Mormons and the Trinity

[Returning_Home]

I realize many of you wholeheartedly disagree with the Mormon scriptural interpretations and that is OK. You are likely to have a litany of reasons why these scriptural interpretations are incorrect. I respect your interpretations and will defend your right to believe in such a manner. At the same time please realize that the Mormon doctrine of the Godhead is sound and has a solid Biblical foundation at its core. I believe If the early apostles wanted man to understand the Trinity as you are describing it they would they have explained this to us in their writings more explicitly. They would not have required a council 300 years later to piece it together. The Bible does not explain all doctrines of the gospel in great detail, but you would think this one – being so important to Christianity – would have had a bit more explanation.

I’m not going to comment on your post point-by-point because I essentially agree with you on all counts. That said, while it seems you understand it correctly, you turn around and state that they are three separate gods and that they are ‘one in purpose’ anyway. The two schools of thought are mutually exclusive and don’t go together in Christianity.

Since we don’t find the ‘one in purpose’ clause anywhere in the LDS canon, it’s simply your opinion because you can’t support it.

And while I understand that the Bible seems to go back and forth about the nature of God and his relation to Jesus and the Holy Spirit, the Bible is clear that they are connected in some way that mankind in our finite ability to comprehend cannot grasp. They are separate only in function but confirm one another individually. God used words in the Bible that we can relate to: father and son so we can get as much of an understanding as we are capable.

All of this, of course, is dependent on what you cited being correct, because as we know, the Bible is missing many “plain and precious things,” isn’t it? Without the JST, how do you know that any of what you quoted is correct?

 

[eshuster]

RebeccaJ

No need for you to be upset and say things like I’ve “fallen for an LDS tale” or calling my religion “a piece of this (Bible) a piece of that (freemasonry, folk magic, fictional tales). Such childish accusations are unbecoming for a Christian who wants to be taken seriously and decreases the spirit in which we are here to share with one another. Let’s try to be a bit more civil if we can.

I would hope my books would provide you more than my following tales. My books are a result of my personal study, prayer, and discernment. My beliefs may differ from yours, but that is OK. You have reached a different conclusion that I have. You have not cornered the market on scriptural interpretation nor have I. That is something that makes the journey beautiful.

The historical record on the council of Nicaea is clear – why it was formed, who formed it, the few bishops out of the many who showed, and the results themselves. I am not against having councils, but I am against results that appear to be more political compromise than inspired doctrine.

My eyes are not closed the truth Rebecca. I simply read the Bible over and over, prayed and pondered the subject matter deeply, sought the direction of the Holy Ghost, studied both Catholicism and Mormonism, and have made my conclusions accordingly. Why would I close my eyes to the truth? What good would that do me?

We will certainly agree to disagree, but I hope to never insult you personally or call your religion a sham as you have called mine. Such postings are unproductive for us all.

 

[eshuster]

CatholicGuyNY

You use the terms Trinitarians, Modalism and Unitarianism. An interesting choice of terminology as we discuss the relationship of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Thank you for bringing this into the conversation.

My understanding of “being” is a physical entity or essence. Mormonism does not believe that Christ is “one in being with the Father,” but rather the son of God and one in purpose with God.

Your arguments lead me to ask you if you believe the official doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church on the Trinity is the same as the doctrine of the Trinity according to traditional Trinitarians.

Further to that, do you believe Evangelicals are Trinitarians or Unitarians?

Thank you in advance for answering my questions.

 

[eshuster]

CatholicGuyNY

The apostles never discussed the nature of God – as to having a body or not. It was not an important issue for them to take up in the early days of the Church. The nature of God was well understood from the Old Testament and therefore there was no need to rehash the subject.

On Heavenly Mother – this uncanonized theological concept is more of a “hope” than a doctrine. It is quite logical theologically, however it has no scriptural foundation and is therefore a concept that has yet to be canonized. We can point to the oral tradition and Old Testament scriptures where the wives of prophets are not mentioned at all to protect them. We feel the same was likely done by God as he inspired the writers of the scriptures.

Jesus is the firstborn of the Father – that is quite clear from the New Testament and selected Old Testament scriptures. As the son of God why would you object to such a doctrine? It is logical and scripturally sound.

