Jump to content
RockHopper

Acts 17:28 Question

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Josh Khinder said:

Does this look like we teach there the same person ? 

osAmiy2.jpg

Luther was a heretic. I wish you'd stop using Lutheranism to show what Christianity believes.

;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Luther was a heretic. I wish you'd stop using Lutheranism to show what Christianity believes.

;)

 

I go to a Baptist Church but all Christian Churches share the same belief as this Lutheran Catechism 

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Josh Khinder said:

I go to a Baptist Church but all Christian Churches share the same belief as this Lutheran Catechism 

Baptist... so you're a heretical protestant, too. You need to come back home to Rome, buddy :) 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Is there some reason we should want to?  I have no interest in a god with the nonsensical attributes of so called "traditional Christianity".

It's hard for me to imagine being so fearful that I refuse to evaluate the arguments for myself. They just make no sense.

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, Josh Khinder said:

There were two major Latin words involved. The first is substantia, and Greek  Homoousios   Although the word was idiomatically to mean “goods” or “property” and in a legal sense to denote “ that  to which two or more parties could share legal claim,” there never was never much doubt as to what the Church Fathers intended when using substantia was simply the being of God. Thus to say , with the Latin orthodox theologians, that Father,Son, and Spirit were consubstantialis was to say that they shared the same basic “thing” or “what” that they were: namely, they were God.

 Homoousios Godhead, God, substance Essence and Being all synonyms

You play the typical trinitarian word games, claiming to understand God when you know so little. You want to try to use one word as if it can only mean one thing. Most Christians don't even realize what they are referring to when they use the word Trinity. They are referring to a word which was ruled inappropriate only about 50 years before the Council of Nicea - a council excommunicated a bishop, Paul of Samosata, for using homoousios (one substance) with reference to the Son. About 50 years after the Council of Nicea, the state Church would excommunicate a bishop if they didn't affirm the Son was homoousios - that is the the real meaning of the unscriptural word you keep claiming God is for some unknown reason.

In the Hebrew since the Father, YHWH is one/echad with the Son, who is also YHWH, that is a key to how they are one. Look up the meaning of those Hebrew letters which make up that word. The earliest Hebrew words were formed by combining the letters which each had meaning. They mean Behold/look the nail, Behold the hand. Now, why would the Father have that name?

The one substance debate is meaningless. Claiming people are not Christians because they don't believe the three spirits of the "Trinity" are one substance is prejudiced and even a mean claim. It hides the true nature of God. You claim there is only one "God" but Hebrew scripture reveals there is more than one El or Power. The plural of El is Elim, but that word gets hidden in the KJV which likes to interpret it as "the mighty." Elohim is the plural of Eloah, yet another title. Yet, it is the "one God" in most of the Bible. It really means more like one family or one house. God has only one house. It has many rooms, because His family is potentially very big, otherwise Paul would not have said His followers are His sons and daughters. Being one in spirit doesn't mean Heavenly Father doesn't have a body. He has a body which Moses saw. There is no reason for Him to say no one can see Him and live, if He doesn't have some corporeal form as John says in the next chapter after that one which Christianity misconstrues as meaning the Father is only a Spirit(John 4). Pretty much all the correct aspects about God, trinitarianism has reversed or gotten wrong. They come from Grecian Neo-Platonism, and just about anywhere except the Bible.
 

Edited by RevTestament

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, cdowis said:

Trinity is a general term referring to the three members of the Godhead, while Triune is a subset where the three members are one substance.

LDS believe on the Trinity but not the Triune Godhead.  Just a point of clarification

That's what I thought you meant.  Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

It's hard for me to imagine being so fearful that I refuse to evaluate the arguments for myself. They just make no sense.

It's one thing to say that the doctrine of the Trinity is wrong. It's quite another to say that those who believe in it do so because they are fearful, they haven't evaluated the arguments, and that they are dumb for believing something that doesn't make any sense to you.

I'm not really interested in arguing about the Trinity, except that I do like to defend those who believe it against the charge that they are dumb. Some of the best and brightest minds of Western Civilization of the past 2000 years (theologians and philosophers and saints) have believed in and argued for the Trinity. This doesn't mean that the doctrine is right. It just means that it's not dumb.

For example, one can say St. Thomas Aquinas is wrong on many issues, but I think a reasonable person cannot accuse him of being stupid.

 

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Is there some reason we should want to?  I have no interest in a god with the nonsensical attributes of so called "traditional Christianity".

Perhaps this is one reason why Mormons shouldn't get so worked up when someone says they are not Christian..?

It doesn't make much sense to claim to be a part of a religion and then claim that that religion's core doctrine -- the nature of God -- is not only wrong but nonsensical.

