Wow. As a lifelong Mormon converting to Catholicism, the part where you compared Mormonism to atheism blew my mind. You are exactly right. I’ve always thought this but couldn’t put it into words. God Bless you brother.
It's also good to know that non Catholics and non Orthodox don't actually worship God. Protestants and Mormons don't worship God because they do not offer a sacrifice to God (Eucharist) they just go to their services and read their scriptures and that's worship to them but it's more like Bible study.
@@Compulsive-Elk7103 Mormons do have their sacrament meetings where they bless water and Wonder Bread which is their equivalent to the Eucharist, but I wouldn't really call the way they do it worship.
@@thisisjeff9845 correct but they only do their "sacrament meetings" once a month and they also offer it to a false God And their church does not have the priesthood authority
The irony of Mormons critiquing that Christianity had a great apostatic corruption by the Greek pagans is that their teachings much more closely resemble ancient paganism than anything Christian.
@@Compulsive-Elk7103 that the gods were essentially like men but more and in some way superior, that the gods of today were made by older gods, that gods procreate, that creation is a forming from eternal elements rather than true creation from nothing, that different gods have different roles, that gods fulfill their promises only through loopholes, that gods may have children with their daughters.... ringing any bells?
Another excellent video. (I'm your resident ex-Mormon, now Catholic.) I have a few nuances I want to point out, but overall this video was extremely well done. First, the LDS belief does not require that God lived on another planet in _this_ universe. In fact, due to a lot of scriptural language making it clear that God is the creator of "all things," many LDS believe that God the Father is the creator and God of this entire universe, and that he lived his own mortal life in a different universe. It's a sort of parallel universe theory that doesn't actually solve any of the philosophical issues, but certainly _feels_ better because we're no longer thinking that God lives on a planet somewhere in space. (The Book of Abraham does use this kind of language, but it's easy to understand it metaphorically.) Second, there is a new strain of LDS theology which is beginning to question nearly all of this. It understands many of the LDS scriptures metaphorically, rejects some of the later non-canonized teachings of Joseph Smith (such as the King Follett discourse), and is much closer to the Christian idea of theosis. I haven't seen a full treatment of it in print, but I've encountered it several times in dialogues with LDS members. Third, I think you missed some nuance regarding the LDS doctrine of spiritual creation. LDS believe that we were all spiritually "born" of God the Father and a heavenly mother (I say "a" heavenly mother, because it's possible (likely?) in the LDS view that God the Father has multiple wives, so we may not all share one heavenly mother.) How this works is never defined. But there is something sexual about it (in the sense of male and female propagation), and it is through this process that the eternally-existent "intelligence" turns into a "spirit child." So when you said that God simply "organizes" our soul, that isn't quite the view: LDS believe we are spiritual children in some "literal" sense. This explains, of course, the teaching that faithful LDS will continue this process eternally, where men will, with their wife/wives, eternally beget spirit children of their own and populate other worlds.
Excellent nuance, thank you! In part two, when I look at the Adam-God doctrine that Brigham Young argued for (but which the modern LDS church now begets), I get a little more into the idea of being spirit children of the Father, but I don't know that I explore it sufficiently (or sufficiently clearly) in either video for non-LDS viewers. My point here was simply that this physical or spiritual creation differs in kind from what mainstream Christians mean by God "creating."
I can't believe this is considered serious theology. Sorry for being uncharitable, but how many Mormons actually believe in all of this? About the Creator having a literal family? Are there any who believe in Classical Theism?
@@crusaderACR Mormonism is not, by and large, a "theological" religion. One of the core tenets (perhaps in some ways the _defining_ tenet) is that of ongoing revelation, and they accept the revelation on its own terms, without subjecting it to theology. Most Latter-day Saints are allergic to applying philosophical reasoning to religious questions at all. To answer your question: all Mormons (assuming they're informed and believe in their faith) actually believe in this, about the creator having a physical body, a literal family, etc. It is absolutely core to everything they believe, and is explicitly in their scripture (Doctrine and Covenants) from Joseph Smith. Are there any who are Classical Theists? Yes, there are some, but it is _very_ rare - you only find it among a small group of philosophically-trained Mormons who try to fit the theology with the logical conclusions of classical theism. It's quite difficult to do, given how explicit later LDS scripture and prophets are on the topic. But there are some who try. But in general, for every-day Mormons, essentially none of them are classical theists, and most actually find the classical concept of God repugnant. They feel he is too distant, impossible to relate to, etc.
Trying to rewrite history in this way seems ridiculous by some Mormons, and a lot of the, well this part doesn't have to be literal, doesn't do anything to solve the essential disputes. You'll notice that many of the theological disputes the Church Fathers get into use the theological language and talk about how God is not a creature, not a member of a species, and how he has these attributes by nature which Mormonism denies whether or not their "god" came from a different universe or just a different planet Ps: The Mormon tendency to just abrogate things is another similarity to non-Christian religions. It really hasn't had the kind of two story view of things where there is this objective reality we refer to that can't simply be waved away by the new emperor/caliph, etc, saying things have actually always been this way
Protestants are misguided and heretics, but are still Christians. Many are just deceived or misled yet still love Christ with all their heart, so instead let us pray for them, inform them. Mormons aren't Christian however.
A little off topic, but I noticed that the closed captioning translation of your intro sentence is written as, "Welcome to Shameless Potpourri." Maybe you could offer that as merch.
For some reason, it would seem to me that some of the Free Masonry that Joseph Smith learned has crept into his new religion. The level of exaltation of man and lowering of God, seems right up the alley of masonry.
@Shameless Popery Podcast After you finish your videos about LDS/Mormon, would you consider doing the same thing with Jehovah Witnesses, or ‘Orthodox’ Judaism? It would be a huge personal favor, and I’m sure would also help others given what JW’s are usually told about Catholic Christianity. Would be great. Thanks for the videos!
The similarities are very surface level: a prophet given a book of scripture by an angel. However the idea that Joseph Smith was deceived by a demon is disqualified by the Bible: 1 John 4:1-3
@@KnuttyEntertainment is that all? No alcohol, no issue with polygamy, both telling Christians we misunderstood who Jesus is, alleged divine revelation to their respective prophets with a specific holy book, historically militant expansions opposed to the expansion of Christianity. Ticks a lot of boxes
@@KnuttyEntertainmentthat verse does not protect Joseph Smith from being deceived. The very definition of Jesus is up for debate between Christians and Mormons. Mormons do not believe Jesus is who he said that he was so the spirit must not have acknowledged the actual Jesus coming in the flesh.
As an LDS, i appreciate your approach @shamelesspopery. You really seem to make an effort to represent LDS in words we would use of ourselves. Still a lot to discuss, as we would make our argument differently in places.
For example, we do still only believe in One God. Only the Father is the Most High. So it is only in one sense that we speak of many gods as there are more persons who the Father invites to partake in His divinity. There is one Godhead, not multiple founts of divinity.
We are not trying to say we have the same teachings. But, often we don't recognize the differences that are being claimed or find them to be old caricatures, so they talk past us.
One interesting thing is that Brigham Young referred to Mary as "the Virgin Mary" but taught that she conceived of the Father and not the Holy Spirit, and that the "Tabernacle" (term he is using for material bodies) was concieved in the same manner as Cain and Abel. So what does he actually mean by "Virgin"? (He says this the same passage as teaching that Adam is God. He says of Adam: "He is Michael, the Archangel, the Ancient of Days! about whom holy men have written and spoken-He is our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do," so there's definitely a lot going on here.) - Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, pp. 46-53.
Getting ready to have a discussion with an LDS bishop about going back to the Catholic Church. Your critiques are fair and charitable. I spent 16 years in the LDS church and cannot find any flaws
What is the definition of Christian? Please correlate amongst the billions of alleged Christians on the planet right now and get back to me once you have arrived at a 100% consensus on the definition of Christian. Thanks in advance.
@@twoody9760 The part where he showed a 100% consensus definition about what a Christian is? No, I must have missed it. Please share the timestamp where he shared that, thanks!
@@DaremoDaremoThe absolute agreed minimum is professing the Nicene Creed and being properly baptized. Neither of which Mormons do. Mormons are not Christians.
@@kidus_1010 Brother/Sister Kidus: I see. Interesting. Is this absolute minimum of yours something that has been 100% correlated among the billions of alleged Christians on the planet right now?
Sof if they consider that the Bible is wrong or riddled with errors because of its various translations, does that apply to the 115 Book of Mormon translations as well?
Thank you so much for doing this series This has lined up perfectly with my undertaking of talking to mormon friends and local missionaries and has given me a lot of great information God bless you and please pray for the conversion of the mormons LDS culture is very wholesome and has a lot of good in it, if the mormons convert to catholic we would have a real powerhouse in america
@@DesertPrimrose uhhh no, we should follow the truth and Christ first, lol It's not pick whatever is comfiest, it's follow what's true and pleasing to God. You don't become a grumpy person just because you convert to Catholicism 😂
@@JazzyJacksJokeShack I know a handful of wholesome people who are Catholic, but a whole lot more who are Catholic and not wholesome. I live (and grew up) in a predominantly Catholic community. I have attended mass a few times throughout my life - baptisms, funerals, midnight mass, and Sunday mass. There are things about mass that I think are beautiful, particularly what I think is called the passing of the peace, and I love that homilies are preached by professional speakers (priests). In addition to the theological differences, there are traditions that I don't think are Godly. For example, the way money is collected during mass. We're supposed to do our alms in secret. Another thing I don't like is that the church bulletin is covered in advertisements. The Catholic parish is not as united as the LDS ward. We, the lay people, are called to minister to specific people in our congregation. Every adult, and some teenagers, have this calling. The congregation is more like a family than a group of random people. I don't see that in the Catholic parish.
6:36 With Bible errors, many scholars from all different backgrounds have claimed that the end of the mark was added to the Bible and end of john Chapter 7. How much do you think was added?
Thank you for wading through all the confusing and disturbing beliefs on our behalf. If its hard to hear you speak, it must be very difficult (spiritually) to read through this religions beliefs. May our Lord be your strength and guard, and fill you with His peace. Please can you tell us what the Mormons believe about the creation of Africans/ Black people.
Joeseph is it possible or would you consider adding 10-20 minute edited versions or shorter teaser videos as I share episodes but friends first timers initially don’t make the commitment to your genius. Prayers for your continued success and good health
Message me at catholic.com (put joeh before the @: sorry to put my email in such a bizarre order, I am trying to avoid bots - hope you got what I was saying). I don't do guests in this format, but I'm wondering if we can't come up with something workable.
Joe, thank you for this series. I hope you'll continue it and I hope you'll do an examination of Jehovah's Witnesses as well. I have a family member who is in dialogue with a JW. I have a vague knowledge of their beliefs, but your research and analysis would be very helpful.
@wheatandtaresdid you go through the temple yourself? I only ask because it sounds like your experience has been very different from my own. Also curious how you got the label covenant breaker if you have not gone through. Also because you only go through once for yourself and then for others... which is recommended but not required for salvation. Some people only ever get to go to the temple once. In general, I think that you are mischaractizing what happens, but also acknowledge I dont know your specific history. Either way. I would just say that Im currently late in paying my tithing by several months, and am still able to go through the temple. I also struggle with pornography and meet with my bishop often about how I am doing. I have found the church leadership to be very forgiving, understanding and encouraging. It does not sound like you had a similar experience.
There is a such thing as conditional baptism. When uncertain whether or not the first baptism was valid, the words of the rite are slightly altered to say, “I conditionally baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” This solution neither confirms nor denies the original baptism, but it does ensure the individual has been validly baptized. Considering this is a salvation issue, certainty is better than being eternally sorry.
I have a Question about baptism. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will baptize any member joining our church regardless of whether they have been baptized previously because we do not believe that the person doing the baptism for the other church had the authority of God to do so From what I understand Catholics also believe in priesthood Authority. So why do they not follow that same understanding that these other churches didn't have the priesthood authority to do the baptisms?
The Catholic Church never lost that authority. That is the bases for all so-called restored churches. The mormon understanding that Jesus and Lucifer/satan are brothers clearly shows mormons have NO idea who Jesus really is. Mormon baptizing in the name of the Father, brother of satan, and Holy Spirit is NOT a valid baptism.
While it is ideal and recommended that baptism is performed by a Catholic bishop, priest, or deacon, it's recognized that this is an essential sacrament for salvation which needs to be available to all, therefore anybody can baptise so long as they follow the right form (Trinitarian baptism) and use the right matter (water). This is because the authority lies with Christ himself. The actual spirituality of the baptism comes from Christ, not the human performing the baptism.
You mentioned LDS believe the Holy Spirit does not have a body but is divine in passing but this is actually the best way to show Mormons the Christian view of God is logically necessary and their gods are not gods at all. The Holy Spirit can be omnipresent because he is sans body so in this way having a body puts limits on the Mormon gods. Their embodied gods cannot be omnipotent or omniscient if they are not omnipresent and therefore are no gods at all, just bodies moving within time and space. So the Mormon belief in the Holy Spirit is the closest they get to the Christian view of God.
Their embodied gods are actually gods but in the pagan sense. A Christian though would indeed note it's not _the_ True God. Early Christians (St. Augustine comes to mind) would hold the maxim that such beings would be angels, demons, or fake.
When i was a child, i asked a passing question about whether or not a heavenly mother existed because there's a heavenly father. I was expecting the answer to be no simply because I've never heard of such a thing, but the Elder said yes, there was, and then never elaborated on that or what that means. I left nearly nine years ago, and i still have next to no clue about it other than the fact I somehow stumbled into Esoteric Mormonism as a first grader. 💀
The Hebrew word tzrlem means image or form just like a graven image form! Not only did Stephen and other Biblical prophets, including Moses, saw this but also Joseph Smith saw this! Christ emphasized this by simply stating that if you had seen Him, you had seen the Father, which is exactly what Joseph Smith saw, two separate beings that looked alike!!!
Satan has woven a lot of partial truths and Christian words into Mormonism. On the surface, as you have explained, there is a lot about Mormonism that sounds very Christian. But when you start digging you see just how different Mormon theology is from Christian theology. Different God, different theology, different scriptures, different afterlife, etc, etc, etc.
In relation to Brigham Young, not everything uttered or written by a leader of the church is doctrine, just like not everything the Pope says is doctrine. If we're going to talk about the failings of LDS prophets, let's also talk about the failings of some historic popes. I would argue that Brigham Young's failings are harmless compared to some of the actions of some of the popes. As far as the virgin birth, I believe God used some kind of artificial insemination. How do Catholics believe the miracle happened?
Catholics believe that it was a miracle of the Holy Spirit, not something explained by natural means. It would then be wrong to compare it to any natural process (even artificial-natural ones, as I mean natural in the sense of scientifically explainable, not in the sense of as seen in nature). For example, artificial insemination would not be considered orthodox. However, the development of Christ within His mother's womb was natural; it was different from both just placing a baby in her womb, or coming to be as how Eve came from Adam. For more information, you can read the third canon of the lateran council, 649 Anno Domini.
