The LDS view of ex-Mormons who become Christian


thews
 Share

Recommended Posts

Thews,

Mormons don't believe in traditional hell, so you will not be damned. Depending on how you live, you have a good chance at Telestial. Perhaps your father thought the way you wrote your letter would upset the family, as you have noticed the last several days there are quite a few people here who have gotten annoyed/riled up with the way you have occasionally presented your thoughts and our beliefs. I don't want you to think I am angry, because I am not, but if you approach your family the way you have approached subjects here, there will possibly be some anger. BUT, unless there is something more going on, they are your family and will love you anyway. May think you are lost from Celestial glory, but love you anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 125
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You know, if this is the decision you want to make and you are confident that your path is a true one, then it is irrelevant what the LDS prophets have said on the matter.

I was thinking about a BofM scripture in 2 nephi where it says "...hearken unto these words and Believe in Christ; and if ye believe not in these words believe in Christ..."

It sounds to me that this what you are trying to do. You can't believe in the BofM but you can believe in Christ. And that is good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thews,

Mormons don't believe in traditional hell, so you will not be damned. Depending on how you live, you have a good chance at Telestial. Perhaps your father thought the way you wrote your letter would upset the family, as you have noticed the last several days there are quite a few people here who have gotten annoyed/riled up with the way you have occasionally presented your thoughts and our beliefs. I don't want you to think I am angry, because I am not, but if you approach your family the way you have approached subjects here, there will possibly be some anger. BUT, unless there is something more going on, they are your family and will love you anyway. May think you are lost from Celestial glory, but love you anyway.

I appreciate your honest replies and have learned much from you all. I understand we differ on what we believe, but we both have a right to believe it without getting feathers all ruffled. You have helped me a great deal and I do appreciate it.

For the record I don't believe in hell. I just find it hard to believe that a loving God would hold us accountable for the "right" decision, when we weren't given the rules. We can choose many things, one of them being to not believe in God. What would that prove to the soul? IMO it would prove to the soul what life is like without God ...that's hell to me. So, I don't believe atheists go to hell, not people that do horrible things. The "hell" IMO is the knowledge of evil, which exists here, but not on the other side. Evil done with intent is different than evil done because one didn't know enough to avoid it.

I realize this logic is not yours, but it is what I've concluded. My 20 year old daughter died last April. She survived bone cancer at 15, lukemia at 18, and lived to be 20. I got an extra 5 years with her, so my "please God" wish (if you want to call it that, was answered 3 times (she went into remission on 3 different occasions). When she died, I died with her, and I was there when she passed. I was sitting on her hospital bed praying with her about 10:00. She was unconscious and I held her hand and prayed with her. I put her hands back under the covers and just started talking to her. I told her that if the time came, she would decide when to go. I told her I felt she could hear me, and not to be scared. I then told her that if her death experience was anything like my near death experience, she would just know beofre I would, but I'd eventually be there too. He hand moved and I clutched it, and she died seconds later. I brought my baby girl into this world and I also was there when she left. She was and is a beautiful soul. The point of me telling you this s because I had to decide what it was I believed and why. Life is a lesson to the soul and we can't know why right now. The knowledge of good and evil includes both. JMHO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can call yourself what you wish, but if you believe Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, by definition it would make you a Mormon.

Yes and if you believe in the divinity and teachings of Jesus Christ you are Christian. Ergo, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints are Mormon Christians. This concept that multiple labels can apply to something seems to be giving you difficulty. A Fuji apple is both a Fuji, an apple, a fruit and food, see how that works?

as all "Christian" religions reject Joseph Smith as a prophet of God.

Aside: What is with the quotes around Christian? If you are trying to imply mainstream Christian by using them just say so, actually if you'd just said Mormon's aren't mainstream Christians this conversation never would have happened.

Except they don't, just most of them. Just like most Christian religions reject the Pope, but that doesn't make rejection of the Pope a defining characteristic of being Christian. You argument appears to consist of... I'm not sure if you are begging the question (could be wrong with this, begging the question always gives me troubles): Mormons aren't Christian because rejection of Joseph Smith is a requirement of Christianity because Mormons don't and they aren't Christian, or no true Scotsman: All true Christians reject Joseph Smith. But wait, Mormons don't! Well... Mormons aren't true Christians. Maybe its both.

