LDS as a Christian Denomination

[Justice]

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.

3 Nephi 11:

22 And again the Lord called others, and said unto them likewise; and he gave unto them power to baptize. And he said unto them: On this wise shall ye baptize; and there shall be no disputations among you.

It's not just the mode or manner, but that He gave some power to baptize, and even if mode and manner were exact, unless one held this power the baptism was still invalid.

23 Verily I say unto you, that whoso repenteth of his sins through your words, and desireth to be baptized in my name, on this wise shall ye baptize them—Behold, ye shall go down and stand in the water, and in my name shall ye baptize them.

24 And now behold, these are the words which ye shall say, calling them by name, saying:

25 Having authority given me of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

26 And then shall ye immerse them in the water, and come forth again out of the water.

27 And after this manner shall ye baptize in my name; for behold, verily I say unto you, that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one; and I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one.

28 And according as I have commanded you thus shall ye baptize. And there shall be no disputations among you, as there have hitherto been; neither shall there be disputations among you concerning the points of my doctrine, as there have hitherto been.

29 For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.

Baptism is just an example. His doctrine must be one with all His believers (which is what He comments on next in the chapter). I don't think you realize how important this is, PC.

I do understand your valid point, that not all LDS have exactly the same views on everything. My answer is that we should. But, my point is that we have one source we can turn to for a definitive word... and according to our belief that source gets His information straight from THE source.

If there is anything necessary to our salvation, or in many cases even important, the Lord will reveal it through His prophet. If He has not, then we are to exercise the gift of intelligence God gave us and do what we feel is right. However, it will more than likely not be a critical issue... like baptism, since the Lord spelled it out in plain detail and requires it be followed to the letter.

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.

Honestly, I believe Coke or Red Bull has absolutely nothing to do with who will enter the Celestial Kingdom. It is based on whether or not we accept Christ as our Lord and Savior. If we accept Him as our Lord and Savior we will desire to be obedient to His commandments, which include baptism by immersion by one holding the proper power (or authority). I don't believe we then have to keep ALL His commandments perfectly, as long as we keep sincerely striving to, and sincerely repent when we fall short.

But, to your point, yes, anything can become a stumbling block. Anything that leads us to addictions or other things that might take our eyes and mind off Christ and put it on worldly things, is dangerous, but not the reason we will not be in the Celestial Kingdom. Again, those things may lead one down that path, but are not the root cause, like chosing not to be baptized (a direct and explicit commandment).

Jesus did not issue the charge to the Twelve to go seek out those who will keep a commandment not to drink Coke or Red Bull. His charge was seek out those who are willing to take upon His name and be baptized. If one does not think baptism is required, and choses not to get baptized, that to me is different than if someone drinks an occasional Coke.

Edited December 7, 2009 by Justice

[prisonchaplain]

Justice, thank you for your patient and thorough explanation. You believe that you have the benefits of an added line of prophets, including one that is living today. Also, that this added lineage helped re-establish the one, united, authorized church. You offer no condemnation to those of us that don't see all of this, but you share your vision to those willing to consider. Your manner in all this is much appreciated.

[Justice]

It's ironic, PC. I sincerely believe that for those of us who do see it, judgment will be much more firm, and not the other way around like many presume we think. I believe people will be judged (at least in part) on what they believed. God certainly knows that about each of us.

Thank you. I really do believe there are many good people of every faith under the sun. I'm glad it shows, because I try really hard not to be judgmental. In fact, I try real hard to just judge myself.

[spamlds]

In thirty years of membership in the Church, I'm always amazed at how simple it is to understand the gospel principles, yet how complicated the sophistries of men try to make it. The Lord has given us patterns: patterns in nature, patterns in scripture, patterns in all things. In the Doctrine and Convenants, we read in Section 52:

14 And again, I will give unto you a pattern in all things, that ye may not be deceived; for Satan is abroad in the land, and he goeth forth deceiving the nations—

15 Wherefore he that prayeth, whose spirit is contrite, the same is accepted of me if he obey mine ordinances.

16 He that speaketh, whose spirit is contrite, whose language is meek and edifieth, the same is of God if he obey mine ordinances.

