The October 2008 edition of First Things contains a lengthy article titled, “Is Mormonism Christian?” The article is in two parts. The first was written by LDS Seventy Bruce D. Porter and takes one position; Christian professor and author Gerald R. McDermott wrote the second part, concluding with a different opinion.
After lamenting the poor secular reporting on the LDS Church, Dr. Porter writes:
“All this has led to considerable misunderstanding about what Latter-day Saints believe about the central subject of Christian religion: Jesus Christ and his atonement for sin. One can find innumerable assertions that Mormons do not believe Jesus was the messiah, that they do not believe he atoned for the sins of the fallen human race, and that they believe salvation comes by works.
“All of these statements are false, and they reflect incomprehension of Mormon beliefs and doctrine.”
Dr. Porter continues by explaining various LDS beliefs including:
“Latter-day Saints revere the Bible as the word of God…Our most criticized departure from mainstream Christianity is our acceptance of another work, the Book of Mormon, as the divinely revealed word of God…A vital aspect of Latter-day Saint theology—and its most obvious difference from traditional Christianity—is the belief that Jesus Christ is an individual being, separate from God the Father in corporeality and substance…Latter-day Saints affirm the reality of the virgin birth…Our beliefs regarding the savior’s mortal life are based on a literal reading of the biblical texts…he organized his Church and delegated authority to his apostles to administer it after his ascension…that he suffered in Gethsemane and at Golgotha, that he died for the sins of mankind on the cross, and that he was resurrected on the third day.”
Dr. Porter includes much more about Christ’s atonement, the sinfulness of mankind, and salvation by grace via “receiving Christ as the redeemer and exercising faith in him.” He concludes,
“Are Mormons Christian? By self-definition and self-identity, unquestionably so. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints affirms that it is a Christian-faith denomination, a body of believers who worship Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, and who witness that salvation is possible only by his atoning blood and grace.”
Nevertheless, Dr. McDermott holds a different position. He writes,
“…the true distinction between Mormons and non-Mormons on revelation is not whether God still speaks to his people but whether he spoke to Joseph Smith in a way that reinterprets what he said to the first-century apostles. The question of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon is the first of two principal distinctions between the Latter-day Saint faith and orthodox Christian theology.”
Dr. McDermott provides a run-down of history and teachings attributed to Christ which are found in the Book of Mormon then asks,
“What are we to make of this history of Jesus? Can we believe that the same Jesus who preached and healed and was crucified in Palestine came just a year or so later to the Americas and said and did all these things?
“There are four reasons this is unlikely.
Dr. McDermott details these reasons with clarity, but I will only list them:
- Corroborating witnesses/lack of witnesses
- Contemporary witnesses/witness removed by centuries
- Inconsistencies between the “Palestinian Jesus” and the “American Jesus”
- “Intratextual inconsistencies” between the Book of Mormon Jesus and the Jesus Joseph Smith developed over time.
He explains,
“At the end of his life, in his King Follett funeral sermon (1844), Joseph Smith prophesied against the Trinity, saying that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three separate Gods. While this is now official doctrine, there are no signs of this rejection of the Trinity in the Book of Mormon.
“In fact, quite the opposite.”
Dr. McDermott demonstrates the presence of abundant Trinitarian teaching in the Book of Mormon and concludes,
“If the prophet responsible for the Book of Mormon made cosmically significant changes in his view of God over the course of his prophetic career, one has less confidence in the reliability of his prophecies, particularly those that purport to provide a new history of God on earth.”
Dr. McDermott continues his analysis of “Is Mormonism Christian?” with a discussion about the nature of Christ, summed up here:
“…Mormon beliefs diverge widely from historic Christian orthodoxy. The Book of Mormon, which is Mormonism’s principal source for its claim to new revelation and a new prophet, lacks credibility. And the Jesus proclaimed by Joseph Smith and his followers is different in significant ways from the Jesus of the New Testament: Smith’s Jesus is a God distinct from God the Father; he was once merely a man and not God; he is of the same species as human beings; and his being and acts are limited by coeternal matter and laws.”
When LDS Seventy Bruce Porter concludes his part of this First Things article, he changes the question from “Is Mormonism Christian?” to “Are Mormons Christian?” He declares his verdict that Mormons are Christians who belong to a church that is part of the Christian community, a church made up of “a body of believers” who worship Jesus Christ. He writes,
“To the title Christian a critic of Mormonism may add any modifiers he deems appropriate—unorthodox, heretical, non-Nicene, different—but blanket assertions that we are not Christian are a poor substitute for informed argument and dialogue.”
Based on the information outlined by Dr. McDermott, to the title of “Christian” as it relates to Mormonism, I would add the simple modifier “non.” But I would be very careful before saying the same thing about an individual Mormon. Dr. Porter has blurred the distinction between the religious system and individuals. This is yet another difference between Mormonism and Christianity. The question, “Is Mormonism Christian?” means one thing to Dr. Porter and another to Dr. McDermott. The LDS website clarifies,
“Anyone who accepts Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Redeemer of the world is a Christian, regardless of differences in theology”
But for orthodox Christians, theology, or Christology, is really a core issue. Whether discussing religions or individuals, the paramount question is always “Who do you say that I am?” (Matthew 16:15)
Nevertheless, any discussion is useful, and this First Things article is very helpful and well worth reading. Dr. McDermott has definitely not made any “blanket assertion[s]”; he has provided a well-informed and thoughtful argument to answer the question asked by the editors. I leave you with his closing paragraph:
“The intent of this essay is not to say that individual Mormons will be barred from sitting with Abraham and the saints at the marriage supper of the Lamb. We are saved by a merciful Trinity, not by our theology. But the distinguished scholar of Mormonism Jan Shipps was only partly right when she wrote that Mormonism is a departure from the existing Christian tradition as much as early Christianity was a departure from Judaism. For if Christianity is a shoot grafted onto the olive tree of Judaism, Mormonism as it stands cannot be successfully grafted onto either.”
Those of you that have rejected my comparison outright, that differences in theology between 1st and 3rd century Christians are similar to the differences that Mormons and Christians have today, and have continued to compare Mormonism to Gnostic beliefs, should take note that these arguments are addressed as well.
In “Are Mormons Christian” by Stephen E. Robinson:
Now, please note that I am not resorting to heterodox writers -Gnostics, Marcionites, and so on-for evidence here. I am referring to only the mainstream writers of Christian orthodoxy-the New Testament writers, the Apostolic Fathers, the Greek Apologists, and the Nicene Fathers themselves-to provide examples of Christians whose doctrine of God was not that of later trinitarianism. If Latter-day Saints can be criticized for not perceiv-ins the biblical God in the same terms as other Christians, then many early Christian writers, saints, and theologians must be criticized on the same grounds. It is just not historically correct that all true Christians have, from the beginning, perceived God in exactly the same trinitarian terms.
The doctrine of the Trinity is one that corrupts real Christianity, so a belief in that doctrine should disqualify a person or a Church from the label of Christian.
Once again, I conclude that Mormons are the real Christians.
falcon said:
“Mormons do not worship the same God as Christians”
That argument is seriously flawed by some additional facts that Robinson outlines in his book:
…I don’t need to disprove the Nicene view for the purposes of my argument. For if Jesus didn’t teach the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity; if the New Testament writers didn’t have any conception of it; if the Apostolic Fathers didn’t know about it or even appreciate the problems associated with it; and if the formula itself wasn’t even developed until the fourth century and, even then, those who signed it didn’t understand it in completely orthodox terms; then one cannot maintain that the Nicene doctrine, as interpreted by modern trinitarians, is essential to true Christianity, unless of course one wants to say that there weren’t any true Christians before the fourth century-including Jesus, his disciples, and the New Testament Church.
