AnthonyB

ram, I have put a post asking some questions on the Christian Board, I'm under the impression that socail trinitarianism is much more common than you think, I would have thought a majority. "The Shack" is very popular book at the moment in Christian circles (it has a very strong socail trinitarian theme) and I've yet heard anyone denounce it as heretical.

bytor, What do you mean by "substance"? For me all humans are of the same substance, we are all made of the same parts and elements. What in your opinion makes the persons of God not of one substance with each other?

LDS often post questions that make me think they don’t fully understand what non-LDS believe. I have written some questions that I would like non-LDS Christians to respond to and hopefully if we get enough responses, LDS will have a better understanding of what we believe. 1) Are the persons of the Trinity capable of expressing emotion to each other? (ie can they love each other) 2) Are they capable of communicating with each other? 3) Can they be in differing spatial locations? (ie differing places, the Father was not crucified with the Son) 4) Will Jesus maintain his resurrected body in heaven? 5) Is holding to the historic creeds… a. essential for salvation b. good for spiritual health but not an absolute requirement c. not important d. other…Please specify My answers. 1) Yes 2) Yes 3) Yes 4) Yes 5) Probably b

Bytor, Your post 5 in this tread.... The Godhead is.......God the Father......Jesus Christ his only begotten and the Holy Ghost...and they are One God. One in prupose.....not substance. There purpose? "To bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man." Note you used "one in purpose". (Many LDS use that phrase) In my mind mobs are one in purpose, I just think there must be a better way of describing the unity of God than "purpose" (which the persons do share), they have far more unity than a mere commanility of purpose. To be eternal God, which (as far as I can tell) LDS affirm of all 3 persons, surely means they all share whatever it is that makes something an "eternal God". Are you purposing that all that is needed to acheive "eternal divinity" is to be one in purpose. I perceive in scripture a shared level of love, holiness, communion and purposes. However purposes is only one element of their unity, not the pinnacle or sum. As for the substance, I think it needs refining. If you mean "substance" as the average person would understand it. Then it merely means that the things share the basic make up. I could say two bars of soap are of the same substance. Ice and water are of the same substance. In that sense the Father and Son are surely the same substance. Infact IMHO what really delineates LDS from other Christians is that you veiw us humans as being the same substance as God as well. When Christians affirmed that the Son in His humanity is of one substance with us, it was surely meant that His incarnate being shared with us all the properites that make us human. What precisely do you mean by "substance"? What stops you from saying the Father and Son are of the same substance? (Please remember that it was decided very early on by the trinitarians that the Father was not crucified with the Son. The Son alone was incarnate, He alone was crucified and resurrected.) Maureen, In theory (at least some) LDS do from what I can understand believe that Jesus was eternal God. (The beggining of the BOM affirms this) Since time as we know it began at creation, there was no time as we know it before creation. Therefore unlike historical Arian's they would not believe that there was "a time when the Son was not". The orthodox creeds hold that the Son was begotten before time or the beginning of the universe. What does it mean for God to beget God? This comes back to the LDS having a very different veiw of God the Father then what traditional Christians do. We don't create children, we beget them. If God is like us, then in LDS veiws he would act like us. We view God as of different substance to us and therefore do not see it as meaning something like the LDS. They whole thing is at the extremes of our mental abilities, how does the Father beget the Son outside of time? Does God have his own time continuum outside of our time dimension? I presume you probably percieve that before time was a single time point, LDS have a more creative solution. Looking at the Bible, we are left with the bearest sketches of this stuff, God clearly did not beleive we really needed to understand this stuff and left it as a mystery. The LDS believe that God turned up again and gave further information.

bytor, Eph 4:3 Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit-- just as you were called to one hope when you were called-- one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. ........ so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ. [NIV] When LDS talk about the oneness of God being "one of purposes" that seems to me to not being saying anything particularly special about the unity. "the whole measure of the fullness of Christ" is what we are being prepared for (or should be), it is hard for me to beleive that the persons of God are less united with one another then what we should be. "whole measure of the fullness" says to me that we should be taking on the nature of Christ, not just the "purposes of Christ". We should be producing the fruit of the spirit (Gal 5:22-23) not just the purposes of the Holy Spirit. When we know the Son, we should know not just the purposes of Father but the heart of the Father; His nature and character are best revealed through Christ and that is what we should be being transformed into the likeness of.

