LDS as a Christian Denomination

[prisonchaplain]

If it doesn't impress Jews or Muslims, you can tell them they have a different idea about Jesus.

:)

Our claims to monotheism do not impress, and oh yes, they do have different ideas about Jesus! On the other hand, Muslims call us "people of the book," and, based on the Seven Laws of Noah, most Jews I've spoken with would guess that most faithful Christians of all stripes will find favor with God on the Day of Judgment.

[SolaFide]

Okay. I came here because i wished to have an honest, open discussion with members of the Latter Day Saints. I want to investigate Scripture with any who is willing and present the Gospel of Christ. In doing this, I know that it will be offensive because I am out of necessity saying that Mormons are wrong. But, I try not to offend any more than I have to. I am doing my best to show respect to everyone here and to properly understand their beliefs. However, I must say that I do not feel you are showing you (Vort) are showing me the same courtesy. I know you do not agree with me and I do not expect you to. But I would expect you to at least treat me with respect. Your continuous mehtodology of calling me a liar, saying that I am misrepresenting myself, that I am making things up, etc. is not what I would consider respectful. So, I will respond to your questions here, but if you continue to show the same level of vitriol that you have done so far then I am simply going to ignore you and move on to someone who is actually interested in having a meaningful conversation. I' apologize if I have disrepected you in any way. Lets try to be curtious to one another.

But it is not Biblical doctrine. You (or someone else) just made the word up. No scriptural usage at all.

The term Trinity (Tri-unity) is an attempt to explain the how the three persons are at the same time one being. Your simply stating that it is not a Biblical doctrine des not make it so. But I realize that me saying it is is no better so I will explain it and give Scripture refrences below.

Wrong. It is used throughout the Bible. A few examples:

Matthew 1:1 Βίβλος γενέσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ...

John 20:30 ...οὐκ ἔστιν γεγραμμένα ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ

Revelation 22:19 καὶ ἐάν τις ἀφαιρῇ ἀπὸ τῶν λόγων βίβλου τῆς προφητείας ταύτης ἀφαιρήσει ὁ θεὸς τὸ μέρος αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ βίβλου τῆς ζωῆς καὶ ἐκ τῆς πόλεως τῆς ἁγίας καὶ τῶν γεγραμμένων ἐν βιβλίῳ τούτῳ

I don't think you understood what I meant. In the English Bible, the word Bible is not there. You can't find it. In the Greek, we do see the word 'biblos'', which we translate into english to means books. As ou kindly pointed out, the Greek word for books does appear in the text. But the english word 'Bible' is not a translation of biblos but rather a transliteration. We find the translated word 'books' many times, but never the transliterated word 'Bible'. We use Bible as a title in English.

My point in this section is that we often use words or terms that do not appear in the text of Scripture to try to describe an idea that we see there. The word 'monotheism' never

appears in the Bible but the concept does. You do the same thing as a Mormon. Eternal Progression, celestial kingdom, exaltation, etc. are all words that LDS members use to describe an idea that they believe is in the Bible.

Speaking of which, you might wish to review the proper usage of the apostrophe in the word "it's".

Thank you for correcting my grammatical mistake.

What leads you to believe that I don't understand the creedal Christian concept of "Trinity", invented after Paul's death and formalized in the fourth century AD?

The fact that my differentiating between Father and Son caused you to think I was no longer a monotheist makes me believe that you do not understand the Trinity. So, I will do my best to explain it. There are (ironically) three legs that make up the Trinity.

1. Monotheism. We see this over an over again in Scriptrure where God says that He is the only God. I beleive that there is one God and only one God. (Deuteronomy 6:4, Isaiah 43:10, Isaiah 44:6, Galatians 4:8-9, etc.)

2. Threre are three eternal Persons described in Scripture. These three eternal persons are never mixed up. They are always carefully differintiated between (Matthew 3:13-17, Matthew 28:18-20, etc.). The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Spirit, the Spirit is not the Father.

3. The equality of being of the three eternal persons. All three are said to be God. Father (Matthew 6:9, Philippians 1:2, Colossians 1:3), Son (John 1:1-18, John 20:28, Hebrews 1:8, etc.), and Spirit (Acts 5:3-4, 1 Corinthians 3:16, etc.)

We cannot say that there are three gods because that would violate the doctrine that there is only one God. We cannot say that the three persons are all just different modes or expressions of God because that would violate the doctrine of the three persons. Andone cannot say that one of the persons is God while the other two are lower because that violates the Biblical doctrine that all three persons are identified as God.

So how have Christians reconcilled these ideas? The Trinity. There is one God (one being) who exists as three co-equal, co-eternal persons: Father, Son, and Spirit.

