Stargazer Posted October 16, 2018 Posted October 16, 2018 4 hours ago, MiserereNobis said: I don't rely on the Bible for the truths of the Trinity. I rely on the magisterium (which pre-dates the Bible), my spiritual experiences, and the Holy Spirit. No surprise, since he Bible doesn't support it. The only support for it is post-Biblical. And your own spiritual experiences of course. I was never a member of any church before I became LDS. So I had no baggage in the sense of having something to unlearn. My late wife, however, was Lutheran (in German this was called "Evangelisch"), and got the normal Sunday instruction. She said that she rejected the teachings of the Trinity in her own mind, because it did not make sense to her. When she first heard from the LDS missionaries that the Godhead was three distinct personages who were one in purpose and so on, it instantly spoke to her heart and she believed it immediately. 4 hours ago, MiserereNobis said: The bottom line is that you believe our priesthood is invalid and our leaders and councils not led by God via inspiration and the Holy Spirit, and thus the teachings of those councils are in error. And we think the same about your priesthood and leaders and the teachings they give. This bottom line is not really going to change for either of us so there's not much more to discuss here about the Trinity, I suppose. If I believed your priesthood was valid, I'd be a Catholic! 🙂 In fact, I really like the Catholic Church and have a great deal of respect for it and its adherents. Of course I don't mind if you think our priesthood and teachings are in error. How could it be otherwise? There might not be much common ground on the subject of the Trinity, but I always like to hear why people believe in it. And not just to argue with them over it -- though that can be fun, too, if done in civility. 1
Gray Posted October 16, 2018 Posted October 16, 2018 5 hours ago, Stargazer said: I can understand why they think it's so important. Heck, even I think it's important to affirm that God has certain characteristics. No problem with that at all. But to fight wars over it? Burn people at the stake over it? Mormons got into some wars themselves. Theocracy leads to that sort of thing. It's less to do with their theology and more to do with politics. 5 hours ago, Stargazer said: My problem with the Nicene and other extra-biblical creeds is not that they weren't a charming and earnest attempt to regain an understanding of who God is, but that they cannot be shown to be a correct understanding! What makes you think they weren't earnest? 5 hours ago, Stargazer said: The creeds are nothing more than a description of a God created by consensus of fallible men. Sounds like a description of every church that ever was. 5 hours ago, Stargazer said: Read what @Spammer writes in defense of the Nicene Trinity. It's Greek philosophy. It's full of appeals to authority. Isn't Mormonism full of appeals to authority? That's kind of the core, particular doctrine of Mormonism - an appeal to the unique authority of the church. Anyway, if you want to get back to the God of Jesus, you'd need to skip Mormonism and Christianity altogether. Judaism would be the way to go. Jesus wouldn't be a part of the Godhead or trinity, he'd just be a prophet, and the Holy Spirit would be the power of God, not a divine being.
JarMan Posted October 16, 2018 Posted October 16, 2018 5 hours ago, pogi said: The "non-Biblical" argument is usually made to sola-scriptura folks. We don't hold scripture (Bible, Book of Mormon, or anything else) as the only authoritative source of doctrine. Our understanding of the Godhead is not only derived from the first vision, but also from further revelation including D&C 130 - "God has a body of flesh and bones", etc. I wouldn't say that the BOM and the earlier accounts of the first vision "contradict" our current understanding of the Godhead. Much has been written about the first vision accounts (see the gospel topics essay). Same with the BoM accounts of God and his oneness - not literal. There is no contradiction that I can see. But I agree, I like having Navidad around and think we can learn a lot from him. I understand the desire to try to harmonize all of the scriptural accounts plus the first vision accounts. But I think if we look at it objectively it’s pretty apparent that the Mormon view of the trinity in say, 1832, was pretty consistent with creedal Christianity. Then we got later scripture that brought us to our current system. Don’t get me wrong, I think the modern Mormon view makes much more sense than the creedal view. But personally I just can’t harmonize this view with the Book of Mormon or the 1832 first vision account. Point is, I think some humility is in order when we Mormons explain to other Christians why our view of the godhead is the “right” one.
RevTestament Posted October 16, 2018 Posted October 16, 2018 2 hours ago, Gray said: Anyway, if you want to get back to the God of Jesus, you'd need to skip Mormonism and Christianity altogether. Judaism would be the way to go. Jesus wouldn't be a part of the Godhead or trinity, he'd just be a prophet, and the Holy Spirit would be the power of God, not a divine being. And how do Jews explain that YHWH says YHWH and His Spirit sent Him? Who is the Branch who is to be called YHWH? Hebrews also apples OT scripture to Jesus which calls him Elohim. So Yeshua is YHWH and Elohim. How is that not the Godhead? Are you YHWH Elohim? (I hear a speech about scripture not being reliable coming on). I agree that the Father, as El Elyon, the Most High Power, is the El/Power of the Son, as He is us all. But to claim that makes Judaism "the way to go" is a complete misinterpretation of scripture.