On three Gods: of course this is found nowhere in the Bible because it was unnecessary to address such a concept. Jesus is the son of God; the Holy Ghost is a personage of the Godhead; and God the Father is God over all. We have no word to describe a perfected, resurrected being who sits at the right hand of God. We know he is Jesus Christ, but when push comes to shove and someone asks – is Christ a god? (a stupid question meant only to trick the prospective answerer). The answer is Christ is a god because we have no other word to describe such a being. Joseph Smith put this to rest after scores of upset religious leaders insisted he answer the question. He answered in the affirmative. For those who choose to understand the broader spiritual meaning, God is the God of Jesus Christ (as the New Testament clearly states), with Jesus being the Son of God, and the Holy Ghost being the spirit of God or one of the two dozen names he is called in the scriptures. Are they three Gods? The answer is not found in the Bible because it is quite obvious that such a question deserves no answer. Should you choose to be literal than the answer is yes… which is one of the key reasons the Council of Nicaea was held. The Jews were quite upset that there seemed to be three Gods in the Christian religion and there was a need to qualify this. The answer was the Trinity. One God (fulfilling the Old Testament), but in three beings.

 

[eshuster]

Returning Home

I am not sure the purpose of the quote from Ezra Taft Benson. He stated exactly what we all already know with respect to the Bible. Historians will not disagree with what he says.

What this leads to is the eighth article of faith which states: “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.”

The Mormon faith divides the scriptures into four standard works: The Old Testament, the New Testament, the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants/Pearl of Great Price. One year is dedicated to each standard work in rotation. This year the Church is studying the Old Testament. Next year it will be the New Testament, and so forth.

The scriptures are woven into one another, not just the New Testament into the Book of Mormon. As it should be.

While many have tried to prove the Book of Mormon to be a man written book, all attempts have failed thus far.

As Elder Holland said in General Conference last April: “For 179 years this book has been examined and attacked, denied and deconstructed, targeted and torn apart like perhaps no other book in modern religious history—perhaps like no other book in any religious history. And still it stands. Failed theories about its origins have been born and parroted and have died—from Ethan Smith to Solomon Spaulding to deranged paranoid to cunning genius. None of these frankly pathetic answers for this book has ever withstood examination because there is no other answer than the one Joseph gave as its young unlearned translator. In this I stand with my own great-grandfather, who said simply enough, “No wicked man could write such a book as this; and no good man would write it, unless it were true and he were commanded of God to do so.”

I have read it cover to cover many times and it has enriched my life tremendously. I have read the Bible cover to cover many times and it has likewise enriched my life tremendously. They harmonize with one another and testify of one another. I have followed this path for over 20 years and the Holy Ghost continues to bear witness to me of the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Thank you for your post.

 

[eshuster]

SirThomasMore

When you said “Hauster” is that supposed to be me? I wasn’t sure.

I believe I have truly understood the Trinity quite well, I simply do not agree with the doctrine. I lived the doctrine for 27 years, recited the Nicene Creed every Sunday in Church for as long as I could read during those 27 years, graduated from a Catholic high school where it was drilled into our hearts and minds continually, and married a former Franciscan nun with a degree in Catholic Theology from a respected Catholic University who lived and discussed this doctrine with me and still does today.

If I didn’t, and don’t today, understand the Trinity, then what Catholic can?

My brother – we simply do not agree – it has nothing to do with my understanding it.

I believe that God is our Father, Jesus Christ is His son, and the Holy Ghost is the revealer of all truth – three separate physical beings, but having one divine purpose.

Please explain to me what you believe and let’s see how far off we are from one another.

Thank you for your posting.

 

[eshuster]

Returning Home
On the purpose of Jesus existing to help Mormons attain exaltation, not salvation like Biblical Christianity:

What?

Please explain where you have read this in an official Church publication or the standard scriptural works.

 

[RebeccaJ]

We will certainly agree to disagree, but I hope to never insult you personally or call your religion a sham as you have called mine. Such postings are unproductive for us all.

It is what it is.

You aren’t here for productive discussion, if you were, you wouldn’t make statements that you understand Trinity doctrine, when it is clear from all that you write, and every Catholic here can see, that you don’t.



Oh, and you can stop pretending to have some sort of high road. You have chosen a religion that’s foundation is based on a declaration that all of Christianity is an abomination. A religion that proudly calls this a “bold statement”.

Well, my bold statement to you is that mornonism is a lie. That is the truth.

 

[benidict]

It is what it is.

