Protestant vs. LDS Theology - A Few Questions.

[prisonchaplain]

I recall being a child and being fascinated and even emotionally impacted by Jesus Christ as Savior. However, when I began to understand the more "traditional" Christian understanding of "original sin," I immediately revolted against it. However, as I entered adulthood, I slowly began to read theologians such as Augustine of Hippo, who give significant efforts toward proving the utter depravity of humanity, even in the form of a child. In a far more eloquent manner then I will ever be able to, he would describe the tantrums of a child and expose this as evidence of original sin. I began to align my thinking with his, and thus came to understand the Atonement as being that act wherein the wrath of God was unleashed on His son in our place so that we are no longer "children of wrath" but "children of God."

Ephesians 2:1-10

1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; 2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: 3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. 4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, 5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) 6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: 7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

I understand the LDS doctrine of continuing revelation. I also am aware that any verses of scripture need to be taken in context of the whole. However, Paul is writing to first century members of the Church in Ephesus, presumably before the Great Apostasy. Was Paul wrong in telling these first century Christians that they were by nature children of wrath before being quickened (made alive) through faith in Christ? If children do not inherit the iniquity of their fathers, then why would Paul use such terms?

Perhaps this inquiry is similar to one I posit from time to time: Was the sin committed by Adam and Eve in the Garden an innocent one--the understandable fruit of their ignorance--and really just part of God's plan? (Many here have told me this). Or, was it rebellion? Did Adam & Eve, upon being promised by the serpent that they would become like God, not draw the conclusion that, if they were like God, they would no longer need God? Was not their quest for independence a wicked, latent rebellion?

[WillowTheWhisp]

I'm guessing that you believe in the God of the Nicene Creed. Correct?

Interesting point regarding the true nature of Christ as opposed to 'a perverted one by mankind'. :)

When trying to get to know the Saviour there is no better source than the scriptures themselves.

[prisonchaplain]

Interesting point regarding the true nature of Christ as opposed to 'a perverted one by mankind'. :)

When trying to get to know the Saviour there is no better source than the scriptures themselves.

Oh, okay...I'll bite, and be a bit smarmy. It seems to me that there has been some consternation over the claim that the Jesus taught by your church is "a different Jesus." Yet, now I'm reading that the Protestant/Catholic Jesus is a perverted one, created by men? So, is He a different one or not?

[Vanhin]

Oh, okay...I'll bite, and be a bit smarmy. It seems to me that there has been some consternation over the claim that the Jesus taught by your church is "a different Jesus." Yet, now I'm reading that the Protestant/Catholic Jesus is a perverted one, created by men? So, is He a different one or not?

No, I don't think so. He is the Jesus of Nazareth as read about in the Bible and in the Book of Mormon (1 Ne. 11:13) for all Christians. At issue is the nature of the Godhead. The following is the result of the wisdom of man:

The scriptures and modern revelation confirm that Jesus Christ is actually the Son of God, and he has a Father, who is the Supreme Ruler of the universe, just like Jesus taught. The Holy Ghost is also a separate personage, and sent by the Father. They are perfectly unified in purpose and doctrine, thus they constitute the God of Heaven, but are not the same being.

God is not an unknowable, mysterious, or unapproachable being. Nor is He an impossible being. We are the same species as God is, and were truly created in his image. We are all His children.

Regards,

Vanhin

[prisonchaplain]

No, I don't think so. He is the Jesus of Nazareth as read about in the Bible and in the Book of Mormon (1 Ne. 1:13) for all Christians. At issue is the nature of the Godhead.

The scriptures and modern revelation confirm that Jesus Christ is actually the Son of God, and he has a Father, who is the Supreme Ruler of the universe, just like Jesus taught.

So far, there is no disagreement with trinitarian teaching.

The Holy Ghost is also a separate personage, and sent by the Father. They are perfectly unified in purpose and doctrine, thus they constitute the God of Heaven, but are not the same being.

The semantics here are important. What is the difference between a personage and a person? It is, as you say at the end, a matter of essence. Is the Godhead one or three. Trinitarians insist that He is one, and that they are monotheists. The LDS teaching is that the Godhead is three, and, to be accurate, that the Church is henotheist, worshiping only one God, amongst the many that exist.

God is not an unknowable, mysterious,

I'd say that He is not one that we can fully understand...especially this side of glory.

or unapproachable being. Nor is He an impossible being.

Your phrasing here casts my beliefs in a rather horrible light. I know of no Protestant or Catholic who believes that God is an unapproachable being.

We are the same species as God is, and were truly created in his image. We are all His children.