That seems like a solid argument to me. falcon?
quoting continued:
The real objection to the LDS belief in an anthropomorphic Father comes not from the Hebraic world of the first Christians, nor from Jesus and his Jewish disciples, nor from their Judeo-Christian writings. The real objections are rooted in the God of the philosophers, in the Hellenistic conception of God as an absolute being – abstract, ultimate, and transcendent. The LDS God is the God of the Hebrew Bible, but he is not the God of the philosophers. Regarding these two differing perceptions of God, Shaye J. D. Cohen observes:
The God of the Hebrew Bible is very different from the supreme God of Plato or Aristotle. The former is an anthropomorphic being capable of anger, joy, and other emotions, who created the world and continues to direct human affairs. The God of the philosophers, however, was a much less human and much more abstract figure, incapable of emotion, and far removed from the daily concerns of humanity. Many Jews tried to combine these two conceptions, or, more precisely, to reinterpret the God of the Bible in the light of the ideas of the philosophers, especially Plato …. This approach to scripture was developed even further by Origen, Ambrose, and other fathers of the church.fn
83The God of the Nicene Council is, in a sense, a convert. He represents the God of the Hebrew scriptures converted into nonbib-lical, philosophical terms. While the Nicene God was a divinity with whom the Hellenistic Christians of the fourth and fifth centuries could feel more intellectually comfortable than with the God described in the “primitive” language of the New Testament, he was no longer the God of first-century Jewish Christianity. Cohen continues:
83The God of the Hebrew Bible is for the most part an anthropomorphic and anthropopathic being, that is, a God who has the form and emotions of humans …. The God of the philosophers is a different sort of being altogether: abstract.
Arius said that if the Father begat the Son, then the Son must have had a birth, and therefore there was a time when the Son of God did not exist. The Son had come into existence according to the will of the heavenly Father, and therfore He was less than the heavenly Father, through greater than man. Christ was no more than a mediator between man and God. Athanasius answered that Christ is absolute God. The difference between Christ the mediator and Christ the God is a very real one, and whether Christ is of the same substance (homo-ousios) or a like substance (homoi ousios) to God the Father is a matter of importance tho all Christians. Following Arius, a person could believe that Christ was no more than a great, virtuous, and superbly godlike hero. Alexander of Alexandria said, “The novelties the Arians have put forward contrary to the Scriptures are these: God was not always a Father….the Word of God was not always…(for) there was a time when he was not…neither is he like in essence to the Father; neither is he the true and natural Word of the Father; neither is he his true wisdom…And the Father cannot be described by the Son, for the Word does not know the Father perfectly and accurately.”
The Arian view as professed by Mormonism is not orthodox Christianity. To arians The son as Word, Logos, was created by God before time. He is not eternal or perfect like God, though he was God’s agent in creating everything else. This view pretty much captures the view of Mormonism. This is not the Jesus of orthodox Christianity, no matter what Mormon apologists might claim.
(source material Christian History issue 51 vol.XV, No.3)
Cluff…there is a HUGE difference between using anthropomorphic language to describe God for the sake of humans and God being a man!!
I still haven’t gotten an answer to why He doesn’t also have breasts and a uterus if male and female were both made in His image.
Let the greatly respected Jewish rabbi Maimonides make this crystal clear for you: “I do not believe that any man can doubt the correctness of the assertion that the Creator is not in need of anything for the continuance of His existence, or for the improvement of His condition. Therefore, God has no organs, or, what is the same, He is not corporeal; His actions are accomplished by His Essence, not by any organ, and as undoubtedly physical forces are connected with the organs, He does not possess any such forces, that is to say, He has, besides His Essence, nothing that could be the cause of His action, His knowledge, or His will, for attributes are nothing but forces under a different name…. Our Sages laid down a general principle, by which the literal sense of the physical attributes of God mentioned by the prophets is rejected; a principle which evidently shows that our Sages were far from the belief in the corporeality of God, and that they did not think any person capable of misunderstanding it, or entertaining any doubt about it. …they knew that there could not be any doubt about their metaphorical character, or any danger whatever of their being misunderstood; and that all such expressions would be understood as figurative language, employed to communicate to the intellect that notion of His existence.” (Guide For The Perplexed; translated by M. Friedlander; p. 62)
GRCluff,
Of course a Mormon source is going to assume that Christianity was originally Mormon, however to throw out 1800 years of Church History on a whim is simply absurd. Furthermore saying that one does not have to attack the Trinity, is a straw man as the burden of proof rests upon the affirmative position, in this case the Mormon proving they are the real Christians. I have provided sources from prior to your skeptical date of 215 that make clear references to the Trinity. See my post Second October Two-thousand Eight. If you wish for more on the trinity from orthodox writers prior to the Nicene council I will be happy to provide them. Robinson’s argument is a straw man, speaking as though God never said, “For as the heavens are higher than the earth,so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.” (Isaiah 55:9) or “To whom then will you liken God, or what likeness compare with Him?”(Isaiah 40:18 cf 40:25; 46:5) Seems pretty “abstract”, “ultimate”, and “transcendental” not that such would make Him any less personal. In fact I would argue that a monolithic God cannot be personal. As for the assertion by Robinson that the biblical writers, namely the apostles but also Luke, Jude, and the Writer of Hebrews, did not believe in the Trinity is of course an utterly false pre-understanding that scripture simply does not support.
…Continued…
I will refer you to the prologue of John’s Gospel, In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the word was God, and the Word was with God in the beginning. All thins were made through Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made…14And the the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen His glory, glory of the only Son from the Father, full of Grace and Truth…18No one has ever seen God (the Father), the only One, who is God, who is at the Father’s side, He has made Him known.
This is the “primitive” language of the New Testament, and I submit that concluding Jesus is God is the only conclusion that can be drawn from this passage without ravaging the very language John specifically uses itself. Unfortunately most Mormons, much like Muslims, refuse to believe God can be anything other than monolithic, that is one person, one being. John (As fore quoted), Paul (2 Cor 13:14), Peter (1 Peter 1:2), and Matthew (Matt 28:19) do not have this problem with their understanding of God. James clearly states that there is only one God(2:19), yet Christ is called God (John 1:1ff, Isaiah 9:6, Jude 25, Hebrews 1:8ff; Phil 2:1-11; etc)
Finally it is rather ironic that a polytheistic group such as yourselves is seeking to state that your gods are the same God of the Jews. The Jews were strictly Monotheistic, especially in the post exile period.
Shamar Yisrael YHWH Eloheinu YHWH Aekhad.
Hear, O Israel The LORD our God, the LORD is one.
Lautensack
I have been reading the posts here and would like to add my 2 cents.
I am a committed, believing Latter-day Saint. I hold no anger or grudges against those who disagree with me or with LDS doctrine. I have learned for myself that the doctrine is true.
I find the Bible text of John Chapters 15-17 to be of great value in understanding the relationship of Jesus to his Father and of our relationship to Jesus in terms of unity.
First, Jesus prays to his Father about the Apostles:
5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.
7 Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee.
8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.
9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.
10 And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.
Then he prays for those who believe in those who have believed in Jesus through the words of the Apostles:
20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be cone in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are bone:
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
Now I humbly present my understanding of the above verses of John 17.
Jesus is praying to the Father in the presence of the Apostles before he goes to Gethsemane, Golgotha, the tomb, and his resurrection.
He prays that the Father will glorify him as he was previously glorified before his earthly ministry.
Jesus has taught them the words that his Father gave him. They have believed on him as Peter did when he said, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God”. They have received revelation. It burns in their hearts. they have “kept” Jesus’ “word”. they have been faithful and obedient.
They belong to the Son and to the Father.
Now Jesus prays for all those who believe on the words of the Apostles, by the same power and spirit that allowed the apostles to believe.
These are the specific things that he prays for these:
1. That they may be ONE, as Jesus is ONE with his
Father
2. That they may be ONE with both the Father
and the Son.