You aren’t here for productive discussion, if you were, you wouldn’t make statements that you understand Trinity doctrine, when it is clear from all that you write, and every Catholic here can see, that you don’t.



Oh, and you can stop pretending to have some sort of high road. You have chosen a religion that’s foundation is based on a declaration that all of Christianity is an abomination. A religion that proudly calls this a “bold statement”.

Well, my bold statement to you is that mornonism is a lie. That is the truth.

hi rebecca. love your name. its my daughters name as well. but its spelled rebekah.lol! no disagreements with you, but dont you think its nice for a change, to actually have an author come on and discuss his work with us? i happen to find it refreshing. many times we are left to discuss what we thought the author meant. and here we actually have him on board discussing! isnt this exciting? while i do not buy Mormonism. i do think it is very kind of this gentleman to be here. Peace to you and yours

 

[RebeccaJ]

hi rebecca. love your name. its my daughters name as well. but its spelled rebekah.lol! no disagreements with you, but dont you think its nice for a change, to actually have an author come on and discuss his work with us? i happen to find it refreshing. many times we are left to discuss what we thought the author meant. and here we actually have him on board discussing! isnt this exciting? while i do not buy Mormonism. i do think it is very kind of this gentleman to be here. Peace to you and yours

Hello benidict. I’m not sure why he’s here. I worked in the publishing industry for over two decades. Authors don’t randomly discuss their work, unless they see a benefit for the work itself. In other words, I think he’s using the good Catholics here for some reason that benefits his mormon writing. Writing, which we all can see, is based on very erroneous understanding of Catholicism, if there is any understanding at all.

I see no need to play his game.

 

[benidict]

Hello benidict. I’m not sure why he’s here. I worked in the publishing industry for over two decades. Authors don’t randomly discuss their work, unless they see a benefit for the work itself. In other words, I think he’s using the good Catholics here for some reason that benefits his mormon writing. Writing, which we all can see, is based on very erroneous understanding of Catholicism, if there is any understanding at all.

I see no need to play his game.

thank you very much for your insights rebecca. love to read, but do not know any authors personally. its good to have someone like yourself, who can give us some perspective. appreciate it. Peace to you and yours

 

[soren1]

As Elder Holland said in General Conference last April: “For 179 years this book has been examined and attacked, denied and deconstructed, targeted and torn apart like perhaps no other book in modern religious history—perhaps like no other book in any religious history. And still it stands. Failed theories about its origins have been born and parroted and have died—from Ethan Smith to Solomon Spaulding to deranged paranoid to cunning genius. None of these frankly pathetic answers for this book has ever withstood examination because there is no other answer than the one Joseph gave as its young unlearned translator. In this I stand with my own great-grandfather, who said simply enough, “No wicked man could write such a book as this; and no good man would write it, unless it were true and he were commanded of God to do so.”
Thank you for your post.

I hate to be blunt, but Elder Holland is just not a credible source for apologetic discourse. He has demonstrated in the past an unethical disregard for basic facts of Conciliar theology, and has done so in an official response to Trinitarian criticisms under the aegis of inspired teaching. I speak, of course, of his General Conference presentation made six months before the quote you provided, entitled The Only True God and Jesus Christ Whom He Hath Sent. Not only does this presentation commit egregious straw-man argumentation, but he makes explicit claims about creedal teachings that are objectively falsifiable, and which the Council Fathers themselves identified as heresies. He moreover, misuses every secondary source that he cites, and holds one of great attributes of God in conciliar teaching to open ridicule. In forthcoming posts, I shall demonstrate all of these accusations. For now, I limit myself to a fairly simple example of his misleading use of scholarly sources.

To begin with a relatively tame example, at the beginning of his presentation, Elder Holland says:

Indeed no less a source than the stalwart Harper’s Bible Dictionary records that “the formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the [New Testament].” So any criticism that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not hold the contemporary Christian view of God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost is not a comment about our commitment to Christ but rather a recognition (accurate, I might add) that our view of the Godhead breaks with post New Testament Christian history and returns to the doctrine taught by Jesus Himself.

Even before consulting the context of this citation, it is possible to suspect that Elder Holland is misusing it, because his argument fails to appreciate the meaning of “formal doctrine” as opposed to “material doctrine.” No one claims that the Trinity is formally taught in the New Testament, but the basic components of the doctrine, divine unity, the distinction of persons, and the equality of persons are all to be seen. In the same way, the Mormon teaching, that the persons of the godhead are one in purpose and will, is not formally in scripture either. In neither case does the absence of formal scriptural teaching automatically mean that scripture does not support such an interpretation.

