If you were visited at home by Mormon missionaries and only had a few minutes, what seed would you plant?
I would first ask them to bear their testimony, and then thank them, and then say, “Would you mind if I shared a testimony?” They always say yes.
If you don’t have time for that you can just skip to this part:
“Can I see your quad for a moment? Thanks.” Open to Isaiah 43:10, put your finger under it. “The testimony I have to share isn’t my own. It is God’s testimony. God bears his testimony in Isaiah 43:10 that, ‘Before me no God was formed, nor shall there be any after me.’ If we consider the testimony of man, how much more should we consider the testimony of God?”
Notice how I speak of scripture to them strictly in terms of “God’s testimony” — not as “scripture” or “God’s word” or “the Bible”. I am trying to drive home the directness of the inspiration of scripture by a fresh use of terms.
Isaiah 43:10 addresses the very heart of the traditional Mormon understanding of the Lorenzo Snow couplet, “As man is God once was, as God is man may be.”
Grace and peace!
Aaron
I would say:
“I would love to talk more to young men but I’m pressed for time right now, but I do have one questions for you. Could you please tell me who God is?”
With Mormons it is absoultely imperative that as a Christian apologist, you commit them to the fact of their polytheism. There is no point in going anywhere else with the discussion until it it firmly established that they believe that there are millions (billions?) of gods and that they intent to become one also.
The second point, if given more time, I would establish the philosophical basis for monotheism. I would take them point by point to the logical conclusion that God cannot have been created.
The third thing I would do is demonstrate to them that the Bible clearly teaches monotheism.
Mormons need to see clearly that their religion is polytheistic in nature and that this view of the nature of God goes against the God of both the OT adn NT. As Christian apologists talking to Mormons we need to clearly demonstrate the philosophical basis for monotheism. In the end, Mormonisms great failure is its inability to push itself back to the beginning. As Christians, we know that nothing can predate God. The Bible provides the philosophical basis for monotheism.
For those questioning Mormonism, take the time to read these scriptures: (Deuteronomy 6:4, Isaiah 43:10-11, 44:6-7, 44.8, 45;5-6, 45;12, 45;18-22, and 46:8-9)
Well, this of course would take more than a few minutes, but I think the point I would want to make is that the God of Mormonism is not the God of Biblical Christianity. The Mormon God is not the God of the OT or the NT.
The nature of God is not something Mormon missionaries don’t want to lead with because they know it’s a nonstarter. The average person, unless they are a newager or given to occultish forms of thinking, is going to be turned off by the Mormon concept of the nature of God.
The edit button isn’t working this morning so I wasn’t able to correct my double negative in my last paragraph. It should, of course, read: “The nature of God is not something Mormon missionaries want to lead with because they know it’s a nonstarter.” My apologies to all of the English teachers out there.
Falcon…thank you…and don’t worry about the grammatical errors : )
Excellent reference I didn’t know existed.
To all: For the sake of argument…What did Christ mean in Matthew when He referenced Psalms stating “Have I not said, ye are all gods”?
Love in Christ,
Free
FALCON
To answer your first question: God is the Father of our spirits. He is a loving parent who wants us to partake in the joy and glory that he has. For this reason he sent us all here to aquire physical bodies. As in this state we will all sin he also sent his son, the one person who never sinned, to redeem us. Through this act it is made possible for us to return to his presence and partake in his glory, being heirs of his kingdom and Joint heirs with Christ. (Romans 8: 17).
At to all the references to the Old Testiment (and none from Genesis) I would say that because of the Israelites habit of going after false gods, the real God was a little caution to allow them full knowledge of the plurality of gods. However, it is also true that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost form one Pesidency, or Godhead. They are one in this sense. Much like the Bible is one book, but it is made of several sepparate and very distinct books.
Now, besides Christ quoting Psalms in John 10: 34-36, I also wonder as to the meaning of 1 Corinthians 8: 5 “For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)”
In the quote from Christ we are told that we are all gods, and from Paul we learn there are many gods.
Shemawater wrote: “However, it is also true that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost form one Pesidency,…”
OM Gosh…are you serious when you refer to the Holy Trinity as a “Presidency”? Logic would then have to assume that there will be all these other smaller “presidencies” scattered throughout the terestial and celestial kingdoms, filled with self-righteous, boring men wearing white shirts talking about how great their prophets are.
Does that mean I can still take a nap during third hour in the celestial kingdom?
Me: I prefer to worship Jesus Christ and would rather talk about Him.
If the MM’s knock on my door and I only have a minute or two, I get right to the point. I tell them that JS is a false prophet who taught a different gospel, they are heading to the lake of fire forever for teaching and believing in a false gospel.
Then I pull out Gal 1:8-9. they hate hate being told this, but it’s true. Hell is real, false teaching abounds and I am not into sparring the truth to be PC or not hurt someone feelings. Rick b
That is a good question. I always try to get them to come back for a scheduled appointment so I have more time, but I always try to hit the nature of God. Who He is revealed to be in the Bible, the utter sinfulness of man and the cross of Jesus Christ. It is hard to get a point across in a few minutes, so whenever possible I try to get them in for an hour to give them time to talk and me to ask questions.