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, RevTestament said:

They are referring to a word which was ruled inappropriate only about 50 years before the Council of Nicea - a council excommunicated a bishop, Paul of Samosata, for using homoousios (one substance) with reference to the Son.

This is incorrect and misleading. Paul of Samosata was not excommunicated for teaching Trinitarianism. In fact, he was excommunicated for teaching ideas contrary to Trinitarianism. He was a Monarchist, which taught that God was one person, in contrast to Trinitarianism, which teaches that God is three persons. Monarchism was a heresy and Paul of Samosata was duly excommunicated for teaching it.

Also, an ecumenical council did not excommunicate Paul. It was a synod.

 

Edited by MiserereNobis

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Perhaps this is one reason why Mormons shouldn't get so worked up when someone says they are not Christian..?

It doesn't make much sense to claim to be a part of a religion and then claim that that religion's core doctrine -- the nature of God -- is not only wrong but nonsensical.

I apologize.  I am usually more respectful of other religious beliefs.  Our friend JK (who goes by Mittens on "the other Mormon discussion board") is one of those who has a way of pushing my buttons by playing word games and manipulating teachings to mean things that are not in context.

And I  don't mean the Trinitarian beliefs specifically but his approach to arguing for them.  

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

It's one thing to say that the doctrine of the Trinity is wrong. It's quite another to say that those who believe in it do so because they are fearful, they haven't evaluated the arguments, and that they are dumb for believing something that doesn't make any sense to you.

I agree and hope I didn't imply that. I may find Trinitarian doctrine not to make sense or be scriptural, but I respect other's right to see differently.  I don't have any patience for those who play with words or manipulate meanings to avoid looking at doctrine in holy writ.  JK/Mittens likes to do that with both Christianity and Mormonism.  It's a bad faith approach.

Edited by JLHPROF

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

It's one thing to say that the doctrine of the Trinity is wrong. It's quite another to say that those who believe in it do so because they are fearful, they haven't evaluated the arguments, and that they are dumb for believing something that doesn't make any sense to you.

I'm not really interested in arguing about the Trinity, except that I do like to defend those who believe it against the charge that they are dumb. Some of the best and brightest minds of Western Civilization of the past 2000 years (theologians and philosophers and saints) have believed in and argued for the Trinity. This doesn't mean that the doctrine is right. It just means that it's not dumb.

For example, one can say St. Thomas Aquinas is wrong on many issues, but I think a reasonable person cannot accuse him of being stupid.

 

WE know the fullness of the Gospel found in The Book of Mormon is the Trinity from continuing revelation  at the General Conference 

 Answers to Gospel Questions Vol. 3 pp 98-99 under Counsel given by President Charles W. Penrose


Now, some of our brethren have taken up quite a discussion as to the fulness of the everlasting gospel. We are told that the Book of Mormon contains the fulness of the gospel, that those who like to get up a dispute, say that the Book of Mormon does not contain any reference to the work of salvation for the dead, and that there are many other things pertaining to the gospel that are not developed in that book, and yet we are told that the book contains "the fulness of the everlasting gospel." well what is the fulnesspel? You read carefully the revelation in regard to the three glories, section 76, in the Doctrine and Covanants, and you find there defined what the gospel is, There God the Eternal Father, and Jesus Christ, his son, and the Holy Ghost, are held up as the three persons in the Trinity-the one God the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, all three being one God. When people believe in that doctrine and obey the ordinances which are spoken of in the same list of principals, you get the fulness of the gospel for this reason:


General Conference Report, April 1922, pp 27-28.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

This is incorrect and misleading. Paul of Samosata was not excommunicated for teaching Trinitarianism. In fact, he was excommunicated for teaching ideas contrary to Trinitarianism. He was a Monarchist, which taught that God was one person, in contrast to Trinitarianism, which teaches that God is three persons. Monarchism was a heresy and Paul of Samosata was duly excommunicated for teaching it.

Also, an ecumenical council did not excommunicate Paul. It was a synod.

I didn't call it an ecumenical council, even though I feel that name is meaningless. There were no "ecumenical councils" before the council of Nicea. If you or Catholics feel better calling it a synod, that is fine with me. It was a regional council of bishops held to potentially discipline a bishop rather than to change church doctrine. I realize the Catholic Church feels uncomfortable about its decision regarding homoousios and tries to distinguish it from later usage. 

Perhaps the Catholic Church should feel more uncomfortable about the word in general since it came from Gnostic use in reference to God, which is why it became an issue when Paul of Samosata was using it. To say the usage of homoousios was not an issue would be misleading - the Catholic Encycolpedia addresses it. I am really unsure why the usage would come up for the state Church. Kind of ironic.

