For many years the LDS Church-owned newspaper Church News included a column called “Living by the Scriptures.” This weekly column was described by the newspaper in this way:
“‘Living by the Scriptures’ is another in a series of Church News reader response articles. Was there a time when a particular scripture touched you, when it offered comfort, guidance and much-needed support? If so, please describe your experience in 250-300 words, giving the scripture reference and telling how it affected you.”
In 1997 I decided to send a submission to Church News relating an experience I had with a specific Scripture that gave me comfort, guidance and much-needed support at a pivotal point in my life. This is what I wrote:
“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. I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.” Isaiah 43:10
Several years ago I was challenged in my faith to examine the claims of a different religion. This other church insisted that it alone was pleasing to God and that my religion was wrong.
I spent many hours each day studying both my own faith and the claims of the challenging faith. I would compare and contrast the teachings of both, endeavoring to come to a firm knowledge of the truth.
As I would study, I would sometimes be overwhelmed by the strong testimonies of those from the other church. Even though the doctrines of this religion were very different from what I had always believed to be true, I found myself periodically thinking, “Maybe this is the true church. Maybe everything I have been taught in my church is not right.”
However, throughout this extended period I could sense God asking me, “But who do they say that I am?” The answer to this question was the key to whether their claims were true or not. God had told me, through the prophet Isaiah, certain things about Himself so I would “know and believe” and “understand” who He is; and this so I could evaluate claims people would make in His name. The knowledge given through this Scripture verse, that there is only one true God – and will never ever be any others – became the anchor that held me firmly to the truth when I was being tempted to turn away and follow after a different God. The Word of God is very precious to me; I thank my Father in heaven that He kept me from deception and helped me to see the foundational flaw in that other church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
-Sharon Lindbloom
My submission was never chosen for publication in Church News and “Living by the Scriptures” is no longer a regular feature in the Mormon newspaper. But I like the idea promoted by the column. To speak of the way God and His Word has been active in our lives is always a good idea. Therefore, I invite you, friends in the Mormon Coffee community, to carry on that old Church News tradition. You may tell us here, or you may tell those people God brings across your path in person, but along with Daniel, those of us who love God should all agree, “It has seemed good to me to show the signs and wonders that the Most High God has done for me” (Daniel 4:2).
Come and hear, all you who fear God,
and I will tell what he has done for my soul.
–Psalm 66:16
Oceanview,
I do not own Talmage’s book, Articles of Faith so I was not able to look at the source you provided on Divine Investiture. I would also like to state I did look in Bruce McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine. However, could not find the term. I guess he was just as limited in his understanding in LDS beliefs as I. Or maybe he didn’t think is was a huge thing to talk about. I guess it’s pointless to look at his book too because Mormonism is dismissing McConkie as fast as they can. But Talmage is scripture, or opinion? I’m never sure what is what anymore.
However, I did look up “Divine Investiture” in Mormonwiki.org. I understand this is not an official source but I did find this quote amusing…
“It is well known that the 1916 doctrinal exposition “came about as a response to questions about the Godhead.”[4] Members were confused about conflicting views of God between the Lectures on Faith, the Book of Mormon, the Bible, and later important sources of doctrine. The doctrine of divine investiture is seen by non-Mormons as an effort to account for the modalism of the Book of Mormon, wherein the person of the Father is indistinguishable from the person of the Son, as well as to account for tension heightened by the Elohim/Jehovah distinction, a convention which, like the divine investiture concept, was created in 1916[5]. That the Son, being Jehovah in the Old Testament, demands and accepts prayer and worship, would be awkward for LDS theology, since the Father is the one who is to be worshiped and prayed to.
Mormons Ari D. Bruening and David L. Paulsen (BYU professor) both admit this was a new doctrine, although both disagree that it was needed to reconcile Book of Mormon passages:
“None of these doctrines, excepting perhaps divine investiture of authority, was new at the time [1916]. Divine investiture of authority is the process by which the Father allows the Son or the Holy Ghost to speak in his name, as if the Son or the Holy Ghost were the Father. This doctrine provides an interesting explanation through which to understand the apparently modalistic verses in the Book of Mormon, but it certainly is not a necessary explanation; the Book of Mormon itself describes Christ as creator (see Mosiah 3:8) and as father of those who abide in the gospel (see Mosiah 15:10–11). Thus, the principle of divine investiture of authority was a new doctrine, but it was certainly not a doctrine needed to reconcile ‘contradictory Book of Mormon passages.'”[6]
Mormon Jeffrey D. Giliam writes:
“This principle [of divine investiture] was obviously invented (at least partially) to help harmonize the doctrine that Christ is Jehovah. Thus Christ can call himself the Father whenever he wants. This doctrine has been taken to the extreme wherein we now say that all revelation since the fall of Adam has come through the Son and not the Father. If the Father wants to reveal something, He send[s] Jesus to do it (again). If the Father appears to someone, it is only to introduce Jesus and let him take over.”[7] ”
So, Divine Investiture is a term created to reconcile Mormon scripture. Wait, now I’m confused. Why do you dislike the Trinity so much?
<"These are not trivial questions.. I believe few Christians ever take a moment to ponder them.. It’s easy to say I’ll worship and serve God in the heaven… but few ever ask themselves what that REALLY means."
Ummm, Christians don't know the specifics because God didn't give them and it's not important for us right now. So, I would do whatever service in heaven God asked me to do but I am not going to put words in his mouth on what that will be. For me personally, a simple, "I don't know the answer right now," is better than believing something that isn't true. So I don't know if God will let me do some creative works in heaven. I kind of think He will because he made me creative now. But that doesn't mean I think I will be made a God, to raise spirit children, create a new Christ for my kids, and such. I know that isn't true because God says there is one, eternal God. He knows of no other.
<"Exaltation is receiving the highest degree of salvation with God."
According to Mormonism, yes. But no other kingdom gets to be in Heavenly Father's presence, so my point is still valid.
<"Not true at all..You need not be exalted to be in the Celestial Kingdom with God."
So there are people that aren't in the Celestial Kingdom that are worthy do be with Heavenly Father but can't? I guess you'll just say some typical LDS response like, they chose not to be there. Well, I choose God but don't believe Joseph Smith, so why do LDS teach I can't be with Him?
OV,
Of course you’re a foil. What made you think I or anyone else is interested in debating you? The whole purpose of this site is to minister to Mormons who have entered the contemplative stage and provide them with information. You’re job is to lob the ball across the plate and let us smack it out of the park and you are fullfilling that role very well.
As an example, I asked you to tell me who Jesus is. You responded with a list of features or characteristics, facts that Christians would most likely agree with. Now comes the teachable moment. Mormons are known for being deceptive when it comes to their fundamental beliefs. You have done that with your answer. Now I can point it out. You teed up the ball. I smacked it.
You really didn’t tell us who Mormons believe Jesus to be. You were deceptive purposely and by omission. You demonstrated a very important tactic of Mormonism. Another tactic closely associated with this is Mormonism’s use of Evangelical vocabulary but hiding the fact that the words mean something entirely different in Mormonism. This is another way of attempting to fool people into thinking that Mormons are Christians and hold to the same beliefs.
By being the foil, you provide the teachable moment. I’m sorry you didn’t realize this. There’s something we know about arrogant TBMs. Debating them is like trying to teach a duck how to sing. It’s a waste of time and it annoys the duck. Frankly it’s difficult to keep a TBM poster around very long. At some point they paint themselves into a corner, get frustrated, bear their testimony and leave. At least you’re not a drive-by bomb throwing Mormon that we sometimes get here.
Anyway, just so you’re straight on your role. Thank you for your contribution.
<"Now I can’t speak for others but I not nor do I see others in the LDS faith- “taking steps toward being a god”.. in fact LDS doctrine would suggest that any aspiration toward being a god would be the very action that would preclude you from exaltation.. For it is written – thou shall love the Lord with all thy might , mind and strength. Exaltation comes to those who love and obey the Lord.. that precludes prideful aspirations.. The last will be first, the first will be last."
