Son of God?

[Jason_J]

What we rely on is our respective churches to explain to us what Scripture means. I believe in my church because I believe it is the church Christ created while He was on Earth. I don't believe in the Great Apostasy, because I believe that Christ said the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church;

Latter-day Saints agree with what Christ said. The question is, what did He mean by that? Also, even if we accept your view, it is clear that holding a belief in a restoration of Christ's Church means that the gates of Hell didn't prevail, since His Church is here.

that it would not go into grave error. And that it wouldn't leave the Earth

That's an interpretation of Christ's words, not what He actually stated.

(to me it makes no sense for Christ to establish His Church and then allow it to die out and have all of His followers living contrary to His will).

We believe that God allows all of us to have free will, and that He won't force us to do something. We believe that the Bible has repeatedly shown a cycle of the truth being given through God's prophets, and the people eventually rejecting it. We believe that this has all been part of God's plan, and in His omniscience, He is aware of the entire salvation history. Also, if you can't believe that Christ would establish His Church and allow it to "die out", do you find it difficult to believe that God would create man and allow them to Fall, disobeying Him? I find the two beliefs quite similar.

[AnthonyB]

Quote from Lewis's "Mere Christianity", which I thinks explains what I really like about the idea of the trinity. The LDS godhead come across to me more like the Roman or Greek gods, family squabbles, kids doing odd things etc

2. The Three-Personal God

The last chapter was about the difference between begetting and making. A man begets a child, but he

only makes a statue. God begets Christ but He only makes men. But by saying that, I have illustrated

only one point about God, namely, that what God the Father begets is God, something of the same

kind as Himself. In that way it is like a human father begetting a human son. But not quite like it. So I

must try to explain a little more.

A good many people nowadays say, "I believe in a God, but not in a personal God." They feel that the

mysterious something which is behind all other things must be more than a person. Now the

Christians quite agree. But the Christians are the only people who offer any idea of what a being that

is beyond personality could be like. All the other people, though they say that God is beyond

personality, really think of Him as something impersonal: that is, as something less than personal. If

you are looking for something super-personal, something more than a person, then it is not a question

of choosing between the Christian idea and the other ideas. The Christian idea is the only one on the

market.

Again, some people think that after this life, or perhaps after several lives, human souls will be

"absorbed" into God. But when they try to explain what they mean, they seem to be thinking of our

being absorbed into God as one material thing is absorbed into another. They say it is like a drop of

water slipping into the sea. But of course that is the end of the drop. If that is what happens to us, then

being absorbed is the same as ceasing to exist. It is only the Christians who have any idea of how

human souls can be taken into the life of God and yet remain themselves—in fact, be very much more

themselves than they were before.

[Vort]

Quote from Lewis's "Mere Christianity", which I thinks explains what I really like about the idea of the trinity. The LDS godhead come across to me more like the Roman or Greek gods, family squabbles, kids doing odd things etc

Interesting viewpoint. Can you give some examples (or, hey, even one) of the LDS Godhead engaging in a family squabble or doing "odd" things, a la Roman or Greek pantheon members?

[AnthonyB]

Interesting viewpoint. Can you give some examples (or, hey, even one) of the LDS Godhead engaging in a family squabble or doing "odd" things, a la Roman or Greek pantheon members?

Vort, my impression comes from the way LDS describe the meeting that occurred where the plan for salvation was decided. Jesus had one view, Satan another and then there was a fight in heaven about it. Some taking one side and some the other.

For traditional Christians the fall of Satan comes across as an insurrection by a disobedient creation (Lucifer). It is plot hatched purly out of pride and self love.

In the LDS verison that I've read it, with everybody being spirit children of Father God and all having bodies (including the Father). They then have a discussion about which plan, Father accepts Jesus plan, Lucifier throws a tantrum and takes off with some other kids (angels). it just seems to me more like a family squabble with a Dad and his kids then a rebellion against a rightful God.

(If I offended I aplogize but it is the way the LDS version plays in my mind.)

Edited December 12, 2011 by AnthonyB

[Hala401]

Quote from Lewis's "Mere Christianity", which I thinks explains what I really like about the idea of the trinity. The LDS godhead come across to me more like the Roman or Greek gods, family squabbles, kids doing odd things etc

Well, personally I think that so much about God is not understood, most of what we think about God is pure speculation, not worth killing each other over.

1 We abelieve in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.

So, the one that makes the most sense to me is the above one. I see the three as separate but in complete agreement with each other.

