1st Article of Faith

[HEthePrimate]

Maygraceabound,

I am not trying to convince you to believe what Mormons believe, just to explain what Mormons believe. The O.T. can be confusing in its use of terminology, and the LDS accept continuing revelation and multiple other books of scripture, so you may want to turn to them for a better understanding of what Mormons believe, rather than relying solely on the Bible. Again, not saying you have to believe them, but just in order to understand where Mormons are coming from.

Peace,

HEP

[Maygraceabound]

Isaiah 44:6 "Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: I am the first and I am the last, and there is no God besides Me."

The above quote from God can not be true if both Jesus and Father are both separate gods. I do not expect you to respect my words. That is why I quote Gods word. His word is truth Isaiah 9:6 says that Jesus is from everlasting and mighty God. From what I understand about LDS theology Jesus is an offspring from Father, therefore, Jesus can not be from everlasting. To view the three as separate we would have to disregard too many passages of scripture.

Bringing the three together as one fits all scripture. It explains singularity and plurality in the scriptures.

All biblical scripture is true and without error. No word conflicts with another. From this perspective, all three must be one God, as this is the only logical conclusion.

I do respect your opinion, I just disagree with it.

Peace

[Vort]

Isaiah 44:6 "Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: I am the first and I am the last, and there is no God besides Me."

The above quote from God can not be true if both Jesus and Father are both separate gods.

You are wrong. Your terminology is inaccurate and your scriptural gloss is (to be charitable) naive in the extreme.

From what I understand about LDS theology Jesus is an offspring from Father, therefore, Jesus can not be from everlasting.

Your logical connection fails. Please understand, I am not saying merely that your premise is faulty (though it is). I am telling you that your conclusion is utterly non sequitur. In effect, you are saying, "Since dogs are vegetables, therefore I can fly by flapping my arms."

To view the three as separate we would have to disregard too many passages of scripture.

Says the guy who steadfastly refuses to address the New Testament's crystal clear portrayal of Jesus as separate from the Father.

Bringing the three together as one fits all scripture. It explains singularity and plurality in the scriptures.

It "explains" only the neo-Platonist trinitarian heresy, non-existent in the Bible but established as "doctrine" by popular vote among those at the Nicene council.

All biblical scripture is true and without error. No word conflicts with another.

Even if we accept this absurd, easily disproven position as true, it only makes your position that much harder to substantiate. Honest Catholic scholars have for centuries openly admitted that the Trinitarian doctrine is not explicitly found in the Bible.

Still waiting for that New Testament explanation...

From this perspective, all three must be one God, as this is the only logical conclusion.

We have already observed the efficacy of your logic.

[skippy740]

Isaiah 44:6 "Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: I am the first and I am the last, and there is no God besides Me."

The above quote from God can not be true if both Jesus and Father are both separate gods. I do not expect you to respect my words. That is why I quote Gods word. His word is truth Isaiah 9:6 says that Jesus is from everlasting and mighty God. From what I understand about LDS theology Jesus is an offspring from Father, therefore, Jesus can not be from everlasting. To view the three as separate we would have to disregard too many passages of scripture.

Bringing the three together as one fits all scripture. It explains singularity and plurality in the scriptures.

All biblical scripture is true and without error. No word conflicts with another. From this perspective, all three must be one God, as this is the only logical conclusion.

I do respect your opinion, I just disagree with it.

Peace

It is NOT POSSIBLE to understand the gospel (as we understand it) with only the knowledge of the Bible.

We believe that Joseph Smith saw God the Father and Jesus Christ. If he did see them, he saw two people, not one.

This is based on the belief of ongoing revelation to prophets and apostles in our day.

Only the spirit can teach you if these things are true or not.

You can "disagree", but don't point to ancient scripture and say that it trumps revelation. It's an old argument.

Did you even READ my earlier post regarding The Living Christ?

[Guest]

Isaiah 44:6 "Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: I am the first and I am the last, and there is no God besides Me."

