What Mormons Believe About Worshiping Jesus, the Spirit... and Adam?

Do Mormons worship Jesus? (And why does the LDS Church seem to contradict itself on this point?) Is Jesus YHWH in the Old Testament? And did Mormon prophets really teach that we should only worship Adam? Also... did Joseph Smith teach that there were two or three members of the Godhead? And what does all of this mean for the credibility of Mormonism today?
CHECK OUT MY NEW BOOK
www.amazon.com/Eucharist-Real...
0:00 - Intro
0:40 - Recap
1:43 - Topics this week
3:03 - Do they worship Jesus
12:22 - Is Jesus YHWH
15:58 - should we worship Adam
23:28 - LDS and Adam -God Doctrine
34:15 - Was Adam- God doctrine
46:03 - The Idolator Problem
51:38 - The Holy Spirit
58:08 - Final Thoughts

[@Anthony-fk2zu]

I don’t understand how the truth can change under Mormonism. If something was “true” under Brigham Young, but it’s “not true” now, that should be disproving the entire religion. Truth doesn’t change.

[@MichaelGlowacki]

Yes, truth in Divine Revelation is eternal. I’ve read a lot of testimonies by ex-Mormons who become atheists when they realize that the dogmatic LDS “truth” has changed within the first 200 years of their existence. How do they stay inside a “church” that changes the truth to fit the world? Some do, and it seems that those who are capable of believing whatever subjective truth they must in order to have the benefits they want to have don’t worry over that. I regard them as willing to work together and be pragmatic in copying what works. Joseph Smith was open about taking what he wanted from Christianity and motivating and organizing other people to follow him.

[@Saiyan585]

​@@MichaelGlowackiSounds like someone else we know *coughs* Muhammad.

[@boomct8569]

Also sounds like modernism… there are way too many Catholics (including priests) who think Church teaching should change (especially with sexual morality) because ‘we understand things better now’

[@Anthony-fk2zu]

@@boomct8569 if you haven’t seen Nefarious I recommend it just for this comment.

[@calebdavis6498]

I agree that truth is eternal and God is the source of all truth. I believe humans are not perfect. God is the perfect messenger and we as humans are imperfect receivers. Perhaps this is why people believe God revealed a “truth” to them when the Holy Spirit never confirmed what they hold as “truth.” Perhaps people honestly believe they are being obedient to “truth” revealed to them by God when God was not the source of the revelation. Perhaps God in His wisdom teaches us line upon line and feeds us with milk before meat as He invites us to come to truth. It’s much easier and enjoyable to point out others’ problems than identify and work on my own problems. I think it wise to not claim more for others than they claim for themselves and to judge not that we be not judged but instead judge with righteousness judgement. Righteous judgement is not something I want to fast think. I want to slow think that and ask, seek, and knock in the process. By their fruits he shall know them. I know God reveals truth to people and often does so according to the truth they are willing to accept and act on. Ultimately I will have to give an account of my life before God and that’s between Him and myself.

[@Sheilamarie2]

Thank you, Joe. Now I understand why the Catholic Church does not accept their baptism as valid. The theology is so foreign to me, it scares me. God bless you...

[@TheRichmondRoadie]

Great show. Modern Mormons have basically tossed it, but Mormon fundamentalists still hold to the Adam God Doctrine and many other funky doctrines. The evidence that it was taught and accepted by early Mormons, particularly in the Brigham Young era, is overwhelming. You should also do a show on Blood Atonement.

[@JordanToJericho]

Really good video, I loved how you are working to be respectful in this coverage of LDS theology. As a recent ExMormon there are two arguments to explain a lot of what you talked about in this video. First off, the "Timeline of Doctrine" to be put simply means that anything a previous prophet said can be corrected without them being considered heterodox in anyway. They were just the right person for that time period, and if any new doctrine comes up in the future it can be changed. (part of this is also the view that no Prophet is infallible or inerrant, they can be wrong on anything anywhere) The second being the lack of true “Dogma" in the LDS faith. There are maybe 3 things that can be equated to dogma in the LDS faith, The Book of Mormon, The Restoration, and the need for the Priesthood. Everything else under the sun can change and Mormons are fine with that. So Adam-God Doctrine, and any other teaching like blacks in the Priesthood. So if Prophets contradict each other on anything else it does not matter. If the Book of Mormon is true then anything the church teaches today is true for today.

[@NTNG13]

Their duplicity in presenting themselves as Christian but then specifically denying worship to Jesus and Yawhe gives me bad vibes.

[@lukehanson_]

Mormon here trying to understand. Are you saying we are supposed to pray to Jesus? If so, I am curious where you see this in scripture? Joe gave the example of people praising the resurrected Jesus, but that is only when they are there in person, would be a little weird if they didn't talk to him. The same goes for Steven. But when Jesus explains how to pray he only ever says to pray to the Father. If this is such a big sticking point for other Christians I would expect it to be explicitly commanded. Am I missing something?

[@NTNG13]

@@lukehanson_ Christ also says He and the Father are One. Denying worship to Christ denies worship to The Father immediately. Jesus is equally God and Saviour of Mankind, it's dishonest to call yourself Christian and then forget about your Saviour and not pray to Him. No one gets to the Father without Christ.

[@clearstonewindows]

you are not missing anything @@lukehanson_

[@DRWH044]

@@lukehanson_remember Thomas fell to his knees and said “My Lord and My God” to Jesus. Jesus did not correct him, rather He said to him “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

[@TruthHasSpoken]

@@lukehanson_ Stephen prays to Jesus as he was being stoned: _59 And as they were stoning Stephen, he prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” 60 And he knelt down and cried with a loud voice, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” And when he had said this, he fell asleep._ (Acts 7; RSVCE) So too says Ps 31, _Into thy hand I commit my spirit; thou hast redeemed me, O Lord, faithful God [YHWH]._ When one understands YHWH is referring to the one God of the universe, the bible becomes much easier to read. This includes the understanding: WHAT God is = The one divine being, the one God revealed to Moses, I AM, YHWH or Jehovah. WHAT Luke is = A human being WHO God is = 3 persons, revealed in the New Testament, Father, Son and Holy Spirit WHO Luke is = 1 person

[@Anthony-fk2zu]

I’m looking forward to watching this video, and to the possible day that Joe gets his books, especially The Early Church was the Catholic Church, on Audible. Happy Thursday!

