Quoting the Catechism is not helping you because you clearly don’t understand what it says.


Christ is not Jesus’ name, it’s his title. Christ means the anointed one or chosen one, so it would be Jesus, the Anointed One or Jesus, the Chosen One.

When you have a better command of the language of the bible you may be able to make sense of all this.


For the rest of the quote which you would never post: _

254 The divine persons are really distinct from one another . “God is one but not solitary.” “Father”, “Son”, “Holy Spirit” are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being, for they are really distinct from one another: “He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son.” They are distinct from one another in their relations of origin: “It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds.” The divine Unity is Triune_

And again: 233 Christians are baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: not in their names , for there is only one God, the almighty Father, his only Son and the Holy Spirit: the Most Holy Trinity.

As I have said so many times Gazelam, context matters in the real world.


No it does not define the Trinity.

I think you are embarrassing yourself by trying to teach Catholics something you don’t understand and by using a document you don’t understand. John 1:1-14 is consistent with the Christian belief in the Trinity and Incarnation. It completely refutes the Mormon belief that Christ became a God, and rejection of the Trinity.


When you understand the Doctrine of the Trinity it makes perfect sense. I explained it to you last April.


Love this song!


My post about New Age Mormons got me banned for a week. :rofl: Looks like this thread is about to die anyway. Hope y’all are doing well.


@Lemuel, I didn’t see anything objectionable in that post. Why would it have gotten you banned?
Glad you’re back.:+1:


Fine. We can do this your way.

…and the Word [Christ] was God [the Trinity].

Per CCC 253 the Trinity is one God in three persons.

…and the Word [Christ] was God [one God in three persons].

and each of the persons is God and therefore each is a Trinity as you say Christ is

…and the Word [Christ] was God [one God in three Trinities].

next logical step…

…and the Word [Christ] was God [one God in three [one God in three persons]].

which brings us to…

…and the Word [Christ] was God [one God in three [one God in three Trinities]].

and this circular definition of false equivalencies can just go on forever.

PS - There are a variety of opinion regarding how John 1:1 should be translated. For more info see


I read these verses and didn’t see anything that was specifically Trinitarian. Latter-day Saints accept what is taught each of these passages. Let’s look at Mark 1:9-11:

9 it happened in those days that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized in the Jordan by John.

10 On coming up out of the water he saw the heavens being torn open and the Spirit, like a dove, descending upon him.

11 And a voice came from the heavens, “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.”

I see nothing in these verses that suggests that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are consubstantial in Their divinity. I see nothing of a hypostatic union. I certainly see verses indicating that the Three are divine, but that in and of itself is not Trinitarian. What specific traits that exclusively support the doctrine of the Trinity do you see in either this, or the other verses you listed? Thanks.


Wikipedia is not an authority on the Catholic faith. Just because you don’t understand the nature of the Trinity doesn’t make it false.


Are Mormons Christian? I like what their prophet Rusty Nelson had to say in their last general conference. Nobody could have said it better:

“People could talk about Mormons and the Mormon Church all day long, and never once have Jesus Christ enter their thoughts.”

Precisely. Dead on. Well said. Bingo.


per CCC 253: “Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature.”

Therefore each person is the one divine being, God.

No, … and the Word [Christ] was God [the second person of the one divine being; God]

No, there is no next step. The Word [Christ] was God [the second person of the one divine being; God]

What is brings us to is the fact you don’t understand the doctrine of the Trinity.


This is my way that you have ignored:

God and Christ are the same being.

God and Christ are the same being; the uncreated creator.

God, the Word, the second person of the Trinity, became flesh.

Contrary to Mormonism which teaches Christ [flesh] became a God.


I’m sorry you struggle so much with understanding the trinity. But once again it does provide more evidence of the LDS not being Christian.

Joseph Smith did claim he was told not to join any Christian denomination as they were all corrupt or some words to that effect. The LDS also have an extremely different of who Jesus is and the role he plays.
The Mormon church teaches that He (Jesus) is the First Begotten Son of the Father in the premortal existence and the Only Begotten Son of the Father on earth. God the Eternal Father is the literal parent of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and of His other spirit children. Note that this indicates that Jesus is not God nor has always existed. He is the created literal first son of God. The Book of Mormon is relatively silent on the subject of his conception.

There is quite a bit more in the article about the differences between Christian and LDS.


Boom! The doctrine of the Trinity is refuted from the Bible again. No one is the thing they are with. The only way for this to make sense is for there to be two wholly separate and distinct beings that are in very close proximity to each other.


You really think the Catholic Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, which collected and canonized the Scriptures of the Bible, would leave in a passage that disproved a doctrine so fundamental to its faith? And no one would have noticed in 2000 yrs of scholarly study until you pointed it out? Or could it be you are mistaken in your interpretation of the passage and what the doctrine of the trinity actually is? Which seems more plausible?


You just have to ignore the Old Testament teaching that there is one uncreated creator; God. Then you have to ignore the sentence before it and the sentence after it. And finally you have to not understand the Doctrine of the Trinity to think your one cherry picked sentence refutes the doctrine.

Ofcourse you haven’t even tried to explain away my second point supported by the Bible. We do not become God because there is only one God, and while Christ was the only begotten son, humans become sons by adoption. Humans do not become God. On Christmas, Christians celebrate the incarnation. What do Mormons celebrate?


I remember a Christmas program in St. George, Utah several years ago when the theme of the program was Joseph Smith. :grinning:


1 Corinthians 1:15
I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose. For it has been reported to me about you, my brothers, by Chloe’s people, that there are rivalries among you. I mean that each of you is saying, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I give thanks [to God] that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one can say you were baptized in my name.

I have no idea how you can twist this verse into meaning the first born of every creature. In fact this paragraph speaks plainly about teaching anything other than the teachings of Jesus Christ, so it weakens any LDS claim of truth.

That statement is not correct and all those verses, when read in context with regards to the audience, culture and author, in no way supports your claim.

Nice little quote straight off Have you gone to the source to see if that is really what Fr. Stanley Jaki claims?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit