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

  • #76
    7UP: Why do you think that talking to God or having the golden plates would automatically impart to Joseph all aspects of theological knowledge all at once? ... Are you asking whether or not Joseph Smith received from God every concept (related to the nature of the Godhead) all at once at the very beginning?

    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    It's disappointing that you maintain this DISHONEST approach -- please show me where I have made such a claim. NOBODY HERE is claiming that Smith had "all aspects of theological knowledge all at once"?
    You were complaining that the Lectures on Faith did not represent God the Father as having a body of flesh and bone.

    That is a specific theological concept concerning the nature of the embodiment of a specific member of the Godhead.

    Source: Lectures on Faith - bold added

    the Father and the Son: The Father being a personage of spirit, glory, and power, possessing all perfection and fullness. 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. He is also the express image and likeness of the personage of the Father, possessing all the fullness of the Father, or the same fullness with the Father, being begotten of him;

    © Copyright Original Source



    You wrote:
    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    Note that God the Father was a SPIRIT, not a man with flesh and bones.
    Yes, but the Father was anthropomorphic. This also shows two distinct and separate members of the Godhead, each of whom is embodied. I explained:

    7UP: Sidney Rigdon wrote most of the Lectures on Faith. We see here that he understood God the Father as being the same way that Jesus was described in the Book of Mormon, as an embodied spirit with hands, eyes, head, etc. Why didn't Joseph correct the "personage of spirit" phrasing? Because Joseph Smith didn't know that yet. Why would he? It is not like he had an opportunity to touch God the Father's physical body. That detail had to be revealed specifically to Joseph.

    As I said, the Lectures on Faith do not teach Trinitarianism or Modalism. Teachings all the way back to the Book of Mormon teach that we are LITERALLY created in the image and likeness of God and that there was a separation between the Father and Son. That is not found in any Trinitarian creed, therefore, you cannot make the claim that LDS meant the same thing in the early church if they said "Trinity".



    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    Here's what Mormons claim NOW:
    DO MORMONS BELIEVE IN THE TRINITY?
    Mormons most commonly use the term “Godhead” to refer to the Trinity. The first article of faith for the Latter-day Saints reads: “We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.” Latter-day Saints believe God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are one in will and purpose but are not literally the same being or substance, as conceptions of the Holy Trinity commonly imply.


    That is correct. We usually use the term "Godhead" because there are too many conceptions of the Trinity which imply that they are literally the "same being" or the "same substance". So, it DOES depends entirely what is meant by "Trinity". The LDS (the English speaking) mostly avoid the use of that term because of what is implied by that word as defined by the creeds.

    Nevertheless, earlier on this thread, I explained that the LDS view is closest to the view of "Social Trinitarianism". I named the title of this thread "Mormon Trinity". Just look at any Spanish translation of LDS literature. They say, "Trinidad". We understand the Father , Son and Holy Spirit to have "Three centers of consciousness", although they have a special spiritual communication between the members of the Godhead which unites them. Where we LDS part ways from the Social Trinitarian view, is that the members of the Trinity in that view are claimed to have a "single essence". There is no scriptural support for such a claim. I already demonstrated that the Bible says that Jesus is the "image/copy" of the Father's substance. It does NOT say that they are a "single" substance or that they are the "same" essence.

    Keep in mind that LDS do not argue that Christ is a mere reflection of the Father. Look closely at the original Greek, which indicates an "exact copy". The root word of provides imagery of a "carved" or "stamped out" reproduction of the original. The LDS view fits perfectly with that idea. The "fullness of Deity" dwells within Christ "bodily". A reflection would not be the "fullness of Deity".


    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    Here is what they USED to claim:
    Source: The Evening And Morning Star, Vol. I, INDEPENDENCE, MO. JULY, 1832. No. 2. page 12
    the eternal purposes and decrees of God, THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY, the incarnation of the Son of God, and the manner of the operation of the Spirit of God upon the souls of men,


    The Doctrine of the Trinity
    obviously was not the "single substance" concept. And it certainly did not envision God the Father as omnipresent essence.

    -The Book of Mormon discusses a physical separation and embodiment (shape, position and form) of members of the Godhead (See: 3 Nephi 11:, 1 Nephi 11:1-11, Ether 3:14-18.)

