Mormonism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Semper_Fi_1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Miriam1947 said:
But ParkerD, you are seeing Jesus as separate from the Father not as part of the Father.

You know, the Trinity; Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Not three separate persons.

John Chapter 1:

[1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. [2] The same was in the beginning with God. [3] All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made. [4] In him was life, and the life was the light of men. [5] And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

This is Jesus. Jesus is God. The Triune God.

I realize this is a hard concept but just go with it.
Click to expand...
Miriam,

So that would mean that Jesus had told the Pharisees something that was not perfectly true–which He wouldn’t do, and didn’t do.
 
Miriam,

Hi. Actually, the Trinity is three separate persons From our Catechism:

old.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt1art1p2.shtml
CCC:253
The Trinity is one. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons…
Click to expand...
CCC:254
The divine persons are really distinct from one another …
Click to expand...
However, you’re absolutely correct, it isn’t a simple concept:
CCC:255
The divine persons are relative to one another. Because it does not divide the divine unity, the real distinction of the persons from one another resides solely in the relationships which relate them to one another: "In the relational names of the persons the Father is related to the Son, the Son to the Father, and the Holy Spirit to both. While they are called three persons in view of their relations, we believe in one nature or substance.
Click to expand...
all the best
–kc
Miriam1947 said:
But ParkerD, you are seeing Jesus as separate from the Father not as part of the Father.

You know, the Trinity; Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Not three separate persons.

John Chapter 1:

[1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. [2] The same was in the beginning with God. [3] All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made. [4] In him was life, and the life was the light of men. [5] And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

This is Jesus. Jesus is God. The Triune God.

I realize this is a hard concept but just go with it.
Click to expand...
 
We are still overlooking a fundamental point: Is Joseph Smith a prophet of The True and Living God of Gen. 1:1; or a prophet of Satan–the god of this world? If a True prophet, the LDS has the gospel restored and all of us should be Mormons. If Joseph Smith is a false prophet, the LDS are usurpers, without authority from the Living God. This includes the “authority” in Salt Lake City, Utah and Independence, Missouri.

An interesting study: Why are there two groups claiming the authority of Joseph Smith Jr.? The group in Independence claim to be the legal heirs. Can they both be right? They could both be wrong. Apparently they do not agree on who may have the new set of keys to the kingdom.

Even so, come Lord Jesus.

Peace,

James Least
 
kikkichan said:
Miriam,

Hi. Actually, the Trinity is three separate persons From our Catechism:

old.usccb.org/catechism/text/…t1art1p2.shtml

Quote:
CCC:253
The Trinity is one. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons…
Quote:
CCC:254
The divine persons are really distinct from one another …
However, you’re absolutely correct, it isn’t a simple concept:

Quote:
CCC:255
The divine persons are relative to one another. Because it does not divide the divine unity, the real distinction of the persons from one another resides solely in the relationships which relate them to one another: "In the relational names of the persons the Father is related to the Son, the Son to the Father, and the Holy Spirit to both. While they are called three persons in view of their relations, we believe in one nature or substance.
all the best
–kc

Quote:
Originally Posted by Miriam1947
But ParkerD, you are seeing Jesus as separate from the Father not as part of the Father.

You know, the Trinity; Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Not three separate persons.
Click to expand...
I was addressing the Mormon belief of three wholly separate beings. God the Father as a separate man/god and Jesus his son as another separate man/god. And I have no idea where the Holy Spirit fits in there.

I obviously did not explain myself well.
 
Miriam1947 said:
I was addressing the Mormon belief of three wholly separate beings. God the Father as a separate man/god and Jesus his son as another separate man/god. And I have no idea where the Holy Spirit fits in there.

I obviously did not explain myself well.
Click to expand...
This is very important and we need to be very careful here. We believe in three divine “Persons”, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit who are one in substance and being (consubstantial). Therefore, where the Father is, there also is 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.

Because there are three Persons, they can each be a witness and so Jesus said nothing untrue in saying that there were “two witnesses” as ParkerD would have you believe. The Son can be a witness to the Father and the Father a witness to the Son and this causes no confusion as they are distinct Persons, while remaining one Being. The fact that this concept rises above our limited and finite understanding does not make it any less true. It is a revealed truth.

The Mormon notion is nothing more than blatant polytheism regardless of how much they protest that label. They claim that Jesus is God and the Father is God and that they are distinct and seperate divine beings. Sorry, but they have just named two gods. That is not the extent of their polytheism but it is enough to establish their polytheism right out of the shoot. The Mormon argument that they are one in purpose does nothing to change this. You and I can be one in purpose, but we cannot be one in being. Only God is capable of having this charactaristic.
 