Gray Posted October 16, 2018 Posted October 16, 2018 (edited) 6 hours ago, RevTestament said: And how do Jews explain that YHWH says YHWH and His Spirit sent Him? Who is the Branch who is to be called YHWH? Just replace "spirit" with "power" and you'll have it. Quote Hebrews also apples OT scripture to Jesus which calls him Elohim. So Yeshua is YHWH and Elohim. How is that not the Godhead? Are you YHWH Elohim? Jesus never claimed to be Yahweh. He never even claimed to be good. Retrospectively the Christian communities came to see him as divine (not so unusual for a hero), and eventually as somehow identified with Yahweh. That evolving theology eventually lead to the trinity. Quote (I hear a speech about scripture not being reliable coming on). I agree that the Father, as El Elyon, the Most High Power, is the El/Power of the Son, as He is us all. But to claim that makes Judaism "the way to go" is a complete misinterpretation of scripture. It's the way to go if you're interested in following the religion of Jesus the historical figure. If you're interested in something else you may of course do as you please. Jesus' program was just Judaism, not Christianity, with an emphasis on preparing for the coming eschaton by becoming morally right. Early "Christianity" that followed after Jesus was Judaism+ (Judaism plus an emphasis on Jesus as a spiritual messiah vindicated by God by being raised to his right hand). It's not until decades later that Christianity evolved into its own separate religion. The LDS Godhead is just a modified version of the orthodox Trinity. It's not a return to the theology of Jesus. Edited October 16, 2018 by Gray
RevTestament Posted October 16, 2018 Posted October 16, 2018 2 hours ago, Gray said: Just replace "spirit" with "power" and you'll have it. I will? First of all, that would be an improper translation of wə·rū·ḥōw. which is a form of ruach or the word all over the OT meaning breath or life. Second of all the speaker speaking as the I clearly identifies Himself as YHWH and says in the same verse He has spoken from the beginning. So the I/YHWH says YHWH and His Spirit hath sent me. Thirdly, the speaker identifies Himself as the Holy One of Israel, and their Redeemer. The Book of Mormon only uses the Holy One of Israel for Yeshua. I will attempt to show the above word for word: Isaiah 48: 16 Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; Have I not spoken in secret from the beginning?; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord God/YHWH, and his Spirit/wə·rū·ḥōw, hath sent me. 17 Thus saith the Lord/YHWH, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I am the Lord thy God which teacheth thee to profit, which leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go. Some try to claim that the prophet is identifying himself as "I" in verse 16, but that would break the usual rules of translation - is the prophet really saying he has spoken from the beginning, saying "there am I?" Quote Jesus never claimed to be Yahweh. He never even claimed to be good[I assume you meant god?]. Retrospectively the Christian communities came to see him as divine (not so unusual for a hero), and eventually as somehow identified with Yahweh. That evolving theology eventually lead to the trinity. In the Peshitta version of Matthew Yeshua is repeatedly referred to as Marya, and calls Himself Marya -- the Peshitta's version of YHWH in its OT. In the Greek NT there is no distinction from the common Lord, unfortunately, but He does plainly say He is our Lord. See also Hebrews 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God/Elohim, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. That verse is quoting the OT usage of Elohim for the Son. So, again the Son is Elohim and YHWH. Quote It's the way to go if you're interested in following the religion of Jesus the historical figure. If you're interested in something else you may of course do as you please. Jesus' program was just Judaism, not Christianity, with an emphasis on preparing for the coming eschaton by becoming morally right. Early "Christianity" that followed after Jesus was Judaism+ (Judaism plus an emphasis on Jesus as a spiritual messiah vindicated by God by being raised to his right hand). It's not until decades later that Christianity evolved into its own separate religion. The LDS Godhead is just a modified version of the orthodox Trinity. It's not a return to the theology of Jesus. The complete theology of Jesus is hidden in His words - as He says He spoke only what the Father told Him to speak, and did not tell the Church exactly what was going to happen in the future. Rather, He was fairly mum other than to say that darkness was coming in which no man could work. While I agree that the early Church did not fully get it, to argue the early Church was simply Judaism is very presumptuous. Timothy speaks of ordaining bishops and deacons - a completely un-Jewish thing. The apostles end physical circumcision, and dietary laws. Observant Jews still follow these. The earliest patristic authors were anything but Jewish. I also agree that the Latter Day Saint idea of the Godhead is somewhat similar to the Trinitarian one, but being without the doctrinal errors of its essentially unbegotten Son, and the proscription of being heretical without accepting its dictates, we are much closer to how Yeshua left the Church - to figure Him out for ourselves. In this the LDS idea of the Godhead is on point rather than attempting to force all followers to accept its dictates, although it seems in recent decades there is less freedom to believe according to one's conscience due to cultural pressures. The LDS idea of the Godhead conforms to scripture for the reasons given above. Yeshua is not just another prophet, but He is a humble servant of the Father - much like He asks us to be. 1
Navidad Posted October 16, 2018 Author Posted October 16, 2018 Here is a direct quote from the LDS. org website about whether or not Mormons (to use its terminology) are Christians. It gives three reasons why Mormons are rejected by and from the non-LDS Christian family. I quote two. I understand the third. The most oft-used reasons are the following: Latter-day Saints do not accept the creeds, confessions, and formulations of post–New Testament Christianity. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not descend through the historical line of traditional Christianity. That is, Latter-day Saints are not Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Protestant. Regarding #1 - Would it not perhaps be more accurate just to say that the reason for the rejection is that Latter-day Saints have what many Christians believe to be heterodox views of the Trinity and Christology, therefore their Christianity is rejected by those same Christians? Would it not be more accurate to simply leave the concept of creeds, confessions, and formulations out of it, especially since the most anti-Mormon critics are themselves non-Creedal? Certainly the group I belong to is non-creedal and we are not considered non-Christians because of it. I struggle to see the correlation between creeds and being rejected as Christians. It is the heterodoxy that causes the challenges for the Saints, isn't it? Specific and individual creeds and creedalism seem to have little if anything to do with it. Regarding #2 - I don't understand this one at all. Again, my particular faith group considers itself to be non-Catholic and non-Protestant. This is to a large degree because of the history of thousands of Mennonites being martyred by both groups. Can anyone provide some specific examples of #2 actually happening and by whom? Thanks so much. 1
kllindley Posted October 16, 2018 Posted October 16, 2018 28 minutes ago, Navidad said: Regarding #1 - Would it not perhaps be more accurate just to say that the reason for the rejection is that Latter-day Saints have what many Christians believe to be heterodox views of the Trinity and Christology, therefore their Christianity is rejected by those same Christians? Would it not be more accurate to simply leave the concept of creeds, confessions, and formulations out of it, especially since the most anti-Mormon critics are themselves non-Creedal? Certainly the group I belong to is non-creedal and we are not considered non-Christians because of it. I struggle to see the correlation between creeds and being rejected as Christians. It is the heterodoxy that causes the challenges for the Saints, isn't it? Specific and individual creeds and creedalism seem to have little if anything to do with it. I have loved reading your comments here. Thank you so much for trying to understand and sharing your own light and testimony. I honestly don't understand your position on Latter-day Saint usage of the term creed. I admit that despite being very interested in comparative religion and making a sincere effort to understand other religious perspectives, I do not know everything (or much at all.) This is a sincere question. You've stated that the group you belong to is non-creedal. Does that mean that you reject the beliefs espoused in the various creeds? By what standard are our beliefs heterodox? What determines orthodoxy if not the creeds and formulations? 2
The Nehor Posted October 16, 2018 Posted October 16, 2018 (edited) 17 hours ago, Navidad said: I want to thank each of you for your very insightful comments. Equally as important, the tone has been wonderful. I think that no one is going to convert anyone and that is inline with the rules of the forum. However, I think with the quality of the posts we might learn something from each other. We might gain insight into both our own views and those of others. That is what it is all about. Edited October 16, 2018 by The Nehor 2