I hope that clears things up.

So "Christian" wasn't good enough for you? You felt that you had to misrepresent yourself?

This is the stuff I was talking about at the top. I did not realize that I was able to identify myself in the profile as simply 'Christian' and not LDS. Even now I do not know how I can change it. I openly declare that I am Christian not LDS.

Seriously? You could figure out how to select "Christian/LDS", but you couldn't figure out how to select "Christian"?

See the response directly above.

What makes you think you're qualified to make a distinction between the Lord's Church and what you think it should be?

Easy. The Scriptures. They reveal to us who God is and how He exists. I compare all claims about God, the church (both yours and mine), etc. to the revealed Word of God to see who matches up.

This proves nothing. How does being a spirit disqualify one from having a body? THE SAME VERSE OF SCRIPTURE says that we must worship "in spirit". If your interpretation is correct -- this scripture proves that the Father has no body because he is "spirit" -- then you must believe yourself incapable of worshiping, since you DO have a body.

I have brought this point up before. You ignored it. Dishonesty? Or just an oversight? Here's your chance to set the record straight.

Why? YOU are the one making the strange claim -- that an existent being is incorporeal. Prove it.

Being a spirit does not disqualify the possibility of having a body. I never said that. Humans have both a body and a spirit. The verse in question says the Father is Spirit. My point is that there is Biblical evidence to support that the Father is a spirit. I am asking you for verses that show that the Father has a body.

Besides, the Bible has numerous references to God as having a body. Here is a quick sampling:

Genesis 1:27 God created man in his own image.

Genesis 5:1 ...in the likeness of God made he him.

Genesis 32:30 I have seen God face to face.

Exodus 24;10 And they saw the God of Israel, and there was under his feet as it were a paved work...

Exodus 31:18 And he gave unto Moses...two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.

Exodus 33:23 And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.

Matthew 4:4 Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

John 14:9 ...he that hath seen me hath seen the Father.

2 Corinthians 4:4 ...Christ, who is the image of God.

Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 5:1. You are assuming that this means in a physical image. I would suggest that this has more to do with mental and spiritual capacities. (Thinking, reasoning, choice, etc.)

Genesis 32:30 I would suggest that this is actually the pre-incarnate Son, whom I have no problem saying has a body.

Exodus 24:10, Exodus 31:18, Exodus 33:23, Matthew 4:4. I would suggest that all of these are anthropomorphisms. These are simply ways that God communicates ideas to us so that we will better understant them. There are verses that say God has wings (Ruth 2:12, Psalm 36:7, etc.) as well. If you take these expressions to mean that God really had these various body parts then He must have wings as well, which is problematic because if our being in his image means in his physical image then why do we not have wings?

John 14:9 Jesus is talking in a spiritual sense. He is saying that seeing (which is often used as a synomym for believing) Him will is the same as seeing the Father in that we see His attributes, character, etc.

2 Corinthians 4:4 Above I said that us being in the the image of God is spiritual. But we are IN the image of God because we are not wholly in God's image. Christ, however, is THE image of God because He perfectly reflects the Fathers character, attributes, etc.

[SolaFide]

And what exactly do you hope to accomplish thru such a Biblical interchange? I mean what real value is there in "proving" that you are "right" other than the satisfaction of the selfish win and the chest beating that follows? Is this the process of conversion that the scriptures we both love talks about?

Other than wondering how such a strategy could ever be considered effective (no matter who is doing it), I scratch my head as these religious contests play out and as they fail to show the love of the God we profess to worship.

Why not instead come to a website like this with an open mind seeking to understand more of another's position rather than coming in with guns a blazing which no doubt puts the natives on the defense? I understand that both our religious organizations place a great deal of emphasis on gaining converts, but I would think that at the very least you catch more with honey. And even that, is so far beneath where I think the Lord wants us to be. Where two or more are gathered in HIs name..... I would think at least love and mutual respect is better than all the fruits of bashing.

Enough of my commentary. Let the games continue if they must.

What do I hope to accomplish? I hope to win souls for Christ. I want people to see the glorious truth of His gospel and know Him in truth. If we examine the Bible together and I am proven wrong I will change my mind because I want to be in the truth. I am willing to look at the areas of Scripture that you feel support your position and think long and hard about them. But, if my faith is proven right then I would not beat my chest or gloat. That would serve no purpose. Rather, it would just pollute the spread of the Gospel. I am so confident because I know of the truth which the Scriptures teach. I do not wich to insult you, harm you or attack you. But you are wrong in your views on God. Paul's approach was to reason with the Jews from the Scriptures (Acts 17:2). So, can we do as Paul did and reason together from the Word of God?