As far as the quotes, none of them are teaching that we don't believe in the teachings or divinity of Jesus Christ. None of them even try to touch what the dictionary definition of a Christian is. There is some attempt to segregate between the 'Christian world' (aka mainstream Christianity, notice the use of adjectives here and quotes to indicate non-literal or non-standard definitions?) and themselves but considering the historical context that is understandable, but none of those are doctrinal statements that Mormon's aren't Christians, or that the definition of Christian includes not believing that Joseph Smith was a prophet. If anything a couple of them can be read the other way, that the rest of Christianity aren't 'true' Christians (told you it isn't a new sentiment), though they aren't statements of doctrine. The doctrine of the Church is not that Anglicans (for example) are not Christian.

If you are trying to point out that some LDS Leadership has said things that can be taken as offensive themselves, well, I never considered that a point of debate. If nothing else Bruce R. McConkie and Brigham Young themselves seal the deal on that (and Brigham Young liked to offend Mormons as well, as did J. Golden Kimball) without digging any deeper.

Why are Mormons ashamed to be called Mormons?

Tell me, if a Greek Orthodox tells somebody he is Christian is he ashamed of being, or being called Greek Orthodox? Mormons aren't ashamed to be called Mormons, they just by and large get irked when they are told they don't believe in the teachings and divinity of Jesus Christ which is what you are saying when you say they aren't Christian. Kinda like how I expect most Catholics (or any other Christian denomination) would react if you accused them of not believing in Jesus.

If you mean why do some people just respond with Christian instead of specifying denomination? Probably for some of the same reasons Christians of other denominations respond with a generic Christian instead of a more specific Anglican, Baptist or Catholic , they may not feel the distinction is germane (both replies are equally true though one does communicate more information than the other) to the topic and moment. They could also be trying to avoid conflict, some people like to argue about religion and some don't, if they don't like to argue about it they'll probably go with the (true and correct) answer that results in less of a chance of arguement.

Additionally if somebody is really curious they'll generally ask what kind and then you get the opportunity to specify. You also get situations where people ask the question you respond with LDS and they respond with, "Oh, I'm Christian." Depending on tone a lot of LDS would take that as an implication that they aren't, for some reason many Mormons are under the impression that others don't consider them Christian, I can't imagine... (reads thread) Oh, I guess I can imagine why they'd be under that impression. Many times by offering Christian as a response somebody who is curious will then ask for a denomination, allowing the member in question to communicate they are Mormon, who is a type of Christian in a more natural way than just blurting out, "I'm Mormon, and we're Christian!"

I kinda find it amusing that somebody engaged in accusing Mormons of not being Christian finds it confusing why those Mormons might take a conversational route that allows them to correct that misrepresentation.

By the way, you are going to get a lot of "you're "choosing" to leave the Church. You've already read it here. Frankly, I have yet to find a way to explain my leaving is not a "choice." I can't make myself believe something I don't believe in. But I've come to understand, like I wrote above, their heartache is based on their love for me. I've learned to let this one go.

He is choosing. One may make the argument that no longer believing wasn't a choice (not going to debate that one), but divesting yourself of what you see as an organization that isn't true (or more harshly, an organization teaching untruths) is a choice (likewise staying is a choice). Seen in that light not only is it a choice (leaving) its a logical and down right reasonable one, of course not everyone sees the Church that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes and if you believe in the divinity and teachings of Jesus Christ you are Christian. Ergo, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints are Mormon Christians. This concept that multiple labels can apply to something seems to be giving you difficulty. A Fuji apple is both a Fuji, an apple, a fruit and food, see how that works?

No I don't. This wordplay is attempting to define what "Christian" encompasses. If I, as a Christian, were to call myself a "Christian-Jew," it would be forcing Jews to accept doctrine they don't believe in. I'm not denying that Mormonism has roots in Christianity, but a "Mormon" is someone who believes Joseph Smith was in fact a prophet of God and accepts the "Mormon" doctrine. This "multiple labels" is watering down what it is to be Mormon IMO and what it encompasses.

Mormon = Belief in Joseph Smith

Christian = Belief that Joseph Smith was not a prophet of God

Again, it's less about what a "Christian" is, and more about what defines one's belief as "Mormon" and what doctrine that encompasses.