RevTestament Posted October 16, 2018 Posted October 16, 2018 18 minutes ago, Anon the Great said: The communication break-down between Christianity and the LDS Church is the trinity defines the essence inside the Father's and Son's bodies as One substance, but the trinity errs by excluding the bodies Yahweh Elohim lives in, including ours. The trinity is a more adult way to define God. A child would not try to define his parents this way. But the LDS are more like children pointing to the parents and saying over and over, "Look I see two people". The problem is the LDS prophets have never grown up to be adults to define the Spirit of Yahweh inside the immortal bodies of the Father and Son. They say, "Look, God is two bodies in One purpose," also confusing the truth. However, the Book of Revelation defines man's spirit created in the image of Yahweh's Spirit, and as such, we can define Yahweh's Spirit as truth, life, peace, emotions, and synergy of the truth. There are four members of the Godhead, not three. They are one Spirit of Yahweh in four parts. Likewise, we are one spirit in four parts. The trinity and LDS view confuse the issue of who God is. The Book of Revelation in Chapter 4 clears up the issue by describing the four creatures of our one spirit that worships God. The lion is the authority of truth, like the Eternal Father. The calf is life and peace, like the Eternal Mother. The face of a man is mortal feelings and perspectives, like the Eternal Son lived in a mortal body. The eagle is the synergy of truth acting as a whole system of power, like the Eternal Daughter (Holy Spirit). The total system of truth is from the Father, but the Daughter sees the whole and puts the details of life into operation by her unique talents. The same is true of men and women. We are created in the image of Yahweh Elohim. It is very important that we understand who God is so that we can all have a personal relationship with the One Spirit of Yahweh Elohim. To transform God into an irrational mumbo jumbo of ideas impedes our ability to know His Spirit as the Great I Am. He is the Holy One, separate from us. We are not separated from Yahweh Elohim by sin as the theologians teach. We were created unholy in the beginning, which doesn't mean sin, but it means as created spirits and mortals we are not the eternal Yahweh Elohim. It is so simple and uncomplex. This is life eternal, that they may know You, the only True Elohim, and Jesus Christ, that You sent. You do not understand, so it would be nice if you stop trying to preach to us, and belittle LDS as little children compared to trinitarians. We do not teach the Godhead is comprised of "two people." Nor are we created unholy: Luke 2:23 23 (As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the awomb shall be called holy to the Lord;) 1
Navidad Posted October 16, 2018 Author Posted October 16, 2018 1 hour ago, kllindley said: I have loved reading your comments here. Thank you so much for trying to understand and sharing your own light and testimony. I honestly don't understand your position on Latter-day Saint usage of the term creed. I admit that despite being very interested in comparative religion and making a sincere effort to understand other religious perspectives, I do not know everything (or much at all.) This is a sincere question. You've stated that the group you belong to is non-creedal. Does that mean that you reject the beliefs espoused in the various creeds? By what standard are our beliefs heterodox? What determines orthodoxy if not the creeds and formulations? Hi: Thanks for your kind reply. Good questions. There are many creeds in Church history. There are even different versions of the same creeds. There are belief statements, sometimes called confessions. It is all quite messy. Creeds are statements, summaries, symbols (the original Greek word for creeds is the word we know today as symbol. They are abbreviated statements of beliefs that some think came to exist under the guidance and direction of the Holy Spirit. They are very important to some groups, not so important to others, and not at all important to others. Some groups recite them in their worship. Others see them as too formal, too repetitive, and more easily stated than lived. Today in American Protestantism and evangelicalism creeds are not as vital and necessary as they were many years ago. If we go by sheer numbers, the majority of Protestants today are non-creedal. That is, they don't use creeds, aren't familiar with creeds, don't recite creeds and probably know very little about them. They never think about loyalty to a creed; their loyalty is to the Scripture, the Bible. It isn't that they may not agree with most of what is in this or that creed; it is that the whole concept of creeds is irrelevant. They just simply don't exist for many of us. So when someone like me hears Latter-day Saints claiming that they are in the doghouse for not following this or that creed, that is incredulous. When a Latter-day Saint says the Trinity was developed in a council that resulted in a creedal formulation of the trinity, we just stare with disbelief, mostly because most of us have never even looked at a creed except in a church history class. Again it isn't that we disagree with them, they just aren't important. I would dare say that most Latter-day Saints would agree with 80% of what is in most of the creeds, but they aren't important to you because they don't form the foundation for your faith any more than they do for mine. We don't reject most of the beliefs found in any one creed either; they just simply aren't the basis for our faith. Somewhere in Latter-day doctrinal history someone started the story that Protestant theology is based on creeds. That, no offense just simply isn't true, when looking at the numbers in the Protestant community. There are 21,000,000 Southern Baptists in the US. That is more than the LDS Church world-wide and more than all the Lutherans, Presbyterians, Reformed, etc etc etc. all put together. And that is just one branch of Baptists. One hundred years ago a much higher percentage of Protestant Christians were creedal; the growth of the fundamentalist and evangelical movements have reversed the numbers. I have said on this forum ten times that I know of no Protestant group that would say a faith that is non-creedal is non-Christian. The Saints tend to hold their non-creedal position as one reason why some Protestant groups deny them Christianity. That is just not something I have ever heard or seen in my years of ministering in Protestant churches and to Protestant groups. That is why I ask so many questions and push so hard. I think it is a belief without a basis. Normally I would say so what, and move on. However, this is one of the things that seem to separate Protestant Christians and LDS Christians - mostly I believe from the LDS side. Others would differ. That is ok - that is why we have dialogue and discussion boards. Even though I grew up in a church, my dad was the pastor and I was deeply involved in it, I never heard of a creed until I got to college and took church history. My Mennonite faith is completely accepted as within the umbrella of Christianity so naturally I am confused by the Saints' position. Your last two questions are great. Within Protestantism, each denomination, group, etc. for the most part is free to determine what is orthodox and what is heterodox. Then, each individual has his or her own opinion on the same issue. There are five to ten, depending on how you slice it essential beliefs. Those beliefs for that group are orthodox. Any belief that is differ from those about the same subject would be considered by that group to be heterodox. On the other hand many groups believe additional or different things that may or may not be orthodox or heterodox, or just plain different - no big deal. Let me give you some examples: some Protestant churches teach that once you become a Christian through a conversion or salvation experience (as defined by that group) you can never lose it. You are sealed forever by God's grace. Other's believe you can lose your salvation, your position in Christ by backsliding, straying from the truth, etc. Some Christians say ok "you believe as you wish and I will believe as I wish on that issue and we will be friends and fellow believers. Some day in heaven we will find out who was right, but until that day we won't argue about it because we really don't know. Other Christians say "Hold on!" If you don't believe in eternal security - once saved always saved - you aren't a Christian. For that person or group believing in eternal security is orthodoxy; not believing in it is heterodoxy. One more example, the Mennonites are a historic peace denomination. We stress conflict resolution, social justice, and being a conscientious objector when it comes to war and military service. That is orthodoxy for a Mennonite. A Mennonite who serves in the military is heterodox. We are a small denomination and have unique beliefs like our commitment to peace. Our Baptists friends disagree. They are heterodox as far as we are concerned in the commitment to peace as a Christian virtue. We didn't learn that in a creed. We don't say Baptists aren't Christians because they believe differently that we do on peace. Finally, there is no question the Latter-day Saints believe different things about authority, the priesthood, the nature of the Godhead, and exaltation than do many other Christians (see I include Latter-day Saints as Christians). I have seen their commitments; that means more to me (personally) that some of their beliefs with which I don't agree. I never argue doctrine on this forum - at least I try not to. I argue exceptionalism and blindspots! Ha! Or we might be fair and say, Protestants believe different things than Latter-day Saints do. Each considers the other heterodox. Each can be and has been quite harsh in that. There is much to regret in both our histories. So, we call each other heterodox and miss a wonderful opportunity to join forces for the good of the Kingdom of Christ. Each gets offended, strikes back and the toxicity begins again. I think in many ways we collectively make God sigh or cry. I am not so worried about offending God as are my Latter-day Saint friends. I am worried about letting Him down. I have written too much. As usual!
