Isaiah 9:6

[KoL]

Honest question about Mormon theology.

How do the LDS interpret this passage?

it seems to speak to not only the deity of Christ but also to His oneness with the Father, as God.

This and verses like Collosians 1:16 and John 1 make it difficult for me to see Jesus as anything short of Creator God.

Thanks for any and all thoughts!

Edited June 9, 2016 by KoL

[estradling75]

Lets quote the scriptures you reference first

Isaiah 9

6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

The only issue is what you interpret the phrase in bold to mean

Colossian 1

 16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

  No real problem here  LDS believe that Christ created all things under the direction of the Father

John 1

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

 2 The same was in the beginning with God.

 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

 5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

 

Again no real problem here  The Father and the Son were in the beginning and the Son Created all things under the direction of the Father.

So back to the bolded statement with Christ being the everlasting Father...  Everlasting should be easy enough...  Given that he also created everything make the title of Father of everything he created easy enough to understand.

 

[LeSellers]

36 minutes ago, KoL said:

This and verses like Collosians 1:16 and John 1 make it difficult for me to see Jesus as anything short of Creator God.

This statement implies that you imagine that we Saints don't see Jesus as the "Creator God".

That is an erroneous assumption.

Lehi

[KoL]

I suppose there are different sects of Mormonism?

cuz I thought y'all believed Jesus was the spirit brother of Lucifer, begot by The Father and His goddess...making Jesus "creatED"

[LeSellers]

24 minutes ago, KoL said:

I suppose there are different sects of Mormonism?

cuz I thought y'all believed Jesus was the spirit brother of Lucifer, begot by The Father and His goddess...making Jesus "creatED"

There "are different sects of Mormonism", but your bald-faced distortion of our doctrine is unappreciated.

Lehi

[zil]

34 minutes ago, KoL said:

I suppose there are different sects of Mormonism?

Not really.  Things other people might call sects are offshoots not recognized as part of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

34 minutes ago, KoL said:

cuz I thought y'all believed Jesus was the spirit brother of Lucifer, begot by The Father and His goddess...making Jesus "creatED"

A) it depends on your definition of "created" - we believe all people always have existed and always will exist, just not in the same form (e.g. spirits before, mortal now, resurrected and immortal later) - but that we progress.

B) By what logic can a "created" person not also be a "creator"?  A child, "created" by his parents, can grow up to "create" children of his own.

Edited June 9, 2016 by zil
clarified "same form"

[prisonchaplain]

KoL, the mainstream Christian difficulty with the LDS Godhead is not that it makes Jesus a created being (subordinationism). Trinitarian teaching is that Jesus is of one substance with the Father (and Spirit). LDS teaching is that God is one in purpose. Nevertheless, in both theologies Jesus is eternal.  You can search "Trinity" and find many strings on this topic, to get a better feel for the differences in teaching.  Also, the views represented here tend to be mainstream LDS.  Those from offshoots of the faith tend to run their own sites. 

Here's one string that went 160+ posts:  http://lds.net/forums/topic/34153-trinity-revisited/#comment-532731

Edited June 9, 2016 by prisonchaplain
add link

[estradling75]

Experience tell me now is a Good time to put on my Moderator Hat and say the following:

KoL you are new here and we know nothing about you.  However you appear to be getting your "Discussion Points" straight from Anti Mormon sources.  The Moderation team treats Anti-Mormons who come to this site the same way we treat SPAMMERS and for much the same reason. 

Now Kol we (the mod team) don't know you but we will be watching your posts and making judgements accordingly.  Now maybe you are just someone trying to understand us and had so far only been exposed to Anti-Mormon sources and you are seeking more information directly from our members here.  This is one of the reason this site exists.  We are happy to have you if that is the case...  If your reason for being here is something that violates the purposes of this site, well you wouldn't be the first and your posts will show that and we will act.

Now to the rest of the forum... the mod staff is really, really, really, tried of individual members taking it upon themselves to call out antis and trolls and what have you.  So you have precisely two choices you can either respond civilly or you can report and stay away... 

Bottom line everyone needs to.... choose wisely.... how they respond.

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, KoL said:

I suppose there are different sects of Mormonism?

cuz I thought y'all believed Jesus was the spirit brother of Lucifer, begot by The Father and His goddess...making Jesus "creatED"

Well . . . sort of, and yet . . . not. 