Aside: What is with the quotes around Christian? If you are trying to imply mainstream Christian by using them just say so, actually if you'd just said Mormon's aren't mainstream Christians this conversation never would have happened.

Ok. Mormons aren't mainstream Christians IMO... they're Mormon. Nothing wrong with either, but the are different enough to define using different words. There is no other "Christian" church that accepts Mormon doctrine... or they would be defines as Mormon.

Except they don't, just most of them. Just like most Christian religions reject the Pope, but that doesn't make rejection of the Pope a defining characteristic of being Christian. You argument appears to consist of... I'm not sure if you are begging the question (could be wrong with this, begging the question always gives me troubles): Mormons aren't Christian because rejection of Joseph Smith is a requirement of Christianity because Mormons don't and they aren't Christian, or no true Scotsman: All true Christians reject Joseph Smith. But wait, Mormons don't! Well... Mormons aren't true Christians. Maybe its both.

Catholics and mainstream Christians use the bible as doctrine. It may differ, but that's the root of the doctrine they subscribe to. Jews reject the New Testament, so just because Christians accept both, it doesn't make a Jew a Christian. Mormon doctrine is exclusive to Joseph Smith, who was a "M<ormon" prophet of God. By claiming Mormons are in fact Christian by definition, it would imply all Christian denominations accept the doctrine of Joseph Smith. This isn't semantics IMO, it's the basic definition of the word.

As far as the quotes, none of them are teaching that we don't believe in the teachings or divinity of Jesus Christ. None of them even try to touch what the dictionary definition of a Christian is. There is some attempt to segregate between the 'Christian world' (aka mainstream Christianity, notice the use of adjectives here and quotes to indicate non-literal or non-standard definitions?) and themselves but considering the historical context that is understandable, but none of those are doctrinal statements that Mormon's aren't Christians, or that the definition of Christian includes not believing that Joseph Smith was a prophet. If anything a couple of them can be read the other way, that the rest of Christianity aren't 'true' Christians (told you it isn't a new sentiment), though they aren't statements of doctrine. The doctrine of the Church is not that Anglicans (for example) are not Christian.

A Christian believes that Jesus is God in man, and a Mormon believes in a Godhead, where Jesus is not God, be separate from God. Would you agree? The basic definition of who Jesus was is vastly different. These differences are not subtle.

If you are trying to point out that some LDS Leadership has said things that can be taken as offensive themselves, well, I never considered that a point of debate. If nothing else Bruce R. McConkie and Brigham Young themselves seal the deal on that (and Brigham Young liked to offend Mormons as well, as did J. Golden Kimball) without digging any deeper.

Joesh Smith himself said all Christian religions were wrong. How then, can you tell me that Mormons are the real Christians? What do you call a Christian who rejects the BOM and Joseph Smith as a false prophet of God?

Tell me, if a Greek Orthodox tells somebody he is Christian is he ashamed of being, or being called Greek Orthodox? Mormons aren't ashamed to be called Mormons, they just by and large get irked when they are told they don't believe in the teachings and divinity of Jesus Christ which is what you are saying when you say they aren't Christian. Kinda like how I expect most Catholics (or any other Christian denomination) would react if you accused them of not believing in Jesus.

We're talking about the only religion to believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God (not counting various brands of LDS like RLDS etc.). You make it seem like this is just a small thing? I'm not debating which is correct, just which encompasses what. A "Christian" does not necessarily believe Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, but a Mormon does. Wht does a Mormon claim both? What's wrong with being Mormon?

If you mean why do some people just respond with Christian instead of specifying denomination? Probably for some of the same reasons Christians of other denominations respond with a generic Christian instead of a more specific Anglican, Baptist or Catholic , they may not feel the distinction is germane (both replies are equally true though one does communicate more information than the other) to the topic and moment. They could also be trying to avoid conflict, some people like to argue about religion and some don't, if they don't like to argue about it they'll probably go with the (true and correct) answer that results in less of a chance of arguement.

This is more of the same. I reject Joseh Smith as a prophet of God, yet you're trying to tell me what I believe includes belief in Joseph Smith. It's not what I'm telling you how you are defined, it's you telling me how what I believe is defined, and Christianity does not include Joseph Smith's doctrine. That's why there's two different words that mean different things.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as we're playing semantics...LDS say that their teaching is the restored gospel. Often our Pentecostal churches are called FULL gospel. So, which is better:

1. Having the full gospel, but being unrestored...or...

2. Having only part of the gospel, but being restored?

Actually...I don't like this semantics game much. Can we play something else???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This wordplay isn't proving anything. Jews are not Christians, because they do not accept the New Testamant. Would you agree?