[pam]

This is the stuff I was talking about at the top. I did not realize that I was able to identify myself in the profile as simply 'Christian' and not LDS. Even now I do not know how I can change it. I openly declare that I am Christian not LDS.

I corrected this for you.

[pam]

What do I hope to accomplish? I hope to win souls for Christ. I want people to see the glorious truth of His gospel and know Him in truth. If we examine the Bible together and I am proven wrong I will change my mind because I want to be in the truth. I am willing to look at the areas of Scripture that you feel support your position and think long and hard about them. But, if my faith is proven right then I would not beat my chest or gloat. That would serve no purpose. Rather, it would just pollute the spread of the Gospel. I am so confident because I know of the truth which the Scriptures teach. I do not wich to insult you, harm you or attack you. But you are wrong in your views on God. Paul's approach was to reason with the Jews from the Scriptures (Acts 17:2). So, can we do as Paul did and reason together from the Word of God?

Okay I'm going to speak as a moderator here. This is an LDS site and as such, I respectfully request that you please not come to an LDS site and make these kinds of comments. It's not the way to have any kind of a conversation here.

Let me show one of the rules of the site:

1. Do not post, upload, or otherwise submit anything to the site that is derogatory towards The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, its teachers, or its leaders. Anti-LDS Propaganda will not be tolerated anywhere.

[SolaFide]

Okay I'm going to speak as a moderator here. This is an LDS site and as such, I respectfully request that you please not come to an LDS site and make these kinds of comments. It's not the way to have any kind of a conversation here.

Let me show one of the rules of the site:

1. Do not post, upload, or otherwise submit anything to the site that is derogatory towards The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, its teachers, or its leaders. Anti-LDS Propaganda will not be tolerated anywhere.

Thank you for changing my profile status. For the life of me I could not figure it out.

How do you suggest that I have conversation then?

[pam]

By saying things like...this is what I believe...or I disagree with that and this is my opinion..acknowledging the answers that people are giving..saying..I can kind of see what you are saying though that's not the way I understand it.

There are ways to have conversations and be respectful..and that goes both ways..but to just come in and say we have views of God wrong..ends any kind of conversation right there.

[pam]

So can we start again? With both sides being respectful of opinions.

[Vanhin]

By these things we know that there is a God in heaven, who is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God, the framer of heaven and earth, and all things which are in them...

...Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen. (D&C 20:17,28)

The above is from our scriptures - that is the official doctrine of the Church, and that is precisely what this latter-day saint believes in. You can quote anyone you like and it doesn't change a thing. We worship God the Father in the name of Jesus Christ, in Spirit and truth, and all three constitute the One True God. You will find nothing else in our scriptures, but that. If you want to prove our doctrine is something else, do it by our scriptures, not obscure quotes you don't even understand to begin with. Or better yet, let us explain it to you, if you really want to understand it.

Take a look at this article: Approaching Mormon Doctrine - LDS Newsroom

What is happening in the following verse from the Holy Bible?

And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? (Matt. 27:46)

Jesus is quoting from Psalm 22:1, a messianic Psalm that describs how the Messiah would be crushed for the sake of His people. It was intended to further show those in attendance who He really was.

Yes, the prophecy in Psalm 22:1 was fulfilled in Christ. What is happening here, is God the Father has withdrawn His presence from Christ, so that He can experience spiritual death; which, being perfectly sinless, He had never experienced, and was a crucial part of the atonement. Spiritual death is separation from God and His influence. For a brief time, Christ had to do this part of the atonement alone. He was separated from His God and our God (John 20:17).

So, how did His God forsake Him, if They are the same being? How is that possible?

Regards,
Vanhin

[SolaFide]

By these things we know that there is a God in heaven, who is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God, the framer of heaven and earth, and all things which are in them...

...Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen. (D&C 20:17,28)

The above is from our scriptures - that is the official doctrine of the Church, and that is precisely what this latter-day saint believes in. You can quote anyone you like and it doesn't change a thing. We worship God the Father in the name of Jesus Christ, in Spirit and truth, and all three constitute the One True God. You will find nothing else in our scriptures, but that. If you want to prove our doctrine is something else, do it by our scriptures, not obscure quotes you don't even understand to begin with. Or better yet, let us explain it to you, if you really want to understand it.

So. . . Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon church, the man who is responsible for the translation of the Book of Mormon, can make a statement that he and his followers are polytheistic and have always been polytheist and you simply dismiss him? Are you saying Joseph Smith was wrong? I certainly believe that he was wrong but I beleive he was wrong on many counts.