SteveVH said:
This is very important and we need to be very careful here. We believe in three divine “Persons”, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit who are one in substance and being (consubstantial). Therefore, where the Father is, there also is 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.

Because there are three Persons, they can each be a witness and so Jesus said nothing untrue in saying that there were “two witnesses” as ParkerD would have you believe. The Son can be a witness to the Father and the Father a witness to the Son and this causes no confusion as they are distinct Persons, while remaining one Being. The fact that this concept rises above our limited and finite understanding does not make it any less true. It is a revealed truth.

The Mormon notion is nothing more than blatant polytheism regardless of how much they protest that label. They claim that Jesus is God and the Father is God and that they are distinct and seperate divine beings. Sorry, but they have just named two gods. That is not the extent of their polytheism but it is enough to establish their polytheism right out of the shoot. The Mormon argument that they are one in purpose does nothing to change this. You and I can be one in purpose, but we cannot be one in being. Only God is capable of having this charactaristic.
Click to expand...
My (soon to be ex) LDS bishop cornered me after sacrament meeting last Sunday and decided to confront me about my doctrinal problems with the church. I gave it to him w both barrels and really blew him up. During the conversation he admitted that he believed that the Godhead consists of three seperate Gods. In fact he decided to slot a 4th one in there, the female one. I think you know the one I’m talking about.
 
TheExorcist said:
My (soon to be ex) LDS bishop cornered me after sacrament meeting last Sunday and decided to confront me about my doctrinal problems with the church. I gave it to him w both barrels and really blew him up. During the conversation he admitted that he believed that the Godhead consists of three seperate Gods. In fact he decided to slot a 4th one in there, the female one. I think you know the one I’m talking about.
Click to expand...
Well, it is refreshing to hear that he at least admitted what he believed. It is not really the concept of three gods making up one godhead that bothers me so much. Of course, I believe it is in error and in contradiction to Christian doctrine but at least we could have an honest discussion on the matter. What bothers me the most is the pretense put forth that Mormons believe in one God, rather than just admitting that they don’t. I believe it is nothing more than an attempt to cover their true beliefs in order to coerce others into believing that Mormonism is founded upon Christian doctrine. One can believe whatever one chooses to believe, but it would be nice if they were just honest about it.

You may have answered this in prior posts, but what is preventing you from just leaving the LDS church today?
 
ParkerD said:
James Least,

The person asking that question does well to read all of John 8, and to think about what Jesus was teaching the Pharisees about His having been sent by the Father and that the Father and the Son meet the law of “two witnesses” (not one witness in two forms, but truly two witnesses).
Click to expand...
ParkerD, apparently you are not familiar with the fact that trinitarian belief holds that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three distinct persons. Therefore, they can certainly act as three distinct witnesses. The Father can witness to the Son and the Son can witness to the Father. The Holy Spirit is a third witness. This proves nothing against the fact that they are consubstantial, as has been revealed to us. Three distinct persons can be three distinct witnesses. They are all present in one divine being that is beyond our ability to grasp, but the fact we cannot grasp it does not make it untrue. It is why it is a truth that had to be revealed to us, rather than attained simply through human reason.
 
Arianism was begun by Arian challenging his bishop proclaiming that Christ had a beginning and an end…and likewise, revealing that the nature of Christ not yet fully defined by the Church.

If Arian, a priest, were correct…representing the Church…follow me here…then his opinion would have led to those to slide back into polytheism and the return of paganism.

The Church never follows the ideas of one priest to change doctrine…Rather, the Church follows the teachings of those who witnessed Christ – the apostles…and their successors in the spirit of the Church, not following one man …
 
SteveVH said:
Well, it is refreshing to hear that he at least admitted what he believed. It is not really the concept of three gods making up one godhead that bothers me so much. Of course, I believe it is in error and in contradiction to Christian doctrine but at least we could have an honest discussion on the matter. What bothers me the most is the pretense put forth that Mormons believe in one God, rather than just admitting that they don’t. I believe it is nothing more than an attempt to cover their true beliefs in order to coerce others into believing that Mormonism is founded upon Christian doctrine. One can believe whatever one chooses to believe, but it would be nice if they were just honest about it.