When the context of the Harper’s quote is consulted, these grounds of suspicion are confirmed. One need only read the sentence following the one Elder Holland quotes to discover why:

The formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the NT. Nevertheless, the discussion above and specifically the presence of Trinitarian formulas in 2 Cor. 13:14 (which is strikingly early) and Matt. 28:19 indicate that the origin of this mode of thought may be found very early in Christian history.

At an earlier point, the same article reads:

The explicit doctrine was thus formulated in the post-biblical period, although the early stages of its development can be seen in the NT.

Given the distinction of formal and material doctrine, and these clear statements by the author of the Harper’s article, do we see any warrant to interpret it as meaning that the Trinity is a break from original Christian tradition? The author sees in the NT “the early stages of its development,” indicating that he thinks a continuity, not a break, exists between the formal doctrine of the Trinity and the material contents of Scripture - which is just what Trinitarians have been saying all along.

If this seems like a minor complaint, a bit of nit-picking on my part, bear in mind that I mention it as a prelude to further evidence. Consider also that Elder Holland is speaking under supposed inspiration to an audience of several millions. His speech gets broadcast all over the world, and will be reproduced in Ensign magazine and be discussed in lessons at many wards. Elder Holland is a man of learning and academic accomplishment who is former Dean of Religious Studies and former President of BYU; a man with such credentials knows the basic disciplines of research and the proper use of source material. Is this the best he can do? Does he have no better way to introduce the LDS Church’s most current official response to Trinitarian criticisms than to foist a cheap bit of quote-mining on his audience? This an abuse of trust. When one finds this kind of gross error in the very beginning of a text, it does not bode well for what follows, as further posts will continue to show.

Given that Elder Holland’s sense of personal responsibility does not hinder him from engaging in cheap shots like this, why should we be impressed by his triumphalistic account of the BOM’s survival against criticism?

 

[SirThomasMore]

Returning Home

To eshuster and Jeffrey Holland:

While many have tried to prove the Book of Mormon to be a man written book, all attempts have failed thus far.

That is not entirely accurate, nor is it entirely fair.

You claim that no one has been able to prove the B of M is not a man-written book. But presupposes that there is a burden to disprove what you claim it is.

That is a misplacement of the burden.

Mormons make a claim that the B of M is scripture from God from people in the Americas who came here from across the ocean in Old Testament times. Your Church made the claim. It is up to your Church to prove it. It is not up to anyone else to disprove it. And your Church has failed miserably. Despite many efforts to prove the location of the B of M, the circumstances of the B of M, the scientific, geologic, archeologic claims of the B of M, no one has been able to do so. In a Church where a prophet claims to have direct communication God, God apparently has no idea where the book took place, or has decided He just ain;'t telling.

Regardless, it is YOUR burden to prove it.

Now, I know most LDS will answer, “no, we do not have to prove anything, just ask God…”

But that is a cop out answer. Your Church has made qa claim and ought to be able to substantiate it.

And I am not talking about the Spiritual aspects of the book. No one can prove God exists. No one can prove God does not exist. I cannot prove those aspects of the Bible. But I CAN prove that Jerusalem existed. I can prove there is a Mount Aarat. I can prove there is a Bethleham. I can prove there was a temple, that there were wars, that there was a Herod…etc. You cannot prove any of those aspects of the Book of Mormon.

And if we DID have the burden to disprove, there is plenty of evidence that the book is false. From the story of how it was found, how it was carried by a limping man racing three miles, to how it was translated, to how it was written, to where the material came from, etc etc. We have statements from members of Spaulding family along with other evidence that could lead to disproving the B of M is what is purports to be.

So, your comments, and Holland’s comments, are not accurate and nimbly tries to shift the burden of proof.

 

[soren1]

eshuster;6765627:

Returning Home

To eshuster and Jeffrey Holland:

While many have tried to prove the Book of Mormon to be a man written book, all attempts have failed thus far.

That is not entirely accurate, nor is it entirely fair.

You claim that no one has been able to prove the B of M is not a man-written book. But presupposes that there is a burden to disprove what you claim it is.

