[Why Is There an Upset about Polytheism?]

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

However, for any devout Christian it must also be admitted that while we can comprehend some of this, it is impossible to comprehend it at the same time, hence it is both comprehensible and incomprehensible.

Agreed, the nature of the infinite God is far beyond what the finite brain can comprehend, let alone what the finite brain can explain in human words. That being said, if someone who doesn't believe in the Trinity asks me to explain it, me simply saying that it can't be explained would be a disappointing answer to anyone and everyone. So, I explain it the best I can, but at some point, it is beyond human words. Some say that if it can't be understood completely, it doesn't make sense to believe it and/or is probably not true. However, wouldn't one expect that the fullness of the very nature of God would be beyond human comprehension? I think so. I believe that if man could fully understand the nature of God, it would probably be a god that man himself made up because God would be bigger than the man He created.

So in short, yes I can't fully understand or explain it. But no, I don't see that as a problem, but rather I see it as a strength.

*I am not saying that you think this way or are arguing this way. However, I know a lot of people do think this way, and there are probably a few of them trudging through this thread.

[Why Is There an Upset about Polytheism?]

2 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

PS-- @Larry Cotrell, were you a minister or just well studied?  I'm trying to remember, but failing...

My father, grandfather, and grandmother were ministers, so I grew up around it and always had people smarter than me that I could ask about anything. It went a little like this, "So Dad, just one really quick question, what were the Nephilim?" 

2 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

*thumbs up*

We got to building understanding bridges that go both ways, after all

I agree with @prisonchaplain here that the difference is if they are one in purpose or one in substance, and I believe it is a major difference. At least we understand each other now 

[Why Is There an Upset about Polytheism?]

2 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

"When Christ is saying The Lord's Prayer, is He talking to Himself?"

2 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

@Larry Cotrell will also be happy to clarify their beliefs. 

Always happy to explain  First, there are three things to understand:

1) Jesus was fully God (John 4:49, Matthew 28:20, Matthew 8:26-27, John 8:58, and a whole lot more)

2) Jesus was fully man (1 John 4:2, 2 John 7) and therefore experienced human emotions (John 4:6, John 19:28, Matthew 4:2, John 11:35)

3) The Son is relationally subordinate to the father, meaning that His job is to do the will of the father, never the other way around (Luke 22:42, Hebrews 10:7). However, no part of the Trinity is inferior in nature or essence. (Matthew 28:19, John 10:30)

2 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

Hence, from their perspective, both the statements "God is three persons" and "God is one being" are correct.

Yes, God is three distinct persons eternally existing as one being, or essence (John 1:1-5).

So here's where I actually answer the question: Jesus prayed to the Father, who is a separate person. In His combination of divineness and humanness, He knew the pain he was going to go through and didn't want to go through it. However, because He was sent to do the Father's will, and they are one being or essence, He asks the Father, " Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done" (Luke 22:42).

 

 

[SJWism is destroying Disney!]

1 minute ago, NeuroTypical said:

[Shows TFP some scenes from Solo and points out some unfortunate realities about Lando's open pansexuality and the love triangle with L3-37 and Han.]

True, it has snuck into everything (obviously somewhat subtly) and I think there are too many other variables to directly relate the movies' success to the "SJWism." That being said, I do agree with @The Folk Prophet that the entertainment industry is one of Satan's greatest weapons, as he makes wrong things seem "cool" or normal and evil things seem trivial. I do think we need to be increasingly aware of how what we are putting in affects us because what we put in goes straight to our heart and comes back out through our actions. (I'm not necessarily talking about feminism, but things like homosexuality, sorcery, and the like.)

David set the ultimate example when he said, " I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes: I hate the work of them that turn aside; it shall not cleave to me"  (Psalm 101:3).

(Wish I could say I follow this perfectly, but it's definitely something to work on )

[Why Is There an Upset about Polytheism?]

I just want to take a second to say that this thread has been successful in helping me (and probably @MaryJehanne as well) to better understand the LDS belief on this, so thank you all for taking the time to explain and articulate your thoughts. Much appreciated! 

There are (at least) two things standing in the way of me fully understanding the LDS belief on this issue:

1) LDS people disagree on some points of belief, just as any faith does, so understanding Person A's belief doesn't necessarily mean that you understand Person B's belief

2) Because we are from different faith backgrounds (LDS, Catholic, Protestant, etc.) most of the "theology" words mean different things from different perspectives. So, often when we think we are talking about the same thing, we really aren't. Learning each other's terminology goes a long way!

[Why Is There an Upset about Polytheism?]

18 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

@Larry Cotrell I feel confident that mods will remove that link and I won't repeat it here... But that site is about as anti-mormon as you can get -- which is why it shouldn't be posted here. So maybe remove it yourself?