The above quote from God can not be true if both Jesus and Father are both separate gods. I do not expect you to respect my words. That is why I quote Gods word. His word is truth Isaiah 9:6 says that Jesus is from everlasting and mighty God. From what I understand about LDS theology Jesus is an offspring from Father, therefore, Jesus can not be from everlasting. To view the three as separate we would have to disregard too many passages of scripture.

Bringing the three together as one fits all scripture. It explains singularity and plurality in the scriptures.

All biblical scripture is true and without error. No word conflicts with another. From this perspective, all three must be one God, as this is the only logical conclusion.

I do respect your opinion, I just disagree with it.

Peace

The LDS believe there is ONE GOD. ONE in purpose, 3 seperate beings, all One God. Ooooh, it starts to sound just like Trinitarians, right?

Okay, let's bring this back to God 101 type of analogy so you can grasp the difference:

There are several gods in ancient Greece. There is Zeus, the "king of the gods", and then there's his son Apollo (just to name one). Now, just like our Heavenly Father and His Son Jesus Christ, they are 2 persons, 2 distinct beings. BUT, unlike our Heavenly Father and His Son Jesus Christ, Zeus and Apollo are TWO gods not ONE... why? Because Apollo acts independently of Zeus... he defies his father at times, does his own thing without Zeus' involvement sometimes, has a purpose different from Zeus at times. Jesus Christ is ONE God as the Father because what He does is done in accordance to the purposes of the Father. Everything He does, everything that He is, is done in glory and honor of the Father.

So that, when you see Isaiah write: "There is no God before me" then you know that this Godhood - this Oneness - is the ultimate God of man. There is no other. So that, if you hear of another god - like Zeus or Apollo - whose purposes and thoughts and deeds are not one with God, then he is a false god. But, when you hear of another God like the Holy Ghost - whose purpose and thoughts and deeds are ONE with God, then you know that He is also God. Make sense?

Now, our goal in this life is to come to a point where we are just as ONE with God as Jesus Christ is One with the Father.

How's that? Is that clearer now?

Edited March 18, 2012 by anatess

[mikbone]

The Father and the Son - Ensign Apr. 2002 - ensign

[rameumptom]

LDS believe in a social Trinity. The Father, Son and Holy Ghost are "one God" (2 Ne 31, 3 Ne 11). They are beings of Spirit, with the Father and Son clothed in glorified physical bodies. The Bible shows time and again that God is anthropomorphic, and so he is. We are created in His image, therefore he has the image of a man. Yet, this is too simple to explain God.

The Father and Son are one God. They have the same desires, love, will, knowledge, abilities, hope, and desires. As a Godhead, they are in some sense, more whole than they are apart. Unity becomes the key essence of their work and is the "doctrine of Christ" (2 Ne 31, 3 Ne 11).

The Father and Son are both Jehovah. Joseph Smith calls the Father "Jehovah" in the Kirtland dedicatory prayer in D&C 110, for instance. Yet, we also know that the Father gave all power on earth to his Son. Therefore, Jesus is also Jehovah, he who presented himself to Moses on Sinai. As Amulek taught, Jesus is the Father and the Son: the Father of our salvation and the Son who submitted himself to the will of the Father.

This is the First Article of Faith, because all other things are encompassed in this one. The Godhead is one, and we are to be one with each other and with the Godhead (John 17, 3 Ne 11). We first receive the Holy Ghost, which prepares us for the presence of the 2nd Comforter, Jesus Christ. It is only through Christ that we may know the Father and His fullness.

That LDS believe in a social Trinity (which many traditional Christian lay persons also believe) brings us closer to what they believe than some would admit or believe. The major difference is that they believe God is a spirit made from some other pure substance. In this tradition, we can never quite be like God or Christ, because we are made from impure substance. That God cannot make others from his substance is never quite explained, or that God cannot take impure substance and purify it into like substance, is never explained, either.

LDS believe that we can become exactly like Christ, through justification (being made sinless/guiltless) through the atonement of Christ, and sanctification (being made holy) through reception of the Godhead members (first, the Holy Ghost).

[HEthePrimate]

LDS believe in a social Trinity.

