Announcement

Collapse

LDS - Mormonism Guidelines

Theists only.

Look! It's a bird, no it's a plane, no it's a bicycle built for two!

This forum is a debate area to discuss issues pertaining to the LDS - Mormons. This forum is generally for theists only, and is generaly not the area for debate between atheists and theists. Non-theists may not post here without first obtaining permission from the moderator of this forum. Granting of such permission is subject to Moderator discretion - and may be revoked if the Moderator feels that the poster is not keeping with the spirit of the World Religions Department.

Due to the sensitive nature of the LDS Temple Ceremonies to our LDS posters, we do not allow posting exact text of the temple rituals, articles describing older versions of the ceremony, or links that provide the same information. However discussion of generalities of the ceremony are not off limits. If in doubt, PM the area mod or an Admin


Non-theists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Mormon Trinity

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by seven7up View Post
    So, when the Book of Mormon said, Mary "is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh," it is accurate. We would especially expect this wording from the perspective of someone like Mosiah, who was seeing the God of the Old Testament, Jehovah, as becoming flesh. The change was made as clarification by Joseph Smith for the benefit of us readers who, unlike Mosiah, are looking at it from a New Testament perspective and want to know which member of the Godhead is being referred to.
    This is what you don't get -- Joseph claims to have gotten this from the "golden plates". WHY would "the most perfect book on earth" need "clarified" on such a crucial point?

    Let's look at the claim of the "translation" process... (bolding mine)

    Source: fairmormon.org


    The details of this miraculous method of translation are still not fully known. Yet we do have a few precious insights. David Whitmer wrote:

    “Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.” (David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, Richmond, Mo.: n.p., 1887, p. 12.)

    © Copyright Original Source



    That HARDLY leaves room for the need for later "revisions". UNLESS, of course, this isn't actually the way it happened! (And we find multiple OTHER accounts of how it supposedly happened, conflicting with this, that DO allow for the need for later correction. I can't make this stuff up!)
    "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

    Comment


    • #32
      How could Smith get anything wrong, 7up? He supposedly talked and saw God directly. He had the golden plates too. Exactly where would the confusion, or inconsistencies come from? Why did Smith quote God directly about something, then turn around and change his mind and give the opposite "revelation" later? If God is really God, he would not have to change his story or mind. Why would he tell Smith that the Trinity was true, then tell him it wasn't? Why would God tell Smith that polygamy was an everlasting covenant and then make it a sin later?

      Smith was all over the place with his nonsense. Wake up dude! Read your own religion's literature with a bit of skepticism and ask some hard questions. Don't just look for ways to excuse the obvious clues that Smith was a conman who decided he could live the high life by inventing a religion and getting a bunch of hicks to follow him around.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Sparko View Post
        Don't just look for ways to excuse the obvious clues that Smith was a conman who decided he could live the high life by inventing a religion and getting a bunch of hicks to follow him around.
        Speaking of "living the high life", I started a new thread on the Kirtland Banking Mess.
        "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
          Speaking of "living the high life", I started a new thread on the Kirtland Banking Mess.
          Then there was the book of Abraham scam, the missing pages of the BoM, direct plagiarism of the KJV Bible, the witnesses to Smith were eventually excommunicated by Smith and retracted their statements (most of them anyway), the Mormon massacre they tried to blame on Indians, and destroying the Navoo Expositor printing press. I am sure I am missing a few more.

          But for "the restored" church, it sure looks pretty shady to me.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            Then there was the book of Abraham scam, the missing pages of the BoM, direct plagiarism of the KJV Bible, the witnesses to Smith were eventually excommunicated by Smith and retracted their statements (most of them anyway), the Mormon massacre they tried to blame on Indians, and destroying the Navoo Expositor printing press. I am sure I am missing a few more.

            But for "the restored" church, it sure looks pretty shady to me.
            What did NRAJeff used to call himself in his profile? The "enforcement" group of thugs Smith used to keep his followers in line, and fight off his angry former followers?


            ETA: AH, yes, the DANITES -- and this is FairMormon's attempt to deal with the topic:

            Source: FairMormon.org


            Did Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon support the formation of a vigilante band called the “Danites?”
            Is it true that the Danites were pledged to “plunder, lie, and even kill if deemed necessary?"

            © Copyright Original Source



            That's the "question" being dealt with. Here's the "answer":

            Source: FairMormon.org


            Regardless of their original motives, the Danites ultimately were led astray by their leader, Sampson Avard. Avard attempted to blame Joseph Smith in order to save himself. Joseph, however, clearly repudiated both the organization and Avard.

            © Copyright Original Source



            Here's the ... well, heck, NEW THREAD!!!!
            Last edited by Cow Poke; 04-29-2014, 09:10 AM.
            "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
              What did NRAJeff used to call himself in his profile? The "enforcement" group of thugs Smith used to keep his followers in line, and fight off his angry former followers?
              The Danites?

