Before God Was God
In March I posted “Least Influential Mormons” here on Mormon Coffee. I wrote,
“If we were making a list, I think we might include the names of at least the first five LDS prophets as those whose doctrines are often considered irrelevant in Mormonism today. A number of their significant teachings have fallen by the wayside.”
I provided examples of some of these teachings, including Lorenzo Snow’s couplet on the nature of God (“As man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may be.”) A Latter-day Saint reader responded:
“Haha. I can only laugh at this posting. The thought came to me: Who better to tell ME (a proactive and faithful member of the LDS Church) what teachings are ignored or taught in the Church, than Sharon? It’s hilarious.
“The Lorenzo Snow couplet is one of the LEAST ignored teachings in the Church. I hear it, at least, twice a month…. Which is a lot, considering.
“…So, you made me laugh, Sharon. You say that Lorenzo Snow’s couplet is an ignored teaching, when I hear it ALL THE TIME, in the Church. It really hurts your credibility.” (Excerpted from lengthier quote)
Sometime later I came across Krista Tippett’s January 2008 interview of LDS scholar Robert Millet (Speaking of Faith on American Public Media). In this interview, Ms. Tippett asked Dr. Millet about the LDS godhead. She expressed her understanding that the Mormon idea of God is that He is a product of something like spiritual evolution: “God who was once a man, and moved into this very different kind of being.”
Dr. Millet acknowledged the fact that Joseph Smith and other LDS prophets taught that God was once a man. He continued,
“but you know, it’s talked about so little, so infrequently; I hear much, much more of that teaching from those who are outside the LDS faith than I do from people within.”
How could the church experiences of our Mormon reader and Robert Millet be so different? One hears the doctrine “all the time” in the Church, and the other hears it “so little, so infrequently.”
In March I suggested that this could be a case of public Mormonism vs. private (members only) Mormonism. This idea seems to be borne out in a Church News report of the 61st annual Joseph Smith Memorial Lecture. Speaking to a Utah audience, Joe J. Christensen, then of the Presidency of the Seventy, told this story during the Memorial Lecture, related here by Church News:
“He [Christensen] told of speaking to a university class in the Southwest on the Church during a Religion in Life Conference. After the class, the professor approached him [Christensen] and asked him if he believed the statement, ‘As man is God once was, and as God is man may become.’
“‘I had purposely not used that statement during my remarks to the class because I felt that I could raise more dust with that one than I would be able to settle in one class period,’ he recalled. ‘After circumlocuting around and around the question, I finally said, ‘”Yes, we believe that.”‘” (Church News, 2/4/1995, 4; emphasis retained from the original)
Mr. Christiansen admitted the truth of the doctrine in the end. During the Tippett interview Robert Millet also admitted believing that God was once a man, for he thinks it’s “part of the faith.” Dr. Millet added,
“but it’s rather theologically tangential in the sense that we believe He’s a man; what went on before He was God we just have no idea.”
Dr. Millet referenced Joseph Smith’s King Follett Discourse earlier in the interview when he acknowledged prophets had taught God was once a man. It seems that if Dr. Millet is willing to believe Joseph’s teaching on that point, then Joseph’s statement on the pre-godhood of God should inform Dr. Millet on that as well. Joseph Smith said,
“…you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 346-347)
So, according to the Prophet, what went on before God became God was this:
- He was learning how to be a God;
- He was learning how to be a king and a priest to His God;
- He was going from one small degree to another;
- He was going from a small capacity to a great one; etc.
This seems pretty clear to me; and it’s pretty important as well. Those who believe the Bible can in no way consider the doctrine of God “theologically tangential.” Knowing God as He is–and worshiping Him alone–is theologically essential.
“‘…let him who boasts boast in this, that he understands and knows Me,…’” *
* Jeremiah 9:24. In addition, please consider Jeremiah 10:10; Exodus 34:14; John 17:3
Comments (179)
The question I would like to ask is “Why are, or why do Mormons seem so wishy washy on this most fundamental of all teachings of their founding prophet Joseph Smith?” Are they embarrassed by it? Joseph Smith and those who followed him seem pretty definite in what they believed about the nature of god and mans’ progressing to becoming gods. I think there is this idea in Mormonism that this cannot be discussed outside of the clique because nonsaints just don’t have enough spiritual light to understand it. I would say we have enough spiritual light to reject it for what it is abject heresy and outright blasphemy. My point as always is if Mormons want to believe this that there business, but then recognize you can’t be counted in the family of Christian believers.
I believe LDS know full well this doctrine. After all, its all ABOUT getting to that celestial kingdom and becoming a God. I think they just down want to own up to it. Perhaps because it is embarassing that the Bible teaches only one God, and even the BoM teaches of one God and it is a doctrine that creates a severe separation between traditional Christianity and Mormonism, which LDS try so desperately to bridge the gap. (I must say though, their PR system is rather good at blurring the line, or at least trying to). The scary thing is that when/if Mormonism gets so big that the majority of the world is Mormon, it will phase out traditional Christianity and become the new christianity.
Essentialy. Mormonism is the ID thief of Christianity. Eventually the PR system won’t have to work so hard to blur the line because there will be no line, and the flood gates of LDS doctrine can open all the way and run freely into the world.
Whenever I read the book of Revelation and about apostasy (that LDS think has already happened) but what I believe most traditional Christians think has yet to happen, it just makes me wonder if the Mormonism is the apostasy that Revelation speaks of.
I think this is another example of how Mormon doctrine is so silly that the church has to make all kinds of mind-bending gymnastics to believe it themselves. It’s like nailing down jell-o.
I just met some new friends this week, and was interested to find out they are “ex” Mormons. I wanted to talk to them about this some more, since I don’t think they’ve gone anywhere beyond just rejecting Smith. One of them is the granddaughter of a major Mormon prophet or something. I’m hoping that we can have some interesting conversations in the future.
and to go further off topic, I’ve been reading a lot about the FLDS lately since I live close to the El Dorado mess, (reading Carolyn Jessop’s Escape now) – and I wanted to say that the link in the sidebar to Mary Mackert’s interview on leaving the FLDS – it was so amazing I cried. What a beautiful woman, and how great is our God!!
Some Mormons think that claiming ignorance over God’s past gets them off the hook. But this opens up the possibility that God was once a horrific sinner. He could have been a liar, a thief, and adulterer, a coveter, a idolater, a man full of hateful rage, a practicing homosexual, a masturbator, a conman, an outrageously deceptive televangelist, a false teacher, a false prophet—all before he repented and proved his worthiness unto godhood. A few Mormons I know believe that Satan still has an opportunity to repent and become a god, while is odd, because it implies even our particular “Eternal Father” could have been a satan before he repented unto godhood.
Some Mormons think that claiming God’s past isn’t “emphasized” gets them off the hook. This is an odd argument, as it’s like justifying cyanide in kool-aid so long as the cyanide only consists of a proportionally minimal part of the whole drink, and so long as the label on the outside of the bottle doesn’t advertise its contents. I doubt many Mormons would be satisfied with a professing Christian saying, “I believe Jesus Christ was an outrageous liar, but I emphasize and focus on his good moral teachings and divinity.” It just doesn’t make sense.
This issue of whether God sinned is so important that all LDS General Authorities, apostles, and the prophet should, at this very moment, make an oath not to eat or sleep until it is resolved. They should immediately hold an emergency session over it. They sin by eating another meal or having another night’s rest while allowing membership to comfortably believe that God the Father could have been a sinner.
Sincerely,
Aaron
The recently used, correlated, and church-published manual Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young contains the following:
Never thought I’d be quoted in a blog post at an [filtered profanity or slur] site. The authorities of the Church will probably knock down my door any moment now to authoritatively excommunicate me.
When I said, “I hear it ALL THE TIME, in the Church,” I was referring to the couplet itself. We don’t sit around in our Sunday Schools and Elder’s Quorums speculating on on the pre-godhood of God. We use the quote to profoundly highlight our most unique doctrine: We can become like God, or if you don’t like the word ‘like,’ we can become A god, a Heavenly Father. We don’t use the couplet to highlight the doctrine that God was once a man.
Brother Millet would be lying if he didn’t admit that we hear of our destiny, our potential godhood, ALL THE TIME. What, I believe, he is referring to, is that the pre-godhood of God is very little mentioned. That is true! The only time it is mentioned, is when someone quotes the Snow couplet to highlight our potential destiny, if we are obedient to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel. This is an important distinction. We talk little about when God was once a man, because that’s all we know about it, that was once a man! However, there is much more scripture and detail on the future of man, than there is on the history of God.
Furthermore, I quote a comment I made in January, concerning this very subject, so I can pose the question again. If I were to step outside of my Church, my beliefs, the doctrine just doesn’t seem outrageous, but seems very logical:
Side question to all: Why is it so ridiculous to believe that sons and daughters, born of their parents, are destined to become like their parents, if they so choose? Does not God command us to be perfect, JUST AS HE is perfect? Is that not a commandment to become an all-loving, all-knowing, creator? Is not this the logical pathway of existence? Does not the begotten become like the begetter? If that is such the case in mortality, then why not it be the case in eternity? When you become a loving father in mortality after you have developed, does that take away from the respect, love, and devotion you have to your own father? Though there may be MANY fathers throughout man’s existence, does that change the special relationship you have with your own father?
Falcon asked, “Why are, or why do Mormons seem so wishy washy on this most fundamental of all teachings of their founding prophet Joseph Smith?” Are they embarrassed by it?
Falcon, I do not think that the LDS are embarrassed by it, I actually think most laypeople hold to these fundamental teaching more than the LDS Church’s well polished media machine would lead us to believe. Many of the members I know hold that Elohim is the “Jesus” of His planet, this explanation does bare some weight in light of Passages such as Moses 4:1-4. Now this to does not mean that the entire idea is not built upon the false premise that God was in fact once a man.
The reason that the LDS do not “emphasize it” in a public forum is because they wish to appear Christian in public, and this places them distinctly outside of Christianity because it portrays a different Christ.
Lautensack
“As man is God once was, as God is man may be.” This couplet communicates more than that God was once a man. It communicates that God was once a man as man is now. And traditionally that has been understood and interpreted by LDS leaders to mean he lived a mortal probation just like us to prove his worthiness unto godhood.
iamse7en, you asked -
“Side question to all: Why is it so ridiculous to believe that sons and daughters, born of their parents, are destined to become like their parents, if they so choose? Does not God command us to be perfect, JUST AS HE is perfect? Is that not a commandment to become an all-loving, all-knowing, creator? Is not this the logical pathway of existence? Does not the begotten become like the begetter?”
Remember now, we don’t believe in the pre-existence, that we are actual literal sons and daughters of heavenly Father. It isn’t ridiculous to believe that we can become like our earthly fathers and earthly mothers. They are made up of the exact same stuff and live in the exact same world as we do. There will be a disconnect here because you believe God was once a man made up of the exact same stuff, living in world much the same as we live in now. Traditional Christianity believes in a different God than LDS.
This is why thinking we can become a God just as God is God, is downright heresy. In trad Christianity, one will never inherit all of the divine powers that God has. A great downfall of humankind is men who want supreme power. It is the lie that Satan told Adam and Eve in the garden that they could become God. The same reason why Lucifer became Lucifer. He wanted all the powers God had.
iamse7en wrote, Why is it so ridiculous to believe that sons and daughters, born of their parents, are destined to become like their parents, if they so choose?
One how does someone choose their destiny? Two this entire question is based upon the false premise that God begot us, He did not, scripture states He created us.
Does not God command us to be perfect, JUST AS HE is perfect? Is that not a commandment to become an all-loving, all-knowing, creator? Is not this the logical pathway of existence?
While we are to be perfect it never says we are to be God. Thus we were created to be what we were created to be, that is instruments of God’s greater Glory as scripture states.
Does not the begotten become like the begetter? If that is such the case in mortality, then why not it be the case in eternity?
Well the Son is eternally like the Father, however since humans are created by, not begotten of, the Father again this argument is based upon a false presupposition that is contrary to scripture.
When you become a loving father in mortality after you have developed, does that take away from the respect, love, and devotion you have to your own father? No, it does not, actually it makes me respect my father more, however the difference is that the One Eternal God does not have a father, but rather is the First. Thus this argument falsely assumes that God the Father has a father, contrary to scripture.
Though there may be MANY fathers throughout man’s existence, does that change the special relationship you have with your own father?
No it does not. However there are not many True Gods throughout existence, though false ones are innumerable, (money,sex,etc). Thus again this argument is based upon the false assumption that there are many True Gods when scripture states that there is but One.
Your entire line of questioning is based upon false premises that at their root hold to the supposition that the Word of God is in error.
Lautensack
Aaron,
Above, you stated that ’some Mormons believe that Satan could still repent and become a god.’ In all honesty, as a former Mormon now a Christian, I have never heard this. I was always taught Lucifer fallen had fallen and that was it….doomed to outer darkness following the final judgement. Now this in now way precludes that there may be some who believe it or it has been taught at one time or another. I’ve just never ever heard it taught.
Most of my family believes the Snow couplet, my father in particular. The idea is actively taught, although people almost never actually say “when I become a god, or when we become gods….”. It is always couched in terms of “become more like our Father in Heaven” or “achieve exaltation”.
When my wife and I first met and began talking about the church, her main statement was: “How can people who believe they will achieve godhood be called Christian”. I replied, “I know, I agree with you, but I guarentee that the beleive they are the consumate Christians.” The idea of achieving godhood is completely anti-thetical to Christianity. The whole point of believing in Christ as our Saviour is to realize our imperfections and sinfull nature, and that no matter how hard we try or what we do we cannot be like God on our own. Mormonism absolutely implies that God once sinned.
Eric, the idea that Satan can repent unto godhood is extremely rare but tolerated within Mormonism. You might need a strong, hot drink to wash this down:
These kinds of Mormons feel like like they can toss just about anything their past leadership has taught. For more funky theology see here. Some Mormons who hold to an extremely minimalist notion of what constitutes official, binding doctrine (a concept that itself is plagued with ambiguity) will say that only the Mormon canon, as interpreted by recently emphasized First Presidency declarations, is binding, and since the Mormon hierarchy has officially interpreted very few passages in the canon, Mormon theology is a massive free for all.
Mormon apologist Allen Wyatt intimated to me that we can’t even assume an individual Mormon is a theist, as once a person is a member they are free to confess privately held beliefs of almost any kind to their bishop and still remain in active fellowship.
It’s Friday… I hope you guys have more of a life than I do!
Grace and peace,
Aaron
Jeffrey and Lautensack,
Both of you hit on key differences in Mormon beliefs and traditional Christianity. The nature of God and the nature of man. The LDS have replaced a covenant relationship between the Creator and the creature with a plan of salvation. The reality is that they have traded in saving grace for “principals and ordinances” by instituting a man made form of the Law. So while the Christian looks forward to the Second Coming and the resurrection of the body the LDS are looking to some form of cosmic bureaucracy churning out planets and gods.
iamse7en,
What is up with the “ANTI”? Nobody called you an anti-Christian. I didn’t show up and tell you that 2,000 of Church tradition is an abomination. We do not use words like “begotten” from the Christian Creeds only after twisting the meaning.
I don’t want to get into this too much, because I did it way too much on my mission… However Lautensack said:
“Q: Does not the begotten become like the begetter? If that is such the case in mortality, then why not it be the case in eternity? Response: Well the Son is eternally like the Father, however since humans are created by, not begotten of, the Father again this argument is based upon a false presupposition that is contrary to scripture.”
To say that is contrary to scripture is very incorrect. To say “it’s contrary to MY INTERPRETATION of scripture” is okay to say. Hebrews 12:9: “Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?” Just as we have fathers of our flesh, God is the Father of our spirits. Not to mention Acts 17:29, which states we are the OFFSRPING of God, which is VERY different than saying we were CREATED by God. Offspring denotes we are BEGOTTEN not CREATED by God. There is much more scriptural support that we are literal children of God than there is that we are merely his creations. Therefore, it would be wiser for you to say “it’s contrary to MY INTERPRETATION of scripture.”
Food for thought on your other comment: Rev 1:5-6: “And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.”
In short, “Jesus Christ…hath made us kings and priest unto God and his Father.” Doesn’t this scripture show that God the Father, had a Father? Joseph Smith believed so.
iamse7en,
Unfortunately when Scripture is taken as a whole and not ripped outside of its context, it can be said that saying there is no God is not in contrary to scripture. Just read Psalm 14:1 see it says there is no God. Oh wait when the whole thing is read in context we see it is speaking of fools who utter such things in their hearts. Likewise Hebrews 12:9 cannot be take outside of the context of the book of Hebrews. We see in vs. 7 that we are being treated as sons, not that we are sons in the sense that I am the son of my earthly father. To jump to a conclusion that we are begotten by God is utterly unbiblical when we read so many places elsewhere that we become sons of God by adoption. (Jn 1:12, Rom 8:15,23; Gal 4:5; Eph 1:5)
Now the Acts 17:29 quote simply makes me laugh. Paul is mocking Greek philosophers, he knew the scriptures “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.” Proverbs 26:4-5 Paul here in Acts 17 is saying to some really, really “wise” men, I know something you don’t know, the whole unknown God part of vs. 22-28a. (Prv 26:4) Then he says look at the foolishness of your own presuppositions, you believe we are the offspring of the gods yet you think the divine is something found in gold or silver, vs. 28b-31. (Prv 26:5)
As for Revelation 1:5-6, I agree Jesus is the first born from the dead, as He is the True Man, He is also the true God note verse 8, however him making us to be Kings and Priests unto God the Father absolutely agrees with texts such as John 1:12 where we are given the right to become children of God, and this is the fulfillment of scripture as we are to be a royal priesthood called from darkness into marvelous light, (1 Pt 2:9) of whom Christ is the High Priest(Heb 9:11), as the True Man.
Finally please show me where the Bible proclaims that God the Father had a father. Does being a king or priest denote godhood?
Lautensack
We aren’t children of a Heavenly Father? Hmmm..
Num. 16: 22 (Num. 27: 16) God of the spirits of all flesh.
Mal. 2: 10 Have we not all one father?
Matt. 5: 48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as YOUR Father.
Matt. 6: 9 (Luke 11: 2; 3 Ne. 13: 9)
OUR Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
John 20: 17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and YOUR Father; and to my God, and your God.
1 Cor. 8: 6 to us there is but one God, the Father.
Eph. 4: 6 One God and Father of all, who is above all.
Heb. 12: 9 subjection unto the Father of spirits.
Eph. 3:14-15 For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named,
Deut. 14: 1 Ye are the children of the Lord your God.
Job 33: 4 breath of the Almighty hath given me life.
Ps. 82: 6 Ye are gods . . . children of the most High.
Eccl. 12: 7 the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.
Isa. 42: 5 he that giveth breath . . . and spirit to them that walk.
Hosea 1: 10 Ye are the sons of the living God.
Acts 17: 29 we are the offspring of God.
Rom. 8: 16 Spirit itself beareth witness . . . we are the children of God.
Alma 40: 11 spirits . . . taken home to that God who gave them life.
D&C 46: 26 from God, for the benefit of the children of God.
D&C 76: 24 inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters of God.
D&C 77: 2 spirit of man in the likeness of his person.
D&C 88: 15 spirit and the body are the soul of man.
D&C 88: 15 spirit and the body are the soul of man.
D&C 88: 75 I may testify unto your Father, and your God.
Moses 6: 51 I made the world, and men before they were in the flesh.
To suggest that our divine heritage as children of God is not referenced in this scriptures is, well, I mean,—- uh,……….. I am speechless.
I reject your non-scriptural sources as authoritative.
Nm16:22 This makes perfect sense since God is God over everything and in no way means God is literally our father.
Mal2:10 The Father is Abraham, Malachi was writing to Jews.
Mt5:48 Jesus is speaking to Christians, teaching them.
Mt6:9 How else would Jesus teach people to pray, if to become a Christian is to become a child of God would we not pray to God as our father?
Jn20:17 Jesus was speaking to a Christian who He gave the right to become a children of God.(Jn 1:12)
1Cor8:6 Yet for us, that is Christians, not pagans who worship the so-called gods. Also this is esigesis as the verse no where denotes that the Father begot us.
Eph4:6 Paul is writing to Christians who have been adopted as stated in Eph1:5
Heb12:9 I explained this in the previous post.
Eph3:14-15 Yes all the saints (Christians) who are born again of God are in the whole family of God,does this mean that God has begotten us in some pre-mortal existence nope.
Dt14:1 Note that Moses is speaking to priests of God and heirs to the adoption of the old covenant (Lev19:28)
Job33:4 Note that it is the Spirit that made Elihu, not the father.
Ps82:6 If you read this in context the writer is speaking of men not Gods.
Ecc12:7 This does not denote begotteness, you eisegete it into the text, it says given, this simply explains that our spirits will return to God.
Isa42:5 Again this does not denote fatherhood in any way.
Hos1:10 Again this only makes sense in the contrast of “people who are not my people” as explained in Rom 9
Acts17:29 I explained this in the previous post.
Rom8:16 only makes sense in light of Rom 8:15 note adoption
We must not presuppose our sonship of God comes from anything other than our faith as Gal 3:26 states. To do otherwise is to make the same mistake as Job to which God will answer “Will the one who contends with the Almighty correct Him? Let him who argues with God answer Him. Would you condemn Me to justify yourself?”
Lautensack
Simple question, in Mormonism where does the “man progressing to becoming a god” come from? What is the earliest Mormon reference concerning this? Is it in the BoM? Did Joseph Smith’s view of the nature of God “evolve”? Was it revealed to him or did he base it on the Bible or BoM text?
Just a word about Biblical interpretation, if you start with a supposition, a premise and then search the Bible for support, it can be found. Several years ago I became interested in the “health and wealth” gospel. I would read what the proponents of this teaching had to say based on their scriptual references, look in the Bible and conclude “How do they get that out of these scriptures?” So if you start with a supposition that we are literal progeny, off spring of a heavenly father and mother, all of the scriptures regarding us being sons of God will be shaded in interpretation to support that premise. This we do know, the Christian Church never recognized these concepts in 2,000 years of doctrine and theology. So the idea that these ideas were part of the Church at any point is flat out wrong. I have this vision of Martin Luther going off like a Roman candle if he were to encounter Mormon thought.
To get a glimpse of the changing nature of the doctrines of God and man, may I suggest The Reconstruction of Mormon Doctrine an article by Thomas G. Alexander a Mormon Historian and member of the LDS church. Lest I be called an “[filtered profanity or slur]”, this article won the 1980 Mormon History Association award for best article. I think that a brief quote from the article explains the point better than I could.
“Hence, on the doctrines of God and man, the position of the LDS church between 1830 and 1835 was probably closest to that of the Disciples of Christ and the Methodists, though differences existed.”
I have provided the link in order to not be accused of taking anything out of context.
https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/index.php?option=com_file_index&key=1065&name=115-6-15-29.pdf
The questions posed by iamse7en truly get to the heart of the matter (presuppositions and all). Traditional Christians are not children of God in the physical sense but we are by way of adoption.
