LDS Mormonism is an enemy of the Cross and therefore not Christian

[dzheremi]

Acts 11:26 says, "The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch."

It does not say, "The disciples that venerate the Cross, were called Christians first at Antioch."

The bible sets the definition of who are Christians, not you.

I get the feeling that you meant this to present a big dividing line between what I've been saying and what you say is the 'Biblical' definition, but I really have no problem with it. As I already pointed out before, the standard 27-book NT used in all churches was first given to us all by our father St. Athanasius the Apostolic, who happened to be the 20th Patriarch/Pope of my church, the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria. Among other things that we were involved in as a church were the drafting of the Creed of Nicaea in 325, and the pronouncing of judgment together with the fathers against the likes of Arius and Nestorius. I think it is therefore safe to say that not only is there no contradiction between this Bible verse and what has actually happened in history (where indeed the Church of Antioch and that of Egypt were so historically closely linked that several "Egyptian" Popes have been ethnic Syrians, we have borrowed some of each others prayers and fasts, the Syrians established one of the most famous monasteries in Egypt, etc.), but that to posit such a difference is to reveal a woeful ignorance of what the Bible actually is. The Bible itself does not set any definition that is contradicted by the councils, as the conciliar era began sometime before the canonization of the NT itself (325 v. 367), and the same bishops were involved in both (and not just from Egypt, but from Syria, from Ethiopia, from Spain, from Cyprus, and so on; in fact, the 27-book canon was accepted in the churches outside of Alexandria in councils held at various locations; I already mentioned that of Carthage in 382, for instance).

So nice try, but I don't buy it. Using the same book that calls the Church, and not itself, "the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15) to try to discredit the very same people who gave you that Bible is futile. Do you think the Bible just fell out of the sky one day, right into Joseph Smith's lap, with a note from the Mormon gods telling him to do whatever he wanted with it? Or could be that perhaps the fathers of the Christian Church gathered throughout the world might actually know more than you are giving them credit for?

It is a simple test. Are you a disciple of Jesus, you are a Christian. Mormons are disciples of Jesus.

And yet the verse you quoted clearly shows that the name "Christian" was applied to the followers of Christ by others, not by themselves ('they were first called Christians at Antioch'), so it's much more like what I and others have been saying throughout this thread: Mormons may call themselves Christian, and they may claim to worship the same God as Christians do, but as the theology does not fit, they are not accepted. Not everyone gets to be a disciple just because they say they are. There has to be some kind of outside standard on a communal level, or else presumably we'd still be commemorating Judas as an apostle, rather than as a traitor, maybe the Judaizers would have been accepted at the Council of Jerusalem, and all kinds of other things that didn't actually happen would've happened. Alas, in the world as it actually is, Mormons are not disciples of Christ -- they are disciples of Mormonism, which is not Christian.

It seems like you want your religion to be accepted at face value because you guys keep repeating that, no, you really do believe the same things as we do, but then cannot account for the discrepancies between your beliefs and Christian belief.

We are Christians, even though we do not venerate the cross. We certainly are not enemies of the cross. That is a silly statement. We understand, and appreciate fully the importance of the sacrifice that Jesus did for us on the cross.

I can't remember who wrote it in this thread, but someone wrote on another page that you guys seem to think that saying "Hey, thanks, Jesus" is enough to show that you have the same theology of the Cross as other Christians. That is so profoundly not so, I'm out of ways to explain it without repeating myself. When I posted a very clear Coptic Orthodox prayer for the Feast of the Cross, the only response I got was "Are you complaining that Mormons don't have long prayers?" or some such reply that completely missed the point.

I don't think Jesus is betrayed by a few perfunctory mentions from a religion that does not even believe that He is God (and, yes, I read all of the stuff posted and linked to here by your fellow Mormons as to how you guys believe that, and it's incredibly wrong, so protestations to the contrary are a waste of space), but it is going to take a lot more than that to convince most Christians that Mormonism is actually a form of Christianity. If it were merely a matter of showing where oblique references to the sacrifice on the cross are made, then you'd be on easy street, but then so would Islam...since the Qur'an similarly references the crucifixion disparagingly, or Judaism, since some of their historians wrote about it. In other words, just like the literal wearing of a cross does not immediately make someone Christian, the mention of Jesus by name, and the oblique reference (not even mention) of the cross does not make a religion Christian, either.

We have just chosen to focus on the resurrection and the ascension and life eternal, so our spires send your eyes to the heavens.

...which I dare say is useless, as the Mormon religion itself may damn its believers to hell.

 

[dzheremi]

Because we do not venerate or worship the cross, does not mean that we revile the cross.

Ehhh...doesn't help.

The cross was the instrument of death to accomplish the atonement.

Yes, it was! Was! And now, living in the world as we do after His resurrection, it is now life! It is eternal life!

There is not a large chasm between normal Christianity and Mormons on this subject.

I very much disagree, and it would seem from this thread (populated as it is not just by the likes of Orthodox Christians like John and me, but also SDAs and other Christians) that this is a common and very reasonable observation to make across the Christian spectrum based on what Mormons actually say and do.

We understand the importance of the cross

Based on the way that you described it above, I'm not sure you do. You were right with the "was" part, but what follows from that is definitely off.

We all believe in the same God.

Okay, this one's just a straight no. Absolutely not. Neither I nor any traditional Christian who understands even the basics of Christian theology will ever agree with this Mormon concept of God that is three individual gods united in purpose rather than in substance. That's why I've written the word homoousios more times in this thread than I can even remember. If you don't believe that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are homoousios (and, according to what Mormons have told me in very explicit terms in this thread, you do not), then we most definitely do not believe in the same God. The Mormon god is polytheistic, while Christians are monotheists. There is no common ground here, other than the fact that you have adopted some Christian nomenclature in order to better confuse yourselves and others (Father, Son, Holy Spirit, Godhead, etc).

We just believe differently about His nature.

Yeah, which is not your right to do, if you want others to accept your claim of being Christians.

Look, as a Coptic Orthodox person, I am certainly sensitive to where debates about the nature of Christ may take us, but Mormons would need to get the basics correct before even reaching that level of nuance, which you very much don't, so I cannot for a second buy this whole "We believe the same, we just believe differently about X" idea. When X is the difference between the worship of the Holy Trinity and the worship of a set of three separate gods (among how many who were "once like us", or however it appeared early in this thread to broach the Mormon belief in the creation of gods and premortal life and all that stuff?), then that's not going to do.

Sorry, but Christianity actually means something. There has to be content to the belief or else there's no defining nor defending it, and for basically all of Christian history for two millennia, the ideas that would later reappear in Mormonism were outright rejected by every Christian on the face of the planet. And thanks be to God, they largely still are, because Mormonism is certainly just as non-Christian today as it was in the past when it was called Arianism (another heresy which denied Christ's consubstantiality with the Father and instead treated Christ as a created being, as Mormonism does).

 

[Hoghead1]

Ehhh...doesn't help.



Yes, it was! Was! And now, living in the world as we do after His resurrection, it is now life! It is eternal life!



I very much disagree, and it would seem from this thread (populated as it is not just by the likes of Orthodox Christians like John and me, but also SDAs and other Christians) that this is a common and very reasonable observation to make across the Christian spectrum based on what Mormons actually say and do.



Based on the way that you described it above, I'm not sure you do. You were right with the "was" part, but what follows from that is definitely off.



