LDS as a Christian Denomination

[SolaFide]

It has always been amazing to me how people can formulate an entire belief system on the definition of one word... in this case the word "one."

Obviously, the word has different meanings. When you base your entire belief system on one of those definitions, you would naturally have to resist the other definitions. I can see that.

The doctrine of Monotheism depends greatly on the word "one". We beleive that there is only one God. However, the Bible defines its own terms and explains to us what "one God" means.

Isaiah 43:10 - "Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me."

Isaiah 44:6 - "Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God."

Isaiah 44:8 - "Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any."

As you can see, we are dependent on our own ability to determine what "one" means. God has clearly revealed it to us and shown us what is means. Praise God for the clarity of His word!

It's like Isaiah said speaking of our day, "the wisdom of their wise men shall perish." The only way wisdom can perish is if those wise men learn truth. Setting aside a cornerstone belief, where all your other beliefs are hung, is a most difficult thing to ask of you. But, that's exactly what we have to ask. Because, in order for you to see this truth you have to open your mind and open yourself to the possibility that you're wrong. I realize how deeply this may affect you.

This is very difficult for people to do, in fact, it is impossible for many.

I am in total agreement with you. It can be vey hard to give up a core doctrine that defines you faith. If you do, your whole system shatters. But, knowing God truly is more important that staying where you are comfortable. I ask you to look at the verses I cited above. "Before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me", "Beside me there is no God" and "Is there a God beside me? Yea, there is no God."

That is overtly clear. Where do you see the idea of 'three Gods who are one in purpose' ever presented in the Bible? There is not such place because there are not three gods. The Bible (as I cited above) refute that idea.

Getting to the bottom of the truth should be your primary goal. Unless you believe you are perfect and have perfect knowledge of all things, you can do this. Take what we're saying to the Lord. Don't take our word for it. Ask Him to enlighten you about this topic. Ask to be shown the truth concerning the nature of God. Then, study and pray, with a completely open mind, and I know you will arrive at the truth. Opening your mind to a new idea that contadicts your own is very difficult, added to the fact that so many of your beliefs are hinged on this one idea, I know how difficult it is.

Again, I agree with you. However, instead of asking you to pray over truth, I will ask you to take your beleifs to Scripture. It is God's revelation to man. He has given it to us a revelation of who He is. What does it say? What does it reveal about the nature of God? If you see something that contradicts your beleifs, don't tey to explain it away. Let it conform your mind.

I hope and pray for you, that you might be able to do this. With God all things are possible... even for us to change our human nature.

As will I be praying for you to come to the truth.

Don't believe it because someone else told you that's the way it is. I would never ask that of anything I told you, and I'm also asking it of things others have told you. Honestly and sincerely take it to the Lord, being willing to accept whatever He tells you.

Once again, I agree. Don't beleive it just because your church has said this is the way it is. Take your views to Scripture. Does Joseph Smith contradict Scripture? Do you find the plurality of gods anywhere on the pages of the Bible? Don't rely on your "good feelings". Take it to God's word.

[SolaFide]

Woooow, I just read this entire thread and my brain hurts! All I can say is how THANKFUL I am for the Holy Ghost. It is the means by which man may know all truth. Solafide, the reason you are having so much difficulty explaining the Trinity is because it is simply untrue and illogical. It was developed by philosophers, statesman and the like centuries after Christ's death. Keep in mind, LDS doctrine was not developed from philosophical or theological debates. Our doctrine is Christ's doctrine, it comes directly from Him. We don't need to prove every jot and tittle of our doctrine by the bible, although it is repleat with our doctrine. You make the mistake of thinking that the bible is the only way God speaks to his children. That is simply not true, it is only one of many methods God uses to teach us. The fact is, many truths of God's eternal plan have been saved for the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times.

You are simply mistaken. The Trinity is a reflection of the Bible's core teachings. (There is one God in all of existence, Three persons share the name of God, and they are clearly distinct.) Have I come here citing philosophers or creeds? No. I am presenting to you the Holy Scriptures and asking you to make judgments from that.

I would obviously disagree that Joseph Smith's doctrine is Christ's. I ask you to compare his statements with the Biblical text and see if it matches up. Where is this plurality of gods when the LORD has said, "Beside me there is no God" (Isaiah 44:6)?

God reveals Himself to us in this day through Scripture. We agree that it is His holy word. We agree that it is His divinely inspired revelation. So where in the Bible do we see God telling us that we go to some other source for truth? The simple fact is that we do not. We match all things with what is already inspired and if it contradicts it is false.

Every sceptic, instead of bible bashing, needs to take their concerns to God. I invite all who are unsure to read the Book of Mormon, pray sincerely about it and ask God if it is true. Once you know by the Spirit, you will know Joseph Smith was divinely called to restore ALL truths, even truths that have been hidden from the world.

God never tells us to pray over something to see if it is true. We are supposed to take our beleifs to the Bible. The Devil is ready and willing to give us false feelings and our sinful hearts are more then capable of believing what is false. 1 John 4:1 says, "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world." Test what you beleive by what God has revealed already.

[SolaFide]

So, in the first point, Joseph Smith is saying that "[He has] always and in all congregations when [he] has preached on the subject of Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods.". Then you turn around in your second point and claim that he only taught the doctrine later in his life, and that is why it's not in our scriptures. Clearly Joseph Smith taught the plurality of Gods all along, from the very first vision, where God the Father and God the Son, appeared to the prophet.

