Learning about the Church from LDS.net

[Justice]

"Well--you just don't know--you're actually a henotheist!"

PC has diagnosed your difficulty accurately.

You are telling us we believe something you don't understand, and yet you know we are wrong.

If I were you I would seek first to understand.

[Justice]

I disagree. Mormonism embraces Joseph Smith as a prophet of God, and Joseph Smith taught that God and Jesus were separate beings. That by definition is henotheistic.

Disagree till doosday. The fact is that Joseph Smith taught they are 3 separate personages, yet One God.

It is the interpretation of the word One that you have issue with, not any other teaching... because he taught they are One God.

Sound evidence of this can be found in Jesus' intecessory prayer, yet you claim no evidence. It's not that there isn't evidence, it's just that you don't understand it; don't believe, and therefore, don't see it.

[Generally_Me]

I find it interesting Thews, that you came to a thread started by a non-LDS, and started telling said non-LDS that he incorrectly understands LDS....but in other threads, you say you don't understand, even though you've been raised LDS.

[thews]

It's not that you offend, it's that you claim not to believe what he taught because you "don't understand it." Well, that makes perfect sense to me. It's very difficult to believe something you don't understand.

In my case, I understand it, and I believe it.

OK. then why do you get so mad when questions are asked about Mormon history and what Joseph Smith taught? Racisim is wrong, would you agree? "White and Delightsome" vs. the cursed "Dark and Loathsome" is racist. Polygamy/polyandry is also wrong. Marring girls 14 and 15 is wrong. This is just Mormon history, but when it's brought up you attack me for bringing it up. I see how hard it is for you to bucketize right vs. wrong, or how God's will was right at one time and wrong now, but if I, or others have questions I believe it's the questions that threaten you.

You point at me and say I am wrong and believe in magic and lies, yet you claim you don't understand it. I think if you really understood it you might feel very differently about it.

I'm not saying anything someone believes is "wrong". What I am saying is I don't believe it, or rather I do not believe Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, and Mormonism is based on Joseph Smith being a prophet, and Joseph Smith believed in magic. Joseph Smith used his seer stone to translate the Book of Mormon. While you may claim the seer stone isn't magic, would you conclude the peepstones used by other witnesses (specifically David Witmore) were magic?

The problem is, you rely on 3 fallible sources:

1) Youself

2) Man's understandings (science)

3) Non-LDS interpreation of LDS doctrine

As long as you rely on those 3 sources you will never understand.

I rely on factual information to decide what I believe. If you believe something different, that's up to you... neither one of is wrong.

Saul knew he was right, and he fought with all his might. He came to understand the truth by a vision. He didn't fundamentally change; he was still the same person. But, after his vision he fought on the side of what he then knew to be true, and became Paul.

There are millions of Sauls in the world today, such as yourself. They are valiant and fighting for the cause of what they believe to be true.

Only God can deliver a conviction of the truth. Your 3 sources can't. This forum can't.

God has outlines the method for any man to come to an understanding of the truth. It is not in any of the 3 ways you are seeking it. It can only happen one way.

You claim Mormonism is based on montheism, and I disagree. The first version of the Book of Mormon may have been, but this is the official version as published by LDS.org

Joseph Smith - The First Vision

On a spring day in 1820 14-year-old Joseph Smith sought solitude in a grove of trees and prayed to know which church was true. God the Father and Jesus Christ, "two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description," appeared and spoke with him.1

Wondering which of the many churches to join, Joseph had followed the counsel in the Bible's book of James: "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God." The Lord told Joseph "that all the religious denominations were believing in incorrect doctrines" and that he was to await further instructions from on high.2 "In a state of calmness and peace indescribable," Joseph left that sacred grove knowing the reality of our Father in Heaven and His resurrected Son, Jesus Christ.3

Joseph Smith's first vision stands today as the greatest event in world history since the birth, ministry, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. After centuries of darkness, the Lord opened the heavens to reveal His word and restore His Church through His chosen prophet.

