Mormon men can get their own planet

[Higher_Desire]

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

Actually, not to set off a bomb here, but Revelation WAS the last book written. Historical data supports this.

No, data supports that it was written around the same time as the Gospels (Matthew through John).

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

But honestly that does not MATTER to me. I don't care when the books of the Bible were written (at least, in relation to each other), that has no impact on me at all. I would like to say though, that if Mormons believe in the Bible, how on Earth can you say Jesus was created? That is just downright unthinkable if you believe in the Bible. And also, when did your church START? Not to bash you or anything, but I believe it was in the nineteenth century... Don't you think that's a LITTLE bit late of a start for a church that claims to be the "Church of Jesus Christ..."?

Jesus was created, because he was created by God, as we all were as spirits. God is Jesus' father. In my opinion, if one hadn't created each other, they both would have been since the beginning, therefore we would have two gods. I could be wrong about that, but it makes sense to me. Jesus was a spirit, created by God, and born of the virgin Mary. Tell me where in the Bible it says that Jesus was not created.

Here's a brief timeline of the beginning of the church:
Dec 24, 1805 - Joseph Smith is born
Early Spring, 1820 - The First Vision
September 21-22, 1823 - J.S. told of the Gold Plates
September 22, 1827 - J.S. obtains the plates and begins translation
June, 1829 - Translation completed
April 6, 1830 - Organization of the church in Fayette Township, New York
April 26, 1838 - Name of the church specified
June 27, 1844 - Martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum Smith at Carthage Jail in Carthage Illinois.

There's a bunch of other stuff in there I skipped, but this is all that's really revelant to this topic.

So the technical "beginning" you're referring to came on April 6, 1830, which was 175 years ago a little over a month ago. How do you mean it's "too late to claim to be the church of Jesus Christ?" I do understand how one can argue that since it is so young, but when is it too late to glorify Christ? Also, take a look at the new churches that spring up all the time claiming to be the truth.

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

And yes, I know you are going to tell me about the great apostasy, but I dare you to come up with any evidence of it. Or is this not a topic for general Mormon discussion/debates? If not, forget everything I said, lol

Yes, I will talk about the apostacy. As for evidence, you can look in school textbooks (I would suggest college texts based premodern civilization). Through them, one can see that there was a falling away of major religion, and areas that had no religion at all. Between the time of the death of Christ, up until the Roman empire, there is little to no evidence of the exsistance of religion. When religion started to be revived, it was done with writings that had been done on religion in years prior, and many of the truths that were once believed (truths we see evidence of through archeology and other manuscrips that were kept) were lost or deemed as unimportant. In the area of the "dark ages" there is practically no record of even so much as mortal life as we know it. You can read in the Bible of the "grafting of the olive branch", the "tree of life", and the grafting of the branches to the tree to restore it. Look at it like this: The tree = the church. The branches = all of us. We (the branches) need to be "brought back" to the church (the tree) and will be made a part of it. The tree was kept alive because of the roots (the people who kept religion going in secret in the early days), yet as the Bible also says, the roots had become corrupted over time by those who teach their own doctrine instead of the doctrine of the Lord.


And, yes, this is (or, can be) a thread for Mormon discussion. I'd rather have only one thread where stuff like this can be talked about instead of having a hundred accusation threads pop up in here. So keep the brain-busters coming. So far, everything that we've talked about on this board, I have been able to correct, and set straight our beliefs to those who claim to understand them, yet have no idea whatsoever of how confused they are on the subject.


H-D

[uncertaindrumer]

First off, I am just letting you know that I know VERY LITTLE about Mormons, so unlike my debates with Protestantism where I can come out guns blazing, I am just trying to figure out what you believe, so don't take anything as acrimonious.

Second, what evidence have you to suggest that Revelation was written the same time as the Gospels? All the evidence I have seen and read points toward it being the last of the writings, towards the end of John's life.

Clearly, the Trinity is a difficult subject. We CAN'T understand it fully. But the Bible NEVER claims Jesus was created, and he always claims to be God, and yet at the same time that there is only one God. The only real explanation for this is the Trinity. Even if as humans we can't fully understand it, that doesn't make it impossible.