Shematwater, I addressed the issue of Psalm 82 and the alleged defense of a plurality of gods here:
http://fo-mo.blogspot.com/2008/12/does-psalm-82-support-mormon-doctrines.html
I would interested in your response.
I would agree with Aaron about the power of God’s testimony. My ? would then be “How do you know that is not just some guy named Isaiah speaking? how do you know that that is the God of Heaven speaking?” I don’t know what Aaron would say, but I am curious. ONce I hear the answer, we can cont. our virtual missionary encounter.
Falcon,
I am amazed that you think LDS are so ignorant to their own theology. Article of Faith #1 teaches about the Father and the Son. I am equally amazed that anyone can get past Gen 1 and still maintain a monotheistic system. The Gods reveal themselves in plain language “Let US go down”, yet the reworking and rationalizations begin.
If you asked me who God is, I would say let us turn to John 17 and we can, at least, definitely say he is not the same God of Post-nicean Christendom.
“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16)
I know this for a lot of reasons. One of the successful prophecies of the OT pointing to Jesus. Another is the self-evident truth and beauty of God’s testimony. Another is the superiority of the Christian worldview to explain life, existence, and morality. Another is how God changed my life. Another is an encounter with Christ through God’s public word.
None of them definitively involve private emotional epiphanies, and to help people share in my saving knowledge, I don’t point them to the secret or private things, but rather to God’s public revelation of himself. In other words, a true salvation-experience will be of God’s public testimony.
DoF, Trinitarian Christianity (which is the only kind of Christianity) certainly recognizes that there are three persons in the Trinity, but while they are distinct they are all three God. You are using evidence of the Triune nature of God to try to support polytheism, which Christianity certainly is not and which the Bible rejects. You should try to get a grasp of the Trinity before you presume to deny it.
I am a very inactive non-believing Mormon/Christian but I find it very interesting that “Christians” are pointing fingers at LDS theology because unfortunately Christianity itself makes little sense either in the grand scheme of things (Christians attacking Mormonism is not all that different than atheists attacking Christians). And although there is a lot to find fault with in Mormonism, I find that the majority of Mormon theology just fills the gaps of all of the mysteries surrounding Christianity such as the Godhead.
I’m sorry but modern Christianity’s explanation of the Godhead makes zero sense. Whenever I hear a Christian explain the Godhead it sounds like somethinig I would hear from someone smoking pot. Mormonism, right or wrong, at least has a plausible explanation. The Bible certainly does not give a definite accounting. And just like anything else religious anyone can go back and forth citing this or that scripture with their supporting interpretation. Ultimately, it’s not about finding Jesus Christ, it’s about being right and that, well, is wrong.
All that matters folks and the reason I’m not a Mormon is to follow Christ’s example. It doesn’t matter what you think of the Godhead (if it had been so important my guess is that JC would have explained it better). I do agree that salvation requires both God’s grace and a sincere effort to change but it’s not purely by grace nor by a multitude of ordinances.
If you disagree, I’m fine with your opinion even if you happen to think I’m going to hades. But no matter what you believe, I think it’s wise to focus on your own actions and to treat others fairly. In the end, as Christ said, there will be many that preached in His name and He knem them not. This applies to Mormons, Jehova’s Witnesses, Adventists, Catholics and your everyday Evangelical Christian.
If we want to talk about the God of the OT then look at who wrote it. The Israelites were the writers of the OT and their descendants that we can still find are the Jews. The Jewish religion has been around for centuries and they have the first part of the OT as their scriptures. They do not believe in the Trinity (the Traditional Christian God). None of their doctrines throughout the centuries ever claim a Trinity. Because of the Trinity description the Jews call Traditional Christians polythiests. The Jews are waiting for their Messiah/Christ to come. They believe that He will be the son of God and that He will be a seperate and distinct person from God. Now if that’s the God of the originators of the OT then that is how we should also interpret the OT. There is no Trinity in the Jewish religion or traditions – thus there can be no Trinity in the OT. Ask any Jew.
Please excuse me if my interjection in this forum is wrong. I say that because I do not wish to offend anyone but simple point out a few revolving topics.
A lot of the comments I have read, in multiple blog entry’s, seem to be geared towards proving each other wrong. Banter, friendly and fierce, attempting to out maneuver each other and hence gain superiority; either personal or contextual.
It is quite obvious that most of the contributors are educated, well spoken individuals who are passionate about their position and opinion in Christianity.
I think Defender of the Faith (DOTF) presents a good question when he said, “I am amazed that you think LDS are so ignorant to their own theology?” This principle, the topic principle is exactly what is taught in the LDS faith; they make no secret of that. Disagreeing or defining what or who God is, is the prerogative of the person or organization. Each side will have their own interpretation of the trinity / godhead, or whatever you want to call it.
If it’s M&M’s you are after (or they after you and you are looking for a defense), I don’t think it’s very Christian to go at it with the attitude of proving them wrong. I think it is unchristian to ask someone what they believe, then, point out where they are wrong. This is exactly what M&M’s do. (This part I am speaking from personal experience) Friends, please to not degrade someone’s beliefs just to get a point across.