It is interesting as the Muslim view on such things has it that there is one God, with no helpers. So, either the angels and prophets go around doing his will, or the One God has many aspects that they simply don't try to define.

All this gives much food for thought, and prayer.

[Vort]

Vort, my impression comes from the way LDS describe the meeting that occurred where the plan for salvation was decided. Jesus had one view, Satan another and then there was a fight in heaven about it. Some taking one side and some the other.

For traditional Christians the fall of Satan comes across as an insurrection by a disobedient creation (Lucifer).

In the LDS verison that I've read it with everybody being spirit children of Father God and all having bodies (including the Father) it just seems to me more like a family squabble.

(If I offended I aplogize but it is the way the LDS version plays in my mind.)

If that's your impression, then fair enough. Can't fault someone for how things have been presented to them.

But you wrote, "The LDS godhead come across to me more like the Roman or Greek gods, family squabbles, kids doing odd things etc". Even if we take all the things you mention at face value, I'm still not seeing how "the LDS [G]odhead" comes across as squabbling in a manner similar to Greek or Roman pantheon gods.

For the record: It is not the case that the LDS Church teaches that Lucifer and Christ each presented a plan, and the rest of us picked between them. This is false doctrine.

The true teaching is that the Father presented his plan for the salvation of his children, and asked (perhaps rhetorically) whom he should send to redeem mankind from the fall that must come. The First, aka the premortal Christ, stated that he would accept the role. Lucifer, "a son of the morning" (whatever that means), also spoke up, seeking to usurp the Father's honor. His offer was rejected by the Father, who selected the First as the Savior of all. Lucifer and those who hearkened to him rebelled and were forever cut off from the Father and cast out of his presence.

[Dravin]

Vort, my impression comes from the way LDS describe the meeting that occurred where the plan for salvation was decided. Jesus had one view, Satan another and then there was a fight in heaven about it. Some taking one side and some the other.

Quick LDS Synopsis:

There was one plan presented: God's.

Christ volunteered to serve the role of Savior in it.

Satan rebelled with his followers against God's plan. Of course Satan's rebellion and that of his followers is not an LDS unique doctrine (the exact reason is though), nor is Satan a part of the Godhead.

Edited December 12, 2011 by Dravin

[AnthonyB]

Is Jesus a spirit child of God the Father?

Is he the same kind of spirit child as everyone else?

When and how did he become a part of the Godhead?

Was he part of the Godhead before the first council about how to redeem mankind?

[Vort]

Is Jesus a spirit child of God the Father?

Is he the same kind of spirit child as everyone else?

When and how did he become a part of the Godhead?

Was he part of the Godhead before the first council about how to redeem mankind?

Yes.

Yes, as far as has been revealed. In mortality, he was a literal son of God in the flesh, which I understand to be different from us.

I don't know. I do not believe such specifics have been revealed to the Saints at large.

Yes.

Having answered your specific questions to the best of my ability, let me point out a problem. You are in the position of a child who, having more or less mastered addition of single-digit numbers, then demands a thorough explanation of integral calculus, differential equations, and number theory. Upon examination of almost any part of the above, the child responds, "I know math, and that's not how it works!"

The tools you need to understand the gospel are humility, diligence in searching, and a willingness to submit yourself to God and do whatever he demands of you (even such a horrifying possibility as -- gasp! -- being baptized a Mormon). You are not required to park your brain at the curb, but by the same token you cannot get the understanding you request merely through logical argumentation and comparisons with what you already think you know. There are too many missing pieces to build a wide foundation.

[Justice]

Shelly, I'd like to take a bit and explain something about the "falling away" or apostasy that happened to the church, and why we believe it was more significant than just loosing some teachings that could have easily been "re-added" back to Christianity.

We believe Christ gave the Apostles the power and authority to act for God on earth.

Matthew 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

During Christ's mortal ministry He taught the Apostles what needed to be done in order for a man to be saved, or how a man can apply Christ's atoning sacrifice to himself. Ordinances were involved. When they perform these ordinances, like baptism, it needed to be binding (or sealed) in heaven as well as on earth. If a man did not have this authority God did not have to honor it. If it was not sealed or bound in heaven, what good would it do when a man died?

Now, to the teachings and doctrines that were lost. In some instances truths (teachings and doctrines) were removed from the scriptres held by the church, so that the church could more readily enforce it's hold on the doctrines. In some instances some words were added to help clarify a belief held by church leaders. In some instances words were changed so the scriptures would more accurately reflect the church's views. So, removed, added, and changed.