As for the beginning thing. Jesus founded a CHURCH. He says in Matthew that peter is the rock upon which he will build his "church". The epistles constantly refer to the "church". There was a CHURCH directly after Jesus ascended into heaven. Now, I do not know much about Mormonism, but are you claiming that was a Mormon church? Because if it was, the writings, letters, and books written by men of the early church should be mormon, and I can show you that they aren't.

Also, all the "churches" springing up around now are not Jesus' one true church. How could Jesus found a church that doesn't begin until 1900 years after his existance? Did he leave his followers helpless for so long? I would say no. Also, there most certainly WAS religion during the Roman era, I have no idea what you are reading. Nero's persecution is well documented, and yet you would have us say there is no church? (once again, I reiterate, I am not attacking your position, I am trying to understand it). Various Church Fathers wrote scores of material, including (but not limited to) Clement, Irenaus, Ignatius of Antioch, etc. I can point you toward MANY early church documents, all of which, by the way, support the Trinity, Jesus being the Son of God yet not created, and various other doctrines.

Either way, this has been enlightening, I hope no on takes my questions as personl attacks or anything like that. Cheers.

[Higher_Desire]

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

First off, I am just letting you know that I know VERY LITTLE about Mormons, so unlike my debates with Protestantism where I can come out guns blazing, I am just trying to figure out what you believe, so don't take anything as acrimonious.

OK.

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

Second, what evidence have you to suggest that Revelation was written the same time as the Gospels? All the evidence I have seen and read points toward it being the last of the writings, towards the end of John's life.

All I know about is studies that have been done. However, depending on who did the tests, how they were conducted, etc. different results can be found. There have been people who tested the validity of the Book of Mormon, for example, (both members and nonmenbers) who can find that it is 100% accurate, and others who find it to be 10% wrong based upon travels and whatnot of the people written about it. I'll try to look up more on the subject.

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

Clearly, the Trinity is a difficult subject. We CAN'T understand it fully. But the Bible NEVER claims Jesus was created, and he always claims to be God, and yet at the same time that there is only one God. The only real explanation for this is the Trinity. Even if as humans we can't fully understand it, that doesn't make it impossible.

True. I look at verses like Acts 7:55, which states that "But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God." Though, there are also things that claim that Jesus created the earth under the direction of God, so it's a really tough topic to figure out exactly what's going on. Of course, there are also references (ex: John, Hebrews, 1st John, etc) that refer to Jesus as "the only begotten of the Father" which could say that Jesus was the first spirit created.

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

As for the beginning thing. Jesus founded a CHURCH. He says in Matthew that peter is the rock upon which he will build his "church". The epistles constantly refer to the "church". There was a CHURCH directly after Jesus ascended into heaven. Now, I do not know much about Mormonism, but are you claiming that was a Mormon church? Because if it was, the writings, letters, and books written by men of the early church should be mormon, and I can show you that they aren't.

It wasn't a "Mormon Church" as we know it now, exactly. It was THE Church of Jesus Christ. It was taught and organized by him, and was the origianal Christian church. It didn't become the "mormon" church (as discussed here) until Joseph Smith organized the church in 1830. After Jesus died and ascended into heaven after his resurrection, things were kept going. Like everything with time, it changed. We do believe, however, that our church most closely eminates what the church was like in the time of Christ. It's not 100% the same, and no church ever will be 100% identical.

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

Also, all the "churches" springing up around now are not Jesus' one true church. How could Jesus found a church that doesn't begin until 1900 years after his existance? Did he leave his followers helpless for so long? I would say no. Also, there most certainly WAS religion during the Roman era, I have no idea what you are reading. Nero's persecution is well documented, and yet you would have us say there is no church? (once again, I reiterate, I am not attacking your position, I am trying to understand it). Various Church Fathers wrote scores of material, including (but not limited to) Clement, Irenaus, Ignatius of Antioch, etc. I can point you toward MANY early church documents, all of which, by the way, support the Trinity, Jesus being the Son of God yet not created, and various other doctrines.