If I may make a suggestion, as topics are presented, express you beliefs and support your beliefs. I think with the quality of contributors here, we can have a healthy discussion and hopefully enlighten those seeking the right path and strengthen those who trying to do what is right.
I am not suggesting that the remarks are overly offensive, but if your mission is to lead the LDS faith out from the shadows, I think a more loving and caring approach will do you well.
Portlandcoug,
Thank you for your input. Would this summary of your beliefs be correct: “There is no absolute truth, believe what you want – just be a good person, God will judge you by your works”? You seem to have an existentialist belief in a higher power, whoever or whatever that may be. On the other hand, God has taken specific action in this world and made Himself known to us – and to you. Trust in the Lord Jesus Christ alone, He has paid the price for your sin on the cross. You are called to believe and take hold of the faith that God gives you in the sacrificial death of Christ and His resurrection. Not one of us will ever be worthy to merit God’s favor, which I am sure you already know. But by grace through faith in Jesus Christ your sins are forgiven, atonement is made on the cross. Ephesians 2:7-9
Kevin,
I would not worry so much about attitudes. If my house were on fire and someone rushed in and told me it was burning down and would soon be reaching my bedroom, I would not think “you seem like an arrogant person, I am not going to listen to you.” No, I would check it out – is my house burning down? Let me run outside right now and look back at it. God knows the means and time of His drawing people to faith in Jesus Christ – some may be drawn by argument, some drawn by friendship, some drawn by the direct working of God. People who post should always pray about what they post and try to not be unnecessarily ugly – but there is a refreshing quality to directness, especially in this culture where the entire ethic of truth seems to have been compromised to people pleasing non-judgmental therapeutic deism (I did not come up with this term but picked it up on 2 radio programs – White Horse Inn and Issues Etc., but it seems to fit American society so well). I do appreciate your concern, but contending for the faith (even by sinful fallen people) is a God given responsibility.
I really don’t have any data on the degree to which Mormons know and understand their own doctrine and history (of Mormonism) but the testimonies I read (on exMo sites) leads me to conclude that there are a significant number who are limited in their knowledge of these things. In fact if anyone is interested they could visit:
http://mormonstories.org/?page_id=102
It a podcast by Mormon John P. Dehlin and the title is “Why People Leave the LDS Church”. For anyone interested in Christian apologetics to Mormons, it provides some excellent insights. Also, as I read the testimonies of exMormons, it’s pretty obvious that they didn’t have the whole story (about Mormonism). I would also suggest that for those Mormons who are questioning Mormonism, to go to YouTube and search for Lyndon Lamborn’s exit story. I would encourage our moderators to post, again, the video testimony of the young men who were Mormon missionaries and took up the challenge of trying to find Mormonism in the Bible. They couldn’t and are now traveling, singing and testifying to their faith in Christ.
My follow-up question to the Mormons, I was witnessing to (when they’d do “the God of this world” polytheitic answer) would be to ask them what Jews believe about the nature of God. Find an orthodox Jewish rabbi and ask him who God is. If we follow the logic of Mormon thought, the Jewish rabbi would have to say, “Well there are many gods and we believe that Jewish men will progress (as did the god of this world) from being men to become gods. Not only that but these men/gods will have their wives with them and they will procreate spirit children throughout eternity and have their own planetary system to rule.” The Jewish rabbi would than go to the scriptures and show the verses that teach this. Right? So are Jews really Mormon in their doctrine and theology?
That’s where I’d go next.
It really does come down to interpretation. There are several verses that if taken in a literal way support a plurality of Gods. There are also those that support monotheism. However, each of these can be turned in the mind of the reader to support the other.
FALCON
There are other presidencies under them, but why must they be self-righteous? Why can they not be honest, righteous men who have given all the glory to their Father and now stand under him in authority in the eternities?
As to a jewish Rabbi, I have already answered this. First, it does not matter because they lost the truth a long time ago (just ask Christ). Second, at the time of Moses, when all their scripture was written, they had a bad habbit of going after other gods. If they had known about the plurality of gods they likely would have ended up like the Greeks, or countless other religions, praying to different gods, which was not good. So God kept this knowledge from them, thus providing less temptation for them to stumble with.
ARTHER
To your explanation I would give the following response.
First, the men you quote were just as hung up on Monotheism as modern Christians, and so they were forced to find a different interpretation for this verse, making them less reliable.
Second, I would give my own, full understanding of this verse. That understanding states that we are gods (notice the present tense) meaning that we are of the same race. Just as a tadpole is the same species as a frog, so we are the same as God, but in a different stage of progression. As one has put it, we are gods in embrio. We will die like men, and in that death we will rise again immortal (like a butterfly coming from its coccoon).
Third, in John 10: 34-36, Christ quotes this same verse from Psalm 82 as a defense for his claim to be the son of god, stating again that God called men gods.
As I said earlier, it depends on interpretation, and this is mine.
FALCON
You took 1 Corinthians 8:5 way, way out of context. Paul is talking about the false gods and false lords that people were offering food to. The verse immediately following reads “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.”
