Jeffrey R Holland lies
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 вер 2024
- James E. Talmage
Articles of Faith
Chapter 2
God is Omniscient-By Him matter has been organized and energy directed. He is therefore the Creator of all things that are created; and "Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world." 58 His power and His wisdom are alike incomprehensible to man, for they are infinite. Being Himself eternal and perfect, His knowledge cannot be otherwise than infinite. To comprehend Himself, an infinite Being, He must possess an infinite mind. Through the agency of angels and ministering servants He is in continuous communication with all parts of creation, and may personally visit as He may determine.
Mormon 9:16
16 Behold, are not the things that God hath wrought marvelous in our eyes? Yea, and who can comprehend the marvelous works of God?
Job 37:5
5 God thundereth marvellously with his voice; great things doeth he, which we cannot comprehend.
Isaiah 40:12
12 Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted out heaven with the span, and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance?
first used by Theophilus (A.D. 168 A.D. - 183 A.D.), or from the Lat. trinitas, first used by Tertullian (A.D. 220 A.D.), to express this doctrine. The propositions involved in the doctrine are these: 1. That God is one, and that there is but one God (Deut 6:4; 1 Kings 8:60; Isa 44:6; Mark 12:29,32; John 10:30). 2. That the Father is a distinct divine Person (hypostasis, subsistentia, persona, suppositum intellectuale), distinct from the Son and the Holy Spirit. 3. That Jesus Christ was truly God, and yet was a Person distinct from the Father and the Holy Spirit. 4. That the Holy Spirit is also a distinct divine Person.
(from Easton's Bible Dictionary, PC Study Bible formatted electronic database Copyright © 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)
Homoousios God Godhead- Substance- Essence- Being -Nature [ all Synonyms ]
One being. Three persons. In other words, one "what" and three "who"s. There is one being, God. There are three persons: God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The distinction is between being and person. One being, three persons. One what, three who's.
thetruthaboutmo...
19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”
+Austin Twiwble Why did God tell him the Creeds were an abomination and the Professors were corrupt and then turn around and give him the Book of Mormon which fits perfectly with the Creeds and Professors ? Not one Creedal Statement is denied in the Book of Mormon
byu-professor.tumblr.com/
beggarsbread.org/2017/08/06/the-abomination-of-doctrine-and-covenants-20/
Isiah said something similar
Austin Twiwble but yet, the pedophile, still attended those corrupt churches. In the Wentworth letter, Joe never mentioned abominable churches. Do some research.
From the Book of Mormon Introduction: Sounds very Trinitarian to me.
"And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen." Oliver Cowdery David Whitmer Martin Harris
Of course The Book of Mormon agrees with the Creeds of the 4th and 5th century Creeds
It's actually modalistic. Jesus is God in the flesh--what its writers call "the condescension of God." The Great Creator condescended and entered mortality in the person we call Jesus Christ. This is the message of the BOM over and over and over and over.
“…God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.
2 And because he dwelleth in flesh, he shall be called the Son of God; and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father - being the Father and the Son;
3 The Father because he was conceived by the power of God, and the Son because of the flesh; thus, becoming the Father and Son -
4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth." Mosiah 15:1-4
Holland is right. Three beings. Their oneness lies in the fact that they are all perfectly united in purpose. Jesus prayed to his Father. That's two right there. At Jesus baptism, a voice from heaven (God the Father) said "this is my beloved son". Then the Holy Ghost descended in the bodily form of a dove and lit upon Jesus. Jesus in the water, God the Father in heaven, and the Holy Ghost in the form of a dove. I count three beings.
+Terry Tippets + He's wrong since Traditional Christian teach three separate and distinct persons also, the only difference is we teach ONE GOD not three like Holland does.+
Joseph Smith said the Trinity is three gods.
"I have always declared God to be a distinct
personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father,
and the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three
constitute three distinct personages and three Gods," (Teachings of
Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 370)
The Godhead consists of the three distinct personages and three gods.. The Father Son and Holy Spirit.
The Father and Son have bodies of flesh and bones, while the Holy Spirit is a
personage of spirit. Robert Millet A Different Jesus page 198
The trinity is three
separate Gods: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. "That these three are separate individuals, physically distinct from each other, is demonstrated by the accepted records of divine dealings with man," (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 35).
first used by Theophilus (A.D. 168 A.D. - 183 A.D.), or from
the Lat. trinitas, first used by Tertullian (A.D. 220 A.D.), to express this
doctrine. The propositions involved in the doctrine are these: 1. That God is
one, and that there is but one God (Deut 6:4; 1 Kings 8:60; Isa 44:6; Mark
12:29,32; John 10:30). 2. That the Father is a distinct divine Person
(hypostasis, subsistentia, persona, suppositum intellectuale), distinct from
the Son and the Holy Spirit. 3. That Jesus Christ was truly God, and yet was a
Person distinct from the Father and the Holy Spirit. 4. That the Holy Spirit is
also a distinct divine Person.
