Lee Benson at Mormon Times wrote about the “big image problem” Mormons are plagued with. According to LDS researcher Gary Lawrence, “We’re not as popular as we think we are.” Though Americans are very aware of the LDS Church (84 percent have been exposed to missionaries, members and/or Mormons in the media), people don’t really know what Mormonism is about. Lee Benson wrote,
“… of that 84 percent, just 14 percent could correctly answer the main claim of Mormonism: that it is Christ’s original gospel re-arranged on the Earth.”
I’m not entirely certain what is meant by that particular phraseology, but to me it makes perfect sense. To rearrange something is to change it, and if there is anything Mormonism has done, it has changed Christ’s original gospel.
Christ’s original Gospel teaches of the eternal God becoming a man; in Mormonism’s rearranged gospel an eternal intelligence was organized into a man who later became a God.
In the original Gospel the veil in the temple was torn asunder, signifying that we now have direct access to God in Christ; in Mormonism’s rearranged gospel people are required to approach a new veil hanging in a Mormon temple and practice secret key words, signs and tokens that will one day grant them access to God’s kingdom.
In the original Gospel Jesus created all things; in Mormonism’s rearranged gospel Jesus “organized” eternally pre-existent matter to make this earth; He wasn’t necessarily involved in the organization of the other worlds that exist under the dominion of other Saviors in other universes directed by other Gods.
In the original Gospel God so loved the world that He gave His only Son; in Mormonism’s rearranged gospel God gave one of His many begotten sons.
In the original Gospel Christ died to rescue unworthy sinners from God’s wrath unto eternal life in His presence; in Mormonism’s rearranged gospel Christ’s sacrificial death ultimately only rescues those who prove themselves worthy of eternal life.
Mormonism has definitely rearranged Christ’s Gospel. As for me, I’ll stick with the original.
GRCluff, it isn't compelling to speak of "salvation" in terms of being resurrected unto eternal damnation (cessation of progression), torment of mind, everlasting regret, and suffering and anguish, forever distanced from the presence of God the Father and Jesus Christ, forever cut off from intimate fellowship from family who are in the presence of God the Father and Jesus Christ. That is not salvation, and even if it was, Sharon wasn't speaking of it in that sense. Notice her operative word, "ultimately".
"Evangelicals want to apply grace to people who DON'T repent, on the arbitrary condition of lip service."
I recommend reading into this, GRCluff, instead of stereotyping and even mis-generalizing. I personally believe one is most enabled to obey God and pursue holiness when he or she has freely received comprehensive forgiveness of sins and eternal life as a gift.
In him who justifies very ungodly people like me by faith apart from works (Romans 4:4-8),
Aaron
For some reason the commenting system gives more length-freedom to non-IE browsers like Firefox and Google Chrome and Safari. Try one of those. Also, reply to your own comment to maintain continuity if you have to. Please 🙂
I think it is clear that traditional Mormonism teaches that we are all literal begotten spirit children, while Jesus is the "only begotten" simply in the sense of the Father directly contributing DNA to Mary's womb for Jesus' conception (and how that was done is a matter of debate among Mormons, some arguing for sexual generation, others in vitro fertilization). In other words, for us the Father is our literal spirit-father. But for Jesus the Father is also literally the father of his earthly body.
This differentiation between different kinds of "begotten" sons is not biblical, as has been shown in the recent thread on "becoming sons". For Christians, Jesus is the "only begotten" Son of the Father, and in such a way that no other can be spoken of as begotten of the Father except in the spiritual metaphorical sense of being born again.
Grace and peace,
Aaron
I guess this is one of the main differences between Christianity and Mormonism, in Christianity the elders of a church are require to present the whole counsel of God, not just the politically correct portions. Evangelists are also to do this as they imitate Paul who imitated Christ. You may not like or believe the doctrines of Christianity, but you cannot deny that we at least lay our cards on the table especially with the important things like the doctrine of God.
Lautensack
GR, there are several aspects of this post that take huge assumptions. For example, that God will ask us to create a new world. See, some would say that being with God is enough, and that there are no other worlds we can become gods of. That whole idea of God himself saying there is but one God is telling.