Yes. I am arguing that Joseph Smith contradicted himself as well as the Bible and is therefore a false prophet. You have not explained the quote. I argued that 'plurality of gods' = 'polytheism'. You said that I did not understand the qutote yet you have not given me a different way to understand 'plurality of gods'.

What Joseph Smith taught, that you do not understand, is in our scriptures. You really don't need any other source to establish this doctrine. Check out D&C 132, for example. There is plenty in that section alone for you to work off of.

Well I do not accept D&C as authoritative. But, is there anything that specifically relates there that relates to the nature of God, as that is what we are discussing. From what I could tell it was mostly general commandments.

That is correct. That is what the scriptures mean, that's why we have scriptures. They contain the binding doctrine. They are our canon. There has to be something, in the sea of opinions and speculation, that is our standard. And I maintain that the scriptures are it. Surely you understand this? It's not that different from the claims that other Christians make about the standard of the Bible - "If it's not in the Bible...", or "That's not what the Bible says...". Please tell me you understand this concept?

Yes, I understand that. I simply beleive that you are inconsistent. If we were to find another letter of Paul (who was inspired as he wrote His letters) where he further explains what he meant in his epistle to the Romans, for example, then Christians would consider that binding. The inspired apostle is telling you what he wrote. You have to accpet that. However, LDS do not take many of the claims made by Joseph Smith or many of the otehr prophets and apostles. (Considering that they contradict the BoM and D&C I can understand it.) However, why do you not take the totality of what thse allegedly inspired men waught?

I don't reject the teachings of Joseph Smith. I reject certain conclusions you and others make based on Joseph's teachings, and I submit that whatever conclusions a latter-day saint makes and binds himself to, they should be in harmony with our scriptures.

Fine. Then please interpret the original quote from Smith that I gave to you.

I am saying that any kind of separation cannot occur if they are the same being. Perhaps that is the mystery then?

There is already seperation to begin with in the sense that there are three different persons. That is to say that the Father, Son and Spirit have different functions. (For example; Salvation. The Father draws His people to the Son, the Son dies to bear to make propitiation for their sins, and the Spirit brings about regeneration, sanctification, etc. in the life of the believer.) THe cross is the only point where there was spiritual seoeration between Father and Son.

Oh my. Your explanation does not fit the context of what was going on. Jesus in John 10:34 is quoting Himself (Jehovah) from Psalm 82:6 in response to the accusation that He makes himself to be God.

31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?

33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

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

36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. (John 10:31-37)

In other words, He is saying exactly what it appears that He is saying. Mankind is the offspring of God the Father, and in that sense, we are all gods already - children of the most High. So, why would they fault him for claiming something of himself, that their law already claims about all humans?

Psalm 82:

1God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.

2How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.

3Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.

4Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.

5They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.

6I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

7But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.

8Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.

This is what Jesus is quoting from. This text deals with the unjust judges in Israel. They have the authority to of God in their ability to judge, yet they are abusing it and taking advantage of the people. (They are being unjust, accepting the wicked, not defending the poor and fatherless, not doing justice to the afflicted and needy, etc. These are the things God is critiquing them on.) God points out that although they have the authority of gods they will die like men. (If you think that these are actual gods, not judges, I have a few questions for you: Why are these gods judging the earth; Isn't that Elohim's domain? Why does Elohim say that they will die; do gods die?) Yes, it does say that they are the children of God. I would suggest that this simply means that they have been created by God, not offspring in the sense of the Father's spirit children that LDS has traditionally taught.

When Jesus makes his claim to divinity in John 10, why do the Israelites react the way they do? If all He is doing is saying, "I am a god in the same wya that you are", then what's the big deal? The Jews are outraged that a mere man would make Himself out to be God. Obviously something else is going on. The point Jesus is making is that even though the Old Testament judges were called 'Gods' they died due to their unjustice. This is the application that Christ is making to the Jews, that they are the same as those in the Psalm and will be punished in the same way.

Well I appreciate the opportunity to clarify what I mean. Truly. This is what Joseph Smith teaches, that we are the offspring of God, and are in that sense co-eternal with him, and are all already gods. As the offspring of God, we can become like Him, and be one with Him, but we are not "the God", and He will always be God in that sense to even those who are exalted. He is the object of our worship forever and ever, and thus we are Monotheistic. The scriptures forbid the worship of any other God, and that is our doctrine.

I would reject Smith's teaching on this, too. "Children on God" in the Bible never intends physical offspring. It means His creation.

So all people everywhere are gods? Even if they are not gods to same level of authority that God Himself is, they are still gods? How can you not see polytheism? That would mean that tody alone there a about 6 billion gods on the earth. Even if you don't worship these other gods, you would have to at least admit to Henotheism. Monotheism is the belief that there is only one God ever in all of existence. By your statements that men are gods, you cannot be a Monotheist.

That is true too, it also means that He is the Most High God, of all the species that is His offspring - who are gods.

Again, I disagree that all people are gods.

We don't dismiss those scriptures, because they are in harmony with our doctrine. There is only one God and one Mediator between God and men - Jesus Christ. Pure LDS doctrine. Based on the fact that we accept those scriptures fully, and other scriptures like them from the other parts of our canon, I make the claim that Monotheism most fully describes our religion, or you are a Polytheist as well.

Regards,

Vanhin

We don't beleive the same thing. So your point that we are either both Monotheists or both Polytheists is ridiculous. You yourself say that all people are gods. That puts your gods count well into the billions. I do not beleive that we people are gods in any sense. We are not of the same being as He is and never will be. I am saying that there is only one God. You must realize that we differ on this point.

