The grand council of atheist Mormon bishops have met and codified the Creed of Practical Mormon Atheism, a list of things that both atheists and Mormons can largely affirm together:
- Even if Mormonism is false, it is still worth believing and ought not be refuted.
- Faith is ultimately irrational.
- Even if you don’t believe in God, you should still stay on the membership rolls and consider yourself a Mormon.
- If the LDS Church isn’t true, there is no God.
- How you live your life is more important than what you believe.
- I can’t believe in a God who demands worship.
- It doesn’t matter if it’s true. What matters is whether it is official.
- I proudly mentally disassociate from the content and implications of my belief system.
- I know the Church is true. I have no idea what that means.
- There was a conspiracy to fundamentally corrupt the Bible. It is untrustworthy and we look elsewhere for truth.
- Apart from Mormonism, I have no good reasons to believe that Jesus rose from the dead.
- The existence of my personhood is not owing to any god.
- Everything is matter and nothing is immaterial.
- There is no ultimate personal being who is the ground of all other being.
- There is no first cause.
- There are impersonal eternal laws that govern everything.
“So say we all.”
On a serious note, this is why I ask Mormons questions like,
- If the Church wasn’t true, would you still believe in Jesus?
- Are you the kind of Mormon that would still believe in Jesus, even if you left the LDS Church?
- If you weren’t a Mormon, what religion do you think you’d be?
- What reasons do you have to believe in the resurrection of Jesus that are independent of Mormonism?
- Is your belief in Jesus on the foundation of your belief in the Church, or is your belief in the Church on the foundation of your belief in Jesus?
The religion of Mormonism is thinning out. The numbers increase on the exterior (although even that is in jeopardy), but on the interior there is a mass-apostasy going on, intellectually and mentally speaking. People are leaving the LDS Church without leaving the LDS Church.
Without asking probing questions, I can’t assume any Mormon I talk to even believes in the existence of God or the resurrection of Jesus. Even the Mormons that aren’t closet-atheists are largely latent atheists (or agnostics) without knowing it. Since evangelism, I take it, is partly to engage the conscience and the depth of one’s heart, I want to reach them where they are really at, even if they don’t quite understand what is going on.
Are you reading this blog to better understand how to evangelize your LDS neighbors? Are you feeling inadequate because you don’t know much about Mormonism? How about this for a start: Step through ten reasons to believe in the resurrection of Jesus, ten reasons to trust the Bible, and even ten reasons to believe in the existence of God. Even if a Mormon doesn’t think they “need” to hear it.
“How about this for a start: Step through ten reasons to believe in the resurrection of Jesus, ten reasons to trust the Bible, and even ten reasons to believe in the existence of God. Even if a Mormon doesn’t think they “need” to hear it.”
I love this advice. It is the most important part of evangelizing. Some Mormons will act like they don’t need to hear it, but I know from personal experience that many of them do. I remember saying once in Relief Society, “I believe in Christ because I believe in the Book of Mormon.” I cringe when I think back on that. I now know that there are many reasons to believe in Christ outside of Mormonism and that I can trust the Bible.
I will continue to recommend C.S. Lewis. His writing was one of the things that helped me fall in love with Christianity. Also, Grant Palmer was an inspiration to me and all the people’s stories on sacredgrovesonline.org. I especially loved Micah’s story. Mr. Palmer also took time to talk to me about some concerns I had with Christianity, as well as sent me some papers he wrote that were helpful. I also enjoyed his book, The Incomparable Jesus.
I really like this one”
“I proudly mentally disassociate from the content and implications of my belief system.”
That is really clever!
Jaxi,
You picked-out two of my favorites regarding former Mormons and their stories of seeking the truth. Now, our Mormon buddy CV says that we are picking off Mormons of weak faith on this blog. That’s a Mormon way of saying that folks who leave Mormonism did it because they have weak faith not because they found Mormonism to be a false religious system.
I think of you, Kate, Ironman, grindael and many other former Mormons who have contributed here over the years. All of you folks were very strong in the LDS witness protection program. I posted the links on YouTube of the Wilder family including Micah and mother Lynn. None of them were “weak”. In fact I’d say it takes a lot of strength and personal integrity to seek after the truth and be able to be strong enough to walk away from Mormonism. This is often done at great personal loss. But as the apostle Paul said he counted anything he had accomplished in his former religion as rubbish compared to knowing Christ Jesus Our Lord.
I get so sick and tired of hearing Mormons claim that ex-Mormons are/were weak in the faith and act as if the ex-Mormons are at fault.
There was a guy in my Church, he joined the Military and some how ended up near or in Utah. He meet a women there and got married, They came back to my church for a while and I was talking to the women. Turns out she is ex-LDS. She told me that her husband is Active LDS and they had two children Together. She left the church since she came to know the True God, Jesus Christ. As a result of her leaving Mormonism Her husband Divorced her and tried taking away her two children.
The courts in Utah are so Biased towards LDS, Since the majority is LDS that the courts sided with him. They gave the husband sole custody. She is now fighting a losing battle just to see her Children and is only allowed to see them for a few days at a time twice a year.
The LDS can say what they want, but they can be really vile in their actions to people who leave the Church.
No wonder with organizations like FAIR (the most inappropriately named organization ever!) and the church itself ripping on the Bible and straight up lying to protect the church. It breaks my heart. When I met my husband he had gone from a Peter Priesthood to a borderline atheist. Thankfully the Holy Spirit got ahold of him and started showing him that he could trust Christ and the Bible. I am so thankful for this blog and the MRM website. You may not know it but you held our hands through the entire process. It took a long time and there is still a lot of healing to be done. Praying his devout family will eventually follow suit.
rick,
John Dehlin, he of Mormon Stories fame and of being in, out and then back in the LDS fold, has a message that says of those who leave, “Love them, love them, love them.” Now it seems that John D. knows the scoop and how those who leave are treated. I’ve read accounts of a guy’s wife leaving him and before he could blink she was back in Utah and the machine had a new husband for her.
Who knows if these stories are true but you hear enough of them that it does raise questions. I’ll look for Richard Packham’s story because I think he has something similar to tell. I found it quicker than I thought I could.
He writes:
“My wife left me suddenly, with no warning, taking the children. Her friends at church helped her escape, and she returned to Zion and divorced me. A last-ditch attempt at reconciliation failed when she said that her return would be conditioned upon my returning to the faith. I realized that I could not do it, however much I wanted to keep my family. Of course she got custody of the children. She remarried four years later, her new husband a faithful priesthood holder whose wife had left the church. (How ironic, that a church which places such a high value on family ties actually destroys the very thing it claims to promote!)”
Richard’s an atheist but he has an interesting story to tell. These Mormon atheists are an interesting lot.
http://packham.n4m.org/whylft.htm
It’s interesting that you give a creed above and then ask for reasons to believe. My father said that when he went to church as a teen, the Anglican Church he went to recited the Apostles’ Creed each Sunday, but then they changed to the Nicene or Athanasian Creed, he’s not sure which. When he looked at the 2 creeds critically he determined that they were discussing 2 different gods and because of this he left the Anglican Church. It wasn’t for another 5 or more years he joined the LDS church.
But as far as why believe in a God –
Alma 30:44 The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and call things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator.
This is important to me as because of my studies into biochemistry and genetics, everything is just too perfect to be a million to one chance (it’s actually more but I don’t want to exaggerate) of coming about through evolution. So there has to be a God. So there are more than 10 reasons to believe in God if all of nature bears witness of Him.
Believing in Christ Jesus and His Atonement (ie death, resurrection and reconciliation with God for us) –
First we need to determine who God is and why He has created everything and put us here on earth. Then we can understand why Jesus and His Atonement. But I won’t bother with that at the moment as that is a different issue that has been discussed/argued about many times on this forum. But in answer to why believe in His resurrection, I can’t think of a better scripture than found in 2 Nephi 9. The whole chapter denotes the importance of His resurrection as part and parcel of the Atonement. Especially in the verses 8 and 9 where it states that if there was no resurrection then our souls would be subject to the Devil for the rest of eternity.
Trusting in the Bible –
Because I have read it and prayed about it and know that I can trust that it has come from God. Apart from that there is no other reason as there is no proof that it is a book from God as compared to a book from the historical fiction section that purports to be from a god.
As far as comments about people being divorced because they left the LDS church, it happens in all churches. The reason given that it is religious is just one of the many reasons behind the actual divorce, NOT the only as purported here. I know of many in the Lutheran Church that have divorced their spouses and ostracised their family members that have joined other religions. It is sad to see it happen but it does. And RickB, you can believe your friend about why their husband received full custody of the children all you want, but I would be a little sceptical about that being the only reason because for someone to have restricted access to their children, there must be extenuating circumstances behind it like mental health issues, substance abuse, etc, otherwise the children are either in joint custody (ie 50:50) or they are given to the mother. I have seen this with many of my friends and co-workers. So a general statement saying that the LDS church controls the courts in Utah which is why the husband received full custody and the wife second weekends only is ridiculous. Sounds like it was a bitter separation.
Brewed, welcome and thanks for sharing your story . Praise God for opening your husband’s
eyes !
Ralph, your father did’nt know the difference between the Apostle’s creed and the Nicene creed,
and that he thought these two creeds were discussing two different gods ? With type of reasoning
it’s no wonder he fell for Mormonism’s imitation gospel . At least he did’nt become an atheist .
Ralph,
I enjoyed your comment. I just wanted to comment on one thing that you said.
<"Apart from that there is no other reason as there is no proof that it is a book from God as compared to a book from the historical fiction section that purports to be from a god."
I would disagree with this statement. Historically and archeoligically many things in the Bible can be validated. Now there is some debate amongst Christians on that some of the OT stories are more allegorical while others are very literal. But I think all Christians agree that the stories should be taken seriously. The OT makes many profecies that come to pass in the New Testament, mainly involving the coming of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Historically there is evidence that Christ lived and was crucified. Most historians, religious or not, agree to that. Most also agree that there was an empty tomb, though they might disagree on why it was empty. The Bible contains four separate testimonies of the life of Christ. The Orthodox and Catholic Churches can trace their apostolic lines to the apostles. Many of the first Christians were Jewish. The Crucifixion of Christ would have been a big deal. Im not sure they would have had as many Jewish converts if the story was completely made up. I could go on, but my point is there is more than just a spiritual witness that is used as evidence that the Bible is the word of God. If we are going by personal witnesses alone, what can you say to a Muslim that has a spiritual witness of the Quran? Or an athiest who receives no spiritual witness to any book of scripture.
Ralph,
I can’t think of a religion that doesn’t believe in God. Isn’t that the point of religion? The question is, “Who is the god that you, as a Utah LDS, worship?” We’ve discussed this with you many times in the five plus years we’ve been doing this. The problem is who you are trusting for your information as to who God is. For example the Community of Christ, which was headed by Joseph Smith’s son and had JS wife (the first wife) as a member, reject everything about the Utah LDS god. The Mormon sect, Temple Lot, also reject the Utah LDS god. So there is some significant disagreement regarding who the god of the restoration is.
The God of the Bible, isn’t the god you acknowledge. In fact your god is just one of a million perhaps billions of gods. These gods are all formerly sinful men, who by following a religious system, became gods. This isn’t the God revealed in the Bible. Joseph Smith depicted the Mormon god in the BoA as the Egyptian fertility god, sitting on a throne exposing himself with an erection. This is your god; an Egyptian fertility god.
I’m not saying this to be vulgar or provocative. I’m just telling it like it is so you understand clearly what your sect of Mormonism is all about. Now I know you and other Mormons are trying to leave all of the embarrassing elements of Nauvoo Mormonism buried, but the fact of the matter is, it’s what your religion is all about.
You know all of this Ralph but you think you have had some spiritual experiences that over-ride everything that is reality.
Jaxi,
You said “Historically and archeoligically many things in the Bible can be validated” That is what is meant by historical fiction – many of the places and important people can be validated, but not the full story. For example, there is no evidence of Moses having existed even though he was supposed to be an adopted son of a pharoah and wrote the first 5 books of the Bible. David was supposed to be the king over a kingdom that spread over all the Holy land with its centrality as Jerusalem – Jerusalem has been shown by archaeologists and historians to be a city kingdom with power over its immediate suburbs, not the whole land as described in the Bible. There is no mention in history or archaeological records of a large group of people called the Iraelites in Egypt, nor their exodus from Egypt. Even the exodus tells a whale of a story when you look at the size of the group and how much they would have needed each day for water and food alone but there are no archaeolgy artifacts that verify this story even though we can find the places mentioned. The list can go on like that, but that is what I meant.
As far as a being a book from God, there is no external proof, otherwise many more people would believe in it. I have heard a saying which I can’t remember the full verse but it goes something along the lines of – where there is no faith evidence can be explained away by other means, but where there is faith no evidence is necessary but it helps. The Bible overall is a book of faith. If one believes in God then they can accept the book as coming from Him wwithout further evidence, but the further evidence does help to maintain a belief in the book, doesn’t it?
As you point out, the Muslims believe the Koran is a book from God. The majority of the history of that book can be authenticated as far as I know so why isn’t that one a true book from God? Because you and I don’t believe in it doesn’t make it false, but neither does it make it true. We have chosen where we stand and which God we want to believe in and we accept any proof that comes our way to validate our belief. That is religion and faith. Or can you validate your faith in the Bible as a book from God without any spiritual evidence?
Falcon,
I thought we agreed that I wasn’t a Utah LDS because I was born and bred Aussie 😛 . Sorry couldn’t resist that one. I know what you mean, I subscribe to the LDS church that predominates in Utah.
You have asked a question that is phrased slightly incorrect and it is really the only difference between your faith and mine –
”Who is the God you believe in?”
I believe in the God of the Bible. You have not proven to me that I don’t. And no one here has proven to me that the Trinity is the God of the Bible, just that it is an interpretation only.
My God is my Father in Heaven as described in the Bible. He created everything in this creation through His Son Jesus, thus He is the one and only God for me and this creation, I acknowledge no other gods. He has sent me here to give me a chance to live with Him after I die as long as I find Him and believe in Him.
I believe that Jesus is The Christ/Messiah and the only begotten Son of Heavenly Father as described in the Bible. I believe that Jesus performed an Atonement which both parts were equally important otherwise without one or the other we cannot go and live with Heavenly Father. The first part was He died and was resurrected to over come physical death, the second was He suffered for our sins so we would not have to go to hell and suffer for them, and this was to overcome spiritual death. I believe that He is the mediator between Heavenly Father and man and it is only through His name and Atonement that we can enter our Father’s presence again.
I believe that they are 2 separate beings as can be found in the Bible and that they along with the Holy Ghost/Spirit comprise the Godhead which functions as a single body/unit as they are all of one focus and goal.
I can go on with this but that is the main part of my belief in Heavenly Father and Jesus.
As far as your point about the BoA, look at the actual picture in the BoA. It doesn’t depict what you are (nor what Andy) purporting it to depict, unless the being on the throne is a mutant. If you go through history there are many instances where people take a symbol/picture from one group and use it for their purposes with minor changes.
For example Paul in the NT is at a Greek temple and notices an idol to the unknown god. He then starts his sermon by saying that he will now tell them of this unknown god who they ALREADY worship. Does this mean that God is part of the pantheon of the Greek gods? Tht He is an idol to be worshipped? No, Paul is just using their religious icons to impart knowledge of God.
Another symbol that has changed meaning is the 5 pointed star, it was more widely used as a symbol of Christ in the early church than the cross, but now it is a Wiccan symbol.
So in the BoA, the picture is drawn differently to illustrate the symbology we want, not the symbology of the Egyptians. The picture is of a person sitting on a throne and the part you are saying is a phallic symbol is now coming out at chest height indicating an arm on the chair, unless as I said, the being on the throne is now a mutant.
And I keep telling you I have had more than just a spiritual experience to prove to me that what I believe in is true. When are you going to understand and remember that point. But yes, I rely on my spiritual conversion first as that is the main point of confirmation that Heavenly Father lives and That Jesus is my Saviour and Redeemer for me.
That is because Jo changed the original picture Ralph. You can’t be that naive. Can you? There are other hypocephalus that show what the picture actually looked like. And what you describe is NOT what Smith claimed. He claimed it was an exact translation. As Wilford Woodruff relates in his Journal:
And Paul didn’t take a picture of one of those gods and label it as HIS God. He saw an ALTAR that had an inscription on it that said TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. There was no statue or idol there. Smith claimed that the picture he “translated” had been drawn by Abraham himself and was an EXACT translation. It wasn’t. You are making up what you want to believe. Cognitive dissonance.