Okay, this one's just a straight no. Absolutely not. Neither I nor any traditional Christian who understands even the basics of Christian theology will ever agree with this Mormon concept of God that is three individual gods united in purpose rather than in substance. That's why I've written the word homoousios more times in this thread than I can even remember. If you don't believe that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are homoousios (and, according to what Mormons have told me in very explicit terms in this thread, you do not), then we most definitely do not believe in the same God. The Mormon god is polytheistic, while Christians are monotheists. There is no common ground here, other than the fact that you have adopted some Christian nomenclature in order to better confuse yourselves and others (Father, Son, Holy Spirit, Godhead, etc).



Yeah, which is not your right to do, if you want others to accept your claim of being Christians.

Look, as a Coptic Orthodox person, I am certainly sensitive to where debates about the nature of Christ may take us, but Mormons would need to get the basics correct before even reaching that level of nuance, which you very much don't, so I cannot for a second buy this whole "We believe the same, we just believe differently about X" idea. When X is the difference between the worship of the Holy Trinity and the worship of a set of three separate gods (among how many who were "once like us", or however it appeared early in this thread to broach the Mormon belief in the creation of gods and premortal life and all that stuff?), then that's not going to do.

Sorry, but Christianity actually means something. There has to be content to the belief or else there's no defining nor defending it, and for basically all of Christian history for two millennia, the ideas that would later reappear in Mormonism were outright rejected by every Christian on the face of the planet. And thanks be to God, they largely still are, because Mormonism is certainly just as non-Christian today as it was in the past when it was called Arianism (another heresy which denied Christ's consubstantiality with the Father and instead treated Christ as a created being, as Mormonism does).

I am inclined to agree with you. Any teaching that states there are three separate subjectivities within the Godhead automatically degenerates into tritheism, not monotheism. That is the problem I have with many Christian members here who keep insisting that the Trinity refers to three separate, unique personalities.

 

[withwonderingawe]

Matthew 7:21, 2 Peter 2:1, etc.

Note this from Matthew 24:23-27

23 At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Messiah!’ or, ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. 24 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you ahead of time. 26 “So if anyone tells you, ‘There he is, out in the wilderness,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here he is, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. 27 For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.

Where did Joseph Smith claim he met Jesus? Out in a grove of trees??? Uh oh....

Actually that is a prophecy about Joseph Smith.

**Jesus called it the "the abomination of desolation". Starting in verse 21 of Matt 24 he said;

"For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be…..Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
Behold, I have told you before. Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not."

Amos 8 says the same thing;

9 And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Lord God, that I will cause the sun to go down at noon, and I will darken the earth in the clear day:

This an idiom saying the prophets would be gone

11 ¶Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord:
12 And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord, and shall not find it.

The true gospel with its prophets and apostles would be gone there would be no one to teach it.

*This next part of this passage I have contemplate for years, it simply never made much sense to me, carcass and eagles until I read about an alternative translation, a non Mormon one.

We always talk in the since of a second coming but if you read Matt 24 closely there are two appearances and once I explain this alternative translation which I will give for Matt24; 27-28 and Luke 17:37 it will make sense.

There is "For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world" this happened after the fall of the temple in 70 ad. And there will be this period where people will run to and fro to seek a knowledge of God and shall not find it.

Then there is an appearance when the "lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together"

Note the eagles gather to him.

Then there is another time of "tribulation of those days" and when this second tribulation grows to a close, the sun will be darken then shall all mankind see his glorious appearance "… coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." and he "send(s) his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect"

First the eagles gather to him then the second when angels are sent out,

So now we are ready to look at this passage more closely.
"For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together."

I found a website called KJV Today, Non Mormon
http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/eagles-or-vultures-in-matthew-2428-and-luke-1737

It explains that there could be several different ligament interpretations of these passages.

First lets look at the word eagle, the Greek word is aetos and means eagle, not vulture. Because a carcasses is mentioned in the passage some have translated it to vulture because eagles don’t eat dead carcasses they find laying around. (although I‘ve seen a beautiful golden eagle eating a dead deer, you would not believe how really big they are).

This website says the eagles could be symbolic of angels, he quotes Exodus 19:4, Isaiah 40:31 and Revelation 12:14.

"There is a textual variant in Revelation 8:13. In Jerome's Vulgate and Alexandrian manuscripts, "eagle" replaces the Textus Receptus reading of "angel." NASB (Alexandrian text): "Then I looked, and I heard an eagle flying in midheaven, saying with a loud voice,.."

So with the first appearance the eagles/angels gather to him and in the second he sends the angels out to gather in the elect. I’m assuming this is what Paul was speaking of in 1Thess 4 "…we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air:"

Now I want to look at Luke 17 "Wheresoever the body is, thither will the eagles be gathered together." The word body there is different than the Matthew reading, body is ‘soma’. Paul uses the word to mean the Church and inter plays it with the body of Christ. So we could understand this to mean ‘Where the body/church of Christ is the angels will gather’. Or just where Christ is the angels will gather.

I really think the way Luke wrote it is the correct one but I want to look at Matt 24 again.

If we look at Strongs the word carcass in the context of the passage is out of place.

There is ptoma which means ‘a down fall’ it is only used in the New Testament 4 times each as a carcass or dead body. Three out of the four makes sense, a dead body is part of the context of the passage.

There is what Strongs calls an alternative word pipto which means to descend from a higher place to a lower place, as in alighting strike descending. So now let’s put that into the context of the passage.

""For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For wheresoever the lighting and or body descends to, there will the eagles/angels be gathered together."

In Acts 3 Peter prophesied that there would be a time of refreshing, a time of restoration. When "…he/the Father shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you". This appearance happened with God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith.

‘For as the lightning cometh out of the east and shineth even unto the west"

Jesus is the light of the world, he first came to his own in the land of Israel but this time he came to the west in the land of Jacob which the blessing that would exceeded his fathers, see Gen 49, which we know has the Americas. (I’ve posted this before)

In acts 1 we read;
9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
10 And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

In Joseph Smith’s history he wrote;
“I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me….When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!”

And, The angels did come, first there was the one flying in the mist of heaven "having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,.." Rev 14 That was Moroni with The Book of Mormon.

Then John the Baptist came with the Aaronic Priesthood, then Peter James and John came bestowing the Melchisedec upon Joseph and Oliver.

And then "…. Moses appeared before us, and committed unto us the keys of the gathering of Israel from the four parts of the earth,….After this, Elias appeared, and committed the dispensation of the gospel of Abraham,…Elijah the prophet, who was taken to heaven without tasting death, stood before us, and said:

"Behold, the time has fully come, which was spoken of by the mouth of Malachi—testifying that he [Elijah] should be sent, before the great and dreadful day of the Lord come. To turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the children to the fathers, lest the whole earth be smitten with a curse—Therefore, the keys of this dispensation are committed into your hands…"

the restoration of the Gospel answers all of these prophecies.

Now we are all waiting for that second coming when every eye shall see him and the angels will be sent out to gather in the elect and we will rise to greet him as the world is burned off.

Are you ready ?

 

[BigDaddy4]

Actually that is a prophecy about Joseph Smith.

It is in the sense that Joseph Smith was one of the false prophets Jesus warned us about.

The rest of your post is just long and wrong.

 

[fatboys]

It is in the sense that Joseph Smith was one of the false prophets Jesus warned us about.

The rest of your post is just long and wrong.

Lol. You don't get it.