I also wanted to leave a comment to this remark by Oceanview. I am very glad that he does not view himself as trying to exalt himself to be a god. And I do believe that LDS teach that trying to be a god is not the goal. When I spoke about myself learning about the three divisions in the Celestial kingdom and becoming overwhelmed, my goal was not to be a god. I have always been a little bit of an over achiever. If there was a bar, I wanted to reach it. It wasn't so that I could be worshiped but I wanted to achieve the greatest potential that God offered me. I think a lot of LDS think this way. But when you examine LDS Doctrine, it establishes a pecking order. It's like saying the world needs CEO's as much as it needs garbage men (no offense to the garbage men). Okay, that makes sense. The world needs both. But in LDS there is this separation of classes. Bottom class doesn't get to interact with anyone but the people in their class or kingdom. So if we applied this to the real world, anyone making under 30,000 can't interact with someone making more and those making under 100,000 can't interact with anyone higher than that. They can only interact if someone from the highest level comes to interact with their lower class.
Ocean view said "Exaltation comes to those who love and obey the Lord.. that precludes prideful aspirations.. The last will be first, the first will be last." I completely agree. But he leaves out that in LDS exaltation is only acquired through LDS baptism, and endowment. The highest of the highest even need marriage. So he is being deceiving when he says "those who love and obey the Lord." There are many people that "love and obey the Lord" that are excluded from LDS definition of exaltation.
Oceancoast
“First of all you claim I’m lying when I answer the question asked of me.. and then proceed to give your twisted and distorted idea of what LDS believe.. That you call me a liar is one thing, but your twisted ideas of LDS beliefs basically demonstrates the reason why you ‘give up’ talking to LDS.. It appears you have NO clue as to what LDS really believe and therefore when you are confronted by LDS who do know their faith, you run away, call them liars etc.”
I don’t claim you’re lying, I know you’re lying. My ideas about LDS belief come directly from LDS leaders. If you are telling me that I’m wrong then you must also tell your leaders that they are wrong.
“We were first begotten as spirit children in heaven and then born naturally on earth” Brigham Young, JoD vol. 4, p. 218
Do you deny that the Corporation teaches pre existence & that Mary was a spirit child of god & his goddess wife?
“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints proclaims that Jesus Christ is the Son of God in the most literal sense. The body in which He performed His mission in the flesh was sired by that same Holy Being we worship as God, our Eternal Father. Jesus was not the son of Joseph, nor was He begotten by the Holy Ghost
Ezra Taft Benson 13th LDS President
“The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood – was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers”
Brigham young JoD.8:115
Will you now deny that the LDS teaches or has taught that god had physical sex with his own daughter?
“Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.”
Doctrine & covenants 132 19:20
In light of the above do you deny that the Corporation teaches or has taught that a man can become a god?
“your twisted ideas of LDS beliefs basically demonstrates the reason why you ‘give up’ talking to LDS.. It appears you have NO clue as to what LDS really believe and therefore when you are confronted by LDS who do know their faith, you run away, call them liars etc.
My twisted ideas are actually the twisted ideas of your leaders & I think I have demonstrated that I do know what I’m talking about. As for running away, where on earth do you get that idea from?
Ocean said
See Ocean, you wonder why we here dont take most of you LDS seriously, When we show you what your leaders say or said, you always resort to the same old and tired plays. 1. Throw the Bible under the Bus, dont even try and reply, just throw out the Bible and claim it is false. You did that.
2. Claim we cannot quote or use what your prophets said because they are simply In your words mere opinion, you also did this, Good job.
3. claim we have no clue what were talking about, but also dont share the answers with us.
So here we go, You said
Here is the Problem, You claim what your leaders said is mere Opinion. Can you prove this? Then after you give me you reason for saying it is mere opinion, then answer me this? How can we know what is mere opinion and what is doctrine in light of this information. It is your prophets that have said stuff like this,
Now there is more, Some Mormons will object that unless a statement by an LDS Church leader opens with the statement “Thus saith the Lord”, then it can be set aside as the mere opinion of the speaker. However, not everyone would agree with this. In 1980 prominent Mormon leaders gave a speech which contained the following words:
Lets add also
So Ocean, You can dismiss everything I said, But it is still a problem for you, like it or not.
Now you said,
Now I know we wont agree here, But that verse you gave from Mormon 8:17 I expect that in a book of fiction that was made up by a false prophet. I say that because, now any problems we show you from the BoM you can blow it off as “Man did it”. Can you say, wow, thats convenient.
Ocean said
Well I dont agree for the simple reason of, It was your prophet JS that said, A man can get nearer to God by abiding to the precepts found in the BoM. If you dont agree with what your prophet said, please explain why. If you do agree, then tell me how we can, what is in the BoM that we can read or do that will get us closer to God than any other book out their, and you cannot use quotes in the BoM that are found in the Bible, other wise, your mearly quoting the Bible and then we really have no need for the BoM. In this point here, I honestly expect you to either ignore me, or give some lame answer about why you dont have to answer this question, but I honestly dont think you can answer me on this point.
Ocean said
I agree God gets final word, But the problem with LDS saying this is, You guys cannot agree as I pointed out, Then as I said with Fglee, He claims “Thats My interpretation” Yet he never did tell me how he comes to the Interpretation he comes to, and as I pointed out, I did not interpret Everlasting as, with out end, I said I simply believed God when He said it. So I let God have the Final word and simply agreed with God, it was/is the Mormon that does not. Thats why I dont agree with you when you say that.
Funny how you believe this, But yet one big complaint among us non-lds is that not one prophet has ever gone before God and asked for clarification to all of these issues in the LDS church. Like if the Bible is translated incorrectly, what is the correct translation? If BY claimed Adam God is scripture and Doctrine, yet now it is tossed aside as false doctrine, who is correct? I can add to this list of issues.
Would that be before or after Smith translated them “by the gift and power of God” and was given each word on his stone by God? So God transmitted to Smith the mistakes in the Nephite/Jaredite account and had him copy them down?
Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.” David Whitmer
“By aid of the Seer Stone, sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin, and when finished he would say ‘written;’ and if correctly written, the sentence would disappear and another appear in its place; but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used” (CHC 1:29). Martin Harris
falcon
Someone here can’t Handle the truth.. And thankyou for exposing the true deceptive nature of your questions.. You said that you have yet to have Mormons answer those questions here, well why I am I not surprised. And what hubris you have to think I or anyone is interested in debating YOU?
Actually if that’s your ministry, then your deceptive from the get go as this site appears to be the ministry of MIS-INFORMATION.
So when it come to deceptions it clear here who is the TRUE deceivers. You ask a question of me for which I gave an honest answer.. An answer that anyone who truly knows me would know it the truth.. But your questions weren’t genuine at all were they?
I answered your questions as you requested, and my answer is who Mormons believe Jesus to be. You don’t like the answer because it doesn’t fit your agenda of antipathy against the LDS Faith, so you the make falacious claims against me as being deceptive and you don’t even know me.. You apparently don’t even know LDS doctrine.. You appear to have been indoctrinated into the malaise of misinformation promoted by Anti’s.
It’s clear from your post you don’t like LDS here to set the record straight.. Bottom line.. “you can’t handle the truth”
OLD MAN..
Like falcon, you expose you disengniousness. I gave an answer that even Falcon said was what most Christians would agree with.. And it’s what any LDS I know would agree with..Yet , like a good Christian (NOT) you call me a liar. (Where’s the moderators?) You don’t even know me.. So how can you claim I lied? You can’t … your rhetoric is nothing more than emotive antipathy.
Furthermore, and this we have to laugh at, of the THOUSANDS of writings written by LDS leaders and members, you find a few select quotes, which BTW, are not in any way in conflict with my answer to Falcons question at all. And then you proceed to add your TWISTED interpretation of what the leaders said.. Case point..
You infer with your pathetic rhetorical question that LDS believe the God had sex with Mary.. Yet not one of the citations you present even mentions sex or intercourse at all.. That idea comes from YOU. Not our leaders.. That is a reflection of what you are all about.. Not the LDS faith.
Rick B
Well considering that I do answer questions, and it has just be demonstrated by your fellow critics that the questions are nothing more than bait, whereby if we don’t answer in accordance with your desire we are called liars… So with such an experience why would we share any answers with you?
Wow ocean, ignore everything I said and just say you did answer me thats great.
Then you claim you answered falcon, I doubt it, you know full well you gave him the pat answer that has everyone that knows nothing about mormonism thinking, yep he believes what Christians do, so he must be a Christian.
Yet in reality you believe jesus snd Lucifer are brother, you believe you were already in heaven and sent here but went through the veil of forgetfullness. You believe works are required in salvation. And much more. Now I say you believe this, but mormonism teaches these things and if as a mormon you dont believe this stuff, then how can you claim to be a. Mormon.