If you disagree with this, the I would contend you disagree with the LDS church's published account of what Joseph Smith, the LDS prophet of God said. Joseph Smith is the same person who claimed the first vision and translated the Book of Mormon. How can someone agree with one and not the other? Mormonism is clearly henotheism, which also includes men becomming Gods. Can you please explain how you believe Mormonism is monotheistic?

[thews]

I find it interesting Thews, that you came to a thread started by a non-LDS, and started telling said non-LDS that he incorrectly understands LDS....but in other threads, you say you don't understand, even though you've been raised LDS.

Then please tell me how my logic is flawed. How can the LDS church teach the first vision of Joseph Smith as two separate beings, and how LDS people can become Gods as anything but henothestic? Please tell me so I can understand, as this is just the foundation for the basic LDS theology.

Fundamential Christian theology is monothestic (Jesus is God) and Mormon theology is henothestic (God the father and Jesus Christ are separate). Would you agree?

[beefche]

Then please tell me how my logic is flawed. How can the LDS church teach the first vision of Joseph Smith as two separate beings, and how LDS people can become Gods as anything but henothestic? Please tell me so I can understand, as this is just the foundation for the basic LDS theology.

Fundamential Christian theology is monothestic (Jesus is God) and Mormon theology is henothestic (God the father and Jesus Christ are separate). Would you agree?

Here's a thought: perhaps your (and others) insistance that we label ourselves "monotheistic, henothesitic" whatever is not from the Church leaders. We teach doctrine according to our beliefs of truth. How others choose to label those beliefs is up to them. Our Church leaders (as far as I know) do not place such labels on our doctrines.

[prisonchaplain]

Beefche, you make a reasonable point. Non-LDS come here, and attempt to understand your teachings in our "language." We further ask you to explain yourselves in our language, and then sometimes try to trip you up--again, using our language.

Some of your apologists and professors do translate LDS theology into evangelical terms, in that they try to engage us in conversation. IMHO, such is a worthy endeavor. It's not easy though, and misunderstanding is easy to come by.

[beefche]

PC, true, except when it comes to the term "Christian." I think Mormons, on whole, want to be labeled as Christians because we interpret that to mean "a follower of Jesus Christ." Yet, when people tell us we are not Christian, we get our feathers ruffled. Typically, there is a disagreement over the definition of Christian.

[prisonchaplain]

The word "Christian" is loaded for evangelicals. We believe people who really are Christians are saved, born again, those who rightly divide the word of God, etc. So, many would struggle to try to fit LDS believers into that mold. Sometimes we do make distinctions. There are "christians" and then there are "Great Commission Christians" or "On-Fire Christians" or "100-fold Christians," etc.

On the other hand, by broad general definition, and by academic definition, I do not know what else your church could be categorized as. It's probably safest to just let people define themselves, and then to discuss meanings in respectful conversation.

I still remember Barna saying that roughly 40% of LDS were "born again," based upon evangelical definitions, and yet that based upon doctrinal analysis, there was very little overlapping.

So...lets all prove ourselves Christian in word and deed, and see if lifting up his name does not draw folk to him, as Scripture promises.

[Justice]

Thews, I'm certainly not mad. I do believe that he married many women, and some even young. I don't believe he married for sexual relations. I believe he married them because he was told to. The Lord has commanded many things, even in the Bible, that seem to contradict His own word.

What I have come to know is what Joseph Smith taught, if the Lord commands it, it is right.

I misunderstood your earlier posts, I thought I read where you said we are wrong. But, I'm not concerned enough about it to go back and look. If I was wrong then I apologize.

I guess you can call it "magic" when Jesus walked on water, or fed the multitude with just a few loaves of bread and fish. I suppose you can even call it magic when He healed the sick or raised the dead. To someone looking from the outside, it would certainly look like magic.

Was Moses using magic when he used the staff to change the Nile to blood or part the Sea?

I suppose it can appear that way. Afterall, the priests of Pharoah used magic to duplicate some of the things Moses did with the staff.

