Mormons and the Trinity

[SirThomasMore]

For the same reasons that the Son does, and ultimately we do. If you want a theological explanation for it, it is found in the following revelation:

God does not have a body. Mormons try to give God a body. They make the same mistake most heresies make: they try to humanize God…they try to put God into a neat little package they can understand.

 

[SirThomasMore]

Even Joe once taught God did not have a body:

“They are the Father and the Son: The Father being a personage of spirit, glory and power: possessing all perfection and fulness: The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made, or fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and likeness of man”

Lectures on Faith, 5th Lecture

 

[campeador]

D&C 93:

I was hoping I’d get a link with that underline. No problem. I’ll look it up.

33 For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy;
34 And when separated, man cannot receive a fulness of joy.

So, the Father is a man? But:

D&C 93(linked):

3 And that I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one—

If the Father and the Son are one, how can they have 2 bodies?

 

[soren1]

For the same reasons that the Son does, and ultimately we do. If you want a theological explanation for it, it is found in the following revelation:

D&C 93:

33 For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy;
34 And when separated, man cannot receive a fulness of joy.
35 The elements are the tabernacle of God; yea, man is the tabernacle of God, even temples; and whatsoever temple is defiled, God shall destroy that temple.

In Catholicism, man is not spirit. Man is spirit and body. The post-Cartesian notion of body-soul dualism that is reflected in LDS teaching, clearly seen, lowers the status of the body because it becomes an instrument of the personal soul rather than an integral part of the person as such. The reason we have bodies is not just that our soul could not be happy, but because without bodies, we could not even be.

Body-soul dualism is bad for morality because it undermines human dignity. This can be seen in the way that dualism is used to justify hedonism in modern society. Promiscuous people tend to take a stance that what they do with their bodies is a matter of indifference to their soul. How many men have explained why they have affairs by saying, “That is just my body, but not me” or “but I don’t love those women”? According to a dualist anthropology, this is a reasonable argument. Of course, Mormonism is not hedonist, but the use of similar dualism to justify promiscuity shows, in an exaggerated form, why the body really is degraded when the person is identified with the spirit rather than with the entire composite of spirit and body. The Catholic response to dualistic hedonism, “But your body is you,” cannot be made intelligibly from a Mormon standpoint.

God, however, is not spirit and body, he is pure spirit as John 4:24 shows. Mormon efforts to explain this text by interpreting God’s nature within the same dualistic framework as man overlook the context of the verse, which discusses the question of what God is by revealing his omnipresence, which makes him as ubiquitous as truth, summarizing this doctrine in the phrase “God is spirit.” This single fact refutes every materialist reading in John 4:24, as was shown by Origin in the third century in only the fourth paragraph of De Principiis. As far as I have been able to find, his exegesis still awaits a substantive response from the Mormon side.

 

[zerinus]

So, the Father is a man? But:

D&C 93(linked):

If the Father and the Son are one, how can they have 2 bodies?

They are united in mind, purpose, and will. Remember Jesus’ last prayer, that His disciples should be made “one” in Him and the Father, as He and the Father are “one”? How could they all be “one,” if they all had separate bodies? That answers your question.

 

[SirThomasMore]

They are united in mind, purpose, and will. Remember Jesus’ last prayer, that His disciples should be made “one” in Him and the Father, as He and the Father are “one”? How could they all be “one,” if they all had separate bodies? That answers your question.

this is what happens when Mormons try to put God into a “god’'s” body

 

[catholic-rcia]

As to God having a body like ours, that would be that in all of God creation, the Heavens in its eternal dimensions and wonder, God decided to place himself in a bottle. Jesus took on a body to personally come to us as we are. He lessoned Himself for us, he came in Human appearance. How many times have you heard “ I don’t attend church because I find God in the mountains, in His creation or I find Him while golfing or before I go to sleep or when I am fishing or camping etc… Of course God is everywhere as He is not contained into a body. I used to have a special place where I would ponder God even before my Baptism into Him. It was between two very large granite boulders with a waterfall and a huge fishing hole below. That was my special place where I would feel His presence the strongest. Now its at Mass, the Blessed Sacrament Chapel, under the Crucifix and in the Confessional. In the mountains, Camping, Fishing, etc… I have a sense of Trinity all around me and even in me. If I have the need to put a face on God its always Jesus. It helps us humans to be able to put a face on Him. But we have to be careful not to box God in with certain images. Knowing His presence is enough. He knows each one of us by name and is big enough to hear all of our voices in prayer at the same time and comfort each one of us individually. He is that big, nothing can contain Him let alone our minds. If you are going to bring God down to a human level I would place all of my stock in Jesus and listen to Him. He is all we really have that is of any worth.

