Non-LDS view of God

[Guest]

Atheists make arguments against the God who Christians worship. Mormons make the same arguments against our God. Neither, love our God. Belief, or not, has got nothing to do with it.

 

Wait.  Hang on...  I know this is the Christian Belief section of the forum...

 

But, did you just say here that Mormons, like Atheists, do not love God?

Edited December 4, 2015 by anatess

[Vort]

Wait.  Hang on...  I know this is the Christian Belief section of the forum...

 

But, did you just say here that Mormons, like Atheists, do not love God?

 

Looks like this is a variation of the "different Jesus" claim.

[blueskye]

Wait.  Hang on...  I know this is the Christian Belief section of the forum...

 

But, did you just say here that Mormons, like Atheists, do not love God?

I said, both do not love "our God", by which I meant, the Holy Trinity, Who is the God that Christians worship.

 

Just read any LDS thread, or atheist discussion on the God of Christianity. Often the arguments are in the same vein, if not exactly the same.

 

One example in this thread, is the argument that the doctrine of ex nihilo is proof for a God that is immoral (a monster). I've read both atheist and Mormon arguments that make this point.

 

Christians don't believe our God is immoral, or a monster. Would any LDS say they love our God, who they believe is an immoral monster? (I don't think so.)

 

At any rate, I think LDS view the Trinity as an abstraction, and view arguments against the Trinity as scholarly in nature. Like a St. Thomas Aquinas, but providing arguments in the negative. I just think there should be an understanding that if one's position is arguing against a God (any so-called God), then one does not love that God. ie, I can make arguments against polytheistic beliefs, such as found in Hinduism and indigenous religions, but I'm not going to simultaneously claim I love Ganesh. It is illogical to stake a simultaneous claim to both an argument in the negative and a positive affection.

 

Our God is not an abstraction to us, and our belief of what God has revealed about Himself is what we understand about the God who we worship. That is WHO we worship.

 

LDS are very against accepting our God. I don't think it is out of line to say, one does not reject a God who one loves.

Edited December 10, 2015 by blueskye

[Guest]

I said, both do not love "our God", by which I meant, the Holy Trinity, Who is the God that Christians worship.

 

Just read any LDS thread, or atheist discussion on the God of Christianity. Often the arguments are in the same vein, if not exactly the same.

 

One example in this thread, is the argument that the doctrine of ex nihilo is proof for a God that is immoral (a monster). I've read both atheist and Mormon arguments that make this point.

 

Christians don't believe our God is immoral, or a monster. Would any LDS say they love our God, who they believe is an immoral monster? (I don't think so.)

 

At any rate, I think LDS view the Trinity as an abstraction, and view arguments against the Trinity as scholarly in nature. Like a St. Thomas Aquinas, but providing arguments in the negative. I just think there should be an understanding that if one's position is arguing against a God (any so-called God), then one does not love that God. ie, I can make arguments against polytheistic beliefs, such as found in Hinduism and indigenous religions, but I'm not going to simultaneously claim I love Ganesh. It is illogical to stake a simultaneous claim to both an argument in the negative and a positive affection.

 

Our God is not an abstraction to us, and our belief of what God has revealed about Himself is what we understand about the God who we worship. That is WHO we worship.

 

LDS are very against accepting our God. I don't think it is out of line to say, one does not reject a God who one loves.

 

It kinda makes sense and it kinda doesn't.

 

I guess it's the same as Christians saying Allah is not God, so Muslims don't love God.

 

Which is weird because they don't say the same for the God of the Jews who definitely is non-Trinitarian.

 

In any case, this is silly.  The God of the Mormons is the same God as the Catholics.  Just like early Church Fathers... even going back as early as the Jewish Midrash before Christ was born in Bethlehem have different views of HOW man was created doesn't change the basic belief that this God is the author of creation.  In the same manner, having different views of HOW God is One doesn't change the basic belief that there is One God, the God of Adam and Abraham and David and Moses and on and on to you and me.

