mormon prophet on Trinity

  • Thread starter Thread starter cestusdei
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
catsrus said:
Yes, it **IS **historically inaccurate but how many mormons listening knew that? Next to none, probably. Why would they?
GH knew what he was saying was false and said it anyway. That way he can support his views with no backlash from his “faithful” flock.
If he did not know, then that doesn’t say much for his level of education.

A, he loses, B, he loses.
Click to expand...
You forgot C and that is they all lose
 
Tmaque said:
I’m sorrowed by the fact that President Hinckley found it necessary to tell half-truths to get his point across. In his statement regarding the council of Nicea he says that “Each participant was given opportunity to state his views. The argument only grew more heated. When a definition could not be reached, a compromise was made.”

This is simply historically inaccurate. There was no “compromise”. I would like to think that he didn’t know that what he was saying was false.
Click to expand...
Of course there was compromise. Everybody knows there was compromise. There were heated arguments. There were disagreements over one wording and another. There were serious disagreements over whether to include the homoousion clause, for example. The disagreements were so sharp that, left to itself, the council would most likely not have made a decision at all. Eventually the Emperor had to weigh in (with all his imperial authority!) on the one side or the other in order to get an agreement out of the council. These are well-known historical facts. I didn’t invent them myself.
It’s distortions like these that make me remember why I’m no longer LDS. There is a plain inability to face up to the facts, or to bend the facts, when they don’t suit the purposes of the LDS Church.
Click to expand...
There are no “distortions” and no “inability to face the facts”. These are just your feeble excuses to justify your leaving the Church.

zerinus
 
kellie said:
How can this be confusing?

I believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things seen and unseen.
I believe in the one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father ; God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made. For us men and for our salvation, He came down from heaven, and was made incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man. He was crucified by Pontius Pilate. He suffered death and was buried. On the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures. He ascended into Heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He shall come again, with glory, to judge the living and the dead, and His Kingdom shall have no end.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified. He is spoken through the prophets. I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins, and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

I love saying that out loud in Mass.

It truly sums it all up.
Click to expand...
It is confusing because it uses convoluted unbiblical words and expressions to describe the Godhead which are essentially uninspired; and if you dig deeper into the meanings of words they can have meanings that are alien to scripture, such as: “God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father”. Contrast that with the simplicity of the LDS expression, which is divinely inspired and dictated by the Holy Spirit through a modern day prophet, and entirely scriptural: “We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost” (Article 1 of the Articles of Faith of the LDS Church).

zerinus
 
zerinus said:
Of course there was compromise. Everybody knows there was compromise. There were heated arguments. There were disagreements over one wording and another. There were serious disagreements over whether to include the homoousion clause, for example. The disagreements were so sharp that, left to itself, the council would most likely not have made a decision at all. Eventually the Emperor had to weigh in (with all his imperial authority!) on the one side or the other in order to get an agreement out of the council. These are well-known historical facts. I didn’t invent them myself.

There are no “distortions” and no “inability to face the facts”. These are just your feeble excuses to justify your leaving the Church.

zerinus
Click to expand...
Try getting your history from sources other than novels like the Da Vinci Code. Just like Hinckley you are wrong, wrong, wrong. Please provide the source of your “well known historical facts”.

I’ll ignore the attack on my character other than to say that it’s best to not judge another person’s motives. You simply have no idea what you’re talking about.
 
zerinus said:
It is confusing because it uses convoluted unbiblical words and expressions to describe the Godhead which are essentially uninspired; and if you dig deeper into the meanings of words they can have meanings that are alien to scripture, such as: “God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father”. Contrast that with the simplicity of the LDS expression, which is divinely inspired and dictated by the Holy Spirit through a modern day prophet, and entirely scriptural: “We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost” (Article 1 of the Articles of Faith of the LDS Church).

zerinus
Click to expand...
Actually, that’s not the whole story. The whole story about the LDS belief in the Godhead can be found on the official web site of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints:

library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1971.htm/ensign%20april%201971.htm/the%20king%20follett%20sermon.htm
 
Tmaque said:
Try getting your history from sources other than novels like the Da Vinci Code. Just like Hinckley you are wrong, wrong, wrong. Please provide the source of your “well known historical facts”.

