Mormon Defender Skirts Christian Question; Instead Calls for Unity

Colmcille »

Wed Aug 15, 2007 2:04 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

James and peace123,

Regarding your statements that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity was not officially taught until the First Ecumenical Council at Nicaea in AD 325 is true in this sense: the word Trinity was not an "official" term used until the decision of the Council. However, the doctrine of the Divine Triad was taught prior to the Council. I suggest you read JND Kelly, Early Christine Doctrine, probably most widely accepted as the best text on early Christian teachings.

The Nicene Council had NO compromise. Trinitarian doctrine was accepted after Athansios the Great, only 19 at the time, presented his On The Incarnation, which stated that, "God became man, so that man may become god." In other words, what Jesus is by nature( the Son of God), we become (sons of God) by Grace. Arius and his followers who denied the Incarnation, were banished, Arianism was condemned as a heresy. Arius was later brought back by another Emperor, but was again banished and his teachings once again were condemned as heresy. Arianism survived only a few centuries later.

robinhooud »

Sun Aug 05, 2007 4:23 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

The Bible and Smith' books. Not compatible.

laforte2007 »

Thu Jul 26, 2007 5:46 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

this applys to most organized religions,if you have a glass of water say 98%pure and Only 2% poison shouldnt the 98% protect you,you either beleve the scriptures or you dont, Mormons ect. have basterdized the scriptures, in such a way as to make there own brand of salvation,through the inclusion and makeing = to the bible there aditional books and doctrines that are in opposition to scripture.take it back to the hebrew and greek use a concordance namely-a strongs exhaustive concordance,which unlocks the minds of the author of the bible

laforte2007 »

Thu Jul 26, 2007 5:40 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

peace123-you are off topic,you refer to docrines of man,man made buildings called churchs,take the dispute back to the bible,Look up the meaning of who God is who Jesus is who the holy spirit is look these up in a strongs exhaustive concordance(hebrew and greek)now list every verse where each occure keeping in mind the subject being talked about,and what is the topic for each accurance,learn to read befor and after each verce to grasp the settings with these three in mind ask yourself or rather God and jesus to guide your research write down what you find, ultimately youll see the answer your needing,

peace123 »

Thu Jul 19, 2007 8:24 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Luther, while recognizing purgatory, indulgences, and the invocation of the saints, denied all effect of indulgences on purgatory. He had issues with the Catholic Church but his goal was to pressure reformations of the Church. Had the Church eliminated indulgences on purgatory during Luther's era would we still have lutheranism?

peace123 »

Thu Jul 19, 2007 8:05 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

James

This belief directly contradicts the concept of the Trinity, which are three Gods without form or passion in one. The Trinity was not officially taught in the Christian church until 300 years after the Resurrection of The Savior. The idea of the 3 in 1 Trinity was the product of the Nicene Creed of 325 A.D. Under the direction of Constantine, a council of theologians, scholars, and clergy were called together to organize the official doctrines and beliefs of the church. Confusion about official doctrine was rampant at the time. The council debated the nature of the Godhead until a compromise was reached. That compromise was the Nicene Creed, which established the idea of Christ "being of one substance with the Father" . In the 5th century the Athanasian Creed reaffirmed and expounded further on The Trinity.

You are correct and that is what that poster truthandjustice was getting at before in one of the sites. Most Catholics are aware of that but protestants don't like to discuss it.

However, your comment about: While the Lutheran, Baptist and Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) churches recognize an apostasy from true Christianity, Lutheranism and Anabaptists find the remedy in reform, whereas Mormonism (and Roger Williams, and arguably Luther) claims the necessity of inspired restoration, not only for theological purposes but also to reestablish a broken line of apostolic succession and authority, is really the key statement. Luther as a former Catholic never questioned the authority of the Pope he merely wanted to reform the Church. Thus, the name Protestant reformation. I'm not a mormon but the more I read posts from different people the more a picture is becoming clear - remain Catholic (question nothing), become a protestant try to reform the Church (thus prophets statements about people leaving the Church inorder to get it to change), become a mormon reject the Catholic faith and the reformation attempts of the protestants. However, I wouldn't become a mormon personally because they have a lot of strange beliefs based on their founding (the missing tablets, etc.) one of the funniest shows i've ever seen is Southparks attempt to explain the mormon religion -A MUST SEE. Another aspect I don't understand is why you can only go into certain temples if you are up to date on your tithing. Shouldn't God be accessible to everyone?

dhster »