3. That they might have the same glory that
the Father has given Jesus, to the end that
they may be ONE even as the Father and Son
are ONE.
4. That they may be “perfect in ONE”
5. That the world might know through these that
the Father has sent the Son and has loved
the Son.
I believe that the Son has, in these verses, by definition, described both how He and the Father are ONE, and How each believer may possess that
same UNITY with Him and with the Father.
I do not see the Apostles or the Believers amalgamating into one enormous substance, (The word “substance” is not Biblical), but rather possessing the same, UNITY, JOY, LOVE, POWER,
PURPOSE, DESIRE, STRENGTHS, and CAPACITIES as do the Father and the Son.
The Church has clearly articulated the Doctrine of God for 2,000 years. Now if someone wants to read the scriptures and come up with a different understanding, that’s fine. But know this, it’s not the orthodox Christian view. Therefore Mormonism is not a denomination within the Christian family-that agrees with the essential tenants of the faith-like the doctrine of the nature of God.
The argument comes when Mormonism tries to say that the orthodox Christian view of the nature of God was not what the early Church believed and taught. Like all things in Mormonism, the Mormon history of the early Church is total fantasy. In order to get people to ignore what is clearly taught in the Bible and through historical tradition, Joseph Smith had to come up with his twin conspiracies that the Bible is corrupt and that there was a great apostasy in the early Church-a falling away from the original teachings which he,through revelation, was to restore. The history of the early Chruch is there for all to see. That’s the problem with operating off of revelation for truth as Mormons do. Clear evidence and standards of belief are ignored and revelations are chased after like the next big fad.
Mormonism is not Christian because it is, at it’s core polytheistic. Joseph Smith said, “You have got to learn how to be Goids yourselves…the same as all Gods have done before you…until you are able to dwell in evelasting burnings and sit in glory.” Brighanm Young said “Man is King of Kings and Lord of Lords in embryo.” Orson Pratt said there were more gods than there are particles of matter in a million planets like the earth. Also: “We were begotten by our Father in Heaven; the person of our Father in Heaven was begotten on a previous heavenly world by His Father; and again, He was begotten by a still more ancient Father and so on, from generation to generation, from one heavenly world to another still more ancient, until our minds are wearied and lost in the multiplicity of generations and succussive worlds, and as a last resort, we wonder in our mind, how far back the genealogy extends, and how the first world was formed, and how the first Father was begotten.” Also, “in worshipping any one of these Gods, we worship the whole.”
Mormonism comes into the middle of this stream worships the god that’s in charge of this world. Mormons are polytheists. Christians are monotheists. Mormons believe that God was created. Christians do not. The Bible is clearly and absoulutely monotheistic. Mormons see the Bible as corrupt, they choose revelation over scripture.
Mormons in their desire to be called Christians need to ask themselves if they believe the statement “As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become”? As a Mormon do you believe you will become a god? Joseph Smith said “God sits enthroned in younder heavens an exalted man.” Also “…the soul-the mind of man-the immortal spirit. Where did it come from? All learned men and doctors of divinity say that God created it in the beginning; but it is not so; the very idea lessens men in my estimation…The mind or the intelligence which man possesses is co-equal with God Himself.” This is not Christianity.
Spencer Kimball in Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual Religion 430 and 431 p.3 states:
“The Gods organized and gave life to man and placed him on the earth. This is absolute. It cannot be disproved. A million brilliant minds might conjecture otherwise, but its still true.”
Now did everyone catch that little word “Gods” in the quote. That’s another clear indication that Mormonism is a polytheistic religion while Christianity is a monotheistic religion. That Mormonism tries to pass itself off as part of the Christian faith is nothing more than outright fraud. Mormonism would be better off aligning itself with those who practice Greek mythology with its pantheon of gods and goddesses.
The Hebrews were set apart from their neighbors by the fact that they acknowledged and believed in and worshiped one God-period. Not one God of this world-One God period. Mormonism is set apart from Christianity in that while it claims to worship only the god of this planetary system, they acknowledge more than one god and see the gods as having a hand in the populating of this world. Yup, and the way we know this is true is that it was revealed to a genuine real prophet, who also convenently taught that all of this god/goddess stuff was really practiced by the first century Church but unbeliveably it got left out of the Bible. Can you believe the audacity of those first century plotters and schemers?Mormons, this may be a little too in your face, but how gullible do you think people are? Isn’t this a little beyond embarrassing. It’s getting to the point where it’s difficult to engage in a serious discussion. I would say the task of Christians is to get this information out and let people decide what Mormonism is based on full disclosure and not the slight of hand presentation Mormons provide.
Falcon said: “I would say the task of Christians is to get this information out and let people decide what Mormonism is based on full disclosure and not the slight of hand presentation Mormons provide.”
Yup.
This was why I asked faithoffathers to define his beliefs for us. You’ll notice in his responses, he often left it as if there were more.
In the end, he accused me of misrepresenting what he said. What this tells me is that he either sincerely does not see that our attempts to recreate their beliefs are true, that he doesn’t like what he reads about it so he dismisses our attempts, or that he will do whatever possible to ‘maintain the faith’.
I hold no ill will to him, and appreciate his attempts to discuss and clarify. But he’ll get the same question so many have: where in his discussion with me did I misrepresent what he said?
Mike Bennion, I appreciate your thoughts, too. But take a look back through the discussion and answer the questions I have posed. We do need to establish what each side really believes first. Resorting to scripture before we do this won’t help much (unless you are willing to say that we are not really Christians, like, to his credit, GRCLuff has done). Only one of us are Christians, as our beleifs are to far apart to share the moniker.
mike bennion,
Thank you for dealing with John 17, I too have provided a summery on John 17, see my post on October First of this year. First I would like to ask are the only ways that God and Jesus unified “JOY, LOVE, POWER, PURPOSE, DESIRE, STRENGTHS, and CAPACITIES”? Are they not also united in Glory, Honor, Knowledge, Wisdom, Mission, Peace, Kindness, Patience, Self Control, et cetera. Things that John 17 does not touch on. John 17 touches 4 ways that the Father and Son are unified, and how the church should be unified, Glory, Love, Mission, Knowledge. How much more are the Father and Son unified than just these?
Also you seem to think that simply because a specific term does not appear in the Bible, be it Trinity, essence, substance, being, et cetera, that the concept is not found there. Please correct me if I am misunderstanding you. I would also ask you to take out your quad and search for the term “Eternal Progression.” You wont find that term in your scriptures. Does this mean that the doctrine is false. According to your own critique when dealing with the Trinity this must be your position lest you set up one standard for your own way of thinking and another for that of the Christan, which frankly is not honest. Again I applaud you for examining the text and trying to deal directly with it, yet let’s try to be consistent. I look forward to your response.
Lautensack
Lautensack,
Thank you for your reply. I think this is not off topic, as the understanding of the nature of God and man’s relationship to him is an essential part of Christian doctrine and practice.
May I ask you if you consider the Bible to be the final, complete and inerrant word of God?
May I further inquire as to your understanding of the way that God relates with man in our day as to communicating an understanding of correct doctrine?
This will help me to be accurate in my reply vis a vis your particular frame of reference.
I look forward to a substantive, well mannered and reasoned discussion of the nature of God and how that nature is revealed.
mike bennion
Michael P,
Nice name!
I will be happy to answer questions. as my time is limited and there is much to read, would you be so kind as to list the specific questions you would like me to address?
I believe that names that are used to designate affiliation are often used in such an arbitrary manner that it is difficult to use them with specificity. The designation “Christian” is just such a word. I understand that your designation of the word does not match my beliefs. I also maintain that my understanding of meaning of the word is congruent with the doctrine that I accept. This is more a question of semantics than a matter of doctrine.
Mike B., fine name indeed.
But do you not think the semantics matter when discussing doctrine and in witnessing?
You asked Lautenack to define his beliefs? Why? Because it gives you the frame of reference from which to approach discussing these matters with him.