Unfortunately, this is not the case with Jesus and His Father. Jesus said that he literally IS the Father. Even Jo Smith changed the Inspired Version to say so, and they printed in the Evening and Morning Star in 1832 how much the TRINITY meant to them:
The humorous thing here is that Smith CHANGED IT from something that didn’t mean this. And he was “inspired” to do so! So what should we think when three years later he is identifying an Egyptian fertility god with an erection as “God sitting on his throne”? Please advise us how this is “divine investiture”…
Of course this is not “divine investiture”. This is the TRINITY DOCTRINE. Alive and well in Mormonism until Jo mistranslated the word elohim when he thought he had learned Hebrew. And yes, the Mormon Church would have heaven be just like their earthly corporation, with The Father as CEO, Jesus as COO and the Holy “Ghost” as CFO. All those who make it in the CK will have to work at building worlds to be productive members of the Corporation and kickback the tenth world to the CEO/god directly above them, and those that didn’t pay their tithing and live up to the corporation rules in this life will just have to be slaves in the CK for eternity as the Corporation Manuel D&C 132 promises.
Ocean, when Falcon asked you for what Mormonism has taught about who Jesus is , he
asked you a straight forward question knowing that since you appear to be a knowledgeable
Mormon that you would be specific in your answer . Now while you did’nt say anything that
would contradict what your leaders have taught , still what you did was similar to what Joseph
Smith did with the Articles of Faith when they were first published . Would non-LDS reading
that doctrinal statement get the whole picture as to Jesus’ “restored gospel ” taught by prophet
Smith ? At this very time Smith believed in many Gods , the gospel ordinance of polygamy,
and other important ” revealed ” doctrines which were not mentioned in his Articles of Faith.
Your being candid in sharing your belief about Jesus , as per Falcon’s request , should have been
” out on the table” since we have had Mormons on this blog in times past that did not agree with
their apostles on some very fundamental doctrines ( Heavenly Mother being one example) .
When you accused him of being indoctrinated by misinformation promoted by ” anti’s” ,
that spoke much about you since we’re here to provide information that allows people to
make an informed decision after listening to Mormons , especially the Missionaries
( who incidently , are the followers of those men ( Mormon leaders) who started this “anti”
behavior towards the beliefs of others .
Concerning what you said to Old Man about what some Mormon leaders have taught about the
Virgin birth , the fact that what he said about God having sex with Mary is not his idea , it was
indeed their idea. You might be surprised how many Mormons believe this , included among
them are Mormon apologists . Now you may choose not agree with them , or you may think
this doctrine is not that important , however, don’t deceive yourself that Mormon leaders were
trying not to convey the very idea that God came down and had sexual relations with Mary .
Oh man, you need to read up. And stop with the opinion crap. Your “prophets” and “apostles” claim to be the very “oracles of God”. Here is what they claim,
Agree or else. Now, What about Mary? Let’s start with “apostle” Melvin J. Ballard who spoke what Jesus wanted him to say:
You are one of the one’s denying this, OC. So, if this is all about the “Holy Ghost” and some kind of artificial insemination that many Mormons claim, then why does Ballard go to lengths to say that “he did not debase himself, degrade himself, nor debauch his daughter”? “Apostle” Franklin D. Richards makes it crystal clear what happened:
Why would Orson Hyde even suggest that this was “startling”???
These quotes are self explanatory. If there was nothing to what they were saying, if there was noting objectionable about it, if this was all what Mormons today claim it is, then why do these men talk about Mary not being “debauched”? The only way you would “debauch” your daughter is by having sex with her:
You can try and say that they didn’t say this. You can try and say that they only gave an opinion. You can try and say it doesn’t matter. And that’s ok. But they did, they didn’t and it does. As Wilford Woodruff said in 1857:
As for them knowing the “mind of God”, they claim that too:
Here we see that Mormon “apostles” and “prophets” claim they know the mind of God continually, they say what Jesus tells them to say, and if they were to lead anyone astray, by action or by ahem, opinion… they would be toast. It’s just not in the programme, so this ain’t opinion, these are the “oracles” and what they say is the mind and will of God. And they have not just said these things a few times, this has been a continual rant from the time of Jo Smith to the present. Their words only become “opinion” when they are inconvenient to their “faith promoting history”.
Rick B,
I didn’t ignore you at all… There appears to be six or seven of you against me here . and It appears to me that this site is the life for some of you, I on the other hand have a life outside of this. I asked a question of you, which you didn’t respond too.. Why should I answer you or your friends if my answers are just called lies? It seems the MO here is to drive LDS away, so that the propagation of distortions and misinformation can continue unchecked.
I gave the answer that was in my heart .. Yes, it’s a statement that most Christians would agree with, and LDS are Christians. You may hypocritically disagree, but by any objective measure LDS are Christian. And I find that MOST non-LDS Christians, and non-Christians actually agree with that assessment. It’s only a certain cult of bigoted Christians (Who IMO aren’t really Christians themselves, as Christ wasn’t such a bigot) who hijack the term Christian to refer only to those who agree with their narrow and intolerant views.
What I quite instructive is the LDS Faith is comprised of tens of thousands of talks, books, journals etc. 99% of which no REAL Christian would ever find fault with, but the critics here attempt to define the Faith and it’s beliefs from a few quotes from journals and periodicals from times past. This is not only ludicrous but it speaks to the evil intent that lurks in the heart of such critics. Should a LDS cite a few select quotes from ECF or some Evangelical preacher that are controversial, you folks would immediately cry foul and disown the quotes.
LDS view their leaders as inspired men, but men still the same. It’s the critics who try to elevate our leaders to an state of inerrancy just to knock them down.. A typical strawman tactic.
Rick B,
You said ..
Rick , I did no such thing.. and although I can’t speak for others, I haven’t seen any LDS throw the Bible under the bus.. But to the contrary, I see so-called Christians here prop the BIble up to Idol status.. I’m surprised they don’t have it gilded in Gold and placed in a shrine to kneel before, as that’s what they are fundamentally doing when they attribute the attributes of Inerrancy and completeness to the text. That’s false belief is what I call into question, not the Bible. IMO, the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy is an insidious and evil doctrine. It causes it’s adherents to distort the actual intended meaning that the Biblical authors attempted to convey into some bizarre interpretation that preserves dogma of biblical inerrancy. This is NOT what I believe God intended at all.. So the only thing we throw under the bus is the Bibliolatry, not the Bible.
Jaxi
I did a simple search on LDS.org for the term “Divine Investiture” and received this list http://www.lds.org/search?query=%22divine+investiture%22&lang=eng
I find it interesting that you went to an site that has nothing to do with the church to find your information rather than the church itself.
You also claim the term is not in Mormon Doctrine, which is a false statement. While it does not have its own heading, it does appear in that work. Under the heading of “Christ as the Father” we read
“Although Christ – the Firstborn in the spirit and the Only Begotten in the flesh – is the Son of God the Father, and as such is a separate and distinct personage from the Father, yet there are three senses in which Christ is called the Father. These are clearly set forth in a document entitled, “The Father and the Son: A Doctrinal Exposition by the First Presidency and the Twelve.” (Articles of Faith, pp 465-473; Man: His Origin and Destiny, pp 117-129.)… He is the Father by what has aptly been termed DIVINE INVESTITURE OF AUTHORITY. That is since he is one with the Father in all of the attributes of perfection, and since he exercises the power and authority of the Father, it follows that everything he says or does is and would be exactly and precisely what the Father would say and do under the same circumstances. Accordingly, the Father puts his own name on the Son and authorizes him to speak in the first person as though he were the Father. This is similar to the situation in which Christ puts his name on an angel so that the designated heavenly ministrant can speak in the first person as though he were Christ himself. (Rev. 1:1; 19:9-10; 22:8-14.) Thus it is that our Lord can begin a revelation by saying, “Listen to the voice of Jesus Christ,” and shortly thereafter speak of “mine only Begotten” (D. & C. 29:1, 41-46), such latter expression being made by Christ, but under that divine investiture of authority which permits him to speak as though he were the Father. (D. & C. 93:3-5; Mosiah 15:1-5.)”
The term also appears under the headings of “Mahonri Moriancumer” and “Most High.”
I have to wonder just how hard you were looking for this term.