 

Lumping Mormons' love of God with Atheists - who don't believe in God - is quite stupid.

[Guest]

ATHEISTS VS. MORMONS

From atheists I hear that God is not good if he ALLOWS evil to happen.  For this argument, the free will argument is a logical counter.

 

Mormons talk about ex-nihilo creation = predestination.  The free will argument is NOT a logical counter.

 

I personally have never heard an atheist go to the ex-nihilo argument.  And I've gotten into at least a couple dozen debates with some.  And if they are at least willing to go down the logical path, they have to admit that free will is a logical counter.  None of them have taken the step further to creation.

 

I simply don't get how you consider free will as a logical counter to the ex-nihilo argument.

(see the bottom half of post #100).

 

ONE GOD v. DIFFERENT GODS

1) I'd also question (as Anatess did) whether you believe Jews do not love "your God".

 

2) If I know a guy named "John" and I give a description.  You may say that you also know John, but he's not like I've described him.  Then we decide that he is not the same John.  But we both go to John's house and find that he is indeed the same John.  When we compare notes in front of him, we find that we both only knew some aspects of him.  While we felt we knew a lot about John, there were things we got wrong and many things we were missing.

 

This does not mean we worship a different God.  We worship the God of Israel.  We worship the being who created us.  We worship the same God the Jews worship.  We happen to believe that God is Jesus, they don't.  But as Mormons, we believe it is the same Being.  I hope by now you understand that we believe Jesus was the God of the Old Testament.

[blueskye]

Ex nihilo is used in the philosophical/theological argument of the unmoved mover, which, most certainly is argued against by atheists. Ex nihilo nihil fit is the atheist argument against ex nihilo. See any atheistic argument against St, Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theoligica. LDS make the same arguments against both ex nihilism and the unmoved mover. LDS of course replace Chriatian theology with another religious view, while atheists don't replace.

Free will is not the same as predestination, though I agree I have come across more than one LDS who make this argument. It is of course a straw man. An argument against something that is not taught or believed.

1. Jesus Christ fulfills both the law and the prophets, which were given to the chosen people of God. In the Revelation of Jesus Christ, the Son is revealed by the Father, and the Father and the Son reveal the Holy Spirit. God has revealed Himself as One, and also Three. Jesus Christ is THE Christian Revelation, which obviously is not accepted by non-converted Jews. We worship the same God, one does not believe that Jesus is God.

But your argument is a red herring and also a tu quoque response.

2. I can say John is nice, has red hair and smokes cigarettes, You might say he's a mean SOB who quit smoking years ago, and has gray hair. That is not my argument. We're discussing the nature of God, not the description of God. It's more like I'm saying John is a human and you're saying John is a frog. But to clarify, Christian teaching is that God does not have a species, so I hope you can see how there is a ontological difference being discussed, and not one of general appearance or habits.

I acknowledge the similarities. But, LDS are far from the Jewish understanding of the nature of God. Which is, One, not plural, they having left the pagan idea of "gods", so-called, behind millennia ago. The plurality of Gods is a regression, to a point from which God has already led Israel out from. The Jewish understanding of God is that God is Spirit, is unseen, and is the Creator of all things. Again, an ontological difference to LDS teaching.

That being said, it is Catholic teaching that all people worship God according to their understanding. So there is a tension between the commonalities of all religions, and the differences that set them apart from each other.

I read many LDS sourced discussions and talks from LDS leaders, that teach against the Triune God of Christianity. Some mocking our God. So while yes, it would be nice to say we worship the same God, by the words and attitude towards the God we worship, I'd say it is LDS who make the arguments for themselves. That the God you are worshipping is not our God.

Edited December 14, 2015 by blueskye

[Guest]

You still have not made any case against what I said in post 100.  The rest is a true red herring.  But I'll address it all because that's just the way I roll.

 

You've accused me and others of logical fallacies but brought no actual logic yourself.  Instead, you're guilty of the very fallacies you accused us of. 