The second point is too flawed to discuss much, but I think it is suffice to say that such an argument flies in the face of Jesus' own statement that the only way to enter the kngdom of heaven is through him. He puts the requirement of faith in him, and not a general repentance to reach heaven.
And if I understand your last point, you are sayin that repentance is what matters and not belief in Christ, and that beliving in Christ is just one way to get to repentance. Is that what you mean to say?
Right, so the GA's really do have the answers, but we (and you Mormon laymen included) aren't good enough to be let in on the secret explicit knowledge. I wonder if a GA, when he is ordained, gets a top secret folder called, "Doctrinal Answers You Always Wanted but Weren't High Enough in the Hierarchy to Explicitly Receive". Or maybe it's called, "Yes, I Know That We DO Teach That!" with Gordon B. Hinckley's smile on the front?
A gnostic tip of the hat to you, sir.
I personally know Jesus Christ, and can interact with him in prayer, and I know him as the God of all reality. That means I know more than all your LDS apostles and prophets combined. I wouldn't trade that personal relationship and free forgiveness for all the supposed institutional secrets and masonic hand grips and green aprons in the world.
Right, so the GA's really do have the answers, but we (and you Mormon laymen included) aren't good enough to be let in on the secret explicit knowledge. I wonder if a GA, when he is ordained, gets a top secret folder called, "Doctrinal Answers You Always Wanted but Weren't High Enough in the Hierarchy to Explicitly Receive". Or maybe it's called, "Yes, I Know That We DO Teach That!" with Gordon B. Hinckley's smile on the front?
A gnostic tip of the hat to you, sir.
I personally know Jesus Christ, and can interact with him in prayer, and I know him as the God of all reality. That means I know more than all your LDS apostles and prophets combined. I wouldn't trade that personal relationship and free forgiveness for all the supposed institutional secrets and masonic hand grips and green aprons in the world. There's no comparison!
Thank you Jesus, for your love, and for your response of grace to me when I call upon your name! I count everything else as rubbish!
So now you are accusing me of being deceitful? What kind of a conversation are you interested in having here? I took the very first question you posed, since you said that was at the meat of your point, and answered it the best I could. I honestly did not even read the rest of your post because I figured it was just reiterating your question- so perhaps I failed in that regard- but if your question was what you said it was, the main point- then perhaps you weren't being forthright…
Did you read all of mine? Doesn't seem like it since you ask if it is necessary to be baptized with the proper authority- and I thought that I referenced Paul on this point- One Lord, one faith, one baptism.
You asked a specific question and I gave you a very detailed answer based on what I thought you meant. After reading your original post entirely, I still have no idea how my response was not "forthright"- I didn't change your question, I answered it and gave insight by asking another question. You're response was just downright ridiculous.
I think my comments about faith and works were pretty clear cut. Faith cannot function without works. I also referenced scripture on this point. Read it again, cause I'm not going to waste more space on this thread addressing it- again and again.
Regarding your oversimplification of the gospel of Jesus Christ as it is restored by calling it "feel good" (heaven forbid the "gospel" meaning "good news" happens to "feel good")- Your belief that people who never had the opportunity to know who Christ was in this life, are going to hell, is not only illogical, it is not merciful OR just! And it certainly doesn't "feel good" or more importantly "feel RIGHT". Honestly, I really don't get where you are coming from in your post. It isn't very clear…why not try some specific examples or concepts so that I might be able to respond with more "forthrightness".
Amanda asked "Our works are important because faith is dead without them…not because they save us…so why do evangelicals consistently beleaguer the point?"
First I want to say that I believe all of scripture is breathed out by God, yes even James 2. As to why we "beleaguer" the point is because the Prophets and Apostles "beleaguered" it. I hope you don't feel like I am coping out but I feel inclined to answer this with a question of my own. Have you ever done something totally for God, loving Him as you ought? Don't be brash and answer hastily, ponder your response. If even the tiniest amount of selfishness was in the deed then it poisoned the entire deed, Isaiah equates such a deed to a tampon. (Isaiah 64:6)
I really don't understand why people tend to pit Paul against James when Paul eloquently puts them on the same page:
He seems to be echoing Ezekiel when he wrote of the New Covenant:
It would appear that works are something that flow from God's regenerative work in a sinner, one that is already clean, already given a heart of flesh, already saved. They happen because of the Spirit of God dwelling within the regenerate man, causing them to walk in the good works prepared beforehand for them.