And yet Mormons do accept the NT, and they still aren't Christian per your reasoning.

. . . Christianity does not include Joseph Smith's doctrine

Does it include St. Augustine's doctrine?

Martin Luther's?

King Henry VIII's?

John Calvin's?

Ellen White's?

It's becoming patently clear that your litmus tests for "Christianity" have been developed for the sole purpose of excluding the Mormons from that umbrella.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mormon = Belief in Joseph Smith

Christian = Belief that Joseph Smith was not a prophet of God

Again, it's less about what a "Christian" is, and more about what defines one's belief as "Mormon" and what doctrine that encompasses.

No, once again:

Mormon = Belief in Joseph Smith.

Christian = Belief in (the teachings of) Jesus Christ.

I'd like to point out that the definition you just gave means Atheists are Christian.

There is no other "Christian" church that accepts Mormon doctrine... or they would be defines as Mormon.

There is no other "Christian" Church that accepts Catholic Doctrine (all of it, Mormons and other Christians do share some doctrine, such as a belief that Jesus Christ was divine), or they would be defined as Catholic. Replace Catholic with Anglican, Baptist or what have you, you seem to want to portray Christianity as homogeneous in its beliefs which is not the case and that without bring up the example of Mormons.

It may differ, but that's the root of the doctrine they subscribe to. Jews reject the New Testament, so just because Christians accept both, it doesn't make a Jew a Christian.

If the definition of a Christian was somebody who believed in the Old Testament then yes Jews would be Christian. Only problem is that such isn't the definition of a Christian, somebody who believes the teachings and divinity of Jesus Christ is what defines a Christian, this means Jews are excluded, but Mormons are not.

You keep on repeating that Jews aren't Christians as if it applies here, it doesn't. They don't fit the dictionary definition so they aren't, Mormons do so they are.

By claiming Mormons are in fact Christian by definition, it would imply all Christian denominations accept the doctrine of Joseph Smith. This isn't semantics IMO, it's the basic definition of the word.

Cite on the basic definition of the word? I've provided one, you haven't. Though your line of reasoning is flawed, by that logic calling Catholics Christian means all denominations accept the apocrypha, such isn't the case. Reality repeatedly clashes with your claims.

You seem to be wanting to distribute things back up the chain. All Eagles are birds but not all birds are Eagles. This does not mean neither the Eagle or the Egret are birds. To put it in this discussions terms, all Mormons are Christians but not all Christians are Mormon.

Joesh Smith himself said all Christian religions were wrong. How then, can you tell me that Mormons are the real Christians? What do you call a Christian who rejects the BOM and Joseph Smith as a false prophet of God?

You have a funny way of parsing things. If a mathematician stated when presenting his new proof/theory/whatever it is mathmeticians present stated all mathmeticians are wrong do you think he's including himself? As far as Christian religions being wrong, that doesn't mean they aren't correct that Jesus was divine. It isn't binary, Christians religions can be wrong (teaching incorrect doctrines) while still teaching some doctrines and believing those things that defines one as a Christian, namely a belief in a divine Christ.

What would I call him? Wrong. Oh, that's not the way you meant it? He'd be a denomination other than Mormon but he'd still be a Christian.

A Christian believes that Jesus is God in man, and a Mormon believes in a Godhead, where Jesus is not God, be separate from God. Would you agree? The basic definition of who Jesus was is vastly different.

And yet it is not what defines a Christian. Trinitarianism, Modalism or Godhead are irrelevant to wither one believes in his divinity or his teachings. Belief in Trinitarianism, Modalism or Godhead is not a requirement to be Christian. The United Pentecostal and United Apostolic Churches are to my understanding modalist, can they not call themselves Christian?

So no, I don't agree. A Christian is:

1 a : one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ

I've been adding, "and in his divinity" but considering he taught he was divine I suppose that kinda a given.

A "Christian" does not necessarily believe Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, but a Mormon does. Wht does a Mormon claim both? What's wrong with being Mormon?

