Announcement

Collapse

LDS - Mormonism Guidelines

Theists only.

Look! It's a bird, no it's a plane, no it's a bicycle built for two!

This forum is a debate area to discuss issues pertaining to the LDS - Mormons. This forum is generally for theists only, and is generaly not the area for debate between atheists and theists. Non-theists may not post here without first obtaining permission from the moderator of this forum. Granting of such permission is subject to Moderator discretion - and may be revoked if the Moderator feels that the poster is not keeping with the spirit of the World Religions Department.

Due to the sensitive nature of the LDS Temple Ceremonies to our LDS posters, we do not allow posting exact text of the temple rituals, articles describing older versions of the ceremony, or links that provide the same information. However discussion of generalities of the ceremony are not off limits. If in doubt, PM the area mod or an Admin


Non-theists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Mormon Trinity

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    7UP: Why do you think that talking to God or having the golden plates would automatically impart to Joseph all aspects of theological knowledge all at once?

    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    That's the beauty of being God's Prophet and Mouthpiece. Smith didn't have to understand anything. He was God's scribe. His secretary. He just had to write down what God told him to write down. And translate the plates that God gave him.
    Yes. And the plates were the words of ancient prophets, some of whom did not always specify the members of the Godhead. Guess what? The Old Testament prophets did not specify either. Therefore, you have nothing but another double standard.


    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    You seem to think that it was Smith's job to understand ... doctrine.
    He had to understand it in order to relay the doctrines to other people. I explained an example to Cow Poke. Joseph understood from the First Vision and the translated plates that we truly are created in the image of God (likeness and image). However, there was not anything in his experience or in the translation which would have clarified the idea that God the Father was not only a Spirit. It took a specific revelation to reveal that the Father, like Jesus, is a Spirit that dwells within flesh and bone. As Paul describes it, "a spiritual body" which Christ demonstrated in the resurrection to be tangible.

    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    God appeared to him, spoke to him face to face, told him what to say and do, what to write, ... PERFECTLY.
    You act as if he was entirely controlled by God in everything he did, said or wrote. Sorry, but Joseph was not a puppet. That isn't how it works.

    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    The Apostles had misunderstandings while they were learning from Jesus. He corrected them on the way.
    Even when Jesus attempted to correct them, they still did not grasp it fully.

    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    And they (the Apostles) didn't even talk to the Father face to face!
    They got the same message from the Father that Joseph did, which was Christ at the right hand of the Father, who said, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Hear Him."

    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    No, 7up. It seems you like to use the same old excuses that all mormons do. When preaching why the LDS church is the restored church, you all like to brag how perfect the BoM is, ...When it is pointed out to you that Smith, nor the BoM is perfect,
    Here is an example of a straw man. You don't have to "point out" to LDS that the Joseph and the Book of Mormon are not perfect. We knew it all along. In fact, it is specifically taught in the LDS church that there are flaws. Only evangelical Christians hold to "inerrancy". The Book of Mormon is claimed to be "an abridgment of the record of the people of Nephi, and an abridgment taken from the Book of Ether also, ... And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God " Prophets and apostles are given revelations or have experiences with God, then they write down those revelations or experiences (sometimes history). The very fact that spiritual ideas have to be placed in human language ruins the idea of "inerrancy".

    Even the original plates were not claimed to be completely "perfect" and admits the idea of faults/mistakes. Certainly you have in mind the phrase Joseph Smith said about the Book of Mormon being "the most correct of any book on earth". Of course, anti-mormons often take that phrase out of context, and purposefully miss the point that Joseph was making. Being "correct" was not referring to punctuation, spelling, grammar, or even deep doctrine. Joseph said: “I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book. His point was about Christ-like living and drawing closer to God in a personal relationship. Anti-Mormons purposefully ignore that part and pretend that Joseph meant something entirely different.