Lautensack
I'm not exactly sure why early Christians are relevant to you, Aaron, since you reject probably 65% of what they believed and practiced. Do we really want to open Pandora's box? As far as they are concerned, Calvinists are every bit as re-arranged as "Mormonism".
Amanda said "Your belief that people who never had the opportunity to know who Christ was in this life, are going to hell, is not only illogical, it is not merciful OR just!"
I for one, as a Christian, do not believe that those who never had the opportunity to hear the gospel go to hell.. You are right, that wouldn't be God being just and fair…
In Romans we read that no one is without excuse of not believing in a Supreme Creator.. So I think if you at least get that far, but your some pigmy, then you will bejudged upon what you do know, and not what you dont..
Just my opinion, I know some others share it, and some don't.
Doesn't God expect us to be obedient, Aaron? Why? because we couldn't possibly understand "why" on so many things–not even on doctrine, but future events and even understanding past events. So what else would you expect from His servants? They too are infinitely limited in knowledge.
Even still, it is not accurate to say that we are expected to just "fall in line".. we are counseled to verify doctrine that we are taught through prayer, and the Holy Ghost.
Aaron, if we accept the Lord Jesus Christ on your terms, we are forgiven for our sins right? though our sins be as scarlet they can be made white as snow right? Why? because the Savior makes them clean. So do you think that in heaven, a millennia from now, our sins will still be scarlet- and we'll be like "oh that Aaron, he was a ____ and a______- certainly not, that would be blasphemous. If you say that, you deny the power of the atonement right? Thus is the case with any being that sins and repents and believes in an atoning sacrifice. But more importantly, how is this anymore offensive to you than your own belief that God descended in human form, and was actually tempted by the devil-..God??? Why would God do that? How could God possibly be tempted?? Foolishness.
I don't consider Calvinism etc to be essential to the gospel or a basic view of the nature of God. The early Christians believed in the real God—the God who was always God. Their God never had to get a wife to become a God, never had to progress unto godhood. Rather, this eternal God (eternal in the traditional sense) became a man, Jesus Christ.
I have the same God as the early Christians. Do you?
Amanda, I don't believe that God has ever received grace, nor has he ever needed it. To allow for anything otherwise is to be an idolatrous heretic more fit for paganism than Christianity.
Now, the saints (saved Christians) will indeed enjoy eternal life with all sins forgiven, but that doesn't mean they won't sing Amazing Grace with reference to what God did in the past.
As John Piper writes in Life As a Vapor, p. 19-21:
Amanda, I don't believe that God has ever received grace, nor has he ever needed it. To allow for anything otherwise is to be an idolatrous heretic more fit for paganism than Christianity. I refuse to worship a God who was once forgiven for beating his wife, stealing money, disobeying his parents, lusting after a woman, or giving into road rage.
Now, the saints (saved Christians) will indeed enjoy eternal life with all sins forgiven, but that doesn't mean they won't sing Amazing Grace with reference to what God did in the past. Our sins will be remembered in the mental sense, but they won't be remembered in the punitive sense.
As John Piper writes in Life As a Vapor, p. 19-21:
DOF, register with IntenseDebate.com and your commenting experience should be smoother. Also, remember the 6-a-day limit.
Amanda, See, your complex answers do not really give a simple or answer to my simple question. I asked if it is possible to be saved outside of Mormon baptism, ie by one without the proper authority. You gve me an answer about God's baptism but never really addressed the findamental question without the excessive rhetoric. When I work my way through all of that, I see the answer is probably, no, and that such baptism by one of proper authority is required. But I want to confirm this assumption and interpretation, so am I right?