[SolaFide]

SolaFide,

The main point I am making with you, and I hope you can see it, is that our doctrine is found in the scriptures, including the Holy Bible. I also understand, that you interpret the scriptures differently than we do. I can respect your interpretation of the scriptures, and I don't want you to think that I don't. We don't really need to argue about it. If you don't want to accept us as Christians because of our understanding of holy writ, then what can we say? So, be it. But we think we are Christians, and we accept you as a Christian as well. We even accept Jehovah's Witnesses as Christians, because they aim to follow the teachings of Christ, as they understand it.

This is my main problem. Jehova's Witnesses are the fundamental antithesis to Mormons. Mormons would hold that not only are Father, Son and Spirit gods, but so are every single human who has ever lived. Jehova's Witnesses, on the other hand, would not even accept Christ as God. In there system Christ is actually Michael the ArchAngel, aboe all other creations, but still below the Father and not God. To say that we're all Chrsitians is to say that it really does not matter what we believe about God.

You say following Christ's teaching is what matters. But didn't Christ teachg about the nature of God? Or do we not have to follow everything that He said?

There is a reason why I can't just throw up my hands and say, "Well, we disagree. Oh well." It is because I honestly beleive that you are worshipping a false God, do not know the real Christ, and have a false gospel. I honestly believe that if you die in this state then you will go to Hell for all eternity. I CANNOT accept that and simply agree to disagree. You need the true Jesus, who has been the one and only God from all eternity. This is the Christ that entered into human flesh. He died on the cross and bore the sins of His people, absorbing the wrath of God and and transfering His righteousness to us. He rose from the grave and conquered death itself. It is only in this Jesus that we can have hope.

[QOUTE=Vanhin]When God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith, and spoke to Him - the question was answered. We now know that the Father and the Son are two separate divine Beings, each with a body of flesh and bone, and that the Holy Ghost does not have a body, but is a personage of spirit (D&C 130:22). We have learned that our spirits are the offspring of God, and that this mortal experience is part of God's plan for his children to reach their greatest potential, which is to be one with Him, and be like Him.

Because of this knowledge, when we read the Bible, we understand what God means when He calls us his children. It makes more sense now, when the Son prays to the Father, whom He calls His God and ours. We understand now what Christ means when He says that if you have seen him you have seen the Father, and we are able to reconcile that with the profession of the Savior that his Father is greater than He is.

So, really the question is - Did God appear to Joseph Smith, as he claimed? We assert that He did, because God himself has made it known to us. That is really the bottom line.

Regards,

Vanhin

Compare your beliefs in the seperate beings of the Father and Son, the Father having a body of flesh and bones, humans being physical offspring of the Father, our exaltation and becoming gods, etc. to the Bible. Does the Bible teach these things? The answer is no, it does not. You must read all of these thngs into the text because there is not even a hint of them there. Look at the Scriptures and let it conform your mind to its teaching. Joseph Smith contradicts the Bible and the gospl on almost every account. That makes him a false prophet. That is the bottom line.

[SolaFide]

Apparently we do mean different things, as I pointed out. When we say they are each God, we mean they are each God. When you say they are each God, you don't really mean it...God is some stuff that they all three share.

Within the one being that God is there exists three co-equal and co-eternal persons, Father, Son, and Spirit. I do mean that each is fully God. I do not mean that each is A god. That's the difference.

I think "monotheism" is a term that was placed on the Christianity, but inaccurately so. Then Christianity was painted into a corner to come up with a way to redefine words and phrases to make it fit the inaccurate word.

Isaiah 43:10 - Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 44:6 - Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

Isaiah 44:8 - Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.

Actually, the concept is all over Scripture. You simply do not beleive these passages.

Jesus made it clear that He was here to do His Father's will, not His own. If they were all of the same "essence" or "being", then they would have the same will, and there would be no distinction between the will of Jesus and the will of the Father

That is only true if you do not make a distinction between 'Being' and 'Person'. Being makes something what it is. Person makes someone who they are. Father, Son, and Spirit can all share the same being and yet have a different will because will is a characteristic of Person.

Being one in purpose fulfills all the talk of ther being but one God...God the Father is God. Jesus Christ is Lord, and the Holy Ghost is the "spirit" of God. The Father bestowed upon Jesus and the Holy Ghost their divinity...so they are both Gods under the direction of God the Father. They are one in purpose and testimony, and function as ONE, and together they form the Godhead, which is the One Eternal God. There is no contradiciton.

That would be fine if three different gods who worked towards a single purpose was Biblical. However, it isn't. That's why it is a false teaching.

The contradiction comes in where you say there are 3 persons, each individually God, but there are not 3 Gods. If there are not 3 Gods, then each are only 1/3 God to make up the ONE...or they are each a subset of this "essence" or "being" which is actually God, and the three persons are merely pieces of it. Either way, that contradicts that each are fully individually God.

Theres no contradiction if you understand the fact that the number of Gods is determined by the number of beings. One being = one God. No, the Father is not 1/3 God, the Son 1/3 God, and Spirit 1/3 God. That is false. All three are 100% completely God. Time is the best example I can think of for this. Past, Present and Future are all equally time. We distinguish between them and do not confuse the past with the present or the present with the future. They are distinct. Yet all three are fully and equally time. Nor do we say there are three times. There is only one. This is not a perfect analgy, but it fits here.