 

"Tu Toque".  This was not a fallacy on my part.  You are being inconsistent. Just look at how Messianic Jews discuss the Trinity with Orthodox Jews.  It also brings into question if you understand what Tu Torque actually means.  Also, see below.

 

"Begging the question":  You've accused Lehi of making this fallacy when his was a logical statement that even PC's associate agreed with.  You've also made this entire line of posts "You're wrong, I'm right.  Therefore, I'm right and you're wrong."  Again, no line of reasoning except the ad hominem of comparing us with atheists and pagans.  And you've made false assumptions and multiple ad hoc fallacies, skipping over important logical steps just to suit your argument.

 

"Red Herring": You're the one who brought up the topic of "our God" vs. "your God".  But, yes, I'd agree that the topic was indeed a red herring.

 

Bottom Line: This is pointless because at a fundamental level, you cannot see that ex-nihilo = predestination = no free will.  To us, it is perfectly logical to deduce this.  To you, it is full of logical fallacies.  Without getting past this one point, the rest of this thread-jack is pointless.

Edited December 14, 2015 by Guest

[Jane_Doe]

Blueskye,

 

I was the OP on this thread, trying to respectfully understand the non-LDS view of God, particularly who/what His is and why He created us.  I'm a big proponent of interfaith respect and understanding.

 

If you're here to share your thoughts non-LDS view on the OP, I welcome that.  But please do so by focusing on stating what your view is, not via the unproductive thesis "I'm not LDS and LDS are wrong".  Focusing on what you do *not* believe doesn't really help me understand what you *do* believe.

Edited December 15, 2015 by Jane_Doe

[prisonchaplain]

Our God is not an abstraction to us, and our belief of what God has revealed about Himself is what we understand about the God who we worship. That is WHO we worship.

 

LDS are very against accepting our God. I don't think it is out of line to say, one does not reject a God who one loves.

 

Given that this is the Christian Beliefs section, there is an important lesson here.  I might not phrase the bolded part that strongly.  However, for many traditional Christians any definition of God that is not Trinitarian is not Christian.  Some would deny fellowship with Oneness Pentecostals (Modalists) for the same reason.  A common approach of "anti-cult ministries" is to compare the target religions' teachings about the nature of God against the Trinity.

 

We can always do another string on the Trinity itself, but the key point here is to understand that for many traditional Christians this doctrine is non-negotiable.  You may find some don't fully understand the fine details.  Nevertheless, they know that God is Holy Trinity, and will immediately reject any other doctrine.

[blueskye]

You still have not made any case against what I said in post 100. The rest is a true red herring. But I'll address it all because that's just the way I roll.

You've accused me and others of logical fallacies but brought no actual logic yourself. Instead, you're guilty of the very fallacies you accused us of.

"Tu Toque". This was not a fallacy on my part. You are being inconsistent. Just look at how Messianic Jews discuss the Trinity with Orthodox Jews. It also brings into question if you understand what Tu Torque actually means. Also, see below.

"Begging the question": You've accused Lehi of making this fallacy when his was a logical statement that even PC's associate agreed with. You've also made this entire line of posts "You're wrong, I'm right. Therefore, I'm right and you're wrong." Again, no line of reasoning except the ad hominem of comparing us with atheists and pagans. And you've made false assumptions and multiple ad hoc fallacies, skipping over important logical steps just to suit your argument.

"Red Herring": You're the one who brought up the topic of "our God" vs. "your God". But, yes, I'd agree that the topic was indeed a red herring.

Bottom Line: This is pointless because at a fundamental level, you cannot see that ex-nihilo = predestination = no free will. To us, it is perfectly logical to deduce this. To you, it is full of logical fallacies. Without getting past this one point, the rest of this thread-jack is pointless.

Well, if I'm going to be called our for expressing what I understand as LDS belief, then I don't think you can use the Judaic view of Christianity as an argument. More precisely, their argument is based on viewing the Trinity as an expression of multiple Gods, when that is not the Christian belief. However, I argue that is not the same argument I'm making against the LDS view of God, in that the LDS church teaches an explicit plurality of Gods. Apples and oranges.