Wed Jul 18, 2007 1:51 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 2

James, I'm still waiting for comments about the Book of Mormon. That extra-biblical one that
they use? What say you about the total lack of proof archaelogically? Even BYU says there is
none, and told missionaries not to try to use that as a basis for the book since it would be
fabrications. Also, speaking of creeds, who is it now that defines and translates the
meanings of scripture in the Mormon "church"? Why is it also that those have changed so much
throughout the history of Mormonism? There needs be no "centralized head" but Christ
Himself. He is the Head of the Church. We are His body. The Roman Catholic church might be a
majority, but I believe that the Pope and their hierarchy are deathly afraid of losing their
power base to the Evangelicals and Pentecostals, especially in South America. They have so
much as stated so, and are now posturing for the attacks against them. I think that is the
reason for his statement. Fortunately, I think that if most people read the Bible without
resorting to "creeds" they would be much better off. To be a Berean Christian is the best
kind. You as a Mormon have indeed listened to the creeds and proclamations of the Mormon
church to form your filtered understanding of scriptures, God inspired or not. In my
opinion, you have yourself allowed others to tell you how the Holy Scriptures are to be
translated, and not on your own, as you could not have come up with those things on your own just like followers of the Jehovah's Witnesses and other cults. You indeed have accepted
"another gospel" and "christ". The Mormon church has also accepted the biggest lie Satan
gave in the garden, that you too can become gods.

james »

Tue Jul 17, 2007 10:17 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 2

The most fundamental difference between the LDS Church and traditional Christianity is the principle of the Godhead: The Father, The Son, and the Holy Ghost. In 1820, when Joseph Smith knelt and prayed in a grove of trees Heavenly Father and Jesus appeared to him. Now known as the "first vision", Joseph beheld that the Father and the Son were separate and distinct beings. This has been the official doctrine of the LDS Church ever since.

This belief directly contradicts the concept of the Trinity, which are three Gods without form or passion in one. The Trinity was not officially taught in the Christian church until 300 years after the Resurrection of The Savior. The idea of the 3 in 1 Trinity was the product of the Nicene Creed of 325 A.D. Under the direction of Constantine, a council of theologians, scholars, and clergy were called together to organize the official doctrines and beliefs of the church. Confusion about official doctrine was rampant at the time. The council debated the nature of the Godhead until a compromise was reached. That compromise was the Nicene Creed, which established the idea of Christ "being of one substance with the Father" . In the 5th century the Athanasian Creed reaffirmed and expounded further on The Trinity.

The Godhead conceived in the Nicene Trinity was not taught in the Church prior to the Council in 325 A.D. Edwin Hatch, an emeritus professor of Ecclesiastical History at the University of Oxford taught,

"And if the doctrine of God now espoused by the various sects is foreign to the thought of the primitive Church, what was the Godhead of the early Church like? Indeed, we find in the early Church the true doctrine of a Godhead consisting of three distinct persons who are completely separate in substance, but one in will - the Father presiding over the Son and the Son over the Spirit." [Hatch, E., The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages upon the Christian Church, (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1957,) p. 124.]

james »

Tue Jul 17, 2007 10:15 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

Bible References teaching
The Father, Jesus, and The Holy Ghost
are Distinct and Separate Beings. (PART 1)

laforte2007 »

Mon Jul 16, 2007 9:14 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

if you have a glass of water say 98%pure and Only 2% poison shouldnt the 98% protect you,you either beleve the scriptures or you dont, Mormons have basterdized the scriptures, in such a way as to make there own brand of salvation,through the inclusion and makeing = to the bible there aditional books and doctrines that are in opposition to scripture.

JSOrthodoxy »

Mon Jul 16, 2007 6:52 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

Mormon theology teaches tri-theism, that there are three gods and that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three separate beings united in purpose, but not in essence. Orthodox Christianity teaches that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three persons united in one essence; so that the three are One God, not three. This is why the Mormon religion is not Christian. They do not worship the true God, even if they use the same names as Orthodox Christians. The God of Joseph Smith is not the God of the Bible.

james »

Mon Jul 16, 2007 1:22 pm Agree: 6   Disagree: 3

Dhster:

The “witnessing” technique of declaring that Mormons worship a false Christ because we believe in the premortal life, is a technique started by antimormon publishers about 20 years ago.

They can’t just say, “we don’t believe in the premortal life of spirits”, instead they use guilt by association, to “witness” to Mormons. The guilt here is a connection with Lucifer or the devil.

By your own logic then, we could argue that God the Father is a false God because God created Satan in the first place because God, knowing all things from the beginning, KNEW that Satan would eventually become evil. Is this the logic you want to use against Mormons?

My point was that Evangelical Christians don’t believe in premortal life of spirits. They don’t know about Lucifer before he became Satan and therefore, they dismiss anyone who claims to know.

However, ancient Christians knew something about Lucifer and how he was once connected to God as God’s son and how he rebelled and rejected God.

Some Christians bear false witness when they state that Mormons claim a connection between Jesus and Satan that is “active” or “ongoing”. Here’s the problem with their theology:
If Jesus was the Son of God BEFORE he was born to Mary, he would have to be a Son in another way. The only way Jesus could be the Son of God before the world was made, is in the spiritual sense. Therefore, Jesus (the Word) is God’s spirit Son. Therefore, any son of God or daughter of God could therefore be considered a “sibling” to Jesus Christ in the spiritual sense.

To put it terms of Trinitarians, Mormons believe that the sons and daughters of God could be considered spiritual siblings with the Son of God (the person of the Son). However, this in no way diminishes Christ’s sovereign power but merely points out connections within the family of God. Jesus Christ is the Father’s “family” just as the sons and daughters of God are the Father’s “family”.