Let me just suppose that he finished describing his beliefs and then says that he really is Mormon, and he knows that his beliefs don’t match up to yours, but its really just a matter of semantics. How do you react?
Do you say that he can consider himself Mormon, even though his belief in a singular, triune God is in direct conflict with your belief of three separate gods making up one godhead? Even though he does not believe in progression to godhood? Even though he denies Joseph Smith as a prophet, or that God ever encouraged polygamy?
Do you still say this even when he hits the streets in a concerted effort to convert people to “Mormonism”?
These issues are not just semantics, friend, but actually represent directly the doctrine. It is a matter of presentation and consequent deceit, since one of us has to be deceiving the world. So, who is it?
I happen to think that labels (names), though sometimes it is unfortunate, matter. Labels define issues, and they create immediately an image about what one represents. Christian invokes an image of one who believes in the Jesus of the Bible, who is part of the triune God, rose to save us from our sins and who has been worshipped consistently since his death on a cross 2000 years ago.
It does not invoke images of one who believes in JS, progression to godhood, or anything Mormon.
So, either Christians have been decieving the world for 2000 years, or Mormons have for the last 150 (actually closer to 100– since that’s about when they started trying to be Christian).
Michael P,
Have been gone a couple of days. Reading the posts over this period, I think you and I are not understanding each other, my friend. I in no way intended to say you were misrepresenting me or my beliefs. My intent was to suggest that people, be they evangelicals or others who disagree with us on these details, who go out and proclaim to joe public that LDS are not Christians are not representing us fairly.
What I was saying is that an average person listening to the “talking points” of these critics of the LDS church would make incorrect conclusions about us in fundamental ways. They would come away thinking that we do not believe in Jesus as the Son of God, that He was divine, which we absolutely do. As if we believe Jesus was just a man or prophet. And I think some of these critics know this and are dishonest.
Yes- we believe differently than you. But the claim that “Christianity” is united in their beliefs is far out. There has been anything but cohesion over the last 2000 years. A very big percentage of Christianity would agree with me that Jesus is literally the Son of God. I would not dismiss these people so quickly. They may not study in seminaries or have formal learning, but they live good lives based on Christ.
Which brings me to another point again. Who has the authority to interpret the Bible? If you are right in saying the LDS church is not what it claims, than I still have just as much authority as you or anybody else in the world to interpret the Bible. You do not have the authority to determine who is Christian and who is not any more than I would. Nobody can claim anything with AUTHORITY if you are right. You can study and interpret all day and are left with an opinion, which bares no more weight than another’s.
If there IS modern revelation through Joseph Smith and his successors, than it is a whole different ballgame, and interpreting the Bible is hugely facilitated by modern prophets.
Michael P:
Mike B., fine name indeed.
Mike B:
Well, we agree on something right off the bat.
Michael P:
But do you not think the semantics matter when discussing doctrine and in witnessing?
Mike B:
I’m wondering what Paul was thinking about semantics when he taught the Athenians on Mars Hill. Do you really think that Paul believed that the “Unknown God” that the Greeks worshiped at an idol, was there to denote the Father or the Son or the Holy Ghost or a Trinitarian combination of said beings? I think, rather that Paul was searching for a common place to introduce them to his understanding of God and to bear witness of Christ.
Michael P:
You asked Lautenack to define his beliefs? Why? Because it gives you the frame of reference from which to approach discussing these matters with him.
Mike B:
It also allows me not to misrepresent his beliefs or frame of reference as we interact. If the only argument that counts is who gets to define the meaning of “Christian”, it matters more than if we are trying to comprehend what God, himself meant when he gave the verses in John 17 to John, the Revelator. After all it may be difficult to nail down the precise word used in the original, since we don’t have the original and John would have referred to himself by whatever Aramaic word corresponded to our English “Christian” anyway. Since then we have filtered it through Greek, Latin, German and King James English.
I personally am more interested in the nature of a true relationship between God and man, rather than what we call one in the relationship.
Michael P:
Let me just suppose that he finished describing his beliefs and then says that he really is Mormon, and he knows that his beliefs don’t match up to yours, but its really just a matter of semantics. How do you react?
Mike B:
By going to scripture and discussing our beliefs according to that frame of reference. Also by asking questions and receiving feedback to clarify each other’s meaning.
Michael P:
Do you say that he can consider himself Mormon, even though his belief in a singular, triune God is in direct conflict with your belief of three separate gods making up one godhead? Even though he does not believe in progression to godhood? Even though he denies Joseph Smith as a prophet, or that God ever encouraged polygamy? Do you still say this even when he hits the streets in a concerted effort to convert people to “Mormonism”?
Mike B:
You assume that I believe in “three separate gods” (with a small “g”). How do you know that?
You haven’t asked me what I believe. You have inferred my beliefs from a grand total of two blog entries. Might it not be important to nail that down before we proceed to the specifics of your hypothetical?
Michael P:
These issues are not just semantics, friend, but actually represent directly the doctrine. It is a matter of presentation and consequent deceit, since one of us has to be deceiving the world. So, who is it?
Mike B:
That would be determined in the mind and heart of each person who reads the discussion based upon the scriptures cited and upon their frame of reference as it relates to ours. To wax rhetorical: Does that mean that they will all reach the correct conclusion? No. Truth is truth, regardless of frames of reference. Does that mean that no good can come from the discussion? No. Those involved might be able to come away from the discussion with increased understanding that could advance the cause of tolerance.
Michael P:
I happen to think that labels (names), though sometimes it is unfortunate, matter. Labels define issues, and they create immediately an image about what one represents.
Mike B:
Labels may define issues, or they may obscure them. When facts are obscured by semantics it is unfortunate. This is especially true when the person doing the labeling, has an incorrect understanding of the beliefs and doctrines of the people that he labels.
Michael P:
Christian invokes an image of one who believes in the Jesus of the Bible, who is part of the triune God, rose to save us from our sins and who has been worshiped consistently since his death on a cross 2000 years ago.
Mike B:
“Christian” to YOU connotes all these things. Some might take issue with your assertion that the “Jesus of the Bible” is “part of (a) triune God” in the sense that God is defined by, for example, the Nicene Council. To so label God without showing facts in evidence is to confuse connotation with denotation and is subjective at best.
I would, by the way, agree that Jesus rose to save us from our sins since his death on the cross.
See, we have some commonality already!
Michael P:
It does not invoke images of one who believes in JS, progression to godhood, or anything Mormon.
Mike B:
It does not invoke them to YOU. That is not to say that such images are not invoked in others. The question requires reference to objective evidence primarily from the scriptures.
Michael P:
So, either Christians have been deceiving the world for 2000 years, or Mormons have for the last 150 (actually closer to 100– since that’s about when they started trying to be Christian).
Mike B:
Or, alternately, traditional orthodox Christians inherited a flawed belief system due to apostasy through no fault of their own and God restored in the 1820’s what was lost in the 2nd to 3rd centuries C.E. That is what this discussion is really about.
The fact of the matter is, Mormonism is, at its core a polytheistic religion. The lame excuse that Mormonism is not polytheistic because Mormons only “worship” one god is disengenuous and an attempt at obfuscation. Mormonism can’t allow the truth of their multiplicity of gods doctrine reach the ears of possible recruits because they know such knowledge is a major turnoff to people who hold to a monotheistic view of God. Polytheism, being the core of Mormon doctrine, puts it outside the mainstream of Christianity. It’s not even a distant cousin. When closely examined, it can be seen that Mormon doctrine requires that all gods have once been men. So where did the first man come from? There is no first Father in Mormonism. Thus there is no Creator, no First Cause and by any rational definition, there is no “God”. The problem with Mormons is that they never ask the next question. Mormons can’t push themselves back to the beginning. If they do the ball of string that is Mormon polytheism, quickly unravels. The fact is that nothing can predate God. If something is bigger than the Mormon god, then Mormons must be worshipping a demi-god.