 

[Returning_Home]

Joseph Smith-History 1:

17 . . . When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!

D&C 130:

22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.[/INDENT]

That is the correct doctrine of the Trinity as far as we are concerned. How other people misunderstand it is not something Mormons stay awake at night thinking about.

You seemed to have forgotten the other five versions of the Furst Vision as well as the fact that the BOM is still largely monotheistic in scope. The change to 1 Nephi 14:30 didn’t occur until 1837. Why didn’t God get around to accurately revealing himself at the time the BOM was first published?

 

[Returning_Home]

Well I’m over six. Please, explain it to me.

And can you make it so I don’t have to wade an ocean?

What Mormons won’t tell you, however, is that Joseph Smith’s opinion about God started to change in about 1835 and that there are at least five different versions of the Furst Vision. (where Smith supposedly saw God and Jesus in the grove) The BOM is largely monotheistic but later works began to be polytheistic and the BOM was even changed to reflect Smith’s evolving opinion.

In the earliest version, he talks to a ‘Jewish minister’ named Joshua and then goes to the grove and prays. He sees an angel who tells him that his sins were forgiven. (HOTC vol 1, p 304)

Another version has Smith seeing just God and a pillar of light who told him that his sins were forgiven. (Joseph Smith, 1832 diary, Ensign, Dec 1984 and Jan 1985)

The next version has Smith in the grove again and he sees two unnamed personages, angels, and a pillar of fire. He’s told that his sins are forgiven. (Joseph Smith, 1835 diary, Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, Dean Jessee, Deseret Book CO, 1984)

And the current, accepted version, Smith seeing God and Jesus together, wasn’t written down until 1838 and then wasn’t even printed until four years after that.

This, of course, doesn’t take into account the fact that on at least four separate occasions, Brigham Young said that Smith saw only angels. (JOD 2:171, 13:78, 18:239, 20:167)

Now if Smith couldn’t keep track of the most momentous event in himan history, how can you believe anything he said? And if the prophets all speak for the same God, how could Brigham Young gotten it so wrong?

And what is the one and only constant thing in each account? The grove! That’s it, the only thing that Smith kept the same throughout the various tellings and embellishments.

 

[Returning_Home]

I was referring to the LDS dThey are one in purpose. They don’t pull in different directions. They don’t have arguments, like the gods of Greek mythology do! They don’t fall out with each other like the pagan gods do. They don’t have conflicting interests. They are perfectly united in their aims, objectives, and interests.

This is simply not true; there’s no such support for this in the BOM nor is there any such terminology used anywhere in the LDS canon. It’s a direct contradiction to what the BOM clearly states, the same as telling us that your god is an evolving, exhalated being with flesh and bones because the god in the BOM is and always was God as a spirit. (Mosiah 3:5; 15:1-5, Alma 18:26-29; 19:25-27; 22:8-11; 31:15-38, 2 Nephi 27:23; 29:9, Mormoni 7:22; 8:18, Mormon 9:9, 19)

This is where many Christians get confused by Mormon claims, often ending up thinking that they believe much as we do. In reality, they are largely ignoring their own works in order to appear more Christian than they really are.

 

[Returning_Home]

The Mormon idea of God has changed over time. In the begiinning, Mormons DID preach a trinitarian concept. Later, Joseph Smith, in Lectures On Faith, taught that Jesus was flesh and bones, but that the Father was a personage of Spirit. Then, later, Joseph taught that the Father was flesh and bones.

Correct. I just had an interesting conversation with Sandra Tanner who clarified that for me; in the LOF of 1835, Smith’s ideas about God had already begun to change and would evolve until they are what the church holds true now. 1 Nephi 14:30 was changed in the second edition of the BOM, published in 1837, to reflect this.

