On MRM’s February, 2013 trip to Turkey we stopped in Iznik – ancient Nicaea. Standing near the very spot where (it is believed) the Council of Nicaea was held in 325 AD, Pastor Cory Anderson (Shadow Mountain Church, West Jordan, Utah) explained the historical context of the Council and the importance of the Trinitarian doctrine it affirmed.
Pastor Anderson’s teaching in Nicaea (Iznik) is presented in the following 21-minute video. Because of wind and technical issues, the quality is not always the best, but the quality of the teaching is well worth the cost of putting up with the video’s mildly annoying imperfections.
Please watch the full video before joining the conversation on this thread.
Oh FOF, you didn’t read the material did you? You see, this is the thing, I’m trying to show you, but you won’t see. Your argument (as is all anti-Trinitarians) is that the Father is a “greater God” than Jesus. This is what the JW’s use to try and justify their same logic as Mormons, that Jesus is a lower being (not God) but to Mormons he is “a” God. For example one of the arguments that Mormons use (from the link I provided) is:
Mormons believe that Jesus is one of three separate Gods. To understand the Trinity, you must understand that the Bible teaches about only ONE GOD. It always has. Read the material. It makes your argument about oneness non sequitur. Jesus is the ONLY true God, because there is ONLY ONE GOD.
So, how did the First MORMON GOD get to be a God without doing all the things required of Him? (like an earth life, a wife etc.) No answer? I thought so. Who was the first MORMON GOD’s Father?
F of F,
You’re getting frustrated with us here who you think are reluctant to discuss
particulars of what we believe about the Trinity . I think we all realize that it
is you that is the problem , you are well aware of what we believe . You have
been around a long time and are just pretending to want to learn what we
believe etc. You’re not here to learn this , you’re here to refute what we do
believe , and replace it with Mormonism , and your comments so far bear that out
clearly .
So I repeat what I said earlier , namely, given the nature of your comments so far
would’nt it be a waste time for anyone here to go ” deeper” with you on the Trinity ?
I personally think so .
Concerning your comment about 1 Jn 5:7-8 . You ignored some pertinent questions
about vrs 7-8 by me and others ( Johnsepistle ) . If these two verses were not in
the earliest manuscripts but were added many many centuries later , why is a Mormon
leader telling his flock to remember that the apostle John said those words in New
Testament times ?
Truth of the matter is , but citing these verses you have resorted to using another old
warn out excuse as to why the Trinity should not be considered true i.e. self serving
men altered the true teaching of God after the apostles died off , even to the extent of
manipulating the scriptures ! You’re grasping for straws .
you said, ” My point comes in the context of my claim that the very early church was
very quiet after the apostle died . And the apostles could hardly maintain correct
doctrine among the saints when they were living . Yet you guys insist that nothing
was altered or changed or modified during that period.”
That the church was quiet after the apostles died proves what ? But the apostles did
fulfill their mission as reliable preachers of correct doctrine . Sadly, many of those
they preached to in their travels succumbed to embracing false doctrines , but there
was no total apostasy . That’s a lie Mormon leaders have taught to their flock .
The period of time after the apostles died off , that very early period of time is when
alterations /changes occurred in doctrine about God /Jesus ? Now you obviously
tried to bolster your theory by citing a statement by a Mr. Hurlburt who mentioned
a church in many respects very different from Paul’s time emerging by A.D. 120 . So
this is when these changes in doctrine occurred ? That’s what it appears you tried to
assert . At the end of the day you offer only assumptions to many times , not facts .
Kinda like your church’s total apostasy doctrine .
I think that you need to focus on one fact , the most important one relative to this
whole issue about the Trinity , namely , there’s only one God . This great truth was
the church’s bulwark against polytheism .
So if I’m going to choose whose teachings ( and authority) to accept as from God , I’ll
pick the apostles Jesus’ actually appointed to teach , not the men 1700 years later
who have come claiming to be His latter day apostles but who introduced teachings
about what they called ” the true trinity ” — three separate Gods , all men .
Speaking of these alleged latter day apostles and a creed . ” Creed ” means :
” I / we believe ” . The following was a hymn sung by the Mormon people in England
at the time Brigham Young was the Head apostle in Jesus’ church . It concerned the
new teaching of apostle Young that Adam was the God for this earth ( and among other
things also the father of the spirits of mankind ) :
” WE Believe in our God the great Prince of His race ,
The archangel Michael , the Ancient of Days ,
our own Father Adam ,earth’s Lord as is plain ,
Who’ll counsel and fight for his children again .
We Believe in His Son , Jesus Christ who in love,
To His brethren and sisters came down from above ,
To redeem them from death and to teach ,
To mortals and spirits the Gospel we preach .
We Believe in the Spirit most holy, that’s given ,
From God , our great Father , who dwells high in heaven …”
[ Sacred Hymns and Spiritual songs for the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter Day Saints , p, 375, ” We Believe in our God ” , 1856 ] .
We are to beware of men who claim to be apostles , especially in the latter days .
2 Cor 11: 13 ; 2 Tim 4: 3,4
“
FofF
It’s a total waste of everyone’s time replying to you. When you are given evidence that is beyond dispute you completely ignore it. This isn’t a debate born out of a desire to understand, it’s a feeble attempt at denying the clear evidence of scripture, evidence that far more learned men than you have used for 2000 years. Joseph Smith, your false prophet whose heresies you try to defend sits somewhere near the end of a long line of failed heretics.
