Book of Mormon/LDS Contradictions


Recommended Posts

Again, see my comment about using the early church fathers to support a point.

I missed that. Is it in this thread or another? What post #?

I don't use the ECF as proof of any doctrine, which is why I only posted one and a Father who personally knew the Apostles (at least John), but just so show that this Modalism was abhorred in early Christianity and later writers spent a lot of time refuting this principle. Modalism has been rejected by most educated Christians since the ECF and, without going into great detail, is the reason I posted Ignatius.

edited to add: I found your comments on the ECF and completely agree with you

Edited by livy111us
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's understandable, it's just not very easy swallow. It's like the concept of infinity; it makes sense in one way and makes absolutely no sense in another.

I have heard this argument used about not understanding the Trinity. I hope you don't mind the cut and paste.

“This is eternal life, that they might know thee the only true God and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent” (John 17:3). The Greek word for “know” is “ginosko” which means: “To come to know, recognize, understand, or to understand completely” (Vines Expository Dictionary, pg. 627). If one cannot “understand completely”, let alone explain the idea of the trinity, how does one expect to have eternal life?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally don't think anybody understands trinitarianism but that's a whole 'nother thread. I think we've done this before and wasted pages and pages on the subject. At the end of the day I decided I'll never get this three-in-one God concept..

Speak for yourself.

I understand Trinitarian concept of God just as much as I do the Godhead concept.

Now, if you're going to posit that you don't think anybody understands God (Trinitarian or Godhead) then I could agree with you.

Sounds like what we believe with semantics thrown in. .

It is exactly what you believe except that part that makes them One. You believe what makes the 3 persons One is a God state of being. They believe what makes the 3 persons one is a God substance.

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have heard this argument used about not understanding the Trinity. I hope you don't mind the cut and paste.

“This is eternal life, that they might know thee the only true God and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent” (John 17:3). The Greek word for “know” is “ginosko” which means: “To come to know, recognize, understand, or to understand completely” (Vines Expository Dictionary, pg. 627). If one cannot “understand completely”, let alone explain the idea of the trinity, how does one expect to have eternal life?"

We understand the Trinity just as much as you do the Godhead. Now, do you claim that you understand the Godhead completely? Because, I am sure you don't by virtue of the Articles of Mormon Faith that there are things that are yet to be revealed.

For example, do you know completely what substance the resurrected God is? Do you know exactly what substance "flesh and bones" mean? Do you understand completely how a body of flesh and bones can be omnipresent and omnipotent?

No? Then guess what... You're in the exact same boat as Trinitarians. You just insist you know more for some illogical reason...

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I missed that. Is it in this thread or another? What post #?

I don't use the ECF as proof of any doctrine, which is why I only posted one and a Father who personally knew the Apostles (at least John), but just so show that this Modalism was abhorred in early Christianity and later writers spent a lot of time refuting this principle. Modalism has been rejected by most educated Christians since the ECF and, without going into great detail, is the reason I posted Ignatius.

edited to add: I found your comments on the ECF and completely agree with you

Post #20.

I understand your position, but that same church father you quoted could be used to espouse doctrines you reject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spoken from a true non-Trinitarian who has a passing knowledge of Trinitarian beliefs. I thought we've gone past this Ram. You disappoint me.

Why should you be disappointed? As a historian, I simply discussed the history of the concept of God in early Christianity. I kept it brief, not wishing to engage in too much semantics or nuances on the Trinity (there are many). Besides, most would not understand fully the Trinity, as it is explained as a mystery and "incomprehensible." For someone to say that it is not easily understood, is not an attack on the concept, but simply an agreement with the Athanasius Creed and traditional Christian teaching.

As for being "past this", I don't know what you mean. Are you being subjectively upset over me treating this from a certain historical perspective? Here we have Jinc making outrageous claims, based upon nothing in particular but his own subjective beliefs, and when I use history and evidence to back up another stance, you say you are disappointed? Really?