This is huge--and I've made it so. Here is where charges of heresy start to fly. LDS will say that unrestored Christianity has lost its parentage, and its rightful claim to full reconciliation with our literal Father. Protestants and Catholics will see in this a changeable God, one of many, a greatly diminished deity. Additionally, to say we are the same species as God will seem blasphemous...a recollection of Adam & Eve's attempt to be like God, in the Garden.

Rather than driving me to anger, consternation, or a desire to confrontational debate, however, I find this area of disagreement a fascinating, and wonderful area of conversation and spiritual exploration.

[rameumptom]

Perhaps this inquiry is similar to one I posit from time to time: Was the sin committed by Adam and Eve in the Garden an innocent one--the understandable fruit of their ignorance--and really just part of God's plan? (Many here have told me this). Or, was it rebellion? Did Adam & Eve, upon being promised by the serpent that they would become like God, not draw the conclusion that, if they were like God, they would no longer need God? Was not their quest for independence a wicked, latent rebellion?

Given that Genesis tells us that Adam and Eve were innocent, and there is no evidence of rebellion or desire to overthrow God, I'd say they were ignorant and tricked by Satan. For them to rise up in rebellion would suggest they would continue to follow Satan and continue rising up against God. But they didn't.

[Misshalfway]

With regards to the large species question:).......

I just wanted to add that while we believe that God is our literal spiritual father and that we can become like him and receive an inheritance of exaltation which includes eternal progression..... that we will not become equal to or replace God the Father in anyway...or Jesus Christ, his son. While we can progress and become like him, it is only through the Atonement that such is possible and we will never become Saviors. I hope that helps to take the sting...at least in part.....of the LARGEST issue on this thread! :)

[rameumptom]

With regards to the large species question:).......

I just wanted to add that while we believe that God is our literal spiritual father and that we can become like him and receive an inheritance of exaltation which includes eternal progression..... that we will not become equal to or replace God the Father in anyway...or Jesus Christ, his son. While we can progress and become like him, it is only through the Atonement that such is possible and we will never become Saviors. I hope that helps to take the sting...at least in part.....of the LARGEST issue on this thread! :)

But we will become Saviors. Just not in the exact same way as Jesus. Moses 1:39 tells us that God's work and glory is to bring to pass immortality/salvation and eternal life/exaltation of mankind. Christ has fulfilled the first part. We can assist in the second half by performing needed ordinances in the temple, sharing the gospel with those who do not have it, and perfecting those who have received it.

We will never surpass the Father in the same sense as my children and grandchildren will never surpass me in the number of posterity I have. God's glory is his children. My glory will be my children. He will always have a greater glory, since I am one of his children.

[Vanhin]

The semantics here are important. What is the difference between a personage and a person?

Personage just seems more poetic. God is, after all, a perfect being, and has always been God.

It is, as you say at the end, a matter of essence. Is the Godhead one or three. Trinitarians insist that He is one, and that they are monotheists. The LDS teaching is that the Godhead is three, and, to be accurate, that the Church is henotheist, worshiping only one God, amongst the many that exist.

I'm not sure you understand LDS teaching, but that's probably not your fault. Many well intending members of the Church have speculated that there have been generations and generations of Gods (with a capital G), perhaps each with an Only Begotten. But the LDS scriptures do not support this.

God the Father, is the Man of Holiness. He is the Father of all mankind, and his Only Begotten, is the Christ. They have always existed, and have always been the One True God. The scriptures do call the children of God, gods (lower "g"), because we are His offspring and co-eternal with Him, but make no mistake, we will ever worship the Father and the Son as God.

The Godhead is one. This means they move in lockstep. You will never have the Son teach anything but the doctrine of the Father, and the same with the Holy Ghost. They are one God in purpose and doctrine. No mystery there.

I worship both the Father and the Son in Spirit and truth. To worship the Son is to worship the Father, because of the Atonement. The Son of God, who himself has always been God, humbled himself to the will of the Father of all mankind, and drunk of that bitter cup for the salvation of all mankind. Thus becoming both the Father and the Son. He is our advocate with the Father. It is He who created the heavens and the earth under the direction of the Father. He is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He is Jehovah. He is who reveals the will of the Father to the prophets. Even when both the Father and the Son appear, the Father usually gives the mic to Jesus, and says "hear him". When you hear the Son speak, or you read his words, they are the words of the Father. They are in perfect harmony.

This is huge--and I've made it so. Here is where charges of heresy start to fly. LDS will say that unrestored Christianity has lost its parentage, and its rightful claim to full reconciliation with our literal Father. Protestants and Catholics will see in this a changeable God, one of many, a greatly diminished deity.