 

[dzheremi]

I am always wary of sects or religions whose interpretations of scripture claim that their specific leader/founder is prophesied in a given passage, as though the Holy Spirit hid Easter eggs throughout the text and those who find them are the real followers of the Word while the rest of us who don't think the given passages refer to an illiterate, wife-stealing con man who spread falsehoods around 19th century New York are the ones who are really lead astray by following interpretations that are sane and consistent with the historical trends of actually established churches and hermeneutic traditions (e.g., the Alexandrian tradition, the Antiochian tradition, the Roman/Latin tradition, etc). If we are to take the Mormons seriously, then why not the Muslims who claim that their false prophet Muhammad is the one "like unto Moses" mentioned in Deuteronomy, or more obscure/localized religions like the Iglesia Ni Cristo in the Philippines, who claim that their founder Felix Manalo is the subject of many such Biblical prophecies? Where does the madness end and why?

Mormonism, like the INC (and, to some historical writers like John of Damascus, Islam), is a Christianity-based cult. Nothing more. It just happens to be particularly successful due to its aggressive missionary program that preys on people's ignorance and willingness to listen to any organization that presents itself as Christian. Sad.

 

[Jane_Doe]

I am always wary of sects or religions whose interpretations of scripture claim that their specific leader/founder is prophesied in a given passage

Like Christianity as a whole? Is Isiah 53:5 an "easter egg"?

I don't think so...

 

[dzheremi]

Is Isaiah 53:5 or any other particular passage taught by a minority of clearly self-interested people to represent Christ, or has that been the consistent interpretation of all Christian people for two millennia and counting?

I don't blame you for not understanding the difference, since Mormonism isn't Christian, but there is nonetheless a world of difference between "my tiny religion began in the 1820s teaches that this passage means this" and the apostolic and patristic witness of the first centuries of Christianity that there are certain parameters by which we can reasonably claim that a given interpretation is within the mainstream of our faith or is not. This is why I asked the question that I did in that post, which you ignored: If we are to take Mormons' interpretations seriously, then why not those of others who claim that this or that passage refers to their own so-called prophets, rather than to Joseph Smith? What makes the Mormon interpretation true or any more plausible than those of others, particularly since there were so many errant sects and religions that argued similarly before Mormonism ever existed? Everybody wants to piggy back on Christianity and/or the Bible in order to gain legitimacy with followers of it, whether we're talking Islam, Mormonism, certain types of Gnosticism, or whatever. And they're all false.

It is odd that as a 'restorationist' movement, Mormonism so utterly fails to support itself in this way. Whereas Christianity itself exists apart from Judaism on account of a very definite split between the two precipitated by bulk of the Jews of that time rejecting the identification of Jesus with the promised Jewish messiah (and of course many things following from that), if Mormonism really is Christian, then it has even less of a reason to exist than if its followers were honest with themselves and with us and admitted that it actually forms its own religious tradition, perhaps rooted in some form of Christianity (I have heard talks about Joseph Smith's background in attending Methodist revival meetings before his so-called 'prophethood' began), but ultimately distinct from it (hey, kind of like Christianity's relationship to Judaism! How about that!). Because, again, if you guys were Christians and had even minimally Christian theology and a Christian understanding of the cross, the scriptures, and so on, then there would be no 'prophethood' for Joseph Smith, and hence no Mormon religion, because the things that he preached would be recognized for what they are: a different gospel, mixing a vast amount of falsehood with just the barest sheen of truth, and to be rejected on that account.

Read: Your response would be relevant to what I wrote if Christians argued that they are Jews in a manner analogous to how Mormons argue that they are Christians, but the vast majority are quite conscious of the fact that they are not (historically, we had enough councils and synods to hash out where exactly the line is, so this was a done deal up until about the 19th century, when wouldn't you know it old heresies came back into fashion among those with no historical awareness...*cough*...In fact, the modern plague of "Messianic Judaism"/latest iteration of the Judaizing heresies is even younger than that, with its roots not significantly predating the 1960s and 1970s). So you do not in fact have a point, and your religion is self-defeating and false.

 

[Jane_Doe]

Is Isaiah 53:5 or any other particular passage taught by a minority of clearly self-interested people to represent Christ, or has that been the consistent interpretation of all Christian people for two millennia and counting?

Oh, the double standard!

You're "wary of religions whose interpretations of scripture claim that their specific leader/founder is prophesied in a given passage" (post 347), which Christianity does exactly that. But then you introduce a double standard of 'oh that doesn't apply to me because lots of other people have thought what I've thought over the years'. (this totally ignores the fact that you interpret Isiah 53:5 totally different that Jews have since 800 BC).

Oh the double standard....

 

[Peter1000]

Ehhh...doesn't help.



Yes, it was! Was! And now, living in the world as we do after His resurrection, it is now life! It is eternal life!



I very much disagree, and it would seem from this thread (populated as it is not just by the likes of Orthodox Christians like John and me, but also SDAs and other Christians) that this is a common and very reasonable observation to make across the Christian spectrum based on what Mormons actually say and do.



Based on the way that you described it above, I'm not sure you do. You were right with the "was" part, but what follows from that is definitely off.



Okay, this one's just a straight no. Absolutely not. Neither I nor any traditional Christian who understands even the basics of Christian theology will ever agree with this Mormon concept of God that is three individual gods united in purpose rather than in substance. That's why I've written the word homoousios more times in this thread than I can even remember. If you don't believe that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are homoousios (and, according to what Mormons have told me in very explicit terms in this thread, you do not), then we most definitely do not believe in the same God. The Mormon god is polytheistic, while Christians are monotheists. There is no common ground here, other than the fact that you have adopted some Christian nomenclature in order to better confuse yourselves and others (Father, Son, Holy Spirit, Godhead, etc).



Yeah, which is not your right to do, if you want others to accept your claim of being Christians.

Look, as a Coptic Orthodox person, I am certainly sensitive to where debates about the nature of Christ may take us, but Mormons would need to get the basics correct before even reaching that level of nuance, which you very much don't, so I cannot for a second buy this whole "We believe the same, we just believe differently about X" idea. When X is the difference between the worship of the Holy Trinity and the worship of a set of three separate gods (among how many who were "once like us", or however it appeared early in this thread to broach the Mormon belief in the creation of gods and premortal life and all that stuff?), then that's not going to do.

Sorry, but Christianity actually means something. There has to be content to the belief or else there's no defining nor defending it, and for basically all of Christian history for two millennia, the ideas that would later reappear in Mormonism were outright rejected by every Christian on the face of the planet. And thanks be to God, they largely still are, because Mormonism is certainly just as non-Christian today as it was in the past when it was called Arianism (another heresy which denied Christ's consubstantiality with the Father and instead treated Christ as a created being, as Mormonism does).

dzheremi says: Ehhh...doesn't help.

So telling you we know the value of the cross, but we do not worship the cross, and we certainly do not revile the cross is not good enough, then we will have to disagree, but part friends.

dzheremi says: I very much disagree, and it would seem from this thread (populated as it is not just by the likes of Orthodox Christians like John and me, but also SDAs and other Christians) that this is a common and very reasonable observation to make across the Christian spectrum based on what Mormons actually say and do.

I believe on the subject of the cross, there is little difference. But again if you disagree, we hope we can part friends.

dzheremi says: Okay, this one's just a straight no. Absolutely not. Neither I nor any traditional Christian who understands even the basics of Christian theology will ever agree with this Mormon concept of God that is three individual gods united in purpose rather than in substance. That's why I've written the word homoousios more times in this thread than I can even remember. If you don't believe that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are homoousios (and, according to what Mormons have told me in very explicit terms in this thread, you do not), then we most definitely do not believe in the same God. The Mormon god is polytheistic, while Christians are monotheists. There is no common ground here, other than the fact that you have adopted some Christian nomenclature in order to better confuse yourselves and others (Father, Son, Holy Spirit, Godhead, etc).