Take a look at this article: Approaching Mormon Doctrine - LDS Newsroom

Yes, the prophecy in Psalm 22:1 was fulfilled in Christ. What is happening here, is God the Father has withdrawn His presence from Christ, so that He can experience spiritual death; which, being perfectly sinless, He had never experienced, and was a crucial part of the atonement. Spiritual death is separation from God and His influence. For a brief time, Christ had to do this part of the atonement alone. He was separated from His God and our God (John 20:17).

So, how did His God forsake Him, if They are the same being? How is that possible?

Regards,

Vanhin

Because of the differentiation of the persons in the one being of God. The Father forsook the Son. There is no division of being here. The different persons in the Trinity are the question. And since there are three persons in the one being there is no problem.

Edited December 3, 2009 by SolaFide

[thekabalist]

First of all, you are making a very broad statement. "You will never convince individual X". Seeing as how you do not know every Jew and every Muslim, that is a little presumptuous, isn't it? An honest person who recognizes that Being is what defines what something is will see that the number of beings correspnds to number of Gods. This is not the issue that divides Christians from Muslims or Jews. Some might misunderstand the issue and claim it is the problem, but it is not. A person who beleives in one being of God is a monotheist. The separation comes over the number of persons in God. Christians are Trinitarian Monotheists. Muslims and Jews and Unitarian Monotheists. Thats the issue.

The problem is that your definition of "being" versus "person" is sheer terminology for those of us who are strict Monotheists. For me if these "persons" have independent mind, action and communication then they are different beings. The fact that you claim otherwise doesn't change that to us. You are entitled to believe as you wish and I do not think you will go to hell or anything of that sort. However I believe that you are guilty of using double standards in your accusations against the LDS simply by playing around with word terminology. In the end both you and them acknowledge 3 spiritual characters that you perceive as being in unity. I just think the LDS definition is more theologically honest than attempting to portray G-d as schizophrenic. Both our Bibles say that G-d created men in his likeness. I don't see any human beings that are three persons in one. Even the New Testament says that nature speaks of G-d (and I agree) and yet you are unable to give one example in nature that is similar to the Trinity. All the examples are either by pointing different parts of a total like St. Patrick's example - which is not what the Trinity claims since all the persons are fully considered G-d. Or they are different states of one same thing like the water example I once heard from a Christian. The problem is that these two ways of representation are more in line with the LDS view (first one) or with the modalist view (second). So you guys come up with a theology that cannot be perceived by logic neither by experience neither is plainly stated even in the New Testament. And then you point fingers at others for having a "strange" doctrine that you do not perceive as being Monotheistic. It's not that hard to see the double standards you're using.

b'shalom!

[thekabalist]

Again, I disagree. I beleie we can look at Scripturea and one of us will be refuted. od has spoken and He has donw so clearly. Will you examine the Scripture with me to see what is says?

Then why is it that so many different Christian groups with equally well-meaning and G-d-seeking people disagree on so many levels? Why are there thousands of Christian denominations? A Pentecostal, a Presbyterian, a Baptist, a Lutheran, a Roman Catholic, an Eastern Orthodox Catholic, a Western Orthodox Catholic, a Seventh-Day Adventist, a JW, all believe in the Bible and yet they disagree on many levels. How is that clear? Or do you propose that only one of such groups has it really figured out?

b'shalom!

[Vanhin]

So. . . Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon church, the man who is responsible for the translation of the Book of Mormon, can make a statement that he and his followers are polytheistic and have always been polytheist and you simply dismiss him? Are you saying Joseph Smith was wrong? I certainly believe that he was wrong but I beleive he was wrong on many counts.

I'm saying two things. 1) You don't appear to understand what he is saying to begin with, and 2) Joseph Smith, the prophet of God, had every opportunity to add doctrine that suggested polytheism into our canon of scripture. But he didn't. So, why don't you show us from our scriptures, how we are polytheistic. Use the Book of Mormon (or any of our volumes of canonized scripture) if you want. I challenge you.

Did you read the link I provided?

Because of the differentiation of the persons in the one being of God. The Father forsook the Son. There is no division of being here. The different persons in the Trinity are the question. And since there are three persons in the one being there is no problem.

That's not making much sense to me.

So, God left his Son alone in person, but not in being? Does this mean that in every other instance of Jesus' life, the Father was with Him in person?

Jesus Christ had to not only suffer for the sins of all mankind, He had to "descend below it all", in order to accomplish the great Atonement (D&C 88:6). He had to experience separation from God, like us sinners do, because that is part of the price we owe for our sins.