Not only did God bestow tons of grace on us to bring us to Him but all also to be called sons – “Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God” (I John 3:1)
A huge presupposition is that Mormons see God as being of the same kind of stuff as man. I once heard Bob Millet call God of the same “specie” as man. This is a huge difference in our starting points. These starting points, as others, are grounded in scripture. Your scriptures tell you that man and God had the same start and that we all are physical sons of God. While Mormons may say that the Bible gives clues to the idea of a pre-existence, I think fairness would dictate that one does not get a pre-existence from the Bible alone. The pre-existence is foundational to the LDS understanding, as mere rejection of creation ex nihilo does not produce the LDS view of sonship. Even if God constructed (not created) the world, including man, that would still make God mans’ maker and not Father.
These questions place a bunch of theology in the word “begotten”. Even if one viewed the word “begotten” as “literal physical offspring (sired?)” then it would still only apply to Jesus as in John 1 he is called (twice) the “only begotten”.
But there is ample evidence that “begotten” does not always need to mean “physical offspring”. Psalm 2:7 says, “I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.” This verse is quoted later in Acts and Hebrews. The time frame tells us physical begetting is not in mind as the Son is already in existence when He begets Him.
part 2
Elsewhere in the Bible, “begotten” is used in a way that clearly is not physical. Paul had begotten the Corinthian church in I Corinthians 4; Paul also had begotten Onesimus in the book of Philemon.
Furthermore, there are times those on God’s side are referred to as being servants and not sons. This is the case with the parable of the vine growers, which is found in all of the synoptic gospels. Scripture is filled with references to God’s own as “servants” . . . like John 15:15 – “ No longer do I call you slaves, for the slave does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I have heard from My Father I have made known to you.” Here the status of the disciples is shifted from slaves to friends but sonship is not mentioned.
Even Jesus is referred to as a servant! “Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased”. When Jesus is baptized in Matthew 12 He is called a servant by God Himself. This is an allusion to the Messianic references in the OT where the Messiah is called a servant.
I think part of the LDS problem is that they look at these passages in the KJV and as such put much emphasis on its nuances. Your reference in Acts to “offspring” is such an example. The Greek word mentioned there is “genos” (transliterated Greek). It can mean offspring, children, family, kind, or race. It is used elsewhere in the Bible as “kind” and other translators have chosen “children” for Acts 17:29 (like the NASB). So, I think you make something big, where linguistically nothing exists.
This is definitely the case with Matthew 5:48. The word rendered as “perfect” is “teleios” and it means complete, perfect, whole, full-grown, or mature. A tiger can be teleios for a tiger than does not mean he must become a higher being (like a man or god) just that he would be a whole, complete, or mature tiger.
part 3
Teleios is used elsewhere in the Bible, like Matt 19:21, and there in the KJV “perfect” is used again and “complete” is used in the NASB.
So, that is my INTERPRETATION. Just like your quotes from the scriptures is your INTERPRETATION. However, this is not just my interpretation but also that of Christianity going back to the apostles as well as that of every Jew (for OT passages). Your INTERPRETATION is the novel one as Christians from ever century (including the first century) never got from those passages what Mormons press upon them. Jews never thought God as their father in the way that Mormons do. The mountains of extra biblical evidence (both pre-Christian and Christian) is squarely in our favor and not yours. One does not see Jews, Christians, or anyone else making the same radical interpretations until the 19th century. Your beliefs look much more like the Paganism of the Mediterranean world that early Christians found themselves in.
My questions to Mormons are – Can anything be shown to you, from the Bible, to change your mind in terms of the nature and number of God(s)? How do you reconcile the non-literal references to sonship in the Bible? How do you reconcile the friend and servant references to God’s people (including Jesus) without calling them metaphorical/non-literal? Can anything can be shown to you from outside the Bible that demonstrates that God’s people never believed that God had a God or that we cannot become a god (or like god – as god)?
Clarity67: lol. Thanks for that. It’s funny to me that people can twist simple scriptures like the ones in Hebrews and Acts, to pervert the Holy Gospel. The fact that we are his literal children is the most important truth we can learn about ourselves from holy writ. This is a perfect example of why there are so many different interpretations (and thus different beliefs, and thus churches) of the Bible. This is exactly why there were, are, and will always be prophets.
As I said, there is a lot more evidence in the scriptures to prove we are the literal children of God, versus we are just his mere creations and not begotten by Him.
All in all, I’m glad to have helped generate such a good discussion. It’s nice to see from everyone’s honest perspective. This is also nice because it gives an open forum for faithful LDS to post their opinions on the matter as well. I like this blog: your bloggings pose more questions than anything else, to generate worthy discussion, and I have not been offended by anything too greatly.
iamse7en -
Did you even read Lautensack’s reply to clarity’s post? Some of the verses weren’t even referring to God the Father. Most certainly every verse was explained better in the traditional Christian context than in the Mormon one.
Please compare John 1:12 — we are given the ability to become God’s children through Christ, not because we were begotten as his children a-priori.
iamse7en,
I think you are dealing more with supposition than with any actual facts based on Biblical evidence. Could you please point me to the Bible references that teach us that there is a heavenly mother who along with a heavenly father procreate spirit children. Mormons are alone on this concept as well as mans’ progression to godhood. So that puts you outside of the mainstream of Christian thought. That in and of itself out to tip you off to something not being right with Mormon teaching.
iamse7en said,
“The fact that we are his literal children is the most important truth we can learn about ourselves from holy writ. This is a perfect example of why there are so many different interpretations (and thus different beliefs, and thus churches) of the Bible. This is exactly why there were, are, and will always be prophets.”
You know, iamse7en, last I checked, the only “Christians” claiming to believe in the pre-existence, heavenly mother, and being an actual child of God, IS the LDS church.
I would love it if you would list out any major, hey, even mediocre doctrine that Christian church’s do not agree upon. What Christians don’t agree that there is ONE God, that there is ONE heaven, that there is NO pre-existence, that we won’t become God’s ourselves and populate our own planets? That we are saved by faith, and not rituals and ordinances? That there is no sealing of families and polygamous unions in heaven?
On a more personal thought, I wish LDS would own up to the fact that they are completely different than Traditional Christianity and the only thing that is the same is the names and terms used (i.e. Jesus, God, Holy Spirit). See why some Christians really dont like LDS using the word Christian to describe themselves? You believe the exact opposite on things that we do.
iamse7en said, This is a perfect example of why there are so many different interpretations (and thus different beliefs, and thus churches) of the Bible. I absolutely agree that the bible has often been twisted, Peter said it would be, Isaiah said it would be, Jesus and all the apostles warned of false prophets and teachers that would arise as ravenous wolves scattering the flock. The reason this happens is found in scripture. It is because “men by their unrighteousness suppress the truth… become futile in their thinking and their foolish hearts were darkened” (Rom 1:18,21) They do this because they “despise wisdom and instruction” and “hate knowledge” (Prv 1:7,28) However “professing to be wise they became fools” (Rom 1:22) because they lust after “knowledge falsely called so” (1Tim 6:20) This is because there is no fear of God in them, for “the Fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge.” Therefore they are unable to “bring every thought captive to the obedience of Christ.” (2 Cor 10:15)
“Has God not made foolish the wisdom of the world?” (1 Cor 1:20) Then why is it that Mormonism is based upon the false religions of Kabbalah, Masonry, the false nineteenth century philosophies of humanism and naturalism? Why is the god of Mormonism simply the product of Cosmological a skewed form of Darwinian natural selection? Atheist Richard Dawkins said “maybe somewhere in some other galaxy there is a super-intelligence so colossal that from our point of view it would be a god. But it cannot have been the sort of God that we need to explain the origin of the universe, because it cannot have been there that early.” This is almost identical to the Mormon concept of God. If the BOM was said to be allegorical by the LDS Church Dawkins might even join it. Oh the foolishness of men who hate God and “exchange the truth about God for a lie, worshiping and serving the creature rather than the Creator who is blessed forever!” (Rom 1:25 paraphrase mine)
Lautensack
It is interesting that using the fact that there are so many denominations, Mormons often draw the conclusion that all these denominations must have different doctrines. This is central to the first vision story, and gives them justification for the need to have one authoritative voice. And it gives justification for the ‘true Christian church’ to be organized under one beaurocratic body.
But, the thing is, the longer I’ve been a Christian, the more I see that this isn’t the true. Yes there are many denominations out there, but (with a few exceptions) Christians pretty much believe in the same doctrine. Oh, some Baptists for example think dancing is a sin, but on the really key doctrines like the nature of God, and salvation by grace alone, we pretty much agree. We consider that a believer, any believer, is in the ‘true church’ as long as they accept the Gospel as it is taught in the CONTEXT of the word, regardless of what denomination they belong to. When Christians say Mormons aren’t Christian, we aren’t trying to be mean or offensive, we are simply stating that Mormon Doctrine has placed the LDS church outside the Body of Christ. By thier own doing!!
Anyone can take a passage out of the bible and justify practically any belief. However, if we search the word and seek to understand the context (i.e. original Greek and Hebrew) rather than using any one church’s Topical Guide we can understand the true Gospel. Oh, and one more thing. The idea that God is our literal spiritual father might make intuative sense, but that doesn’t make it true. There are a lot of things in this world that don’t make sense, but certainly are true. For one thing, how can Mormons be so intellegent, wonderful people….yet they don’t get how they have placed themselves out of the body of Christ.
Lautensack,
I thought you would appreciate that last post. I threw everything (and the kitchen sink) that could be even remotely perceived as pertinent in it at the risk of being viewed as “reaching”, however, to make a point (the scriptures can be stretched) which was mentioned already by Falcon. Notwithstanding, although I agree with your eisegesis on some of these verses, the fundamental truth of our divine spiritual heritage is one not to be dismissed. If the scriptures mentioned (many of them) apply to Christians and their adoption into the family of God with Him spiritually begetting us (or we, being reborn) perhaps that is a starting point for common ground between us.
Now, you may maintain that our acceptance of Christ and our baptism and, hence, the corresponding covenant to take upon ourselves His name is false because of the first premise upon which you “allege” it is based. That is your interpretation and you are entitled to it, but I ask if you can possibly see that because we believe He truly is our spiritual Father, then, how all of the other threads of the recent posts (eternal progression, etc.) become significant to us??
Certainly you may disagree, but on the surface, all the ideas exchanged regarding our becoming like a loving Father who wants the best for His children (like all good fathers) appear more reasonable if in this one respective doctrine only. You may disagree with the following, but I can’t help but remember this scripture as it is relevant here.
Matt 7:9 Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?
10 Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?
11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall YOUR Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?
OH, and btw, this is the sermon on the mount – don’t tell me that everyone there was Christian and He was referring to them in that context.
I don’t think the LDS Church is holding back on teaching its people that they can become a god. I was attending a local Mormon ward up the street from me recently to talk with the Mormon folk and asked to go to the gospel principles class. They kindly obliged. The teacher was a young girl and announced that we would be looking at chapter 1 of “Gospel Principles”. I was happy to hear this.
The teacher read the quote on page 9 that says: “Everything that he (Heavenly Father) does is to help his children become like him – A GOD.” I raised my hand and said, “Excuse me, I have to confess since I am not a member of the Church that when I read this I thought this was a misprint. Do all of you really believe that you are going to become a god some day?” A woman sitting in front of me turned around and said, “Yeah, pretty intense, huh?”
I replied, “You think you will be a god even though the Bible clearly states that you will not?” The missionary sitting behind me took the bait and took me to Psalms 82:6 and read it. I said, “Yes, the judges of Israel as seen by the Israelites. Well, let’s look at the next verse. Verse 7 says that ‘ye shall die like men’. Do gods die?” No response from the teacher or missionaries. I then read to the class Isaiah 43:10-12. That disturbed some people and the class ended with testimony bearing! It doesn’t get any clearer than Isaiah 43:10-12. Nobody is going to become a god and there are no other gods – anywhere! There is only the one true God!
No, the LDS Church “straight out the chute” teaches its members that they can become a god. It’s in chapter 1 of “Gospel Principles” and just continues throughout. After all, exaltation is the ultimate goal of every Mormon I know. This is the epitome of blasphemy to even think such a thing. I am fearful of even thinking of the idea. I’ve got a lot of guts and boldness to do just about anything, but to even think that I could be like the Almighty makes me fear Him and is crazy.
There really is no middle ground on this. In order to make it palatable to those outside of Mormonism, this concept must be couched in “be like god” language. That’s dishonest and why Mormons are seen either as either blantant liars or being unsure of their own basic doctrine. I think it’s both. Mormons know that such doctrine offends the sensibilities of people so they lie for the Lord. It’s justified by saying that newbees just can’t understand such deep and complex truths. This approach is part of Mormon culture. Joseph Smith and the leadership lied continually about plural marrage. Even after the 1890 manifesto ending the practice, they continued in it in order to become a state. The Mormon missionary response to the “becoming a god” question is to “don’t answer the question they ask, answer the question they should have asked”. The last prophet of the church played this game in public in one well documented interview.
I’m interested to know how the LDS reconcile the account of Adam and Eve with their doctrine on becoming gods?
It clearly states that Adam and Eve were tricked by Satan into thinking they could “become like God” if they ate from the tree- and we are all cursed for it!
How do they reconcile this? Do they say that Genesis has been tampered with?
lillym,
Bringing up Adam and Eve opens up a whole new can of worms. Mormons don’t believe that the fall of Adam was a curse, rather they believe it was a necessity…A fall upwards if you will. They believe that Adam and Eve were given two commandments by God in the garden: 1) multiply and replentish the earth, and 2) don’t eat of the tree. Further, they believe that these two commandments are incompatable, because they don’t believe that Adam and Eve could have procreated without eating of the tree of knowlege of good and evil. Of course there is nothing in Genisis to support this, but essentially it means that God commanded them to sin in thier perview. So, not only does the Mormon gospel leave open the possibility that God could have sinned (before he became God), he actually commanded Adam and Eve to sin. Of course, in this twisted Gospel, Satan plays a key role in God’s plan.
Of all the atributes of God, we must ask do Mormons believe that God is immortal, omniscient, omnipresent, ect. The answer is no, they don’t because thier very doctrine refutes the very definition of these words. Mormons worship a different non-existant god(s) in my view. The Christian community needs to continue to stand up and say: “NO, we love you and think you are great people, but you are not Christian.” These notions are very offensive to the Gospel of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
There are basically two questions that we have been dealing with here. First of all, the Mormon doctrine of man progressing to becoming a god and secondly, how Mormons present this doctrine to those outside of their religion. On the first point, as Christians we see the progression to godhood not just as aberrant but as heretical and blasphemous. There is no tradition or doctrine in the Christian faith that even remotely hints at God once being a man or that man can become a god. For Mormons this is a real plus and demonstrates to them that it has to be true because the traditional Christian faith rejects it. So what Christians see as blasphemous, Mormons see as a blessing. It is the world of Christianity turned up-side-down. The second point gets to the veracity of the Mormon religion. The doctrines of the Mormon religion are so distasteful to mainstream Christians that they (doctrines) either have to be denied, equivocated, watered down or, in some cases, changed by Mormons because of societal pressures. In the end, its the psychological hook of the personal testimony that keeps the true believing Mormon chugging along even in the face of embarrassment or solid evidence that Joseph Smith is not a prophet and that the Mormon Church is not true. When all else fails, repeat the testimony, ignore the evidence.
I thought it was interesting that Berean mentioned that when challenging questions were asked in a Gospel Essentials class, noone could answer the questions and the discussion ended in an impromtu testimony meeting. If I had a nickle for every time I’ve seen this happen………..
It speaks to falcon’s comment above which discusses the psycological hook of the personal testimony. It can’t be challenged, because another person cannot see or feel what is going on inside one’s own head. Missionaries are taught to do this when put into a corner….”all else fails, bear your testimony.”
THis is why it is so important to stick tightly to the word (in CONTEXT).
ERIC,
2 Ne. 28: 30- (In Isaiah 28: 10,13,17, we are taught the same thing):
30 For behold, thus saith the Lord God: I will give unto the children of men line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little; and blessed are those who hearken unto my precepts, and lend an ear unto my counsel, for they shall learn wisdom; for unto him that receiveth I will give more; and from them that shall say, We have enough, from them shall be taken away even that which they have.
So people should bear testimony ignorantly- comment on things they know nothing about?? So LDS are suppose to be all-knowing in their own doctrine? This is ridiculous. It would be fake to bear testimony of things you don’t have a knowledge or understanding of…and prudent/wise and necessary to bear testimony of things you DO know…this is probably a new concept to many evangelicals who are commonly found, on this website, to speak ignorantly about the restored gospel…especially when it comes to temples, AHEM –AARON— it might be wise to assume many of you might have to start where the rest of us started, the beginning, the basics, before trying to comprehend everything right away. You find criticism because you lack understanding and a firm foundation and testimony in His restored gospel. One thing at a time, and that goes for LDS as well, they are certainly not exempt from the consequences of their pride.
Amanda said
So Amanda,please tell me then, has the Lord given you or any one else that is LDS an answer to the Question Berean asked about how many verses in Scripture CLEARLY STATE, Their was NO GOD BEFORE ME and their will be NO GODS AFTER ME.
How can God the Father say, I know of no other Gods when His Father was/is a God, when Jesus is a seperate God, and when God says in the Pearl, I sat in the Councel of the gods and WE create man and earth.
Either the Bible is wrong or the pearl is wrong. Please give an answer and if you do not have one, seek on out from the LDS church since they should be able to provide one. Rick b
I’m getting rather exhausted with the whole “You don’t understand the concept of God having a Father God because your not LDS yourself or that simply too much for someone to comprehend. Why then does the LDS church pride themselves on having clear and true answers? Is it really that tough for someone to understand the idea of God having a father? It’s not rocket science. I can compare it to me and my dad. I understand it completely, but its still false doctrine. Unless you want to disregard what God’s holy word tells us.
Amanda, I don’t think Berean really believes any of the LDS lay-members have an answer to his questions. I think Berean asks the questions to try and help open up the minds of you and other LDS people to the words written in the Bible. Also, I think it eventually gets lay-people tired of hearing of these issues within Mormonism and eventually, the higher ups will have to come in and give some answers. Thats the thing though, LDS general authorities choose to keep their mouths closed and leave it up to the lay-people to defend their doctrine thats in question. If the prophet has the answer, its VERY unfair of him to let his lay-members have to deal with those pesky Christians questioning their doctrine.
Jeffery,
This is the deal, you can’t understand LDS teaching and doctrine (men to gods et al) until you receive a “testimony” that it’s true. Once you receive that testimony that it’s true then you will believe it and will qualify to understand it. Christians are disqualified from ever understanding it because we don’t believe it. So believe it, get a testimony, then you’ll understand it…..maybe…kind of…..when more truth is revealed to you. Those of us who study Mormonism intently and extensively will never really understand it because we have no testimony. It’s all very clear to me. Is it clear to you?
Oh! I brought up the Adam and Eve thing before I remembered I’d seen a conversation regarding that topic a few months ago here – will have to go back and read it again.
But basically, they DO deny the account of Adam and Eve as it is written in the Bible. So it makes sense – that account had to be turned upside down, to justify their beliefs that they will be gods someday.
Not that the world rises and sets on my posts but . . . I noticed that when a Mormon poses deep theological questions, Christians are quick to answer. However, when a Christian asks straight and pertinent questions to Mormons . . . well, I don’t want to make an argument out of silence so it would be nice if Mormons would reciprocate
Amanda, can any non-Mormon articulate Mormon doctrine well? You make vague accusations that Christians don’t understand your faith, but you fail to tell us exactly where we are wrong. It is clear that we do not beleive Mormonism to be true, no surprise there. However, do you think it is possible to accurately define Mormonism yet not beleive in it? Can you name any non-Mormon who has gotten Mormonism right? Do you think you know as much (or as little) about our faith as we do about yours?
I single you out for your behavior. You do not seem to even care if the discussion heads towards the gutter. This is not true of all Mormons who have posted here, but it is true of you. Do I need to get snide and quote Matt 7:17-19 to you, or can we chat about the church fathers or something else more elevated? How about god the grand father?
lillym,
Satan tricked Adam and Eve into taking the fruit, but did he lie when he said they could “be like God”? (Genesis 3:4-5 “You will not surely die,” the serpent said to the woman. “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”)
No he did not lie. Take a look furhter in the chapter and see what God Himself said about Adam and Eve after they partook of the fruit -
Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”
So man had become like God knowing good and evil. So this knowledge of the difference between good and evil is a divine attribute which man has because of the Fall of Adam. To me this sounds more like a blessing than a curse. The ousting of man from Eden and the coming of death and the work for survival are more like a punishment than a curse.
But anyway, Satan did not lie to Adam and Eve about becoming like God, he only lied when he said they will not die (Gen 3:4).
lillym,
It isn’t that Mormons deny the Genisis account. Joseph Smith just added the entire backstory, the pre-existance/war in heaven, and a lot more detail into the story as it reads in the Bible. Most of these ideas of multiple gods, plan of salvation, even polygamy are justified from Smith’s rewriting of the story in the Pearl of Great Price. If something is contradictory in the Biblical account, of course plain and precious truths have been lost…..
Amanda,
When I suggested that Mormons couldn’t answer questions, I wasn’t suggesting that Mormons don’t know thier doctrine. Rather, I was referring to the inability to answer questions to Berian’s (and most other Christian’s) satisfaction when shown that key theological ideas in Mormonism are un-Biblical and antithetical with belief in Christ (i.e. Y’all are great people and we love you, but your beliefs place you outside the umbrella of Christianity).
David,
“Amanda, can any non-Mormon articulate Mormon doctrine well?”
Sure. On this site though, it is often ignorantly stated with malicious intentions. And when I say malicious, I don’t mean to simply disagree- I mean the tone in which things are stated, and the verbiage used- it lacks charity and respect of other people’s beliefs- what they hold sacred. I believe you can charitably disagree or state differing points of view- a virtue that is rarely exhibited by authors AND posters on this site.
“You make vague accusations that Christians don’t understand your faith, but you fail to tell us exactly where we are wrong”
I believe I have mentioned several points of disagreement on this site, where other Christians misunderstand the restored gospel- being true to my beliefs, where I believe they are wrong. One of which is the issue of works, another would be the relationship of the trinity, priesthood, polygamy, our purpose here on earth, and so many other things. I also avoid many other topics that are pointless to address, because of the reasons taught us in that scripture I cited.
Let me say, for clarity sake, that if you simply disagree with the restored gospel-when done with charity and humility- I don’t find it offensive- I find it interesting and important. So I would appreciate very much if individuals responding to my post acknowledge this instead of propagate that I’m somehow afraid of your positions. I will freely admit, however, that it is a point of annoyance for me (a flaw of mine) when there is serious misunderstandings (and no interest in understanding) of positions on very important doctrinal points, SUCH AS works. Probably the most embellished differences in Christian debate.
I regret that I cannot adequately respond to everyone, I hope you all understand and if you find it particularly important that I respond to your queries or comments, email me: uhmahnduh@hotmail.com.