I want you to explain what you mean by "substance"/"homoousios". Then give me a real event in the NT that demonstrates your doctrine.

dzheremi says: Yeah, which is not your right to do, if you want others to accept your claim of being Christians.

It is exactly my right to do, and if you accept it, then you join us. If you do not accept it you don't join us. It's that simple.

dzheremi says: Mormonism is certainly just as non-Christian today as it was in the past when it was called Arianism (another heresy which denied Christ's consubstantiality with the Father and instead treated Christ as a created being, as Mormonism does).[/QUOTE]

We are not Arian, because we believe that Jesus has existed for as long as the Father has existed. We do not believe he was a created being (there is a special nuance to that statement). We do not believe that Jesus is consubstantial with the Father and the HS, they are separate and distinct.

Again, show me in the NT an event that proves their consubstantiality.
I can show you 3 events in the bible that prove they are not consubstantial. The baptism of Jesus, the death of Stephen, and the vision of John in Revelations. Now you show me 1 that proves otherwise. Thanks.

 

[Peter1000]

I get the feeling that you meant this to present a big dividing line between what I've been saying and what you say is the 'Biblical' definition, but I really have no problem with it. As I already pointed out before, the standard 27-book NT used in all churches was first given to us all by our father St. Athanasius the Apostolic, who happened to be the 20th Patriarch/Pope of my church, the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria. Among other things that we were involved in as a church were the drafting of the Creed of Nicaea in 325, and the pronouncing of judgment together with the fathers against the likes of Arius and Nestorius. I think it is therefore safe to say that not only is there no contradiction between this Bible verse and what has actually happened in history (where indeed the Church of Antioch and that of Egypt were so historically closely linked that several "Egyptian" Popes have been ethnic Syrians, we have borrowed some of each others prayers and fasts, the Syrians established one of the most famous monasteries in Egypt, etc.), but that to posit such a difference is to reveal a woeful ignorance of what the Bible actually is. The Bible itself does not set any definition that is contradicted by the councils, as the conciliar era began sometime before the canonization of the NT itself (325 v. 367), and the same bishops were involved in both (and not just from Egypt, but from Syria, from Ethiopia, from Spain, from Cyprus, and so on; in fact, the 27-book canon was accepted in the churches outside of Alexandria in councils held at various locations; I already mentioned that of Carthage in 382, for instance).

So nice try, but I don't buy it. Using the same book that calls the Church, and not itself, "the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15) to try to discredit the very same people who gave you that Bible is futile. Do you think the Bible just fell out of the sky one day, right into Joseph Smith's lap, with a note from the Mormon gods telling him to do whatever he wanted with it? Or could be that perhaps the fathers of the Christian Church gathered throughout the world might actually know more than you are giving them credit for?



And yet the verse you quoted clearly shows that the name "Christian" was applied to the followers of Christ by others, not by themselves ('they were first called Christians at Antioch'), so it's much more like what I and others have been saying throughout this thread: Mormons may call themselves Christian, and they may claim to worship the same God as Christians do, but as the theology does not fit, they are not accepted. Not everyone gets to be a disciple just because they say they are. There has to be some kind of outside standard on a communal level, or else presumably we'd still be commemorating Judas as an apostle, rather than as a traitor, maybe the Judaizers would have been accepted at the Council of Jerusalem, and all kinds of other things that didn't actually happen would've happened. Alas, in the world as it actually is, Mormons are not disciples of Christ -- they are disciples of Mormonism, which is not Christian.

It seems like you want your religion to be accepted at face value because you guys keep repeating that, no, you really do believe the same things as we do, but then cannot account for the discrepancies between your beliefs and Christian belief.



I can't remember who wrote it in this thread, but someone wrote on another page that you guys seem to think that saying "Hey, thanks, Jesus" is enough to show that you have the same theology of the Cross as other Christians. That is so profoundly not so, I'm out of ways to explain it without repeating myself. When I posted a very clear Coptic Orthodox prayer for the Feast of the Cross, the only response I got was "Are you complaining that Mormons don't have long prayers?" or some such reply that completely missed the point.

I don't think Jesus is betrayed by a few perfunctory mentions from a religion that does not even believe that He is God (and, yes, I read all of the stuff posted and linked to here by your fellow Mormons as to how you guys believe that, and it's incredibly wrong, so protestations to the contrary are a waste of space), but it is going to take a lot more than that to convince most Christians that Mormonism is actually a form of Christianity. If it were merely a matter of showing where oblique references to the sacrifice on the cross are made, then you'd be on easy street, but then so would Islam...since the Qur'an similarly references the crucifixion disparagingly, or Judaism, since some of their historians wrote about it. In other words, just like the literal wearing of a cross does not immediately make someone Christian, the mention of Jesus by name, and the oblique reference (not even mention) of the cross does not make a religion Christian, either.



...which I dare say is useless, as the Mormon religion itself may damn its believers to hell.

dzheremi says: Mormons may call themselves Christian, and they may claim to worship the same God as Christians do, but as the theology does not fit, they are not accepted. Not everyone gets to be a disciple just because they say they are.

Acts 11:26 in the bible does not say, " and the disciples of Christ who are accepted by the Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian church were called Christians first at Antioch. You do not get to be the ones that accept or reject me as a Christian. The Bible set the definition and since I am a disciple of Jesus, I am a Christian, and you can cry about that all day and night and it will get you nowhere. It doesn't break my heart if your church does not accept Mormons as Christians. Jesus does.

The only way you can solve this problem is do a new translation of the bible and rewrite Acts 11:26 saying, " and the disciples that agree with the Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian church were called Christians first at Antioch." . Then you would have grounds for calling us non-Christians. Good Luck with that.

 

[dzheremi]

Oh, the double standard!

You're "wary of religions whose interpretations of scripture claim that their specific leader/founder is prophesied in a given passage" (post 347), which Christianity does exactly that. But then you introduce a double standard of 'oh that doesn't apply to me because lots of other people have thought what I've thought over the years'. (this totally ignores the fact that you interpret Isiah 53:5 totally different that Jews have since 800 BC).

Oh the double standard....

It's not a double standard at all. Did you somehow miss the entire point of the post you were quoting, about how Christianity and Judaism are different religions, and moreover specifically differ on the identification of Jesus with the messiah? No one is ignoring the fact that Jews do not interpret Isaiah as Christians do; rather, that is exactly what we would expect when they are not the same religion to begin with. Again, the problem for Mormonism is that it claims to be Christian while also wanting to have all of these different doctrines which are not accepted in Christianity. If you just said that you guys were a different religion in the first place, then there'd be no reason for any argument. But instead you persist on claiming that you are Christians, and now you are even invoking some kind of primacy of interpretation for the Jews in order to somehow give yourselves some kind of right to dissent from fundamental Christian doctrine. You can't have it both ways. Either you are a non-Christian religion in which case, fine, follow the Jews in whatever you wish (you already reject Christ, so you guys have that in common with the Jews), or you are a Christian religion, in which case there is a lot of work to be done in correcting Mormon errors that have been accepted as truth on the word of the false prophet Joseph Smith. The sooner all Mormons realize this, the better.

 

[Rescued One]

dzheremi says: Mormons may call themselves Christian, and they may claim to worship the same God as Christians do, but as the theology does not fit, they are not accepted. Not everyone gets to be a disciple just because they say they are.