17 And again, he that trembleth under my power shall be made strong, and shall bring forth fruits of praise and wisdom, according to the revelations and truths which I have given you.

18 And again, he that is overcome and bringeth not forth fruits, even according to this pattern, is not of me.

19 Wherefore, by this pattern ye shall know the spirits in all cases under the whole heavens.

It doesn't matter if some LDS offshoot sect broke away from the main body of the Church. It doesn't matter what the Hebrew word "elohim" means "mighty ones." Arguments about whether one can drink a Red Bull or not are fruitless. It's all a bunch of posturing and bluster. It's a distraction from the important stuff.

What matters is that God has given authority to man to perform ordinances in his name. Those who are obedient, contrite, and submit themselves to the Father's authority will accept those ordinances and obey them. They will receive God's blessings and will progress spiritually toward the Celestial Kingdom.

D&C 84 tells us:

21 And this greater priesthood administereth the gospel and holdeth the key of the mysteries of the kingdom, even the key of the knowledge of God.

20 Therefore, in the ordinances thereof, the power of godliness is manifest.

21 And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh

The power of godliness is the saving power inherent in the ordinances and the covenants associated with them. Individuals who reject the authority and the ordinances don't get that power manifested in their behalf. They are in the same boat that the Pharisees and scribes where who rejected the baptism of John the Baptist. They could be as pious and observant as they desired to be, but they relied on dead works and dead forms of godliness. Such is the case with all those who resist the authority of the priesthood and the true servants of God.

You can sort out the sheep from the goats by who obeys the ordinances. In the words of Elijah:

"How long halt ye between two opinions? if the Lord be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him."

If you don't know if the gospel has been restored, and you have the intellect to argue over Hebrew grammar, you're halted between two opinions. You're either trying to undermine God's work and deceive his people or you really know what's true, but you're afraid to follow through and risk ridicule for Christ's name and his kingdom's sake. If you think we're wrong, then go follow Baal and don't give the LDS church a second thought.

The answers are to be found by direct revelation to a person who is humble enough to act on those answers in obedience.

[SolaFide001]

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...

Justice, you believe that Father, Son, and Spirit are one in that they are one godhead, right? So does that mean that Jesus' prayer will enable every believer to become part of the Godhead, expanding it to 4,5,6...etc.? Of course not. You and I both have to recognize that Jesus is speaking in the sense of every single possible way of oneness. He qualified it above by speaking of sanctification. You have to take the whole context. If you are going to say that I must read "one" in every sense of God's possible oneness then you have to be consistent and read it in the same exact way.

[SolaFide001]

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 off of the Creed. I think it is valuable to note that historically Christians have identified the Trinity as orthodox, but my belief is not based on the authority of any creed. I am based on Scripture. Yes, Scripture is interpreted, but does that mean that God failed to be clear in His revelation? Certainly not. If we actually trust the Scripture then we can come to a conclusion. One God. (Isaiah 43:10) Father is God (Philippians 1:2) Son is God (Hebrews 1;8, John 20:28) Spirit is God (Acts 5:3-4). Father Son and Spirit are distinguished (Matthew 3). What does this lead us to? The Trinity.

[SolaFide001]

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?

That is not an assumption that I would ultimately grant.

You have to conform to God's revealed word.

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.

It actually does change the meaning quite considerably. The Word was WITH and the God WAS God is very different then the Word just being WITH God. "WAS God" is pretty important, isn't it? Please do me a favor. If you don't mind, please interpret for me John 1:1 as I quoted it. "In the beginning was the word and the Word was with God and the Word was God." Even if you think this is a poor translation, what does it mean? Would you tell me that, please?

(As a side note, you run into major problems with Smith's translation. V. 14 says, "And the same word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." Smith has already said that the word is the Gospel, not the Son. So the gospel was made flesh and dwelt among us? The gospel is the only begotten of the Father? Why are there personal pronouns used of the Gospel?)

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.

With all due respect I don't think you actually interpreted this Isaiah 43:10. I agree that Jesus is God of the Old Testament, and all eternity past and future, for that matter. But everything you mentioned (Patriarchs, Ark, Moses, etc.) are not mentioned in this specific passage. What does it mean when it says, "before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me"?

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.

