Question about the Godhead

[JudoMinja]

What do you believe about those who completely reject God?

To answer this, I will have to clarify what we mean by "completely reject God". In LDS doctrine, this would be someone who has "received the greater light" and turned away from it, or someone who has literally seen God and/or Christ and denied what they have seen. Someone who KNOWS the truth, and instead of receiving it and working with it, turns away from it and tries to lead others astray.

Such a person, we believe, is someone who has committed the greatest possible sin of "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost". These people end up in "outer darkness" or Hell. They receive no reward, no light, no glory, and are completely cast out from the presence of God. It is our belief that very few people will end up here.

[SteveVH]

To answer this, I will have to clarify what we mean by "completely reject God". In LDS doctrine, this would be someone who has "received the greater light" and turned away from it, or someone who has literally seen God and/or Christ and denied what they have seen. Someone who KNOWS the truth, and instead of receiving it and working with it, turns away from it and tries to lead others astray.

Such a person, we believe, is someone who has committed the greatest possible sin of "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost". These people end up in "outer darkness" or Hell. They receive no reward, no light, no glory, and are completely cast out from the presence of God. It is our belief that very few people will end up here.

We are certainly on the same page regarding this matter. No one looses salvation out of ignorance of God. We do, however, have a duty to inform our conscience and our intellect. To remain in ignorance of God by choice may qualify as rejection, but that one is better left for God to decide. I don't know how many people are in hell, but I surely hope it is very few. One thing that we can rely upon is that we have an all-loving and merciful God who desires that none be lost.

[bytebear]

I don't particularly like the term Henotheism since it is not quite accurate to our beliefs. Yes we believe in "gods" but they are still one "God" in that they are not liek Greek or Roman gods who fight or compete. Our "God" is in complete harmony and union with the persons in that God (I use persons specifically because of the Trinitarian similarities). God in the trinity is three persons. Are these three persons three gods? Traditional Christianity is very hesitant to use the term "gods' to describe the Father and Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost, but I think the word is perfectly appropriate. If we say God is three persons in one being, then I can just as easily say the Godhead is three gods in one being. God is one. Just as Group is one and Collection is one, and a ton of other singular nouns that describe a plurality of entities within that collection. In other words, it's all semantics.

And not to start up a hornets nest or anything, it's not the trinity vs Godhead that gets Mormons called heretics. It's the fact that we believe that God the Father is of the same species and makeup as man (along with Jesus, angels and even Satan). We are literally in God's image. And to quote the bible, "ye are gods" "and the "offspring of God", etc. etc.

[Traveler]

Historians agree? Which historians agree? There are few subjects about which there is more disagreement among historians. The following is a brief snippet from an article on the subject found at eHistory, a non-Catholic source:

"So who did burn the Library of Alexandria? Unfortunately most of the writers from Plutarch (who apparently blamed Caesar) to Edward Gibbons (a staunch atheist or deist who liked very much to blame Christians and blamed Theophilus) to Bishop Gregory (who was particularly anti-Moslem, blamed Omar) all had an axe to grind and consequently must be seen as biased. Probably everyone mentioned above had some hand in destroying some part of the Library's holdings. The collection may have ebbed and flowed as some documents were destroyed and others were added. For instance, Mark Antony was supposed to have given Cleopatra over 200,000 scrolls for the Library long after Julius Caesar is accused of burning it."

I am talking about historical accounts that corresponds with archeological evidence.

I have no idea how you reached such conclusions. It presents no problem at all for those who believe in the Trinity. There is only one God and it is God who made the covenant. Regardless, I don't see a problem in the Father making a covenant to save mankind and sending his Son to accomplish that.

Two problems that are ignored by Trinitarians:

1. The scriptures differentiate the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost as G-d the Father, G-d the Son and G-d the Holy Ghost.

2. The doctrine of a mediator being necessary because of the fall. If there is one singular G-d and Jesus is that singular G-d then it is a lie to say he is a mediator because that would be a complete contradiction.

Why do you believe that God would be subject to Suzerain law? That is a law of man, not God. And where does scripture tell us that the word "one" should be understood as "one in purpose" and not "one in being"?

Because G-d called his relationship to his followers as his "kingdom". Why would G-d mislead his followers with terms that have no honest meaning and deliberately create confusion and misunderstanding?

As to the word "one". The ancient scriptures use the Hebrew word "ehad" in all references to “one” G-d, that has two possible uses. One singular the other plural. The plural reference agrees 100% with LDS understanding of plural G-ds united in purpose and covenant. For example the word "ehad" is used to describe a man and woman as one in marriage. The singular use of "ehad" is the counting singularity and has ancient mathematical implications - anciently there were no fractions or ratios for the number 1. If the singular use of "ehad" is assumed then the distinctions of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are grammatically incorrect.

The ancient Hebrew word for “one in being” is “yhead” and that is never used at any time in relationship to G-d in the ancient scriptures.

I haven't called you anything, I only asked what you believe but did not receive an answer. And I am not here to the argue the point either. I have been asking this question of Mormons for several years now and have received the same answer. I have been told that you would classify yoursleves as monotheists, yet you believe that the Father is God, Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God and that they are "separate and distinct" beings, each of which is a God. On top of that you believe that you will become God just as the Father is God, and that there are Gods of other universes or worlds apart from our God, yet you claim to be monotheists. I remain in a complete state of confusion as to what you actually believe. If I have mis-stated anything about your beliefs please correct me, but please also give me an answer.