[Justice]

... Rather, they are having their minds changed to think like Christ, their actions are being changed to reflect the actions of Christ, and their love for their brethren reflects Christ's love for them.

It is at this point that we come to the verses you have cited. With the point of the previous verses in mind (sanctification, which is clearly stated in the text) we have Christ asking for believers to be one as He and the Father are one. Again, believers will be united and reflect Christ in love, actions, thought etc. We are IN Christ and it is only IN Christ that we can become like Him.

You have just perfectly described the only way the text can be taken.

Yet, at the same time, even though Christ said several times that this "oneness" He is praying for for His believers is "just like," or "exactly" like the oneness that exists between Him and the Father, why do you believe He meant one thing for us and another for Him?

He goes out of His way to describe that this oneness He is praying for for all believers is the very same oneness that they share... one of love and will. So, you can understand how I have a hard time believing He is speaking of some different, mystical oneness that exists between Him and the Father in a Triune make up... and as has been pointed out already, especially since that type of oneness exists no where in man or nature.

On to Isaiah...

[YoungMormonRoyalist]

The question that describes the last post by this member on page 10 still stands:

By what authority is the Nicene Creed, the definitive statement of Trinitarian's claimed status as a monotheistic religion, given?

For all the scriptural support the Nicene Christian's claim to have for the Nicene Creed, it is fully admitted that this creed in and of itself is the result of their interpretation of scripture, and thus holds the fullness of their doctrine of "three essences in one."

Scriptures can be tossed back and forth, but until the question in paragraph two is answered everything else is moot.

[Justice]

Well, first on to John 1 because it will help make a point I need to make before we discuss Isaiah.

Assuming there is a prophet of God on the earth, would he not have the power, ability, authority to interpret scripture? If you lived in the time of Moses and you did not like the law he gave, what would your options be? Would the law change because you didn't like it? Or, would you have to change your beliefs and practices to mold them to what Moses taught?

Again, assuming Joseph Smith was a prophet, here is how he said John 1 was originally written and was lost or changed over the years because people didn't understand what it meant, and to bring it in line with the changed beliefs of CHristiandom over the years...

John 1:

1 In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God.

Now, Joseph Smith's correction to this verse does not change it's meaning, but it allows it to be interpreted much more clearly. If "Christ" indeed was ordained from before the foundation of the earth to be the Savior, and we know He was, then Joseph Smith's correction to this verse is very enlightening.

Isaiah 43:

10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

I will add the next several verses because they serve to drive the point of this single verse home:

11 I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no saviour.

12 I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, that I am God.

13 Yea, before the day was I am he; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand: I will work, and who shall let it?

14 Thus saith the Lord, your redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; For your sake I have sent to Babylon, and have brought down all their nobles, and the Chaldeans, whose cry is in the ships.

15 I am the Lord, your Holy One, the creator of Israel, your King.

Jesus Christ, the Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel, was the God of the Old Testament. Before He was born of a mortal mother, He commanded Noah to build an ark, covenanted with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Israel), and appeared to Moses and gave the Mosaic Law. In His pre-mortal state, He created the earth and all things.

Continue on in John 1:

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

...10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Very simple and clear teachings that Jesus Christ is our Savior and Redeemer, and only by, in, and through Him can we become "born again" and become a son of God.

No where do these verses teach that the Son is of the same substance of the Father. In fact, there are key parts that refute this idea.

John 1: 1 says "the Word (or Christ) was "with" God.

John 1: 14 says He is the "only begotten of the Father," signifying He is "begotten of" for "from," or as Joseph SMith clarifies in his corrections, "of" God... and NOT the same as.

So, what are these verses saying?

That Jesus Christ is the only way given whereby man can be saved. He is our God, our Savior, our King, our Mediator, or Everything. He is the only way we can return to the Father. He is the chosen method or deliverer that can lead us back into the presence of God.

[Justice]

Several times "God" uses interesting language during the creation.

Genesis 1:

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...

Genesis 3:

22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil...

Explain how we're made in "their" image?

Explain why, if He is "One" as you say, He uses plural language all throughout the creation?

I have heard the answers you're about to give before, but I ask for 2 reasons.

1. So I can see your explanation, because I believe everyone is different.

2. So you can see that your interpretation is just that. Your view is just one of many ways the text can be interpreted. That plural language is used in some places, and singular language is used in other places, can be intrerpreted different ways.

You accuse me of twisting the word One, even though my interpretation is a valid definition for the word, and fits with scripture in other places.

I accuse you of misinterpreting the word One to mean something impossible to us. One is one, and three is three. One is not three, and three is not one. In fact, you can show me no other examples of this twisted definition, that might I point out is brought about only because your belief is based on an idea that was developed by a council of people who couldn't even agree on who Jesus was.

My definition is the simpler one, and is consistent with passages like these in Genesis I quoted above.

Your definition is outlandish and impossible for man to understand or explain, and requires an "interpretaiton" of the times God used "us" and "our" as something other than us and our, but making it I.

Edited December 6, 2009 by Justice

[Justice]

Yet, at the same time, even though Christ said several times that this "oneness" He is praying for for His believers is "just like," or "exactly" like the oneness that exists between Him and the Father, why do you believe He meant one thing for us and another for Him?

More specifically, I'd like to ask why you believe the council at Nicea's interpretaion of "one" and seemingly ignore Christ's own explanation of "one" in Matthew?

[pam]

God never tells us to pray over something to see if it is true

I disagree with this and I'll use a scripture that I feel disputes this:

James 1:5

If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God. That giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not and it shall be given him.