Sincere apologies! I did not realize it was, as it did not seem to be. I have edited the comment to remove the name of the website and will be far more careful about this in the future.

20 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

FYI: that's site is a prime example of anti-Mormon folks knowing and intentionally lying on absolutely every single page.  An absolutely horrible source.

*Thumbs up!*

So, you were right. Sincere apologies!

[Why Is There an Upset about Polytheism?]

26 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Don't worry Larry, I know you have zero bad intentions and I very much enjoy your posts.  Honestly, I suspected your source got the info from a well-intetioned another source, which got it from well-intetioned another source, which got it from well-intetioned another source, down the chain to the anti-Mormon guy who 'conveniently' 'forgot' to mention the complete lack of authority or LDS use of the Pratt quote.    

One of the reasons I myself am such a HUGE fan of interfaith dialogue and getting things straight from the horse's mouth is to combat such a misinformation train.  For that reason alone I applaud your presence here @Larry Cotrell.  Let alone the fact that I do just really like your posts and hearing your perspectives.

3

Yes, that is exactly why I'm on the forum, to clear about misconceptions I have about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and hopefully clarify common misconceptions about "traditional" Christianity as well.

[Why Is There an Upset about Polytheism?]

4 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

PS- you'll never actually see that quote in active LDS discussion.  The "Journal of Discourses" has zero canonical standing, and some of the sayings of Orson Pratt are problematic-- there was actually big arguments/grudges about that back in the 1800's.   The ONLY time I've ever seen that quote come up is either 1) an anti-Mormon misrepresenting things, or 2) somebody unknowingly got information from such an anti-Mormon.

 

Well, then perhaps I have been misinformed. My apologies. I was not trying to misrepresent things, nor was my source anti-Mormon. The error comes from misunderstanding, not ill intent. 

[Why Is There an Upset about Polytheism?]

I think that the confusion about the word polytheism (or more specifically henotheism/monolatry) comes not from Athanasian Trinity vs. LDS Godhead, but from the belief in other gods outside of our world.  

“If we should take a million of worlds like this and number their particles, we should find that there are more Gods than there are particles of matter in those worlds.”
- Apostle Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, v. 2, p. 345, February 18, 1855

I am not trying to label or call people names (I know you all get tired of being called names), but to clarify where the confusion is for most "Traditional" Christians, as we are called. 

[Cheddar Bay Biscuits in a Box...]

2 hours ago, zil said:

...are not as good as Cheddar Bay Biscuits at Red Lobster.  (Just mentioning for the sake of all those who don't already know this fact.)  They're good (the ones in the box), but not nearly as good as the ones in the restaurant.

 

Completely agreed. Only one problem...now I'm hungry 

[What to do about Pronouns]

18 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

When I see threads like this I want to say  'My preferred pronoun is   "Your Highness" '     Everyone make a note of it please

This conservative student at the University of Michigan decided that his* pronoun would be "His Majesty."

*Correction, His Majesty's pronoun would be...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/education/wp/2016/10/07/a-university-told-students-to-select-their-gender-pronouns-one-chose-his-majesty/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.ab49f08c82e4

 

 

[Hey I'm new here, just saying hello!]

@Telemantros, Welcome!

Everyone (well, we'll say 99.999% of everyone) is very kind and tolerant. The forum is just the right size because you feel like you know everyone but meet new people every day. If you're looking for good, open, and honest conversation, this is the place.

[What to do about Pronouns]

Short Answer: When you're not sure, avoid gender-specific pronouns and you avoid the problem.

How do you do that?

I have a lot of family in Portland and have spent enough time there to deal with it. I've found that the best way to deal with "incorrect" pronouns is to avoid them when possible. If you're talking to them, you can use you. If you're talking about them when they can hear you, you can use their name (I've had to do this when I wasn't sure what gender they were). They also works, although not grammatically correct because it is technically for plurals,  it sounds natural in everyday speech. When they can't hear you (normally when pronouns are used) it shouldn't matter unless the person you're talking to is militant about pronouns.

 

[Baptist praise for the Book of Mormon]

13 hours ago, Jersey Boy said:

Just to inform you as to what is likely the main reason why the Book of Mormon speaks of the three separate personages of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost being one God: In order for the eternal God to be able to effectively function as God, there must be three personages with three separate and distinct divine responsibilities within the active, unified Godhead. Therefore, there there must be a God the Father, who is the Father of our spirits; there must be a God the Saviour and Redeemer who enters mortality and atones for the sins of the world; and there must be a God the Testator, a personage of spirit who testifies of the Father and the Son and spiritually empowers the saints. In other words, each personage of the Godhead cannot effectively function as God independent of the other two personages. The only way each personage within the Godhead can function effectively as God is to be inextricably linked and fully unified with the other two personages as an interdependent divine corporate body or presidency, each with his own distinct role and responsibilities. It’s for this very reason that the LDS scriptures speak of the Father and the Son both participating in the creation of our spirits. Interesting, most Latter-Day Saints believe God the Father created our spirits without the need for the participation of God the Son, but the Book of Moses and the Doctrine and Covenants testify that Christ did indeed participate in the creation of our spirits. This fact corroborates the truth that God the Father cannot function as God on his own without being unified in power and glory with the Son and the Holy Ghost.