I notice that you switch back to the KJV here. Why not use one translation all the way through? Joseph Smith translated the rest of John 1, saying what you quoted above is incorrect.

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.

The best translation is "unique".

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.

I do not think that Joseph Smith's translation is the best. Not at all. But, whether you are using his or the KJV, I would ask you to please use one translation for the whole text and don't switch back and forth. By moving back and forth you are (I am not accusing you of intentional misrepresentation, I am just saying this is the result) utilizing the parts of each that you feel help your theology and ignoring obvious problems. The KJV will lead to the inevitable conclusion that Christ is God, and the JST will lead to incredible theological problems.

You quoted John 1:3. "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." If Jesus is not God, if He is less then God, then doesn't that mean that He had to be created at some point? Yet the verse says clearly that Jesus made all things and that nothing that has ever come into existence was not made by Jesus. How can a created being make all things? Would Christ not then be included in "all things"?

[SolaFide001]

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?

The reason why we see these pluralities is because of the distinction between the Father, Son, and the Spirit. They are not interchangeable. But, they are all the three persons of the one God. So that is why the Father could say to the Son and the Spirit, "let's" "our" "their" or "us".

We are made in God's image in that we share certain attributes with God. An ability to reason, feel, choose, etc.

How can God create them in their image if the three are all separate beings? If you say that they had physical bodies, (I know you don't think the Spirit does) wouldn't you have to admit that the Son did not have a body at this point? In John 1, we saw that the Son took on flesh at a particular point in time, and it wasn't in Genesis 1. How does this work in your belief system?

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 say you are taking a definition of one (one in purpose) and imposing it in all uses of "one", even where it cannot fit. That's why I quoted you Isaiah 43:10. "Before Me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after Me." This verse eliminates the apparent ambiguity of "one" by giving a clear definition. Isaiah 44:6-8 and Deuteronomy 6:4 are others.

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.

If I was saying, "3 Beings are 1 being, or 3 persons are 1 person", then, yes, that would be a contradiction and a logical impossibility. However, I am not saying that. I am making a distinction between 'being' and 'person'. One being that is God exists as three persons. With all due respect, you due not understand the distinction between being and person. That's where our confusion is coming.

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

So simplicity is truth? If something is complicated it cannot possibly be true? You know that this is not a logical basis for determining what is right. By your definition, all I have to do is say that LDS is more complicated because it claims that Christian belief went askew and is corrupted. Isn't it "simpler" to say that such an apostasy never occurred in the first place? By your standard you shouldn't be a Mormon. You and I both know that "simplicity" is not a good measurement of truth.

Trinitarianism, which distinguishes between the the Father, Son, and Spirit, is perfectly consistent with what you quoted from Genesis.

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.

If you take all of what is revealed in Scripture then there is not a problem. Within the one being that is God, there exists three co-equal, co-eternal persons: Father, Son, and Spirit.

Do we perfectly understand all of the mechanics and intricacies of God? No. But do you honestly think that you, in your fallible, sinful, limited human mind, could ever fully understand God? I certainly don't. All I can do is submit myself to the Scriptures and truths presented therein. I suggest to you that you do not hold to a core doctrine of the Biblical text: monotheism. That is why you could not interpret Isaiah 43:10. The truth of one God, meaning only one God in all of existence throughout all of time and space, is clearly presented there.

[SolaFide001]

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?

Those 28 chapters in Matthew are awfully long. Can you narrow this down for me a bit?

And, I do not accept the Trinity because of Nicea. I accept it because I see it clearly taught in the Bible. I accept God's definition of "one" that He uses of Himself in Isaiah 43:10, 44:6, 44:8; Deuteronomy 6:4, etc.

[SolaFide001]

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.

You are missing the difference between wisdom and knowledge. Knowledge is information, which is what we are discussing (Is Jesus God, What does "one" God mean, etc.). Wisdom is the proper application of knowledge. James is talking about how God will teach us how to properly apply what we know in a God-honoring way. He is not saying that He will give us new, extra-Biblical revelation.

[SolaFide001]

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.