[@erickim2570]

Hey Joe, I love all of you videos. I am currently devoted protestant who love Lord Jesus with all my heart. I was born and raised in a protestant South Korean household. Many parts of Asia have been evangelized by Protestant missonaries who have given up their life to spread the gospel. Many of them whom I know personally are truly man of God. In your view, the missonaries and the evangelized people need to come to Catholism to truly come to Jesus Christ? Also, you have given me profound desire to search for real meaning to be the true body of Christ and what true form of worship. I would really appreciate if you could do a ultimate sumed up video of why Catholic is the true church of Jesus Christ and the problem with Protestant belief.

[@JosephHeschmeyer]

@@erickim2570, great question! I might end up doing just such a video (I'll have to think about the best way to do it). But to your question, the Catholic understanding is that Jesus created a visible Church (Matt. 16:18-19) and desires all of His followers to be part of that Church (John 17:20-23; Phil. 2:2). This Church is visible, like a light, and organized, like a city (Matt. 5:14). Given all of this, it's sinful to either (a) break away from that visible Church (St. Paul repeatedly condemns "dichostasia," or divisions: cf. Rom. 16:17; 1 Cor. 3:3; Gal. 5:20), or (b) refuse to join the Church, knowing it's Christ's desire to gather all Christians together, so that there may be "one flock, one shepherd" (John 10:16). But notice that schism involves a willful break from the Church or a willful refusal to join fully into the communion of the Church: it doesn't include cases like the one you describe - where people go from non-Christianity into Christianity via Protestantism. As the Catechism puts it in paragraph 818, "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers. . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church." So we can affirm without hesitation that baptized South Korean Protestants are our brothers and sisters in Christ. It's in this spirit of brotherhood that we long - and strive - for a yet-fuller union in the bosom of the Church. Finally, I'm grateful for whatever help I've been so far in stirring up questions, and I'm happy to help you however I can along the way. God bless you!

[@TruthHasSpoken]

" what true form of worship. " Joe has a great video on this topic. It's a must watch with the below in mind. "to truly come to Jesus Christ? " The summit of the Catholic faith is receiving Jesus in the Eucharist, a means for receiving his grace. ALL of Christianity professed this belief for nearly 1500 years, that the bread and wine transformed into the resurrected Christ. A protestant must ask and answer: 1. .how did the disciples spread the gospel throughout the world, and the then throughout the world, all Christians errored on how to understand the words of Jesus, "This is My Body?" 2. Or restated, how did Christendom universally error and not know it, including the 4th c Catholic Church who's New Testament, 27 writings out of 300+ early Christian writings that all of protestantism uses? 3. Or restated another way, the Church knew which writings were scripture but didn't know how to interpret the text, and effectively, for over a 1000+ years, were 100% pagans worshiping a piece of bread? Receiving Jesus in the Eucharist is part of having the personal relationship with him that JESUS himself desires. St Ignatius of Antioch was a disciple of St John, the same St John who wrote the bread of life discourse, and whom was taught by Jesus. He said this of heretics: *St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110) (note the prayer is of the priest, the words of consecration)* “They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again." *St. Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165). (note the prayer is of the the priest, the words of consecration)* “For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” *St. Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 2 (ante A.D. 202). (note, receiving the Eucharist is sanctifying, salvific !* “For the blood of the grape-that is, the Word-desired to be mixed with water, as His blood is mingled with salvation. And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh. Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality. And the mixture of both-of the water and of the Word-is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul.” *St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, XXII:8 (c. A.D. 350).* “Having learn these things, and been fully assured that the seeming bread is not bread, though sensible to taste, but the Body of Christ; and that the seeming wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, And bread strengtheneth man’s heart, to make his face to shine with oil, ‘strengthen thou thine heart,’ by partaking thereof as spiritual, and “make the face of thy soul to shine.”” *St. Athanasius, Sermon to the Newly Baptized, PG 26, 1325 (ante A.D. 373). (note the prayers are of the the priest, the words of consecration)* “You will see the Levites bringing the loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers and invocations have not yet been made, it is mere bread and a mere cup. But when the great and wonderous prayers have been recited, then the bread becomes the body and the cup the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ…When the great prayers and holy supplications are sent up, the Word descends on the bread and the cup, and it becomes His body.” " the problem with Protestant belief." More than one, but the roots of the protestant tree lie in the 16th man-made doctrines - not found in scripture of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. When one opens their bible to the table of contents, Sola Scriptura immediately fails. And from the 16th c onward, one can see its fruits: doctrinal chaos, confusion, and division. That protestantism can't even agree to a definition of Sola Scriptura is further evidence that is does not come from scripture, along with historical silence as its pedigree.

[@SevereFamine]

I didn’t know the argument against Mormonism from the Adam God Doctrine perspective was so incredibly strong! Thank you for sharing. God bless you from a thankful Utahn!

[@SlopTelevision]

Nice video as always Mr. Heshmeyer(I hope im writing this right), it would be cool if Mormon series ended with a debate witg some known Mormon apologist.

[@vegadog3053]

Something else interesting about Bruce R. McConkie; he wrote the LDS Hymn, "I believe in Christ" and in that hymn he states "I will worship Him with all my might, He is the source of truth and light." Bruce McConkie seems to give answers in accordance with context and treated members like inferior children.

[@saintly365]

It feels very much like the gnostic teachings. Is there a basis of Gnosticism in Mormonism, or is this coincidence?

[@Anthony-fk2zu]

Several early prominent Mormons were Freemasons including Smith himself.