That is a misplacement of the burden.

Mormons make a claim that the B of M is scripture from God from people in the Americas who came here from across the ocean in Old Testament times. Your Church made the claim. It is up to your Church to prove it. It is not up to anyone else to disprove it. And your Church has failed miserably. Despite many efforts to prove the location of the B of M, the circumstances of the B of M, the scientific, geologic, archeologic claims of the B of M, no one has been able to do so. In a Church where a prophet claims to have direct communication God, God apparently has no idea where the book took place, or has decided He just ain;'t telling.

Regardless, it is YOUR burden to prove it.

Now, I know most LDS will answer, “no, we do not have to prove anything, just ask God…”

But that is a cop out answer. Your Church has made qa claim and ought to be able to substantiate it.

And I am not talking about the Spiritual aspects of the book. No one can prove God exists. No one can prove God does not exist. I cannot prove those aspects of the Bible. But I CAN prove that Jerusalem existed. I can prove there is a Mount Aarat. I can prove there is a Bethleham. I can prove there was a temple, that there were wars, that there was a Herod…etc. You cannot prove any of those aspects of the Book of Mormon.

And if we DID have the burden to disprove, there is plenty of evidence that the book is false. From the story of how it was found, how it was carried by a limping man racing three miles, to how it was translated, to how it was written, to where the material came from, etc etc. We have statements from members of Spaulding family along with other evidence that could lead to disproving the B of M is what is purports to be.

So, your comments, and Holland’s comments, are not accurate and nimbly tries to shift the burden of proof.

Mormons don’t have to prove the BOM. What they need to prove is the Great Apostasy. I think it should be held as a general principle that when someone claims to believe something on faith, then the burden of proof lies on the objector. This sensibility can be seen in Catholic theology. We cannot prove the doctrine of the Trinity, but we can respond to every possible objection to show that no argument posed against it is demonstrative, making it rationally possible to believe in the Trinity. Thus the power of faith, necessary to accept that teaching, assumes the benefit of the doubt. Yet if we are going to claim the benefit of the doubt for ourselves in apologetic dialogue, we need to extend it to others, and do so generously. For the Book of Mormon, that means allowing for conjectural answers to our objections, even if those answers may not be compelling. For instance, you mention the weight of the plates. Some LDS apologists claim that the plates could have been an alloy of gold and copper, called tumbaga, that could be made from ancient Mesoamerican metallurgy. That alloy would have appeared to be gold, but would have weighed a quarter as much. Thus the plates would have weight around 60 lbs, close to the estimate of 50lbs. made by some of the BOM witnesses. This might not be a compelling rebuttal, but can’t we give it the benefit of the doubt?

Besides, we make our case more compellingly when we take the burden of proof on ourselves and then meet that burden. For instance, it seems like a big loss to concede the argument about the gold, but it isn’t. Instead, because the LDS rebuttal depends on a Mesoamerican setting for the BOM, it moves the conversation into the question of the Limited Geography Theory. At that point our case becomes stronger, as the LGT can be rigorously disproven, as at least one Mormon prophet has said. Thus, assuming the burden of proof at this point enables us to respond effectively to a more central Mormon claim, and eventually to otherthrow the more peripheral argument about the gold as well, by defeating the archaeological theory that underlies it.

What the Mormons really do need to prove, however, is the Great Apostasy. This doctrine is utterly incoherent unless the Mormons can prove that it is a scriptural teaching. Otherwise, everything Christ and the Apostles say to the effect that men should obey the authority of the Church amounts to an endorsement of the apostate Church. Only demonstrative scriptural evidence for the apostasy could circumvent this problem. Yet for reasons that you are probable aware of already, a meaningful biblical defense of the Great Apostasy is an impossible task.

 

[SirThomasMore]

SirThomasMore;6767457:

Mormons don’t have to prove the BOM.

Sure they do. They claim it is something specific, it is encumbant them to prove it

What they need to prove is the Great Apostasy.

Agreed.

I think it should be held as a general principle that when someone claims to believe something on faith, then the burden of proof lies on the objector.

Not true. I made it clear that I was NOT speaking about the Spiritual aspect of the book. I made it clear to anyone who actually read my post that I was speaking about the historical, geographical, archeological and scientific aspects of the book

This sensibility can be seen in Catholic theology. We cannot prove the doctrine of the Trinity, but we can respond to every possible objection to show that no argument posed against it is demonstrative, making it rationally possible to believe in the Trinity.

