The Mormon Holy Ghost

[Lemuel]

I engage almost daily with LDS folks. I don’t usually seek them out, they come to me to try to rescue me since I left the church. Usually what happens is that they will ask me a question and I will answer. Today it was about the next life. Yesterday it was about polygamy. Before that it was about the Book of Mormon. Then Joseph Smith. And so forth. Then I will start ask questions back to them. Almost without exception, they get themselves painted into a corner and then they all do the same thing. When they get stuck, the Holy Ghost is their default button:

“The Holy Ghost witnessed to me so it must be true” (no matter how nonsensical it is).

“The Holy Ghost answered it” (and you can’t argue with the Holy Ghost).

“The Holy Ghost witnesses to the truth of the Book of Mormon” (no matter how many lies it is based on).

“The Holy Ghost witnesses to the divine calling of Joseph Smith” (no matter what a charlatan and sexual predator he was).

“I can’t answer that question, but I’ll tell you this. If you pray and ask God, He will answer you through the Holy Ghost like He has me.”

Or my favorite, “You’re listening to the wrong Holy Ghost.”

How do you answer such things?

 

[Horton]

“The Holy Ghost witnessed to me so it must be true” (no matter how nonsensical it is).
And what reason & logic did you use to determine this?

“The Holy Ghost answered it” (and you can’t argue with the Holy Ghost).
See above

“The Holy Ghost witnesses to the truth of the Book of Mormon” (no matter how many lies it is based on).
What historical or archaeological evidence can you provide to convince me there is truth in the BoM because I have factual evidence that shows it is less likely to be true.

“The Holy Ghost witnesses to the divine calling of Joseph Smith” (no matter what a charlatan and sexual predator he was).
See above

“I can’t answer that question, but I’ll tell you this. If you pray and ask God, He will answer you through the Holy Ghost like He has me.”
I have prayed to God and the Holy Spirit showed me the Catholic faith is true and I have reason & logic to fully comprehend my faith

Or my favorite, “You’re listening to the wrong Holy Ghost.”
Says who? The BoM, JS, the Holy Ghost?

How do you answer such things?

I get what you are saying and I know the difficulty as I used to live in a high LDS area. The reality is we don’t need to respond. We have to realize, which you know already, the LDS were never meant to have deep theological learning about their organization. Most really don’t know the answer to such probes so they use the fall back answer, “The Holy Ghost…” Those who do explore those questions with an open mind often eventually leave the LDS.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Lemuel:

“The Holy Ghost witnessed to me so it must be true” (no matter how nonsensical it is).
And what reason & logic did you use to determine this?

“The Holy Ghost answered it” (and you can’t argue with the Holy Ghost).
See above

“The Holy Ghost witnesses to the truth of the Book of Mormon” (no matter how many lies it is based on).
What historical or archaeological evidence can you provide to convince me there is truth in the BoM because I have factual evidence that shows it is less likely to be true.

“The Holy Ghost witnesses to the divine calling of Joseph Smith” (no matter what a charlatan and sexual predator he was).
See above

“I can’t answer that question, but I’ll tell you this. If you pray and ask God, He will answer you through the Holy Ghost like He has me.”
I have prayed to God and the Holy Spirit showed me the Catholic faith is true and I have reason & logic to fully comprehend my faith

Or my favorite, “You’re listening to the wrong Holy Ghost.”
Says who? The BoM, JS, the Holy Ghost?

How do you answer such things?

I get what you are saying and I know the difficulty as I used to live in a high LDS area. The reality is we don’t need to respond. We have to realize, which you know already, the LDS were never meant to have deep theological learning about their organization. Most really don’t know the answer to such probes so they use the fall back answer, “The Holy Ghost…” Those who do explore those questions with an open mind often eventually leave the LDS.

You really can’t argue with this type of person. They’re not interested in rational argument or theological discourse, they have their beliefs, and you shouldn’t question them because they know they’re true. Never mind how the know, they just know.