Christianity teaches that God stands alone. There is nothing like God. This concept is foreign to Mormon doctrine and is why Mormonism is not Christianity.
“You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord,”and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me. I, even I, am the Lord, and apart from me there is no savior”. (Isaiah 43:10-11).
“This is what the Lord says-Israel’s King and Redeemer, the Lord Almight: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God. Who then is like me? Let him proclaim it.” (Isaiah 44:6-7)
Mike B. you asked May I ask you if you consider the Bible to be the final, complete and inerrant word of God?
I believe that the Bible is the “Norma Normans Non Normata” that is the Norm that Norms all others and is not Normed. So yes I believe it is the final authority when it comes to matters of Faith and Practice. I also believe it is inerrant, and therefore any further revelation is subject to it. As for final revelation if by this you mean do I “believe that God is silent in our present age,” no, but as previously stated any new revelation from God, including discernment, is subject to the revelation of the Bible. Therefore if a “revelation” comes along that does not square with the Bible, then it is not from God but rather the deceiver. Many of Satan’s lies are often laced with some truth (Matthew 4:5-7). Hope this helps.
Lautensack
Faithoffathers,
Your Mormon trainers have taught you well.
You entirely miss my point. You want to stick to what is confortable. Understandable. But our beliefs are so radically different we cannot both be Christian. One of us is right, the other is wrong.
You mention the people who think that Jesus is the literal son of God. Here we go again…
First of all, they are right. Jesus is the literal son of God. But now we have to jump into definitions again and define what that means.
Do you care to go there? Because literal son of God in Christian terms is very different than the Mormon definition of literal son.
To be honest, I am not sure it would be fruitful to go into depth about who’s right on that issue. I only wish to focus on our definitions, and I think it is sufficient to say they are very different.
See, you want to use our terms to make it seem like we believe the same things. We don’t.
K?
Ah, Mike B.
Where to start?
I’ll start with this: no, I have not asked you what you believe, but do you wish to say something different from what Mormonism believes? You believe that Jesus is a separate God, united with the Father and Holy Ghost in purpose, making up the godhead. That you believe in more than one god is established in many different ways, including (but not limited to) having to clarify who it is you actually worship, that you can become a god, and the existence of a ‘committee of gods’. Is this wrong? If so, please correct me.
Semantics? Still more than just semanctics. Do you agree that words have meanings? Yes, labels may obsucre them, so lets work on clarifying them. What does “Trinity” mean to you? Or the “literal son of God? Who is Jehovah?
See, until we know what each of us believes, we cannot discuss scripture, because each verse will automatically mean something different.
You dodged the question on what would you think if someone took your faith, altered it, and claimed to be Mormon. Actually, what you essentially said was you’d correct them, using scripture. Ironically, you also said you’d try to see what they mean.
Hmmm… What is defining the terms supposed to do?
So, we have to accept what you say without clarification, while you’d seek clarification?
Mike B, what I am looking for is that clarification. I’ve said it several times now, but we cannot discuss anything until we know what each party means. Some have tried to clarify what Mormons believe, and I have tried to represent your views authentically. Yet that’s no good enough.
So, step up to the plate and talk bluntly and directly about your beliefs. Do not sugar coat them, no milk before meat, we want you to tell us exactly what you believe. Do you know this and can you do it?
Lautensack said:
“I will refer you to the prologue of John’s Gospel”
I was about to do the same– that prologue supports the Mormon view of God very well.
1 In the beginning was Jehovah, and Jehovah was with God, and Jehovah was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
14 And Jehovah was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Never at any point does John say that Jehovah and God the Father are one in the same. The use of the word with would be rediculous in that case.
No confusion at all. Every statement is correct. Jehovah was the creator of the World, and was WITH God in the beginning. He was at God’s right hand in Stephen’s vision.
Acts 7: 55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God…
He is one with God in purpose, not in substance. That is how he can stand at God’s right side.
John 17: 20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
In the beginning he was spirit, after resurrection he is body and spirit combined.
He did not burn up his body in the atmosphere as he ascended into heaven. That proposition is ridiculous.
Acts 1:11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.
Yes, 1800 years of Christianity had it wrong. They continue to worship a false God.
Cluff, I give you credit for stating more clearly what you believe. I actually find that refreshing, rather than those that tiptoe around the issue.
Anyway, curiously, I went to Biblegateway.com and looked up John 1. There you can quickly get many translations to read.
So, here are some of them:
NIV
“1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God
in the beginning.’
KJV
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2The same was in the beginning with God.
NASB
1(A)In the beginning was (B)the Word, and the Word was (C)with God, and (D)the Word was God.
2He was in the beginning with God.
ESV
1(A) In the beginning was(B) the Word, and(C) the Word was with God, and(D) the Word was God.
I looked at several others and did not see one referencing Jehovah. Interesting. Why is that?
I also find it interesting that the verse, unanimously says the “Word was God.” It doesn’t say he was a God, but that the word was God.
Toodaloo!
So we Christians labor away here trying to get the Mormon posters to clarify what they believe. Mormons are fond of saying that their doctrine is misrepresented but in essence they really don’t want to let the cat out of the bag when it comes to this doctrine. Mormons need to admit, up front, that Mormonism is polytheistic. We can’t get any where with a discussion until a clear definition of their view of the nature of God is admitted. Actually, we Christians have a good handle on what Mormons believe regarding God, but we’d like to hear them say it.
Any group that believes that there is more than one God, regardless if they worship all of these gods, is a polytheist. It’s like Greek mythology. There were all kinds of gods and goddesses but in Ephesis, for example, the folks were into the temple of Diana.
So Mormons say they relate to the “god of this world”. Consider this: “It is I who made the earth and created mankind upon it. My own hand stretched out the heavens; I marshaled their starry hosts.” (IS.45:12) In other words, God binds the Pleiades and looses Orion. God brings forth all constellations, not just earth. God claims to have created (and rule) all the heavens and stars. “Through him all things were made.” (John 1:3) “He stretches out the heavens like a canopy.” (Is. 40:22) “For this is what the Lord says-he who created the heavens, he is God….He says: I am the Lord, and there is no other…There is no God apart from me…There is none but me…I am God, and there is no other.” (Is 45:18-22) Finally, “Remember this, fix it in mind, take it to heart, you rebels. Remember the former things, those of long ago; I am God and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me.” (Is. 46:8-9)
He is not talking about the god of this world. The god of this world is the devil. We are talking about the Creator of the universe. Mormonism is stuck with a polytheistic view of God. Christianity doesn’t acknowledge the presence of other gods. Mormonism does.
Strictly speaking, the doctrine of the trinity is NOT purely monotheistic. Try to convince a true monotheist that creedal Christianity is monotheistic and see where it gets you.
Oh, and did you know that the Bible depicts the city of Babylon as saying that it is the only city?
Isa 47:8 Therefore hear now this, thou that art given to pleasures, that dwellest carelessly, that sayest in thine heart, I AM, AND NONE ELSE BESIDE ME; I shall not sit as a widow, neither shall I know the loss of children:
. . .
10 ¶ For thou hast trusted in thy wickedness: thou hast said, None seeth me. Thy wisdom and thy knowledge, it hath perverted thee; and thou hast said in thine heart, I AM, AND NONE ELSE BESIDE ME.
And the city of Ninevah saying the same thing.
Zeph 2:15 This is the rejoicing city that dwelt carelessly, that said in her heart, I AM, AND THERE IS NONE BESIDE ME: how is she become a desolation, a place for beasts to lie down in! every one that passeth by her shall hiss, and wag his hand.
Does the Bible teach Monometropolitanism?
Obviously, in the Bible the statement “none else beside me” is NOT a statement of exclusion but a statement of preeminence!
Does the Bible really teach Monotheism?
