LDS One of the biggest Mormon lies

SeanMonty said:

Yeah three persons but also one person that's what the bible teaches

Click to expand...

That makes all the sense in the world. 3 persons, but also 1 person.

Peter1000 said:

Not on my part, I believe fully in Jesus Christ.

Click to expand...

It is written in Yahuweh's Word,
even the demons believe (in Jesus Christ), and SHUDDER! (they know their destruction is soon, and eternal).

Peter1000 said:

Interesting, just how do 2 persons in the same one Person speak to each other. Now if there are 2 Persons that are separate and distinct, then they use their mouths and speak face to face to each other, no problem, but if they are 1 seems like a problem to speak to each other, unless someone can explain that to me.

It is like Jesus sitting on the right hand of God in the heavens. If they are 2 persons in 1 God, how is it that they sit by each other. But if they are 2 separate and distinct persons, then it is logical that they could sit side by side.

So can you explain how 1 God with 2 Persons talk to each other, and how 1 God with 2 persons sit side by side to each other. Thanks.

Click to expand...

unbelief ? What He Says in the Bible, is what I posted. If someone doesn't believe me, they don't believe His Word, nor Him.

Without faith , it is impossible to please Yahuweh (Creator, Almighty, Giver of Life/ Salvation ) .

yeshuaslavejeff said:

It is written in Yahuweh's Word,
even the demons believe (in Jesus Christ), and SHUDDER! (they know their destruction is soon, and eternal).

Click to expand...

That's nice, but I am not a demon, and I do not SHUDDER at the thought of Jesus, I worship instead, and I am active in the name of Jesus as he wants us to be engaged in following him. I look forward to living with God and Jesus for eternity. The demons hope they never see Jesus again.

You and I are not so far apart on our willingness to follow Jesus. I believe differently in the make up of God and Jesus than you do, but this does not mean that you have to call me a demon and I know my destruction is soon. That is a little overdramatic don't you think?

Mormons are not the only group who view 'trinity/non-trinity' in the way described by peter1000

Oneness Pentecostals and Unitarians have a similar view

Yet are they seen as 'non-christian' by our "c.f. definition" ?

Many of the Mormon beliefs I have seen in this forum seem bizarre and outlandish, yet no more bizarre and outlandish than having a message board policy be my criteria for who is a christian or not.

God is LOVE. Is the trinity about LOVE?

Anto9us said:

Mormons are not the only group who view 'trinity/non-trinity' in the way described by peter1000

Oneness Pentecostals and Unitarians have a similar view

Yet are they seen as 'non-christian' by our "c.f. definition" ?

Click to expand...

Oneness Pentecostals are modalists; Mormons are not. Unitarians are not Christians. The United Methodist Church accepted the Nicene Creed the last time I checked.

Phoebe Ann said:

Oneness Pentecostals are modalists; Mormons are not. Unitarians are not Christians. The United Methodist Church accepted the Nicene Creed the last time I checked.

Click to expand...

Here are some that reject the Trinity:

Philadelphia Church of God, Global Church of God, United Church of God, Christadelphians, Oneness Pentecostals, Unification Church, and The Unity School Of Christianity.

See: 9 Faith Groups That Deny the Trinity Doctrine

SeanMonty said:

Yeah three persons but also one person that's what the bible teaches

Click to expand...

I think you've not studied theology a lot. All three persons are One God; but the three persons are not one person. Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit. The Son is not the Father or the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son. The Father sent the Son. The Father and Son sent the Holy Spirit.

Hebrews 1 : 1, 2, 8 — God the Father calls the Son, "God."
Acts 5 : 3-4 --Peter calls the Holy Spirit, "God."
John 6 : 27 --Jesus calls the Father, "God."


1. Acts 10 : 39-40 — God raised Christ from the dead.
2. 1 Thessalonians 1 : 10 — God the Father raised the Son from the dead.
3. Romans 8 : 11 — God the Spirit raised the Son from the dead.
3. Romans 8 : 11 — God the Spirit raised the Son from the dead.

Jesus prayed to His Father. All three Persons were present at the baptism of Christ.

ViaCrucis and dzheremi are more educated than I am, and I refer you to them if you have more questions.

For as much as I've seen Mormons on here reference the Pseudo-Athanasian Creed (earliest written form postdates HH St. Athanasius the Apostolic by about a century, and appears in Latin, a language in which HH is not known to have ever written or spoken) in comparison to how much it is actually used around the world of Christianity, you'd think they believe in it even more than Christians do.

dzheremi said:

For as much as I've seen Mormons on here reference the Pseudo-Athanasian Creed (earliest written form postdates HH St. Athanasius the Apostolic by about a century, and appears in Latin, a language in which HH is not known to have ever written or spoken) in comparison to how much it is actually used around the world of Christianity, you'd think they believe in it even more than Christians do.

Click to expand...

Do they quote it to support their denial of true Christianity?