The mainstream interpretation, I think, is that Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother organized all spirits with the intent that eventually, each of those spirits would be joined with a physical body and live on an earth as a human being.  The mass of spirits that Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother organized does include both Jesus (who was the first spirit to be created) and Lucifer, as well as all the rest of us. 

But, here's the thing:  It seems (and LDS doctrine is very murky here) that spirits themselves are organized from some other form of substance/matter that apparently had some limited form of consciousness and is eternal in nature, having neither beginning nor end.  So, in one sense, to say that Jesus is "uncreated" per LDS teaching is semantically accurate because in some form we--including He--are uncreated.

Also (and contra Genesis 1:1, whose language about "in the beginning" I would deem as a combination of hyperbole/relativism/response to competing Babylonian creation myths) this creative process was not done contemporaneously with the creation of the earth itself.  In Mormon teaching the spirits were created first, and then Jesus--known by the name "Jehovah", and acting on instructions from the Father--created the world (maybe even the universe as we know it--I don't feel particularly pedantic at the moment; it's enough for me to say that Jesus is definitely the Creator).

Moreover, from our perspective as humans who are no more than a few decades old and have no direct knowledge of anything that happened before our own lifetimes--Jesus/Jehovah may as well be eternal because He retains His knowledge of the entire history of human existence.  He was there guiding the earth's history, speaking to prophets, inspiring scripture, etc; quite literally before we could wipe our own noses.

And finally, it's worth noting that a number of the scriptures that refer to Him as "eternal" are drawing comparisons with the phony, material gods that idol-worshippers in Biblical times had made up for themselves; or otherwise intended to refute specific heresies.  For example (if my memory is accurate) most scholars think John 1 is aimed at Gnostics who taught that Jesus was born an ordinary mortal, was subsequently more-or-less "possessed" by God, but was then abandoned to die alone on the cross having reverted to a mortal state.  John refutes this nonsense by making it crystal clear that Jesus had not been inhabited by God; He was God before birth, during childhood, and at the time of His death.  Mormon nit-pickers might suggest that John's writing is a bit of an over-simplification--but it's close enough to get the job done when you're dealing with first-century gnostics.   

Edited June 9, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[estradling75]

Now I guess I should address the Christ and Satan are brother deal...

To understand this one must understand that LDS are not believers in Trinity as defined in the various Christian Creeds...   Now I am not an expert in the various creed but to give a very simplified explanation is that the creed state that God the Father, God the Son, and God Spirit are all partakers of the same divine substance that is unique to them and them only... Thus when a Christian that hears that the LDS believe that Christ and Satan are brothers (and logically therefore partake of the same substance) thus making Satan one with God...  Needless to say this causes them considerable heart burn.  It is also a false conclusion

The LDS don't believe in the Creed and the Trinity defined therein.  We believe that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit are one in purpose, one in unity, thought, goals actions etc...  But separate in physicality, and that their substance is not unique, they simply have a glory that we do not. God the Father created the spirits of all of us from preexisting stuff that we don't know much about.  The creation included Christ, you, me, and everyone else including Satan.  Christ gained God's glory and created pretty much everything else, we are here on earth to work out our salvation so we might become partakers of that glory.  Satan had the same chance as you or I but rebelled and is therefore cast of.  Thus in LDS theology Christ and Satan being brother is precisely meaningless in the way other assume... it does not make him a partaker of God's glory.

Thus the whole accusation is a designed to drive a wedge of misunderstanding and false accusations between LDS and other Christian faiths

 

[KoL]

Couple things. I'll just number em to help myself along. I'm a tad scatterbrained.

1. Anti-Mormon sources? Not sure what those would be. All I've done is ask questions thus far, seeking to understand the major differences in Mormon and Christian theology. Why the defensiveness? At what point did my questions seem "anti-Mormon or even rhetorical for that matter.

2. I have Mormon friends and I'm seeking to understand what the Mormon church at large believes. The deity of Christ seemed to be a hot button issue. So here I am. Asking questions.

3. My issue with Jesus being created is that Collosians passage. That He created all things, seen and unseen. In Genesis 1 you have "In the beginning God." In John 1 you have "In the beginning was the Word." I think it's safe to say that the beginning of John 1 is referential to Genesis 1, and goes on to say that Jesus is that same God, who created all things...which would have to include Lucifer.

So Jesus, brother of Lucifer? Or Jesus, creator of Lucifer?