Jane_Doe Posted October 16, 2018 Posted October 16, 2018 3 hours ago, Navidad said: Here is a direct quote from the LDS. org website about whether or not Mormons (to use its terminology) are Christians. It gives three reasons why Mormons are rejected by and from the non-LDS Christian family. I quote two. I understand the third. The most oft-used reasons are the following: Latter-day Saints do not accept the creeds, confessions, and formulations of post–New Testament Christianity. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not descend through the historical line of traditional Christianity. That is, Latter-day Saints are not Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Protestant. Regarding #1 - Would it not perhaps be more accurate just to say that the reason for the rejection is that Latter-day Saints have what many Christians believe to be heterodox views of the Trinity and Christology, therefore their Christianity is rejected by those same Christians? Would it not be more accurate to simply leave the concept of creeds, confessions, and formulations out of it, especially since the most anti-Mormon critics are themselves non-Creedal? Certainly the group I belong to is non-creedal and we are not considered non-Christians because of it. I struggle to see the correlation between creeds and being rejected as Christians. It is the heterodoxy that causes the challenges for the Saints, isn't it? Specific and individual creeds and creedalism seem to have little if anything to do with it. Regarding #2 - I don't understand this one at all. Again, my particular faith group considers itself to be non-Catholic and non-Protestant. This is to a large degree because of the history of thousands of Mennonites being martyred by both groups. Can anyone provide some specific examples of #2 actually happening and by whom? Thanks so much. Phil, if most human beings had your sense and ability to listen, the world would be a MUCH better place. #1: Yes I totally agree that it would be easier & better to leave Creeds/confessions out of it. LDS certainly don't use this as a ruler to decide who as a relationship with Christ or not. But the fact is that some non-LDS Christian certainly do use these as ruler sticks and can be quite vocal and/or bilergant about it. I don't think that's right, but I can't deny it happens regularly. #2: Example of this happening in my life this week: I frequent religious forums cause inter-faith understanding/discussion is a passion of mine. I was talking with a guy, and I mentioned I wasn't a Protestant. He then assumed I was Catholic. I then responded how I'm not a Catholic either. And then he just called me a non-Christian heretic, cause I wasn't one of those two groups, and went off on this big spiel about it. He totally didn't listen to my comment on how there's more to Christianity than Catholicism or Protestantism. Granted, this case is just one person and he was very ignorant. But these things do happen- it literally was just this last week.
RevTestament Posted October 16, 2018 Posted October 16, 2018 14 minutes ago, Anon the Great said: First, the "two people" view is how very young children define their parents by their bodies they see, comparing that analogy to what Joseph Smith did when the saw the Father's and Son's bodies in vision sometime after 1820 and did not believe it was harmful to tell a story with the truth buried into it to save the LDS church from the Kirtland banking disaster. Unfortunately, the fabricated story is harmful to others who study church history to put the puzzle together and can't. Therefore, they become atheists in the Recovery From Mormonism Board to fight the bad ideas from the theologians in all religions. They are not fighting the Bible, but they are fighting the irrational ideas of the sons of God who twisted the meaning of the Bible. I am very glad you posted your feelings. Thank you. I like your posts because you say what you believe, whatever it is. Calling the LDS prophets children is not necessarily a bad thing as you imply. I am just telling the truth of the situation and am judging neither Christians nor LDS. They are both striving for the light passionately, which is a good thing. But I ask you or any LDS to show me one reference from the Joseph Smith or the LDS prophets that define Yahweh Elohim as a Spirit like the trinity does (but falls short of the truth). The Bible says God is Spirit, truth, light, love, etc. Nowhere does the Bible say God is two glorified bodies acting in one purpose. The LDS idea is very confusing to Christians who believe the Bible says what it means. On the other hand, LDS are also confused by Christians who use the Trinity doctrines to claim God doesn't have a body. Both sides are wrong, and the issue has not been resolved since 1838 when Joseph Smith changed the story of the First Vision from his 1832 version. It is true, the Father and Son live in separate bodies, but the endless discussions just derail friendships between Christians and LDS because they are talking about two different things, creating a break-down in communication, and neither side is standing on the truth in terms of defining Yahweh Elohim and the many bodies He lives in to produce life, including our mortal life. Half-true light will keep us alive until old age. I do not care to debate the issues of Trinitarian doctrine with you beyond what I am about to say. Again you misunderstand LDS teachings. We do not teach the Godhead is comprised of two people we see. We teach is comprised of three persons, one of who we cannot see, so you start off with an incorrect assumption or characterization. You only compound this error with other errors you tend to repeat. The LDS idea is at first glance confusing to other Christians because they have been taught from a non-biblical paradigm rather than believing what the Bible says as you contend. Yeshua plainly told us and showed us the nature of God as the Revelator of the Father, and His true nature is found in the scriptures rather than in attempts to characterize Him such as yours. I have discussed this at length in other posts on this thread and forum. Quote Second, holy means separated, not sinful. The males are holy and separated from the females because they have a different purpose. Christ, for example, was separated for a mission in selfish flesh, just like we have, which you quoted. All males are separated for the purpose of teaching the Father's truth so the females can see the truth with their eagle eyes and implement the details correctly. Females can also receive the truth from Christ by reading scriptures directly. Christ is a male. The theologians cross the wires in their female spirits, unfortunately, and they cannot see it because of how God created them. Today, holiness has feelings of sinlessness associated with it, which the word holy does not mean I fail to see your point. You are the one who said God creates us unholy. That was your word. I merely pointed out your statements directly contravene scripture which says newborn males are holy to the Lord.
