Mormons and the Trinity

[mormon_fool]

Mike_D30:

It’s very simple, the Book of Mormon doesn’t show the “meat” of Mormonism.

I think it is very meaty. I could make a list of distinct LDS doctrine it contains if requested.

It comes off as being in line with Christianity.

I hope so, because it is Christ centered.

It isn’t until you get the Pearl of Great Price, the Temple, Doctrines and Covenants, that all the other stuff came about.

Don’t forget the Bible. Between the Bible and the Book of Mormon, I was able to cover all your topics but two.

The ONLY way you can say the Book of Mormon teaches, the stuff I listed is taking a very liberal rendering of a certain passage. Check it out:

Nice cut and paste. One wonders why you needed to go to an anti-site to post information about a book you have read. Your references only address two subjects on your list and repeat my references for them. They prove the Book of Mormon indeed addresses Plurality of Gods (there isn’t a plurality) and of plural marriage (which is condemned unless commanded otherwise as Jacob 2:30 states).

I’m not going to argue semantics with you, you say you prove the Book of Mormon does teach the following:

Church organization
Plurality of Gods
Plurality of wives doctrine
Word of Wisdom
God is an exalted man
Celestial marriage
Men may become Gods
Three degrees of glory
Baptism for the dead
Eternal progression
The Aaronic Priesthood
Melchizedek Priesthood

Why do you add things to the list and then say I said it? This is truly bizarre debate tactics.

I say it clearly doesn’t. The burden of proof is on you.

I have already provided my references for your the original list. I will not address new items until you deal with your original list.

I’ve read Mormon apologetics on FAIR, they don’t hold up to scrutiny.

Whose scrutiny? Could you kindly point us to a worthy scrutinizer of FAIR?

You are showing how Mormon’s are masters in double speak.

Where? If anything I have said is unclear. I will try to explain.

It’s the only way your religious doctrines can make sense I’m sorry but that’s the truth.

While it is true that it takes work to make sense of Mormonism, the same is thing is true of an outsider trying to understand Catholicism.

–fool

Peace be with you

 

[Mike_D30]

mormon fool:

Nice cut and paste. One wonders why you needed to go to an anti-site to post information about a book you have read. Your references only address two subjects on your list and repeat my references for them. They prove the Book of Mormon indeed addresses Plurality of Gods (there isn’t a plurality) and of plural marriage (which is condemned unless commanded otherwise as Jacob 2:30 states).

Nice ad-hominem attack, don’t actually argue against what I wrote, argue where I got them, and essentially call me a liar. It’s real simple I can’t quote direct verses from memory of the Book of Mormon. I’ve read Moby Dick too, and I couldn’t give you verse and chapter on that book either.

Now tell me where in what I ‘cut and pasted’ did I go wrong? Were the verses listed incorrectly? Was what I said Mormonism actually practices incorrect?

NO it wasn’t so the only arguemnt you have is some ad-hominem attack me and the source.

Sorry but your double speak is glaring, and I’m certain anyone following along with my line of reasoning and SOURCES, are going to see it my way.

Again I have nothing against Mormon’s but I have a lot against them coming to a Catholic site and spreading lies to lead my brother astray.

You didn’t reply to the passges YOU requested that I provided, you just attacked me for being an anti, and going to anti site. Sorry but the passages are real.

 

[mormon_fool]

FCEGM:

Not to worry, CD; though the quotes are accurate it is a very Catholic understanding that the Fathers quoted are reflecting (unfortunately misunderstood by LDS). This article should help:

bringyou.to/apologetics/a124.htm

Thanks for your link FCEGM. Do you have an example in mind where an LDS scholar or apologist has misunderstood the ECF’s teachings on deification?

Thanks,
fool

 

[FCEGM]

mormon fool:

Thanks for your link FCEGM. Do you have an example in mind where an LDS scholar or apologist has misunderstood the ECF’s teachings on deification?

My first - and flip - answer is that if they hadn’t misunderstood the ECFs they would be Catholics.

My exposure to LDS apologists has been limited to this forum, so feel free to correct my understanding. For a Catholic, we participate in the divine nature and its glory by participation in the life of Christ by adoption (through Baptism). This glory is necessary for us if we are to enjoy the Beatific Vision. Christ’s glory is His by virtue of His being the Only Son, He Who became Incarnate; we share in His glory by being adopted sons in THE Son. By the grace of the Incarnation of the Son we may rise to share in that glory and already participate in it (though often unawares) through our participation in Christ - initially through Baptism, and subsequently through faithfulness to the sacramental life of the Church.

Now humans may share in His perfection by the grace won for us in Christ. What we can never be is what God is in Himself. By His grace He allows us to participate in the perfection of His Divinity (through theosis), but it is never ours on our own since we are and will always be His creatures, though raised by His grace to divine sonship.