As I have tried to intonate, I don't have too huge a problem with the word except it is not from scripture. I don't view the three persons as literally "one substance" though. I view them as one spirit in a Hebrew sense being echad or one spirit like Father and Son - or one mind. If the doctrine of the trinity were to call them echad persons, I would say, yea. That incorporates the original idea of YHWH. The OT says YHWH is echad - a word which incorporates a composite "one" rather than the absolute one of yachid. I do believe the Spirit can indwell us. However, not being God, I don't know how that happens. I have felt the Spirit of God in me, and when that is the case I would say I am experiencing something like what Jesus is talking about - that the Father was in Him. Mind you I am not saying the Father's Spirit is literally in me... I am trying to compare a feeling, but honestly cannot say it would be the exactly the same obviously. I view this oneness like what Jesus died for trying to show us. He called for us to be one with He and the Father in John 17. Does hoomousia allow for that kind of oneness? Or is it an exclusive for "God" only? Well in the Nicean Council homoousia was declared for the Father and Son only - they left out the Holy Spirit. Perhaps that's why a nonscriptural word was chosen. Since Adam was echad with Eve, perhaps the idea that they could be echad with God was just not what the state Church wanted.

Edited by RevTestament

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

JK/Mittens likes to do that with both Christianity and Mormonism.  It's a bad faith approach.

I agree.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Josh Khinder said:

WE know the fullness of the Gospel found in The Book of Mormon is the Trinity from continuing revelation  at the General Conference 

 Answers to Gospel Questions Vol. 3 pp 98-99 under Counsel given by President Charles W. Penrose


Now, some of our brethren have taken up quite a discussion as to the fulness of the everlasting gospel. We are told that the Book of Mormon contains the fulness of the gospel, that those who like to get up a dispute, say that the Book of Mormon does not contain any reference to the work of salvation for the dead, and that there are many other things pertaining to the gospel that are not developed in that book, and yet we are told that the book contains "the fulness of the everlasting gospel." well what is the fulnesspel? You read carefully the revelation in regard to the three glories, section 76, in the Doctrine and Covanants, and you find there defined what the gospel is, There God the Eternal Father, and Jesus Christ, his son, and the Holy Ghost, are held up as the three persons in the Trinity-the one God the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, all three being one God. When people believe in that doctrine and obey the ordinances which are spoken of in the same list of principals, you get the fulness of the gospel for this reason:


General Conference Report, April 1922, pp 27-28.

 

 

 

For your information, in 3 Nephi 26 the Prophet Mormon clearly and unambiguously testifies that the Book of Mormon, by deliberate divine design and specific commandment, DOES NOT CONTAIN many of the more advanced doctrines pertaining to God and his kingdom. In fact, Mormon tells our present-day Book of Mormon contains the “lesser part of the word” of God, as opposed the greater part of the word of God he prophesied would come forth to the latter-day Gentile members of his restored Church sometime AFTER THE COMING FORTH of the Book of Mormon. Your assumption that the Book of Mormon testifies of itself as containing every doctrine pertaining to God and his kingdom is in error and a very common mistake made by many anti-Mormons who are too eager to find fault with the Latter-day Saints to spend the time needed to study to be sure they really understand Mormonism before going on the attack.

Please read and digest the following verses from 3 Nephi 26 and then, hopefully, you won’t continue to make the same mistake about what is meant by the expression “fullness of the gospel.” 

And now there cannot be written in this book even a hundredth part of the things which Jesus did truly teach unto the people;

But behold the plates of Nephi do contain the more part of the things which he taught the people.

And these things have I written, which are a lesser part of the things which he taught the people; and I have written them to the intent that they may be brought again unto this people, from the Gentiles, according to the words which Jesus hath spoken.

And when they shall have received this, which is expedient that they should have first, to try their faith, and if it shall so be that they shall believe these things then shall the greater things be made manifest unto them.

10 And if it so be that they will not believe these things, then shall the greater things be withheld from them, unto their condemnation.

11 Behold, I was about to write them, all which were engraven upon the plates of Nephi, but the Lord forbadeit, saying: I will try the faith of my people. (3 Nephi 26)

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, Josh Khinder said:

Of course the Trinity defines the Godhead Jesus being the one member with a body 

.”for in him dwells all the fullness of the GODHEAD BODILY,” Colossians 2:9 King James

 

“GODHEAD” {Greek-Theotetos}. In Thayers Greek  page 288; The state of being God

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is this supposed to have anything to do with what I said?