Grindael,
If you read what I said I mentioned that groups take a symbol and make mnor changes to it to depict what they want it to depict. I have acknowledged here that that is most likely what JS did, I am not naive, just able to know how to believe in imperfect humans like myself. Have ypu actually looked at the figure in the BoA? You will notice that it is different to what the Egyptian figure looks like and thus lines uo with the symbolic description that we LDS subscribe to and not what the Egyptian figure uses it as. So to be congruent in your argument you must acknowledge that symbols change in meaning when transferred to different cultures and thus all this business about Min is incorrect when discussing the LDS theology.
Ok, so I remembered wrong, Paul only saw an alter. But that does not negate my argument as he did tell them that his God was THIS unknown which the Greeks were already worshipping. So according to this statement from Paul, the Greeks had the true God in their pantheon and were already worshipping Him.
But what of the other symbol I mentioned?
Ok, here is another one – the symbols ‘bog’ means a marsh in English but in Russian it means ‘God’. Two totally different meanings for the same symbols. How about ‘perk’? To me and most other Aussies it means to vomit. To most other English speaking countries it means to cheer up.
All I am saying is that symbols change meaning in different settings and so you cannot say – this is what it actually means, when the people using the symbol state that it means something else. So any argument about the Egyptians mean … with the figure is meaningless as the figurehas been used by another community to denote something else with minor changes to conform to those meanings.
Ralph,
The Quran was put together over several decades through revelations to a man. There is a reason that Mormonism has been referred to as the “American Islam.” Both have similar origin stories of a man writing book of scripture through revelation and both practice polygamy. LDS still practice spiritual polygamy and believe that many wives is of God, just in case someone says LDS don’t do that. The Bible is a record preserved over many many centuries by a people and a record of their history. The Bible is not a book fallen from the sky. I didn’t say every thing can be validated in the OT and that some stories may be allegorical, though I will not make a statement on which ones. I am not saying that I have all evidence and no faith. I am saying I have some evidence and some faith. But a stand by what I said, you cannot base faith alone of spiritual experiences. Spiritual experiences lead people to all sorts of faiths. You are either saying, you and a small populations are the only ones that get the right spiritual experience or that there are many truths.
My faith in the Bible for me is logical. Have you read “Mere Christianity?” I have similar reasoning for my faith as C.S. Lewis.
Ralph,
So you’re telling us that despite the fact that Mormonism claims millions and billions of gods that doesn’t count because you only worship one of them? That’s totally disingenuous and just one of many reasons Mormons are said to be deceptive and lie about their very basic doctrine.
If you acknowledge that there is more than one God, you are a polytheist regardless of how many gods you say you worship. Mormons love to try and pull an end run with this one. It doesn’t work Ralph.
So the Bible informs us as to who God is and you say it’s one of these gods in the pantheon of Mormon gods? Ralph really, who do you think you’re fooling other than yourself? The Bible tells us that this god of yours has many wives, lives on near the star/planet Kolob, procreates spirit children with his many wives and was once a sinful man. The Bible tells us that Ralph? Does the Bible tell us that the Mormon god was once a sinful man who pulled himself up by his bootstraps to become a god?
Mormonism teaches, through Brigham Young that the Mormon god the father had actual sex with the Virgin Mary. This is in the Bible Ralph? This is where you learn this?
Ralph don’t insult us by writing that you know about the Mormon god based on what the Bible tells us.
Ralph wrote:
“All I am saying is that symbols change meaning in different settings and so you cannot say – this is what it actually means, when the people using the symbol state that it means something else. So any argument about the Egyptians mean … with the figure is meaningless as the figurehas been used by another community to denote something else with minor changes to conform to those meanings.”
So basically Joseph Smith made it up right Ralph? Yes right. He invented it the same way he invented everything else in Mormonism.
The guy was a total fraud Ralph and it has been proven over and over again.
From Mormon Think:
“Joseph Smith’s defenders today seek to find any connection whatsoever between LDS belief and Egyptian religion, even to the point of seeing in the sexually aroused Min a picture of God upon His throne. But to grasp at this straw is to ignore the Biblical testimony to the one true God. Isaiah saw God upon His throne in Isaiah 6:1-10, but instead of an incestuous god, surrounded by lewd dancing girls, the angels surrounded His throne and cried, “Holy, holy, holy.” God describes the gods of Egypt as “idols” that tremble before him (Isaiah 9:1); these false gods will literally be captured by God in His wrath (Jeremiah 43:12). God reveals the worship of these gods to be an abomination that brings His wrath (Jeremiah 44:8), and mentions one Egyptian god by name in speaking of the punishment he will bring against Egypt (Jeremiah 46:25). Those who worship such gods are “defiled” in God’s sight (Ezekiel 20:7-8). The Bible has nothing but contempt for the gods of Egypt, which would include the abominable figure of Min, identified by Joseph Smith as his God.”
We will gladly admit that there is a similarity between the pagan god Min and the Mormon doctrine of God developed in the later years of Joseph Smith’s life. What is equally clear is that the God of the Bible is not similar to either Min, nor the LDS God. As God Himself said:
“To whom will you compare me?”
Isaiah 40:25
That last phrase “nor the LDS God” in the last sentence raises all sorts of questions but what is quite clear the Utah based LDS church is left to try and come up with some sort of explanation for why, who JS identified as their “god”, is not a god they want to claim.
Ralph,
I think you are probably a good example of why ex Mormons become aithiest or agnostic. Lets just pretend that the evidence agaist the Book of Mormon, and the historical inconsistencies of Mormon history get to you. You for the sake of argument decide the LDS Church is not the “one true Church.” Would you still believe in Christ? Would you believe in the Bible? Because if your faith is based solely on a spiritual witness, which is very unreliable (people have had spiritual witnesses to have affairs), then what? You find out the Book of Mormon isn’t true, but you had a spiritual witness. Now you find that you can’t trust spiritual witnesses. So do you let go of the Bible too? This is the situation that many Mormons find themselves in. I did. If you asked me if I thought I would ever leave the LDS Church a year before I did, I would have said never. But I ended up having to ask myself this question. What route do you think you would take in that situation?
Ralph,
Again, from the article in Mormon Think:
The eight Egyptologists and Semitists who responded were unanimous in their scathing verdict: “Joseph Smith’s interpretation of these cuts is a farrago of nonsense from beginning to end,” came the report from the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, which added that “five minutes study in an Egyptian gallery of any museum should be enough to convince any educated man of the clumsiness of the imposture;” “… difficult to deal seriously with Smith’s impudent fraud,” wrote another from Oxford, England. “Smith has turned the Goddess into a king and Osiris into Abraham.” From Chicago, “… very clearly demonstrates that he (Joseph Smith) was totally unacquainted with the significance of these documents and absolutely ignorant of the simplest facts of Egyptian Writing and civilization.” And from London, “… the attempts to guess a meaning are too absurd to be noticed. It may be safely said that there is not one single word that is true in these explanations.”
http://www.mormonthink.com/book-of-abraham-issues.htm
So this is the religion and the prophet who you have based all of your trust and hopes in that you might too become a god, Ralph?
And you want to continue to insist that the god (one of countless gods) who was once a sinful man, has been revealed to you in the Bible?
Foolish Australian. Who has bewitched you?
Ralph continuing to support the nonsensical notions of Joseph Smith and those who followed him is not having a strong testimony and witness. It is diluted thinking.
Ralph,
You remind me of my dear sister and brother in law. Studying at BYU Provo they are taking a new testament class together. It is painful watching them try to reconcile what the new testament says and what they believe. They fall back on a spiritual witness and bare their testimony every time we have a discussion. I hate to say it but it is always hollow and regurgitated, like it’s programmed into them. There is no individual experience with God, it is a collective “this is the true church because I prayed and god gave me an overwhelming sense of peace”. When someone comes along and pokes a hole in that, you have nothing to stand on. The LDS church has smeared the image of God and put him into a tiny little box, they have turned him into a man. Then they discredit the Bible and LIE about how it’s been translated and the evidence behind it. The Bible is not 100% provable BUT it has substantial evidence. Additionally, Jesus Christ, the only man to ever claim to be God, gives credit to the OT, does miracles, prophesies his own death and resurrection. Additionally, his life completes previous prophecy perfectly. There is significant evidence for him not only from within the church but also from outside the church. I urge you to look into “The Reason For God” by Timothy Keller, “Jesus and The Eyewitnesses” by Richard Bauckham, as well as anything you can get your hands on by C.S. Lewis and William Lane Craig. Also the Veritas Forum is another great resource. You said it well when you said, first we must find out who God is. That is a great way to start. Leave behind all preconceived notions and seek who God really is. You will be blown away.
I am not going to discuss Egyptian meanings or the nature of God. Such is pointless with those who refuse to even consider things from perspectives that are not there own.
I will affirm what Ralph has said: It is through the Bible that we get one of our strongest witnesses to the truth of God and our relationship with Him. It is in the Bible that we first read of our preexistence as His Spirit children. It is in the Bible that it is taught that we can be like Him, as we are His literal children. It is in the Bible that the truth of the Godhead is most fully revealed. And yes, we can even see in the Bible the fact that there are many gods in existence, and that our Father once lived a mortal life.
I am sorry if Falcon finds the truth insulting, but hey, the deceived have always found this to be the case.
I will, however, answer the questions given in the article.
Q. If the Church wasn’t true, would you still believe in Jesus?
A. Yes
Q. Are you the kind of Mormon that would still believe in Jesus, even if you left the LDS Church?
A. Yes
Q. If you weren’t a Mormon, what religion do you think you’d be?
A. Catholic
Q. What reasons do you have to believe in the resurrection of Jesus that are independent of Mormonism?
A. The testimony of the Spirit of God, as there is no other evidence available.
Is your belief in Jesus on the foundation of your belief in the Church, or is your belief in the Church on the foundation of your belief in Jesus?
Ralph,
It is different because Smith changed it. He claimed that it was something it was not, not that he was changing something to fit a preconceived notion. That is a huge difference. One is deception, and the other, well, if you can think of a really good reason why someone would take a pagan TEXT that says something else and change it to conform with Christianity, then my hats off to you. Where else in Christianity do you find this? You may have pagans doing it, but not Christians. Also, Paul used the altar as a literary device, a clever way of teaching about God. What good reason is there for Jo to change a pagan fertility God to the Christian God? Do you think God was honored by that? Do you think that God said, OK, go ahead and do that? Since Jo claimed he got the Book of Abraham using divine methods, what does that say about him?
And your analogy about what different symbols mean in different languages has nothing to do with what Jo did. He didn’t make an “honest” mistake, because he claimed to be a “prophet” who knew what the record meant. He wasn’t substituting. The Egyptian was translated wrong, the pictures were wrong, and the whole thing was a deception. If Jo wanted to claim, ok, I had a “revelation” that Abraham did such and such, fine. But he didn’t do that. He claimed that the mummies were some kind of royal family, and that they had in their possession the actual writings of Abraham and Joseph. If you want to go through all of that to continue to believe in him, fine. Like I said, cognitive dissonance.
Sorry Shem, I’ve just replied to you on a previous topic & now it must seem that I’m singling you out, I’m not, you just happen to be in the line of fire.
A little while ago I had a set to with Oceancoast on a different topic indirectly concerning the things you mention. I apologise to those who might be bored with my repeating it here but I mention it because you are, without realising it, confirming the truth of my response.
“It is in the Bible that we first read of our preexistence as His Spirit children. It is in the Bible that it is taught that we can be like Him, as we are His literal children. It is in the Bible that the truth of the Godhead is most fully revealed.”
First off, the doctrine of pre-existence is nowhere taught in the Bible, if it were then it would be a worldwide Christian doctrine rather than a doctrine exclusive to the Mormon Corporation. Now let’s get to the nitty Gritty, if you or your organization claim that we are literally Gods children, something that is NOT taught in the Bible by the way, & coupled with what your leaders have taught since the time of Brigham Young, that God had literal sex with Mary? Oh, I can’t be bothered to spell it out again, read through the previous topic. Incidentally, is that what you mean by “The truth of the Godhead is most fully revealed”?
I think Aaron’s questions are interesting ones to answer.
If the Church wasn’t true, would you still believe in Jesus?
Yes
Are you the kind of Mormon that would still believe in Jesus, even if you left the LDS Church?
Yes (This one sounds like the first question just asked in a different way, but maybe I’m just missing something).
If you weren’t a Mormon, what religion do you think you’d be?
Eastern Orthodox or Messianic Jew.
What reasons do you have to believe in the resurrection of Jesus that are independent of Mormonism?
My belief that the Bible is inspired word from God.
Is your belief in Jesus on the foundation of your belief in the Church, or is your belief in the Church on the foundation of your belief in Jesus?
The second one.
Shem,
Here’s the problem. You folks go to the Bible and see the characteristics of God and agree that those are his features. Then you go more than a step further and come up with this absolute blasphemous addition to what the Bible reveals and think you can add it on, actually subtract from what the Bible tells us.
Your Mormon god is limited. In fact it is said that the Mormon god is continuing to learn and progress. You can have your scaled down version of a god.
The Bible does not reveal these things that Mormons say about Him, the One and only God. The god that Mormons claim is a stripped down god model that ‘s no better than themselves with a few added features.
Your god does not exist. He cannot save you. Your wife will be laying dead in her grave and you will have no power to resurrect her. And that’s the problem. If you were just putting your own salvation at risk that would be one thing. But you are putting your wife and kids at risk also.
You need to wise up fast.
It’s pretty simple. What is the source of information and knowledge Mormons use to determine who God is?
There is no tradition in either the Jewish or Christian religions for the Mormon ideas about God. There is nothing in Scripture to support what they believe about God. There is nothing in the writings of the Church Fathers or even the heretics to support what Mormonism teaches about God.
So where does this information come from? Given that the Mormon ideas about God are 180 degrees out of phase with what the apostles and those who learned from them taught, take a guess.
There are Mormon temples adorned with occult symbols. Within the temples are practices occult rituals. There founder, Joseph Smith, was a well known practitioner of folk magic using his magic seer stone in an attempt to see buried treasure in the ground. His whole family and early followers where into folk magic. When the Manti temple was going through the process of dedication, they put Smith’s magic rock on the temple.
We could go further and discuss how Mormons claim to have seen the spirits of dead people as the “work” was being done for them in the temple. And finally, we see where Joseph Smith identified an Egyptian fertility god, as god.
Two early sects of Mormonism won’t have anything to do with the beliefs of Mormonism as it begun to unfold in Nauvoo.
Current active Mormons need to get their heads cleared and see what it is their religion is all about.
………early in the morning. Excuse my typos above including that Smith’s magic rock was put on the Manti temple. I found that to be pretty funny myself. Actually it was put on the “altar” in the Manti temple. On the Manti temple? What is on the Manti temple anyway? I’ve never been there! I’m thinking about going during the pageant and doing some street witnessing. Do you think there would be any Mormons there who post or read here at MC. Maybe I could do one of those photo-op things with the infamous falcon.
The question is, “Will Mormonism continue to evolve?” It seems that as the years have passed since its founding, Mormonism evolved from being fairly close to Christianity to incorporating beliefs that were so far out in left field that it isn’t even a distant cousin.
The Community of Christ and Temple Lot sects of Mormonism went their own way and wouldn’t accept Joseph Smith’s “revelations”. From what I gather, the first great schism came when Smith took his religion from the original Book of Commandments to the new Doctrines and Covenants. Some saw that as a blatant power grab and left Smith’s religion. After that it was just a continual spiral downward as Smith brought forward a new god and a new plan of salvation which included plural marriage.
As has been observed, the group that followed Brigham Young then “evolved” further with all sorts of strange beliefs including Young’s Adam-god doctrine.
So the evolution continues as polygamy was outlawed by the church at least in this life, the temple rituals were changed, and blacks were no longer loathsome but were allowed to receive the priesthood.
Have I mentioned all of the changes made to the BoM?
So what do Mormons want? There is a continuum with groups like the Community of Christ all the way to the FLDS and all manner of Mormon sects claiming the real revelation and restored church.
The trick comes with being able to massage things enough that the religion doesn’t appear to be spiritually impulsive and doctrinally schizophrenic.
When all fails the best rational to use is something like, “That was a long time ago.”, even if it was just last week!
Anything to keep the myth alive and the saints sending in their 10%.
Jaxi
As you have just said – the Bible was preserved by a people. This same people want to validate their own religion and prophecies so of course most of the prophecies will be seem to be fulfilled as they could have written them down as being fulfilled. That is the common atheist answer is it not. So what proof do you have outside of the Bible that it is a book from God? Not that it is congruent with some history but that it is a book from God. I believe that it is a true book mainly because I have spiritual confirmation of it. I have found what I believe are external evidences for the validity of this claim, which is what you are claiming to have as well. But most of that evidence can be explained away otherwise there would be many more people that believe in it.
If I ever decided that the LDS church was incorrect I would most likely become a non-religious, non-denominational Christian and follow my own nose with the interpretation of the Bible as many here seem to intimate they do. As I said, I have my own evidence outside of spiritual confirmation that God does exist and if God does exist then we do need Jesus. So I would believe in both God and Jesus, nothing would change that. As far as my back story, I was born into the church but I questioned it twice in my life, especially when my son died. I never questioned if God existed, I questioned if I truly believed in Him and if I as in the right place, etc. So I have been there at least couple of times, but both times I kept coming back to the LDS church as being true. To an extent I question/challenge my beliefs every day just to make sure they are correct.
Falcon,
According to the Jews and Muslims, Trinitarian Christianity is polytheistic because you subscribe to 3 Gods, despite how much you try and claim they are actually one. Because they are true monotheists as they only claim one God, not a Trinity or any other beings, then maybe we should listen to them.
But lets look at the deeper doctrine of the Trinity – They are one in substance and being and Jesus has a physical body, so your God is confined in space to one point with a physical body. God is a spirit in your belief so why is there a physical body? But then again you have 3 spirits in one body – well that’s what the Bible calls possession – so your God is possessing Himself. After this life according to the intercessory prayer, all true believers will become one IN Jesus and IN God as they are one IN each other. So you believe that you will not just become a separate God, like we LDS believe, but that you will become part of your Trinity God as well as all other true believers making a conglomerate that is more than the Trinity – but still, your deep doctrine followed to the logical conclusion teaches that you too will become God. But wait there’s more – you believe that your God is immortal but then you teach that He came to this earth, put on a physical mortal body and then died. That’s a bit of a juxtaposition, even if you want to claim that it was Jesus, Jesus is your God and not just a part of Him, so it was your God that died.
I never said that I didn’t believe in the existence of other gods but that I acknowledge one God as my God, no other as there is no other god for this creation. They have their own creations outside of this area (for want of a better word) which they are the only God for, but they have no influence or control here, only our Heavenly Father does. This is different to other polytheistic religions as they believe that all the gods in existence have influence and control here.
You said ”Ralph don’t insult us by writing that you know about the Mormon god based on what the Bible tells us.”
I never said that all that I believe about God was found in the Bible – or can you show me where I did? I said I believe in the God of the Bible. Since He has said that He will give further revelations, I believe in these as well, and they fill in the bigger picture, so it is still Biblically based, just not all found in the Bible. Like the Trinity is not all found in the Bible but is based on an interpretation of it with some other outside ideas placed in to the mix.
You said – ”So basically Joseph Smith made it up right Ralph?”
Where did I say that? No where. So don’t put words in my mouth.
Finally you said – “Foolish Australian.”. Jesus said in Matt 5:22 but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire 😛
Brewed
Because I believe in Jesus I know I can believe in the OT. But the OT is supposed to be a true history of the Israelite people, and very little if any of this history has been shown to be correct by archaeology and history until about King Ahab. Only recently has one piece of evidence come about showing that there was a king called David, but apparently his kingdom was just the city of Jerusalem, not the full extent of the Holy Land as the Bible describes. The miracles and prophecies can be written by the faithful just to keep the others in line with their belief – which is what you all say happens in the LDS church, so you can’t say I am wrong with that statement. But I also believe in the NT so I do believe in the miracles and prophecies.
I have read the Bible and have not found the Trinity in it anywhere. So who is God according to the Bible? I will summarise what I said earlier – according to what I have read in the Bible, Heavenly Father, Jesus and the Holy Ghost are 3 separate beings.
As to where Mormonism is heading, it’s really depends on which sect a person belongs to. Even within the Salt Lake City group there are variations as can be seen by the New Order Mormons and the folks who write over at Mormon Think. These groups are often at odds with the folks at FARM and FAIR.
The list provided in this article, I believe, provides a good glimpse into the mind melding that goes on within Mormonism. Here’s what a blogger writes regarding the Community of Christ and the place of the Book of Mormon in that sect:
“From my view, it seems all this discussion and debate has simply accomplished the reaction in the Community of Christ to just stop talking about the Book of Mormon all together. No one quite knows what to do with it, so many use it, many do not – and many just pretend it does not even exist. In talking with some others on this subject, one made the valid point that regardless of what you personally believe on the book they believed it dishonest to go into foreign nations without even bringing it up to new members. When they arrive in the US for Conference or some other purpose, then boom, there it is with little to no warning. Are we capable of having civil discussions about the Book of Mormon regardless of whether we believe it is scriptural or not?”
“There’s a new book out, titled something along the lines of An Inconvenient Truth: the Community of Christ and the Book of Mormon. I’ve skimmed it very briefly so far, but have not had a chance to read it through yet. The conclusion he makes, as I gathered from my quick perusal, was that unless something significant happens soon the Book of Mormon will likely disappear from the CofC within the next 20 years. If he’s right, will anyone notice?”
http://saintsherald.com/2009/09/19/the-book-of-mormon-fact-fiction-or-fading-away/
Could the Salt Lake City sect evolve even further than it already has? With members leaving in droves the brethren have a couple of choices. Move forward with a new generation and a new revelation modernizing their group or hold on to where they are at and dwindle down to the hard core.
I don’t know if it really matters because “new” members will not come from outside of the families already in the sect. The market niche of people who are currently outside the sect and who would be interested in this form of religion is fairly small.
This isn’t addressed to anyone particular person, just to Mormons generally
The argument about the Trinity just goes on & on & I can’t help but wonder how long it will take members of the LDS to absorb some very simple information. I won’t even try to explain it but I’m going to repost a fairly short comment I made a couple of days ago that was completely ignored by those who dispute the doctrine. The original is in quotes & is followed by a few additional comments.
“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.”
I’m sure that to Mormon apologists the above is overly simplistic & therefore of no consequence but let me briefly explain why Mormonism will never be a Christian organization. The LDS Corporation refuse to accept God as He has declared Himself to be, instead they try to ‘remodel’ Him to fit their own worldview, Christians on the other hand fit their beliefs around God & his word. Now I don’t claim to understand the Trinity, neither do any Christians of my acquaintance. Whilst the word itself cannot be found in the Bible the doctrine certainly is & it’s accepted as doctrine, not because human intelligence is capable of understanding it but because the Bible teaches it. You however cannot accept it because your view of God is not based on Scripture but on the teaching of a false prophet.
Please read what I’ve said above; stop trying to fit God into your Mormon & all too human worldview. Put aside for a moment your pride & human logic. Forget about using complicated theories gleaned from apologist sites & try to see the simplicity of the argument. Why can’t you see that God & therefore the Trinity is beyond our understanding? We can know Him through Christ but who can understand the eternal & infinite? I certainly can’t. When you have come to see that the Christian God is very different to the Mormon god, then perhaps you will stop denying the obvious truths of Scripture.
Old Man.
I can’t remember if I’ve presented this information since you have been posting here, but it’s important to understand that not all Mormon sects endorse the SLC sect’s or the FLDS Mormon sects views of the nature of God. In fact they reject most of what came out of Nauvoo and continued with the Brigham Young sect.
The Community of Christ, as Aaron says, are Methodists with additional scripture. I think that’s a humorous, but accurate description. There are many versions of the “restored” gospel all claiming to have the truth. What I would consider the original(ists) sects hold to the orthodox view of the nature of God.
The bottom line is that Joseph Smith was a religious innovator and entrepreneur. He grabbed ideas from several different sources and called it all revelation. Brigham Young and company got so full of themselves and their supposed hearing from God that they came up with more wacky and out in left field pronouncements.
To repeat myself, these guys don’t even make very good heretics.
Pingback: Sunday in Outer Blogness: St. Patrick’s Day Edition! » Main Street Plaza
Ralph, not to dive into it too deeply at the moment (for, at this point, I can scarcely see the point in expending energy in the labors of Sisyphus to roll accurate information up the mountain of ignorance from which it will inevitably roll back down all over again), but you do realize that you have virtually zero awareness of what the doctrine of the Trinity actually is, yes? I would hate to think that you somehow are actually serious in your repeated misrepresentations of it. On the off-chance that you would like to be informed accurately and would intend to represent it properly in the future, please do let us know, and I for one would be happy to explain it to you – if you are serious about even wanting to understand and present it fairly. Because as the evidence of your words stands are present, it gives quite the impression that you are both very badly confused and also far too prejudiced to give any traditional Christian person or position a fair hearing.