If you’re ever in a debate, stick with your Psalms reference instead. Its out of context too, but takes a bit more explaining.
Excuse me, I hate to use up a whole post on this but did I quote 1 corinthians 8:5?
Rightly said that the devil is the author of confusion. I’m shaking my head here in regards to some of our Momon posters. Not to be insulting, but their’s is truly a warehouse of misinformation. I begin to wonder if it’s worth my time and effort to even deal with this. This is indeed a spiritual battle. The problem is that our Mormon friends have been fed this misinformation for so long, that they just accept it and repeat it without doing the work to check it out for themselves. Somebody pray for me. I’m going to take the dogs to the groomer. I’ll think about this during the drive. Someone please convince me that trying to discuss these matters with Mormons is really worth it!
Exegesis… Biblical exegesis is a critical explanation or interpretation of the Bible. The goal of Biblical exegesis is to find the meaning of the text which then leads to discovering its significance or relevance.
Eisegesis… Eisegesis (from the Greek root εις, meaning into, in, among) is the process of misinterpreting a text in such a way that it introduces one’s own ideas, reading into the text.
If anyone reads the bible exegitically they would NEVER think that God the Father has a Father, Grandfather, Great Grandfather, etc.
We all need to stop putting what we think into the Bible (Eisegesis) and simply read what it says… For Mormons this would mean opening your mind, leave the footnotes JST etc. out of the picture. Start with the Book of John… Read it straight through word for word and see what it tells you. Don’t let the LDS church tell you what it says.
Mobaby, your comments exemplify exactly what I am talking about. I am not sure if you did that intentionally or not, but in either case your response to my post is what I am getting at. You positioned yourself to disagree with a few points I made, at first discrediting my concern about attitude, then you gave reasons, then to appear not so threatening you say “I appreciate your concerns, but…” The ‘but’ negating the preceding comment. Directness is good and I think most Americans of the United States would agree because this is a very low context culture; being ethnocentric adds to the fuel.
(Btw I fail to see how your anecdote fits in with the context. I believe it is lacking detail to appropriately respond to.)
Does this give someone the explicit right to insult someone, disregarding emotions; where is the charity in that?
Maybe I elaborated too far in my fist post. My point of contention is that we should not asks some what they believe in, AKA Bear your Testimony, knowing full well you’re going to open the Bible and point a scripture that proves them wrong. Is that the right thing to do? This position doesn’t prove you are right; all it does is prove that they are wrong in your eyes. Attribute is very important! How can you help someone when you first intend to hurt, humiliate, or discredit them?
If you truly did not know what the Missionaries were going to say in their testimony ,then, maybe, ask them, then refuting would be appropriate. The premise of the posting by Aaron is that you already know the standard testimony spiel, hence why would you already have planned out what scripture you would use to refute them with.
I think you could cut it very short by first asking if you can share a message, say, “I understand your culture uses personal testimony, and may I share one with you? (Insert Scripture).” This is very direct and supported by scripture, non threatening, and positive.
Falcon,
Do not give up, it is important to talk to the LDS culture, it is important to respect them and love them. I would ask you not to give in to your frustrations.
Physiology, sociology, psychology, and all the other studies that deal with the brain all make certain that when dealing with people who have strong beliefs it is difficult to change their minds. Belittling their ideas and refuting their beliefs will only drive them deeper into their hole, incubating extremists in some cases. Some LDS members are more institutionalized more than others. We must remember what we are asking of the LDS members, some who have been raised in LDS families, living their whole life Under the Banner of Heaven. (See Jon Krakauer). We are asking them to question all that they believe.
Proceed with care
Tender hearts ahead
I have never been able to understand the Trinitarian notion of God. The notion that God is everywhere but nowhere, that God is without body, parts or passion, that God fills the immensity of the universe etc. That is just one mass of confusion. The Nicene Creed is as self-contradictory as it is illogical.
The New Testament plainly speaks of:
1. God the Father;
2. God the Son; and
3. God the Holy Ghost.
Do the math: that is three Gods not one.
That constitutes three distinct individuals who are united in purpose and engaged in the same goal which is to “bring to pass the immortality and Eternal life of man.” Each of these three distinct individuals plays a different role in Heavenly Father’s Plan of Salvation.
I find it a curious but nevertheless incontrovertible truth that the Trinitarian notion of a Triune god denies that Jesus Christ is the literal Son of God the Father. The Trinitarian Creed and resultant theology deems that this “sonship” is of a metaphorical or symbolical nature given the Jesus (in the Trinitarian tradition) is supposedly co-eternal with God the Father (meaning that was never a time when God the Father existed and Jesus Christ did not contemporaneously exist as well). This is of course an utterly false and apostate doctrine.
In contrast, I personally know that Jesus Christ is the literal son of God the Father. Furthermore, as amply demonstrated in the Old and New Testaments, I know that all of mankind are the literal children of God the Father.
This pivotal distinction (that Jesus Christ is the literal Son of God the Father) is the great difference between the Nicene Creedalists and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
If folks want a good reference that discusses the thoughts of the early Fathers regarding the nature of God and eventually an articulated doctrine, get a copy of J.N.D. Kelly’s work “Early Christian Doctrines”. It’s not an easy read, but it’s worth the time.
