Again, I just don’t find much in terms of intelligent discussion but moderate or hardcore anti-Mormon spokespersons.
If you go back to the early centuries of Christianity (Cnstantinople meetings), the evidence of apostasy in terms of the knowledge of God, his son and the Holy Ghost was already lost to the World. That’s where the Catholic church was derived from that we have today, and the Lutheran revisions, while good intentioned, was still coming from an apostate foundation.
Yeah; I sure know what you mean!
The argument here is circular. It follows a line of reasoning that presumes that Mormonism is the only true Church, therefore anything that disagrees with a Mormon view must be false. Thus any evidence from the first few centuries of the Church that disagrees with mormonism must be apostate. Your logic is tantamount to saying I am right because I am right. It ignores the possibility that Mormonism could be false and provides no justification for the claim. In order to make your case, you must demonstrate that most of the followers of Jesus embraced what Mormonism teaches and then betrayed those teachings.
What evidence of apostasy do you have? When did your proposed apostasy occur?
There are many historical resources from the Apostolic Age that indicate that traditional Christian doctrines (that I presume that you are calling apostate) were taught well before the Councils of Nicaea or Constantinople. For instance, you have St. Ignatius of Antioch ordained bishop of Antioch by Peter and a personal pupil of the John the Apostle wrote that the bread and wine of the sacrament were really and truly the flesh and blood of Christ. He wrote in the 1st and 2nd Century A.D. and was martyred in 107 A.D. He obviously was no coward and would rather die than apostatize which give some degree of weight to his teachings. There is also the Didache of the Late 1st Century A.D. which disagrees with many Mormon positions concerning doctrines of baptism and the Lord's Supper, etc. Tertullian discusses the Trinity in the third century and is the first to use that word, but the concept is discussed earlier. Other sources concerning the Church from the time of the Apostles are Clement of Rome, Polycarp of Smyrna, etc. The list of sources from before Nicea and Constantinople goes on all of the way back to the time of the Apostles and they are very supportive of Traditional Christianity.
By the way, how do you justify the Mormon conception of the Godhead?
The LDS church currently teaches that God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are separate gods. In LDS theology, God the Father is called "Elohim" and Jesus Christ is called "Jehovah." This Mormon doctrine raises an interesting theological difficulty. In Hebrew the Ten Commandments read:
2 אָֽנֹכִ֖י֙ יְהוָ֣ה אֱלֹהֶ֑֔יךָ אֲשֶׁ֧ר הוֹצֵאתִ֛יךָ מֵאֶ֥רֶץ מִצְרַ֖יִם מִבֵּ֣֥ית עֲבָדִֽ֑ים׃
3 לֹֽ֣א יִהְיֶֽה־לְךָ֛֩1 אֱלֹהִ֥֨ים
2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
In the KJV of the Bible the word "LORD" (in all capital letters) stands for the holy name "Jehovah" which I will abbreviate as "J" from now on to prevent too much repetition of this most Sacred Name. Thus what the Ten Commands are really saying is: I am J thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the House of Bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. In other words J has just forbidden anyone to worship any other deity than Himself. If Mormonism teaches that J is really Jesus, and that Jesus is a separate God than the Father, then why do Mormons worship the Father? Wouldn't this constitute a violation of the Ten Commandments since Mormons would be worshipping Elohim rather than J?
Furthermore Mormonism teaches that God the Father is named Elohim, but in Isaiah 45 J says that there is no Elohim besides Himself:
5 אֲנִ֤י יְהוָה֙ וְאֵ֣ין ע֔וֹד זוּלָתִ֖י אֵ֣ין אֱלֹהִ֑ים אֲאַזֶּרְךָ֖ וְלֹ֥א יְדַעְתָּֽנִי׃
5 I am the LORD,and there is none else, there is no God [Elohim] beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:
I am sure that you see what I am getting at here. If Mormons teach that the Father is Elohim and Jesus is J, then why does Isaiah say that there is no Elohim besides J? The implication is that J is the only Elohim, and therefore that J and the Father are the one and only God. Thus the Father and the Son would be the same being which creates a theological problem for the LDS since the LDS teach that these two are not one being. This passage does, however, make sense to one who believes in the Trinity.
I am sorry if this is coming across as an attempt to bash your belief in God. That is not my intention, I am only pointing out questions concerning the above mentioned theological difficulties in Mormonism that appear to undermine or contradict its own doctrine. These doctrinal problems and the Mormon conception that there are many gods just don't seem to mesh with what the Bible is saying.
ROFLMAO.. You really need to do your research and quit giving the LDS pat answers.
Just once I would like to come across an intelligent Mormon who could defend their faith...oh wait, if they do that much research, they end up leaving like me!