From my reading on Mormonism and from the many posts in this and other threads pertaining to differences between Catholics and Mormons, and from long discussions with LDS missionaries, it seems to me that theosis for a Mormon would be a tapping into the same power that the god of this world employs. It seems that for the LDS god has power; but for Catholics God is power. IOW, all Divine attributes (e.g., to name a few: omniscience, transcendence, ominipresence, infinity, justice, omnipotence) are One in the simplicity of the One Being Who is Pure Spirit.

The imperfect example that came to me regards geology. Geologists tell us that the Hawaiian Islands are formed by the shifting of the tectonic plates under the ocean; the sub-oceanic volcanic activity of the area stays pretty much in place while the ocean floor shifts over the lava streams that erupt above the surface. So the islands are developed as the ocean floor slowly moves over those areas of eruption. For LDS, then, using this analogy, the god of this world and the gods of others would be the islands; for Catholics God would be the lava flow (or more aptly, the point from which the lava flows) for God’s power is not something outside Himself that He taps into.

In the measure in which we are united with God in this friendly commerce by the bonds of true and intimate knowledge and filial love and are inflamed with the fire of His charity, in that measure shall we succeed in purging ourselves of all earthly dross. Being transformed from glory to glory, we shall cleave to Him and be one spirit with Him (1 Cor. 1:7).

Thus, living in God and by God, we can even now have all our conversation in heaven, for from that moment we exercise the functions characteristic of eternal life and we are able to know God as He is in Himself, to love Him with the same love with which He loves Himself and us, to possess Him as He possesses Himself, and to lose ourselves in the abyss of His eternal happiness.

Then we no longer tend to God as something which is outside ourselves. We possess Him here on earth in essentially the same way as the way we hope to possess Him in glory. To enjoy Him beatifically it is sufficient to develop that seed of eternal life which has been sown in our souls, to remove the earth that covers it, and to clear away the obstacles that impede its growth, and to fix all our attention on Him. We should enter within ourselves and converse with God in our heart, who is our portion forever. Discovering His glorious kingdom in our heart and drinking at the fount of living water which springs from life eternal, we shall see that our happiness lies in union with Him and we shall swoon with love. This fountain is the Spirit whom we have received and from whom incessantly flow the graces from which our souls receive moisture, are beautified, purified and made fertile,"The Mystical Evolution in the Development and Vitality of the Church, Vol. 1, Fr. John G. Arintero, O.P., TAN Books, pp. 107-108.

 

[mormon_fool]

Mike_D30:

Nice ad-hominem attack, don’t actual argue against what I wrote, argue where I got them.

Well you were the one who was making accusations of plagiarism earlier. . . You may wish to look up the definition of ad hominem. I did not dismiss the material because you passed it off as your own. I dismissed it because it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. To review you claimed that the following is not taught in the Book of Mormon:

Plural Gods
Plural Marriage
God the Father being a Man
Man becoming a God
God having Boens and flesh
Jesus and Satan as spirit brothers’
Aaronic priesthood
Malchizidek preisthood
Celestial Kingdom

To which I posted Book of Mormon references where the items you list are in fact taught, with some Bible references thrown in.

Plural Gods – discussed in Alma 11, Gen. 3:22, Deut 32:8-9, Psalms 82, John 10
Plural Marriage – discussed in Jacob 2, Deut 25, throughout the OT
God the Father being a Man – not an emphasized teaching
Man becoming a God – 3 Ne. 28:10
God having Boens and flesh –
Jesus and Satan as spirit brothers’ –
Aaronic priesthood – OT
Malchizidek preisthood[sic] – Alma 13, Heb. 7
Celestial Kingdom 1 Cor 15:40

To which you yourself have now cut and pasted evidence for two items on the list.

And there are 2 other items on the list which you haven’t addressed which I have provided a reference for. The Melchizedek Priesthood is unambiguously discussed in Alma 13 and Man becoming a God is a sylogistic read of 3 Ne. 28:10

Now tell me where in what I ‘cut and pasted’ did I go wrong?

It is hard to go wrong in a cut and paste.

Were the verses lsited incorrectly?

I already quibbled about some of the selective quoting of the Book of Mormon in regards to polygamy. Jacob 2:30 is the most important verse.

Was what I said Mormonism actually practices incorrect?

Your cut-and-paste only mentioned one practice, polygamy. And it is essentially not practiced at this time in any earthly sense.

NO it wasn’t so the only arguemnt you have is some ad-hominem attack me or the source.