I’m not going to bother going through your latest arguments, not because I can’t but for the reasons I gave above. All I will do is give a short example, from you, of why I said what I did.
You said
“Always running away. You guys really can’t deal with one topic or real criticisms of your positions. I think it is very telling when a critic cannot stand being criticized.”
You sure have a nerve to say something like that. After totally ignoring all I have said to you, you carry on as if no one has replied when in fact ALL of your criticisms have been answered. The truth is, you don’t really want answers do you?
“So the answer is no- nobody is willing to explain the trinity in their own words……I am beginning to think that you guys don’t understand it all that well either.”
Finally, for the third & last time……………
Your problem is really very simple & even though I’ve said it before I’ll say it again, you try to view God as some kind of super human & believe everything about God should be UNDERSTANDABLE from a HUMAN perspective. Well let me tell you, God isn’t some kind of glorified human & we can’t even begin to understand Him. You ask us to explain the Trinity in human terms because YOUR god is little more than that (a man) So forget it, I can’t explain it any more than Martin Luther could, but Like Martin Luther I BELIEVE IT BECAUSE GODS WORD TELLS ME IT IS SO.
Perhaps it’s time you did the same.
Fof,
We all give much evidence and quotes, all you do is ignore us and run.
I notice you avoid my quotes and verses about God saying there are no other gods, none were or are before him, and none are after him.
So either the mormon gods are real and God of the bible lied, or God told the truth and their is only one God, and that means the trinity is real.
Good luck proving God lied or is wrong and all your gods exist.
This thread is about the Council of Nicea and the trinity doctrine. It is very obvious that none of you want to talk about what the trinity is- which was the very topic of the Council of Nicea. I did read every link that has been posted on this thread. And it is very interesting to me that all of those links describe the trinity in a very distant way- they make very simple statements about the trinity, but really do not explain it. For example, there is a strong emphasis on the fact that there is one God. Do you really think that explains the trinity? Another example is that there is some form or degree of subordination within the Trinity- Christ and the Holy Spirit are in some way subordinate to the Father. OK. They are “co-substantial.” OK. You won’t explain what that really means.
It really sounds like a group of people trying to describe the contents of a box into which they have not been allowed to look.
LOL, where hve we been inconsistent, FoF?
Co-substanstial means they are all equally substantial, together. Its not hard. Substantial means, then, they are real, large, and basic or fundamental. Again, not hard. So, they are all equally real. They are equally big. They are all equally basic and fundamental. They are also one.
You seek something you cannot find unless you are willing to accept a difficult concept. Despite the three-in-one simplicity, it does violate some laws of logic. It is not illogical, though, and the numerous ways of explaining that, like a clover, are irrelevant unless you understand the most simple description of the tri-une God: God is one but manifests himself in three separate personages.
Its funny to hear you use the metaphor the unopened box. It is clear you are the one who has not opened it. Its as if you are frightened by the sign on the box that says: contents will change your life.
Fof, your an insult to intelligence.
Again run and dodge questions, get remined that you did, then avoid them again but tell us we won’t answer you. What a joke. Read the questions, reply with answers, then tell us what you think we missed. Wow, what lame replies from you.
“they make very simple statements about the trinity, but really do not explain it.”
I haven’t yet made up my mind whether you are being deliberately obtuse or if you are simply incapable of understanding because the god of this world has blinded you to the truth. Did you read the last part of my post? Somehow I doubt it or you wouldn’t have said what you did above.
Along with everyone else I hate having to continually repeat myself but I’ll make an exception in your case. So, just to jog your memory here is my ‘very simple’ explanation, along with a note concerning the unbiblical & unchristian Mormon god.
“Finally, for the third & last time……………
Your problem is really very simple & even though I’ve said it before I’ll say it again, you try to view God as some kind of super human & believe everything about God should be UNDERSTANDABLE FROM A HUMAN perspective. Well let me tell you, God isn’t some kind of glorified human & we can’t even begin to understand Him. You ask us to explain the Trinity in human terms because YOUR god is little more than that (just an exalted man) So forget it, I can’t explain it any more than Martin Luther could, but Like Martin Luther I BELIEVE IT BECAUSE GODS WORD TELLS ME IT IS SO.
Perhaps it’s time you did the same”
Rick,
I’ve come to the conclusion that there’s little point in even trying to explain, as the old saying goes ‘you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink’
That old saying takes on a new importance when we read John 4:14
FOF,
You say,
And it is very interesting to me that all of those links describe the trinity in a very distant way- they make very simple statements about the trinity, but really do not explain it. For example, there is a strong emphasis on the fact that there is one God. Do you really think that explains the trinity?
I say,
Yes!!!!!!!
The fact that there is only one God is one of the three simple Biblical truths that constitute the doctrine of the Trinity.
I’m confused, Why is it that those of us who accepted the Trinity before they even heard the word have no problem with such simple statements yet you who rejects the doctrine and thinks it obtuse and difficult seem to require more complex nomenclature?
I think this conversation is an amazing verification of the Word of God
quote:
At that time Jesus declared, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will.
(Matthew 11:25-26)
and
And when he was alone, those around him with the twelve asked him about the parables. And he said to them, “To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables, so that “they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand, lest they should turn and be forgiven.”
(Mark 4:10-12)
and
For again Isaiah said, “He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they see with their eyes, and understand with their heart, and turn, and I would heal them.”
Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory and spoke of him.