What you are claiming, renders the Savior's statement false... According to you, God never actually forsook the Savior.

What Joseph Smith has taught, is nothing short of what Jehovah who is Jesus Christ, teaches.

"Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?" (John 10:34)

What do designations like "God is God of gods" mean in scriptures like Deuteronomy 10:17?

For the Lord your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward: (Deut. 10:17)

I think you either have to accept us as monotheist or admit you are polytheist as well, if you use the scriptures as a guide. It is far easier to prove the Godhead as we understand it, than creedal Trinity from the Holy Bible.

Regards,

Vanhin

[Vanhin]

And I think thekabalist rocks...

Sincerely,

Vanhin

[Maxel]

Again, I disagree. I beleie we can look at Scripturea and one of us will be refuted. od has spoken and He has donw so clearly. Will you examine the Scripture with me to see what is says?

You may post scriptures that support trinitarian theory, but I will interpret them differently- because said scriptures do not clearly teach the doctrine of the Trinity. I've danced this dance many times before with many different people- I have read the entire New Testament at least once before, as well as doing some minor research on the topic. I am not ignorant of what the Bible says.

No less prestige a source than the Harper's Bible Dictionary admits that the doctrine of the Trinity cannot be found explicitly taught in the New Testament. More precisely, it states (as quoted from the talk The Only True God and Jesus Christ Whom He Has Sent by LDS Apostle Jeffrey R. Holland):

"the formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the [New Testament].” (Source (#3)).

For further discussion on the philosophical foundations of the Trinity, see Stephen E. Robinson's The Doctrinal Exclusion: Trinity and the Nature of God. You can also look to the chapter on the nature of God in the book How Wide the Divide, co-authored by professors Stephen E. Robinson (a Mormon scholar) and Craig L. Blomberg (an Evangelical scholar).

I hope you'll see that, as far as finding evidence for trinitarian doctrine in the Bible, the most convincing arguments rely heavily on interpretive assumptions, not hard evidence from the text itself.

And to the Muslim/Jew issue, the issue is Trinitarian Monotheism vs. Unitarian Monotheism. Would some misunderstand the issue and turn it into Monotheism vs Polytheism? Yes. But that is a flawed way of arguing.

thekabalist takes issue with this stance, as do I and Islamic theology. You can argue that Jews and Muslims misunderstand their own theology, or yours- but the fact is that an agreement that a triune God is monotheistic is a one-sided agreement. Edited December 7, 2009 by Maxel
fix coding

[Flyonthewall]

Joseph Smith, teaches that God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are each individually God, and therefore there are at least 3 Gods. However, these 3 Gods comprise one Godhead which is the One Eternal God.

Trinitarianism states that God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are each individually God, but since 3 Gods would violate "monotheism" we can't say there are 3 Gods, so we will just throw in some esoteric terms of philosophy and ta-dah!, there is only one God!

[SolaFide]

The problem is that your definition of "being" versus "person" is sheer terminology for those of us who are strict Monotheists. For me if these "persons" have independent mind, action and communication then they are different beings. The fact that you claim otherwise doesn't change that to us. You are entitled to believe as you wish and I do not think you will go to hell or anything of that sort.

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. '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. This presents obvious flaws. Christians see that throughout the Bible there is the often repeated fact that there is only one God. Yet, we also notice that three persons (Father, Son, Spirit) claim the one divine name. One God (one being that makes God what He is) and three co-equal, co-eternal persons that exist as God. We conclude with the Trinity.

[OUOTE=thekabalist]However I believe that you are guilty of using double standards in your accusations against the LDS simply by playing around with word terminology. In the end both you and them acknowledge 3 spiritual characters that you perceive as being in unity. I just think the LDS definition is more theologically honest than attempting to portray G-d as schizophrenic.

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.

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. 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.

Both our Bibles say that G-d created men in his likeness. I don't see any human beings that are three persons in one. Even the New Testament says that nature speaks of G-d (and I agree) and yet you are unable to give one example in nature that is similar to the Trinity. All the examples are either by pointing different parts of a total like St. Patrick's example - which is not what the Trinity claims since all the persons are fully considered G-d. Or they are different states of one same thing like the water example I once heard from a Christian. The problem is that these two ways of representation are more in line with the LDS view (first one) or with the modalist view (second). So you guys come up with a theology that cannot be perceived by logic neither by experience neither is plainly stated even in the New Testament. And then you point fingers at others for having a "strange" doctrine that you do not perceive as being Monotheistic. It's not that hard to see the double standards you're using.

b'shalom!

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.") 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.

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.