The Latter-Day Saints are generally good and devoted people, whom many Catholics could do well to emulate in their zeal and spirit of sacrifice, in their concern to build loving Christian communities, and in their positive approach towards family values and the sanctity of life. Nevertheless, LDS “gospel” is a sad travesty of the true gospel of Jesus Christ who did not break his promise to be with us until the end of the age. The Church has been with us for 2,000 years and it didn’t need to be restored by Joseph Smith or any other false prophet.
There was no succession crisis when Joseph Smith died. D+C 107:21-38 clearly defines the roles of the first presidency, the apostles and the 70’s as well as local high councils. Clearly the Apostles had the authority to cover-down and lead the church 13:29 when the first presidency was dissolved. Brigham Young was clearly the senior apostle. The apostles had the right to reorganize the first presidency and fill the vacancies in the quorum. Which is what they did.
The JD 6:1-11 description reminds me of the devil tempting Eve ... ideas that allow one to think 'You too can become equal to God'. Its clear what sort of 'spirit' he has opened himself up to ... and with his own agenda ... its swallowed hook, line, and sinker ... even the cane pole!
We should believe in God because he is our Father and no other being is. We have an intimate relationship with him that we cannot have with any other being of any type. We would be lost and lonely without him.
The Catholic Church teaches that God is a trinity. But, is that teaching true? If it is, where in the Bible does it say that... 1. the Godhead is triune? 2. "we worship one God in trinity"? 3. God consists of God the Father, God the Son, and God the holy spirit? 4. the Father, Son, and holy spirit are the same "One God"? 5. the Father, Son, and holy spirit are one in substance, nature, and essence?
Well for one thing, we don't follow the unbiblical doctrine of Sola Scriptura. We submit to the Church Christ established to lead the faithful. Otherwise: Throughout the Bible we see that there is a multipersonality to God in the Old Testament (such as "let us create man in our image", or the Angel of the Lord). Otherwise we see three persons identified: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. All are shown to not be the same as each other, but all are shown to be God, and of course there is one God. Most of the rest comes down to process of elimination, knowing it can't be three Gods, it can't be one person, etc etc.
@@EmberBright2077 "Throughout the Bible we see that there is a multi-personality to God in the Old Testament." Please answer any of the questions I stated. They are... Where in the Bible does it say that... 1. the Godhead is triune? 2. "we worship one God in trinity"? 3. God consists of God the Father, God the Son, and God the holy spirit? 4. the Father, Son, and holy spirit are the same "One God"? 5. the Father, Son, and holy spirit are one in substance, nature, and essence?
@@cbooth151 I provided an answer that covers your general questions. You are setting a criteria that I don't actually have to meet. In the same vein, I could say, "where in the Bible does it say that God is unitarian", or "where does it say the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one person" etc etc.
@@EmberBright2077 "You are setting a criteria that I don't actually have to meet." Don't fool yourself. You are obligated to answer my question(s). As 1 Pet. 3: 15 says: "Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope." But, up to now, you haven't answered a single question. So, since you might be incapable of answering multiple questions, I will ask you a single question, okay? So, where in the Bible does it say or even suggest that the Father, Son, and holy spirit are one in substance, nature, and essence? As a measure of good faith, I will answer both of your questions, even though you have evaded mine. 1. "Where in the Bible does it say that God is unitarian?" The word "unitarian" is not a Biblical word. However, in the Bible, God is a single person. For instance, at John 17:3, Jesus addressed his Father as "the ONLY true God." 1 Cor. 8:6a adds: "yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom all things are and for whom we exist." 2. "Where does [the Bible] say the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one person?" The answer to that question is 'NOWHERE!!' It should be obvious to anyone with sense that a father and son are two separate persons. For instance, at John 8:28, Jesus said: "I do nothing on my own, but I say only what the Father taught me." As you can see, the Father and Son are separate persons. However, according to one authority, the holy spirit is not a person, but a divine energy or power. As it says: " On the whole the New Testament, like the Old, speaks of the [holy] spirit as a divine energy or power.” Now, please answer my question, which was, "Where in the Bible does it say or even suggest that the Father, Son, and holy spirit are one in substance, nature, and essence?
@@cbooth151 So it seems you are happy to accept that, when arguing for your position, you don't need a specific Bible verse that says X. But it seems that when it's not your position, you suddenly need the other person to meet that standard you don't hold yourself to.
I'd also like to add, how in the world do you explain in Psalms where it says we are all gods. Or Christ when he says that you will be able to do greater things than I have shown you. If Christ is God the Father, what is he talking about when he says that you can be greater than me?. That's been a bigger rub than almost anything you should be having your income dependent on preaching the gospel.
My understanding of "you are all gods" has to do with human authorities acting as judges, like God. As far as Jesus saying you will do greater things than Him, I think he's referring to scale and quantity (such as the many miracles seen in the Catholic Church it's 2000 year history), not that we are powers superior to Christ.
It was mentioned that the LDS have books that "we" don't have in our Bible. I'm assuming you're referring to "Catholics"🤔 Because Catholics also have books (the Apocrapha), which isn't in the original completed Bible. That's sorta "expanded also".
My best friend was baptized as an infant in the catholic church. He fell away very young and his family just went to mass out of routine until it wasnt convenient anymore. Anyway many years have passed and hes finally read scripture and his wife is taking him to a non denominational (baptist) church. Anyway theyre trying to convince him to get baptized again. Convince him that the first one didnt matter because he didnt profess faith as an infant. Im doing my best to hold my tongue but i wonder if i should talk to him. His wife would certainly see it as me trying to keep him from having a proper baptism while i see it as blaspheming the one he already had. I havent said anything because its he's literally just discovering his faith and i believe god will have mercy on him either way but still. I tried to send him an article about the anabaptists but he wasnt too interested. Just not the biggest fan of history i guess.
May I reply? I hope it's not too late. You're good for worrying about your friend. It's true that getting re-baptized is terrible, but so is unbelief or heresy. Of course, he probably doesn't know better and God will take his lack of knowledge into account. But, if his unbelief may be excused by lack of knowledge, so can re-baptism. Because getting re-baptized is a _much_ lighter sin than unbelief and heresy. And baptists hold worse views. Say, the sin of presumption, which is very common among Baptists. Basically it's about claiming you _know_ who gets saved and who God condemns. By calling themselves "the saved" or worse even "the Elect" is the epitome of all pride, as far as I'm concerned. If this wasn't enough, they often go say "once saved always saved" meaning a certainty they won't sin again, or that God doesn't care if they do. Nasty stuff. So I won't tell you to not worry about it, just that most of your worries should go towards worse parts of the heresy, and in the long term aim for his conversion to the Catholic Church. Now for my advice to stop his re-baptism, then assuming these Baptists don't believe in Baptismal regeneration (which is common for them) what you can do is tell him there's no real need. If Baptism doesn't do anything, there's no need to bother, right? Many Baptists are unbaptized. This may or may not work. May God bless your efforts.
@alonso19989 funny we haven't talked about it since before my Comment and just last night we had a long long prot/catholic debate. Anyway he found it hilarious that our church considers him baptized but then thought it was kind of cool of the special privileges that gives him. I told him even though technically he could skip RCIA, I'd highly recommend it.
@alonso19989 Nah he's curious though. His dad's a catholic and mom was but drifted away from the church after she divorced his dad. He hasn't really been in his dad's life since he was very young so I think there's a curiosity
A few points of refutation from a Latter-day Saint. First, I feel your videos are a lot better than how most people treat us, so thank you. You actually argue doctrinal points rather than ranting about cults. Joseph did leave a successor, multiple in fact. It was supposed to be the assistant president of the Church, Hyrum Smith, but he was killed along with his brother Joseph. The 12 Apostles were also given the priesthood keys to run the Church, and they did. There was little disputation about that besides a few small groups, most of which dwindled rapidly. We consider the Joseph Smith Translation accurate, but didn’t have access to it. Most of it is grammatical changes to update it to modern English. Not too many new doctrines or revelations, but a few. You consider us non-Christian due to our disbelief in the Trinity and that God has a body. I argue that the Trinity was a later invention that came about by theological debate and concessions and isn’t entirely consistent with the teachings from the Bible. It is perfectly logical for a rational person to read the Bible and come to a conclusion that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are three distinct beings. Why should that invalidate them from being a Christian? Also, Jesus was born with a body and then was resurrected and took his physical body back. Why did He do this only to get rid of it again? Why did God give us bodies? What is the importance of that if they are for nothing in the end. Is it really so unreasonable for someone to conclude based on this evidence that bodies are important and Jesus and God have bodies? Should that invalidate you from being Christian? Creation ex-nihilio is a Greek idea that crept into Christendom. It creates many questions that atheist have rightly pointed out and I feel LDS theology answers. If God was perfect by Himself, why did He need to create anything? What is the purpose of our existence? Why didn’t he prevent the fall? What do we need to learn from our existence with mortal bodies on Earth? What is the point of our existence in Heaven afterwards? What will we be doing for eternity? If we are just an extension of God’s will, do we really have agency outside of Him? If God is above all things ,can he make impossible things possible,and if not are you acknowledging that he is bound by laws of reality and the universe? And if so, are you acknowledging that God is a natural being that can potentially be understood by mankind? The Book of Mormon stating Jesus was born ”at” Jerusalem is evidence for the veracity of that Book. Everyone knows Jesus was born in the town of Bethlehem, about 5 miles outside of Jerusalem, even Joseph. However, we now know that the land surrounding Jerusalem was called the land of Jerusalem. It is even supported by scripture. 2 Kings 14:19-20 where a man was buried “at Jerusalem … in [Bethlehem].” How did Joseph know he could put this in there and get away with it? Latter-day Saint doctrine is unique from other Christian faiths to be sure, but that is because we didn’t adopt many of the false teachings of man that crept in due to Greek and Roman philosophical ideas. We are restored to what the teachings should have been. I find our teachings to be consistent with Biblical teachings, many of which were lost.
12:37 ah you just augmented Christian to mean trinitarian. That's a false definition. You just redefined Christian as trinitarian Christian. And by the way, Mormons baptize in the name of the father and if the Sun and if the holy Ghost.
Then they would cease to be Mormon, and should set out to study theology more in depth. The Catechism of the Catholic Church and writings of early Christians would be an excellent place to start.
Speaking of the stupid doctrine of the trinity, Paul earned about unsound (illogical) doctrined in the last days, snd it would be hard to find a more illigical doctrine than this one!! Is it logical to prsy to yourself?!? Is it ligical to be able to sit on the right hand of yourself?!? Id it ligucal when you are baptized to descrnd upon yourself ehile throwing your voice from heaven saying that you sre wrll pleasef with yourself?!? How stupid is that?!? Continued...
Come get us 😀 Also not sure what you're saying about the virgin birth? Born of a Virgin is in the book of Mormon. So may want to get your stories straight. We do believe that the father is the father of Jesus and not the Holy Ghost. It's our detractors that equate sex because we believe God the father is not a cloud. So before you come convert us (i'll give you my address) Make sure you know what your talking about. Here an Idea, about you talk to us or read the book of Mormon.
@@tillo1981 I watched the video? Are you saying the point is to misrepresent what we believe? I'm saying the book of Mormon specify says "Born of a virgin" not "Conceived of a virgin" What am I missing?
@@tillo1981 Okay, you're jumping around here (changing subjects) I"m just saying your claim about what we believe is wrong and our book doesn't claim to say what you said it does. You're going to have a hard time converting us if you have no idea what we believe. If you want to prove the book is false, have at it. That is a non-strawman that if you succeed would have all 17MM of us joining the catholic church in a day. (most likely the orthodox church)
This mealy mouthiness is why I don't watch Catholic Answers. Baptists merely consider Baptism as symbolic and NOT for the forgiveness of sins. They disavow the baptism for the forgiveness of sins. Yes, Baptism is what makes a person a Christian. Believe and be baptized. Do they accept the creed? No. Do they accept the One Baptism for the forgiveness of sins? No. Therefore, Baptists are technically not Christians either.
it's nice to know that Jesus is married and is God the Father to his spiritual children, and sent his son to their planet where the "Son of God" is teaching them about "his Father in Heaven".....because that's what he saw his Father do, as well. So simple, so true. This has been going on for all eternity. Jesus glorified his Father (the only begotten in the flesh, BTW) and received all that the Father has. This is how it works before & beyond the veil. If this is not true, then we have the status quo: anyone can pick up the Bible and sppout their own version of God, as there are millions of versions of God out there. I'll keep mine, thank you.
LDS are social trinitarians. There isn't just one definition of what the trinity is. The New Testament tells us how they are one as Jesus wanted us to be one as he and the Father are one.
Calvinist affirm the Trinity, that Christ was the Son of the Father and was incarnate of the Virgin Mary (True God and true man) and that Christ Died on the Cross, rose from the dead and Ascended into Heaven for the forgiveness of Sins. So on Trinitarian and Christological Dogma, they are in agreement with the Ancient Church (Catholic) and the Orthodox as well. Where they differ with Catholicism is on Soteriology (Doctrine of Justification), ecclesiology (Church is ruled by Pastor with elders, etc.) and Canon of Scripture (they follow the KJV canon of 66 Books).
All these arguments for a God that was always like he is now also believe that this universe has a finite life-span. The Big Bang Theory and the concept of a finite universe was invented by a Catholic. So our Father could have lived in a universe before this one was created and then risen to Glory and created this universe. Which is what I believe actually.
Thank you for this. Mormonism has a different God than the God of Christianity. They believe Jesus was created in a pre-existence by a mother and Father god in heaven through procreation. As a Christian, Jesus is not created, He is infinite, not finite. He is eternal, creatures are not eternal. Jesus is unchangeable, creatures are changeable. Romans 1:23 They exchanged the glory of the immortal God for statues, birds, animals, and snakes. John 1:1 In the beginning there was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word is God. God was before the foundation of the world. John 17:24 Jesus speaks of Himself being with God before the foundation of the world. Jesus created everything in the universe, He is our creator, did He create Himself? Mormonism makes absolutely no sense.
I find myself wanting to comment on every single point that you're making. We do not believe anything at all close to what you're describing about God or the Virgin birth! I beg you!!!! PLEASE find a Mormon have them come on your show have a conversation with this person!!!! How your characterizing what we believe is not close to it at all, especially the whole Mary stuff. we do not believe that God came down in Zeus style to impregnate Mary. She had a virgin birth. She bacame pregnant when the Holy Spirit came upon her as described in the Bible! Please! Stop strawmanning what we believe TALK to an ACTUAL believer. Ask them questions! We are more then willing to answer! We have young men and women out doing just that for 2 yrs of their late teens early adulthood!!! 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
Having once been mormon, the Book of Mormon initially seems logical and sounds like ‘Another Testimony of Jesus Christ’. However, Joseph Smith would later describe a Jesus radically different from the Bible Jesus which seems more like a ‘testimony of another Jesus Christ’, especially if you believe Jesus and Lucifer/satan are brothers or the idea of a great counsel of gods existed before Jesus, which is not supported anywhere in the Book of Mormon or the Bible. Apostle Paul warns of teaching another Jesus (2 Corinthians 11:4), and and goes on to explain in verses 14 and 15; “For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. Jesus warns of false prophets in Matthew 7: 20 'Thus you will know them by their fruits'. We see the fruit when mormons desecrate Jesus Christ at the end of every Sunday service, when the 'left over' blessed and sanctified bread and water is unceremoniously thrown into the trash. Compare this to how mormons respectfully remove the satanic freemasonry symbols from worn out garments before disposal. Of course mormons get around anything the Bible says by simply saying the Bible has been corrupted, yet ignore the corruption of their own Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and other documents.