(John 12:41)
End quote:
Isaiah’s saw a vision of God’s uniqueness and of Jesus’ full divinity (Isaiah chapter 6) and because of that clear vision he was lead to explain why nonbelievers would not understand it.
Apparently nothing has changed
peace
How do you explain the first Mormon God, FOF? Funny that you won’t answer this very simple question. You can’t even FORMULATE ANY KIND of answer. How did the FIRST Mormon God qualify to be a God, if he needed all the things for exaltation that Mormonism requires? Please enlighten us. Where did the First Goddess Wife come from that had the first spirit children? C’mon, enlighten us, FOF.
Old man said
I like to think you can make a horse drink, just rub salt on it’s tounge and make it thirsty.
Yet when it comes to Mormons, You can lead a mormon to logic, but you can’t make them think.
Thats the problem, how do you make them think?
FoF said
Grindael said in responce
Rick B says:
FoF, I say again, Your famous for running away and avoiding questions.
I again, pointed out that Mormonism teaches that their are millions of gods, and You guys teach the godhood is 3 seperate gods.
Yet you avoid, refuse to answer, run away again, from telling me this.
If God the Father said, there are no gods before me, and none will come after me, Then how can God the father have a father god? How can Jesus and the holy spirit be seperate gods if God the father says, their are no other gods and I know of none. Strange How God says, I know of no other gods, yet you would think He would say, Their are only two other gods, My Son And the Holy Spirit.
Dont cry about the trinity issue until you can answer this question. Like I said, If the trinity is real, then it explains how we have 3 in One with God and His Son and the Holy Spirit, Yet if many Gods exist, then God the father lied.
The council of Nicea ? What about our day , the latter days ? What have the men who
have claimed to be Jesus’ modern day apostles proclaimed at their Councils ?
– 1844 , Nauvoo Ill. It’s proclaimed that God is only a rank and file man from another
planet who finally managed to learn enough to rule as the Supreme God of this world
– 1854 , Salt Lake City , Adam is the Father of the spirits of man , and the God over
this earth . Later he is declared to be a member of the trinity of Gods who created this
earth : Elohim , Jehovah, and Michael ( Adam ) . This doctrine is incorporated into the
Temple as part of sacred teachings there .
– there are other examples by these alleged modern day apostles of Jesus , but this
should alert anyone to beware of those claiming to be Jesus’ authorized teachers of
gospel truths in these latter days . This is the kind of thing that can happen when men
take it upon themselves to declare themselves Jesus’ “living ” representatives as
compared to the dead apostles in the New Testament , therefore sincere people accept
their ” new light ” / “restored truths ” to be from Jesus . But people can test these men
to see if they are of whom Paul warned us today to be alert for , namely, men who try
to convince people to accept their teachings by mimicking the claims of Jesus’ true
apostles . This is not a new danger — 2Cor 11:13 ; 2Tim 4:3,4 .
Bottom line : The early creeds of the church after the apostles offer a glimpse into this
time and how these early believers declared their beliefs , but they are not the writings
of the apostles, and that’s where we are to anchor our beliefs . This arrangement
is a safe guard against being misled by men in our day who claim to offer new light
about God , alleged ” truths ” long hidden but due to be revealed in the last days
through them . Early believers and Mormon authorities have something in common :
neither of them should be looked upon as Jesus’ sole authorized representatives
to preach His truths . We have in the Bible a record of who God/Jesus are and how we
can be reconciled to them , be forgiven , and receive the fullest blessings of eternal life,
it’s all there . It’s been called the bedrock of the Christian faith , and with good reason.
I was thinking about this last night as I was watching History Channel’s Pawn Stars which I absolutely love to watch. Last night, they showed a new episode where a guy brought in what they call a “Justice Sword”, (one used for beheading people). They guy that brought in the sword, said that it was from the 15th Century, and it looked pretty authentic, as it had “maker’s marks” on it, etc. But Rick wasn’t so sure, so he called in an expert. The expert looked at the sword and seemed impressed by the maker’s marks. But then he went to work. He said that the steel was not “forged”, it was cut out of a larger sheet, and then artificially aged. He showed how this was done. Then he said that the brass on the hilt was almost pristine, and then showed places were he said the acid used to artificially age the blade had splashed on the hilt and put small pock marks in it. It was then obvious, that the sword was a fake. The expert even said that these swords are so very rare that he had only seen 1 in his lifetime, at a private showing, and that most dealers have never seen one.
Rick passed on making the guy an offer, and he left with the sword. On the way out, he stopped to talk to the cameras, and said, “I don’t care what they say, this sword is authentic.” The guy just could not accept the truth. Would not let the evidence convince him, because he was certain that he had a real sword.
This is the sad condition of some who want to believe that there is more than one God, and that this was taught in the Bible. There is absolutely no evidence for this, and evidence against it, which has been documented here, but still, those who don’t want to believe the truth, CAN’T accept it and continue to believe what they “feel” is the truth, regardless of the evidence. Sad, really. Point is, you can’t make those kinds of people “think”. They just don’t want to, no matter what.
I have spent a while reading the comments here and it has been quite interesting. We obviously have a mormon here explaining his point of view and a few who are arguing against him on the point of the true nature of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit with the conclusion of many here being that because the mormons believe in 3 separate beings comprising the Godhead instead of trinity, that it must mean that mormons cannot be Christians.
I have an app on my tablet that compares many Christian religions. There are a lot of differences between all churches, wouldn’t you all agree? If they all agreed on everything, there would only be one church, correct? Catholics believe membership in the church is necessary for salvation, the baptists believe you just accept him through grace to be saved. Catholics believe that the authority came from Peter but the methodists believe authority comes from the bible. Many churches believe differently about life after death.