 

[Returning_Home]

For the same reasons that the Son does, and ultimately we do. If you want a theological explanation for it, it is found in the following revelation:

D&C 93:

33 For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy;
34 And when separated, man cannot receive a fulness of joy.
35 The elements are the tabernacle of God; yea, man is the tabernacle of God, even temples; and whatsoever temple is defiled, God shall destroy that temple.

The BOM completely refutes that notion and contradicts the later works. I don’t know why Mormons don’t see this instead of just glossing over it and pretending it’s not there.

 

[eshuster]

TRINITY THOUGHTS 1

Hello folks:

First of all I encourage you to NEVER rely on me (Eric Shuster) for your doctrine. I am a ordinary Latter-day Saint who happens to have written about my experiences and understanding.

Second – I apologize for the long post but I only post on Sunday’s in the very early morning due to my limited time availability and might as well give you all of my thoughts at once so over the week you can discuss them.

The teachings on the Mormon doctrine of the Godhead do not come from Mormon scripture or prophetic utterings, it comes directly from the New Testament. The Trinity, a doctrine created in AD 325 at the Council of Nicaea as a political appeasement, was very liberal in its interpretation of the writings of the apostles.

For a moment – forget the theories; forget the historical record; forget what your pastor or Sunday School teacher has told you; forget all of the theology for a moment and just take the opportunity to simply read the Bible to find out for yourself. Have your Bible ready and read along with me the various scriptures referenced:

Three Beings
After the Ascension, the disciples frequently mentioned Jesus and God the Father separately in the same passages (1 Corinthians 8:6, 2 Corinthians 5:19-21, 1 Timothy 1:2, Hebrews 3:1-2, Ephesians 5:5, Romans 8:39, 2 Thessalonians 2:16, Colossians 1:2, 1 John 4:1-2 and 2 John 9, Acts 10:38, Acts 5:30-32, 2 Corinthians 13:14, and Jude 20-21). Jesus sits at the right hand of God 1 Peter 3:22, Colossians 3:1, Hebrews 10:10-12, Mark 16:19 and Acts 7:55-56.

One God
Jesus said of a man and woman who marry, “And they twain shall be one flesh” (Matthew 19:5). Not one flesh physically, but in love, commitment, and covenant. No less is the individuality of the personages of the Godhead. This perfect oneness is described by Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane where he prays to the Father that his disciples would be one just as he (Jesus) and God the Father are one (John 17:11 and John 17:21-23). Jesus proclaimed that the Father and he were one, that he dwelled in the Father, and the Father dwelled in him (John 10:15, 25, 30, 38 and John 14:18-20). Jesus was with God in the beginning, was and is in perfect purpose with God, and can be called God (John 1:1-2). God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost can witness as three individual beings but still maintain a complete and perfect accord as one in purpose (1 John 5:7).

The Father, Jesus, and Adam
Jesus Christ was the firstborn spirit offspring of God the Father (Colossians 1:15 and Hebrews 1:5-6). Jesus was preordained to become the mortal son of God (Luke 1:32). God the Father declared that man would be made “in our image” (Genesis 1:26), that is, the image of himself and of Jesus Christ. God the Father declared that Adam (all mankind) would “become as one of us” (Genesis 3:22) after his fall.

Jesus Defers to the Father
From an early age, Jesus recognized his role as the only begotten son of God. Jesus sought to do the Father’s will and found favor in the Father’s sight (Luke 2:49, 52). Jesus throughout his public ministry acknowledged the Father as his father and frequently reminded his disciples that he was sent by the Father (John 7:28-29 and John 5:37). Jesus made it clear that it was the will of the Father that he was fulfilling, not his own will (John 14:23, Matthew 16:27, Matthew 16:17, and John 4:34). Jesus repeatedly confirmed that he was the “son of God” (Mark 14:61-62) and that his father bore witness of him as part of the testimony of two witnesses—Jesus Christ being one witness and his Heavenly Father being the other (John 8:17-18).