    In 1830, Joseph explained the meaning of Genesis 1:26 as:

    And I, God, said unto mine Only Begotten, which was with me from the beginning, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and it was so....And I, God, created man in mine own image, in the image of mine Only Begotten created I him; male and female created I them. (Moses 2:26-27.)

    Again, "in mine own image" to refer to a physical likeness and/or appearance, rather than some kind of a moral or intellectual similarities.

    The explanation of Genesis 5:1-2 reads: In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; in the image of his own body, male and female, created he them (Moses 6:8-9; emphasis added).

    - "the different denominations are very much opposed to us.... The Methodists also come, and they rage, for they worship a God without body or parts, and they know that our faith comes in contact with this principle." (Lucy Mack Smith - 1830)

    - "The Prophet Joseph said: 'Brethren, now you are prepared to be the apostles of Jesus Christ, for you have seen both the Father and the Son and know that They exist and that They are two separate personages.' (Joseph Smith 1832-33)

    How about a non-Mormon witness:

    - [The Mormons] contend that the God worshipped by the Presbyterians and all other sectarians is no better than a wooden god. They believe that the true God is a material being, composed of body and parts; and that when the Creator formed Adam in his own image, he made him about the size and shape of God himself. (Truman Coe, a Presbyterian minister, who lived in Kirtland for four years (1832–1836).

    -7up

    Comment


    • #77
      None Besides Me

      Originally posted by Sparko View Post
      God is quite clear that he is the ONLY God.
      Deuteronomy 4:35
      You were shown these things so that you might know that the Lord is God; besides him there is no other.
      Isaiah 44:6 “This is what the Lord says—
      Israel’s King and Redeemer, the Lord Almighty:
      I am the first and I am the last;
      apart from me there is no God.
      7 Who then is like me? Let him proclaim it.
      Let him declare and lay out before me
      what has happened since I established my ancient people,
      and what is yet to come—
      yes, let them foretell what will come.
      8 Do not tremble, do not be afraid.
      Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago?
      You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me?
      No, there is no other Rock; I know not one.”
      Isaiah 46:9
      Remember the former things, those of long ago; I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me.

      So there is only one God, there were none before him, and will be none after him. And there is none like him.
      Either the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one God, one diety, or if the LDS idea that Jesus is Jehovah in the OT is right, then Jesus is the only God and the Father is not God at all.

      Once again the LDS shoot themselves in the foot with their own doctrines.
      We don't shoot ourselves in the foot. We simply pay attention to CONTEXT, both textual and historical. Those verses fall under category 4 in this list:
      - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---
      In what sense are they "one"? Oneness of God can be found in scripture in the following ways:

      (1) There is only one perfectly united, mutually indwelling, divine community. We call that community "God" and there is only one such community.
      (2) There is only one God who is our Father or the fount of divinity (ie "the Most High God).
      (3) There is only one divine nature or set of properties severally necessary and jointly sufficient for divinity.
      (4) When compared to the false gods of other nations, there was only one Lord/Saviour who could provide redemption/salvation

      - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---

      The phrases of "none beside me" and "there is no other" were Hebrew figurative speech speaking of superiority.* Not to mention the context of comparing Jehovah to false idols which held no true power, but were mere statues created by the hands of men.

      As I said, the scholarly view is that “none beside me…” is figurative speech which means “I am the best” or “I am superior”. Here is another quote from Isaiah:

      Isa 47:8 & 10
      Therefore hear now this, thou that art given to pleasures, that dwellest carelessly, that sayest in thine heart, I am, and none else beside me; I shall not sit as a widow, neither shall I know the loss of children:
      For thou hast trusted in thy wickedness: thou hast said, None seeth me. Thy wisdom and thy knowledge, it hath perverted thee; and thou hast said in thine heart, I am, and none else beside me.