Brenton, If you ever get to an LDS chapel, I would love to hear your thoughts. I sort of feel LDS come across to me at least as very culturally american. I still remember meeting some LDS misso's up in my home town (Swan Hill), one of our girls inivited them back to a home group (informal church meeting at a home) my church was running. It was 40 plus day (110+ F) day and they looked they were exhausted from the heat. Good luck mate, I hope you find a real connection to our Father and Jesus in your searching.

If the question is what religion, the answer is I'm a disciple of Jesus Christ, so Christian would be appropriate. That I consider myself part of the Christian church and believe that all others that are my Lord's servants are part of His church with me. That I purposely seek to exclude none in my veiw as being members of His church that call up the Lord and seek to follow him according to scripture, regardless of what walls of seperation our current sinful divisions place between us. That I may attend and even be a member of a particular local church, and that church is a part of a grouping that could be labled a denomination is just a failing of humans that my Lord will one day sort out, if not here, then certainly when He returns.

Traveler, I’d agree wholeheartedly that the new covenant begins with baptism; it is where in God’s design we obtain remission of sins and enter the covenant. I’d agree the church was much more pagan (and parts of it remain much more pagan) then they should be. I don’t know whether you got my distinction between restoration and redemption, so I’ll run through some biblical examples of how I see God works and why I think my thoughts are the kind of thing He is likely to do. Adam and Eve lived in the garden in innocence, a garden which God visited. They ate gained the knowledge of good and evil and were expelled. Restoration: Would be to return man to the garden and return us to innocence. Redemption: Giving us a new home with God, and using the knowledge of good and evil to be used that we may have a deeper relationship with God. Jesus was physically abused and murdered by man. Restoration: Would be giving Him His human body back and healing/removing all the wounds. Redemption: Is giving Him a resurrected body, and leaving the wounds as an eternal reminder of the love of God for man. A restoration takes things back to (or as near as possible) its original condition. Redemption (as God seems to do it in the scriptures) uses part of the negative and turns it into a greater positive then could have been achieved by merely restoring. (As for the priesthood restoration, that is something we will never agree on, else one of changes our faith tradition.)

Islander, Thank you for your reply. I do realise that your claim rests on the truthfulness of Joseph Smith's revelation. However one of your selling points is the disunity of the rest of the Christian church. Posting this in the Christian Beliefs board is not designed to change your mind but to discuss an alternative way of viewing things on this topic. That I think it is possible to see the redeeming action of God working through the denominatons to bring glory to God. I do see the schisming of the church as a sin, which is part of the point of my post, how God deals with that sin. I’d agree that the violence perpetrated on people because of their beliefs is a sin. I'm from a restoration tradition, so I'd even agree that the Council of Nicea attempts to create a unified church by means of imperial dictates was a sin and not of God. I’d also say that Christians should cease all practices and beliefs which are contrary to the New Testament. However I think you rather miss part of my point, I’m not denying that sin has occurred but I’m discussing God’s response to it. God does not author sin and he does not design for it to occur. However despite this he does redeem people and in doing so has a habit of using/transforming the effects/results of that sin/failing so that it serves his own purpose and glorifies himself. God does not wait until the individual is sin free and has perfect doctrinal understanding before he begins redeeming an individual. Neither do I think God would wait till a denomination ( or movement, faith tradition) is error free and sinless before he can begin redeeming the group. Where God's redemption may take the people of God I know no more then where God redemption and work in my life may finally lead me (excepting with the grace of God into His presenceafter mortality). However given how scripture repeatedly describes how God works it will not be merely IMHO be back to the original state but to a state that somehow transforms our combined failings into something that honours and glorifies His name. (PS In case it wasn’t a typo the Protestants came about during the “reformation”.)