Jesus and the Holy Ghost
Jesus Christ spoke of the Holy Ghost with reverence. Before going into the wilderness to fast for 40 days and be tempted by Satan, Jesus was “full of the Holy Ghost” (Luke 4:1). Jesus taught that blasphemy against himself (one personage of the Godhead) could be forgiven, but that blasphemy against the Holy Ghost (a separate and different personage of the Godhead) could not be forgiven in this life or the next (Matthew 12:31-32). Before he ascended into heaven, Jesus told his apostles that the Holy Ghost (the comforter) would take his place when he left (John 16:7).
**
Together: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost**
All three members of the Godhead were present at the baptism of Jesus. When the savior came out of the water, the Holy Ghost descended in the form of a dove and Heavenly Father spoke from heaven (Mark 1:10-11 and Matthew 3:16-17). Jesus spoke of God the Father and the Holy Ghost together (John 14:26 and John 16:13-15), acknowledging both their divine individuality and their divine unity.

 

[eshuster]

TRINITY THOUGHTS 2:

Jesus Pled with the Father
During the events of the Atonement, Jesus was particularly close to his divine father—and then horribly separated from him. Chapter 17 of John details the great intercessory prayer, where Jesus poured out his heart to God the Father and pled on behalf of the apostles and all believers that they might come to know “the only true God” and Jesus Christ (John 17:3). This was not an internal dialogue. Jesus was imploring another being, not merely some aspect of his own personhood. He was imploring his Heavenly Father. In the Garden of Gethsemane , Jesus pled with his Heavenly Father—calling him by the intimate “Abba”, for father—asking him if it might be according to the Father’s will to “take away this cup from me” (Mark 14:36). Jesus remained in this intimacy with the Father throughout the events leading up to his death on the cross. He pled with his father to forgive those who were crucifying him (Luke 23:24); he cried out in agony to his father when death was imminent (Matthew 27:46); and he commended his spirit into the hands of his father when the work was finished (Luke 23:46).
**
The Personage of Jesus**
Paul (Galatians 4:4, 6, and Ephesians 1:2-3, 3:14), Luke (Acts 3:13), and Peter (1 Peter 5:10) all referred repeatedly to Jesus as being the son of God the Father. Jesus is described as the image of God (2 Corinthians 4:4), who was made manifest of God in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16) to be the one and only mediator between God (the Father) and man (1 Timothy 2:5).

Father and Son Differ in Knowledge
Although being divinely one in purpose, God the Father has understanding and knowledge that his son Jesus does not (Mark 13:32), at least while Jesus occupied the mortal realm.

Father and Son Differ in Power and Dominion
Jesus said during his public ministry that his father (God the Father) had greater power and dominion than he (John 10:29 and John 13:16). The doctrine that Jesus taught was that of his father (John 7:16). Jesus deferred to God the Father in matters of heavenly decision making (Matthew 20:23). Jesus accepted commandments given by his father (John 10:18). Jesus ultimately gained all that his father had (John 5:26-27 and John 17:22), but he still acted upon the will of his father in all things (John 5:19, 21 and John 5:30), despite having his moral agency (free will) to do otherwise.

The Father is God to the Son
The prophet Micah prophesied that Christ would be born “in the majesty of the name of the Lord his God” (Micah 5:4). Jesus referred to God the Father as God (Luke 18:19, Matthew 19:17, John 17:3), called upon God during his crucifixion (Mark 15:34 and Matthew 27:46), and referred to God after his resurrection (John 20:17). Paul then confirms the doctrine of God the Father being the God of Jesus Christ in his letters to the Ephesians (Ephesians 1:17) and Corinthians (I Corinthians 11:3).

The Trinity as a doctrine is complex in trying to explain how three entities are really one in being. That they can retain their separate nature, but still be one God. Such a doctrine can only be supported by the New Testament by ignoring the overwhelming scriptural references to the contrary, and by broadly interpreting a few passages to support the Triune God theory.

The Godhead as a doctrine is simple and follows completely the New Testament teaching: God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost as being one in divine purpose. They are one eternal God metaphorically because of this divine oneness, but still retain their individual nature as confirmed by the Bible.

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.