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

It's one thing to say that the doctrine of the Trinity is wrong. It's quite another to say that those who believe in it do so because they are fearful, they haven't evaluated the arguments, and that they are dumb for believing something that doesn't make any sense to you.

I'm not really interested in arguing about the Trinity, except that I do like to defend those who believe it against the charge that they are dumb. Some of the best and brightest minds of Western Civilization of the past 2000 years (theologians and philosophers and saints) have believed in and argued for the Trinity. This doesn't mean that the doctrine is right. It just means that it's not dumb.

For example, one can say St. Thomas Aquinas is wrong on many issues, but I think a reasonable person cannot accuse him of being stupid.

 

I was speaking about one poster on this board whom you yourself have criticized as well.  How you conclude that I was talking about one of the most brilliant minds ever who was, as we all are, tied inextricably to our time and culture, I have no idea.

I have brilliant people in my personal family who are Catholic and I was raised Catholic who believe in the Trinity but do not believe in substance theology either.  http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/09/social-trinitarianism-and-the-catholic-faith/

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/scottish-journal-of-theology/article/div-classtitletrinity-incarnation-and-atonement-philosophical-and-theological-essays-edited-by-feenstraronald-j-and-plantingacorneliusjnr-university-of-notre-dame-press-1989-pp-xii-236-2995div/1813ACBAD349A70DCD07CA1973A11770

I could easily be Catholic myself AND believe in the Trinity if I went completely to the mystical side- and who knows at some point I may do that- who knows?  Trying to explain the ineffable is a fools game to start off with and that applies to myself as much as anyone.

When I pray I KNOW I am communicating with SOMEONE.   Who that is and whether or not there are three someones or none is not my concern.  For all I know quite honestly I could be talking to my own unconscious deep within me.  But I have certainty, correct or not, that I am speaking to an Intelligence who knows me and loves me and expresses concern and guides me and leads me.

But that is pragmatically irrelevant.  Who or whatever it is, it speaks back to me, it takes away my sins and my guilt, and it heals me physically and mentally and gives me peace and happiness.

If I was the last man on earth, that would probably be sufficient for me, but I am not.  Like everyone, we speak to others and accept the best model of what those feelings mean for us so we can communicate our feelings and "theories".  If there WAS a "Father" and a "Son" that is two persons.  We are supposed to be monotheists and all of Christianity has been a struggle to resolve the desire to be monotheist with the reality that we have at least two persons to deal with Biblically.  Ask any devout Jew or Muslim if Christians are "really" monotheists and they will let you know the reality.  The answer is no.

For me, Mormonism is the one model which is based on the person Christ whom I believe actually lived and taught these principles.  I identify the person Jesus with the person I know in my prayer life, right or wrong.

But this model, theory, postulation, paradigm or whatever word you want, gives me a lifestyle for my family which cannot be matched anywhere else.  It gives me a model that works for me and "makes sense"

I have searched for models that work for my whole life and doubt I will find another.  This one has been pretty dang good for the last 40 years.

But there is no way of knowing anything about it objectively.  If substance theology works for you after examining all the arguments and gives you satisfaction, great.

If all those arguments against it don't matter to you, great.   One could still be Catholic and come up with one's own version of the Trinity, but I was unable to do that.

I understand family unity, being simple minded, and that for me was the perfect rational way to view the Godhead.  Three people, one family, one God works for me.   But I still know there is only ONE that I speak to in my prayers regardless of her name.

I just don't know how to make "consubstantial" make any sense at all nor find it of any worth as a model.  I don't understand it and never did.  "But that's the beauty of it- it's a Mystery and we cannot fathom God"

Of course we cannot fathom God.  But he gave us intelligence to use for something and certainly we can at least come up with models and theories that work instead of theories which do not work.

Some hang on to Tradition for Tradition's sake because they are fearful they might be wrong.  Mormons do that, everyone does that.   I know what it is like to be "excommunicated"  automatically from a church my family has been in for a THOUSAND years, not just 6 generations like some Mormons.  Some would view that as a bold move.  My family prays for my return.

I did not mean to be unkind, but I stand by my words at least as I meant them if not as I said them.

Those who stay in a tradition because it is a tradition are fearful to go out on their own and follow their own noses into new ways of seeing things.  

Mormons believe that every Mormon should be a "convert" to their church, but yet we have all the former Mormons out there who are bitter because they lived principles they never really believed and they blame it all on the church, BECAUSE of their fear to leave the tradition behind.

Anyway this is already too long.  Real life beckons.

Edited by mfbukowski

Share this post


Link to post

Gregory of Nyssa was a Catholic around the time that the Trinity was being invented and his views are essentially (  ;)  ) Mormon views. 