Some LDS posters seem perturbed by denominations; here are some thoughts I’ve had on the topic. It is still a work in progress and I apologize for its length…. I see the redemptive work of God as central to God’s plan. Creation, Fall, Redemption is a recurring theme in the Bible. God sets up a perfect situation People mar God’s perfection by allowing sin or its effects to ravage/corrupt the situation. God redeems. Redemption does not restore or reform but rather transforms the brokenness/failedness into something wonderfully new. (God does not merely remake the broken pot but rather create an exquisite mosaic from it which is far more precious and beautiful then the original.) God’s plan was for the church to be one, Jesus specifically prayed for it. Due to brokenness and failings of his people the church failed to remain one. I think we can all agree the church (the followers of Jesus) is now not one as Christ intended it. The question then becomes how does God redeem his church? LDS (and other restorationist groups) see this redemption as coming through their church, that they are the redemptive work of God in His Church. IMHO a presupposition of this view is that the redemption will bring a restoration of the “one church” of the NT times. (Through new revelation to restore the original doctrines and practices in LDS case, or a return to NT teachings in church of Christ) However an alternate view is that the redemption will not just bring a restoration of NT unity but somehow a transformation of our sin of disunity into a blessing to God’s people. That through the redemptive work of God He is transforming our disunity into a diverse unity. That recognizes that we are one church with various expressions. The biblical/historical example that comes to mind is Babel. People were one nation and through sinfulness God divided people into nations. God in his redeeming nature developed various cultures through which we can glimpse the creative nature of God expressed through these diverse nations. We still sometimes see the negative outworking of this sin in the strife between nations. IMHO God’s answer to this is not that people should become one nation (with a single culture, language and custom). Rather that we should recognize our unity as humans (the beings made in his image) whilst rejoicing in the diversity of our expressions of that humanness. The parallel to the church is that we were once a single church. We sinned and failed to stay unified. This often led to strife to between Christians. Rather than seeking to return to one church, we should see the redemptive work of Christ in all our churches. We should recognize our unity as disciples of Christ whilst rejoicing in the diversity of our expressions of that faith.

If God exists and man was once in fellowship with Him, then all religions will carry somethings that in no matter how small a way still have some inkling of that original relationship. Although for some reason your post did bring to mind a poem be a guy named "Steve Turner" I will quote two small sections, its called "Creed"... We believe that all religions are basically the same, at least the one that we read was. The all believe in love and goodness. They only differ on matters of creation sin heaven hell God and salvation We believe that each man must find the truth that is right for him Reality will adapt accordingly. the universe will readjust. History will alter. We believe that there is no absolute truth excepting the truth that there is no absolute truth.

Lewis is my equal favourite author (along with Francis Scheaffer).Just counted the book case 21 + the Narnia series!

One of the defining ideas of LDS belief is the need for the church to be lead by a prophet? I have a couple of questions.... 1) After Jesus ascended, there were 11 apostles (until they appointed Matthias replacement for Judas), who was the prophet?(or didn't the twelve need one?) Was it James the Just or Peter? 2) Why a prophet and not a judge? Prophets only came about after the Isrealites demanded a king despite God's warning to them that they would be better off without one. Upto Saul's appointment God's people were lead by a judge, which God raised as he saw fit to be both spiritual and political leader.

It is not all bad..... "But before we proceed, it is necessary to clear up a possible misunderstanding: not all spiritual movements other than the traditional religions, movements which are commonly called sects, are dangerous, such as, for example, Baptists, Quakers, and Mormons. Their role can, sometimes, even be regarded as very positive.."