“(i.e. Y’all are great people and we love you, but your beliefs place you outside the umbrella of Christianity).”
So if we are outside of your circle of Christians, does that mean we are not entitled to His grace, because of something we are DOING? I thought works were irrelevant and grace was free? I certainly have faith in Christ…and a relationship with Him. Your comment and position is extremely puzzling…even to someone who grew up reading the bible.
As un-Christian as you might consider me, it is HIS gift to give, not YOUR show to run. And if there is something I am doing or not doing (work) that is keeping me from this free gift, you are completely and fundamentally disagreeing with your own position of Grace and works.
Your comment was tantamount to saying “neener neener neener!” I thought we were all sinners! But somehow you think that because the Christian majority accepts YOUR view of the bible, that somehow you are more worthy? More worthy of His Grace? How prideful! I’m truly astonished! How ironically un-Christian for someone with the Christian stamp of approval to say! I believe He knows His sheep… not the Christian coalition. Let Christ make those decisions, ok?
EEGADS!
Clairty67,
Yes, Matthew 7:7-11 is in the sermon on the Mount, as is what is referred to as the Lord’s Prayer. (Mat 5:6-15) These two passages are linked. And yes not everyone who was there was a believer. However Jesus was teaching those who would believe, comparing God the Father to evil earthly fathers, for all men are evil(v11), as the giver of good and perfect gifts. Now the word Your Father you seem to have trouble with, this denotes that He is speaking to believers(past, present, future) even in such a public forum. Why? In just ten verses He states, “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of My Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.” (v21-23 bold emphasis mine) Here we see Jesus using the personal pronoun My. Why would He switch pronouns mid-sermon? Why not say your or our? This is where allowing scripture to interpret scripture is a wonderful thing, as this discontinuity should be troublesome for anyone who claims to believe the bible. Moses said we were created.(Gen 1:27,2:6-7) Paul said that we are adopted Children of God by faith.(Gal 3:26;4:5) Thus while many will say “Lord, Lord” not all participate in the adoption (Rom 9:3-6) and thusly are not sons of God but rather children of wrath.(Eph 2:3) Of course this explanation only works if one actually believes all of scripture and not just the parts that correlate with their personal theology.
Clarity I pray that God will open your blind eyes that you might love Truth and not be deluded “by the activity of Satan’s power and false signs and wonders, and all the wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.” (2 Thes 2:9 paraphrase mine)
Lautensack
so Amanda, no thoughts on the Issue of God saying, I know of no other Gods, then He says I sat in the councel of the Gods, plus the other issues along that Line I brought up?
Plus what about the scriptures that speak of False teachers and false PROPHETS and people who love lies and darkness. the Scriptures speak about false teachings and Different Gospeles, Gal 1:8-9 but since you feel this does not apply to you or to LDS even though many LDS are honest and say, WE have a different Gospel, then when we say these verses apply yo LDS, You guys get mad.
So Do be like the LDS David was speaking about who run from hard questions and answer mine, but also tell me, what teaching fall under these false teachers and Prophets since LDS claim ALL religions have Some Truth. Some Truth cannot save, only Jesus can save.
Even the BoM teaches their are only 2 Churches and one is true and one is false, so who is it, US, YOU Or someone else. Why can the BoM make that claim, but we cannot make that claim? Rick b
Amanda,
I agree, the choice is Christ’s in who He will save and who He will not. That is the Glory of Grace, there is no merit involved. However even Christ warned of false teachers in sheep’s clothing that are underneath ravenous wolves. There are those who depart from sound doctrine that bring blessings and sweet words and deceive the hearts of men. Because of this He brought up shepherds to defend the flock from without and within. This is why Paul tells us to loose these men and women over to Satan and expose their evil deeds.
Now you say that just because the “Christian majority”* accepts our view the bible somehow makes us more worthy. I disagree. It is because Christians accept scripture as our only authority pertaining to that which it speaks to, especially salvation, that our view is different from yours. Is ours correct? Yes. On what authority? On the authority of 2000 years of Church History, the words of the Apostles and Prophets, and Christ Jesus, the True God made flesh, who all the scriptures testify to. Your church calls mine the Church of the Devil (1 Nephi 14:10) yet for some reason I am unable to say that yours is false and define what is, and has historically been, the Church, which the gates of hell will not prevail against?
Lautensack
*There is no such thing as a Christian majority, Christian is not an adjective it’s a noun.
Berean, Rick, Jeffrey,
Those who are constantly shouting CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT, must apply the same when reading Isaiah. Until you do, it will be difficult for you to reconcile the doctrine.
Isaiah 43: 8-13
8 ¶ Bring forth the blind people that have eyes, and the deaf that have ears.
9 Let all the nations be gathered together, and let the people be assembled: who among them can declare this, and shew us former things? let them bring forth their witnesses, that they may be justified: or let them hear, and say, It is truth.
10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
11 I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no saviour.
12 I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, that I am God.
13 Yea, before the day was I am he; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand: I will work, and who shall let it?
First, who is the Lord talking to here? The post-exodus idolatrous Israelites that need constant convincing of the true and living God, rather than the idols of gold and stone.
For Him to say, “before me there was no God FORMED, neither shall there be after me” is consistent with the point He is trying to make that He was there before the idols they formed and he declared, saved, and shewed (v12) all before they ever had strange gods (idols) among them. Therefore, He is declaring Himself God and claiming they are His witnesses because their idols could not do what He has done, nor stop Him from what He can do (v13).
CONTD
Contd.
This does NOT, however, say that there are not other gods or other lords (there are- see 1 Cor. 8:5-6) or that there ever will be, but only that He wants to be clear there is only one God that they need be concerned about or turn to, and that is Him. Further, you must compare and contrast these verses with the following:
Hosea 13: 4.
4 Yet I am the Lord thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: for there is no saviour beside me.
When you consider both verses together it clarifies my explanation and you cannot reach the same myopic conclusions about God. That we will only ever worship Almighty God is confirmed by these verses, but the same verses do not close the door on the doctrine of eternal progression to godhood. (small “g”) God will never be robbed of His power, knowledge, or glory by granting such an inheritance to His children for these are infinitely God‘s. In fact, His glory will be amplified through the exaltation of His chosen progeny.
Ralph,
Thank you for an excellent clarification of Genesis 3 !!
Lautensack said “However even Christ warned of false teachers in sheep’s clothing that are underneath ravenous wolves. There are those who depart from sound doctrine that bring blessings and sweet words and deceive the hearts of men…I disagree. It is because Christians accept scripture as our only authority pertaining to that which it speaks to, especially salvation, that our view is different from yours. Is ours correct? Yes. On what authority? On the authority of 2000 years of Church History, the words of the Apostles and Prophets…”
I learned a very interesting thing this weekend – The Harper’s Bible Dictionary has this to say about the Trinity – ”the formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the [New Testament]”
I didn’t know anything about this dictionary so I looked it up and wikipedia summarised it up perfectly – ”Harper’s Bible Dictionary is a scholarly reference book of the Bible, containing the texts of the Old Testament, the Apocrypha, and the New Testament. It is written by 180 members of the Society of Biblical Literature, edited by Paul J. Achtemier, and containing 3500 articles and 400 photographs.”
So according to at least 180 Biblical scholars from the Society of Biblical Literature, the doctrine of the Trinity is not found in the Bible. So your ”…authority of 2000 years of Church History…” could be the “false teachers in sheep’s clothing that are underneath ravenous wolves”, especially if a core doctrine is not found in the Bible. And yes, I have seen all the verses in the MRM and other sites arguing for the Trinity, but I and others have said many times that most of them can be used to argue for the LDS view as well as the Modalist view of God and do not directly infer a Trinity.
Clarity67,
Context does make the sound doctrine, I agree. However so do words. In the original language of Hebrew Hosea 13:4 says “YHWH thy Elohim” or more over the word for God, used in the phrase “the LORD thy “God,” is the same word used for god later in this sentence. Both are Elohim. In neither place is the word Idol (pecel) used. The same holds true for Isaiah 43-45. While it is true the word used in Isaiah 43:12 for God is El, in case such an argument as the one you are raising was raised in Isaiah 44:6, Isaiah states “Thus saith YHWH, the King of Israel, YHWH of Hosts, “I am First, I am Last, and apart from me there is no Elohim.” Then to reiterate YHWH states “And who is like me? Let him proclaim it. Let him declare and set it before me… Is there an “Elohim” besides me. There is no Rock, I know not any.” Here YHWH is clearly stating that He is the only true Elohim (God). Who is like him, he knows not any. YHWH is surly speaking to Idols and anything calling itself a god, yet he clearly states that there is no Elohim (God) but Him, and if there is He does not know of this God which would include His very own Father according to Mormon theology.
Finally you cite 1 Corinthians 8:5-6, a wonderful text. Yet you clearly with blinders up miss that these gods and lords are so called, and have “no real existence,” they are Idols. As verse 4 notes there is but one God. This makes perfect sense since Paul is speaking to food being sacrificed to false gods, Idols.
Lautensack
Ralph,
The Trinity was shall we say formalized in a creedal form in the 5th century however the first man to use the word was Theophilus in the second century and Tertullian in the third century. I agree that many of the proof texts can be used to say that God is Modalistic or we should be Polytheistic however when all of scripture is taken into account neither view can withstand its scrutiny. First and foremost the Bible teaches that there is One God, YHWH.(Deut 6:4, Isa 44:6, Mrk 12:29,32 Jas 2:19) Second that there are three persons identified as God, they are never identified as each other the writers of the New Testament were very careful to distinguish between them. (Mat 3:16-17, Mat 28:19, 1 Cor 13:14, 1 Pet 1:2) However all three are equally God. (Psalm 45:6, John 1:1, 17:5, Acts 5:3-4, Rom 9:5, Col 2:9, Jude 24-25)
To deny that there is One God is unscriptural and gives us polytheism, to deny that there is a multiplicity of persons is unscriptural and gives us Modalism, and to deny the equality of these persons is unscriptural and gives us subordination, eg. Arianism. The reason that the Trinity needed to be formalized by the Church is because of this heresy arising in the fifth century AD, not because it is unscriptural.
Ralph I will pray that you will come to know that “all the gods of the peoples are worthless idols, but the LORD made the heavens.” (Psalm 96:5) That you will come to love Truth rather than “truth falsely called so.” While you are blinded by the god of this world, and suppress the truth because of your unrighteousness, the Light of God’s truth can work miracles and allow you to see clearly. Search the scriptures for they all testify of Jesus.
Lautensack
Well this has been a very good and enlightening discussion. This is what has been confirmed: Mormons are unabashedly polytheistic while Christians are monotheists. So as Christians we believe in one everlasting, forever, ain’t no more, God. Mormons believe in an endless parade of gods, indeed even a man can become a god. Now don’t Mormons somehow try to deny that they are polytheistic? That’s really my question here since our Mormon friends have vigorously defended the Mormon concept of multiplicity of gods. I thought there was some way Mormons shade this so they can have their multiple god theory but claim they really aren’t polytheists. Can anyone help me on this? Because I really don’t care. Let them have their heresy. However, I do mind if they are trying to present themselves as one thing when they are really another. This again would be an attempt to deceive the uninformed public.
Amanda,
I have no idea if you, personally, are a Christian or not. That is between you and God. However, I don’t believe that you are inherently Christian based solely on your membership in the LDS church. And, if you as a Mormon espouse ideas that are not Biblical, such as belief in multiple Gods, I question your understanding of Christianity and that you are indeed Christian. My lack of belief in multiple gods doesn’t qualify as ‘my interpretation of the Bible’. Half of the Old Testiment involves God trying to get Isreal to stop doing that!
Further, I think your suggestion that I think you are not entitled to His grace because you are a Mormon and that we as Christians are somehow more worthy of His grace is a bit backward thinking. NOONE is worthy of the grace of Christ. And noone will ever be worthy, no matter how much we repent and how hard we try to keep the commandments. Thats the whole point.
Amanda,
So which non-Mormons (on this site or elsewhere) have articulated Mormon doctrine well?
I think you conflate malice and misunderstanding. Just because someone has taken a shot at your faith (even in malice), it does not give you the right to call something inaccurate when it is not. Critics are by there nature going to come off as nasty at times. Your attitude seems to further the notion that your church cannot tolerate criticism. It seems that you say disagreement is fine in an abstract sense but you cry foul when anyone actually does criticize your church. If not then name some critics who have accurately articulated the Mormon position. If not then you are just furthering a hallmark of Mormon apologetics: the pseudo-straw-man.
It may be that (at times) your beliefs, as well as that of other Mormons, are not inline with orthodox Mormon theology (past or present). I think even you will admit, Amanda, that there are those in your church, possibly even in your ward, that are far more qualified to articulate Mormon theology.
Also, there is a wide range of beliefs on certian issues within Mormonism that your posts seem to take into account. Your beliefs are not always the same as that of other Mormons.
Lastly, there are certain doctrinal issues where your church is or has contradicted itself (I know that you don’t believe this). It is the job of critics to point that out.
I draw attention to something that you might not be aware of. It may not seem like this to you but MRM is one of the most fair and well researched
organizations that engages in polemics with your church. Seriously, the folks here are more scholarly and low-key than many around. I state this not to kiss up but because it is true. Think I am wrong? Then name someone else who is better. Also, it is poor form to question the intentions and integrity of an organization in their own forum. The fact that they let you do so speaks volumes on their behalf.
“Formal” and “as it was defined” are key here. You’re not going to find fourth century articulations in the Bible. But this is far different from saying that the essence of the doctrine isn’t in the Bible. Furthermore, I have hard time believing that the SBL would endorse the Mormon tritheistic view as an alternative.
Even if some big group did get together and said, “the Trinity isn’t even essentially in the Bible”, so what? I’d say, “OK, what else would you have me believe? Modalism, polytheism, or Arianism, etc.?” Believe it or not, Christians don’t grant Biblically equivalent authority to ecumenical councils or decisions made by human ecclesiastical authorities (ironically, this is something Mormonism does). We like the creeds not because they carry equal authority with God’s word, but because we believe they are a faithful articulation of what the Bible essentially teaches. There simply isn’t a better alternative than monotheistic Trinitarianism if one wants to be faithful to the Bible’s monotheism (where even any “gods” are ontologically subordinate to Yahweh) and to the inter-relationality of the three persons of the Godhead.
But all this seems moot if one is willing to worship a God who could have been a sinner, and/or if one is willing to give religious allegiance to leaders who believe God could have been a sinner.
Amanda hit the nail on the head about the “testimony” part – “You find criticism because you lack understanding and a firm foundation and testimony in His restored gospel.”
Without the emotionally-based “testimony” to override all evidence, people can’t just “accept” whatever teaching the Mormon church chooses to deal out at the time.
My experience has been that Mormons do NOT want outsiders to know what their true church teachings are. They want to appear “just like you” (in sheep’s clothing?) so the non-informed / investigator won’t run for their lives in the other direction based on the sacred / secret Mormon teachings. The Mormon church wants people to FIRST get a good feeling / “testimony” and totally and unconditionally accept the Mormon church is “true”, Smith is “true”, and everything and anything THEY say is “true” – THEN slowly reel them in, bit by bit. Kind of like a scene from the Emperor’s New Clothes, IF you are sincere…
Side note – Amanda mentioned she has a relationship with Jesus, but I recall a BYU devotional (3/2/82) in which B.McConkie claimed Mormons do not worship Christ NOR have a relationship with Him. How times change…
Jeffrey,
I am sorry my brother, but I just couldn’t let this past without accepting your invitation to “list out any major, hey, even mediocre doctrine that Christian church’s do not agree upon.”
How about the following: ??
Baptism (methods, necessity, and significance)
Trinitarianism and the true nature of God (creedal adherences and disavowals abundant, as well as a multiplicity of discrepancies in the metaphysical description of God)
Authority to act (priesthood authority and its necessity and origin)
Apostasy (or, if you please, the separation or dismantlement )of the Early Church (which is at the root of most divergences, whether Catholic &/or Protestant)
Creation, the fall, and the atonement (literally thousands of disagreements and, hence, denominational interpretations)
Tithing (various differences)
I mean, I could go on and on, but you get the point. If I spent the next hour listing the ongoing differences among just the Christian denominations it would take me a week to post them with the imposed limits here.
If there is a failure here to see where a restoration or, at the very least, some assemblance of order was/is necessary, then how can you be convinced that one church (with one Lord, one faith, and one baptism) is what the Lord desires. You may come back and say, “we have more that unites us than divides us, but we are all Christian”. Ok ,but I ask, do you think the Lord is pleased with the way things have turned out (within the “traditional Christian church“, as you call it) from the time he was here?? If so, I believe you are sadly mistaken.
There are a basic set of doctrines that identify Christianity as uniquely “Christian”. They are:
1. The Bible is the Word of God.
2. The Trinity…one God, three persons.
3. The Diety of Christ-He is God.
4. The virgin birth of Christ.
5. Christ died for us. The blood atonement.
6. Jesus’ resurrection.
7. Saved by grace apart from works.
8. Jesus Second coming.
9. The judgement of God.
These are the basics of what makes a sect “Christian”. For example, groups may disagree on things like the pre, mid, post, tribulation etc. but they agree regarding Jesus’ return. I don’t get too excited about the different views regarding baptism etc.
Mormons point to minor “differences” in Christian denominations to “prove” Mormonism is correct, yet Mormonism itself has many various offshoots (or “apostasy’s”… restorations of the restoration).
Mormons have been taught that Mormon “essentials” of baptism, authority, priesthood, etc. make their religion “true”. As far as “differences” – baptism doesn’t gain you eternal life, Jesus Christ is our high priest, etc. But the point is, as Falcon mentioned above, there are essentials of Christianity that characterize it, and at the same time separate it from other beliefs. I have Christian friends from all different denominations who agree on the essentials. Mormonism sets itself apart from these Christian essential beliefs.
Clarity,
I want to Laugh at your list. if your implying our church or beliefe is false over those minor issues, then I would say, you fit the scripture of someone who loves darkness and simply wants their ears tickled.
Take Baptism, show me chapter and verse where it says you must be dunked verses sprinkled. Paul said I did not come to baptise and I forgot who I baptised.
Now I believe in full dunking but are you not saved if your only sprinkled? Verse please.
Tithing, God loves a cheerful giver, if we are not cheerful then we are not to give. and if we do not give are we not saved? if not then show me the verse, if we do not give but are still saved, then what is the big deal?
Authority to act (priesthood authority and its necessity and origin)
Jesus told us to preach the Gospel to the entire world, thats my Authority, But otherwise I am still waiting for a LDS member to give me chapter and verse saying, Jesus said, You must have priesthood Authority to share the Gospel. Or where Paul was told by Jesus, I give you priesthood Authority to preach, it simply is not their.
As to Apostasy, Read the OT, God said to his prophet, I have said aside 7,000 who have not bowed the knee to Baal, God has always set aside a remnet who will follow God, then according to the BoM, the Apostle John never died and was told By Jesus, he was going to live on earth to preach Jesus till He returns, to that alone says No Apostasy could have happend. Rick b
Rick,
You obviously don’t read very well, but I’ll forgive you anyway. The point was to answer Jeffrey’s ridiculous assertion that all the Christian churches agree on doctrine whether (in his words) “major or mediocre” and issued the challenge to point out the same- just in case you missed that part.
I did not make a claim for what is or is not scriptural with any one of the doctrines I listed at all. On the contrary, I simply stated correctly that the Christian churches are not united when it comes to those and many more beliefs and/or doctrines held.
Now, if you’re going to tell me/us different, then you will have embarrassed yourself twice. I notice that what you didn’t respond to is the question that I posed. I will reiterate. How do you think the Lord feels about the “traditional” Christian church today and the condition it is in since the time that He left it here? If that’s too much for you, how about since clearly there is not (among today’s traditional Christian churches) one church (one faith, one Lord, one baptism), how can you answer Paul’s admonition in 1 Cor 1:10
Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.”
Now, the temptation for you to reverse this and point out some fault or deficiency in the LDS Church, or its members will be strong, but just take a deep breath and concentrate and see if you can answer the question(s).
Clarity67,
This question is based upon the false premise that there is something called “traditional Christianity.” There is Christianity and there is false religion. Now how does Christ feel about Christianity today, I would say that He loves Christians and died to pay for them. Now as to your second question about the unity of Christianity. We must understand that we will not agree on every little detail of the Bible. Paul tells us all to be fully convinced in his own mind on minutia. This is why Baptists and Presbyterians can be Together for the Gospel, though one dunks and another sprinkles. However Baptists and Jehovah’s Witness’ or Presbyterians and Christian Scientists* will never be Together for the Gospel because Jehovah’s Witness’ and Christian Scientists are outside of Christianity. To these groups Paul, in Romans 16 says, “I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and blessings they deceive the hearts of the naive.” While yes there are some differences among members of the Church, on the issues of Core Doctrine the Church stands firmly Together for the Gospel, it is only in secondary and tertiary issues that the Church is not united upon. We avoid those who teach different core doctrines. Thus if one does not teach the Triune Creator God, the sinfulness and falleness of man, God returned to rescue His people in Jesus Christ via the Immaculate Conception, Christ’s death on the Cross provides Substitutionary Atonement, the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ, Salvation is received by the Grace of God alone through Faith alone, He established His Church and it has not, nor will ever fall, and the Imminent Return of Jesus Christ, then their church is not Christian.
Lautensack
*The Mary Baker Eddy group not Christians in Scientific Academia.
Lautensack,
Yes there is only one God, and that is who I worship. As for you scriptures you believe show a Trinity -
Psalm 45:6 says nothing about a Trinity. It is just talking about how great God is.
John 1:1 (and the subsequent verses in this chapter) This says nothing about a Trinity. At the most one can describe a Duality with this between Heavenly Father and Jesus. But there are other ways of translating this verse as I have pointed out in past posts which say that the Word was Divine, rather than God. It can also support my view of Jesus being a god as well.
John 17:5 This verse is just Jesus asking God for His former glory. It has nothing to do with describing a Trinity. This is like asking a king for recognition as a regent/prince to act in his stead while he is away, or while you are in a distant region of the kingdom.
Acts 5:3-4 Again nothing about a Trinity in there. Ananias has lied to both the Holy Ghost and to God, does not imply they are one and the same, simple easy explanation.
Romans 9:5 Where is the Trinity in this? It says that Christ came and God blessed, there is no correlation in this showing a Trinity.
Col 2:9 Again not a problem. It discusses a godhead. We LDS believe in a godhead of 3 distinct people. This verse just tells us that Christ was the embodiment of the godhead. Like a foreign diplomat is the embodiment of their country’s government.
Jude 24-25 Here again you can only get a Duality out of it, not a Trinity. But since I also acknowledge that Jesus is a god, this can also support my belief.
So maybe the Trinity is the heresy and one of the others is correct.
Aaron,
I am not saying that the SBL endorses the LDS position, but it sure as hell looks like they do not endorse the Trinity view either.
Ralph,
Psalm 45:6 is quoted in Hebrews 1:8 speaking of the Deity of Christ, the equality of Father and Son, v7, my mistake for not putting all the cross references in.