Acts 11:26 in the bible does not say, " and the disciples of Christ who are accepted by the Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian church were called Christians first at Antioch. You do not get to be the ones that accept or reject me as a Christian. The Bible set the definition and since I am a disciple of Jesus, I am a Christian, and you can cry about that all day and night and it will get you nowhere. It doesn't break my heart if your church does not accept Mormons as Christians. Jesus does.

The only way you can solve this problem is do a new translation of the bible and rewrite Acts 11:26 saying, " and the disciples that agree with the Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian church were called Christians first at Antioch." . Then you would have grounds for calling us non-Christians. Good Luck with that.

"For hundreds of years the world was wrapped in a veil of spiritual darkness, until there was not one fundamental truth belonging to the place of salvation ...Joseph Smith declared that in the year 1820 the Lord revealed to him that all the ‘Christian' churches were in error, teaching for commandments the doctrines of men."
- Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, v. 3, p. 282

“... all the millions of apostate Christendom have abased themselves before the mythical throne of a mythical Christ.... in large part the worship of apostate Christendom is performed in ignorance, as much so as was the worship of the Athenians who bowed the Unknown Gods.”
- Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 269, 374-375

“Said he [a Protestant minister] ‘I've been all through this building, this temple which carries on its face the name of Jesus Christ, but nowhere have I seen any representation of the cross, the symbol of Christianity. I have noted your buildings elsewhere and likewise find an absence of the cross. Why is this when you say you believe in Jesus Christ.' I responded:‘ I do not wish to give offense to any of my Christian brethren who use the cross on the steeples of their cathedrals and at the altars of their chapels, who wear it on their vestments, and imprint it on their books and other literature. But for us, the cross is the symbol of the dying Christ, while our message is a declaration of the living Christ.' He then asked: ‘If you do not use the cross, what is the symbol of your religion?' I replied that the lives of our people must become the only meaningful expression of our faith and, in fact, therefore, the symbol of our worship.”

- Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley, General Conference, April 1975

Interesting comment: "I replied that the lives of our people must become the only meaningful expression of our faith and, in fact, therefore, the symbol of our worship.”

Military headstones are engraved with this symbol:


Provo City Center Temple:


Game:

 

[dzheremi]

So telling you we know the value of the cross, but we do not worship the cross, and we certainly do not revile the cross is not good enough, then we will have to disagree, but part friends.

Okay. The point is that it seems that Mormons think that what Christianity asks of them is to proclaim a kind of value judgment of Christ's sacrifice, such that if you say you know the 'value' of the cross, this is the same or functionally equivalent to the theology that Christianity has historically embraced concerning the cross. I am only saying that this is not true. They're not the same. It is a not a matter of saying "Gee, it sure is a good thing that Jesus died for us on the cross; thanks, Jesus." Of course it is important in the context of this conversation to note that there is nothing inherently wrong with saying that -- indeed, it is more than 'good' that Christ has trampled down death by death, offering life to us and to those who were in the tombs (to quote liberally from the Byzantine troparion concerning this), so it follows that it is okay to say so. But this sentiment alone is not the basis of a sound Christian theology concerning the cross, and hence cannot be a true point of commonality between Mormonism and Christianity, even if the Mormons themselves say it is. There cannot actually be any commonality between those who will not worship the cross and those who do, and in this the ones who would prefer not to focus on it might as well not focus on anything else that comes through it either, since you cannot have anything of the Christian life without it. As our father St. John Chrysostom preaches in his homily XIII on Philippians, "If thou lovest thy Master, die His death. Learn how great is the power of the Cross; how many good things it hath achieved, and doth still: how it is the safety of our life. Through it all things are done. Baptism is through the Cross, for we must receive that seal. The laying on of hands is through the Cross. If we are on journeys, if we are at home, wherever we are, the Cross is a great good, the armor of salvation, a shield which cannot be beaten down, a weapon to oppose the devil; thou bearest the Cross when thou art at enmity with him, not simply when thou sealest thyself by it, but when thou sufferest the things belonging to the Cross. Christ thought fit to call our sufferings by the name of the Cross. As when he saith, "Except a man take up his cross and follow Me" (Matt. xvi. 24), i.e. except he be prepared to die."

I believe on the subject of the cross, there is little difference. But again if you disagree, we hope we can part friends.

Yes, sure, fine. None of this is a matter of personal enmity towards people. I have known several Mormons in my life, and while I disagree greatly with their religion and their identification of it with Christianity when it is not correct to call it that, I have no more problems with them personally than I may or may not have with anyone else. They're fine people in a social sense, they're just in a transparently false, anti-Christ religion. I'm sure they feel the same about me, though that's immaterial when it comes right down to it.

I want you to explain what you mean by "substance"/"homoousios". Then give me a real event in the NT that demonstrates your doctrine.

What the Eastern churches call homoousios is usually translated in Western Christianity as consubstantial. It means "of the same (homo-) substance (ousia)". As you have used this word in your reply a bit further down, I'll assume that it's something you already understand. The three persons of the Trinity are homoousios/consubstantial/of the same substance. One and the same divinity, if you will. This is the problem for the Mormon trinity, as when you start saying that they are not homoousios/consubstantial/of the same substance, then what you in fact have is three separate gods instead of one.

dzheremi says: Yeah, which is not your right to do, if you want others to accept your claim of being Christians.

It is exactly my right to do, and if you accept it, then you join us. If you do not accept it you don't join us. It's that simple.

No. You have made your own gods and then tried to say that they are the same as our God, the One God, the Holy Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, who are One in essence rather than the Mormon trinity which is one only in action but composed of three separate gods who are not consubstnatial. That is not your right. Your gods are not our God.

We are not Arian, because we believe that Jesus has existed for as long as the Father has existed.

Interesting choice of words, as from what I understand Mormonism does not teach that the Father has always existed (see: Joseph Smith's teaching given at the 1844 funeral of Elder King Follett that ‘God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens,’ and that men ‘have got to learn how to be Gods … the same as all Gods have done before.’ -- this is as quoted on the lds.org website).

We do not believe he was a created being (there is a special nuance to that statement). We do not believe that Jesus is consubstantial with the Father and the HS, they are separate and distinct.

Yes, this is of the essence of Arianism. Arius the heretic taught that Christ was not of the same substance as the Father, but was instead a created being. This is why the Nicaean Creed of 325 contains the line "begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father", to combat this heresy,

Again, show me in the NT an event that proves their consubstantiality.

I'd say that the entire NT itself, as well as OT as understood by the Fathers since the beginning, proves their consubstantiality, but don't think I don't realize how pointless this exercise is, given your commitment to the opposite idea. But nevertheless Christ does explicitly say in John 10 "I and the Father are one" in the context of discussing the powers uniquely possessed by Him and the Father. He Himself makes that equation, on the basis of those powers that He possesses to lay down His life and take it up again, saying explicitly "I lay it down of Myself". No one but God may do that, as both Christ and those who He was speaking to well knew. He gives His sheep eternal life, and no one may snatch them from His hand, and (a few verses later) no one may snatch them from the Father's hand. These are all clear statements and associations of Christ with the Father, made by Christ Himself, and have been understood by the Church since time immemorial to be proof of His divinity and His relation to the Father.

I can show you 3 events in the bible that prove they are not consubstantial. The baptism of Jesus, the death of Stephen, and the vision of John in Revelations.