 

[bjryman]

Never forget that a portion of all religious beliefs involve Faith. Faith means Trust, and the trust is in something ineffable. Thus, we quickly turn to a “he said”, “she said” rebuttal dialog since both sides are attempting to explain the ineffable. Another example with the Morman faith is that they do not believe in the consensus Christian view of The Trinity. This topic was debated at length by the early Church fathers, and part of the Council of Nicene work was to clearly state the theology of ONE God with THREE Persons. Thus, if later, a new church rises up to question this doctrine, there really is no answer to be given. So we all move on.

 

[cmjmevans]

My current wondering is if a spirit is only coming at you, it isn’t with you or through you. So I guess the answer is their Baptism isn’t accepted by the Catholic Church. I’d use their coming at you as a sign that we miss you

 

[gazelam]

Another example with the Morman faith is that they do not believe in the consensus Christian view of The Trinity. This topic was debated at length by the early Church fathers, and part of the Council of Nicene work was to clearly state the theology of ONE God with THREE Persons.

We Mormons do believe in a “theology of ONE God with THREE Persons”. It’s the type of ONENESS where we disagree. We believe the Three are one in purpose and unity. but not one in substance. No where in the Bible or in the earliest Christian writings can the doctrine of the Trinity be found.

The New Testament itself is far from any doctrine of the Trinity or of a triune God who is three co-equal Persons of One Nature. (William J. Hill, The Three-Personed God (Washington DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1982), 27.)

There is no formal doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament writers, if this means an explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. (Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), 44

There is in them [the Apostolic Fathers], of course, no trinitarian doctrine and no awareness of a trinitarian problem. (JND Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, revised edition, (New York: Harper, 1978), 95.)

The Council of Nicea clearly missed the boat on this issue. Nowhere does the Bible state or infer that the Three Divine Beings are consubstantial.

 

[Spyridon]

Yeah keep telling yourself that.

Pretty sure Saints Clement, Barnabas, Polycarp, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Papias, Quadratus, Athanasius, Spyridon, and about 100 others from the first three Christian centuries would call your bluff.

 

[bjryman]

It’s the concept of one substance that has been the issue, as you note. Without it, there really isn’t the oneness.

The “keys” of the Church were given to Peter to build a Faith on which the future members would rally around. This status is visible in the rich Tradition that shows us the “how” of actually living the faith. Over the centuries there have been numerous debates among Church Theologians like this. The Church Magisterium is charted with the overall interpretation and then choosing the particular subject pathway to take.

Of course you know this and so we are back to my original post. Either one accepts the teaching of the ineffable by its leaders as legitimate , or it doesn’t. That is why today there are thousands of individual “Christian” groups who disagree. Thus, again, one can only say “peace” and move on.

 

[gazelam]

Yeah keep telling yourself that.

Will do!!

Pretty sure Saints Clement…

Regarding Clement, Fortman says “There is obviously no doctrine of the Trinity, no explicit affirmation of the divinity of the Son and Holy Spirit but only an echo of the data of Scripture” (Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), 38

Ignatius

Regarding Ignatius, Fortman says the following:

Thus although there is nothing remotely resembling a doctrine of the Trinity in Ignatius, the triadic pattern of thought is there, and two of its members, the Father and Jesus Christ, are clearly and often designated as God. (Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), 40

Justin Martyr

Regarding Justin Martyr, Fortman says the following:

On several occasions Justin coordinates the three persons, sometimes citing formulas derived from baptism and the eucharist, sometimes echoing official catechetical teaching. He worshipped the Father as Supreme in the universe; he worshipped the Logos or Son as divine but in the second place; he worshipped the Holy Spirit in the third place. But he has no real doctrine of the Trinity, for he says nothing of the relations of the three to one another and to the Godhead. (Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), 47

Athanasius…

I assume that Athanasius is full blown Trinitarian since he was the driving force of the Nicene Creed (besides Constantine, of course). But he’s 4th century.

Spyridon

Mostly 4th century…

and about 100 others from the first three Christian centuries would call your bluff.

“Indeed, until Athanasius began writing, every single theologian, East and West, had postulated some form of Subordinationism. It could, about the year 300, have been described as a fixed part of catholic theology.” (R. P. C. Hansen)

 

[ErraticFaith]

The logical outcome of any theological study is to leave Mormonism behind.

I simply don’t bother with their heretical nonsense and move on. Anything so completely refuted by scripture is a pointless discussion from day one.