A sample:
“There are two points in the Apologists’ teaching which, because of their far-reaching importance, must be heavily underlined, (a) that for all of them the desription ‘God the Father’ connoted, not the first Person of the Holy Trinity, but the one Godhead considered as author of whatever exists; and (b) that they all dated the generation of the Logos, and so His eligibility for the title ‘Son’, not from His origination within the being of the Godhead, but from His emission or putting forth for the purposes of creation, revelation and redemption. Unless these points are firmly grasped, and their significance appreciated, a completely ditorted view of the Apologists’ theology is liable to result………when all the Apologists stressed that His (Jesus) generation or emission resulted from an act of the Father’s will, their object was not so much to subordinate Him as to safeguard the monotheism which they considered indispensable. The Logos as manifested must necessarily be limited as compared with the Godhead Itself; and it was important to emphasize that there were not two springs of initiative within the Divine Being. That the Logos was one in essence with the Father, inseparable in His fundamental being from Him as much after His generation as prior to it, the Apologists were never weary of reiterating.”
Something to chew on. Get the book!
st. crispin…at the risk of being edited I’d love to know what you think these verses mean in light of your comments…
Alma 11:26 And Zeezrom said unto him: Thou sayest there is a true and living God?
27 And Amulek said: Yea, there is a true and living God.
28 Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God?
29 And he answered, No.
32 And Zeezrom said again: Who is he that shall come? Is it the Son of God?
33 And he said unto him, Yea.
38 Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father?
39 And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he is the very aEternal Father of heaven and of earth, and ball things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last;
Blessings to all who serve Adonai Echad!!
Kevin,
Please see this as a conversation – I hope you are not offended that we may disagree on the best ways to approach people? One way to reach folks is to speak the testimony of the Bible, for that is the gospel. The scriptures are God’s good news. My ideas, thoughts, experiences are not the gospel. They may even be valid experiences – and sharing that is one way to witness, but ultimately how my thoughts or experiences align with God’s revelation is what is important. I don’t think Aaron is trying to be rude, but polite, by allowing the missionaries to share what they came to share.
I see this board as more of a conversation with folks and I do value directness. I would have to disagree that most Americans value directness – it seems that our culture is consumed with “everyone’s right, no one’s wrong,” basically that it is wrong to disagree. Let’s mask over any differences and all agree, accepting any and all feelings and interpretations. The gospel is offensive in that it says “this is truth” and not just opinion.
My example of a home burning down is that the life saving gospel is good news – and God uses it despite the sinful fallen nature of those who espouse it. For instance, if an arrogant man came and woke you saying “your house is on fire, get out” you would not say “I am not listening to you, you arrogant fool.” No, you would check it out – is my house on fire? and run to your safety regardless of the man’s arrogant attitude. The truth of the gospel may seem arrogant and offensive, but is it the truth regardless? I can be arrogant, for I am a sinful fallen creature, but God can use even me to draw people. I see Mormons on here with attitudes, I see Christians with attitudes, I inherently have an attitude, it’s inescapable, just like life.
I interpreted your comments as wanting to shut down conversations – don’t disagree. Am I wrong? Tell me.
st.crispin wrote
I completely and whole heartedly agree.
st.crispin wrote
I would agree accept the New Testament teaches that there is only one God. (See also: Mark 12:29, John 17:3, Romans 3:30, 1 Cor 8:4-6, Ephesians 4:4-6, James 2:19, etc.) Oh and the Old Testament also teaches there is only one God. (See also: Deuteronomy 4:34,9, 6:4, 32:39, 2 Samuel 7:22, 22:32, Psalm 18:31, Isaiah 43-46, etc.)
Therefore unless one is willing to throw out both the New and Old Testament Scriptures one must be Trinitarian. Oh but since you brought up math what is
1.)13 = ?
2.)1 x 1 x 1 = ?
3.)∞ x ∞ x ∞ = ?
Lautensack
Baah looks like the superscript didn’t take so 1.) = 1^3 for those who speak calculator.
Lautensack
Crispin,
You are right, the Bible does state there is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but it also says there is one God. These do conflict, right?
So, you have a few ways to deal with this paradox. You can say none of it is true, you can say the Bible mispeaks when there is only one God, you can say the one God really refers to something else (ie a godhead, close to your view), or you can say that God manifests himself in three ways (our view).
Let me give an assumption: we should seek to uphold the plain language of the Bible, right? (If you disagree with this assumption, tell us now).
What does the Bible, then, say about there being one God? It says there is only one God, right? Lautensack lists some verses on this.
If the Bible says there is one God, and we are to seek to uphold that, changing that meaning undermines that premise.
Now, shall we look at the interpretation you give to there being not one god, but one godhead. Are the two terms God and godhead the same? No, they are not. A God is separate being, whereas a godhead is a group of united gods.
They are not the same, so when the Bible says there is only one God, it does not mean there is only one godhead– it means there is only one God.
So, if there is but one God, the existence of trinity must mean that the three parts are three different manifestations of the same God, ie the one God notion is upheld.