Under ancient Suzerain Law we are monotheist. Under modern theological definitions which are contrary to ancient scripture understanding of a “Kingdom” we are polytheists. Which point of view do you personally prefer for your understanding?

Well, I agree with your last point, but, in my opinion, I think one treads on dangerous spiritual ground if they believe it doesn't really matter what we do in this life; we always have another chance. This would be akin to a man fighting in a military battle who, once defeated, claims that he was really on the side of those he was fighting against. We cannot live this life apart from doing the will of God, and then, once we have died, claim to be on the side of God.

Interesting thought - I do not believe it at all to be dangerous ground to believe that G-d through Jesus has made it possible to believe that "it doesn't really matter what we do in this life;" - Whatever we have done can be overcome through Jesus Christ. The problem is when we desire the things we have done and are unwilling to sacrifice them to be with G-d. Remember when I purported the importance of sacrifice?

I'm really sorry but I am having great difficulty following your logic. No, God's creation is not his essence, therefore if we are God's creation we are not his essence. His essence is completely unique to him and no one else. You seem to somehow believe that we were not created by God, yet, as I have already pointed out, this is in direct conflict with the words found in Genesis. It very specifically states that we are God's creation and that he is the Creator. Your anaolgy to human parents does not at all apply here. We do not create our children. We pro-create, which means we cooperate in God's creation.

The problem is with this statement {"No, God's creation is not his essence, therefore if we are God's creation we are not his essence."}

What we agreed is that creation does not defined what is or is not G-d - Thus what G-d creates can be or may not be of his same essence. The fact that he created it does not exclude it from or make it of his essence. That is what I thought we agreed. I believe you are misusing the scripture in which G-d (Jesus) tells us that he is the only G-d that can save us and that other than him there is no savior G-d. It appears to me that you are saying G-d cannot create anything possibly associated with his essence - that would mean that G-d is not all powerful and I believe that contradicts his essence. And yet G-d gave power to every living thing to begat or reproduce (I do not like to use "pro-create" because the prefix "pro" is never used in scripture - therefore I think it to be confusing in a scriptural context) of its same essence. So why would G-d grant power to his creations that he himself does not have or use? It is the same conflict of morality of a leader that commands that his subjects do as he says and not as he does - Someone that does not abide by their own Laws or recommendations which I believe to be contradictory to what I understand to be the actual essence of G-d.

The Traveler

Edited September 16, 2011 by Traveler

[Leah]

And you have not heard me interpret scripture that way. The Church is not a building. The Church is the people of God, the Body of Christ, with Christ as the Head. If we have a group of people who gather in the name of Jesus, they are followers of Jesus and therefore the people of God, his Church. How can one be a follower of God and yet be outside of his Church? That is like someone claiming to be a part of my family who has never been a part of my family.

How are you defining "church"? I define it as a body of believers and I do not believe that the Holy Spirit dwells within those who do not believe. Its pretty much as simple as that.

I have read your words as you have written them and simply asked for clarification. Why so testy?

You stated that it was not possible for the Holy Spirit to be with two or three who are gathered in his name unless it is within the "context" of "church".

It doesn't matter how I define church - it was your statement, not mine Your answer here is not making sense. Why would two or three "gather in His name" if they were not believers? There was no reference to non-believers previously, why would you pull that out of thin air?

You stated -" Get a couple of your buddies together and you're good to go. We know that is not true." Are you now saying you were referring to people who don't believe? Why in the world would you think "wherever two or three are gathered in His name" would refer to non-believers? That makes no sense.

I wonder if you are here to learn and discuss or are just here out of some need to tell other people that you think they are wrong?

[Traveler]

...

What do you believe about those who completely reject God?

...

I do not believe it is possible. Not even by Satan. Also the scriptures tell us that every knee will bow and every toungue confess.

The Traveler

[SteveVH]

I do not believe it is possible. Not even by Satan. Also the scriptures tell us that every knee will bow and every toungue confess.

The Traveler

How do you reconcile that idea with the fact that Jesus spoke about hell more than heaven? Hell is mentioned throughout Scripture. From what do you think Christ came to save us?

Hell is mentioned some 120 times in the New Testament alone. Seventy of those can be attributed to Jesus himself. The very thing Satan would have us believe is that no one goes to hell. I think the scriptures refute that idea hands down. I would imagine that many of those in hell never believed it existed.

Edited September 16, 2011 by StephenVH

[SteveVH]

I have read your words as you have written them and simply asked for clarification. Why so testy?

Sorry if I came across that way. I have no problem with your questions, I was just trying to set the record straight on what I actually said, which did not contain a reference to having to literally be within the four walls of a church. Here is what you said:

Originally Posted by Leah

If I understand you, you are saying that the two or three that are "gathered together" can only have the Holy Spirit with them if they are literally within the four walls of a church? Or in some way officially a 'church'? I have never heard anyone of any denomination interpret that scripture in that way. Very much the opposite, in fact.

For the benefit of someone reading these posts who have not gone through the entire thread I did not want your statement to stand without comment because I simply never said those words and certainly did not mean anything close to those words. That is why I responed the way I did. No worries. You obviously interpreted my words that way. I just want to be very clear that you, and others, understand what I am saying.

You stated -" Get a couple of your buddies together and you're good to go. We know that is not true." Are you now saying you were referring to people who don't believe? Why in the world would you think "wherever two or three are gathered in His name" would refer to non-believers? That makes no sense.

