Refutation of Mormons objection the the Trinity

[Stephen168]

For a second time I’ll ask: what is the purpose of a fallible prophet? Is a fallible prophet really a prophet?

I would have thought I had answered that, but perhaps not.
To sustain the prophet is to believe that he reliably, but not infallibly, relays what God communicates.

reliably, but not infallibly……interesting. Fallible means to make mistakes. Reliable means to be consistently able to be trusted.

"TOm Nossor:

This is not technically limited to “faith and morals,” but it is usually in this realm.

Yes, on any subject

"TOm Nossor:

When the prophet speaks at general conference, what he relays sources at its genesis from God’s desired communication to the church (and world). I look to the messages delivered so that I can reorient my life towards God’s plan for me. Sometimes the Holy Spirit makes the words mean more for me than they might where I less receptive. Sometimes I am less receptive, but I get something out of it.
You and I get a lot from teachers that lack the chrism of infallibility. Your question almost implies such is not true. I just do not demand infallibility before I make my fallible steps toward God. I doubt you do either, but perhaps I am wrong

A teacher that is fallible in their subject is not a teacher.

"TOm Nossor:

I do believe that LDS prophets speak for God. SOME things, like Joseph Smith celebrating witnesses and telling his followers that they too can receive revelation are positive evidence for this IMO. Or the desire to end the priesthood ban by David O. McKay but his insistence that this non-reveled policy be ended by revelation (David O. McKay did not believe he could make up revelations he wanted and expected). Some things are negative. If as I believe the priesthood ban was a mistake, surely Brigham Young should have been receptive enough to the spirit to recognize that he was putting in place a policy that was wrong. (now is when you write a great deal about the priesthood ban, Brigham Young’s racist comments, and …).

To summarize:
The Mormon prophet speaks for God because he gives revelation on any subject which** can be consistently trusted, but makes mistakes.**

I don’t think you answered the question. What is the purpose of a prophet who gives revelation on any subject, but makes mistakes? And is he really a prophet?

 

[Stephen168]

Change … Catholic … BAD!
Change … Mormon … GOOD!

I think all the words before this did not change your summary.

 

[Stephen168]

Nah, the Mormon Church has got it covered no matter what. It goes like this for orthodoxy:
Change in the early Church is an indicator of apostasy.

"Mormon Church:

When individuals or groups of people turn away from the principles of the gospel, they are in a state of apostasy. One example is the Great Apostasy, which occurred after the Savior established His Church. After the deaths of the Savior and His Apostles, men corrupted the principles of the gospel and made unauthorized changes in Church organization and priesthood ordinance.

Change in the early Church is an indicator the Catholic Church is apostate because the Catholic Church claims there will be no change.

Now, perhaps you are saying that I have made the argument that the apostasy was CAUSED by the numerous CHANGES I see in the historical records of the Catholic Church. This is not what I am saying at all.

Actually She was talking about what the Mormon Church is saying. None of your statements are Mormon claims. What the Mormon Church claims is:

Change … Catholic … BAD!
Change … Mormon … GOOD!

 

[RebeccaJ]

Actually She was talking about what the Mormon Church is saying. None of your statements are Mormon claims. What the Mormon Church claims is:

We already know, the a priori position for Tom is Mormon=Good.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I feel that, if the LDS is not infallible, then it cannot be true. A church would have to claim infallibility in some sense, if not, then how can it claim to be the true church?

The Mormon church claims infallibility. Some Mormons just don’t believe what their church leaders teach or their own scriptures.
Ezra Taft Benson:

Let us live the gospel fully, and may we recognize the infallibility of God’s inspired word—whether by his “… own voice …” or the “voice of [his] my servants, it is the same.” (D&C 1:38.)

 

[Stephen168]

Jesus Christ started a Church which he gave the Deposit of Faith. He also gave that Church the authority to maintain and teach that faith. The Church, the faith, and the authority have been on earth since the time of Christ.

The Mormon Church was started by Joseph Smith in 1830, who made claims about God which conflict with the deposit of faith given by Christ. He made scientific claims about the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham which conflict with science. And it does not have apostolic authority as a historical fact and shown by how Mormon “authority” cannot hold on to a deposit of faith of any kind; Christian or Mormon.

Any intellectual search for the Church of Christ would never take a person to Mormonism. An emotional search might take you there, but never an intellectual search.

For example in this thread, we see the nature of God, the Holy Trinity, as part of the Deposit of Faith. A Mormon attacks the current belief about the trinity because he can cherry pick quotes and claim the ancient belief was not exactly like the current belief in the trinity. While all along there is absolutely NOTHING in the Deposit of Faith about God once being a human being.

Yes, an intellectual search would never lead a person to Mormonism.

 

[Horton]

Originally Posted by Ezra Taft Benson

Let us live the gospel fully, and may we recognize the infallibility of God’s inspired word—whether by his “… own voice …” or the “voice of [his] my servants, it is the same.” (D&C 1:38.)

So the LDS have even changed their position on infallibility.

 

[RebeccaJ]

So the LDS have even changed their position on infallibility.

Not really. Infallibility has been encapsulated inside teachings of fallibility. Ask any believing, active Mormon, where their current prophet’s teachings are fallible.

Infallibility only applies when a current leader contradicts a previous leader. In that case the previous leader was mistaken. The current leader is not currently, mistaken, about anything. Ever. Most LDS I know believe their current prophet is infallible to the point of being sinless.

Case in point after Gordon B Hinkley died I mentioned that at mass we included him in our prayer intentions for the souls of the dead. The reaction I got was offense, that anyone would think he had been a sinner.