What a nice way to put it. Thanks! :)

[Seminarysnoozer]

From what I understand about LDS theology Jesus is an offspring from Father, therefore, Jesus can not be from everlasting. To view the three as separate we would have to disregard too many passages of scripture.

I do respect your opinion, I just disagree with it.

Peace

I don't think you understand what it means to receive a full inheritance. Look at the story of the prodigal son. What thing of the father's did the son not have?

This inheritance is not divided up into pieces and parts. There are not parts that some have and others don't. If part of the inheritance is everlasting than everlasting is what is received upon receiving a full inheritance.

Luke 15: 31 "And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine."

If "all" means something else to you, then I could see how you would disagree with this opinion. To me, "all" means all including all that happened before, just like the Father received all.

[Dove]

I apologize for butting in to a discussion that has been going for awhile.

What I have to say deals mainly with how testy, unkind and "in your face" some of the posts have been towards Maygraceabound.

While Maygraceabound's comments seem to be on the debating side and trying to prove her point as the correct one (imo), shouldn't/couldn't/wouldn't we, as "mormons", want to respond to her posts by turning the other cheek? We could do this by; a) responding patiently by providing more information about our doctrine that hasn't yet been outlined in this thread, (there have been a lot of good comments to this effect already made) b)kindly pointing out what we feel is argumentative or c) (I hate to put it this way, as I don't like to lightly accuse anyone of "trolling") simply not feed the troll, meaning, ignore the perceived antagonistic comments.

This is a long standing doctrinal difference that isn't going to be solved by hating on another, even if this seems deserved by how they're handling the issue. We know what we believe. Shaming or putting down another who disagrees with the doctrine (even if they do it rudely, subtly, or to bait us) amounts to coercing them against their will/agency. It's certainly not conducive to following Christ.

However, I acknowledge that this is an LDS forum, not a forum of mainstream Christianity. Ideally, we should be able to explain our beliefs without having to debate them or be defensive of them here. It's not fair to challenge what the LDS are saying on their own forum. Especially when we have, in earnest sincerity, explained them with all the references given. Maygraceabound doesn't seem as interested in learning what we believe as much as proving us wrong. I just hope we can handle it in a Christlike way.

Dove

Edited March 20, 2012 by Dove
Try, try again

[HEthePrimate]

No, no, Dove, you don't understand. As long as you're doing it "for the Lord" (i.e., if you're on the "right side") it's okay to be nasty. You can lie for the Lord, kill for the Lord, and treat people like crap for the Lord. All's fair in love and war!

Just kidding, Dove! You're absolutely right that we can use more civility. Civility is, after all, Virtue #4 in President Hinckley's book Standing for Something.

Peace,

HEP

[JudoMinja]

I just want to add on a few points with my thoughts. First on who is the "Father"?

Just-a-Guy briefly touched on this... God the Father (or Elohim) is Father to us all. He birthed all our spirits before the creation by organizing the "intelligence" (spirit, light, truth) that existed with Him outside of time and space and cannot be created or uncreated. Jesus Christ, is our oldest spiritual sibling, and He was guided through the creation. It was Christ who created the world, the stars, the universe, etc. with guidance from the Father. Therefore, Christ could also be called Father, since he created all things.

Christ is our mediator, between us in our fallen state and God the Father in His perfect state. He is the only one capable of stepping into this role of mediator. He is our Father in the sense that He is our Ruler, our Savior, our King, our Redeemer. His role, thoughts, purpose, and actions are one with God the Father in a way we cannot even begin to fully understand. So when He says "there is no other God before me", He could easily be using the term God to refer to both Himself and the Father because their purpose and mission is one.

Also, regarding that "no other God before me" phrase in the scripture... In the Old Testament times, there were many different "gods" which the people worshipped. From what I've been studying recently, I believe it is possible that these gods were actual beings who had been given temporary roles of leadership as a test. Christ was given the Israelites, another god the Canaanites, etc. Christ was the only one to pass his "test" and move onward, as He was One with the Father. When His message was brought to be spread to the Gentiles, He essentially "became" the ruler and God of all. So, the other peoples were supposed to reject their previous gods in favor of Christ and the Father.