And? Only on Religion believes in and follows the Pope, yet Catholics are Christian.

Why does a Mormon claim both? I've explained it but I'll try again.

Mormon: Somebody who believes Joseph Smith was a prophet.

Christian:

1 a : one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ

Lets see. Mormons believe Joseph Smith was a prophet. Mormons professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ. By golly Mormons are both Mormon and Christian. You are a male. You are human. Why do you claim both by being a human male? Might it be because both terms apply to you? Tell me, do you object to Baptists who lay claim to both Christian and Baptist? What about other denominations? Why some and not others amongst those denominations?

Edited by Dravin
Correcting typos, Gaudere's law can be viscious. Even to the point of having to correct your mention of said law.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think PrisonChaplin is onto something, I don't think either of us is going to convince the other and ultimately its a tangent to why you started the thread, so lets just agree to let each other continue in our (according to the other) misconceptions?

Edit: Why is it that somebody makes a level headed call to just let it be after you've started your post but before you've actually gotten around to posting it? You go to survey you freshly posted masterpiece and there here is, the guy pointing out you're both being silly sitting there above your broadside.

*sigh*

Edited by Dravin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an ex-Mormon, I'm trying to figure out exactly what view the LDS would deem my fate is in the afterlife, while I am a Christian?

I don't recall anyone bringing this up in the thread, so I'll address it here. If someone has brought it up, I apologize.

Basically, you would have to be what is called a "Son of Perdition" to spend eterminity in "hell," or what is called "outer darkness." (I get different definitions of what this is, but it is the Mormon version of hell.) Everyone else will be assigned to one of the kingdoms.

The following is from Wiki, (which gets a bad rap because almost everytime I use it, it is spot on): To be a "Son of Perdition,"

Son of Perdition is also a phrase used by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (sometimes referred to as Mormons) to describe a person who will not take part in the glory of God in the afterlife.

This is in contrast to the vast majority of people, who will receive a "kingdom of glory" after the Final Judgment, and enter into one of three degrees of glory or intelligence after the resurrection; Celestial, Terrestrial, or Telestial Kingdoms.

Most Latter-day Saints believe that the Sons of Perdition will be cast into outer darkness; the scriptures do not use this exact phrase in connection with the Sons of Perdition, but state that they "shall go away into the lake of fire and brimstone, with the devil and his angels."

Mormons believe that free will is one of the greatest gifts of God, and that there could be some who will completely reject Jesus Christ and salvation. God will not force someone, including Satan, to be saved if they do not desire to be saved. Therefore, Sons of Perdition are allowed to remove themselves from the presence of God and live in whatever degree of darkness they desire.

In an LDS context, the name Perdition refers to either Lucifer, or Cain, both of whom are symbols of ultimate evil.

According to LDS theology, there are two classes of persons who will become sons of perdition:

  • The pre-mortal spirit followers of Satan. It is taught that, in the pre-mortal life, they chose to follow a plan proposed by Satan, rather than that presented by God the Father and Jesus. Thus ensued the War in Heaven, which resulted in Satan and his followers being cast out of heaven and denied the opportunity of receiving a physical body.
  • Those in mortal life who "deny the Holy Ghost," which is generally interpreted as rejecting and denying Christ after receiving a personal witness of him from the Holy Ghost. It is frequently—though not universally—added that a son of perdition must have a "perfect knowledge" of Jesus and that mere faith or belief in him is not enough. Joseph Smith, Jr. taught: (bold mine)
All sins shall be forgiven, except the sin against the Holy Ghost; for Jesus will save all except the sons of perdition. What must a man do to commit the unpardonable sin? He must receive the Holy Ghost, have the heavens opened unto him, and know God, and then sin against him. After a man has sinned against the Holy Ghost, there is no repentance for him. He has got to say that the sun does not shine while he sees it; he has got to deny Jesus Christ when the heavens have been opened unto him, and to deny the plan of salvation with his eyes open to the truth of it.

I do know that people who have left the Church as a mortal, or who were never taught the gospel in the first place, will be sent to the Spirit Prison (not as bad as it sounds), and will be taught the gospel by persons living in Paradise.We will be given a chance to reject or accept the gospel at that time.

So, unless you are truly a Son of Perdition, (which is, IIRC a difficult thing to become), you will reside in at least the telestial kingdom.

