Refutation of Mormons objection the the Trinity

[Hatikvah]

Both groups were said to be from the middle east. How is it relevant?

Yes, they were both from the Middle East. However, they later split up into two different groups (Nephites and Lamanites), and the Nephites were destroyed. That is official teaching. It’s relevant because there is not a major contradiction, as Gazelam was saying.

However, one may be able to find something, but that’s not what I’m trying to do here.

 

[Stephen168]

Yes, they were both from the Middle East. However, they later split up into two different groups (Nephites and Lamanites), and the Nephites were destroyed. That is official teaching. It’s relevant because there is not a major contradiction, as Gazelam was saying.

However, one may be able to find something, but that’s not what I’m trying to do here.

And science has proven that neither group actual existed and the Native Americans are not from the middle east. Which was the claim of Joseph Smith and the Mormon Church until about the 1990’s.

 

[Hatikvah]

And science has proven that neither group actual existed and the Native Americans are not from the middle east. Which was the claim of Joseph Smith and the Mormon Church until about the 1990’s.

Yes, I’m aware. My comments were trivial.

 

[gazelam]

And science has proven that neither group actual existed and the Native Americans are not from the middle east. Which was the claim of Joseph Smith and the Mormon Church until about the 1990’s.

Your remark about the science is patently untrue.

John 20:28, 29 Thomas answered and said to him, “My Lord and my God!” Jesus said to him, “Have you come to believe because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed.

And who wants to be someone relying on science to prove the things of God anyway? Can science prove that a grown man can walk on water?

 

[gazelam]

Hey. No. All souls in purgatory are destined for heaven.

I did not say Catholics believe otherwise.

The Communion of Saints is what you are describing. The parts of the communion comprise the Body of Christ. Baptism is the sure mystical sign of our Communion in and through Jesus Christ,

There is no teaching that declares non-Christians will go to hell, by the fact alone of being non-Christian. Our God is merciful and just.

What exactly are you saying? That the Catholic Church only comprises part of the Communion of Saints? Or do Catholics believe that the RCC comprises all of the Communion of Saints, both on Earth and in Heaven?

 

[Stephen168]

Your remark about the science is patently untrue.

It is very true. Science has proven that zero pre-Columbian American Indians were from the Middle East, they are in fact from Asia.

And who wants to be someone relying on science to prove the things of God anyway?

Joseph Smith’s claim about the Book of Mormon is a claim of science recorded in Mormon scripture. His science claim has been proven false. Science is a thing of God invented by Catholics.

Can science prove that a grown man can walk on water?

Christians believe in miracles. Had Joseph Smith’s claimed communication with an angel been true, it might be said it was a miracle, but it has been proven false, so it is just a story he made up. In fact, I don’t know of a single, scientifically verifiable ‘miraculous’ claim made by Joseph Smith that has not been proven false.

The beauty of the Catholic Church is we do not have to reject science to keep our faith.

A Mormon’s testimony (not science) is their empirical evidence.

 

[adamhovey1988]

It is very true. Science has proven that zero pre-Columbian American Indians were from the Middle East, they are in fact from Asia.

Joseph Smith’s claim about the Book of Mormon is a claim of science recorded in Mormon scripture. His science claim has been proven false. Science is a thing of God invented by Catholics.

Christians believe in miracles. Had Joseph Smith’s claimed communication with an angel been true, it might be said it was a miracle, but it has been proven false, so it is just a story he made up. In fact, I don’t know of a single, scientifically verifiable ‘miraculous’ claim made by Joseph Smith that has not been proven false.

The beauty of the Catholic Church is we do not have to reject science to keep our faith.

A Mormon’s testimony (not science) is their empirical evidence.

Let’s get back to the whole “An Angel told Joe Smith” thing. My belief on that can be summed up by Galatians 1:8

 

[RebeccaJ]

Yes, they were both from the Middle East. However, they later split up into two different groups (Nephites and Lamanites), and the Nephites were destroyed. That is official teaching. It’s relevant because there is not a major contradiction, as Gazelam was saying.

However, one may be able to find something, but that’s not what I’m trying to do here.

Gazelem is trying to white wash. That is all.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I did not say Catholics believe otherwise.

What exactly are you saying? That the Catholic Church only comprises part of the Communion of Saints? Or do Catholics believe that the RCC comprises all of the Communion of Saints, both on Earth and in Heaven?

I don’t know what you are asking?

 

[TOmNossor]

Bolding mine
Neither of your positions is true. Jesus Christ became incarnate to establish His Church and to deposit the faith with the Apostles. No where in any history except LDS does there claim to be “great apostasy” in the early church. I bet I could ask 100 LDS when this supposed apostasy occurred and get 100 different answers. No apostasy, no restoration needed.