So really, if there is a church on the earth today that is the same as the one that Christ set up, which one is it when they all disagree with eachother? All so called Christian churches disagree with eachother so why single the mormons out on the issue of nature of God when none of the other churches agree about everything either? you grindael would probably disagree with Mike R on certain doctrines if you are from different religions but one or both of you would be wrong because if your churches both taught what jesus taught, there would be no need for more than one church. One or both of your churches therefore is teaching falsehoods.
To use the logic presented here on this page, which doctrines can you disagree with and still be called a Christian? If the catholic church is the church that Jesus set up, then the rest are wrong because you cannot be the church that Jesus organised if you do not teach ALL doctrines that He taught. Jesus said one Lord, one faith, one baptism. Not 2 or3 different types, just one. If the mormons are right, then it is a fact, the rest are wrong. That is the only conclusion you can come to. I don’t know the religions of all of the contributors to this page, but I do know this much, some of you are wrong, some of you do not belong to the church that Jesus set up. If that is the case, you need to find out. You cannot all be right. Baptism for example, can not be both immersion or sprinkling. Jesus came straightway out of the water. Does that not imply he was immersed? So why is sprinkling done, Jesus didn’t say sprinkling did he?
I know God exists and I believe in the Bible and I am interested, Grindael, Mike R, 5th Monarchy man, old man, Rick B, MJB, all of you that attacked fof, you all claim to be Christians , what doctrines can you disgaree on but still be considered a Christian?
mhewet,
What you ask has been asked by many throughout history, and is way beyond this scope of this discussion. This discussion focuses on the Godhead. But I will briefly address some of your concerns,
Throughout history, the prophets of the Bible always taught that there was One God. This is what Jesus and his Apostles taught. That Jesus was the incarnation of God did not make Him a separate God. But there were some that thought so after the time of the original 12 Witnesses of His Resurrection. The Gnostics, (who claimed that Jesus was separate, but did not really posses a body, among other things), Marcion and his followers, who believed in two separate Gods, (one of the OT who was a “harsh” God, and the New Testament God that was Christ), those that practiced Modalism, Arianism, etc.
Then there were those who only believed in One God, which is the Trinity. These were the Orthodox Christians which became the Catholics and included the Early Church Fathers, like Clement, Iraneaus, Tertullian, etc. They taught that all those that did not believe that there was only One God, were heretics, just like Jesus and his Apostles did. John himself condemned the Gnostics in his letters.
You are focusing on different Churches, not on the BODY of Christ. A good short article on this may be found here.
As for Baptism, Matt Slick has also written a good short piece here.
I go to a non-Denominational Church. Many here do. As far as I know, Christians do not claim authority from the Bible, they claim authority from Christ. Jesus said, where two or three are gathered in My Name, I am there. He promised the Holy Spirit to ALL who BELIEVE in Him (the True Christ as defined by the Scriptures).
We live in the age of the Holy Spirit. As Paul stated,
The Holy Spirit is not limited to buildings or organizations of men. He is there for the entire body of believers, wherever they may be, as long as they worship, as Christ said, in the Spirit, and in truth. (John 4)
I appreciate your reply grindael but I do not agree for the following reasons. Your links to Matt Slick while interesting, when you boil it all down are simply one mans opinion. That is what he believes a Christian is. In it’s most general sense, a Christian is someone who accepts Jesus Christ as their saviour and follows him. Whether you believe he is a spirit or has a body is not important in determining whether or not you are a Christian. Jesus taught truths but if we are not taught what he did, and that includes baptism, authority, communion or whatever doctrine he originally taught, then we are not following His Gospel. We are simply following an imitation. If he taught fornication leads to hell, why are all Christian churches not teaching all that we should abstain from fornication and like the catholic and mormon churches, teach sex is only for marriage? The point is that if the methodists are right, the rest of us are an imitation of the gospel but do not contain all of the truth. You mention the body of Christ, well each part then in your example is teaching something different. how then can they all be a part of the same body?
It is true that he said where 2 or 3 are gathered, etc, but that does not mean that on an occassion such as that that everything said or done is what he taught. Some may be, some may not.
What I find silly about the argument against mormons is that people are deciding what is acceptable and what is not in determining what a Christian is. My definition is different to matts. What makes matt’s view correct and mine incorrect or are we both correct? It is all about opinion.
you mention “He promised the Holy Spirit to ALL who BELIEVE in Him”. Well mormons believe in him, shouldn’t they have the spirit too?
The title of this article mentions the council of nicaea. isn’t that where the trinity definition was finalised? There is evidence in scripture that God and Jesus have bodies depending on how you read the scriptures. The council involved a lot of disagreement, maybe they got it wrong. You accept what the council came up with, fine, but that does not mean they were right.
mhewet,
Anyone can call themselves anything. A Christian is defined. How? By the Bible. It is not just someone who “claims” to follow Jesus. If I claim to follow God, and then say that the Jesus that I follow was someone other than who he is as described and defined in the Bible, then I am not really a Christian. Jesus taught that marriage is between one man and one woman. What did Jo Smith teach? Was he then committing adultery, which is wrong? He certainly was violating the State Laws (Adultery and Bigamy), which his articles of faith and Book of Doctrine and Covenants said he must not do. So was he really a Christian?
That is who Christians are.