      When Isaiah writes “there is none beside me” in regard to how God feels about his superiority above all other gods, and then Isaiah writes “there is none beside me” in regard to how the Babylonians felt they were superior to the other nations. The phrase means the same thing in each case. The idiom means the same thing, even if in one instance it is a true statement (God’s) and in the second instance it is not a true statement (Babylon). Neither one is actually meant to deny the literal existence of other "gods" or other "cities". In fact, the Bible refers to "gods" in several ways A) the True God (Godhead or members within) B) angels C) men who have been given authority by god D) false idols . The only option here that doesn't actually exist is option D.

      The LDS view fits far better with the whole of scripture, as opposed to these isolated verses which have historically been misused and ignore the original meaning of these Hebrew phrases. You find this kind of speech in modern language as well, like a husband saying to his wife "I only have eyes for you." Remember that song, "I only have eyes for you ; You're the only one." (The Flamingos sang that I think). Would you interpret that to mean that the husband couldn't actually see anything else with his eyes, and nobody else existed at all?

      Also, consider the context. Can you imagine Christ standing at the right hand of God the Father and saying "There is no God beside me"? Of course not. The context is entirely different . How about this verse:

      1 Timothy 2:5 ” For there is one God, AND one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

      Here we have one God (the Father) AND a mediator (Christ) between God and men. There are TWO divine people being described in this sentence. It falls under category 2 in my list above. So does this one:

      1 Corinthians 8:4-6 ” (there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom all things, and we in him; AND one Lord Jesus Christ

      The "one God" in both of this is referring to the Father ONLY. Then Jesus is referred to separated with the titles of Lord and Mediator. So, we have 1) God the Father AND 2) Jesus Christ , and any other gods that may exist are of no importance to us.

      John 17:3 ” And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, AND Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

      Again, there is God AND Jesus Christ.* Who sent who? Who is in charge? Who is the "Most High God"?**

      The Father sent the Son. The Father is in charge. The Father is the "Most High". Jesus Christ is fully divine, however, he was and is subordinate to God the Father. God "chose" and "anointed" Jesus to be the Savior and God "sent" Jesus, as described in Hebrews Chapter 1.* The authority and glory that Jesus had before the world existed was "given" to him by God the Father.

      Jesus said, "In my Father's house are many mansions..."

      Who's house is it?

      Col 2:9 fits under category 3.

      Do you want one that falls under category 1? How about this: And God said, 'Let us create man in our image..."


      Here is one to consider:
      John 20:17 - Jesus saith unto her, "Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father"

      If Jesus and the Father are an inseparable and literal and metaphysical "one", or if God were literally omnipresent, why would Jesus need to go or ascend anywhere in order to be with the Father.

      Furthermore, I have demonstrated how Biblical references concerning multiple persons being "one" is figurative. You try to make an exception so that the text will fit your theology, when your theology is supposed to fit the text... Not just these isolated verses ignoring the Hebrew meaning of language, but it must fit the whole of scripture.

      LDS theology fits better than yours, because we don't have a word or a phrase meaning one thing everywhere in scripture, but then make exceptions just in certain cases when you want it to fit your preconceived notions.

      -7up

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Sparko View Post
        The problem is not Smith claiming to be boasting, but WHAT he is boasting. He is boasting that he is greater than Jesus ...

        That is pure arrogance, and a lie.

        I have read Joseph Smith's writings for years. All of them.

        It is YOU who missed the point. Joseph was purposefully speaking "in folly" and boasting "foolishness".

        Only a deceiver, who totally misrepresents a single quote of boasting out of context, like you attempted to do, would pretend that Joseph Smith was actually teaching that he was better than Jesus Christ. That ignores and goes against everything else that Joseph Smith taught about himself and about the perfect and sinless Son of God.

        I can provide a list of quotes proving that point, if you would like, (and I will if you press the issue) but we both know that your attempted deception failed here.


        -7up
        Last edited by seven7up; 05-02-2014, 04:07 AM.

        Comment


        • #79
          7UP: Certainly you have in mind the phrase Joseph Smith said about the Book of Mormon being "the most correct of any book on earth". Of course, anti-mormons often take that phrase out of context, and purposefully miss the point that Joseph was making. Being "correct" was not referring to punctuation, spelling, grammar, or even deep doctrine. Joseph said: “I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.” His point was about Christ-like living and drawing closer to God in a personal relationship. Anti-Mormons purposefully ignore that part and pretend that Joseph meant something entirely different.