[@MichaelGlowacki]

Yes, the connection to Gnosticism is demonstrated in the inward knowing LDS members describe as a subjective “burning in the bosom” caused by the “witness of the Holy Spirit” when praying to know the truth. Also the connection of LDS rituals to Freemasonry and its rituals, which has a strong Gnostic influence, is well documented. As the founder Joseph Smith was probably and admittedly influenced by many ministers of Christian denominations in New York State in the early 1820s, he picked and chose what he believed and what helped him succeed at getting what he wanted. Another Catholic apologist has described how John Calvin taught in his own writings a form of Gnosticism as well, so that may be an influence. I was surprised, but it’s in Calvin’s own written words.

[@irishandscottish1829]

@@MichaelGlowacki was it a video you watched about John Calvin? Don’t suppose you remember the video name or who the Catholic apologist was? As that would be interesting to learn about the Gnosticism he had that was part of Calvinism.

[@isaachess19]

Very excellent and well-informed overview here. I'm amazing at how well you have penetrated the esoteric teachings of historical Mormonism. I was wondering whether you would know about the lecture at the veil (re: the Adam-God doctrine), and I'm very glad you mentioned. (FYI, the lecture that veil was dropped from the endowment ceremony a long time ago, so modern Mormons aren't even aware that there was a lecture.)

[@AllanKoayTC]

WOW. LDS theology is more confused than i thought.

[@IprevailXIV]

When a catholic describes it yes, I can see that.

[@Anthony-fk2zu]

@@IprevailXIVhas Joe said anything incorrect?

[@IprevailXIV]

@@Anthony-fk2zu it’s inevitable for someone on the outside looking in to misunderstand or to look at with the wrong lens. Just as if I made a video saying this what Catholics believe and try and get into various random rabbit holes of their doctrine. I like Joe and don’t think he’s being misleading on purpose. There are a lot of great LDS YT channels that if you wanted to learn from would be better such as: Thoughtful Faith, Cwic Media, Saints Unscripted ect…

[@JosephHeschmeyer]

@@IprevailXIV I appreciate the compliment. Were there any important details that I got wrong? I have found that many of the LDS sources I used downplayed or entirely ignored some of the controversial issues I presented here - or that one LDS source would claim something (e.g., "we worship Jesus") and another LDS source would deny the same. Given this, I wonder if it might not be helpful to have the perspective of an outsider saying, "here's what it sounds like you're saying..."

[@Anthony-fk2zu]

@@IprevailXIV I disagree that it’s inevitable that someone from the outside automatically misinterprets, because that would mean the only way to understand Mormonism would be to become Mormon. Would you apply that logic to Hinduism, that the only way to understand and therefore disprove Hinduism is to be Hindu? Of course not. You can disprove something without believing in it.

[@MichaelGlowacki]

Joe, this theme you’re following in these videos is helping people who have come up with their own ideas about God and Jesus Christ whether they are Bible alone or LDS/Mormon. Many people trust what beliefs they are raised in or that they come to after praying regardless of what the earliest Christians knew from Apostolic teaching. Fortunately those teachings were written down.

[@AmberDalton-jg7eu]

I remember in the temple ceremony we are told that Michael became Adam.

[@conovan5081]

I hope I don't sound rude but unless you inadvertently mischaracterized some details, this is a very messed up history of beliefs and they don't form a coherent religion.

[@carolinajackson7621]

Jesus said: "I am THE way, and THE truth and THE life." (John 14, 6)

[@mitchelljimeno3564]

Praise the Lord!

[@kerry8506]

By the way, there are two Joseph Fielding Smiths. The first goes by Joseph F. Smith. He is Joseph Smiths nephew and 6th president of the church. The other goes by Joseph Fielding Smith. He is Joseph F Smith’s son and was the 10th president of the church.

[@JosephHeschmeyer]

Thank you! I was confused by this, bc I saw references to both "Joseph F. Smith" and "Joseph Fielding Smith," but then realized Joseph F. Smith's middle name is ALSO Fielding, so it's a pretty confusing way to distinguish Sr. from Jr.

[@jrdwrkmn]

I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. [John 20:17]

[@brycemitchell6343]

FYI "worshiped" should have two "p"s e.g. "worshipped" Love your videos!

[@1901elina]

Both are correct - "worshipped" predominantly used in UK, "worshiped" in US

[@jd3jefferson556]

This is the plot of my most favorite fantasy fictional series, written by the Mormon author Brandon Sanderson. I highly recommend. This is crazy, this is the theology in this awesome fantasy series in the Cosmere. Storm Stormlight Archive is the book series I'm getting this from. This is so cool.

[@jaynesager3049]

I was taught that the name Elohim is a collective noun, or a name that describes a group of individuals. Elohim consists of God the father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, and Our first glimpse is the creation of all things in Genesis. John 1 is the lesson in the New Testament that bears witnesses to this. God is one. This made sense to me after reading a vintage album cover that said, “The Moody Blues is……” and then began to list their names. We don’t really treat collective nouns grammatically like this in the US anymore, and it may even seem awkward. JW’s will also tell you that Elohim was a word made up in Germany. Lol. No. It is Hebrew, the name used for God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. One God. Three Persons.

[@RLord017]

I've never heard of Elohim being a made up word in Germany but I know that Jehovah was a made up word from the 1300s.

[@Adam-ww8ei]

Still don’t understand why Elohim is plural then… if it is one God. Other words in Hebrew for God are not plural. Why is this one plural and not YHWH or El Shaddai

[@jaynesager3049]

@@Adam-ww8ei God Himself is beyond our comprehension, the ancient Hebrews, who never used His name, used different proper nouns to describe Him in His many functions, descriptions. El Shaddai means “The Mountain One,” as He appeared to Moses and Abraham, for example. There are many others. “Hasham,” meaning “The Name”, is another. Actually, the various names ascribed to God are descriptives given to Him by humans in attempts to understand or describe in part the essence of the ineffable, divine, kingly nature of our Creator. It’s an interesting study. I have to say also, thanks in part to JWs for prompting me to look it up.