Quote

 

3.3.1 Gregory of Nyssa

Gregory of Nyssa (ca. 335–ca. 395) is now known as one of the Cappadocian Fathers, the other two being his older brother Basil of Caesarea (ca. 329–79) and Gregory Nazianzus (329–89). These three active bishops are credited with establishing a consistent terminology for the Trinity, namely using hypostasis or prosopon for what God is three of, and ousia(along with phusis) for what God is one of. (On their lives, careers, and extant writings, see Ayres 2004 and Hanson 1996.) We look briefly at Nyssa's views here, as illustrating several points about the pro-Nicene consensus.

Nyssa notoriously compares the Trinity to three human beings (Nyssa Answer, 256). Largely on this basis, he (and the other Cappadocians) have been interpreted as proto-social trinitarians (see section 2.1 of the main text), holding the three persons to be three subjects of consciousness and action, of the same kind, homoousios in the way that any two examples of a natural kind are, such as two humans (Plantinga 1986). However, it has been objected that the three human analogy was suggested by his opponents; it is neither Nyssa's only nor his main analogy for the Trinity (Coakley 1999).

In Nyssa's letter An Answer to Ablabius: That We Should Not Think of Saying There are Three Gods he responds to an objection passed on by his correspondent, the younger bishop Ablabius: even though three men share a single humanity, we call them “three men”, so if Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share a single divinity, why shouldn't we call them “three gods”? (Nyssa Answer, 256–7) After a flippant answer, he argues that both ways of speaking are on a par, but they are both incorrect; that is, both talk of many gods and of many men involve “a customary misuse of language” (257). In both cases, he argues that the general term refers to the single, common nature. More accurately, he adds, the term “godhead” refers only to a divine operation of seeing or beholding, as “His nature cannot be named and is ineffable” (259). Moreover, the Bible ascribes this operation equally to each of the three (260). Does it not follow that there are three seers, “three gods who are beheld in the same operation” (261)? Nyssa argues that it does not.

In the case of men… since we can differentiate the action of each while they are engaged in the same task, they are rightly referred to in the plural….With regard to the divine nature, on the other hand, it is otherwise….Rather does every operation which extends from God to creation… have its origin in the Father, proceed through the Son, and reach its completion by the Holy Spirit. For the action of each in any matter is not separate and individualized. But whatever occurs… occurs through the three Persons, and is not three separate things….we cannot enumerate as three gods those who jointly, inseparably, and mutually exercise their divine power… (261–2; cf. 266, Nyssa On the Holy Trinity))

We're unable to differentiate, Nyssa thinks, any distinct works of the persons. The word “deity” (or “Godhead”) signifies only a certain work. Therefore, we're unable to count, and shouldn't speak of three distinct deities (261-4).

 

 

 

Here substance theology is interpreted as the Three persons are unified in purpose.

Note also that he speaks about LANGUAGE and is therefore 2000 years ahead of his time!!   He is an analytical philosopher.

Suppose this idea won the day?  Catholics would be Mormons.  ;)  One need only to look to the Book of Mormon to see the same flip-flop between three persons working as one.  So Gregory insists we should not speak of three Gods but three WORKING as one.

Works for me.   But there are still three persons and we share their substance.  Prove me wrong on that.  Substance is ambiguous enough to accommodate anything you like.  ;)

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trinity/trinity-history.html

Of course Gregory was not perfect.  In fact there are clearly different functions ascribed to the three persons making them separate.  The atonement did not come through the Father and the Son does not take on the functions of the Holy Spirit, so there still are 3 acting as one.  

 

Edited by mfbukowski

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

For your information, in 3 Nephi 26 the Prophet Mormon clearly and unambiguously testifies that the Book of Mormon, by deliberate divine design and specific commandment, DOES NOT CONTAIN many of the more advanced doctrines pertaining to God and his kingdom. In fact, Mormon tells our present-day Book of Mormon contains the “lesser part of the word” of God, as opposed the greater part of the word of God he prophesied would come forth to the latter-day Gentile members of his restored Church sometime AFTER THE COMING FORTH of the Book of Mormon. Your assumption that the Book of Mormon testifies of itself as containing every doctrine pertaining to God and his kingdom is in error and a very common mistake made by many anti-Mormons who are too eager to find fault with the Latter-day Saints to spend the time needed to study to be sure they really understand Mormonism before going on the attack.

Please read and digest the following verses from 3 Nephi 26 and then, hopefully, you won’t continue to make the same mistake about what is meant by the expression “fullness of the gospel.” 

And now there cannot be written in this book even a hundredth part of the things which Jesus did truly teach unto the people;

But behold the plates of Nephi do contain the more part of the things which he taught the people.