As to everything else you claim, you have proven clearly that you don’t understand LDS doctrine. You may have at one point, but that understanding has been corrupted by what you now believe, and so you no longer know the doctrine. This is common for those who leave the church, as they start to believe the false ideas spread by those antagonistic towards the church.
For instance, you made the claim that there was a time in which there was no God, and this is not the doctrine of the church. Gods have always existed, and always will. There never was a time when there was not a God. To say otherwise is contrary to the doctrine of the church.
You also confuse what it is to be God, or have the authority to rule in heaven, and what it is to be a god, or to exist in a divine state. Christ was God before this world was ever created, as he held the authority to rule in heaven with his Father. However, he did not yet exist in the divine state, and thus was not a god in that sense.
Ocean
I love your comments, as they really hit it on the head. I can’t count how many times I answered a question and then was told later that I never did. In fact, the very issue that Rick tries to bring up concerning the Book of Mormon and Joseph Fielding Smith’s comment on the Doctrine and Covenants was addressed directly by me some time ago. However, it seems he has conveniently forgotten, just as he conveniently ignored your answer to the same statement on this thread. Of course that is a common thing here; rehashing the old standbys by ignoring the comments made concerning them in earlier posts.
Rick
Ocean did answer you, just as I did some months ago.
The Book of Mormon is the most correct, but that does not mean it is completely free of error, or that it contains all truth. It means the truth it does contain is more free of error than any other book that contains truth.
The Doctrine and Covenants is the most relevant book for us today, as it is the only scripture that was given to us directly. The Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the Pearl of Great Price are all scriptures that were revealed in a previous age and for a different people. While they are great books, and the Book of Mormon still claims the distinction of being the most correct, the Doctrine and Covenants was given to us and thus is more relevant to us today.
There is no contradiction is any of this, except that which your own imaginings have attempt to create trying to come up with some way to fight against us.
As to Ocean’s answer to Falcon’s question, it was completely honest. Those things that you list have nothing to do with the question asked, and thus were not part of the answer given.
Old Man
I know you like to tell us what we believe, but your own ignorance and arrogance are all that comes through. You like to twist the words of great men to fit your twisted idea of what we believe, and end up with a vague shadow of the truth that you then take out and parade around as being our doctrine. It is like looking into a trick mirror and claiming the distortions it produces are the reality while the figure looking in the mirror is the lie.
(sorry for the length)
This is what Mormons constantly do when they are cornered with things they can’t answer. Claim Christians worship the Bible. I suppose that you would say the same of the Jews and the Torah because they were asked by God to ritually cleanse the materials it was written on, that they would keep their law in the ark, (constructed as per God) and that Jesus was doing the same things when he would recite the shema and revere the Torah like his fellow Jews did. We revere the Bible, and it is a powerful thing, because it really is the word of God. Mormons want to claim there is something better, but then when their works are shown to be false, they turn on those that revere the true word of God and call them Bible worshipers. Typical.
According to the eye witnesses of how Jo translated, he was given the BOM word for word and couldn’t move on till he got it right. So if there are mistakes, then they are the Mormon God’s mistakes.
“I never told you I was perfect; but there is no error in the revelations which I have taught…” The Teachings of the Prophet Jo Smith, p. 368
“I know you like to tell us what we believe, but your own ignorance and arrogance are all that comes through. You like to twist the words of great men to fit your twisted idea of what we believe, and end up with a vague shadow of the truth that you then take out and parade around as being our doctrine.”
I don’t like to tell you what you believe; In fact I find most your beliefs too offensive to even talk about but talk about them I must. However, I do tell you what your leaders believe which is something rather different. Mormons enjoy pointing fingers at people who do this. Any distortion of the truth is good enough when they are unable to answer their critics. The latest Mormon ploy is to distance themselves from past prophets, to claim they were “only speaking as men” what utter nonsense! Everything I have said to you concerning your prophets declarations & revelations is true. You tell me I twist the words of “great men” Do you mean men like your founder Joseph Smith who married more than 30 women two of whom were only 14 years old & 11 who were married? Perhaps you mean men like Brigham Young, implicated in the murder of 120 men women & children. Or could you be referring to a man like John Taylor, who, when confronted by a Christian minister concerning Mormons being involved in polygamy declared that it was emphatically not true; at the time of his denial he had 11 wives! Great men indeed!
Shem,
Yes, thank you for finding that in Mormon Doctrine. I did not do a thorough look as it has only been a few days since the term was brought to my attention. All I did was look for the term, as Mormon Doctrine is in a dictionary style format. But my point is still valid. The term was a created term by church leaders to explain the churches doctrine, just like the Trinity is a created term to explain Christian doctrine. I acknowledge that the source I looked at wasn’t an official source. I am trying to say that the argument against the Trinity brought up by Oceanview is that the Trinity is all made up, there is no scripture that outright describes the Trinity. I would appreciate some scripture that outright explains Divine Investiture.
I know it is Mormon Doctrine that there has never been a time without Gods. I am saying that if you follow logic, you can’t have an infinite process of causality. You either have an eternal God that was eternal from all time that is making gods or you have a bunch of intelligences and one had to make himself a God, and therefore there was time without Gods. My point is, if you do believe there was an always perfect, eternal God than why don’t you worship Him instead of a god that was once a man as we are now, not always eternal, not always perfect.
< "Christ was God before this world was ever created, as he held the authority to rule in heaven with his Father. However, he did not yet exist in the divine state, and thus was not a god in that sense."
He was God but not god? You are right I don't understand that doctrine. Since I am so wayward please clear it up because I really don't get it. If God can just pass authority off to anyone then why doesn't he just make us all God without being Divine? That would have saved Adam and Eve a lot of trouble. Do you worship Heavenly Father? or do you worship Jesus Christ as well? Christ is God too right? And why not worship the Holy Spirit as well? He is a god, right? Or do Mormons worship Christ but they are really worshiping Heavenly Father and not Christ. Why not worship Heavenly Mother? Is she God? Or when we are worshiping Heavenly Father, we are worshiping her too? Why not worship Heavenly Father's Father? So when one of you Mormons become God and have spirit children are you going to give an credit to Heavenly Father?
I'm really tired of you telling me how I have been corrupted? I'm still waiting on specifics on what I believe that is corrupt.
grindael,
Since when have we been cornered with something we can’t answer?
It’s not only a claim, it’s an observed truth. When Christians project the attribute of “Inerrancy” and “Completeness” to the Bible they are projecting God Attributes on to it. It then goes beyond being a text with the Word of God contained therein, to something more. And this worship of the text become ever so apparent when anyone even suggests it’s not perfect in every way, these Bibliolaters start making accusations as you are doing now.
In each of these instances you overstate the Jews view.. None of them assert a concept of inerrancy. Respect, yes.. LDS Respect the scriptures too.. But the attribute of inerrancy is a concept beyond respect… it’s worship.
Biblical Inerrancy is a fallacious doctrine, that’s why LDS don’t hold it. IMO, only the spiritually bankrupt need an inerrant Bible or inerrant anything. The Spiritually full need no such thing.
Jaxi,
There is a big difference between the Trinity doctrine and the concept of Divine Investiture. Although both are attempts to explain the unity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.. The former is paradoxical and logically in-congruent whereas the latter isn’t.
Bible Inerrancy
” In summary, one has to define to define “biblical inerrancy” quite carefully first. Does it mean perfect accuracy in a modern journalistic sense? Is there allowance for summaries and slight “rephrasings” for the sake of shortening a story, as we see in a harmony of the gospels?
In summary, it can be said that the (1) the Scriptures are foundations and supremely authoritative, but that there is a hierarchy of authority even within Scripture (2) that the Scriptures are reliable and do not intend to deceive or present fiction as history (3) that is can be said (even with limitation in our knowledge of the original text) that the Scriptures cannot be broken and that God has spoken through them. In doing so, we can be faithful to Christ’s own view of Scripture while not denying that there are issues that we must be aware of to use the Scriptures wisely, which primarily means to use them in the context of the life of the (local) Church which is the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:16)”
http://www.orthodoxanswers.org/answer/581/
“The former is paradoxical and logically in-congruent whereas the latter isn’t.”
I believe I have already explains that multiplicity and oneness can exist together in a previous answer. You can even find it in nature and biology.