Have you considered that you don't have to agree with me, and that is okay. However, I do expect people that disagree in a discussion to bring something into the discussion to back up any claims they make? For example, if a Mormon makes a claim, wouldn't you expect him/her to back it up with evidence? Or am I expecting too much out of you and Jinc?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, see my comment about using the early church fathers to support a point.

And yet the traditional Christians quote St Augustine and others as "proof" all the time!

The thing is, neither side can "prove" the point. However, we can show that a concept of separate beings is found in the scriptures and among early Christians (using the ECF), which shows that the traditional Trinity is not the only game in town, nor is the Godhead a modern heresy invented by Joseph Smith.

Jinc, you claimed that a Godhead and separate beings cannot be found in the scriptures (see post #5). Several of us have shown otherwise. You have made other claims that we've shown otherwise, using Bible and other evidence.

Now, instead of ceding the point, you dodge the issue by dismissing evidence to the contrary of your original statements. Either defend your statements with the evidence provided including that of the ECF, or accept that your initial statements are wrong. You do not get to pick and choose which evidences are provided or used.

Edited by rameumptom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why should you be disappointed? As a historian, I simply discussed the history of the concept of God in early Christianity. I kept it brief, not wishing to engage in too much semantics or nuances on the Trinity (there are many). Besides, most would not understand fully the Trinity, as it is explained as a mystery and "incomprehensible." For someone to say that it is not easily understood, is not an attack on the concept, but simply an agreement with the Athanasius Creed and traditional Christian teaching.

As for being "past this", I don't know what you mean. Are you being subjectively upset over me treating this from a certain historical perspective? Here we have Jinc making outrageous claims, based upon nothing in particular but his own subjective beliefs, and when I use history and evidence to back up another stance, you say you are disappointed? Really?

Have you considered that you don't have to agree with me, and that is okay. However, I do expect people that disagree in a discussion to bring something into the discussion to back up any claims they make? For example, if a Mormon makes a claim, wouldn't you expect him/her to back it up with evidence? Or am I expecting too much out of you and Jinc?

Ram, we've been through this same exact discussion in a different thread a while back. I have explained several times that the Great Mystery refers to exactly what SUBSTANCE God is made out of... something that Godhead believing Mormons do not exactly know either. It doesn't refer to Trinitarian understanding of what characteristics make God and who the 3 persons are and how they relate to each other - something that Mormons also believe.

I'm neither agreeing with you nor disagreeing with you. I am merely correcting your incorrect understanding of Trinitarian belief. You, as a Mormon, know how frustrating it is to be told what Mormons believe by non-Mormons who can't get it right. I, growing up Trinitarian, gets frustrated by Mormons telling Trinitarians what they believe and can't get it right.

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's called hyperbole, and truly, not very many people get it. It's evident if you so much as ask how many places you need to set at the table if God is coming to visit ;)

It's called a dodge... And truly, many people get it. What bugs me about Mormons is their insistence that Trinitarians don't understand the Trinity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anatess,

Do you know how many Trinitarians over the years have used modalism to describe how they understand the Trinity? Clearly, many do not understand what 3 persons in one God means. As to your insistence that it is only an issue of what the substance is, and not confusion over the 3 persons in 1 God, we'll have to disagree. I'm sure you have a good understanding of it. Yet, I've had Protestant and Catholic priests and lay members alike use wrong explanations to explain it to me in the past.

As for LDS concept of Godhead, we don't have such a problem of mystery and incomprehensibility. We know that God's body is made of flesh and bone, he is a glorified man and that his spirit is made of matter (D&C 88, 93, 130). I can literally look at my own body, make a few changes, and Voila! I have God.

I can then gather my two sons and me together into one vehicle, and I have a simulation of the unified Godhead. As the Trinity is described, we would have to have one being sitting in three vehicles at one time. Even my mind cannot wrap fully around that one, and so I accept it as a mystery and incomprehensible.

Since the Traditional Christians believe that God is of a pure Spirit-substance unlike anything else, there is nothing for you to compare it to, and so it is a total mystery.

The only questions for LDS are in the details of how God is glorified: how the resurrection works, and how God works inside/outside of time.