Thank you for helping me to understand the reasons. Again, all I'm saying is that your typical Protestant/Catholic/Orthodox/Whatever won't understand all that ⬆️ when they pick up a Book of Mormon, not to mention the other differences in doctrine.

[Baptist praise for the Book of Mormon]

(I know it's been a while but I was having Mormonhub withdrawals, love you guys!)

I obviously can't speak for this Baptist minister, but I can speak as an Evangelical who has read the Book of Mormon. When Evangelicals read the Book of Mormon, they read it from an Evangelical perspective and background, so they don't understand the theological differences. For example, in Alma 11:44 Amulek tells Zeezrom:

" but everything shall be restored to its perfect frame, as it is now, or in the body, and shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God, to be judged according to their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil."

Evangelicals read this as the trinity even though that is obviously not what it means. My point is not to babble about the Trinity, but simply show that Evangelicals read The Book of Mormon incorrectly. 

*Again, I can't speak definitively for Dr. Lynn Ridenhour, and I don't mean to.

[Why was the Atonement of Jesus Christ Necessary?]

14 hours ago, person0 said:

Do you believe in the Pythagorean theorem?

 

11 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Gematriot.

I found an article on that (you can find anything on the internet). Here is the article. 

It says, "In Hebrew, I AM THAT I AM is written as  אהיה  אשר  אהיה  (Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh), which has a gematria value of 543. Moses, or in Hebrew משה (Moshe) has a gematria value of 345. The numbers 3, 4 and 5 constitute the first Pythagorean triple."

However, please note that I am not into Bible codes and gematria.

I just couldn't resist! 

[Noticing Acts of Service Tag]

10 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I got to class and I'm now all caught up.  He went to the other building and got the jacket.

TAG: @Larry Cotrell

What a great story and thanks for tagging me!

Someone was telling me a cool story yesterday. He said him and his friend used to go see a particular band every year when they came in town. But when he went off to college in Canada, he wasn't able to go because of the long drive and a test he had the next morning. So while he was sitting in his room that night, his friend skyped him and held his arms up for an over an hour so he could see the concert and "be there with him." What a great example of friendship!

I'm tagging @SpiritDragon

[Why was the Atonement of Jesus Christ Necessary?]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I'm actually quite impressed with @Larry Cotrell's responses on this thread.  I've asked a similar question that person0 asked.  On all three occaisions, none of them could even comprehend the question much less answer it or bring up Bible verses to support it.  So, the fact that you did all three... kudos to you.

Thanks, I would never believe something I can't back up with scripture.

[Why was the Atonement of Jesus Christ Necessary?]

12 hours ago, person0 said:

If the law is Gods law, why would he create that law in the first place?  Or why wouldn't he undo it?  Obviously God is unchanging, but why is He unchanging?  Why does that even matter?

To echo what @AnthonyB2 said, there is not some set of eternal laws and red tape that He must follow but to be a perfect God, as He is perfect, He must be just and loving. This plan of Jesus' death is the only way that works with both of these sides of his character.

He is acting in accordance with his own nature, not some galactic or heavenly law.

[Do animals have souls?]

30 minutes ago, person0 said:

Genesis 6:17 (emphasis added)

Genesis 7:15, 21-22 (emphasis added)

While it does not apply this terminology directly to plants, it does in fact apply it to animals.  I would have pointed this out earlier, but I assumed you might not consider the breath of life to be a term referring to ones spirit/soul.

Again interesting, maybe I'll have to think on it a little more.

43 minutes ago, Mike said:

There seems to be general agreement on this thread that these creatures have souls. In what way do you find it interesting? 

I just find the passage from Moses interesting, I never knew anyone thought plants had souls.

[Do animals have souls?]

22 minutes ago, Snigmorder said:

Not just animals, but plants too. 

"And out of the ground made I, the Lord God, to grow every tree, naturally, that is pleasant to the sight of man; and man could behold it. And it became also a living soul. For it was spiritual in the day that I created it; for it remaineth in the sphere in which I, God, created it;" - Moses 3:9

Interesting, seems like a pretty definitive scripture for those who accept the book of Moses, but the idea of plants having souls seems like quite a stretch to me. I haven't noticed that verse before.