          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
          The most perfect book ever written is full of flaws?
          It is not "full of flaws". Not in the sense that you are implying and not in the sense that Joseph meant. You are just another critic, who ignores the actual intent and meaning of what was being said.

          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
          Yet when God gave them words to speak to the people or to write down, they wrote them down exactly as God wanted. No mistakes.
          By the way, please save your misconceptions about the Book of Mormon for another thread. We are talking about the Trinity here.

          - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


          7UP: He had to understand it in order to relay the doctrines to other people. I explained an example to Cow Poke. Joseph understood from the First Vision and the translated plates that we truly are created in the image of God (likeness and image). However, there was not anything in his experience or in the translation which would have clarified the idea that God the Father was not only a Spirit. It took a specific revelation to reveal that the Father, like Jesus, is a Spirit that dwells within flesh and bone. As Paul describes it, "a spiritual body" which Christ demonstrated in the resurrection to be tangible.

          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
          Surely God could tell him the things he needed to understand? Surely Smith could have at least repeated what God wanted him to say?
          He did. However, that specific detail about the nature of God the Father's embodiment was not given to Joseph from the beginning. They were under the impression that the "spirit body" of God the Father was not tangible (not flesh and bone). They had no reason to believe otherwise at that point. It would require a specific revelation in order to clarify that. This particular detail was given later, and recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants.

          -7up

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by seven7up View Post
            [I]7UP: Why do you think that talking to God or having the golden plates would automatically impart to Joseph all aspects of theological knowledge all at once?
            Why do you keep repeating this LIE? You have been told NUMEROUS times that's not what I believe. It is dishonest to continue that goofy assertion.

            You were complaining that the Lectures on Faith did not represent God the Father as having a body of flesh and bone.
            No, I wasn't. I was pointing out that PRIOR to 1835, according to Mormon records and publications, Mormonism taught the TRINITY --- God in three persons.
            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

            Comment


            • #81
              Seven,

              First, I apologize for implying you "lied", but that's the feeling I get when you just keep repeating the same thing, even after being told that's NOT what we think...

              Originally posted by seven7up View Post
              [I]7UP: Why do you think that talking to God or having the golden plates would automatically impart to Joseph all aspects of theological knowledge all at once? ...
              Originally posted by seven7up View Post
              7UP: Why do you think that talking to God or having the golden plates would automatically impart to Joseph all aspects of theological knowledge all at once?
              That just makes you look like a kool-aid drinking script reader. "if they say X, respond with Y".

              It's disingenuous at best, and dishonest at worst.

              PLEASE respond to what we actually SAY and BELIEVE, not your "talking points" responses.

              OK?

              Is that too hard?
              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                We don't shoot ourselves in the foot. We simply pay attention to CONTEXT, both textual and historical. Those verses fall under category 4 in this list:
                - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---
                In what sense are they "one"? Oneness of God can be found in scripture in the following ways:

                (1) There is only one perfectly united, mutually indwelling, divine community. We call that community "God" and there is only one such community.
                (2) There is only one God who is our Father or the fount of divinity (ie "the Most High God).
                (3) There is only one divine nature or set of properties severally necessary and jointly sufficient for divinity.
                (4) When compared to the false gods of other nations, there was only one Lord/Saviour who could provide redemption/salvation


                Really? a "community?" - Then you are calling YHWH a liar, because he said there was no God formed before him, nor after him. HE ("I" - note the singular, not "we") is the only God. If Jesus was once a man who "joined the community" then the community existed BEFORE he was God. Yet he specifically says that is not the case.


                - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---

                The phrases of "none beside me" and "there is no other" were Hebrew figurative speech speaking of superiority.* Not to mention the context of comparing Jehovah to false idols which held no true power, but were mere statues created by the hands of men.
                Again:

                I love how you like to take things literally that are obviously figurative in order to support your LDS doctrines, yet when something is clearly literal, but it disproves your doctrine, all of a sudden, and for no reason and with no support, it becomes "figurative"

                This is not a figure of speech, 7up. It is exactly what it says. Yes, it means that there is no peer to the person, but that is exactly what it means literally too. God has no peer! No one, nothing is God besides him! There is only ONE God. Not a "community of Gods"



                When Isaiah writes “there is none beside me” in regard to how God feels about his superiority above all other gods, and then Isaiah writes “there is none beside me” in regard to how the Babylonians felt they were superior to the other nations. The phrase means the same thing in each case. The idiom means the same thing, even if in one instance it is a true statement (God’s) and in the second instance it is not a true statement (Babylon). Neither one is actually meant to deny the literal existence of other "gods" or other "cities". In fact, the Bible refers to "gods" in several ways A) the True God (Godhead or members within) B) angels C) men who have been given authority by god D) false idols . The only option here that doesn't actually exist is option D.
                The word Elohim which is translated "God" can mean "God" or "Judge" - it is the context that matters. In the case where YHWH is teaching that there are no other Gods, he is speaking of Elohim as "God" - not "Angel" or "Judge" - if he were speaking of those other meanings then he would have been outright LYING by saying there were no Gods formed before him, nor will there be any formed after him. That he alone is God.

                You get that right?

                The LDS view fits far better with the whole of scripture, as opposed to these isolated verses which have historically been misused and ignore the original meaning of these Hebrew phrases. You find this kind of speech in modern language as well, like a husband saying to his wife "I only have eyes for you." Remember that song, "I only have eyes for you ; You're the only one." (The Flamingos sang that I think). Would you interpret that to mean that the husband couldn't actually see anything else with his eyes, and nobody else existed at all?
                Isolated verses? LOL. Please 7up, don't try that crap on us. The bible is FULL of God telling mankind he is the creator, and God and that there is only him and no other God. If you were to chop out all those verses you would end up with a bible half the size it is now. Which is why I am guessing the LDS had to add their own "bible" and even then, Smith had to attempt to rewrite the bible we already have.



                Also, consider the context. Can you imagine Christ standing at the right hand of God the Father and saying "There is no God beside me"? Of course not. The context is entirely different . How about this verse:

                1 Timothy 2:5 ” For there is one God, AND one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

                Here we have one God (the Father) AND a mediator (Christ) between God and men. There are TWO divine people being described in this sentence. It falls under category 2 in my list above. So does this one:

                1 Corinthians 8:4-6 ” (there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom all things, and we in him; AND one Lord Jesus Christ

                The "one God" in both of this is referring to the Father ONLY. Then Jesus is referred to separated with the titles of Lord and Mediator. So, we have 1) God the Father AND 2) Jesus Christ , and any other gods that may exist are of no importance to us.
                Yes I can imagine the Father with Jesus beside him. They are one God revealed as two persons. Your lack of the understanding of the trinity is the problem here.

                John 17:3 ” And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, AND Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

                Again, there is God AND Jesus Christ.* Who sent who? Who is in charge? Who is the "Most High God"?**

                The Father sent the Son. The Father is in charge. The Father is the "Most High". Jesus Christ is fully divine, however, he was and is subordinate to God the Father. God "chose" and "anointed" Jesus to be the Savior and God "sent" Jesus, as described in Hebrews Chapter 1.* The authority and glory that Jesus had before the world existed was "given" to him by God the Father.
                Foot, shot.

                If Jesus is YHWH and the creator (Genesis, John) then the Father did nothing. He is no "most high God" - he didn't do squat. He is no God at all. Yet the bible says he is God. It also says Jesus is God. And the Holy Spirit is God. Yet only one God: YHWH.


                Jesus said, "In my Father's house are many mansions..."

                Who's house is it?
                Well if Jesus is YHWH and the Father is not, as the LDS teach, then it must be Jesus' house huh?


                Col 2:9 fits under category 3.

                Do you want one that falls under category 1? How about this: And God said, 'Let us create man in our image..."
                You realize that Elohim is a plural word. But that plurality doesn't extend to number of beings. It is like Sheep. The "we" used in Genesis is there because of grammar, not because of number of Gods. sheesh.