'It is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do' (2 Ne. 25:23) What do LDS mean when they quote this BoM verse? I could take it to mean, that despite my best efforts, (and they are expected of me) that it still requires grace for me to be saved. Even after all I can do, I still need God’s grace. That I am not perfect and it is not my works but God’s grace by which I stand in relationship with Him. He is my Father and He loves me even through my struggles. I am His child and should seek always to be like Him. Or do you mean that if I don’t do all I can that God won’t save me. If I fail even in a trivial matter than God will write me off and I’m doomed eternally. I have put my thoughts on Faith and Works under Personal Beliefs -Faith and Works in the Testimony section of my personal page. I got quite long (over a page in MS Word) and I didn't want to force people to read a long monlogue unless they choose to.

I will be the last to defend Tele evangelists, not my cup of tea (or Potsum). Infact the prosperity doctrines of the Word/Faith movement IMHO are about as far from the real heart of the gospel as you can get. As for the failed men above that, are you saying that no LDS leaders have ever sinned or fallen into apostasy? Not my understanding of your history but I will agree that when anyone he claims to be serving the Lord fails, it is a thing that leaves a sour taste in the mouth, no matter how much compassion I may feel towards their plight.

Dr T, Whose staff did Moses lay down?

My fav OT verse has a story to it... Whilst in my 3rd year at Uni about 4 hours from home, I was struggling spiritually. Was in the library getting info for a course on Digital Signal Processing and picked up a 6 inch tome, after reading it for about 10 mins, I went to put it back on the shelf, as I did so I noticed something odd, there was a card near the back of the book which somehow I hadn't noticed before. It had the verse... Prov 3:5 "Trust in the Lord with all of your heart and lean not on your own understandings; in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight." I haven't read the Book of Mormon (yet) but from I'll post part of the title page something that I agree with! "..that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God" As for the NT, to many to choose from but given my faith journey then a balance of John 3:16 and Acts 2:38 is probably appropriate. As for non-biblical texts, given that next Sunday is Mother's Day, you can't go past Hezekiah 4:16 "Thou shalt not forget Mother's Day."

Pharisee believed in the resurrection of the dead. Herodians were the lackees of the Herodian dynasty So the answer is c: Sadducees or as anyone who survived Sunday School (and very bad religous puns) would know, they didn't believe in the ressurrection that is why they where "sad you see".

PC, Phil 2:7 "...being made in human likeness." Surely Jesus body was created/made, it didn't exist and then it came about.

Jesus the eternal God created the universe (and therefore since time is part of the universe, he existed as creator/God before the universe existed.) Jesus also had a body created for the fullness of His deity to reside in. We are told that He is "the only begotten of the Father" But also that Mary was "with child of the Holy Ghost" And finally Phil 2:7 " made Himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant (or "in the form of"), being made in human likeness." All 3 persons seems to have played a part in the one act. Why wouldn't all three persons take part in the great act in human history that revealed God's love. God (all 3 persons) so loved the world that they worked in one accord to send Jesus to us. Infact it would surely be more surprising if all 3 did not work together, as if 1 of them didn't approve or couldn't be bothered. Surely both non-LDS and LDS can both rejoice that all 3 persons that are the one eternal God loved us enough to all somehow play a part, why would anyone seek to remove the part of any of the persons but rather rejoice that they all loved us so much.

