• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • Christian Forums is looking to bring on new moderators to the CF Staff Team! If you have been an active member of CF for at least three months with 200 posts during that time, you're eligible to apply! This is a great way to give back to CF and keep the forums running smoothly! If you're interested, you can submit your application here!

Does the Holy Spirit mean anything to Mormons?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Catholic Evangelist

Young-Earth Creationist
Aug 25, 2004
439
16
35
✟663.00
Faith
Catholic
If the Paraclete had any power at all, then why was there supposedly a big "falling away" from the church in the 1st century (which happened without any historical proof to support that assertion), then why would the Church have to be "restored" 1700 years later? Didnt Christ say the Holy Spirit "would lead you (the church) into all truth"? Didnt he say "I will be with you always, until the end of the age"? If this is true then why is there a "restoration"? Dont you have any faith in the Holy Spirit?

We are in the age of the Church right now. The age of the prophets is over. Since the Church has the Holy Spirit, it will never be destroyed. The gates of hell will not prevail against it. The Holy Spirit doesnt need 'prophets' to communicate truth anymore as it did in the Old Testament.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lifesaver

A New Dawn

God is bigger than the boogeyman!
Mar 18, 2004
70,332
7,684
Raxacoricofallapatorius
Visit site
✟127,054.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Catholic Evangelist said:
If the Paraclete had any power at all, then why was there supposedly a big "falling away" from the church in the 1st century (which happened without any historical proof to support that assertion), then why would the Church have to be "restored" 1700 years later? Didnt Christ say the Holy Spirit "would lead you (the church) into all truth"? Didnt he say "I will be with you always, until the end of the age"? If this is true then why is there a "restoration"? Dont you have any faith in the Holy Spirit?

We are in the age of the Church right now. The age of the prophets is over. Since the Church has the Holy Spirit, it will never be destroyed. The gates of hell will not prevail against it. The Holy Spirit doesnt need 'prophets' to communicate truth anymore as it did in the Old Testament.
The apostacy has nothing to do with God's personal relationship with individuals, it has to do with God's relationship with the church. As an RLDS, we believe in the apostacy, but that it happened much later (closer to 600AD.). Revelations states that the woman (the church) fled into the wilderness for 1260 days (years). We believe that to be the time of the apostacy. The time when God removed his blessing from the church, not from individuals seeking Him.
 
Upvote 0

A New Dawn

God is bigger than the boogeyman!
Mar 18, 2004
70,332
7,684
Raxacoricofallapatorius
Visit site
✟127,054.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Lifesaver said:
Could you tell me what this apostasy consisted of?
Or was it something invisible that no-one noticed?
It consisted of all the changed doctrines inherent in the church by that time.
It consisted of all the evil things done by the church in the name of God.
It consisted of men looking to their own glory and understanding instead of to God.

There are quite a few early church history books out there that could give you the answer to that question. It isn't like it's hidden, or anything.
 
Upvote 0

Lifesaver

Fides et Ratio
Jan 8, 2004
6,855
288
39
São Paulo, Brazil
✟23,597.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Jenda said:
It consisted of all the changed doctrines inherent in the church by that time.
It consisted of all the evil things done by the church in the name of God.
It consisted of men looking to their own glory and understanding instead of to God.

There are quite a few early church history books out there that could give you the answer to that question. It isn't like it's hidden, or anything.

Then start citing the actual doctrines and events.
What was the particular which, one day before it happened, the Church was still valid, but one day after it occured, created the apostasy?

Notice that this goes diametrically against all Scriptural evidence of God being with His Church always, and the gates of Hell never prevailing against her.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Breetai
Upvote 0

CrownCaster

FlyFishers Of Men
Aug 18, 2004
1,603
36
55
✟1,995.00
Faith
Christian
Jenda said:
It consisted of all the changed doctrines inherent in the church by that time.
It consisted of all the evil things done by the church in the name of God.
It consisted of men looking to their own glory and understanding instead of to God.