What you are telling me then is that these are three events that your Mormon religion gravely misinterprets in contradiction of 2000 years of Christian witness, including that contained in the Bible itself. This does not surprise me, as Mormonism is thoroughly non-Christian. What am I supposed to make of this? "Oh, I guess Mormons say this proves that He's not god, so He's not god"? That is foolishness. The baptism of Jesus, like His presentation in the Temple, was in fulfillment of the law of Moses, which He Himself said that He came not to abolish, but to fulfill. And so He did. And on the subject of that specific event, it is easy to find in the Fathers examples of how this was understood in early Christianity (as today) to affirm Christ's divinity and preexistence with the Father, thus giving witness to the statement of Orthodoxy in the Nicene Creed that Christ is the One "by whom all things were made". In fact, no less a Western father than Augustine (who wrote quite a lot on baptism in his struggle against the Donatists, so his writings are an easy reference for anything concerning the topic of baptism generally) explicitly ties that clause to Christ's baptism in his Tracte V on John, writing: "Give heed to this, exercise your discrimination, and know it, beloved. The baptism which John received is called the baptism of John: alone he received such a gift. No one of the just before him and no one after him so received a baptism that it should be called his baptism. He received it indeed, for of himself he could do nothing: for if any one speaketh of his own, he speaketh of his own a lie. And whence did he receive it except from the Lord Jesus Christ? From Him he received power to baptize whom he afterwards baptized. Do not marvel; for Christ acted in the same manner in respect to John as in respect to His mother. For concerning Christ it was said, "All things were made by Him." If all things were made by him, Mary also was made by Him, of whom Christ was afterwards born. Give heed, beloved; in the same manner that He did create Mary. and was created by Mary, so did He give the baptism of John, and was baptized by John."

All events in the life of Christ are to be understood similarly, as it is Christ, who is God, who establishes these things which He participates in by which His divinity is made manifest among us. He is not some separate god of a different substance to whom these things happen, but in fact the author of all things. And this divinity He shares is one divinity with the Father and with the Holy Spirit with Whom He shares this homoousian relationship which the Mormon doctrine destroys and perverts by saying that they are not One. That is grave error, and to claim that this is backed up by the Holy Bible only compounds this error.

 

[Hoghead1]

Okay. The point is that it seems that Mormons think that what Christianity asks of them is to proclaim a kind of value judgment of Christ's sacrifice, such that if you say you know the 'value' of the cross, this is the same or functionally equivalent to the theology that Christianity has historically embraced concerning the cross. I am only saying that this is not true. They're not the same. It is a not a matter of saying "Gee, it sure is a good thing that Jesus died for us on the cross; thanks, Jesus." Of course it is important in the context of this conversation to note that there is nothing inherently wrong with saying that -- indeed, it is more than 'good' that Christ has trampled down death by death, offering life to us and to those who were in the tombs (to quote liberally from the Byzantine troparion concerning this), so it follows that it is okay to say so. But this sentiment alone is not the basis of a sound Christian theology concerning the cross, and hence cannot be a true point of commonality between Mormonism and Christianity, even if the Mormons themselves say it is. There cannot actually be any commonality between those who will not worship the cross and those who do, and in this the ones who would prefer not to focus on it might as well not focus on anything else that comes through it either, since you cannot have anything of the Christian life without it. As our father St. John Chrysostom preaches in his homily XIII on Philippians, "If thou lovest thy Master, die His death. Learn how great is the power of the Cross; how many good things it hath achieved, and doth still: how it is the safety of our life. Through it all things are done. Baptism is through the Cross, for we must receive that seal. The laying on of hands is through the Cross. If we are on journeys, if we are at home, wherever we are, the Cross is a great good, the armor of salvation, a shield which cannot be beaten down, a weapon to oppose the devil; thou bearest the Cross when thou art at enmity with him, not simply when thou sealest thyself by it, but when thou sufferest the things belonging to the Cross. Christ thought fit to call our sufferings by the name of the Cross. As when he saith, "Except a man take up his cross and follow Me" (Matt. xvi. 24), i.e. except he be prepared to die."



Yes, sure, fine. None of this is a matter of personal enmity towards people. I have known several Mormons in my life, and while I disagree greatly with their religion and their identification of it with Christianity when it is not correct to call it that, I have no more problems with them personally than I may or may not have with anyone else. They're fine people in a social sense, they're just in a transparently false, anti-Christ religion. I'm sure they feel the same about me, though that's immaterial when it comes right down to it.



What the Eastern churches call homoousios is usually translated in Western Christianity as consubstantial. It means "of the same (homo-) substance (ousia)". As you have used this word in your reply a bit further down, I'll assume that it's something you already understand. The three persons of the Trinity are homoousios/consubstantial/of the same substance. One and the same divinity, if you will. This is the problem for the Mormon trinity, as when you start saying that they are not homoousios/consubstantial/of the same substance, then what you in fact have is three separate gods instead of one.

dzheremi says: Yeah, which is not your right to do, if you want others to accept your claim of being Christians.



No. You have made your own gods and then tried to say that they are the same as our God, the One God, the Holy Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, who are One in essence rather than the Mormon trinity which is one only in action but composed of three separate gods who are not consubstnatial. That is not your right. Your gods are not our God.



Interesting choice of words, as from what I understand Mormonism does not teach that the Father has always existed (see: Joseph Smith's teaching given at the 1844 funeral of Elder King Follett that ‘God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens,’ and that men ‘have got to learn how to be Gods … the same as all Gods have done before.’ -- this is as quoted on the lds.org website).



Yes, this is of the essence of Arianism. Arius the heretic taught that Christ was not of the same substance as the Father, but was instead a created being. This is why the Nicaean Creed of 325 contains the line "begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father", to combat this heresy,



I'd say that the entire NT itself, as well as OT as understood by the Fathers since the beginning, proves their consubstantiality, but don't think I don't realize how pointless this exercise is, given your commitment to the opposite idea. But nevertheless Christ does explicitly say in John 10 "I and the Father are one" in the context of discussing the powers uniquely possessed by Him and the Father. He Himself makes that equation, on the basis of those powers that He possesses to lay down His life and take it up again, saying explicitly "I lay it down of Myself". No one but God may do that, as both Christ and those who He was speaking to well knew. He gives His sheep eternal life, and no one may snatch them from His hand, and (a few verses later) no one may snatch them from the Father's hand. These are all clear statements and associations of Christ with the Father, made by Christ Himself, and have been understood by the Church since time immemorial to be proof of His divinity and His relation to the Father.



What you are telling me then is that these are three events that your Mormon religion gravely misinterprets in contradiction of 2000 years of Christian witness, including that contained in the Bible itself. This does not surprise me, as Mormonism is thoroughly non-Christian. What am I supposed to make of this? "Oh, I guess Mormons say this proves that He's not god, so He's not god"? That is foolishness. The baptism of Jesus, like His presentation in the Temple, was in fulfillment of the law of Moses, which He Himself said that He came not to abolish, but to fulfill. And so He did. And on the subject of that specific event, it is easy to find in the Fathers examples of how this was understood in early Christianity (as today) to affirm Christ's divinity and preexistence with the Father, thus giving witness to the statement of Orthodoxy in the Nicene Creed that Christ is the One "by whom all things were made". In fact, no less a Western father than Augustine (who wrote quite a lot on baptism in his struggle against the Donatists, so his writings are an easy reference for anything concerning the topic of baptism generally) explicitly ties that clause to Christ's baptism in his Tracte V on John, writing: "Give heed to this, exercise your discrimination, and know it, beloved. The baptism which John received is called the baptism of John: alone he received such a gift. No one of the just before him and no one after him so received a baptism that it should be called his baptism. He received it indeed, for of himself he could do nothing: for if any one speaketh of his own, he speaketh of his own a lie. And whence did he receive it except from the Lord Jesus Christ? From Him he received power to baptize whom he afterwards baptized. Do not marvel; for Christ acted in the same manner in respect to John as in respect to His mother. For concerning Christ it was said, "All things were made by Him." If all things were made by him, Mary also was made by Him, of whom Christ was afterwards born. Give heed, beloved; in the same manner that He did create Mary. and was created by Mary, so did He give the baptism of John, and was baptized by John."