Don't be so fast to judge new churches as not the truth. Take Lutheranism, for example. It was one of those churches once, when Martin Luther chose to reform the church, it became an offshoot, and eventually grew. Or that guy (I can't remember his name right now) who started the Methodist church. They both, at one time, were very minor and had only a few followers, yet grew with time. I really can't think of any religion (or religious sect) that was not minor and "wrong" at the time they were formed.

If you read in the bible, you can see of periods of time when there was no prophets for an extended period of time. God always guided his church, and sent prophets when they were ready; the willing men and women who desired to serve. We've always had the guide of the Bible during that time, and there was religion on earth that was good, but not exactly what there should have been. People have always been doing the work of God. There a verse (I don't remember where) that says something about making secrets of God known when the world is ready for them. I'll see if I can find it. Or, as it says in Amos 3:7 "Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets." I believe that from even before the birth of Christ in the New Testament through today and tomorrow that God leads the truth and reveals his secrets.

If you read exactly what I said, it was "up until the time of the Roman empire." The Roman Empire is one of the first big religious revivals that we see where they try to bring back many old beliefs, traditions, and customs. There were previous attempts before that as well, but that is where they really start to stick around.

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

Either way, this has been enlightening, I hope no on takes my questions as personl attacks or anything like that. Cheers.

I agree. You have many good positions on your understanding of religion. A lot moreso than some of the people in here.


H-D

[Mulletman]

Hmmm... I dont like where this is headed.

[uncertaindrumer]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Higher_Desire)

OK.

All I know about is studies that have been done. However, depending on who did the tests, how they were conducted, etc. different results can be found. There have been people who tested the validity of the Book of Mormon, for example, (both members and nonmenbers) who can find that it is 100% accurate, and others who find it to be 10% wrong based upon travels and whatnot of the people written about it. I'll try to look up more on the subject.

True. I look at verses like Acts 7:55, which states that "But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God." Though, there are also things that claim that Jesus created the earth under the direction of God, so it's a really tough topic to figure out exactly what's going on. Of course, there are also references (ex: John, Hebrews, 1st John, etc) that refer to Jesus as "the only begotten of the Father" which could say that Jesus was the first spirit created.

It wasn't a "Mormon Church" as we know it now, exactly. It was THE Church of Jesus Christ. It was taught and organized by him, and was the origianal Christian church. It didn't become the "mormon" church (as discussed here) until Joseph Smith organized the church in 1830. After Jesus died and ascended into heaven after his resurrection, things were kept going. Like everything with time, it changed. We do believe, however, that our church most closely eminates what the church was like in the time of Christ. It's not 100% the same, and no church ever will be 100% identical.

Don't be so fast to judge new churches as not the truth. Take Lutheranism, for example. It was one of those churches once, when Martin Luther chose to reform the church, it became an offshoot, and eventually grew. Or that guy (I can't remember his name right now) who started the Methodist church. They both, at one time, were very minor and had only a few followers, yet grew with time. I really can't think of any religion (or religious sect) that was not minor and "wrong" at the time they were formed.

If you read in the bible, you can see of periods of time when there was no prophets for an extended period of time. God always guided his church, and sent prophets when they were ready; the willing men and women who desired to serve. We've always had the guide of the Bible during that time, and there was religion on earth that was good, but not exactly what there should have been. People have always been doing the work of God. There a verse (I don't remember where) that says something about making secrets of God known when the world is ready for them. I'll see if I can find it. Or, as it says in Amos 3:7 "Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets." I believe that from even before the birth of Christ in the New Testament through today and tomorrow that God leads the truth and reveals his secrets.

If you read exactly what I said, it was "up until the time of the Roman empire." The Roman Empire is one of the first big religious revivals that we see where they try to bring back many old beliefs, traditions, and customs. There were previous attempts before that as well, but that is where they really start to stick around.

I agree. You have many good positions on your understanding of religion. A lot moreso than some of the people in here.


H-D

"Begotten" does not mean created. In fact, the Nicene Creed clearly states Jesus as the eternally begotten of the Father, and yet all Christians who recite the Nicene Creed would definitely say Jesus is not created.