@@DaremoDaremo I thought you were asking about what's Holy Scripture. The Church is the only one that can infallibly declare a canon. If you mean scripture as in the dictionary word, it means writings/text. You could've looked that up on your own tbh.
@@crusaderACR So, okay, what is the definition of scripture as found in what you consider Holy Scripture (scripture canonized by the religious group you adhere to)?
@@DaremoDaremo Writing inspired by the Holy Spirit. It's said to be infallible. What is derived from Scripture is automatically dogma. In the Council of Trent it was closed with 72 books. Not one will be added, not one will be removed.
It's true, "Mormons" believe in three, distinct personages which comprise the "Godhead," for God is not a name, but an office . This is not in any way, anti-biblical. On the contrary, Trinitariianism is the anti-biblical proposition, being purely a plroduct of the 4th century Catholic Church and her ecumenical councils. BTW, believing in more than one god does not, in and of itself, constitute paganism, for we worship and pray only to one God and that is the Father. We pray in the name of the Son, just as Jesus did and as Jesus taught us to do. (Our Father which art in heaven...) Yes, we believe in an open canon, since God is not dead, nor doth He sleep. Babtism? Absolutely, just not infant babtism, or babyism by sprinkling (can't find those two things in the Bible either).
Let's talk about BIBLICAL EVIDENCE FOR THE TRINITY. First, in order for you to understand the Biblical evidence for the TRINITY, you must first stop trying to "put God in a box..." God's Divine existence is BEYOND human understanding and the physical limitations of this world. Let's hear what God Himself says about this in: I TIMOTHY 3:16 "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: A. God was manifested in the flesh, B. Justified in the Spirit, C. Seen by angels, D. Preached among the Gentiles, E. Believed on in the world, F. Received up in glory. Notice the following: "God was manifested in the flesh..." while on earth God did all the things Jesus did as stated above., "Great is the mystery of godliness..." God is God, powerful and capable of doing miracles that is beyond human understanding and the physical limitations of this world. Next, let's go to: ISAIAH 45:5 "I am the Lord, and there is no other; Thete is no God besides Me..." (Mormons, this verse is for you, you cannot be a god) Keep this verse in mind, because we are going to circle back to this in a little bit. We are going to show the Divine identity of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. GOD: We have God identifying Himself to Moses in: EXODUS 3:14 And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And He said, "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, I AM has sent me to you." We have God identifying Himself as the "I AM." JOHN 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." We have God identified as the "Word." JESUS: We have Jesus identifying Himself in: JOHN 8:58 Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM." We have Jesus identifying Himself as the "I AM" the same title God used in Exodus 3:14. JOHN 1:14 "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." We have Jesus identified as the "Word" the same title God used in John 1:1. I TIMOTHY 3:16 "...God was manifested in the flesh..." HOLY SPIRIT: We have Peter talking to Ananias in: ACTS 5:3-4 But Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit (Jahovah Witnesses, notice that he said that you are lying to the Holy Spirit) and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself? While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God." We have the Holy Spirit recognized as being God. We have God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, all recognized as being God! Let's circle back to ISAIAH 45:5, where it says: "There is no God besides Me..." with this verse, and all the other Bible verses Oneness, Jahovah Witnesses, and Mormons use to oppose the Trinity, we either have complete Kaos here with this contradiction, or, since God says that He is "not the author of confusion..." (I Corinthians 14:33). We can confidently conclude that the only explanation to untangle this contradiction is: "TRINITY" But wait, there's more Biblical evidence for the TRINITY, let's go to the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. We are going to show God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit all at the Resurrection of Jesus. GOD: We have God raising Jesus from the dead. *Acts 3:26 *I THESSALONIANS 1:10 *Acts 17:31 JESUS: We have Jesus raising Himself from the dead. *John 2:19-21 HOLY SPIRIT: We have the Holy Spirit raising Jesus from the dead. *Romans 8:11 We have God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit all at the Resurrection raising Jesus from the dead! Amen... There you are Oneness, Jahovah Witnesses, and Mormons BIBLICAL EVIDENCE FOR THE TRINITY. TRINITY 3= 1 GOD.
You also need to look at the matrix by which the Catholics believe in the trinity. Within that Matrix you'll find three gods. The father is not the son, the son is not the Holy Spirit, the holy spirit is not the father, they are three dots doing one purpose. It's a Long Way Around The Barn infection by the third-rate priest tertullian
No, there is only one God. There are three distinct persons that share the same essence. I understand you do not understand this. Nobody fully understands it. We believe because it has been revealed by the Holy Spirit. That is where faith comes in. We can come to the realization there is a God through reason. We can only believe in the Trinity through faith and the grace of God.
The only reason I can think of is that the LDS church members get upset for not being included in the Christian Club is that our definition of Christian is: one who believes in Christ And we do believe in Christ! We just have a different idea of his beingness 😊
Exactly, and the mormon jesus is NOT the Jesus described in the Bible. Apostle Paul warns of teaching another Jesus (2 Corinthians 11:4), and and goes on to explain in verses 14 and 15; “For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.
@@akpred Former mormon here, so yes, I've read the BOM, still have mormon friends and family, and believe LDS are generally good and devoted people, whom many Catholics and other Christians could do well to emulate in their zeal and spirit of sacrifice, in their concern to build loving Christian communities, and in their positive approach towards family values and the sanctity of life. Nevertheless, once you step away and take a fresh unbiased look, you will realize the LDS “gospel” is a sad travesty of the true gospel of Jesus Christ. Mormons knowingly or unknowingly desecrate Jesus after every Sunday service when the 'left over' blessed and sanctified bread and water is tossed into the trash. Compare this to respectfully removing the freemasonry symbols from old worn out underwear/garments before disposal. Jesus did not break his promise to be with us until the end of the age and his Church has been with us for 2,000 years and it never needed to be restored by Joseph Smith or any other false prophet.
That "beingness" is everything. When I put down my defenses and listened to the Christian position, I was floored and devastated. I might as well have been worshiping my neighbor, Jesus, that's how different in "beingness" the true Christ is from the "Jesus Christ" I was taught in the LDS church. Please sit on this, study biblical scholars, seek to know (by reading) who Jesus Christ is biblically and compare that to the Jesus you've been taught. Imagine you're chatting with your new neighbor and you ask them if they're friends with Joe. They say yes, and you both are exciting that you have a mutual friend. As you're talking about how kind, funny, and great Joe is, they mention that it's such a shame that is brother Greg is such a jerk. You go, wait a minute, the Joe I know doesn't have a brother named Greg. Now you know you're talking about different Joes, because there's no way the same Joe both does and doesn't have a brother named Greg. You verify with your Joe by reading his geneology, his biography, and by asking him yourself. Now if your neighbor continued to insist you both know Joe, but have different understandings of his beingness, would you agree with them? No truly Christian denomination will agree that Jesus and Satan were ever equals. To elevate Satan to the level of God is absolute blasphemy. Satan's brother, Jesus, is not Jesus the Christ whom Christians worship.
The Bible is clear. Jesus and God the Father are not the same person. Catholics and Protestants believe Jesus and the Father are the same person. The Holy Ghost is not the Father or the Son. Thus the so called traditional "trinity " is obviously false. The "trinity" " is not mentioned in the Bible. I figured out this was wrong while in Catholic school. No longer Catholic. The Father and Son And Holy Ghost i.e, spirit are true just not the way most Christians believe.
The trinity is the Father and the son Jesus christ are 2 seperate people with a body of flesh and bones in Genisus in the bible it sais God made man in the image of God and the Holy Spirit has just a body of spirit the 3 are one in purpose and work together Joseph Smith seen them John ch 3 vs 16 for God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son we needed a prophet in our time to explain this to us moslems don't believe this but we respect all religions on the News in Australia a Muslim boy stabbed an Anglican priest the boy said he did it because the priest was mocking his prophet and it hurts the latterday saints article of faith sais We believe in worshiping Almighty God to the dictates of our own conscience and allow all men to do the same let them worship how where and what they may
Good job of twisting other people's beliefs to make them look false. I don't think Christ would have twisted other people's beliefs to give inaccurate views. If people stop it with these kinds of misrepresentations then we can all come closer to the unity of the faith that Christ and His apostles talked about. If you have no interest in coming to the unity of the faith then you have no interest in Christianity.
Yea it’s gross how apologists have the most nuance in their own position and take everything in the best possible light… but when it comes to another faith it’s the opposite
A few notes: Mormonism and the Bible: Our problem is less with the translation of the Bible, or even really with the text of the Bible itself, rather our problem is with transmission. We don’t think that the autobiographical writings of the prophets are perfectly represented by the Bible, the Bible is a third hand account of the scriptures. The Old Testament being a reconstructed compilation written by post-exilic scribes operating under the theological reforms of King Josiah (which reforms moved away from true doctrine in my opinion). I think the documentary hypostasis showcases some of the inherent problems that brings quite well: m.ua-cam.com/video/wi1vuwGnKxI/v-deo.html Furthermore, we don’t even think the Book of Mormon is inerrant. In fact the title page of the Book of Mormon (written by Moroni) says as much. And this because we believe mortal men are inherently fallible. All this despite the fact that the Gold Plates were written, compiled, and translated by inspired prophets every step of the way, and were transmitted a absolute minimal number of times: Events experienced first hand by prophets -> events recalled and written about by the hand of those same prophets autobiographically (though they were foremost written poetically) -> writings compiled, abridged, and commentated upon by another prophet centuries later -> dictated by Joseph Smith as he translated by the gift and power of God -> recorded without punctuation by Joseph Smith’s scribe -> copied with added punctuation for print. That’s only six stages, aided by inspiration at every stage except the last one or two. Despite this, we’ve found numerous scribal and copyist errors from those last two stages that have been corrected in subsequent editions. In fact, Joseph Smith himself corrected most such errors and offered several clarifications resulting in the 1836 and ‘42 editions of the Book of Mormon. We’ve also found a sparse few errors and artistic choices attributable to the stages prior Joseph Smith’s translation, but those ones we maintain for the record. If so many errors can pop up in so few transmissions, then the Bible really has no chance of reflecting the writings of prophets that we cannot yet prove even existed historically. The Hebrew Bible we have now is likely very close the original editions of the Old Testament produced post-exile, however the idea that these accurately preserve pre-exotic writings is unlikely.
Yeah, I tried to be clear that the claim is that "as the Bible was compiled, organized, translated, and transcribed, many errors entered the text," and I give the example that even in an uncorrupted Greek manuscript, it may be impossible to perfectly translate it into English, since many Greek words (like Logos) lack a perfectly-fitting corresponding English word. In terms of the transmission process, where I'm confused as a non-Mormon is to what agree you see God having any role in preserving his own revelation. Is the idea that he goes to the trouble of divinely inspiring the original revelation, but doesn't go to the trouble of making sure that it's protected from loss or error? And if so, what's the reasoning there?
@@JosephHeschmeyer God preserves his word through prophets, the way he always has. If something is lost or misunderstood, he tells them to preach the things the people need to hear. Our prophets and apostles preach clearly and frequently concerning the words God has for this generation, speaking to us in our own tongue according to our own understanding. The scriptures are a record of God’s dealings with man throughout history. They’re very useful and important. However, they are not immune to being lost. Someone could dedicate their life to burning every Bible in the world, and God would not interfere with their free will choice to do so, instead he would just have his prophets re-write the things God wishes to reveal to us. Overall, I think you’re doing a good job being charitable and representing us well.
We Catholics do believe God (the second person of the Trinity) has a body. Jesus the incarnate God-Man ascended into a place called Heaven and still retains his glorified physical human nature. The uncreated Divine Essence, which exists from before the creation of Heaven, does not have a body. So this is the disagreement - Mormons don’t believe in an uncreated Creator. They blend the “unseen realm” and divinity. They believe Creation itself is eternal and that Godhood arises from this eternal matter/intelligence.
Mainstream Christians believe that Jesus, eternally existing as God, took on flesh: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God [...] and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father" (John 1:1, 14). And of course, we don't believe that the Father has a body, or that the Father used to be a man, or that the Father has his own god, etc.
@@JosephHeschmeyer my comment was only to remind us that we Catholics believe Jesus is God, and we believe Jesus is still incarnate in bodily form - because we believe in his bodily ascension. Therefore we can say God (the second person of the Trinity) has a body the same way we can say God has a mother. If by God, we specifically mean the uncreated Divine Essence then of course God transcends bodily form.
@@JosephHeschmeyer my concern is modern Catholics seemingly downplay the bodily ascension or instead speak of the ascension into Heaven as if by that we mean Jesus has disincarnated back into uncreated eternity leaving his human nature behind. This problem arises because most mainstream Christians make no distinction between the unseen spiritual realm (heaven) and the uncreated triune Godhead.
Rome_77 is correct on both fronts. The other two in the replies are mistaken about Mormonism. In Mormonism, there is no creation ex nihilo. Spirit is material and a finer form of matter. There is an infinite amount of both raw physical matter, and spiritual matter. God the Father is the most intelligent of all the spirit beings. he is probably (this is my speculation) the only one self aware and powerful enough to organize matter and create things as he saw fit. The rest of us needed to be made God’s children and guided along by his hand in order to progress to the point of self-determination that God reached on his own. Because of this, the Father is the first and only Most High God, the rest of us are contingent upon him.
@@KnuttyEntertainment How does the Father being "the first and only Most High God" make sense of the idea that the Father used to be a man on another planet, or being raised from the dead? Brigham Young explicitly denies that anyone (including a god) can raise themselves from the dead.