This cannot be said of the godhead theory because a godhead, but definition, is multiple gods.
BTW, I do not pretend the Trinity is an easy concept, but its truth is central to understanding God and all he can do for you. One God who can take these three attributes is an amazing God. Don’t you think?
Spartacus,
Could you please clarify your position with your reference to 1 Cor. 8:5, thank you.
Falcon,
I love how you think. Keep up the good work!
Peace and Grace!
I am not offended at all, I am simple empathizing. Disagreeing with Americans being direct is disagreeing with scholars like Adler, Hofstede, and Pink, .D. Empirical evidence done by all three suggest that U.S. citizens have a low power distances, meaning they are willing to jump the traditional approach and go to fro the direct route, this also is supported by the low context, Americans do not often read into subject matter, of for that fact are good at it. This is beside the point, sorry I digress. Remember, this comparison is based on other countries.
So by your example, if I knocked on your door and said, Can I share a message with you about home fires, and if you said yes, then I proceeded to tell you that you do not check your fire alarms, extinguishers, or have the proper insurance, then I proceed to tell you that you made a poor choice in where you decided to live, because of the neighborhood, then I told you, by the way your house is on fire. What creditability would I have? You may run and check, which I would want you to do, you might come running to me for help; or you might get around to checking eventually, or you might never check. In any case, your decision when to check will be in part based on the type of conversation that we had. Was the conversation polite or contentious?
The other option is running into your house and telling you your house is on fire. This example does not fit the confines of the discussion board.
Lastly, I am not attempting to shut down conversation; I would be foolish to think that I could accomplish such a feat. I guess I would say, I would like to see less Toppers. Sure the LDS members are defensive, why shouldn’t they be. This blog is dedicated to pointing out the short comings of their faith. I think anyone in that position would feel attacked. I am not trying to stop the conversations; I am suggesting that people take an approach that is more respectable to other person.
Jim Spencer, author of “Beyond Moromonism” has written an excellent book titled “Have You Witnessed to a Mormon Lately?” Jim has a steady stream of Mormons contacting him wanting to exit Mormonism and as a result has gleaned some valuable insights into the different “types” of Mormons that will be encountered and some general characteristics of both the religion and people.
Jim is a former Mormon elder. Here are some of his observations.
*Mormon converts are required to forfeit their right to question authority. They are told to trust the “feeling” they get in reponse to their investigative prayer. Once they make that purely subjective determination, the have found “The Truth.” They are to believe whatever they are told from that point.
*Until we realize how much of a delusion Mormonism is, we will not have the reservoir of patience reqauired to deal with our Latter-day friends. (I need to remember that one.)
*We need to know how deeply the intimidation of Mormonism goes. Christians who have never experienced the bondage of a cult system cannot easily realize what these people are up against.
Jim says, “Since I wrote my first book on this subject, I have received thousands of letters and phone calls from Mormons. One common denominator runs through all the conversations: fear. Black, sticky fear. Paralyzing fear. Mormons who want out can’t get out. Those who choose to brave the odds and leave their Church often pay heavy prices. Some lose their families. In fact, without a great undertaking of grace, they would not escape. But they do, often with brillant displays of courage.
Jim says that “there is, within Latter-day Saints I meet, a growing hunger. A cry for deliverance. God has heard their cry. Perhaps you will be the instrument He will use to bring a Mormon soul to Jesus Christ.”
This encourages me to press on.
LDSTitanic,
I know the question was not directed at me but I will give an answer. When it talks of Jesus being the Eternal Father it is using the definition of ‘father’ as ‘one who gives life’. Jesus gave us eternal life through His sacrifice/atonement. He is the author of our salvation and thus He is one who gives us life. So He can be called the Eternal Father because He gave us Eternal life.
As far as the ‘beginning and the end’, ‘the first and the last’, I do not know what the church teaches on this as I don’t have time rught now to look it up but my guess (NOTE MY GUESS) is that when it comes to eternal life and all things attached to it He is it – the beginning and the end. He definately is the first and the last eternal sacrifice for our sins. The OT sacrifices were only a similitude and could not cover sins like His atonement did, so they cannot be counted as an eternal sacrifice.
But there is only one God to worship and give glory to and to recognise as God, and that is our Heavenly Father. So these statements by Amulek are correct according to our doctrine.
But as I said earlier, and so did Falcon, to understand the God of the OT lets look at the Jews as they knew and understood Him, the one and only true God. They never have believed in a Trinity, yet they knew and understood that a Saviour/Messiah/Christ known as the Son of God would come. Thus they believed in 2 seperate beings, NOT a Trinity. I know they did not believe in a physical being for God which does not support the LDS version either. But in trying to define the Trinity doctrine one cannot use the OT without saying that the Jews ahd the wrong God all along even when He told them He was their God. This then nullifies the OT which then nullifies the NT and we have no Bible.
I’m interested in Kevin’s observation “Americans do not often read into subject matter, of for that fact are good at it.”