John 1:1ff I agree this does not account for the Holy Spirit so at best we can get a Binitarian view if these verses alone were used, we certainly cannot not get Polytheism or Arianism.
John 17:5 This is describing the Equality of the Two, Jesus and the Father, though they are clearly distinct persons.
Acts 5:3-4 I never implied that the Holy Spirit was the Father, but to say that the Holy Spirit is not God is indeed an egregious error as we are to worship Him (Phil 3:3) and we are to worship only God (Ex 34:14).
Romans 9:5 I forgot how silly commas were in English, The Christ who is God over all, blessed forever.
Col 2:9 I forgot you use the KJV without speaking 1611 English or even 1820 for that matter, however the word translated Godhead is theotetos (Singular Genitive Feminine Noun) from theos meaning supremely Divine or God.
Jude 24-25 Again we must not simply take parts of scripture but all of it into account, as noted we cannot say the Holy Spirit is not God.
I understand you do not believe the scriptures, I cannot make you believe them, only God can convert a soul. However to deny the Deity of Christ or to deny the Trinity is to deny scripture’s teaching itself. You say you worship the One True God, yet if Christ is a God, the Spirit is a God, and the Father is a God then you cannot worship the One True God but simply a god. Thus you in your unrighteousness have rejected the One True God as He has revealed Himself, eternally existent in three Persons of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In His place you have built gods, idols, in the image of men, out of your hatred for God, and because your your fallen interpretation of a personal experience you reject the very reason you are able to experience anything, the One True God, for ‘In him we live and move and have our being.’
Lautensack
Hay Ralph,
I knew if I waited long enough, we could smoke out the Mormon claim to being monotheistic. I caught that sneaky little qualifier in your post. It goes like “there is only one god and that’s who I worship”. Shame on you Ralph. That’s the sneaky little thing Mormons do…..unfortuately on many doctrinal matters. That’s why you look so dishonest. Mormons believe there are perhaps billions of gods. You only worship one of them, but that doesn’t make you monotheistic. In fact, in your system, you have the hope of being a god and being worshiped some day. Please just be straight and stop playing word games. It’s all meant to confuse the general population. You’re a better man than that.
Ralph,
I agree that LDS word games are dishonest. The King Follet Discourse is said to be the greatest sermon ever given and LDS take much doctrine from it, so maybe you worship only one God, but the one God you worship is in fact the god of this world, lucifer. Yet as the K.F.D Teaches their are millions of gods.
Clarity, We as Lautensack stated agree on Core Doctrine, but on minor things we might disagree but they are not salvation issues as I pointed out.
You saying We are not united on many things, let me ask, Are the LDS united on every thing? No they are not. Need examples? If so simply ask, they will be provided. So since LDS are guilty of not being united, let me ask you, why is it ignored by LDS or you do not care, but you make a big deal out of it for us? Rick b
To add to Ralphs very competent response,
Call mormonism polytheistic if you want to, and then I’ll call you ignorant to the traditional meanings and practices of polytheism.
Bishops in early Christianity decided to make up the doctrine of the trinity…that somehow they are one being, but three? OK? Does this mean YOUR doctrine could be misconstrued as polytheistic?
The new testament itself is a testimony of our Savior of HIS FATHER IN HEAVEN. Consider the passage in John 14. (read the first 10 verses too)
” 10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works’ sake.
12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.”
His love and desire to submit His will to His father is the beauty of the priesthood, the godhead- an organization with God’s purposes. It’s actually quite fascinating if the bulk of you would stop salivating over this ridiculous polytheistic argument and actually study the doctrine, you might learn something.
Dave,
“Also, it is poor form to question the intentions and integrity of an organization in their own forum.”
I thought it was the job of critics to point that out??? Such a double standard.
Eric,
If that is the whole point, that none of us are worthy, then what difference should it make that I am outside of your cute little Christian circle of friends? It shouldn’t and that was MY WHOLE POINT.
Amanda,
Many Muslims do misconstrue the Trinity to be Polytheistic, unfortunately they think that it is Father, Son, and Mary. (Quran 5:117)
As to Mormonism being Polytheistic we must remember that Polytheism is defined as the: belief in or worship of more than one god. (Websters) Note it does not only say the worship of more than one god but the belief in. If Jesus is God and the Father is God and both are separate beings then we have a clear articulation of Polytheism. Many Greeks only worshiped one god yet believed in many where they not polytheists, according to your argument they must not be.
As for John 14, Christians agree that the Son submits to and loves the Father. Where we differ is that God is not an organization of gods but a Being eternally existent in three distinct persons eternally in relationship with one another.
Furthermore the Trinity was not made up by Bishops in early Christianity but was reveled from God in scripture. The early Church Fathers knew this and I will leave you with the writing of one, Ignatius of Antioch, a student of the Apostle John:
Lautensack
Amanda,
“Also, it is poor form to question”
Had I stopped there you might have a point but, I also wrote this . . .
“intentions and integrity of an organization”
and this -
“in their own forum”
It’s called context, it changes everything. It is only a double standard when applied unevenly. When have I questioned the intentions of a Mormon group on their own website?
While I am on the topic of questions . . . We never got around to the church fathers, unless you count this wild assertion – “Bishops in early Christianity decided to make up the doctrine of the trinity”. So when and where did this happen?
Mormons never got around to the following –
How do you reconcile the non-literal references to sonship in the Bible?
How do you reconcile the friend and servant references to God’s people (including Jesus) without calling them metaphorical/non-literal?
Can anything can be shown to you from outside the Bible that demonstrates that God’s people never believed that God had a God or that we cannot become a god (or like god – as god)?
It seems like the “god the grand father” idea never got explored either. It would see that if the rationale as to why men grow up to become gods is because things on earth relfect that which is in heaven, then it would seem that the notion of having relationships with other gods (polytheism) is not so far fetched. Humans have aunts, uncles, grandparents, and grandchildren. Why not in heaven?
Poly = many; theos = god. It seems like the charge of polyheism passes the entymology tests.
And BTW, using all CAPS to try to make YOUR point is LAME and CHILDISH.
Oh, Falcon, you caught me trying to sneak it in the back door while all else were asleep. Oh dear what shall I do, I’m doomed. OK, if you want me to be more specific – There is only one God of this universe and He is whom I worship. No one else.
Is that better?
Lautensack, the quote from Ignatius does not describe anything close to a Trinity. It says that God was manifested THROUGH Jesus. This is similar to an ambassador, who manifests the wishes/thoughts/ideologies/etc of his country/leader, or in essence act on behalf of what/whom he is representing.
We all agree that God is also made manifest through the Bible. Does this mean that the Bible is God (I have read some comments by non-believers and non-Christians that say directly that Christianity actually believe in a Quad – God the Father, God the Son, God the Spirit and God the Bible)? He is also made manifest through all of His creations, does this make everything God?
I find it amusing that on my Sunday afternoon witnessing adventures at the local wards here in my town that one ward can’t agree with the other and even the Mormons in the same ward can’t agree on even the simplest of things like who God is or what Jesus was before the resurrection.
The missionaries dropped by last night for a visit. They brought along a 74 year-old man to do their talking for them. We were having a nice chat and we talked about a few things. They were in denial about many things of their faith and when I produced 9 pages of authoritative quotes that I had typed out from the books that were sitting in full view of them that I had purchased from LDS distribution they became very upset. They wouldn’t look at them and stated that they didn’t care what was in those books. When I read some of the quotes anyway they didn’t like it. They didn’t care what was written in scripture either. It was all about the warm fuzzy feelings of the day that gave them insight. The words of the Mormon prophets meant nothing to them or so it seems.
The older man wouldn’t own up to the basic church teaching that the Mormon god is an exalted man. He said that was my opinion. I told him it was Joseph Smith’s. When I tried to read from the book “Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith” he got up to leave and I had to press the young missionary to own up to the teaching which he did. They more less told me that they would be happy to see me thrown into hell and walked out not even closing the door.
I wasn’t impressed. Can’t the LDS Church do better than this? Go team!
I asked one of the missionaries on one of my ward visits if Jesus was perfect and God before the resurrection. He said that Jesus wasn’t. I cited 2 Cor 5:21 and asked if being without sin qualified as being perfect? Again, the answer was “no”. I then cited Isaiah 9:6 where Jesus is called “The mighty God” at birth. Ironically, the same thing is said in 2 Nephi 19:6. Again, the missionary didn’t agree. Well, it went on from there.
The next week I went to another ward. The topic in the Gospel Essentials class was “charity”. Lo and behold, what does it say on page 197 of “Gospel Principles”? It says, “The Savior gave us the example of his life to follow. He was a perfect man.”
I talked to the teacher about this and asked him the same questions that I asked the missionary. His answers were the exact opposite. When I told him that the missionary answered “no”, the teacher said, “He taught you false doctrine.”
This teacher asked me what I thought about the First Vision story. He became quite troubled when I reached into my folder in my backpack and presented to him the article “Joseph Smith’s Recitals of the First Vision” in the January 1985 edition of the Ensign magazine that state four different versions of the First Vision by Joseph Smith. I asked if he could explain it to me. He slumped down into his chair for the next 45 mintues and went through it and then made a copy before I left announcing to me, “It [Mormonism] could be a hoax”. That was very revealing.
Berean,
Well, I have to say that I question the accuracy of your accounts posted here with regard to your encounters in the various wards you choose to visit. They may or may not be true , but there is something much more revealing in your behavior if we accept your accounts as truthful. That is, that fact that you are “amused”, “not impressed” and generally have the nerve to act surprised if someone walks out on you while you’re cramming something down their throat.
Ok, maybe they didn’t know the answer to your question. Perhaps they wouldn’t dignify you with a response. I also suggest (not absolutely defending them because I was not there), but members of the Church will not usually continue in an atmosphere where the Spirit cannot abide. It is fruitless. Better to cease and desist than to offend the Spirit. No edification and certainly no conversion takes place where the Spirit cannot be present. Again, I wasn’t there, but I would wager, considering your boastful tone that their judgment call was commensurate with my explanation.
You know, I still find it curious that under the auspices of “love and concern” for your Mormon friends that you refer to them in your posts with such disdain and uncharitable regard while at the same time exhibiting a tone of self-aggrandizement (i.e., “they couldn’t answer my adeptly crafted questions“, or “look how I stumped them“.) While basking in your self-appointed brilliance, I encourage you to ponder the following.
Contd.
Berean Contd.
At one point Paul (then Saul) thought he was right. Turns out, well,….. you know the story. Consider this. The Church is either true or it is not. If it is not, then it will fail on its own (an assertion you, yourself, have made) regardless of what you do. Certainly the “inept, uninformed, and naïve” missionaries (like all the ones in your reports) will destroy the Church faster than you possibly can.
However, if it is true you are dangerously opposing something you have already decided you will never be a part of — and why? Either way, it is completely disingenuous for you to continue your method of “ministering” unless you acknowledge that the only purpose behind it is to make you feel better about yourself, feed your insatiable appetite for contention, or glorify your massive ego. Curious which one?
Aaron and company,
Just some food for thought regarding the original theme of this thread. I found some interesting reading at
http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/charts/denominations_beliefs.htm
which shows the comparison between the major Christian denominations and contrasts their beliefs regarding certain subjects of doctrine. This should prove interesting as it comes directly from this non-biased source and is located under the doctrine of “human nature”.
And I quote, “ Humanity was created in the image and likeness of God. “‘Image’ is… intellect, emotion, ethical judgment, and self-determination. … The ‘likeness’ is the human potential to BECOME LIKE GOD.” (GOAA) (emphasis added) Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America.
Perhaps someone ought to inform the estimated 225 million members of the Orthodox Church that they are now cast out of mainstream Christianity as represented on this blog. I’m sure that they will embrace the stance (that many here have promulgated) that such a belief separates them in a way that cannot possibly be construed as Biblical Christianity.
All
i am new to this board and to the church (LDS convert), however i am struck by the various points everyone has been attempting make. However, i believe “semantics” has beaten the horse to death well off the path. Nevertheless, i have a question about the book of Genesis. What is being concluded from chapter 3 verse 22…..every bible translation i find holds the following “Behold, the man has become like one of us….” and thus Adam is cast out before he gets the fruit from the tree of life.
Is this simply an across the board Hellenistic influence (or perhaps from the Visigoths…ha ha).
Anyway, does this allude to the fact that man can become God?….is there a difference between “God” and “Our Heavenly Father”?
Clarity, actually, I’ll offer a different take of their reaction. If they get huffy when presented with evidence contrary to the spirit, what does that say about the spirit and its intent?
The spirit is a spirit of truth, right? Then an educated and wise person should be able to handle any lies brought forth. Its not about an envirmenment where the spirit can work, because the spirit can work in any situation. These missionaries were not prepared for this answer, and if they indeed said what they did upon leaving, doesn’t that work against what they were trying to achieve?
Also, when I hear you say that the environment, if not condusive to the spirit, it is better to leave, I have to wonder what that means. Certainly, one can argue that in situtions it is better to leave before something is said that one will regret. But I wonder what it means here. Berean evidently gave some quotes by Joseph Smith that they would not even consider. It would seem to me the best way for them to respond would have been to read them, and either give an educated response or to say they did not know and research. Especially given the subject of the quotes, past doctrine as presented by JS, their reaction would cause me great concern. And this would be true if a Christian missionary got upset when presented with something from a Dawkins or a Harris and reacted the same way, dismissal then anger.
But the environment is still a question, as to what would be a good environment? A loving one? An open one? A curious or academic one? Also, what sort of environment would not be condusive?
Amanda,
No, it shouldn’t have read “that’s my whole point”. I intentionally wrote “That’s the whole point,” as in, “That’s the whole point of Christianity.” I mean, if we could all repent and stop sinning forever, or never sin to begin with, would we need Jesus at all? Theoretically, if a person were never to sin, they would not be separated from God, would they? And would they need a Saviour? The whole point of believing in Jesus, and trusting Him alone, arises from the fact that we are imperfect. If one looks honestly at thier heart, I think the answer is there. There is no hope without Jesus.
And forgiving you for your hubris (i.e. cute little Christian circle of friends), it matters Amanda, because believe it or not, we care deeply about you and other Mormons. Some of us here, I’m sure, feel that God has convicted us to share the Gospel with Mormons. Some of the closest people in my life are TBMs. I pray daily that God will bring them to salvation. As Christians, we take God at his word as it is written in the Bible. We understand that there are and will be many false prophets. Anyone can come up with an idea, and if they are charismatic enough, people will follow. God has warned us to listen to what these people say, but vet thier words against his Word to see if it stands up. More often than not, it doesn’t.
Have you ever stopped and wondered why Christians have such a problem with much of Mormon doctrine? What I wrote above is precisely why.
Lastly, Christians react to Mormons calling themselves Christians for much the same reason that Mormons react to people referring to the FLDS as Mormons. Could it be that as Christians we are simply standing for what we believe in and defending the Gospel as we are commanded to do?
Clarity,
The comparison of LDS beliefs to that of Orthodxy has been tried before, with poor results. I believe Bob Millet tried it a few years back and was resoundingly shot down. The “cozy up to anything within traditional Christian circles to make our beliefs seem not so off” has lead to Mormons quoting John McCarther, the early church fathers, C.S. Lewis, and anyone/anything that serves the purpose for the time being.
I believe the term that is used is “theosis” and it is a different animal than the LDS notion of becoming a god. “Theosis” is the idea of seriously being in fellowship with God. Here is link that explains theosis – http://orthodoxwiki.org/Theosis (yes I know it’s a wiki but it seems to sum up the Orthodox view well). Protestants defended theosis against LDS comparisons a few years back; I think even some Orthodox clerics/theologians came out and differentiated their beleif from Mormon deification.
With all the discussion about the nature of God, I was wondering if and when the topic of theosis was going to come up.
Ralph,
This is very simple, if you believe there is more than one god, you are a polytheist. Also, Mormons see the godhead as three separate personages….three gods. Bruce McConkie wrote, “As each of these persons is a God, it is evident, from this standpoint alone that a plurality of Gods exists. To us, speaking in the proper finite sense, these three are the only Gods we worship.” F. Max Muller (1823-1900) one of the most repected religious scholars of his day, offered a stricter definition of monotheism: “Belief in one god, excluding the very possibility of other gods.” Mormons are polytheists. I can’t blame you for not wanting to be, but that’s just the way it is. In my opinion, Mormons are just playing word games to pass themselves off as mainstream Christians. If you want to be a mainstream Christian, the door is open to you.
Clarity67,
You can question the accounts if you want. Like I told you before, I am not going to waste my time to come on here and profess to be a believer in Christ and tell lies. I didn’t shove anything down anyone’s throat. Let me fill you in on some more details on the background of how this went down.
The missionaries called me a week earlier and said they wanted to come over and asked me if I would be willing to have a 3 hour meeting. I asked them if we were going to talk about Matthew 5:48 and Hebrews 10:10-18 and if they had some answers to my questions. They said, “Yes.” They informed me of one person that would be coming with them (which didn’t happen after all). I agreed to it and prepared some papers of authoritative quotes from the LDS Church so they could explain them to me.
I once again got to see the new depths that the missionaries would go to to try to smooze me over. They bring over a 74 year-old man who said he was a former Baptist minister. He is also married to a Filipino woman. Guess what? I am a Baptist and I am married to a Filipino woman too! Amazing coincidence. I listen to this elderly man talk and talk about how he had seen Jesus Christ himself. He said it was not a vision. I found that pretty nutty and unscriptural.
Once that stopped all he wanted to talk about was Moroni 10:3-5. We were back to lesson 1! This is where it always starts and ends with the missionaries. Pray about the Book of Mormon and once you know it’s true we can talk more. This is not what this meeting was supposed to be about. They were not honest with me about what the intentions of the meeting were about and had no plans to really come over and talk about what they said. I didn’t appreciate that.
When I pressed that we talk about the real purpose for what the meeting was supposed to be about they didn’t like it. They were not being intellectually honest with me by refuting the writings of their prophets and the church.
I expect people to be honest with me about their real intentions for a visit. I don’t like for people to playcate me either. I don’t like it when LDS missionaries are not willing to look at Bible scripture or even LDS books that refute what they are saying. If anyone was lying it was the older man. I don’t believe for a second he was a former Baptist minister. His Filipino wife is a Mormon, he reads Moroni 10:3-5 and converts without even doing any checking or testing following Biblical guidelines? I find that disgraceful and offensive for him to come over here and play that game. He should be ashamed of himself. Him telling me what he did when he walked out the door wasn’t real nice either. Would you agree?
I feel the missionaries tricked me and were not forthcoming about what the visit was about. When he and the others refused to look at LDS books or look at the Bible I realized I was wasting my time. Why would a Mormon get upset about reading the words of Joseph Smith? They did. For them not to own up to their teaching of the Mormon god being and exalted man is not being honest and I find it deceitful on their part.
As for the rest of what I said, I gave an accurate account. Sorry if that embarrased you as a Church member. You can call me boastful and arrogant if you want. It’s not true and I don’t care what you think. I stand firm on the Bible and I have done my homework on the Bible and Mormonism and will not be steamrolled by Mormons in denial that don’t know their faith and not being truthful with me. Missionaries do whatever they can to make a sell and add a number to the Church roll. The pressure is on them. I find the teachers at the wards to be much more honest and willing to discuss scripture as I have pointed out in earlier posts.
By the way, I accept your apology that you posted on “Hiding Behind Skirts”. What I said there is still my purpose for what I do. Clarity67, I don’t know who you are or where you live, but I am praying for you.
Ralph,
Yes, Ignatius said God was manifest through His Son, no Christian denies this. What you seem to deny is the next statement that we have a “Physician the Lord our God Jesus the Christ” singular, Jesus is God at least according to Ignatius. I would provide more statements from Ignatius but I am pretty sure I could quote portions of the Athanasian Creed and you would say I was not speaking of the Trinity, because either you do not understand the concept or refuse to see it described without using the word “Trinity.” However we know from scripture that “God is not a man” (Numbers 23:19) God is One (Deuteronomy 6:4) Only God is to be Worshiped (Exodus 34:14) The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit are worshiped as God.(Rev 5:11-14;Phil 3:3)
subgenius,
This is actually a concept that many people don’t seem to understand I am like a dolphin. I can swim in salt water, I breath oxygen to live, I am warm blooded. See we are like each other. Does this mean when I grow up I am going to become a dolphin or vice versa, no even though we share attributes I will never be a dolphin. In Genesis 3:22 Moses qualifies how we have become like God, that is knowing good from evil. Does this mean that we are mini gods? Not at all it means that we have a common attribute with God, we share many of these, love, morality, language, rational, knowledge of good and evil, however simply because we share these with our divine Creator does not mean we are literally physical sons and daughters of Him. Now does this verse exclude that from being a possibility, no. However when all of scripture is taken into account we learn that God is not a man (Num 23:19; Hos 11:9) all the nations are less than nothing to Him (Isa 40:17) and there is nothing you can compare Him to. (Isa 40:18) So while we are like God in a few respects we are absolutely unlike Him in an infinite way.
Lautensack
Clarity said
“I also suggest (not absolutely defending them because I was not there), but members of the Church will not usually continue in an atmosphere where the Spirit cannot abide. It is fruitless. Better to cease and desist than to offend the Spirit.”
I know this is just your suggestion but lets be honest here. This is a big time cop-out that has been used over and over again. I was reading an ensign a few months back that had an article about a young gentleman that was struggling with his friends trying to show him what seemed like “[filtered profanity or slur]” material and he was feeling very uneasy/uncomfortable about it. The ensign then had some of his peers write in comments/suggestions to him about that material. Many of them said that the reason he felt uneasy/uncomfortable in that situation is because the spirit was leaving him.
This is unfortunate that the youth are taught that whenever you feel bad about something like that, its because your losing the company of the spirit. They are taught to always attempt create an environment in which the spirit thrives. The issue is this. Unless your in a faith promoting environment or a non-oppositional environment, you will be fine. But as soon as you begin to see/hear something that challenges your faith, you will naturally dislike it.
So my suggestion is that just because you feel bad, doesn’t mean the spirit has left you (I believe the spirit is within us all, so if it’s not present, its probably because you have a bad-environment inside yourself), it is possible that you just don’t like hearing stuff that is in opposition to your faith, your values, your morals, etc.
I personally believe those gentleman were hearing truth, and they did not like it. The most beautiful thing is that Berean wasn’t speaking truth, he was showing them the lies/problems with the LDS faith from their own authorities mouths.
Ralph said, “Yes there is only one God, and that is who I worship”
Isn’t this deceptive? How can it be said there is only one God, when Mormonism teaches otherwise? According to Mormonism, there are 3 true Gods for this earth alone. So when you say (and by implication all Mormons) worship only one of these Gods, which one is it? Heavenly Father? Jesus?