As a Latter-day Saint, here’s my take on the trinity: For context, I believe in the Godhead, not the Trinity. I like to think of the Godhead like an actor and his two understudies all portraying Hamlet. There is only one character named Hamlet, and as far as the play is concerned, all three actors are the one true Hamlet. Their words and deeds are always the same. You could almost even say they are practically three beings as one person. God is much the same way: there is One True God, and that God is the Father. Jesus and the Holy Ghost stand in the place of God, representing him, so you can also say that they are God too. Now the trinity is the inverse of this. It says God is three persons in one being. Like Gollum and Smeagol, multiple personalities sharing a body; three who’s but one what. But the idea of the trinity almost immediately breaks down when you get specific or try to explain scripture. Beyond that, this usage of persons and beings in no way corresponds to anything we can observe in reality. Being a human being is what makes you a specific person. As trinitarians use them today, the words “person” and “being” are nonsense terms with no concrete line between them, and if you press a trinitarian, they often cannot define the terms beyond what I’ve already said. Ultimately, I’ve found they will cop out and appeal to what Aquinas said: it’s a mystery beyond human comprehension, and that you cannot say what God is, only what he isn’t. This goes against scripture which says that we can clearly understand the Godhead through observation of the reality around us (Romans 1:19-20). So the trinity, this concept that doesn’t correspond to any aspect of rational reality and is beyond human comprehension, is disqualified by scripture. Now even if we grant the idea that the nature of God is beyond us mere mortals, the trinity still doesn’t hold up. Pay close attention. There is a very important difference between something being beyond our comprehension because it is beyond our capacity, versus being incomprehensible because it goes against rationality. I can’t comprehend the 4th dimension because it’s beyond my capacity, but I can still approach it by extrapolating from the principles of the first three dimensions using math and logic (which is in line with Romans 1:19-20). However, a married bachelor is incomprehensible for an entirely different reason. I fully understand the component parts of marriage and bachelors, I just can’t reconcile the contradiction because it goes against rationality. There is nothing wrong with saying that God is beyond us in the first sense. I have no problem with someone claiming God is a 4th dimensional being. But God cannot be incomprehensible in the second sense because God is the fountainhead of rationality, if he, the source of logic, were to embody the illogical, he would be a God of confusion and a house divided against itself, which cannot stand. (Matthew 12:25, 1 Cor. 14:33) So how did rational people arrive at this irrational idea? Well let’s look at the original words used to describe the trinity. The technical terms for three persons in one being is three hypostases of one Ousia. And the idea of three persons sharing one substance is called Homoousia. Where do Christians get these ideas from? They’ll tell you it’s from the Bible, but the terms trinity, homoousia, etc. do not appear in the Bible. Rather, the trinity can objectively be shown to derive from Greek philosophy, and not early Judeo-Christian theology. The God of the Trinity is much closer to the immaterial unmoved mover believed by Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, than the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob who called his followers “those who wrestle with God.” The terms hypostasis and ousia are terms prominent in the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle. In fact, Plato says that the Platonic forms of platonism are the definition of ousia/essence. And hypostasis meant the underlying substance of things. Literally Hypo=under + stasis=station/stance, so hypostasis is a direct one-to-one translation of sub-stance. Meaning that when you say God is three hypostases/persons in one ousia/being, you are actually literally saying that God is three substances of one platonic form, which is ironically actually closer to the doctrine of the Godhead that I’ve been promoting, which is that God is three separate beings, all acting as the united person/character/blueprint of God. So the early Christians, who did not believe in the modern trinity, tried to use the contemporary philosophical language of their day to describe God the way I am describing him, but that doctrine of the Godhead was obscured by the influence of the philosophies of men corrupting the original doctrine over the centuries. (Colossians 2:8-10) In fact, I can prove that the term Hypostasis used to refer to the substance of God, rather than the person, in the context of the trinity. In the original text of the Nicene creed (which invented the trinity) it says that “anyone who claims Christ is a separate hypostasis from the Father is made anathema.” Meaning that according to the original formulation, the modern rendering of the trinity as three hypostases/persons in one ousia/being, is wrong. It was only later on that hypostasis came to mean person instead of substance, and the trinity got inverted into what we have today. If the history doesn’t convince you, then I will show how the trinity re-defines the clear meaning of the words of scripture. I challenge anyone to show me any passage in scripture that teaches homoousia-the idea that God is one in substance-that could not very easily be understood to mean that God is one in will and purpose instead. On the other hand, I can point to several passages that not only make it clear that God is one in purpose, but also preclude the idea that he is one in substance. John 17:20-23 shows that all believers can become ONE with Jesus and the Father IN THE SAME MANNER as they are one with EACH OTHER. Romans 8:16-17 says much the same thing by calling us joint-heirs with Christ glorified together. How can Jesus be an heir of the Father if they are the same being, what could Jesus inherit from the Father that he doesn’t already have? And how could we also be heirs to that type of oneness? Furthermore, how can Jesus be begotten by the Father if he is the Father: can a man conceive himself? The baptism of Jesus also shows all three persons in different places and forms. Jesus in the water, the Holy Spirit as a dove, and the Father is heaven. The same thing happens again at Stephen’s martyrdom. The scripture itself supports the Godhead over the Trinity.
Im not going to be nearly as eloquent here, but am another member of the church of jesus christ of latter-day saints chiming in here. To say we are polytheistic is a misnomer. Perhaps im wrong, but if someone mentions polytheism, I think greek/egyptian mythology as the model. The gods in those traditions are distinct beings, with distinct natures and distinct purposes. They do not have the same aim and are not united. The doctrine we claim is that Jesus Christ and His Father have seperate bodies, but have one purpose, one aim, one nature. There is no god of war and another god for love. There is only the Most High God, the Father who embodies the highest virtues of all things. He sent His Only Begotten Son as a means to reconcile us to Him, that we may know His nature should we seek after and follow His Son. We define co-inheritance as becoming like the Father, just as Christ did and invites all humanity to do. It was for this very bold claim that the Pharasees persecuted Jesus because he would claim to be Jehovah or (that I am). The same Jehovah that Moses desired the people of Israel to come up to the mount to see, but they would not. It is undoubtedly a bold claim we share. But do not conflate its boldness with the pride that often afflicts human nature. We are NOT trying to elevate ourselves above the Most High God, the Eternal Father. We depend upon Him, His Son, and the Spirit which He has been able to pour out because of His Son's sacrifice. If there is anything the Father desires me to have, I want to open my heart to receive it. If there is anything he desires me to deny, I plead that He seals my heart away from those things. I can only imagine doing so, act out doing so, and recognize the benefit of doing so, because of the intercession made for me by Jesus Christ. I have no path, no claim, no part, and no desire, without Jesus Christ. As Jesus said, he can do nothing but what Father had shown Him. John 5:16-20. This is not the polytheisim of the greeks or egyptians. It is something altogether different.
@@timv.3537 ☝ This is absolutely correct. I would only note that Jesus alone is Jehovah, the Father is not. Also, the view you espoused is called monarchical monotheism. In Mormonism, we also believe in the existence of ‘little g’ gods, that’s what we’ll become. The belief in those subordinate contingent gods is called henotheism.
There's certainly some truth in the idea that we use philosophical language to define and explain aspects of revelation (whether we're talking the Trinity or transubstantiation, etc.), and that sometimes the meaning of a technical word (like hypostasis or even 'persona') can change over the course of a language's history, so what a word or phrase means in one century may not be the same as what it means in the next. The jokey example of this is that to call St. Paul Cathedral "awful, artificial, and amusing" would have been a compliment in 1710 and an insult today, since all of those words have undergone linguistic shifts in meaning. But I'm failing to see how any of this is a knock against the Trinity or Catholic theology more broadly. Any time we seek to explain a passage in the Bible, we do so with non-biblical language. (Otherwise, we're reciting, not explaining). If I say what the story of the Prodigal Son means, I'm forced to say more than what's simply written on the page. And if I want to speak on the nature of the godhead with intelligence and precision, it would seem to behoove me to use the language of philosophy, which admits of careful distinctions. (LDS theology seems to do the same thing with technical terms like "eternal progression" to explain ideas that were originally presented in a less-technical way).
As for the charge that "as trinitarians use them today, the words 'person' and 'being' are nonsense terms with no concrete line between them, and if you press a trinitarian, they often cannot define the terms beyond what I’ve already said." I think this is clearly false, and that you undermine your own case when you give the examples of Gollum and Smeagol, and the distinction between WHO someone is and WHAT they are. The differences between Gollum/Smeagol and the Trinity are at least twofold: in the case of God, we're (a) talking about a WHAT that's spiritual and not physical, and (b) not talking about the kind of split personalities we see in that case (or in the case of Jekyll and Hyde). But in any case, you're showing that you CAN logically and rationally distinguish WHO from WHAT, which undermines your claim that it's as logically impossible as a married bachelor. Given this, it seems clear that God is incomprehensible only in the sense of being beyond our understanding, not of being contrary to rationality.
When you ask, "how can Jesus be begotten by the Father if he is the Father: can a man conceive himself?" you reveal a misunderstanding of the Trinity. Jesus is NOT the Father, but both are God. This is how we can make sense on the one hand of the verses that clearly distinguish Jesus from the Father, and on the other hand, the verses speaking of "YHWH Elohim" as one God (whereas LDS theology treats YHWH and Elohim as two separate gods: "God the Second" and "God the First," respectively). The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) explains: "For the Father, in begetting the Son from eternity, gave him his substance, as he himself testifies : What the Father gave me is greater than all. It cannot be said that the Father gave him part of his substance and kept part for himself since the Father’s substance is indivisible, inasmuch as it is altogether simple. Nor can it be said that the Father transferred his substance to the Son, in the act of begetting, as if he gave it to the Son in such a way that he did not retain it for himself; for otherwise he would have ceased to be substance. It is therefore clear that in being begotten the Son received the Father’s substance without it being diminished in any way, and thus the Father and the Son have the same substance. Thus the Father and the Son and also the holy Spirit proceeding from both are the same reality." To make sense of this, you need to understand the Father, Son, and Spirit as sharing a SPIRITUAL rather than a PHYSICAL essence. If I have an apple, and I give you the apple, I don't have the apple anymore. It's zero-sum, so it would be contradictory to say that three of us possess the fullness of the apple. But if I share something immaterial with you (like an idea), it's possible for three of us to 100% possess the exact same idea without any diminution or contradiction. The Trinity is thus only contradictory if you misunderstand it in physical terms.
Um don't need to watch the video. Very easy answer on "What do Mormons Believe About the Trinity" We members of the church of Jesus Christ believe nothing about the Trinity. It's not our God I'm not sure where that name Came from or where or what the cloud is, if it's a he or a she or even how to love it. We're a hard pass on the Trinity. We believe in Jesus Christ, the Jehovah of the OT. He is the Son of Our Father in heaven, the real father in Heaven The father of all the spirits of the world. Yes he's a He not and It. He's got a wife for sure, Now do we have any Idea how spirts are created, no. But the Scriptures are clear, we're Children of a loving, real God. If God was a cloud that shape shifted and talked to himself, I'd have no interest in worshiping him and and have not Idea what it's image is and have not desire to grow to be anything like an it.
The doctrine of the Trinity is not that God is a cloud that shape shifts and talks to Himself 😂 The Trinity says that the Father is God, as the Bible does. That Jesus is God. That the Holy Spirit is God. All biblical. Also from the Bible: the Father is not Jesus nor the Holy Spirit. Jesus is not the Father nor the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is not the Father or Jesus. They are three distinct persons. Also according to the Bible, there is only one God, not three. So the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three persons in one God or in one Being. The word being can be confusing, because we use it both as a form of the verb “to be” and to mean some kind of individual. By “three persons in one being,” the verb to be is meant. For me it helps it be more clear to say three persons in one being-ness. They share the unique being or essence or substance or nature that is God.
@@JosephHeschmeyer Um my idea is what a read in the nicean creed, and it makes no sense to me? Maybe it would be good to do Q and A on it with people because I've never heard anything I understand. It's always just 3 in one.
@@kerry8506 Clear as mud 🙃 "three persons in one God or in one Being" We don't believe that we de believe it's three persons not shapes or forms of the same person.
@@clearstonewindows no where in my description did I call anyone a shape or form. Nor did anyone else ever. I didn’t discuss any characteristics of any of the three persons. What I did say is that they are three distinct persons…the same as you believe. Three shapes or forms of the same person is NOT the Trinity doctrine. Don’t you want to seek understanding of a concept before you try to refute it? Don’t you see that if you just straw man the mainstream Christian position, your arguments are pointless? You might as well be arguing with a shape or a form. I’m life long lds, btw. Whatever, I guess…
That's the one that was used before KJV and the only one that matters. The Church is the Catholic church, founded by Our Lord Jesus himself! Viva Cristo Rey.
Wow. As a lifelong Mormon converting to Catholicism, the part where you compared Mormonism to atheism blew my mind. You are exactly right. I’ve always thought this but couldn’t put it into words. God Bless you brother.
One of the things that got me out of Mormonism was realizing that the god of Mormonism is not worthy of worship.
It's also good to know that non Catholics and non Orthodox don't actually worship God. Protestants and Mormons don't worship God because they do not offer a sacrifice to God (Eucharist) they just go to their services and read their scriptures and that's worship to them but it's more like Bible study.
@@Compulsive-Elk7103 Mormons do have their sacrament meetings where they bless water and Wonder Bread which is their equivalent to the Eucharist, but I wouldn't really call the way they do it worship.
@@thisisjeff9845 correct but they only do their "sacrament meetings" once a month and they also offer it to a false God
And their church does not have the priesthood authority
@@Compulsive-Elk7103 They actually do their sacrament meetings every Sunday.
@@thisisjeff9845 What do you do with the left over "Wonder" bread?
This video is wild, and got wilder by the minute.
The irony of Mormons critiquing that Christianity had a great apostatic corruption by the Greek pagans is that their teachings much more closely resemble ancient paganism than anything Christian.
I'm Catholic but can you be more specific about what is pagan that they believe?
@@Compulsive-Elk7103 that the gods were essentially like men but more and in some way superior, that the gods of today were made by older gods, that gods procreate, that creation is a forming from eternal elements rather than true creation from nothing, that different gods have different roles, that gods fulfill their promises only through loopholes, that gods may have children with their daughters.... ringing any bells?
@@drigondii ahh yes , now I get it
I am brown and slow lol but you explained it well
God bless
Yeah, they basically formalized American folk religion that were often seen as historical matters not really religious matters.
Basically that is the position of Mormonism - that Christianity is a corruption of more ancient beliefs. It is paganism at heart.
this is by far the most fair and charitable approach to Mormonism. good series!
Another excellent video. (I'm your resident ex-Mormon, now Catholic.) I have a few nuances I want to point out, but overall this video was extremely well done.
First, the LDS belief does not require that God lived on another planet in _this_ universe. In fact, due to a lot of scriptural language making it clear that God is the creator of "all things," many LDS believe that God the Father is the creator and God of this entire universe, and that he lived his own mortal life in a different universe. It's a sort of parallel universe theory that doesn't actually solve any of the philosophical issues, but certainly _feels_ better because we're no longer thinking that God lives on a planet somewhere in space. (The Book of Abraham does use this kind of language, but it's easy to understand it metaphorically.)
Second, there is a new strain of LDS theology which is beginning to question nearly all of this. It understands many of the LDS scriptures metaphorically, rejects some of the later non-canonized teachings of Joseph Smith (such as the King Follett discourse), and is much closer to the Christian idea of theosis. I haven't seen a full treatment of it in print, but I've encountered it several times in dialogues with LDS members.
Third, I think you missed some nuance regarding the LDS doctrine of spiritual creation. LDS believe that we were all spiritually "born" of God the Father and a heavenly mother (I say "a" heavenly mother, because it's possible (likely?) in the LDS view that God the Father has multiple wives, so we may not all share one heavenly mother.) How this works is never defined. But there is something sexual about it (in the sense of male and female propagation), and it is through this process that the eternally-existent "intelligence" turns into a "spirit child." So when you said that God simply "organizes" our soul, that isn't quite the view: LDS believe we are spiritual children in some "literal" sense.
This explains, of course, the teaching that faithful LDS will continue this process eternally, where men will, with their wife/wives, eternally beget spirit children of their own and populate other worlds.
Excellent nuance, thank you! In part two, when I look at the Adam-God doctrine that Brigham Young argued for (but which the modern LDS church now begets), I get a little more into the idea of being spirit children of the Father, but I don't know that I explore it sufficiently (or sufficiently clearly) in either video for non-LDS viewers. My point here was simply that this physical or spiritual creation differs in kind from what mainstream Christians mean by God "creating."
I can't believe this is considered serious theology.
Sorry for being uncharitable, but how many Mormons actually believe in all of this? About the Creator having a literal family?
Are there any who believe in Classical Theism?
@@crusaderACR Mormonism is not, by and large, a "theological" religion. One of the core tenets (perhaps in some ways the _defining_ tenet) is that of ongoing revelation, and they accept the revelation on its own terms, without subjecting it to theology. Most Latter-day Saints are allergic to applying philosophical reasoning to religious questions at all.
To answer your question: all Mormons (assuming they're informed and believe in their faith) actually believe in this, about the creator having a physical body, a literal family, etc. It is absolutely core to everything they believe, and is explicitly in their scripture (Doctrine and Covenants) from Joseph Smith.
Are there any who are Classical Theists? Yes, there are some, but it is _very_ rare - you only find it among a small group of philosophically-trained Mormons who try to fit the theology with the logical conclusions of classical theism. It's quite difficult to do, given how explicit later LDS scripture and prophets are on the topic. But there are some who try.
But in general, for every-day Mormons, essentially none of them are classical theists, and most actually find the classical concept of God repugnant. They feel he is too distant, impossible to relate to, etc.
Trying to rewrite history in this way seems ridiculous by some Mormons, and a lot of the, well this part doesn't have to be literal, doesn't do anything to solve the essential disputes. You'll notice that many of the theological disputes the Church Fathers get into use the theological language and talk about how God is not a creature, not a member of a species, and how he has these attributes by nature which Mormonism denies whether or not their "god" came from a different universe or just a different planet
Ps: The Mormon tendency to just abrogate things is another similarity to non-Christian religions. It really hasn't had the kind of two story view of things where there is this objective reality we refer to that can't simply be waved away by the new emperor/caliph, etc, saying things have actually always been this way
All still not Christian 😅😅😅
🇻🇦🇻🇦🇻🇦 A lot of people are studying the Early Church Fathers and converting from Protestantism to Christianity.
Protestants are misguided and heretics, but are still Christians. Many are just deceived or misled yet still love Christ with all their heart, so instead let us pray for them, inform them.
Mormons aren't Christian however.
As an Orthodox Christian, I'll second that. I read the Didache and knew I could never be an Evangelical ever again.
Beautiful ❤
I was a lifelong Protestant. Left my Protestant husband and joined the Catholic Church.
This is a very underrated channel
Ooooh this is going to be interesting! I really hope your channel continues to grow because it's one of my top 5 UA-cam channels!
A little off topic, but I noticed that the closed captioning translation of your intro sentence is written as, "Welcome to Shameless Potpourri." Maybe you could offer that as merch.
For some reason, it would seem to me that some of the Free Masonry that Joseph Smith learned has crept into his new religion. The level of exaltation of man and lowering of God, seems right up the alley of masonry.
They believe we can become gods, but they're not gods worth becoming.
@@innocentsmith6091 Yes we do, but what does "they're not gods worth becoming" mean?
@@clearstonewindows Nobody is going to worship you.
Your idea of God is so shallow and misguided that it’s not even worth pursuing to come to embody it.
@Shameless Popery Podcast After you finish your videos about LDS/Mormon, would you consider doing the same thing with Jehovah Witnesses, or ‘Orthodox’ Judaism? It would be a huge personal favor, and I’m sure would also help others given what JW’s are usually told about Catholic Christianity. Would be great. Thanks for the videos!
I have long called Mormonism America's Islam
Lot of similarities between LDS and Islam… makes you wonder if it was the same demon that deceived both Mohammed and Joseph
The similarities are very surface level: a prophet given a book of scripture by an angel.
However the idea that Joseph Smith was deceived by a demon is disqualified by the Bible: 1 John 4:1-3
@@KnuttyEntertainment is that all? No alcohol, no issue with polygamy, both telling Christians we misunderstood who Jesus is, alleged divine revelation to their respective prophets with a specific holy book, historically militant expansions opposed to the expansion of Christianity. Ticks a lot of boxes
@@KnuttyEntertainmentGalatians 1:6-9…
Mormonism perverts the gospel and tells of a false Jesus.
Plain and simple.
@@KnuttyEntertainmentthat verse does not protect Joseph Smith from being deceived. The very definition of Jesus is up for debate between Christians and Mormons. Mormons do not believe Jesus is who he said that he was so the spirit must not have acknowledged the actual Jesus coming in the flesh.
@@KnuttyEntertainmentby your logic, Islam is also valid.
Great video, Joe! I eagerly await you getting your books, especially The Early Church was the Catholic Church, on Audible.
Praise the Lord!
Even when they talk about omnipotence, omniscience, etc, they're just stealing the phrases from Christianity without meaning them.
As an LDS, i appreciate your approach @shamelesspopery. You really seem to make an effort to represent LDS in words we would use of ourselves. Still a lot to discuss, as we would make our argument differently in places.
For example, we do still only believe in One God. Only the Father is the Most High. So it is only in one sense that we speak of many gods as there are more persons who the Father invites to partake in His divinity. There is one Godhead, not multiple founts of divinity.
We are not trying to say we have the same teachings. But, often we don't recognize the differences that are being claimed or find them to be old caricatures, so they talk past us.
One interesting thing is that Brigham Young referred to Mary as "the Virgin Mary" but taught that she conceived of the Father and not the Holy Spirit, and that the "Tabernacle" (term he is using for material bodies) was concieved in the same manner as Cain and Abel. So what does he actually mean by "Virgin"?
(He says this the same passage as teaching that Adam is God. He says of Adam: "He is Michael, the Archangel, the Ancient of Days! about whom holy men have written and spoken-He is our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do," so there's definitely a lot going on here.) - Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, pp. 46-53.
Getting ready to have a discussion with an LDS bishop about going back to the Catholic Church.
Your critiques are fair and charitable. I spent 16 years in the LDS church and cannot find any flaws
Mormons used to say they were not Christians. Claiming that they are Christians is relatively recent.
What is the definition of Christian? Please correlate amongst the billions of alleged Christians on the planet right now and get back to me once you have arrived at a 100% consensus on the definition of Christian. Thanks in advance.
@@DaremoDaremo Did you not watch the video?
@@twoody9760 The part where he showed a 100% consensus definition about what a Christian is? No, I must have missed it. Please share the timestamp where he shared that, thanks!
@@DaremoDaremoThe absolute agreed minimum is professing the Nicene Creed and being properly baptized. Neither of which Mormons do. Mormons are not Christians.
@@kidus_1010 Brother/Sister Kidus: I see. Interesting. Is this absolute minimum of yours something that has been 100% correlated among the billions of alleged Christians on the planet right now?
Is it next week yet? Anybody have a time machine I can borrow? 😊 Counting down the hours till next Thursday. Thank you sir.
Sof if they consider that the Bible is wrong or riddled with errors because of its various translations, does that apply to the 115 Book of Mormon translations as well?
Thank you so much for doing this series
This has lined up perfectly with my undertaking of talking to mormon friends and local missionaries and has given me a lot of great information
God bless you and please pray for the conversion of the mormons
LDS culture is very wholesome and has a lot of good in it, if the mormons convert to catholic we would have a real powerhouse in america
We lose our wholesomeness and community-oriented culture if we become Catholic 🤷♀️ Bring your devotion and join us in our wholesomeness!
@@DesertPrimrose uhhh no, we should follow the truth and Christ first, lol
It's not pick whatever is comfiest, it's follow what's true and pleasing to God.
You don't become a grumpy person just because you convert to Catholicism 😂
@@JazzyJacksJokeShack I know a handful of wholesome people who are Catholic, but a whole lot more who are Catholic and not wholesome. I live (and grew up) in a predominantly Catholic community. I have attended mass a few times throughout my life - baptisms, funerals, midnight mass, and Sunday mass. There are things about mass that I think are beautiful, particularly what I think is called the passing of the peace, and I love that homilies are preached by professional speakers (priests). In addition to the theological differences, there are traditions that I don't think are Godly. For example, the way money is collected during mass. We're supposed to do our alms in secret. Another thing I don't like is that the church bulletin is covered in advertisements. The Catholic parish is not as united as the LDS ward. We, the lay people, are called to minister to specific people in our congregation. Every adult, and some teenagers, have this calling. The congregation is more like a family than a group of random people. I don't see that in the Catholic parish.
We feel the same about catholics! 🥰
The reason the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is growing while others fail is Jesus
6:36 With Bible errors, many scholars from all different backgrounds have claimed that the end of the mark was added to the Bible and end of john Chapter 7.
How much do you think was added?
Catholic Church was established by Jesus in Matt 16.
Mormon Church was established by a conman with a charge sheet as long as his arm.
And he was a Freemason.
The "as far as it is translated correctly" means exactly what you said. That as time went on as translations occured errors occured 😊
It would be a great benefit to hear you speak on Praying to Mary and Praying to Saints.
Your video on Mary’s perpetual virginity convicted me.
Thank you for wading through all the confusing and disturbing beliefs on our behalf. If its hard to hear you speak, it must be very difficult (spiritually) to read through this religions beliefs. May our Lord be your strength and guard, and fill you with His peace.
Please can you tell us what the Mormons believe about the creation of Africans/ Black people.
Joeseph is it possible or would you consider adding 10-20 minute edited versions or shorter teaser videos as I share episodes but friends first timers initially don’t make the commitment to your genius. Prayers for your continued success and good health
19:54 what's the difference between a being and a person?
Active LDS here. Would love to come on your channel to discuss sometime. Interested? How can I get in touch with you?
Message me at catholic.com (put joeh before the @: sorry to put my email in such a bizarre order, I am trying to avoid bots - hope you got what I was saying). I don't do guests in this format, but I'm wondering if we can't come up with something workable.
Hayden’s a great guy and knows his stuff, a conversation with him would be productive.
@@JosephHeschmeyer
Sent!
Pints with Aquinas is looking for an Mormon to have on their show
Joe, thank you for this series. I hope you'll continue it and I hope you'll do an examination of Jehovah's Witnesses as well. I have a family member who is in dialogue with a JW. I have a vague knowledge of their beliefs, but your research and analysis would be very helpful.
I know someone who just left LDS because of the excessive tithing. Her husband is still in, and tithes his portion of the household income. Awkward!
Tithe literally means “tenth part” 10% isn’t excessive, it’s literally the definition of tithe.
Is it the church or the conviction which makes the sacrifice easy? I do not doubt your conviction and commend you for it.
@@KnuttyEntertainment The problem is LDS keeps records, and kicks you out for failure to tithe.
@wheatandtaresdid you go through the temple yourself? I only ask because it sounds like your experience has been very different from my own. Also curious how you got the label covenant breaker if you have not gone through. Also because you only go through once for yourself and then for others... which is recommended but not required for salvation. Some people only ever get to go to the temple once. In general, I think that you are mischaractizing what happens, but also acknowledge I dont know your specific history. Either way. I would just say that Im currently late in paying my tithing by several months, and am still able to go through the temple. I also struggle with pornography and meet with my bishop often about how I am doing. I have found the church leadership to be very forgiving, understanding and encouraging. It does not sound like you had a similar experience.
@@timv.3537 I wish you luck, seems the systems of the church are working as intended in your case.
Major problem with some, they're lacking knowledge of, THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS.
A Trent Horn sighting in the wild!
There is a such thing as conditional baptism. When uncertain whether or not the first baptism was valid, the words of the rite are slightly altered to say, “I conditionally baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” This solution neither confirms nor denies the original baptism, but it does ensure the individual has been validly baptized. Considering this is a salvation issue, certainty is better than being eternally sorry.
I have a Question about baptism.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will baptize any member joining our church regardless of whether they have been baptized previously because we do not believe that the person doing the baptism for the other church had the authority of God to do so
From what I understand Catholics also believe in priesthood Authority.
So why do they not follow that same understanding that these other churches didn't have the priesthood authority to do the baptisms?
The Catholic Church never lost that authority. That is the bases for all so-called restored churches. The mormon understanding that Jesus and Lucifer/satan are brothers clearly shows mormons have NO idea who Jesus really is.
Mormon baptizing in the name of the Father, brother of satan, and Holy Spirit is NOT a valid baptism.
While it is ideal and recommended that baptism is performed by a Catholic bishop, priest, or deacon, it's recognized that this is an essential sacrament for salvation which needs to be available to all, therefore anybody can baptise so long as they follow the right form (Trinitarian baptism) and use the right matter (water). This is because the authority lies with Christ himself. The actual spirituality of the baptism comes from Christ, not the human performing the baptism.
I can’t find the essay you are referring to. Does someone have a link to that?
You mentioned LDS believe the Holy Spirit does not have a body but is divine in passing but this is actually the best way to show Mormons the Christian view of God is logically necessary and their gods are not gods at all. The Holy Spirit can be omnipresent because he is sans body so in this way having a body puts limits on the Mormon gods. Their embodied gods cannot be omnipotent or omniscient if they are not omnipresent and therefore are no gods at all, just bodies moving within time and space. So the Mormon belief in the Holy Spirit is the closest they get to the Christian view of God.
Their embodied gods are actually gods but in the pagan sense.
A Christian though would indeed note it's not _the_ True God.
Early Christians (St. Augustine comes to mind) would hold the maxim that such beings would be angels, demons, or fake.
The scriptures clearly dtate that there is one faith and one baptism!!! Continued...
24:21 does Jesus have a hand, a body? Literally?
When i was a child, i asked a passing question about whether or not a heavenly mother existed because there's a heavenly father. I was expecting the answer to be no simply because I've never heard of such a thing, but the Elder said yes, there was, and then never elaborated on that or what that means.
I left nearly nine years ago, and i still have next to no clue about it other than the fact I somehow stumbled into Esoteric Mormonism as a first grader. 💀
Interesting take
The Hebrew word tzrlem means image or form just like a graven image form! Not only did Stephen and other Biblical prophets, including Moses, saw this but also Joseph Smith saw this! Christ emphasized this by simply stating that if you had seen Him, you had seen the Father, which is exactly what Joseph Smith saw, two separate beings that looked alike!!!
Satan has woven a lot of partial truths and Christian words into Mormonism. On the surface, as you have explained, there is a lot about Mormonism that sounds very Christian. But when you start digging you see just how different Mormon theology is from Christian theology. Different God, different theology, different scriptures, different afterlife, etc, etc, etc.
22:29 2 nephi 31:21, 3nephi 11:27, 32,36
In relation to Brigham Young, not everything uttered or written by a leader of the church is doctrine, just like not everything the Pope says is doctrine. If we're going to talk about the failings of LDS prophets, let's also talk about the failings of some historic popes. I would argue that Brigham Young's failings are harmless compared to some of the actions of some of the popes.
As far as the virgin birth, I believe God used some kind of artificial insemination. How do Catholics believe the miracle happened?