"The Nicene Council did not invent the Trinity in the early fourth century, as some people imagine. A full century before the Nicene Council, Tertullian wrote a voluminous explanation and defense of the Trinity and was viewed by his third-century contemporaries as defending the orthodox Christian faith to nonbelievers. A couple of decades before Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria and Irenaeus, bishops at opposite ends of the Mediterranean basin, both taught the Trinity. A half century or more before Irenaeus and Clement, we find Trinitarian teachings in the authentic works of Justin Martyr, who died in 157. St. Ignatius, a respected bishop, was martyred in his old age. On his way to his martyrdom, he wrote epistles to the churches along the way, making theological statements that are best understood in the context of Trinitarian theology. It is important to note that Ignatius was born about AD 33 and that during his adulthood, people who had known the apostles were still alive. Finally, the Didache, an ancient manual of church discipline that could possibly date from the middle of the first century, quotes the Trinitarian formula of Matthew 28:19 in its instructions for baptism.
"We can trace the dogma of the Trinity straight back to apostolic times. We have it from the pens of bishops and theologians who were charged with preserving and passing on the faith and who lived all over the Mediterranean basin. From this we can only conclude that mainstream theology in the ancient church before the Council of Nicaea was Trinitarian."
Ken Collins’ Website

Although I disagree with some of Dr. Collins' theology, I believe he researched the topic of the Trinity rather thoroughly.

Phoebe Ann said:

"The Nicene Council did not invent the Trinity in the early fourth century, as some people imagine. A full century before the Nicene Council, Tertullian wrote a voluminous explanation and defense of the Trinity and was viewed by his third-century contemporaries as defending the orthodox Christian faith to nonbelievers. A couple of decades before Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria and Irenaeus, bishops at opposite ends of the Mediterranean basin, both taught the Trinity. A half century or more before Irenaeus and Clement, we find Trinitarian teachings in the authentic works of Justin Martyr, who died in 157. St. Ignatius, a respected bishop, was martyred in his old age. On his way to his martyrdom, he wrote epistles to the churches along the way, making theological statements that are best understood in the context of Trinitarian theology. It is important to note that Ignatius was born about AD 33 and that during his adulthood, people who had known the apostles were still alive. Finally, the Didache, an ancient manual of church discipline that could possibly date from the middle of the first century, quotes the Trinitarian formula of Matthew 28:19 in its instructions for baptism.
"We can trace the dogma of the Trinity straight back to apostolic times. We have it from the pens of bishops and theologians who were charged with preserving and passing on the faith and who lived all over the Mediterranean basin. From this we can only conclude that mainstream theology in the ancient church before the Council of Nicaea was Trinitarian."
en Collins’ Website

Although I disagree with some of Dr. Collins' theology, I believe he researched the topic of the Trinity rather thoroughly.

Click to expand...

The only thing that the early church fathers said was they believed in the Father and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and that they were one, but did not articulate any further than that. IOW they did not explain how they were one. That is the problem with the bible. The bible has the same kine of language, but it leaves the reader with questions because some scriptures in the bible prove that the Godhead is made up of 3 separate and distinct people. Some of the scriptures would lead you to believe that the bible teaches that the Godhead is made up of 1 God in 3 persons.

So to quote the church fathers as proof of the Trinity is of no value in this discussion.

Furthermore if you read Justin Martyrs paper on 'Dialogue with Trypho', he believes the Godhead similar to how we believe the Godhead and is not Trinitarian. I have read it many times and it does not read like Trinity doctrine. Martyr was in the transition period that was going away from what the early first century church really believed and what was starting to be taught 120 years after the resurrection of Jesus. It was changing.

Prior to the Nicene Council, Christians taught the Trinity doctrine, but Christianity was illegal and they couldn't convene to discuss the doctrine.

Not sure whether this will answer any criticisms being lobbed at Christians in this thread or not, as I am seeing several consecutive posts from our sister Phoebe Ann about the councils and the Trinity, which tells me that someone I'm ignoring is probably trying to start some ruckus. Peter1000...or Fatboys...probably Peter...you should know better!

Councils have never existed to invent doctrine, and there is nothing in any of them that you cannot find in the earlier prayers of the Church and the writings of the ante-Nicene Fathers, as I have pointed out with regard to the Holy Trinity many, many times (being present in one form or another in the writings of HH St. Ignatius of Antioch, HH St. Theophilos of Antioch, St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, etc., all of whom were pre-Nicaea). Nicaea was a watershed moment for Christianity because it was the first ecumenical council, i.e., the first gathering involving the whole ecumene (the Greek term for the inhabited world, as it was known at the time), gathering bishops from all around the world where there were Christian churches by that point (with some who were too far afield or otherwise unable to attend in person I suppose probably represented by the churches by whom they were hierarchically administered already, e.g., the long-existing Church of India being represented by the Mesopotamians, or the nascent Axumite Church, depending on when exactly you believe it was founded -- since dates range from just before Nicaea to 330 AD, just after it -- by the Egyptians, who would administer it for approximately 1,600 years). Before that there had been many, many local/regional councils (synods), such as those at Phrygia in the 170s to deal with the Montanists, one in or around Rome in the 140s to deal with Marcion and his followers (not sure where exactly it was held, but Marcion was a rich ship builder in Rome, so it would make sense that he was the local bishop's problem), the by that point many synods of Antioch and those of Carthage, the synod of Elvira in what is now Spain c. 305 AD (notable for being the first appearance in writing of a mandate for clerical celibacy in the Roman Church), etc.