skalenfehl, I was not looking in this post for a discussion on that point, I was merely using it as an example of how I believe revelation and scripture should work together. Revelation is for revealing scripture truth and whilst not absolutely supporting a closed canon, I would want to make sure that any additional works worked together as a whole. Traveler, I would agree that God loves repeating himself, important doctrines are never said only once but repeated often. In the same way (if you have kids) you often repeat the important lessons of life to them. however if you left them a note you would expect them to read the note and obey it; not ignore the note and keep phoning you for instructions. Now they could get to know the so well that they began to deconstruct it and subvert its meaning but that is not an arguement against understanding the note in the first place. Hmmm are you calling me a "pharisee"? I wonder if on Christian boards that may fulfil the same roll as "Nazi" on a political board. However I would maintain that Jesus problem with the pharisees was not their knowing scripture to well but missing the point of it. Thay had built an impressive oral tradition that undercut much of what God had to say and had used their own revelations to totally cloud God's real message. Maybe I'm missing the point of God' story and acting like a pharisee, I think it is danger that we are capable of falling into. (Although a person who is totally convinced he is not a pharisee and would never check himself for those attitudes is in more danger IMHO.) I'm not denying a role for personal revelation (or conviction/buring in the bosom) but that it cannot stand alone and must be used as part of a whole person interaction with God including our intellects. Peter was praised for receiving for personal revelaton on who Jesus was but immediately after that he was rebuked for a following remark. Personal revelation does not preclude making mistakes. We need to use scripture and personal revelation. We need to both be like Peter in receiving a dvine revelation and like the Bereans in testing the revelations against the scriptures.

drjme, I see LDS folk as saying (in simplistic terms), "Pray and God will give the correct answer by conviction, no matter what the question". Whereas I see that if God left clear instructions he expects us to take the time to get to know the instructions and not to praying about things he has already told us about. (eg There is no point praying about whether God wants you to commit adultery or theft.) An example is that most LDS are happy to say that God is three gods, whereas both the Bible and BoM say that He is one eternal God. Now how you choose to explain that oneness may vary but that God has communicated his oneness is IMHO clear. Any discusiion on the nature of God should start with the clear revelation in the bible or standard works. (Not a personal conviction of what someone believes God revealed to them outside of scripture.) If a prophet says something that is not reconcillable with the bible then he is no prophet of God. Personal revelation or conviction is useful for revealing biblical truths and guiding in ever day life but not for subverting the written word of God.

Thank you for your replies.... I was just pointing out that reading the BoM and deciding it is true doesn't make you an LDS but that the real question is rather if the CoJCoLDS is the true church, it just appeared odd to me in some ways that the truth of the BoM is the main question presented to non-LDS and not the truthfulness of the chruch. As for CoJCoLDS being the true successor church, that is a matter of faith surely. My Mormon history is not that great but given that neither the prophet's wife, the remaining member of the First Presidency, the central stake president (and even the prophet's mother didn't travel west) and at least 3 of the twelve apostles didn't sign up to your branch then I think the question is not settled beyond dispute. Certainly I would think that the other groupings would consider themselves in someways as being the true successor group. Revelation is a big issue and probably is the area where I diverge most from the LDS (the base presuppostion that leads to a very different veiw.). I believe that God created man in his image and that God will interact with the totality of us. So whilst I agree with the idea of spiritual "conviction" (or burning in the bosom) and God has at times lead me through that I don't see it as the totality of how God would lead us. I believe in prophetic messages from God and would even see God continuing to inform his church (eg the abolotion of slavery IMHO was a prophetic message from God to mankind.) However God left his written word to testify of the Living Word, and to negate, neglect or minimize that word for me is wrong. If a prophecy or conviction is not in line with the scripture then for me it cannot be from God. If God says He is love, then He cannot be hate. If God says that adultery is wrong it cannot be right. Is the LDS church in line with what I see in the Bible, to the best of my ability and discernment no. This is not born out of malice or ill will, quite frankly I personally like some of your churches doctrines (eg universalism and continueing marriage are both attractive ideas) but I cannot see it in scripture nor do I have a conviction that you are right.

I have been exorted (a number of times) to read the BOM and prayer the prayer for its truthfullness. (Now leaving aside the whole question of how divine guidance comes for a moment.) Even if that were to occurr in a positive way, why would it then follow that joining the LDS was the next step, someone might decide to joind Dale's RLDS or the Temple Lot group or any one of the myriad of small groups? So even if someone thought the BOM is a true revelation of Jesus (which I don't) why should they chose your particular offshoot of the followers of Joseph Smith?