I’m not American and neither is Ralph. I wouldn’t like to speak on Ralph’s behalf, but one thing that being non-American does to me is that it makes me aware of how much American culture shapes American religion. Its true of American Evangelicalism, but even more so of Mormonism, which, from my perspective, is the truly quintessential religion of the North Americas.
Kevin’s observation stood out for me because I am currently reading through Theophylact’s commentary of Matthew’s Gospel. Its an interesting read, not least because he sees things in Matthew’s Gospel that I gloss over. I’m not saying I’d agree with everything he says, but its interesting contrasting my understanding of Matthew’s Gospel with Theophylact, who lived 900 years ago in a monastary in Bulgaria.
If American’s do not read into their subject matter, then contrast Theophylact, who certainly does. For example, he even finds meaning in John the Baptist’s clothing. Here’s what he says about Matt 3:4 “All the saints in scripture appear girt about the waist with a belt, for they labored continuously; but the careless and the gluttonous are not girt, but let their robes flow to the ground, like the Saracens of today. Or, the saints are girt because they have mortified the desires of the flesh, for leather is part of a dead animal”
Incidentally, Theophylact, a native Greek speaker from 11th Century Bulgaria, is fully trinitarian and speaks of a Gospel of Grace. I can post some of his comments if they are of interest. So much for the theory that Trinitarianism is a modern invention.
Ralph wrote “But there is only one God to worship and give glory to and to recognise as God, and that is our Heavenly Father.”
….so what were the disciples doing when they worshipped Jesus? (Matt 28:9, Luke 24:52, and a stack of other verses).
I’d fully agree that the Jews were acutely aware of the “one God” thing. Ironically for you, the Jewish writers of the NT identified this “one God” fully with Jesus (and the Holy Ghost, incidentally).
Hhhmmm…looks like we’ve got a “one God” with three persons situation. If I needed a word to describe it, “Trinity” would do just fine.
PS If you’re going to get into Trinitarianism, please get your information from Trinitarians, not from James E Talmadge, who’s version of Trinitarianism would not be recognized as Trinitarianism by most Trinitarianists (including the early Church Fathers).
Shematwater,
With regard to Psalm 82 and John 10:34-36 have you read all of Psalm 82?
“How long will you judge unjustly
and show partiality to the wicked?” (Psalm 82:2)
Can you explain how this relates in any way to the Mormon doctrine of eternal progression?
There is a perfectly reasonable explanation, elohiym can be used to refer to judges or rulers (Exod 21:6; 22:8-9; Psalms 45:6).
I am sure that all of this is pointed out on Arthur’s post but I find it odd the way you claim, “it depends on interpretation, and this is mine.” It seems that your interpretation is simply taken out of context.
Jim Spencer has some invaluable advice regarding how to witness to Mormons. Jim says that as a former Mormon Elder, a gospel doctrtine teacher and one who has friends and relatives still in Mormonism, he has a spoecial interest in seeing an effective evangelical approach directed toward Latter-day Saints.
He says that “For the most part, I think we Christians tend to make two mistakes with our Mormon friends: we are either too hard on them, or we fail to confront them honestly. If we are going to reach Latter-day Saints, we must follow the admonition of Paul, “speaking the truth in love” (Eph. 4:15) Our watchword could well be: truth without love is too hard; love without truth is too soft.”
Jim goes on to say that Mormons are victims of an oppressive religious system. As such they need our love, understanding, and patience as well as truth. He says that sometimes, however, some people are so loving they forget to temper their acceptance with truth. It isn’t negative, he says, to tell someone the painful truth. True love confronts. It is possible to be truthful as well as loving. To be bold and sensitive, tough and tender. Jim’s advice is to take inventory of our own attitudes, prepare ourselves for battle, and pray for direction.
All good advice, I’d say!
Jesus is God:
John 1:1. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
Revelation 19:13, “And he [Jesus] was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.”
Jesus is the Only begotten Son
John 3:16, John 1:14, John 1:18
I heard an apostle of the LDS Church recently say Jesus was the “first begotten son”. How can the LDS deny that Jesus is the “only begotten Son?” The verses quoted melt away the idea that Satan is the literal brother of Jesus.
The Mormon Jesus
I could beat up the Jesus of Mormonism. He is a wimp. Do we really want to worship a God that “we can become”?
Again, it all comes down to understanding and interpretation.
1 Corinthians 8:5 does state that there are many gods, and then Paul goes on to say there is only one for us. This is all true. We worship one God. For us to worship any other God is heresy. However, to know that other gods exist, but not to worship them, is not.
Also, I have read all of Psalms 82, and I still stay with my interpretation, because it is the same argument used by Christ.
When the New Testiment speaks of one God, it is speaking of a Godhead, or telling us to worship only one god.
As to the Alma reference, it is all very easy to explain. Christ is the Father of this world, in the sense that he created it. Yes our Heavenly Father brought the plan forth, but the actual creation was done by Christ and other great men who have since lived on this earth (Abraham 3: 24). He is also the eternal father in the sense that through his atonement he has adopted us all as his children.
shematwater…Jesus adopted us as His children? That is a new one one me…
However, as to the Alma passage, I am left wondering whether the BOM is in error or whether Amulek lied through his teeth. Is there but ONE God or are there an infinite number? Perhaps Joseph scribbled that in before he thought through the whole progression paradigm…
Shematwater,
Paul is acknowledging many idols see 1 Cor 8:4, this is in the context of the Corinthians eating food offered to idols in pagan ceremonies. The gods small “g” are idols.