From what I have been told, Evangelical Christians do not accept any scripture other than the Bible.

If that is true, then let me ask you a question. Did Catholic Bishops write scripture in the creeds? Are the creeds the “word of God”? If they are not the word of God, then you can’t expect Mormons to believe them. If they are not the word of God, then you should not accept them either. For Evangelical Christians is a “black and white” issue -

If you claim that the creeds are the word of God, then you believe in ADDITIONAL scripture and your arguments against additional scripture through Joseph Smith are invalid.

If you say that the creeds are not the word of God, then why do you accept them?

The Book of Mormon doesn’t speak of “negroid” or African American people instead speaks of the Lamanites were of Jewish descent who were “marked” by God either by his power or through intermixing with indigenous people of the area.

However, the Book of Mormon says that as they receive the gospel that the “scales of darkness” would fall from their “eyes” not off their skins. According to the Book of Mormon anyway.

The Utah Mormons? The Kirtland Temple case has been proven to have been a farce where the RLDS Church was “legally” set as the “heir” of the property in dispute, since priesthood keys distinguish one as the “authority: over the other, what purpose does this case serve?

The LDS and RLDS Churches share the same scriptures and the legal “heir” would be that body who possesses all of the keys of the priesthood. The keys of the priesthood can only be exercised by a majority of the Council of the 12 Apostles which the RLDS church never had. Keep in mind that the RLDS Church didn’t appear until decades after the death of Joseph Smith and the council of the 12 had moved to Utah. So, the argument that the RLDS Church is the “heir” of authorioty is in a word, fallacious.

But I know why you brought it up. You supposed that if you told me that there was a split in the LDS Church that it would somehow justify the 1000s of splits in Christianity. But I didn’t bring up the split to say that the Catholic or Protestants churches were wrong because of their split.

Nope, I brought it up to show you that Dr. Mohler nor any other pastor can speak for Christianity. None of you can define what Christianity is because there is no “central” authority within Christianity that you would call the “final word”.

Just recently, the authority (Pope) of the MAJORITY Christian religion declared that all Churches apart from the Roman Catholic Church are “defective” (not true) and that salvation is only through the “one true Church” – the Roman Catholic Church.

Dhster, unless you’re Roman Catholic, your status as a “saved Christian” is, according to the leading Christian authority the Pope, invalid.

Of course, this doesn’t mean anything to Mormons because we didn’t splinter away from the Catholic Church like Protestants did. We aren’t reformed Catholics – we are restored Saints. We reject all Catholic creeds and councils from 150 AD to the present AD. Why? Because you can’t put new wine into old bottles… because they will eventually break and shatter.

We find it strange that Protestants accept SOME Catholic creeds and Councils, but not all of them – including the most recent declaration by the Pope. Either ALL Of the Catholic Popes (Bishops) are Peter’s successor or NONE of them are. Which do you believe?

Dhster, Joseph Smith didn’t say that all Christians are corrupt. This is a misquote by antimormons to incite anger and confusion. The exact quote is this:
“My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)--and which I should join.
I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: "they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof."
According to Joseph Smith, the Lord said:
* All Christian Churches were wrong.
* Creeds were an abomination (non-scripture)
* Professors were all corrupt (professional clergy that Joseph Smith knew)
If we go back in history to the time of the reformation, Martin Luther, to one degree or another claimed the same thing about the Catholic church.
* The Roman Catholic Church was wrong about doctrine – Catholic churches wrong.
* The Roman Catholic Church had adopted abominable creeds
* The Roman Catholic Church was full of corrupt Popes/Bishops.
So Dhster, even you would have to agree, in part, that the assessment above is accurate according to the history of Christianity at one time or another.
However, when Evangelicals read what Joseph Smith said, they don’t like it because their own tradition got dragged into the mix. Why? Because like I said, you can’t put new wine into old bottles – or it’s a disaster. The reformers didn’t “restore” the Church. Why not? Because they had no apostolic authority – by declaration that the Church was corrupt was the declaration that all Bishops had lost all authority.
I think the first Baptist Pastor summed it all best in this way when he said:
Roger Williams, the founder of the Baptist Church in America, concluded the following, shortly before leaving the church he established:

"There is no regularly constituted church of Christ on earth, nor any person qualified to administer any church ordinances; nor can there be until new apostles are sent by the Great Head of the Church for whose coming I am seeking. (Picturesque America, p. 502.)

Martin Luther said the following:
"Nor can a Christian believer be forced beyond sacred Scriptures,...unless some new and proved revelation should be added; for we are forbidden by divine law to believe except what is proved either through the divine Scriptures or through Manifest revelation."

On another occasion he wrote: "I have sought nothing beyond reforming the Church in conformity with the Holy Scriptures. The spiritual powers have been not only corrupted by sin, but absolutely destroyed; so that there is now nothing in them but a depraved reason and a will that is the enemy and opponent of God. I simply say that Christianity has ceased to exist among those who should have preserved it."

While the Lutheran, Baptist and Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) churches recognize an apostasy from true Christianity, Lutheranism and Anabaptists find the remedy in reform, whereas Mormonism (and Roger Williams, and arguably Luther) claims the necessity of inspired restoration, not only for theological purposes but also to reestablish a broken line of apostolic succession and authority.

dhster »

Mon Jul 16, 2007 9:43 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 4

James: To label someone who testifies against Mormon doctrine as "antimormon" is to
disregard in totality anything truthful they might have to say about the subject. Those in
the Mormon church have done this for many years. It's their way of saying that everything
attested to by them is to be shunned, and not even debated. Sure, we can use purely human
argument to slant the Bible to say almost anything we want. You purport to use quotes from
people that are well, to somewhat known. But they are just humans too. You also mention that
the post-first century church has splintered, and to what end? Your own Mormon church is
splintered also. In fact the Reorganized Church of Latter-Day Saints is legally the only
"Mormon" church by way of court action.
Now let's touch upon the use of extra-biblical sources by the Mormons, namely The Book of
Mormon. Now tell me that you don't use that as scripture? There is no evidence at all to
prove the accounts thereof. Show me sir, when is it possible that a Black person can repent
and become white again? According to that book it was God's judgement upon a certain people
that they became black-skinned. Of course the "church" has disavowed that it is racist as it
did for polygamy. So, the Utah Mormons use "another scripture" that the Bible specifically
prohibits. Others have written much more exhaustive works about the fallacies of Mormon
belief and doctrine so I won't try here. Then again, you would label them "antimormon" even
though many of them came out of there and have specific knowledge about the subject.
As was stated by another poster here, how can Mormonism be considered a Christian
denomination when your leaders have said that we outsiders (Non-Mormons) are all corrupt,
and the Bible misinterpreted by everyone but Mormons? That is what the Jehovah's Witnesses
say about us, and you too.

russellwades »

Mon Jul 16, 2007 9:11 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Have I been ousted from this site?

DannyPoo »

Mon Jul 16, 2007 8:45 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

::begin quote::
I don' t know you, Danny, so I don't know whether you are homophobic. People who dislike homosexuality because of religious beliefs but treat gay people with dignity and respect and don't try to take away their rights are not homophobic in my book. But people who are actively hostile toward gay people, constantly belittling them, spreading misinformation about them and opposing measures that would merely treat them as equal human beings under the law are homophobic in my opinion.
::end quote::

I think that is a fair statement to make. I will state that I personally do not believe people who practice homosexuality should have extra rights(rights beyond those of what is currently established), but equal rights to that of a heterosexual I have no dissagreement with. I would qualify that further, but for the sake of avoiding contention I will leave it at that.

joze14rock »

Sun Jul 15, 2007 4:39 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

If you want to check out my dissertation on the support for Mormonism as a denomination of Christianity
email me at:

joze14rock@yahoo.com

crossfire »

Sat Jul 14, 2007 8:34 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

Responding to gayguy's comment: "I'm amazed by all the Mormon bashing on this comment board. They oppose homosexuality and abortion just as much as Evangelicals. They also tend to vote for Republicans, just like Evangelicals. Shouldn't Evangelicals and Mormons be allies? "

Personally I'm against bashing anyone, and discourage bashing (not saying that you were accusing me in particular, but I'm just saying), especially from fellow Christians who have been called to love God and to love our brothers. While I don't agree with the Mormon theology, I still have friends who are Mormon, as I also have friends who are Hindu and friends who are gay. If I were to make comments against Mormons claiming to be Christians, I would hope that it would not be regarded as Mormon bashing. Debates such as these should be against ideas and beliefs, not against people. As Christians are taught,we should love the sinner and hate the sin. I think, however, because there's always a barrier the divides us, it's easy to misunderstand and therefore end up easy to judge others. My hope for this post is to encourage Christians to be respectful of people that they disagree with and for non-Christians (and homosexuals who may or may not be Christian) to not misview arguments by Christians as attacks on people, but rather expressions of the ideas and beliefs that they are against. The beauty of America is that we are free to express what we believe and also express what we don't believe. As much as the former is embraced, I hope the latter is as well.

gayguy »

Sat Jul 14, 2007 2:26 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

In case anyone is confused, Danny was referring to a comment I made on another story about a gay library in Fort Lauderdale. I happen to live in South Florida, and follow local news closely, so I'm comfortable commenting on the Fort Lauderdale mayor. I don' t know you, Danny, so I don't know whether you are homophobic. People who dislike homosexuality because of religious beliefs but treat gay people with dignity and respect and don't try to take away their rights are not homophobic in my book. But people who are actively hostile toward gay people, constantly belittling them, spreading misinformation about them and opposing measures that would merely treat them as equal human beings under the law are homophobic in my opinion.

DannyPoo »

Sat Jul 14, 2007 1:41 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

gayguy, I can't comment specifically on this city, since I simply don't live there to know for sure. But on the homophobia definition, I don't have your dictionary, yours may say that. However my Merriam-Webster says

Homophobia:
irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals.

I do not have an irrational fear of, or irrational aversion, or irrationally discriminate against homosexuality. I simply believe it is wrong.

Would you personally, according to my dictionarys terms, classify me as Homophobic?

gayguy »

Sat Jul 14, 2007 10:26 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

I'm amazed by all the Mormon bashing on this comment board. They oppose homosexuality and abortion just as much as Evangelicals. They also tend to vote for Republicans, just like Evangelicals. Shouldn't Evangelicals and Mormons be allies?

james »

Sat Jul 14, 2007 10:17 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Ancient Christianity on men becoming gods.

Did you know that the ancient 2nd century Christians also taught a form of this doctrine (albeit not complete due to apostasy).

Here's a quote:

"But if thou dost not believe the prophets, . . . the Lord Himself shall speak to thee, "who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but humbled Himself" . . . yea, I say, the Word of God became man, that thou mayest learn from man how man may become God. Is it not then monstrous, my friends, that while God is ceaselessly exhorting us to virtue, we should spurn His kindness and reject salvation?"

Who was that Joseph Smith? Brigham Young? Nope. It was Saint Clement of Alexandria, one of the great early Christian Fathers who wrote in the late second century, recognized as an authentic early Christian leader and defender of the faith.

He said that Jesus became the Word so that we could learn from a man how to become like god.

Here's another one:

"Do we cast blame on him [God] because we were not made gods from the beginning, but were at first created merely as men, and then later as gods? Although God has adopted this course out of his pure benevolence, that no one may charge him with discrimination or stinginess, he declares, "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are sons of the Most High.".. . For it was necessary at first that nature be exhibited, then after that what was mortal would be conquered and swallowed up in immortality. “

First created as mere men then later as gods?

What? This has to be Joseph Smith right?

Nope. It was Saint Ireaneus, the Christian Bishop who was the first defender of Matthew Mark Luke and John as canonical books in 170 AD.

Why don't modern ORTHODOX Christians talk like this anymore? Why don't they teach this doctrine? What happened to it?

Remember the Bible verses I quoted below where we will be partakers of God's DIVINE nature, where we will sit in the throne of God, where we become like Jesus Christ, where we become complete like God is complete - what do YOU call such a being?

John 10:34-35
"Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;"

Jesus calls them gods
Ancient Christians called them gods
Mormons call them gods

What do Orthodox Christians call them?

james »

Sat Jul 14, 2007 10:12 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

We have these bible verses that support the LDS teaching that men can become gods.

godhood according to the Bible:

To become heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ, being glorified together (Romans 8:14-18) (What kind of beings are made one with God? Humans, angels or gods?)

As sons (and daughters) of God, to inherit all things that the Father has (Revelation 21:7)
(When we receivedall that the Father has, what kind of being will we be?)

To become one with Christ, as Christ is one with the Father (John 17:20-23)
(When we become one with Christ as Christ is one with the Father, what kind of being will we be?)

To sit with Christ on His throne (Rev. 3:21)
(Can non-gods sit in the throne of God?)

To receive a glorified, immortal body like the body that Christ has (Philip. 3:21)
(When we are like him, what kind of being will we be?)

To partake of the divine nature and be given all things pertaining to life and godliness, receiving glory (2 Peter 1:3-4)
(When we partke of his divine nature, and our own is changed, what kind of being will we be?)

To be made - in some way - like Christ when He returns (1 John 3:2)
(When we are like Christ, what kind of being will we be?)

To be made kings and priests unto God and his Father (Rev. 1:6)

As spirit children of God, to become partakers of his holiness (Heb. 12:9-10)

To be exalted by God (1 Peter 5:6)

To become perfect, even as our Father in Heaven is perfect (Matt. 5:48)
(Once we are complete like God after the final judgement, what kind of being will we be?)

Those scriptures teach we will become more than human, more than angels and partake in God's divine nature.

Once my human nature is purged and I have 100% of God's divine nature, what will I be? I will be divine. Those who are divine have divinity within them - if I have no more human nature and only have divine nature, then I have become a god by God's good grace and will.

Mind you, since we are not saviors or redeemers, and not a part of the Godhead, God’s “oneness” and sovereignty is still preserved. By becoming gods, we become ONE with him. When we are one with him, we can be his trusted servants.

james »

Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:53 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Gene:

The God of Mormonism is the Godhead spoken of in the Bible. The Bible does not use the word "trinity" although they are three who are one as Jesus said they are one in John 17.

Mormons believe in God the eternal (key word there) his Son Jesus Christ and in the Holy Ghost. Gene, if Mormons believe that God is eternal, did he have a beginning? No. He predates the universe. We also believe that Jesus Christ is eternal. How? Because spirit is eternal. When you leave out these VERY important truths that Mormons teach you begin to "bear false witness" against Mormons.

Mormons are fully prepared and ready to talk to Evangelical Christians in "real terms" and not vague definitions. Mormons are very fair in saying that the creeds of the Orthodox Christianity are outside the canon of the Bible. How? Because they were written and created by Catholic councils long after the Bible was written. In fact, hundreds of years after.

The Apostles did not participate in the writings of the creeds that defined God's nature for Orthodox Christianity. Mormons are on legal and Biblical authoritative ground for rejecting the creeds and their 1700 year interpretive history.

The "different Jesus" argument is presented in terms to create confusion. A much more honest way to present it is to say that Mormons reject the "creedal" Jesus and accept EVERY word of the Bible about Jesus Christ, God the Father and the Holy Ghost.

Mormons reject Catholic and Protestant interpretation of the Bible. In your quote above you're trying to say that Catholic and Protestant interpretation of the Bible "is" the Bible. However, this is not the case. Catholicism as we know it today has evolved over the centuries and Protestantism is only about 450 years old. So when you say "Christianity" you can't lump all of Christianity in your "form" and call it all of it.

Orthodox (notice the term) Christianity today is splintered. Just last week, the Pope reaffirmed that Catholicism is the only "true" Christian Church and the rest have defects and that only in Catholicism can salvation be found. This means that protestant Churches are outside this group.

I think what Catholics and Protestants both have to get used to is that the days of acting like they own a monopoly on all things about Christ has come to an end. Nether Catholics nor Protestants get to define Christianity.

As the Bible states, Apostles and prophets ALONE can do that. But I digress.

The Jesus of Mormonism is the Jesus of the Bible. Mormons believe in the LITERAL resurrection of Jesus. Mormons believe and affirm that Jesus STILL HAS a REAL TANGIBLE body of flesh and bone. This is biblical truth, yet how many "orthodox Christians" believe it?

Even you Gene described Jesus as a "spirit" only. While I do not discount your faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, the BIBLICAL Jesus must be defined as a personage of spirit and flesh and bone.

When he appears again, it says in the Bible that we will see him as he "is". Meaning, at this very moment, Jesus exists as both spirit, flesh and bone.

This contradicts most orthodox Christian teaching. Why? Because of the Catholic creeds.

On God's origin, LDS scriptures clearly state that He is eternal. Going back and going forward.

You speak of "eternal progression" as if its foreign to the Bible. However, Jesus himself said that he can do nothing of himself except he sees the Father do those things first. What did Jesus do? Healed the sick, caused the lame to walk, carried out the atonement, etc. Jesus says that he “sees the Father doing the same things”. When? Where?

Jesus said, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in Heaven is perfect". However, you interpret this to mean, whether its "complete" like the Father or literally "perfect" like the Father or whether you believe this is an act of grace of a combination of effort and grace, the result is that God wants us to become as he is. This is due to his love and generosity. Some people say this means “saved”. However, a close examination of the rewards declared in the Bible and in store for those who will become perfect, means something more. Jesus promises all those who overcome will sit with him in his throne and HE sits with his Father in his throne.

This is the throne of God we’re talking about. How does a non-god sit in the throne of God? What purpose is there of sitting with Christ in his throne when we are not qualified?

Early Christianity used to teach that mankind can become gods. This has been hidden to Catholicism and Protestantism. This truth was restored through the prophet Joseph Smith.

In the next post, I’ll show the verses that support God’s generosity in making us gods and also early Christians who declared this doctrine.

GeneThomas »

Sat Jul 14, 2007 8:12 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Wow, a lot response from Mormons. As an ex-Mormon I often respond to them, in these kinds of settings, but this time let me just make a point or two.

The God of the Mormons is not the God of the Bible. The Mormon God has a body of flesh and bone, and is an exalted man who was born onto a world somewhere in this universe and became a god the same way that his father became a god, and so on. For that matter, the same way the Mormons of this world may become gods. (For the logicians among you, this requires an infinite regression of gods.)

The God of Christianity is Spirit, predates our universe--which He created--and does not live in our universe, or if He does, does so because He chooses to and not because He has to. Ergo . . .

If their God is not the God of Christianity, then their Jesus is not the Jesus of Christianity, or of the Bible, if you prefer.

james »

Fri Jul 13, 2007 9:32 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Dhster:

You said: "The biggest problem is that the "Jesus" that Mormons believe in is NOT that of the Bible. They believe that he is Lucifer's brother. Therefore, they have a false christ. They use double-speak, meaning that they use the same words but with totally different meanings. "

First, your statement was created by antimormons. This attack on Mormon theology is veiled in that it doesn't provide the context about how Mormons believe lucifer was connected to God.

First, let's clear up the "different" Jesus. The Jesus of the Bible is declared as the "only begotten son of God in the flesh". Mormons affirm and believe that Jesus is the ONLY begotten son. End of discussion. In this regard, there is no "brother" of Jesus in this sense in Mormonism.

However, before Jesus was made flesh, he was STILL a Son of God as the "spiritual" Son of God. Even you would probably admit that Jesus was and is the person of the Son before Mary and after. In other words, before the foundation of the world was made, Jesus was and is the spirit Son of God. Through Jesus, God’s Son, he made the worlds. Did Jesus only recently (2007 years ago) become the Son of God?