God created us fated, indeed, for Himself. We have the freedom to go against God. There are modern philosophical discussions available, on being both fated and free. Comparitively, if I may, the Catholic view is that a choice made against God, i.e. Sin, is an illicit exercise of free will. While my understanding of the LDS view is that all choices, even those against God, are a licit exercise of free will.

Other than that, I don't get the idea you understand the Christian view of God. So, yes, we are at an impasse.

Pagans, atheists, LDS, all reject the Triune God of Christianity, and it is a valid point. There is nothing illogical about the comparison, especially when the exact same arguments are used by the very different groups. The point being, if you support and love the God who you worship, you don't make and find arguments against the God who you worship at websites and forums that claim to love the God who is being worshipped! That point has never been addressed. Just claims of "we love the same God". When the evidence contradicts that statement quite thoroughly. That is the illogical claim being made! "We love the same God" but by the way, saying out of the other side of ones mouth, "the Holy Trinity is false doctrine". I don't know how you expect someone who worships the Triune God of Christianity to react to such a contradiction.

Edited December 14, 2015 by blueskye

[blueskye]

Blueskye,

I was the OP on this thread, trying to respectfully understand the non-LDS view of God, particularly who/what His is and why He created us. I'm a big proponent

If you're here to share your thoughts non-LDS view on the OP, I welcome that. But please do so by focusing on stating what your view is, not via the unproductive thesis "I'm not LDS and LDS are wrong". Focusing on what you do *not* believe doesn't really help me understand what you *do* believe.

I am not approaching via right/wrong but providing comparisons. I'm not claiming to be The Expert. But with that, I'll just bow out of the conversation. :)

[Vort]

Paul, preaching to people who were actual, honest-to-goodness polytheists, found an altar they had erected to an "unknown god". This he proclaimed as the true God, and invited the Greeks to join in worshipping their common God.

 

Compare this strategy to the "other Jesus" preached by anti-Mormons and many Trinitarians.

 

Funny how Paul's strategy was inclusion and brotherhood, while their strategy is exclusivity and division.

[prisonchaplain]

I'm not so sure Paul was being inclusive and broad-minded.  He appealed to their poets and referenced their religious system.  The Unknown God was a bridge point.  He said that this was the only true God, and that they must abandon all others.  He directly opposed polytheism, and called upon them to repent.

 

Acts 17:29-31:   29And since this is true, we shouldn’t think of God as an idol designed by craftsmen from gold or silver or stone.  30“God overlooked people’s ignorance about these things in earlier times, but now he commands everyone everywhere to repent of their sins and turn to him. 31For he has set a day for judging the world with justice by the man he has appointed, and he proved to everyone who this is by raising him from the dead.” (NLT)  (bold-emphasis added)

 

So, while obnoxious trolling, baiting, and haranguing are un-Christ-like, a straight declaration of truth is not. 

[Jane_Doe]

Pagans, atheists, LDS, all reject the Triune God of Christianity, and it is a valid point. There is nothing illogical about the comparison, especially when the exact same arguments are used by the very different groups. The point being, if you support and love the God who you worship, you don't make and find arguments against the God who you worship at websites and forums that claim to love the God who is being worshipped! That point has never been addressed. Just claims of "we love the same God". When the evidence contradicts that statement quite thoroughly. That is the illogical claim being made! "We love the same God" but by the way, saying out of the other side of ones mouth, "the Holy Trinity is false doctrine". I don't know how you expect someone who worships the Triune God of Christianity to react to such a contradiction.

 

Yes, Trinitarians and LDS have different views and understanding of God.  Despite this, I (as an LDS person) still consider you (a Trinitarian) to be worshipping the same God as me.  Yes, I see personally believe your views to be seriously flawed, but I dot consider that to be an automatic invalidation of your faith and love of God.  I see God capable of such love and forgiveness, as able to forgive and look past misunderstandings.