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                So, you cannot say that the Book of Mormon teaches "Trinitarianism" or "Modalism".
                Again, I wasn't saying that at all. You seem to be conveniently missing the whole point. In the EARLY STAGES, Mormonism taught the Trinity.

                Source: Same Article - bolding mine

                The Lectures on Faith differentiated between the Father and Son somewhat more explicitly, but even they did not define a materialistic, tritheistic Godhead. In announcing the publication of the Doctrine and Covenants which included the Lectures on Faith, the Messenger and Advocate commented editorially that it trusted the volume would give "the churches abroad . . . a perfect under¬standing of the doctrine believed by this society." The Lectures declared that "there are two personages who constitute the great matchless, governing and supreme power over all things—by whom all things were created and made." They are "the Father being a personage of spirit," and "the Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made, or fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and likeness of man., or, rather, man was formed after his likeness, and in his image." The "Articles and Covenants" called the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost "one God" rather than the Godhead, a term which Mormons generally use today to separate themselves from trinitarians.9

                © Copyright Original Source



                Note that God the Father was a SPIRIT, not a man with flesh and bones.
                "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                  Again, I wasn't saying that at all. You seem to be conveniently missing the whole point. In the EARLY STAGES, Mormonism taught the Trinity.

                  Source: Same Article - bolding mine

                  The Lectures on Faith differentiated between the Father and Son somewhat more explicitly, but even they did not define a materialistic, tritheistic Godhead. In announcing the publication of the Doctrine and Covenants which included the Lectures on Faith, the Messenger and Advocate commented editorially that it trusted the volume would give "the churches abroad . . . a perfect under¬standing of the doctrine believed by this society." The Lectures declared that "there are two personages who constitute the great matchless, governing and supreme power over all things—by whom all things were created and made." They are "the Father being a personage of spirit," and "the Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made, or fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and likeness of man., or, rather, man was formed after his likeness, and in his image." The "Articles and Covenants" called the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost "one God" rather than the Godhead, a term which Mormons generally use today to separate themselves from trinitarians.9

                  © Copyright Original Source



                  Note that God the Father was a SPIRIT, not a man with flesh and bones.
                  the statement of the three witnesses at the beginning of the BoM ends with "And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen."

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                    7UP: For starters, let's not pretend that Christians have always represented the "Trinity" consistently. There is STILL debate amongst Christians concerning that doctrine.




                    Case in point.

                    However, the way Bill handles those theological debates is to brand those he disagrees with as heretics and non-Christians. Problem solved ... right Bill?

                    It's the way the Church has handled people who invent novel ideas that contradict what the Apostles taught their students all along, so yes. Problem solved.


                    Jesus stands "at the right hand of the Father".* This is a position which represents the second person in authority.* This contradicts the idea of the members of the "Trinity" being "coequal".
                    That's just a plain crappy bastardization of the Trinity doctrine. No one says the Father and Son are equal in authority. What we claim is they are co-equal in their essence. Functional subordination vs. ontological equality.

                    * We read in verse 3 that Jesus is not the same substance as the Father, but instead is a COPY of the Father or the "image/stamped imprint/facsimile/ of the Father's person".* There is a difference because the phrase "same substance" implies that they are literally the same being. That is not what the scriptures said.*
                    Rubbish. He is the exact representation of the Father's nature (or those things that make God God), meaning both attributes like being perfect, holy, and just, and their nature, being the One God.


                    Bill brought up the earlier discussion of Ex Nihilo creation, whereby I argued that there is no true free will in Ex Nihilo creation theology. I also addressed how the philosophical problems of evil and suffering in that scenario are insurmountable.
                    You argued that they were, but you failed miserably, when your argument boiled down to simply whining that "God COULD HAVE done better" in ex nihilo. And I showed you how that whine can be applicable to every theory of God, including yours.

                    I lay out some of the details of those issues here in a video series: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...lH9MxxLwwWnAea

                    However, I did not yet create the video which discussed how Ex Nihilo Creation theology affected the development of Trinitarian dogma.

                    The Arian controversy following the era of Apostolic Christianity was mishandled.* The reason that the debate was fruitless is because almost all of the Christians had adopted "Ex Nihilo" creation theology by then, and creation "from nothing" was a foundation from which correct doctrines could not develop. We can all agree that if Jesus was "created out of nothing", then he could not be Deity.* In a sense, the Arians / Semi-Arians and subordinationalists had very good points, but the concept of creatio ex nihilo made it impossible to defend their case coherently.
                    Simply untrue. Deity can not be created nor obtained as an inherent nature. It can be reflected by other beings as a function, but not innately possessed by anyone except God Himself. Any form of polytheism falls apart when a created being is classified as deity in and of itself.