If I lack wisdom to know if something is true..the scripture tells me right there..ask of God. It doesn't say only if you lack wisdom in this or that..just if you lack wisdom.

[Flyonthewall]

Within the one being that God is there exists three co-equal and co-eternal persons, Father, Son, and Spirit. I do mean that each is fully God. I do not mean that each is A god. That's the difference.

Let me see if I am understanding you, because I do not want to put words in your mouth..."Being" = God, The Father is not God, Jesus is not God, the Holy Ghost is not God, This thing you lable "being" is God, and is larger than the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and encompasses them.

Isaiah 43:10 - Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 44:6 - Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

Isaiah 44:8 - Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.

Actually, the concept is all over Scripture. You simply do not beleive these passages.

I understand that this is how you interpret these scriptures. To LDS, your interpretation is based on the philosophies of men, and is not of God.

That is only true if you do not make a distinction between 'Being' and 'Person'. Being makes something what it is. Person makes someone who they are. Father, Son, and Spirit can all share the same being and yet have a different will because will is a characteristic of Person.

And no where in the scriptures is there a distinction made between "being" and "person". But Jesus makes sure to distinguish between himself and the Father. He is ONE with the Father, in that He came to do the will of the Father, therefore they are ONE in purpose.

Jesus prayed that His apostles would be "one" with Him as He is "one" with the Father. Even by your definition, His apostles will become God too when they are "one" with Jesus and the Father, so then the trinity is no more...it becomes the Father, Son, Holy Ghost, and the Apostles. The trinity becomes...whatever the term is for 14, if it is only the apostles that were with Him that become "one". If others can also become "one", then the trinity is meaningless and is gone forever.

That would be fine if three different gods who worked towards a single purpose was Biblical. However, it isn't. That's why it is a false teaching.

It is Biblical as I stated above. Jesus came to do the will of the Father. That is being "one" in purpose.

Theres no contradiction if you understand the fact that the number of Gods is determined by the number of beings. One being = one God. No, the Father is not 1/3 God, the Son 1/3 God, and Spirit 1/3 God. That is false. All three are 100% completely God. Time is the best example I can think of for this. Past, Present and Future are all equally time. We distinguish between them and do not confuse the past with the present or the present with the future. They are distinct. Yet all three are fully and equally time. Nor do we say there are three times. There is only one. This is not a perfect analgy, but it fits here.

This only goes to confirm my understanding of what you perceive to be "God": God is not real, it is a concept. It is not the Father, Son, or Holy Ghost, but this thing you label "being" or "essence". Edited December 6, 2009 by Flyonthewall

[Flyonthewall]

I disagree with this and I'll use a scripture that I feel disputes this:

James 1:5

If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God. That giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not and it shall be given him.

If I lack wisdom to know if something is true..the scripture tells me right there..ask of God. It doesn't say only if you lack wisdom in this or that..just if you lack wisdom.

Not only that but John 15

16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

I don't see any provisions here to exclude asking for truth.

[prisonchaplain]

Despite the truth that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is indeed the "only true and living church," our understanding of the plan of salvation doesn't condemn others to hell. That's the big difference.

Yeah, but staring your enemy down and offering a gutteral, "I'll see you in the Terrestial Kingdom!" just doesn't pack the same punch.

Let's look at it from the points of view that there is one true church, whichever one it is. If Catholics are right, then Protestants and Evangelicals are excluded from heaven because they reject Papal authority, sacraments, baptism, by authority, etc. The Pope said that there is only one true Church and said that Protestants are not "proper churches" because they lack authority. See this MSNBC article about a papal encyclical from 2007:

Pope: Jesus formed 'only one church' - The Vatican- msnbc.com

Despite what the Pope said, it's my understanding that the Catholic Church considers us Protestants to be "separated bretheren," and not heathens damned to the fiery pit.

If Evangelicals are right, then Catholics are not saved in heaven because they rely on works as well as grace.

While I agree that Catholics are wrong on this matter, CARM is wrong to point-blank declare that misapprehension of the doctrine of "faith alone," is, in and of itself, damnable. I personally listened to a Charismatic Catholic concert, complete with testimonies, heart-felt praise, and evangelical-sounding teaching. Then, in the last 10-minutes, they spoke some of their devotion to Mary. I'm not sure I could discount their faith because they focus to much, imho, on the Mother of God.

Latter-day saints do not exclude other Christians or denominations from a glorious resurrection in the afterlife. We know there are many mansions because Jesus said so. We know by revelation that all but the sons of perdition will inherit kingdoms of glory. Only those who receive the fullness of the gospel, obey its ordinances, and live faithfully will go to the Celestial Kingdom by the grace of Christ. Nevertheless, those who will inherit lesser kingdoms do so by the grace of Christ.

And there is no doubt that this is one of the more attractive of LDS distinctive teachings.

The whole argument about who is Christian and who isn't is an exercise in exclusivity. When Protestants and Catholics get it figured out, maybe they can let the world know which one of them was right.

Once again, though, while we have substantive disagreements, only the most fundamentalist Catholics and Protestants would point-blank declare the other damned, simply by association.

Meanwhile, the latter-day saints will continue to have faith in Jesus Christ, obey his commandments, and seek a remission of sin through his atonement. We'll keep the door open for the rest of Christendom once they get done bickering.