Shematwater,
If you wont believe me you may want to consult James Talmage’s Book “Jesus the Christ” Page 501 where he says Psalm 82 refers to divinely appointed judges. It is on Google books if you don’t have a copy.
Thanks to Aaron who showed this to us in a past post.
Shem said
Shem, Gundeck answered your question by saying,
Now here is when knowing and understanding the Word of God helps us to know this is true.
If there is more that just one God in the entire universe than we have a problem, So all these so called other gods you Mention Shem, simply must be false gods that do not exist and are simply made up gods. How can I say this? Simple, Read Gods Word.
Not trying to change the subject to the trinity, But either the Trinity is One God in 3 persons, or as the Mormons say, 3 separate Gods. Here is why.
Read Isa 40:18 To whom then will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare unto him?
If there are other gods as powerful or even more powerful, than this would be possible, or if the mormon godhead of three gods was real this would be possible, but it is not possible.
Read Isa 43:10 Ye [are] my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I [am] he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
Read Isa 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I [am] the first, and I [am] the last; and beside me [there is] no God.
How can God honestly say this and not be a liar if other gods exist? If even the Mormon godhead exists God cannot say this. More later. Rick b
Isa 45:5 I [am] the LORD, and [there is] none else, [there is] no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:
Isa 45:14 Thus saith the LORD, The labour of Egypt, and merchandise of Ethiopia and of the Sabeans, men of stature, shall come over unto thee, and they shall be thine: they shall come after thee; in chains they shall come over, and they shall fall down unto thee, they shall make supplication unto thee, [saying], Surely God [is] in thee; and [there is] none else, [there is] no God.
Isa 45:21 Tell ye, and bring [them] near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? [who] hath told it from that time? [have] not I the LORD? and [there is] no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; [there is] none beside me.
Isa 45:22 Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I [am] God, and [there is] none else.
Isa 46:9 Remember the former things of old: for I [am] God, and [there is] none else; [I am] God, and [there is] none like me,
Now thats a lot of Verse where God says He is the Only God. So Either God is a liar or His word is Wrong.
So lets add to that from the NT.
Read2Ti 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called [us] with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,
According to 2 Timothy, Jesus called us to Him apart from Works before the World even began. That to me shows Grace alone and the trinity, Since it says Jesus was around before the World began.
Now add to that these verses, I’m adding Extra for CONTEXT.
Col 1:7 As ye also learned of Epaphras our dear fellowservant, who is for you a faithful minister of Christ;
Col 1:8 Who also declared unto us your love in the Spirit.
Col 1:9 For this cause we also, since the day we heard [it], do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye might be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding;
Col 1:10 That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God;
Col 1:11 Strengthened with all might, according to his glorious power, unto all patience and longsuffering with joyfulness;
Col 1:12 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:
Col 1:13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated [us] into the kingdom of his dear Son:
Col 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, [even] the forgiveness of sins:
Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
All these verse speak about how Jesus was with God before the world Began, and How Jesus both created and hold all things together. So much for the Many Mormon gods and godhead. Rick b
Shematwater wrote “We worship one God. For us to worship any other God is heresy.”
Perhaps you missed my earlier post which asked..
…so what were the disciples doing when they worshipped Jesus?
Kevin said, “I think it is unchristian to ask someone what they believe, then, point out where they are wrong.”
Kevin, I recommend getting on a reading plan for the Old and New Testament. You are seemingly far removed the worldview of the Bible. Don’t mistake or equate Western, American, Victorian, postmodern standards of civility with the Biblical idea of love.
Take care,
Aaron
The truth of God’s word is so strong when it comes to this topic it makes the LDS butchering of scripture rather pathetic.
I think a big misunderstanding comes to Mormons because they believe that God was just like one of us regular folk and therefore being “God” really isn’t all that far off or so completely different from us human beings.
When people say “God” they typically think of that being one person. And when someone says God, people typically are referring to God the Father. Because “God” sounds singular, their mind has a hard time thinking of “God” as an ESSENCE OF BEING rather than just one God, and typically God the father.
This is why when someone says God, I think of all 3.. That is what GOD is comprised of – the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. God IS three persons. It’s much easier to understand the Trinity when you dont automatically think God is only referring to the Father. Can I get an amen?
Kevin,
I feel for ya. One thing to keep in mind is that this blog is simply a continuation of post-apostolic Christian legacy. Constant and persistent philosophy and debate, trying to fill the void of revelation. Enmity of man in the fullest sense. One denomination condemning another. Starting with the Proto-orthodoxs aganist the Gnostics extending down to our modern Trinitarian vs. Modalists debates. Condemnation, claims of apostasy, and then reorganization ….repeat cycle; and all under the guise of “real” interpretation of the scriptures. So much for coming to the unity of the faith.
I like your simple testimony. Keep it coming