Catholics believe that it was a miracle of the Holy Spirit, not something explained by natural means. It would then be wrong to compare it to any natural process (even artificial-natural ones, as I mean natural in the sense of scientifically explainable, not in the sense of as seen in nature). For example, artificial insemination would not be considered orthodox. However, the development of Christ within His mother's womb was natural; it was different from both just placing a baby in her womb, or coming to be as how Eve came from Adam. For more information, you can read the third canon of the lateran council, 649 Anno Domini.
Why? We’re talking about mormons. Can you just answer for your own failings without just pointing to someone else?
@@Naomi-bw5qs my failings?
The Latter-Day Saints are generally good and devoted people, whom many Catholics could do well to emulate in their zeal and spirit of sacrifice, in their concern to build loving Christian communities, and in their positive approach towards family values and the sanctity of life.
Nevertheless, LDS “gospel” is a sad travesty of the true gospel of Jesus Christ who did not break his promise to be with us until the end of the age. The Church has been with us for 2,000 years and it didn’t need to be restored by Joseph Smith or any other false prophet.
There was no succession crisis when Joseph Smith died. D+C 107:21-38 clearly defines the roles of the first presidency, the apostles and the 70’s as well as local high councils. Clearly the Apostles had the authority to cover-down and lead the church 13:29 when the first presidency was dissolved. Brigham Young was clearly the senior apostle. The apostles had the right to reorganize the first presidency and fill the vacancies in the quorum. Which is what they did.
The JD 6:1-11 description reminds me of the devil tempting Eve ... ideas that allow one to think 'You too can become equal to God'. Its clear what sort of 'spirit' he has opened himself up to ... and with his own agenda ... its swallowed hook, line, and sinker ... even the cane pole!
We should believe in God because he is our Father and no other being is. We have an intimate relationship with him that we cannot have with any other being of any type. We would be lost and lonely without him.
I am very interested in what the LDS believe because I have family that joined the Mormon church
The Catholic Church teaches that God is a trinity. But, is that teaching true? If it is, where in the Bible does it say that...
1. the Godhead is triune?
2. "we worship one God in trinity"?
3. God consists of God the Father, God the Son, and God the holy spirit?
4. the Father, Son, and holy spirit are the same "One God"?
5. the Father, Son, and holy spirit are one in substance, nature, and essence?
Well for one thing, we don't follow the unbiblical doctrine of Sola Scriptura. We submit to the Church Christ established to lead the faithful.
Otherwise:
Throughout the Bible we see that there is a multipersonality to God in the Old Testament (such as "let us create man in our image", or the Angel of the Lord). Otherwise we see three persons identified: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. All are shown to not be the same as each other, but all are shown to be God, and of course there is one God. Most of the rest comes down to process of elimination, knowing it can't be three Gods, it can't be one person, etc etc.
@@EmberBright2077 "Throughout the Bible we see that there is a multi-personality to God in the Old Testament."
Please answer any of the questions I stated. They are...
Where in the Bible does it say that...
1. the Godhead is triune?
2. "we worship one God in trinity"?
3. God consists of God the Father, God the Son, and God the holy spirit?
4. the Father, Son, and holy spirit are the same "One God"?
5. the Father, Son, and holy spirit are one in substance, nature, and essence?
@@cbooth151 I provided an answer that covers your general questions. You are setting a criteria that I don't actually have to meet. In the same vein, I could say, "where in the Bible does it say that God is unitarian", or "where does it say the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one person" etc etc.
@@EmberBright2077 "You are setting a criteria that I don't actually have to meet."
Don't fool yourself. You are obligated to answer my question(s). As 1 Pet. 3: 15 says: "Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope." But, up to now, you haven't answered a single question. So, since you might be incapable of answering multiple questions, I will ask you a single question, okay? So, where in the Bible does it say or even suggest that the Father, Son, and holy spirit are one in substance, nature, and essence?
As a measure of good faith, I will answer both of your questions, even though you have evaded mine.
1. "Where in the Bible does it say that God is unitarian?"
The word "unitarian" is not a Biblical word. However, in the Bible, God is a single person. For instance, at John 17:3, Jesus addressed his Father as "the ONLY true God." 1 Cor. 8:6a adds: "yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom all things are and for whom we exist."
2. "Where does [the Bible] say the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one person?"
The answer to that question is 'NOWHERE!!' It should be obvious to anyone with sense that a father and son are two separate persons. For instance, at John 8:28, Jesus said: "I do nothing on my own, but I say only what the Father taught me." As you can see, the Father and Son are separate persons. However, according to one authority, the holy spirit is not a person, but a divine energy or power. As it says: " On the whole the New Testament, like the Old, speaks of the [holy] spirit as a divine energy or power.”
Now, please answer my question, which was, "Where in the Bible does it say or even suggest that the Father, Son, and holy spirit are one in substance, nature, and essence?
@@cbooth151 So it seems you are happy to accept that, when arguing for your position, you don't need a specific Bible verse that says X. But it seems that when it's not your position, you suddenly need the other person to meet that standard you don't hold yourself to.
I'd also like to add, how in the world do you explain in Psalms where it says we are all gods. Or Christ when he says that you will be able to do greater things than I have shown you. If Christ is God the Father, what is he talking about when he says that you can be greater than me?. That's been a bigger rub than almost anything you should be having your income dependent on preaching the gospel.
My understanding of "you are all gods" has to do with human authorities acting as judges, like God.
As far as Jesus saying you will do greater things than Him, I think he's referring to scale and quantity (such as the many miracles seen in the Catholic Church it's 2000 year history), not that we are powers superior to Christ.
It was mentioned that the LDS have books that "we" don't have in our Bible. I'm assuming you're referring to "Catholics"🤔 Because Catholics also have books (the Apocrapha), which isn't in the original completed Bible. That's sorta "expanded also".
My best friend was baptized as an infant in the catholic church. He fell away very young and his family just went to mass out of routine until it wasnt convenient anymore. Anyway many years have passed and hes finally read scripture and his wife is taking him to a non denominational (baptist) church. Anyway theyre trying to convince him to get baptized again. Convince him that the first one didnt matter because he didnt profess faith as an infant. Im doing my best to hold my tongue but i wonder if i should talk to him. His wife would certainly see it as me trying to keep him from having a proper baptism while i see it as blaspheming the one he already had. I havent said anything because its he's literally just discovering his faith and i believe god will have mercy on him either way but still. I tried to send him an article about the anabaptists but he wasnt too interested. Just not the biggest fan of history i guess.
May I reply? I hope it's not too late.
You're good for worrying about your friend. It's true that getting re-baptized is terrible, but so is unbelief or heresy.
Of course, he probably doesn't know better and God will take his lack of knowledge into account.
But, if his unbelief may be excused by lack of knowledge, so can re-baptism. Because getting re-baptized is a _much_ lighter sin than unbelief and heresy.
And baptists hold worse views. Say, the sin of presumption, which is very common among Baptists. Basically it's about claiming you _know_ who gets saved and who God condemns. By calling themselves "the saved" or worse even "the Elect" is the epitome of all pride, as far as I'm concerned. If this wasn't enough, they often go say "once saved always saved" meaning a certainty they won't sin again, or that God doesn't care if they do. Nasty stuff.
So I won't tell you to not worry about it, just that most of your worries should go towards worse parts of the heresy, and in the long term aim for his conversion to the Catholic Church.
Now for my advice to stop his re-baptism, then assuming these Baptists don't believe in Baptismal regeneration (which is common for them) what you can do is tell him there's no real need. If Baptism doesn't do anything, there's no need to bother, right? Many Baptists are unbaptized.
This may or may not work.
May God bless your efforts.
@alonso19989 funny we haven't talked about it since before my Comment and just last night we had a long long prot/catholic debate. Anyway he found it hilarious that our church considers him baptized but then thought it was kind of cool of the special privileges that gives him. I told him even though technically he could skip RCIA, I'd highly recommend it.
@@timboslice980 You got him to consider RCIA? Holy heck that's impressive. Praise God!
@alonso19989 Nah he's curious though. His dad's a catholic and mom was but drifted away from the church after she divorced his dad. He hasn't really been in his dad's life since he was very young so I think there's a curiosity
Many are called, few follow through.
Sounds like a fallen angel story, like whatever spoke to Smith was a Watcher impersonating God
Then why does mormons 7:7 says father ,son and holy ghost are one,doesn't say one in purpose
A few points of refutation from a Latter-day Saint. First, I feel your videos are a lot better than how most people treat us, so thank you. You actually argue doctrinal points rather than ranting about cults.
Joseph did leave a successor, multiple in fact. It was supposed to be the assistant president of the Church, Hyrum Smith, but he was killed along with his brother Joseph. The 12 Apostles were also given the priesthood keys to run the Church, and they did. There was little disputation about that besides a few small groups, most of which dwindled rapidly.
We consider the Joseph Smith Translation accurate, but didn’t have access to it. Most of it is grammatical changes to update it to modern English. Not too many new doctrines or revelations, but a few.
You consider us non-Christian due to our disbelief in the Trinity and that God has a body. I argue that the Trinity was a later invention that came about by theological debate and concessions and isn’t entirely consistent with the teachings from the Bible. It is perfectly logical for a rational person to read the Bible and come to a conclusion that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are three distinct beings. Why should that invalidate them from being a Christian? Also, Jesus was born with a body and then was resurrected and took his physical body back. Why did He do this only to get rid of it again? Why did God give us bodies? What is the importance of that if they are for nothing in the end. Is it really so unreasonable for someone to conclude based on this evidence that bodies are important and Jesus and God have bodies? Should that invalidate you from being Christian?
Creation ex-nihilio is a Greek idea that crept into Christendom. It creates many questions that atheist have rightly pointed out and I feel LDS theology answers. If God was perfect by Himself, why did He need to create anything? What is the purpose of our existence? Why didn’t he prevent the fall? What do we need to learn from our existence with mortal bodies on Earth? What is the point of our existence in Heaven afterwards? What will we be doing for eternity? If we are just an extension of God’s will, do we really have agency outside of Him? If God is above all things ,can he make impossible things possible,and if not are you acknowledging that he is bound by laws of reality and the universe? And if so, are you acknowledging that God is a natural being that can potentially be understood by mankind?
The Book of Mormon stating Jesus was born ”at” Jerusalem is evidence for the veracity of that Book. Everyone knows Jesus was born in the town of Bethlehem, about 5 miles outside of Jerusalem, even Joseph. However, we now know that the land surrounding Jerusalem was called the land of Jerusalem. It is even supported by scripture. 2 Kings 14:19-20 where a man was buried “at Jerusalem … in [Bethlehem].” How did Joseph know he could put this in there and get away with it?
Latter-day Saint doctrine is unique from other Christian faiths to be sure, but that is because we didn’t adopt many of the false teachings of man that crept in due to Greek and Roman philosophical ideas. We are restored to what the teachings should have been. I find our teachings to be consistent with Biblical teachings, many of which were lost.
12:37 ah you just augmented Christian to mean trinitarian. That's a false definition. You just redefined Christian as trinitarian Christian. And by the way, Mormons baptize in the name of the father and if the Sun and if the holy Ghost.
Many Calvinists are tritheists. To his credit James White admitted his error in trinitarian theology and changed
Could you elaborate on this? I've never heard of this.
What if a Mormon believes in the Trinity rather than the LDS Godhead?
I've heard some people use those words interchangeably, but we don't believe they are the same persons
@weaponofchoice-tc7qs can you guys explain the trinity
Then they would cease to be Mormon, and should set out to study theology more in depth. The Catechism of the Catholic Church and writings of early Christians would be an excellent place to start.
@@smartismarti4049 then I guess I am not Mormon anymore. I would love to be Catholic.
@daxypoo to Catholicism
Speaking of the stupid doctrine of the trinity, Paul earned about unsound (illogical) doctrined in the last days, snd it would be hard to find a more illigical doctrine than this one!! Is it logical to prsy to yourself?!? Is it ligical to be able to sit on the right hand of yourself?!? Id it ligucal when you are baptized to descrnd upon yourself ehile throwing your voice from heaven saying that you sre wrll pleasef with yourself?!? How stupid is that?!? Continued...
Kenneth Copeland also believes God is an emodied being. He sneaks in some interesting theology into his sermons.
We have got to convert these mormons.....I lost it when they denied the virgin birth!!! Are you kidding me!!!
Come get us 😀
Also not sure what you're saying about the virgin birth? Born of a Virgin is in the book of Mormon. So may want to get your stories straight. We do believe that the father is the father of Jesus and not the Holy Ghost. It's our detractors that equate sex because we believe God the father is not a cloud.
So before you come convert us (i'll give you my address) Make sure you know what your talking about. Here an Idea, about you talk to us or read the book of Mormon.
@@clearstonewindows that's the point! Watch the videos. 🤦🤦🤦
The book or morman is false. Totally false.....
@@tillo1981 I watched the video? Are you saying the point is to misrepresent what we believe?
I'm saying the book of Mormon specify says "Born of a virgin" not "Conceived of a virgin"
What am I missing?
@@clearstonewindows that your book is false.
@@tillo1981
Okay, you're jumping around here (changing subjects) I"m just saying your claim about what we believe is wrong and our book doesn't claim to say what you said it does.
You're going to have a hard time converting us if you have no idea what we believe.
If you want to prove the book is false, have at it. That is a non-strawman that if you succeed would have all 17MM of us joining the catholic church in a day. (most likely the orthodox church)
This mealy mouthiness is why I don't watch Catholic Answers. Baptists merely consider Baptism as symbolic and NOT for the forgiveness of sins. They disavow the baptism for the forgiveness of sins. Yes, Baptism is what makes a person a Christian. Believe and be baptized. Do they accept the creed? No. Do they accept the One Baptism for the forgiveness of sins? No. Therefore, Baptists are technically not Christians either.
Define mealy mouthiness. What is wrong with Catholic Answers?
mormon = islam 2.0
Um, you deleted the other thread so you could keep spready this lie.
it's nice to know that Jesus is married and is God the Father to his spiritual children, and sent his son to their planet where the "Son of God" is teaching them about "his Father in Heaven".....because that's what he saw his Father do, as well. So simple, so true. This has been going on for all eternity. Jesus glorified his Father (the only begotten in the flesh, BTW) and received all that the Father has. This is how it works before & beyond the veil. If this is not true, then we have the status quo: anyone can pick up the Bible and sppout their own version of God, as there are millions of versions of God out there. I'll keep mine, thank you.
Well, we used to consider Islam a heresy born from Nestorianism and I forget what else. The Ishmaelite heresy.
LDS are social trinitarians. There isn't just one definition of what the trinity is. The New Testament tells us how they are one as Jesus wanted us to be one as he and the Father are one.
How are Calvinist’s considered Christians but LDS isn’t… crazy talk
Calvinist affirm the Trinity, that Christ was the Son of the Father and was incarnate of the Virgin Mary (True God and true man) and that Christ Died on the Cross, rose from the dead and Ascended into Heaven for the forgiveness of Sins. So on Trinitarian and Christological Dogma, they are in agreement with the Ancient Church (Catholic) and the Orthodox as well. Where they differ with Catholicism is on Soteriology (Doctrine of Justification), ecclesiology (Church is ruled by Pastor with elders, etc.) and Canon of Scripture (they follow the KJV canon of 66 Books).