The reason I dismissed your cut-and-paste is not because it comes from an anti-mormon site, hence I have commited no ad hominem. The reason I do not address it is because I find it a red herring. I find it irrelevant to your original list and I don’t wish to jump to a different topic until the original claims are resolved.

Sorry but your double speak is glaring,

Please demonstrate this or point out the what I have said that you don’t understand and I will clarify. This is not the first time I have made this offer and yet you have brought no examples of what you regard as double speak to my attention.

and I’m certain anyone following along with my line of reasoning and SOURCES, and going to see it my way.

You have only used one SOURCE so far.

Again I have nothing against Mormon’s but I have a lot against them coming to a Catholic site and spreading lies to lead my brother astray.

Again please demonstrate any lies. I doubt Catholic Dude thinks I am lying, we have had many respectful conversations for a year or so now and I have never steered him wrong.

You didn’t reply to the passges YOU requested that I provided,

I never requested any passages. I requested that you show that the Book of Mormon does not contain teachings on the topics that I provided a reference showing that it did. You countered that this would only be the case with a liberal interpretation. I blew the “liberal interpretation” out of the water by conceding that the Book of Mormon does not contain all the LDS teachings on the subjects, yet it does raise some of the topics you claim it does not. Therefore we are back to square 1 where you need to show the references I provided do not teach on the topic I said they do or else concede what I have been saying all along is correct.

you just attacked me for being an anti, and going to anti site. Sorry but the passages are real.

I have not called you an anti-, just the site you got your stuff from. I additionally mused why someone who has read the Book of Mormon has to go to anti-site to demonstrate understanding of the Book of Mormon. Regardless of the passages are real, they are a read herring, except the passages on plural marriage and plural Gods which prove my point and not yours.

Did you get it this time or does someone need to explain it to you again?

 

[Mike_D30]

mormon fool:

Well you were the one who was making accusations of plagiarism earlier. . . You may wish to look up the definition of ad hominem. I did not dismiss the material because you passed it off as your own. I dismissed it because it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. To review you claimed that the following is not taught in the Book of Mormon:

To which I posted Book of Mormon references where the items you list are in fact taught, with some Bible references thrown in.

To which you yourself have now cut and pasted evidence for two items on the list.

And there are 2 other items on the list which you haven’t addressed which I have provided a reference for. The Melchizedek Priesthood is unambiguously discussed in Alma 13 and Man becoming a God is a sylogistic read of 3 Ne. 28:10

It is hard to go wrong in a cut and paste.

I already quibbled about some of the selective quoting of the Book of Mormon in regards to polygamy. Jacob 2:30 is the most important verse.

Your cut-and-paste only mentioned one practice, polygamy. And it is essentially not practiced at this time in any earthly sense.

The reason I dismissed your cut-and-paste is not because it comes from an anti-mormon site, hence I have commited no ad hominem. The reason I do not address it is because I find it a red herring. I find it irrelevant to your original list and I don’t wish to jump to a different topic until the original claims are resolved.

Please demonstrate this or point out the what I have said that you don’t understand and I will clarify. This is not the first time I have made this offer and yet you have brought no examples of what you regard as double speak to my attention.

You have only used one SOURCE so far.

Again please demonstrate any lies. I doubt Catholic Dude thinks I am lying, we have had many respectful conversations for a year or so now and I have never steered him wrong.

I never requested any passages. I requested that you show that the Book of Mormon does not contain teachings on the topics that I provided a reference showing that it did. You countered that this would only be the case with a liberal interpretation. I blew the “liberal interpretation” out of the water by conceding that the Book of Mormon does not contain all the LDS teachings on the subject, yet it does raise the topics you claim it does not. Therefore we are back to square 1 where you need to show the references I provided do not teach on the topic I said they do or else concede what I have been saying all along is correct.

I have not called you an anti-, just the site you got your stuff from. I additionally mused why someone who has read the Book of Mormon has to go to anti-site to demonstrate understanding of the Book of Mormon. Regardless of the passages are real, they are a read herring, except the passages on plural marriage and plural Gods which prove my point and not yours.

Did you get it this time or does someone need to explain it to you again?

You don’t need to explain anything to me, everyone can see through your double speak. I’ve already recieved four PM’s telling what a good job I did exposing you.

You can patronize me if you would like, you just come off as angry and petty, (and I suggest YOU look up what ad-hominem means). You didn’t reply to any of the verses I posted that showed that the BoM largely agrees with Christianity on major issues. But actual Mormonsim deviates greatly via the D&C, PoGP, etc… You said I cut and pasted it from an “anti-site” and then essentially called my integrity into question as to whether I read the book of Mormon, rather than respond to any of the verses I posted.

So lets recap, you dismiss all the passages I posted, and attack me and the source instead. That is the definition of an ad-hominem attack.

