Question for LDS folks.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tmaque
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
So, it does not make it much of a game when the other team hides in the locker room after they get stopped on third and long…
 
So, it does not make it much of a game when the other team hides in the locker room after they get stopped on third and long…
We have to remember that when we refute mormonism, especially when using their own sources, we are planting seeds.

I like to think that some of what we tell them is sinking in, and they are digging into things themselves. (wishful thinking I’m sure)

We can’t drag them to the foot of the cross, but we can lead them there.

As the director of RCIA for our parish (15 yrs), I always tell my people. ā€œYou have up until 5 minutes before Easter Vigil to back out. After that, you’re going, even if I have to drag you up the aisle.ā€

I haven’t had to do it yet 😃

Just remember, we are planting seeds. Some fall on fertile ground, and some don’t.

Pray for the best.
 
  1. It seems that the BoM has a more traditional view of the Trinity than current LDS teaching- why is that?
    For example, Alma 11:44, Mosiah 15:5-7, and 2 Nephi 31:21.
    Also, in The Testimony of Three Witnesses at the beginning of the BoM, it says: ā€œAnd the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.ā€
thanks!
Since lax16 posts with style and I’m ready for another CAF pummelling I’ll take a crack at #4.

I disagree that the BofM verbiage on this topic supports a ā€œtraditionalā€ (read ā€œNicene Creedā€?) view of the Trinity. It supports the idea of one God in purpose and unity, just like the Bible does.

John 17:21-23 (KJV) states:

21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

I assume that Catholics do not believe that we mere mortals can become consubstantial with Christ. (I may be wrong.) The same kind of unity that Christ prays to have with his followers is the same unity he has with the Father - and consubstantial clearly ain’t it if you believe these verses.

Elder Holland states the LDS believe well:

We believe these three divine persons constituting a single Godhead are united in purpose, in manner, in testimony, in mission. We believe Them to be filled with the same godly sense of mercy and love, justice and grace, patience, forgiveness, and redemption. I think it is accurate to say we believe They are one in every significant and eternal aspect imaginable except believing Them to be three persons combined in one substance, a Trinitarian notion never set forth in the scriptures because it is not true.
Link is here → lds.org/general-conference/2007/10/the-only-true-god-and-jesus-christ-whom-he-hath-sent?lang=eng

Pummel away!!!
 
I disagree that the BofM verbiage on this topic supports a ā€œtraditionalā€ (read ā€œNicene Creedā€?) view of the Trinity. It supports the idea of one God in purpose and unity, just like the Bible does.
You must believe this in order to maintain some consistency, however the historical fact is that the early Church did not come close to even considering the Mormon view of the nature of God and it was later this same Church that judged the texts making up the New Testament against what they already believed through Sacred Tradition; what they had received from the Apostles. So the Church that gave you the New Testament did not believe in the least that God was one only in purpose and I have no idea what you mean when you say ā€œone in unityā€. No offense, but it seems like kind of a senseless statement, don’t you think?
John 17:21-23 (KJV) states:

21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
The source and summit of the Catholic faith is the the Eucharist. In each one of those verses a Catholic recognizes the Eucharist. He is in us and we are in him, litrerally, with every fiber of our being. We truly become one as He and the Father are one. As a matter of fact, we become one with the Father and the Holy Spirit as well as Jesus because we have only one God.
I assume that Catholics do not believe that we mere mortals can become consubstantial with Christ. (I may be wrong.) The same kind of unity that Christ prays to have with his followers is the same unity he has with the Father - and consubstantial clearly ain’t it if you believe these verses.
Christ became consubstantial with mankind through his incarnation. When we consume the Eucharist we are consuming the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. He becomes us and we become him. There is no closer unity than this and we have it right now. Its fulness will be realized when we fully share in the very life of the Trinity for eternity.
Elder Holland states the LDS believe well:

We believe these three divine persons constituting a single Godhead are united in purpose, in manner, in testimony, in mission. We believe Them to be filled with the same godly sense of mercy and love, justice and grace, patience, forgiveness, and redemption. I think it is accurate to say we believe They are one in every significant and eternal aspect imaginable except believing Them to be three persons combined in one substance, a Trinitarian notion never set forth in the scriptures because it is not true.
It seems readily apparent that Mr. Holland has approached the scriptures with the pre-conceived Mormon notion against the Trinity; The reason it isn’t in the scriptures is ā€œbecause its not trueā€. I have already addressed how preposterous it really is to consider that the Church that chose the very texts making up the New Testament, based upon how well they lined up with what the Church already believed, would choose texts that actually contradict what the Church believes. That is what Elder Holland has to be saying, maybe without realizing it, but still. The entire notion is just flat out unreasonable.
 
I disagree that the BofM verbiage on this topic supports a ā€œtraditionalā€ (read ā€œNicene Creedā€?) view of the Trinity. It supports the idea of one God in purpose and unity,** just like the Bible does**.

We believe these three divine persons constituting a single Godhead are united in purpose, in manner, in testimony, in mission. We believe Them to be filled with the same godly sense of mercy and love, justice and grace, patience, forgiveness, and redemption. I think it is accurate to say we believe They are one in every significant and eternal aspect imaginable except believing Them to be three persons combined in one substance, a Trinitarian notion never set forth in the scriptures because it is not true.
Link is here → lds.org/general-conference/2007/10/the-only-true-god-and-jesus-christ-whom-he-hath-sent?lang=eng
The Catholic Church understood the concept of the Trinity well before the bible was canonized. The ā€œDeposit of Faithā€, both the Oral Tradition and the Written Word are consistent: three persons in one God. Below are just a few examples of the early Church beliefs, the same Church that would canonize the bible that you are using…for instruction, teaching and to have a universal set of readings for Mass.