There are quite a few early church history books out there that could give you the answer to that question. It isn't like it's hidden, or anything.
Well I do agree that a big portion of the early Church history is fraught with apostasy but I also believe that the reformation was Gods way of dealing with that. Also, in order for there to have been a complete apostasy that would mean that there was at some point, no true believers in Jesus. Jesus said that wherever there are two or three gathered, He is there also. Do you believe that there was a point where there was not even two?
 
Upvote 0

CaliforniaKid

Veteran
Aug 2, 2004
1,035
49
39
Sacramento, CA
Visit site
✟16,446.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Indeed. Ekklesia (the Greek word for church) always in the New Testament era referred to PEOPLE, not to a building or a monolithic organization. It was used to describe political assemblies, among other things. As long as true Christians assembled to worship their Creator in spirit and in truth, the Church remained on the earth.
 
Upvote 0

A New Dawn

God is bigger than the boogeyman!
Mar 18, 2004
70,332
7,684
Raxacoricofallapatorius
Visit site
✟127,054.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
CaliforniaKid said:
Indeed. Ekklesia (the Greek word for church) always in the New Testament era referred to PEOPLE, not to a building or a monolithic organization. It was used to describe political assemblies, among other things. As long as true Christians assembled to worship their Creator in spirit and in truth, the Church remained on the earth.
I believe that Christ set the priesthood in order while he was here on earth, and that is what constituted the church because you can't have the church without the priesthood. But even looking at it from your POV, at some point in time, that changed from people to institution. The people became of lesser importance and the institution became of supreme importance.

Believing in an apostacy doesn't mean that God's presence wasn't on the earth. I definitely believe it was, hence the reformation. It means God withdrew his blessing from the institution that He once set in place. I definitely believe that He still blessed individuals gathered for worship, but the institution (the priesthood) was no longer in favor with God.
 
Upvote 0

Catholic Evangelist

Young-Earth Creationist
Aug 25, 2004
439
16
35
✟663.00
Faith
Catholic
As an RLDS, we believe in the apostacy, but that it happened much later (closer to 600AD.).
Thats interesting. It seems to me, however, that that is a fabrication intended to make the date when Joseph smith invented mormonism 'click'. Most mormons ive talked to believe that the 1st centuryu was the time of the supposed 'apostacy'. But no historical writers from that period ever mention anything similar to LDS beliefs, at least as far as I know.


Revelations states that the woman (the church) fled into the wilderness for 1260 days (years).
Since when is this woman the LDS church? Jesus Christ came out of her womb, with "pangs of birth"- symbolizing the difficult transition the Jewish nation woldd have to accept Jesus Christ. Also, the woman existed prior to her baby (Jesus incarnate). The woman symbolizes Israel, not the Church. (there is a dual-symbolizm here, with a more catholic understanding, but I wont get into that now)
 
Upvote 0

CrownCaster

FlyFishers Of Men
Aug 18, 2004
1,603
36
55
✟1,995.00
Faith
Christian
Jenda said:
I believe that Christ set the priesthood in order while he was here on earth, and that is what constituted the church because you can't have the church without the priesthood. But even looking at it from your POV, at some point in time, that changed from people to institution. The people became of lesser importance and the institution became of supreme importance.

Believing in an apostacy doesn't mean that God's presence wasn't on the earth. I definitely believe it was, hence the reformation. It means God withdrew his blessing from the institution that He once set in place. I definitely believe that He still blessed individuals gathered for worship, but the institution (the priesthood) was no longer in favor with God.
What in the Bible do you base your belief that Jesus set the priesthood in order and is this the same priesthood that your church embraces today?
 
Upvote 0

GOD'S ARMY

Active Member
Jun 7, 2004
390
16
43
Vallejo, CA
✟15,607.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Lifesaver said:
Could you tell me what this apostasy consisted of?
Or was it something invisible that no-one noticed?
It consisted, in part, of the creeds developed in that time that are now used to define Christianity which led to the misinterpretations of the Bible that prevail in the Christian world today.
 