You know, we can have a long, fun discussion about "facts" that have changed over the years. My point is, where do the facts come from and how reliable are they as facts.

I really don't understand those terms you're using very well. But, if you don't mind, I also have trouble understanding how God can be three beings yet only one being. If you can make that clear to me, then maybe I'll try to study those terms and come up with something for you about what label I think we fit in... maybe we don't fit in any of them.

[thews]

Here's a thought: perhaps your (and others) insistance that we label ourselves "monotheistic, henothesitic" whatever is not from the Church leaders. We teach doctrine according to our beliefs of truth. How others choose to label those beliefs is up to them. Our Church leaders (as far as I know) do not place such labels on our doctrines.

I'm trying to understand you. How can one religion encompass so many things, including who God is? The point I was making is that the LDS church defines the official first vision as two personages. I really don't care what anyone wants to call themselves of what they choose to believe, as it's not a contest. But, in defining the LDS faith as monothestic, would be to deny what Joseph Smith, the Mormon prophet of God, preached. This isn't semantics IMO, but while I admittedly don't believe what you believe, you do have a right to believe whatever it is you choose, but I just see this as a "one size fits all" definition to the core of what I assumed the LDS faith was. "Labels" are different than basic fundamental theology. Jews don't accept the New Testament, so God is defined by the Old Testament. Who God is should be the foundation for any religion isn't it? Are you telling me the LDS faith can be both monotheistic and henothestic at the same time? Isn't this a contradiction to what the Mormon prophet of God in Joseph Smith taught God was/is?

[thews]

Thews, I'm certainly not mad. I do believe that he married many women, and some even young. I don't believe he married for sexual relations. I believe he married them because he was told to. The Lord has commanded many things, even in the Bible, that seem to contradict His own word.

Fair enough. I appreciate your honest answer, but would urge you to read the letter written by Joseph Smith to Sarah Ann Whitney, as this is really cut and dry IMO.

What I have come to know is what Joseph Smith taught, if the Lord commands it, it is right.

This is the problem I always had with Mormonism. How can something be right one day, and wrong the next? Why would the Lord change his mind when the bible clearly defines the word of God will never change? My opinion is that God is perfect... no mistakes and no changes required when the word is perfect. If it changes, or needs to change, then it's not perfect and not the word of God. Again, racism and polygamy/polyandry are fundamentally wrong and I really can't see how they would ever be "good" in God's eyes, but that's just me.

I misunderstood your earlier posts, I thought I read where you said we are wrong. But, I'm not concerned enough about it to go back and look. If I was wrong then I apologize.

You are being very fair to me and I understand how Mormons have been attacked for what they believe. I thank you for your honest input.

I guess you can call it "magic" when Jesus walked on water, or fed the multitude with just a few loaves of bread and fish. I suppose you can even call it magic when He healed the sick or raised the dead. To someone looking from the outside, it would certainly look like magic.

Magic is magic, and glass-looking through seer stones was considered magic, as were a lot of things Joseph Smith believed in, including the Jupoter tallisman. This isn't hard to believe, since this was a part of the new world that migrated in the late 1700's, and it's what Joseph Smith's parents and grandparents believed in. Having visions wasn't that uncommon back then, and while my friend hired someone with a divining rod to find water on his land, some people still believe in things that could be defined as magic or not, but glass-looking is clearly magic IMO.

Was Moses using magic when he used the staff to change the Nile to blood or part the Sea?

I suppose it can appear that way. Afterall, the priests of Pharoah used magic to duplicate some of the things Moses did with the staff.

You know, we can have a long, fun discussion about "facts" that have changed over the years. My point is, where do the facts come from and how reliable are they as facts.

If it can be proven historically as a fact than it is a fact. Some say Joseph Smith was not convicted of glass-looking, but just charged. In either case, the fact that he was hired to hunt for buried treasure before translating the golden plates, would mean that God and Joseph Smith were on the same page regarding seer stones.