[@akpred]

I just wanted to correct you on one thing youre right we do not pray TO Jesus Christ we pray THROUGH Jesus Christ to God the father That does not, however, mean that we do not have a relationship with Christ. We very much do! He is our mediator we go through him to build a relationship with our heavenly father

[@TruthHasSpoken]

Stephen prays to Jesus. __59 And as they were stoning Stephen, he prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” 60 And he knelt down and cried with a loud voice, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” And when he had said this, he fell asleep._ (Acts 7)

[@jrdwrkmn]

My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. [John 7:16-17]

[@Rome_77]

I’m a Catholic. You’re right - it would be incorrect to state crudely that the Son alone is Yahweh, and the Father is El. But there is indeed an association between El-the Father and YHWH-the Son. Like you say, the correct understanding is that YHWH = El (God) = the trinitarian divine essence… but, you do find in the Christian tradition the association of YHWH (Lord) w/ “God the Son” and El (Elyon / God Most High) being closely associated to “God the Father”. It’s also there in the New Testament. And in the church fathers. El Shaddai is the God who is mighty to fulfill His promises, Yahweh is the God who energizes the promised salvation. The essential connection with Trinitarian theology is that the Father always energizes in His Eternal Son. He never acts outside of His Son. Consequently, the name “Yahweh” is given to Moses as the “name of remembrance.” When invoked, God will remember the covenant and energize salvation through the Son. When the figure of the “Angel of Yahweh” is given a formal introduction, God declares that “my Name is in Him.” It is the second person of the Trinity who is particularly associated with the Sacred Name of Yahweh. This allows certain passages which appear to imply divine plurality to come into sharper focus. Deuteronomy 32:8-9 speaks of El Elyon dividing the nations according to the number of the sons of God: Israel is Yahweh’s inheritance. It is the Angel of the Lord who guides Israel in the wilderness, it is the Angel of the Lord who leads the conquest into the land, it is the Angel of the Lord who is enthroned between the cherubim. As the New Testament reveals, Jesus Christ is the “heir of the world”, and His inheritance is a gift of the Heavenly Father. Similarly, Psalm 82 shows us the heavenly court in session: God appears to be simultaneously prosecuting and judging the case. Jesus comments on this passage in John 10, when He speaks of the Father consecrating Him and sending Him into the world. In light of Psalm 82, we are being told that Jesus is the one consecrated by the Father to carry out the verdict announced in Psalm 82. He is the one who dethrones Satan and his angels. Psalm 82 refers to a heavenly courtroom, the entire Gospel of John is structured as a trial. Psalm 82 thus refers to the Father sitting on the throne judging the case, the Son prosecuting the case, and the Son being sent into the world to enact the divine verdict.

[@deborahjabara2614]

Ballard seems to be saying they invoke Jesus' name so both men are saying the same thing. They do not worship God the Son.

[@jackdaw6359]

Joe, I have some family that are dispensationalists. I find their hermenuetical method frustrating. They are cessationist, "free grace", and dispensational. Can you one day adress the origin and implication of these doctrines.

[@alonsoACR]

Good question. I wonder the same for some people. It is in fact about faulty hermeneutics I think. And laziness. I was reading Galatians yesterday and noticed that if you stopped and read just the first few chapters you end up with Sola Fide ideas, and in fact it made me rethink my theology. But if you actually finish it, it closes off clearly: It's about ceremonial law being irrelevant for us, things like circumcision. It ends up imploring us to follow the Holy Spirit, which entails "works of charity" and to forget about Moses' stuff. For your case, I'd tell them to read Hebrews. All of it.

[@StanleyPinchak]

Protestantism du jour. I get to throw out the parts of the Bible as I see fit because (sticks finger in air)... dispensations.

[@jackdaw6359]

@@StanleyPinchak you would not believe the wooden literalism in their approach to prophecy, Israel and the church. Even in the face of the hermeneutical method presented by Sts Peter, Paul and John. They get to do it because they were inspired by God...

[@StanleyPinchak]

@@jackdaw6359 It is a pernicious form of protestantism because adherents just disregard common apologetic tactics with the claim that those passages, perhaps even red letter words of Jesus aren't applicable because they aren't under that dispensation. There are some church fathers who write about dispensations, but never is this hyper distorted manner. Their concept of dispensations didn't mean throw out everything before mid-Acts, but rather was to help understand Salvation History as revealed in Tradition and God's Written Word. I have not seen a thorough Catholic refutation of this false doctrine, but I feel like it deserves some attention.

[@jackdaw6359]

@@StanleyPinchak they are a small club for sure but it is like no arguments matter. I almost consider them theological agnostics. They keep their claims as limited as possible to a "literal hermeneutical method" ignoring historical use of language. Ignoring mystery. I remember my brother and a pastor having a conversation. And the pastor who was slightly less extreme than my brother told him... The snake in the garden really was satan. At that point in time my brother would reject this because the Bible never explicitly said it was Satan. So the proto evangelium. Even that he would apply a hyper skeptical view towards because it is not not as explicit as their wooden hermeneutic method requires. If I were to point out their favourite St Paul, who compared salvation to the crossing of the Red sea and dwelling in the desert a la Israel, he would reply: "Well Paul can do that.. he is writing under the Inspiration of God, but we must be careful" It basically handicaps our usage of Holy Scripture. However what he is missing is the logic of multiple meanings of prophecy. So he would say it isn't the true fulfillment... Just mere application. They go so far as to reject the sermon on the mount as needed for Christian life and again... Mere application or suggestions. Softening the harsh blows that undermine their soteriology

[@nickynolfi833]

I have a question. If we understand the unique worship that the Catholic church has towards the Father through the eucharist sacrifice of Christ. In this sense it is said that only those who validly offer the eucharist to the Father truly worship Him. My honest question is how do we worship Jesus outside of offering sacrifice to him? I know we offer a sacrifice of praise and self sacrifice to Christ but this would be what protestants offer the Father at their altar.

[@halleylujah247]

Worship is sacrifice. Protestants less and less have alters and don't understand worship as sacrifice often. We worship Jesus through adoration and sacrifice.we can worship the Trinity in the same way.

