings. They are one in the same sense that the Bible says they are one—one in mind, purpose, and will—not one in substance.

zerinus

then why do those two quotes say they are ONE God?

 

[zerinus]

then why do those two quotes say they are ONE God?

That is an indication of the perfect unity that exists among them, as Jesus said of His disciples in His final prayer:

John 17:

11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

---

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one;

zerinus

 

[PaulDupre]

then why do those two quotes say they are ONE God?

Because Joseph Smith did not develop his polytheistic theology until several years after these were written.

Also, the Mormons like to have statements like this to fall back on so that they can deny their polytheism to unsuspecting potential converts. Many Mormon converts report never knowing about the multiple LDS ‘gods’ until well after they were baptized into the cult.

 

[zerinus]

What do you think it means to be one in substance?

I haven’t a clue. I wish I knew. That is what they beleive in. They say the Trinity is three persons in one substance (one God). I don’t think they know what that means any more than I do. It is a meaningless belief.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

The person who coined the term must have had something in mind. Perhaps consulting some of the literature of the period can help deduce what pattern of neurons were firing when he or she said it.

That is a pointless exercise. I has already been discussed countless thimes. The explanations offered are as absurd as the thing being explained. It is wrong; so who cares what “pattern of neurons” trigered it off?

zerinus

 

[mfbukowski]

What do you think it means to be one in substance?

You guys got it right. It really doesn’t mean anything.

It is supposed to mean the “stuff” you can’t see that is “reality”. All we really see on this theory is “appearances”

Aquinas argued for example in his theory of tranSUBSTANtiation that the underlying substance of flesh and blood took on the appearance of bread and wine. Just like turning lead into gold for the alchemists.

But no philosopher has taken anything like this seriously for at least 800 years. That’s the “hocus pocus” I was talking about earlier. It is a corruption of “hoc est enim corpus meum” or “for this is my body”

So supposedly the trinity is composed of three persons with the same substance. I think they say 3 whos with one what or something like that. Good luck trying to figure it out.

 

[ralphinal]

You guys got it right. It really doesn’t mean anything.

Read the Nicean Creed. And the Athenasian. Being of One Substance has two important meanings: they are all God and they are all One.

It is supposed to mean the “stuff” you can’t see that is “reality”. All we really see on this theory is “appearances”

Yep.

Aquinas argued for example in his theory of tranSUBSTANtiation that the underlying substance of flesh and blood took on the appearance of bread and wine. Just like turning lead into gold for the alchemists.

That is so wrong it is insulting to anyone who accepts the Real Presence, which is a majority of the Christian world, including the Apostles and Jesus.

But no philosopher has taken anything like this seriously for at least 800 years. That’s the “hocus pocus” I was talking about earlier. It is a corruption of “hoc est enim corpus meum” or “for this is my body”

Please prove this idea that no philosopher has taken it seriously for 800 years. You are WAY out of line of that. It is not hocus pocus. IT is called an act of God (miracle).

So supposedly the trinity is composed of three persons with the same substance. I think they say 3 whos with one what or something like that. Good luck trying to figure it out.

Is it God’s fault that men cannot understand it? Is it God’s fault that heretical faiths have denied it?

I do not mind the discussion. I am bothered by the insults and overall tone of disdain I read into your statements. If you cannot respect or understand my faith, please do not be a jerk about it

 

[scipio337]

You guys got it right. It really doesn’t mean anything.

It is supposed to mean the “stuff” you can’t see that is “reality”. All we really see on this theory is “appearances”

Aquinas argued for example in his theory of tranSUBSTANtiation that the underlying substance of flesh and blood took on the appearance of bread and wine. Just like turning lead into gold for the alchemists.

But no philosopher has taken anything like this seriously for at least 800 years. That’s the “hocus pocus” I was talking about earlier. It is a corruption of “hoc est enim corpus meum” or “for this is my body”

So supposedly the trinity is composed of three persons with the same substance. I think they say 3 whos with one what or something like that. Good luck trying to figure it out.

Seriously!

You follow a prophet who “translated” (or transliterated) a book of golden plates (that conveniently disappeared) by looking at a rock in a hat.

Do you really want to go with the “hocus pocus” angle? Ousia has been a philosophical for a millenia +.

 

[Jerusha]

So supposedly the trinity is composed of three persons with the same substance. I think they say 3 whos with one what or something like that. Good luck trying to figure it out.

The three Nephites (3 Nephi 28) sound pretty well deified (sorry, cut and paste doesn’t work here). scriptures.lds.org/en/3_ne?28
Wonder if they are the source of the confusion?

 

[majick275]

I haven’t a clue. I wish I knew. That is what they beleive in. They say the Trinity is three persons in one substance (one God). I don’t think they know what that means any more than I do. It is a meaningless belief.

zerinus

and yet the Lectures on Faith (which zerinus has endorsed as correct LDS doctrine) which were previously canonnized and are still referenced in the canon as good for instruction tells us this as well. lecture 5 (centerplace.org/hs/dc/lec-005.htm) states that there are only 2 personages in the Godhead, (the Father and the Son) but that they have a “shared mind” which is the holy spirit. sounds like a shared substance to me. interestingly, it also states that the Father is a being of spirit and only the son has a physical body and THAT is the reason he is called the son. this seems to counter the eternal progression doctrine of literal offspring. you can obviously see why this was pulled from the canon (without a vote) since it (like many other LDs scriptures) contradicts other LDS doctrines.

face it…it’s a house of cards and the winds are blowing in gale force now. repent and be baptized!

 

[Stephen168]

But no philosopher has taken anything like this seriously for at least 800 years

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortimer_Adler Catholic convert
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_KreeftCatholic convert
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_J._BeckwithCatholic revert

 

[CHRISTINE77]

states that there are only 2 personages in the Godhead, (the Father and the Son) but that they have a “shared mind” which is the holy spirit. sounds like a shared substance to me. interestingly, it also states that the Father is a being of spirit and only the son has a physical body and THAT is the reason he is called the son. this seems to counter the eternal progression doctrine of literal offspring.

Yes, I was wondering what these Mormons think the Holy Spirit is made out of. What sort of substance is it?

The explanation I like the most for the Holy Trinity is Mind(GOD), Body(JESUS) and Spirit(HOLY SPIRIT). This is the same 3 things that exist in Man.

Mormons have a lot of conflicting “truths” in thier “scriptures”. Some point to the Trinity, some point to 3 separate gods made out of some sort of substance (I assume, “spiritural matter”). It’s a mishmash.

 

[thecourt]

Why do you love picking on a church you do not like?

I could say things about Catholicims that I do not like, that prevent me from ever becoming a Catholic.

 

[RebeccaJ]

But no philosopher has taken anything like this seriously for at least 800 years. That’s the “hocus pocus” I was talking about earlier. It is a corruption of “hoc est enim corpus meum” or “for this is my body”

John 6
48 I am the bread of life.
49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died;
50 this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die.
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world."
52 The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?” (says mfbukowski)
53 Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
60 Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?” (says mfbukowski)
61 Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, "Does this shock you?
62 What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?
63 It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
64 But there are some of you who do not believe." Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him.
65 And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.”
66 **As a result of this, many (of) his disciples (mfbukowski) returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.
**