JarMan Posted October 17, 2018 Posted October 17, 2018 2 hours ago, Navidad said: Hi: Thanks for your kind reply. Good questions. There are many creeds in Church history. There are even different versions of the same creeds. There are belief statements, sometimes called confessions. It is all quite messy. Creeds are statements, summaries, symbols (the original Greek word for creeds is the word we know today as symbol. They are abbreviated statements of beliefs that some think came to exist under the guidance and direction of the Holy Spirit. They are very important to some groups, not so important to others, and not at all important to others. Some groups recite them in their worship. Others see them as too formal, too repetitive, and more easily stated than lived. Today in American Protestantism and evangelicalism creeds are not as vital and necessary as they were many years ago. If we go by sheer numbers, the majority of Protestants today are non-creedal. That is, they don't use creeds, aren't familiar with creeds, don't recite creeds and probably know very little about them. They never think about loyalty to a creed; their loyalty is to the Scripture, the Bible. It isn't that they may not agree with most of what is in this or that creed; it is that the whole concept of creeds is irrelevant. They just simply don't exist for many of us. So when someone like me hears Latter-day Saints claiming that they are in the doghouse for not following this or that creed, that is incredulous. When a Latter-day Saint says the Trinity was developed in a council that resulted in a creedal formulation of the trinity, we just stare with disbelief, mostly because most of us have never even looked at a creed except in a church history class. Again it isn't that we disagree with them, they just aren't important. I would dare say that most Latter-day Saints would agree with 80% of what is in most of the creeds, but they aren't important to you because they don't form the foundation for your faith any more than they do for mine. We don't reject most of the beliefs found in any one creed either; they just simply aren't the basis for our faith. Somewhere in Latter-day doctrinal history someone started the story that Protestant theology is based on creeds. That, no offense just simply isn't true, when looking at the numbers in the Protestant community. There are 21,000,000 Southern Baptists in the US. That is more than the LDS Church world-wide and more than all the Lutherans, Presbyterians, Reformed, etc etc etc. all put together. And that is just one branch of Baptists. One hundred years ago a much higher percentage of Protestant Christians were creedal; the growth of the fundamentalist and evangelical movements have reversed the numbers. I have said on this forum ten times that I know of no Protestant group that would say a faith that is non-creedal is non-Christian. The Saints tend to hold their non-creedal position as one reason why some Protestant groups deny them Christianity. That is just not something I have ever heard or seen in my years of ministering in Protestant churches and to Protestant groups. That is why I ask so many questions and push so hard. I think it is a belief without a basis. Normally I would say so what, and move on. However, this is one of the things that seem to separate Protestant Christians and LDS Christians - mostly I believe from the LDS side. Others would differ. That is ok - that is why we have dialogue and discussion boards. Even though I grew up in a church, my dad was the pastor and I was deeply involved in it, I never heard of a creed until I got to college and took church history. My Mennonite faith is completely accepted as within the umbrella of Christianity so naturally I am confused by the Saints' position. Your last two questions are great. Within Protestantism, each denomination, group, etc. for the most part is free to determine what is orthodox and what is heterodox. Then, each individual has his or her own opinion on the same issue. There are five to ten, depending on how you slice it essential beliefs. Those beliefs for that group are orthodox. Any belief that is differ from those about the same subject would be considered by that group to be heterodox. On the other hand many groups believe additional or different things that may or may not be orthodox or heterodox, or just plain different - no big deal. Let me give you some examples: some Protestant churches teach that once you become a Christian through a conversion or salvation experience (as defined by that group) you can never lose it. You are sealed forever by God's grace. Other's believe you can lose your salvation, your position in Christ by backsliding, straying from the truth, etc. Some Christians say ok "you believe as you wish and I will believe as I wish on that issue and we will be friends and fellow believers. Some day in heaven we will find out who was right, but until that day we won't argue about it because we really don't know. Other Christians say "Hold on!" If you don't believe in eternal security - once saved always saved - you aren't a Christian. For that person or group believing in eternal security is orthodoxy; not believing in it is heterodoxy. One more example, the Mennonites are a historic peace denomination. We stress conflict resolution, social justice, and being a conscientious objector when it comes to war and military service. That is orthodoxy for a Mennonite. A Mennonite who serves in the military is heterodox. We are a small denomination and have unique beliefs like our commitment to peace. Our Baptists friends disagree. They are heterodox as far as we are concerned in the commitment to peace as a Christian virtue. We didn't learn that in a creed. We don't say Baptists aren't Christians because they believe differently that we do on peace. Finally, there is no question the Latter-day Saints believe different things about authority, the priesthood, the nature of the Godhead, and exaltation than do many other Christians (see I include Latter-day Saints as Christians). I have seen their commitments; that means more to me (personally) that some of their beliefs with which I don't agree. I never argue doctrine on this forum - at least I try not to. I argue exceptionalism and blindspots! Ha! Or we might be fair and say, Protestants believe different things than Latter-day Saints do. Each considers the other heterodox. Each can be and has been quite harsh in that. There is much to regret in both our histories. So, we call each other heterodox and miss a wonderful opportunity to join forces for the good of the Kingdom of Christ. Each gets offended, strikes back and the toxicity begins again. I think in many ways we collectively make God sigh or cry. I am not so worried about offending God as are my Latter-day Saint friends. I am worried about letting Him down. I have written too much. As usual! Just google "Are Mormons Christians?" The first thing you'll notice is that the first several results point to lds websites. (My guess is that Mormons working for google have rigged the search algorithm.) The second thing you might notice is that in reading through each article they all (okay, like the first four that I read through before I stopped) mention that the Mormon conception of the godhead/trinity is different than mainstream Christianity. This isn't specifically a reference to the Nicene Creed, but it's certainly an implied reference don't you think?