[@tafazzi-on-discord]

good question, let me know if you get an answer

[@nickynolfi833]

@@halleylujah247 I understand what your saying. It is a common thought that the heart of religion is worship and the heart of worship is sacrifice. It is also understood that protestants don't participate in true worship of God because they don't offer the sacrifice of the altar to the Father. This is also a common response to show the difference between latria ( worship) of God bs dulia/ hyper dulia (veneration) given towards Mary. We don't worship Mary because we don't offer sacrifice to her. I am a faithful Catholic but I honestly don't know how to answer the question of how do we worship Jesus of we don't offer sacrifice to him? If it is by a sacrifice of praise then we have to say that Protestants also worship God in true worship but how does Jesus receive the sacrifice he offers to the Father? I'm asking in sincerity

[@MichaelGlowacki]

@@nickynolfi833 these are good questions, and I think I understand the answers but not well enough to articulate them. If I try, I will probably make mistakes in trying to explain them. Perhaps @JoeHeschmeyer would answer your questions in a later video.

[@nickynolfi833]

@@MichaelGlowacki that would be great.

[@randypowell6347]

I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and I think you are missing is a crucial historical fact regarding the Adam-God theory or doctrine or whatever you choose to call it. While doctrine or theology may be a correct term for it, it was never fully accepted by most members or leaders during Young's life or after. Try as he might, Young could not convince his followers of his doctrine. Your explanation for its absence today does not consider that the teachings were defeated rather than ignored, hidden or swept under the rug by current leaders as you suggest. Its similar to why tenets of Marcionites and Valentinians are not part of Catholic Doctrine. Irenaeus and others successfully identified them as "heresies" therefore excluding them from what became orthodoxy. It seems a similar process occurred here. The reason it is not really talked about is because its ultimate rejection by earlier members and leaders has made it simply irrelevant to Latter-day Saint theology, and not some sort of secret, unacknowledged component of our doctrine. I think that is the most historical way to understand Adam-God and why it is not really around in the mainstream church.

[@john-el9636]

How much evidence is there that the Adam-God doctrine was rejected by Mormons though? Specifically, do we know any examples of other church leaders publicly rebuking Young for his overtly false claim? Also, your comparison isn't exactly the best. Because while these early heresies, the Gnostics, the Docatists, the Donatists, the Marcionites, and the Valentinians are not well known by most people today, that's partially because they broke from the Church. Or at least, they didn't have the backing of the Magisterium. Even the Arian heresy never had the support of Rome. Nor has any heresy throughout our history. Whereas with the Adam-God doctrine, it's not like a couple Mormons in the late 19th century just started teaching this and the church rejected it. The visible head of your church, and alleged prophet, publicly affirmed it. Seemingly without rebuke. And to cap it off, the church doesn't seem to have seriously attempted to grapple with this serious issue until maybe the past decade.

[@bearistotle2820]

There is a big difference here. The Adam-God theory was put forward by a prophet as true doctrine. It was included in the temple ceremonies at the time. Also, Orson Pratt, who disagreed with the doctrine at the time, was forced to make a public confession and acknowledge the teaching as "the doctrine of the church" by Brigham Young. This goes much further than a dispute between heretical groups. This is an issue where a prophet bound the entire church to teach one thing about the very nature of God, and then later prophets binding the church to the exact opposite belief.

[@randypowell6347]

@@bearistotle2820 I am afraid we will be talking past each other. Theologically speaking, Young's prophetic statements are a problem. However, my point is historical in nature, not theological. In other words, I wished to point out is that there is perhaps a better explanation of why Adam-God is not really a thing in the modern church based on historical data (rejection of the doctrine during and after Young's life) and past antecedents (anti-heresy in early Christianity). Anyways, that's the short of it.

[@bearistotle2820]

@@randypowell6347 What I am pointing out though is that this rejection is nothing like what happened in the Catholic church with groups like the Donatists or even the Arians. You did not just have officials of various levels disagreeing, you had the highest official binding the entire church to accept this teaching or be declared a heretic. The public confession of Orson Pratt I mentioned was done in order for Pratt to avoid being excommunicated or disfellowshipped. If the Catholic church were to, today, repudiate the council of Nicaea, wouldn't such an act completely invalidate the church's claim to authority?

[@randypowell6347]

@@bearistotle2820 Ah, I see where you are coming from. I think we have different views of how orthodoxy has developed in Christian history. My views are derived from secular historians like Bart Erhman. From my undergraduate and graduate studies at both religious and secular universities, I came to understand that early church leaders disagreed vehemently about orthodox positions. Take the Arian example. A highly structured church with a Pope at the head developed later. Hence why the Emperor Constantine called the Council of Nicaea to settle the issue among feuding church leaders, rather than the Bishop of Rome making a pronouncement about it. Orthodoxy came by consensus, emerging as a result of theological conflict among bishops, deacons, and others. That's not to say your view is wrong, but that is my interpretation of the past. I would not see the Catholic Church repudiating the Nicaean Creed as invalidating its authority. Rather, it would be an interesting, if super surprising, evolution of Catholic theology (which according to my secular view of history) has been going on since the institution began.

[@deborahjabara2614]

Ballard seems to besa

[@Ekim1740]

Atleast they know that Jesus claim to be Yahweh in his own words which is contrary to Islam and other unitarian sects.

[@KingKong-wd5qk]

Maybe instead of trying to bring other religions down use that energy to educate people on different ways people worship it’s about understanding and respecting others and their beliefs. You do you and let them be them no harm done 🤷🏽 or educate people on our own religion who we pray and worship? Or what worship means to us? Born and raised catholic I still have a lot of questions about our own beliefs.

[@mormonguru5984]

You’re not mischaracterizing the external view of the church through their website, essays and publications. I have asked the church education system about praying to Jesus, they don’t and not allowed 🚫. ALL prayers must address Heavenly Father and end in the name of Jesus Christ

[@maryeconomou6573]

God have mercy on them. What they believe is not Christianity.

[@mauielectriccruisers]

SHEEP without a SHEPHERD. So sad..

[@savagemode.]