As to accusations of deceipt, you first said faith is what saves us, then you say that faith is only good if you do certain, specific things. At least this is the impression I am getting, so it is up to you, or any other Mormon here to correct the logic. And this first use of the word faith sounds very different than the second use saying you have to do certain things.
And really, my question was a simple one to get a simple answer. Oh, and your first answer started by asking a different question…
Alas…
Steve, would you like to have a friendly phone conversation or Skype conversation where you can discuss how exactly Sharon is being misrepresentative? We can turn it into an mp3 and blog post for all to hear. You can be the main speaker in an open and honest discussion.
What do you say?
Take care,
Aaron
Yes, many turn away…how is this confusing? I don't think I am understanding your counterpoint- please clarify because I would like to address it.
yes, LDS are not exempt from making incorrect statements about their fellow Christian neighbors. In this instance, however, I do not believe I said Christians do not believe in "work" as you put it. I was posing a rhetorical question because your answering, "no we shouldn't abandon works" therefore sets up my point quite nicely- which was what I was trying to accomplish.
I don't believe I said that works save us- this is a misleading claim often made by evangelicals. CHRIST SAVES on the condition that we have faith in Him, and faith is inseparable from works.
James 2: 18, 20, 26
18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
• • •
20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
• • •
26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
Works are a consequence of true faith. Paul teaches of one faith, one baptism– baptism is a work that follows our faith. Endowments, sealings and baptisms for the dead are consequences of our faith in the restored gospel of Jesus Christ.
MichaelP,
Correct faith in the correct Jesus is what saves us. This is why you are fighting against the LDS church as you believe that we have the wrong Jesus. Our belief is the inverse – we believe that we have the correct Jesus, so yes, one must be a member of the LDS church to be 'saved'. As baptism follows faith then yes, one must be baptised into the LDS church to be saved.
But remember baptism FOLLOWS faith. When one has the correct faith in Jesus, they would want to be baptised. If one got baptised just to follow the crowd and did not believe in Jesus then that baptism means nothing. So FAITH is the operative word.
OK, so all humans see that they are weak and dependant on god before becoming humans, but yet so many still turn away? Something doesn't feel right with that logic.
To answer your question, I know of no Christian who would say we are not to work. I think this is a common misconception of Mormons to us (would you agree there are many of these, too?) But our faith is dead without works, but does that necessitate that works save us? By that, I mean to ask that is it absolutely 100% necessary that works save us, if we are saved by faith? Think about that for a second.
Do works save us, or are works evidence of faith? And if works are only evidence of faith, what saves us? Is it the work, or is it the faith?
Aaron,
One thing I have not done is "deny [a] notion of viviparous spirit birth". I always say that if you are really trying to represent the LDS church properly you should state that we believe that we are spirit children of our Father in Heaven and we also have a Heavenly Mother FULLSTOP. Then you can say that this suggests blah blah blah, but our doctrine has never taught, as far as I know, anything other than the intelligences were organised into spirits. How it happened has never been explained so anything about this is just conjecture whether its member or non-member saying it.
Once again, how this happens is not inportant to our salvation/exaltation at this point in time, so why should we worry about it?
Ralph, OK. This is a better response, I think. But I still think the question is unanswered that if one truly believes in the God Mormonism presents but does not get baptized by the church, will this person be saved?
I appreaciate that you say that Mormon baptism would be what matters, but what if a person were not baptized? Do you understand the question?
And then do you understand the logic that follows that if you must, the force of the belief is shown through the act, which suggests that faith is only valid if you act. And its not just any act, but a specific one.
Does this make sense?
Jeff, I agree. Paul does say that people will be without excuse because evidence of him is in his creation. Anyone who earnestly seeks him will find him.
This does not negate our need to ENSURE that people will know about him, though, because there are no second chances.
Why should you worry about it? Does that not directly relate to God's nature and consequently our nature? Perhaps this is an "Ah hah" moment for me to see another fundamental difference between your faith and mine. What matters most to you is an undying belief and subsequent obedience. What matters most to us is realizing the true nature of God and how we relate to him.