Upvote 0

CrownCaster

FlyFishers Of Men
Aug 18, 2004
1,603
36
55
✟1,995.00
Faith
Christian
GOD'S ARMY said:
It consisted, in part, of the creeds developed in that time that are now used to define Christianity which led to the misinterpretations of the Bible that prevail in the Christian world today.
Please show me from the Creeds that we use to explain our faith where one part is un-Biblical. And please dont use the catholic part as that means universal, not RCC. Thanks
 
Upvote 0

usetheforce

Active Member
Mar 16, 2004
301
6
✟475.00
Faith
http://www.christianforums.com/t898871


Sure, just read the Study Helps in our Scriptures at the Church's website.
The Holy Spirit means the same to us as it means to anyone.

Catholic Evangelist said:
If the Paraclete had any power at all, then why was there supposedly a big "falling away" from the church in the 1st century
You tell me. Why has there ever been Apostacy's of the Church? The Church after all was in one when Christ came, otherwise he would have just molded His Higher Law right into the Church.
So what makes you think in the Last Days He would "mold" His Church right into Christiandom, rather than establishing it Anew and Separate from the Established Traditional Faiths like He did before?

(which happened without any historical proof to support that assertion),
Your opinion, but there are LOTS of people in the world who see the "historical" proof, not to mention the proof in the various religions and believers themselves of Christiandom.

then why would the Church have to be "restored" 1700 years later?
You tell me. Why did Christ have to "restore" and establish His Church when He came?
Tell me also why He "wouldn't", especially in such an important time as the "Last Days"?
No other time after all is as different in the world, especially with the bastian of hope as America.
So why wouldn't God re-establish His Church at the exact time man and history started to change, for which to Gather His People and Prepare for His Coming?

Didnt Christ say the Holy Spirit "would lead you (the church) into all truth"?
When did it NEVER? Whether there was an Apostacy of His People and Church, man has always had access to His Holy Spirit.
I mean, even when Christ came and His Church was in Apostacy, that doesn't mean that all of those of His Pre-hope-of-Christ people were in Apostacy (i.e. the Jews), it simply meant that His "Church" was.
His Church and it's leaders had simply lost it's authority to act in His Name.
Even when Christ came, He gave specific people His Authority to act in His Name, and those same people gaves other's of the Church the Authority to act in the Church.
You need to understand, that while the Catholic Church is in Apostacy, first in Authority that wasn't given to the early Bishop's who fought for control and then later in Doctrine and Practice over time, the Catholic Church has had essentially the SAME organizational "Church" structure as it was when Christ and His Apostles set it up.
Historically, it is blatantly clear that Christ set up a Church by both proper authority and power, not simply by ones personal spiritual relationship with Christ.

Didnt he say "I will be with you always, until the end of the age"?
Yes, He did (depending upon which Bible translation is most accurate), but this has nothing to do with the Church.
The Church is in Apostacy as to the Authority and Power of God, as well as many of His plain and precious Truths being lost because of that loss of Divine Invested Authority, that of which the Apostles had over the Church.

If this is true then why is there a "restoration"?
Because the "Church" needed to be restored so that the purposes of God for His Saints might be fullfilled.

Dont you have any faith in the Holy Spirit?
I have all Faith in the Holy Spirit, but I have no Faith in men who take authority unto themselves and it not be given as it was to Aaron and the Apostles.

We are in the age of the Church right now.
Okay, whatever non-scriptural thing that is supposed to mean.
Believers in the Most High God have exhisted since Adam and Eve, such has nothing to do with God Authoritative and Authorized Church and Servants on the earth who are called at various times to fullfill His Purposes in leading men to Him.
Christ and his followers were considered a "cult" in their times and for many years after.
Again, with this new time His Church is again the major threat to the powers that be, and are again accused of being a "cult".
In time, we will no longer be considered so by most.