I believe they don't even have an idea, what do they believe with Lord Jesus...😂

[@DesertPrimrose]

From the church's website: "Mormons, more properly referred to as Latter-day Saints or members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, worship God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ." As a Latter-day Saint myself, every week when I participate in the sacrament of the Lord's supper, I imagine myself as the woman who anointed Jesus feet with her tears. I worship Him as my savior and redeemer.

[@TruthHasSpoken]

Need to quote more fully the LDS website. The paragraph continues, showing distinction between the worship of the Father and of Jesus. _Latter-day Saints worship God the Father through love, obedience, and devotion to Him in their daily lives. They worship God through individual and family prayer as they seek His guidance and help in their lives._ _Latter-day Saints worship Jesus Christ by remembering and reverencing Him for the life He lived and the sacrifice He made in behalf of humankind. They worship Him by exercising faith in Him and striving to follow His commandments. One of the sincerest ways they worship Jesus Christ is by partaking of the sacrament each week during Sunday worship services._ Joe has a great video below titled, _Do Protestants Really Worship God?_ Recommend watching it for the discussion of what is Christian worship, and not ... kzbin.info/www/bejne/opiXhGSMjsaWY7ssi=IMh_rvNikjQcrwte

[@DesertPrimrose]

@@TruthHasSpoken yes, we worship both God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ. No, we are not trinitarians, just like the early saints were not trinitarians as that philosophy arrived hundreds of years after the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus.

[@TruthHasSpoken]

@@DesertPrimrose *"and His Son Jesus Christ."* No. "Exercising faith" and "following his commandments" is not worship. *"just like the early saints"* To whom are you referring to? - Can you quote any who said that Jesus was "created?" - Can you quote any verse in all of scripture that says Jesus was "created?" *"as that philosophy arrived hundreds of years after the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus."* First, one starts with the belief that Jesus was God. One can read the words of St Ignatius of Antioch, himself a disciple of St John, the same St John as taught by Jesus himself. He said: _“We have also as a Physician the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin.”_ To the Ephesians, 7 (A.D. 110). The key word here is _begotten._ One begets what is the same nature as oneself, The One Divine God begetting the Divine Son. Just as Sariew, a human being, was begotten from another human being. CW Lewis famously said: _“We don't use the words begetting or begotten much in modern English, but everyone still knows what they mean. To beget is to become the father of: to create is to make. And the difference is this. When you beget, you beget something o the same kind as yourself. A man begets human babies, a beaver begets little beavers and a bird begets eggs which turn into little birds. But when you make, you make something of a different kind from yourself. A bird makes a nest, a beaver builds a dam, a man makes a wireless set - or he may make something more like himself than a wireless set: say, a statue. If he is clever enough carver he may make a statue which is very like man indeed. But, of course, it is not a ream man; it only looks like one. It cannot breathe or think. It is not alive._ _Now that is the first thing to get clear. What God begets is God; just as what man begets is man. What God creates is not God; just as what man makes is not man. That is why men are not Son's of God in the sense that Christ is. They may be like God in certain ways, but they are not things of the same kind. They are more like statues or pictures of God.”_ Tertullian also said: _“We have already asserted that God made the world, and all which it contains, by His Word, and Reason, and Power. It is abundantly plain that your philosophers, too, regard the Logos-that is, the Word and Reason-as the Creator of the universe…And we, in like manner, hold that the Word, and Reason, and Power, by which we have said God made all, have spirit as their proper and essential substratum, in which the Word has inbeing to give forth utterances, and reason abides to dispose and arrange, and power is over all to execute. We have been taught that He proceeds forth from God, and in that procession He is generated; so that He is the Son of God, and is called God from unity of substance with God. For God, too, is a Spirit. Even when the ray is shot from the sun, it is still part of the parent mass; the sun will still be in the ray, because it is a ray of the sun-there is no division of substance, but merely an extension. Thus Christ is Spirit of Spirit, and God of God, as light of light is kindled. The material matrix remains entire and unimpaired, though you derive from it any number of shoots possessed of its qualities; so, too, that which has come forth out of God is at once God and the Son of God, and the two are one. In this way also, as He is Spirit of Spirit and God of God, He is made a second in manner of existence-in position, not in nature; and He did not withdraw from the original source, but went forth. This ray of God, then, as it was always foretold in ancient times, descending into a certain virgin, and made flesh in her womb, is in His birth God and man united.”_ Apology, 21 (A.D. 197). *"as that philosophy arrived hundreds of years after the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus."* Note, it was hundreds of years after the death of Jesus that the Church decided which writings belong in your bible's table of contents. This happened when Catholic Bishops met at Rome (382), Hippo (393) and Carthage (397). When you open your bible to the table of contents, you will find that you use the very same 27 New Testament writings, no more, no less, out of 300+ early Christian writings as decided by the Catholic Church. You have an inconsistency, believing in a great apostasy on one hand, yet believing that these apostate, mere men, could have gotten it right. These men also declared the Old Testament to have 46 writings, but 1100 years later, Catholic men with. no authority said otherwise, saying that the Church errored and didn't know it, themselves declaring the Old Testament to have only 39 writings. You use their Old Testament. Still, these men too, were all Trinitarians. How is that you trust them on their canon of scripture, but believe that they all errored on the Trinity and didn't know it?

[@johnathannelson9610]

​@@TruthHasSpokendamn, bro. Based???

[@mrbooe]

Islam is in this same boat. They do not worship Jesus as God but believe he is a prophet. There is no understanding of the trinity as well. Those that claim Muslims worship the same God are as wrong as those that claim the same about Mormons.