No, God is not a "title"but rather His nature. You are a human. You have human nature. Human nature is what makes you a human as opposed to a dog, a rock, etc. God has "God nature" or "Divinity". It's what makes Him God. Father is FULLY divine, Son is FULLY divine,

ans Spirit is FULLY divine. They are three persons (possess personal attributes) within on God, or one divine being. God is not just a title.

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.

Well, if LDS agreed with my interpretation they would cease to be LDS. But, I'm not basing Trinitarian belief on creeds or philosophies. I am basing it on what I see as clearly being presented in Scripture. You must recognize that. Even if you disagree with my conclusions you must understand that I am basing them fully on my understanding of Scripture.

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.

There is never point in Scripture where someone gives a definition of a being, saying, "A being is...", nor a person. That's true. But, there's also no place where someone says, "a human is...", is there? The writers wrote with certain assumptions and definitions in mind. There are actually a number of distinctions between being and person. Father and the Son are both called God, they speak to each other and are one is distinguished from the other, and yet the Bible says there is one God.

In fairness, the Bible also never says God is "one in purpose". That is a phrase that was given to the text later to try and explain it. Being, person, monotheism, Trinity, etc. all work the same way.

If you want to say that it's "one in purpose", then please look at:

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."

Deuteronomy 6:4 - "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD"

Where do you get "one in purpose" from this text? Seems to me that it clearly teaches that there is only one God in all existence in all space and all time in any universe.

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.

No, you are not looking at the whole context of what you are citing. Jesus states quite clearly in John 17:17 that He is speaking of sanctification (Holiness). What you're doing is saying that Jesus must mean every single definition of "one" that we possibly hold to, which is false. You aren't realizing that it is possible for there to be different contexts. Please look at my discussion with Justice for a fuller explanation of this.

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

I am not denying that Father, Son and Spirit are united in purpose. They certainly are. But it's more then that. Look at the Isaiah and Deuteronomy passages above and see if they are simply talking about purpose.

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".

With all due respect, you simply do not understand. God is not a concept. He is very real. He has a divine nature. You simply aren't getting the distinction of terms.

Being makes something what it is. Person makes someone who they are. They are different. One divine God (not just in purpose but one in essence and not other gods anywhere else in all of space, time, eternity, etc.) whose divinity is shared by three persons: Father, Son, Spirit. All three have always existed and are equal in being.

[SolaFide001]

Not only that but John 15

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

Don't you have to truly know who God is before you can ask Him something? You can't pray to any false god and expect the true God to answer your prayers. You can't pray to Allah, Vishnu, Brahman, etc. (This includes false conceptions of Jesus). You have to know who the true God is to be able to approach Him in prayer. That you know God in truth is assumed.

[SolaFide001]

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.

Has God revealed Himself clearly? That's the real question. If He has then we can know the truth from His word. Do some people let other issues get in the way of seeing the truth of Scripture? Yes. Whether it be tradition, stubbornness, etc. there will be people who refuse to submit themselves to God's word. But that's not the point. The point is that God has clearly shown Himself in Scripture. Those who doubt that we can come to a conclusion from Scripture are saying, "God has failed to reveal Himself clearly."

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?

You have to define unity. Are there small issues that groups in Christendom disagree over? Certainly. Who should baptize, who should lead the church, etc. But that does not mean we aren't united. ALL CHRISTIANS hold to, and have held to, the core doctrines of faith, including: God is a Trinity. Do Baptists and Presbyterians and Lutherans, etc. fight over this issue? No. We are absolutely united.

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.

Yes, the Holy Spirit is the measure of truth. He inspired the apostles to recored the truth and he moves in the hearts of believers so that they will see it clearly. To say that God has revealed Himself in Scripture and then say we must pray about what Scripture is saying means that God is very inefficient. Why go to Scripture in the first place? Why not just pray from the beginning? According to you that's what it ultimately comes down to. The problem with any group that reasons as you do is that they use the Bible wherever it agrees with them, but when it disagrees with their theology they say that the Bible just isn't clear. Isn't it interesting that the Bible is clear when its saying what you want it to say but not clear when it's contradicting you? What an amazing phenomenon!

[Justice]

Those 28 chapters in Matthew are awfully long. Can you narrow this down for me a bit?

EEk... I meant John.