I have also had many experiences similar to Bereans when dealing with Mormon Missionary’s. I know Mormons like to think every MM is upstanding and honest, and I’m sure many are, but several of the pairs I’ve dealt with were outright dishonest (and lied) about what their church teaches. I’ve also tried to show and discuss some of B.Young’s comments to a couple of them and they literally waved their arms at me and said “I’ve read it all before” and would not / could not even look at or discuss it. Then, the blame is put on me for even asking / mentioning it – I’m the bad guy. So even through these are their prophets, they won’t deal with the evidence brought before them. They have to retreat to protect their hearts and minds from considering the truth. The more I encounter them, even on this website, the more their mentality comes through and it is ever more clear to me how deep the deception is.
This brings me to my next point of the charge that this website is “[filtered profanity or slur]”. This word is a powerful tool used by the Mormon church to manipulate it’s members, and is also carried out by members (consciously or not) to intimidate and manipulate others. My experience is that Mormons do not want their true teachings known, so they use fear tactics such as this.
I’m thankful for the Christians on this website who are patient and thorough in their explanations. I pray the minds of the Mormons reading their posts don’t just skim through what is being said, but that their minds would be opened to the truth.
Falcon and Jer1414,
OK, further clarification then – There is only one King of kings and God of gods and that is whom I worship.
Just a quick question. The ancient Hebrews before Moses (ie Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc) heve been shown by historical means to be polytheistic (if you remember a few months ago there was a discussion about this). It was only from Moses on that monotheism was pushed as mainstream religion. So because the OT is the precursor to the NT AND Christianity, does that not mean that God is a God of gods, He was chosen out of the Hebrew pantheon to be The One. If this is true, then Christianity has grown out of a polytheistis background. Does this explain better why in the story of the creation in Genesis in the original language the plural of God (Elohim) and the plural “us” is used?
Also if you notice, I never contradicted you when you said I was polytheistic, I have no problems believing that I worship One God but there may be others with Him.
Dear Sharon,
One of the questions you raise is:
“How could the church experiences of our Mormon reader and Robert Millet be so different?”
I believe part of the answer is the LDS church is in a silent transition. Its leadership may have decided to simply not discuss it any more (whether in LDS periodicals, teaching manuals, or conferences).
They have also not said they don’t believe it. The general membership is left to talk about it in classes and lessons as they remember its having once been taught. Some years ago, during fast-and-testimony meeting, a longtime member spoke about this teaching, preceding it with: “What I am about to share with you may sound very unfamiliar to some.”
I once read a book by Pastor Mark Cares, in which he recounts a discussion he had with an LDS couple, who had been LDS for some years. The wife is surprised by what he shares, and tells him that no, her church does not teach that people can become gods. Mark notices her husband has remained quiet during their conversation. Eventually, he acknowledges the LDS church’s founder did teach these things. Mark concludes the wife really didn’t know; her surprise was completely genuine.
As you point out, Sharon, this teaching does seem to undergird much of what the LDS people believe and practice.
I don’t know the reason for this change. I do know the LDS people care deeply what others think of them. Their identity is strongly linked with their being LDS; they want people to think highly of their identity. Others’ approbation is something they crave.
To look to oneself for a righteous standing in God’s sight, and merit being forgiven, is a heavy burden. Perhaps this is why other’s approval is so prized. May our LDS friends find the righteousness and permanent forgiveness found in Jesus Christ, given freely to all who believe. This is what we long for them.
Ralph,
how can God say, I know of no other gods, yet in the LDS goodhead their are 3 seperate gods, that would make God a liar.
Please do no reply with, well what God really meant was, their are no other gods that we are to worship. Since God clearly said, their are no other gods besides me, I know of none. He said their are other gods because he sat among them and created the world with them in the pearl, both cannot be true. Rick b
Berean,
I will have to admit that I do not condone the behavior of your visitors, and yes, perhaps it makes me a little embarrassed to have a fellow believer treated with disrespect. I truly believe that this is not representative of all members’ conduct, especially toward someone who invited them to visit in their home. Please realize that in the eyes of some members you will appear to be a “hickory knot“. When you assert yourself strongly enough for the other parties of the dialogue to conclude “hey, this guy is convicted in his beliefs and isn‘t going to budge“, I would encourage you not to take offense or be surprised when they may immediately give up and move on. I admit, I probably would. You are, obviously, not searching. You have found what works for you and that is great. Notwithstanding, I would hate to think that any member of the Church would not applaud someone else for finding the Lord and making Him more a part of his/her life.
Now, I must return back to your methods which I continue to believe are suspect and I will elaborate. If you think that you’re going to find 19-21 year olds in the mission field that have your extensive background in Biblical studies sufficient to entertain a dialogue that will produce anything other than what I accused you of in my previous post, you’re mistaken. Now that may sound like a criticism of the missionaries, it is not. I remember what I knew (and, accordingly, what I did not) when I served and so I can attest first hand having served a mission in the South and being thrown into the deep end of the pool from the first day.
When the end result (or your goal) of such methods is to disseminate an unfavorable view of the Church to which you have been invited, or at least by default, welcomed, do you not see any degree of devious intent in your actions?? Of course you will defend such under the ubiquitous umbrella of, “I am doing them a favor by confronting them with the truth”.
contd
Berean Contd.
Now step outside yourself and ask, honestly, what do you think others (members) who realize what your intentions really are, believe about your methods?
I guess, for me, if I decided to regularly attend a Church, let’s say a Baptist church, and asked questions during a SS class (questions I already have the answers to and have predetermined my firm stance and belief and no matter what comes out the subsequent discussion I cannot under any circumstances see my way clear of changing the same) with the design of criticizing (even while presenting the truth) I couldn’t help but expect I would be asked to leave. I wonder if you have ever been asked to leave?? Will you answer that?
Humbly await your response.
Rick,
He said it in Gen 1:26 too, otherwise who is the “us” and “our” referring to?
David,
Perhaps there is a general disconnect where many on this blog perceive the desire of Mormons is to “cozy up”, assimilate, and/or otherwise equate ourselves with what many here designate as traditional or mainstream Christianity.
First, you flatter yourselves with such an assertion when you know, absolutely, that the origin of the LDS Church is founded in the Lord’s admonition to Joseph Smith to “go not after them” and “join none of them”. Some of the pleadings here would have the casual reader believe that mainstream Christians have some sort of lock on a private club and Mormons are begging, maneuvering, searching for ways to slide into the club anyway way possible. Again, such assertions are imaginary and negate the distinctions we have, on our own, made that separate us in many facets of both doctrine and practice. We are, by choice, definitely not part of your club in that same sense.
The issue revolving around whether or not members of the Church are or are not Christians is not defined by those that write here. Rather, it is defined in the lives of those same members that follow Christ, their Master
Ralph,
Since I wasn’t involved in the discussion about Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and etc. being polytheists, you’re going to have to provide me with the historical documentation to prove this. They may very well have been involved in idolatry until their encounter with the living God. This was pretty common and a constant battle until after the Babylonian Captivity. Worshiping an idol doesn’t make the idol a living god. For example, the Greeks believing in Zeus and Diana doesn’t make Zeus and Diana a living god. Paul battled “false gods” all the time especially in Ephesis. I believe people can tap into the darkside and think they are worshiping a god when in reality they’re up to their eyeballs in the occult. Joseph Smith was deep into the magic arts and the occult and claimed all sorts of visions and revelations. You indicate that the Jews chose a god to go with, out of a bunch of gods. I’m not finding that in the Bible where the Jews say “OK, let’s go with this god.” What I do see in Chapter 12 of Genesis is that God chooses “Abram”…..”I will bless you….make your name great….you shall be a blessing…..” Believing in a false god doesn’t make the false god a living entity, except in the mind of the believer (in the false god). I’ll be honest, your admission that you are a polytheist, makes me fear for you. God won’t be mocked in this way.
I will offer the following to all posting comments:
“Be careful — with quotations, you can damn anything”. -Andre Malraux.
On the subject of this thread: An overwhelming number of biblical translations refer to Psalms 82:1 as God judging among “Gods”, with only a limited few translations substituting “judges” or “rulers” in place of gods, which is interesting only in the light of relativity.
The main references to God’s proclamation of supposedly being a singular God occurs primarily in the context of admonishing idolatry, which was a prevalent condition in the times of the Old Testament (see most of Isaiah and Hosea). However, 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 clearly illustrates how though there are many Gods we are to worship only one God – “Our Heavenly Father” a distinct member of the Godhead/Trinity and from whom we have received the Grace of His Word, the Blessings of Christ, and the Righteousness of the Holy Spirit. In other words the existence of other Gods is academic, only “Our Heavenly Father” is to be worshipped and this fact is beyond reproach.
Additionally, there are some who comment on this board that seem only to want to “disprove” rather than “prove”. Who here believes that Spiritual knowledge is subject to the scientific method? Is our Spirit ruled by the Law of Gravity or Thermodynamics? The rules of logic often have no application in the discussion of Spiritual knowledge; this is why I opened with the quote above. The scientific method has always been used for Physical knowledge and has never been capable of dealing with our Spirit. Do not confuse this with metaphysics or philosophy. These two logical means of reasoning are usually ways of self-deception or self-distraction. They can constantly use themselves to prove and disprove each other without moving your Spirit in any direction; perhaps they are best for exploring Physical knowledge.
Nevertheless, I , like many of you, enjoy a good game.
Clarity67,
No, I’ve never been asked to leave any ward that I have attended and that is because, like I said previously, I am friendly, courteous and very respectful to those that I am talking to there. I will only ask a question or make a comment when it’s appropriate and it’s usually in the Gospel Essentials class where class members are encouraged to speak up and ask questions. I tell people as soon as I get there that I am not a Church member and it’s obvious because I am a new face and I’m not wearing a tie. The response that I have received is the same at each visit. Some, not all, are friendly and they come up to me and thank me for those thought provoking questions and comments because they said it makes me think and will pursue further study. Some people will want to talk more after church and I stay like the teacher I told you about last week that wanted me to come to his house for dinner. Other times people don’t want to talk and I go home. I follow the Holy Spirit’s leading and ask Him to bring me to those that are receptive to hearing.
There is a class that I teach at my church in which a Mormon attends. We have had many talks outside of church and he is still an LDS member and is welcomed at our church anytime.
Recently, an elderly black woman who is a Mormon walked into our church and attended a Sunday school class. She had lots of questions and guess what? The teacher of that class couldn’t answer her questions and didn’t know what to do. He came running to get me to talk to her. See? It goes both ways, my friend. She told me her story. I spoke with her briefly, gave her my name and number and never heard from her again.
We had a Mormon couple walk into our Sunday school class and boldly announce that they are Mormons. The lesson was cancelled and the next hour was spent listening and talking with them. They were treated with kindness and love.
Again, I’ve never been asked to leave a ward. I’m always invited back.
Subgenius,
I don’t think the thoughts on the existance of many gods is merely an academic exercise. I’m reading between the lines of your wanting to dismiss the orthodox Christian and Jewish (for that matter) monotheistic stance by saying in essence “well it’s just an academic exercise”. I think that approach is flippant and a way of just brushing it off in an attempt to support polytheism. It’s like when I hear our Mormon friends say “well there are lots of errors in both the Bible and the BoM.” This is a technique of equivalency used to support the BoM as scripture. I would be content to have Mormons advertise themselves as polytheists upfront, in the open, without qualifiers. I don’t think Hindus qualify their belief in a multiplicity of gods.
Clarity,
I think you misunderstood the “cozy up” comment. I do not think that Mormons are trying to get close to anything Christian so as to be welcomed into the club as it were. I do beleive it is done, at times, to try to put some historical roots to ideas that did not show up until the 19th century. I think it is done at other times to make Mormonism seem more palatable to American Christians (like the John McCarther and C.S. Lewis quotes).
I believe the reasons for cozying up (if that is what we are calling this) are apologetic in nature. I believe (and rightly so for them) that Mormons do not want their religion to be perceived as being peculiar to America and the last 200 years of human history. Hence why quotes from non-Mormons on anything that remotely seems to be close to LDS theology are employed.
Berean
You are a bit off topic for this thread are you not? Be careful as i warned above. You seem to have left the topic and allowed this to become something less than spiritual. Anecdotal evidence of anything is never effective.
Falcon
Try actually reading the lines, not between them. Polytheism typically refers to “worship” of more than one God, which I do not do (yes, i am mormon). I assume that “worship” is what you mean since you related Mormons to the Hindus? Anyway, if you meant polytheism as “belief” in many Gods then perhaps you are correct, but then the difference should be noted between belief and worship. I can BELIEVE in the existence of many gods but WORSHIP, as commanded, in only one true God.(i also believe there is a Satan but do not worship him). There is only one “Heavenly Father” and he is my God, and yours. However, i challenge you to repudiate my claims posted above (directly, not in-between-the-lines).
As for your above mentioned dismissal, yes i do dismsiss it, though i dismiss it in a serious manner not “flippant”. The point i am making is clear, Please, note that i have made no references to BoM i used only the Bible.
This is my last allowable post for the day.
subgenius,
The major difference between the LDS position and the monotheistic position is that the “other gods” are of a different substance, a different kind as our God. They are not “gods” or at least not “true gods” as it were. Psalm 82 clearly shows this whether one interprets it as “gods”, “judges” or “angels”. They die like men unlike the one true God.
Our God is not the same as your God as he is not of the same specie as man. This is why we can rightly call him the one true God. He is unique; angels, gods, demons, and men do not have the same “ness” as He. From where I am standing I do not see how you can rightly call God the one true God, when in your cosmology, many true Gods exist (even if you don’t worship them).
Other Gods (in your cosmology) rightly receive worship and some of those Gods may, or even probably, are older and more powerful than the deity of the Bible (Like God’s dad). If there is only one universe, created by only one God, then it is He alone that any and every being should worship.
I do not know why Mormons try to employ Psalm 82 as proof of their cosmology as it shows God is essentially God of gods. The OT demonstrates His claim to be worshipped, not because of some right based on descent (He is our dad) but because of power. He is more powerful than the other “gods” because He alone is God.
LASTLY, I do not know why MORMONS on this blog keep doing THIS.
I post this to suggest a source from which to go by in terms of the debate on polytheism. The work of Mark S. Smith, who is basically the head of Near Eastern Studies and the Department Chair of Hebrew and Judaic Studies at New York University has published a few books stemming from Psalm 82 that suggest early Jews actually came from a polytheistic background.
I am skeptic of his thesis as it seems to focus on a terribly narrow line of texts for Ugarit, in Syria. Perhaps this is the best we have, but to make such broad sentiments off a very limited scope of documents I find premature. There are other issues, but I offer as a reference point.
subgenius said,The rules of logic often have no application in the discussion of Spiritual knowledge; Really, prove this? If we are dealing with the spiritual, prove that the spiritual is not necessarily logical. Prove that God is not logical.
Also you say, They can constantly use themselves to prove and disprove each other without moving your Spirit in any direction; perhaps they are best for exploring Physical knowledge. Are the laws of logic physical? Can I reach out and touch them? Or, are they spiritual? Are they something that does not exist in the physical realm but the spiritual one?
You said, These two logical means of reasoning are usually ways of self-deception or self-distraction. According to your reasoning this statement is which? Is it self-deception or self-distraction?
Now I do believe that many people are self deceived. Take this example of Mrs. Smith and her son Joe:
One day Mrs. Smith gets a call from the local police department. The officer on line states that Joe is in jail for vandalism. The evidence is clear that Joe has been vandalism at a local 711. A plethora of spray cans matching the colors bought only an hour before his arrest. Fingerprints on the cans left at the scene. Fingerprints in paint on the wall of the 711. Video footage of his act. Joe is Mrs. Smith’s pride and joy, yet she begins to show affective symptoms of believing the proposition that Joe is a vandal. She avoids places that remind her of his actions. She moves Joe to a new area, she begins to watch Joe more attentively, yet would never admit this. She persuades herself that the police must have had a grudge against her son, and that he could not have done this. She forgets the evidence, and refuses to look at it objectively, this is her son, he cannot be a vandal. In private she lashes out at Joe in ways she would not have before, yet in public she holds him up as a figure of community and excellence, which astonishes and embarrasses others.
When the neighbors ask about the new red dragon sprayed upon their garage door Mrs. Smith flushes, fidgets, and turns away answering in a halting fashion or changing the subject, though she did just find an empty can of red spray paint in her kitchen garbage. She treats the evidence in an unusually distorted way, while at the same time being satisfied that her interpretations are quite plausible.
Clearly Mrs. Smith has deceived herself, believing her son Joe to be a pillar of virtue when in reality he is a vandal. Clearly the evidence is there that she knows Joe is a vandal but because of her discomfort at this thought and her emotional attachment to Joe she is motivated to hide this from herself, and examine the evidence in odd ways. She leans entirely on the concept that the police were out to get her son, and implausible interpretations of the facts against her son. This brings her to believe that she does not believe Joe is a vandal. She conceives of herself as trusting this untrustworthy son, and while guarding herself against his untrustworthiness she enthusiastically affirms her belief in him to others.
Anyways not that that rabbit has run its course, on the issue of 1 Corinthians 8:5-6, I understand it to be your position that Paul is talking about God the Father’s brothers and/or Father perhaps? Are these the so called Gods of verse 5, since in verse 4 Paul writes “there is no God but one”? Also what of when David wrote, “For all the gods of the peoples are idols, but the LORD made the heavens.” Could Paul, knowing the scriptures not be speaking to this very subject in a passage referring to idols? Just some things to think about.
Lautensack
Subgenius,
Actually you can believe whatever you want and worship whatever or whoever you want, but understand this, your view that there are many gods is neither orthodox Judism or Christianity. I’m confident that 2,000 years of Christianity and 4,000 or so years of Jewish scripture interpretation and subsequent tradition have well defined the nature of God. If you want to operate outside this sphere, have at it. By-the-way, the reason you don’t quote the BoM is because it has a monotheistic view of God. When Joseph Smith concocted the BoM, he was still pretty much a monotheist. Go and visit the web site of the Community of Christ Mormon group. They seem to hold to what they say was the original view of the Mormon doctrine. They pretty much look like evangelical Christians who can’t let go of Joe’s novel.
David,
You think that I am LAME and CHILDISH because I use CAPS? Well, however childish that maybe, it is sometimes necessary when communicating online in order to give a sense of vocal inflection. You have chosen to see me in the worst possible way. But I forgive you.
”
” (i said) “Bishops in early Christianity decided to make up the doctrine of the trinity”. (David says) So when and where did this happen?”
Where in the bible does it outline a specific doctrine of the trinity? It doesn’t, so SOMEONE had to make it up, or had a revelation of sorts (which can’t be what you believe in, since you so adamantly disagree with direct revelation from God to man).
A real setback to those who only accept the bible to be scripture is sheer lack of CONTEXT (I can use that term now because you so competently defined it for me) in understanding its’ doctrines. God has given His children many resources to learn His gospel. The bible itself was not composed as ONE book, it was MANY books written by those who were commanded to make accounts, and even those who just decided to make accounts. It’s like saying “I only knew the book of Matthew, so the other accounts in Luke and Mark are testifying of ANOTHER Christ and I cannot accept it or use it in understanding Matthew”. It’s a history of God’s communication with His children. He still communicates with us, whether we write down our testimonies in our journals for our children to read, or the prophet writes a book about grace and works. The book of mormon is an account of His other sheep. Evangelicals limit themselves to the bible as if it were written as one book- and it wasn’t. You accept it as one book because a few Christians in earlier centuries compiled it as such. It did not fall out of the heavens.
Thank you for your patronizing tone, however. I do find it amusing.
Amanda, I don’t know what Christians you are speaking of that only think the Bible is one book. A lot of the Christians on this site use scripture from other books of the Bible to interpret the others in the Bible. That’s what is so beautiful is the books of the Bible are in harmony of each other.
Unfortunate that one can’t say the same about the words of the LDS prophets and their own scripture.
I believe God can communicate whenever, however, and wherever he wants with anyone in the world. You are for some reason thinking us evangelicals don’t believe that. I don’t limit the powers of God and I don’t think any Christian here would either.
The mere fact of the matter though is that the Bible shows the path to Salvation and it does not need to be added upon.
Mormons keep saying that the Book of Mormon contains the fulness of the Gospel in our day and age. Tell me, Amanda, what does the Book of Mormon teach us that the Bible does not?
And in case you haven’t heard, the Holy Bible is in wide circulation in the United States, so its not like we need some extra stories about some ancient american indians. Especially giant cultures of people that have left no traces of their existence.
Jeffrey answered much of the concerns to Amanda, but I’d like to focus on this: she thinks we do not believe in revelation. I think this is an example of the most common distinction between Mormonism and Christianity: different definitions of the same words.
Christians DO (emphasis) believe in modern revelation. God speaks to us often, every day in fact. God reveals his will to us constantly and in a number of ways. Through emotiion, intellect, through prayer, through observation, through study of scripture, through study of other sources, through daily experiences, through nature, through our chidlren, parents, co-workers, you name them, you name it, God speaks to us through them and it.
What is the topic of revelation? Could be anything and everything. From the most mundane to the most important aspect of our lives. Which cereal to buy in the store to where we should live. From which occupation to what to drive. Anything under the sun is appropriate for revelation.
However, this revelation must be followed up with some double checking. Doubt is not a bad thing, necessarilly. Is this emotion from God, or is it from another source? How do I find out? I don’t just pray for it, I check the scriptures!
Revelation is rooted in the Bible, and must be vrified through it.
To the Mormon, revelation is something different. I am not sure I can put a finger on it, but it seems separated from scripture, the Bible. It seems revelation trumps scripture, so scripture is rendered secondary. I am not sure what may be subject to finallity in revelation vs the Bible.
In the end, revelation is hugely different between our faiths. God does speak to us, yes, but how and what we make of it is where the pudding is.
Jeffery said to Amanda,
Amanda, I have said the same thing, even using my , Bruce M Challange to prove the point.
But to give Credit to Ralph, he is trying to take me up on the Challange. Rick b
Lautensack,
In answer to your question to subgenius ”The rules of logic often have no application in the discussion of Spiritual knowledge; Really, prove this? If we are dealing with the spiritual, prove that the spiritual is not necessarily logical. Prove that God is not logical.”, I believe it was God who said in the OT something like ‘My ways are not your ways, My thoughts are not your thoughts.’
Examples – Whittling down an army to a few hundred men to fight against an army of thousands is not logical. Telling someone to wash in one specific river that was more polluted than others to heal leprosy is not logical; even the person involved questioned this. If God is spirit and perfect and we are to be perfect like Him and worship Him in spirit then what is the logic in a physical resurrection? That would be less perfect than Him and because of the physical will inhibit our full worship of Him. The list can go on.
I read the quote on the other page from the Bible dictionary. It proves nothing to your case as it says that the idea evolved from passages in the Bible not the idea was written in the passages. It shows how people came up with the idea but does not show any support for or against the Trinity. So either it’s in there (which it isn’t according to the dictionary) or it’s not.