Sorry if I have not communicated better. But you have made my point, which is that those who gather in the name of Jesus would be considered followers of Jesus and followers of Jesus are called Christians. Christians belong to the family of God which is his Church. The point is that Christ's statement should not be construed to mean that two or three of us can gather together in lieu of belonging to Christ's Church. That is all I have been trying to say. But thanks for your comments. If you did not understand me it is likely that others did not as well.

I wonder if you are here to learn and discuss or are just here out of some need to tell other people that you think they are wrong?

I am here to learn what you believe. One of the best ways I have found to do that is to ask questions and challenge you with another point of view. For example, this thread is a discussion of the "Godhead". When you tell me you believe in one God that is fine. I suppose I could walk away with just that. But then I hear you believe that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are each Gods in their own right and this does not go along with what the rest of the Christian world believes when it says "I believe in one God". So I may question you about how you arrive at your conclusion that you believe in one God by comparing your beliefs to the traditional Trinitarian doctrine. I hope that makes sense to you.

Edited September 16, 2011 by StephenVH

[Traveler]

How do you reconcile that idea with the fact that Jesus spoke about hell more than heaven? Hell is mentioned throughout Scripture. From what do you think Christ came to save us?

Hell is mentioned some 120 times in the New Testament alone. Seventy of those can be attributed to Jesus himself. The very thing Satan would have us believe is that no one goes to hell. I think the scriptures refute that idea hands down. I would imagine that many of those in hell never believed it existed.

Anciently hell meant death. Jesus saved all mankind from the first death and made it possible that we could choose to be again with the Father - symbolically referenced in Genesis as taking the "way" back to the Tree of Life. Just for fun - Who is identified as the "keeper" of the way in Genesis and who did Jesus say was the keeper of the way?

The Traveler

[SteveVH]

I don't particularly like the term Henotheism since it is not quite accurate to our beliefs. Yes we believe in "gods" but they are still one "God" in that they are not liek Greek or Roman gods who fight or compete. Our "God" is in complete harmony and union with the persons in that God (I use persons specifically because of the Trinitarian similarities). God in the trinity is three persons. Are these three persons three gods? Traditional Christianity is very hesitant to use the term "gods' to describe the Father and Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost, but I think the word is perfectly appropriate. If we say God is three persons in one being, then I can just as easily say the Godhead is three gods in one being. God is one. Just as Group is one and Collection is one, and a ton of other singular nouns that describe a plurality of entities within that collection. In other words, it's all semantics.

I think it comes down to the definition of "God". In my faith tradition we consider God to be completely unique in his essence and being. Therefore, it is impossible to call another being God. There simply is no other. The Persons of the "Godhead", or in my case, Trinity, are distinct in realtionship with each other, but are one being. What makes this difficult is that we are hampered with having to use human language and a finite mind while trying to understand and describe the infinite God. Mormonism's idea of God seems to me to be a mix of anthropological as well as theological notions which, in my mind, confuse who God is. He seems to be thought of in very human terms (body of flesh and bone, for instance) and is, really, nothing more than you and I, other than in degrees of exaltation. Our idea of God is that he is eternally above us in every way, entirely unique in his being, and trying to understand him is like trying to empty the ocean into a hole dug by a child in the sand on the beach.

And not to start up a hornets nest or anything, it's not the trinity vs Godhead that gets Mormons called heretics. It's the fact that we believe that God the Father is of the same species and makeup as man (along with Jesus, angels and even Satan). We are literally in God's image. And to quote the bible, "ye are gods" "and the "offspring of God", etc. etc.

I hear this quote often in defense of the Mormon postion. Lets take a close look as to what it is really saying:

"Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 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?" (Jn 10:34-36)

The key detail in this passage is that Jesus says they are gods To whom the word was given. It is easy enough to read past this phrase, but it is necessary to stop and ponder it. Why does Jesus insert this qualification? It is because the term “god” does not apply to whole of humanity (and is hence not a statement about human nature as such), but only to those who receive the Word; those to whom the word is not given are not gods. Hence, the word of God is the efficient cause of divinity in all other beings. This means that they are not gods by their own nature, but by their reception of the divine nature in the Word.

In the context of Psalm 82, the “word” is the judgment of God, but Jesus is now using “word” in a double sense. The new, second meaning is a name for himself as the divine Word made flesh. Compare what the Prologue and Psalm 82 say about divine sonship. Speaking of the Word, the prologue says, “to as many as received him, he gave authority to become sons of God.” In Psalm 82, those who whom the word was given are gods and “sons of the Most High.” In both cases, divine sonship is the result of giving and receiving the word of God.

From this it is apparent how Jesus’ argument is to be understood: Because the Word is the cause of divinity in others, it follows that the Word itself is distinctly divine. For how could the Word convey divine sonship without possessing divinity himself?

Understood in this way, John 10:34 is thoroughly opposed to Mormon teaching and thoroughly in line with Catholicism. There have been Mormon apologists that promote the notion that the historic Christian doctrine of theosis is somehow supportive of Mormon notions of exaltation. In reality, they are diametrically opposed and inimical to each other. Exaltation claims that man is a self-existent being, possessing the divine nature independent of it being created or otherwise caused by God, although God is needed to perfect man in the attributes proper to divinity. Theosis teaches that man is created for a supernatural end, that is, man lacks divinity by nature, so God becomes man so as to fill humanity with the divine supernature it otherwise lacks - not divine attributes, but divine nature itself. This means that the divine nature is created in man by God, who is therefore "Gods of gods" and yet absolutely unique as the first and uncaused God. It is this unique, uncaused God, that Jesus is claiming to be.