God is my Father and I pray to him just as Jesus taught us to. Jesus Christ is my Savior and I worship him and know that only through him can I come unto the Father as he declared it to be. I know the Holy Ghost is the revealer of all truth and my comforter as Jesus proclaimed. Latter-day Saints follow this pattern of belief as outlined in the New Testament.

Are they three Gods? Apparently, as we have no other word that can describe such beings except to call them gods. Are the separate beings? Yes, the Bible is clear about that. Are they one in purpose? Yes, the Bible is clear about that. Is this incomprehensible? To me it certainly is, especially since God’s thoughts are not our thoughts.

Folks – we are not as far apart as you make it out to be. If one is to believe as me, or is to believe as one who has faith in the Trinity, I believe we are both OK from a salvation standpoint. The question is, which doctrine will lead you to a closer relationship with God AND Jesus Christ; and most importantly allow you to have an intimate relationship with God your Father?

For me and many others it is the Godhead. Praying to God our Father, in the name of his son Jesus Christ under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.

How comforting it is.

 

[RebeccaJ]

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.

Apparently you have fallen for a lds tale that has no basis in historical fact.

The Holy Trinity is not an invented doctrine. The councils do not exist to piece things together, they exist to defend the Faith, handed once and for all to Christ’s Church. They are led by the Holy Spirit, who guides our Bishops in their duties as our shepherds. The council address errors in teachings, such as the error of Arianism, which arose and had to be addressed.

Beyond that, it is an ironic claim, coming from a mormon, who follows a religion that is a piece of this (Bible), a piece of that (freemasonry, folk magic, fictional tales), and only accepts out of the Bible what aligns to the other pieces. What doesn’t align is called mistranslated or missing. Catholicism makes no such claim about the Bible.

The Holy Trinity is Biblical, you have just chosen to close your eyes to truth.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

Eshuster, unfortunately you show a fundamental misunderstanding of what the Trinity doctrine is, and like the persons mentioned in the OP, confuse Modalism/Unitarianism for Trinitarianism. While many people do this, including some Trinitarians themselves, the Trinity is clearly defined in opposition to Modalism/Unitarianism, and therefore it is important to understand such distinctions to make any meaningful comparison between the traditional Trinity and your Godhead.

Firstly, I already addressed the issue of Jesus being “firstborn” in another thread, and you can read Soren1’s excellent post on the issue here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6735884&postcount=25

I have an important question to ask you on this topic: what is your understanding of the word “being” as it relates to the Trinity doctrine? What do Trinitarians mean when we say that the 3 Persons are “one Being/one in Being”? By making statements such as “This was not an internal dialogue. Jesus was imploring another being, not merely some aspect of his own personhood.”, you are showing a lack of understanding of what the definition of the Trinity doctrine is, and instead seem to be arguing against Modalism/Unitarianism.

For Trinitarians, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct Persons, and they are not “aspect” of each other. They are wholly distinct from each other, where the Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit, etc. When Jesus pled with the Father, we certainly do not believe that He was talking to Himself or some aspect “of his own personhood”. We believe that He was praying to the Father, who is a distinct Person from the Son. The “us” in Genesis 1:26 clearly shows the existence of distinct Persons, and the Father talking to someone other than Himself. Same goes for Jesus’ baptism. Trinitarians see these passages as affirming that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons, and not just aspects of one Person or “modes” of one Person, which is a heresy known as Modalism.

So, now that we see this, what is your understanding of what Trinitarians mean when they say that the 3 Persons are “one Being”? What is the definition that you are using that makes this idea objectionable?

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

The Trinity as a doctrine is complex in trying to explain how three entities are really one in being. That they can retain their separate nature, but still be one God. Such a doctrine can only be supported by the New Testament by ignoring the overwhelming scriptural references to the contrary, and by broadly interpreting a few passages to support the Triune God theory.

Trinitarians ignore no scriptural references, since we affirm that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons. You are confusing Trinitarianism with the heresy of Modalism, which is quite common due to a fundamental misunderstanding of how the word “being” is used in Trinitarian doctrine, which is not the same as how it is used today, interchangeably with “person”.

Also, your definition of the Trinity above (“they can retain their separate nature, but still be one God”) is not a definition used by Trinitarians. We believe that the 3 Persons are of one nature, the divine nature.