                Here is one to consider:
                John 20:17 - Jesus saith unto her, "Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father"

                If Jesus and the Father are an inseparable and literal and metaphysical "one", or if God were literally omnipresent, why would Jesus need to go or ascend anywhere in order to be with the Father.
                Again, you don't understand the trinity at all. At least try to understand what we believe before burning down a straw man. TWO persons, one divine nature: God. Also Jesus took on a second nature: Humanity. That is why it says in places "the man Jesus" - and in this case it is talking about Jesus in his resurrection body. He still has two natures. He is a different person from the Father, yet shares the same divine nature with him.


                LDS theology fits better than yours, because we don't have a word or a phrase meaning one thing everywhere in scripture, but then make exceptions just in certain cases when you want it to fit your preconceived notions.
                Bull crap. That is exactly what you do. And have done throughout your post!

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                  I have read Joseph Smith's writings for years. All of them.

                  It is YOU who missed the point. Joseph was purposefully speaking "in folly" and boasting "foolishness".

                  Only a deceiver, who totally misrepresents a single quote of boasting out of context, like you attempted to do, would pretend that Joseph Smith was actually teaching that he was better than Jesus Christ. That ignores and goes against everything else that Joseph Smith taught about himself and about the perfect and sinless Son of God.

                  I can provide a list of quotes proving that point, if you would like, (and I will if you press the issue) but we both know that your attempted deception failed here.


                  -7up
                  He taught he was greater than Paul and Jesus. It is clear by the context. It was no idle boast. He meant it. You can plug your ears and go "la.la.la. I can't hear you" all day long, but anyone reading his words can see exactly what Smith said. He was angry at those who were against him, and bragged about how nobody could drag him down because he was greater than Paul or Jesus at keeping the church together. His speech was petty, boastful, and arrogant.

                  Here it is, let the context speak for itself:
                  -------------
                  History of the Church, Vol. 6, pp. 408-409
                  Address of the Prophet - His Testimony Against the Dissenters at Nauvoo.

                  President Joseph Smith read the 11th Chap. II Corinthians. My object is to let you know that I am right here on the spot where I intend to stay. I, like Paul, have been in perils, and oftener than anyone in this generation. As Paul boasted, I have suffered more than Paul did. I should be like a fish out of water, if I were out of persecutions. Perhaps my brethren think it requires all this to keep me humble. The Lord has constituted me so curiously that I glory in persecution. I am not nearly so humble as if I were not persecuted. If oppression will make a wise man mad, much more a fool. If they want a beardless boy to whip all the world, I will get on the top of a mountain and crow like a rooster: I shall always beat them. When facts are proved, truth and innocence will prevail at last. My enemies are no philosophers: they think that when they have my spoke under, they will keep me down; but for the fools, I will hold on and fly over them.

                  God is in the still small voice. In all these affidavits, indictments, it is all of the devil--all corruption. Come on! ye prosecutors! ye false swearers! All hell, boil over! Ye burning mountains, roll down your lava! for I will come out on the top at last. I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet. You know my daily walk and conversation. I am in the bosom of a virtuous and good people. How I do love to hear the wolves howl! When they can get rid of me, the devil will also go. For the last three years I have a record of all my acts and proceedings, for I have kept several good, faithful, and efficient clerks in constant employ: they have accompanied me everywhere, and carefully kept my history, and they have written down what I have done, where I have been, and what I have said; therefore my enemies cannot charge me with any day, time, or place, but what I have written testimony to prove my actions; and my enemies cannot prove anything against me. They have got wonderful things in the land of Ham. I think the grand jury have strained at a gnat and swallowed the camel.

                  A man named Simpson says I made an affidavit against him, Mr. Simpson says I arrested him. I never arrested Mr. Simpson in my life. He says I made an affidavit against him. I never made an affidavit against him in my life. I will prove it in court. I will tell you how it was: Last winter I got ready with my children to go to the farm to kill hogs. Orrin P. Rockwell was going to drive. An Englishman came in and wanted a private conversation with me. I told him I did not want any private conversations. "I demand one of you! " Such a one I am bound to obey anyhow. Said he-"I want a warrant against the man who stabbed Brother Badham. He said it was a man who boarded at Davis'. He said it was Mr. Simpson-it answered his description. I said I had no jurisdiction out of the city. He said-"The man must be arrested, or else he will go away." I told him-"You must go to Squire Wells, Johnson, or Foster." Mr. Lytle stepped up and said-"I am a policeman." I jumped into my carriage, and away I went.