I gotta be honest I’ve proved the only point I wanted to prove. That the Book of Mormon clearly teaches a form of Christianity in line greatly with the Nicean Creed. Mormonism teaches something VASTLY different, and doesn’t let their prospective converts know about their most ‘bizarre’ practices until AFTER they’re baptized.

I know I was one of those prospective converts…

 

[majick275]

Homepage - The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Discover a service-oriented, globally-connected Christian church that is led by a prophet of God and seeks to follow Jesus Christ and His restored gospel.

www.churchofjesuschrist.org

That’s the link to “Gospel Principles”. This is the LDS sunday school manual currently used to teach investigators/new members. You might be surprised by what is in it. Pretty much all of the doctrine is there. It just isn’t always very clearly defined. I think it leaves a lot of “wiggle room” on purpose so that controversial things that folks might object to can be waved off as speculation. The BoM contains very little unique “Mormon” doctrine/practices but you can get most of the rest from the D&C. It’s the exegesis that seems to be at the root of confusion. In spite of the fact that many of these “scriptures” seem to have a very obvious meaning, they have been interpreted in a variety of ways to support the current doctrine/practice of the LDS church. LDS prophets have a history of changing doctrine, practice and even scripture to match their agenda, yet this is waved off by most active LDS as the very reason for “continuing revelation”. Further it allows a lot of LDS to deny what is taught/practiced within the LDS church by retreating into published scripture scripture and interpreting it differently than previous propets. (and then claiming those prophets were just offering personal opinion). At some point the lie becomes obvious though as the contradictions in scripture become too numerous AND too obvious. This combines with non-scriptural practices to make it obvious that the LDS church is not nor has it ever been “sola scriptura”. Regarding the Trinity (the OP of this thread) we see the epitome of this. In the beginning the LDS church taught one God. You will still see vestiges of this in the BoM, JST Bible, and portions of the D&C. Next came the Binitarian phase which quietly went away in 1921. (This claimed only the Father and a wholly subordinate Son, the Holy Ghost was their “shared mind” and only Jesus had a physical body) Finally we came to the current teaching of three Gods. The Father with his subordinate sons, Jesus and the Holy Ghost. (of which The Father and Jesus have physical bodies) Now somewhere in all of this Etrnal Progression was introduced with the Satanic temptation that men could literally become Gods just exactly like Our Father. This became very problematic as it logically required eternal "regression " as well. Thus the divinity of the Trinity was redefined as an “earned” state that came about at some point in time and thus was not truly eternal. It also made man and God the same order of being and just in different developmental stages. This certainly appeals to the prideful nature of men and it’s ensuing effects can be seen today within an LDS heirarchy that appears to be a corporate meritocracy. At best their Christianity is “diluted”, at worst they are following Satan right out of the garden.

 

[Mike_D30]

There is only one God
Mosiah 15:1,5; Alma 11:28; 2 Nephi 31:21

"3 The Father, abecause• he was bconceived• by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—

4 And they are aone• God, yea, the very bEternal• cFather• of heaven and of earth."

---

11:26 And Zeezrom said unto him: Thou sayest there is a true and living God?

11:27 And Amulek said: Yea, there is a true and living God.

11:28 Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God?

11:29 And he answered, No.

11:30 Now Zeezrom said unto him again: How knowest thou these things?

11:31 And he said: An angel hath made them known unto me.

11:32 And Zeezrom said again: Who is he that shall come? Is it the Son of God?

11:33 And he said unto him, Yea.

---

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

---

I can post more but I don’t have time, your book of mormon is clear.

Like I said there’s CLEAR examples of how the book of mormon has a view of christianity. But mormonism is MUCH different from what is taught in the BoM. Unless you use really liberal intepretations of the BoM.

 

[majick275]

Oh I think Mosiah 15 is probably the best example of orthodox trinitarian doctrine in the BoM.

*1 And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.
2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son—
3 The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—
4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.

5 And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God, suffereth temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation, but suffereth himself to be mocked, and scourged, and cast out, and disowned by his people.*

That’s from the current edition so no “copyist errors” or anything else. Note the lack of “Godhead” or “one in purpose”, it’s one God. Joseph Smith Jr. had been taught some correct principles and didn’t become completely blasphemous until later when his success went to his ego and he became much like Jim Jones or David Khoresh. (thus causing “persecution” and defection of many of his top church leaders)

 

[mormon_fool]

FCEGM:

My first - and flip - answer is that if they hadn’t misunderstood the ECFs they would be Catholics.

Very nice post and a wonderful contribution.