ā€œNow the person in each declares the independent being and subsistence. But divinity is the property of the Father; and whenever the divinity of these three is spoken of as one, testimony is borne that the property of the Father belongs also to the Son and the Spirit: wherefore, if **the divinity may be spoken of as one in three persons, the trinity is established, **and the unity is not dissevered; and the oneness Which is naturally the Father’s is also acknowledged to be the Son’s and the Spirit’s.ā€ Gregory the Wonderworker (Thaumaturgus), Sectional Confession of Faith, 8 (A.D. 270).

ā€œFor the kingdom of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is one, even as their substance is one and their dominion one. Whence also, with one and the same adoration, we worship the one Deity in three Persons, subsisting without beginning, uncreate, without end, and to which there is no successor. For neither will the Father ever cease to be the Father, nor again the Son to be the Son and King, nor the Holy Ghost to be what in substance and personality He is.ā€ Methodius, Oration on the Palms, 4 (A.D. 305).

ā€œWe believe in one God, the Father almighty,maker of all things, visible and invisible; And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God,begotten from the Father,only-begotten,that is,from the substance of the Father,God from God,light from light,true God from true God,begotten,not made,of one substance with the Father…And in the Holy Spirit.ā€ Creed of Nicea (A.D. 325).

Regarding the BoM words below…there’s nothing written here about some type of non trinitarian unity. The text is clear that is speaking to the Trinity. This is the first ā€œGreat Apostasyā€ in the LDS church. 🤷
ā€œAnd the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.ā€
 
Since lax16 posts with style and I’m ready for another CAF pummelling I’ll take a crack at #4.

I disagree that the BofM verbiage on this topic supports a ā€œtraditionalā€ (read ā€œNicene Creedā€?) view of the Trinity. It supports the idea of one God in purpose and unity, just like the Bible does.

John 17:21-23 (KJV) states:

21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

I assume that Catholics do not believe that we mere mortals can become consubstantial with Christ. (I may be wrong.) The same kind of unity that Christ prays to have with his followers is the same unity he has with the Father - and consubstantial clearly ain’t it if you believe these verses.

Elder Holland states the LDS believe well:

We believe these three divine persons constituting a single Godhead are united in purpose, in manner, in testimony, in mission. We believe Them to be filled with the same godly sense of mercy and love, justice and grace, patience, forgiveness, and redemption. I think it is accurate to say we believe They are one in every significant and eternal aspect imaginable except believing Them to be three persons combined in one substance, a Trinitarian notion never set forth in the scriptures because it is not true.
Link is here → lds.org/general-conference/2007/10/the-only-true-god-and-jesus-christ-whom-he-hath-sent?lang=eng

Pummel away!!!
Since you are unable to respond to my points, I will agree with you that truth, to you, appears to be a pummeling. As such, I would recommend you leave a church where truth you offends you so
 
Do Catholic’s on this forum have a right to express their opinion without intimidation?
"intimidation- to make timid or fearful : frighten; especially : to compel or deter by or as if by threats "
Yes, you do, but I don’t see how intimidation is possible on this forum. Do you have any examples?
Stereotypical response #1. Persecution card.

Wanna guess what the next one will be? 😃
 
Since lax16 posts with style and I’m ready for another CAF pummelling I’ll take a crack at #4.
You have a great sense of humor, gazelam!
I disagree that the BofM verbiage on this topic supports a ā€œtraditionalā€ (read ā€œNicene Creedā€?) view of the Trinity. It supports the idea of one God in purpose and unity, just like the Bible does.
Where in the BoM does it say ā€œOne God in purposeā€?

from the Book of Mormon:

ā€œ. . . 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.ā€œ
2 Nephi 31:21

. . . Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one eternal God . . .ā€œ
Alma 11:44

ā€œ. . . unto the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one God . . .ā€œ
Mormon 7:7
  • and don’t you think these BoM passages differ greatly from JS stating that:
ā€œMany men say there is one God; the Father, the son and the Holy Ghost are only one God! I say this is a strange God anyhow—three in one, and one in three! It is a curious organization. . . . All are to be crammed into one God, according to sectarianism. It would make the biggest God in all the world. He would be a wonderfully big God—he would be a giant or a monster.ā€œ

(History of the Church/Vol. 1844)

It seems that the BoM passages regarding God strongly suggest a more traditional view of the Trinity.
It also is a sharp contrast to JS statement about the Trinity.

They are so very different - which one is correct?
Pummel away!!!
😃
 
how do mormons know that the entity that brought the book of mormon to joseph smith was not a devil sent by lucifer?

i know that this is off topic, but i do not have many mormons in my life and i have often wondered about this.

anyone reading this know the answer that mormons give to this question?
 
how do mormons know that the entity that brought the book of mormon to joseph smith was not a devil sent by lucifer?

i know that this is off topic, but i do not have many mormons in my life and i have often wondered about this.

anyone reading this know the answer that mormons give to this question?
They will most likely resort to the ā€œburning in the breastā€; the notion that the Holy Spirit has given them a personal testimony of the truth of the BoM. Its a safe place to hide because an interior experience can neither be proven or disproven. They see no need to discern which ā€œspiritā€ was speaking to Joseph Smith, or whether any spirit at all spoke to him. They know its true and that is that and there is nothing you can do to prove their ā€œfeelingsā€ wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top