That's simply a question I have. Because I'm genuinely confused, looking for help.

 

To allegorize "everlasting Father" seems a tad reachy...hermeneutically, no?

Edited June 10, 2016 by KoL

[Vort]

8 hours ago, estradling75 said:

Now to the rest of the forum... the mod staff is really, really, really, tried of individual members taking it upon themselves to call out antis and trolls and what have you.  So you have precisely two choices you can either respond civilly or you can report and stay away...

Sheez. No need to call me out by name like that, estradling, especially since I've been such a good boy lately. How humidifyin'.

3 hours ago, KoL said:

Why the defensiveness?

Because we get lots of trolls. Lots. By which I mean a lot, but plural. So our reflexive defensiveness may not be pretty, and may not even be right, but it is perfectly understandable to any reasonable person who has witnessed what goes on here.

3 hours ago, KoL said:

At what point did my questions seem "anti-Mormon or even rhetorical for that matter.

Pretty much at the point where you started in on the "Don't you Mahrmans believe that Satan is Jesus' brother?" nonsense. (And -- no offense intended -- it is nonsense, a misapplication at best and a dirty, lying word trick at worst to confuse LDS beliefs with creedal, non-Biblical "Christian" theology. We are simply hoping you are innocently engaging in misapplication rather than trolling with the other.)

3 hours ago, KoL said:

The deity of Christ seemed to be a hot button issue.

Not sure why. I thought you non-LDS Christians believed in Christ's divinity, too.

3 hours ago, KoL said:

My issue with Jesus being created is that Collosians passage. That He created all things, seen and unseen. In Genesis 1 you have "In the beginning God." In John 1 you have "In the beginning was the Word." I think it's safe to say that the beginning of John 1 is referential to Genesis 1, and goes on to say that Jesus is that same God, who created all things...which would have to include Lucifer.

Here you must ask yourself: Self, do I wish to understand Mormons on their own terms, or do I wish to lecture them on how to use terminology the way I like and then explain why they're wrong in the way they use words?

If you choose the former option, you must open your ears and actually listen to the explanations offered. You must be willing to see things through the eyes of modern revelation, put off the traditions you have been taught long enough to see with fresh eyes. You must be willing to consider that your understanding of things might be flawed on a very basic, fundamental level. You don't need to actually abandon your beliefs, but you certainly must be willing to consider other ways of looking at scripture, revelation, and God.

If you choose the latter option, then to be blunt (and I welcome correction from the mods*), your day(s) here will be exceedingly short.

*But they won't correct me, because I'm right.

So, assuming you have taken the "understand Mormons on their own terms" option, here's a start. "The beginning" does not mean the beginning of EVERYTHING. Even creedal Christians can't believe that, since God must have predated the earth. "The beginning" means the beginning of creation -- specifically, of the creation of our heavens and our earth. We existed at that time; indeed, we existed a very great deal before that time, as intelligent entities capable of choice and action. The premortal Christ, whom we refer to at that time as "Jehovah", did indeed create the heavens, the earth, and in short all things that were created from that point forward.

But he did not create everything that had already been created. That is not what John meant, and is not implicit in any of the scriptural passages. Rather, that is an erroneous conclusion put forth by creedal Christianity, which has wrongly assumed that "the beginning" refers to the very first thing that God ever did. This is not at all implicit in the words; it is a meaning assigned by those who don't know any better, much like they assign the word "create" to mean "fold one's arms and blink like I Dream of Jeannie and make things pop into and out of existence." But "create" means simply "to fashion", much like I "create" a piece of pottery. (Except that I don't create pottery, because I'm not good at it. But you get the idea.)

So to understand LDS thought, you must put aside your incorrect understanding of such things and embrace (or at least be willing to consider) their true, revealed meaning. You must be able to see that the fact that some people have assigned certain meanings to words doesn't therefore imply that God has accepted their false assignations. Do that, and you have begun on the path to understanding revealed religion.

3 hours ago, KoL said:

So Jesus, brother of Lucifer? Or Jesus, creator of Lucifer?

We are all children of, and thus creations of, the Father. Satan, who was called Lucifer, was also a son of the Father. He rebelled, and involved others in his rebellion. They were no longer fit for God's presence and were cast out.