You make the claim that the LDS do not claim to be infallible. You seem to put a great deal of importance on an issue which challenges the LDS. For if the Catholic Church is infallible, that would mean from 33AD we had it right…all the way to July 16, 2016

And Tom, I didn’t need you to explain it to again. I disagree completely with your position and need no further explanation. I never have believed in the LDS claims and never will. I am a follower of Jesus Christ and belong to the Church He founded. A Christ made Church, not a man made one.

I would actually quite doubt you would get 100 answers as a significant percentage would say that they did not know. I suspect those who assign a date would offer one earlier than 1830 which is all we as LDS think we know with a great deal of certainty.
It is because I consider these explorations to be part of how I intellectually understand the relative merits of my faith that I explore them. It was Catholics who first suggested I read the ECF. Then it was Catholics who said, “yes, what you say is there is there, but you need to read Newman.” So I read Newman, then my UltraTrad Catholic friends sent me to anti-Newman sources. I continue to look in lots of directions.
I should know that I should not repeat myself. It is just so obvious to me that the teachings of the Catholic Church require than CHANGE doesn’t happen “what is new is not true.” LDS do not have this.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

I am just going to say I think Catholics and Orthodox have a better claim than LDS do. Looking at the evidence, I just don’t see how Mormonism can be viable as a “restoration” to true Christianity. Keep in mind, that Mormonism came about when a lot of groups were claiming to “restore” the original Church.

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?

Adam,
I think there is value in having an infallible church. I do not agree that no church can be God’s church without a belief in infallibility of itself, but you might disagree.
I myself find it more likely to be true that no church that does not claim to receive revelation like God delivered to Old Testament and New Testament leaders can be God’s church. I suspect you disagree.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Stephen168:
Stephen,
Do you believe that you have not answered many direct questions I have asked you? I believe you ignore questions because you find the answers to them will not serve your pro-Catholic agenda. This makes me sad. As such, I have sympathy when you think I do not answer your questions (if you actually think that and you are not just commenting on my answers somehow). As I look through the lines of quotes, I think I have answered, but I will try again.

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?

A prophet is one who speaks for God.
LDS do not believe that God captures the prophet’s mouth or vocal cords.
Rather, LDS believe that God communicates to the prophet. This communication has been through visions, has been through audible voices (heard by the prophet and others), has been through “the still small voice of the spirit,” and ….
God leaves with the prophet truth. I expect God does not intend for all of this truth to be shared, but what God intends to be shared, the faithful prophet will then share.

God may say, “teach the saints to read the Bible.” The prophet may then formulate a message around reading the Bible that is delivered. God knew that this was a needed message and He used His prophet to deliver it. One prophet might teach how we should read the physical pages of the Bible for 1 hour a day. A later prophet who got the same message from God might deliver a message to read for 30 min or more a day. Are they inconsistent? Yes, but both received the message from God and both delivered it.

By “sustaining” the Prophet, I give respect and allegiance to his teachings. I assume his teachings are from God. I am promised however that I can receive my own witness of this if I seek it. During Prop 8, I can tell you that I DEFERRED to the Prophet concerning same-sex marriage. I received my own witness MUCH later and part of it came through my engagement with Catholic thought. You are welcome to make of this what you will.
Teachings from past leaders of the church also receive respect, but since they are dead so I do not “sustain” them in the way I “sustain” the living Prophet.

The prophet is also an experienced Christian like I am. Everything I teach does not come from direct revelation from God. The same is true of the Prophet. I think the Prophet is more guarded than I am (especially with anti-Mormons waiting to condemn him), but I also believe he is more frequently guided than I am.

I believe Jesus Christ was perfect (infallible and impeccable) when He walked the earth. No man since Him has been. I can RELY on their teachings without believing that they have a chrism of infallibility.

Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

Disclaimer: I have Jewish and American Indian ancestry. That just reminded me of that. I think it’s more “genetics” than it is “cursed by God to make skin dark”

Yes, it was genetics after 1978. Before 1978, it was a curse. Which made complete sense to Mormons, not like that wacky belief in original sin taught by Christians

Let’s get back to the whole “An Angel told Joe Smith” thing. My belief on that can be summed up by Galatians 1:8

Yes, truth does not change. When someone claims an angel told them it has, we have to wonder 1) was it an angel of God 2) did they just make it up.

 

[Stephen168]

Stephen,
Do you believe that you have not answered many direct questions I have asked you?