Alright, the Church issue is interesting. You say NO church of today is exactly what Jesus intended? NONE? How is that possible, if you believe his words "the Gates of Hell will not prevail against it"? I definitely believe there is a Church today that Jesus founded two thousand years ago, and I believe I am in it.

I certainly don't believe Lutheranism is the true church, so your example of new churches is faulty, as far as I am concerned. (I'm Catholic by the way, in case you wonder where I am coming from). I believe Jesus established ONE Church meant to live for all time. The Gates of Hell were not going to prevail against it, and it was not going to "change".

Let me explain something: in the Bible, Jesus clearly founds a Church. He also says it will prevail even against the Gates of Hell, AND he says you are either "with Him or against Him". (I don't have the exact scripture quotations but I can find them if need be). So basically, I don't see how you can say that no church today is the exact same as Jesus Church. He founded a Church, and then he let it fall apart or mutate? And by the way, when exactly do you think it fell apart? Because if I know that, I can explain somewhat more effectively.

If you are not in the one church, you are in the wrong church--clearly stated by His "with Him or agaisnt Him". So either you believe the Mormon Church is the only true church or you don't. Assuming, of course, that you do, wouldn't you believe it is the SAME Church that Jesus founded? If not, how can it be the true church?

As for the Trinity, I will give my case for that later, I am running out of time. But I definitely am enjoying this.

[dario]

A few months ago a couple of Mormons came to my door and started telling me about the Mormon religion. The conversation we had lasted close to an hour. Now a lot of things that the Mormons told me sounded very controversial, but the main one they talked about was the Trinity. They told me that they do not believe that Jesus and God are one. They believed that Jesus and God are separate beings. Is this a mistake or is this really a belief in the Mormon religion?



"Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who had blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ."

[uncertaindrumer]

Quote: (Originally Posted by dario)

A few months ago a couple of Mormons came to my door and started telling me about the Mormon religion. The conversation we had lasted close to an hour. Now a lot of things that the Mormons told me sounded very controversial, but the main one they talked about was the Trinity. They told me that they do not believe that Jesus and God are one. They believed that Jesus and God are separate beings. Is this a mistake or is this really a belief in the Mormon religion?



"Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who had blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ."

I'm not sure about this but I believe Mormosn think Jesus is created, and hence, not God, and hence, can't be ONE with God. I'm sure higher desire will clear that up for you. In relation to the Trinity, I don't see how one could NOT believe in it after reading the following passages:

Matthew 28: 18-19
Matthew 3: 16
Luke 1: 30-35
John 10: 38, 14: 9, 17: 10
2 Corinthians 13:13
Ephesians 2:18, 4: 6
1 Timothy 2: 5
1 Peter 1: 12
1 John 5: 7-8

Also, there are numerous references in the Bible of God being the only God.

Deuteronomy 6: 4-9
Isaiah 40: 25-28, 41: 43: 10-13, 44: 6-8
1 Chronicles 17: 20
Mark 12: 29
1 Corinthians 8: 4-6

So, seeing as the Bible says there is only ONE God, and that Jesus IS God, then the only acceptable explenation is the Trinity.

[dario]

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer) Actually, not to set off a bomb here, but Revelation WAS the last book written. Historical data supports this.

No, data supports that it was written around the same time as the Gospels (Matthew through John).

Here is my data from a Life Application Bible New International Version.
Matthew: written between A.D. 60-65.
Mark: written between A.D. 55-65.
Luke: written A.D. 60
John: written A.D 85-90 before his exile to Patmos

I just wanted to post real quick the dates that Revelation and the gospels were written. Revelation was written in A.D. 95 from Patmos. I know that we've all been saying, "studies show it was written then and at this time." Find these "studies" and post them so that we can get the facts instead of the rumors.

[uncertaindrumer]

Well actually, I was thinkingthat Revelation WAS written sometime around 95 A.D. If it was written around 95 A.D., though, that would make it highly likely that it was the last book written, since John, the last living Apostle, died soon thereafter.

Once again, though, the timeline of the books does not have too much influence on the current discussion.

[Higher_Desire]

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

"Begotten" does not mean created. In fact, the Nicene Creed clearly states Jesus as the eternally begotten of the Father, and yet all Christians who recite the Nicene Creed would definitely say Jesus is not created.