 

[fredystairs]

The Council of Nicea clearly missed the boat on this issue. Nowhere does the Bible state or infer that the Three Divine Beings are consubstantial.

First it should be noted that the Council of Nicaea in AD 325, did not discuss the Holy Spirit. It only discussed the relationship between God the Father and Jesus Christ. The Church did not discuss the Holy Spirit until the Council of Constantinople in AD 381. Nicaea only talked about the Father and the Son, not the Trinity. That would be later.

Scripturally, there are three passages that I would like to present that show the relationship between Christ and the Father.

First from the 10th Chapter of John:
30 I and the Father are one." 31 Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?” 33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.” 34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are “gods” '[1]? 35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came-and Scripture cannot be set aside- 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? 37 Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. 38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” 39 Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.

Here Jesus is making himself equal to God the Father; as Nicaea would state, they are consubstantial, of the same substance. The Jews understood this, as they take up rocks to stone him, which is the punishment for blasphemy. (Leviticus 24: 10-16)

Continued

 

[fredystairs]

The second is from John, chapter 8:
Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day, and he saw it and was glad.” 57Then the Jewish leaders asked him, “You are not even 50 years old, yet you have seen Abraham?” 58Jesus told them, “Truly, I tell all of you emphatically, before there was an Abraham, I AM!” 59At this, they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the Temple.

Again, the Jews attempted to stone Him, because He called Himself by God’s name. This name “I AM” comes from the third chapter of Exodus where Moses encounters God in the burning bush:

1Meanwhile, Moses continued tending the sheep that belonged to his father-in-law Jethro, the priest of Midian. He led the sheep to the western desert and came to Horeb, God’s mountain, where 2the angel of the LORD appeared to him in flaming fire from the center of a bush. As Moses continued to watch, amazingly the bush kept on burning, but was not consumed. 3Then Moses told himself, “I’ll go over and see this remarkable sight. Why isn’t the bush burning up?”
4When the LORD saw that he had gone over to look, God called to him from the center of the bush, “Moses! Moses!”
He said, “Here I am.”
5“Do not come any closer,” God said. “Remove your sandals from your feet, because the place where you are standing is holy ground.” 6Then he said, “I am the God of your ancestors, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” At this, Moses hid his face, because he was afraid to look at God.
7The LORD said, “I have certainly seen the affliction of my people who are in Egypt, and I have heard their cry caused by their slave masters. I really do understand their pain, 8so I have come down to deliver them from their domination byg the Egyptians and to bring them out of that land to a good and spacious land, a land flowing with milk and honey, to the territoryh of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites. 9Now, listen carefully! The cry of the Israelis has come to my attention about how severely the Egyptians have been oppressing them. 10So go! I am sending you to Pharaoh. Bring my people the Israelis out of Egypt.”
11But Moses told God, “Who am I? How can I go to Pharaoh and bring the Israelis out of Egypt?”
12Then God said, “I certainly will be with you. And this will be the sign for you that it is I who sent you: When you have brought the people out of Egypt, all of you will serve God on this mountain.”
13Moses told God, “Look! When I go to the Israelis and tell them, ‘The God of your ancestors sent me to you,’ they’ll say to me, ‘What is his name?’ What should I say to them?”
14God replied to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM,” and then said, “Tell the Israelis: ‘I AM sent me to you.’”
15God also told Moses, “Tell the Israelis, ‘The LORD, the God of your ancestors, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob sent me to you.’ This is my name forever, and this is how I am to be remembered from generation to generation.

continued

 

[fredystairs]

In Exodus, God, the “IAM” says that He is the God of all generations, of all people. This is the same name the Jesus uses in John 8; by using the same name as in the Book of Exodus, Jesus is saying that He is the God of all generations and is thus consubstantial with the Father.

Nicaea got it exactly right.

 

[fredystairs]

There is in them [the Apostolic Fathers], of course, no trinitarian doctrine and no awareness of a trinitarian problem. (JND Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, revised edition, (New York: Harper, 1978), 95.)

Interestingly enough, I have a copy of Early Christian Doctrines as well; this is also a revised edition from Prince Press, Peabody, MA, First Printing, March 2003. On page 95, it reads:

“Of a doctrine of the Trinity in the strict sense there is of course no sign, although the Church’s triatic formula left its mark everywhere.”