The above is a reality, but is not the basis or primary factor for our belief in an apostasy. Once the Apostles, or general leaders of the church, were killed, they were not replaced. Once the Apostles were gone there was no more authority to direct the affairs of the general church. Bishops remained, but they were in charge of their local parish or church. They never did have the authority to dictate doctrine or conduct the affairs of the general church.

The loss of the authority was more important than the loss of any doctrines.

The example I give is that of baptism. The true ordinance of baptism was lost. Through the Book of Mormon it was restored. We learn that infants are saved through Christ's atonement until they reach the age of accountability. This means that "original sin" is a false teaching, or misunderstood. Infants are innocent, through Christ's atonement, at birth because they are not responsible for Adam's choices.

Baptism also must be by immerision. The Book of Mormon makes it perfectly clear. It is the resurrected Christ who is teaching this personally to the people in ancient America.

But, let's say a church did all this perfectly, the baptism would still not be binding unless it was attended to by those with proper authority, the authority Christ gave His Apostles. So, the loss of the general authority to guide the church meant it had to be restored from heaven.

The loss of the Priesthood trumps the loss of teachings and doctrines.

Man made it's own priesthood and it was recognized by the surviving church, but it was not recognized by God because it was not conferred by one who had been rightfully given the Priesthood. Man chose and selected the leaders of the Church, not God, and they did not have His authority to lead the church (Priesthood keys). You cannot pass on or give whay you do not have. So, the church wandered through the Dark Ages.

Heavenly messengers vistied the earth and restored this same sealing or binding power that Christ gave to His Apostles. Now then, the ordinances, if performed according to commandment, can once again be honored and sealed in heaven.

I hope this helps you understand why we believe the church lost it's authority, and it needed to be restored from heaven, not just simply doctrines needing to be "added, removed, or changed" by men.

Edited December 12, 2011 by Justice

[Guest Ivo_G]

No. I am not confusing the meaning. In religious discussions about the nature of God, "essence" has a very particular meaning. The Father, Son and Holy Ghost are all believed to be on the same essence, not merely of the same nature. What you are talking about, in a theological context is nature.

Believe me, I do know what is meant by "Essence of God" :) and I still think you are either confusing the meaning of the term or are just unnecessarily affraid of it and yes "essence" and "nature" are almost synonymous even in theological context (you can look it up online)...anyways, here's an exact definition of "essence":

The phrase "Essence of God" is a theological term used to refer to God's personal characteristics, or to the facets of His personality. Sometimes the term "Attributes of God" is used to refer to God's essence.

Basically the Essence of God is all those things/characteristics that make Him God :)

Here I should admit I'm not sure (never thought about it before) whether the LDS Church considers all members of the Godhead all-powerful, all-knowing etc.? Does it? Or is it just Heavenly Father that possesses those attributes?

[Justice]

Heavenly Father possesses them all. He directs the use of His power and authority to bring about His purposes, which are to bring about the immortality and exaltation of His children. He can give portions of His power to whomever He wishes to help bring about His will.

[Guest Ivo_G]

ok, thanks for the info :) then i guess Snow was right and we can't say that the members of the Godhead are of the same essence (in LDS context)...that's too bad - it was a nice "ecumenical" opportunity

[Vort]

Here I should admit I'm not sure (never thought about it before) whether the LDS Church considers all members of the Godhead all-powerful, all-knowing etc.? Does it? Or is it just Heavenly Father that possesses those attributes?

The Son has all the attributes of the Father. He has inherited the fullness of the Father. So all the attributes of perfection can be inferred to the Father and the Son in equal measure.

Very little (read: nothing) of a personal nature has been revealed to the Church regarding the nature of the Holy Ghost, so questioning his personal attributes is useless. We know that he is a member of the Godhead, so we can assume that he has all the glory, power, and perfection necessary for that.

[prisonchaplain]

Latter-day Saints agree with what Christ said. The question is, what did He mean by that? Also, even if we accept your view, it is clear that holding a belief in a restoration of Christ's Church means that the gates of Hell didn't prevail, since His Church is here.

That's an interpretation of Christ's words, not what He actually stated.

Shelly's "interpretation" strikes me as a pretty straight-forward reading. When Jesus says Satan would not prevail against his church, it seems logical and self-evident to think he meant that there would be no heresy or opposition that would so succeed that religious authority would become absent from the earth--especially not for 19 centuries.