I’ll ignore the attack on my character other than to say that it’s best to not judge another person’s motives. You simply have no idea what you’re talking about.
Click to expand...
First of all the council itself had no divine authority and ecclesiastical legitimacy from start to finish. It was called by the Emperor Constantine, who was not even a baptized Christian at that time. That is why I often say that Constantine was the first Pope. Secondly, Constantine not only called the council, but actively participated in the discussions, directed it the way he wanted it to go, and proposed the most controversial terminology to be used within it. There was considerable unease among many of the delegates concerning the use of the term homoousios? in the creed. It was only the influence of Constantine that carried it through. Here is a quote:

Whose idea was the introduction of the word homoousios? Athanasius describes how the bishops first tried to reject Arianism by the use of scriptural terms alone, but found that the Arians could twist whatever terms they used to an unorthodox meaning. So just as the Arians ‘uttered their impieties in unscriptural terms,’ the council responded by condemning them by ‘unscriptural terms pious in meaning.’ But why the word homoousios in particular? Eusebius states that it was proposed by the emperor. Given the former’s considerable unease with the term, he would hardly have enhanced its prestige by attributing it to the emperor unless this was accurate. But why should the emperor have proposed it? There is some evidence to support the theory that it was suggested to him by Hosius, his ecclesiastical advisor, possibly in alliance with Alexander of Alexandria. Constantine played a dominant role at the council and this meant that those who had his ear, especially Hosius, were able to lead events to the conclusion that they desired. The outcome reflected the interests not so much of the emperor as of the western-Alexandrian alliance of Hosius and Alexander.

This does not come from the Da-Vinci Code. Here is the source of the quote:

debate.org.uk/topics/theo/council_nicaea.html

zerinus
 
jonfan said:
A brain freeze Z. You never had one? Sheesh. You called my post nonsense. I am asking you if you believe the Bible to be less reliable than the ‘Pearl of Great Price’. Obviously you don’t want to answer that question. If you did answer it you could prove my post is nonsense.
Click to expand...
Zerinus has answered this question many times, though indirectely. In #84 of the thread Let Mormons Be Mormons and Catholics Be Catholics, Zerinus wrote:

*""The gospel is something that needs to be preached. It is not the gospel if it is not preached. This is the commandment that the Lord gave to His ancient disciples:

Mark 16:

15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
The LDS Church is a new dispensation of the gospel. It is a restoration of the original church of Christ; and God has given it the same commandment He gave to His ancient church, to preach His gospel to every creature. “Every creature” does not leave room for any exceptions. All are included in it:

D&C 18:

28 And if they desire to take upon them my name with full purpose of heart, they are called to go into all the world to preach my gospel unto every creature.

D&C 19:

37 And speak freely to all; yea, preach, exhort, declare the truth, even with a loud voice, with a sound of rejoicing, crying—Hosanna, hosanna, blessed be the name of the Lord God

D&C 28:

16 And thou must open thy mouth at all times, declaring my gospel with the sound of rejoicing. Amen.

D&C 29:

4 Verily, I say unto you that ye are chosen out of the world to declare my gospel with the sound of rejoicing, as with the voice of a trump.

D&C 33:

2 For verily, verily, I say unto you that ye are called to lift up your voices as with the sound of a trump, to declare my gospel unto a crooked and perverse generation.

D&C 34:

6 To lift up your voice as with the sound of a trump, both long and loud, and cry repentance unto a crooked and perverse generation, preparing the way of the Lord for his second coming.

D&C 42:

6 And ye shall go forth in the power of my Spirit, preaching my gospel, two by two, in my name, lifting up your voices as with the sound of a trump, declaring my word like unto angels of God.

7 And ye shall go forth baptizing with water, saying: Repent ye, repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

D&C 58:

64 For, verily, the sound must go forth from this place into all the world, and unto the uttermost parts of the earth—the gospel must be preached unto every creature, with signs following them that believe.

D&C 68:

8 Go ye into all the world, preach the gospel to every creature, acting in the authority which I have given you, baptizing in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

D&C 75:

4 Lifting up your voices as with the sound of a trump, proclaiming the truth according to the revelations and commandments which I have given you.

D&C 79:

1 Verily I say unto you, that it is my will that my servant Jared Carter should go again into the eastern countries, from place to place, and from city to city, in the power of the ordination wherewith he has been ordained, proclaiming glad tidings of great joy, even the everlasting gospel.

D&C 80:

1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Stephen Burnett: Go ye, go ye into the world and preach the gospel to every creature that cometh under the sound of your voice.