What you are saying, that whether The Father is a spirit or not is not important is ridiculous. The Gnostics, for example said they were Christians and that they followed Jesus, but didn’t believe that he had a physical body. If that wasn’t important, then why did John say,
Again, Christians worship the God defined in the Bible. If they teach things that contradict what is there, they are deceivers and the antichrist. Once again, you are stuck on buildings and organizations, so much so that you say,
You are giving here a hypothetical that can’t be answered. What do you mean by “everything”? You can never answer that, without being specific, so that whole argument is a red herring. I don’t know of any real Christians who teach that fornication is ok. (See my quote above from 1 John) If any do, they are not really Christians, are they? But, Do you have examples of any that do? Please be specific and give me the specific listed Church Beliefs of any church that does and still call themselves Christians. This is simply another red herring argument. You say,
No, it’s not. It is all about what is in the Bible. That is where we find Christianity defined. Why I had you read what Matt Slick wrote, was for you to understand the argument, which you reject out of hand. That’s fine. There is no evidence in the Bible at all that the Father had a body. Just not there. Perhaps you need to read the article and the comments above to understand for yourself what the Council of Nicaea was all about. The Council did not “come up with” the definition of God, it affirmed the one that the Bible teaches, and that was taught by the ECF’s since the time of Christ.
Whether you accept it or not, doesn’t change it.
Grindael in relation to adultery, bigamy etc, perhaps the words of an Islamic person I read from will enlighten you a bit. First though, there is no evidence Jo smith commited adultery. Do yu have any? No you don’t and you know it. as for bigamy etc the words of the Islamic person may explain partly but remember, people in the Old Testament had more than one wife. IF God ok’s it, it must be ok. The question is, did God ok it? Anyway, back to Islam, and I am sure it is not the mormon belief but here goes, if a person takes a second wife in a church, in reality, it is only polygamy (which means both wives know about eachother unlike bigamy where one does not know about the other) if you try to register it with the state. We don’t tell the state when we baptise a person or when a person is ordained to the priesthood, etc so if a 2nd, 3rd, marriage etc, is not told to the authorities but merely seen as a religious event in a church, should the state have the right to step in? So I may take 2 or more wives in the church and have it recognised in the church which may see it as just another ordinance or event but outside the church maybe it would be seen as a man with 1 wife and 1 or more other women that live with him. In the world it may be seen as an adulterous marriage but in a church that sees it that way, it would be ordained of God. There are actually moslems who do that today and there are non religious people also doing that today, it is not new, it is reality in the word today. Isn’t there supposed to be a separation of church and state or does that go one way only? How much should the state interfere in churches? But that is one way marriages can be Godly depeneding on belief or adulterous depending on belief. jo smith was not adulterous, still looking at the polygamy.
You perhaps unwittingly supported the idea I have been trying to get across. You quoted the scripture, “4 Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him”. That is absolutely correct. But to keep his commandments you must know them. There are actually churches in the US that teach gay sex is ok, did you know that? In Massachusetts I think it was, I’ll have to check. But there are many commandments. What about female priests? Is that biblical? What about the last supper which was given to us as a way to remember Jesus? Different churches do it different ways so from your scripture, if you don’t do it or understand it as Jesus taught it, then you are doing it incorrectly and therefore not a Christian. If baptism is by immersion as Jesus was baptised, then sprinkling is wrong and if you sprinkle you are not a Christian according to that scripture.
And that is my point. If you do not teach what Jesus taught then you are not following him. You may be following him to a degree but you are not fully following him unless you know what HE taught. If all the so called Christian churches taught exactly what Jesus taught, then they really are fully Christian churches. If they teach different things, as they do, then they are not fully Christian.
I want t reply a bit more but am out of time, more later.
oh and just a quick word on fornication. Look at the world, are the churches stressing God’s law in relation to fornication? They must be doing a bad job because it is rampant. Some churches do stress it, some don’t. There is so much sexual immorality out there, the churches should get of their backsides and start preaching and maybe worry less about attacking eachother.
Yes I do. Joseph Smith slept with other women besides Emma. That would be adultery, under Ohio and Illinois Law.
1.Oliver Cowdery statement about Fanny Alger. ( a “dirty, nasty, filthy affair of his and Fanny Alger’s”)
2.Benjamin Johnson said that Jo slept with his sister.
3.The Temple Lot Case, where more than one woman testified under oath that they slept with Jo.
There are many more. Clayton’s diary, etc.
You are naive if you do not believe this overwhelming evidence.
Once again, you point the finger at Christians, but provide no proof. Some obscure church “somewhere” doesn’t cut it. That would be an aberration. And again, you must give that churches doctrinal statement that fornication and adultery is part of their articles of faith or beliefs. Good luck with that.
Your argument about church and state is non sequitur, for this reason, that Jo gave an article of faith and said in the D&C that they were commanded to uphold and obey the law of the land. So, he was breaking one commandment to live another. And he was breaking the commandment from the New Testament that marriage is between one man and one woman. Sorry, but your evidence is shaky and not very well thought out.
We do KNOW the commandments. They are in the Bible. If a church says it is Christian, but does not follow the teachings of Christ and his Apostles, then they are not really Christians, are they? I already discussed this, and you are simply trying to make the same points using different approaches, but they are still as flawed as they were the first time.
As for Baptism, that is a straw man.
Your last comment just shows desperation. There is a reason why Christ said that many are called but few are chosen. Straight is the Gate and Narrow the Way and few there be that find it. Etc, ect.