Apparently NOT!!! From a NON-Mormon Christian Scholar;
http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/
http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/MonotheismProblem.pdf
Another Non-Mormon Christian scholar;
http://www.amazon.com/Great-Angel-Israels-Second-God/dp/0664253954
http://www.margaretbarker.com/Publications/GreatAngel.htm
Oh and just for fun, Jesus, Himself claims to be “the beginning of the creation of God;” (Rev 3:14)
As if God the Eternal Father isn’t capable of “creating” another God like Himself.
GRCluff, Unfortunately the John does not use the word YHWH, commonly called Jehovah, but the word Logos, that’s why it doesn’t say “In the beginning was YHWH”, rather it says “In the beginning the Word.” I agree that John never says the Logos and the Father are the same person, but both are God. (Perhaps you misunderstand the Trinity thinking that we believe the Father is the Son, but this is not the case.) In verse 1 we see that the Logos was with God and that the Logos was God. Now that tricky little word “was” is, in this case, in the a Greek tense that means from eternity past. This differs from the word “was” used in verse 6 (There “was” a man sent from God) which is in a tense that denotes a temporal beginning. So the Logos didn’t have a beginning and always was God.
Furthermore the word YHWH is used for both the Father and the Son (Mark 12:29-30 cf. Deut 6:4-5 where the Father is called YHWH), as is Elohim (Psalm 45:6-7 cf. Hebrews 1:8-9 where Jesus is called Elohim.)
As to Stephan’s vision in Acts 7, this would only be a problem for those who think that the Father and the Son are not different persons, and that Jesus is not both Fully Human and Fully God.
Please read my exegesis of John 17 posted October 1, as well as the responses since it is clear that you have not.
Finally no Christian does not believe that Jesus was fully human or will remain fully human forever. This is simply a false assumption that shows you really do not understand the Christian Faith that you are so desperately trying to defraud. I suggest you pick up either The Forgotten Trinity by James R. White or Father, Son, & Holy Spirit by Bruce A. Ware, (Online Version) both are quick reads that will help you understand the Christian position a little better since you clearly do not.
Lautensack
falcon, you are right on here: “Any group that believes that there is more than one God, regardless if they worship all of these gods, is a polytheist.”
I wish mormons would be more upfront about what they believe. You hear all this talk about worshipping Christ but then when I went to the “priesthood” general conference broadcaast last night at the local meetinghouse, there were the men in the room singing along with the MTC choir Praise to the Man, singing about Smith “Mingling with Gods”. It is not merely about which god they worship, it is their recognition of many gods that makes them theistic. Even if they don’t worship them, the fact that there are other gods on equal or greater footing than the God of the Bible makes them polytheistic.
In fairness, some of the mormon posters here are honest about what their church believes. It is the leadership who ducks and dodges the questions that I find dishonest.
Mormonism does not proclaim the God of the Bible, that much is clear. Christianity teaches that in all the universe there is but one God and within the nature of the one God are Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. From the OT we learn that He is one, He is infinite, He is eternal, He is omniscient (all knowing), He is omnipotent (all-powerful), He is omnipresent (He is present everywhere). Now once we have this in our minds we can look to the NT and what it says about Jesus. In Rev. 2:18-19 and John 1:48, 2:24 we learn that Jesus is omniscient. In Rev. 1:18, 21:5-7, 22:12-13, 16 Jesus is omnipotent. In Mat. 18:20, 28:20 Jesus is said to be omnipresent. In the NT Jesus is called God. Jesus is worshipped. The Jews reserved that only for the one true living God. Jesus is the Creator of all. All of the attributes of the Father are ascribed to Jesus and we also learn that all of these attributes of God are reserved for the Holy Ghost too.
Jesus said that where two or more believers are gathered, He would be in their midst. Jeus is in China, America, Canada where ever at the same time when Christians are meeting. He is omnipresent because He is God, not a god.
If Mormons want to be Christians then they need to acknowledge the living God. Not a god that used to be a man and progressed to godhood along with millions of other men who became gods. The Mormon god(s) share none of the attributes of the God of the Bible. Mormonism is not Christianity.
GB, I’m not really sure how Isaiah 47:8-10 or Zephaniah 2:15 helps your cause, for the God of traditional Mormonism is not ultimately preeminent, but is one among potentially trillions of gods (equally omniscient and equally omnipotent in Pratt’s model; some more advanced in knowledge and power and some less in Young’s model) in reality that need goddess wives to procreate spirit babies. As soon as the Mormon god can show up at a council of all these other gods and say he is pre-eminent over them all, then the monotheistic passages of the Bible will be more descriptive of Mormonism. But you’ll have to go somewhere like Blake Ostler for that kind of view, not traditional Mormonism, and not Joseph Smith’s extant “Sermon in the Grove” (preached after the King Follett Discourse).
You link to Michael Heiser’s material, but I wonder if you’ve actually read his papers? I have read some of his papers, and he indicates there is ultimately one Yahweh above all other elohims, or in other words, one God above all other gods. And he argues that this God is ontologically distinct from all the other gods, which are, unlike Yahweh, created. Heiser’s talk on “monotheism” seems to be more of a semantic issue than a theological one. Again, as soon as you can say your God is ontologically distinct (of a different species) from all other gods, then Heiser’s work will more useful in supporting Mormonism. But you can’t even go to Blake Ostler for that. And you certainly can’t appeal to traditional Mormonism to argue that God has an absolutely distinct and unique ontology.
As for Margaret Barker, I would recommend taking a second look at her teachings.
As for me, I will trust Isaiah 44:8. If there is another Rock like my God, my God doesn’t even know of him. So either my God is truly the God of gods, or he is ignorant.
Ah, but Orthodox Christians are intellectually dishonest in that they DO believe in a multiplicity of Gods but are loathe to admit it. God the Father, Jesus the Christ, and the Holy Spirit are not co-equal, and therefore cannot be the same being. The “trinity” was Nicene’s way of defining away the perceived inconsistencies in the Bible about nature of Godhead by declaring it a paradox that the limited human mind cannot comprehend. But we also know from the Bible that God is not the author of confusion, so the concept of the “trinity” is not of God.
GSwarthout wrote: God the Father, Jesus the Christ, and the Holy Spirit are not co-equal, and therefore cannot be the same being.
I am going to say this once so please pay attention, difference in function does not indicate inferiority of nature. Simply because the Son and Spirit have different functions than the Father does not make them lesser beings than Him nor does it make them substandard to Him.
As for God not being the author of confusion, if we read this verse in its context we see that this passage is speaking about the gift of prophecy, that two cannot contradict and both be from the Lord. Ironic that you would use this when your own religion violates this very principle. The passage in no way indicates that simply because your Finite mind cannot grasp the concept of an Infinite God, makes Him the author of confusion. Rather we must remember that “the secret things belong to the Lord” (Deuteronomy 29:29) and that “it is the glory of God to conceal things,but the glory of kings is to search things out.” (Proverbs 25:2) Furthermore if you read the Old Testament, God does confound and confuse people (Genesis 11:7-9, Exodus 23:27, Deuteronomy 28:20, 1 Samuel 7:10, Isaiah 19, et cetera) yet He is from everlasting to everlasting God and does not change. (Psalm 90:2 cf Malachi 3:6)
Lautensack
Michael P:
So, step up to the plate and talk bluntly and directly about your beliefs. Do not sugar coat them, no milk before meat, we want you to tell us exactly what you believe. Do you know this and can you do it?
Mike B;
Ooooooh! Feisty are we?
Yes I do. Yes I can.
Will I? Sure, when I have time.
Sometime in the next few days.