I gave a detailed presentation of John 17 where Christ offers the great intecessory prayer. His language cannot be mistaken about how He and the Father are one.

[Justice]

The bottom line is that we have more scripture and modern prophets that help us understand what the Bible is teaching. I have not relied on myself to interpret those things the way I prefer. But, as spoken by modern revelation, they are sweet to me.

[Justice]

If I was saying, "3 Beings are 1 being, or 3 persons are 1 person", then, yes, that would be a contradiction and a logical impossibility. However, I am not saying that. I am making a distinction between 'being' and 'person'. One being that is God exists as three persons. With all due respect, you due not understand the distinction between being and person. That's where our confusion is coming.

Yes, it is quite clear that I do not understand being and person as you do. But, if you say God is 3 persons than I agree with you. 3 are mentioned; 3 are found speaking; and they even speak to each other.

[Justice]

As far as your comments about using the JST, I think you need to re-think your position. Joseph Smith never said "OK, here is a completed translation of the Bible I want you to use in stead of the KJV." I am using it preceisly in the manner he said we should. We read and use the KJV, and when we need clarification, turn to the JST, because in it are many texts that have been removed, and many corrections.

You quoted John 1:3. "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." If Jesus is not God, if He is less then God, then doesn't that mean that He had to be created at some point? Yet the verse says clearly that Jesus made all things and that nothing that has ever come into existence was not made by Jesus. How can a created being make all things? Would Christ not then be included in "all things"?

Yes. Christ is offspring of God the Father. God the Son is the Son of God. I haven't counted, but the Bible says this so many times it's hard to mistake.

Christ is responsible for creating the physical world we live in, or all things, not for creating the spirits of men. He stated His Father is greater than He is.

[SolaFide001]

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.

Yes sir, with all due respect, you do misunderstand it. Trinitarians are ABSOLUTE MONOTHEISTS. That is the core, bedrock principle of Trinitarianism. No matter what else the Bible says, it is clear that there is ONLY ONE GOD. Anything that contradicts that is wrong. Mormons are polytheists, that's why it doesn't fit. Your description of "fitting 3 into 1" shows you simply don't understand, or that you refuse to understand. They are two different categories.

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

I would love for you to quote for me a handful of well-respected philosophers who say this, let alone "most philosophers". Please go right ahead and do so.

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.

Actually, sir, it is you who is missing my point. Saying that I am attempting to, "make distinct entities become 1" shows this very clearly. Father, Son, and Spirit ARE NOT 3 distinct entities. For you to claim they are is simply incorrect. Yes, 3 entities being 1 entity would not be strict monotheism. I agree. However, this is not what I am arguing. There is one entity, one being, one essence, or one nature that is God. This ONE being is shared by three persons, Father, Son, and Spirit. The three person are not different entities. They are

one entity. 'Person' in regards to the Trinity is not a separate, finite human person as we usually think of it. Even if you disagree with my conclusion, please do not continue to misrepresent it in this way.

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.

Do you realize that you are refuting yourself here? When I told you that you didn't understand the Trinity you disagreed. You didn't think of yourself as unqualified to comment on Trinitarianism, despite not being a Trinitarian. You did not humbly accept it from me. You continue to argue with me. So why do you say that I should take this approach with the LDS faith when you won't apply your own standard to my faith? By your definition you are not qualified to speak on either Trinitarianism or LDS faith. You are saying one thing and doing another. In practice, you seem to be working form the standpoint that I would take: Anyone, through much study, can learn about another's belief system. So, I simply ask you for consistency.

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?

No, sir, you don't understand it. And I am not saying that simply because you are not a Trinitarian. I am saying that because you have continually used terms in reference to it (even in this post, calling the three person three entities) that are blatantly false. Such a consistent misrepresentation can only come from one who doesn't or one who is a liar. I honestly do not think you are lying, so I conclude that you just don't get it.

Do you fully understand the nature of God? Do you understand how He created the cosmos? Do you understand how He can know all things? I'm guessing the answer to all three of these is a resounding 'No'. Does our human inability to understand take away from them these things in any way? Of course not. Does it make them less true? Of course not.