The Godhead as a doctrine is simple and follows completely the New Testament teaching: God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost as being one in divine purpose. They are one eternal God metaphorically because of this divine oneness, but still retain their individual nature as confirmed by the Bible.

And Trinitarians believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit retain their individual characteristics, which make them distinct Persons, and not confused with each other. Again, you seem to be confusing Modalism (a heresy) for Trinitarianism.

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.

This is not a logical conclusion, since we can similarly ask why the apostles never claimed that the Father was once a man, or married to the Heavenly Mother, which seem to be important issues in understanding the nature of God (especially when such ideas are paralleled with our own future in Mormon exaltation). The length of time is irrelevant, since we know that the Bible itself spans a very long time period, bringing up doctrinal issues throughout.

Also, RebeccaJ addressed the reason why the Nicene Council was called, due to the heresy of Arianism, which claimed that Jesus was created by the Father (which reminds me of the LDS idea of Jesus being the literal firstborn of the Father).

God is my Father and I pray to him just as Jesus taught us to. Jesus Christ is my Savior and I worship him and know that only through him can I come unto the Father as he declared it to be. I know the Holy Ghost is the revealer of all truth and my comforter as Jesus proclaimed. Latter-day Saints follow this pattern of belief as outlined in the New Testament.

So do Trinitarians.

Are they three Gods? Apparently, as we have no other word that can describe such beings except to call them gods.

Which of course is an idea found nowhere in the Bible, if we are still claiming that the Mormon Godhead doctrine is completely Biblical.

We believe that they are three Persons.

Are the separate beings? Yes, the Bible is clear about that.

What is the definition of “being” that you are using? It is not the same as that used by Trinitarians. The way that you are using “being” is the way that we use “Person”, since we believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are real, distinct Persons, who are not confused with each other. When we Trinitarians talk about them being “one Being”, we aren’t talking about them being “one Person”, or “aspects of each other”, or any other heresy. Again, you seem to be confusing Modalism with the Trinity, as the other people in the OP do as well.

 

[Returning_Home]

TRINITY THOUGHTS 1The teachings on the Mormon doctrine of the Godhead do not come from Mormon scripture or prophetic utterings, it comes directly from the New Testament.

…just take the opportunity to simply read the Bible to find out for yourself. Have your Bible ready and read along with me the various scriptures referenced:

No, the best way to judge the Bible when speaking to Mormons is to use their own standards: I’ve covered this before and the facts haven’t changed since that time. We know the prophet speaks for God (D&C 21:4-5), that he cannot lead the church astray (Gospel Principles, p 50, 1996 edition), that God and his word do not change (Mormon 9:9, Alma 41:8), and that the Bible is missing many ‘plain and precious things.’ (1 Nephi 13:24-42, used seven times for emphasis)

That said, let’s see what a prophet of the church actually said about the Bible, shall we?

“Unlike the Bible, which passed though generations of copyists, translators, and correupt religionists who tampered with the text, the BOM came from writer to reader in just one inspired step of translation.” (Ezra Taft Benson, Ensign, Jan 1992, p 5)

So if God doesn’t even believe in the Bible, why should we use it to evaulate your opinion about it?

Yet strangely enough, we find the New Testament woven throughout the BOM, long before it was written and compiled. How does that make sense?

 

[SirThomasMore]

Hauster is making the same mistakes now that he did in his book. He has never truly understood the Trinity.

First, he is still trying to fit an infiniate God into a finite body. That is something that heretics have been doing for ages.

It is very simple…Mormons believe in three gods who are the godhead while the TRUTH is that there are three in ONE God. God was very, very , very clear…there is only ONE God.

 

[Returning_Home]

Hauster is making the same mistakes now that he did in his book. He has never truly understood the Trinity.

First, he is still trying to fit an infiniate God into a finite body. That is something that heretics have been doing for ages.

It is very simple…Mormons believe in three gods who are the godhead while the TRUTH is that there are three in ONE God. God was very, very , very clear…there is only ONE God.

You’re absolutely correct and I’d like to add to it the fact that Mormonism has revised the purpose of Jesus, who exists to help them attain exhaltation, not salvation like Biblical Christianity.