Mind you, as a Protestant, I do believe that the church suffered a good deal of difficulties--so much so that the Reformation was required. Ironically, I had one professor suggest to me that the Protestant Reformation may well have saved the Catholic Church--by driving her to expunge some of its more questionable practices.

I further believe that the "Church" is not one organization, but rather faithful believers around the globe that find themselves in numerous Christian fellowships.

So, there is not denying that the church has had its rough patches. Then again, so did God's chosen people. Nevertheless, 2000 years later, more than 2 billion strong, and representing roughly one-third of the earth's population, could it be that what needed restoring was not the fullblown authority of the church, but rather some giftings and teachings that had been allowed to diminish to obscurity?

[bytor2112]

The Son has all the attributes of the Father. He has inherited the fullness of the Father. So all the attributes of perfection can be inferred to the Father and the Son in equal measure.

Very little (read: nothing) of a personal nature has been revealed to the Church regarding the nature of the Holy Ghost, so questioning his personal attributes is useless. We know that he is a member of the Godhead, so we can assume that he has all the glory, power, and perfection necessary for that.

Well, we know that he grieves, that he comforts and that he reveals.....those are some personal attributes.

[Shelly200]

The question for you is, if you believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three distinct Persons, who are not each other, then what do you mean when you say that they are "one Being", and therefore "one God"? What does that definition entail? I already am familiar with this, but I'd like to hear your reasoning.

For one thing, it is important to note that non-LDS do not use Person and Being interchangeably. This is what is so confusing. To us, if something is three beings, then it is three separate things: you are a being separate from me, and I am a being separate from you and also from the president, who is also separate from the two of us. You can't be me or the president, I can't be you or the president, and the president cannot be either me or you; we are three separate, unique, complete beings. (No matter how perfectly we agree with each other.) This is why, point blank, any non-LDS who hears an LDS member say the Godhead is three separate Beings will automatically claim polytheism. We are viewing the word "being" in a way that *would* make the LDS church polytheistic.

Now, if the LDS church is using the word to mean something else, then that's another issue altogether.

There is also apparently a differing definition of "one" between the two groups. With the LDS members saying that the "one" in the Bible refers to a oneness of unity, as in, the Godhead is a single unit, who are similar in purpose. The non-LDS members feel this is a stretch (is it possible for the word "one" to be interpreted to mean "oneness in purpose?' Well, I guess so, but since I don't have the Greek in front of me right now, I wouldn't be able to say for sure. Let's just leave it at: LDS interpret it one way and non-LDS interpret it another.), and simply take the word "one" to mean "one:" there is one God.

As to the Trinity: Like I said before, while it is something very easy for non-LDS members to believe, it is more difficult to explain (especially to those who not only simply don't understand it, but specifically believe something contrary to it). So, in the idea of time saving, I'm going to list some quotes from other people and a link.

Here is a thorough definition:: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Blessed Trinity

And some quotes::

"But in the one true God and Trinity it is naturally true not only that God is one but also that he is a Trinity, for the reason that the true God himself is a Trinity of Persons and one in nature. Through this natural unity the whole Father is in the Son and in the Holy Spirit, and the whole Holy Spirit, too, is in the Father and in the Son. None of these is outside any of the others; because no one of them precedes any other of them in eternity or exceeds any other in greatness, or is superior to any other in power." - Fulgence of Ruspe

"...who wrote before me about the Trinity, which is God, intended to teach in accord with the Scriptures that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are of one and the same substance constituting a divine unity with an inseparable equality; and therefore there are not three gods but one God, although the Father begot the Son, and therefore he who is the Son is not the Father; and the Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son but only the Spirit of the Father and of the Son, himself, too, coequal to the Father and to the Son and belonging to the unity of the Trinity" - St. Augustine of Hippo

"[T]here is no other God, nor has there been heretofore, nor will there be hereafter, except God the Father unbegotten, without beginning, from whom is all beginning, upholding all things, as we say, and his Son Jesus Christ, whom we likewise to confess to have always been with the Father—before the world’s beginning. . . . Jesus Christ is the Lord and God in whom we believe . . . and who has poured out on us abundantly the Holy Spirit . . . whom we confess and adore as one God in the Trinity of the sacred Name." - St. Patrick of Ireland

"There is one God. . . . There is a perfect Trinity, in glory and eternity and sovereignty, neither divided nor estranged. Wherefore there is nothing either created or in servitude in the Trinity; nor anything superinduced, as if at some former period it was non-existent, and at some later period it was introduced" - Gregory the Wonderworker

"Next, then, I may properly turn to those who divide and cut apart and destroy the most sacred proclamation of the Church of God, making of it [the Trinity], as it were, three powers, distinct substances, and three godheads. . . . [some heretics] proclaim that there are in some way three gods, when they divide the sacred unity into three substances foreign to each other and completely separate" - Pope Dionysius

I hope the quotations and the link provide some light on the doctrine of the Trinity.

