"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted Man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens. ... We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea ... he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the father of us all, dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did. Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p. 3 (1844)
Mormon scripture declares, "The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's; the Son also, but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us" (D. & C. 130:22).
Joseph Smith also said, "I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three gods" (T. of P.J.S., p. 370).
Talmage said that the Holy Ghost "is a personage of Spirit" (A. of F., p.42; see D.& C. 130:22), but later he claimed an immaterial being or body cannot exist (A. of F., pp. 43, 48). Thus, the Holy Ghost must have a "material" or "tangible body," or He does not exist!
Bruce McConkie declared, "Three separate personages - Father, Son, and Holy Ghost - comprise the Godhead. As each of these persons is a God, it is evident from this standpoint alone, that a plurality of Gods exists. To us, speaking in the proper finite sense, these three are the only Gods we worship. But in addition there is an infinite number of holy personages, drawn from worlds without number, who have passed on to exaltation and are thus Gods" (M.D., pp. 576-577).
In summary, mormonism is a polytheistic belief whos gods are physical, finite, changing and non-eternal. The godhead is a committee of gods. So du cites the article:
The phrase "in the name" (eis to onoma) affirms alike the Godhead of the Persons and their unity of nature…..snip…. It is incredible that the phrase "in the name" should be here employed, were not all the Persons mentioned equally Divine. Moreover, the use of the singular, "name," and not the plural, shows that these Three Persons are that One Omnipotent God in whom the Apostles believed.
Then du ties this up by saying:
The Linguist does an exceptional job here of describing Mormon doctrine, God and Christ and the Holy Ghost are spearate distinct persons who are one in the Godhead thus all can be referred to singly or together in the singular God.
What du is implying is the mormon definition of united in purpose. The casual reader will notice that the sentence from above - The phrase "in the name" (eis to onoma) affirms alike the Godhead of the Persons and their unity of nature - strips that potential definition away from the mormon god committee. Unity in NATURE is not unity in purpose. In fact, mormon scripture never says that they are one in purpose but one in complete essence. Infact, the bom has some very strongly monotheistic Trinitarian sections
"This is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen" (II Nephi 31:21)
The reader will note, not a unity of purpose, but singlar identity as God. Du is promoting something that mormonism does not include in its scriptures.
Du goes on and on how the ordinary dictionary is a source book for mormon theology. Probably by now he has denounced my reference to mormon polytheism, but as I recently posted to du, mormonism is polytheistic by even the simplest of definitions. Du further whines on about how they are Christians and that we – true Christians – are bastardizing the term because Christianity is Trinitarian. As we took a look at mormonism definition of their gods, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that mormonism has more in common with crass greek/roman polytheism than the God of the Bible. So the reality is that mormonism attempted use of the Christian to define themselves is the true bastardization of the term. Next, du is caught again in his falsehoods.
People can read, and they know what I said, your mis-definition of my speech not withstanding, people can go back and look.
What is this mis-definition ? Once again, the article equates the term Person with God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. In the very next paragraph connected by thus, is the recitation of the Athanasian creed. That immediate context (along with the whole context of the encyclopedic article) provides the specific definition of Persons within the context of the Trinitarian doctrine. Du continues to misrepresent Persons as the god committee, whereas the article makes it clear 3 Persons = One God in nature and substance. Three god committee cannot share nature and substance as they are physical and finite beings, not omnipotent, omnipresent and spirit which is God. I break this down in greater detal for him.
No, I understand it perfectly, the problem comes when you say the oneness is of substance, and not of heart might mind and strength. Three persons are inherently separate, one substance is not three persons.
The article never discusses oneness of heart, might, mind and strength, nor does the bible in isolation of other scriptures that show the unity of substance. However the Bible and the article DO speak on oneness of substance. Du obviously rejects that for mormon polytheistic interpretation, contrary to the bom. However, to do what du does here and 1) redefines terms to match mormon polytheism, inspite of the fact that the author does not define those same terms in the same way, 2) represents those improperly defined terms as what the author was writing about is intellectual dishonesty to the max. The doctrine of the Trinity states that there are three *distinct* coequal, coeternal, and coexistent Persons who share the nature (substance) of the one true God. The belief in three separate Gods is not Trinitarianism, but polytheism, which is how the Mormons view the Godhead.