And these things have I written, which are a lesser part of the things which he taught the people; and I have written them to the intent that they may be brought again unto this people, from the Gentiles, according to the words which Jesus hath spoken.

And when they shall have received this, which is expedient that they should have first, to try their faith, and if it shall so be that they shall believe these things then shall the greater things be made manifest unto them.

10 And if it so be that they will not believe these things, then shall the greater things be withheld from them, unto their condemnation.

11 Behold, I was about to write them, all which were engraven upon the plates of Nephi, but the Lord forbadeit, saying: I will try the faith of my people. (3 Nephi 26)

So what is it when Joseph Smith said this ?

Pearl Of Great Price

34 He said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang. He also said that the fulness of the everlasting Gospel was contained in it, as delivered by the Savior to the ancient inhabitants;

 Concerning this record the Prophet Joseph Smith said: “I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.”

Introduction of Book of Mormon

Our revelations say that the Book of Mormon contains the fullness of Gospel. { D&C 20:9, 27:5. 42:12, 135:3 } This is true in the sense that Book of Mormon is a record of God's dealings with a people who had the fullness of the gospel and therefore the laws and principles leading to the highest salvation are found recorded in that book.

 

 The fullness consists in those laws, doctrines, ordnances, powers, and authorities needed to enable men to gain the fullness of salvation. Mormon Doctrine page 333

 D&C 20:

 9 Which contains a record of a fallen people, and the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles and to the Jews also;

 D&C 27:

 5 Behold, this is wisdom in me; wherefore, marvel not, for the hour cometh that I will drink of the fruit of the vine with you on the earth, and with Moroni, whom I have sent unto you to reveal the Book of Mormon, containing the fulness of my everlasting gospel, to whom I have committed the keys of the record of the stick of Ephraim;

 D&C 42:

 12 And again, the elders, priests and teachers of this church shall teach the principles of my gospel, which are in the Bible and the Book of Mormon, in the which is the fullness of the gospel.

 D&C 135:

 3 Joseph Smith, the Prophet and Seer of the Lord, has done more, save Jesus only, for the salvation of men in this world, than any other man that ever lived in it. In the short space of twenty years, he has brought forth the Book of Mormon, which he translated by the gift and power of God, and has been the means of publishing it on two continents; has sent the fullness of the everlasting gospel, which it contained, to the four quarters of the earth;

 

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Josh Khinder said:

WE know the fullness of the Gospel found in The Book of Mormon is the Trinity from continuing revelation  at the General Conference 

 Answers to Gospel Questions Vol. 3 pp 98-99 under Counsel given by President Charles W. Penrose


Now, some of our brethren have taken up quite a discussion as to the fulness of the everlasting gospel. We are told that the Book of Mormon contains the fulness of the gospel, that those who like to get up a dispute, say that the Book of Mormon does not contain any reference to the work of salvation for the dead, and that there are many other things pertaining to the gospel that are not developed in that book, and yet we are told that the book contains "the fulness of the everlasting gospel." well what is the fulnesspel? You read carefully the revelation in regard to the three glories, section 76, in the Doctrine and Covanants, and you find there defined what the gospel is, There God the Eternal Father, and Jesus Christ, his son, and the Holy Ghost, are held up as the three persons in the Trinity-the one God the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, all three being one God. When people believe in that doctrine and obey the ordinances which are spoken of in the same list of principals, you get the fulness of the gospel for this reason:


General Conference Report, April 1922, pp 27-28.

My goodness, if you're going to garble the message, at last don't garble the text! Even I can cut and paste!

image.png.6835525544b6b814610972193fc2bce2.png

The fulness of the Gospel is fulness of the Good News, which is explicitly laid out in 3 Nephi 27: 13-21 and consists of three fairly simple elements: His mission upon the earth (the Atonement, Resurrection and Judgement); His doctrine (also set forth in 3 Nephi 11-12:1); and, “the things that ye must do in my church.” Something that is often overlooked from His doctrine is the dictum to give heed to His apostles (3 Nephi 12:1).

It is said the original apostolic writings of the Jews contained it (1 Nephi 3:24) but was lost, necessitating its restoration (verses 40 and 41), which was also written by his authorized servants, again tying the testimony of the fulness to His human instruments.

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, CV75 said:

My goodness, if you're going to garble the message, at last don't garble the text! Even I can cut and paste!

image.png.6835525544b6b814610972193fc2bce2.png

The fulness of the Gospel is fulness of the Good News, which is explicitly laid out in 3 Nephi 27: 13-21 and consists of three fairly simple elements: His mission upon the earth (the Atonement, Resurrection and Judgement); His doctrine (also set forth in 3 Nephi 11-12:1); and, “the things that ye must do in my church.” Something that is often overlooked from His doctrine is the dictum to give heed to His apostles (3 Nephi 12:1).