I really don't understand those terms you're using very well. But, if you don't mind, I also have trouble understanding how God can be three beings yet only one being. If you can make that clear to me, then maybe I'll try to study those terms and come up with something for you about what label I think we fit in... maybe we don't fit in any of them.

Jesus is God in man... that's what the bible teaches. If God were to come to earth, he could send an angel I guess, but if he came to earth then he would still be God. JMHO I guess, but I believe Jesus Christ was God and there is only one God. As I've said before, my beliefs are non-standard Christian, so I only speak for myself, as it is honestly what I've concluded.

[Justice]

Why would the Lord change his mind when the bible clearly defines the word of God will never change? My opinion is that God is perfect... no mistakes and no changes required when the word is perfect. If it changes, or needs to change, then it's not perfect and not the word of God. Again, racism and polygamy/polyandry are fundamentally wrong and I really can't see how they would ever be "good" in God's eyes, but that's just me.

Exodus 20:

13 Thou shalt not kill.

Deuteronomy 20:

17 ...thou shalt utterly destroy...

Magic is magic, and glass-looking through seer stones was considered magic, as were a lot of things Joseph Smith believed in, including the Jupoter tallisman. This isn't hard to believe, since this was a part of the new world that migrated in the late 1700's, and it's what Joseph Smith's parents and grandparents believed in. Having visions wasn't that uncommon back then, and while my friend hired someone with a divining rod to find water on his land, some people still believe in things that could be defined as magic or not, but glass-looking is clearly magic IMO.

You know, history is supposed to be fact-based. But, in reality, it is written by people, and therefore it will lean toward the opinion of the writer.

According to Joseph Smith, those visions he saw through the seer stone were given through the Spirit of God.

Even Old Testament prophets used "seer stones" to see things.

Numbers 27:

21 And he shall stand before Eleazar the priest, who shall ask counsel for him after the judgment of Urim before the Lord: at his word shall they go out, and at his word they shall come in, both he, and all the children of Israel with him, even all the congregation.

Urim and Thummim are what hold and allow a person to use seer stones.

I guess, but I believe Jesus Christ was God and there is only one God.

I believe that too. I believe Jesus Christ is the God of the Old Testament. He is the great Jehovah, the Creator of heaven and earth. But, I believe He has a Father.

His Father is the Being He prayed to.

He is the Being that spoke from heaven when Christ was baptized and when He was transfigured.

He is the Being that appeared along side His Beloved Son when they appeared to Joseph Smith... proving that they are separate and distinct Beings, One in purpose and will.

Modern revelation allows me to see the Bible more clearly.

[Justice]

About the racism thing...

Trust me, thews, it's just something you yet don't understand. It was not racism. It is as it has always been. Certain tribes of certain lineage are allowed to officate in the Priesthood in certain capacities, some not at all. It was that way when Moses was prophet, and it was that way for a time when Brigham Young (and others) were prophet.

You need to stop looking for the negative side in all things. :)

[rameumptom]

I'm trying to understand you. How can one religion encompass so many things, including who God is? The point I was making is that the LDS church defines the official first vision as two personages. I really don't care what anyone wants to call themselves of what they choose to believe, as it's not a contest. But, in defining the LDS faith as monothestic, would be to deny what Joseph Smith, the Mormon prophet of God, preached. This isn't semantics IMO, but while I admittedly don't believe what you believe, you do have a right to believe whatever it is you choose, but I just see this as a "one size fits all" definition to the core of what I assumed the LDS faith was. "Labels" are different than basic fundamental theology. Jews don't accept the New Testament, so God is defined by the Old Testament. Who God is should be the foundation for any religion isn't it? Are you telling me the LDS faith can be both monotheistic and henothestic at the same time? Isn't this a contradiction to what the Mormon prophet of God in Joseph Smith taught God was/is?

Thews, it is a matter of contrast and comparison. To a Muslim or Jew, Trinitarians are polytheists/henotheists, who try to squirm around the concept by restating in creed that the three persons are one God in substance. To the Jew, that just doesn't make sense, and they still see it as three beings that are described.