While I respect the concept of Trinity, it clearly is more complex and mysterious than the Mormon Godhead. To me, anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's called a dodge... And truly, many people get it. What bugs me about Mormons is their insistence that Trinitarians don't understand the Trinity.

Given the various explanations we have seen just on this list, doesn't that suggest to you that many Trinitarians indeed do not understand the Trinity, at least in the same way you do?

I served my mission in Italy, and had the opportunity to talk with many Catholics, educated and uneducated, about their beliefs. Based on my experience, there are many different "Trinitarian" beliefs even among a people as homogeneously Catholic as the Italians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anatess,

Do you know how many Trinitarians over the years have used modalism to describe how they understand the Trinity? Clearly, many do not understand what 3 persons in one God means. As to your insistence that it is only an issue of what the substance is, and not confusion over the 3 persons in 1 God, we'll have to disagree. I'm sure you have a good understanding of it. Yet, I've had Protestant and Catholic priests and lay members alike use wrong explanations to explain it to me in the past.

As for LDS concept of Godhead, we don't have such a problem of mystery and incomprehensibility. We know that God's body is made of flesh and bone, he is a glorified man and that his spirit is made of matter (D&C 88, 93, 130). I can literally look at my own body, make a few changes, and Voila! I have God.

I can then gather my two sons and me together into one vehicle, and I have a simulation of the unified Godhead. As the Trinity is described, we would have to have one being sitting in three vehicles at one time. Even my mind cannot wrap fully around that one, and so I accept it as a mystery and incomprehensible.

Since the Traditional Christians believe that God is of a pure Spirit-substance unlike anything else, there is nothing for you to compare it to, and so it is a total mystery.

The only questions for LDS are in the details of how God is glorified: how the resurrection works, and how God works inside/outside of time.

While I respect the concept of Trinity, it clearly is more complex and mysterious than the Mormon Godhead. To me, anyway.

Given the various explanations we have seen just on this list, doesn't that suggest to you that many Trinitarians indeed do not understand the Trinity, at least in the same way you do?

I served my mission in Italy, and had the opportunity to talk with many Catholics, educated and uneducated, about their beliefs. Based on my experience, there are many different "Trinitarian" beliefs even among a people as homogeneously Catholic as the Italians.

Do you know how many Mormons, including a missionary, can't explain to me properly how the introductory pages in the Book of Mormon says it is One God when I was investigating? A lot of them didn't even know it says One God there!

But then, there are 15-odd million Mormons and only 2-odd billion Trinitarians... if we're going to mention numbers, then my Catholic School, who has been teaching this concept since it started as a school have been graduating hundreds of students every year since its inception in 1910... and that's only ONE school...

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you know how many Mormons, including a missionary, can't explain to me properly how the introductory pages in the Book of Mormon says it is One God when I was investigating? A lot of them didn't even know it says One God there!

True enough. But the point is that your insistence that "Trinitarians" believe thus-and-such is simply not so. There may not be quite as many ideas about the Trinity as there are Trinitarians, but there most certainly is not one monolithic belief to which they all hold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...As for LDS concept of Godhead, we don't have such a problem of mystery and incomprehensibility....

The Holy Spirit is a member of the LDS concept of Godhead, explain to me everything about the HS. If you don't believe he is mysterious then you must know everything about him.

M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Holy Spirit is a member of the LDS concept of Godhead, explain to me everything about the HS. If you don't believe he is mysterious then you must know everything about him.

Knowledge of the nature of the Holy Ghost is freely available to all Saints who honestly inquire and are spiritually prepared to receive the knowledge. It will come via that very same Holy Ghost. But we do not speak of such things casually, and if we have received private revelation on these matters, we hold such revelation sacred and do not share it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Holy Spirit is a member of the LDS concept of Godhead, explain to me everything about the HS. If you don't believe he is mysterious then you must know everything about him.

M.

False dichotomy. According to philosophy, I cannot know everything about anyone (including myself), therefore according to your definition, it is all a vast mystery.