[@masterchief8179]

There is some necessary nuance you are missing here. For one, Mormonism believes the existence of multiple gods, albeit they deny being polytheists; Islamism affirms the existence of one, with the necessary exclusion of all other divine entities. That’s not to say things are “lighter” for Mohammedans: deception in the order of right praise is often worse and more abhorrent than pure wrongness, at least according to our Sacred Scriptures. So, this topic usually comes with a LOT of misconceptions about Metaphysics, Sacred Theology and their interrelation. It is a fact that Christians, Jews and Muslims worship the ‘same’ (in a qualified sense) single, all powerful, all knowing and benevolent God of all creation: for us, those characteristics are known through metaphysical reasoning (“Preambula Fidei”), which the very Sacred Scriptures attest to be accessible to those Greek pagans who by reason, not through faith, worshiped, in the one principle of creation of all visible and invisible realities “ab nihilo” as the “unknown God” (Acts 17, 22-28), without the genuine latreutic conscience. But ONLY through divine revelation the Most Holy Trinity can be discovered; no man can say ‘Jesus Christ is Lord if not through the Holy Spirit’ (1 Cor 12,3). In the Early Middle Ages it was common to treat Islam as a Christological heresy: it was exactly the position of the great St John Damascene (or St John of Damascus), the last of the Church Fathers, who called Muhammad the “false prophet” by antonomasia but still treated Islamism as a Christological heresy in his work _“Heresies in Epitome: How They Began and Whence They Drew Their Origin”._ In his dogmatics they were not seen as idolaters, although the Arabs, according to John, were born out from a corruption of former idolaters, which means the category of peoples that worship a FALSE GOD or FALSE GODS. The terminology and spectrum of Natural and Sacred Theology are very precise and sufficiently circumscribed. Russian Orthodox Archpriest Andrew Louth notes that St John Damascene also calls the Muslims Ishmaelites (from Ishmael), Hagarenes (from Hagar) or Saracens (from Sarah) - the last two of these terms being long-established Greek designations for the Arabs, he states -, albeit only the first one (Ishmaelites), he argues, would be historically plausible. As far as theology goes, it’s that way in the Patristics, it’s that way in the Scholastics. In all Catholic magisterial stances too. The same treatment is given in the Early Middle Ages by Sebeos, an Armenian Oriental Orthodox bishop who wrote as a historian in the 600s, emphasizing them as the “Ishmaelites”. Also Muhammad is characterized as "pseudo-prophet" in Byzantine and post-Byzantine religious and historic texts with the same approach to the theology of the “God of Abraham”, as for example by Niketas Choniates (12th-13th centuries). This precise set of discussions polarized the greatest Medieval thinkers of all times in the so-called conceptual “Abrahamic religions”, the ones who claim to be heirs of the one God of Abraham: St Thomas Aquinas (Christian), Maimonides (Jew) and Avicenna (Muslim). To a more secure affirmation those all agreed in a general formulation on what our intellectual tradition would call “the God of Classical Theism” or the God of the metaphysicians. That does not mean those beliefs are remotely similar or, even less, that Islamism or Pharisaical Judaism are intrinsically true or equivalent religions. They are false religions and if they lead to a conscious rejection of the Gospel and the one True Church Christ established, they will lead - culpably - to condemnation. Period. That’s as far as it gets in ‘Lumen Gentium’, ‘Nostra Aetate’ and also in the Catechism of St Pious X. From them we get the reference in the current Catechism of St John Paul. Nothing more, nothing less. Just to quote the Catechism of St Pious X (who championed the fight against Modernism, by the way), it is obvious that Muslims are treated as infidels and are referenced as giving false worship but in all parts the concept of “one true God” is at use: 12 Q. _Who are infidels? A. Infidels are those who have not been baptized and do not believe in Jesus Christ, because they either believe in and worship false gods as idolaters do, or _*_though admitting ONE TRUE GOD, they do not believe in the Messiah, neither as already come in the Person of Jesus Christ, nor as to come; for instance, Mohammedans and the like._* Catechism of Pope St. Pius X) In summation, there is a categorical difference between worshipping false gods (“idolaters”) and worshiping falsely the one true God (“Mohammedans and the like”). And still there is an enormous difference between Natural Theology and Divine Revelation as means to access the One God beyond uneducated oversimplification. So the problem is that people not very acquainted with theses matters are vitriolic and many times those who know enough on history, philosophy and theology are more or less silent. ​If one denies Jesus is the Son, he won’t get the Most Holy Trinity - simple as that - and as a consequence he can’t genuinely have a Father in God, as in the promise God Himself made to the people of Israel. That’s core Johannine trinitarian theology (1 Jo 2, 23). And Pauline trinitarian theology resonates with that very argument in that God shares with us His intratrinitarian life by the action of the Holy Spirit, thus denying the Son makes someone fail to claim (and achieve) the promised divine sonship: _”For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!”_ (Romans 8, 15). But one must notice: still St Paul NEVER called the Pharisees *“IDOLATERS”* (implying they worshiped a false god or false gods). That’s a simple theological error of impropriety of language we see on Anglophone anti-Catholic Internet. There is not a single Church Father that calls the Jews - who reject the Trinity and the divinity of Our Lord - idolaters or accuse them of worshiping a false god (encyclopedical definition of idolatry) even if their religion is obviously false. The abandonment of that specific nuance usually comes under the worst anti-Catholic pretexts unfortunately and it will lead people to endangering their souls. Simply watch out, my friend. God bless!

[@tafazzi-on-discord]

muslims do worship the same God. The jews were not trinitarians!

[@Ekim1740]

Islam is a arabized Jewish sect who is a contrarian to Christianity. Thats why they changed Isaac to Ishmael. they changed Jerusalem to Mecca.

[@chryphex]

Question: are you Catholic? Because if so, you are in contradiction of an ecumenical council.

[@tafazzi-on-discord]

@@chryphex what ecumenical council? what contradiction?

[@akpred]

When Catholics watch this I want you to remember that we view our prophets in a very similar way that you guys view your pope just because a prophet said something doesn't mean that that is Doctrine and that doesn't mean that that's what we teach we also need to remember that like you our doctrine has also evolved some what overtime so going back to the beginning and not looking at how that coincides with what's being said now means that you're not really getting what we truly believe now ❤

[@powerlessburger]

But what about the example with Brigham Young? Where he said very clearly that it was doctrine and not only doctrine but it can be damnable if someone doesn't believe it?