Navidad Posted October 17, 2018 Author Posted October 17, 2018 50 minutes ago, JarMan said: Just google "Are Mormons Christians?" The first thing you'll notice is that the first several results point to lds websites. (My guess is that Mormons working for google have rigged the search algorithm.) The second thing you might notice is that in reading through each article they all (okay, like the first four that I read through before I stopped) mention that the Mormon conception of the godhead/trinity is different than mainstream Christianity. This isn't specifically a reference to the Nicene Creed, but it's certainly an implied reference don't you think? No I don't. My guess is if you asked (I would have to do the math based on membership numbers), but I will guess 70% of Protestants about the content of the NIcene creed they would stare at you blankly. That is because the evangelical and fundamental wings are growing and the mainstream creedal Christian groups are shrinking rapidly. Just an example the Southern Baptists are by far the largest singleProtestant group. They dwarf any other six groups. I would guess that if you asked 95% of them about the Nicene Creed they would stare at your blankly. I went to two Southern Baptist graduate schools in theology and religion and only in Church history classes did the subject of creeds ever come up. In contrast the folks hear it (the trinity) from the pulpit regularly. They are taught the trinity from the Bible. There are no other sources used besides some commentaries in the preparation of the sermons. I smile to myself when I read the confident assertions on this forum that the trinity is nowhere to be found in the Bible (and some add the Book of Mormon). Someone here wrote late last week that you cannot be a member of the LDS Church and believe in the trinity! If that is true, it is fascinating. I don't think that is a bishop's question for a temple recommend? I personally don't get riled up about it because I don't believe anyone is in heaven today because they believed in the trinity. I also don't think anyone is not there because they didn't believe in it. It is not an essential for me; however it is for many. And at least according to some on this board it is an essential to be a Latter-day Saint to reject it! I hope that isn't true.
Jane_Doe Posted October 17, 2018 Posted October 17, 2018 11 minutes ago, Navidad said: No I don't. My guess is if you asked (I would have to do the math based on membership numbers), but I will guess 70% of Protestants about the content of the NIcene creed they would stare at you blankly. That is because the evangelical and fundamental wings are growing and the mainstream creedal Christian groups are shrinking rapidly. Just an example the Southern Baptists are by far the largest singleProtestant group. They dwarf any other six groups. I would guess that if you asked 95% of them about the Nicene Creed they would stare at your blankly. I went to two Southern Baptist graduate schools in theology and religion and only in Church history classes did the subject of creeds ever come up. In contrast the folks hear it (the trinity) from the pulpit regularly. They are taught the trinity from the Bible. There are no other sources used besides some commentaries in the preparation of the sermons. I smile to myself when I read the confident assertions on this forum that the trinity is nowhere to be found in the Bible (and some add the Book of Mormon). Someone here wrote late last week that you cannot be a member of the LDS Church and believe in the trinity! If that is true, it is fascinating. I don't think that is a bishop's question for a temple recommend? I personally don't get riled up about it because I don't believe anyone is in heaven today because they believed in the trinity. I also don't think anyone is not there because they didn't believe in it. It is not an essential for me; however it is for many. And at least according to some on this board it is an essential to be a Latter-day Saint to reject it! I hope that isn't true. Honestly, I find the functional day-to-day difference in believing about the trinity vs the LDS view of the Godhead are minimal. The only times it somewhat comes into play is when people want to compare ideas of post-judgement-day heavenly mansions (something I'm not going to loose sleep about). If I'm going to have a theological disagreement with someone, there's are so many bigger fish to fry than this one. Still, many places hold that I can't be considered "Christian" because I don't uphold the Nicene/Athanasian Creed view of things. Accepting the Bible isn't good enough-- I have to accept the Creedal interoperation of it. And yes, I'm aware that many folks (probably even majority) in the 'acceptable' crowd haven't really studied the Creeds, and may very well not agree with a lot of the finer points (whether through active disagreeing or just hadn't thought about it). It is... frustrating for me. As to LDS rejection of it... LDS definitely states that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three different persons, and one God through unity. Stuff like the Son and Father having a body are doctrinalfacts. The Spirit not having a body is also a doctrinal fact. Now, can a person choose to disregard scripture and go blatantly against it? They do have that option. It'll make the instantly unorthodox, but you're not getting kicked out of church for it. Nor are these temple recommend questions.
Stargazer Posted October 17, 2018 Posted October 17, 2018 22 hours ago, Gray said: Mormons got into some wars themselves. Theocracy leads to that sort of thing. It's less to do with their theology and more to do with politics. Yeah, it was those Mormunz's fault that they got thrown out of Missouri and Illinois, and their fault again that the US invaded Utah. 22 hours ago, Gray said: What makes you think they weren't earnest? You didn't read what I wrote. I believe they were very earnest. What I said was that despite their earnestness they got a bum result. 22 hours ago, Gray said: Sounds like a description of every church that ever was. Meh. 22 hours ago, Gray said: Isn't Mormonism full of appeals to authority? That's kind of the core, particular doctrine of Mormonism - an appeal to the unique authority of the church. I was referring to the logical fallacy, not what you're talking about. You know, like the Nicene Council said so, therefore it is so. That kind of appeal to authority. 22 hours ago, Gray said: Anyway, if you want to get back to the God of Jesus, you'd need to skip Mormonism and Christianity altogether. Judaism would be the way to go. Jesus wouldn't be a part of the Godhead or trinity, he'd just be a prophet, and the Holy Spirit would be the power of God, not a divine being. You're entitled to your opinion, of course. For that matter, I'm already well equipped to be a Jew.