Must I know every thought my wife has, in order to understand her? Must I know of every red blood cell that passes through her veins in order to know her? I do not think so. To pretend she is a mystery, simply because I do not know her shoe size is simply ridiculous. On a cosmological scale, I am as much a mystery to myself as she is to me.

LDS view of the Holy Ghost is as an unembodied personage of Spirit, containing refined mass and matter. I understand what mass is. I understand what matter is. I understand what refined matter is (air is an example of this). I know what a personage is, as I am one myself. There is little mysterious about this. That the Holy Ghost is God is only a matter of glory, not of difference. I am different than my grandchild in knowledge and size, etc. Yet, he can understand much about me, simply because we share many things, including our humanness. In the same way, I once was an unembodied Spirit and will be a glorified personage, so I can better understand the Spirit and God.

For the Trinitarian, however, the substance of the Spirit is unknown, incomprehensible, a complete mystery. This is part of the creed itself. We cannot approach understanding it, as it is of a substance we have never experienced or imagined before. It is a pure substance, whereas we are all of an impure substance, so we can never understand the mystery. Which is fine for the Traditional creed to believe in. But in this thing the concept of Spirit for LDS and others is very different: comprehensible for Mormons, incomprehensible for Trinitarians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ram, I've read The Holy Ghost thread and there was a lot of speculation because to be truthful, the LDS concept of the Holy Ghost is very mysterious. No one really knows who or what the Holy Ghost is in LDS doctrine.

Trinitarians don't really have a problem with seeing God as mysterious because he is mysterious. That doesn't mean we can't have a relationship with God or learn about him, or worship and love him. God is not human and humans are not God and that's what makes our relationship with God very exciting.

M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True enough. But the point is that your insistence that "Trinitarians" believe thus-and-such is simply not so. There may not be quite as many ideas about the Trinity as there are Trinitarians, but there most certainly is not one monolithic belief to which they all hold.

Which is the same as Godhead-believing people. Nothing to see here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

False dichotomy. According to philosophy, I cannot know everything about anyone (including myself), therefore according to your definition, it is all a vast mystery.

Must I know every thought my wife has, in order to understand her? Must I know of every red blood cell that passes through her veins in order to know her? I do not think so. To pretend she is a mystery, simply because I do not know her shoe size is simply ridiculous. On a cosmological scale, I am as much a mystery to myself as she is to me.

LDS view of the Holy Ghost is as an unembodied personage of Spirit, containing refined mass and matter. I understand what mass is. I understand what matter is. I understand what refined matter is (air is an example of this). I know what a personage is, as I am one myself. There is little mysterious about this. That the Holy Ghost is God is only a matter of glory, not of difference. I am different than my grandchild in knowledge and size, etc. Yet, he can understand much about me, simply because we share many things, including our humanness. In the same way, I once was an unembodied Spirit and will be a glorified personage, so I can better understand the Spirit and God.

For the Trinitarian, however, the substance of the Spirit is unknown, incomprehensible, a complete mystery. This is part of the creed itself. We cannot approach understanding it, as it is of a substance we have never experienced or imagined before. It is a pure substance, whereas we are all of an impure substance, so we can never understand the mystery. Which is fine for the Traditional creed to believe in. But in this thing the concept of Spirit for LDS and others is very different: comprehensible for Mormons, incomprehensible for Trinitarians.

Comprehensible and Incomprehensible in this usage is moot. Because, even for Mormons, the pure substance of post-resurrected beings is still incomprehensible until we get there. We even had a long discussion about it here in LDS.net debating the points of how the desire for food or smokes or want to be unique in a post-resurrected body. They just don't tout that it is incomprehensible in mortal probation. Trinitarians have no such claim that it is comprehensible until we get there. They're more pragmatic in that sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which is the same as Godhead-believing people. Nothing to see here.

I gladly concede that those who believe in the Godhead have diverse understandings of what that means.

But that is not the point.

Again, the point is that you continually correct others who argue against an interpretation of the Trinity that you personally do not hold to. That your pre-LDS understanding of the Trinity does not match up with what they're arguing against does not mean they're putting up straw men; it means that there are many Trinity interpretations, and the one they're arguing against is not the one you held to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share