Falcon,
I have a book “Gift of the Jews” by Thomas Cahill. In it there is a brief description of the Hebrews being polytheistic before monotheistic. A few years ago on TV was a 3 part programme by a Brit Journo who had been kidnapped in the Middle East. He was made to read both Bible and Koran and compare the two. After his release he did more research. Part of his findings were that the ancient Hebrews were polytheists, they had their God, his consort, their Son and a messenger/secretary. A website http://www.geocities.com/serraphazel/fiction/hebrew.html gives an introduction into this argument then refers to other sites for ongoing documentation.
Ralph,
Is your argument for the illogic of God a logical one based upon the wisdom and traditions of men or an illogical one based upon the illogic of God? Does it have a natural flow and logic one can follow or is it so very illogical that is to spurious to follow? If it is the former, and I would argue since there is a flow logic to the argument that it is, then it is obviously not from God as according to your argument. Thus your argument for an illogical God is self refuting, as this moment it could be true and the next it might not be.
As for your arguments against the logic of God via examples, I would disagree that God is illogical in these cases. On the reducing of the army, I will assume you are speaking of Gideon, don’t we do this even in our day with speed assaults and tactical strikes? Also we must remember that the battle belongs to the LORD.(Proverbs 21:31) As for the washing incident we see the Logic of God proving His prophet, Elisha, is from Him.(2 Kings 5:8) The question of the resurrection being illogical if God is spirit, as we are to be perfect. I’ll allow your faulty presupposition to slide because this leads to the deeper question, what is perfection? Is it an attribute of God like omnipotence (God’s Greatness) or is it like love (God’s Goodness)? If it is the latter than we as creatures can reach that while still maintaining a body as we have a spirit as well.
Finally though I mentioned the harper article on the “Catholic Parish Registers Off-Limits to LDS Church” post I will just quote the last line that follows your one line argument. “Nevertheless, the discussion above and especially the presence of trinitarian formulas in 2 Cor. 13:14 (which is strikingly early) and Matt. 28:19 indicate that the origin of this mode of thought may be found very early in Christian history.” Clearly the contributers believe the Trinity is Biblical, and entered into the thought of Paul and Matthew, though not stated in Nicene Terms.
Lautensack
Where in the bible does it outline a specific doctrine of the trinity? It doesn’t, so SOMEONE had to make it up, or had a revelation of sorts (which can’t be what you believe in, since you so adamantly disagree with direct revelation from God to man).
Amanda, if you desire charity then it helps to show some
I do believe that God has and still does reveal Himself to man, and guess what . . . I am not a Mormon! So why do assume that I do not believe in modern day revelation?
No Trinity in the Bible eh? Well, that is another assertion. Can you at least see it as such?
Allow me to go down the rabbit hole with this -
“God has given His children many resources to learn His gospel.”
I would say church traditions are part of this. If you have ever bothered to look at the writings of ancient bishops and theologians, you would see that they testify to Christ. Going back to the first century, there are extra-biblical writings, drawings, and inscriptions that speak of Christian doctrine. What they say does not even resemble Mormon teaching, especially about God (yes, this is an assertion but one I am willing to back up if given the chance). The religion of the first Christians looks much more like my faith than it does yours. You must deny the Trinity and its historicity as it is essential to the Mormon idea of a total apostasy (and thus a restoration of the church).
Ralph – if (huge if) the Hebrews went from polytheism to monotheism then your faith is destroyed as well. The later, monotheistic stage of Hebrew beliefs is when the Bible was written. So, when the Bible was written the Hebrew prophets had a view of God (as contained in the scriptures) that contradicts your view of God. Do you see the problem?
Ralph,
I think that your point that the Hebrews were polytheistic before being monotheistic (without agreeing with your premise) gives hope to all Mormons that they to can turn from their belief and recognition of polytheistic false gods to the One true God of the Bible. I would invite you to recognize the God of the Bible and foresake all other gods whether you worship them or not.
Let’s develop AMANDA’S theme of “making it up”. Start with the Book of Abraham. It has been proven that Joseph Smith made it up. How about the BoM. There’s all kinds of evidence that it wsas made up. And since we’re discussing men becoming gods and god once being a man, someone had to “make it up”. And Joseph Smith being threatened wsith a sword by an angel if he didn’t take on more women as wives, sounds like a made-up story. Men, could you imagine coming home with that story? HA!
Lautensack wants proof? How scientific, rather than faithful. However, I have said before, even though this is way off the subject for this thread, I enjoy this game.
FIRST
The rules of logic donot apply to spiritual matters, see 1COR 2:5- “ That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.”, or perhaps 1COR 2:11-14 especially 14 –“But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned”. Perhaps Matthew 16:8 and the blatant contrast of Jesus’s perception versus those that “reason” or better yet “..O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves..”. Or how do you read Matthew 16:17 “And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.”
SECOND
Yes the laws of logic are completely physical. How do you use logic? Where is the logic in love? Where is the logic in beauty? Logic, by definition and application, is a formal science, it is reason, probability, argument, and inference. Are these the means by which you base your belief and worship of God? Does God just “add up” to you, or is not your soul moved by His power and His love, which is incapable of being subjected to any scientific method. How do the miracles of Jesus coincide with the logical method? They are not inductive because you have never witnessed them, and it is not deductive because the laws of logic claim that deductive reason cannot lead to actual truths. Remember logic is not a relative endeavor nor is it subject to your attempted allegories. Granted there is always a “moral” to your stories, but they are hardly logical arguments…..which brings us to
THIRD
(wait a second- the self-deception-distraction comment could be either, it is a summation of your long-winded spray paint story…she is self-deceived and distracted). Anyway, I have noticed that some supposed logic is tragic flawed. Take your story of the dolphin’s attributes, you claim we may share attributes but we are not dolphins – however you fail to realize that sharing attributes also means you are the same – in other words sharing attributes may mean you are a dolphin (walks like a duck, quacks like a duck…). Additionally your spray can vandalism is a lesson in the failure of deductive reasoning to provide truth. The story is about a mother in self-denial, someone who refuses to see the error in something they hold so dear, however your argument is based on assumption. The assumption is that the error exists. Sure it exists in the story because you said it does, you provided the fingerprints, however our discussion has not been about vandalism at the 7-11. Our discussion has been about God. Those that use simplistic similes and hyperbole have no questionable motivations. The Word of God is truth and it cannot be reduced to some anecdotal evidence used to promote one’s ego. (The anecdotal flaw in logical arguments is simple – someone slips on a banana peel and states that banana peels should be illegal because they cause injury). Our society is permeated with this basic flaw in logic (just turn on CNN). Just because you spin a clever tale that works itself out does not make it true or false, just makes it entertaining. Your allegorical arguments are illogical and fundamentally flawed, but I believe you are trying to defy logic and speak to the spirit of your reader?
Subgenious, actually, the corallary evidence from the spray paint story to God can be found. This is his point. We have loads of evidence to show the Bible to be a reliable source, and a credible one. What it says about the past is pretty accurate, no? We can then reasonably assume what it says about God is true.
Lets contrast that with Mormon books. Historically accurate? Far from it. And the revelator (Joseph Smith) has been caught in a number of questionable circumstances. Are we to reasonably assume what is contained is true?
The problem is excarebated when the crux of your proof lies on a “burning of the belly” that cannot be proven (or disproven). Can this burning reasonably be explained as emotion? I’ll leave that question unanswered now, but the intellectual honest answer is obvious.
So, we have a faith that is based on a sound book. We have instructions in that book to test everything based on it. We have examples of groups doing exactly that, and they are called noble. Then we have a faith based on a questionable book from a questionable source which provides its proof through a “burning in the bosom.”
No, God does not always work logically, but he makes sense. God also does not ask us to suspend reason, even when he asks us to walk by faith. Faith is where he resides, to be sure. Logic can only take us so far. But we spurn him when we do not use the logic he gave us. Given the above, which makes more sense?
Michael P
There is no corollary evidence. Maybe you mean another word, that word is, by definition, a term of subjective opinion. Anyway, prove your so-called spray can evidence in the context of our discussion. My point is that just because he tells a colorful story to state his claim does not make it a truth or falsehood, no more than it would for me (and this is blatantly within the rules of logic). However, perhaps spiritually he speaks truth or falsehood?
You have a bold claim with “loads of evidence”…perhaps you can elaborate with just 3 examples (no biblical quotes allowed). I do not need these examples, because it is not logic that guides my faith in the Bible it is the Truth found in its Spirit. Is historical accuracy what you need to believe?, then perhaps we should start a thread on the two different creation stories or the modern day existence of any physical evidence from the Bible. Yes, “burning in the bosom” can not be proven or disproven and that is exactly my point.
God also actually does not ask us to reason at all on matters of the spirit, see my quotes above.
Read the following carefully and undersatnd.
I do not “spurn” logic. I use logic on many aspects of my PHYSICAL life, however logic is not applicable for SPIRITUAL life and the Bible definately supports this idea (by the way miracles, by definiton, do not make sense). This is my last allowed post today, and i will be moving my thoughts to another topic on this board. Good luck to everyone.
I can see why a Mormon wouldn’t want to use logic and evidence in spiritual matters. Logic and evidence really takes the free flow of creativity out of revelation. Logic and evidence means you actually need some substance to support your assertions. It’s also a lot easier to manipulate and control people using emotions like joy, euphoria, and fear. Two of my favorite movies are The Flim Flam Man (old movie from the 60s with George C. Scott) and The Sting. Both movies show how emotion is used to effectively hook people and dupe them. So if you look at the claims of Mormonism, it is absolutely necessary for adherents to not look at evidence and to suspend logic. That’s how the testimony is then able to be received.
Now in my dolphin analogy, I said we share attributes with a dolphin, does this make us a dolphin? Not necessarily. Does it mean that we are not a dolphin? Not necessarily. However when we compare the differences between us and dolphins we clearly are not. Yet according to your logic you would hold that since we share these attributes dolphins are humans and humans are dolphins, which is absurd.
As to the analogy of self-deception yes it works out in the end. You may deceive yourself into thinking that this woman is not deceived, which I believe you are, but that in and of itself is a self-deception. Furthermore to say that God has not left His “fingerprints” in the world is an absolute absurdity coming from a theist. However if you by your unrighteousness suppress this truth, then you too are self-deceived. Please also note I did not apply self-deception to anyone, prior to now, I was simply stating how it works. This is not to say that I do not believe some people on this blog are self-deceived.
I agree, society is very illogical. This comes from not submitting to the Revelation of God as the source of Truth, for what is revealed from God as True comes from Truth Himself. Hence why all systems of thought that do not come from Biblical Christianity have the problem of the One and the Many.
You say I appeal not to logic but to the spirit? I submit I appeal to both. Logic is spiritual, it is a tool of thought used to enhance and enrich our fellowship with God, leading to a deeper enjoyment of Him and His Truth. You say you do not use logic in your faith, perhaps that’s because you are not seeking to “take every thought captive to obey Christ.”(2 Cor 10:5)
Finally I would like to say even if I had God’s infinite knowledge and laid out the logic of all of creation, of miracles, of all things, unless you changed your mind, or you were given a new heart, converted by God, you would never believe. This is the depth of the self-deception of those who hate God.
Lautensack
subgenius,
You seem to have the assumption that faith and reason are at odds with each other. This if that is so then why is there anything logical in the world at all if all proceeds from, and was created by God. Now I agree that the scientific method is not what is used to prove matters of faith, yet you are clearly interchanging that for Logic. Now I suggest that the wisdom of men is not innately logical, however if God is true, God never lies or contradicts Himself, then the ‘law of non contradiction’ (so called), is simply that which describes His character. Since from this fundamental law all of logic is derived that the Laws of Logic are simply an expression of the very nature of God.
Now your argument is not actually for the illogicalness of God, but against the logic of men. I completely agree that the natural man cannot submit to the things of God. Therefore when men use logic they submit to a presupposition that they deny is true, and suppress by their unrighteousness(Rom 1:18,19), that is the Triune God. However faith is not something illogical but rather something intrinsically logical, because we are imitating as creatures the perfect trust that the three persons of the Trinity have for one another.
Now as to logic being something physical. Tell me where I can see, touch, taste, smell, or hear a law of logic not coming from thought. Thought is something spiritual. This is not to say that all thoughts are about something spiritual, however the act of thinking is a spiritual act. As are the acts of emotions. This again is not to say that all thoughts or emotions are logical. Now I do not see the dichotomy between God moving my soul and me logically coming to Him, in fact it is just the opposite. God draws me to Him in such a way that it would be illogical not to go to Him. Does this mean at the time I was thinking of this logic, not at all however to say that coming to Christ was not logical is fallacy.
.CONTINUED.
Ralph,
You asked about “us” in Genesis. Haven’t had time to see if this has been answered yet, but since you directed this to me in part, I’ll give a very short explanation. The plural “us” is used reflecting three Personages, not three Gods. I know you reject this. A very short explanation is to say that there is only one God in existence (Isaiah 44:8). He knows of no other God in existence. Before Him there were no Gods formed, neither will there be any Gods formed after Him (Isaiah 43:10). There are three separate personages (Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost), who are the one eternal God. I know this is unacceptable having been taught that God and man are the same type of being. There is no comparison between man and God – Man is created, one dimensional if you will. God is eternal and multidimensional (like the potter and the clay analagy). Through the word “Trinity” is not mentioned in the Bible (neither is “Bible”), the concept is there. Again, I know this goes against your teaching, but since you asked the question, I have made a very short attempt at answering it. May God bless.
In the words of Willy Wonka “Strike that. Reverse it.” Yes I am fallible, my comments from yesterday should be reversed, sorry for any confusion this may have caused.
Lautensack
jer1414
Though i agree with part of your answer (that “us” is perhaps best explained by them being the other 2 personages) i do not agree tht “us” is one. This would seem to color God as mildly schizophrenic, talking to himself. Or should it not be said that Jesus sits at the right of hand of himself? There is more reference in the Bible to 3 seperate personages than the occasional use of my father and i are one. This oneness is similar to “oneness” man and wife.
now, i really mean it, on to another topic.
So I guess the Shayma is wrong-
Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one.
The nation of Israel got it wrong for thousands of years before Jesus?! Jews and Christians are monotheists because (in part), in both Greek an Hebrew, the pronouns used towards God are masculine and singular.
Psalm 86:10 – For You are great and do wondrous deeds; You alone are God.
I’m just sitting here, working my way through (again), my big fat unabriged, one volume Christian Theology text and something occurred to me. I’m sure I’ve had the thought before, but I was wondering why Mormons want to be considered part of the Christian family while denying the basic tenets of the faith? Being a Green Bay Pakers fan, I was thinking that it would be like the Chicago Bears wanting to dress-up in Packers’ uniforms. Or perhaps, the Milwaukee Brewers claiming they play football and want to be in the NFL. But since we were having a discussion here with our Mormon friends concerning their assertion that religion can’t be approached logically, maybe it would be acceptable that the Brewers would be claiming to play football. Well anyway, this big fat Christian Theology Book supports the traditional view of the nature of God and the doctrine of the Trinity. Way too many chapters dealing with the topic to even begin to summarize it, so I guess we’re going to have to be content with the notion that Christians are Christians and Mormons are Mormons. We have to bet on which side is right. No big deal….just eternal life, salvation of the soul, at stake.
Falcon,
I did a topic on my blog a year or so ago called (What if).
Like your football example, I said, What if, I dressed up like a Mormon Missionary, went door to door and said I am an LDS member, but then gave the Gospel I believe according to the Bible, Grace Alone, One God, No works Ect. The LDS would not be happy and even try to get me to stop. Yet they do the same thing by preaching a different Gospel, yet claiming to be Christian.
So why would it be wrong for me to do it, yet LDS can and do, do it? Rick b
Rick,
Let’s do it! We’ve never met but we live within a hundred miles of each other so I’m sure we could put this deal together. What do we need? Is there somewhere on the web where we can buy the outfit and name tags. Do they carry a Bible, BoM…what? I’m way out of the age range but I act really young….OK maybe immature is a better word. Is there a personna we’ll have to adopt?
RickB and Falcon,
I’ll tell you what I have done when I have heard Mormons say they are Christians. It always shuts that line down. I say to the Mormon:
“You say that you are Christian, right? If I were to tell you that I DO NOT believe that Joseph Smith is a propthet of God, I DO NOT believe that the Book of Mormon is the word of God, I DO NOT believe that the LDS Church is the restored church today and I DO NOT believe that Thomas Monson is a prophet today, then would it be fair for me to go around tell people that I am a Mormon? No, right? You wouldn’t like that because it wouldn’t be accurate to what Mormons believe, right? Well, that is the exact case with Christians. Christians don’t believe in Joseph Smith, Thomas Monson, the Book of Mormon or the LDS Church.”
If Christians wanted to be spiteful we most certainly could dress up like Mormons. Oh, I’ve been tempted to do it everytime I look at my white shirt and black tie in the closet just to offset their neighborhood campaigns around here.
The latest thing the LDS missionaries are doing here in Vegas is hanging out in the parking lots of Home Depot and the grocery stores offering to load people’s cars and then let them know families can be together forever conveniently leaving out the Mormon law that one will have to live by. Either times are getting hard for the LDS membership drive or the local mission president has too many missionaries to contend with and has sent them to the local vendors to help with loading cars and putting the carts back in the stalls in the parking lots to keep them busy.
Once you talk to them one time and refute their heretical teachings with the Bible they will run away when they see you come back to the store again. I’ll be carrying my Bible with me from now on when I go buy nails and fertilizer seed at Home Depot or buy a bag of oranges at the store. You never know who is going to show up. We have to talk to them and pray for them!
Berean,
Out here in Fairfax, VA just outside DC, I have seen the missionaries in growing numbers hitting the parking lots. I have commented to my wife that they are out in force these days. That you see them in Vegas too suggests a shift in strategy perhaps. Why, I am not sure. Guess its a way to better confront people than disrupting them at home and by doing a service.
Subgenious,
You apply logic to your physical life but not to your spiritual? So, your spiritual life is completely separated from your physical life? There’s no logic behind the ritual ordinances? There’s no logic behind how you live your life based on your faith? That’s the logical conclusion of your stance there, and that is impossible to truly live a life of faith.
As to logic in faith, it is interesting that Pual reasons with so many in the scriptures. If faith has nothing to do with reason/logic, then it would all be about the burning. But that’s not what Paul does. God also says in Isaiah (1:17-19)that we are to reason together, just before saying how we will be cleansed. We also cannot deny the reference in Acts to the Bereans for verifying everything in scripture.
Sure, we are to be like children, but we are also to put aside childish things when we grow up. We must believe, an act of faith, but we also must be ready with an answer for our faith, logic/reason. Logic only gets us so far to Christ. I admit this. But it is clear we are to have sound reason for our faith.
Finally, the archeological evidence ultimately cannot prove the Bible spiritually, but it gives it credence. If what it says happened in history, then it makes it more probable it speaks of truth in spiritual matters. Contrast this with the BoM. No evidence, none, that what it says is true from an historical perspective. Why should we believe it in spiritual matters? This is beyond logic, and we go back to the previous paragraphs.
Contd
The lack of definition in the burning of the bosom is a problem. Do you not see this? Anyone can say anything or feel anything and claim it to be true if we accept this as a standard. This is relativism through and through.
Now, you are likely to say that this is unmistakeably from God. OK, I say, but what of the burning of the FLDS? Or Jehovah’s Witnesses testimonies? Or how about the passion of the Jihadists? Look at the people following Barak Obama at his speeches. Do they not feel a burning in their hearts? Could they be mistaken? All of them? Of course! But do not tell them that. They will swear there is no way they could be wong.
This is why its inability to be verified or falsified is a problem. Unfortunately, your burning is no different, and needs to be exposed as such. Despite the absolute certainty you claim it to be, you very well could be wrong. I submit it is wrong, and do so based on what is found in the historically accurate books of the Bible, written over thousands of years by multiple authors and with remarkable consistency. (You asked for three examples– David, Canaanites, and various cities and customs– but this doesn’t matter since facts are nasty things that get in the way of true faith.)
Now, I expect you to write back and skim the issues I have raised. But if you are intellectually honest, you would concede the merits of these criticisms. Rather, I do expect a skim, and I expect you to hide behind the burning which I cannot refute, nor can anyone, the burning which you cannot prove and flies in the face of all other sensible arguments.
David,
A small correction. God does use plural pronouns for Himself, note Genesis 1:26, “us” and “our.” Now I agree that there is one God eternally existent in three divine persons, but this is not seen from the pronouns but from the verb structure. Whenever the Bible says God speaks it uses the third masculine singular verb tense. “VaYomer (Verb, Qal Imperfect Third Masculine Singular of Amar[to say] vav consecutive) Elohim (Masculine Noun [God] Masculine Plural Pronominal Suffix) Naase (Verb, Qal Imperfect 1 Common Plural of Ashah[to make]) Adam (Noun [Man]) Btzalmanu (Masculine Noun [Image] Common Plural Pronominal Suffix Bet Preposition [In]) Kidmutheenu (Adverb [In The Likeness Of] Common Plural Pronomial Suffix Cap Preposition [Like])…” Just a slight clarification. It should be noted that elsewhere Elohim uses singular pronouns, as does YHWH Elohim. Those silly original languages, they keep getting in the way of bad theology.
Lautensack
The “Us” and “Our” in Genesis 1:26 is the Hebrew word “Elohim”. In the Hebrew language this word “Elohim” is a majestic plural referring to supreme greatness. This would show the pluralistic nature and majesty of God. The Hebrews will be quick to tell you that Elohim does not mean that there is more than one God. The Jews and Christians have one thing in common and that is we both are monotheistic: the belief in only one God.
Elohim is directly tied to singular pronouns. Examples of this would be “I, he, me, his, my” etc. This takes place 99% of the time in the Old Testament. (Hey Amanda, I know you don’t like my pronouns. Again, these aren’t mine so you can take it up with Heavenly Father and complain to Him that you didn’t like it and see what He tells you if you decided to stay in Mormonism.)
If there was ever anyone who would know if there was more than one God it would be Jesus and He didn’t acknowledge any other strange gods in Mark 12:29. In Gen 1:26 we have Jesus taking part in the creation (Col 1:16) and The Holy Ghost too (Gen 1:2). In Genesis 1:27 we are back to singular pronouns “his own”.
For my Mormon friends I ask this: Do you believe that members of the Godhead are “one in purpose”? If so, is it possible that the Holy Ghost would ever contradict what the Father or Son has already revealed?
Please show me one passage in the Bible or the BOM where it says that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three separate gods (as Joseph Smith taught) that are perfectly united only in purpose? (John 17 shows that the Father and the Son are perfectly united in purpose, but never does it say they are separate gods.)
Berean
Berean,
I must correct you in your first statement, “The “Us” and “Our” in Genesis 1:26 is the Hebrew word “Elohim,” for the sake of Honesty and Consistency. The words Us and Our do not come from Elohim, they are spoken by Him. If you note in my previous post we see the first two words of the text are Vayomer Elohim. Vayomer is from the root word amar, to say, but in this form it is He said. Now Elohim, the second word modifies the first, who is the he, it is Elohim. (Hebrew syntax is usually Verb, Subject, Indirect Object, Direct Object.) Now the “Us” and “Our” in Genesis 1:26 are modifying by the very words they are linked to. The entire English phrase “Let us make” comes from one Hebrew word, Naase. Likewise the phrases “in our image” and “after our likeness” are singular words, Btzalmanu, and Kidmutheenu respectively.