I think LDS apologists like to bring these ECF quotes to defend ourselves against ourselves against bad-awful Protestant counter-cult portrayals of mormons as Godmakers. The accusations are made based on wording of the Lorenzo Snow couplet, while there is little attempt to understand what LDS mean by terms. The wording of the ECF is strikingly similiar and so hopefully it requires a better attempt to understand the meanings and not just sling words around that sound blasphemous.

LDS apologists can mount a good case that a in some ways they are closer to ECF’s then later Catholic orthodoxy. For example I think theosis without the *ex nihilo *doctrinelooks quite different from latter developments. But I can’t say I am up on all the relevant literature by Keith Norman, Jordan Vajda, and Daniel Peterson. So perhaps we can save this discussion for a rainy day? Are there any RCC treatments I should be aware of?

–fool

 

[Catholic_Dude]

This thread has taken a very interesting twist. There are some Catholics who made some comments that the BoM is more “orthodox Christian” than Mormon, I understand the point they are trying to make I just think its kind of funny.

 

[mormon_fool]

Mike_D30:

You don’t need to explain anything to me, everyone can see through your double speak. I’ve already recieved four PM’s telling what a good job I did exposing you.

I hope they will have the courage to chime in on this thread. What exactly has been exposed about me? The Book of Mormon clearly teaches the four things I claimed it did that you said it did not. To review:

Plural Marriage:

Jacob 2:
27Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;
30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

Plural Gods

Alma 11:
28 Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God?
http://scriptures.lds.org/themes/graphics/spacer.gif
29 And he answered, No.

Man can become God

3 Ne. 28:
10 And for this cause ye shall have fulness of joy; and ye shall sit down in the kingdom of my Father; yea, your joy shall be full, even as the Father hath given me fulness of joy; and ye shall be even as I am, and I am even as the Father; and the Father and I are one;

Melchizedek Priesthood

Alma 13:
18 But Melchizedek having exercised mighty faith, and received the office of the high priesthood according to the holy order of God, did preach repentance unto his people. And behold, they did repent; and Melchizedek did establish peace in the land in his days; therefore he was called the prince of peace, for he was the king of Salem; and he did reign under his father.

I pointed out all these references in my first recent post to this thread. You have never acknowledged them.

You can patronize me if you would like, you just come off as angry and petty,

Angry. No. I can see where I have been petty to insist that the original claims are resolved before chasing off on red herrings. I would happily move on to other topics if the original accusations are dropped.

Description of Red Herring

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to “win” an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of “reasoning” has the following form:

1. 
   *]
   *]Topic A is under discussion.
   *]Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
   *]Topic A is abandoned.
   
   This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.
   
   nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html
   

   (and I suggest YOU look up what ad-hominem means).

   OK I will provide it for your fan club.
   
   Person A makes claim X.
   Person B makes an attack on person A.
   Therefore A’s claim is false
   nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
   
   I have not made any attack on you, just your logic. Conversely I have not dismissed any of your arguments based on their sources, just their relevancies.

 

[mormon_fool]

You didn’t reply to any of the verses I posted that showed that the BoM largely agrees with Christianity on major issues

.

I agree that the Book of Mormon largely agrees with Christianity on some major issues. The Book of Mormon is a Christian book of scripture. Mormons agree with the Book of Mormon.

But actual Mormonsim deviates greatly via the D&C, PoGP, etc…

Mormonism also deviates greatly because the way we interpret the Bible and also the doctrines contained in the Book of Mormon. Let us see all the unique stuff in the BoM. Off the top of my head.

1. What the name of church should be. 3 Ne. 27
2. What happens to translated beings 3 Ne. 12
3. That there would be a latter-day prophet named Joseph 2 Ne 3.
4. Plain and precious parts removed from the Bible 1 Ne 13
5. infant baptism condemned Moro 8
6. How men become sons of God through righteousness (?)
7. The proper manner of Baptism 3 Ne 11
8. How the gathering of Israel will commence in the Latter-days (various)

I sure I could go on. . .As Alexander Campbell says (paraphrase) the Book of Mormon resolved all the theological disputes in the burned over district when it came out.

You said I cut and pasted it from an “anti-site” and then essentially called my integrity into question as to whether I read the book of Mormon, rather than respond to any of the verses I posted.

The two things are unrelated. Your integrity on whether you read the Book of Mormon was never in question. Your ability to stay on the subject without posting irrelevant material from an anti-site was. I didn’t respond because the verses are irrelevant to your claim that the Book of Mormon doesn’t teach about[list of subjects]. If you want to modify your claim that the Book of Mormon seems to put a more orthodox Christian slant on subjects x,y,z than do brief JoD quotes, then you have my blessing. In fact I would be inclined to agree with such a point. But first you need tell me you are modifying your claim.