[Shelly200]

Latter-day Saints agree with what Christ said. The question is, what did He mean by that? Also, even if we accept your view, it is clear that holding a belief in a restoration of Christ's Church means that the gates of Hell didn't prevail, since His Church is here.

Catholics take that verse to mean that the gates of Hell won't *ever* prevail against the Church. The Church can never fall away, or be stricken from the Earth for any period of time. This is where the LDS church and the Protestant churches converge, at least partially. Both interpret this verse to mean that the gates of Hell won't prevail against the Church in the end; that they prevailed against it for a period of time, and then the Church was brought back.

Once again, to Catholics, this is a stretch of the words. We take them at face value: The gates of Hell won't prevail against the church. Period. We believe that the Holy Spirit prevented, and prevents, that from happening.

That's an interpretation of Christ's words, not what He actually stated.

Let's face it: if we only went by the literal words that Christ said in commanding His people, we wouldn't have much to go on. The LDS church interprets Christ's words, the Catholic Church interprets Christ's words, and the Protestant churches interpret Christ's words. I think we should cease from using this argument as a trump card. The real question is: who has the Authority to interpret those words? We all disagree on that too.

We believe that God allows all of us to have free will, and that He won't force us to do something. We believe that the Bible has repeatedly shown a cycle of the truth being given through God's prophets, and the people eventually rejecting it. We believe that this has all been part of God's plan, and in His omniscience, He is aware of the entire salvation history. Also, if you can't believe that Christ would establish His Church and allow it to "die out", do you find it difficult to believe that God would create man and allow them to Fall, disobeying Him? I find the two beliefs quite similar.

The reason why the Catholic Church believes that God's Church will never leave the Earth for any period of time is because we believe the Holy Spirit was sent down to the Earth at Pentecost to the Apostles, and the Apostles passed on the Faith through the ages. Now, I know humans have free will. But, to me at least, there is a problem with this argument: how can we exercise our free will and choose Christ, if His Church is not on the Earth? Yes, individual people might abandon God, but God doesn't abandon His children. I do not believe He would allow His Church to be completely wiped off the face of the planet and give no one the opportunity to choose Him with their free will. Christ established the Church, then sent the Spirit to enlighten and embolden the members and ensure its continuity throughout the ages.

As to the Fall: again, a free will thing. But there had to be something to choose between: obeying God or obeying the serpent. If Christ's Church has left the Earth, then we can't exercise our free will to choose God; we have only one option (choosing something contrary to God)... and that's not choice at all.

[volgadon]

The reason why the Catholic Church believes that God's Church will never leave the Earth for any period of time is because we believe the Holy Spirit was sent down to the Earth at Pentecost to the Apostles, and the Apostles passed on the Faith through the ages. Now, I know humans have free will. But, to me at least, there is a problem with this argument: how can we exercise our free will and choose Christ, if His Church is not on the Earth? Yes, individual people might abandon God, but God doesn't abandon His children. I do not believe He would allow His Church to be completely wiped off the face of the planet and give no one the opportunity to choose Him with their free will. Christ established the Church, then sent the Spirit to enlighten and embolden the members and ensure its continuity throughout the ages.

This argument doesn't work too well if we look to the time before Christ was born.

[volgadon]

For one thing, it is important to note that non-LDS do not use Person and Being interchangeably. This is what is so confusing. To us, if something is three beings, then it is three separate things: you are a being separate from me, and I am a being separate from you and also from the president, who is also separate from the two of us. You can't be me or the president, I can't be you or the president, and the president cannot be either me or you; we are three separate, unique, complete beings. (No matter how perfectly we agree with each other.) This is why, point blank, any non-LDS who hears an LDS member say the Godhead is three separate Beings will automatically claim polytheism. We are viewing the word "being" in a way that *would* make the LDS church polytheistic.

Now, if the LDS church is using the word to mean something else, then that's another issue altogether.