Stargazer Posted October 17, 2018 Posted October 17, 2018 On 10/15/2018 at 3:59 PM, Spammer said: Hello, thank you for your reply. I'm sorry for the weird approach to quoting in my response. I referred to the ex nihilo basis of the doctrine of the Nicene Trinity, which is neither Platonic nor Aristotelian philosophy. Both systems taught ex materia creation, same as the LDS Church and the Gnostics. Also, we all appeal to authority, whether pope, church councils, the prophet, the General Authorities teaching in unison, or the promptings of the Holy Ghost. Rather, ideas which were not found in your own personal interpretation of scripture or the official LDS interpretation of scripture…scripture originally chosen for you to count as scripture by believers in the Nicene Trinity. Irenaeus himself, while providing evidence of the apostolic pedigree of his teaching, states that when he was young he listened to Polycarp preach and approved of his teaching; that Polycarp was appointed bishop of the Church of Smyrna by apostles in Asia (Tertullian and Jerome, translator of the Vulgate, say it was John); and that Polycarp always taught things he said he had received from the apostles themelves. In short, Irenaeus cites Polycarp as evidence that what he himself taught was handed down to the church, doctrines that Irenaeus himself was teaching. It’s a long series of quotations, so please see Against Heresies, Book 3, ch. 3-4. Irenaeus and Polycarp were thus on the same page theologically. Irenaeus reiterated the same in a letter to a friend, Florinus, who was a priest and had been taken in by the heretical teaching of the Valentinians - who were gnostics, you know, the heretical group who taught that matter is eternal, as in Greek philosophy and LDS teaching. In that letter, Irenaeus says: “I can even describe the place where the blessed Polycarp used to sit and discourse — his going out, too, and his coming in — his general mode of life and personal appearance, together with the discourses which he delivered to the people; also how he would speak of his familiar intercourse with John, and with the rest of those who had seen the Lord; and how he would call their words to remembrance. Whatsoever things he had heard from them respecting the Lord, both with regard to His miracles and His teaching, Polycarp having thus received from the eye-witnesses of the Word of life, would recount them all in harmony with the Scriptures. These things, through God's mercy which was upon me, I then listened to attentively, and treasured them up not on paper, but in my heart; and I am continually, by God's Grace, revolving these things accurately in my mind.” As the foregoing shows, if Polycarp didn’t formally ‘disciple’ Irenaeus, Irenaeus did learn from Polycarp, who received his teaching from John and other apostles, treasured Polycarp’s teaching in his heart, agreed with it, and declared it be apostolic – all while defending the apostolicity of his own teaching. That’s compelling evidence. How about God is an uncreated, spiritual essence who created matter out of nothing (ex nihilo)? Very Nicene. “The rule of truth which we hold, is, that there is one God Almighty, who made all things by His Word, and fashioned and formed, out of that which had no existence, all things which exist.” (Against Heresies 1.22.1) “And that they may be deemed capable of informing us whence is the substance of matter, while they believe not that God, according to His pleasure, in the exercise of His own will and power, formed all things (so that those things which now are should have an existence) out of what did not previously exist...” “...but they [Ireneaus here speaks of the Gnostics] do not believe that God (being powerful, and rich in all resources) created matter itself, inasmuch as they know not how much a spiritual and divine essence can accomplish... “For, to attribute the substance of created things to the power and will of Him who is God of all, is worthy both of credit and acceptance. It is also agreeable, and there may be well said regarding such a belief, that ‘the things which are impossible with men are possible with God.’ While men, indeed, cannot make anything out of nothing, but only out of matter already existing, yet God is in this point preeminently superior to men, that He Himself called into being the substance of His creation, when previously it had no existence.” (Against Heresies 2.10.2-4) But the things established are distinct from Him who has established them, and what have been made from Him who has made them. For He is Himself uncreated, both without beginning and end, and lacking nothing. He is Himself sufficient for Himself; and still further, He grants to all others this very thing, existence; but the things which have been made by Him have received a beginning. But whatever things had a beginning, and are liable to dissolution, and are subject to and stand in need of Him who made them... (Against Heresies 3.8.3) “Truly, then, he Scripture declared, which says, ‘First of all believe that there is one God, who has established all things, and completed them, and having caused that from what had no being, all things should come into existence: He who contains all things, and is Himself contained by no one.’” (Against Heresies 4.20.2) If you think you can wrest any of that to get the LDS doctrine that the Father is a resurrected, glorified man with a body of flesh and bones, who wasn't always God but became God, and who (in keeping with Greek philosophy) organized eternal matter, I’m all ears. Finally, you quoted something from Richard Lloyd Anderson. I read it, but only think it works if you first assume that the Great Apostasy was predicted and occurred. I think the available ancient evidences support neither claim. I do appreciate all you've presented here, and it is very educational! But I'm clearly ill-equipped to deal in Patristics with anyone and so I shall leave off on trying, for the moment! I think I will familiarize myself with these writings -- my first dip into the pool, as it were, was most interesting; until now, I've never gone there and Against Heresies appears to be well worth the effort of reading. Time to study! Again, thanks!
Navidad Posted October 17, 2018 Author Posted October 17, 2018 3 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said: Honestly, I find the functional day-to-day difference in believing about the trinity vs the LDS view of the Godhead are minimal. The only times it somewhat comes into play is when people want to compare ideas of post-judgement-day heavenly mansions (something I'm not going to loose sleep about). If I'm going to have a theological disagreement with someone, there's are so many bigger fish to fry than this one. Still, many places hold that I can't be considered "Christian" because I don't uphold the Nicene/Athanasian Creed view of things. Accepting the Bible isn't good enough-- I have to accept the Creedal interoperation of it. And yes, I'm aware that many folks (probably even majority) in the 'acceptable' crowd haven't really studied the Creeds, and may very well not agree with a lot of the finer points (whether through active disagreeing or just hadn't thought about it). It is... frustrating for me. As to LDS rejection of it... LDS definitely states that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three different persons, and one God through unity. Stuff like the Son and Father having a body are doctrinalfacts. The Spirit not having a body is also a doctrinal fact. Now, can a person choose to disregard scripture and go blatantly against it? They do have that option. It'll make the instantly unorthodox, but you're not getting kicked out of church for it. Nor are these temple recommend questions. Hi Jane - not asking to debate - my mind just needs to know. You said "many places hold that I can't be considered "Christian" because I don't uphold the Nicene Athanasian Creed view of things. Accepting the Bible isn't good enough." What places? Which places? I am not ragging on you; I just am dying (not literally) to have someone on the board who believes that give me a little more information about who these people are who have told you that. What group are they from? Who do they represent? I don't uphold the Nicene Athanasian Creed view of things either because I have no idea and no interest about what is in the Athanasian Creed. I am much more interested in what LDS Christians believe. Are we back to the trinity? If that is it, then I understand that some Christians don't believe you can be Christian and not believe in the trinity. As you said it, for many that is doctrinal fact, but not because it is in a creed; because they believe it is in the Bible. Humongous difference.