“more than one woman testified under oath that they slept with Jo.”
A lot also claimed to have fathered chidren with him but DNA evidence has proven those claims false. What does that say about claims from 170 years ago? Not everything you read is true grindael. You can believe what you want to but you have produced things which may or may not be true, you are hazarding a guess because you are putting faith in sources that cannot be verified.
You have said however that the 13 women who slept with him were married to him. therefore it was not bigamy or adultery, it was polygamy.
A lot of things were made up in those days and I will gove you an example. Yesterday I was reading interviews that had been done with David Whitmer, who did leave the mormons. You may recall that he was one of the 3 witnesses. he said that claims had been made that he recanted his testimony of the gold plates, etc. He made a statement that said those claims were false, that he had seen the plates. The problem is, grindael that probably for every reference you come up with to back up what you say, there are references that also claim the opposite. It is a matter of record that any woman who claimed Joseph had children with them, those claims have been proven false so sources from 100-170 years ago may or may not be true.
You quote for example, “Joseph Smith’s personal secretary records that on May 22nd, 1843, Smith’s first wife Emma found Joseph and Eliza Partridge secluded in an upstairs bedroom at the Smith home. Emma was devastated”.
That can be read different ways as I will show you. You are assuming that Emma did not know of the marriage (although I am sure you could find something from someone that shows she didn’t and that may or may not be true) but just being devastated does not mean she did not know. It is well known Emma hated the concept of plural marriage and even knowing about Josephs other marriages, she would still be devastated. I read that she was asked once if it was all true (the gold plates, mormonism, etc) and her reply tells the story. She said it was, but she wishes it wasn’t. From what I have read, she knew about the other wives but hated it all.
The point is, don’t believe everything you read.
Ok, proof of churches teaching fornication etc. have you heard of openly gay clergy? have you heard of churches pereforming sames sex marriages? If not there is the unitarians. they have been celebrating same sex unions for years. Obscure? Maybe, but what about the growing list of bishops of different denominations wanting to perform same sex unions? Anglicans, there is jewish temple that performs same sex marriages (are jews obscure?) How about south congregational church that performs same sex marriages? Are they all obscure?
If they follow Jesus or God, how can they do these things? How can they do them if they are not within the teachings of their churches? If their churches teach the opposite, why are they allowed to perform those marriages? Some churches are changing their standards to be anti christ. That is one reason I have high respect for the catholic church, they do not bend to whims.
You say,”We do KNOW the commandments. They are in the Bible. If a church says it is Christian, but does not follow the teachings of Christ and his Apostles, then they are not really Christians, are they?”
you talk about commandments and teachings. Every teaching is not a commandment. Some teachings tell us what we need to do or not do and teachings tell us things like what is God like or how did mankind begin. I don’t think the mormons do not keep the commandments contained in the scriptures but teachings do vary, that is true. Take the 10 commandments, the mormons teach them, that is a fact. It is the teachings though grindael.
You think the argument I make about differences in teachings is not important. I think it is and here is why. Look at the differences of christian religions on the subject of Baptism.
Catholic belief is baptism by sprinkling, pouring or immersion. they accept other churches baptisms if done in the same way and they baptise infants. Baptism in necessary for salvation.
Baptist belief is by immersion ONLY. Babies not baptised and they accept baptism from other churches ONLY if done by immersion. Baptism is not entirely necessary for salvation.
This presents some problems. If the baptists are correct, if I am sprinkled, my baptism is not recognised by God. If I baptise my baby, that is not recognised by God. But then the don’t seem to think it is entirely necessary anyway.
On the other hand, the catholics say baptism is necessary for salvation. If the catholics are right and I am a baptist without baptism, I am not getting salvation.
I would have thought getting baptism right would be important. You don’t seem to think it is but the catholics believe it is necessary for salvation.
how about another teaching – authority.
The catholics believe the authority was handed on by St. Peter. They believe NO other church has the authority of God.
Lutherans believe authority comes from the scriptures (not God).
So who has the authority?
Here’s a very important question – Is church connection necessary for salvation?
Catholics say membership in the catholic church is necessary.
Episcopalians say it is not necessary to join them but just to join some church.
How about ressurection?
Catholics say the soul is reunited with a glorified body.
Episcopalians say a type of spiritual body but without the body. Interestingly a retired episcopalian bishop did not believe that Jesus was even resurrected.
I have presented some issues to you, each different interpretations of scripture. Each issue affects our salvation, yet if we choose the wrong one, we may not even receive salvation with God. I would have thought finding the correct answer to these questions was extremely important for each of us. I think you said you go to a non denominational church. If the catholics are right, then your life after death is in peril as is mine. My sisters inlaw were sprinkled at baptism. According the the baptists, my sisters in law may not recieve salvation. If the catholics are right, then if I go to a non catholic church, the church I go to will not have God’s authority. If the catholics are right, i will have a glorified body but if the episcopalians are correct, I will have a spirit body.
Which teachings are correct grindael because they all affect my salvation after this life. If there is desperation, it is because I want to know the truth. Smith was right when he said it was confusing because all the religions taught the same scripture so differently. You think wanting to know the truth is not important, well that is your choice. I want to know what the truth is. Then I will know how to live correctly in accordance with what Jesus taught. If baptism is the only way to enter the kingdom of God, as Jesus told nicodemus, then I want to know how to be baptised. If jesus was baptised by immersion then I want to be baptised by immersion because he was perfect and did things perfectly. then I will be able to enter in at the gate and I will have found it.