You appear to divide the universe into Creator (God) and Created (everything that is not God). This very division doesn't really make sense, since you believe in a corporeal Jesus -- yet the elements of Jesus' body were ostensibly "created" (= zapped into existence from nothingness) by God, making God himself his own creation. So there's a logical paradox there.

A better division is "things to act" and "things to be acted upon". God acts. God's children -- that is to say, the spirits of men, including Satan and those who followed him -- have been given moral agency, which is the capacity to act. The elements are things to be acted upon. We get to choose which camp we want to be in. We make that choice millions of times in our lifetime, in things great and small. Are we actors, or are we the rocks and trees? Satan and his minions are Perdition -- lost -- and, in my personal understanding, are well on their way to becoming things that cannot act positively for themselves.

Jesus did not create Lucifer. The Father did. The Genesis and John scriptures you cite refer to the creation of our earth and related things, not to the beginning of all creation that ever took place ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever. Just because the scriptures don't mention prior creations before "the beginning" of the story, that doesn't mean there were no prior creations. That is an illogical conclusion, like stating that Cain had to have been Eve's firstborn because, you know, the Bible doesn't actually mention anyone born before Cain. (By that same logic, Eve apparently also didn't have any arms, lips, or hair, because, you know, the Bible doesn't mention Eve's arms, lips, or hair.)

If you truly want to understand LDS thought in such matters, we will happily help you through the process. You will have friends here, people who actually care about you and want you to succeed in your quest. But if you're here under false pretenses just to preach to the lost Mormons and tell them how wrong we are, you will shortly be gone. We are happy to welcome a brother looking to understand, even if he's not looking to convert. But we have little patience for pretenders and trolls. I'm sincerely hoping you are not among those groups.

[prisonchaplain]

4 hours ago, KoL said:

I'm tackling your questions because, as a non-LDS Evangelical, I believe I may understand your questions well.  I've been on this site for nearly 10-years now, and came with many of the same questions.  I am proof that you don't have to convert to learn what others believe.

Couple things. I'll just number em to help myself along. I'm a tad scatterbrained.

1. Anti-Mormon sources? Not sure what those would be. All I've done is ask questions thus far, seeking to understand the major differences in Mormon and Christian theology. Why the defensiveness? At what point did my questions seem "anti-Mormon or even rhetorical for that matter.

 I came here having read a couple books by Evangelical authors critical of LDS beliefs.  Most non-LDS who come here have read something along those lines.  We call it comparative, but given the authors tend to defend Christian orthodoxy from LDS innovation, the bullet points will come across as anti-LDS.

2. I have Mormon friends and I'm seeking to understand what the Mormon church at large believes. The deity of Christ seemed to be a hot button issue. So here I am. Asking questions.

This strikes me as odd.  LDS believe Jesus is God the Son.  The difference is that they believe He is completely distinct from the Father.  His union with the Godhead is in purpose, not "substance.  It is Jehovah's Witnesses who believe that Jesus was created by the Father.

3. My issue with Jesus being created is that Collosians passage. That He created all things, seen and unseen. In Genesis 1 you have "In the beginning God." In John 1 you have "In the beginning was the Word." I think it's safe to say that the beginning of John 1 is referential to Genesis 1, and goes on to say that Jesus is that same God, who created all things...which would have to include Lucifer.

So Jesus, brother of Lucifer? Or Jesus, creator of Lucifer?

In the traditional Christian sense, LDS would say none of us were "created."  At least, not "out of nothing."  The belief is that matter is eternal, and we all (including Lucifer) have an eternal intelligence that existed before the Genesis 1 creation.  That's why it is clumsy to talk about created beings vs. God.  We traditionalists believe that before Gen. 1 there was only God. Then he made the angels, then the heavens and earth, then us.  What he made came out of nothing, by his word alone.  So, all creation has a definite start point.  LDS do not believe this, so it's easy to get confused.

That's simply a question I have. Because I'm genuinely confused, looking for help.

I hope I succeeded.

 

 

Edited June 10, 2016 by prisonchaplain

[estradling75]

9 hours ago, KoL said:

Couple things. I'll just number em to help myself along. I'm a tad scatterbrained.

1. Anti-Mormon sources? Not sure what those would be. All I've done is ask questions thus far, seeking to understand the major differences in Mormon and Christian theology. Why the defensiveness? At what point did my questions seem "anti-Mormon or even rhetorical for that matter.