So lets recap, you dismiss all the passages I posted,

Actually I endorsed the two sets of scriptures that show the BoM does in fact teach topics you listed that it does not. Claiming there is significant amount of LDS doctrine found outside the Book of Mormon (and I conceded this many posts ago) is not the same thing as claiming the Book of Mormon doesn’t teach anything on that topic at all.

I gotta be honest I’ve proved the only point I wanted to prove. That the Book of Mormon clearly teaches a form of Christianity in line greatly with the Nicean Creed.

Now this I disagree with. The Book of Mormon says nothing about the members of the Godhead being one in substance, the crux of the Nicene Creed and 4th century philosophical developments. I have already discussed the best read of Mosiah 15 from a multitude of scholars and the pre-exilic Judaism it comes from. I invite you to check some of these things out. While the first readers of the Book of Mormon may not have got much a challenge to their orthodox baggage, it isn’t what they think that matters. When today’s readers are introduced to the BoM by the missionaries they are quickly introduced to section 130:22 which should make them wary of any orthodox reading after that.

Mormonism teaches something VASTLY different, and doesn’t let their prospective converts know about their most ‘bizarre’ practices until AFTER they’re baptized.

If you are talking about polygamy it is misleading to elevate it to a practice when it no longer is. The equivalent would be Christians informing about animal sacrifices that are no longer performed.

–fool

 

[Catholic_Dude]

mormon fool:

The Book of Mormon clearly teaches the four things I claimed it did that you said it did not. To review:

Plural Marriage:

Jacob 2:
27Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;
30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

Plural Gods

Alma 11:
28 Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God?
Scriptures
29 And he answered, No.

Man can become God

3 Ne. 28:
10 And for this cause ye shall have fulness of joy; and ye shall sit down in the kingdom of my Father; yea, your joy shall be full, even as the Father hath given me fulness of joy; and ye shall be even as I am, and I am even as the Father; and the Father and I are one;

Melchizedek Priesthood

Alma 13:
18 But Melchizedek having exercised mighty faith, and received the office of the high priesthood according to the holy order of God, did preach repentance unto his people. And behold, they did repent; and Melchizedek did establish peace in the land in his days; therefore he was called the prince of peace, for he was the king of Salem; and he did reign under his father.

I pointed out all these references in my first recent post to this thread. You have never acknowledged them.
.

Ok, now Im confused here. What is the issue at hand here? Mike said some things were not in the BoM and are you agreeing with him or not? Under the plural marriage and plural gods passages above those passages dont support plural marriage or gods.

 

[FCEGM]

mormon fool:

. . .

LDS apologists can mount a good case that a in some ways they are closer to ECF’s then later Catholic orthodoxy. For example I think theosis without the *ex nihilo *doctrinelooks quite different from latter developments. But I can’t say I am up on all the relevant literature by Keith Norman, Jordan Vajda, and Daniel Peterson. So perhaps we can save this discussion for a rainy day? Are there any RCC treatments I should be aware of?

These sites might be of interest, fool:

home.nyc.rr.com/mysticalrose/grace3.html

isidorescorner.typepad.com//theosis/

equip.org/free/JAM515.htm

 

[dragonfly]

No, The Catholic Church does not accept the baptism of a mormon because when the LDS uses the trinity “in the name of the Father, of The Son, and of The Holy Ghost”, it is actually not given any authority by God. Why?? Because they do not believe that Jesus Christ IS the father!! Thus making it; that the Jesus they believe in and the god they pray to is NOT Jesus Christ the Messiah!! Because the THE BIBLE tells us: that Jesus IS Lord. There are several versus that also claim him to be the son of God. Which he is, and the Mormons use these scriptures along w/ ones from The Book of Mormon to base this belief. But in James 2:1, "our glorious LORD Jesus Christ!!! That is it! Once that is questioned or changed or challenged, all of their teachings fall apart after that. For the bible also tells us, that when two come together “in his name”, he will be there!! So how can the LORD be in a church where they do not even believe in him?? The LDS church will say they believe fully in him!! But if they claim Jesus Christ to be A GOD and not THE GOD, then they do not believe in the GOD of the Holy Bible!! THE BIBLE SAID, IT’S THAT SIMPLE.
So how can we be certain that The Book Of Mormon is not a real testament of Jesus Christ?? It CONTRADICTS the Bible!! here are a few:
They encourage visitations from the dead relative from the spirit world, In Deuteronomy 18:10-12, this practice is Forbidden!!
Also in the Journal of Discourses(a Mormon Doctrine), many Mormons are unfamiliar w/ this Doctrine of their church but IT IS a Cardinal Teching!! Especially, “new” Mormons!! Because a lot of their beliefs or the beliefs of their prophets and presidents are kept “secret” until AFTER you have been baptized there and have been there for a year or more, AND are worthy of entering their Temple for “sacred” teachings and performances, one of which is to Baptise the Dead!! YUK!!
REFERENCES: JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES, DOCTRINE OF COVENANTS, BIBLE;
Mormonism teaches there is More than one God!! Direct Conflict: (Isaiah 44:6&8; 45:5,6,18,21-22) That belief mysteriously contradicts the Book of MormonAlma 11:22, 26-31&35)
So who is right? GOD or the President of the Church of LDS?? Here is A BIG ONE!!
In the Journal of Discourses, voulume13, page 282(this doctrine also goes hand in hand w/ the teaching that Christ is not God) But is says this, and I quote “Jesus Christ is the Spirtit Brother of Lucifer in the Spirit World and only due to a Heavenly Counsil vote, that Jesus became our redeemer instead of Lucifer”!!