In my edition at least, it looks like J.N.D. Kelly is saying that a formal Trinitarian had not matured yet, but that it was there in at least an embryotic form.

The Early Church Fathers had some heavy lifting to do to determine the Trinity and the Incarnation since both of these aspects of Theology are unique in the history of the world. It shouldn’t surprise us that it took a while to figure it out.

Blessings

 

[tweedlealice]

Salutations Lemuel,
We are on a journey. The Holy Spirit opens our eyes to God’s truth. He brought you out of Mormonism into the Roman Catholic Faith. Tell them:”You appreciate their concern for you but you are confident where God has led you”.
The scriptures written below are effective in the Trinity.
I like where Jesus is at Lazarus’s tomb. Jesus wept. He prayed,”FATHER, YOU ARE IN ME AND I AM IN YOU!” At the last supper, Jesus said,” I must leave you. If I don’t leave, the ADVOCATE can’t come. But when I go, I’ll send Him after me.”
The three persons are linked well there.
If John Smith had a heavenly angel encounter, his words would teach the same as Gabriel to Mary. Jesus sanctified marriage in 1man and 1woman at the Wedding Feast Of Cana. No polygamy.
Gabriel, allegedly, spoke to Mohammed. Fallen angels can transmit images of Jesus and Mary and other heavenly entities. Was it really God’s Gabriel? The message of the later churches should match the New Testament.
Affirm you’ll continue to pray for them. Pray that the Holy Spirit enlightens all your paths.
In Jesus name
Tweedlealice

 

[lilypadrees]

I usually just tell them they’re listening to the wrong Holy Ghost.

 

[Kei]

We are not polytheists.
The Bible clearly posits one God.
The believers in Christianity clearly posit one God.
The Bible clearly states that the Word is with God and that the Word is God.
The Bible clearly states that there is the Father Son and Holy Ghost.

Stop cherry picking like a few authors, perhaps look at the sources yourself.
St Gregory the Wonder Worker clearly would have a few words with you!

 

[gazelam]

It’s the concept of one substance that has been the issue, as you note. Without it, there really isn’t the oneness.

I disagree with this assertion. John 17:22 states “And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one”

Jesus is praying for His disciples to be one the same way in which He and the Father are one. Jesus clearly was not asking His Father to make the disciples to become consubstantial with each other. It had to be a oneness of purpose, unity, etc. Jesus wants for His disciples the same oneness that He has with the Father.

Either one accepts the teaching of the ineffable by its leaders as legitimate , or it doesn’t. That is why today there are thousands of individual “Christian” groups who disagree. Thus, again, one can only say “peace” and move on.

Peace to you, Brother! Take care and God bless you.

 

[gazelam]

First it should be noted that the Council of Nicaea in AD 325, did not discuss the Holy Spirit. It only discussed the relationship between God the Father and Jesus Christ. The Church did not discuss the Holy Spirit until the Council of Constantinople in AD 381. Nicaea only talked about the Father and the Son, not the Trinity. That would be later.

Thanks for the clarification. If I were to take a quiz about differences between the two Nicene councils I’d fail it.

 

[gazelam]

Scripturally, there are three passages that I would like to present that show the relationship between Christ and the Father.

First from the 10th Chapter of John:
30 I and the Father are one." 31 Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?” 33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.” 34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are “gods” '[1]? 35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came-and Scripture cannot be set aside- 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? 37 Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. 38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” 39 Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.

Here Jesus is making himself equal to God the Father; as Nicaea would state, they are consubstantial, of the same substance. The Jews understood this, as they take up rocks to stone him, which is the punishment for blasphemy. (Leviticus 24: 10-16)

Continued

Jesus is NOT making Himself equal to The Father here. I bolded phrases above which show Christ is subordinate to the Father. The Father set Christ apart for His mission. Co-equals don’t set each other apart. Subordinates are set apart. Also, Co-equals don’t send each other on errands. Subordinates get sent on missions.

If Jesus were equal with the Father, why would the Father have to give power to Jesus? (See Matthew 28:18) Wouldn’t Jesus already have that power?