Not sure I follow you. How does the scriptural fact that mankind is the offspring of God diminish God? On the contrary, it glorifies his name! The Great God of Heaven loves his children so much that he wants to give it all to us. He wants us to be joint heirs with the Son.

Additionally, to say we are the same species as God will seem blasphemous...a recollection of Adam & Eve's attempt to be like God, in the Garden.

Lost me here too. Adam and Eve are heroes and took the necessary step that ushered in mortality on our planet. Because of our first parents, the children of God could enter mortality to gain tabernacles of flesh and learn by our own experience the difference between good and evil.

Rather than driving me to anger, consternation, or a desire to confrontational debate, however, I find this area of disagreement a fascinating, and wonderful area of conversation and spiritual exploration.

Right on. Let's not be angry about these things. That wouldn't be very helpful.

It's not very useful for us to go back and forth on these things either. We know what we know about the purpose of life, and the destiny of mankind because God himself has revealed it to us through his prophets, and has revealed to us that this knowledge is true. Unless you gain this understanding yourself, it will be hard for you to ever accept these things.

Sincerely,

Vanhin

[Misshalfway]

But we will become Saviors. Just not in the exact same way as Jesus. Moses 1:39 tells us that God's work and glory is to bring to pass immortality/salvation and eternal life/exaltation of mankind. Christ has fulfilled the first part. We can assist in the second half by performing needed ordinances in the temple, sharing the gospel with those who do not have it, and perfecting those who have received it.

We will never surpass the Father in the same sense as my children and grandchildren will never surpass me in the number of posterity I have. God's glory is his children. My glory will be my children. He will always have a greater glory, since I am one of his children.

I understand what you are saying.... but no protestant will. I understand we use the phrase 'saviors upon mount zion'. But any outsider would think you were equating our activities with Christ's sacrifice. I think there is a tremendous difference between what you are saying and the point I was trying to make.

[ztodd]

No, I don't think so. He is the Jesus of Nazareth as read about in the Bible and in the Book of Mormon (1 Ne. 11:13) for all Christians. At issue is the nature of the Godhead. The following is the result of the wisdom of man:

...They are perfectly unified in purpose and doctrine, thus they constitute the God of Heaven, but are not the same being...

The picture is the result of the wisdom of man? Doesn't it say the same thing you are saying, which is the same thing the church teaches? The picture says:

The Father is God

The Son is God

The Holy Spirit is God

The Father is not The Son

The Father is not the The Holy Spirit

The Son is not the The Holy Spirit

I guess the answer to my question depends on what you think the last 3 statements mean. To me, "The Father is not The Son" means "The Father is not the same being as The Son". Do you interpret it differently?

or do you take issue with the first 3 statements for some reason?

I was actually thinking of using this picture in a lesson sometime.

[Misshalfway]

But we will become Saviors. Just not in the exact same way as Jesus. Moses 1:39 tells us that God's work and glory is to bring to pass immortality/salvation and eternal life/exaltation of mankind. Christ has fulfilled the first part. We can assist in the second half by performing needed ordinances in the temple, sharing the gospel with those who do not have it, and perfecting those who have received it.

.

I hope no one gets confused by your first statements. I think that this is a concept that is easily misinterpreted.

[Vanhin]

The picture is the result of the wisdom of man? Doesn't it say the same thing you are saying, which is the same thing the church teaches? The picture says:

The Father is God

The Son is God

The Holy Spirit is God

The Father is not The Son

The Father is not the The Holy Spirit

The Son is not the The Holy Spirit

I guess the answer to my question depends on what you think the last 3 statements mean. To me, "The Father is not The Son" means "The Father is not the same being as The Son". Do you interpret it differently?

or do you take issue with the first 3 statements for some reason?

I was actually thinking of using this picture in a lesson sometime.

Well, I do see what you are saying, and under the proper guidance, a picture like that could teach correct principle. Your two sets of three statements are true, of course.

What it is traditionally used to illustrate is:

God is the Father

God is the Son

God is the Holy Ghost

Father is not the Son

Son is not the Holy Ghost

Holy Ghost is not the Father

Meaning one entity (God) with three distinct and separate manifestations. Which is nonsense.

Regards,

Vanhin

[rameumptom]

I hope no one gets confused by your first statements. I think that this is a concept that is easily misinterpreted.

Which is why I didn't end with just my first statements. I made a general statement, and then clarified it. Hopefully, most of those here that read these threads take the time to read more than just the opening sentence of each....

[Vanhin]

Which is why I didn't end with just my first statements. I made a general statement, and then clarified it. Hopefully, most of those here that read these threads take the time to read more than just the opening sentence of each....

Yes and I think you were right, about us being saviors. The temple work for the dead, that you cited, is a good example of that.

Maybe it was the capitalization of "Saviors" that seemed a little weird to me too, but after reading the whole post I saw what you meant. I'm sure others will as well.

Sincerely,

Vanhin

[prisonchaplain]

Given that Genesis tells us that Adam and Eve were innocent, and there is no evidence of rebellion or desire to overthrow God, I'd say they were ignorant and tricked by Satan. For them to rise up in rebellion would suggest they would continue to follow Satan and continue rising up against God. But they didn't.

Except that they knew what God had told them not to do, they hid when God came to them after the fact, and God did indeed punish them for what they had done...even setting into motion the promise of the coming Messiah (Gen. 3:15). Why a Messiah if this was an innocent mistake, that could be quickly rectified? It's also interesting that you mention the overthrow of God. No, this was more the rebellion of simply coming out from under his authority. Again, the promise was that they would have knowledge just like God. I'd also note that their descendants did try to overthrow God at Babel. Was that something that just sprung up in the Babel generation, or was it the fruit of a seed planted in the Garden?

[prisonchaplain]

I'm not sure you understand LDS teaching, but that's probably not your fault. Many well intending members of the Church have speculated that there have been generations and generations of Gods (with a capital G), perhaps each with an Only Begotten. But the LDS scriptures do not support this.

God the Father, is the Man of Holiness. He is the Father of all mankind, and his Only Begotten, is the Christ. They have always existed, and have always been the One True God. The scriptures do call the children of God, gods (lower "g"), because we are His offspring and co-eternal with Him, but make no mistake, we will ever worship the Father and the Son as God.

The Godhead is one. This means they move in lockstep. You will never have the Son teach anything but the doctrine of the Father, and the same with the Holy Ghost. They are one God in purpose and doctrine. No mystery there.

If the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three separate beings, then, though united in purpose, though they comprise one Godhead, are they not three Gods? You may only worship the Father (some LDS say this), or only worship the corporate Godhead, but that is still henotheism, not monotheism.

Lost me here too. Adam and Eve are heroes and took the necessary step that ushered in mortality on our planet. Because of our first parents, the children of God could enter mortality to gain tabernacles of flesh and learn by our own experience the difference between good and evil.

Then why did God punish them for their disobedience?

It's not very useful for us to go back and forth on these things either. We know what we know about the purpose of life, and the destiny of mankind because God himself has revealed it to us through his prophets, and has revealed to us that this knowledge is true. Unless you gain this understanding yourself, it will be hard for you to ever accept these things.

Sincerely,

Vanhin

The witness of the Spirit is a deal-completer, in all matters. However, just is my having faith does not mean I only pray about a matter one time, so my faith that the Spirit reveals all truth does not keep me from discussing spiritual matters repeatedly...or for that matter, reading a passage of Scripture more than once.

[skalenfehl]

Then why did God punish them for their disobedience?

I wouldn't call it a punishment more so than a consequence. There's a difference.

[Vanhin]

If the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three separate beings, then, though united in purpose, though they comprise one Godhead, are they not three Gods? You may only worship the Father (some LDS say this), or only worship the corporate Godhead, but that is still henotheism, not monotheism.

Some LDS say all kinds of things. This Latter-day Saint worships the Father in spirit and truth, and I also worship the Son. I have no difficulty with this, because ultimately it is the will of the Father, and the Son is our Advocate with the Father. So, it's monotheism to me. They are the One True God. Here's what the late Gordon B. Hinckley recently taught:

"He is the Savior and the Redeemer of the world. I believe in Him. I declare His divinity without equivocation or compromise. I love Him. I speak His name in reverence and wonder. I worship Him as I worship His Father, in spirit and in truth. I thank Him and kneel before His wounded feet and hands and side, amazed at the love He offers me." (LDS.org - Ensign Article - In These Three I Believe)

Then why did God punish them for their disobedience?

Those were the consequences of their transgression, yes, but they were also blessings. To experience mortality is the path to happiness. Had they not partaken, they would have lived forever in a state of innocence, never knowing good, because they knew no evil, and they would not have been able to fulfill God's other commandment, to multiply and replenish the earth. They had to be the ones to make the choice to usher in mortality. God could not make that choice for them, so he gave them a choice, and he allowed Satan to temp them, and they freely chose.