[mordorbund]

If I may phrase it slightly differently, I believe in God the Eternal Father. I believe in his Son, Jesus Christ. I believe in the Holy Ghost.

I have heard some Christians state that this simple belief in Jesus Christ is enough to be considered Christian and sufficient for salvation. Some have even gone so far as to state that this belief is enough and there is no need for a religion to frame that belief (which would include creeds). I am grateful that these Christians accept me as a brother, as well as all others who join with me in saying "we believe...".

We will of course have to respectfully disagree when we get to the next few articles of faith dealing with the road to salvation.

[dahlia]

And of course you have the instance in the N.T. when Jesus was baptized, and the voice of the Father was heard coming from heaven, and the Holy Spirit appeared in the form of a dove. Also, the New Testament shows Jesus praying to the Father, and it would seem a bit silly for him to be talking to himself that way, and so we interpret that to mean that the Father is actually a different person than Jesus.

I learned about the Godhead when I took lessons. I had no idea that Mormons didn't believe in the trinity. I guess the elders were surprised when I immediately agreed with them (I assume this is a hard nut to crack with a lot of investigators with a Christian background). Even a lapsed Catholic knows that the Son sits at the right hand of the Father, and "This is my Son, in whom I am well pleased." Who's He talking to? Himself? Check one off for Mormons making sense.

[HEthePrimate]

I learned about the Godhead when I took lessons. I had no idea that Mormons didn't believe in the trinity. I guess the elders were surprised when I immediately agreed with them (I assume this is a hard nut to crack with a lot of investigators with a Christian background). Even a lapsed Catholic knows that the Son sits at the right hand of the Father, and "This is my Son, in whom I am well pleased." Who's He talking to? Himself? Check one off for Mormons making sense.

We had an investigator once who immediately accepted the LDS view of the Godhead--what we said made sense to her. The following week, she said "No, I don't believe that. I asked my priest and he said this" and she started talking about the Trinity. So we talked to her some more, quoted some scriptures, etc., and she believed us again, but the next week it was the same thing! She went back and forth on it depending on who she had most recently talked to!

My mother considered herself an atheist before meeting the Mormon missionaries. What she heard at church about God didn't make sense to her, but what the Mormons taught made sense, and much to the missionaries' surprise, she instantly converted! However, her parents wouldn't let her get baptized, so she had to wait until she was 18. She did attend LDS church meetings in the meantime, though.

[Dove]

No, no, Dove, you don't understand. As long as you're doing it "for the Lord" (i.e., if you're on the "right side") it's okay to be nasty. You can lie for the Lord, kill for the Lord, and treat people like crap for the Lord. All's fair in love and war!

Just kidding, Dove! You're absolutely right that we can use more civility. Civility is, after all, Virtue #4 in President Hinckley's book Standing for Something.

Peace,

HEP

LOL! Thanks HEP;

I was wondering if I was out of place or sounded like a mediator/overstepping my bounds by saying what I did. I appreciate your humorous support~

I don't want to sound "holier than thou" in my comments. But, it really does hurt when I read postings from my LDS siblings that seem what I've just described. There have been a few times when I have deleted a full post of what I wrote in anger and to argue. This is usually in response to something written that has offended me. Bridling my own passion/temper is a work in progress for me. I want to be a peacemaker. I've learned the hard way that the only way to truly teach another is through the "pure love of Christ." Then both of us can be touched by the divine Teacher, the Holy Spirit.

Of course, being a follower of the Saviour is a work in progress for all of us. I appreciate your positivity towards my posting, which could easily have been construed in a negative light.

Dove

[Seminarysnoozer]

LOL! Thanks HEP;

I was wondering if I was out of place or sounded like a mediator/overstepping my bounds by saying what I did. I appreciate your humorous support~

I don't want to sound "holier than thou" in my comments. But, it really does hurt when I read postings from my LDS siblings that seem what I've just described. There have been a few times when I have deleted a full post of what I wrote in anger and to argue. This is usually in response to something written that has offended me. Bridling my own passion/temper is a work in progress for me. I want to be a peacemaker. I've learned the hard way that the only way to truly teach another is through the "pure love of Christ." Then both of us can be touched by the divine Teacher, the Holy Spirit.