Yes, but that goes to the spiritual aspects of the faith. I am not speaking to that. It is impossible for me to prove the existance of the Trinity, and impossible for you to prove it does not exist. That sort of thing is faith-based

For the Book of Mormon, that means allowing for conjectural answers to our objections, even if those answers may not be compelling. For instance, you mention the weight of the plates. Some LDS apologists claim that the plates could have been an alloy of gold and copper, called tumbaga, that could be made from ancient Mesoamerican metallurgy. That alloy would have appeared to be gold, but would have weighed a quarter as much. Thus the plates would have weight around 60 lbs, close to the estimate of 50lbs. made by some of the BOM witnesses. This might not be a compelling rebuttal, but can’t we give it the benefit of the doubt?

Ah, but in my earlier posts, I have always maintained the plates weighed 50 pounds, just to discuss THAT particular apologetic. I mentioned that when I was younger, prior to my 6 knee surgeries, I was in pretty good shape. I grew up in country and ran a lot. We also had a lot of dogs and I carried around 50-pound bags of dogfood all the time. Even at my best (when I could run 3 miles easily and could bench 350), I could not have carried a 50-pound bag of dogfood running for 3 miles through a forst, dodging trees, stumps, etc. and outrun three men. So, your point is moot.

What the Mormons really do need to prove, however, is the Great Apostasy. This doctrine is utterly incoherent unless the Mormons can prove that it is a scriptural teaching. Otherwise, everything Christ and the Apostles say to the effect that men should obey the authority of the Church amounts to an endorsement of the apostate Church. Only demonstrative scriptural evidence for the apostasy could circumvent this problem. Yet for reasons that you are probable aware of already, a meaningful biblical defense of the Great Apostasy is an impossible task.

I still maintain that they need to prove both. Sadly for them, they can prove neither.

 

[Returning_Home]

Returning Home
On the purpose of Jesus existing to help Mormons attain exaltation, not salvation like Biblical Christianity:

What?

Please explain where you have read this in an official Church publication or the standard scriptural works.

I don’t have to read in the official works; it’s the natural conclusion when we look at the fact that the church teaches that Jesus is a created being, that he attained exaltation, and that we can be like him.

Since Mormonism has redefined the nature of man as essentially good instead of essentially bad, it also reassigns the purpose of Christ as savior.

You want me to quote from your canon when you don’t even accept, contradict, or outright deny large chunks of it for your own purposes.

 

[Returning_Home]

Returning Home:

I am not sure the purpose of the quote from Ezra Taft Benson. He stated exactly what we all already know with respect to the Bible. Historians will not disagree with what he says.

The quote is intended to show that the church casts doubt on the Bible whenever convenient so it can slip its own un-Biblical teachings into the mix. It doesn’t matter who agrees or disagrees with what he said: We should follow his inspired teachings completely. We should not choose to follow part of his inspired counsel and discard that which is unpleasant or difficult. The Lord commanded us to follow the inspired teachings of his prophet:

'Thou shalt give heed unto all his (the prophet’s) words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me;
‘For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, all patience and faith’ (D&C 21:4-5).
“The Lord will never allow the President of the Church to lead us astray.” (entire quote from Gospel Principles, pps 49-50, 1996 edition)

If all this is true, then clearly, God doesn’t believe in the Bible either.

What this leads to is the eighth article of faith which states: “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.”

Thanks for proving my point. Allow me to translate: the Bible is only right when it confirms your position and wrong when it doesn’t. In reality, there’s not one single verse in the Bible that can be used to support the false claims of Mormonism.

The Mormon faith divides the scriptures into four standard works: The Old Testament, the New Testament, the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants/Pearl of Great Price. One year is dedicated to each standard work in rotation. This year the Church is studying the Old Testament. Next year it will be the New Testament, and so forth.

Yes, I’m aware of that and I probably own more copies of the BOM than you do. I even have one with Deformed Egyptian on its gold covers, front and back. I have a total of six copies, ranging from the photocopy of the 1830 version from the church archives to my 1996 quad purchased at Deseret Books.

The scriptures are woven into one another, not just the New Testament into the Book of Mormon. As it should be.

While many have tried to prove the Book of Mormon to be a man written book, all attempts have failed thus far.