                  President Joseph Smith read the 11th Chap. II Corinthians. My object is to let you know that I am right here on the spot where I intend to stay. I, like Paul, have been in perils, and oftener than anyone in this generation. As Paul boasted, I have suffered more than Paul did. I should be like a fish out of water, if I were out of persecutions. Perhaps my brethren think it requires all this to keep me humble. The Lord has constituted me so curiously that I glory in persecution. I am not nearly so humble as if I were not persecuted. If oppression will make a wise man mad, much more a fool. If they want a beardless boy to whip all the world, I will get on the top of a mountain and crow like a rooster: I shall always beat them. When facts are proved, truth and innocence will prevail at last. My enemies are no philosophers: they think that when they have my spoke under, they will keep me down; but for the fools, I will hold on and fly over them.
                  ----

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    We seem to be going WAY off topic here. (not that I'm surprised )

                    Mormon theology USED to teach the Trinity.
                    Now it does not.

                    Can we please stick with that, and create other threads for the peripheral issues?
                    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                      For starters, let's not pretend that Christians have always represented the "Trinity" consistently. There is STILL debate amongst Christians concerning that doctrine.
                      Why does that matter? The whole concept of the Mormon Church was that ALL OTHER religions were apostate, and God was allegedly using Joseph Smith to set everything straight.

                      Second, I would say that LDS views are often considered similar to a version of the Trinity, one that has been called "Social Trinitarianism".
                      Not at the inception of Mormonism.

                      While I have McConkie's quotes open from the thread, let me pull a few more from him, because he supposedly represents "hard line" Mormonism.[/COLOR]
                      He wasn't around at the beginning. To see what Mormons taught about the Trinity in the BEGINNING, it would make much more sense to use contemporary written sources.

                      "Thus there are, in the Eternal Godhead, three persons–... These three are one — one God if you will – in purposes, in powers, and in perfections."

                      "Though each God in the Godhead is a personage, separate and distinct from each of the others, yet they are ‘one God’” [/COLOR]

                      He also says,

                      "First, be it remembered that most scriptures that speak of God or of the Lord do not even bother to distinguish the Father from the Son, simply because it doesn’t make any difference which God is involved. They are one. The words or deeds of either of them would be the words and deeds of the other in the same circumstance."

                      But keep in mind that he says "would be... in the same circumstance". However, they are not technically in the same circumstance. Members of the Godhead have different "roles". For example, God the Father is the Father of my spirit, and Jesus Christ is the Redeemer of my sins.

                      Explanations of the Godhead get tricky, because we say that there are "three". On the other hand, we say that they are "one". Well, in what sense are they three, and in what sense are they "one"?

                      When discussing their unity, you end up sounding like a modalist. When discussing their diversity, you end up sounding like a tritheist.

                      I think that one main difference between LDS and mainstream Christians is when it comes to terms like "BEING" and "SUBSTANCE".

                      Mormons do not believe that God the Father and Jesus Christ are the same being nor do we believe that they are the same substance. We instead would say that Jesus Christ is the image of the same Being/Substance.

                      Another way to look at it is this:

                      I know that this is impossible, but let's pretend for a moment that God the Father (and/or the Holy Spirit) were suddenly to drop out of existence tomorow. In that scenario, Jesus Christ would STILL be fully God. (i.e. the FULNESS of Deity would still exist in Christ.)

                      I am not sure if most Trinitarians would hold that position.



                      -7up
                      Regardless of what Mormons teach TODAY, or what McConkie said, the writings of the period before 1835 indicate a "God in three persons" view.
                      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                        Regardless of what Mormons teach TODAY, or what McConkie said, the writings of the period before 1835 indicate a "God in three persons" view.
                        "God in three persons" is not even the same as the Trinity or Modalism. If “God” is defined as an eternally unchanging and indivisible essence, how can there be three "separate" persons who are called “God”?