Falcon
I don’t remember seeing the information you mention but as I’m very very old I could have seen it & forgotten it. (joke, I’m not quite that old) I know a little about the community of Christ (formerly RLDS) but almost nothing of the FLDS. As I understand it the CofChrist do not accept the LDS version of God, & while they claim to accept the Trinity, in reality it’s a form of modalism. Anyway, you can rest assured that I will be doing further research on this. Thanks.
Old man
The FLDS are basically Brigham Young Mormons. They see the SLC sect as having gone into apostasy. Interesting concept, huh?
There are even different sects of FLDS. Here are some links to a series video interviews that you’d find interesting. I’d encourage you to watch them because Ann Wilde is very bright, articulate and totally deceived. She does know her Mormonism though; inside and out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ggq632Z6E24
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycwu6OQFHpM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7PmcOmE08o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwQ9nyyBZbA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N33__tGhjC0
Pingback: Could I be a “Practical Mormon Atheist”? | Irresistible (Dis)Grace
Ralph,
You claim Mormonism teaches we have only one god, but actually you teach we have three since the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are separate beings. Jesus accepted worship as God. Theres no getting around it. You also postulate that different “areas” also have their own singular god – how do you know this? Could they not have 3 like we do? Or even more – maybe 20 or 40 or 180? How do you know these “areas” only have 1 and not 3 like us or even more? Also, what about the goddesses, heavenly mothers? Don’t all these other “areas” also have lots of goddess mothers? There’s a lot of gods you’re leaving out when talking about the Mormon view of earth, and these other “areas.”
i
Ralph,
Your right when you say that I cannot difinately prove that the Bible is Gods word. If I could most everyone would be Christian. There would be no need for faith. What I am saying is that the historical evidence of a lot of settings and people are proven historically. I guess someone could have wrote fiction for the whole thing. But it couldn’t have been just one person, it would have been a large group of coconspirators that spanned over a large amount of time. While possible, not likely in my opinion, which you obviously don’t share. I had a friend tell me if you make a triangle with three points, the points being reason, scripture, and the Holy Spirit, you get the center which is God. The LDS church is severely lacking scripture and reason to back up its origin claims.
Ralph,
Here is humorous video that teaches about the Holy Trinity – and it’s appropriate for St. Patrick’s Day – great defender and teacher of the Trinity –
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQLfgaUoQCw
Johnsepistle is correct – you’re description of the Trinity bears no resemblance to any explanation I have ever heard.
Since there are a couple other blogs linking to this post now, and since it may perhaps be therefore getting additional traffic, I think it would be prudent to offer a response to Ralph’s misunderstandings of the Trinity, for the benefit of readers who may not have a solid grounding in Trinitarian theology and hence could more easily be misled by Ralph’s errors. As always, it takes far more time and verbiage to adequately dispel a misconception than it does to blindly promulgate it for public consumption. I hope that readers will exercise due patience and indulge me as I endeavor to do the former here.
Ralph said, According to the Jews and Muslims, Trinitarian Christianity is polytheistic because you subscribe to 3 Gods, despite how much you try and claim they are actually one. Because they are true monotheists as they only claim one God, not a Trinity or any other beings, then maybe we should listen to them.
Well, first of all, those Jews and Muslims who make that charge happen to be incorrect. Trinitarian Christianity is monotheistic. Traditional (i.e., Chalcedonian) Christians are every bit as monotheistic as any contemporary beliving Jew or Muslim. Monotheism has to do with the number and ultimate unity of the divine, not with the analysis of the divine ‘innards’, so to speak. Ralph is here conflating, for polemical purposes, unitarianism and monotheism. Contemporary Jews and Muslims may very well adhere to a unitarian analyses of the God acknowledged by their renditions of monotheism, which are indeed quite monotheistic, but that does not make them the sole or privileged inheritors of the monotheistic legacy. Before Judaism turned to a unitarian approach, it allowed for distinctions to be made within the divine life, as in the hypostatization of God’s attributes of Word, Wisdom, Shekinah, Torah, and Spirit. It was only later, after the New Testament era, that this freedom faded away. And, of course, Islam arose partly as an (over)reaction against local misunderstandings of Trinitarian doctrine, and was set in a context in which, naturally, monotheism simpliciter had to be stressed, even at the expense of what turned out to be a case of gross oversimplification. But Trinitarian Christianity has its roots solidly in the Second Temple Jewish context of Jesus, particularly as adapted in light of the truths he taught and that his followers realized about him.
Ralph goes on to say, But lets look at the deeper doctrine of the Trinity – They are one in substance and being and Jesus has a physical body, so your God is confined in space to one point with a physical body. God is a spirit in your belief so why is there a physical body?
So early into Ralph’s next paragraph, and already gone astray! No Trinitarian Christian – at least, certainly no remotely informed Trinitarian Christian – would say that “God is confined in space to one point with a physical body”. First of all, neither the Father nor the Holy Spirit are incarnate. This is a crucial leap in logic that Ralph makes here. It is the ‘default’, as it were, for God to be ‘spirit’, that is, to be immaterial, since God is the creator and sustainer of space and time. (In addition to the sound philosophical arguments toward that conclusion, note also that John 4:24 indicates this; and, yes, a survey of commentators does reveal that many explicitly observe that the verse teaches that God is “immaterial”.) Embodied-ness is not an attribute native to the divine nature.
Nevertheless, in the Incarnation, traditional Christians believe that one of the three distinct divine persons in whose interrelationship the existence of the Triune God consists – that particular divine person being the Son – additionally took upon himself a second nature, a human nature, thus combining two natures in one person (see the Definition of Chalcedon). While it is not native to the divine nature to be embodied, this is native to the human nature – and, therefore, Jesus has a body. But note that even he is not confined to a body; Jesus remains omnipresent in his divine nature. Therefore, with respect to no one of the three distinct divine persons in the Trinity is it accurate to say that “God is confined in space to one point with a physical body”. We have also now seen the answer to Ralph’s question, “God is a spirit in your belief so why is there a physical body?”
It is therefore time to move on to his next statement, but on the topic of “one substance and being”, it should be noted that New Testament scholars are experiencing a growing realization, as indicated above, that the purpose of the term homoousios in the Nicene Creed is precisely to safeguard a Second Temple Jewish-Christian understanding of Jesus’ intrinsic place within the divine identity of the one God of Israel – see, e.g., Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2008), 59; Oskar Skarsaune, In the Shadow of the Temple: Jewish Influences on Early Christianity (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2002), 333. Those interested in the background of the term homoousios, leading up to the ways it was used in Nicene Christianity, would do well to consult Christopher Stead’s classic treatment in his book Divine Substance. That said, moving on…
Ralph goes on to say, But then again you have 3 spirits in one body – well that’s what the Bible calls possession – so your God is possessing Himself.
This is, frankly, just weird. As already observed, though, only one of the three divine persons is incarnate as Jesus Christ, and so this is essentially irrelevant. Nor does Ralph explain or defend his characterization of the three persons as “three spirits”. At any rate, even if that characterization were accurate, this would not be a case of possession in the biblical sense. Possession is, generally speaking, a case of a spirit inhabiting a body as an alien intruder, generally in a deleterious fashion. This is, of course, not the case with God. There is a sense in which Christians, as indwelt by the Holy Spirit, could perhaps be said to be “possessed” with the Holy Spirit. If this were the sort of thing Ralph were getting at (which, again, based on the misunderstandings he showed above, it is not), then one could perhaps say loosely that in Jesus, God possessed God (though not that “God is possessing Himself”) – but, more accurately, one could say that one divine person was possessing (i.e., ‘indwelling’) the body proper to the human nature into which the divine nature had been brought into conjunction in the life of another divine person. Sounds far less polemically useful that way, of course, so it’s easy to see why Ralph took a different approach.
Ralph, unsatisfied with his previous mistakes, wishes to add to them as follows: After this life according to the intercessory prayer, all true believers will become one IN Jesus and IN God as they are one IN each other. So you believe that you will not just become a separate God, like we LDS believe, but that you will become part of your Trinity God as well as all other true believers making a conglomerate that is more than the Trinity – but still, your deep doctrine followed to the logical conclusion teaches that you too will become God.
A significant problem here is that this is just not how Trinitarian Christians understand those verses in John 17. No Trinitarian Christian believes that Christians are to become literally part of the Trinity, for while we are open to what the Orthodox term theosis, this does not literally make us ‘God’ (in the sense in which God is God), nor does it invest us with the incommunicable divine attributes, nor does it eradicate the gap between Creator and created, nor does it make us part of God. (In the Orthodox understanding, it involves a pure and perfect participation in God’s divine energies but never a participation in God’s divine essence.)