Would you say that you are concerned about the nature of God? Or is that not something you really consider much? Honest questions, here…
It's worth pointing out that, although Mormonism does seem to have a mainstream view, there are varying views on the issue of pre-mortal spirit birth within Mormonism.
If you peruse the Bloggernacle, you can find Mormons who deny the notion of viviparous spirit birth altogether, who instead argue that we became children of God in pre-mortality via a covenant relationship, not through a reproductive union between Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother.
The traditional view seems instead to be that we were intelligences and were born into a state of having a spirit-body. Some Mormons argue that intelligences and spirits were synonymous to Joseph Smith, and that we had personal identity and self-awareness before spirit-birth. Anyways, that's the best I know how to map out the various positions, I'm still trying to nail it down. Here is an essay by Van Hale that deals with the issue.
If only Mormonism had a prophet to clear up this whole confusing mess.
It's worth pointing out that, although Mormonism does seem to have a mainstream view, there are varying views on the issue of pre-mortal spirit birth within Mormonism.
If you peruse the Bloggernacle, you can find Mormons who deny the notion of viviparous spirit birth altogether, who instead argue that we became children of God in pre-mortality via a covenant relationship, not through a reproductive union between Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother.
The traditional view seems instead to be that we were intelligences and were born into a state of having a spirit-body and became children upon the event of begetting. Some Mormons argue that intelligences and spirits were synonymous to Joseph Smith, and that we had personal identity and self-awareness before spirit-birth. Anyways, that's the best I know how to map out the various positions, I'm still trying to nail it down. Here is an essay by Van Hale that deals with the issue.
If only Mormonism had a prophet to clear up this whole confusing mess.
You have good questions.
Some would say living with God for eternity without continuing progress would be eternal stagnation, and that is never what God has intended. What will you do when he asks you to create an new world. Say no? He does stuff- no sitting around and scratching Himself for my God.
Ok, so others can be saved too. Buddists? Muslims? Jews? How tolerant can you be. We all accepted Christ before we came to earth so it is a moot point. Those who did not followed Satan, and are NOT getting a physical body.
Faith on Christ leads to repentance, so no repentance, no faith in Christ. That is what believing on Christ really means.
Lautensack,
The term "gods in embryo" is basically a metaphor. It in no way describes the process similar to progression from zygote to embryo to foetus, etc. Its like saying we are in a pupal stage, but that in no way means that we are insects. God has the power and authority of life and death. If we were to take your logic and look at all the still-born babies can we then say that God is an abortionist? How about all the people that die – is He a murderer? The only person who had the same power was Jesus. When He voluntarily died on the cross, did He commit suicide? That is where your logic is taking you. Satan and his followers were judged by God and God terminated their eternal progression at that point. This in no way implies that He is a 'divine abortionist' to use your words.
I think we will agree on the definition of salvation as- "living with God for eternity". We will agree on the process of sanctification and on comprehensive forgiveness of sin through Christ.
The disconnect appears when you equate one-time comprehensive forgiveness of sin with the gift of eternal life as if they were the same event.
Forgiveness of sin is available to all who repent, not just evangelicals who accept Christ. It is an application of the law of mercy, made available through Christ to all who repent in this life.
Those who fail to repent before death must pay the price for their own sins, but must repent nonetheless. Complete repentance via payment for sin is required before judgment can start. (You know, fire, brimstone) This state is temporary.
Eternal life is given to those who meet the requirements of that gift. It is an application of the law of justice, made available through judgment, not mercy. Many who experience the one-time comprehensive forgiveness of sin may not merit eternal life. It makes a difference what you do AFTER that event, and how bad you were BEFORE that event.
We do not connect the two, so Sharon's statement "Christ’s sacrificial death ultimately only rescues those who prove themselves worthy of eternal life" attempts to make a connection we don't use, so it is not correct.
The question of whether such an issue is institutionally explicated is a red herring. It doesn't have to be institutionally explicated for it to be a meaningful part of Mormon tradition and part of the historical worldview of real, living Mormons. Also, that something isn't institutionally explicated in a modern fashion doesn't mean it isn't institutionally condoned.