[@powerlessburger]

Around 42:00

[@akpred]

@powerlessburger I'll have to look into this more. My family has been members since that time, and I had never heard of this until listening to this. So, if it was taught as doctrine, it wasn't taught to many people or people didn't accept it or it wasn't taught for long. As the Catholics say God isn't going to let his people get led astray. People make mistakes. But the Lord will always correct them. That's why it's no longer taught, and 99% of people have never even heard of it.

[@johns1834]

@@akpred Catholics never say; "God isn't going to let his people get led astray." as you stated above. Free will allows every one to make decisions even if that decision leads them astray. The whole protestant reformation is based on God allowing people to be led astray.

[@TruthHasSpoken]

Catholic doctrine does not change. What is true today can not be false tomorrow. This is due to the repeated promises Jesus made of his Church. Christ is the head of his Church (Col 1: 18) Christ''s Church is the pillar of truth (1 Tim 3: 15) Christ's Church is the bulwark of truth. (1 Tim 3: 15) Christ's Church is where the manifold wisdom of God is made known. (Eph 3: 10) *Christ PROMISED to lead it to ALL Truth.* (Jn 16: 13) Christ PROMISED that he would NEVER leave it. (Mt 28: 20) Christ PROMISED that the gates of hell would not prevail (it will not teach doctrinal error) ; (Mt 16: 18) When you open your bible to the table of contents, and read that the New Testament has 27 writings, out of 300+ early Christian writings, you are giving tacit authority to the Catholic Church to have decided for you some 1600 years ago. Those who decided were all Catholic Bishops, AND they were all Trinitarians. Your Old Testament consists of 39 writings, decided by 16th c Catholic men in Central Europe, and not the Church of the 4th c which said the OT was 46 writings. Still, these 16th c men were all Trinitarians as well. So one must ask, how can a Church, nearly 400 years into a "great apostasy" know without error that the New Testament was 27 writings, no more, no less, out 300+ early Christian writings? Or restated, how does one trust the Church on the latter, but believe it errored and errored universally on the Trinity (articulated at Nicea in 325 ad)?

[@DaremoDaremo]

Forest for the trees. Any system of belief can be made to look contradictory from the outside looking in. Systems of belief and the doctrine thereof are typically very dynamic. God obviously could just have dropped a perfect set of doctrine in a perfect language in a perfect medium in the laps of Adam and Eve and called it a day. Yet God didn't. God apparently does things differently that many think. God doesn’t seem to be particular about how things seem, but more about planting seeds and having them grow. That is, God provides some seeds of light and knowledge. Man might receive them in their heart initially, but then not stick with the nurturing phase. In other words, start to disobey what they presently understand. Turn against the light and knowledge that they have by outright rebellion or lazy application. As a result, those seeds die. Sometimes man does obey and apply and those seeds grow into deeper understanding. God then can give more seeds of light and knowledge to that person. Sometimes the people apply the seeds they are given so well they get taken up into heaven (Enoch). Anyhow, God has apparently been doing this on a global, regional, local, and individual level throughout the history of mankind. Also, we must never forget that God is very patient and frequently allows Team Lucy to run amok to confuse things with imitations and partial truths. (Technically, it is we that allow Team Lucy to run amok when we collectively don’t apply the seeds that God has already sent us and instead let weeds grow in our hearts.) Think about it like mathematics. How many here are familiar with linear algebra? Probably not many. And, it is pretty hard to just jump into it without first understanding basic mathematics. It is a line upon line, precept upon precept process. However, if you don't stick with it, you will probably forget and need to go back to the last point you truly were capable of, and then restart from there. Eventually, if you keep at it though, you will be able to go from the milk of math to the meat of it. Same with doctrine from God. We can't expect to really understand it through soundbites, headlines, and even big data. We must truly apply ourselves and allow the seed of doctrine to grow within us. Simply searching the net for this and that, reading book after book, even just reading scripture this or that won't do the trick. You actually have to apply yourself and nurture the seed of the doctrine within yourself to enable that seed to grow up within you. Only then, will a person be able to see things more clearly. This was the dilemma for many of the Pharisees and Scribes at the time Jesus was here on earth performing His mortal ministry. They were always learning but never coming to a knowledge of the truth. Why? They weren't really applying the principles, they were just going through the motions. They weren't developing meekness, patience, humility, faith, hope, charity, etc, they were just really good at trivia this and that to look good among their peers. They had superficial understanding, not true understanding that can only come through the blood, sweat, and tears of application. God our Father loves us all. He wants all of us children to grow to perfection as He is. Hence Jesus commanded that we all be perfect even as Father is. However, we can only do this line upon line, precept upon precept. As we take the seeds of faith, hope, humility, charity, meekness, etc. that God has provided and truly apply them, we will truly become a people of Zion like those in Enoch’s day. We will truly become a people of one heart and one mind, all focused with an eye single to the work and glory of God to bring about the immortality and eternal life of all mankind. May the Father bless all of us to go deeper in our meekness and humility to allow the seeds of truth to grow in all of us is my prayer, in the name of Jesus Christ our Savior. Amen.

[@tafazzi-on-discord]

emotivism

[@DaremoDaremo]

Brother Tafazzi, thanks. That puts me in the same class as the Jesus of the NT.

[@tafazzi-on-discord]

@@DaremoDaremo where does Jesus appeal to emotivism?

[@DaremoDaremo]

Brother Tafazzi, thanks. There are many. But here is just one. Jesus commanded us to be perfect like God the Father. Surely He didn’t mean that literally, right? I mean, we can’t become perfect like God (have perfect ability in all things and perfect knowledge and a perfect power), so, rather it is just an emotional appeal for us to grow up and to be the best we can be, right? Just try our best, right? (FYI: YT seems to block my responses when I use your handle name so that is why I am not using it.)

[@tafazzi-on-discord]

@@DaremoDaremo Yes, he meant that litterally. Perfection means flawlessness, it doesn't mean omnipotence. A circle is perfect if there is no dent or bulge, a human is perfect if he behaves righteously. That is not an appeal to emotivism, try again. Where does Jesus appeal to emotivism?

[@ryanr5139]

There’s also fundamentalist Mormons who reject Brigham Young as a false prophet. The variety of theology in Mormon denominations is fascinating!