It is said the original apostolic writings of the Jews contained it (1 Nephi 3:24) but was lost, necessitating its restoration (verses 40 and 41), which was also written by his authorized servants, again tying the testimony of the fulness to His human instruments.

Sounds like your referring to the preparatory and not fullness

D&C 84:26 And the lesser priesthood continued, which priesthood holdeth the key of the ministering of angels and the preparatory gospel;

27 Which gospel is the gospel of repentance and of baptism, and the remission of sins, and the law of carnal commandments, which the Lord in his wrath caused to continue with the house of Aaron among the children of Israel until John, whom God raised up, being filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother’s womb.

 

Share this post


Link to post
43 minutes ago, CV75 said:

My goodness, if you're going to garble the message, at last don't garble the text! Even I can cut and paste!

image.png.6835525544b6b814610972193fc2bce2.png

The fulness of the Gospel is fulness of the Good News, which is explicitly laid out in 3 Nephi 27: 13-21 and consists of three fairly simple elements: His mission upon the earth (the Atonement, Resurrection and Judgement); His doctrine (also set forth in 3 Nephi 11-12:1); and, “the things that ye must do in my church.” Something that is often overlooked from His doctrine is the dictum to give heed to His apostles (3 Nephi 12:1).

It is said the original apostolic writings of the Jews contained it (1 Nephi 3:24) but was lost, necessitating its restoration (verses 40 and 41), which was also written by his authorized servants, again tying the testimony of the fulness to His human instruments.

Thanks for scanning the page for me 

 

lRFeKjx.png

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Josh Khinder said:

So what is it when Joseph Smith said this ?

Pearl Of Great Price

34 He said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang. He also said that the fulness of the everlasting Gospel was contained in it, as delivered by the Savior to the ancient inhabitants;

 Concerning this record the Prophet Joseph Smith said: “I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.”

Introduction of Book of Mormon

Our revelations say that the Book of Mormon contains the fullness of Gospel. { D&C 20:9, 27:5. 42:12, 135:3 } This is true in the sense that Book of Mormon is a record of God's dealings with a people who had the fullness of the gospel and therefore the laws and principles leading to the highest salvation are found recorded in that book.

 

 The fullness consists in those laws, doctrines, ordnances, powers, and authorities needed to enable men to gain the fullness of salvation. Mormon Doctrine page 333

 D&C 20:

 9 Which contains a record of a fallen people, and the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles and to the Jews also;

 D&C 27:

 5 Behold, this is wisdom in me; wherefore, marvel not, for the hour cometh that I will drink of the fruit of the vine with you on the earth, and with Moroni, whom I have sent unto you to reveal the Book of Mormon, containing the fulness of my everlasting gospel, to whom I have committed the keys of the record of the stick of Ephraim;

 D&C 42:

 12 And again, the elders, priests and teachers of this church shall teach the principles of my gospel, which are in the Bible and the Book of Mormon, in the which is the fullness of the gospel.

 D&C 135:

 3 Joseph Smith, the Prophet and Seer of the Lord, has done more, save Jesus only, for the salvation of men in this world, than any other man that ever lived in it. In the short space of twenty years, he has brought forth the Book of Mormon, which he translated by the gift and power of God, and has been the means of publishing it on two continents; has sent the fullness of the everlasting gospel, which it contained, to the four quarters of the earth;

 

So true to your style, you simply ignore the fact that the prophet Mormon plainly testifies he was sticktly forbidden of God to inscribe the GREATER TEACHINGS Christ taught to the Nephites onto the plates that would eventually be translated to become today’s Book of Mormon. And you further ignore the incontrovertible fact that those greater teachings of Christ, that Mormon was commanded of God to be leave out of the Book of Mormo, would not be given to the members of the restored latter-day Church of Christ until sometime AFTER  the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.

So while ignoring the above inconvenient facts that are absolutely devastating to your argument, you continue to quote LDS leaders — each of whom had read the Book of Mormon dozens of times throughout their lives — as if they were blissfully unaware of the fact that, by divine design, the Book of Mormon contains the lesser teachings of Christ and that the greater teachings would be withheld until God found sufficient evidence that a sufficient number of latter-day gentiles had accepted the Book of Mormon as the word of God — this is the test of faith of which God spoke in verse 11.

Your problem with accepting the truth in this matter is that you confuse and conflate the expression “fullness of the gospel” with the what constitute the greater teachings of Christ, the same greater teachings Mormon was commanded of God to leave out of the Book of Mormon.