You should talk to some of my Mormon friends here in UT, who are really clear in affirming not only the possibility but also the probability of Gods and Saviors over other worlds. Brigham Young also explicitly took this view.
As for whether Jesus became a God at 1,2 or 5, I think the debate here even among Mormons is over what sense Jesus was already God pre-mortality and in what sense he achieved perhaps a greater fullness of Godhood after mortality. There is no uniform LDS position on this. Even Mormons who say Jesus was already God pre-mortality often affirm a sense in which Jesus become more fully God through his mortal experience.
Where did Sharon claim Jesus became God at #5 for Mormons? If you read what she wrote closely, she was contrasting the notion of becoming a God vs. the eternal (eternal in the traditional not Mormon sense) God becoming a man. So I can see how you're extrapolating the issue of your complaint but you're missing her point.
And by the way, the Mormon Jesus certainly is the paradigm-breaker for Mormonism itself. If he didn't need a mortal probation to become a God, why did we?
Oh, I get it, that's not important, says the GA who condescendingly pats my head, just be quiet and bear your testimony and learn what the LDS hierarchy tells you what's relevant to know. How many ex-Mormon Christian testimonies have I heard that started out with, "I asked too many questions in Sunday school"?
Amanda, I don't believe that God has ever received atoning grace, nor has he ever needed it. To allow for anything otherwise is to be an idolatrous, reprobate, vile heretic more fit for paganism than Christianity. I refuse to worship a God who was once forgiven for beating his wife, stealing money, disobeying his parents, lusting after a woman, or giving into road rage.
Now, the saints (saved Christians) will indeed enjoy eternal life with all sins forgiven, but that doesn't mean they won't sing Amazing Grace with reference to what God did in the past. Our sins will be remembered in the mental sense, but they won't be remembered in the punitive sense.
As John Piper writes in Life As a Vapor, p. 19-21:
I know that is the mainstream Mormon position, but that is not the only position among Mormons. The variants especially arise when one takes a more strict canonical view of Mormonism. Some Mormons would argue that the notion of "viviparous spirit birth" seems largely borne out of the extrapolations of Brigham Young, not the Mormon canon or Joseph Smith's quasi-canonical statements. You can read discussion between those of varying LDS viewpoints on this here.
Taking a minimalist canonical or prima scriptura view of Mormonism has its theological implications. After the recent debate LDS apologist Martin Tanner admitted to me that the notion of viviparous spirit birth / literal offspring is not official doctrine (in a strict sense). If that is the case then Mormons shouldn't be promoting it as though it is official.
And believe me, if I'm ever in a room of ten Mormons knowing that one denies the officiality of the traditional spirit birth notion then I am going to put the burden on the Mormons to hash it out before using it against traditional theism. You guys really need to clean up the whole "what is official doctrine?" mess to make everyone's life easier. I'm only 26 and I've lost hair over trying to nail the jello the wall.
Sincerely,
Aaron
It's worth pointing out that, although Mormonism does seem to have a mainstream view, there are varying views on the issue of pre-mortal spirit birth within Mormonism.
If you peruse the Bloggernacle, you can find Mormons who deny the notion of viviparous spirit birth altogether, who instead argue that we became children of God in pre-mortality via a covenant relationship, not through a reproductive union between Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother.
The traditional view seems instead to be that we were intelligences and were born into a state of having a spirit-body and became children upon the event of begetting. Some Mormons argue that intelligences and spirits were synonymous to Joseph Smith, and that we had personal identity and self-awareness before spirit-birth. Others do not. Anyways, that's the best I know how to map out the various positions, I'm still trying to understand it all. Here is an essay by Van Hale that deals with the issue.
If only Mormonism had a prophet to clear up this whole confusing mess.
It's worth pointing out that, although Mormonism does seem to have a mainstream view, there are varying views on the issue of pre-mortal spirit birth within Mormonism.
If you peruse the Bloggernacle, you can find Mormons who deny the notion of viviparous spirit birth altogether, who instead argue that we became children of God in pre-mortality via a covenant relationship, not through a reproductive union between Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother.