Now while I agree the Bible clearly teaches One God, verse 27 singular verbs bara [to Create] used in singular forms twice of Elohim, once in the perfect, once in the imperfect, we must not use false arguments to explain God, for how can falsehood explain Truth?
Lautensack
All right you guys, cut it out. You’re making my head hurt with all of this intellectual word study. You’re taking all of the fun out of this. Let’s just do impressions, feelings and revelations. They take way less work and they let us just kind of free fall and express opinions. Seriously, I really do appreciate your efforts here. It’s been my impresson that Mormonism is about a quarter of an inch deep (that’s generous)when it comes to solid evidence and intellectual pursuit. They depend on religious urban legends, which they pass on with great confidence, and dubious conjecture to support their claims of a restored gospel. So again, thank you for your offerings here, but remember, our Mormon friends operate off of a testimony which trumps any intellectual argument or solid evidence.
Lautensack,
I really do not consider it a correction so much as an addition. I had kind of assumed that people would have known that some of the pronouns were plural becaused “us” was already mentioned. That is why I did not use the word “always”.
My whole point was if one is going to make a case from the use of a plural pronoun like “us” then other pronouns and verbage should be looked at too. I know some Mormons (I think Joseph Smith too) try to make a case for a tri-theistic godhead because Elohim ends in “im” which denotes a people group. The construction of the other Hebrew words around “Elohim” bar this view. Appealing to Hebrew grammar to support a tri-theistic godhead is going to blow up in one’s face
The situation does not get any better for Mormons in the Greek. However, I would not put all my theological eggs in the grammar basket, but when joined with clear statements of monotheism in the Law and Prophets plus the history of biblical interpretation both before and after Christ’s earthly ministry, one does not get Mormon tri-theism.
Lautensack,
Thanks for explaining that. I stated what my reference books said on the subject. I’m no Hebrew scholar! I know that the Bible is consistent and that God will not contradict Himself. When I see a verse that may say something that is confusing I fall back on the overwhelming and clear verses that state otherwise (God is a spirit; there is one God).
Falcon,
You’re right. It’s all about the testimony. I was having a conversation with one of the teachers up at the ward and I asked him how he found out that Mormonism is true. He told me that he watched the DVD “The Restoration”. He said, “I know they were only actors in the film, but when I saw the actor playing Joseph Smith see Heavenly Father and Jesus in the woods I got a burning in my chest and something told me it was true.” I asked what he did after that. He said, “Well, then I prayed about what I saw in the movie and was told again it was true.” He said eventually he did go to scripture, but it was after he was told it was true. This is the first Mormon I have heard say this to me that didn’t involve the text of Moroni 10:3-5. I told him that I rely completely on scripture to test and validate what I hear from someone and even what I see. I gave him the texts from the Bible regarding testing. He did agree with that, but did say that eventually I would have to pray about it. I told him that I don’t have to pray to find out if the Bible is true. It proves that all on its own. I wonder if Mormons would be willing to pray and ask God if the Bible is true, trustworthy and totally complete without need for anything else?
This is alarming to me. Look, I’ve had warm fuzzies when I have watched “Forest Gump” and “The Green Mile”. My wife and I watched “Castaway” last night. She was convinced that was a true story. I had to convince her it wasn’t. Hold it, I just noticed the similarity here. All these movies have Tom Hanks in them. Could it be that Tom Hanks is a prophet?
I was somewhat challenged by Ralph’s assertion that the Jews had once been polytheists. I’m often intrigued as much by Mormon strategy in justifing their positions as I am the positions themselves. Anyway, in the book “Becoming Gods: A Closer Look at 21st-Century Mormonism” the author Richard Abanes writes: “Thanks to BYU-based apologists, many Latter-day Saints are now using a fairly new argument to defend their belief in multiple gods. They are claiming that the early Israelites were polytheistic. Therefore, according to this argument, Mormons are only returning to what was once accepted as true in ancient Israel. This claim rests on the theory that Israel initially held to polytheism, which gave way to monolatry, which in turn evolved into monotheism. Such a scenario matches what is tautht by most non-Christians and liberal scholars-the same scholars quoted by LDS apologists when discussing Israel’s so-called polytheism.”
To me, it seems Mormons often align themselves with the point of view of liberal scholars or non-Christians. What Mormons have in common with these folks is the assertion that the Bible is basically mythology or is wrought with clandestine revisions and dubious edits. So the end game is to degrade the Bible and orthodox Christian doctrine. This is a strategy that is consistant with all false prophets. This approach does attract a certain segment of the population who won’t trouble themselves to dig alittle deeper for the truth.
Subg from May 10 –
Your comments are common ones among Mormons. They indicate a misunderstanding of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, as evidenced by the fact that your argument is against something Christians consider heresy (Modalism), not the Trinity. Briefly, it is important to understand there are different types of “beings” – God, man, and angels. There is one eternal, infinite being of God, shared fully and completely by three persons, Father, Son and Spirit. The Father is not the Son, The Son is not the Spirit, etc. so one doesn’t “talk to himself”. One what, three who’s.
I’ve touched here on a brief article that may help at http://vintage.aomin.org/trinitydef.html!
May you be blessed.
Falcon,
“It’s been my impresson that Mormonism is about a quarter of an inch deep (that’s generous)when it comes to solid evidence and intellectual pursuit.”
You might be right, since we rely more on FAITH than we do the wisdom of men. However, I have to completely challenge your idea of intellectual pursuit. I believe pursuits in the spirit are highly intellectual because they give insight into God’s knowledge- which, as you must know, is far greater than the knowledge of men. How do we, as LDS, pursue intellectually in the spirit? We read scripture…and obey God’s commandments- we heed the prophet, yes. I think your point of view regarding intellectual pursuit is so limited by your lack of understanding Faith and obedience as outlined in the scriptures…and by Christ Himself, as an integral part in God’s plan for us.
May I suggest you read Neal A. Maxwell’s “Not My Will, But Thine”. You might have to enter a Deseret bookstore, but I would respect you greatly if you attempted to challenge your point of view regarding true intellectual capacity…and how true knowledge is gained. If not, then I should categorize you as you have categorized Mormonism.
jer1414
though it is always futile to argue points of doctrine outside of the Scriptures, i would ask only this question about your assertion of “one what, three who” as derived from your article-link.
If the Bible tells us that there are only 3(three)classifications of beings, which of these beings is the Son or rather the Spirit? Is the Spirit a man? Your article is a weak basis for this argument. The article actually introduces a fourth being – “person”. Note that the Trinity is defined a 3 “persons” in that article. Overall the article is unsubstantiated and without merit; there is no support, temporal or spiritual for the notion that there is God and three others. There seems to be an intense misunderstanding of the hierarchy in our Spiritual lives. Our Heavenly Father has given us the physical gift of Jesus Christ and the spiritual gift of the Holy Spirit. Through His grace and benevolence we are here today. How is this traditional polytheism? is it not abundantly clear that I WORSHIP only one God – Our Heavenly Father. Yet there are obviously other spiritual beings- things known only unto Him and revealed only through Him.
subgenius wrote:
The traditional definition of polytheism, as noted above (defined in a comment on May 6th), is belief in more than one God. Nevertheless, if you choose to define it here, for the sake of discussion, worship of more than one God, I am still left wondering. You state you worship only one God — Heavenly Father — who, according to Mormonism, is one God. Does this mean that you do not worship Jesus Christ who, according to Mormonism, is a second God?
Late President Gordon B. Hinckley said, “We honor Him, we worship Him, we love Him as our Redeemer, the great Jehovah of the Old Testament, the Messiah of the New Testament.” (”A Testimony of the Son of God,” Ensign, 12/2002 p. 4) And, “He is the central focus of our worship. He is the Son of the living God, the Firstborn of the Father, the Only Begotten in the flesh…” (”We Look to Christ,” Ensign, 5/2002 p. 90)
So to me it looks like Mormons who agree with President Hinckley are polytheists, whichever of these two ways they choose to define the word.
Amanda,
Why in the world would I want to read Neal A. Maxwell’s “Not My Will But Thine” when it would be merely the wisdom of man. I would much prefer to go to the scriptures and let God reveal Himself to me there.
Pursuits in the spirit, you say, are highly intellectual. Would that include people who are involved in the occult pursuits of white magic, black magic, wicca. I was standing at the checkout in a bookstore the other day and a young woman was buying several books on new age enlightenment. Intellectual spiritual pursuit I guess. All that glimmers isn’t gold I’ve heard. That goes for what passes as spiritual intellectualism.
Hmmmm, my limted understanding of faith. Please share with me what my understanding of faith is.
Falcon said,
”Thanks to BYU-based apologists, many Latter-day Saints are now using a fairly new argument to defend their belief in multiple gods. They are claiming that the early Israelites were polytheistic.”
Sorry, never heard of any of these arguments. I got my ideas from my own research on the internet, TV programmes I have watched, books I have read and others that I have worked with who are non-believers and are trying to get believers to stop with their unnecessary faith. If you didn’t notice the web sites, TV show and book I referred to are all non-LDS. I haven’t seen any LDS sites discussing this point yet, but then again, I haven’t looked at other LDS sites for a while, I mainly come here in my free time lately.
Ralph,
Well, as I mentioned, and you confirmed (”….others that I have worked with who are non-believers and are trying to get believers to stop with their unnecessary faith.”) Mormons align themselves with folks like this in order to degrade the Bible and Christian doctrine. This must be done by Mormons in an attempt to try and support what they call the restored gospel. It’s been said that if you want to know something about someone look at who they hang around with. It’s very telling. Having aligned themselves with nonbelievers, Mormons have proven themselves enemies of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Having rejected the Gospel of Jesus Christ, Mormons have placed themselves in the camp with nonbelievers. In doing so they will not inherit the Kingdom of God or the salvation God offers through His son Jesus Christ.
Sharon Lindbloom
yes, if you worship more than one, it is polytheism. Thanks for restating what i had already said. As for President Hinckley’s comment, i do not agree with his use of the word “worship”, and this may be just an argument of semantic, which is prevalent on this board. However, as a mormon, i and we only pray TO Our Heavenly Father. Though your quote has minor merit, it is hardly a statement of doctrine. It is hardly a revelation that any religious doctrine may have a verse, statement, or idea that is an inconsistency or contradiction. Even as a prophet, man is not, and never can be, perfect.
subgenious,
If making your own definitions for polytheism makes you feel any less polytheistic, then have at it. Personally, I think it’s rather ridiculous though considering every definition of Polytheism that you look up in a dictionary or on the internet, it states “Belief OR Worship in more than one God.”
At least Ralph said the following -
“Also if you notice, I never contradicted you when you said I was polytheistic, I have no problems believing that I worship One God but there may be others with Him.”
You disagree with your prophets spoken words? unheard of!
Falcon,
You missed, I’m afraid, the entirety of my point. I was referring to the only legitimate spiritual pursuit-TRUTH- there is only one truth. Your response contained many needless diversions.
My object in requesting you read that book, was to see things from a different perspective- it was an honest and reasonable request- but I guess you are simply afraid of humbling yourself to even learn something from a mormon! Heaven forbid!
Regarding Faith and Obedience…I believe that is the ONLY way we can learn the mysteries of God and his unique plan for His children. Time and time again we are taught in the scriptures to not rely on our own strength but to have faith in God and HIS plan for us. His plan is revealed through personal revelation (by reading scriptures, as you pointed out), guidance from a prophet (who holds priesthood keys to guide Christs church),prayer, and the Holy Ghost manifesting Himself through these pursuits. These things provide principles that we must ACT on (faith and obedience) in order to learn line upon line God’s purposes for us. Because our secular knowledge is so limited by our mortal understanding and capabilities, it becomes incredibly important that God have a mouthpiece on earth and request His children be obedient and trust HIM, not man.
I’m sure similar principles are taught in other churches, however, I do believe it is a stark contrast from your prescription to finding truth… proving things by the standards of men, rather than the standards of God.
My belief of Joseph Smith as a prophet, and the Book of Mormon as scripture, come from my experiences with the Holy Ghost. Through this process I have come to a true knowledge of their veracity. Because of that, I don’t trust in any other source, no matter how factual they seem to be through the spectacles of man. This is the purpose of the Holy Ghost, to teach with eternal spectacles.
Amanda, honest question here.
What has any prophet said, since the day you were born, that you didn’t already know was necessary for your salvation and exaltation? You said that we need a prophet to guide us. I’m just wondering because since I can remember, no prophet in many years has ever gave any new revelation. They have only emphasized being a good person and the many facets of that (parenthood, fatherhood, mother hood, compassion, etc..)
So really, what spiritual needs are there that a prophet has fulfilled? They share a message about living Christ-like lives which you can find in any Christian congregation.
Amanda said – “Because our secular knowledge is so limited by our mortal understanding and capabilities, it becomes incredibly important that God have a mouthpiece on earth…”
Tell me Amanda, what aspect of LDS doctrine do you think has been hard for members and even non members to understand? That we are literal children of God? Not hard. That there are many God’s? Not hard. That we can become God’s like God? Not hard.
It sounds rude, but the current prophets are just about as useful as any old bishop in a ward.
I would say the biggest thing they do these days is try and sanitize the history of their own church and its past prophets. Which is unfortunate that one would need to do that.
Amanda said “I’m sure similar principles are taught in other churches, however, I do believe it is a stark contrast from your prescription to finding truth… proving things by the standards of men, rather than the standards of God. ”
We prove things by the standard of God. His holy Bible. Where did you hear we prove things by the standards of men?
Amanda,
I believe that Joseph Smith was a false prophet and my experience with the Holy Ghost confirms this. God has revealed Himself to me through one of the Gifts of the Holy Ghost known as prophesy. I don’t have to have a “mouthpiece” in the form of another man when I have direct access to God through His Son Jesus Christ and the gifts of the Holy Ghost. The Bible tells us that there is one mediator between God and man and that is Jesus Christ. It isn’t a Mormon prophet. I go directly to God. I don’t use middle men. For more discussion of the Gifts of the Holy Ghost see First Cor. 12,13,14. You are absolutely right, there is only one truth. The truth proclaimed by Joseph Smith wasn’t the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It was an imitation meant to draw men away from the truth proclaimed in the Bible. By-the-way, if you’re going to ignore the facts concerning the restored Gospel, you are doomed to follow a false prophet with a false message.
Amanda,
My testimony received from the Holy Ghost and confirmed by Scripture completely negates yours. I testify to you that Joseph Smith is not a prophet of God and I know the Book of Mormon is not scripture. We each have experiences with the Holy Ghost that are contradictory. The purpose of the Holy Ghost is not to contradict or negate Scripture. I do not prove things by the standards of men, but rather than the standards of God. The Mormon faith is based on the man Jospeh Smith and his claims. Praise God we don’t need a man prophet to speak to us on behalf of God, for Hebrews 1:1-2 says “Long ago God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son…”
Amanda, please accept my caution that the personal, subjective sense of what a person thinks God or the Holy Ghost is telling them does not trump the objective Scripture. When we rely on our subjective experiences we can be led astray (2 Cor. 11:13-15 where satan and his angels appear as angels of light), and we must test the spirits! You must test what you believe to be the Holy Ghost speaking to you. 1 Tim. 4:1 talks about seducing spirits, 1 Jn. 4:1 tells us to try the spirits and believe not every spirit, etc.
The foundation of our confidence cannot be placed on the subjective side, because it’s too easy to be misled by subjective elements. We must have some objective foundation. I realize you “know” your faith is true and to find it not true would be devastating. But please test all things, hold fast to that which is good.
Fellow Posters:
In the months that I have been posting on Mormon Coffee, I have purposely stayed with the Bible when making doctrinal points. I have steadfastly stayed away from making contributions that would focus on spiritual phenomenon, manifestations, revelations and the miraculous to make my points regarding the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Focusing on the Bible gives everyone a frame of reference for discussion. Also, it lends some respect to those holding to a dispensational theology perspective. Spiritual revelation and experiences, unless someone was actually there, can’t be validated. Also, these things can be faked, misread and counterfitted. I bring this up because I get the feeling that some of our Mormon friends see themselves as having some sort of spiritual revelatory superiority. In the Mormon world, truth is based on revelation. So what do we Christians do? Relate an experience where Mr. X spoke in tongues and Mrs. Y interpreted and testified to ABC which proves the point being made in the Bible supporting the traditional orthodox Christian position? This has been festering inside me for awhile. What are the ground rules here?
Subg from May 12 – thank you for your response and questions. You said you “thought it futile to argue points of doctrine outside of the Scriptures”. I don’t understand this, since there was discussion on one article about core Mormon doctrine (the “fullness”) NOT being in the BoM (thus outside of scriptures).
Nonetheless, you ask about one “what” (one being of “God”), and this is what Scripture declares over and over again (One God is also taught in the Book of Mormon). There is One God. This One God has revealed Himself to us as three distinct Personages, each being fully God. The Son is God, the Spirit is God (each not “A” God, but “God”). Consider the analogy of “time”, there is the “past”, “present” and “future”. There are not three “times”, but one essence of “time”. Likewise, the Father and the Son and Holy Spirit are not three separate beings or entities, but three distinct Personages (not human persons) in the one nature of God. The doctrine is based on Biblical revelation, not human logic. I realize you don’t accept this and it is hard to understand based on the Mormon doctrine of God as a human being. I realize we see things differently on this issue.
I’m not sure how much more clear the distinctions between Mormonism and Christianity can be made than through the recent posts.
Mormons rely on their prophet to dictate doctrine first, and then by the “Holy Ghost” with personal revelation. They think they have a monopoly on revelation, when in fact they do not. It has been said here, but God in fact speaks to us daily as well. But rather than blindly following, we test what is given on more than just warm fuzzies. Yes, “warm fuzzies” may be a bit perjorative, but that’s all it is. And as subgenious admitted, it cannot be proven or disproven, a perfect opportunity to decieve.
Also, we see a reluctance to criticize or disagree with leaders from LDS. To subgenious’ credit, he actually stated he disagreed on a point. I have never before seen such a thing. (I found this link and found it telling. Its about Mormon leaders encouraging a strategy to not criticize their leaders. http://www.i4m.com/think/intro/mormon_leaders.htm. The Christians I know are always quick to point out and call out our leaders when they go wrong.
Thirdly, we see a focus on obeying rather than on living. Amanda is, from what I can tell, representative of Mormon thought when she says the only way to wisdom is to obey, and to obey is to follow the ordinances. Christians also must obey, but this is decidedly not ritualistic and rather a maturation process of studying, praying, and living, and not keeping count of what we have done and what we have not.
Finally, we see the difference of who is God and who is Jesus. The point of the post, and most discussion highlights this.
Really, we are worlds apart. And we both cannot be true. Personally, I know which choice is best, and pray our Mormon friends discover the same thing before it is too late.
jer,
You have categorized my completely objective and real experiences with the Holy Ghost as subjective- that, my friend, is a subjective point of view since you are not privy to my personal experiences, only your opinion of them. I can only testify to what I know to be true. I don’t see how anything you say negates that reality in my life.
Falcon,
“God has revealed Himself to me through one of the Gifts of the Holy Ghost known as prophesy.”
-So YOU’RE a prophet now? I thought prophesy was a phenomenon only available to “prophets”. Revelation might be a better word- and yes, I too believe in personal revelation and other gifts of the spirit.
“I don’t have to have a “mouthpiece” in the form of another man when I have direct access to God through His Son Jesus Christ and the gifts of the Holy Ghost.”
“The Bible tells us that there is one mediator between God and man and that is Jesus Christ. It isn’t a Mormon prophet. I go directly to God.”
-Directly to God? The bible tells us? Does the bible speak or is it made up of books written by PROPHETS WHO SPEAK??? If you don’t need a “mouthpiece” then perhaps you should set Isaiah, Abraham, well, almost the entire bible aside!
-You wouldn’t be the first “believer” in history to reject the authority of a prophet. Besides, your are ascribing responsibilities and duties to the prophet that I never have…I never said he was a mediator. The role of a prophet is not to save, it’s a role of service to guide His sheep to HIS way- not our selfish ways and convenient interpretations.
God has always used prophets. I don’t find it easy to follow a prophet all the time. But I know He has called one. Submission is a virtue we are required to have however unintelligent and mindless it is often perceived by men to be.
Amanda, actually, we can say what we say in regards to your experiences because we base our faith in something that is objective: the Bible. Sure, you can argue that everyone can take what they want out of it. But that’s really a cop out. You also do argue that criticism of your faith is subjective. OK, is it OK to criticize those who practice wikka? Or what about Jihad? Something less agressive perhaps? How about Buddhism– are they correct? What about atheists? Isn’t criticism of them subjective, too? This is the problem with your argument, because at some point, you have to draw a line and say that some things are worthy of criticism. Otherwise, you have a very, very relativistic philosophy. And you do believe in an ultimate truth, don’t you? Then surely, you agree with my reasoning.
Prophets, our take is that God has given us all we need to stay in line. No further shepherding is necessary given the information/faith God provided when he came to earth to become man. And through this action, he gave us direct access to him. Perhaps the place where we diverge at is that you worship two (arguably three) gods, and to us, those three are one. If our version is true, and Christ is Father God, then this makes more sense, no? But if yours is true, I can see how it would be more confusing, since, well, Father God did not actually come and so did not completely give us access to him.
But I digress. My bet is you will not understand these arguments. And that’s your choice.
Amanda,
You are certainly showing your ignorance of spiritual gifts. You say “…I thought prophesy was a phenomonon available to prophets.” Paul writes to the Corinthians: “Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware.” He then goes on to give a detailed description and instructions regarding the Gifts of the Holy Spirit. He says “Pursue love, yet desire earnestly spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy…..One who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation.” You,also, need to go back and read the Book of Acts carefully. Also take a look at the Book of Ephisians where the five fold ministry of the Holy Spirit is listed. Please don’t bother with your silly little word games as in your comments regarding “the Bible tells us.” I would suggest if your going to comment here at least do the readers the courtesy of engaging in some thoughtful study and reflection before you post.
Amanda, you called your experience with the Holy Ghost “completely objective”, then said that my view of it is subjective, “since you are not privy to my personal experiences”. Do you see how you have contradicted yourself? If your experience is “completely objective” as you say, then everyone could accept it. But it is not, it is subjective. That was my point – personal experiences are not objective, they are subjective – even yours. This was my caution. We both have real experiences we each believe to be from the Holy Ghost, and those experiences are totally opposite. They both can’t be right. The personal, subjective sense of what a person thinks God or the Holy Ghost is telling them does not trump the objective Scripture.
Jer,
The bible is objective in meaning is it? Then you tell me how we accomplish objective doctrine when the both of us disagree as to the interpretation thereof. Surely the word of God is not subjective. Well, isn’t this a good example of why a prophet is useful? Certainly the Bible teaches this…unless you want to make the bible a subjective by interpreting these scriptures differently:
Amos 3:7
7 Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.