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

Finally, to your point about there being many different denominations and readings of the Bible. Yes, there are many different understandings of the Bible. (In passing I note that in many cases several denominations believe almost the exact same thing as one another with a few small changes here or there. The small stuff, however, simply make practical functioning easier as two groups who agree to disagree on those matters, rather than one big group that struggles with certain real-world situations.) This in no way, however, suggests a lack of clarity in God's revelation. Because that is ultimately what this criticism is, that God has not done a sufficient enough job of revealing Himself. Many times people misread things or realize what is there and simply do not want to accept it. This is a fundamental problem with humanity; not with God. When we truly place ourselves under the submission of His word and allow it to conform us to His thinking then we will be thoroughly Biblical. That is what I believe.

[SolaFide]

I'm saying two things. 1) You don't appear to understand what he is saying to begin with, and 2) Joseph Smith, the prophet of God, had every opportunity to add doctrine that suggested polytheism into our canon of scripture. But he didn't. So, why don't you show us from our scriptures, how we are polytheistic. Use the Book of Mormon (or any of our volumes of canonized scripture) if you want. I challenge you.

1) I actually think it is quite clear. When someone says, "I will preach on the plurality of Gods. I have selected this text for this exact purpose. I wish to declare I have always and in all congregations when I have preached on the subject of Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods. It has been preached by the Elders for fifteen years", I think it is self-evident what that person means. In my estimation the only way someone could understand it differently would be if they simply did not want to see it. However, if you honestly think that Joseph Smith was not advocating polytheism here, then I would love to here your interpretation of the quote. Please tell me what you think.

2) Joseph Smith said this same kind of thing over and over again, as did many other Mormon Prophets and Apostles. So why is not found in the Bok of Mormon or the Doctrine and Covenants? Because those were written early in Joseph Smith's life and these quotes came later in his life. I suggest to you that Joseph Smith had a theology that developed and changed over time.

Did you read the link I provided?

I did indeed. One thing that I would like to point out is something that I saw i this link and have heard many LDS folks say in the past (including yourself above). That is this idea that if it wasn't in the BoM, D&C, or Pearl of Great Price, then it doesn't matter (or at least isn't binding.) But that is nonsense. If the Prophet who founds your religion holds to a particular doctrine and says it over and over again, then why is that not binding? Do simply disregard Joseph Smith's interpretation of your Scriptures? If today we found a document where one of the Biblical apostles (John, Paul, etc.) made some interpretation of the text that they themselves had written, then I would consider that binding. The inspired men of God are telling you what this means. So why is that different with your prophets? Or rather, why is it different on certain occasions? When your prophets tell you that the Bible has been corrupted over time or that there was a great apostasy, you accept it on no other authority than the fact that they said so. But if they say that there are many gods or something of this nature you reject it. Why? In all honesty I do not understand this and see it as a contradiction.

That's not making much sense to me.

So, God left his Son alone in person, but not in being? Does this mean that in every other instance of Jesus' life, the Father was with Him in person?

The Father was pouring out His full wrath upon the Son. The Son was facing spiritual separation (when we face separation from God it is not that God has moved to a different location, but rather that our sinful nature is at odds with His holy nature) and was a spiritual abandonment, not a physical abandonment. (As I would say that the Father does not have a physical body and is omnipresent, therefore He cannot remove Himself in that sense.) In the spiritual sense, yes, I would say that the Father and the Son had never been separated before this point.

Jesus Christ had to not only suffer for the sins of all mankind, He had to "descend below it all", in order to accomplish the great Atonement (D&C 88:6). He had to experience separation from God, like us sinners do, because that is part of the price we owe for our sins.

What you are claiming, renders the Savior's statement false... According to you, God never actually forsook the Savior.

I do not accept D&C as authoritative in the first place. However, in any case I am not suggesting that Jesus never suffered separation from the Father. I simply say it was a spiritual separation only.

What Joseph Smith has taught, is nothing short of what Jehovah who is Jesus Christ, teaches.

"Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?" (John 10:34)

What do designations like "God is God of gods" mean in scriptures like Deuteronomy 10:17?

For the Lord your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward: (Deut. 10:17)

I think you either have to accept us as monotheist or admit you are polytheist as well, if you use the scriptures as a guide. It is far easier to prove the Godhead as we understand it, than creedal Trinity from the Holy Bible.

Regards,

Vanhin

Well, I would disagree with you and say what Joseph Smith taught was actually very far from what Jesus taught.

