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
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 “Anti-mormon” 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 “anti-Mormon”. 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.