The more our Mormon friends write, the more they reveal both their ignorance regarding the Christian view of the nature of God but also how truly far off the bubble they are when attempting to “Christianize” the Mormon doctrine of God. To the point; the fact that Mormonism holds to a different view of the nature of God (from that of orthodox Chirstianity), is precisely why Mromonism is not accepted into the family of the Christian faith. Surely Mormons are not contending that they hold to the same view of the nature of God? The Community of Christ Mormon sect would be the exception in the sense that they hold to a traditional view of the nature of God.
No council of the Church “invented” the doctrine of God. The various councils that the Church held were in response to heresies; that the Church explicated stated what the Scriptures already assumed.
To the point: The apostles (A.D. 33-100) clearly accepted the full and real deity of Jesus and accepted and adopted the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The writing of the apostolic fathers (A.D. 100-150) were marked by passion about Christ-He is from God; He is preexistent. The apologists and polemictsts (A.D. 150-325) stated more precisely and defended the biblical teaching concerning God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Justin Martyr: Christ is distinct in function from the Father.; Athenagorus: Christ was without beginning.; Theophilus: The Holy Spirit is distinct from the Logos.; Origin: The Holy Spirit is coeternal with the Father and the Son.; Tertullian: He spoke of “trinity” and “persons”-three in number, but one in substance. The crucial statement that came out of the Council of Constantinople A.D. 381 was “…and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and life-giver, who proceeds from the Father, who is woshiped and glorified together with the Father and the Son.”
The glorified man worshiped by Mormons, is not God. Mormonism is not Christianity.
Aaron,
Mormons believe as Paul did; (1 Cor 8)5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in HEAVEN or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
6 But to US there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
Since the number of gods is nowhere mentioned in scripture, why don’t you make up a really big number to drive your point home? Like say a gazillion, gazillion!!
Believing in the existence of many other gods and lords is Biblical. Worshiping many is not, and Mormons don’t worship many gods now do they?
And thank you for admitting that Heiser clearly shows that the Bible teaches that there ARE many other gods!!! And thank you for showing that he also believes in the preeminence, not the exclusivity of Jehovah.
The subject at hand was Monotheism. Barker clearly shows that the Bible doesn’t teach Monotheism. What she thinks about Mormonism is a separate subject and therefore a RED HERRING, but nice try.
Jesus is also my Rock. He is the Rock of all true Mormons! Mormonism is Christian!
Words mean things. Check out a Dictionary!!
Mormonism is Christian by the definitions. Based on what the word MEANS, Mormonism is Christian and anyone saying otherwise is being dishonest and deceptive!
BTW Jesus is a glorified Man!!!
Mike Bennion,
Yes, I am getting tired of beating around the bush, so I look forward to your response. The circular nature of the discussion hinges on our definitions.
Which brings me to GB. Actually, the Bible does state the number of Gods. One. Do you need us to reference the quotations, or do you know the ones?
Little “g” gods does have another interpretation, you know. The Bible is literature, you know. Can you think like a literary critic and determine the other sense of the word “gods”? Or do you think too literally?
I’ve said it before, but we can’t get much further if we don’t define what the words mean. So, in 1 Cor, we must define “gods”.
Its really a simple task to do so, if all are willing.
Lautensack:
I am going to say this once so please pay attention, difference in function does not indicate inferiority of nature. Simply because the Son and Spirit have different functions than the Father does not make them lesser beings than Him nor does it make them substandard to Him.
GSwarthout:
Correct, but then I never claimed that it was their functions which indicated their inequality, so consider that particular strawman duly destroyed.
John 14:28 makes it explicit that Jesus isn’t on the same level as God the father “… my Father is greater than I. ”
And John 5:19 tells us that “The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do”
I still haven’t had answered, to my satisfaction, the question: “Mormonism is Christianity because….” So we keep coming back to “Who is God?” That is, what is His nature and His attributes. I think I have a pretty good handle on how Mormonism defines God and how Christianity defines God and it’s easy to see the definitions are totally different. So it follows that the religions are not the same. Mormonism is not Christianity.
While it’s true that the word “Trinity” is never used in the Bible, nor is the doctrine of Trinitarianism ever explicitly taught in the Scriptures, Trinitarinism is the best explication of the biblical evidence. The theological expostion of the doctrine arose from clear scriptual teaching. This is the bedrock doctrine of Christianity because it focuses on who God is, and particularly on the deity of Jesus. Because Trinitarianism is not taught explicitly in the Scriptures, the study of the doctrine is an exercise in putting together biblical themes and data through a systematic theological study. We need to also look at the historical development of the orthodox view of what the biblical presentaiton of the Trinity is. Mormonism has no systematic theology. Mormonism is based on revelation to their “prophets”-an ever changing revelation that Mormons accept even when this revelation runs contrary to the revelation of the standard scripture, the Bible. To then call it Chrisitanity, is the Mormon hope to be accepted in the family of Christian denominations. I would also say it’s an attempt to set-up a smoke screen and to keep the real nature of their religion from those they hope to convince to join their group. Mormons do not believe, as Christian do, that God is One. Each of the persons within the Godhead is Deity. The oneness of God and the threeness of God are not contradictory. The Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) is eternal. Each of the persons of God is of the same essence and is not inferior or superior to the others in essence.
GSwarthout:
Did you read his (Lautensack’s) following sentence? Just curious.
Lautensack and I view the Trinity the same way, and I hope this does not confuse the issue, for this, I think is the most difficult tenat of Christianity to fully grasp. To be honest, I am not sure I fully grasp it (but I know it is true, lol.)
The Trinity, in Christianity, is the belief that one God is made up of three persons, each separate, but still one. Not just one in purpose, but one in every other sense of the word. God presents himself to us in these three ways, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
They are co-equal, equal meaning the same. One is not beneath another, else they would not be co-equal. If one were beneath another, as you suggest, a heirarchical relationship would exist. This is simply not the case.
The Trinity is difficult to grasp, and as a non-believer, it can only be more difficult. I understand the problem you face. It can be hard to see what someone else believes (kind of what you say about your belief, right?). But since you ask for sincerity in trying to understand your belief, we ask for it as well.
Is this something you are willing to do?
GB,
“Since the number of gods is nowhere mentioned in scripture, why don’t you make up a really big number to drive your point home? Like say a gazillion, gazillion!!
Believing in the existence of many other gods and lords is Biblical. Worshiping many is not, and Mormons don’t worship many gods now do they?”
Well no it isn’t Biblical. The Bible is clear that there is but one God. The passage you plucked from Corinthians has a verse before it. Let’s look at it in context:
Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “an idol has no real existence,” and that “there is no God but one.” For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth–as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”– yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (1 Corinthians 8:4-6)
There is no God but one, the other “gods” that you suppose are so-called gods. They are not true gods, they are not like God at all. Even the excuse that “we don’t worship them, we just recognize them”, is heresy. There is no one like God, there is no other being like God. To assume that there is anyone else like God is to demean God but reducing Him to just one of a bunch of gods and that is NOT what the Bible teaches. God iss unique in the universe, because He created the universe from nothing by His own will. God is eternal, uncreated, without beginning or end, unique and without peers or equal. That is who God has revealed Himself to be, and that is who mormonism denies.
“Remember this and stand firm, recall it to mind, you transgressors, remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, (Isaiah 46:8-9)
GB,
Of course Jesus is a glorified man, (Romans 8:29-30) but He is not simply a glorified man. He is also God, God incarnate, that is God in Flesh. Jesus is fully God and fully man, as Chalcedon states:
GSwarthout: How is the Father greater than the Son, in function. Simply because the will of the Son is subject to the will of the Father does not mean He lesser in being. Rather it is because of obedience that Christ emptied Himself and subjected Himself to the Father (Philippians 2:1-11) To parallel in a human sense we can ask how is a husband the head of his wife, in function. This does not make the wife any less human, but rather fulfilling a different function in the covalental relationship between the two.