Edited September 16, 2011 by StephenVH

[SteveVH]

Anciently hell meant death. Jesus saved all mankind from the first death and made it possible that we could choose to be again with the Father - symbolically referenced in Genesis as taking the "way" back to the Tree of Life. Just for fun - Who is identified as the "keeper" of the way in Genesis and who did Jesus say was the keeper of the way?

The Traveler

If Jesus saved us from the first death then why do we die? No, he saved us from the second death (spiritual death as opposed to physical death) which is hell. That means that those who have not been saved are not saved from hell. Hell, or the second death, is exactly why Jesus came to save us; so that we would receive eternal life, rather than eternal death in hell.

As for your question regarding the "Keeper", why don't you just explain your point and then we can discuss.

Thanks

[JudoMinja]

Stephen-

I disagree with your interpretation of the "Ye are gods" quote. First, you are missing the context of the original scripture. Jesus is quoting Psalms 82:6 - "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High."

When we read Psalms 82 in its entirety, we see the context:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It appears to be a lament over the unjust judgements being doled out by those in positions of power and the unrighteous behaviors of those in a position to give. He is lamenting that we accept wickedness and do not give of our susustenance (both temporal and spiritual) to the poor and needy. And just before verse six, he says "They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course." Essentially, that the people are not adequately doling out justice and mercy, because they do not understand. What is it they don't understand? Verse 6.

He says "Ye are gods, and all of you are children of the most High." Meaning, that we have within our very selves a divine nature and should cast off all wickedness. Because we are falling short, we will die. But, with the atonement, we can "arise" and "inherit all nations".

There is also an obvious distinction between the use of the word gods and that of God. When God is capitalized, he is referencing Jesus. When it is not capitalized, he is referencing us- or at least those of us who will stand with Jesus come judgement day. See verse one: "God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods."

It is this entire passage from Psalms that explains our belief in "gods" and our divine nature- that we are sons and daughters of God, that we counseled with Him in the pre-existence, and can stand with Him again as equals in our inheritance.

Then, when Christ quotes this passage in John, he is pointing out that it is not blasphemous to call oneself a "god", since Christ is the "Word" and He came to the earth to redeem us all of our sins. We can be called gods and stand by His side on judgement day should we utilize the atonement and accept His mercy for our lack in casting off our wickedness.

[SteveVH]

Stephen-

I disagree with your interpretation of the "Ye are gods" quote. First, you are missing the context of the original scripture. Jesus is quoting Psalms 82:6 - "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High."

When we read Psalms 82 in its entirety, we see the context:

It appears to be a lament over the unjust judgements being doled out by those in positions of power and the unrighteous behaviors of those in a position to give. He is lamenting that we accept wickedness and do not give of our susustenance (both temporal and spiritual) to the poor and needy. And just before verse six, he says "They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course." Essentially, that the people are not adequately doling out justice and mercy, because they do not understand. What is it they don't understand? Verse 6.

He says "Ye are gods, and all of you are children of the most High." Meaning, that we have within our very selves a divine nature and should cast off all wickedness. Because we are falling short, we will die. But, with the atonement, we can "arise" and "inherit all nations".

There is also an obvious distinction between the use of the word gods and that of God. When God is capitalized, he is referencing Jesus. When it is not capitalized, he is referencing us- or at least those of us who will stand with Jesus come judgement day. See verse one: "God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods."

It is this entire passage from Psalms that explains our belief in "gods" and our divine nature- that we are sons and daughters of God, that we counseled with Him in the pre-existence, and can stand with Him again as equals in our inheritance.

Then, when Christ quotes this passage in John, he is pointing out that it is not blasphemous to call oneself a "god", since Christ is the "Word" and He came to the earth to redeem us all of our sins. We can be called gods and stand by His side on judgement day should we utilize the atonement and accept His mercy for our lack in casting off our wickedness.

Thanks for your response, JudoMinja. I am very aware that the passage to which Jesus referred was taken from Pslam 82 which is why I mentioned it. I completely agree that this passage is speaking in the context of justice. The key point I was trying to make, however, which you did not address, are the words of Jesus in reference to Psalm 82. Jesus tells us that those who are referred to as "gods" are those to whom the word of God came, not all of humanity. Therefore it is the Word of God that imparts divinity; we do not possess it naturally, but receive it through the Word of God. He is acknowledging that the Jews could refer to themselves as "gods", as in the context of Psalm 82. If he were referring to himself in the same manner then they could not have accused him of blasphemy. Instead he is setting himself up as something greater than the commom use of the word "gods". He was referring to himself being independently divine and the source of divinity for those who would be called "gods" and therefore accused of blasphemy.

[JudoMinja]

While I agree with this statement:

He is setting himself up as something greater than the commom use of the word "gods".

I do not agree with this one:

Jesus tells us that those who are referred to as "gods" are those to whom the word of God came, not all of humanity.

Simply due to the bolded portion. The "word of God" or Jesus, DID come to all of humanity. His very presense here on the earth ws for ALL of us. The atonement saves ALL of us from physical death, and has the potential (when combined with our own divine natures which we work on by casting off wickedness) to make us "gods".

See, we all need the Savior. In our imperfectness, we all need to accept the word of God to make up for our failings. But He doesn't do ALL the work. We are also divine, and this time on earth is a time of probation, for us to mold and perfect our own divinity. This really ties into our concept of how we understand the atonement, and is something I have written a bit about. You can better understand my personal take on this by reading my blog entry on it here.