D&C 84:

62 Therefore, go ye into all the world; and unto whatsoever place ye cannot go ye shall send, that the testimony may go from you into all the world unto every creature.
74 Verily, verily, I say unto you, they who believe not on your words, and are not baptized in water in my name, for the remission of their sins, that they may receive the Holy Ghost, shall be damned, and shall not come into my Father’s kingdom where my Father and I am.

75 And this revelation unto you, and commandment, is in force from this very hour upon all the world, and the gospel is unto all who have not received it.

D&C 124:

106 And in all his journeyings let him lift up his voice as with the sound of a trump, and warn the inhabitants of the earth to flee the wrath to come.
As you can see, the list is quite lengthy (and I don’t think I have found all of them); but I have given you this long list so that you can appreciate the importance the Lord has attached to preaching the gospel in the latter days. We preach the gospel because the Lord has commanded us to do it, and we must obey.

zerinus*

There are many interesting and revealing things in this post, not least of which is the preponderance of Mormon “modern scripture” over real Scripture used to support the various Mormon behaviors, as in this case of the quote I provided, Mormon door-to-door sales behaviors.
 
zerinus said:
First of all the council itself had no divine authority and ecclesiastical legitimacy from start to finish. It was called by the Emperor Constantine, who was not even a baptized Christian at that time.
unsubstantiated assertions again. You overlook the the true beginning of this in alexandria under the the authority of the bishop st. Alexander. that is where Arius was anathematized. The “controversy” was the continuing fallout from this, with the emperor not fully understanding the importance of combating the arian heresy. you also overlook the fact that constantine was receiving spiritual guidance and counsel from hosius (who actually acted as the facilitator of the council along with the papal legates victor and vincentius) and we have reason to believe that Pope Sylvester was involved in this as well. Hosius was presiding over a synod that was already attempting to deal with this. Constantine was only asking that the synod be expanded to the whole church.The presence of the papal legates shows that the Pope backed this. Once the council began the emperor exercised no authority and it was strictly the bishops who made decisions. remember also that Arianism was already denounced, this was only to clear up confusion about the church’s teachings and how to address this heresy.
zerinus;2090936:
That is why I often say that Constantine was the first Pope. Secondly, Constantine not only called the council, but actively participated in the discussions, directed it the way he wanted it to go, and proposed the most controversial terminology to be used within it. There was considerable unease among many of the delegates concerning the use of the term homoousios?
Click to expand...
in the creed. It was only the influence of Constantine that carried it through. Here is a quote:

Whose idea was the introduction of the word homoousios? Athanasius describes how the bishops first tried to reject Arianism by the use of scriptural terms alone, but found that the Arians could twist whatever terms they used to an unorthodox meaning. So just as the Arians ‘uttered their impieties in unscriptural terms,’ the council responded by condemning them by ‘unscriptural terms pious in meaning.’ But why the word homoousios in particular? Eusebius states that it was proposed by the emperor. Given the former’s considerable unease with the term, he would hardly have enhanced its prestige by attributing it to the emperor unless this was accurate. But why should the emperor have proposed it? There is some evidence to support the theory that it was suggested to him by Hosius, his ecclesiastical advisor, possibly in alliance with Alexander of Alexandria. Constantine played a dominant role at the council and this meant that those who had his ear, especially Hosius, were able to lead events to the conclusion that they desired. The outcome reflected the interests not so much of the emperor as of the western-Alexandrian alliance of Hosius and Alexander.

This does not come from the Da-Vinci Code. Here is the source of the quote:

debate.org.uk/topics/theo/council_nicaea.html

zerinus
Click to expand...
even in your own quote you see St. Alexander and hosius (both Bishops in communion with Pope sylvester) as leading the emperor. You see int his quote the twisting of wordds by the Arians. When ATHANASIUS suggested the initial creed (including homoousious) here is what happened:
The adhesion was general and enthusiastic. All the bishops save five declared themselves ready to subscribe to this formula, convince that it contained the ancient faith of the Apostolic Church. The opponents were soon reduced to two, Theonas of Marmarica and Secundus of Ptolemais, who were exiled and anathematized. Arius and his writings were also branded with anathema, his books were cast into the fire, and he was exiled to Illyria.
not so much controversy and even less compromise.

there is also the business of the 20 canons and other works of this council. it was for the good of the church and the emperor only acted as a concerned monarch trying to integrate his empire with his new religion.
 
zerinus said:
It is confusing because it uses convoluted unbiblical words and expressions to describe the Godhead which are essentially uninspired; and if you dig deeper into the meanings of words they can have meanings that are alien to scripture, such as: “God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father”. Contrast that with the simplicity of the LDS expression, which is divinely inspired and dictated by the Holy Spirit through a modern day prophet, and entirely scriptural: “We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost” (Article 1 of the Articles of Faith of the LDS Church).

zerinus
Click to expand...
Who says summing up our belief has to be “scriptural”? Does that mean we can only use words from the Bible?