The average Christian probably doesn't understand the Trinity all that well. (No one understands it even close to fully because we could never hope to understand the totality of God.) They probably have some misconception, the most common that Ive seen being Modalism. But, here's the key: True Christians, upon being corrected from the Scripture. will eventually change their beliefs to match the core issues of Scripture. Most people have never really thought about it and that's the problem.

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

Once again, sir, you show a misunderstanding of the Trinity. This is Modalism, not Trinitarianism. Modalists show no distinction between the persons which leads to one persons talking to Himself.

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

No, but continually describing it in a way that is incorrect does.

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

Not to get sidetracked, but how did the angels contribute to the image of God in man? God says, "Let US make man in OUR image, according to OUR likeness" (Genesis 1:26). So what roll do angels play? Are they in the same image as God?

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.

So you are saying that you are even remotely close to understanding the way that God made the world? You are remotely close to understanding God's mind? Really? Anyone who would dare claim that is on the verge of blasphemy. For you to argue, "That's too complex, so it can't be true" is simply faulty. No, we don't have any concept of God in our mind. But do you have a real concept of perfect holiness? Perfect love? No. I, as a Christian have the best possible example in the cross of Christ, but that doesn't mean that I can wrap my brain around how God can hate evil that much that much that He would pour out His wrath on His Son. Nor does that mean that I can ever fully grasp how God would love us humans so much that He would sacrifice His Son on my behalf. I can't possibly understand the mind and will of God. It's simply too magnificent. The Trinity is the same way. I understand it, but only to a certain degree. No where near to the point where I could claim mastery. Not even close because God is infinite.

I disagree with you when you say that Trinitarians will slip into practical belief of some other God. That's simply untrue. I think throughout my day like a Trinitarian. I know that the Father is in heaven, directing my steps and listening to my prayers. I know that the Son is "seated at His right hand", having presented the offering of His perfect sacrifice and thereby cleansing me of my sin. I know that the Spirit is working in me daily to conform me to the image of Christ. And I know of the oneness of being and unity that exists between the three as they perfectly act together. So there is no practical breakdown.

The image of God relates to certain aspects: the ability to think, feel, reason, choose, etc. But this is in no way a comprehensive list of all of who God is.

The Trinity is Greek philosophy? Really? Because the number one person I look to for information on the topic is the Semite Jesus Himself as He claims the name of the God (John 8:28, 8:58), is called God (John 20:28), claims the divine authority to forgive sins (Mark 2:5), claims authority of the Sabbath (Mark 2:28), claims authority over the temple (Matthew 21), claims to be the judge of the wicked (Matthew 7:21-23), claims authority over angels (Matthew 13:41), has power over life and resurrection (John 11).

Then I look to the Semites Peter, John, Paul, etc. as they say describe Jesus as receiving worship (Revelation 5:12-14), being the object of faith (Romans 10:9-13), the recipient of prayer (Acts 7:59), etc. These are Semites writing things about God, not Greeks philosophers who came hundreds of years later.

No serious scholar would say that? Really? So all conservative Christian scholars aren't serious? (I suggest we are all biased, including you and me). This type of argumentation is the type of things that Liberals throw out at Christians and Jews both all the time. "No serious scholar believes this actually happened." I should point out to you that the same scholars who cite the Trinity as being some later addition are the same ones who would say that Moses didn't write the Torah, that the Flood never happened, that Adam and Eve were not historical people, that all Old Testament Prophecy is after the event actually happens. Do you really want to align yourself with those folks? You can if you may but if chose to cite the very same people who would turn around and destroy your system as well then you lose credibility.

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

The fact that the Trinity is complicated doesn't mean that it is not how God really is, either.

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.

Monotheism is by definition a belief in one God. Belief in many gods violates that rule. Belief in three divine persons who co-exist as one being is not contradictory to the one God rule of Monotheism. Someone who makes arguments like you just made doesn't understand the issue.

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!

Considering that I was responding to the very objection you are making, it seems imprudent to cut my response into snippets and not take it in context with the rest of my response. Please do me the courtesy of reading my whole remarks and quoting me in full if you wish to respond to me.

Edited December 14, 2009 by SolaFide001

[SolaFide001]

EEk... I meant John.

I gave a detailed presentation of John 17 where Christ offers the great intecessory prayer. His language cannot be mistaken about how He and the Father are one.