Lautensack
Michael P: Oct 5
You believe that Jesus is a separate God, united with the Father and Holy Ghost in purpose, making up the godhead. including (but not limited to) having to clarify who it is you actually worship,
Mike B:
And you in your Oct 6 posts that there are THREE SEPARATE PERSONS in the Trinity. The difference is that you hold that the trinity is ONE IN SUBSTANCE. (Bible reference please). You also have to clarify who it is you actually worship.
Michael P. Oct 6
The Bible does state the number of Gods. ONE. Do you need us to reference the quotations, or do you know the ones?
Mike B:
The Bible also states an additional number in describing God.
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
Michael P. Oct 6
Lautensack and I view the Trinity the same way, and I hope this does not confuse the issue, for this, I think is the most difficult tenant of Christianity to fully grasp. To be honest, I am not sure I fully grasp it.
Mike B:
Thanks for your honesty. I’m not sure that the tenant is capable of comprehension.
The Bible tells us:
John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
Luke 18:17 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.
1 John 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear we shall be like him for we shall see him as he is.
Michael P:
The Trinity, in Christianity, is the belief that one God is made up of THREE PERSONS, EACH SEPARATE, but still one. Not just one in purpose, but one in every other sense of the word. God presents himself to us in these three ways, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Mike B:
Now I will tell you that this is what I believe, THE GODHEAD IS ONE GOD CONSISTING OF THREE PERSONS, EACH SEPARATE, BUT STILL ONE.
The only thing that separates your concept from mine is WHAT THE ONENESS CONSISTS OF.
Jesus tells us how he and the Father are one in John 17, and he tells us that we can be one in EXACTLY the same way. A LITTLE CHILD could understand it. IT IS LIFE ETERNAL TO KNOW IT. Jesus invites believers to BECOME ONE with him EXACTLY AS HE IS ONE with the Father.
Michael P:
The Trinity is difficult to grasp, and as a non-believer, it can only be more difficult. I understand the problem you face. It can be hard to see what someone else believes (kind of what you say about your belief, right?). But since you ask for sincerity in trying to understand your belief, we ask for it as well.
Is this something you are willing to do?
Mike B:
I honor your right to believe it that way. I do not see the Bible language as supporting it.
Mr. Bennion,
I have to laugh with your creative response. I don’t mean to be flippant, though I know it is.
You totally distort the discussion and turn it on its head. You know that we are talking of polytheism– that Jesus is another god/being from God the father.
You also pick but one phrase and ignore the rest of my comment.
This is why I find it funny, because it is what a politician would do.
I also expected to see from you exactly what you believe, and this is not it.
Do believe, as we do, that Jesus and the Father are united in more than purpose, and are one in the same God? Or do you believe that Jesus and the Father are united in purpose, and became one by this uniting of purpose through Jesus’ living an obedient life?
Though it is still wrong, your comments also completely bypass this issue. And this is exactly the problem that people who hear your words encounter. They sound very good, and very Christian, but they don’t express the answers to my questions. And the answers differentiate your beliefs from Christian belief on several levels.
I won’t rehash them, but I am sure you can read through to get a glimpse of what they are.
Finally, I appreciate your granting my right, but even still this does not answer my question there, though given to someone else. Do you, Michael Bennion, with sincerity, wish to understand what it is we believe, or are you happy to ignorantly (using this word for lack of a better one and do not mean to say you are dumb) misrepresent our belief? After all, isn’t this what you expect of us?
Mike Bennion,
you used the word “EXACTLY” quite a lot in your last post but no where in John 17 does it use that word. You’re trying to drive your point home with a word or even a similar word (fully, specifically, absolutely) that is simply not found in those verses.
I personally think its possible to pray for someone to have the same sort of relationship as you do with someone. It doesn’t HAVE to mean they be exactly the same person or being as you and the other person.
After reading that chapter, the theme of the prayer seems to be Jesus praying that the people become united and to increase their love for one another and God. Just as you say, in the context of John 17, one in purpose sounds right.
Mike B,
You seem to be avoiding the questions I raised on the fourth even after I answered yours that you might clearly know the Christ I am an ambassador for.
Also you quote scripture and assume it supports your position. I must as the relevant question. If there is One True God (Isaiah 43:10 and 45:5 cf. Deuteronomy 6:4-5) God is not a man (Numbers 23:19) and takes the form and likeness of a man (Philippians 2:7-8, John 1:1;14) would He become an atheist or would he still point people to worship the One True God? Now if this One True God was made up of a multiplicity of persons and only one of these persons took upon Himself human nature would He cease to be God? Would He cease to point people to the One True God and not distinguish himself as the one sent by the One True God? Could that not be what Jesus is doing in John 17?
As for Luke 18:17 it is speaking of faith not intellect, just because you can’t understand some things that the apostles wrote (2 Peter 3:15-16) doesn’t make them less true or that you should not become like a child trusting in Jesus as an infant trusts their parents, that is total dependence.
Finally you bring up 1 John 3:2. John is writing to Christians, that is people who have been “born again from above” (John 3:3) who have been “adopted as Sons” (Galatians 4:5, Ephesians 1:5) and “received the Spirit of as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!”(Romans 8:15) This in no way supports your argument when taken in the light of all of scripture.
Lautensack
Lautensack Oct 5
Mike B. you asked May I ask you if you consider the Bible to be the final, complete and inerrant word of God?
I believe that the Bible is the Norma Normans Non Normata that is the Norm that Norms all others and is not Normed. I believe it is the final authority when it comes to matters of Faith and Practice. I also believe it is inerrant, and therefore any further revelation is subject to it. As for final revelation if by this you mean do I believe that God is silent in our present age, no, but as previously stated any new revelation from God, including discernment, is subject to the revelation of the Bible. Therefore if a revelation comes along that does not square with the Bible, then it is not from God but rather the deceiver. Many of Satan\’s lies are often laced with some truth (Matthew 4:5-7). Hope this helps.
Mike B:
Thank you, it does.
Please describe for me the Bible norm for revelation. How was it given and received in the Bible. Where does the Bible say that the mode has changed? If so when did this occur?
Please explain how God speaks in our present age. How will one know that the voice has authority? How will we know that it is of God?
Michael P: (speaking of the Trinity)
They are co-equal, equal meaning the same. One is not beneath another, else they would not be co-equal. If one were beneath another, as you suggest, a hierarchical relationship would exist. This is simply not the case.
Mike B:
Please explain the following in light of your statement:
Matt. 26: 39 O my Father . . . LET THIS
CUP PASS FROM ME
Luke 2: 49 wist ye not that I MUST BE
ABOUT my Father\’s business
John 8: 18 Father THAT SENT ME
John 14: 28 my Father is GREATER THAN I.
Michael P: Oct 6
Mr. Bennion,
You totally distort the discussion and turn it on its head. You know that we are talking of polytheism– that Jesus is another god/being from God the father.
Mike B:
Maybe that is what you are talking about. I am talking about a unity in the Godhead as expressed by John 17. If you can show me, from the Bible, where the Apostles all climbed into one physical body, I’ll grant your argument.
Michael P:
I also expected to see from you exactly what you believe, and this is not it.
Mike B:
Well golly, I guess you know more about what I believe than I know. (I think not.)
Michael P:
Do believe, as we do, that Jesus and the Father are united in more than purpose, and are one in the same God? Or do you believe that Jesus and the Father are united in purpose, and became one by this uniting of purpose through Jesus’ living an obedient life?
Mike B:
I know that Jesus and the Father are united along with the Holy Ghost in everything except substance. You cannot show me where the Bible says otherwise. Saying “God is ONE” still leaves the definition of “one” up in the air. Thus the need for Jesus to give us John 17.
When you show me where in the Bible it says that Jesus is one substance with the Father, then I will be happy to discuss the trinity further..
Do you, Michael P, “with sincerity, wish to understand what it is we believe, or are you happy to ignorantly (using this word for lack of a better one and do not mean to say you are dumb) misrepresent our belief? After all, isn’t this what you expect of us?”