 

Because this isn't our first rodeo... We have dealt with the sincere seeker, we have dealt with the idly curious seeker and we have dealt with those who only desire is to "prove" is wrong.  The first two are more then welcome... the third is not.  So not surprisingly the third type try to hide as one of the first two.  After dealing with them enough we start noticing certain patterns and behavior.  The third almost away brings up a common set "questions" that are nothing but thinly veiled attack and misunderstanding which we have labeled Anti-Mormon.  The first two only bring up such questions if they have been exposed to them and are left confused by them.

When the first two groups ask the question they listen and accept the answers we give.  This then leads on to other questions and requests for clarification.  The third type refuses to hear our answers and instead continues to try to prove us 'wrong' this is the pattern.

You came along posing a question that right out of the list of "Anti-Mormon" attacks.  A question that most Mormons have no real reason to think about or discuss until someone rattles it off to "prove" us wrong.

The simple fact is you didn't just come up with that question on your own.  You got it else where.  The question is... did you get it as part of your seeking as one of the first two types or did you get it as part of your efforts as the third type?  We don't know.  So like we watch all members behavior on this site we are going to watch yours.  If you choose to behave like the first two types you may continue here... if your behavior is more in line with the third type... well then the mod staff will deal with it.

 

 

 

9 hours ago, KoL said:

2. I have Mormon friends and I'm seeking to understand what the Mormon church at large believes. The deity of Christ seemed to be a hot button issue. So here I am. Asking questions.

 

We believe Christ is God... I assume other Christians do too.   We have a different understanding of what Deity/God is, because we reject the creedal definition on the subject.

9 hours ago, KoL said:

3. My issue with Jesus being created is that Collosians passage. That He created all things, seen and unseen. In Genesis 1 you have "In the beginning God." In John 1 you have "In the beginning was the Word." I think it's safe to say that the beginning of John 1 is referential to Genesis 1, and goes on to say that Jesus is that same God, who created all things...which would have to include Lucifer.

So Jesus, brother of Lucifer? Or Jesus, creator of Lucifer?

That's simply a question I have. Because I'm genuinely confused, looking for help.

 

To allegorize "everlasting Father" seems a tad reachy...hermeneutically, no?

Again this is based on the Creedal definition of God which the LDS do not share.  You are of course free to believe and think what you wish... But if you wish/desire to understand the LDS position you have to make some effort to understand the LDS understanding of God.

 

Edited June 10, 2016 by estradling75

[Jane_Doe]

9 hours ago, KoL said:

1. Anti-Mormon sources? Not sure what those would be. All I've done is ask questions thus far, seeking to understand the major differences in Mormon and Christian theology. Why the defensiveness? At what point did my questions seem "anti-Mormon or even rhetorical for that matter.

As others have said, we get LOTS of trolls here.  Estradling's anti-troll warning was a generic warning we give quite often, and had nothing against you personally.  I hope that you're not a troll, and hence it'll never have anything to do with you.  

Difference between a sincere seeker and a troll: a sincere seeker actually listens to people answers.  Sincere seekers are welcome, and some non-LDS are even mods!

9 hours ago, KoL said:

2. I have Mormon friends and I'm seeking to understand what the Mormon church at large believes. The deity of Christ seemed to be a hot button issue. So here I am. Asking questions.

LDS do believe that Christ is 100% divine, the Son of God.  Uncreated, without beginning or end, Perfect, Savior, Lord, creator of the world, ONE with the Father & Spirit.

I think rest of your questions were addressed already, let us know if we can help any more!

[mordorbund]

For your consideration, our apostles publicly published our views on Jesus Christ a few years back:

The Living Christ

[Just_A_Guy]

10 hours ago, KoL said:

To allegorize "everlasting Father" seems a tad reachy...hermeneutically, no?

No problem calling Jesus "the father"--He is, after all, the creator.

No problem calling Him "everlasting", either--He is.  We just believe that He changed form at some point; and if you accept the traditional Christian view of God as a Being without "body, parts, or passions", then guess what?!  By accepting that God Himself became a mortal in the person of Jesus of Nazareth and then shed that body and returned to His former disembodied state, you, too accept the principle of an eternal Being who has substantially changed His form at least twice. 

[KoL]

I'm ALL ears, ladies and gents. I really am.

And now, if I may...I'd kinda like to address some seemingly fallacious scientific and philosophical posits that have been made.