I get the feeling there is an idea among those who are suspicious of the ecumenical councils (you know, the kind of who believe that Constantine "invented" the Biblical canon at Nicaea in 325 and other similar fantasies) that ecumenical councils were all big 'power grabs' for the officials of the government and/or church to corrupt Christianity for money and power and wimmins or something, and...nope. That's simply not the case. The difference between an ecumenical council and a synod is one of scope.

In Orthodox Christianity, anyway, each individual Church in the communion is governed by a Holy Synod comprised of bishops of each territory of the particular Church in question (e.g., in the Coptic Orthodox Church: the bishop of Gharbia, the bishop of Qena, the bishop of Khartoum, etc.), which together form the highest governing authority of the Church. Yes, even higher than the Coptic Orthodox Pope (who is properly also the bishop of Alexandria; in the Orthodoxy, the Pope is a bishop, not some separate office, higher than that of bishop), since the Coptic Pope has the honor of chairing the synod (by virtue of his position as the most senior bishop of the Church), but the synod can depose and/or censure him (and has in the past, when necessary). This is a difference between us and the other famous "Papal" Church, the Roman Catholic Church, which is not Orthodox and for which this set up is the opposite (the Roman Pope cannot be forcibly deposed by a synod of his brother bishops, as a synod is not of higher authority than him, as per the declarations of the first Vatican Council of 1870).

But for the other churches which don't have Popes and are Orthodox, it works much the same: the synod is responsible for meeting to discuss church matters, interpret canons and answer difficult questions regarding how to apply them (note: not all churches necessarily have the same canons or, if they do, they don't necessarily read them in the same way; in Egypt, we share 13 canons in common with the Greeks/Chalcedonians, and have another 100+ that are unique to us, but obviously we do not consult with the Greeks on the interpretation of those 13 shared canons, since we're not in communion with one another anymore, and hence are governed by separate synods with our own traditions), and other things like that.

Looked at properly, then, the council and the synod are actually more like a break or safety valve on the ambitions of people who might otherwise abuse their power (not that this doesn't still happen, people being people and all), since errant presbyters, bishops, and even errant patriarchs know that they will have to answer to either their own synod or (should things get bad enough, e.g., in the case of Nestorius, the one-time Patriarch of Constantinople) an ecumenical council, either of which can and will deal with them accordingly. We of course hope that they would take direction from their immediate superiors long beforehand, in the case of a rogue priest or bishop here or there, but sometimes things can grow out of control for various reasons and then it requires more than meetings between individual leaders to fix the problem.

Phoebe Ann said:

Prior to the Nicene Council, Christians taught the Trinity doctrine, but Christianity was illegal and they couldn't convene to discuss the doctrine.

Click to expand...

Justin Martyr helps us know that by his time, 150ad, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit were still 3 separate and distinct Persons.

The Trinity doctrine was not openly taught until after 215ad. That is the time that Sabellius came out with modalism. This was one of the first attempts of the church fathers to establish that although there was God the Father, and God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, they were still contained in 1 God. 1 God, 3 modes or faces. This was an attempt to compete with the Jews, who kind of had an upper hand on the 1 God concept and were calling the Christians polytheists for believing in 3 Gods. Sabellius was excommunicated from the church and his doctrine was considered heretical.

To get a handle on this 1 God concept, the Christians worked overtime to come up with an alternative to what Martyr reported. Finally, they did, and all they did was change 1 word from the doctrine of modalism. Instead of using 3 modes, they used 3 Persons. That is it. Oh and one of the reasons that Sabellius and modalism were rejected is because he used the word, "homoousios" to tie the 3 modes into 1 God. How ironic that the Nicean bishops used the same word in 325ad at the consternation of many of the bishops at the council.

So the idea that the Trinity doctrine went all the way back to the bible is not true. The church fathers did believe in God the Father, and God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, and that they are one, but they did not articulate how They were one. That is why for centuries there was debate after debate, after debate, until Nicea, and the power and authority of Constantine settled the issue on threat of death of death orr exile. I'm sure Jesus was proud.

What occurred at the Council of Nicea?
What occurred at the Council of Nicea?

Phoebe Ann said:

What occurred at the Council of Nicea?
What occurred at the Council of Nicea?

Click to expand...

From your link: "Constantine felt “called” to use his authority to help bring about unity, peace, and love within the church.": In my opinion LOVE is what God is all about. Debating the nature of God is not about LOVE of unity. The Bible is very clear about who God is, God is LOVE. This should be our goal:

(New Testament | Ephesians 4:13)

13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

He is the way said:

Debating the nature of God is not about LOVE of unity

Click to expand...

Writes the guy who follows a religion invented in 1830 AD by another guy who saw fit based on a supposed vision he had (that he told several different versions of, and that wasn't taught in his religion until many years after it supposedly happened) to reject what Christianity had taught about the nature of God since day one, because of course everyone else is wrong except for that guy. Right. There's no way that stance could be seen as "debating the nature of God". Oh heaven's no.

Tell us more about what unity is like!