LDS views are not immune to paradox. As I said before, you cannot have an infinite process of causality. (Gods causing gods infinitely without a beginning, something has to be eternal)
jaxi,
I haven’t seen that, but I know of no instance where the Dynamics multiplicity and oneness of the Trinity doctrine exist in nature.. It just doesn’t because it’s impossible, 3 does not equal 1. There have been many who have tried to use items in nature as analogies of the Trinity, but they all fail. some like to liken it to water, with three states, Ice, water and steam, but unlike the trinity the substance of the ice is never the same as the water or steam at any given moment. They are simply similar substance, existing in their own space and time. Whereas the Trinity dogma insists that all three , Father, Son and Holy Spirit are in fact ONE being.. Not just sharing of like substance, but are in fact the same substance and being.. But then it paradoxically assert that the father, son and Holy Spirit are separate and unique persons (Beings) . It’s logically incoherent. It’s been deemed a heresy since the fifth century to try and reconcile this paradox. Any attempts to assert the ONE takes away from the uniqueness of the THREE.. any attempt so assert the uniqueness of the THREE takes away from the ONE… that’s the problem.
I’ll be the first to admit that.. But LDS Cosmology has far less paradoxes than the Traditional Christian model.
Kind of moot point.. any time you introduce infinities into the equation you have a paradoxical problem. Whether or not you believe in one being that has existed infinitely or that there is a succession of beings going back into infinity.. The problem is the same and it’s completely irrelevant to your salvation here and now.
That’s ridiculous, and your opinion. Show me one Christian that worships the Bible. Show me one creed, law, regulation, speech, statement where ANY Christians advocates WORSHIPING the Bible. I’ll be waiting.
The problem is, people like you won’t revere God’s WORD for what it is. You call it myth. You claim that it came from pagans. You disrespect it, and all of it’s teachings. You poison the well because you don’t believe it. That’s ok. You’ll stick up for Jo Smith and his crazy notions about billions of gods, identifying our GOD as a pagan fertility god, defend “prophets” that teach racism, adam-god, immorality like polygamy, but you then call those that choose to live by the precepts of the Bible alone Bible worshipers. Put your money where your mouth is. Show me any Christian who tells his flock to worship the Bible.
Good comments Jaxi.
LOL. Tell me where the FIRST Mormon God came from. Explain that. The closest anyone got was Orson Pratt. And this is just looney tunes speculation:
No “revelation” was ever forthcoming, and none ever will be. You call Mormon cosmology “irrelevant” to salvation, but denigrate the Christian cosmology of the Bible. There you go again.
When you claimed that the Hebrews got their God from the Canaanites. Still waiting for your proof. Also, please show me how the above quotes about Mary don’t relate to sex.
That is pure poppyc*ck. The Bible is complete, but there is more coming. Read Revelations Chapter 11 for example. But these men will come with power and we will all know who they are. You pick and choose what you want to believe, and make things up that aren’t there. The thing about adding to what we have, is that no one has proved that they can. Until that happens, we rely on the WORD we have. And I have NEVER claimed that the Bible is perfect in every way. That is also, by the way, the stance of the Mormon Corporation. They can’t get away with what Jo did in the 1800’s so they are silent about everything, claiming like Hinckley did, that the Mormons don’t need any more scripture because they “have enough”. You are condemning the very thing your own church is doing. How many times do we hear, “if it’s not in the standard works” or “if it contradicts the standard works”. Mormons claim their standard works are inerrant. The proof is when your “prophets” do speak, you call it opinion. You did so yourself right here on this blog.
<"Kind of moot point.. any time you introduce infinities into the equation you have a paradoxical problem. Whether or not you believe in one being that has existed infinitely or that there is a succession of beings going back into infinity.. The problem is the same and it’s completely irrelevant to your salvation here and now."
Not really. Even atheist scientists agree that something must be eternal. Logically something has to be eternal. They say that thing is matter. There is a large difference between something being eternal and a process of causality being eternal.
When I explained about multiplicity and oneness coexisting it was in the long quote I put up awhile ago from the book "The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church." It's not a description on God but a description how we (the Church) will be one but multiple persons. I really can't figure out what about the Trinity is such a hang up for you. Are you thinking that Christians are saying Heavenly Father is a white bearded man that exists somewhere in the space? Heavenly Father is not a man. That is why Christ is called God Incarnate and not Heavenly Father. God is not three persons in one person. He is three persons that are united by a common nature, or essence as many like to describe it, which together are God.
It is the ongoing argument over the doctrine of the trinity that has caused me to post this but let me make it clear from the outset that I have no desire to cause offence although undoubtedly I will.
I see plenty of arguments here & to be honest some of them are way over my head. Be that as it may, I don’t see much in the way of accepting God for who He is. By that I mean God is NOT human & He never was a man but a lot of the arguments here are presented from a human perspective, an attempt to understand God according to the workings of the natural mind. That would be fine if God were human but HE ISN’T. Likewise with the Trinity, if God cannot be understood by the natural mind then how can the natural mind understand or accept the Trinity? Saying “it’s false because I don’t understand it”, isn’t an argument it’s human pride.
Now maybe I lack intelligence, maybe I lack learning & maybe I lack theological training, but I don’t come in here to impress with those things, I come in here to present Christian truth & to do my best in breaking down the strongholds that have been built on foundations of lies & deceit. Some may see me as rude or arrogant, but I really don’t care because hopefully some doubting soul will see something they can grasp & take hold of, something that will perhaps cause them to think “could that be right” when they leave here.
jaxi
It’s moot because as in either case you are introducing an infinity.. which has the same problems with logic whether you’re talking one being or more than one being.. You still have the problem of an infinity.
Actually the hang up is not with me.. An acceptance of the Trinity dogma is a discriminator since the fourth century and others here use it to claim LDS are not Christian. So the question is that a proper discriminator? If the doctrine itself is false, then using it as a discriminator is equally false.
Traditional Christian, No.. they have issued creed saying God is without body parts or passion..
Christ is call God incarnate because he was born to Mary (Flesh and blood), his carnal Father was God the Father, Heavenly Father. Incarnate means to be born of the flesh.. carnal.
Nice try, but what you just describe is actually NOT the Trinity doctrine but another feeble attempt to explain the paradox, and to illustrate describe what you mean by nature or essence? Does this essence have independent will or conscience?
Ocean I said to you
You replied with
Well if you go back to when I claimed you ignored me, you did say
Well let me say that was not exactly a reply to everything I said. Now I agree that their are many people asking you questions, But you pretty much ignored what I said, while still taking time to say something to me. So you could have replied but choose not to.
Now you claimed you asked me a question and I ignored you, Honestly I dont just blow you guys off as you do me, if I missed something feel free to remind me since like you I do also have a life off of this website, I am a pro Chef, Married with 3 kids, My kids are all home schooled, and I have much more going on than just that. Now I will start a new reply and address the issue of you claiming I called you a liar. My next post will be examples of why I do feel you guys (LDS) Lie and why I claim you do.
I want to add also You Ocean said to Grindael,
I will give you example of questions I have yet to see an answer for, and many others have asked the same types of questions we are still waiting for answers on, so since you asked, you shall receive.
TjayT, if your reading this, welcome Back, I missed talking with you. I just did not want to waste a post to just say that, since we as you know only get 6 a day. So Again TjayT, welcome back.
Ocean said
Let me start with this Ocean. Fglee and me were talking, He made the comment that he is tired of people telling him he will go to hell, So I gave him some scriptures that talk about Hell Being Eternal and forever, He replied with, That is just MY INTERPRETATION, I told him that it is not MY Interpretation But that I believe God when he spoke and I take Him at His word. If He says Hell is Eternal and Never ending, than thats what it means. Yet when I pointed out to him, The BoM claim Hell is never ending and eternal and I would like to know How he Interprets Scripture to decide what eternal really means, or if Eternal really does not mean never ending and forever, How do you decide it really means a set amount of years. I honestly dont recall any mormon ever answer this question, and it’s questions like these that I ask Over and over and they seem to be avoided. Care to try Ocean?
How about this, I recall saying to Shem, If you believe the BoM is not translated Correctly, then how come no Mormon Prophet has ever gone before the Lord and said, Lord please give us the correct Interpretation, and I said to Shem, According to Your Prophet JS, Joseph Smith said the German Translation is the most Accurate of them all. So I asked Shem why he or other LDS do not use the German translation? Shem only partly answered me, He said, a prophet did go before the Lord and ask about the translation issue, That is how JS came up with the J.S.T of the Bible. So I pointed out to Shem that he did not answer me on why he or other LDS do not use the German translation and he did not answer me on why no mormon ever quotes the J.S.T here on this site, if the quote the Bible it is just that, the Bible, but never the J.S.T. And Shem if you come back and tell me you did answer all these questions, then cut and paste the answer with the time stamp, because you never did. So Ocean, again this or these are questions we never seem to get answers for.