If you really think that's a fair blanket assessment, I could say the same between you and the Community of Christ, as well as the LDS splinter groups. So what if you have 90%+, and you simply declare the others apostate. From our perspective, you're all Mormons and you can't agree either. NOW PLEASE--I'M ONLY DEMONSTRATING WHY YOUR EXAMPLE DOES NOT WORK. It is just as unfair for you to blame all of Catholicism and Protestantism based on a single speech by a Pope, and by an obscure evangelical website like CARM. As they say in Georgia, "That dog don't hunt!" And that example does not work.

Logic tells us there can only be one true church or else none of them are. There can't be two true churches that contradict one another.

Surely you've heard of the universal Christian church, that fellowship made of all true believers, regardless of denomination? It's a common teaching--the understanding that perfection is in Christ, not human organization. His church is not limited to offices and structures, but is made of living flesh, human followers eager to be about the Father's business. Paul and Barnabus did not agree, and they were angry at each other. But, they did nto condemn each other to hell. Neither do most Christian churches engage is such.

[Justice]

PC, I don't go for a universal church where some can disagree about the most basic things, like baptism, and still belong to the same body of Christ. Christ made it very clear that when you are in His Church there are no disputations. All are edified, of one mind and one heart.

I'm not saying all members of the LDS Church are of one mind and one heart, but I am saying that's the way it's suppsed to be. Having a prophet is the difference to me. There must be one way and that way must be clear. If 2 members disagree we can turn to the prophet for an answer. If 2 people in the universal church disagree, there is no single leader who is led by the Spirit to settle the difference. Instead, both are allowed to retain their separate beliefs. That is not edification.

[prisonchaplain]

PC, I don't go for a universal church where some can disagree about the most basic things, like baptism, and still belong to the same body of Christ. Christ made it very clear that when you are in His Church there are no disputations. All are edified, of one mind and one heart.

But, do we really disagree about baptism? From Catholic, to Church of Christ, to Pentecostal, Independent, Non-denominational...we all baptize, in water, to the glory and dedication of and to God. We may disagree about details: how much water, what age to offer it...but our disagreements are not so vast as you allege.

Where is this line between allowable disputations and disallowed ones? There's plenty of verbal jousting at this site over the use of cola products, appropriate dress in church, when to go to the bishop, and how closely his counsel needs to be followed. Such disagreements are chalked up mostly to "agency." Fine. I'd suggest that most Protestant disagreements are matters of agency as well, and that Paul told us we would see things as cloudy, threw a smoky glass, and that only when Jesus returned would we see things clearly, as God sees them. (1 Cor 13).

I'm not saying all members of the LDS Church are of one mind and one heart, but I am saying that's the way it's suppsed to be. Having a prophet is the difference to me. There must be one way and that way must be clear. If 2 members disagree we can turn to the prophet for an answer. If 2 people in the universal church disagree, there is no single leader who is led by the Spirit to settle the difference. Instead, both are allowed to retain their separate beliefs. That is not edification.

Even with the prophet, you are often left to "agree to disagree." Not sure why you believe Protestant practice of this is so much more chaotic and disputative.

[Justice]

But, do we really disagree about baptism? From Catholic, to Church of Christ, to Pentecostal, Independent, Non-denominational...we all baptize, in water, to the glory and dedication of and to God. We may disagree about details: how much water, what age to offer it...but our disagreements are not so vast as you allege.

Yes. Some Christian churches do not believe baptism in necessary and do not require their members to be baptized. Some sprinke, while others say it must be immersion and sprinkling is not valid. You know this list could be long. I'm surprised you went with the defense you did.

Where is this line between allowable disputations and disallowed ones? There's plenty of verbal jousting at this site over the use of cola products, appropriate dress in church, when to go to the bishop, and how closely his counsel needs to be followed. Such disagreements are chalked up mostly to "agency." Fine. I'd suggest that most Protestant disagreements are matters of agency as well, and that Paul told us we would see things as cloudy, threw a smoky glass, and that only when Jesus returned would we see things clearly, as God sees them. (1 Cor 13).

The use of cola or what to wear at church are very different than an ordinance of the Gospel, like baptism. Some Baptists I know do not believe in the Trinity. They believe similar to the LDS view.

In any case, if the prophet were involved in the discussion, you would have your definate answer for cola and dress to church. However, in the universal church, there is no definiative word on many doctrinal teachings or ordinances.

Even with the prophet, you are often left to "agree to disagree." Not sure why you believe Protestant practice of this is so much more chaotic and disputative.

I believe to every question man has, God has the answer. There is an eternal, unchanging truth. Now, is blue a better color than red to wear to church, should the hem line be 1" higher or lower, are not questions with eternal weight.

[prisonchaplain]

Yes. Some Christian churches do not believe baptism in necessary and do not require their members to be baptized.

EXCEPT that IN PRACTICE we do all baptize. My church is one that does not technically require water baptism for entry into the Pearly Gates. Nevertheless, we baptize all believers, young and old. We tell our people that baptism is one of the earliest acts of obedience a new Christian can do. So again, not really so different.

Some sprinke, while others say it must be immersion and sprinkling is not valid. You know this list could be long. I'm surprised you went with the defense you did.

Well I went with it because I believe immersion is best, but those who sprinkle will not be turned away. And even those who insist on immersion usually do not say that baptism by immersion is a requirement of salvation. So again, if most Christians are baptized and most churches view those baptisms as either valid or as "acts of obedience" then the disagreement about sprinkling vs. immersion becomes a matter of denominational agency.

The use of cola or what to wear at church are very different than an ordinance of the Gospel, like baptism.