Edited December 15, 2015 by Jane_Doe

[Jane_Doe]

I am not approaching via right/wrong but providing comparisons. I'm not claiming to be The Expert. But with that, I'll just bow out of the conversation. :)

 

Compare and contrasting is ok, but if you're not an LDS person, you shouldn't say "LDS believe this".  Just as I shouldn't say "Catholics believe this" (cause I'm not a Catholic).

[Guest]

Given that this is the Christian Beliefs section, there is an important lesson here.  I might not phrase the bolded part that strongly.  However, for many traditional Christians any definition of God that is not Trinitarian is not Christian.  Some would deny fellowship with Oneness Pentecostals (Modalists) for the same reason.  A common approach of "anti-cult ministries" is to compare the target religions' teachings about the nature of God against the Trinity.

 

In the past few years I've come to have more respect for the concept of the Trinity than in my earlier life.  It was a few years ago that I came across a Baptist who was actually willing to talk to a Mormon on an intellectual level about it.  I personally had great respect for him in business, personal life, and religiousness.  He was a very analytical person and was therefore able to talk to me on that level.

 

I cannot post everything we spoke about on the topic; that would take many pages of posts.  And even he admitted that he cannot completely explain it to a non-believer.  But he at least gave me a starting point.  He got me to the point where I understood it was not something so easily dismissed and LDS are wont to do.

 

Since then (out of respect for him and the time he invested in me) I've given it a lot thought as a "real" belief.  I grabbed things out of my reading of other religions, fantasy literature, science fiction, comic books (yes, I'm an old man and I still read comic books, uh...er...graphic novels).  I often do this when I need to expand my mind to understand things that I don't normally understand.  A few months ago I could declare that I was beginning to understand the idea.  I'm beginning to see it as a beautiful belief rather than a foolish fancy as I had thought in previous years.

 

No, I'm not about to convert.  But I can put this in the category of "almost holy envy".

 

So to the LDS here, even if you don't understand it, don't just dismiss it out of hand.  Not that I'm saying it is true.  I'm saying that it is not just "a ridiculous notion" to roll your eyes at.

[prisonchaplain]

When it comes to the "holy envy" aspect the LDS view towards Trinity, by such as Carborendum, may be similar to the LDS doctrine of Exaltation.  We can see both the beauty and promise (if true), and still--mostly certainly--that the difference in belief is both tremendous and sacred.  I'd say Traveler (concerning Exaltation) has done for me what your friend did for you.  

[LeSellers]

The thing about the Trinity is that most of the people I've met who claim to accept it don't understand it, not even as well as I, who do not believe it, do.

As I understand it, the Trinity is three Persons who share the title "God". None is "higher" than the Others, but "Father" is "First". Each has His own role, and there is some overlap, to be sure, but in general, They respect the boundaries of Their offices. (This is necessarily abbreviated, and does not reveal the Trinity, even my limited grasp: apologies to anyone who's offended hereby.)

Most Christians I know may profess belief in the Trinity, but they really believe in the "heresy" of Modalism (or Arianism, or any of its other names): one God Who takes the form (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) needed for the "job at hand": the "Triple-Point" (ice-water-steam) God.

That said, we Saints can grasp our (understanding of) God, which makes the discrepancy between our knowledge of God and the Trinity all the more confusing: how can people accept a God Who is incomprehensible? Further, how can anyone hold a theology where the "reward" for doing nothing is total boredom?

I'm no big fan of Clement/Twain (his hatred of Plural Marriage and of LDSs — Brigham Young in particular — tends to color my view), but his Letters to the Earth (for all of its shortcomings) does ask an important question: Neither Sammy nor I know any men who play the harp, don't even know anyone who likes listening to the harp. Much the same can be said for singing. How, then, can anyone be enticed to "go to heaven" when the benefit is something so completely unlikable?

Yes, I know that this "heaven" is a caricature. But there is a reason for stereotyping: all generalities may be false, but they are all true, as well.