Next du launches into a tirade against the Nicean council. While doing so he claims that I said:
Godzilla has held forth that Revelations makes all future revelation not of God (personal answers to prayer excepted).
Godzilla now says that this revelation in 325 AD, is acceptable because it was agrees with the Bible. (from his perspective)
For beginners I challenge DU to provide the specific post where I made the claim regarding Revelation…….waiting…….(crickets). Nor will he find that I said that Nicea had a revelation, but that Nicea placed into writing the teaching that had been in existence since the beginning of the church – significant difference. With that his little chain falls apart. As a statement of the teaching of Christianity from day one, it was not created in 325, but 30 AD.
However, since du did open the comment up about Revelation, Smith did violate that command when he edited it for the Joe Smith translation - and for that he stands condemned.
Warning, the following is disturbing
Readers, please note that people often accuse others of what they themselves are doing, I accuse Godzilla of being earnest and honest in his representations and excerpts. Godzilla accuses me of twisting the document, I urge all of you to go and read it for yourselves. thanks.
Sadly, du waxes clintonesque in his denials. Remember just a few short paragraph earlier it is made clear that du redefines the terms used, then portrays that altered definition as the true definition the author was using. By any standard, this is twisting the document . By playing the victim card, du hopes to obfuscate the issue.
Actually, I have declared that there is but one God, for they are one in heart might mind and strength. You simple chose not to read that part, apparently to you if they are not one substance, they are not one which is an unbiblical, Hellinist, Greek concept which is exactly my point.
Again, I would refer the reader to the first part of this post. Mormon authorities teach that they worship three gods. I have yet to see in the bom that they are one in heart might mind and strength or in unity of purpose. Greeks worshiped multiple god, mormons worship multiple gods, Greeks = polytheistic, mormons = polytheistic. Christians worship One God. Christians = monotheistic. Bible = monotheistic.
After summarizing the definition of the mormon god, du obfuscates some more until finally crowing triumphantly;
I do find it interesting that what I am saying the Linguist and I agree, and you refute his passage thinking it's Mormon doctrine, I guess since you can't tell the difference, I have been proven correct.
So, by redefining the words the Linguist uses, then representing these redefinitions as the Linguist definitions, you very simply lie. And because you lie, you somehow claim to justify victory. So much for the vaunted morality of mormons. For you see I can tell the difference between what is written and defined in the article and what you say it says.
I never said Arius had everything right, just the part about God and Jesus being separate "Distinct" personages.
Ah, yes, but you were insisting that Arius was the source of truth that the nasty church silenced. If Arius was your source of truth, you should have learned what he actually taught before embracing him.
Said with no backup what so ever, I gave documentation some of which we are discussing here, forgive us if we don't take your word for it, but pray about it instead...(As the Bible tells us to),
What du is referring here to is his strawman that as the result of the Arian heresy the church doctrine changed the definition of God to the Trinitarian formula. Du has already stated above a love/hate relationship towards Arius, unwilling to embrace arianism but only the total separation of the trinity. This actually begs the point in that IF arianism was the teaching of the Church, there would have been no need to fight it. But logic has never stopped du. Secondly, du accusing me for lack of documentation without being specific. I think he does not like the fact that the Trinitarian doctrine had been the object of attack earlier than 325AD. Marcion in 140s AD bought a similar, Gnostic challenge, Valentineous (sp) in the similar time frame. Nearly every letter in the NT contains warnings about false teaching regarding the nature of God and Christ, pushing these challenges to the 50s AD. Nicea did not come up with anything new, only refined what was already taught since the beginning.