Of course, being a follower of the Saviour is a work in progress for all of us. I appreciate your positivity towards my posting, which could easily have been construed in a negative light.

Dove

What you are saying is true, "to truly teach another is through the 'pure love of Christ'". But to know that it is done with the "pure love of Christ" cannot be based in words alone, the "pure love of Christ" is based in the desires of one's heart. I have not mastered the ability to determine the 'desire's of one's heart' and it isn't necessary because that is God's job.

I think we always have to err on the side of believing the intentions of posters on both sides are good. Just like Mygraceabound said, 'I want to understand your point of view'. As soon as we judge another person's intentions, whether a post is done out of anger or to pick a fight or to put it "in your face" as you said requires knowledge of what is in a person's heart. The pure love of Christ is not easily offended and it does not fear the judgement of man more than the judgement of God.

The righteous are not easily offended, they are not hurt by words that are true. To turn the other cheek is to not be hurt by the offense.

On the flip side of what you said, sometimes testimonies and truths are left unspoken for fear of the judgement of man. I think it is also important not to promote the fear of offending man (to be politically correct) over sharing one's testimony and passion for what we believe. Of course, like you said, it has to be done with kindness and respect and charity (which is something God knows).

D&C 3:6-7; " 6 And behold, how oft you have transgressed the commandments and the laws of God, and have gone on in the persuasions of men.

7 For, behold, you should not have feared man more than God. Although men set at naught the counsels of God, and despise his words—"

And John 12; " 42 Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue:

43 For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God."

I hope nobody feels like they are going to be put out of the forum (not post something) for fear of offending man or because they love the praise of men more than God.

Don't let the chastisement of man keep you from posting what you feel in your heart, the praise of God comes from what is in a person's heart which is something man cannot see.

[HEthePrimate]

It's easy on the Internet to be less careful of others' feelings than we would be in RL. There are (at least) a couple of reasons for this: (1) We can be more-or-less anonymous on the Internet by hiding behind an assumed name; (2) The Internet (along with any written medium) puts more psychological, as well as physical, distance between interlocutors. I can't see your facial expressions and body language, and you can't see mine. We are a bit removed from each other, and so it's easier to either not think about, or not care about, how others feel. Because of this, I think we should take extra care when communicating in forums like this.

Telling the truth is important for disciples of Christ. But so should being kind to others, and that may involve using tact. I have an aunt who is very proud about being "brutally honest" about things. Well, honesty is good, but I'm not convinced that it has to be brutal. The same aunt has a tendency to focus more on the negative than the positive. IMHO, telling the whole truth also includes talking about the positive.

Anyhoo, what I say once to others, I say twice to myself--I find myself not always behaving properly online, either. (embarrassed)

Peace,

HEP

[Guest biwenga]

very body wants to succeed. But when it comes to the question that which factor leads to success, opportunity or hard-work, different people will offer different answers. San Francisco Escort

Some people think that opportunity is the first factor leading to success. They hold the idea, as a proverb saying, “Man proposes, god disposes”. San Francisco Escorts Because almost all successful people have good luck and have caught their valuable opportunities, they believe that opportunity is a leading condition of the success. San Francisco Asian Escort If seizes and makes the best use of opportunity available, one can succeed surely. In summary, to them, chances and lucks play the most important role on the road to success.

San Francisco Asian Escorts

[Bensalem]

!. We believe in God the Eternal Father and in His Son Jesus Christ and in the Holy Ghost.

In one simple and clear sentence this statement stands as a powerful replacement to the Nicene Creed adopted by most other Christian churches.

[Guest kyolive]

We have new york asian escort to new york asian escorts catch the opportunities and face the challenges new york escort We have no choice but to solve these problems with our own hands

new york escorts catching the opportunities and trying our best to cope