Ephesians 2:19-20
19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
Chronicles 20:20
20 … Hear me, O Judah, and ye inhabitants of Jerusalem; Believe in the Lord your God, so shall ye be established; believe his prophets, so shall ye prosper.
You have created an interesting dilemma with your argument. Because of my belief in a modern day prophet, I can submit my “subjective” point of view of the bible to the “objective” revealed point of view of God, given to prophets. You, however, it seems you are relying on your subjective interpretation of the bible.
Jeffrey,
“So really, what spiritual needs are there that a prophet has fulfilled?”
-The prophet holds the keys to the priesthood to administer necessary ordinances, such as baptism, temple ordinances and authority to guide the church in EVERY manner. But I’m going to direct you to the church website rather than spend finite characters on this post because the entirety of your seemingly insincere inquiry cannot be addressed: http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=bbd508f54922d010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=ab839daac5d98010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____
If you are sincere, research the role of a prophet on this website- and I believe you’ll find the answers to your questions.
In terms of revelation, a very important revelation has been the proclamation on the family. This proclamation lays a concrete foundation about the family as an eternal unit-something no church has asserted. There are many more examples and answers to your questions- So if you want more, research what the prophets have said since 1980 (year I was born).
You are condemning the prophet simply because you have your OWN idea about how Christ should organize His church. I won’t apologize for how He has directed His prophets.
Jacob 4: 10
10 Wherefore, brethren, seek not to counsel the Lord, but to take counsel from his hand. For behold, ye yourselves know that he counseleth in wisdom, and in justice, and in great mercy, over all his works.
Rom. 11: 34
34 For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?
2 Ne. 9: 28-29
28 O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish.
29 But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God.
Falcon,
[Personal comment trimmed by moderator.]
Well, if you have the spiritual gift of prophesy, at least have the intellectual honesty to call yourself a prophesier- which is tantamount to “prophet”. I think this logic is well documented in the DICTIONARY.
And yes, I am completely ignorant to the doctrinal interpretations of your personal religion. Earth to Falcon, but a lot of people would be ignorant to what you think the bible, and Paul himself, teaches. Excuse me for not being aware of your interesting conclusions regarding the gift of prophesy.
Amanda,
You didn’t let me know whether or not you understood my point above. I hope you take it to heart. You seemed to switch gears to biblical interpretation / the need for a modern prophet, so about your Scripture quotes -
Amos 3:7 Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.
I’m not sure what this proves in Mormonism, that we need a prophet today? What secrets have been revealed to today’s prophet before the Lord God did something? When we read the entire book of Amos, it repeats “For three transgressions .. and and for four,” How many times did God warn them before God let down His punishment? This is what the book is about, the Lord God will do nothing to punish the people, without warning them through His prophets.
Eph 2:19-20
This talks about the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets. How many times does one lay a foundation for a house?
Chron. 20:20
I do believe in the true prophets of God and take heed to what they say. What I like about this verse are the words “Believe in the Lord your God”,who is that in Mism? The Lord Jehovah / the Mormon Jesus, and Eloheim is the Father. Do Mormons believe in Jeohvah Jesus their Eloheim? There’s another thread about that…
What about Jeremiah 14:14 And the LORD said to me: The prophets are prophesying lies in my name; I did not send them, nor did I command them or speak to them. They are prophesying to you a lying vision, worthless divination, and the deceit of their own minds.
So there are false prophets that we need to be aware of, also false Christ’s and false spirits. There are tests for prophets. I urge you to apply the biblical test to yours.
(con’t)
Consider-
Luke 16:16 The law and the prophets were in effect until John came; since then the good news…
Heb 1:1-2 Long ago God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son
Mormons do read the Bible through the lens of Mormonism. I urge you to pray to the One True God before reading the Bible that your eyes may be open to His truths.
Amanda,
You said something that I thought very peculiar, “The prophet holds the keys to the priesthood to administer necessary ordinances, such as baptism, temple ordinances and authority to guide the church in EVERY manner.” The last portion is the part I want to touch on, that is the authority to guide the church in every manner. With this authority could a LDS Prophet guide the church in a manner that is less than Godly, could they make remarks that may have lead some astray in the past, only to now be corrected, hence the evolving doctrines of Mormonism?
Now Christians too believe in a prophet who has the authority to Guide the Church in every manner, and bestow the priesthood on any whom He wills, as He alone baptizes with fire. Not only that but He also makes us kings. Yep you guessed it, Jesus Christ, can’t get away from Him. He is our Prophet, not just our High Priest and King. Now if you believe in a single prophet ruling the church why do you not submit to the Lordship of Jesus Christ, the Prophet, who lives forevermore? Furthermore if all believers are in Christ(Eph 2:6;Phi 1:1;Col3:1-4), sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise(Eph 1:13;4:30), then are they(true believers) not also prophets? Thus Christians are like those of the Old Testament who were anointed to carry out the task of prosecuting God’s covenant: warning of the judgment to come, heralding the grace of the New Covenant, aka prophets, by union with the Chief Prophet who is Jesus Christ. As with everything in the Christian faith it comes back to Jesus. As the dead saints have said, we are called Christian “because I am a member of Christ by faith and thus share in His anointing, so that I may as prophet confess His Name” and Christ is the True Prophet “revealing to
the church, in all ages, by His Spirit and word, in divers ways of administration, the whole will of God, in all things concerning their edification and salvation.” I will follow Christ, the True Prophet, will you?
Lautensack
Amanda,
My comments have nothing to do with my personal religion which I take it you mean some denomination. I consider myself a Biblical Christian without the need of a specific label. Everything I gave you regarding prophesy and prophets is in the Bible, specifically the NT. Christians don’t need a “go to guy” sitting in some tall office building in Salt Lake City like the LDS do. God has equipped/gifted each member of the body to function as a unit..”we are to grow up in all aspects into Him, who is the head, even Christ, from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by that which every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.” If you learn the full counsel of God’s Word, this is all very clear. It has nothing to do with denominational religion but everything to do with what it says in God’s Word. God’s saving grace and spiritual gifts are available to all who will humble themselves and by faith receive Him. The assurance of salvation is God’s first and greatest gift offered through His Son Jesus Christ. You can know today, with confidence, your eternal destiny.
Interesting that my comments were trimmed, for the record, they were hardly offensive, certainly not more than Falcon’s.
Jer,
“You didn’t let me know whether or not you understood my point above. I hope you take it to heart.”
I thought it was your intention that I take NOTHING to heart because it isn’t as solid as “biblical interpretation”. So I gave you biblical interpretations…to which you just rejected-
“You seemed to switch gears to biblical interpretation / the need for a modern prophet…I’m not sure what this proves in Mormonism, that we need a prophet today?”
I was pointing out the need and certainly the biblical prescription (NEW TESTAMENT) and acknowledgment of Prophets. Meaning, yes, we need them, and it is apparently, according to those scriptures, part of God’s plan to reveal “his secrets”. These scriptures didn’t prove to me personally that we have a prophet…I’ve had a testimony of that since I was a little girl. That testimony came through the Holy Ghost. This scripture was simply an attempt to cater to your “only bible scriptures” limited perspective.
“Luke 16:16 The law and the prophets were in effect until John came; since then the good news…”
This is simple…When Christ came, He was the mouthpiece physically on earth…to organize His own church..he called apostles, did he not? Those apostles carried keys until they passed away, hence the apostasy- That scripture does not refute the reality of prophets today.
Heb 1:1-2 Long ago God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son–
I read that to mean they are referring to their present time, present dispensation, because the Savior walked the earth with them at that time…
The savior isn’t on the earth, so when He speaks, he speaks through His prophets. This has always been His model.
(cont.)
Falcon, Jer,
(Jer said)
“So there are false prophets that we need to be aware of, also false Christ’s and false spirits. There are tests for prophets. I urge you to apply the biblical test to yours.”
May I suggest then, that we be aware of Falcon…he has claimed to be a prophesier- I’m not sure he’s right about that.
But in all seriousness; (I got this from Elder Ballards Talk in 1999, Beware of False Prophets)
“The Apostle Paul warned of these days: “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
“And they shall turn away their ears from the truth” (2 Tim. 4:3–4).
Paul also taught that the Lord “gave some, apostles; and some, prophets …
“For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
“Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, …
“That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive” (Eph. 4:11–14).”
Might I suggest reading the entirety of this article? His idea of False prophets might surprise you. It isn’t always someone with “prophet” in the title…so falcon, you might be safe!
Your attempt at convincing me that President Monson is a false prophet is completely overshadowed by what the Holy Ghost has impressed on the minds of millions, including myself. 13 million people have no problem accepting Christ’s prophet and apostles. They serve, they love and guide us in the way the Savior would. That is the fruit- I feel closer to the Savior when I listen to their guidance- that is how I know. I deeply regret that you openly rebel against His prophets! How much you miss!
I pray that we can all humble ourselves a little more, and think less of what we know, and more of what He would have us know.
Is it just me or is communicating with Mormons on certain isseus exceedingly difficult? It never is a give and take, it is “you are wrong and we are right”.
Amanda says the savior is not on earth and we need apostles/prophets to speak with him now. How many times have we said that God speaks directly to us?
I like the Frist chapter of Ephesians where it says this: “7In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace 8that he lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding. 9And he[d] made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, 10to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment—to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ.”
We see here that God, along with grace, he made known to us the mystery of his will, and all wisdom and understanding. Notice this is through Christ’s blood that this was given. It has already happened! It is a past event, and not one that continues on. Notice also the word “all”. Not some, or part, but all.
In other words, Christ gave us all we need to know.
In my saying it is difficult to talk to Mormons, I do not intend to be demeaning, but only to express frustration. A few have engaged in honest debate, but even then it comes to a point where despite all the evidence– spiritual or physical– we run into a brick wall. What is frustrating is that I am sure most evangelicals when presented with solid evidence pointing a differentn direction will reconsider their views. We then assume others will react the same. Evidently, this is not true.
Amanda,
When I say “I hope you take it to heart” I mean I hope you give thought to and understand what is being said, because many times you don’t seem to hear what anyone says, but rather breeze over it without a thought, then come back with sarcasm while running in every different direciton with your posts. You list many verses which I explained in context. This includes your Amos quote taken out of context, and I asked you to read the whole book.
How sad Mormonism teaches a man is needed to direct the way, but what is even sadder, Amanda, is that Mormons believe this and refuse the truth. Your quotes from “Elder Ballards Talk” describe everything the false religion of Mormonism embodies. You said “The savior isn’t on the earth”, and I can only hope you are kidding. Jesus said where 2 or 3 are gathered… that He is with us…His church will never pass away…but it seems trying to reason with you is a futile exercise because anything and everything must be disregarded in favor of what the “authorities” say.
You again fall back on your testimony. We’ve already had this discussion and you disregarded the caution. I am sorry the only “fruit” you consider is how good you feel. The fruits are the false teachings, polygamy, etc. You regret I rebel against modern day Mormon false prophets. I regret you openly rebel against the true Jesus Christ and have exchanged Him for a lie. The more I read of your posts on this board the more I realize how deceitful and controlling the Mormon church is. May God have mercy on you and set you free.
Amanda,
I would echo what has been said by a couple of our contributors that you don’t seems to have a desire to process the information that is presented to you here. Before His ascension Jesus told His disciples that they would receive power when the Holy Spirit came upon them. This was seen in dramatic fashion on the day of Pentecost. The Holy Spirit is God’s gift to the Church in that the Spirit indwells those who come to Jesus in faith. (Just a side-bar, the Jesus of the Bible) The indwelling Spirit provides gifts that can be manifested within the believer for the building up of the Body of Christ. One of these gifts is the gift of prophesy. Now if you are going to be so stiff necked and hard headed to ignore what is in black and white in the Bible, then I have little hope for you. You are depending on a testimony that cannot provide you with the salvation of your soul. In First John the Apostle says “These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, in order that you may know that you have eternal life.” You may have that assurance today, that the restored Mormon gospel cannot bring you. I urge you to turn to Christ in faith and receive the gift of salvation that God offers you through Jesus Christ.
Jer AND Falcon,
I am limited in responding to the entirety of EVERY response I get. Please try and understand that it is no easy task for me to respond to everything everyone directs my way- yet you expect unrealistic things from me, and in such a hateful manner. Perhaps this is why I am sarcastic, short and uninterested in my responses, at times. Forgive me. But I have made an effort in all of my posts to respond to principles I wanted to talk about or respond to- I have to employ some method in narrowing the topics I discuss/answer.
In terms of me not understanding, I would beg you to be fair and acknowledge that we have DISAGREEMENTS about scripture- (a common phenomenon even in your Christian circles)- and on top of that, I haven’t read EVERY single scripture in the bible- or every single word spoken by latter day prophets…so I have limited knowledge…don’t we all? I wish that perspective was shown more by all of us.
It is not my fault that you don’t understand me. It is not my responsibility to make sure you agree with my positions and understandings. I would appreciate if you would see me with more of a Christian lens rather than a critic’s lense. I promise you, if you got to know me more, you would find even more weaknesses. But if you take your focus off my weaknesses and focus on the strength of my testimony in the restored gospel, I think then you might gain something from my perspective…whether your agree or not.
But let’s be realistic, you aren’t really interested in “processing information” either, Falcon, since you wholeheartedly and pridefully reject any reading material I offer you. You seem to think you have all the answers–so why should it matter what I say or think? Many of us are not here because we want to be enlightened…many of us are here because we think we can enlighten others- perhaps we should all repent.
I refuse to apologize for not rejecting what I know to be true. The gospel is restored.
Michael,
I empathize greatly with the sentiments you just expressed, interestingly enough.
The scripture in Ephesians seems to mean to you that Christ’s coming to this earth, teaching and atoning has fulfilled the need for prophets seers and revelators? I hope I understand you.
Is it not also true that those in the old testament received of God’s “grace”…yet there were still prophets. Exodus 33:12-13, 16-17. In terms of the Law of Moses, it is important to suggest that this law was given for symbolic teaching of the relationship between justice and mercy. Sacrificing a lamb did not really satisfy the demands of justice on a sinful people, did it? Christs’ grace does not apply simply AFTER the event on the cross, it is ETERNAL–without beginning or end. Understanding this, you may realize the context of prophets. They are used to organize His church on the earth- and Christ is ALWAYS at the cornerstone. When Christ walked, before his atoning sacrifice, he too organized His church and called apostles.
“to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ.”
Christ IS AT the head…He is the cornerstone. It is incredibly bold to suggest that Christ speaks to His prophets today, yet the position latter day saints have taken in regards to God’s plan for us- and how he reveals it, is completely biblical in light of interpretation- which we have every right to do, interpret (we just do it with His prophets, so that might give us a bit of an edge- not meaning to sound like this is any virtue of mine- just stating the truth as I see it).
This is an interesting double standard that reveals true intellectual dishonesty; we are only entitled to your interpretation when explaining OUR faith? Lest we forget the many different interpretations that exist amongst MANY denominations.
You’ll just have to be patient with us “mormons”, I guess- we are a peculiar people. We certainly need to do better on many things.
Amanda,
Acts 19:5-6 “And when they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying.” These were new believers baptized in water and the Holy Spirit and blessed with the spiritual gift of prophesy in the NT Church.
Acts 21:8-9 “And on the next day we departed and came to Caesarea; and entering the house of Philip the evangelist, who was one of the seven, we stayed with him. Now this man had four virgin daughters who were prophetesses.” Yes, women blessed with the gift of prophesy.
Believers in the Jesus of the Bible, don’t have to be high ranking individuals in some speciific religious group to be blessed with the gift of prophesy. These gifts of the Spirit are given to men and women alike, regardless of their social/religious standing or rank. They are given for the common good of the Body to build the individuals up to the fullness of Christ. To be alive in the Spirit rather than to be caught in the trap of performing endless rituals in the hope of attaining righteousness, is God’s gift to all who come to Him in faith with a humble heart. The assurance of salvation through Christ is available to all. You can have that assurance also through faith in the Jesus that the scriptures speak of and who I testify to you of, is indeed the Christ.
Amanda,
Yes, those in the OT could be under God’s grace, but they had to accept God as the only God and had to sacrifice something in order to get it, often in the form of a lamb. When Christ was killed, he acted as a sacrifice. His being caled the lamb is no small coincidence. His sacrifice ended all other need to sacrifice. So such discussion is not quite relevent to your point, I don’t think.
And your response also did not address the idea of continuing revelation. Again, if as Ephesians tells us, all wisdom and grace is already given, we cannot get any more! Everything is out there for us to receive, which we do when we accept Christ. This is not to say we do not grow in understanding, but it is to say nothing else can be revealed. You believe more is to be revealed, no? The discussion on polygamy come to mind? What of blacks? Revelation is ongoing in your mind, as these topics show.
The cornerstone? Are you now saying everything lives or dies on Christ now? That the cornerstone is Christ, and there are no others? This would be a fair interpretation of what you have written here, even though it goes against a discussion seen here before on you having multiple cornerstones. Which is it?
I also love this line: “…completely Biblical in light of interpretation…” Well, I guess anything can be Biblical in line of interpretation, and this goes to my thought that you are post-modern. This is why you are hard to pin down, because this “light of interpretation” can be whatever you want it to be in any given situation. Hate to say it, but you do indeed have the right to do as you wish.
A final example of the problems within your way of thinking in this post: you are not the only Mormon church, either, as we have discussed. This kind of negates your criticism of us on these lines.
To sum it up, you can think what you want, but when it comes down to it, your faith makes no sense.
Michael,
I was pointing out that his (priesthood) organization was the same in the old testament, the new testament…and today. So it would be more acceptable logically for you to simply say that He hasn’t organized his church yet, and these Mormon prophets are still fakes. But to suggest that He does speak, just to the individual, leaves many questions to those who seek what His doctrine truly is. Hence the dilemma Joseph Smith faced in his time. When the individual is solely responsible for finding God’s will for His church, you get many different denominations due to many different interpretations by reading the same bible…forget the outcome by reading different versions of the bible.
Individual revelation is still very real but does not take the place of prophetic revelation. There isn’t a consensus amongst the “Christian Club” on valid practices regarding baptism and other sacred ordinances such as the sacrament(why there is such a drift between protestantism and catholicism). That’s a problem. Especially since Christ commands us to be baptized in His name:
Mark 10: 38-39
38 But Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask: can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?
39 And they said unto him, We can. And Jesus said unto them, Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized:
Eph. 4: 5
5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
Christ in this passage, sends His apostles, not just witnesses or believers- APOSTLES to baptize. That signifies authority.
Matthew 28:19
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world, Amen.
cont…
That last scripture I referenced Christ is speaking to His apostles when he tells them to teach the rest of us to observe His commandments.
I think there is a relationship between prophets and the Lord teaching us how to submit to His will through obedience. How obedient would we really have to be when we are defining His gospel on our own personal terms? Not very. Seeing all of the different changes in Christian churches that are simply blowing with the winds of change, we realize that this standard being prescribed by mainstream Christianity, is easily influenced by the devil. Homosexuality, as an act, is being widely accepted by the ordination of gay priests…is this not a drastic change from what many of us believe is taught in the bible? Yet they use the bible to justify it. There are many more examples.
Furthermore, it has never been easy to accept a living prophet- because it requires humility and submission. Did not the Jews see Moses as no one of consequence? Because they are just men, it requires great faith to accept that their words are from the Lord. They fall short in many ways- but the message is still of divine origin. Many have suggested on this site, including myself, to see the fruits of these prophets, and that is how you will know. Name one bad fruit of the ministry of Gordon B. Hinckley! It is hard to be a good man, yet lie about being a prophet…is it not?
But I fear many of you will never make a serious inquiry- I can’t do much about that. All I can do is testify of the restored gospel. It is restored, it is wonderful, it is true- and we want everyone to enjoy its’ fulness!
MichaelP,
Just want to draw to your attention from the verses you quoted – Ephesians 1: 7In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace 8that he lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding. 9And he[d] made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, 10to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment—to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ.
Then you said “In other words, Christ gave us all we need to know.
In reference to James 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. the Evangelicals on this site point out that it clearly states ‘wisdom’ not knowledge. So you are incorrect in your interpretation of the above verses as no where does it state ‘knowledge’ – it says wisdom and understanding. Yes it says that He has made known the mystery of His will, but it does not state that we have been given all knowledge. So unless you want to concede our interpretation of James 1:5, then you cannot interpret Ephesians the way you want to.
Amanda,
Let’s see, you want to judge a prophet by his fruits. Would you be willing to do that with Joseph Smith? I don’t think so. Mormons have to ignore and/or justify a whole host of behavior problems with their founder. For example, Joseph Smith left a legacy of perverted sexual misconduct that lives on today in groups that are most closely aligned with his teachings and practices. He was a well known prevaricator, manipulator and deceiver. He used a magic seer stone to hunt for buried treasure and used it by putting it in the bottom of a hat which he shoved his face into to “translate” the BoM. The Book of Abraham has been proven to be a complete fabrication. He said an angel with a sword threatened him if he didn’t take on more wives. I’m running out of space here. I know, it doesn’t make any difference. OT prophets sinned. You have a testimony that proves the restored gospel is all true. Evidence doesn’t matter. It comes from men. I would pray that some how a miracle would take place and that you could break free from the veil of deceit that shrouds you.
First Amanda,
You get many denominations of Mormonism, too, when you rely on the voice of a prophet. I know, you don’t think the others are true– only yours. That’s fine, but do you see the trouble with your argument from our eyes? I doubt you will, and its due to a lack of serious inquiry.
Revelation. Let me ask you this– why do you need a prophet? What has he told you recently that is not in the scriptures? What has he told you that Jesus and the writers of the Bible have not already?
Submission. Do you really want to talk about what it means to submit?
I condemn the churches who allow gay priests. You cannot use that as an example to support your position. They are outside the mold of Christianity, as would any church who willingly allowed drunks, fornicators, adulturers, liars, cheats etc to lead.
Why is lack of a uniform way to complete the act of baptism a problem? In order to discuss, we have to ask what it means to be baptized, which we would also see reference to baptism by spirit. Ergo, your stance is not so definitive.
Raplh,
Where did I say we get all knowledge? I don’t believe I said that. And I would argue that through all wisdom and understanding, we are given all we need to know for our salvation. Thus, revelation in the sense you use it is not necessary. Why would we need to be revealed something which is already out there?
Amanda,
I wasn’t able to address a comment you made a little while back, but here goes. I asked you what new revelation has come about since you were born that had an effect on your salvation?
You mentioned the proclamation to the family.
I encourage you to read the proclamation again and give me just two lines of “new” information thats needed for salvation. The whole thing is about being good member of a family unit and that marriages are ordained of God. In other words, be a good person because family is important..
What?! God wants us to be good people now?! thats news to me! Oh, thank you thank you for the prophet, I would have never had known that.
Besides all the masonic rituals performed inside the temple and the command of polygamy, there hasn’t been one thing, at least that I can think of, that has been revealed by a prophet to have any effect on salvation.