There is also apparently a differing definition of "one" between the two groups. With the LDS members saying that the "one" in the Bible refers to a oneness of unity, as in, the Godhead is a single unit, who are similar in purpose. The non-LDS members feel this is a stretch (is it possible for the word "one" to be interpreted to mean "oneness in purpose?' Well, I guess so, but since I don't have the Greek in front of me right now, I wouldn't be able to say for sure. Let's just leave it at: LDS interpret it one way and non-LDS interpret it another.), and simply take the word "one" to mean "one:" there is one God.

Yet Jews and Muslims feel that Trinitrian usage of "one" is a stretch. As I said in an earlier reply to you, there is nothing inherently more logical in your use of of "one" than there is in the LDS faith's.

Edited December 13, 2011 by volgadon

[Snow]

Believe me, I do know what is meant by "Essence of God" :) and I still think you are either confusing the meaning of the term or are just unnecessarily affraid of it and yes "essence" and "nature" are almost synonymous even in theological context (you can look it up online)...anyways, here's an exact definition of "essence":

The phrase "Essence of God" is a theological term used to refer to God's personal characteristics, or to the facets of His personality. Sometimes the term "Attributes of God" is used to refer to God's essence.

Basically the Essence of God is all those things/characteristics that make Him God :)

Here I should admit I'm not sure (never thought about it before) whether the LDS Church considers all members of the Godhead all-powerful, all-knowing etc.? Does it? Or is it just Heavenly Father that possesses those attributes?

Rather using the definition from Warren Doud of the Austin Bible Church, can't we just use the standard word used since 325 AD and the council of Nicaea?

It's the greek word ousia, it means being and it is translated, sometimes, into as substance or essence. It's from the Nicene Creed.

If you want to talk about the nature of God or the attributes of God, can't you just say that?

[maiku]

"But in the one true God and Trinity it is naturally true not only that God is one but also that he is a Trinity, for the reason that the true God himself is a Trinity of Persons and one in nature. Through this natural unity the whole Father is in the Son and in the Holy Spirit, and the whole Holy Spirit, too, is in the Father and in the Son. None of these is outside any of the others; because no one of them precedes any other of them in eternity or exceeds any other in greatness, or is superior to any other in power." - Fulgence of Ruspe

According to the last part of this quote, the relationship between the Father and Son isn't a Father-Son relationship at all but that of ONE being, thing, whatever you want to call it.

I read the post about person and being not meaning the same but the semantics don't change the fact that there can't exist three of something and one of something at the same time. Either it's three or it's one.

[Snow]

Shelly's "interpretation" strikes me as a pretty straight-forward reading. When Jesus says Satan would not prevail against his church, it seems logical and self-evident to think he meant that there would be no heresy or opposition that would so succeed that religious authority would become absent from the earth--especially not for 19 centuries.

That's not a straightforward reading at all. That sets up all sorts of criteria that are not in found in the context of the original text:

No significant heresy... that temporarily causes authority to be suspended, for 1700 years.

It's simply one interpretation.

One could just as easily say no significant heresy, like say The Trinity, that cannot be found in the Bible or no significant apostasy such that the Bishop of Rome... (insert anything you like about the bad popes)... etc.

I am not saying that one interpretation is right over the other, it's all a matter of what you choose to believe - God Himself is silent on the matter - any way you look at it is an interoperation that the one side may agree with and seems wholly unreasonable to the other side.

[Snow]

So, there is not denying that the church has had its rough patches. Then again, so did God's chosen people. Nevertheless, 2000 years later, more than 2 billion strong, and representing roughly one-third of the earth's population, could it be that what needed restoring was not the fullblown authority of the church, but rather some giftings and teachings that had been allowed to diminish to obscurity?

That's a rather generous interpretation, but the reformation was, from the Protestant point of view, about corruption that was so rampant and ubiquitous, that they, that became the Protestants, couldn't be Catholic any more - it wasn't merely that some nice things had lapsed.

[Justice]

There is also apparently a differing definition of "one" between the two groups. With the LDS members saying that the "one" in the Bible refers to a oneness of unity, as in, the Godhead is a single unit, who are similar in purpose. The non-LDS members feel this is a stretch (is it possible for the word "one" to be interpreted to mean "oneness in purpose?' Well, I guess so, but since I don't have the Greek in front of me right now, I wouldn't be able to say for sure. Let's just leave it at: LDS interpret it one way and non-LDS interpret it another.), and simply take the word "one" to mean "one:" there is one God.

Why is it a stretch? It is, afterall, a valid use of the word. Plus, I'll again, have you read John 17 lately?