                        In the Book of Mormon (1829), with the incarnation and resurrection of Jesus, we come to an understanding of Jesus which is NOT a "Trinity". I already discussed how the Brother of Jared had an experience (similar to Moses), which specifically describes that "image and likeness" refers to visual appearance or form. In 3 Nephi 17: 15, the resurrected Christ is said to pray to the Father in Heaven. Can you pray to your own spirit? Also, the resurrected Christ has “gone unto the Father” by ascending into heaven. “And it came to pass that after he had ascended into heaven the second time that he showed himself unto them, and had gone unto the Father.” IF “the Father” referred to here is the anthropomorphic spirit inside Jesus’ body which was shown to the Brother of Jared, why would Jesus have to ascend to heaven to be with His own spirit?

                        This is just like Matthew 27:46:

                        "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, ... My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

                        If the Father and Son are the same substance, then how could he have forsaken himself?

                        In 3 Nephi 9:15 the resurrected Christ speaks to the Father in the third person and said He was with the Father in the beginning. “Behold, I am Jesus Christ the Son of God. I created the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are. I was with the Father from the beginning." Then he uses the same language of figurative "oneness" that is found in John chapter 17.


                        Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                        Why does that matter? The whole concept of the Mormon Church was that ALL OTHER religions were apostate, and God was allegedly using Joseph Smith to set everything straight.
                        Joseph Smith DID set it straight. In reality, the only concept concerning the nature of the Father that Joseph did not have from the early years was that God the Father's embodiment was tangible (or possibly even resurrected). Otherwise, he was teaching correctly about two separate individuals, the Son of God at the right hand of the Father.

                        The Prophet Joseph said: 'Brethren, now you are prepared to be the apostles of Jesus Christ, for you have seen both the Father and the Son and know that They exist and that They are two separate personages.' - Zebedee Coltrin (1832-1833)

                        -7up

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                          We seem to be going WAY off topic here. (not that I'm surprised )

                          Mormon theology USED to teach the Trinity.
                          Now it does not.

                          Can we please stick with that, and create other threads for the peripheral issues?
                          Will do bro.
                          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


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                            "God in three persons" is not even the same as the Trinity or Modalism. If “God” is defined as an eternally unchanging and indivisible essence, how can there be three "separate" persons who are called “God”?
                            The fact that you do not understand the Trinity does not prove that it was not taught in the early Mormon Church.

                            Joseph Smith DID set it straight.
                            No, not even close.

                            In reality, the only concept concerning the nature of the Father that Joseph did not have from the early years was that God the Father's embodiment was tangible (or possibly even resurrected). Otherwise, he was teaching correctly about two separate individuals, the Son of God at the right hand of the Father.
                            Which is DIFFERENT than what was taught prior to 1835. The fact that you can produce CONFLICTING teachings only underscores the confusion (or deception) Smith was fostering.

                            The Prophet Joseph said: 'Brethren, now you are prepared to be the apostles of Jesus Christ, for you have seen both the Father and the Son and know that They exist and that They are two separate personages.' - Zebedee Coltrin (1832-1833)

                            -7up
                            Yes, he couldn't keep his stories straight -- even though he had, allegedly, the "Urum and Thummum", the golden plates, and the power of translation, he couldn't keep it straight.
                            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                              Will do bro.
                              On the other hand, it's 7up's thread!
                              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                                He taught he was greater than Paul and Jesus. It is clear by the context. It was no idle boast. He meant it.
                                ----
                                This is simple Sparko.

                                No fair minded person, who has studied all of the teachings of Joseph Smith, will ever believe that Joseph actually thought he was greater than Jesus. It is contrary to everything that the prophet taught everywhere else. The context here was giving those people in the audience, who had violently attacked him and his family, something to chew on. In retaliation, Joseph did not attack them back in a violent way, but instead entered into a description of "vain" and "foolish" boasting.

                                The point of quoting Paul's boasting "in folly" as an introduction to this, was to set up Joseph's own boasting "in folly". The bottom line was that , like Paul, he was telling them that he was going to accomplish what God had sent him to accomplish, no matter what they tried to do to him, because God was with him, albeit "in a still small voice".

                                Pretending that Joseph actually had an ego to the extent that Joseph supposedly believed that he was better than Jesus , is an argument that will never be taken seriously. There are too many facts that contradict such an accusation.

                                -7up

                                Comment

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