Lehi

Edited December 15, 2015 by LeSellers

[prisonchaplain]

Lehi, we agree that modalism is heresy (the idea of God as one in three).  I suspect that some of your Trinitarian friends may be attempting to emphasize the oneness of God to you, because the perceive the LDS Godhead as a kind of tri-theism (three in three?).  Their efforts to insist that God is one (which we absolutely do believe) end up making the Trinity sound like modalism.  The three persons are distinct (and I believe most Trinitarians know this), but they are one in a way that is "of essence," as opposed to be one "in purpose."  The degree of difference between the LDS Godhead and the Trinity is enough that we feel very comfortable insisting we are monotheists.  A good number of LDS make the same claim.  However, of run into some very intelligent LDS who accept the label Henotheist (belief in worshiping one God, though there be others).  In fairness, Jews and Muslims reject both of our claims to monotheism.

[Jane_Doe]

I agree that the idea of the Trinity can have some amazing beauty... but it also seems to me that a lot of Trinitarian people totally don't remotely understand it.

[LeSellers]

The degree of difference between the LDS Godhead and the Trinity is enough that we feel very comfortable insisting we are monotheists.  A good number of LDS make the same claim.

 

Since our belief in one God is in our scripture (the Book of Mormon specifically), making that claim is not posturing.

We do make a significant distinction between the Trinity and monotheism because there is a difference and that difference is more than mere semantics.

Yes, we see God as being "one in purpose", but that is not why we can claim the title monotheist.

There is far too little time and space to explain the points this raises. I'm hardly the best one to expound on it in any case.

 

However, of run into some very intelligent LDS who accept the label Henotheist (belief in worshiping one God, though there be others).

While "henotheist" comes closest to our position, it is not a precise match. Henotheism means that a god is only god in the geographical area where he is worshiped. (Naamam's request for dirt from Israel so he could pray to Jehovah is an example.)

Lehi

Edited December 15, 2015 by LeSellers

[prisonchaplain]

I used the word "claim" because some LDS seem to believe that a broad understanding of Henotheism (i.e. if exaltation is true, there will be other gods, but we will always worship YHWH) is one way of looking at LDS theology.  I've even had one poster here embrace the label polytheist.  At the same time, it is true that traditional LDS teaching, and official sources, would stick with monotheism. 

[bytebear]

I think I've said this before.  God is a term that is singular, but describes a collection.  Closest thing is Family.  There is only one Family but the family contains a father, mother, children.  Similarly there is only one God, but there is a Father, Son, Holy Ghost, and potentially countless other members that we have no direct association with. And we, one day, if found worthy will become one with God, and be God.  But there is still only one God.  So, I go with monotheism, but am not offended by other interpretations.  In fact, I see the Trinity being far more similar than different in concept.

 

Adding to this notion, we often say "one in purpose" but it is deeper than that. A family may also be "one in purpose" the relationship of a family is deeper than just a business arrangement, and so is the relationship of the Godhead. It's more than just agreement, but a true oneness that cannot be expressed in human terms.

Edited December 31, 2015 by bytebear

[prisonchaplain]

We re-watched the movie God's Not Dead the other night.  There is a poignant scene in which a Muslim father discovers that his nearly-20-year-old daughter has converted to Christianity.  He angrily says, "God is not begotten!  Say it!  Say it!  God is not begotten!"

 

We traditionalist Christians say that, in Jesus, He is.  Perhaps the LDS view raises the ante, declaring such is available for all who are willing?

[Jane_Doe]

We re-watched the movie God's Not Dead the other night.  There is a poignant scene in which a Muslim father discovers that his nearly-20-year-old daughter has converted to Christianity.  He angrily says, "God is not begotten!  Say it!  Say it!  God is not begotten!"

 

We traditionalist Christians say that, in Jesus, He is.  Perhaps the LDS view raises the ante, declaring such is available for all who are willing?

 

Pardon me PC... but I'm not completely understanding what you're getting at (the bolded part).  Could you re-phrase?