All events in the life of Christ are to be understood similarly, as it is Christ, who is God, who establishes these things which He participates in by which His divinity is made manifest among us. He is not some separate god of a different substance to whom these things happen, but in fact the author of all things. And this divinity He shares is one divinity with the Father and with the Holy Spirit with Whom He shares this homoousian relationship which the Mormon doctrine destroys and perverts by saying that they are not One. That is grave error, and to claim that this is backed up by the Holy Bible only compounds this error.

OK, I read y our post. Question: Are you saying there are three subjectivities within the Godhead? If so, that would definitely be tritheism.

 

[dzheremi]

dzheremi says: Mormons may call themselves Christian, and they may claim to worship the same God as Christians do, but as the theology does not fit, they are not accepted. Not everyone gets to be a disciple just because they say they are.

Acts 11:26 in the bible does not say, " and the disciples of Christ who are accepted by the Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian church were called Christians first at Antioch. You do not get to be the ones that accept or reject me as a Christian. The Bible set the definition and since I am a disciple of Jesus, I am a Christian, and you can cry about that all day and night and it will get you nowhere. It doesn't break my heart if your church does not accept Mormons as Christians. Jesus does.

The only way you can solve this problem is do a new translation of the bible and rewrite Acts 11:26 saying, " and the disciples that agree with the Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian church were called Christians first at Antioch." . Then you would have grounds for calling us non-Christians. Good Luck with that.

And just when I thought I had read the silliest thing this thread has to offer in the earlier invocation of the Jews against Christianity to give Mormonism some veneer of legitimacy which it does not have, we now have this...whatever this is...argument from ethnicity or ecclesiology that I have never, ever made nor seen anyone else make in this thread. It's the height of ridiculousness.

Look, the entire point of anything I post or have posted in this thread is how thoroughly against you the weight of all Christian history is. Yes, some things I have written about relate specifically to Alexandria, because that's how history unfolded (e.g., in the canonization of the scriptures), but they're also the same principles by which the churches of Armenia, Axum, Cyprus, Greece, Carthage, Rome, etc. operated, because that's also a matter of history. And so it is borne out in this thread, as the OP is not a Coptic Orthodox person, and BigDaddy4 is not a Coptic Orthodox person, and so forth. Don't make this discussion into something that it is not. The point is that some things are so basic that they are held to by all Christianity, and always have been. And Mormonism does not hold to those things, but to other doctrines that place it outside of Christianity entirely.

It is most certainly not my point that I am right because I am Coptic Orthodox and you are not. Mormonism would be just as wrong if I were something else. This thread is not about me or any other individual person. It's about how Mormonism is wrong and most definitely not Christian.

 

[dzheremi]

OK, I read y our post. Question: Are you saying there are three subjectivities within the Godhead? If so, that would definitely be tritheism.

I don't know what you mean by the use of the word 'subjectivities', so I can't say for sure. One and the same divinity is manifested in and shared equally by three Persons, to be sure, but I'm not aware of any patristic usage of the term 'subjectivies', so I'm inclined to say no, if only because this is not how we traditionally talk about God.

As I understand the usage of the term Godhead (which is an English word from the fourteenth century, where it was used in Wycliffe's version to translate Greek words meaning both 'divinity, divine nature' and 'diety'), however, it refers to the 'ousia' or substance of God, which is one, so it is no way to correct to say that there are three. It does not even refer to the persons, which is the only sense in which we can speak of three, as God does not have three separate divinities or substances shared between heteroousian persons (that would be Mormonism's polytheistic trinity, which is heresy of the highest order). So that's a more definite no.

 

[Peter1000]

And just when I thought I had read the silliest thing this thread has to offer in the earlier invocation of the Jews against Christianity to give Mormonism some veneer of legitimacy which it does not have, we now have this...whatever this is...argument from ethnicity or ecclesiology that I have never, ever made nor seen anyone else make in this thread. It's the height of ridiculousness.

Look, the entire point of anything I post or have posted in this thread is how thoroughly against you the weight of all Christian history is. Yes, some things I have written about relate specifically to Alexandria, because that's how history unfolded (e.g., in the canonization of the scriptures), but they're also the same principles by which the churches of Armenia, Axum, Cyprus, Greece, Carthage, Rome, etc. operated, because that's also a matter of history. And so it is borne out in this thread, as the OP is not a Coptic Orthodox person, and BigDaddy4 is not a Coptic Orthodox person, and so forth. Don't make this discussion into something that it is not. The point is that some things are so basic that they are held to by all Christianity, and always have been. And Mormonism does not hold to those things, but to other doctrines that place it outside of Christianity entirely.

It is most certainly not my point that I am right because I am Coptic Orthodox and you are not. Mormonism would be just as wrong if I were something else. This thread is not about me or any other individual person. It's about how Mormonism is wrong and most definitely not Christian.

You continue to miss the point. The bible has defined who can be a Christian, not you or all of the Christian churches today, but the bible. It doesn't matter what the history of Christianity says, the bible says, "the disciples of Christ were called Christians first at Antioch. It is not a complicated definition. IOW if you are a follower of Christ, you are a Christian. Under that definition, Mormons are Christians. Under your definition we are not Christians, Athanasius would turn in his grave.

BTW, you realize that most of your knowledge of JS comes from his critics. Well if I were to read mostly what the critics say of Athanasius, it works out that he is way worse than JS ever thought of being. I know you revere him as a Saint, like we revere JS as a prophet, but his critics thought him to be anii-Christ/anti-Christian. So it is interesting how we view great people. The angel Moroni prophesied to JS that his name would eventually be known for both good and evil all over the world. Just to let you know, you and I fulfill that prophecy.

I'm sure you have read the history of Christianity, especially around the time of Athanasius and Constantine.
You are aware that soon after pagan worship was suppressed, and about 385 A.D., the new Christian government for the first time executed Christians that deviated from the government-endorsed orthodoxy.
In less than 80 years, the church persecuted by the state morphed into the state-sponsored persecuting church.

You are still at it today, going after Christians who do not believe how you and a lot of other Christians think is orthodox Christianity today.. So good going, keep up the good works.

 

[Peter1000]

Okay. The point is that it seems that Mormons think that what Christianity asks of them is to proclaim a kind of value judgment of Christ's sacrifice, such that if you say you know the 'value' of the cross, this is the same or functionally equivalent to the theology that Christianity has historically embraced concerning the cross. I am only saying that this is not true. They're not the same. It is a not a matter of saying "Gee, it sure is a good thing that Jesus died for us on the cross; thanks, Jesus." Of course it is important in the context of this conversation to note that there is nothing inherently wrong with saying that -- indeed, it is more than 'good' that Christ has trampled down death by death, offering life to us and to those who were in the tombs (to quote liberally from the Byzantine troparion concerning this), so it follows that it is okay to say so. But this sentiment alone is not the basis of a sound Christian theology concerning the cross, and hence cannot be a true point of commonality between Mormonism and Christianity, even if the Mormons themselves say it is. There cannot actually be any commonality between those who will not worship the cross and those who do, and in this the ones who would prefer not to focus on it might as well not focus on anything else that comes through it either, since you cannot have anything of the Christian life without it. As our father St. John Chrysostom preaches in his homily XIII on Philippians, "If thou lovest thy Master, die His death. Learn how great is the power of the Cross; how many good things it hath achieved, and doth still: how it is the safety of our life. Through it all things are done. Baptism is through the Cross, for we must receive that seal. The laying on of hands is through the Cross. If we are on journeys, if we are at home, wherever we are, the Cross is a great good, the armor of salvation, a shield which cannot be beaten down, a weapon to oppose the devil; thou bearest the Cross when thou art at enmity with him, not simply when thou sealest thyself by it, but when thou sufferest the things belonging to the Cross. Christ thought fit to call our sufferings by the name of the Cross. As when he saith, "Except a man take up his cross and follow Me" (Matt. xvi. 24), i.e. except he be prepared to die."