Hectic! Blessed to be Catholic.
I've studied with 2 mormon missionaries. Based on the book of Mormon nd thei bel8efs, i don't think that it is.
Orthodox Protestantism ??
All these arguments for a God that was always like he is now also believe that this universe has a finite life-span. The Big Bang Theory and the concept of a finite universe was invented by a Catholic. So our Father could have lived in a universe before this one was created and then risen to Glory and created this universe. Which is what I believe actually.
Thank you for this. Mormonism has a different God than the God of Christianity. They believe Jesus was created in a pre-existence by a mother and Father god in heaven through procreation. As a Christian, Jesus is not created, He is infinite, not finite. He is eternal, creatures are not eternal. Jesus is unchangeable, creatures are changeable. Romans 1:23 They exchanged the glory of the immortal God for statues, birds, animals, and snakes. John 1:1 In the beginning there was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word is God. God was before the foundation of the world. John 17:24 Jesus speaks of Himself being with God before the foundation of the world. Jesus created everything in the universe, He is our creator, did He create Himself? Mormonism makes absolutely no sense.
There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.
I find myself wanting to comment on every single point that you're making.
We do not believe anything at all close to what you're describing about God or the Virgin birth!
I beg you!!!! PLEASE find a Mormon have them come on your show have a conversation with this person!!!!
How your characterizing what we believe is not close to it at all, especially the whole Mary stuff. we do not believe that God came down in Zeus style to impregnate Mary.
She had a virgin birth. She bacame pregnant when the Holy Spirit came upon her as described in the Bible!
Please! Stop strawmanning what we believe TALK to an ACTUAL believer. Ask them questions!
We are more then willing to answer!
We have young men and women out doing just that for 2 yrs of their late teens early adulthood!!! 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
Having once been mormon, the Book of Mormon initially seems logical and sounds like ‘Another Testimony of Jesus Christ’. However, Joseph Smith would later describe a Jesus radically different from the Bible Jesus which seems more like a ‘testimony of another Jesus Christ’, especially if you believe Jesus and Lucifer/satan are brothers or the idea of a great counsel of gods existed before Jesus, which is not supported anywhere in the Book of Mormon or the Bible.
Apostle Paul warns of teaching another Jesus (2 Corinthians 11:4), and and goes on to explain in verses 14 and 15; “For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.
Jesus warns of false prophets in Matthew 7: 20 'Thus you will know them by their fruits'.
We see the fruit when mormons desecrate Jesus Christ at the end of every Sunday service, when the 'left over' blessed and sanctified bread and water is unceremoniously thrown into the trash. Compare this to how mormons respectfully remove the satanic freemasonry symbols from worn out garments before disposal.
Of course mormons get around anything the Bible says by simply saying the Bible has been corrupted, yet ignore the corruption of their own Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and other documents.
Well, what is scripture? Define scripture.
The Biblical canon gathered by Pope Damasus and ratified in the Council of Trent.
@@crusaderACR That is a definition for what a particular religious body considers to be a canon of scripture. That doesn't explain what scripture is.
@@DaremoDaremo I thought you were asking about what's Holy Scripture. The Church is the only one that can infallibly declare a canon.
If you mean scripture as in the dictionary word, it means writings/text. You could've looked that up on your own tbh.
@@crusaderACR So, okay, what is the definition of scripture as found in what you consider Holy Scripture (scripture canonized by the religious group you adhere to)?
@@DaremoDaremo Writing inspired by the Holy Spirit. It's said to be infallible. What is derived from Scripture is automatically dogma.
In the Council of Trent it was closed with 72 books. Not one will be added, not one will be removed.
Same with mary like the muslims who went against the trinity's of mary included. She is queen of heaven co reigning with christ
It's true, "Mormons" believe in three, distinct personages which comprise the "Godhead," for God is not a name, but an office . This is not in any way, anti-biblical. On the contrary, Trinitariianism is the anti-biblical proposition, being purely a plroduct of the 4th century Catholic Church and her ecumenical councils.
BTW, believing in more than one god does not, in and of itself, constitute paganism, for we worship and pray only to one God and that is the Father. We pray in the name of the Son, just as Jesus did and as Jesus taught us to do. (Our Father which art in heaven...)
Yes, we believe in an open canon, since God is not dead, nor doth He sleep.
Babtism? Absolutely, just not infant babtism, or babyism by sprinkling (can't find those two things in the Bible either).
Let's talk about BIBLICAL EVIDENCE FOR THE TRINITY.
First, in order for you to understand the Biblical evidence for the TRINITY, you must first stop trying to "put God in a box..." God's Divine existence is BEYOND human understanding and the physical limitations of this world. Let's hear what God Himself says about this in:
I TIMOTHY 3:16
"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:
A. God was manifested in the flesh,
B. Justified in the Spirit,
C. Seen by angels,
D. Preached among the Gentiles,
E. Believed on in the world,
F. Received up in glory.
Notice the following: "God was manifested in the flesh..." while on earth God did all the things Jesus did as stated above., "Great is the mystery of godliness..." God is God, powerful and capable of doing miracles that is beyond human understanding and the physical limitations of this world.
Next, let's go to:
ISAIAH 45:5
"I am the Lord, and there is no other;
Thete is no God besides Me..." (Mormons, this verse is for you, you cannot be a god) Keep this verse in mind, because we are going to circle back to this in a little bit.
We are going to show the Divine identity of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.
GOD: We have God identifying Himself to Moses in:
EXODUS 3:14
And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And He said, "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, I AM has sent me to you."
We have God identifying Himself as the "I AM."
JOHN 1:1
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
We have God identified as the "Word."
JESUS: We have Jesus identifying Himself in:
JOHN 8:58
Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM."
We have Jesus identifying Himself as the "I AM" the same title God used in Exodus 3:14.
JOHN 1:14
"And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth."
We have Jesus identified as the "Word" the same title God used in John 1:1.
I TIMOTHY 3:16
"...God was manifested in the flesh..."
HOLY SPIRIT: We have Peter talking to Ananias in:
ACTS 5:3-4
But Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit (Jahovah Witnesses, notice that he said that you are lying to the Holy Spirit) and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself? While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God."
We have the Holy Spirit recognized as being God.
We have God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, all recognized as being God!
Let's circle back to ISAIAH 45:5, where it says: "There is no God besides Me..." with this verse, and all the other Bible verses Oneness, Jahovah Witnesses, and Mormons use to oppose the Trinity, we either have complete Kaos here with this contradiction, or, since God says that He is "not the author of confusion..." (I Corinthians 14:33). We can confidently conclude that the only explanation to untangle this contradiction is:
"TRINITY"
But wait, there's more Biblical evidence for the TRINITY, let's go to the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.
We are going to show God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit all at the Resurrection of Jesus.
GOD: We have God raising Jesus from the dead.
*Acts 3:26
*I THESSALONIANS 1:10
*Acts 17:31
JESUS: We have Jesus raising Himself from the dead.
*John 2:19-21
HOLY SPIRIT: We have the Holy Spirit raising Jesus from the dead.
*Romans 8:11
We have God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit all at the Resurrection raising Jesus from the dead!
Amen...
There you are Oneness, Jahovah Witnesses, and Mormons BIBLICAL EVIDENCE FOR THE TRINITY.
TRINITY 3= 1 GOD.
You also need to look at the matrix by which the Catholics believe in the trinity. Within that Matrix you'll find three gods. The father is not the son, the son is not the Holy Spirit, the holy spirit is not the father, they are three dots doing one purpose. It's a Long Way Around The Barn infection by the third-rate priest tertullian
No, there is only one God. There are three distinct persons that share the same essence. I understand you do not understand this. Nobody fully understands it. We believe because it has been revealed by the Holy Spirit. That is where faith comes in. We can come to the realization there is a God through reason. We can only believe in the Trinity through faith and the grace of God.
The only reason I can think of is that the LDS church members get upset for not being included in the Christian Club is that our definition of Christian is: one who believes in Christ
And we do believe in Christ! We just have a different idea of his beingness 😊
Exactly, and the mormon jesus is NOT the Jesus described in the Bible.
Apostle Paul warns of teaching another Jesus (2 Corinthians 11:4), and and goes on to explain in verses 14 and 15; “For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.
@johns1834 have you actually read the Book of Mormon, or are you basing that off of what others have told you?
@@akpred Former mormon here, so yes, I've read the BOM, still have mormon friends and family, and believe LDS are generally good and devoted people, whom many Catholics and other Christians could do well to emulate in their zeal and spirit of sacrifice, in their concern to build loving Christian communities, and in their positive approach towards family values and the sanctity of life.
Nevertheless, once you step away and take a fresh unbiased look, you will realize the LDS “gospel” is a sad travesty of the true gospel of Jesus Christ. Mormons knowingly or unknowingly desecrate Jesus after every Sunday service when the 'left over' blessed and sanctified bread and water is tossed into the trash. Compare this to respectfully removing the freemasonry symbols from old worn out underwear/garments before disposal.
Jesus did not break his promise to be with us until the end of the age and his Church has been with us for 2,000 years and it never needed to be restored by Joseph Smith or any other false prophet.
That "beingness" is everything. When I put down my defenses and listened to the Christian position, I was floored and devastated. I might as well have been worshiping my neighbor, Jesus, that's how different in "beingness" the true Christ is from the "Jesus Christ" I was taught in the LDS church. Please sit on this, study biblical scholars, seek to know (by reading) who Jesus Christ is biblically and compare that to the Jesus you've been taught.
Imagine you're chatting with your new neighbor and you ask them if they're friends with Joe. They say yes, and you both are exciting that you have a mutual friend. As you're talking about how kind, funny, and great Joe is, they mention that it's such a shame that is brother Greg is such a jerk. You go, wait a minute, the Joe I know doesn't have a brother named Greg. Now you know you're talking about different Joes, because there's no way the same Joe both does and doesn't have a brother named Greg. You verify with your Joe by reading his geneology, his biography, and by asking him yourself. Now if your neighbor continued to insist you both know Joe, but have different understandings of his beingness, would you agree with them?
No truly Christian denomination will agree that Jesus and Satan were ever equals. To elevate Satan to the level of God is absolute blasphemy. Satan's brother, Jesus, is not Jesus the Christ whom Christians worship.
@@smartismarti4049 Totally agree. The idea Jesus and Lucifer/satan are brothers simply means mormons have NO Idea who God is.
The Bible is clear. Jesus and God the Father are not the same person. Catholics and Protestants believe Jesus and the Father are the same person. The Holy Ghost is not the Father or the Son. Thus the so called traditional "trinity " is obviously false. The "trinity" " is not mentioned in the Bible. I figured out this was wrong while in Catholic school. No longer Catholic. The Father and Son And Holy Ghost i.e, spirit are true just not the way most Christians believe.
both claims are false.
The trinity is the Father and the son Jesus christ are 2 seperate people with a body of flesh and bones in Genisus in the bible it sais God made man in the image of God and the Holy Spirit has just a body of spirit the 3 are one in purpose and work together Joseph Smith seen them John ch 3 vs 16 for God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son we needed a prophet in our time to explain this to us moslems don't believe this but we respect all religions on the News in Australia a Muslim boy stabbed an Anglican priest the boy said he did it because the priest was mocking his prophet and it hurts the latterday saints article of faith sais We believe in worshiping Almighty God to the dictates of our own conscience and allow all men to do the same let them worship how where and what they may
Good job of twisting other people's beliefs to make them look false. I don't think Christ would have twisted other people's beliefs to give inaccurate views. If people stop it with these kinds of misrepresentations then we can all come closer to the unity of the faith that Christ and His apostles talked about. If you have no interest in coming to the unity of the faith then you have no interest in Christianity.
Yea it’s gross how apologists have the most nuance in their own position and take everything in the best possible light… but when it comes to another faith it’s the opposite
A few notes:
Mormonism and the Bible:
Our problem is less with the translation of the Bible, or even really with the text of the Bible itself, rather our problem is with transmission. We don’t think that the autobiographical writings of the prophets are perfectly represented by the Bible, the Bible is a third hand account of the scriptures. The Old Testament being a reconstructed compilation written by post-exilic scribes operating under the theological reforms of King Josiah (which reforms moved away from true doctrine in my opinion). I think the documentary hypostasis showcases some of the inherent problems that brings quite well:
m.ua-cam.com/video/wi1vuwGnKxI/v-deo.html
Furthermore, we don’t even think the Book of Mormon is inerrant. In fact the title page of the Book of Mormon (written by Moroni) says as much. And this because we believe mortal men are inherently fallible. All this despite the fact that the Gold Plates were written, compiled, and translated by inspired prophets every step of the way, and were transmitted a absolute minimal number of times:
Events experienced first hand by prophets -> events recalled and written about by the hand of those same prophets autobiographically (though they were foremost written poetically) -> writings compiled, abridged, and commentated upon by another prophet centuries later -> dictated by Joseph Smith as he translated by the gift and power of God -> recorded without punctuation by Joseph Smith’s scribe -> copied with added punctuation for print.
That’s only six stages, aided by inspiration at every stage except the last one or two. Despite this, we’ve found numerous scribal and copyist errors from those last two stages that have been corrected in subsequent editions. In fact, Joseph Smith himself corrected most such errors and offered several clarifications resulting in the 1836 and ‘42 editions of the Book of Mormon. We’ve also found a sparse few errors and artistic choices attributable to the stages prior Joseph Smith’s translation, but those ones we maintain for the record.
If so many errors can pop up in so few transmissions, then the Bible really has no chance of reflecting the writings of prophets that we cannot yet prove even existed historically. The Hebrew Bible we have now is likely very close the original editions of the Old Testament produced post-exile, however the idea that these accurately preserve pre-exotic writings is unlikely.
Yeah, I tried to be clear that the claim is that "as the Bible was compiled, organized, translated, and transcribed, many errors entered the text," and I give the example that even in an uncorrupted Greek manuscript, it may be impossible to perfectly translate it into English, since many Greek words (like Logos) lack a perfectly-fitting corresponding English word.
In terms of the transmission process, where I'm confused as a non-Mormon is to what agree you see God having any role in preserving his own revelation. Is the idea that he goes to the trouble of divinely inspiring the original revelation, but doesn't go to the trouble of making sure that it's protected from loss or error? And if so, what's the reasoning there?
@@JosephHeschmeyer God preserves his word through prophets, the way he always has. If something is lost or misunderstood, he tells them to preach the things the people need to hear. Our prophets and apostles preach clearly and frequently concerning the words God has for this generation, speaking to us in our own tongue according to our own understanding.
The scriptures are a record of God’s dealings with man throughout history. They’re very useful and important. However, they are not immune to being lost. Someone could dedicate their life to burning every Bible in the world, and God would not interfere with their free will choice to do so, instead he would just have his prophets re-write the things God wishes to reveal to us.
Overall, I think you’re doing a good job being charitable and representing us well.