[Traveler]

If Jesus saved us from the first death then why do we die? No, he saved us from the second death (spiritual death as opposed to physical death) which is hell.

Stephen, it is most interesting to hear you point of view. To be honest, since we read somewhat the same scriptures, I am a little surprised at your question. We die a physical death for the same reason that Jesus had to die a physical death. I can understand a little how this was lost because of the Catholic interesting concept of baptism. For us we are symbolically buried in baptism. This is a type and shadow of the resurrection and rebirth both of Christ and us in Christ.

In the same way that death came by Adam - resurrection from the dead came from Christ. The scriptures are quite clear (I thought) that Jesus required that death and hell be emptied and deliver all that have died (everyone) to him. Thus in our flesh, we are all resurrection as prophesied by Job to come before G-d and clearly declare our eternal desire.

That means that those who have not been saved are not saved from hell. Hell, or the second death, is exactly why Jesus came to save us; so that we would receive eternal life, rather than eternal death in hell.

As for your question regarding the "Keeper", why don't you just explain your point and then we can discuss.

Thanks

Anciently the symbols of flame and sword signified a process of purification and the combination of judgment and deliverance (two edged sword). Again in ancient symbolism Moses was instructed to place two Cherubim at the judgment seat (mercy seat) of G-d where man can receive instruction resulting in “eternal life”. One Cherub at the right hand and one at the left. In ancient Greek the term Cherub was not a high class angle but a g-d. The ancient Hebrew word is translated to Cherubim because in other languages there is not a suitable translation.

Jesus tells us that symbolism is used in divine teaching to confuse those that are not spiritually reborn. Thus the symbolism of Jesus coming with “fire” and a sword as prophesied symbolically in Genesis and again in Revelation is lost in the apostasy of the spiritually unborn institutions as well as individuals. This is why a restoration and not a reformation was necessary that the kingdom - institution of G-d be here when Jesus returns as the King of an actual kingdom.

The Traveler

Edited September 16, 2011 by Traveler

[SteveVH]

Simply due to the bolded portion. The "word of God" or Jesus, DID come to all of humanity. His very presense here on the earth ws for ALL of us. The atonement saves ALL of us from physical death, and has the potential (when combined with our own divine natures which we work on by casting off wickedness) to make us "gods".

See, we all need the Savior. In our imperfectness, we all need to accept the word of God to make up for our failings. But He doesn't do ALL the work. We are also divine, and this time on earth is a time of probation, for us to mold and perfect our own divinity. This really ties into our concept of how we understand the atonement, and is something I have written a bit about. You can better understand my personal take on this by reading my blog entry on it here.

Yes, Christ came to redeem the entire world. By his redemption he paid the debt for us. But the Word of God was not accepted by all people, therefore they did not receive the Word. There is a difference between redemption and salvation. Redemption is for all of mankind. Salvation is for those who accept this gift given to all of mankind. For those who reject this gift of love, feely given, there is no salvation and therefore no divinity.

I'll be happy to check out your blog.

[SteveVH]

Stephen, it is most interesting to hear you point of view. To be honest, since we read somewhat the same scriptures, I am a little surprised at your question. We die a physical death for the same reason that Jesus had to die a physical death. I can understand a little how this was lost because of the Catholic interesting concept of baptism. For us we are symbolically buried in baptism. This is a type and shadow of the resurrection and rebirth both of Christ and us in Christ.

You said that Jesus saved us from the first death. I am only saying that all men will undergo the first death, being physical death. If we are saved, we will not undergo the second death, which is spiritual death. That is the death from which we are saved. I understand that we will be resurrected, but that does not save us from the first death as you had said. I also understand the symbolism of baptism in water; dying and rising again. Another symbol of water is cleansing. The difference between us as far as baptism is concerned is that we believe what the symbols indicate. That we have died to sin; that we will rise again and that our souls have been washed clean. It is more than a symbol. The sacrament actually accomplishes what the symbols signify. There is an actual change in our nature, from natural to supernatural.

In the same way that death came by Adam - resurrection from the dead came from Christ. The scriptures are quite clear (I thought) that Jesus required that death and hell be emptied and deliver all that have died (everyone) to him. Thus in our flesh, we are all resurrection as prophesied by Job to come before G-d and clearly declare our eternal desire.

I don't disagree with anything you have said here. But you will still undergo the first death, otherwise there would be no point in being resurrected.

Anciently the symbols of flame and sword signified a process of purification and the combination of judgment and deliverance (two edged sword). Again in ancient symbolism Moses was instructed to place two Cherubim at the judgment seat (mercy seat) of G-d where man can receive instruction resulting in “eternal life”. One Cherub at the right hand and one at the left. In ancient Greek the term Cherub was not a high class angle but a g-d. The ancient Hebrew word is translated to Cherubim because in other languages there is not a suitable translation.

Jesus tells us that symbolism is used in divine teaching to confuse those that are not spiritually reborn. Thus the symbolism of Jesus coming with “fire” and a sword as prophesied symbolically in Genesis and again in Revelation is lost in the apostasy of the spiritually unborn institutions as well as individuals. This is why a restoration and not a reformation was necessary that the kingdom - institution of G-d be here when Jesus returns as the King of an actual kingdom.