Yes, sure, fine. None of this is a matter of personal enmity towards people. I have known several Mormons in my life, and while I disagree greatly with their religion and their identification of it with Christianity when it is not correct to call it that, I have no more problems with them personally than I may or may not have with anyone else. They're fine people in a social sense, they're just in a transparently false, anti-Christ religion. I'm sure they feel the same about me, though that's immaterial when it comes right down to it.



What the Eastern churches call homoousios is usually translated in Western Christianity as consubstantial. It means "of the same (homo-) substance (ousia)". As you have used this word in your reply a bit further down, I'll assume that it's something you already understand. The three persons of the Trinity are homoousios/consubstantial/of the same substance. One and the same divinity, if you will. This is the problem for the Mormon trinity, as when you start saying that they are not homoousios/consubstantial/of the same substance, then what you in fact have is three separate gods instead of one.

dzheremi says: Yeah, which is not your right to do, if you want others to accept your claim of being Christians.



No. You have made your own gods and then tried to say that they are the same as our God, the One God, the Holy Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, who are One in essence rather than the Mormon trinity which is one only in action but composed of three separate gods who are not consubstnatial. That is not your right. Your gods are not our God.



Interesting choice of words, as from what I understand Mormonism does not teach that the Father has always existed (see: Joseph Smith's teaching given at the 1844 funeral of Elder King Follett that ‘God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens,’ and that men ‘have got to learn how to be Gods … the same as all Gods have done before.’ -- this is as quoted on the lds.org website).



Yes, this is of the essence of Arianism. Arius the heretic taught that Christ was not of the same substance as the Father, but was instead a created being. This is why the Nicaean Creed of 325 contains the line "begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father", to combat this heresy,



I'd say that the entire NT itself, as well as OT as understood by the Fathers since the beginning, proves their consubstantiality, but don't think I don't realize how pointless this exercise is, given your commitment to the opposite idea. But nevertheless Christ does explicitly say in John 10 "I and the Father are one" in the context of discussing the powers uniquely possessed by Him and the Father. He Himself makes that equation, on the basis of those powers that He possesses to lay down His life and take it up again, saying explicitly "I lay it down of Myself". No one but God may do that, as both Christ and those who He was speaking to well knew. He gives His sheep eternal life, and no one may snatch them from His hand, and (a few verses later) no one may snatch them from the Father's hand. These are all clear statements and associations of Christ with the Father, made by Christ Himself, and have been understood by the Church since time immemorial to be proof of His divinity and His relation to the Father.



What you are telling me then is that these are three events that your Mormon religion gravely misinterprets in contradiction of 2000 years of Christian witness, including that contained in the Bible itself. This does not surprise me, as Mormonism is thoroughly non-Christian. What am I supposed to make of this? "Oh, I guess Mormons say this proves that He's not god, so He's not god"? That is foolishness. The baptism of Jesus, like His presentation in the Temple, was in fulfillment of the law of Moses, which He Himself said that He came not to abolish, but to fulfill. And so He did. And on the subject of that specific event, it is easy to find in the Fathers examples of how this was understood in early Christianity (as today) to affirm Christ's divinity and preexistence with the Father, thus giving witness to the statement of Orthodoxy in the Nicene Creed that Christ is the One "by whom all things were made". In fact, no less a Western father than Augustine (who wrote quite a lot on baptism in his struggle against the Donatists, so his writings are an easy reference for anything concerning the topic of baptism generally) explicitly ties that clause to Christ's baptism in his Tracte V on John, writing: "Give heed to this, exercise your discrimination, and know it, beloved. The baptism which John received is called the baptism of John: alone he received such a gift. No one of the just before him and no one after him so received a baptism that it should be called his baptism. He received it indeed, for of himself he could do nothing: for if any one speaketh of his own, he speaketh of his own a lie. And whence did he receive it except from the Lord Jesus Christ? From Him he received power to baptize whom he afterwards baptized. Do not marvel; for Christ acted in the same manner in respect to John as in respect to His mother. For concerning Christ it was said, "All things were made by Him." If all things were made by him, Mary also was made by Him, of whom Christ was afterwards born. Give heed, beloved; in the same manner that He did create Mary. and was created by Mary, so did He give the baptism of John, and was baptized by John."

All events in the life of Christ are to be understood similarly, as it is Christ, who is God, who establishes these things which He participates in by which His divinity is made manifest among us. He is not some separate god of a different substance to whom these things happen, but in fact the author of all things. And this divinity He shares is one divinity with the Father and with the Holy Spirit with Whom He shares this homoousian relationship which the Mormon doctrine destroys and perverts by saying that they are not One. That is grave error, and to claim that this is backed up by the Holy Bible only compounds this error.

You have again completely missed the point. Let's take the baptism of Christ. You totally avoided the subject of consubstantiality between the 3 Persons, because it does not exist in the NT. And you went off on some tangent that did not prove anything.

So at the baptism, God the Father was speaking from heaven, Jesus was coming out of the River Jordan on the earth, and the HS was between the Father in heaven and Jesus on earth, all 3 in a different place at the same time. This specifically and biblically proves that the 3 are separate and distinct Individuals, each with their own individual substances.

If they were consubstantial, like you say, this is how the baptism of Christ would have been recorded by Matthew. When God, and Jesus, and the HS came out of the River Jordan, God the Father spoke out of Jesus's mouth and said, This is My beloved Son....., and there would not be a dove coming down from heaven and lighting on Jesus's shoulder because the HS would already be in Jesus. This scenerio is contrary to what the bible says. But that is what would have had to happen if God the Father and Jesus and the HS are constubstantial.

IOW Matthew would have recorded no words from heaven and no HS descending like a dove and falling on Jesus. Since the 3 share the same substance, they would all have come out of the River Jordan in 1 body.

You would have to rewrite the event at the baptism of Christ if you believe the Father and Son and HS are consubstantial (3 Persons sharing the same substance)

Mormons OTOH believe that they are 3 separate beings. So our theology allows for all 3 to be in different places at the same time. So we would not rewrite the baptismal event as you would have to. Our theology agrees like a glove with the baptismal event recorded in the bible by Matthew.

Your attempt to prove consubstantiality by quoting John 10 is frought with difficulty. That statement (which is not an event, like I asked for) means they are one, not by sharing mass, but because they are so united in their purpose, it is as if they are 1 God. If you doubt me, and if you are a seeker of real truth, read John 17:20-23 and you will find that all people that believe can be one with God and Jesus. Not one big consubstantial blob, but one, so united in purpose, it is as if we are one person.

It is because of your 4th century Christianity, Greek, Egyptian, Constantinian, Roman conglomeration of orthodoxy that interfers with your being able to recognize NT reality, which is absolutely not Athanasius, Nicean orthodoxy.