I have a couple more examples for you, and let me remind you, it was you that claimed
So I am providing them for you.
Now I mentioned that JS claimed a man can and will get nearer to God by abiding by the precepts found in the BoM, so I seem to recall asking you, but it might have been another LDS member, If that is true, can you tell me things in the BoM, that cannot be found in the Bible that if I read the BoM I will get closer to God? And you cannot take the BoM and give me quotes from it that are word for word quotes that are found in the Bible, otherwise you might as well just quote the Bible. If it was you that I asked this off, you have yet to answer me on it.
Now here is the last example I will give, although I could provide more. Shem said to me
So if the BoM does contain error and you guys admit this, then how do you know what verses are flawed and which ones are not? If you dont know, then how can you quote it and read it not knowing if the verse your reading is flawed or not? If you can provide the verses that are flawed then how come we dont have a new edition BoM claiming it is now free from error and it is all correct? But also Shem seems to say, The BoM has less error than any other book including the D and C, so it is implied that the D and C has more error than the BoM. So if this is the case, what verses are in ERROR and why are they not corrected? And how could God allow all this error to enter in in less than a few years?
Now if you cannot or will not answer these questions, Then I will remind you of what you said and use your lack of reply to answer that question. You said you could do it, so now back up what you said. My next post will cover why I feel you guys do and are Liars.
Ocean, My newest post will address why I say you and other LDS lie. Now I’m not saying everything you say is a lie or thats all you do, but you guys do it way more often than you let on. And just for the record I am ONLY SPEAKING FOR MYSELF. I dont want you or any other LDS going after other Christians for what I say, If they agree with me and say so, then that is their choice.
Now Ocean said
First off I dont worship the Bible and yes you and other LDS do throw the Bible under the Bus. If I say Mormonism teaches…. or your prophet said…. or your prophet made a false prophecy, then more times than not the LDS will come back and say, well the Bible says…. but their is no evidence of that, or the bible predicted…. and that was false. You guys always find ways to bring the Bible into it and somehow fault the Bible, so if thats not throwing the Bible under the Bus, then thats a lie.
Now when you said You call false belief of the inerrancy into question and not the Bible, then explain this,
No, Christ is called God incarnate because he is God “invested with bodily nature and form”. He was born of Mary, but that is not what incarnation means. It means that God invested himself of bodily form and he did it through Mary being conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit. Jesus was not “sired” as Mormons claim (that involves sex). The definition of incarnate:
a. Invested with bodily nature and form: an incarnate spirit.
b. Embodied in human form; personified: a villain who is evil incarnate.
A spirit that possesses a human body is not born in it. They incarnate it. In the case of God, he did not just take over an already formed human being, he actually produced a body within Mary by the power of the Holy Sprit and incarnated that body. Therefore Jesus was fully man and fully GOD. Mormons believe everything has to be done by human standards, but God transcends human law. He was actually born of a VIRGIN.
Actually the creed stating God is without “body, parts, or passion” originated at a very late date. The original Nicene Creed reads,
What you are speaking of is The Westminster Confession of Faith (A.D. 1646). The Nicene, Athanasian, and Chalcedonian Creed (A.D. 451) do not state that God is without body, parts, or passion. So claiming that traditional Christians claim this is once again, wrong. Jo Smith used to love to claim that “all Christiandom” taught this, but he was wrong too.
This is another error, since the Trinity has always been taught. The Early Church Father apologia to explicitly define God in the wake of many heresies has been documented 200 years before Nicaea. I quoted them in a recent conversation.
Great post!
“Are you the kind of Mormon that would still believe in Jesus, even if you left the LDS Church?”
When I was LDS I would have responded… “Duh!? Of course I would still believe in Jesus. He’s the central figure of my ‘faith'”. Then I read the New Testament in my native tongue (“contemporary English”) and was smacked in the face with the realization that “Jesus” was just the name I used to solemnize and lend authority to all of the blasphemy and heresy that I was spouting when I prayed and bore my testimony.
<"It’s moot because as in either case you are introducing an infinity.. which has the same problems with logic whether you’re talking one being or more than one being.. You still have the problem of an infinity."
Anyone that really thinks this through will find it is an important point. The greatest scientists in the world would not say infinity is illogical. It may be hard to conceive with our limited human brains, but it is not illogical. If you have an eternal process of causation it is impossible. It's not hard to grasp, its just impossible. Why? Because it's a chain link of events and you have to get to the end of the chain. Science says the end of the chain is matter. Christianity says the end of the chain is one, true, perfect, eternal God. Mormonism says there is no end of the chain, while also saying intelligence and matter are eternal (which to me sounds like an end to the chain because anything eternal would be the end of the chain). So if Mormons say there has never been a time with out gods, it sounds like they are saying gods are eternal. But that's not what Joseph says, he says matter and intelligence. So if you go back the chain far enough and reach the one thing that is eternal you hit matter and intelligence, meaning one intelligence had to raise himself up as a God, which makes his intelligence eternal, not his godhood. So Mormonism would not have an eternal god, but a god with an eternal intelligence. As Mormonism teaches, you and I are also eternal beings, but not eternal gods (gods in embryo). So under Mormon thought, we are just as eternal as God. The only thing that sets him apart from us, is that his Savior (whoever that is) has already saved him, he exalted himself through his works (because LDS don't teach that the Savior exalts, just that he gives salvation) to godhood. Now if you say as Shem did that this can't possibly be Mormon doctrine, because there was never a time with out God's. Then we again, go to the end of the chain to either find an eternal god or several eternal gods. If that is the case, then why don't you worship the eternal god, or gods, instead of the one that was not eternal and was just an imperfect man once? The God I worship is all powerful, all knowing, inside and outside time, creator of all (not just a subset of the universe), and eternal.
<" So the question is that a proper discriminator? If the doctrine itself is false, then using it as a discriminator is equally false."
Oh, this makes me smile. Mormons calling discrimination. You belong to one of the most discriminatory churches on earth. Only your baptism, only our ordinances, only your way. You only have eternal families through your temples. Only the worthy can go into the temples to see family get married. No one even gets to be with God unless they believe the things Joseph Smith said. The beef everyone has with your God is he's not an eternal God and he's not the only one. The Christian God is eternal and the only one. Christianity is not going to sell out it's eternal God. The thing is your church teaches I am subclass. I can't be with God. No matter how much I praise god, have faith, dedicate my life to Him. No matter how Christ-like I try to be. The LDS Church with its "authority" is the one that holds salvation. You teach Christ gives Salvation but he kindly passed it to the LDS Church and they have taken over. Oh, LDS through there hands up and cry fowl when I say that. But can Christ save me without my "saving ordinances." Nope, he can't. And you will say it has to be through his church and that LDS has that "one true church." I left the LDS church to follow Christ. That is the ONLY reason I did it. It would have been so much easier to stay. I never looked at one page of antiMormon literature. I never got answers from another faith. I read my scriptures and read LDS Church history from it's own sources. But your church teaches I won't be with God. I trust God. I don't trust Joseph Smith and I have yet heard one reason from anyone why I should. I'm not afraid of your LDS Church and it's laws and ordinances. I trust in God, and I know that He knows that I have lived my life authentically and have taken every life decision I have made seriously and tried to live with integrity. I know Christ saved me on the cross. I know he is saving me today, and will be saving me tomorrow. I also know I will be with God because He is the way, the truth and the light. The thing is, I make no statement on your salvation or on whether you will be with God. I know that God judges us on our hearts, just like the thief on the cross. So you want to cry discrimination? Pot calling the kettle black.
<"Nice try, but what you just describe is actually NOT the Trinity doctrine but another feeble attempt to explain the paradox, and to illustrate describe what you mean by nature or essence? Does this essence have independent will or conscience?"
It is Orthodox Trinity doctrine. No it doesn't have independent will. The Godhead, which is not a unique term to LDS, all have the same will because they have the same nature. It is this common will and nature that unites them. If you read back on the post I put up where I quote the book, you will see that when we are in heaven everyone will have the same will as well. The image of God is within us, and until we drop our independent will, we see our real person, the person with the nature of God. But this will not be perfected until the Resurrection. There won't be independent will but we will all still have our own consciousness.