The Traveler

I must tell you that the attitude I find among some Mormons makes it very difficult. You are not the first, so this is not personal, nor does it apply to all Mormons. I've been speaking with Mormons for nearly three years now. How would you feel if I patted you on the head and said "I know you really can't understand, you poor little creature, because you have not been spiritually reborn. I, on the other hand, am enlightened and on my way to godhood, so let me teach you a thing or two." It is an elitist attitude that immediately throws up a road block to those with which you speak. Just thought you should know that it isn't real helpful and not the best tact to take. It shuts down communication in a hurry and prevents you from even considering another point of view.

[JudoMinja]

Yes, Christ came to redeem the entire world. By his redemption he paid the debt for us. But the Word of God was not accepted by all people, therefore they did not receive the Word. There is a difference between redemption and salvation. Redemption is for all of mankind. Salvation is for those who accept this gift given to all of mankind. For those who reject this gift of love, feely given, there is no salvation and therefore no divinity.

I agree with you here, and would note that the only difference in our beliefs in these regard have to do with what I've bolded. Where you say redemption and salvation, we LDS would say salvation and exhaltation. We believe that the redemption and salvation go hand in hand- that everyone will be saved, but not everyone will be exhalted. This is what we mean when we say that Christ's resurrection freed us from physical death. Yes, we will all still die, but we will also all be resurrected, thanks to Christ. He came here for all of us, and we will all be saved.

Exhaltation is like reaching a higher level- it is the "godhood" we are striving for. Exhaltation is the highest degree of glory we could possibly obtain, and we believe that few will reach it. "Many are called, but few are chosen" (Matthew 22:14 and D&C 121:40). We will all (except those in hell or outer darkness) make it to heaven and receive a degree of glory most fitting for us individually, but only those who make and KEEP the sacred covenants from temple ordinances (which we believe Adam, Abraham, and our other ancient fathers made) will receive exhaltation.

[SteveVH]

I agree with you here, and would note that the only difference in our beliefs in these regard have to do with what I've bolded. Where you say redemption and salvation, we LDS would say salvation and exhaltation. We believe that the redemption and salvation go hand in hand- that everyone will be saved, but not everyone will be exhalted. This is what we mean when we say that Christ's resurrection freed us from physical death. Yes, we will all still die, but we will also all be resurrected, thanks to Christ. He came here for all of us, and we will all be saved.

Exhaltation is like reaching a higher level- it is the "godhood" we are striving for. Exhaltation is the highest degree of glory we could possibly obtain, and we believe that few will reach it. "Many are called, but few are chosen" (Matthew 22:14 and D&C 121:40). We will all (except those in hell or outer darkness) make it to heaven and receive a degree of glory most fitting for us individually, but only those who make and KEEP the sacred covenants from temple ordinances (which we believe Adam, Abraham, and our other ancient fathers made) will receive exhaltation.

As I understand, based upon your response, you then equate redemption with salvation, however those that are saved (all of mankind) will not necessarily be exalted. If this is true then salvation requires no acceptance or positive response from mankind. Does this not interfere in man's free will? What of one who rejects Christ; who rejects salvation? We have everything from pagans, to atheists to Satan worshippers among the human family. Is there nothing that is required of man in order to be saved? At a minimum, would it not require at least some degree of faith in the one who saves us?

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel. It is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes... For in it is revealed the righteousness of God from faith to faith; as it is written, 'The one who is righteous by faith will live'." (Romans 1:16-17)

"They are justified by his grace through the redemption in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as an expiation, through faith, by his blood, to prove his righteousness because of the forgiveness of sins previously committed, through the forebearance of God - to prove his righteousness in the present time, that he might be righteous and justify the one who has faith in Jesus." (Romans 3:24-26)

This principal, that we must have faith in Christ in order to be saved, is repeated throughout the New Testament, in both the Gospels and the epistles. So my question is, do you believe that even those who reject Christ are saved, and if so, how do you justify that postion in light of the words of scripture to the contrary? The verses I have quoted were the result of just flipping open my Bible. This principal of salvation (by faith in Jesus Christ) is so widely stated that I knew I would find it regardless of where I looked in the New Testament. I am not one of those who prefers to state quote after quote in order to prove a point. In this case I believe I could find quotes supporting the principal that salvation requires faith in Jesus Christ that would fill pages if I was required to do so.

This does not take away from the fact that I also believe that different people will receive different degrees of glory depending upon how they have lived their lives. But those who have no faith or who outright reject Christ and his Church will not receive any degree of glory. Indeed, they will die the second death and will live eternally outside of the kingdom of heaven, just as they have chosen through their own free will, in a place we call hell.

[SteveVH]

I just posted this talk: Our Relationship to the Lord by McConkie - on another thread, I'll post it here too, I think it answers this. If you don't want to read the whole thing - scroll down to the numbered points, and read through those.

I read through the talk by McConkie and came upon this:

"5. Christ worked out his own salvation by worshiping the Father.

After the Firstborn of the Father, while yet a spirit being, had gained power and intelligence that made him like unto God; after he had become, under the Father, the Creator of worlds without number; after he had reigned on the throne of eternal power as the Lord Omnipotent-- after all this he yet had to gain a mortal and then an immortal body.

After the Son of God "made flesh" his "tabernacle," and while he yet "dwelt among the sons of men"; after he left his preexistent glory as we all do at birth; after he was born of Mary in Bethlehem of Judea--after all this he was called upon to work out his own salvation.