What follows is Christ’s own definition of his gospel, as found in the Book of Mormon. The fullness of the gospel revolves around these delineated principles.

13 Behold I have given unto you my gospel, and this is the gospel which I have given unto you—that I came into the world to do the will of my Father, because my Father sent me.

14 And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted up by the Father, to stand before me, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil—

15 And for this cause have I been lifted up; therefore, according to the power of the Father I will draw all men unto me, that they may be judged according to their works.

16 And it shall come to pass, that whoso repenteth and is baptized in my name shall be filled; and if he endureth to the end, behold, him will I hold guiltless before my Father at that day when I shall stand to judge the world.

17 And he that endureth not unto the end, the same is he that is also hewn down and cast into the fire, from whence they can no more return, because of the justice of the Father. (3 Nephi 27)

 

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

So true to your style, you simply ignore the fact that the prophet Mormon plainly testifies he was sticktly forbidden of God to inscribe the GREATER TEACHINGS Christ taught to the Nephites onto the plates that would eventually be translated to become today’s Book of Mormon. And you further ignore the incontrovertible fact that those greater teachings of Christ, that Mormon was commanded of God to be leave out of the Book of Mormo, would not be given to the members of the restored latter-day Church of Christ until sometime AFTER  the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.

So while ignoring the above inconvenient facts that are absolutely devastating to your argument, you continue to quote LDS leaders — each of whom had read the Book of Mormon dozens of times throughout their lives — as if they were blissfully unaware of the fact that, by divine design, the Book of Mormon contains the lesser teachings of Christ and that the greater teachings would be withheld until God found sufficient evidence that a sufficient number of latter-day gentiles had accepted the Book of Mormon as the word of God — this is the test of faith of which God spoke in verse 11.

Your problem with accepting the truth in this matter is that you confuse and conflate the expression “fullness of the gospel” with the what constitute the greater teachings of Christ, the same greater teachings Mormon was commanded of God to leave out of the Book of Mormon.

What follows is Christ’s own definition of his gospel, as found in the Book of Mormon. The fullness of the gospel revolves around these delineated principles.

13 Behold I have given unto you my gospel, and this is the gospel which I have given unto you—that I came into the world to do the will of my Father, because my Father sent me.

14 And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted up by the Father, to stand before me, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil—

15 And for this cause have I been lifted up; therefore, according to the power of the Father I will draw all men unto me, that they may be judged according to their works.

16 And it shall come to pass, that whoso repenteth and is baptized in my name shall be filled; and if he endureth to the end, behold, him will I hold guiltless before my Father at that day when I shall stand to judge the world.

17 And he that endureth not unto the end, the same is he that is also hewn down and cast into the fire, from whence they can no more return, because of the justice of the Father. (3 Nephi 27)

 

Your mixing up the preparatory gospel with the fullness 

 

D&C 84:26 And the lesser priesthood continued, which priesthood holdeth the key of the ministering of angels and the preparatory gospel;

27 Which gospel is the gospel of repentance and of baptism, and the remission of sins, and the law of carnal commandments, which the Lord in his wrath caused to continue with the house of Aaron among the children of Israel until John, whom God raised up, being filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother’s womb.

Edited by Josh Khinder

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Josh Khinder said:

Thanks for scanning the page for me 

 

lRFeKjx.png

Why do you keep doing this?  You just seem to keep it up, without the slightest apparent inkling that what YOU mean by Trinity is NOT what WE mean by Trinity.  

For example:

CAT.thumb.png.5c82ae22b4a6cefc9f7b3dd0b6817376.png

NOW, DESPITE THEIR OBVIOUS SIMILARITIES, ONE CAT IS NOT LIKE THE OTHER CAT, DESPITE BOTH BEING CATS.

A. Our Trinity is the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, who are three separate personages.  A social trinity.

B. Your Trinity is the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, who are three persons in one substance.  A triune god.

OK, then. Take every quote you have given from LDS leaders and the Book of Mormon, the D&C, and the PofGP wherein it is said "One God," and assign A in the short list above to it.  You can assign B to whatever you believe in.  Now, you can argue legitimately whether the LDS understanding of God is correct, or not, but will you finally STOP TELLING US WHAT WE BELIEVE AND WHAT OUR LEADERS AND SCRIPTURES MEAN WHEN THEY SAY "TRINITY"?  

Have you gotten the point yet?  Or is having any further discussion with you completely pointless?

 

Edited by Stargazer

Share this post


Link to post

I love discussing nonsense with self-appointed experts who know nothing about the subjects they claim expertise in. 

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×