LDS believe in a social trinitarianism. While we believe there are many Gods, we worship one Godhead. This works exactly the way the Trinity works for traditional Christians, with the exception that the persons of God and Jesus in the Godhead are physically distinct beings.

[prisonchaplain]

Ram, I appreciate that there is much that is similar in our beliefs, but there is a major difference concerning the nature of God. Trinitarians strongly insist we are monotheists. Further, that henotheism does not enter the discussion for us. Muslims and Jews might accuse us of tritheism--but not henotheism, because we insist the three persons are co-equal, co-eternal, and all can be worshipped. There is no subordinationism either--Jesus is rightly worshipped (Hebrews 1:6, 8). We also call out to the Holy Spirit as God, "Come Holy Spirit, we need you. Come sweet Spirit, we pray..." At the end of the day the trinitarian God is one essential being. And, we do not believe there are any other gods, nor that there ever will be. So, our discussion with Muslims and Jews is about the identity of Jesus, and his nature. They accuse us of polytheism because they do not believe Jesus is the only begotten Son of God.

[Guest]

Ram, I appreciate that there is much that is similar in our beliefs, but there is a major difference concerning the nature of God. Trinitarians strongly insist we are monotheists. Further, that henotheism does not enter the discussion for us. Muslims and Jews might accuse us of tritheism--but not henotheism, because we insist the three persons are co-equal, co-eternal, and all can be worshipped. There is no subordinationism either--Jesus is rightly worshipped (Hebrews 1:6, 8). We also call out to the Holy Spirit as God, "Come Holy Spirit, we need you. Come sweet Spirit, we pray..." At the end of the day the trinitarian God is one essential being. And, we do not believe there are any other gods, nor that there ever will be. So, our discussion with Muslims and Jews is about the identity of Jesus, and his nature. They accuse us of polytheism because they do not believe Jesus is the only begotten Son of God.

PC, when you say "we" do you just mean evangelicals or are Catholics included in that? I ask because Roman Catholics are loosely henotheists as well with the Trinity as One God and Mary/Saints/Angels objects of veneration as well. Although, my mother will skin me if she ever finds out I put Catholics and henotheists in the same sentence.

[FunkyTown]

Much of this comes from differing definitions. There can be only one 'Supreme Being' and if your definition of God is the Supreme Being, then obviously you will believe in only one god.

You can't have multiple people being the penultimate incarnation of everything.

If, on the other hand, you look at Dictionary.com's example:

God  /gɒd/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [god] Show IPA noun, verb, god⋅ded, god⋅ding, interjection

Use God in a Sentence

See web results for God

See images of God

–noun 1. the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.

2. the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute: the God of Islam.

3. (lowercase) one of several deities, esp. a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.

4. (often lowercase) a supreme being according to some particular conception: the god of mercy.

5. Christian Science. the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, Love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle.

6. (lowercase) an image of a deity; an idol.

7. (lowercase) any deified person or object.

8. (often lowercase) Gods, Theater. a. the upper balcony in a theater.

b. the spectators in this part of the balcony.

–verb (used with object) 9. (lowercase) to regard or treat as a god; deify; idolize.

–interjection 10. (used to express disappointment, disbelief, weariness, frustration, annoyance, or the like): God, do we have

You can see that any being being of a divine nature presiding over anything can claim title of deity. That would make logical sense.

Hmm... As I'm typing this, I have to admit to feeling some type of restraint. I think I might be wrong in this interpretation, but I can't put my finger on why. I'm more comfortable using deities than Gods. It feels less presumptuous.