The witness of the Spirit is a deal-completer, in all matters. However, just is my having faith does not mean I only pray about a matter one time, so my faith that the Spirit reveals all truth does not keep me from discussing spiritual matters repeatedly...or for that matter, reading a passage of Scripture more than once.

And I agree with you on this point. :)

Sincerely,

Vanhin

[rameumptom]

Except that they knew what God had told them not to do, they hid when God came to them after the fact, and God did indeed punish them for what they had done...even setting into motion the promise of the coming Messiah (Gen. 3:15). Why a Messiah if this was an innocent mistake, that could be quickly rectified? It's also interesting that you mention the overthrow of God. No, this was more the rebellion of simply coming out from under his authority. Again, the promise was that they would have knowledge just like God. I'd also note that their descendants did try to overthrow God at Babel. Was that something that just sprung up in the Babel generation, or was it the fruit of a seed planted in the Garden?

In LDS scripture, we believe God gave Adam and Eve two conflicting commands: Not to partake of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil; and to multiply and replenish the earth. We believe these two were mutually exclusive, as is stated by Eve when they learned of the Atonement:

Moses 5

6 And after many days an angel of the Lord appeared unto Adam, saying: Why dost thou offer sacrifices unto the Lord? And Adam said unto him: I know not, save the Lord commanded me.

7 And then the angel spake, saying: This thing is a similitude of the sacrifice of the Only Begotten of the Father, which is full of grace and truth.

8 Wherefore, thou shalt do all that thou doest in the name of the Son, and thou shalt repent and call upon God in the name of the Son forevermore.

9 And in that day the Holy Ghost fell upon Adam, which beareth record of the Father and the Son, saying: I am the Only Begotten of the Father from the beginning, henceforth and forever, that as thou hast fallen thou mayest be redeemed, and all mankind, even as many as will.

10 And in that day Adam blessed God and was filled, and began to prophesy concerning all the families of the earth, saying: Blessed be the name of God, for because of my transgression my eyes are opened, and in this life I shall have joy, and again in the flesh I shall see God.

11 And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient.

12 And Adam and Eve blessed the name of God, and they made all things known unto their sons and their daughters.

They realized that to fulfill God's command they had to disobey a commandment, and chose the better path.

[rameumptom]

Except that they knew what God had told them not to do, they hid when God came to them after the fact, and God did indeed punish them for what they had done...even setting into motion the promise of the coming Messiah (Gen. 3:15). Why a Messiah if this was an innocent mistake, that could be quickly rectified? It's also interesting that you mention the overthrow of God. No, this was more the rebellion of simply coming out from under his authority. Again, the promise was that they would have knowledge just like God. I'd also note that their descendants did try to overthrow God at Babel. Was that something that just sprung up in the Babel generation, or was it the fruit of a seed planted in the Garden?

It wasn't the fruit from the Garden that causes people to disobey or rebel. It is that God has allowed Satan to tempt and try us. Yes, Babel tried to overthrow heaven (Is 14) is often considered representative of Satan/Lucifer, as well as the king of Babel/Babylon (particularly in LDS belief). This rebellion began in the premortal existence as we read in both the Bible (Satan/dragon war in heaven) and in modern scripture. Satan just used his tools to continue his rebellion in this earth. The difference being that Adam and Eve did transgress, but repented.

[prisonchaplain]

I wouldn't call it a punishment more so than a consequence. There's a difference.

"Punishment" can imply discipline, which is redemptive. However, it also implies a wrong has been committed. Do you believe God wanted Adam & Eve to pick the fruit, and that his pronouncement of "consequences," was something akin to, "Good job. Now you'll have a difficult road ahead, but you've chosen well...a way that will fulfill my plan."

I rather see that God's plan would not be thwarted by our disobedience. As the beautiful gospel song says, "Death wanted satisfaction, but mercy refused."

[prisonchaplain]

Thank you to all of you...this thread has cleared up my understanding of LDS theology concerning the Fall (as Protestants/Catholics call it)...and how you understand the nature of God.

[skalenfehl]

"Punishment" can imply discipline, which is redemptive. However, it also implies a wrong has been committed. Do you believe God wanted Adam & Eve to pick the fruit, and that his pronouncement of "consequences," was something akin to, "Good job. Now you'll have a difficult road ahead, but you've chosen well...a way that will fulfill my plan."

I think you nailed it right on the head. After all in order to understand the Atonement, we must understand the Fall and in order to understand the Fall we must understand our Premortal existence and God's foresight to provide a Savior of us all to redeem us from the Fall of Adam and save us from our sins. It's called the Plan of Salvation in our doctrine.