I never said that "bogotten" meant created. I know that it means that he was selected by God in the beginning as "the one." The bible states that he was the first chosen.

Quote:

Alright, the Church issue is interesting. You say NO church of today is exactly what Jesus intended? NONE? How is that possible, if you believe his words "the Gates of Hell will not prevail against it"? I definitely believe there is a Church today that Jesus founded two thousand years ago, and I believe I am in it.

Well, I believe that I'm in the right one. Other people believe they're in the right one as well. Who's right? Do only members of one particular religion go to heaven?

Quote:

I certainly don't believe Lutheranism is the true church, so your example of new churches is faulty, as far as I am concerned. (I'm Catholic by the way, in case you wonder where I am coming from). I believe Jesus established ONE Church meant to live for all time. The Gates of Hell were not going to prevail against it, and it was not going to "change".

Just because I used it as an example does not make it useless. I know you don't believe it, and I don't either, but my point was that what were one time considered as these apostate-type offshoots and untrue, have come to be widely accepted religions and religious sects.

Quote:

Let me explain something: in the Bible, Jesus clearly founds a Church. He also says it will prevail even against the Gates of Hell, AND he says you are either "with Him or against Him". (I don't have the exact scripture quotations but I can find them if need be). So basically, I don't see how you can say that no church today is the exact same as Jesus Church. He founded a Church, and then he let it fall apart or mutate? And by the way, when exactly do you think it fell apart? Because if I know that, I can explain somewhat more effectively.

Firstly, I absolutely agree that he founded a church and one who isn't with him is against him. I believe I said something similar earlier. However, HE didn't let it fall apart or mutate, as you say. It was corrupted by men (examples: Acts 8:3, Matt 21/Mark 11/Luke 19). Just because God tells them how it should be ran, doesn't mean they're going to do it. You can see in the bible how Christ's church changed after his crucifixion.

Quote:

If you are not in the one church, you are in the wrong church--clearly stated by His "with Him or agaisnt Him". So either you believe the Mormon Church is the only true church or you don't. Assuming, of course, that you do, wouldn't you believe it is the SAME Church that Jesus founded? If not, how can it be the true church?

But does the word "church" as used in the bible exactly the same as we use it today? Oftentimes in the bible, where the church is referenced, it is used as "the believers." I do believe that the mormon church is the MOST correct. I believe there is more truth in it than any other church, even though all churches that teach the love of God, Christ-like works, God's saving grace, love of your neighbor, biblical teachings, etc. are good and legit churches. Just out of curiosity, do you know about Gematria?

Let me talk about the verses you posted now:
Matthew 28: 18-19
- All power was given to God in the beginning. As I've said, he is the only begotten of the Father.
- Why would Jesus tell them to baptize them in his name, his name, and his name if he is all three? He says "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."

Matthew 3: 16
- Did Christ open the heavens, and make his own spirit decend upon him, and call his voice from heaven?

Luke 1: 30-35
- "Son of the highest"
- "Son of God"

John 10: 38, 14: 9, 17: 10
- The father is in him, just like my father is in me, as I am his son and have learned from him, and I am in him because he raised me. Christ was teaching what God wanted taught. Read the two verses before 38. He mentions "Son of God" and "My Father".

2 Corinthians 13:13
- I don't see what this verse has to do with anything. It just says "All the saints salute you."

Ephesians 2:18, 4: 6
- It is referencing "the Spirit" as the Holy Spirit, by which we all can commune with the father.

1 Timothy 2: 5
- This is a good one. "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." Personally, I think that supports my side of the argument.

1 Peter 1: 12
- Again, the spirit is on earth, as we rely on it and reference it always. It decended upon Christ at his baptism, and leads us today as we follow God's word.

1 John 5: 7-8
- This is good to your side. v 7 does say "the three that bear record in heaven, the father, the word, and the holy ghost: and these three are one." but then the next verse says "...bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." Last time I checked, spirit, blood, and water were all different. Have you ever heard the statement "Working as a team you work as one"? I think that also works for this.