I would also like to point out Genesis 2:7 "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." The Bible never applies this idea of the "breath of life" or "a living soul" to plants and animals which is another reason I believe only humans have souls. However, now I know that the Pearl of Great Price does in fact apply this to plants.

Interesting

 

[Do animals have souls?]

I say no, here's the Biblical reason why

Genesis 1:26-27 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

Descriptions in Genesis seem to put animals more on the level of plants (which I think we can agree don't have souls otherwise I would have tremendous guilt from all the times I've mowed my lawn) rather than on the same level as humans because humans were created in the image of God.

In Genesis 9:3 God told the world's new and only residents, "Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things."

This again puts animals on the same level as plants. Furthermore, God allows and commands the killing of animals in this passage as well as in Leviticus for animal sacrifices. God would not command the murder of innocent souls. 

But what about passages like Isaiah 11 and 65 that mention animals acting peacefully in heaven? Is it possible that these are simply metaphors for the peaceful state of heaven? I think that's possible, but I think it's more likely (as I tend to interpret most scripture literally) that there will be animals in heaven. However, I'm pretty confident that they won't be the same souls of animals from this life.

[Researcher: Vegetarian diets still kill animals.]

2 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

@MormonGator's disclaimer is more interesting than the joke. We could have a lot of fun psycho-analyzing it. For example, was there the thought that the joke would be taken seriously, and if so, why? Does the over-compensated "insane" descriptor indicate some actual sympathy for PETA?  . . . The possibilities are endless! 

Yeah, the disclaimer can only mean that he is in fact an active member of PETA but is trying to hide it. We know him too well, he can't keep secrets from us.

[Why was the Atonement of Jesus Christ Necessary?]

18 hours ago, person0 said:

If you don't believe that there are laws that God Himself must abide, then why would there be any need whatsoever for a Savior?  Without absolute eternal laws, it seems to me that God could just save anyone based on whatever metrics he chooses.  And then, if He truly is a benevolent being, what would stop Him from providing a way where every single creation could fully repent over time and join Him in Heaven?  If eternal law does not exist independent of God, then it seems to me that God (based on most existing religious interpretations of Him) would be classifiable as a 'respecter of persons'.

I once attempted to explain this idea to my Muslim father, hoping to show him why I could never come to believe in Islam, because their interpretation of God would in fact result in Him being a 'respecter of persons' based on these very principles. However, from my current understanding, this may similarly apply to many Christian denominations.

I hope that I have made my position adequately clear.  Ultimately, the main question is, why was the atonement of Jesus Christ necessary?  However, anything related to sin or death is not really the point of this question, neither is the difference in our understanding of the Godhead.  My inquiry for the non-LDS is more of, why was it necessary for God to use the atonement of Christ to save us?

The short answer is that if He simply pardoned us, He wouldn't be a just God. I can't really answer the question without mentioning sin and death because that's what it's all about. The following is an excerpt from an article that explains it better than I ever could.

The punishment for sin is death.

God created earth and man perfect. But when Adam and Eve disobeyed God’s commands, He had to punish them. A judge who pardons law-breakers isn’t a righteous judge. Likewise, overlooking sin would make the holy God unjust. Death is God’s just consequence for sin. “For the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23). Even good works cannot make up for wrongs against the holy God. Compared to His goodness, “All our righteousnesses are as filthy rags” (Isaiah 64:6b). Ever since Adam’s sin, every human has been guilty of disobeying God’s righteous laws. “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). Sin is not just big things like murder or blasphemy, but also includes love of money, hatred of enemies, and deceit of tongue and pride. Because of sin, everyone has deserved death – eternal separation from God in hell.

The promise required an innocent death.

Although God banished Adam and Eve from the garden, He didn’t leave them without hope of reconciliation. He promised He would send a Savior to defeat the serpent (Genesis 3:15). Until then, men would sacrifice innocent lambs, showing their repentance from sin and faith in the future Sacrifice from God who would bear their penalty. God reaffirmed His promise of the Sacrifice with men such as Abraham and Moses. Herein lies the beauty of God’s perfect plan: God Himself provided the only sacrifice (Jesus) who could atone for the sins of His people. God’s perfect Son fulfilled God’s perfect requirement of God’s perfect law. It is perfectly brilliant in its simplicity. “God made Him (Christ), who knew no sin, to be sin for us that we might become the righteousness of God in Him” (2 Corinthians 5:21). 

[new study about cows and milk]

58 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Come on.  Everyone knows that a pumpkin pie comes from a pumpkin pie tree and a cherry pie comes from a cherry pie tree.  Duh-uh.

If there was a pumpkin pie tree, I would build a treehouse and live there. I could reach out the window whenever I was hungry. Maybe thats what my house in heaven will be like.