In John 10:34 Jesus is quoting from Psalm 82:6, which is a passage that is about the unrighteous judges of Israel. God had given them God-like authority over the people and yet they were abusing there powers and not bringing about the Lord's justice. God is condemning them. In John 10:34, Jesus is making this same application to the Jewish leaders. They are being corrupt judges, abusing their God given authority, and will suffer punishment for it. Mormons have typically used this passage to substantiate their doctrine of Eternal Progression, that men can become gods. That view in an of itself shatters Monotheism. (f you are intending a different sense in this passage then please let me know.)

Deuteronomy 10:17 is a symbolic statement of power. The Ancient Near East was an incredibly Polytheistic place as well as nationalistic. Each set of gods ruled their own land. No one would ever think to say something like, "my God can come into your territory and beat your God" because such an idea simply didn't exist in their minds. Your gods couldn't cross their boundaries. So when God says that He is the God of Gods and the Lord of Lords, He is making a claim that He is sovereign over all things, including the "gods" and lands of the other nations. He is demonstrating His authority to His people.

I would suggest that LDS folks out of necessity dismiss that passages that teach Monotheism.

2 Kings 19:15 - And Hezekiah prayed before the LORD, and said, O LORD God of Israel, which dwellest between the cherubims, thou art God, even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth; thou hast made heaven and earth. (KJV)

Psalm 86:10 - For thou art great, and doest wondrous things; thou art God alone.

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." (KJV)

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 besides Me there is no God." (KJV)

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.

Galatians 4;8 - Howbeit then, when ye knew God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods. (KJV)

1 Timothy 2:5 - For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ. (KJV)

I reject your assertion that we are either both Monotheists or Polytheists. I believe in one God. Not one three gods who are one in purpose, but one God. Your usage of Scripture (or dare I say misusage) that was intended to show how there could be multiple gods proves my point. You believe in many gods and cannot be called Monotheistic. We are in fundamentally different religions.

[SolaFide]

Joseph Smith, teaches that God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are each individually God, and therefore there are at least 3 Gods. However, these 3 Gods comprise one Godhead which is the One Eternal God.

Trinitarianism states that God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are each individually God, but since 3 Gods would violate "monotheism" we can't say there are 3 Gods, so we will just throw in some esoteric terms of philosophy and ta-dah!, there is only one God!

The problem is that when we say, "the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are each individually God" we mean different things. You mean that there are 3 distinct gods. I mean that there is one being of God that is shared by three co-equal, co-eternal persons.

Yes, Trinitarian do look at it and realize that three gods would violate the Biblical and often stated doctrine of Monotheism. Yet there are three distinct persons who are called by the divine name. Trinitarians bring things together in a way that, although complicated, does not contradict any one of these three Biblical truths. (One God, Three distinct Persons, all three called God).

My problem with LDS believers is that they say 3 separate gods makes 1 god and apparently do not mind the fact that it is a contradiction.

[spamlds]

Joseph Smith saw two personages at the First Vision. They were separate and distinct. They were physical, tangible beings. His knowledge of God came from direct experience, not any developing of theology. Years before the plates came into his hands--years before the Book of Mormon was translated, Joseph knew the natures of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost.

It wasn't so much a case that his theology "evolved" but that the Lord gave the Church line upon line and precept upon precept, here a little, there a little. Joseph knew much more than he was ever permitted to reveal. He was permitted to reveal to the saints the things he knew in a sequence determined by the Lord. Inasmuch as we are faithful, we expect to obtain further revelation in the future.

These discussions miss the point. The quickest path to truth goes through the Sacred Grove. Those who are unwilling to go there in their hearts and ask of God will remain in error. That is the path to God for everyone in the dispensation of the fullness of times. Those who avoid it do so at their eternal peril.

Jazz trumpeter Miles Davis once told an interviewer that "talking about music is like dancing about architecture." To experience music, talking doesn't do the trick. Listening to music is necessary. To understand the nature of the Godhead, every person has to go to the Sacred Grove in his heart and ask of God, just as Joseph Smith did.

Those who refuse to do so because of fear of man's scorn or sectarian traditions are simply "dancing about architecture."

[Justice]

Take a rock, for example. Rocks have essence. It's what makes a rock what it is.

Are you basing your point on a rock having "being?"

Please don't take me as a hater, because I am not. I am a loving and compassionate person, and I have a great amount of compassion for you concerning this matter.

I'm going to post a scripture from the New Testament, and I would simply like for you to read it and explain how the Trinitarian view can be possible based on it. Deal?

John 17:

20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

I can comment on this scripture at so many levels.

Jesus clearly is asking the Father for all who believe on His name to be one in the same way (perfectly the same) as He is one with the Father.