Ram, I appreciate that there is much that is similar in our beliefs, but there is a major difference concerning the nature of God. Trinitarians strongly insist we are monotheists. Further, that henotheism does not enter the discussion for us. Muslims and Jews might accuse us of tritheism--but not henotheism, because we insist the three persons are co-equal, co-eternal, and all can be worshipped. There is no subordinationism either--Jesus is rightly worshipped (Hebrews 1:6, 8). We also call out to the Holy Spirit as God, "Come Holy Spirit, we need you. Come sweet Spirit, we pray..." At the end of the day the trinitarian God is one essential being. And, we do not believe there are any other gods, nor that there ever will be. So, our discussion with Muslims and Jews is about the identity of Jesus, and his nature. They accuse us of polytheism because they do not believe Jesus is the only begotten Son of God.

[Justice]

Book of Mormon missionaries and teachers didn't tell those they taught to change the word they used for God. They just taught them to change how their viewed God.

Not sure it matters, Funky.

[prisonchaplain]

PC, when you say "we" do you just mean evangelicals or are Catholics included in that? I ask because Roman Catholics are loosely henotheists as well with the Trinity as One God and Mary/Saints/Angels objects of veneration as well. Although, my mother will skin me if she ever finds out I put Catholics and henotheists in the same sentence.

I include all trinitarian Protestants and Catholics and other Christians who consider themselves trinitarian. Most especially Catholics, since they formulated the doctrine we go by. Your mother would be right to at least gently scold you. Catholic veneration of saints, including Mary, is not the same as declaring them gods. They do not worship them. They pray THROUGH them, not TO them.

[prisonchaplain]

You can't have multiple people being the penultimate incarnation of everything.

Well, we do. Trinitarians believe the three persons of the Godhead are the "penultimate incarnation." After, we believe in miracles.

[FunkyTown]

Well, we do. Trinitarians believe the three persons of the Godhead are the "penultimate incarnation." After, we believe in miracles.

Three persons who are one being.

[thews]

Three persons who are one being.

Godhead - The Encyclopedia of Mormonism

"I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods"

Joseph Smith taught: Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are only one God. I say that is a strange God anyhow-three in one, and one in three! It is a curious organization anyhow. "

The LDS doctrine of the Godhead differs from the various concepts of the Trinity. Several postbiblical trinitarian doctrines emerged in Christianity. This "dogmatic development took place gradually, against the background of the emanationist philosophy of Stoicism and Neoplatonism (including the mystical theology of the latter), and within the context of strict Jewish monotheism" (ER 15:54). Trinitarian doctrines sought to elevate God's oneness or unity, ultimately in some cases describing Jesus as homoousious (of the same substance) with the Father in order to preclude any claim that Jesus was not fully divine. LDS understanding, formulated by latter-day revelation through Joseph Smith, rejects the idea that Jesus or any other personage loses individuality by attaining Godhood or by standing in divine and eternal relationships with other exalted beings.

This is from BYU... I'm not getting how it can be up to the person to changes what the LDS church teaches to fit what they believe, and still be LDS?

[Guest]

Godhead - The Encyclopedia of Mormonism

This is from BYU... I'm not getting how it can be up to the person to changes what the LDS church teaches to fit what they believe, and still be LDS?

I don't think Justice, et. al., are arguing over the 3 distinct personages - Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. It is the very first article of faith that even my 6-year-old can recite.

I think their point (if I may so boldly attempt to speak for them) is that they are one God of purpose, hence the henotheism may not apply. When my kids were taught the proper way to pray, they are taught to start with "Dear Heavenly Father..." and to end with "in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.". Never in any of their teachings has it ever been mentioned that you pray like this, "Dear Jesus..." or even "Dear Holy Spirit...".

Yeah, I'm a "back to basics" kind of person, so I tend to go back to Primary to understand things...

[Guest]

I include all trinitarian Protestants and Catholics and other Christians who consider themselves trinitarian. Most especially Catholics, since they formulated the doctrine we go by. Your mother would be right to at least gently scold you. Catholic veneration of saints, including Mary, is not the same as declaring them gods. They do not worship them. They pray THROUGH them, not TO them.

That's my point actually... why I don't think LDS is henotheistic either (see post above).

Yes, yes, Catholicism teaches about not worshipping Mary. But in practice... manoman. No, I love Catholics, so I'm not going there.