Namely, that of matter being eternal. I'm not currently aware of any sound bodies of evidence to suggest matter is eternal.

Moreover, if a creator is not separate from his creation...my confidence in knowing what "creator" means begins to falter I suppose.

This is not meant to sound anti-Mormon or condescending in ANY way. But my thing is this: I have zero issues with the Mormon Church positing whatever it may about "God" or any facet of life now and life after, but why the incentive to appeal to Christianity, or the Bible as a "confirming source." Biblical Christianity and Mormonism are wildly different. Why not just say that, on the nose? "We believe this. It's an entirely separate thing, but we believe it." And that'd be fine. Most "anti-Mormon rhetoric is a result of Christians who say to themselves "that's not Scriptural and I feel convicted to not stand idly by while someone perpetuates a non-Christian theological worldview whilst claiming Christian foundations."

i hope none of that comes off nasty or arrogant. I think it's just valid and I worthy of discussion.

Hope you guys hear my heart in all of that.

[estradling75]

1 hour ago, KoL said:

I'm ALL ears, ladies and gents. I really am.

And now, if I may...I'd kinda like to address some seemingly fallacious scientific and philosophical posits that have been made.

Namely, that of matter being eternal. I'm not currently aware of any sound bodies of evidence to suggest matter is eternal.

 

Basic laws of physics

Law of Conservation of Matter

Law of Conservation of Energy

Einstein famous formula E= mc Squared.

All those are sound bodies of evidence to suggest that while matter and energy can change they don't increase or decrease in a closed system (such as the known universe)  And if they don't increase and don't decrease that means that they have always been there (aka eternal) in one form or another.

 

1 hour ago, KoL said:

Moreover, if a creator is not separate from his creation...my confidence in knowing what "creator" means begins to falter I suppose.

I created my children... and I not of separate fundamental stuff from them

The basic biology of the command "Be fruitful and multiply"  shows us this... Basic living shows us we can "create" something "new" out of what is around us...  

It only when we require God to violate everything he shown us so far (like the creation from nothing) do we need a Creator apart from his creation.

 

1 hour ago, KoL said:

This is not meant to sound anti-Mormon or condescending in ANY way. But my thing is this: I have zero issues with the Mormon Church positing whatever it may about "God" or any facet of life now and life after, but why the incentive to appeal to Christianity, or the Bible as a "confirming source." Biblical Christianity and Mormonism are wildly different. Why not just say that, on the nose? "We believe this. It's an entirely separate thing, but we believe it." And that'd be fine. Most "anti-Mormon rhetoric is a result of Christians who say to themselves "that's not Scriptural and I feel convicted to not stand idly by while someone perpetuates a non-Christian theological worldview whilst claiming Christian foundations."

 

Why do other Christian bother trying to spread the word of God at all??

Because they believe that they are right and that God has commanded them to share. 

Why do Mormon's bother claiming that we are a restoration of Biblical Christianity that had been lost over the intervening centuries?   Because we believe we are right and that God has commanded us to share.

As much as you feel convicted "to not standy idly by while someone perpetuates a non-Christian theological worldview whilst claiming Christian foundations"  We feel convicted to "Not let others worldly and corrupted understanding of what Christianity is stop us form proclaiming what Christ has once again revealed and restored about his kingdom"

Bottom line we reject the authority other Christians have taken upon themselves to define what a Christian is in their dependence on non biblical creeds

 

 

Edited June 10, 2016 by estradling75

[zil]

45 minutes ago, KoL said:

But my thing is this: I have zero issues with the Mormon Church positing whatever it may about "God" or any facet of life now and life after, but why the incentive to appeal to Christianity, or the Bible as a "confirming source."  ...  Most "anti-Mormon rhetoric is a result of Christians who say to themselves "that's not Scriptural and I feel convicted to not stand idly by while someone perpetuates a non-Christian theological worldview whilst claiming Christian foundations."

It cannot be that hard to go out into the world (or the internet) and find a part of the bible about which two sects of Christianity disagree (here's a nice long list of sects to choose from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations ).  Why are there so many different sects if they don't disagree on something?  What is the probability of so many different sects all agreeing 100% on their interpretations of the Bible so that their only disagreements are non-Biblical? (The answer is 0%.)

So if different non-LDS sects of Christianity can disagree on how a particular Bible passage should be interpreted, why can't Mormons disagree with other Christians on how a particular Bible passage should be interpreted?  Both cite the Bible as a "confirming source" (I assume this is what you mean), and yet they interpret the same scripture differently (just as some other sects will have differences between themselves).