You may have answered this in prior posts, but what is preventing you from just leaving the LDS church today?
Click to expand...
I pretty much have. I’m the ward chorister so I go to sacrament meeting and then leave. As I’ve stated this has caused friction with my wife but that point is virtually moot because shes decided to divorce me because of it anyway. Ive stayed in the calling bc I love music and truly enjoy doing it. I don’t know how other members of the ward would feel if they knew their chorister was an apostate :eek:

Ill keep doing it for now but we’ll see. The parish I’m planning to enter has high mass at 11 and I WOULD like to go from time to time to that one. So we’ll see.
 
TheExorcist said:
I pretty much have. I’m the ward chorister so I go to sacrament meeting and then leave. As I’ve stated this has caused friction with my wife but that point is virtually moot because shes decided to divorce me because of it anyway. Ive stayed in the calling bc I love music and truly enjoy doing it. I don’t know how other members of the ward would feel if they knew their chorister was an apostate :eek:

Ill keep doing it for now but we’ll see. The parish I’m planning to enter has high mass at 11 and I WOULD like to go from time to time to that one. So we’ll see.
Click to expand...
You’re in my prayers brother. I’m a music minister in my parish so I share the love of music with you. I’m really sorry to hear about your divorce. I will pray for you tonight and offer more prayers for you at Mass this Sunday.

God bless you.
 
SteveVH said:
You’re in my prayers brother. I’m a music minister in my parish so I share the love of music with you. I’m really sorry to hear about your divorce. I will pray for you tonight and offer more prayers for you at Mass this Sunday.

God bless you.
Click to expand...
Thanks loads Steve. I’m going to start meeting with Father this week. He is a good and holy priest and will do me good. All I can do is offer up my suffering and rely on God’s grace. Of course, isn’t that all of us.
 
Exorcist…read your latest…I feel for you and all that you are suffering…keep you in prayers tonight in our prayer cenacle…
 
SteveVH said:
ParkerD, apparently you are not familiar with the fact that trinitarian belief holds that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three distinct persons. Therefore, they can certainly act as three distinct witnesses. The Father can witness to the Son and the Son can witness to the Father. The Holy Spirit is a third witness. This proves nothing against the fact that they are consubstantial, as has been revealed to us. Three distinct persons can be three distinct witnesses. They are all present in one divine being that is beyond our ability to grasp, but the fact we cannot grasp it does not make it untrue. It is why it is a truth that had to be revealed to us, rather than attained simply through human reason.
Click to expand...
SteveVH,

For you, it sounds like this means that you are content that Jesus was being completely truthful by saying He and His Father were two witnesses, which was the very central teaching He was giving to the Pharisees.

It doesn’t sound like that to me by the “one divine being” concept, so we look at the “two witnesses” concept differently.
 
Not for us Catholics. Christ could be a witness to God and be a separate witness while still being consubstantial, one divine being with God the Father and the Holy Spirit. So actually, not just two witnesses but Three witnesses to One Divine Truth.
 
ParkerD said:
SteveVH,

It doesn’t sound like that to me by the “one divine being” concept, so we look at the “two witnesses” concept differently.
Click to expand...
I don’t see the problem. Two witnesses equal two persons. Trinity is 3 persons in One God.

Peace
David
 
David said:
I don’t see the problem. Two witnesses equal two persons. Trinity is 3 persons in One God.

Peace
David
Click to expand...
David,

That’s fine for you, but it would not have “flown” for the Pharisees who were saying that Christ “beareth record of thyself; thy record is not true.” (John 8:13) He taught that He and the Father met the law the Pharisees were familiar with, “that the testimony of two men is true.” (v.17) “I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.” (v. 18)

If He and the Father were “consubstantial” and “one divine being”, then had He taught this to the Pharisees they would have rejected the idea that it met the “law of two witnesses”, because it wouldn’t really be two independent, verifiable witnesses. It would be one witness in “two forms”.
 
ParkerD said:
David,

That’s fine for you, but it would not have “flown” for the Pharisees who were saying that Christ “beareth record of thyself; thy record is not true.” (John 8:13) He taught that He and the Father met the law the Pharisees were familiar with, “that the testimony of two men is true.” (v.17) “I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.” (v. 18)

If He and the Father were “consubstantial” and “one divine being”, then had He taught this to the Pharisees they would have rejected the idea that it met the “law of two witnesses”, because it wouldn’t really be two independent, verifiable witnesses. It would be one witness in “two forms”.
Click to expand...
The Trinity is Three distinct persons, yet One God. So two of the three persons could witness to the first and still be One God.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top