I am just surprised that the answers to these types of questions are taken very lightly by you.
also to your comment,
”We do KNOW the commandments. They are in the Bible. If a church says it is Christian, but does not follow the teachings of Christ and his Apostles, then they are not really Christians, are they?”
That means many churches are not Christian. I have shown you some of the different teachings different churches teach grindael. Jesus didn’t teach different interpretations to different people, he taught the one truth. Men have given different interpretations.
So even going by your own words, there is either one church that teaches what jesus taught or there are none. There is NO church that teaches the same thing so every church except one can only the Christian church. If a church does not teach the correct doctrine in terms of authority or baptism, resurrection or whatever jesus taught, that church cannot be the church that truly teaches what jesus taught. So on that subject the mormons and catholics agree with you, they belive that there is only one true church. The mormons go further and at least say there is some truth in other churches, just not all the truth.
Grindael, you have increased my conviction that it is important to find the church that teaches the whole truth. The mormons would argue that other churches are still Christian, just not possessing the whole truth. That is what I have thought for a long time, in fact that is how protestants started, by disagreement with the catholic church. Your statement also tells me that the church you go to, is, to you, the only true Christian church because you have told me that anything that does not teach what jesus or his apostles taught is not Christian. If you believe that you are in the only truly Christian church, congratulations, I don’t agree that they all can be correct if they don’t teach what jesus taught. you obviously agree. the question really is, which one is?
And how, pray tell can you VERIFY that Jo did NOT sleep with any of them? I have statements made under oath. What do you have? Nothing. Simply saying that not everything I read is true is ludicrous. These are statements made by multiple wives of Jo, under oath at a legal trial. They are credible, and believable.
It was BIGAMY under the law when he claimed to have married the second wife. Since any marriage after the first was not recognized by law, it was adultery, then bigamy, then polygamy (which was also illegal by the way, hence still adultery under the law).
This is a red herring. What happened to David Whitmer has nothing to do with Jo’s adultery. And David Whitmer was a known liar. He lied that he had the original manuscript of the Book of Mormon, even after it was proved to him by Joseph F. Smith and Orson Hyde that he only had the Printer’s manuscript. He also lied about the Anthon Transcript, saying he had the original copy that Harris took to New York in 1827, when Whitmer knew for a fact that he did not, (Whitmer took a picture of his copy before he ripped off the bottom of it and I discovered that picture in 2012).
And actually, the claims of children by Joseph Smith were made mostly by later historians. Yes, most of them have been proven to be untrue, but there are still some that have yet to be determined. And this makes no difference, because Jo used Dr. Foster to give the women abortions, as claimed by Sarah Pratt and others. And it is a big problem if Jo married woman and did not have children, since that is the purpose of plural marriage as stated in D&C 132. No children makes it even worse than it is.
What does this have to do with anything? You are believing that Emma hated the concept of plural marriage, aren’t you? Why can you believe that, and I can’t believe that she was devastated as reported by Clayton and others? You make no sense. You constantly employ double standards and that is dishonest.
Yes, they are obscure BRANCHES of those faiths. The UUA have about 150,000 members. Hardly mainstream Christianity. And the great majority of Jews do not have homosexual rabbi’s. Please look up the facts and stop lobbing out speculation.
They do not follow Jesus. So what? SOME churches. This will always be the case. Jesus said that “straight is the gate and narrow the way and FEW there be that find it”. Not all can or will live up to his message.
You see, you have created another false dichotomy. I never said that every teaching is a commandment, YOU DID. Then you act like I said it. Stop doing this, it is dishonest. You even quoted me above and I say nothing of the sort. It was YOU who said, “But to keep his commandments you must know them”. I answered that. You are now trying to refocus to something else, to squirm out of what you said. Again, dishonest.
I never said that. I said,
How does that translate into not placing importance on Christ’s teachings? It does not. Again, you are being dishonest. Let’s take Baptism as an example. The TEACHING is important. The METHOD is not so much so. Why? Because there is evidence that it was done in different ways. It is the intent of the heart that matters, not the form. This is a debate that has gone on for thousands of years. You WANT to make YOUR WAY the RIGHT WAY, and make that an example of division, but it is not.
The Mormons used to REBAPTIZE people. Multiple times. Where is that in the Bible? Nowhere to be found. It was discontinued as false doctrine. Another reason not to trust Mormon “prophets”.
Your questions about authority and membership are simply red herrings. I have given you links to the answers. You rejected them. So really, you don’t want answers, you just want to argue.
I did not say that wanting to know the truth is not important. See, you did it again. You put words in my mouth, dishonest words. This is why I know you are not serious. You keep doing this. It is obvious that all you want to do is defend Mormonism, and pick apart Christians Faiths. That is fine, but call it what it is, and don’t be dishonest about it.
Again, another lie. I don’t take any of this lightly. But I do have problems with your approach and your honesty. You are trolling, and I’m not going to waste my valuable time on trolls.
The CHURCH is the BODY OF CHRIST, not an organization or building. You don’t seem to be able to grasp this. Where two or three are gathered, he is there. I do not believe that the church I go to is the ONLY TRUE CHURCH. It is simply a PART of the BODY OF CHRIST. Again, you put words in my mouth that are untrue and dishonest. I have answered your questions, but you have not answered mine with any documentation or quotes. You have speculated, given opinions, but no quotes or facts. You have misconstrued the evidence, and pawned off my sincere answers as just the ramblings of men.