Why? Do you believe a cola addict (let's say they are swigging multiple cans of Red Bull too) will enter the Celestial Kingdom? If you even question this, then the end result is the same as between immersion and sprinkling for water baptism. Both issues will take you away from God's very best, but not cast you completely away from his blessing.

Some Baptists I know do not believe in the Trinity. They believe similar to the LDS view.

Those would be extremely rare Baptists. I've never met one.

In any case, if the prophet were involved in the discussion, you would have your definate answer for cola and dress to church. However, in the universal church, there is no definiative word on many doctrinal teachings or ordinances.

IMHO there will always be questions that your prophets simply will not address. You are left with personal agency and, from the outsider's view, the same disputations we face in Protestantism.

I believe to every question man has, God has the answer. There is an eternal, unchanging truth. Now, is blue a better color than red to wear to church, should the hem line be 1" higher or lower, are not questions with eternal weight.

I too believe God favors my church over the others. But, a good guy from another church is far superior in his eyes to a bad guy who happens to fill a pew at my church.

[rren]

I believe this is a worthwhile video to watch to everyone who is participating in this discussion:

YouTube - Are Mormon Christians? Mormon Messages by Elder Gary J Coleman Are We Christians

Edited December 7, 2009 by rren

[Guest SolaFide1]

You have just perfectly described the only way the text can be taken.

Yet, at the same time, even though Christ said several times that this "oneness" He is praying for for His believers is "just like," or "exactly" like the oneness that exists between Him and the Father, why do you believe He meant one thing for us and another for Him?

He goes out of His way to describe that this oneness He is praying for for all believers is the very same oneness that they share... one of love and will. So, you can understand how I have a hard time believing He is speaking of some different, mystical oneness that exists between Him and the Father in a Triune make up... and as has been pointed out already, especially since that type of oneness exists no where in man or nature.

On to Isaiah...

The point you are making is that I, as a Trinitarian, cannot take this to mean that we are one in every way that the Father and Son are one. I agree. That would be not be a valid interpretation. However, I suggest to you that you have the same problem. In your belief the Father and Son are one in that they exist in one godhead. Are you saying that someday you will be in the godhead with them; that the godhead will then contain four members? Isn't that one of the ways in which they are one? Obviously neither of us can take the passage to mean one in every possible way.

But, that's not a problem because that's not what Jesus is saying. Jesus did not say, "make them one in every single way that we are one." No, He said, " that they may be one, even as we are one" (v 22). It is obvious that Jesus is talking in a particular sense. And, considering that in the preceding verses He is talking about the sanctification of believers, that must be what He means.

So, I would simply ask yo to be consistent. If you are going to say that it refutes Trinitarian belief because it must be one in EVERY way then must hold yourself to the same standard and must admit that it refutes LDS for the very same reason.

[Guest SolaFide1]

The question that describes the last post by this member on page 10 still stands:

By what authority is the Nicene Creed, the definitive statement of Trinitarian's claimed status as a monotheistic religion, given?

For all the scriptural support the Nicene Christian's claim to have for the Nicene Creed, it is fully admitted that this creed in and of itself is the result of their interpretation of scripture, and thus holds the fullness of their doctrine of "three essences in one."

Scriptures can be tossed back and forth, but until the question in paragraph two is answered everything else is moot.

I do not base my belief in the Trinity on the creeds. That is not to say that they are unimportant; on the contrary, they are very helpful. But I am Trinitarian because the Scriptures themselves compel me to be. So the "authority" does not bind either of us. Scripture does.

[spamlds]

The argument that the Bible is the only measure of truth and that it is the only common ground from which we can discuss our religion with others is a red herring. The Bible is the source of contention, not just with Latter-day Saints and sectarian Christians, but also between Christian sects. Sectarians don't have one common canon between them. Even those who agree on a particular version don't agree on what it means.

If it were possible that the Bible could bring unity of faith, wouldn't it have done so in 1,700 years of its existence?

The real answer is that the Holy Ghost is the measure of all truth. It bears witness of all truth, including the Bible and the Book of Mormon. The argument that the Bible is the sole way to assess truth is specious and is used by the Adversary to turn men away from the source of revelation that saves souls.

[thekabalist]

I am not saying that every single person will view it exactly as I do. If you disagree with my classification of God's 'being' as that which is definitional of how many gods there are then that is your right. However, I simply state and believe that you fundamentally misunderstand what makes a Monotheist.

Oh I don't misunderstand it. I just think that in practical terms you are no different than those whom you are condemning and thus I believe you are using double-standards. I have no problem with you viewing G-d as a Trinity. I have a problem with you thinking that somehow your solution to fit 3 into 1 is better than someone else's and therefore monotheistic.

'Being' is what makes something what it is. It is the essence or nature of that thing. 'Person' is not being used in the modern definition of the word where you can almost use it interchangeably with 'Being'. When I speak of a 'Person' in this sense I mean the ability to utilize personal attributes such as speech and thought, etc. Take a rock, for example. Rocks have essence. It's what makes a rock what it is. But it does not have personhood. A rock cannot speak or think or feel. If we use the words 'Being' and 'person' interchangeably then a rock is either both a being and a person or not a being nor a person.

Most philosophers would disagree that a rock is a being. A being has life. A rock does not.

Still you miss my point. I doesn't matter how many examples you try to come up with it always comes down to a moment in which you have to attempt to make three distinct entities become one. And this is not strict monotheism. So to me it doesn't matter if you call such entities 'being' or 'person' or 'mind' or anything else. There are still 3 that become 1. This is not strict monotheism. And it is arrogant to say the least that when someone else proposes a different solution to the 3 x 1 dilemma that you label them as being polytheistic while considering yourself a monotheist.