I believe I have answered every question relevant to the subject of the thread. I resist following you on your many tangents. I believe I made my point with post #138 and your response in post #140. Followed by post #142 and #143 and your silence. Then the subject of the thread changed and you jumped in with your special pleading summarized in post #156, but I haven’t since seen any questions from you to ignore.

 

[Hatikvah]

Let’s get back to the whole “An Angel told Joe Smith” thing. My belief on that can be summed up by Galatians 1:8

St. Paul was pretty straightforward with that, so good answer…

 

[adamhovey1988]

St. Paul was pretty straightforward with that, so good answer…

I believe, if I recall correctly, the LDS has this very verse. Here,
lds.org/scriptures/nt/gal/1.8?lang=eng

 

[Hatikvah]

I believe, if I recall correctly, the LDS has this very verse. Here,
lds.org/scriptures/nt/gal/1.8?lang=eng

They didn’t misconstrue the verse:

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:8)

Well, of course, it is taught that it is not “another gospel,” so the verse cannot apply.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Disclaimer: I have Jewish and American Indian ancestry. That just reminded me of that. I think it’s more “genetics” than it is “cursed by God to make skin dark”

I was taught by a couple of Mormons in different settings, pre 1978, that the curse was accomplished by God making genetic modifications.

 

[Tarquin]

They didn’t misconstrue the verse:

Quote:
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:8)

Well, of course, it is taught that it is not “another gospel,” so the verse cannot apply.

Yet in the Book of Mormon itself the Mormon Gospel (“doctrine of Christ”) is presented very simply and if verse 40 is true, very completely in 3 Nephi, the repetitious 11th chapter.

31 Behold, verily, verily, I say unto you, I will declare unto you my doctrine.

32 And this is my doctrine, and it is the doctrine which the Father hath given unto me; and I bear record of the Father, and the Father beareth record of me, and the Holy Ghost beareth record of the Father and me; and I bear record that the Father commandeth all men, everywhere, to repent and believe in me.

33 And whoso believeth in me, and is baptized, the same shall be saved; and they are they who shall inherit the kingdom of God.

34 And whoso believeth not in me, and is not baptized, shall be damned.

35 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and I bear record of it from the Father; and whoso believeth in me believeth in the Father also; and unto him will the Father bear record of me, for he will visit him with fire and with the Holy Ghost.

36 And thus will the Father bear record of me, and the Holy Ghost will bear record unto him of the Father and me; for the Father, and I, and the Holy Ghost are one.

37 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and become as a little child, and be baptized in my name, or ye can in nowise receive these things.

38 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and be baptized in my name, and become as a little child, or ye can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God.

39 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and whoso buildeth upon this buildeth upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them.

40 And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them.

I am surprised that this passage has not undergone revision to harmonize it with “more” Mormon doctrines.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I did not say Catholics believe otherwise.

What exactly are you saying? That the Catholic Church only comprises part of the Communion of Saints? Or do Catholics believe that the RCC comprises all of the Communion of Saints, both on Earth and in Heaven?

Taking a stab at this. There is a problem with our different understanding of “Church”.

For Catholics, the Church is the Kingdom of God established on earth by Jesus Christ. It’s not merely a group of like-minded people, it is a reality.

There is the visible Church; the actual buildings, the hierarchy, all of us participating in our parishes and ministries, the Sacramental rites, Mass, etc.

Then there is the invisible Church, which comprises all who have a Christian baptism, which is a mystical union to Christ.

Heaven, is not comprised of only those who were baptized a Christian during their lives. Heaven is comprised of all who have been judged by God to be in Heaven.

If you want to say that makes everyone Catholic…I think that is because of your Mormon view that you have to actually become a baptized Mormon to be in your highest heaven. We hold no such belief, and there is no such teaching. Regardless of the back and forth here between Catholics and Mormons, there will no theological test to enter Heaven!

In Heaven, we will have an immediate knowledge of God, meaning, we will be there. Why would there be a second guessing as to what is Truth when one is in the presence of Truth itself? Your error in understanding Who God Is, will melt away in His presence. Not a forced understanding, but an understanding based on Truth and God’s love.

In contrast, the Mormon idea that after death one remains oblivious to what is going on around them…somehow. As in, “Hello I’m dead, and the only thing going on here is Mormon”, … this somehow constitutes a continuation of a blind test?

The test of this life ends at our death, and either we are judged to be with God, or we aren’t. Those judged to be with God will know Him, as He is, not as the limited understanding we have now. You won’t have the need to hang on to your Mormon errors, because it will be obvious, in a most glorious and beautiful fashion, that there is no need for them.