MiserereNobis Posted October 17, 2018 Posted October 17, 2018 26 minutes ago, Stargazer said: I was referring to the logical fallacy, not what you're talking about. You know, like the Nicene Council said so, therefore it is so. That kind of appeal to authority. The logical fallacy is the appeal to inappropriate authority. It is perfectly logical to appeal to appropriate authority. For example, the CFRs on this board. Another example: the speed of light is 186,000 mps. If you asked me to prove it, I'd have to appeal to scientific authority: those who have done the experiments, the textbooks that relay the information, etc. It's ridiculous to think that any appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.
kllindley Posted October 17, 2018 Posted October 17, 2018 13 minutes ago, Navidad said: Hi Jane - not asking to debate - my mind just needs to know. You said "many places hold that I can't be considered "Christian" because I don't uphold the Nicene Athanasian Creed view of things. Accepting the Bible isn't good enough." What places? Which places? I am not ragging on you; I just am dying (not literally) to have someone on the board who believes that give me a little more information about who these people are who have told you that. What group are they from? Who do they represent? I don't uphold the Nicene Athanasian Creed view of things either because I have no idea and no interest about what is in the Athanasian Creed. I am much more interested in what LDS Christians believe. Are we back to the trinity? If that is it, then I understand that some Christians don't believe you can be Christian and not believe in the trinity. As you said it, for many that is doctrinal fact, but not because it is in a creed; because they believe it is in the Bible. Humongous difference. So try this blog post: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/joeljmiller/2011/10/why-mormons-arent-christians/#disqus_thread 2
JarMan Posted October 17, 2018 Posted October 17, 2018 (edited) 59 minutes ago, Navidad said: No I don't. My guess is if you asked (I would have to do the math based on membership numbers), but I will guess 70% of Protestants about the content of the NIcene creed they would stare at you blankly. That is because the evangelical and fundamental wings are growing and the mainstream creedal Christian groups are shrinking rapidly. Just an example the Southern Baptists are by far the largest singleProtestant group. They dwarf any other six groups. I would guess that if you asked 95% of them about the Nicene Creed they would stare at your blankly. I went to two Southern Baptist graduate schools in theology and religion and only in Church history classes did the subject of creeds ever come up. In contrast the folks hear it (the trinity) from the pulpit regularly. They are taught the trinity from the Bible. There are no other sources used besides some commentaries in the preparation of the sermons. I smile to myself when I read the confident assertions on this forum that the trinity is nowhere to be found in the Bible (and some add the Book of Mormon). Someone here wrote late last week that you cannot be a member of the LDS Church and believe in the trinity! If that is true, it is fascinating. I don't think that is a bishop's question for a temple recommend? I personally don't get riled up about it because I don't believe anyone is in heaven today because they believed in the trinity. I also don't think anyone is not there because they didn't believe in it. It is not an essential for me; however it is for many. And at least according to some on this board it is an essential to be a Latter-day Saint to reject it! I hope that isn't true. I think you were right when you said that Mormons were rejected as Christians because of heterodox views. But heterodox to what? Well, by definition heterodoxy is heterodox to orthodoxy. And what defines orthodoxy? The creeds, for one. As a mainstream Christian you don’t need to know the creeds even exist to quickly realize the LDS view of the trinity is heterodox. You just need to attend church semi-regularly. But that is beside the point. The creedal argument you keep hearing from us is implied whenever someone points out the Mormon view of the godhead is heterodox. If you’re going to make the argument that Mormon beliefs are heterodox—which you have done, and which argument I am in agreement with—then my question to you is: How is orthodoxy defined? But I’m not asking how you define orthodoxy because then your assertion potentially only holds the weight of one person. What I’m really interested in is a general definition of orthodoxy that most Christians can agree on. Only then can we say that Mormon beliefs are heterodox. So let’s take the issue of the trinity. How are you going to define orthodoxy while being as inclusive as possible? Edited October 17, 2018 by JarMan
Jane_Doe Posted October 17, 2018 Posted October 17, 2018 5 minutes ago, Navidad said: Hi Jane - not asking to debate - my mind just needs to know. You said "many places hold that I can't be considered "Christian" because I don't uphold the Nicene Athanasian Creed view of things. Accepting the Bible isn't good enough." What places? Which places? I am not ragging on you; I just am dying (not literally) to have someone on the board who believes that give me a little more information about who these people are who have told you that. What group are they from? Who do they represent? I don't uphold the Nicene Athanasian Creed view of things either because I have no idea and no interest about what is in the Athanasian Creed. I am much more interested in what LDS Christians believe. Are we back to the trinity? If that is it, then I understand that some Christians don't believe you can be Christian and not believe in the trinity. Naming few places off the top of my head that have restrictions of some kind: any religious discussion with good portion of my Evangelical extended family, majority of Christian internet forums, at least half of Christian fellowship groups, majority of Christian homeschooling groups, etc. They're usual reasoning is that they "want to have a group of saved believers and hence require you to sign this document of faith". The document then says something about 'i affirm the Trinity'. and I don't. I uphold that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three persons in one God, but none of that shared-substance Athanasian Creed stuff (which really is the unifying glue of the Trinity idea). Ironically if I was less studied I won't even know the difference between the ideas or the different historical/ideological backdrops. 5 minutes ago, Navidad said: As you said it, for many that is doctrinal fact, but not because it is in a creed; because they believe it is in the Bible. Humongous difference. What I said earlier about being doctrinal fact what stuff that's literally written in scripture (speaking from the LDS perspective). " God, of the Substance [Essence] of the Father; begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Substance [Essence] of his Mother, born in the world..... One altogether; not by confusion of Substance [Essence]; but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man; so God and Man is one Christ;...." is not written in scripture (speaking from anyone's perspective). But if I disagree with that statement, I am barred from being considered a Christian in many places.
Navidad Posted October 17, 2018 Author Posted October 17, 2018 41 minutes ago, Stargazer said: Yeah, it was those Mormunz's fault that they got thrown out of Missouri and Illinois, and their fault again that the US invaded Utah. You didn't read what I wrote. I believe they were very earnest. What I said was that despite their earnestness they got a bum result. Meh. I was referring to the logical fallacy, not what you're talking about. You know, like the Nicene Council said so, therefore it is so. That kind of appeal to authority. You're entitled to your opinion, of course. For that matter, I'm already well equipped to be a Jew. Stargazer: I am proud of myself. I just wrote a long answer to your post about fault and then I deleted it. One thing I have learned on this forum is I don't have to answer every post! Even those I sometimes really really really want to, like one on Mormon history!
Recommended Posts