 

[Hatikvah]

Most LDS I know believe their current prophet is infallible to the point of being sinless.

Case in point after Gordon B Hinkley died I mentioned that at mass we included him in our prayer intentions for the souls of the dead. The reaction I got was offense, that anyone would think he had been a sinner.

So he is, for some, not only infallible but impeccable (cannot sin)? That’s interesting. I know that some of the more orthodox Sunni Muslims believe that all of the Prophets did not sin simply because they’re Prophets.

 

[jane_doe]

So he is, for some, not only infallible but impeccable (cannot sin)?

No. A prophet is a man of God, and yes, can make mistakes and sin. There is only one perfect person who has ever on this Earth: Jesus Christ.

 

[Hatikvah]

No. A prophet is a man of God, and yes, can make mistakes and sin. There is only one perfect person who has ever on this Earth: Jesus Christ.

See, that doesn’t sound crazy! :whacky:

 

[RebeccaJ]

So he is, for some, not only infallible but impeccable (cannot sin)? That’s interesting. I know that some of the more orthodox Sunni Muslims believe that all of the Prophets did not sin simply because they’re Prophets.

There is what Mormons say to non-members, and what they believe.

I’ve asked every Mormon here, what has your living prophet taught today, that you believe is a mistake. There isn’t one, single, believing Mormon who has ever answered that question.

Every former Mormon here knows, when we were LDS we believed the Mormon prophet was infallible, and to even think he would commit a sin was not even possible. There isn’t a believing, active, Mormon I know of who would look at the Ten Commandments and think, “maybe Joseph Smith lied”. Not even in the realm of possibility when I was a Mormon. I highly doubt there is a believing, active, Mormon today who would outright give an example of one of their prophets lying. Because Mormon prophets don’t lie.

 

[adamhovey1988]

There is what Mormons say to non-members, and what they believe.

I’ve asked every Mormon here, what has your living prophet taught today, that you believe is a mistake. There isn’t one, single, believing Mormon who has ever answered that question.

Every former Mormon here knows, when we were LDS we believed the Mormon prophet was infallible, and to even think he would commit a sin was not even possible. There isn’t a believing, active, Mormon I know of who would look at the Ten Commandments and think, “maybe Joseph Smith lied”. Not even in the realm of possibility when I was a Mormon. I highly doubt there is a believing, active, Mormon today who would outright give an example of one of their prophets lying. Because Mormon prophets don’t lie.

Hey yeah, so what is an example of a current revelation (given in my lifetime, preferably, I was born in 1988) that Mormons hold that they didn’t help in the past? Do Mormon prophets give revelation or do they just claim that they can?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Hey yeah, so what is an example of a current revelation (given in my lifetime, preferably, I was born in 1988) that Mormons hold that they didn’t help in the past? Do Mormon prophets give revelation or do they just claim that they can?

1 - The Book of Mormon is a historical record of all Native Americans (Lamanites). Now, it is not.

2 - When one is exalted they will be gods over their own worlds. Denied today.

3 - Translation of the Book of Abraham was entirely divine knowledge given to Joseph Smith based on a translation of the papyri. Now, the papyri are taught as a catalyst for revelation or something else unknown.

There are different reasons for the changes.

1 - Scientific evidence, from multiple disciplines, shows the original revelation to be false.

2 - So over the top for most people (though some Mormons still believe and accept the old teaching).

3 - The illustrations included in the Book of Abraham, from originals that Joseph Smith had purchased, have actually been translated and they are Egyptian funeral texts. Not the grand story that is relayed in the Book of Abraham.

All the above changes, are greatly influenced by the advent of the Internet.

 

[gazelam]

Case in point after Gordon B Hinkley died I mentioned that at mass we included him in our prayer intentions for the souls of the dead. The reaction I got was offense, that anyone would think he had been a sinner.

Perhaps this is similar to Catholic reactions when LDS perform LDS temple ordinances for deceased devout Catholics.

 

[Hatikvah]

Perhaps this is similar to Catholic reactions when LDS perform LDS temple ordinances for deceased devout Catholics.

And also reactions of other people. There was outrage when Anne Frank was proxy baptised (baptism for the dead) for the ninth time. This is one article. I find it odd, however, that Mormons would baptise a Jewish person.

Is that because the dead are believed to be able to receive the sacraments and (maybe?) to hear the gospel posthumously?

 

[Stephen168]

Perhaps this is similar to Catholic reactions when LDS perform LDS temple ordinances for deceased devout Catholics.

And also reactions of other people

Christians don’t have a problem praying for each other. I guess Mormons do.

 

[gazelam]

Is that because the dead are believed to be able to receive the sacraments…

Yes.
1 Corinthians 15:29 (KJV) Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

and (maybe?) to hear the gospel posthumously?

And yes.

1 Peter 3:18-20 (KJV) For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

1 Peter 4:6 (KJV) For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Perhaps this is similar to Catholic reactions when LDS perform LDS temple ordinances for deceased devout Catholics.

Nobody prays that a soul becomes Catholic, converts posthumously, and denounces their deeply held Mormon faith in the afterlife. So what is your point? Are you offended that non-Mornons would pray for a Mormon?

 

[adamhovey1988]

Nobody prays that a soul becomes Catholic, converts posthumously, and denounces their deeply held Mormon faith in the afterlife. So what is your point? Are you offended that non-Mornons would pray for a Mormon?

My dad was a Lutheran, if he made it to heaven (I like to think he did), I have no problem with him praying for me. Just in case; I still pray for the repose of his soul. Likewise, if I know someone is a Mormon or not, I still pray for the repose of someone’s soul when they die.