You do not want the truth, you want to argue. Go do it somewhere else. This thread is about the Council of Nicaea. You have turned it into a free for all of dishonest speculations. Confine your questions or replies to the topic at hand, or go to a thread that addresses specific topics that you want answers to.
If you persist in your diversions from the topic I will delete your comments and close the thread.
I really am quite surprised at your response and accusations. You don’t seem the grasp the concepts I have presented. You attack mormonism repeatedly and then come to the sudden realisation that the initial post was about something different. You can’t have it both ways. I felt sorry for the mormon that you and many others ganged up on. I think it is disgusting the way you guys treated, I think it was fof? Was that the one?
I don’t find it surprising that you would consider your church the only true one, mormons are the same. What surprises me is that you seem to think that other churches that teach differently to yours could be a true church of jesus christ as well. isn’t that what you said? let’s quote you.
” I do not believe that the church I go to is the ONLY TRUE CHURCH. It is simply a PART of the BODY OF CHRIST”
So what you appear to be saying is that any part of the body of christ can teach differently to the others and still be a true church. Please clarify if that is wrong because it seems clear from what you wrote.
I have not sought to tear down other churches, merely to highlight the differences and conclude that they all cannot be the ‘true church’ of Jesus Christ when they teach different things. how can they be from the same body if they teach opposing doctrines? What is hard to understand about that?
I have highlighted that different churches teach a different type of salvation to others. My question is which salvation is the correct one. What you appear to be saying is that it doesn’t matter, as long as you are with a mainstream Christian religion being catholic or protestant. So what is the truth grindael? Which church teaches the true doctrines in terms of salvation and life after we die. It’s an important question. Surely you concede that.
Once again, you said,
“We do KNOW the commandments. They are in the Bible. If a church says it is Christian, but does not follow the TEACHINGS of Christ and his Apostles, then they are not really Christians, are they?”
So it seems you are saying you can pick and choose which commandments or teachings are ok to be called a Christian. As you said, “If a church says it is Christian, but does not follow the TEACHINGS of Christ and his Apostles, then they are not really Christians, are they?”
So maybe you can answer me this question, how many churches are the ‘true church’ and can you list them?
That may seem silly but going by your definition, if a church does not teach what Jesus did, it cannot be Christian. A church or anyone can teach out of the bible but come up with a different interpretation based on their opinions and may or may not teach the correct interpretation that Jesus originally expressed. If they do not teach the correct interpretation, then according to your definition of what determines whether or not a church is Christian, they are not Christian.
You say I don’t want the truth, well I do want the truth. i think this comment shows I do but all the chruches or anyone that preaches the Gospel cannot all be correct if they teach differently. they all cannot be Christian based on not all teaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ as he taught it. Only one can be the true one or they are all wrong. 50 different denominations can be the true church as they teach differently. Why is that a hard concept for you to grasp?
Finally you call me a troll and call me dishonest. Insults, what people usually say when they lose an argument. But this is not an argument, it is a search for the truth.
The council of nicaea determined what a majority of those present considered the truth. As protestant religions formed they said no, the catholics were not completely correct and they broke away. they believed the catholic church did not teach the whole truth. Otherwise they would not have formed, would they?
Oh and then you threaten to delete and close the thread. well whatever, grindael, don’t reply to me, I can take it but try to look at what i was actually asking, forget the mormon stuff, there were deeper issues in what I said, open your eyes a bit.
I don’t think you are surprised at all, since you are a Mormon. You came here with an agenda, an agenda to be a troll. I’m not having things “both ways”. Your questions are not legitimate, for you are not “searching” for the truth, you already claim to have it, and are only here to denigrate Christians. You “feel sorry” for FOF? Ok. You don’t know the whole story, but that is about to be revealed, so you will just have to wait.
I didn’t say my “church” was true, I said that I was a part of the true body of Christian Believers. Big difference, something you don’t seem to be able to grasp, even though you directly quote me.
That is not what I said, that is what you said. You interpret as “differences” things that aren’t. But that is the Mormon “restoration” agenda, something you have a vested interest in as a Mormon.
Nope. I don’t, Jesus and his Apostles do.
Red Herring. You don’t understand what I am saying and you are purposefully being a troll to try and corner me into replying to your red herrings.
I know you don’t want the truth, because you are a troll. You are a Mormon, who has come here with an agenda to disrupt the conversation and promote your own Organization, the Corporation of Mormonism. You keep saying only one can be true, but you can’t grasp the Holy Spirit, nor how He works in the body of believers. I’ve tried to teach you, but you don’t want to hear it.
It’s not dishonest if it is true. You ARE a troll. You are a Mormon who has come here with an agenda, and you are acting like you are not. That kind of deception may work on some, but it won’t work here.
Another red herring that I’ve given the answer to, but you don’t want to accept. Luther did not break away over the nature of God verified at the Council Of Nicaea. You oversimplify, and this doesn’t surprise me at all.
Here is where you show your true colors by lying about what I’ve said, I only said I would close the thread (stop further comments). I never said I would DELETE the thread. I said I would delete any further comments made by you.
I know you would like us here to “forget the mormon stuff”, but that isn’t going to happen. My eyes are open. You are a dishonest troll. If you want to continue posting here on this thread, then admit you are a Mormon, that you came here with an agenda to defend Mormonism, and then, maybe, you can continue to post. I will allow you ONE response, which will be approved only if it addresses what I’ve written above. Be careful what you say because I know the truth about who you are and have no problem with carefully sharing that information to show that you are being a troll on this thread.