I don't understand the "why the incentive to appeal to Christianity" part.  Are you asking why we call ourselves Christian?  Why we appeal to other Christians to [do something]?  Why we call a particular virtue a Christian virtue?  Or...?

1 hour ago, KoL said:

Biblical Christianity and Mormonism are wildly different. Why not just say that, on the nose? "We believe this. It's an entirely separate thing, but we believe it." And that'd be fine. 

I don't see any Mormon denying that there are significant differences between what Mormons believe and what others believe; interestingly, there are a lot of non-Mormons who decline to recognize the significant similarities.  Focusing only on differences creates division and contention - something Christ surely doesn't want; focusing on similarities, while acknowledging differences, allows for understanding and friendship to happen, and I'm quite certain that is what Christ wants.

[prisonchaplain]

As we veer into the question of how wide the differences are between traditional Christian teaching and that of LDS, I'll make my long-time plug for the book How Wide the Divide: A Mormon and an Evangelical in Conversation. It is co-written by a Denver Seminary and BYU professor. They both remain cordial, but they do not sweep differences under the rug.  I make a habit of buying the used ones for $4-5 bucks, and then give them out to curious Evangelical friends, and the occasional LDS missionary that comes by.  The book is sold at both Chrstian and LDS venues, though Amazon tends to be the cheapest.

For my review on the book see:  https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/RBF19C7CB2AGE/ref=cm_cr_getr_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0830819916

[KoL]

2 John 1 says that if anyone come preaching a different Gospel than that which was first delivered; that which is revealed in Scripture, he is a deceiver and an antichrist. And to not receive him into your home or bid him Godspeed. So..."similarities," according scripture, if there be major discrepancies in Gospel content, are not enough to even sustain relationship between us, let alone unity.

God wants us to love one another, of course. But this is a MAJOR issue for both and all parties. LDS' mal-concern with addressing and once and for all sorting this out...is alarming to me...if you be Christians indeed (not rhetorical). I think Catholicism is a pagan, Roman death cult but I know Catholics who I believe to truly be saved. But we GOTTA discuss this stuff.

[estradling75]

3 minutes ago, KoL said:

2 John 1 says that if anyone come preaching a different Gospel than that which was first delivered; that which is revealed in Scripture, he is a deceiver and an antichrist. And to not receive him into your home or bid him Godspeed. So..."similarities," according scripture, if there be major discrepancies in Gospel content, are not enough to even sustain relationship between us, let alone unity.

God wants us to love one another, of course. But this is a MAJOR issue for both and all parties. LDS' mal-concern with addressing and once and for all sorting this out...is alarming to me...if you be Christians indeed (not rhetorical). I think Catholicism is a pagan, Roman death cult but I know Catholics who I believe to truly be saved. But we GOTTA discuss this stuff.

We claim we are preaching the exact same Gospel that was first delivered...  After it was delivered it was distorted, edited, altered and otherwise configured into another gospel that was not what was first preached... 

That is why a restoration was necessary

[KoL]

30 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

We claim we are preaching the exact same Gospel that was first delivered...  After it was delivered it was distorted, edited, altered and otherwise configured into another gospel that was not what was first preached... 

That is why a restoration was necessary

On what basis do you conclude this? Joseph's "revelation?"

Cuz I read the original texts quite often and my 1611 KJV, (comparing them) though limited in English, is pretty on the money.

[estradling75]

19 hours ago, KoL said:

On what basis do you conclude this? Joseph's "revelation?"

Cuz I read the original texts quite often and my 1611 KJV, (comparing them) though limited in English, is pretty on the money.

Conclude what?  That we preach the exact same? Or that it became corrupted and needed to be restored?

The need for a restoration is simple history... All the Christan faiths have different takes on varyious things in the bible and clearly if it could have be resolved using the bible it would have been over the last 2000 years...  they have not been.  And you might claim that you agree on all the important things...  But who is man that he should decide what things of God are important and what is not?

Once a person reaches that conclusion then it is a logical deduction that God in his own time and in his own way will restore that which is lost... It then become a simple matter of following James 1:5 to find that restoration.  Once you know you have found the God's restoration then one can be confident that one is following the gospel that is preached.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 11, 2016 by estradling75