That aside, how can Trinitarian Christians approach what it says in John 17? Well, a growing realization among some New Testament scholars sheds light on the background of some of what Jesus is saying about oneness in this crucial chapter (as well as John 10:30). In Jewish writings of the Second Temple period, it was common to draw certain implications from the Shema’, Israel’s traditional emphatic proclamation of monotheism (contrary to some modern obfuscations regarding that verse). It was regarded as proper by Jews for the oneness of God to have certain practical correspondences on earth. For example, against other-temple experiments in Samaria (Mt. Gerizim) and Elephantine, mainstream Second Temple Jews insisted that, if there is only one God, then there can only be one legitimate temple. Gods and temples must, in this Second Temple Jewish monotheistic mindset, be set in one-to-one correspondence. (This is another reason, I should note, why Mormonism simply cannot be true: instead of recognizing the New Testament teaching about the temple, which is that now the Christian church is the only legitimate temple of God on earth, Mormonism promotes the proliferation of temple edifices.) The same was true of God’s chosen people. Rather than experience division (especially, as in Jewish memory, in the division of Israel into a Northern Kingdom and Southern Kingdom after the end of the United Monarchy), God’s chosen people should remain united as one and only one community worshipping the one and only one true God; schism, therefore, was viewed as an improper witness to monotheism. (Note that this is precisely the connection that Paul, as a good Second Temple Jew, uses in Romans 3:28-30 to argue for Jewish-Gentile unity within the church, since one God means one united people-from-all-peoples with one path to covenant belonging, rather than one path for Jews and another for Gentiles.)
What we have here in John 17, then, is a Christian adaptation of that very same Second Temple Jewish rhetoric. Note first that the oneness of God is now fleshed out as the oneness of the Father with the Son. This is why the popular LDS reduction of these verses to a mere intimate cooperation is a failure. From a Second Temple Jewish perspective, John 17 only has the force it does when the Father and the Son are one God, that is, the one true God as acknowledged in the historic Israelite faith. In correspondence to the oneness of the Father and the Son as the one God, so Christians are exhorted to retain their oneness as one people; and, as Christianity makes known that the oneness of God is an internal oneness of love within the one God, so Christians are to exhibit and cultivate their oneness as a people (and, as noted above, as a temple) through a similar oneness of love within this one people, a love for one another in God cultivated by a common experience of the love of God and a common devotion to love for God.
As for the ‘in’ language, this is most likely to be explained by the propensity in that world to use ‘in’ so-and-so to express the embeddedness of identity in a collectivist culture. Hence, just as the personal identities of the Father and of the Son are mutually defined through the embeddedness of the Son in the Father (within the unique divine identity of God), so our identity as a people comes from being similarly ’embedded’ in the Father and the Son – and it is by remaining an active recipient of Christ’s grace that we abide in him (cf. John 14). There may be a further hint of perichoresis in John 17, but certainly nothing here would suggest that we become part of God in any case. Ralph’s analysis of what this chapter must look like to Trinitarian Christians is sadly off-the-mark.
Finally, Ralph offers some final commentary: But wait there’s more – you believe that your God is immortal but then you teach that He came to this earth, put on a physical mortal body and then died. That’s a bit of a juxtaposition, even if you want to claim that it was Jesus, Jesus is your God and not just a part of Him, so it was your God that died.
Again, Ralph seems to be working with a practical modalist understanding of the Trinity. It is most certainly true that God the Son (i.e., the second of the three distinct divine persons as whose interrelated common life God eternally exists) became a human person by adopting an additional human nature; and it is certainly true that, prior to his glorification, the Son via his human nature was subject to death. This is the profound paradox (though certainly not a contradiction) at the heart of the Christian faith; or, as Charles Wesley puts it in his rightly famed hymn ‘And Can It Be’: “Tis mystery all! The immortal dies! / Who can explore his strange design? / In vain the firstborn seraph tries / To sound the depths of love divine.” Yes, in the sense that the divine person of God the Son, through his adopted human nature, did at one point suffer death, the statement that the Christian God died is quite true – and that is one of the central points of Christianity. But it would not be accurate to say that the Christian God died if by that one meant that the Trinity died (for neither the Father nor the Holy Spirit has ever undergone death), nor if by that one meant that the the divine nature as such was susceptible to death (for it was in his human nature that the Son died – though it was the person that died via that nature, not that the nature as such was susceptible to death, since death is an occurrence experienced by persons). What the point of Ralph’s concluding commentary here was meant to be, it may well take the omniscience of God to discern.
In the end: Sorry, Ralph, you get an F in Trinitarian Studies 101. I’m afraid you’ll have to retake the course.
Personally, I have no desire to discuss the Trinity, so I am ignoring all comments on that subject. It has been beaten to death and I don’t like kicking things when they’re down.
So, here are the only comments I will offer.
Despite what others try to claim, everything that I declared can be found in the Bible is in that Book. I could show each one in detail, but I have found that such is pointless when dealing with people like Falcon and Old Man. In a fairly resent blog I offered to explain our doctrine using the Bible. When I had done so the only reply I received was Old Man telling me that because I don’t believe in his interpretation I had to be wrong.
So, while I can show every doctrine that I sited in the Bible, I will not do so as I am tire of the arrogance of Old Man and the mockery of Falcon. When our beliefs are respected, and when people posting here are willing to actually discuss and listen to what we say I will be more willing. Until then, don’t bother asking me again.
4fivesolas
Actually, we believe in one God, which is the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. These three combine to make the Godhead, or ruling presidency of Heaven; and that Godhead is the God that we worship. Thus we can honest say that we worship only one God.
4fivesolas,
That video is Perfect! I have never seen it, glad you shared!
Shemwater,
While I am no trinitarian expert, I do feel like some of what you said rings true for me. Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit are God. However I am told by Mormons that God is 3 distinct persons with one purpose.. They do not believe that Jesus is God, they believe he is A god. They believe God has a body of flesh and bones and that him and Jesus appeared to JS, right? I am confused though… How is this biblical? I am also told that one day we will become gods, just like God became God.. How is that believing in one God? Your argument seems inconsistent with the Mormon doctrine I am familiar with..
Also, sorry to be nit picky but God is not the president of Heaven, he is King. Actually He is greater than King. He wasn’t elected, He has always been. He is I AM.
I would like to see your blog post, maybe I would understand what you are trying to say better.
Ralph,
The God of the bible is God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. They have all three always been and are equal in power, purpose, and being. The trinity is really well explained in the video posted by 4fivesolas. God is the ONLY GOD. Meaning there are no others, not even lesser ones that we don’t worship. When the bible speaks of other gods it is speaking of god’s that aren’t real to people who believe they are. I hope that makes sense to you. He is all powerful, all knowing, all good, and all righteous. That is what compels us to worship him. He has always been. He was not created. He is the creator. He is I AM. Jesus is God in the flesh. In Phillipians 2:5 it says that He gave up all His power as God and became man. John 1:1, says He is the Logos or the Word and that He has always been. Numerous times people worship Jesus. If God is the only one we are to worship than that must make Jesus, God. “Holy! Holy! Holy is the Lamb!” Who is the Lamb? Jesus is the Lamb. I don’t know how else it can be explained. God is not a man, trying to make him fit into natural law won’t work because he exists outside of it. He created it. We are like him, not the other way around.
Brewed
If you want a more in depth description of what the Godhead really is and what our doctrine is you can read about it here http://shematwater.wordpress.com/2012/12/12/the-godhead/.
Let me just briefly answer some of your concerns.
“God is 3 distinct persons with one purpose”
Yes, because God is synonymous with Godhead, which is comprised of these three persons.
“They do not believe that Jesus is God, they believe he is A god.”
He is a god, but he is also God, as he is part of the Godhead, and thus is one of the three that comprises God. Thus he is both God and a god.
“They believe God has a body of flesh and bones and that him and Jesus appeared to JS, right?”
Yes.
“How is this biblical?”
How is it not? The biggest problem with this is peoples insistence that every word in the Bible be perfectly accurate, as there can’t be any error. I do not hold to that view. When the Bible on numerous occasions describes God as sitting, having a face, hind parts, hands, and other features of men, I am inclined to believe this is the case, despite the one and only verse that calls him a spirit, as it is more likely that that single verse was mistranslated than that all the others were. When it declares that a number of men have seen God face to face, I am inclined to believe that as well, and accept that the one verse that says it never happened was mistranslated.