Please exaplin what Jesus meant by asking for all His followers to be perfect in one, just as He is one with the Father? According to the Trinitarian belief, it would have to mean He is asking for God to become greater than the 3 "beings" He currently subsits of. He wants all followers to become a permament part of God.

However, the problem with this belief is that He then asks that they all be with Him where He is. Wouldn't that be a given if they were to become "one" with God the way Trinitarians believe?

thekabalist, you're a breath of fresh air in this thread.

Edited December 5, 2009 by Justice

[Justice]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[pam]

thekabalist, you're a breath of fresh air in this thread

.

Ditto that sentiment.

[rren]

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.

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.

[Vanhin]

1) I actually think it is quite clear. When someone says, "I will preach on the plurality of Gods. I have selected this text for this exact purpose. I wish to declare I have always and in all congregations when I have preached on the subject of Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods. It has been preached by the Elders for fifteen years", I think it is self-evident what that person means. In my estimation the only way someone could understand it differently would be if they simply did not want to see it. However, if you honestly think that Joseph Smith was not advocating polytheism here, then I would love to here your interpretation of the quote. Please tell me what you think.

2) Joseph Smith said this same kind of thing over and over again, as did many other Mormon Prophets and Apostles. So why is not found in the Bok of Mormon or the Doctrine and Covenants? Because those were written early in Joseph Smith's life and these quotes came later in his life. I suggest to you that Joseph Smith had a theology that developed and changed over time.

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.

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.

I did indeed. One thing that I would like to point out is something that I saw i this link and have heard many LDS folks say in the past (including yourself above). That is this idea that if it wasn't in the BoM, D&C, or Pearl of Great Price, then it doesn't matter (or at least isn't binding.) But that is nonsense.

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?

If the Prophet who founds your religion holds to a particular doctrine and says it over and over again, then why is that not binding? Do simply disregard Joseph Smith's interpretation of your Scriptures? If today we found a document where one of the Biblical apostles (John, Paul, etc.) made some interpretation of the text that they themselves had written, then I would consider that binding. The inspired men of God are telling you what this means. So why is that different with your prophets? Or rather, why is it different on certain occasions? When your prophets tell you that the Bible has been corrupted over time or that there was a great apostasy, you accept it on no other authority than the fact that they said so. But if they say that there are many gods or something of this nature you reject it. Why? In all honesty I do not understand this and see it as a contradiction.

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.

The Father was pouring out His full wrath upon the Son. The Son was facing spiritual separation (when we face separation from God it is not that God has moved to a different location, but rather that our sinful nature is at odds with His holy nature) and was a spiritual abandonment, not a physical abandonment. (As I would say that the Father does not have a physical body and is omnipresent, therefore He cannot remove Himself in that sense.) In the spiritual sense, yes, I would say that the Father and the Son had never been separated before this point.

I do not accept D&C as authoritative in the first place. However, in any case I am not suggesting that Jesus never suffered separation from the Father. I simply say it was a spiritual separation only.

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

Well, I would disagree with you and say what Joseph Smith taught was actually very far from what Jesus taught.

In John 10:34 Jesus is quoting from Psalm 82:6, which is a passage that is about the unrighteous judges of Israel. God had given them God-like authority over the people and yet they were abusing there powers and not bringing about the Lord's justice. God is condemning them. In John 10:34, Jesus is making this same application to the Jewish leaders. They are being corrupt judges, abusing their God given authority, and will suffer punishment for it.

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?

Mormons have typically used this passage to substantiate their doctrine of Eternal Progression, that men can become gods. That view in an of itself shatters Monotheism. (f you are intending a different sense in this passage then please let me know.)

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.

Deuteronomy 10:17 is a symbolic statement of power. The Ancient Near East was an incredibly Polytheistic place as well as nationalistic. Each set of gods ruled their own land. No one would ever think to say something like, "my God can come into your territory and beat your God" because such an idea simply didn't exist in their minds. Your gods couldn't cross their boundaries. So when God says that He is the God of Gods and the Lord of Lords, He is making a claim that He is sovereign over all things, including the "gods" and lands of the other nations. He is demonstrating His authority to His people.

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.

I would suggest that LDS folks out of necessity dismiss that passages that teach Monotheism.

2 Kings 19:15 - And Hezekiah prayed before the LORD, and said, O LORD God of Israel, which dwellest between the cherubims, thou art God, even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth; thou hast made heaven and earth. (KJV)

Psalm 86:10 - For thou art great, and doest wondrous things; thou art God alone.

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." (KJV)

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 besides Me there is no God." (KJV)

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.

Galatians 4;8 - Howbeit then, when ye knew God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods. (KJV)

1 Timothy 2:5 - For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ. (KJV)

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