                    Justin Martyr's analogy of Deity being a substance like fire is interesting. Let's say you take a fire and light another fire. You have the Father and the Son. Each has the same characteristics of Deity and therefore each person, in and of themselves, are fully Deity. This would even be true in the impossible/theoretical scenario of one of the flames going out. The other flame would STILL be fully Deity.
                    But the problem exists when we understand that there is only one deity that exists as fire in and of itself. Lighting another fire implies that the first was also lit by something else. The fire had to start somewhere, and those things who were "lit" are mere immitations of that which is fire in and of itself, and that never needed something else to light it. The Son was never "lit", which implies that there was a time when He was "unlit". He has always been on fire as the Father has, as the Spirit has, yet there is only one "eternal flame" which is God.
                    That's what
                    - She

                    Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                    - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                    I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                    Stephen R. Donaldson

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                      God the Father IS God/Deity. Jesus Christ IS God/Deity. It is quite difficult to "differentiate" between them because they act as "one".
                      Because there is only one God.

                      Let's get into it shall we?

                      Hebrews 1 is a good place to start in this discussion, and it does not teach what most of the Christian world would like it to teach (it does not teach the Trinity as most Christians understand it.)* The chapter starts in the present and goes back in time describing Jesus and His relationship with God the Father prior to his incarnation. **The chronology of Christ's appointment to authority, then being born into mortality and then resurrection and return to the right hand of the Father is given.*

                      The first scene I will bring up chronologically (verse 9), shows God the Father seeing the superior qualities of Jesus amongst the other "sons of God" or among the "morning stars"* -** Remember that Christ is called the "Bright Morning Star", which is an angelic title (see Rev 22:16 and 2Pet.1:19 (see also Job 38:7 for another reference to the many "sons of God"). Nevertheless, we see that Jesus has superior qualities when compared to the other sons of god.
                      You start out completely misunderstanding Hebrews. The entire first chapter lays out the claim that Jesus is the King of the Jews. The writer does that by quoting Jewish rituals followed when naming the new King. These were coronation hymns.

                      A side point. If your claim that the Father is the literal father of all angels, then vs. 5 is nonsense because to ALL of the angels He is a Father and they are His sons. So, instead of Jesus' unique place as the ONLY begotten, we would have these answers:

                      Heb 1:5 For to which of the angels did He ever say,
                      “You are My Son,
                      Today I have begotten You”?

                      Answer: ALL of them

                      And again,
                      I will be a Father to Him
                      And He shall be a Son to Me”?

                      Answer: ALL of them

                      Heb 1
                      9*You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
                      Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
                      With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.
                      Again, a kingly praise from Psalm 45:

                      45 My heart overflows with a pleasing theme;
                      I address my verses to the king;

                      Once again making a claim to the kingship of Israel for Jesus.


                      You see here that God (the God of Jesus) chose and anointed Jesus from among his "companions" (sometimes translated "fellows")
                      this is a kingly claim that He alone among humanity was worthy. THAT is the "fellows" or "companions" that are being referred to here, just as in Psalm 45.

                      ... his fellow angels mentioned in the context of the passage (verses 4-9).*
                      No. Were that the case, it would read: "having become as much better than the OTHER angels". Again, the point is that Jesus is both High Priest and King, and more worthy of the devotion of the Jews than mere angels who were not their Kings.

                      Why was he chosen above the others? According to the verse we read, it was because Jesus loved righteousness and hated lawlessness.*
                      We see in Hebrews chapter 1 that God the Father elevated this perfect angel to the status of "God", and to have the status of godhood forever.
                      Wrong. We see that He was not an angel (as He was made lower than angels while He sojourned on earth) , was the perfect human (above all other humans), was worthy to become the Priest/King like His father David (but above David and the other kings due to His being immortal), and was/is God already (never said "you have now become God"). No. Hebrews 1 makes a clear distinction that the Son is NOT, nor has He ever been, an angel.

                      Heb 1
                      8*But to the Son, He (God the Father) says:
                      Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
                      A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
                      Direct quote of Psalm 45:6, directed to the King of Israel. Another claim of Jesus' kingship.

                      As Jesus is elevated to the status of Deity, the gives the scepter/throne of the Father's kingdom to the Son, and it will be the Son's Kingdom forever.
                      No. He was already called God before the scepter was given.

                      Heb 1
                      7*And of the angels He says:
                      Who makes His angels spirits
                      And His ministers a flame of fire.
                      A quote of Psa 104:4 which shows God's sovereignty over angels, and their mission to only be His messengers.

                      The other angels are subject to Jesus.*
                      Jesus is not an angel, so the angels are subject to Him as God. The word "other" in your reply was superfluous and improper.

                      Elsewhere in the New Testament we see that Jesus was chosen by God the Father to organize the hosts of heaven, organizing the powers, thrones, principalities and so forth (see 1 Col 1:16).
                      There is no "1" Colossians. And Colossians 1:16 says that He created them, not organized them.