The idea is most definitely Biblical; it is just not in accord with how other interpret the Bible, that’s all.
“I am also told that one day we will become gods, just like God became God.”
First, this is misleading. While we will all have the same knowledge, power, and glory that God has, it has never been taught that we will have the same authority as God. In other words, we will be gods, but we are not taught that we will be God. It is like telling your son he will someday be an adult, with him still understanding that he will never be his own father.
“How is that believing in one God?”
There is only one God, or Supreme being. There are, however, many beings that exist in the divine state under the authority of that Supreme Being. All of these beings are also rightly called gods (look it up in the dictionary). Thus we believe in only one Supreme Being, and thus only one God, using this definition; but in many gods using a different definition.
“Your argument seems inconsistent with the Mormon doctrine I am familiar with.”
Then I would suggest you get more familiar, because this is Mormon Doctrine, as it has been taught from the beginning. I admit that it is more in depth than most people really think about, but that does not make it any less true.
“God is not the president of Heaven, he is King. Actually He is greater than King. He wasn’t elected, He has always been. He is I AM.”
Not to be nit picky, but I said the Godhead formed a presidency. Our Father is the King over heaven and Earth, the great Elohim, head of the Gods. His son, Jesus Christ, is the great Jehovah, the I AM who rules over this Earth and will, at the end of it all, take His place as King, the rightful heir to His Father’s throne. However, these designations only apply to the individuals, not to the unit that is the Godhead. That unit is a presidency, formed by the King, His Son and Heir, and their messenger.
Brewed,
Glad you enjoyed the video. I think it is hilarious and provides good teaching on the Christian faith. Especially with all the trash talk by Mormons on here about how confusing the Trinity and how it doesn’t fit with our human reason, I feel the video nails it.
Shem,
Christianity also teaches that the Godhead is three distinct persons too. The major difference is that they are united by more than just purpose and that they have always existed together.
I can see how you can assume Heavenly Father has a body. However, you act is though scripture is completly on your side when it is not. Face to face did not have such a literal meaning as you are assuming. Face to face meant that God spoke to Moses plainly. Within that same chapter in Exodus 33 it says in verse 20,”You cannot see My face; for no man can see My face and live.” This idea of God not being seen is supported in John 1:18 and 1 John 4:12. The referral to God’s back in Exodus 33:22 is referring to the glory of God. Moses saw Gods glory to the extent that he was capable.
This is the problem. Jews never believed God had a body. They can’t even make images of God because of how strongly they believe He is a spirit. Early Christians never taught Heavenly Father had a body either. You act as thought Jews and Christians never understood the Scripture. My faith, which stems from the Apostles, has always held these interpretations of scripture and taught God the Father as NOT being a man. Even Jewish tradtion and interpretation of scripture doesn’t support this. What reason should we turn our back on the Christian faith, whose teachings have survived almost 2,000 years and embrace a faith that very much seems to originate from a false prophet? Why shouldn’t we believe the LDS faith is riddled with false prophets that bend scripture for their own purposes.
Pingback: Points of agreement between atheists and Mormons » Main Street Plaza
Jaxi
You don’t understand me. I never said scripture was completely on my side. What I said is that it is no more on your side than on mine. You have an interpretation, we have one. Neither interpretation finds more support than the other in the text of the Bible, simply because that text is not written very clear at times and the human mind has the wonderful talent of seeing the meaning that it is searching for.
My point was our doctrine can be found in the Bible, just as much as yours, and thus it can be called Biblical. If you want to say it is not your Orthodox doctrine, that is fine, and I agree completely. If you want to say it is not Evangelical doctrine, that is fine, and I agree completely. But you cannot accurately say that it cannot be supported by the Bible, because it can, depending on ones interpretation of the Bible.
As to what Jews and ancient Christians used to believe, both of these things are actually very hard to determine. Many records have been lost or destroyed, and what remains is actually rather fragmentary. We have very little actual knowledge of what the Jews believed prior to the Babylonian captivity. Most scholars will even tell you that it is only speculation concerning this.
As to the Early Christians, again much of the record of those early centuries has been lost. We have almost nothing from the first century at all, except the New Testament. There is very little from the second century, and what is had contains half a dozen different points of view. The only reliable source as to the original doctrine is the Apostles themselves, contained in the New Testament, and those words support a physical God just as much as they support a spirit one.
Shem,
I acknowledged that I can see how one can assume such and such based on the Bible. You can make a case for almost anything. The Bible left to ones personal interpretation alone can lead people down a dangerous road. I think Jews would strongly argue against you that they have not preserved their faith. I also think that there is quite a bit of writings from the early Church Fathers that substantiate what is currently being taught in mainstream Christianity. Yes, there were disputes and heresies that had to be discussed. Church leaders, being lead by the Holy Spirit, would come together just as Paul and Peter would come together and discuss issues and doctrine and come to a conclusion, and establish a Tradition. There is no reason to assume that they weren’t guided by the Holy Spirit. What you want Christians to do is throw out the historical way the Bible has been interpreted for thousands of years based on what? What evidence do you have that Joseph Smith wasn’t a false prophet? We are told in the New Testament to watch for different false prophets. We are told to not listen to someone teaching a different gospel. We are told to watch out for different Christs. Sounds a lot like Mormonism. So yes, if you want to pat yourself on the back, cherry picking verses and twisting things and disregard Jewish and Christians tradition go ahead. But there is no reason for anyone else to join you in your delusion. Mormonsim banks on there being an universal apostasy. I can’t find one. The apostasy couldn’t occur through sin and false doctrine, because if it could, LDS needs to declare some of its own leaders false prophets. My previous stake president taught that the apostasy happened at the death of the last apostle because they were secretly taught to take the Church off the earth. There is no reason why anyone should believe that.
Jaxi
I love how you don’t accept anything I say, while at the same time trying to appease me, as you obviously know that what I say is correct regarding interpreting the Bible. Of course you have to resort to the old, and blatantly false accusation of Cherry picking. But then, how can one actually argue against an alternative idea without first trying to discredit the one presenting it, right?
I do not cherry pick verses. Of course, I also don’t use only the Bible, nor do I hold that every verse in the Bible is perfectly accurate. But then, the Bible does not use only the Bible, nor does it hold that every verse in it is perfectly accurate. So, once again, I am in perfect agreement with the Bible.
Now, I have great respect for all traditions, but I am not going to hold them as being greater than the truth. For instance, I understand that the Jews claim they have preserved their religion, but no one who actually accept the New Testament can honestly believe that. Why? Because there is only one truth. God revealed that truth to the Old Testament prophets, just as he did to those in the New Testament. Thus, the two books have to teach the same thing. Yet, the Jews deny much of what Christ taught. Thus they have lost much of what their religion originally was. Do you understand this?
I also understand where you are coming from with the Christian traditions. But once again, the truth must win out.
You ask “What evidence do you have that Joseph Smith wasn’t a false prophet?”
Well, what evidence do you have that, say, Jonah wasn’t a false prophet? What about Elijah, or Elisha? You can’t even provide evidence that these men existed, let alone are prophets. So why do you accept them? I would venture to guess that you accept them on faith, because such evidence is impossible to find.
I know Joseph Smith was a prophet. What evidence do I have. I have the evidence of the spirit, which is the only evidence I need. The problem is that it is an evidence that can’t really be shared, which is why we invite all people to come and seek it out for themselves. Now, I also have the evidence of the Book of Mormon, which would have been impossible for him to have written without divine aid. I have the evidence of the doctrine and covenants. I have the evidence of the church. I have the evidence of his prophecies. However, every one of these can be reasoned away by those lacking faith and the evidence of the spirit. So, again, they do no good.
“My previous stake president taught that the apostasy happened at the death of the last apostle because they were secretly taught to take the Church off the earth. There is no reason why anyone should believe that.”
I agree, because it is false and has never been taught by any leader of the church. But, if you want to see apostasy, all you really need to do is look at the behavior of the people involved.
Jaxi
Something for you to bear in mind when talking to Shematwater, he uses the LDS dictionary so words take on different meanings. I have just ended an argument on the topic “I love talking to Ex-Mormon Atheists” & was surprised to learn that the new definition of apostasy is, & I quote “Apostasy is the loss of the power of the priesthood” All the years I’ve been thinking that it meant loss of faith, what a foolish old man I am.