Of our Lord's life while in this mortal probation the scripture says, "He received not of the fullness at the first, but received grace for grace; and he received not of the fullness at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fullness." Finally, after his resurrection, "he received a fullness of the glory of the Father; and he received all power both in heaven and on earth, and the glory of the Father was with him, for he dwelt in him." (D&C 93:12-17)

I am actually a little in shock at the very idea that anyone would believe that Christ himself had to be saved. From what do you believe Jesus had to be saved? From sin? If not sin, then what? Please explain.

Thank you.

[Traveler]

...

I must tell you that the attitude I find among some Mormons makes it very difficult. You are not the first, so this is not personal, nor does it apply to all Mormons. I've been speaking with Mormons for nearly three years now. How would you feel if I patted you on the head and said "I know you really can't understand, you poor little creature, because you have not been spiritually reborn. I, on the other hand, am enlightened and on my way to godhood, so let me teach you a thing or two." It is an elitist attitude that immediately throws up a road block to those with which you speak. Just thought you should know that it isn't real helpful and not the best tact to take. It shuts down communication in a hurry and prevents you from even considering another point of view.

I assume that the "direction" in our discussion has in essence ended. I thank you for the points and interest our ideas sparked for a while - I personally found our discussion exciting, fun and enlightening. I regret that my enjoyment was not shared by you.

The Traveler

[Vort]

I am actually a little in shock at the very idea that anyone would believe that Christ himself had to be saved. From what do you believe Jesus had to be saved? From sin? If not sin, then what? Please explain.

Thank you.

Yes, from sin. Not sure what is so shocking about the statement. There is no implication that Christ was sinful; on the contrary, the doctrines state quite the opposite. Christ, unlike any other person to dwell on earth, was justified by the law. For this reason, he is in the unique situation of being able to offer himself to atone for the sins of others and bring them again to the Father.

You think God is "Other", and that is the genesis of your confusion on the topic. God is not "Other". We are his children, made in his image, heirs to all he has if we choose so to be. Christ is our perfect exemplar. He overcame sin and death. This is pure Biblical doctrine, but is only understood correctly through the revelations God has given through the leaders of his kingdom. Those outside the kingdom of God do not know what to make of such Biblical doctrines, and so are reduced to invoking magic and mysticism to explain what is, for them, unexplainable.

Yes, Christ overcame sin and death, and worked out his salvation.

[JudoMinja]

As I understand, based upon your response, you then equate redemption with salvation, however those that are saved (all of mankind) will not necessarily be exalted. If this is true then salvation requires no acceptance or positive response from mankind. Does this not interfere in man's free will? What of one who rejects Christ; who rejects salvation? We have everything from pagans, to atheists to Satan worshippers among the human family. Is there nothing that is required of man in order to be saved? At a minimum, would it not require at least some degree of faith in the one who saves us?

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel. It is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes... For in it is revealed the righteousness of God from faith to faith; as it is written, 'The one who is righteous by faith will live'." (Romans 1:16-17)

"They are justified by his grace through the redemption in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as an expiation, through faith, by his blood, to prove his righteousness because of the forgiveness of sins previously committed, through the forebearance of God - to prove his righteousness in the present time, that he might be righteous and justify the one who has faith in Jesus." (Romans 3:24-26)

This principal, that we must have faith in Christ in order to be saved, is repeated throughout the New Testament, in both the Gospels and the epistles. So my question is, do you believe that even those who reject Christ are saved, and if so, how do you justify that postion in light of the words of scripture to the contrary? The verses I have quoted were the result of just flipping open my Bible. This principal of salvation (by faith in Jesus Christ) is so widely stated that I knew I would find it regardless of where I looked in the New Testament. I am not one of those who prefers to state quote after quote in order to prove a point. In this case I believe I could find quotes supporting the principal that salvation requires faith in Jesus Christ that would fill pages if I was required to do so.

This does not take away from the fact that I also believe that different people will receive different degrees of glory depending upon how they have lived their lives. But those who have no faith or who outright reject Christ and his Church will not receive any degree of glory. Indeed, they will die the second death and will live eternally outside of the kingdom of heaven, just as they have chosen through their own free will, in a place we call hell.

I think we are just having a difficulty in communicating differences in terminology. I realize, after reading this response, that my post was not clear enough in identifying the differences between LDS and other Christian teachings about the atonement. Hopefully this will clear things up:

When an LDS person refers to being "saved", we are typically talking about being saved from death. We believe that Christ died and was resurrected to overcome death, and that when he did so this was extended as a free gift to everyone. Because Christ was resurrected, we can and will now all be resurrected- or have our bodies rejoined with our spirits after death. We do not have to do anything for this. Everyone will be resurrected.

Now, I made a mistake in saying that we equate salvation and redemption. There is a difference, but in the context you initially said them that difference would have been negligable. Salvation is that resurrection which "saves" us all from physical death. I think, after looking over the posts, that what you call redemption is what we call the atonement. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like when you use the word redemption that you are using it to identify the price Christ paid for us. It was a price that he paid for everyone, but that we have to accept of our own will.

I had a seminary teacher that used a great analogy to explain this. One day she brought donuts to class. She asked one of the students if they would like a donut. The student said yes, and then the teacher asked her son to do ten pushups. When he'd done so, she gave the donut to the student. She then asked the next student if they'd like a donut. When the student said yes, she again asked her son to do ten pushups before giving away the donut. At this point, we all realized that the pushups had to be done before getting a donut, and the next student said they would like a donut but would do their own pushups for it. The teacher replied "You are free to do your own pushups if you like, but I can only give you the donut once my son has done ten pushups for you." That student then said, "Well, then I don't want a donut."