Right. In Holiness and unity, which fits with Jesus praying that believers be united and be sanctified. I gave a lengthy response.

[SolaFide001]

As far as your comments about using the JST, I think you need to re-think your position. Joseph Smith never said "OK, here is a completed translation of the Bible I want you to use in stead of the KJV." I am using it preceisly in the manner he said we should. We read and use the KJV, and when we need clarification, turn to the JST, because in it are many texts that have been removed, and many corrections.

Yes. Christ is offspring of God the Father. God the Son is the Son of God. I haven't counted, but the Bible says this so many times it's hard to mistake.

Christ is responsible for creating the physical world we live in, or all things, not for creating the spirits of men. He stated His Father is greater than He is.

But John 1:3 says, "without him was not any thing made that was made." It does not make any distinction between physical and spirit. All things were made by Jesus. You have to read that into the text because it is not there. And when Jesus said that the Father is greater then He it was in a completely different context.

[SolaFide001]

The bottom line is that we have more scripture and modern prophets that help us understand what the Bible is teaching. I have not relied on myself to interpret those things the way I prefer. But, as spoken by modern revelation, they are sweet to me.

With all due respect sir, that is not the bottom line. We were reasoning from the Bible together. Why do you now turn to "modern prophets and modern revelation"? Has God not been clear?

[SolaFide001]

Yes, it is quite clear that I do not understand being and person as you do. But, if you say God is 3 persons than I agree with you. 3 are mentioned; 3 are found speaking; and they even speak to each other.

But we mean very different things when we talk of "three persons". That's the issue.

[Elgama]

I'm not a Christian but certainly wouldn't have issue with someone calling me one but then would have no issue with someone suggesting I was Hindu, Buddhist or Pagan either to me nothing is more important than being at peace and knowing what I am doing is right with Heavenly Father

Given as not all Christian Denominations are trinitarian what has that got to do with the price of fish? do admit to not reading all 15 pages lol so may have missed the point of it in this debate. There are non-Trinitarian chapels all around the UK some of which are older than the LDS church

[Flyonthewall]

Don't you have to truly know who God is before you can ask Him something? You can't pray to any false god and expect the true God to answer your prayers. You can't pray to Allah, Vishnu, Brahman, etc. (This includes false conceptions of Jesus). You have to know who the true God is to be able to approach Him in prayer. That you know God in truth is assumed.

Absolutely one can pray without truly knowing who God is. I disagree, with your assertion here in very strong terms. If one is sincerely seeking God, and all one knows is Allah(which is just a different language for "God"), or Vishnu, or Brahman, or even just has a different understanding of Him, the God I know and love will not turn a deaf ear to them.

Just how is someone to come to truly "know" God if they cannot pray to Him?

[ozzy]

With all due respect sir, that is not the bottom line. We were reasoning from the Bible together. Why do you now turn to "modern prophets and modern revelation"? Has God not been clear?

I couldn't help but respond to this myself. I agree completely that the Bible is very clear. One thing that it is very clear on is that God will not act unless he tells a prophet what he is going to do. This is found clearly in Amos 3:7. As wonderful and clear as much of the Bible is, it does not in any way address every issue known to current society, and even when it does, it is often twisted and misconstrued by various individuals. A case in point might include the issue of homosexuality. Today, many religions even are conforming to the idea that this is okay. However the Bible that they so dearly love so clearly states that this is wrong. An issue not clearly included in the Bible might include the internet and its uses or dangers. God provides prophets to clearly address such things and remind us of what we need to do in life.

The one and only reason that an individual will reject a prophet is because that prophet says to do or not to do something that the individual doesn't like. This was true in the past, this is true now, and it will be true in the future. Proof of this might be the story of Noah who was rejected by all in his time and yet we consider him a prophet now. Proof of this happening today can be found in the observation that most of the world merely hears the word 'prophet' and immediately begins mocking and/or turning a deaf ear. They don't even bother to hear what the prophet says. I promise you that most Christians would be unable to deny the prophetic nature of modern prophets if they took the time to listen to them and even compare their words to the scriptures. Those that would still deny them are those that accept the Bible in name only and reject its teachings.