The age of the prophets is over.
Since Prophets and Apostles are spoken of regularily as being a part of Christ's Church in the Bible, it hence is a "non-biblical" idea that the "age of the Prophets is over".
You would hence be wise to follow what the Bible actually says on the matter instead of believing the creeds of false religions.

Since the Church has the Holy Spirit, it will never be destroyed.
The Holy Spirit has always been in men, and as long as their are Righteous men on the earth, it can't be destroyed.
But of course, sometimes God starts FRESH as He did with the Flood, Moses, Christ Himself, and in the Last Days His Prophet Joseph.

The gates of hell will not prevail against it.
True, the Gates of Hell can never prevail against the Spirit, and the body of believers fully.
But because of the Free Agency of man, His Authoritative Church and it's leaders most certainly can be taken away because of wickedness.

The Holy Spirit doesnt need 'prophets' to communicate truth anymore as it did in the Old Testament.
But why did Christ's Church need Prophets and Apostles, and all the leadership below to "communicate truth" when Christ Himself was on the earth and after His death?
The Apostles made lots of "decisions" and proclaimed much doctrine after Christ was gone.
Yet, according to you, simply because wicked men murdered them, and then corrupt priests took over the Church, that must mean there is never again a NEED for His Annointed?

Well, your pretty bold telling God what He CAN'T ever or need to DO.

For me, tossed to-and-fro by every wind of doctrine Christiandom and everything else out there IS NOT and NEVER WAS "His Church".
You are "believers" in the Christ, but that doesn't make you His Authorized Servants and Church. That's a whole other ballgame.

Mark 9:
38 ¶ And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting• out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.
spacer.gif

39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.
spacer.gif

40 For he that is not against us is on• our part.
spacer.gif

For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose• his reward.
spacer.gif

42 And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.


We are Believer's in the Christ, and peoples condemnations and attempts to destory us because of our Faith and Works unto Christ, though we don't follow you, "offends" us.
Thus, I encorage true Christians to follow the better way as in Galations 5.
 
Upvote 0

GOD'S ARMY

Active Member
Jun 7, 2004
390
16
43
Vallejo, CA
✟15,607.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
CrownCaster said:
Please show me from the Creeds that we use to explain our faith where one part is un-Biblical. And please dont use the catholic part as that means universal, not RCC. Thanks
The Nicene creed is the one I hear most about. It is constantly used as proof of the trinity. It is obvious that there was a need for such a creed, otherwise there would not have been one. That leads us to some believing in a Godhead and some in a trinity. With the trinity being accepted that left the other group being called pagan. The decision on the trinity wasn't brought to the earth by revelation, but by the desires of man. It is by revelation that we know that our Father in heaven is made of flesh and bones, that Jesus Christ is the literal Son of the Father, and that the Holy Ghost is our comforter and our revelator.
 
Upvote 0

CrownCaster

FlyFishers Of Men
Aug 18, 2004
1,603
36
55
✟1,995.00
Faith
Christian
GOD'S ARMY said:
The Nicene creed is the one I hear most about. It is constantly used as proof of the trinity. It is obvious that there was a need for such a creed, otherwise there would not have been one. That leads us to some believing in a Godhead and some in a trinity. With the trinity being accepted that left the other group being called pagan. The decision on the trinity wasn't brought to the earth by revelation, but by the desires of man. It is by revelation that we know that our Father in heaven is made of flesh and bones, that Jesus Christ is the literal Son of the Father, and that the Holy Ghost is our comforter and our revelator.
I am very sorry you see thiis this way. God has told us that He is a spirit. Revelation that goes against that is false revelation. The Nicene Creed was not to change anything but to protect what was already believed against heretical teachings that were popping up. It was a statement of agreed faith among Christians that said, these are the tenets of our faith and the basis of the foundation of Christianity and anything that comes up and denies or tries to change them is not of God. I asked you to tell me what was un-Biblical about it but you have not done so but instead have chosen to bear your testimony. That wont change things.
 