Sometime before the earth was made, God created lucifer, who was called "a son of the morning". Lucifer was God's son (notice the little "s") who was like an angel to God. This son of God rebelled, was cast out of heaven, and became Satan - the father of all lies. While technically a spirit "son" of God he has lost all of his inheritance with God forever. He lost all of it before the world was made. He lost being connected to God before the world was made.

So, when you say that Mormons believe that Jesus and satan are brothers, what exactly could you possibly mean? Mormons believe that Satan is evil, rebellious and was cast out of Heaven for rebellion and for making a war against God in which Satan was cast out. While God created lucifer as a "son" in some sense, Lucifer was not to become the "begotten" Son of God.

Mormons fully embrace the “Jesus” of the Bible. What they do not embrace are the additional creeds that redefined Jesus, his nature, God’s nature, etc, after the Bible was compiled.

I think the most accurate way to describe the whole Lucifer thing would be to say that “Mormons believe in the pre-mortal life, where God created all spiritual life including you and me, first as spirit sons and daughters. Lucifer, who had a place with God, rebelled and rejected the love and generosity of God and became Satan. As God refers to his angels, and his creations (humans) as his children, we are then sons and daughters of God. In a limited sense that makes us “brothers an sisters” with Jesus Christ. This would be something akin to being “joint heirs” with Christ. Jesus Christ is not diminished in this relationship, instead, our connection with him is strengthened, which he desires.” I know that is a lot to remember, but it’s more accurate.

There are 4 key points that distinguish Jesus from His “spiritual” siblings.

* Jesus has seniority as the firstborn.
* He is literally the Father’s only begotten Son in the flesh.
* He was foreordained to be the only Savior and the Redeemer of the world.
* He was/is sinless.

Oh yeah, and of course Jesus is God – He is the second member of the Godhead, the redeemer and Savior of the world. No other spiritual sibling has such a connection with God the Father.

dhster »

Fri Jul 13, 2007 5:13 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

The biggest problem is that the "Jesus" that Mormons believe in is NOT that of the Bible. They believe that he is Lucifer's brother. Therefore, they have a false christ. They use double-speak, meaning that they use the same words but with totally different meanings.

DannyPoo »

Fri Jul 13, 2007 10:50 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

summathetes, while I agree with you in that respect. Let us remember that we are to be kind and courteous to our Mormon friends and Neighbors.

"But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect" 1 Peter 3:15

Defending our faith, our belief, is wonderful and commanded by Scripture, but let us not forget to do so with Gentleness and Respect. Not that you were implying otherwise, but I just wanted to add that point.

summathetes »

Fri Jul 13, 2007 10:05 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

Mormons are not Orthodox Christians regardless of sincerity or wantingness for unity.
Christians should never break bread with Mormons!

1 John 4:1-6
2 John 7-11

DannyPoo »

Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:57 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

::begin quote::Mormons who follow teachings of Jesus Christ are his discplies and therefore can be defined as Biblical Christians. They believe in the same Church organization that existed in the new testament. ::endquote::

Jesus didn't seem to think that everyone who believed in him, or believed in his church were true Christians.

"Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?'Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'" Matthew 7:22-23

::begin quote::
I hear Evangelical Christians constantly declare that they reject anything outside the canon of the Bible. They cite Revelations 22 as their scriptural authority on this point. ::end quote::

True some Evangelicals use that verse, I do not use that verse as I will agree with you that it involves only that book(Revelation). It should be noted however, that Joseph Smith did attempt to change the book of Revelation (Joseph Smith Translation, also known as JST has "restored" versions of certain verses of the Book of Revelation) You can find these by opening up any Missionary Quad.

But regardless of that, I am open to possible new revelation, but only that which is in agreement with Current Scripture (Bible). Mormonism, in several places disagrees, which is why Joseph Smith(founder of LDS church) created his own "Restored" version of Scriptures.

james »

Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:13 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

Protestant Double Speak

I hear Evangelical Christians constantly declare that they reject anything outside the canon of the Bible. They cite Revelations 22 as their scriptural authority on this point.

Mormon Christians reject Catholic creeds and council declarations that are outside the Bible canon as well. This is where Mormons depart from Orthodox Christians.

As a clarifying point, the LDS Church declares it to be the "only true and living Church of Jesus Christ" as it relates to two points: 1) Priesthood authority and 2) Continuing Revelation through latter-day Apostles and Prophets.

However, this declaration does not nullify the belief, faith and good works of Orthodox Christians. Recently, the President of the LDS Church said:

"I say this to other people: you develop all the good you can. We have no animosity toward any other church. We do not oppose other churches. We never speak negatively of other churches. We say to people: you bring all the good that you have, and let us see if we can add to it. " Gordon B. Hinckley

james »

Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 1

Mormons are Christians Using the Biblical Definition

Mormons who follow teachings of Jesus Christ are his discplies and therefore can be defined as Biblical Christians. They believe in the same Church organization that existed in the new testament.

Like I said, Orthodox Christians should call Mormons, unorthodox Christians who follow the Bible but reject Catholic creeds and councils.