Well, I've been on here for a bit long, and I have to go to an art show opening, but I'll post about the "Trinity vs. Godhead" thing and our stance on it later, as dario requested. (about an hour or so).


-D

[Higher_Desire]

Quote: (Originally Posted by dario)

A few months ago a couple of Mormons came to my door and started telling me about the Mormon religion. The conversation we had lasted close to an hour. Now a lot of things that the Mormons told me sounded very controversial, but the main one they talked about was the Trinity. They told me that they do not believe that Jesus and God are one. They believed that Jesus and God are separate beings. Is this a mistake or is this really a belief in the Mormon religion?



"Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who had blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ."

It is a belief that they are three seperate beings, yet they work together with one purpose.
Romans 8:38 says "Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."
Also Acts 7:55-56 says "But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God."


Here's what I've found on Revelation:
There are many conflicting sources. What is basically believed by historians, archeologist, etc. is that it could have been written either around 60 AD under Nero, or between about 90 and 92 AD under Domition. Long story short, it is primarily believed to be either during the same time, or just after, yet still before many of the other books.


-D

[Higher_Desire]

Here's a couple more you can look up on "Godhead or Trinity":
Genesis 1:26
Genesis 3:22
Matthew 3:17
Matthew 20:23
Matthew 26:39
John 5:19
John 8:18
John 14:28
John 20:17
2 Corinthians 4:4
Ephesians 3:14


H-D

[Ivan_Creed]

Some people should write shorter, and conclude that they should really get their own planet, that would be later invaded by the Empire, and turned into slaves that work in mines extracting an unknown mineral used for photon torpedoes...
Then Dave Chapell came..

[uncertaindrumer]

You say that God didn't corrupt the Church, and that MEN did. Yet, you have not dealt with how that is possible if Jesus promised NOT to let the Church be corrupted.

By the way, when you dealt with the verses, you dealt with them individually. Here is my point: it is obvious that there are both God, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and yet the Bible also says that there is only one God! I do not see how you can then say that there are three gods working in unison. It just makes no sense.

Also, I still didn't catch WHEN you think the Church was corrupted? Most mormons seem to think it was in the reign of Constantine, but I do not know if that is a Mormon belief or jsut hte personal opinion of ones I talked to, please enlighten me.

[Higher_Desire]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Ivan_Creed)

Some people should write shorter, and conclude that they should really get their own planet, that would be later invaded by the Empire, and turned into slaves that work in mines extracting an unknown mineral used for photon torpedoes...
Then Dave Chapell came..

WTH does that have to do with anything???

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

You say that God didn't corrupt the Church, and that MEN did. Yet, you have not dealt with how that is possible if Jesus promised NOT to let the Church be corrupted.

Jesus didn't promise not to let the church get corrupted. Once he wasn't on earth anymore, it wasn't up to him, because he wasn't physically leading it. Men were leading it under his direction, but they still have the ability to construe the teachings (just as we do).

Quote:

By the way, when you dealt with the verses, you dealt with them individually. Here is my point: it is obvious that there are both God, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and yet the Bible also says that there is only one God! I do not see how you can then say that there are three gods working in unison. It just makes no sense.

What's wrong with dealing with them individually? Looking at them as a whole still supports (at least to me) that they are seperate. Also, I NEVER SAID that they are three gods. They are three people, ONE GOD. Along with the one God, is one son, and one spirit. They are one in purpose (ie, the work of God, bringing souls unto Christ, etc.)

Quote:

Also, I still didn't catch WHEN you think the Church was corrupted? Most mormons seem to think it was in the reign of Constantine, but I do not know if that is a Mormon belief or jsut hte personal opinion of ones I talked to, please enlighten me.

I don't believe you can put an exact time on when the church was corrupted. It has never been taught (that is to say, it is not doctrine) that it happened during the reign of Constantine. It's possible, but not definate. In the bible, you can see evidence of the church already beginning to change when Christ was crucified. Also, one thing I could point out, is that not only did it change, but it has not stopped changing. Churches spring up all over the place today that claim to be the full truth, and try to go back to exactly how the church was organized in the new testament, and follow practices of the old testament. Still today people change things and teach their own interpretations.


H-D