With all due respect, sir, I believe that by such statements you demonstrate that you do not understand either the Trinity not historical Mormonism. The leaders of the LDS church have always held that there are multiple gods and up until very recently they have been very vocal about it. (I would suggest that they still believe and teach it, just not as overtly.) For someone to admit that they believe in many Gods by definition cancels them out as Monotheists. I do not define Mormons out of the term, sir. Mormons define themselves out of it by there adherence to a polytheistic system.

With all due respect, sir, I don't believe you as a non-LDS are qualified to judge my knowledge of LDS faith. I believe only the LDS are qualified to make such an assessment and I will humbly accept it if I hear it from them. But apparently you are the one whom they disagree with concerning how you are representing their view. I have a serious issue with how mainstream Christians have the tendency of misrepresenting other faiths. It is just like when some claim that Christianity is about grace while Judaism is about works. That is far from the truth.

As for the Trinity I do understand it. Because I disagree with it doesn't mean I don't understand it. I don't mean to say this to brag but if a Jewish rabbi can't understand the Trinity then how can the average folk understand it? If they don't understand it then what do they in practical terms actually believe in?

And the Trinity does not make God schtzophrenic. Some people believe that there are not really three persons and that Father, Son, and Spirit are just different manifestations as the one person. I would site this view as in error and would properly justify the term schizophrenia in usage of this view. (One person who talks to himself in three different ways.) However, Trinitarians have always maintained the distinctiveness of Faher, Son, and Spirit.

In multiple-personality disorder there are actually different persons within one mind.

All three have always existed for all eternity. They are not interchangeable as they serve vitally different, although fundamentally united, roles in salvation, creation, etc. So I would respectfully suggest that you should read on the topic more before you criticize it, or at least consider using terms that are at least relevant.

Again because I disagree doesn't mean that I am ignorant.

Yes, the Bible does say that man is created in God's image. (Although for a Unitarian gentlemen such as yourself I would suggest considering what God means in verses such as Gen. 1:26 where He says, "Let US make man in OUR image.")

Judaism maintains that the angels were involved in creation. In traditional Jewish view G-d was speaking to the angels.

I would argue that this has to do with capacities being like Gods, such as our ability to think, feel, make moral and free will choices, etc. which are all things that set us apart from any other creature. And nature does speak of God. But it speaks of His goodness, justice, creativity, etc. For you to say that nature must demonstrate His Triune nature is our reading something into the text that it does not say. I do not like the water analogy as it does indeed point to Modalism. In think time is a better example, although it is not a perfect one.

I believe Modalism to be far closer to monotheism and yet you mainstream christians see it as heretical. But that's your choice. What I am saying about nature is that G-d would never lead us to even try to believe in something that we are completely uncapable of grasping. The human mind cannot really grasp a belief in a Trinity because there is no symbolic representation of it in his mind as there is nothing that is experimentable that can bring such a representation. This means that those who believe in the Trinity in their daily lives will automatically resort to a simpler concept such as modalism or maybe three beings even if they intellectually maintain that they believe in the Trinity. I don't believe G-d would have created man with the sheer incapacity of understanding who He is if He was the one who wished for such understanding in the first place. Genesis best describes how we can understand Him when it says we were created in His image. He is saying: Do you want to know how I am? Look at yourself in the mirror. This is how I am. And yet the Trinity is Greek philosophy not semitic thought. No serious unbiased scholar maintains that the early Jewish followers of Jesus would have believed in such a system. It was completely alien to their culture and it is still strange in these days.

Is God's nature complicated? Yes, it certainly is and I in know way nor will I ever in this life fully grasp it. But that does not make it illogical. (I would say it is perfectly logical.) That simply means that God is bigger and more complicated than my capacities can fathom.

The fact that the Trinity is complicated doesn't mean that it is how G-d really is.

When someone says, "We believe in many gods, they are not Monotheistic". The discussion is as simple as that.

When someone says, "We believe in many divine persons, they are not Monotheistic". The discussion is as simple as that.

See how your very arguments can be used against you? There's your double standard.

Finally, to your point about there being many different denominations and readings of the Bible. Yes, there are many different understandings of the Bible.

This contradicts what you said earlier. You said that if you read the Bible with someone else then the Bible will give the clear message. You know better than that.

b'shalom!

[rayhale]

Thekabbalist, it is my understanding that in Hebrew, the word G-d is plural. If that is the case, then explain how that can be?

[thekabalist]

Thekabbalist, it is my understanding that in Hebrew, the word G-d is plural. If that is the case, then explain how that can be?

Yes. The word is אלוהים sometimes written as אלהים (Elohim). The term אל (EL) means Power. So the term literally means 'powers' or 'powerful ones'.

There are two traditional explanations in Judaism to the plurality of this term. One of them is that the Jewish people has always seen that the powers of this world - the ones that control nature and interfere with the fate of mankind - all come from one source. So you could interpret Elohim as meaning "the source of all powers".

The other explanation offered is that this is a superlative form of plural which is not really uncommon in Hebrew. The very term Christians like very much "King of Kings" is an example it would mean "the highest king".

So these are the two traditional views. It is important to understand that this doesn't happen only with the term Elohim. Other words are only plural in Hebrew such as חיים (chayyim - life) and מים (mayim - water).

b'shalom!