Upvote 0

A New Dawn

God is bigger than the boogeyman!
Mar 18, 2004
70,332
7,684
Raxacoricofallapatorius
Visit site
✟127,054.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
CrownCaster said:
I am very sorry you see thiis this way. God has told us that He is a spirit. Revelation that goes against that is false revelation. The Nicene Creed was not to change anything but to protect what was already believed against heretical teachings that were popping up. It was a statement of agreed faith among Christians that said, these are the tenets of our faith and the basis of the foundation of Christianity and anything that comes up and denies or tries to change them is not of God. I asked you to tell me what was un-Biblical about it but you have not done so but instead have chosen to bear your testimony. That wont change things.
If you leave out the last sentence of what the person you quoted said, it would be a true statement. The Bible does not endorse the Trinity. The Trinity was not a concrete doctrine until hundreds of years later. And the 'heretics' that the Nicene Creed was developed to protect people from were not just people who "popped up" occasionally to teach against any given doctrine, they were people who were members of the early church that had held those views from the beginning of the movement. For example, the Gnostics.

Edited, the statement made would be true.
The Nicene creed is the one I hear most about. It is constantly used as proof of the trinity. It is obvious that there was a need for such a creed, otherwise there would not have been one. That leads us to some believing in a Godhead and some in a trinity. With the trinity being accepted that left the other group being called pagan. The decision on the trinity wasn't brought to the earth by revelation, but by the desires of man.
 
Upvote 0

usetheforce

Active Member
Mar 16, 2004
301
6
✟475.00
Faith
CrownCaster said:
I am very sorry you see thiis this way. God has told us that He is a spirit. Revelation that goes against that is false revelation. The Nicene Creed was not to change anything but to protect what was already believed against heretical teachings that were popping up. It was a statement of agreed faith among Christians that said, these are the tenets of our faith and the basis of the foundation of Christianity and anything that comes up and denies or tries to change them is not of God. I asked you to tell me what was un-Biblical about it but you have not done so but instead have chosen to bear your testimony. That wont change things.
Actually that is not true.
The scripture actually states "God IS Spirit". It doesn't state God is "a" Spirit.
Likewise, God is Love, God is Truth, God is etc. etc.
In other words, the Bible makes no revelation on what Gods nature as to body is other than the example of His Son, who DOES have a body, and couldn't be standing at His side unless the Father had a body as well. (a resurrected/perfected body anyway, in other words Spirit AND Matter)

As to teachings popping up that is not correct either.
Several well-known and respected Christian theologians believed according to scripture long-held beliefs as to the nature of God which actually matches the LDS view.
However, the Pope who was in power held "non-traditional" beliefs as to Gods Nature which was based on Greek Pagan philosophy's, but out of the council, his opinion won the day, not by Revelation but by his own power.

And as to what is "un-biblical", the thing that comes to mind is that the Creed states that the Father and the Son are One in "Substance".
This however, is not a Biblical belief, it in fact stems from the non-christian philosphy's of the day, not the Bible.
I encorage you to read the book "Are Mormons Christian", by Stephen E. Robinson.
It gives substancial evidence from history and Orthodox Church Fathers that according to early Christianity in all ways, the LDS Church most certainly is Christian.
And by "orthodox", I'm speaking of those Father's who weren't of the considered heritical sects of Christiandom, but are in fact the Fathers of Christian theology's even till this day.

Oh, and to improve Jenda's statement, it wasn't only those considered heritic as the Gnostics were, it was in fact some 90% of Orthodox Christiandom, who weren't yet corrupted by the pagan philosophy's of the day that in which the Pope of the time had fallen for.
Actually to clarify, he hadn't "fallen for" them, he had always held such believes long before becoming Pope.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.