The traditional view seems instead to be that we were intelligences and were born into a state of having a spirit-body and became children upon the event of begetting. Some Mormons argue that intelligences and spirits were synonymous to Joseph Smith, and that we had personal identity and self-awareness before spirit-birth. Others do not. Anyways, that's the best I know how to map out the various positions, I'm still trying to understand it all. Here is an essay by Van Hale that deals with the issue.
If only Mormonism had a prophet to clear up this whole confusing mess. But thank goodness we have BYU professors and Mormon apologists to provide clarity when Moron prophets and apostles only offer ambiguity and confusion… right?
Even Mormons talk about "becoming gods" or becoming spirit children via an event of begetting, and it is that sense which Sharon obviously refers to. You are conflating the sense of species with the sense of developmental progress. For traditional theists, of course, these are not two distinct things to talk about concerning God, since the fullness of perfections God has in all respects are not accidental properties but essential attributes. And I use the term "accidental" there in the philosophical sense.
As LDS Blake Ostler has argued, God is not loving by essential nature, lest, he argues, the love be not borne of God's libertarian free will. But even non-Mormon open theists believe God is loving by essential nature.
Anyways, I don't find the complaint against Sharon compelling given that Mormons are the ones to often speak of "becoming a God" or "becoming gods" or having at one point become "literal children".
Sorry Sharon, but I am the detail oriented type. I can't let a couple comments here go unchallenged. You are getting much closer to our real differences though.
Just a minor detail, but Christ became a God AND created the earth BEFORE he became a man. He was the God of this world before he created it (or organized it if you prefer), while still in spirit form. In that regard the statement "an eternal intelligence was organized into a man who later became a God." is not entirely right. I will offer my sincere contratulations that you finally got the idea right on Him not being a created being.
It is possible in my mind that he was a God even before he took on spirit form. The big difference here is really the trinity concept. When Christ took on spirit form, He became more like God the Father. When he took on flesh, once again, He became more like God the Father. They are one in purpose not one in substance. In the beginning the plural "God" created the world. More that one being working in unison. Maybe one working under the direction or assignment of the other. There is our real difference.
DOF,
While you and I may disagree on what constitutes a Biblical view of revelation, which I would be happy to discuss with you, what I meant by "laying your cards out on the table" is that anyone can see what the church believes regarding God, Man, Sin, and if you ask a difficult question, the church doesn't run and hide, rather we give a defense for the hope that is within us, destroying arguments and any high thing raised against the knowledge of God. We are clear about ever important issue, the doctrine of God being one of them, the one that Ralph and GRCluff seem to be in disagreement on.
Lautensack
Falcon,
How could anyone "forget" that testimony is the basis for Mormon belief? It is under constant attack here. No worry. We find ourselves in good company.
Revelation 12: 10
Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.
11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, AND BY THE WORD OF THEIR TESTIMONY; and they loved not their lives unto the death.
Questioning with ones own intellect is stupidity not bravery. If I receive revelation concerning the nature of God, should I then go "searching" the scriptures to prove I got it wrong somehow? Or maybe Peter should have shown some bravery and consulted the Pharisees after he received his testimony from the Father that Jesus was the Christ. Surely they would have shown him that the "real deal" was Judaism. Isn't that what you are offering me? If knowledge from God himself is ignorance, I will blissfully go on my way.
Ralph,
Is the nature of God a doctrine or a "notional idea?"
Lautensack
thanks Mr.L; add to this the obvious situation that there were extended periods of time when there was not A specific prophet, but i don't think the Jews freaked out about that, God was still making His mind known to His people thru what they DID have: Moses (thePentateuch) and the prophets(writings). thanks for the post(s)
Could you, or someone, then clarify the difference between agency and will? Are the two splitting hairs or are there substanative differences between the two concepts? I've always viewed agency as the equivalent to will, and if that is wrong, I'd like to know.
Thanks.
DOF wrote "If Pilate had one ounce of interest in the truth, would Jesus have maintained his silence"
John 8:37-38 "Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all."