To quote from Lossky again,
"Indeed, each of the three hypostastes contains the unity, the one nature, after the manner proper to it, and which, in distinguishing from it from the other two persons, recall at the same time the indissoluble bond uniting the Three… The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one in all respects save those of being unbeghotten, of filiation, and of procession.
I really think you are confusing "oneness" with the Trinity. The water example you gave me is more demonstrative of "oneness."
<"The LDS Church with its "authority" is the one that holds salvation. You teach Christ gives Salvation but he kindly passed it to the LDS Church and they have taken over. Oh, LDS through there hands up and cry fowl when I say that. But can Christ save me without my "saving ordinances." Nope, he can't."
Sorry I got some words wrong in this statement I made because LDS words are so different from mainstream Christianity. I meant…
The LDS Church with its "authority" is the one that holds the way to eternal life (life with God). You teach Christ is the way to God but He kindly passed it to the LDS Church and they have taken over. Oh, LDS will throw their hands up and cry fowl when I say that. But can Christ unite me with God without my "saving ordinances." Nope, he can't.
jaxi,
I’ll admit I’m not Othodoxy and will not pretend as many here claim to, fully understand another’s faith. Yet, what you are describing does not seem to be congruent with the creedal Trinity. In fact it doesn’t sound far different from LDS Godhead. To say the ONE God doesn’t have an independent will is to dilute the uniqueness and deny it as an actual being of unique conscience.. it’s merely a substance.
And yet the scripture is clear the Father and Son have independent wills. When you reduce “God” down to a substance instead of a conscious being with will , you are in effect not much different that the LDS Godhead. For within the LDS Godhead, like all humans, all members are from the same genere, and each member has independent will, even if those wills are united, they still are independent. How the wills can be so perfectly united is a logical question that Divine Investiture answers.
We as humans all share human DNA, and thus are made of human substance or nature, yet we all have independent will. Your Orthodox definition suggests that members of humanity will be one in will with God , but still remain unique as persons. I see no difference with that from LDS beliefs. If YOU do then I can only imagine it’s because you have distorted understanding of LDS beliefs.
Lastly, would you find it odd if some Mormons put together a ministry and called it the Orthodox Christian Research Ministry OCRM? Dedicated to expressing our spin about Orthodoxy with express intent of luring people out of Orthodoxy? Would you trust the information published about your faith from such a site? Or would you consider it errant propaganda?
<"We as humans all share human DNA, and thus are made of human substance or nature, yet we all have independent will. Your Orthodox definition suggests that members of humanity will be one in will with God , but still remain unique as persons. I see no difference with that from LDS beliefs."
Yes, there are similarities between the Mormon Godhead and the Orthodox Godhead. The three are unique but of the same will and nature that binds them. The difference, which is huge, is that the mainstream Christian God is eternal. Not an eternal intelligence made God, but the eternal God. One of the three was never without the other three. They have all existed together throughout time, and before time was time. C.S. Lewis gives a great example of this using books in "Mere Christianity." The only thing I can say is that his view regarding how the Holy Spirit proceeds is different than Orthodoxy. The biggest problem that mainstream Christianity has with Mormonism is that the Mormon God is not eternally God, and that the religion is polytheistic.
<"Lastly, would you find it odd if some Mormons put together a ministry and called it the Orthodox Christian Research Ministry OCRM? Dedicated to expressing our spin about Orthodoxy with express intent of luring people out of Orthodoxy? Would you trust the information published about your faith from such a site? Or would you consider it errant propaganda?"
I wouldn't like it. I would probably do what you are doing. Atheists build sites to bring people out of religion all the time. I've been to some of the sites. I almost became atheist after leaving the LDS Church because I felt so deceived. I read lots of atheist material and read lots of religious material. I looked at the arguments, and the primary sources. I made my own decision. The problem with the LDS faith is that in my opinion I was taught to trust my leaders. Trust only LDS resources. I felt like I was being bad if I looked outside for information. So I never did, not until I decided I didn't believe it anymore. But if I had never decided to really dig for information (to prove the church true by the way) than I would have never found the information because the LDS Church only puts out faith promoting material. I'm actually not here to bring people out of the LDS faith. I just hope that people really think about what they believe. I was raised LDS and only ever given one side. I feel like the LDS Church being true was almost burned into my skull. If I had had the opportunity to look at both sides at an older age I can honestly say I would have never converted. I would not have been convinced that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God no more than I am convinced about Muhammad. I am going to raise my kids Orthodox. However, I am also going to let them, when they are old enough to do so, look at all sides. If they want to look at Mormonism I will let them. If they want to look at atheism I will let them. I feel that my faith is honest about its history. If they had a leader that did sketchy things, they will say "yes, he was a heretic." Mormonism, in my opinion, is afraid of its history. Let people look at both sides. If it's true, it can't be stopped. When looking into atheism I read some of the worst things about Christ and God and the religion. Yet, I didn't let what they said stop me from determining my own faith. If you full hardily believe in Mormonism, then defend it by all means, and trust that people are smart enough to weigh the arguments. Let them hear both sides.
Jaxi,
It’s been a blessing reading of your journey from Mormonism to Jesus . You have patiently
dismantled Ocean’s flawed reasoning on important issues , and his use of straw man tactics has
not gone unnoticed by you and others here . I to smiled at hearing the word “discriminator ” ,
because Mormon authorities have established a track record of attacking the religion of
others . In the last several decades their vitriol has been toned down somewhat because of an
aggressive effort to be accepted as another Christian church in the community , but one has
to wonder if current authorities feel any different behind closed doors . I agree with you that
people need to hear the other side of the coin from what the Mormon Missionaries , for instance,
have told them in order to make an informed choice . MRM is here to aid people to do that.
Keep up the good work .
Very nice column, Sharon. Thank you. Here’s what I would like to submit for the Living by the Scriptures feature:
Once a friend shared with me the following Bible verse:
“Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life” (John 5:24).
My friend was a born-again Christian; I was not. He was caring, had a great love for God and his Word, and was (very) patient. The above verse well captured the amazing hope that glowed brightly in his life. There is so much in this verse. Those who believe in the God who became man, and the promises he made, have everlasting life. Guilt has been removed; it was condemned upon a cross. People often think of themselves as being alive, and then dying. But this verse speaks of people who are dead brought to life. To a life that will never end.
Now when I read this verse, I cannot but think of my friend. Now the verse does not seem mysterious. Because now it describes what God has done for me.
Jaxi,
I never said that infinity is “illogical”, but it causes logical problems. Even the greatest scientists in the world would acknowledge that. Take the concept of singularities like those proposed for Black Holes.. The standard Model in physics seems to be fairly accurate in almost every case, except when it comes to Singularities of a Black hole.. Why? Because an “infinity” is introduced which causes everything to fall apart. The same is true when you claim one or many God(s) existed into infinity. The infinite singularity or infinite regression. The infinity causes a logical problem. Aristotle calls the first unmoved mover , God. Yet Traditional Christians never explain what the unmoved mover was doing for infinity before he started moving? GREAT MYSTERY.
It’s no more impossible to grasp than and infinite singularity.
Actually no it doesn’t.
Yes, they do, but they fail to be more explicit as to what God is? As you have acknowledged, God to Orthodoxy is not a being with will and conscience, but a ‘Substance or Nature’. Of course that view is not shared by all Christians.
No quite.. I don’t recall anyone saying that at all..And all this is ‘Speculative Theology’.. It hasn’t been explicitly revealed whether or not there is an end to the chain, or whether it goes on into infinity.. If it goes on into infinity, it’s no more a problem than an infinite singularity. Going back to the black hole problem. It’s believed an infinity exists within the singularities of black holes, yet they believe there are multiple black holes, one super massive black hole at the center of every galaxy.. Yet if there is really INFINITY in black holes then nothing else should exist.. Not even other black holes.. Do you see the problem.. Infinities mess the mathematics up. So logically it must be that there must be some other finite limit that we don’t understand. So it is the same with God.
This is more or less a problem of semantics on what “eternal” means.. The common definition used by people today relates to Eternity.. which is defined as infinite TIME.. here again we introduce an infinity. What is infinite time? are the singularities of black holes ‘Eternal’ because they have infinite space time?