Elphaba

PS: I think a number of people in my family find comfort in this doctrine.

Edited by Elphaba
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as we're playing semantics...LDS say that their teaching is the restored gospel. Often our Pentecostal churches are called FULL gospel. So, which is better:

1. Having the full gospel, but being unrestored...or...

2. Having only part of the gospel, but being restored?

Actually...I don't like this semantics game much. Can we play something else???

I wouldn't call it a game. Especially when Mormons believe Jesus is not God, but separate from God. Would you agree that Christians believe that Jesus is God in man?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is it that somebody makee a level headed call to just let it be after you've started your post but before you've actually gotten around to posting it? You go to survey you freshly posted masterpiece and there here is, the guy pointing out you're both being silly sitting there above your broadside.

Man, Oh Man, do I hate that!

You may or may have not noticed, but I tend to write book-length posts, which take a lot of time and effort. I can't count the number of times I have just spent two hours on a masterpiece only to discover the conversation has moved on, making my remarks look like petty bantering. Or, even worse, they've just closed the thread! Auuggghhh!

Elph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mormons believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God who restored the teachings of Jesus Christ. Other churches are simply reformers or protesters of the catholic church. Starting with Martin Luther in the 1500’s, to spin offs of his teaching by Martin Luther and John Calvin. Are you a follower of Luther, or Calvin? Were they prophets or just some guys with good ideas? How does your spin off from catholic teaching make you more right, or more Christian than mine?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christians reject Joseph Smith as a false prophet of God.

Mormons accept Joseph Smith as a prophet of God and the Mormon doctrine.

Some Christians reject Joseph Smith as a false prophet of God. Others, mainly members of the LDS Church, accept Joseph Smith as a prophet of God. To claim that LDS are not Christian when it is obvious that we teach, preach, and believe in Christ as the head of our religion is a very un-Christ-like thing to do. While you may not espouse the same beliefs or definitions that we do, we are very Christian in our beliefs and works. Yet some Christians propose to speak for Christ and tell us who is or is not a Christian. Not very Christ-like if you ask me.

Edited to add: If you are really a former LDS you of all people should know that we are Christian. Unless you're just saying that to get a reaction from us.

Edited by john doe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also that whole Jew-Christian thing falls flat. We are still Abraham-ists because we believe in the same prophet Abraham. The term Jew does not just mean a belief system, but also a lineage and heritage. But Christian is far more broad than that. If anything, the Catholics can exclude all others (except maybe the other Orthodox churches) from Christianity on the same grounds that are being use to exclude Mormons. Evangelicals are trying to copyright a term they never owned in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

allredcon,

BoM 1st page

"And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that JESUS is the CHRIST, the ETERNAL GOD,..."

BoM Introduction

"And honour be to the Father , and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God."

I know this a forlorn post, but I just can't help saying it again....

"Jesus, the Eternal God" implies there is either only one God who is eternal or that any other gods outside Jesus are not eternal. However since LDS beleive the Father is also the eternal God, it does narrow down the possible meaning of that passage in the BoM.

The BoM clearly says there is 1 God, not 3; Father, Son and Holy Spirit are 1 God.

I know LDS won't accept the word "trinity", nor the formulations of Nicea nor Chalcedon, but why can't you just stick to what the BoM says "Father, Son and Spirit is one God" and stop saying they are 3 Gods, which the BoM never says.

Actually Pam says it exactly, Jesus is God but not the Father. I would fill it out.

Jesus is God but not the Father nor Holy Spirit.

Father is God but not the Son nor Holy Spirit.

Holy Spirit is God but not the Father nor Son.

A formulae for the Godhead we can all agree on, if we don't say anything else about the topic.

Hmmm Maybe I should not have posted this reply cause in all likelyhood this will just start yet another long thread on the nature of the Godhead, in which we all will say much but somehow all leave having gone nowhere for having said so much. I'll impose a ban on myself for posting for a week for having not having been able to resist contributing to yet another Godhead discussion.

Edited by AnthonyB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm Maybe I should not have posted this reply cause in all likelyhood this will just start yet another long thread on the nature of the Godhead

I'm so with you on this Anthony. PLEASE not another long drawn out thread on the Godhead debate. Actually that gives me an idea. Thanks Anthony.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share