Those who have the Spirit of God know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, those who don't make up mysterious Creeds.
du continues with defending mormon temple ceremonies by relating them to masons – an item that I did not do. However, the secret/sacred handshakes, sigh, and other temple related postings here at FR have been violently opposed by mormons. So du should take heed to his own words. Regarding clothing, mormon undergarments are unique due to the Masonic magical symbols imprinted thereon.
du next accuses me of cherry picking at the term mystery as it is found in the NT. I said ” Mystery which the Encyclopedia article refers to (and the scriptures du cites) is found in the NT as (mysterion-greek) is associated with parables about God’s kingdom or truths disclosed. In response, du cites Rev 17:4-7 in which the term mystery is used twice. Since the truth was being disclosed in vs 5 and 7, my definition (from a bible dictionary) stands as being correct.
Nice editorializing, devoid of quotations, supporting links, Etc.
And du wonders why we call him fluffy. Heavy tinfoil warning for the next sections
It was posted on a Catholic website, they did say they were censoring the articles.
Of course this is based solely upon the latin title Censor. Imprimatur. In a fashion I though would help du understand, one that he likes to apply himself, I provided the definition. The article was to be an official statement of Catholic doctrine, then a person authorized to insure that it properly stated the doctrine was given authority as editor for the article. This was related to Brucie McConkie, who’s writings du has reminded us are not officially representative of the mormon church. Of course brucie wrote is first edition of MD without first getting clearance from the presidency. But that did not apply to reprints which the GA had their own Censor. Imprimatur go over Brucie’s writings before giving its blessings for follow-on reprints. The GA’s involvement is well documented.
Personal attack?
Your dark reference to Censor. Imprimatur inferring that the Bishop was acting in a medieval fashion, ready to run an inquisition on the writer(s) of the article. Why else make such a nonsensical reference.
You have made the allegation that the writer(s) of the article were under duress and not allowed to write what they REALLY thought. Do you have documentation to prove this. Do you have documentation to prove they did not write what they believed? Do you have documentation to prove that the writer(s) were unqualified to write regarding Catholic doctrine? These are unfounded allegations and you should withdraw them unless you can provide proof otherwise.
As a matter of fact the very point this author keeps making about the Discrete nature of the Members of the Godhead is exactly my point all along.
All the while you ignore the other very point the author keeps making of the oneness of substance. Sorry, the emphasis of oneness of substance made throughout the article refutes your polytheistic point over and over again.
Next du mis applies scripture in attempt to prove oneness of purpose. Remember:
Alma 11:26-29 "And Zeezrom said unto him: Thou sayest there is a true and living God? And Amulek said: Yea, there is a true and living God. Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God? And he answered, No."
The bom clearly teaches One God. Not "one in purpose"- a term which is not found anywhere in the bom; not "of this world", but one God period. In the Bible we are taught that God is the God of the entire universe, not just this planet. Thus it is clear that the polytheism of mormonism is rejected by the bible as well as the bom itself.
Du’s proof texts (John 17:11, 21-22 and Matt 19:6) allegedly fit into mormon polytheism committee of gods. The bible resoundingly rejects polytheism. Further, these verses, good allegories for a unity of mind and devotion, are just that and can only go that far. They must stand with verses that make it clear that Persons of the Trinity/Godhead share the same common divine substance and monotheism. Du ignores one specific citation here :
However earlier Jesus relates His oneness in a John 10:30 I and my Father are one. One (en). Neuter, not masculine (eiv). Not one person (cf. eiv in Ga 3:28), but one essence or nature.
So these verses and allegories do not disprove the Trinity when fitted into context of the whole scripture, and they do not prove mormon polytheistic committee of gods. Now du accuses me of a mistranslation of one scripture – I guess he is referring to John 10:30 cited above. However he has no alternative translation of the Greek, just his say-so. I cited one verse for economy of space. Other verses that provide the same interpretation that Jesus is of the same essence or nature of the Father include:
John 1:1-2; John 8:34; John 14:10-11; and Rev 1:8 compared to Rev 22:13.