When we read the biblical texts, the term Eternal is only found in the NT, and eternity is found in the OT, but used in a negative sense. In either case the Biblical writers did not have the same concept of space time and the cosmos as we have today. The term “eternity” meant ‘without defined measure’.. but that did not suggest infinity as you’re suggesting today.. The time may in fact be finite, just beyond measure in respect to the context space/time of those living in the bronze age.
This is a over simplistic expression of LDS beliefs that we are spiritual offspring of God. This Parent / Offspring model is in contrast to the Traditional Christian model of a Creator/Creation model. It does represent in how LDS view the relationship between God and Man in contrast to how traditional Christianity views the relationship.
I like to use the analogy of a Man who builds a house and has a family.. What is difference between his relationship to his house (The creation) and that of his family (offspring).. For most in humanity, it’s quite a different relationship.. So LDS view our relationship as offspring, rather than mere chattel of the house. I believe the LDS view give more purpose for our very existence than the creator/creation model. In fact I haven’t yet have had a Traditional Christian give a very cogent answer to why we we’re created in the first place.. At least LDS Cosmology gives an answer to that question.
This is a matter of semantics and what the term Eternal means.. LDS do believe God to be eternal. Yes there is a difference here, in that Traditional Christianity doesn’t have ANY doctrine as to WHERE God came from, and LDS doctrine does to some extent. And yet most of what your exploiting here about LDS beliefs is “Speculative Theology”.. and has NO relevance on anyone’s salvation
Mike R.
Got to laugh at this.. Jaxi hasn’t dismantled any of my reasoning.. Although he has been fairily respectful.
The use of ‘straw man’ tactics lies squarely with the LDS antagonists.
What a croc.. Show me one LDS sponsored web site that is dedicated to the attack of another faith, in the same manner that MRM is dedicated to attacking the LDS faith?.. It simply doesn’t exist.
As for discriminator.. The Trinity dogma has been used by Traditional Christians since the fourth century to declare non adherents as heretics.. Primarily to have them executed and their properly taken away. (what a Christ like thing to do) . Calvinists were probably some of the worst offenders.. It’s estimated the Calvinists murdered nearly 100,000 people during the witch hunts.
grindael,
Not true, although some early church fathers of the late 2nd to third century used the term “Trinity” in some apologetic, it’s use was not consistent with the creedal Trinity dogma of the fourth century. Furthermore, that a mention 200 years before Nicaea hardly constitutes “Always”.
Oceancoast
Your arguments make interesting reading & I’m not being critical of them as such, however, they have little to do with Christian doctrine, you could possibly make your arguments more effective if you bolstered them with the use of Scripture. I’m not saying that to be offensive but when the very nature of God is being disputed there is only one source of information to be considered, that of the Bible. As a member of the LDS Corporation your arguments cannot be considered valid because you argue within the framework of a different God to the one we know. Our God is not a man nor is He human in any way shape or form & He is not one of many gods, so please, when presenting your arguments confine them to your God, not ours.
If you cannot understand the Christian God then you cannot understand the Trinity.
As I said a while back, claiming something to be false because you don’t understand isn’t an argument at all it’s a testament to pride.
<"Yes, they do, but they fail to be more explicit as to what God is? As you have acknowledged, God to Orthodoxy is not a being with will and conscience, but a ‘Substance or Nature’. Of course that view is not shared by all Christians."
I feel, as many others do, that the Trinity is pretty clear what God is and is not. What we are unsure of is more of the how he is. The God to Orthodoxy is the same as the God to the Catholic, Anglican, Presbyterian, and many other Protestant Churches. The God of Orthodoxy is not nature or substance. The nature is the uniting factor. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have the same will, so yes it is a God of one will and three distinct persons or consciousness. You need to get over putting God in a box. The creation will never fully understand its creator.
<"So LDS view our relationship as offspring, rather than mere chattel of the house."
Christians believe they hold the very image of God within them. They believe they are the adopted sons and daughters of God through Christ. God created man because he is a social, loving being. I don't ever feel like the chattel of the house. I feel extremely loved and blessed. All LDS says is that you will be creating gods without end. To what end, for what? If its to have, family and love, I have that too within my Christian faith.
<"Yes there is a difference here, in that Traditional Christianity doesn’t have ANY doctrine as to WHERE God came from, and LDS doctrine does to some extent. And yet most of what your exploiting here about LDS beliefs is “Speculative Theology”.. and has NO relevance on anyone’s salvation."
We don't have a where God came from because the Christian God is without end and without beginning. He has existed for all eternity. There has never been a time without God. He is outside time. He is outside of the linear time frame. He introduces himself as I AM. This is very important because God has no context outside of himself to describe himself. He doesn't say I am like…. He is simply saying I EXIST. I still stand by everything I said about the problems with the LDS theology, speculative or not. the readers can decide for themselves. My point is that the LDS definition of God is false and in that way has everything to do with salvation. You are criticizing the very nature of the true God. Im sure you would say the same thing to me because you obviously believe you are believing in the true god, or gods, whichever. If you haven't read C.S. Lewis, Mere Cristianity, please do. A lot of the issues you bring against Christianity ( like the chattel thing) are weak criticisms and addressed. I think reading the book will give you a better idea on the theology you are fighting against. I'm not saying it will convert you, but at least you will have a better understanding on what Mainstream Christianity is.
Ocean, you’re in a denial mode most of the time here. You do resort to straw man tactics
and yes your church authorities do have a track record of attacking the religious beliefs of
others . I don’t know why you mentioned a website , does it matter in what venue the
attacks come in ? Of course not. The fact that you would deny that your church
authorities have engaged in such behavior is crazy , and it tells me something about you
and why you are here . But I think I understand your reasoning : you accuse others of
attacking your faith , now your church has no web site that resorts to this type behavior so you
feel you should step in for them by coming on here and resorting to behavior that supposedly
they don’t do , but which when others do it it’s wrong . Whew ! I’m shaking my head that you
choose to believe your rhetoric .
Now concerning the Mormon trinity dogma as a discriminator : since the 19th century this
Mormon doctrinal innovation is claimed to be the correct identity about God ( Godhead)
that is acceptable in qualifying for eternal life . The God that other christians worship is seen as
the result of an apostasy hence false and no salvation available to those who choose to
continue in the worship of such .
Now your comments in the last paragraph in your reply were truly strange . I hope you’re not
really saying that because some those that believed in the doctrine of the Trinity killed some
of those who did not believe in it , then “presto ” the doctrine of the Trinity is false !
If that’s your reasoning then you are truly ” out there ” .
That’s about all can say for now , it’s late .
Ocean,
I have pointed out why I believe LDS Lie, and that you also are lying.
You said
I gave a few questions as examples, and you have left lots of replies to others But never touced these examples as I said you probably would not, and said if you dont it will be used as a example of how you lie. Guess what… You did.
Then you said to Mike R
Lets see, This is another example, since I not only showed you examples of things your leaders have said that are attacks upon us and what we believe, and if you claimed you never knew about them, then you must of read what I posted so that makes you accountable and you knew, but also your prophets said this as I pointed out.
How can they say to do this, we follow what they say, but then get accused of attacking your belief?
This shows your are doing what I said. Go ahead make your excuses but I stand by what I said since I not only had to remind you, but that you really wont give honest answers as to why Your prophets said what they said, and you will simply claim, It was their opinion while not really being able to provide evidence that it was opinion and explain why it was published in books that other LDS read and allowed to be published and not have it stated by them, that it was simply their opinion.
Yes, you’re right. It wasn’t taught by heretics. It was taught by the orthodox Christians. And yes, it was taught the same way as they outlined it in the original Nicene Creed. Do I need to repost my list that I posted a few weeks ago? I put up the proof. You have put up …. nothing.
I’ve noticed that about you. You keep spouting off things, then when asked for proof you say you can’t be bothered.
These quotes attack all other churches:
This is only a few, there are hundreds and hundreds of these going back to the beginning of Mormonism. Every time the Joseph Smith claimed 1820 vision is recited it is an attack on all other churches. The church not only has this up on their website — they canonized the attack. They then send out missionaries to proclaim this attack every time they recite Smith’s story.
lds.org is devoted to attacking all other churches and proclaiming that the only way to heaven is THEIR WAY. By their works/regulations/petty commandments. If you do not do it here, you must do it in their “spirit world” but you are still forced to bow to Jo Smith and his god, (Min the fertility god).