in volume 4, page 218: teaches that Jesus Christ was born after INTERCOURSE (yes, it really says that) Between God and Mary (remember, they say God has a body of flesh and bones and they are not talking about Jesus because he is NOT God) thereby DENYING the VIRGIN Birth!!
That one is really sick to me!! Dishonoring our Beloved Mother Mary!!
the list goes on; but that’s for another theme
Bottom Line, they will say they don’t teach these things but yet claim that Brigham Young WAS a true prophet of God and their Second President! Who wrote most of these Journals!! But then again, until the member’s are completely brainwashed (aka worthy for their temples) will they learn of such disgusting things!!

 

[mormon_fool]

Catholic Dude:

Ok, now Im confused here. What is the issue at hand here? Mike said some things were not in the BoM and are you agreeing with him or not? Under the plural marriage and plural gods passages above those passages dont support plural marriage or gods.

Catholic Dude,

I am emphatically disagreeing with Mike and I felt he was misrepresenting what is in the Book of Mormon. Even if passages appear anti-plural marriage and anti-plural gods the passages are still addressing the topics, that Mike claimed they weren’t. If Mike had restated his claim to the Book of Mormon does teach about the subject but later Mormon development seems to challenge the Book of Mormon’s stance, then we could have had a reasonable discussion. The next chain in his argument was that investigators would never encounter his list of teachings, presumably through reading the Book of Mormon and taking the discussions. Then he could play drama queen and claim the LDS church tells lies and half-truths.

And I countered that many topics on his original list are either a) found in the Bible, b) are found in the Book of Mormon, c) discussed in investigator discussions, d) not a teaching emphasis of the LDS church, e) the Book of Mormon does not contain all the teachings about the topics, and f) learning about Mormonism (or any religion) is a lifelong process and we should expect to learn things all at once. Mike responded to none of these counter arguments, but tried to add to the list and change the subject.

I illustrated the last point e) by showing how Jesus operated anciently, his followers dropped their nets and joined him not because he told them everything before they converted, but because they trusted the source from whence that information would come from. Likewise the main goal of LDS missionaries is not to discuss every point of trivia, but to get people to trust in the sources of teachings for the LDS church like the 4 standard works, the modern prophets, and to trust the answers to their prayers they receive from the Holy Ghost.

The point of my response was to get him to make more accurate claims for the beginning of his arguments, each link of his argument was weak, but what he started with a very weak foundation by making questionable claims. I can see where you may have got confused by the stance I took. I was on the defence and I was showing the prosecution was not building a case a coherent case or putting it on solid footings. Part of his argument using Jacob 2 and Alma 11 contradicted his initial claims and I was trying to get him to confront that.

So Catholic Dude, please don’t mistake debate tactics I employed as an attempt to do systematic LDS theology. Really I am not much of a debater, when I do I try to help the other guy win by refining their arguments, engaging a wider range of information sources, and using good judgment in weighing the sources.

I mostly agree with your observation “Under the plural marriage and plural gods passages above those passages dont support plural marriage or gods.” I say “mostly” because, in regards to plural marriage (PM), Jacob does allow that PM can be commanded by God in some situations. You did see where I pointed this out? Since polygamy was not commanded by God in the Book of Mormon times like it was in OT times, Jacob comes out very negative against it. The teachings in the Book of Mormon about PM are more complex than Mike’s juxtaposing carefully selective verses with with more brief pro-PM statements from a period when PM was commanded by God.