Next, du touted Smith’s translation of the bible as a more accurate translation than anything else out there. This translation was never included in the mormon standard works/canon so dus reference to it is still laughable. His only reply is that He was martyred before he could have it published.. Never the less, it was finished YEARS prior to his death and the command was given in DC 124:89. Fact is it is published, except by a group of mormons the salt lake mormons do not recognize as mormons. Again, that avoids the point, the JST is available for purchase at lds bookstores – there is no reason it could not canonize it. Mormon god is limited by copyright? I am sure all the JST footnotes are supported by greek/Hebrew MS (snicker). Even your longer passages are not canon.
Yes, the Bible is the word of God which has been passed through a the corruption of mortal caretakers who were imperfect both in selecting the Books and in translating them, however with prayer, God's will can still be fet through them.
Your ignorance of biblical scholarship is astounding. Selection of the books – as I said before, if mormonism believes pseudographic works should be canonized, then they are within their rights to do so and make the writings complete – if that is their true intent.
Du next send us to
http://www.bibleandscience.com/archaeology/dss.htm
where they are discussing is bibliographic and textural criticism of extant OT MS. Du claims this is an example The first thing the visitor notices is that the variants at the DSS helped confirm existing scripture as it has been based on the LXX mostly rather than the MT. The notes on the website I spot checked with my NIV, and my NIV carries the more correct version. of how we lost the scriptures due to poor translation. Remarkably, du notes that the KJV mormons use does not use the better source MS. What du does not understand is that bibliography and textural criticism are demanding sciences of ancient documents that with through comparison between documents, erroneous text can be identified and corrected. In the case of the bible, tens of thousands of extant MS exist in multiple languages, creating a wealth of information for the scholars to evaluate. And this does not count citations in early church writings, lexicons and other documents.
We still have the Manuscript Joseph dictated, complete with his corrective notes.
To which changes are still being made, with a hundred or more as recent as the 1980s IIRC, changes NOT in the Smith MS – of which there are TWO copies of (and they do not entirely agree with each other, especially the hand written corrections). It is still unanswered why such late corrections are being made if the most correct book in the world was really inspired by God.
Joseph Smith used the KJV and revelation, what God can say once, God can say twice, if he wants to. For Momrons and any honest questioner, the question is not Could Joseph correct the Bible, but is the Book of Mormon Gods word.
One could say that smith could correct the bible, but given the richness of the available ms, there would have to be substantial backup for those changes. As of today, the mormon church still has not canonized the JST, so it is not considered inspired by them. The honest questioner would first ask is Smith is worthy to be believed.
1. Smith himself has set forward several, contradicting first vision accounts that cannot be reconciled.
2. Smith was cited for peep stone usage and treasure seeking. This peep stone figure significantly in the translation of the bom.
3. The structure and story line of the bom plagiarizes heavily upon the Bible as well as other stories and novels published during the era.
4. Alleged witnesses were all later condemned in the most violent manner possible and excommunicated from mormonism.
5. The bom claims an extensive culture existed in the Americas existing in the millions and millions with extensive cities and temples, advanced metal working and plants and animals proven not to exist here at the time. No bom city has yet to be uncovered. No uncontested bom artifact has been found. The Smithsonian Institution and the National Geographic Society deny the bom’s truthfulness as a witness to development in the Americas.
6. Over 4000 changes have been made to the bom inspite of the fact that mormonism teaches a literal letter for letter translation that would not go forward if the scribe made a mistake. The number of the changes go far beyond the few typeset error from the first edition (a fact admitted by mormonism) and any marginal changes on the hardcopies of the ms.
These are just a few items that the honest reader would have to deal with IF the bom was inspired. The Bible never tells someone to read another document and pray to see if it is inspired, the Bible is the standard against which it is judged. The bom is judged and found to be the work of man, not God.
You are still fluffy – voluminous but filled with hot air and lacking in substance.