Unfortunately, you bought what the church is selling: a false gospel. The reason the BOM sounds so Biblical is because chunks of it actually are, stolen directly from the New Testament by Joseph Smith. This is the reason we find the fictional Lehi and Nephi, in their own words, quoting the New Testament over and over again, a book not yet written by people not yet born about events not having yet occurred some 5,000 miles away. And another neat trick is that they managed to quote the KJV, a Bible version written in a region-specific dialect not published for some 2,200 years in the future.

Just because you haven’t accepted the fact that the BOM is a steaming pile of nonsense doesn’t mean it’s not so. Further, I also can’t convice you that China exists either, but there it is, big as life and twice as real.

As Elder Holland said in General Conference last April: “For 179 years this book has been examined and attacked, denied and deconstructed, targeted and torn apart like perhaps no other book in modern religious history—perhaps like no other book in any religious history. And still it stands. Failed theories about its origins have been born and parroted and have died—from Ethan Smith to Solomon Spaulding to deranged paranoid to cunning genius. None of these frankly pathetic answers for this book has ever withstood examination because there is no other answer than the one Joseph gave as its young unlearned translator. In this I stand with my own great-grandfather, who said simply enough, “No wicked man could write such a book as this; and no good man would write it, unless it were true and he were commanded of God to do so.”

I’ve seen this and honestly, I think Holland deserves an Oscar for this performance, going so far as conjuring a few crocodile tears to imply sincerity. That quiver in his voice almost had me going, too. But frankly, I get nauseous every time I see it, too because he’s high enough level that he knows there’s nothing to it.

youtube.com/watch?v=-_ac3tWeV3I

I have read it cover to cover many times and it has enriched my life tremendously. I have read the Bible cover to cover many times and it has likewise enriched my life tremendously. They harmonize with one another and testify of one another. I have followed this path for over 20 years and the Holy Ghost continues to bear witness to me of the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

If you got all those benefits from an utter work of fiction, just imagine what the Bible can do for you when read without the rose-colored LDS glasses.

I do want to ask how the BOM contains the fulness of the gospel, as does the Bible, when we know that the Bible is missing many ‘plain and precious things.’ And in light of that, how can it since it brings nothing new to the table?

 

[soren1]

soren1;6768583:

I still maintain that they need to prove both. Sadly for them, they can prove neither.

Your responses are pretty good here, and you are starting to persuade me. I didn’t remember that Smith claimed to have outrun three men. But I guess a Mormon could still say something like angels helped him run.

 

[SirThomasMore]

SirThomasMore;6768657:

Your responses are pretty good here, and you are starting to persuade me. I didn’t remember that Smith claimed to have outrun three men. But I guess a Mormon could still say something like angels helped him run.

Yes, they could. But it goes back to things they can prove. Whenever they have a topic they can’t defend, or a claim that is totally impossible, they fall back to the default position that it must have been heavenly help.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

CatholicGuyNY

You use the terms Trinitarians, Modalism and Unitarianism. An interesting choice of terminology as we discuss the relationship of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Thank you for bringing this into the conversation.

My understanding of “being” is a physical entity or essence. Mormonism does not believe that Christ is “one in being with the Father,” but rather the son of God and one in purpose with God.

Okay, this is the problem. Catholics do not believe that Christ is the same “physical entity” as the Father. That is Modalism or Unitarianism. Trinitarians believe that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are distinct from each other. We don’t use “being” to refer to “a physical entity”. We use it, roughly, to mean “nature”. It is actually a translation of Greek and/or Latin words, which are variously given as “being”, “essence”, “substance”, “nature”.

So this is why I have criticized your books’ sections on the Trinity, since you are not using the same definition of “being” that Trinitarians ourselves are using when we say that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are “one Being”. We don’t believe that they are one/the same physical entity, or the same Person. That is a heresy.

Your arguments lead me to ask you if you believe the official doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church on the Trinity is the same as the doctrine of the Trinity according to traditional Trinitarians.

Well yes, since Catholics are traditional Trinitarians.

Further to that, do you believe Evangelicals are Trinitarians or Unitarians?

Evangelicals are Trinitarians. I am not sure if people include Oneness Pentecostals as Evangelicals, however they are clearly non-Trinitarians.

Please also note that I am talking about official beliefs. I’m not concerned with misrepresentations of official beliefs, including by professing members of any religion.