It all boils down to you don’t believe that Jesus is God.

That is why you say the Nicene Creed is confusing with words such as begotten not made.

Why does a summary of my faith have to be inspired? Why do you make a point of saying your creed is inspired by the Holy Spirit through a modern day prophet?

It doesn’t have to be inspired at all. It is us describing our faith and declaring our faith.

It is saying what we believe.

I honestly don’t understand where you are coming from.
 
apparently the mormon teaching on the trinity is confusing to them. the witnesses to the BoM say the three are one God. The BoM itself there is one God and explains how the Father and Son are one and the same. The original D&C said that the Father was spirit and only the Son had a body and that they were the two distinct and separate members of the godhead with the holy ghost being their shared mind. Now the Mormons teach that the father and son are each an exalted man with a physical body and they don’t know who or what the holy ghost is, only that he has no body…but they also teach that a physical body is required for salvation and exaltation…so the holy ghost couldn’t be either…yet… :confused:
 
So Z do you hold the Pearl of Great Price at a higher status than the Bible?
 
jonfan said:
So Z do you hold the Pearl of Great Price at a higher status than the Bible?
Click to expand...
No. Both are scripture and both are the word of God, and therefore they are of equal standing with each other.

zerinus
 
zerinus said:
No. Both are scripture and both are the word of God, and therefore they are of equal standing with each other.
zerinus
Click to expand...
According to the official lds webpage they are not of equal standing:
scriptures.lds.org/en/bd/b/55

The position of the Church regarding the Bible is that it contains the word of God as far as it is translated correctly (A of F 8). Joseph Smith taught that “many important points touching the salvation of men, had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled.” He also said that the Bible was correct as “it came from the pen of the original writers,” but that “ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors.” (HC 1: 245; 6: 57.) The Church reveres and respects the Bible, but recognizes that it is not a complete nor entirely accurate record, and affirms also that the Lord has given additional revelation through his prophets in the last days that sustains, supports, and verifies the biblical account of God’s dealings with mankind. I consider it very disingenuous to give the impression the Bible is on equal footing with the latter-day scriptures.

It is very deceptive to on one hand say the Bible contains the word of God “as far as it is translated correctly” in the Articles of Faith all the while not telling outsiders that they believe it is actually corrupt.
 
Catholic_Dude said:
According to the official lds webpage they are not of equal standing:
scriptures.lds.org/en/bd/b/55

It is very deceptive to on one hand say the Bible contains the word of God “as far as it is translated correctly” in the Articles of Faith all the while not telling outsiders that they believe it is actually corrupt.
​
Click to expand...

Yes, this is very irritating. I find that Mormons usually don’t refer very much to the Bible, but rather to their “modern scriptures.”

When they do refer to the Bible, they misinterpret it badly, because they have no connection to the 2k years of Catholic Tradition and exegesis that has made it understandable, and because they need to adapt it to fit their own peculiar version of Christian religion.​
 
zerinus said:
It is confusing . Contrast that with the simplicity of the LDS expression, which is divinely inspired and dictated by the Holy Spirit through a modern day prophet, and entirely scriptural: “We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost” (Article 1 of the Articles of Faith of the LDS Church).

zerinus
Click to expand...
Yep stolen direclty from the Catholics themselves. Nothing was inspired on the LDS part.
 
jonfan said:
So Z do you hold the Pearl of Great Price at a higher status than the Bible?
Click to expand...
wrong question Jon 🙂 You have to ask this "So if stranded on a desert island and you could only have one book either the book of mormon or the bible which would you choose? I already know what he will say as most LDS say the same thing.
 
well he may say BoM but he would need the D&C to practice the LDS faith.
 
So if the pearl of great price teaches polytheism, but the Bible teaches monotheism which should we believe?

What about the pre 1890 mormon gospel which taught that polygamy was necessary. Didn’t the lds leaders change that after a lot of debate? Who was right Joe Smith or the later prophet?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top