Du begins to back track when confronted with his anti-Catholic bigotry. This was presented in his devious definition manipulation and lying regarding the Trinity article – see discussion earlier. He next tries to claim that the Catholic church is the one identified by 1 Thes 2:3-4. He further claims that Protestant churches recognize this. I would first dispute the application of 1 Thess 2:3-4 on the basis that mormons are interpreting it based upon flawed eschatology. Secondly, Protestantism does not accept the passage in the format intended by mormonism. The fact that Catholic church allowed false practices to enter is not disputed and the reformation was very vigorous in denouncing them. But did the Catholic church completely fulfill this passage? Context, context, context. First the verses are under the subject of the coming of the Lord and the gathering together of the Christians (2:1-2). The coming of the Lord will occur after this falling away and the man of sin – the Antichrist – is revealed. Du did not specify who this man was/is. Since the Catholic church became increasing formalized in the late 4 to 5th century and still exists today and Jesus has not returned, nor the son of perdition identified, it is apparent that the Catholic church has not fulfilled this. Continuing, this man of sin is to sit in the temple of God and set himself forth as god (now why a mormon would complain about this is beyond me – it is their doctrine). There is / was only one temple – in Jerusalem, and it has been gone since 70AD, therefore this cannot be fulfilled either. Finally, Jesus Himself will deal with this individual – not identified in current history. But Paul does warn of false teachers who will continue to work by bringing lies until that day occurs.
Next du poses that the church was left leaderless (this is so funny, especially since he is critical to the Catholic claim to an apostolic succession back to Peter).
, once the apostles left the earth with out ordaining replacements the authority to led the church was lost, and try as they might, men are not perfect, so they eventually fell away from the true Gospel.
du does not recognize that where the apostles went, they set up leadership and established standards for leaders. As the church grew, so to did the structure of the church’s leadership. I suspect that du is trying to argue for the mormon concept of a 24/7 prophet leader. That singular leadership was not the NT pattern. The biblical pattern was that the Spirit established the prophets, teachers, apostles, evangelists, pastors, etc. It was the Spirit that was to lead believers into the truth. And though the Catholic church may have strayed during the middle ages, the truth of God was kept alive as Jesus promised never to leave us or forsake us and that the Holy Spirit will always be present so that the witness would never die. Clearly the Catholic church does not fit the 1 Thess reference, clearly the church has not lost the teaching of the apostles and Christ, for that was guaranteed by Christ Himself.
life eternal is living the way God does. Becoming a God is life eternal,
The standard lie of satan from the very beginning:
Gen 3: 4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 5 for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil.
Isaiah 43:10,11. Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD [Jehovah] and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God [Elohim] formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD [Jehovah]; and beside me there is no savior.
Note from these verses that there are several things which God wants us to know, believe, and understand: (1) There is only one God (Elohim) and Jehovah is that one true God. (2) There were no Elohims formed before Jehovah. This means that Jehovah does not have a Father. That is, no God (Elohim) preceded him, by whom He was procreated. (3) There will be no Elohims formed after Jehovah. Therefore, when God said no gods would be formed after him, it must mean no real, true Gods.
As John A. Reiner, a Catholic Theologian said:………. Source : A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, p. 3
Thus, I am not alone in my opinion, but am agreeing with a Catholic Theologian.
Citing as an authority a late 19th-century Catholic theologian’s though some term just a writer. This same individual also called protestants infidels (http://books.google.com/books?id=U8BJAAAAMAAJ&pg=RA4-PA25&dq=%22Dr.+Reiner%22&as_brr=1#PRA3-PA27,M1)
While it may make you feel better, you would do better to find a more reputable individual.
The unity of God, not the substance of God. Mormons believe in the unity of God, not of God being of one substance. You try to say we are polytheistic, we are not,
du sums it all up with this after reciting a portion of the Trinity article AGAIN, but still doesn’t get it. The phrase "in the name" (eis to onoma) affirms alike the Godhead of the Persons and their unity of nature.. Unity of nature – one substance.
Polytheism Polytheism, belief in the existence of many gods or divine beings. It has been widespread in human cultures, past and present, and has taken many... http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/search.aspx?q=polytheistic
mormonism = polytheism
You know, IMHO the little put downs you level at me don't accomplish what you think they do. I'm not going to get mad, and since you don't seem to be having fun,
Would you like some cheese too. I’m having lots of fun. And you are still fluffy – all air, no substance. :)
My my, what an entertaining read. I am amazed at your patience with fluffy!