But anytime I try to get people like him to understand the complexity of an issue I get charged with using a smokescreen. I have actually done quite a lot of writing on Jacob’s take on PM. So if you are really interested in getting the scoop and are willing to do some outside reading like you were earlier in this thread than give me a person message or go to the FAIR boards and start a discussion if you dare and ask for resources. What I am not willing to do is discuss the topic on these boards. It is too time consuming and there are too many clashing viewpoints and knowledge levels. And it isn’t even the topic of this thread.
[cont]

 

[amgid]

Thank you fool for your exchanges in this thread. I have enjoyed reading them.

amgid

 

[majick275]

Well I can see that bringing the truth out of this mess is going to take some time. I’ll have to post it tomorrow but rest assured that I will demonstrating how th eLDS church has changed it’s doctrine on the trinity over time, how it didn’t do that very well and thus still has contradictory teachings on the subject. I will also show that they have a very different definition of God that includes such blasphemous heresies as God having at some point been an ordinary human, Jesus just an unorganized “intelligence” and the Holy spirit being (like Jesus) a literal son of the Father just like all of us. Further this teaching claims that us humans can become truly divine beings ontologically the same as God is right now. Stay tuned .

 

[mormon_fool]

My continued response to Catholic Dude,

While it could be said that the Book of Mormon doesn’t support Plural Gods, nevertheless its teachings have direct bearing on the topic. The Book of Mormon’s teachings in Alma 11, Mosiah 15, 3 Nephi 28:10, 3 Nephi 10-11 (and this list should be added to) are foundational for LDS belief. When the Book of Mormon frames the three personages as being one God, it should be and is taken seriously by LDS. When the existence of more than one God is denied in Alma 11, this should also be taken seriously. Jesus is called “God” and there will be those likewise that receive “the fullness” in 3 Nephi 28. The personages appear simultaneously and separately.

Clearly there is a complex theology at work here, and there remains the huge difficulty in interpreting it. This is where majick and I have clashed in the past. He wants to privilege the way the first modern readers would have read it with their orthodox Trinitarian mindset. He has a definite point that LDS understanding has developed over time, highlighted by the canonization and decanonization(?) of the Lectures on Faith, Joseph Smith’s Nauvoo sermons, Adam-God reversals, the Talmage standardization (“one in purpose”), recent downplaying of Nauvoo Sermons, and recent scholarly studies. If he ever wrote a paper on it and used it to show that Mormons employ a double standard in pre-judging Catholic theological development, such a paper should deserve serious consideration for getting sponsored by a leading Catholic apologetic site; and warrant a serious Mormon response.

On these boards majick deserves to be taken credibly, as do Brad Haas, Flameburns, you, FCEGM, ChrisWa, Tmaque, Arieh, Casen, Amgid (when he is behaving ), TOmNossor, Augustine (Waltz), 3DOP, Catholic-RCIA, blueadept, TDNick and a host of others that I apologize for not naming. All the aforementioned folks are cautious about not making claims they can’t back up. If I ever become a catholic, I would invite the Catholics on that list to be at my confirmation at least in spirit. There are a lot of other posters that have zeal without knowledge or substance, whether they are on the LDS side or catholic side. I hope you will continue to exercise judgment on who is trustworthy and not believe everything that you read on these boards. You always go to the source and I respect that.

To get back to the subject of Plural Gods as found in the Book of Mormon; the most important consideration is how the Book of Mormon is to be interpreted now. I believe that the Talmage standardization is the best read of the Book of Mormon. That means the word “God” adapts to its context. Remember when Ostler provided multiple definitions for God? While the details in his definitions can be contested, we can find the Book of Mormon using the term "God’ in multiple ways, and even more so in the Bible. Sometimes the Book of Mormon doesn’t use a term, but the concept behind one of Ostler’s definitions is there. For example one of his definitions of god match with the concept that others will receive of the fullness like Christ.

Another definition of god happens in the Bible, where one is a god if he participates in the divine council from the heavenly side. The “divine council” is a recurring OT motif and some of the prophets participating in such a council so they could relay the judgments to their fellow mortals. Such an idea underscores Amos 3:7 which (paraphrase) “surely God will do nothing save he revealeth his secret to the servants the prophets”. I think we see this definition of god in Psalms 82. Is this idea in the Book of Mormon? Not directly, but Lehi in his vision in 1 Ne. 1 experiences many of the elements that have been associated with a prophet participating in a council of the gods. The concept is being taught in the Book of Mormon even if the vocabulary isn’t there.

I think another definition of god is also supported in the Book of Mormon. By this I mean the term “god” isn’t used, but the concepts I would use to define it are in the Book of Mormon. Let me work backwards from the term used to earlier to describe the situation in 3 Ne. 28:10. Another wrinkle is that LDS theology uses the term “Son of God” as a descriptive term to describe such a god. Now normally “Son of God” unique refers to Jesus in His lofty status as God, but when someone besides Jesus gets to a point where they are extended a fullness they become like Jesus in some ways and being referred to in similar terms is a great honor.