                      Jesus was placed at the head of the hosts of heaven and became God's right hand;
                      No. He IS God's right Hand. See Isa.63:5, Isa.48:13, Isa.62:8, and Ps. 80:17

                      His Word, who fulfills the Father's will.* Jesus was also to be the Creator of the physical Universe as we know it (Heaven and Earth) under the direction of the Father, as mentioned in verse 2 and 10 of this chapter.*
                      And Isaiah says that God alone created it according to His own will, not the will of any other.

                      Let's look at verse 4, because it is important in this conversation:

                      Heb 1
                      4*having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

                      How did Jesus obtain the name and title of God?* He "obtained" it by INHERITANCE, by being elevated from among the other sons of God to a higher position!* Please note that Hebrews chapter 1 teaches that Jesus was "chosen/anointed" and that Jesus "obtained" the "more excellent name".* However, it is clearly well deserved.* As the only perfect spirit, Christ had no flaws and therefore could unite His will perfectly with God's, thus he "became better than the angels" becoming "one" with God and thus deserving the name of God.*
                      Wrong, wrong, wrong!! The "Name" that was given was "Jesus", the name by which we are saved. The name by which angels, demons, and all mankind are subject.

                      Philippians 2:9.

                      That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and in things in the earth, and things under the earth;
                      And every tongue should confess that Jesus is Lord to the glory of God the Father.”


                      Now read verses 2 and 3:

                      Heb 1
                      2 God the Father] has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; 3*who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.

                      Your backtracking from a faulty premise is beginning to show pretty bad

                      Thus Jesus Christ, an exalted angel/son, who was "appointed" to be "heir of all things" and to be known as Jehovah in the Old Testament, and who now sits again on the right hand of the "Most High God".*
                      Jesus is not an angel, nor are the angels similar to Him. God orders the angels around as simple messengers. He exalts the Son.

                      That is how subordinationism was taught in the New Testament and understood within the Apostles' New Testament Church.*
                      No it isn't. Jesus was NEVER considered the same species as angels in the NT or by the Apostles. He may have shared their function as a messenger of the Father, but He was never considered the same as them. He was God and man.

                      This was long before the changes in doctrine which began to occur in the mid to second century A.D. in order to fit Greek philosophical monotheism.
                      No. The changes in doctrine were REJECTED in the mid second century in favor of what the Apostles taught, namely Jewish Monotheism and Wisdom theology.

                      The doctrinal changes solidified in Nicea and was found in creeds which describe the Father and Son to be "coequal" and "same substance" and and other terms/phrases not found in scripture.
                      False. That was what was taught all along. It was those who taught contrary that appeared later.

                      How does one "inherit" that which was already his? In the Trinity, the same Being is appointing itself, sending itself, and inheriting from itself.
                      Again, bastardizing the Trinity doctrine.

                      That, in my opinion, is wrong.
                      Well, when you so obviously don't even get what the Trinity does and does not teach, I'm not surprised...

                      The very same titles that belong to God the Father are given to the son.
                      The Son is never called the Father (with the exception of the unnecessarily vague translation in Isaiah).

                      Jesus was already spiritually perfect, and therefore Deity/God BEFORE entering mortality and had "inherited a more excellent name" BEFORE entering mortality.
                      So, are you claiming that Jesus was forever God, and that his "fire" was not lit at some point in the distant past by the Father's? Maybe there is hope for you yet...

                      The names and titles which are applicable to our Heavenly Father became applicable to the Son.
                      They never weren't.

                      Jesus Christ was the God of Israel, who interacted with the people, under the will and direction of the Father.
                      So is the Father, and so is the Holy Spirit. Yet there is only one God. None before and none after. One God. Eternally God. Never not been God.
                      That's what
                      - She

                      Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                      - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                      I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                      Stephen R. Donaldson

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                        The Danites?
                        The Danites.
                        I am Punkinhead.

                        "I have missed you, Oh Grand High Priestess of the Order of the Stirring Pot"

                        ~ Cow Poke aka CP aka Creacher aka ke7ejx's apprentice....

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by ke7ejx View Post
                          The Danites.
                          The Dainties?
                          "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                            The Dainties?
                            Doug Dimmadome??
                            That's what
                            - She

                            Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                            - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                            I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                            Stephen R. Donaldson

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                              Doug Dimmadome??
                              Owner of the Dimmsdale Dimmadome?

                              "Fire is catching. If we burn, you burn with us!"
                              "I'm not going anywhere. I'm going to stay here and cause all kinds of trouble."
                              Katniss Everdeen


                              Christ our Passover has been sacrificed for us. Therefore let us keep the feast.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                As Thread Starter, I must insist we get back on topic. There have been NO recent mentions of bacon.
                                "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X