(from Easton's Bible Dictionary, PC Study Bible formatted
electronic database Copyright © 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)
Homoousios, God- Godhead- Substance- Essence- Being [ all Synonyms
]
Jesus Jehovah *" the only difference is we teach ONE GOD not three like Holland does."*
You folks teach three beings that somehow
occupy the same form, essence, shape, whatever. (Impossible to understand). We teach three beings that all carry the title of God. Their oneness comes in the fact that they are all perfectly united in purpose.
+Terry Tippets capro.info/lds-general-authority-jeffrey-holland-on-the-trinity-with-a-point-by-point-rebuttal/
+Terry Tippets capro.info/lds-general-authority-jeffrey-holland-on-the-trinity-with-a-point-by-point-rebuttal/
With such a confusing definition of God being imposed upon
the church, little wonder that a fourth century monk cried out, “Woe is me!
They have taken my God away from me, and I know not whom to adore, or to
address; ---------------Rebuttal: It never ceases to amaze the objective observer of
Mormon apologetic strategy the lengths such apologists go to try and justify
their arguments. Here, Holland fails to inform his audience of just who this
monk was, or the circumstances surrounding his utterance. For the fourth
century monk was the heretic Serapion, and the reason why he cried out was that
he discovered that the “Anthropomorphite” god that he had been worshiping
turned out to be a false god. The Anthropomorphites were a band of Egyptian
monks that held a similar corporeal view of God that the Mormons currently do,
and when Serapion is confronted with the error of his thinking, according the
Early Church Father, John Cassian, Serapion “was drawn to the faith of the
Catholic tradition.” During a prayer of thanksgiving Serapion was so
emotionally overcome that “he burst into a flood of bitter tears and continual
sobs, and cast himself down on the ground and exclaimed with strong groanings”
his woeful statement. Therefore, a little context always helps to understand
just what is going on, rather than a mere emotional special pleading, and
misleading people into thinking something that is contrary to fact.
Jesus Jehovah The problem with CAPro's rebuttal is that whoever wrote it obviously does not know what constitutes LDS doctrine and what does not. Therefore, the rebuttal _claims_ doctrinal status for things that are not LDS doctrine. I'll use one of their accusations as an example. The rebuttal claims that "Holland conveniently leaves out just who this “Eternal Father” is to a Mormon, as well as Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. For the Eternal Father was not always the Eternal Father, and neither was Jesus Christ who Mormons claim that he was, nor the Holy Ghost."
This is where knowing what constitutes LDS doctrine and what does not, really shows. The claim is that LDS believe "... the Eternal Father was not always the Eternal Father..."
Which is just not true. These folks have probably gone into LDS works like the Journal of Discourses (which, as a body of work, is not official doctrine) and found items that appear to be contrary to Christian beliefs. It's a common tactic for those who claim that LDS are not Christian. In the past, some in the church have speculated and written on subjects that the church has not officially taken a stance on. Just because it may appear in an LDS work, does not mean that it is official doctrine. Official LDS doctrine is found in the following works, and in nothing else: The "Four Standard Works (Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price) the Articles of Faith, and official proclamations. That's it. Thus, The Journal of discourse, as I said are not official doctrine. The general conference talks are not official doctrine. Church lesson manuals are not official doctrine. Books written by general authorities of the church are not official doctrine. Why? Because they all contain personal opinion, and personal opinion is not doctrine.
While the rebuttal is probably not deliberately dishonest, it does fail due to the fact that it uses non-doctrinal sources to present it's case.
Try as they might, they cannot honestly claim LDS as not being Christian.
From the Book of Mormon: Mormon 7:7 “….to sing ceaseless praises with the choirs above, unto the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one God…”
2 Nephi 31:21: “this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.”
Alma 11:44 “be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God,”
Those verses sound pretty Trinitarian to me.
However, in contrast to this, early in the history of the church, Joseph Smith taught that God the Father was a Spirit, not a personage of flesh and bones. From the Lectures of Faith, he said this:
“There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power over all things…. They are the Father and the Son: The Father being a personage of spirit, glory and power: possessing all perfection and fullness: The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle…. And he being the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, and having overcome, received a fullness of the glory of the Father-possessing the same mind with the Father, which mind is the Holy Spirit..." ( Lectures, v 2.)
So, here he is teaching that the Father is a personage of Spirit, the Son is a personage of tabernacle, and that the Holy Ghost is the mind of them both. Today, the Mormon church teaches that they are all three separate personages, but one Godhead.
Jeffrey R Holland says substance means same person when the Word means ONE GOD
Substantia homoousios
There were two major Latin words involved. The first is substantia, and Greek Homoousios Although the word was idiomatically to mean “goods” or “property” and in a legal sense to denote “ that to which two or more parties could share legal claim,” there never was never much doubt as to what the Church Fathers intended when using substantia was simply the being of God. Thus to say , with the Latin orthodox theologians, that Father,Son, and Spirit were consubstantialis was to say that they shared the same basic “thing” or “what” that they were: namely, they were God.
Homoousios Godhead, God, substance Essence and Being all synonyms