The teacher smiled and then asked her son to do ten pushups. "Why are you making him do the pushups, if I said I don't want a donut?" the student asked. "Because," she replied, "He has to do the pushups so that the donut can be available to you should you change your mind." Now, this continued all the way around the room. A few of the other students refused donuts, but her son did ten pushups for every single one. By the time our teacher got to the last person in the room, watching her son do those pushups was almost unbearable. We wanted to help him, but we could not. He did those pushups for every single one of us, so that we could have a donut if we wanted it.

The difference between that example and the redemption or atonement is that we simply are not capable of doing the "pushups" the Savior did for us. We believe that He suffered through these "pushups" in the Garden of Gethsemane, and that this was separate from what he suffered on the cross. We have a choice whether or not to accept and utilize the atonement, but he had to suffer it so that the choice would be available to us. This is what is given to "everyone who believes" or "the one who has faith in Jesus". This is freedom from our sins.

However, we don't believe in a concept of being "saved" in the sense that much of the Christian world believes in it. We do not believe that being saved is a one time deal- that we simply choose to believe in or have faith in Christ and we are saved. When we think of being saved in the context you provided, we are thinking of repentance. It is a continuous process that we are constantly working on. In my blog, I described it as getting help from a tutor. The tutor does not do the work for us, but helps us do our own work.

One of my favorite talks by Elder Bednar describes this as a process of being "born again" and compares it to pickling a cucumber. This talk was titled "Ye Must Be Born Again". It outlines how repentance is a continuous process and not just a one time choice. If we are to utilize the sacrifice Christ made for us to redeem us of our sins, yes we must have faith in Him, and we must also continuously go through this process and work for it.

[SteveVH]

I assume that the "direction" in our discussion has in essence ended. I thank you for the points and interest our ideas sparked for a while - I personally found our discussion exciting, fun and enlightening. I regret that my enjoyment was not shared by you.

The Traveler

Traveler, if I didn't enjoy having these discussions I wouldn't be here. But when one justifies their postion by claiming that the other party just can't understand because they are not spiritually enlightened, it kind of brings a quick halt to the discussion, does it not?

You have basically stated that I have no credibility because I am spiritually blind. If that is true then what is the point in even having a conversation with me? If I state something that does not agree with you and you can write if off as spiritual blindness on my part without considering the evidence then how do we proceed?

That being said, I am more than happy to continue our conversation if what I say can be dealt with on its own terms.

[SteveVH]

I think we are just having a difficulty in communicating differences in terminology. I realize, after reading this response, that my post was not clear enough in identifying the differences between LDS and other Christian teachings about the atonement. Hopefully this will clear things up:

When an LDS person refers to being "saved", we are typically talking about being saved from death. We believe that Christ died and was resurrected to overcome death, and that when he did so this was extended as a free gift to everyone. Because Christ was resurrected, we can and will now all be resurrected- or have our bodies rejoined with our spirits after death. We do not have to do anything for this. Everyone will be resurrected.

Now, I made a mistake in saying that we equate salvation and redemption. There is a difference, but in the context you initially said them that difference would have been negligable. Salvation is that resurrection which "saves" us all from physical death. I think, after looking over the posts, that what you call redemption is what we call the atonement. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like when you use the word redemption that you are using it to identify the price Christ paid for us. It was a price that he paid for everyone, but that we have to accept of our own will.

The difference between that example and the redemption or atonement is that we simply are not capable of doing the "pushups" the Savior did for us. We believe that He suffered through these "pushups" in the Garden of Gethsemane, and that this was separate from what he suffered on the cross. We have a choice whether or not to accept and utilize the atonement, but he had to suffer it so that the choice would be available to us. This is what is given to "everyone who believes" or "the one who has faith in Jesus". This is freedom from our sins.

However, we don't believe in a concept of being "saved" in the sense that much of the Christian world believes in it. We do not believe that being saved is a one time deal- that we simply choose to believe in or have faith in Christ and we are saved. When we think of being saved in the context you provided, we are thinking of repentance. It is a continuous process that we are constantly working on. In my blog, I described it as getting help from a tutor. The tutor does not do the work for us, but helps us do our own work.

One of my favorite talks by Elder Bednar describes this as a process of being "born again" and compares it to pickling a cucumber. This talk was titled "Ye Must Be Born Again". It outlines how repentance is a continuous process and not just a one time choice. If we are to utilize the sacrifice Christ made for us to redeem us of our sins, yes we must have faith in Him, and we must also continuously go through this process and work for it.

We are certainly on the same page when it comes to "once saved always saved". We also believe that conversion is a life long process. The difference, however, that I see is that we believe one can loose his/her salvation if we do not persevere to the end. The "once saved, always saved" crowd believes that one is saved at a particular moment in time by professing Christ as their Lord and Savior and that there is nothing one can do after that moment in time to loose their salvation.

But it seems to me that the Mormon faith is something altogether different from either of these positions. You believe that all are saved (due to the atonement), regardless of their faith (if I'm wrong here, please correct me); that the path we are walking is not the path of salvation (we are already saved) but rather the path of exaltation in order to receive higher degrees of glory. Am I correct so far? If so, then do you believe that there are any circumstances in which we can loose our salvation so that exaltation becomes a moot point?

My point is not whether or not salvation must be worked out over our lifetime or whether it occurs at a specific moment in time during our life on earth, but whether or not atonement equates with salvation. Since we agree that all have been redeemed (the price has been paid) do we all receive the beneifts of that redemption regardless of our faith?