This is the only example I can think of in which Jesus does not appear to answer a direct question. It’s odd because he seems to have spent his earthly ministry answering the various queries of obscure nobodies. Contrary to the Gnostic point of view, Jesus made himself publicly accountable and open to scrutiny by all and sundry. So should we.
…I say 'apparently' because we could say that Jesus did, in fact, answer the question. It's not verbal answer, but doesn't his journey to the cross tell us the truth of the situation? Even though the Jews professed to have God as their King, they were all too willing to kill him when he actually turned up.
What do you need an "Aaronic priesthood for the Gentiles" for?
We already have a great high priest, who has gone into the heavens (Heb 4:14). He has done all that is needed to be done to mediate and implement the New Covenant (Heb 9:15). We need to put our trust in him, and not in our attempts to copy this reality by instituting priesthoods and building temples (unless I've read Hebrews incorrectly).
Does the fact that LDS support and promote the notion of temple and priesthood actually undermine and undo the work of Christ? I think so.
GRCluff wrote "Those who fail to repent before death must pay the price for their own sins, but must repent nonetheless."
I'm wondering if Joseph Smith ever repented of his gold-seeking scrying days? And not just in the "Oh, he must have done it in private" sense, but actually publicy and unequivocably saying "I was wrong to do those things".
MichaelP,
First let me state that I am not sure if the LDS do make a distinction between the two, however historically there has been a difference.
In layman's terms free agency means that man is capable of making choices and implementing those choices in the world. Free will would mean that a person not only makes choices, but those choices are not caused outside influences or causes. Or perhaps in even simpler terms free agency is the affirmation that men do make choices, where the question of free will involves how men make those choices. This is why even a hard determinist can affirm the free agency of man, though not the freedom of the will.
For a fuller understanding I suggest "Bondage of the Will" by Luther and "On Free Choice of the Will" by St. Augustine.
Lautensack
In defense of our Mormon friends (though certainly not their beliefs), and to restate the ideas of C.S. Lewis concerning historical Christian theology, we as Christians have the benefit of almost two millenia in developing theology concerning God's nature and His relation to human beings. Now note, I am not saying that Christians changed their theology concerning God. They developed it. There's a chasm of difference. For example, the apostles didn't need to formulate theology concerning original sin, etc.: they witnessed "what they had seen and heard". For example, the apostles didn't need theology to tell them Jesus was divine; they had met Him personally. It wasn't until Christ's divinity was challenged that theology had to be developed about Christ. As heresies crept in (Gnosticism, Pelagianism, Arianism, etc.) the church saw more and more need to specify exactly what they believed so that error would not continue. Hence the councils and creeds and numerous volumes of precise theology.
The LDS Church has not had this benefit of time and massive "heresy" from their doctrine to specifically formulate what they do and do not believe. I don't think the GA's will formulate theology (beyond the Gospel Principles manual, I mean) just because some "insert that label we all know" are demanding it. They need time and a distinct threat to their church.
However, let's look at it another way. Hinduism, for example, has existed longer than Christianity, and has had centuries upon centuries to formulate theology. However, when one looks at their theology, they find (as many philosophers, even Hindu ones, say) that Hindu theology is logically impossible. So maybe it will be better if/when the LDS Church develops their doctrine clearly; then evangelicals won't have to deal with all this confusion about Mormon doctrine. Certainly McConkie's book was a step in the right direction, but from what I've heard, it isn't entirely accurate, either.
Thank you sir.
That is helpful.
MichaelP,
All I need to know about God and His nature is that I am a child of God and that He has an immortal, glorified physical body. The reason I say this is because that is all we can find in the scriptures. This is also what describes the nature of the true God (according to LDS so do not argue this point as I know you think differently). As you can see, this is realising the true nature of God and our relationship to Him. This is one of the things we are concerned with as LDS as it is only the one true God who is ultimately the being we should worship.
As for 'undying belief and subsequent obedience' to God, isn't that what you as a Christian believe as well? I mean do you question the Bible and Jesus when they tell you about how to obtain your salvation? Or do you take it on faith and follow what they say?
Me and GRCluff in disagreement about what? And is it really doctrine that we disagree on or is it a 'notional idea' that has permeated through the LDS church?