We Catholics do believe God (the second person of the Trinity) has a body. Jesus the incarnate God-Man ascended into a place called Heaven and still retains his glorified physical human nature. The uncreated Divine Essence, which exists from before the creation of Heaven, does not have a body. So this is the disagreement - Mormons don’t believe in an uncreated Creator. They blend the “unseen realm” and divinity. They believe Creation itself is eternal and that Godhood arises from this eternal matter/intelligence.
Mainstream Christians believe that Jesus, eternally existing as God, took on flesh: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God [...] and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father" (John 1:1, 14). And of course, we don't believe that the Father has a body, or that the Father used to be a man, or that the Father has his own god, etc.
@@JosephHeschmeyer my comment was only to remind us that we Catholics believe Jesus is God, and we believe Jesus is still incarnate in bodily form - because we believe in his bodily ascension. Therefore we can say God (the second person of the Trinity) has a body the same way we can say God has a mother. If by God, we specifically mean the uncreated Divine Essence then of course God transcends bodily form.
@@JosephHeschmeyer my concern is modern Catholics seemingly downplay the bodily ascension or instead speak of the ascension into Heaven as if by that we mean Jesus has disincarnated back into uncreated eternity leaving his human nature behind. This problem arises because most mainstream Christians make no distinction between the unseen spiritual realm (heaven) and the uncreated triune Godhead.
Rome_77 is correct on both fronts. The other two in the replies are mistaken about Mormonism.
In Mormonism, there is no creation ex nihilo. Spirit is material and a finer form of matter. There is an infinite amount of both raw physical matter, and spiritual matter.
God the Father is the most intelligent of all the spirit beings.
he is probably (this is my speculation) the only one self aware and powerful enough to organize matter and create things as he saw fit. The rest of us needed to be made God’s children and guided along by his hand in order to progress to the point of self-determination that God reached on his own.
Because of this, the Father is the first and only Most High God, the rest of us are contingent upon him.
@@KnuttyEntertainment How does the Father being "the first and only Most High God" make sense of the idea that the Father used to be a man on another planet, or being raised from the dead? Brigham Young explicitly denies that anyone (including a god) can raise themselves from the dead.
As a Latter-day Saint, here’s my take on the trinity:
For context, I believe in the Godhead, not the Trinity. I like to think of the Godhead like an actor and his two understudies all portraying Hamlet. There is only one character named Hamlet, and as far as the play is concerned, all three actors are the one true Hamlet. Their words and deeds are always the same. You could almost even say they are practically three beings as one person. God is much the same way: there is One True God, and that God is the Father. Jesus and the Holy Ghost stand in the place of God, representing him, so you can also say that they are God too.
Now the trinity is the inverse of this. It says God is three persons in one being. Like Gollum and Smeagol, multiple personalities sharing a body; three who’s but one what.
But the idea of the trinity almost immediately breaks down when you get specific or try to explain scripture. Beyond that, this usage of persons and beings in no way corresponds to anything we can observe in reality. Being a human being is what makes you a specific person.
As trinitarians use them today, the words “person” and “being” are nonsense terms with no concrete line between them, and if you press a trinitarian, they often cannot define the terms beyond what I’ve already said. Ultimately, I’ve found they will cop out and appeal to what Aquinas said: it’s a mystery beyond human comprehension, and that you cannot say what God is, only what he isn’t. This goes against scripture which says that we can clearly understand the Godhead through observation of the reality around us (Romans 1:19-20). So the trinity, this concept that doesn’t correspond to any aspect of rational reality and is beyond human comprehension, is disqualified by scripture.
Now even if we grant the idea that the nature of God is beyond us mere mortals, the trinity still doesn’t hold up. Pay close attention. There is a very important difference between something being beyond our comprehension because it is beyond our capacity, versus being incomprehensible because it goes against rationality. I can’t comprehend the 4th dimension because it’s beyond my capacity, but I can still approach it by extrapolating from the principles of the first three dimensions using math and logic (which is in line with Romans 1:19-20). However, a married bachelor is incomprehensible for an entirely different reason. I fully understand the component parts of marriage and bachelors, I just can’t reconcile the contradiction because it goes against rationality.
There is nothing wrong with saying that God is beyond us in the first sense. I have no problem with someone claiming God is a 4th dimensional being. But God cannot be incomprehensible in the second sense because God is the fountainhead of rationality, if he, the source of logic, were to embody the illogical, he would be a God of confusion and a house divided against itself, which cannot stand. (Matthew 12:25, 1 Cor. 14:33)
So how did rational people arrive at this irrational idea? Well let’s look at the original words used to describe the trinity. The technical terms for three persons in one being is three hypostases of one Ousia. And the idea of three persons sharing one substance is called Homoousia. Where do Christians get these ideas from? They’ll tell you it’s from the Bible, but the terms trinity, homoousia, etc. do not appear in the Bible. Rather, the trinity can objectively be shown to derive from Greek philosophy, and not early Judeo-Christian theology.
The God of the Trinity is much closer to the immaterial unmoved mover believed by Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, than the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob who called his followers “those who wrestle with God.”
The terms hypostasis and ousia are terms prominent in the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle. In fact, Plato says that the Platonic forms of platonism are the definition of ousia/essence. And hypostasis meant the underlying substance of things. Literally Hypo=under + stasis=station/stance, so hypostasis is a direct one-to-one translation of sub-stance.
Meaning that when you say God is three hypostases/persons in one ousia/being, you are actually literally saying that God is three substances of one platonic form, which is ironically actually closer to the doctrine of the Godhead that I’ve been promoting, which is that God is three separate beings, all acting as the united person/character/blueprint of God.
So the early Christians, who did not believe in the modern trinity, tried to use the contemporary philosophical language of their day to describe God the way I am describing him, but that doctrine of the Godhead was obscured by the influence of the philosophies of men corrupting the original doctrine over the centuries. (Colossians 2:8-10)
In fact, I can prove that the term Hypostasis used to refer to the substance of God, rather than the person, in the context of the trinity. In the original text of the Nicene creed (which invented the trinity) it says that “anyone who claims Christ is a separate hypostasis from the Father is made anathema.” Meaning that according to the original formulation, the modern rendering of the trinity as three hypostases/persons in one ousia/being, is wrong. It was only later on that hypostasis came to mean person instead of substance, and the trinity got inverted into what we have today.
If the history doesn’t convince you, then I will show how the trinity re-defines the clear meaning of the words of scripture. I challenge anyone to show me any passage in scripture that teaches homoousia-the idea that God is one in substance-that could not very easily be understood to mean that God is one in will and purpose instead.
On the other hand, I can point to several passages that not only make it clear that God is one in purpose, but also preclude the idea that he is one in substance. John 17:20-23 shows that all believers can become ONE with Jesus and the Father IN THE SAME MANNER as they are one with EACH OTHER.
Romans 8:16-17 says much the same thing by calling us joint-heirs with Christ glorified together. How can Jesus be an heir of the Father if they are the same being, what could Jesus inherit from the Father that he doesn’t already have? And how could we also be heirs to that type of oneness? Furthermore, how can Jesus be begotten by the Father if he is the Father: can a man conceive himself?
The baptism of Jesus also shows all three persons in different places and forms. Jesus in the water, the Holy Spirit as a dove, and the Father is heaven. The same thing happens again at Stephen’s martyrdom. The scripture itself supports the Godhead over the Trinity.
Im not going to be nearly as eloquent here, but am another member of the church of jesus christ of latter-day saints chiming in here.
To say we are polytheistic is a misnomer. Perhaps im wrong, but if someone mentions polytheism, I think greek/egyptian mythology as the model. The gods in those traditions are distinct beings, with distinct natures and distinct purposes. They do not have the same aim and are not united.
The doctrine we claim is that Jesus Christ and His Father have seperate bodies, but have one purpose, one aim, one nature.
There is no god of war and another god for love. There is only the Most High God, the Father who embodies the highest virtues of all things. He sent His Only Begotten Son as a means to reconcile us to Him, that we may know His nature should we seek after and follow His Son.
We define co-inheritance as becoming like the Father, just as Christ did and invites all humanity to do. It was for this very bold claim that the Pharasees persecuted Jesus because he would claim to be Jehovah or (that I am). The same Jehovah that Moses desired the people of Israel to come up to the mount to see, but they would not.
It is undoubtedly a bold claim we share. But do not conflate its boldness with the pride that often afflicts human nature. We are NOT trying to elevate ourselves above the Most High God, the Eternal Father. We depend upon Him, His Son, and the Spirit which He has been able to pour out because of His Son's sacrifice. If there is anything the Father desires me to have, I want to open my heart to receive it. If there is anything he desires me to deny, I plead that He seals my heart away from those things. I can only imagine doing so, act out doing so, and recognize the benefit of doing so, because of the intercession made for me by Jesus Christ. I have no path, no claim, no part, and no desire, without Jesus Christ.
As Jesus said, he can do nothing but what Father had shown Him. John 5:16-20.
This is not the polytheisim of the greeks or egyptians. It is something altogether different.
@@timv.3537 ☝ This is absolutely correct.
I would only note that Jesus alone is Jehovah, the Father is not.
Also, the view you espoused is called monarchical monotheism.
In Mormonism, we also believe in the existence of ‘little g’ gods, that’s what we’ll become. The belief in those subordinate contingent gods is called henotheism.
There's certainly some truth in the idea that we use philosophical language to define and explain aspects of revelation (whether we're talking the Trinity or transubstantiation, etc.), and that sometimes the meaning of a technical word (like hypostasis or even 'persona') can change over the course of a language's history, so what a word or phrase means in one century may not be the same as what it means in the next. The jokey example of this is that to call St. Paul Cathedral "awful, artificial, and amusing" would have been a compliment in 1710 and an insult today, since all of those words have undergone linguistic shifts in meaning. But I'm failing to see how any of this is a knock against the Trinity or Catholic theology more broadly. Any time we seek to explain a passage in the Bible, we do so with non-biblical language. (Otherwise, we're reciting, not explaining). If I say what the story of the Prodigal Son means, I'm forced to say more than what's simply written on the page. And if I want to speak on the nature of the godhead with intelligence and precision, it would seem to behoove me to use the language of philosophy, which admits of careful distinctions. (LDS theology seems to do the same thing with technical terms like "eternal progression" to explain ideas that were originally presented in a less-technical way).
As for the charge that "as trinitarians use them today, the words 'person' and 'being' are nonsense terms with no concrete line between them, and if you press a trinitarian, they often cannot define the terms beyond what I’ve already said." I think this is clearly false, and that you undermine your own case when you give the examples of Gollum and Smeagol, and the distinction between WHO someone is and WHAT they are. The differences between Gollum/Smeagol and the Trinity are at least twofold: in the case of God, we're (a) talking about a WHAT that's spiritual and not physical, and (b) not talking about the kind of split personalities we see in that case (or in the case of Jekyll and Hyde). But in any case, you're showing that you CAN logically and rationally distinguish WHO from WHAT, which undermines your claim that it's as logically impossible as a married bachelor. Given this, it seems clear that God is incomprehensible only in the sense of being beyond our understanding, not of being contrary to rationality.
When you ask, "how can Jesus be begotten by the Father if he is the Father: can a man conceive himself?" you reveal a misunderstanding of the Trinity. Jesus is NOT the Father, but both are God. This is how we can make sense on the one hand of the verses that clearly distinguish Jesus from the Father, and on the other hand, the verses speaking of "YHWH Elohim" as one God (whereas LDS theology treats YHWH and Elohim as two separate gods: "God the Second" and "God the First," respectively).
The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) explains: "For the Father, in begetting the Son from eternity, gave him his substance, as he himself testifies : What the Father gave me is greater than all. It cannot be said that the Father gave him part of his substance and kept part for himself since the Father’s substance is indivisible, inasmuch as it is altogether simple. Nor can it be said that the Father transferred his substance to the Son, in the act of begetting, as if he gave it to the Son in such a way that he did not retain it for himself; for otherwise he would have ceased to be substance. It is therefore clear that in being begotten the Son received the Father’s substance without it being diminished in any way, and thus the Father and the Son have the same substance. Thus the Father and the Son and also the holy Spirit proceeding from both are the same reality."
To make sense of this, you need to understand the Father, Son, and Spirit as sharing a SPIRITUAL rather than a PHYSICAL essence. If I have an apple, and I give you the apple, I don't have the apple anymore. It's zero-sum, so it would be contradictory to say that three of us possess the fullness of the apple. But if I share something immaterial with you (like an idea), it's possible for three of us to 100% possess the exact same idea without any diminution or contradiction. The Trinity is thus only contradictory if you misunderstand it in physical terms.
Mormons think Jesus is an angel
Um don't need to watch the video. Very easy answer on "What do Mormons Believe About the Trinity" We members of the church of Jesus Christ believe nothing about the Trinity. It's not our God I'm not sure where that name Came from or where or what the cloud is, if it's a he or a she or even how to love it. We're a hard pass on the Trinity. We believe in Jesus Christ, the Jehovah of the OT. He is the Son of Our Father in heaven, the real father in Heaven The father of all the spirits of the world. Yes he's a He not and It. He's got a wife for sure, Now do we have any Idea how spirts are created, no. But the Scriptures are clear, we're Children of a loving, real God. If God was a cloud that shape shifted and talked to himself, I'd have no interest in worshiping him and and have not Idea what it's image is and have not desire to grow to be anything like an it.
Huh? Is your idea that the mainstream Christian conception is cloud worship? You might benefit from watching some more videos.
The doctrine of the Trinity is not that God is a cloud that shape shifts and talks to Himself 😂
The Trinity says that the Father is God, as the Bible does. That Jesus is God. That the Holy Spirit is God. All biblical. Also from the Bible: the Father is not Jesus nor the Holy Spirit. Jesus is not the Father nor the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is not the Father or Jesus. They are three distinct persons. Also according to the Bible, there is only one God, not three. So the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three persons in one God or in one Being. The word being can be confusing, because we use it both as a form of the verb “to be” and to mean some kind of individual. By “three persons in one being,” the verb to be is meant. For me it helps it be more clear to say three persons in one being-ness.
They share the unique being or essence or substance or nature that is God.
@@JosephHeschmeyer Um my idea is what a read in the nicean creed, and it makes no sense to me? Maybe it would be good to do Q and A on it with people because I've never heard anything I understand. It's always just 3 in one.
@@kerry8506 Clear as mud 🙃
"three persons in one God or in one Being" We don't believe that we de believe it's three persons not shapes or forms of the same person.
@@clearstonewindows
no where in my description did I call anyone a shape or form. Nor did anyone else ever. I didn’t discuss any characteristics of any of the three persons. What I did say is that they are three distinct persons…the same as you believe. Three shapes or forms of the same person is NOT the Trinity doctrine. Don’t you want to seek understanding of a concept before you try to refute it? Don’t you see that if you just straw man the mainstream Christian position, your arguments are pointless? You might as well be arguing with a shape or a form. I’m life long lds, btw. Whatever, I guess…
The LDS church is true
nice argument, buddy
lds and rcc both add to the bible.
RCC canonized the Bible, it's a Catholic book.
@@Kekamalei only the rcc version.
That's the one that was used before KJV and the only one that matters. The Church is the Catholic church, founded by Our Lord Jesus himself! Viva Cristo Rey.
I can’t find the essay you are referring to. Does someone have a link to that?