DannyPoo »

Fri Jul 13, 2007 7:20 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

To be fair, much of the reason why many people such as myself seem to be "up in arms" over the term 'Christian' and it applying to orthodox Christianity only. Is because the Bible is where it is first mentioned, and therefore, first outlined/defined.

"...And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." Acts 11:26

It being introduced biblically and defined by the bible itself first is a fair argument to make. Also for the sake of mentioning, several Ex-Mormons have told me they are confused by the more modern attempt by the LDS church to claim Christianity because back in the 60's and early 70's they were encouraged by the Church to make sure they specify in their mission trips that they were Not Christians to prospective converts. Why the change in attitude by the Church? I don't know.

crossfire »

Fri Jul 13, 2007 7:14 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

And also, DannyPoo, I've been to a Baptist convention and from the way they speak, it sounds like they (or at least the leadership) believe that they're the only true church - not by title, but by beliefs and actions. quinalan brought up a good question that makes me wonder what some denominations really think. Don't Protestants generally believe that they are the true church and the Catholic church has gone astray (thus the Protestant reformation)?

crossfire »

Fri Jul 13, 2007 7:10 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

DannyPoo - actually I don't know if it's neccessarily that the RCC or LDS (or any other group for that matter) has avoided claiming to be "the one true church" because they seek to gain "inclusionary" acceptance from Orthodox Christianity. I think perhaps any Christ-based body would do so in order to establish a good relationship that may eventually lead to conversions from the other body. Isn't that one of the reasons for the Christian interfaith movement? I'm sure if you believe that Christ is the only way to salvation, you're not making friends with Muslims just to be accepted but to eventually lead them to the light. Yes? No?

james »

Fri Jul 13, 2007 7:07 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

The LDS Chruch does not "deny" that they are the one and true Church. The Church declares it constantly. However, the LDS Church also declares that Christians of other faiths are good and honest people who sincerely follow Jesus Christ as best they can and that such faith is not in vain.

Are Mormons Christians? Of course they are. This debate is all quite silly. From one side of his mouth, Dr. Mohler would declare that the only word of God is the bible. If that is true, then why is Dr. Mohler asking the Mormons to prove their loyalty to "Christian Tradition" such as the creeds and subsequent Catholic councils over the centuries since around 200 AD?

Mormons believe the Bible to be the word of God. Mormons believe in accepting and LIVING every teaching of Jesus Christ EVERYWHERE.

What the LDS Church rejects are the subsequent creeds, and traditions created AFTER the Bible was compiled.

In this regard then, Mormons are UNORTHOODX Christians who believe in following every word of Jesus Christ written in the Bible and reject all private interpretations of the Bible by traditional Christians since the death of the apostles until now.

Although Mormons reject these interpretations, we still believe that Catholics and Protestants are still "Christians" as they accept the Bible, believe in Jesus Christ, and live his teachings.

DannyPoo »

Fri Jul 13, 2007 6:58 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

::begin quote:: Don't most denominations believe they are the only "true" church? ::end quote::

No, Baptists, Lutherans, Pentacostals, Church of Christ, Church of Nazarine, etc.etc.etc.etc.....etc.etc. Do not claim to be the only true church, rather, A VAST MAJORITY of Orthodox Christian churches claim to be PART of the True Church.

quinalan »

Fri Jul 13, 2007 6:14 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Don't most denominations believe they are the only "true" church? Otherwise, what is the point of their existence if previous beliefs already taught the truth about God? Mormons have never denied their own claim, though many other denominations certainly refrain from such bold statements.

The main difference with Mormons is they claim direct guidance from God, whereas the bulk of Christianity is based solely on the Bible and various interpretations thereof. A bold statement? Sure, it is. (One made by Catholics, as well.) A rejection of all of Christianity? Certainly not.

As a Mormon, I don't believe I've ever heard a Mormon member or leader express a desire to be labeled a "orthodox Christian." We all know our beliefs are unique, even peculiar. There is no desire to fit a mold, or be counted as "mainstream." What is bothersome is that so many people label Mormons as non-Christian. The implication is that Mormons believe Christ didn't exist, or that he didn't die and rise again, or that he is not who he said he was, or that he did not indeed save us from death and sin. Indeed, Mormons DO believe in all of this. Saying Mormons are not Christian suggests the direct opposite, and who can blame them for their frustration? It is a misrepresentation that ought to be offensive to anyone, Mormon or not, who knows how Mormons actually believe and live.

DannyPoo »

Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:59 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

crossfire, they deny it publicly so much, for the same reason the catholic church (until just recently) has often avoided saying it(This is not a jab at the catholic church). LDS know that using the exclusionary term of "Only True Church", makes it difficult for them to gain "inclusionary" acceptance from Orthodox Christianity.

crossfire »

Fri Jul 13, 2007 3:20 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

This debate is starting to sound like the debate that Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron had with the athiests on ABC. I wonder if Mormons out there are complaining about the Mormon "defender" as many Christians complained about Comfort and Cameron representing (rather poorly) Christianity. But the difference in this case is that the winning side (Mohler, Christianity) should obviously be winning.

Also, if Mormons believe they are the true Church, then why deny it publicly?