    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    I quoted to you from the three witness statement on the BoM already. It ends with a statement of the Trinity. ONE God, three persons.
    Your analysis is far too shallow. It is NOT a statement of the Trinity unless "ONE God" is specifically described as a "single metaphysical substance". LDS never taught that. We understand "ONENESS" in the same sense as it is used everywhere else in the Bible. Here are some examples:


    Mark 10:8 A man will cleave unto his wife, "they twain shall be ONE flesh".


    Do you believe that when a man and a woman marry ... they become the same person, one in metaphysical substance? Of course not.* How about some more?

    Acts 4:32 multitude ... of one heart and of one soul

    Rom. 12:5 we, being many, are one body in Christ

    2 Cor. 13:11 Be perfect ... of one mind

    Gal. 3:28 ye are all one in Christ

    Philip. 1:27 one spirit, with one mind striving together


    Go through these and attempt to take them literally. Go ahead. That is how wrong you are about "oneness" in the Godhead. Now the real kicker:

    John 17: 22 "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us; And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one."

    We are to be one EVEN AS Jesus is one with the Father. This is not in a literal sense of becoming the same single Being.

    How does it feel to learn that the view of "oneness" in the LDS church is more Biblical than the Trinitarian view?



    7UP: Trust me Sparko, I have likely read more anti-mormon literature than you have. And when I come upon accusations like you and Cow Poke just attempted to promote, such as "early LDS taught the Trinity/Modalism" , I just shake my head and marvel at how uninformed you guys really are. All you have investigated is a bunch of biased sources providing half-truths and misinformation.

    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    This I seriously doubt. Or perhaps you read the info with a squinted eye, not wanting to actually consider any evidence against your religion. Most mormons have a knack for ignoring the problems and hand-waving them away.... I have read the Book of Mormon myself. Studied the D&C, and learned on my own. The LDS church is a hot mess. I assume you were born into it and that is why it seems so normal to you and you don't question anything. Am I right?
    You are wrong at every assertion.

    Treating history fairly (and not with a double standard), is not the same as 'hand waving'. Perhaps you can tell me where I have "ignored problems".

    You have not demonstrated that you know much at all about LDS doctrine, history, or practice. Like I said, all I see from you are the typical talking points from anti-sites.

    As for my history, I began investigating the LDS church when I was studying for my undergraduate degree at the University of Missouri and it was at that time that I began studying anti-Mormon literature.

    -7up
    Last edited by seven7up; 05-01-2014, 04:42 AM.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
      Yes, I've heard all that stupidity before --- Jesus didn't constantly give them REASON and CAUSE to make accusations of substance. Smith did.

      Smith was just a human being. Flaws and all.




      Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
      MAJOR big difference, and it's a slap in the face to Christ that you would attempt to drag Him down in such a disgusting manner.
      It is a "slap in the face" to recognize the difference between the perfect Son of God compared to a sinful human?

      You are simply feigning offense.

      Why do you think that talking to God or having the golden plates would automatically impart to Joseph all aspects of theological knowledge all at once?
      No, but it CERTAINLY wouldn't be....

      Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
      "Teach A"
      Ooooops, Did I say "Teach A"?

      I meant "Teach B
      I am still waiting for you to provide a good example of this, preferably in relation to the topic of this thread, the Trinity/Godhead. Give specifics. What was "teaching A" and what was "teaching B"?

      -7up

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by seven7up View Post
        Smith was just a human being. Flaws and all.
        So was Jack the Ripper.

        It is a "slap in the face" to recognize the difference between the perfect Son of God compared to a sinful human?
        ONLY when that human being is a pathological liar claiming to be THE PROPHET God chose to "restore" His Church. Did you kinda sorta forget that part? And it doesn't help that he USED that position to gain financially, sexually... it was ALL ABOUT HIMSELF. NOTHING like Christ.

        You are simply feigning offense.
        Nope. I'm offended by Smith's lies and fraud.

        Why do you think that talking to God or having the golden plates would automatically impart to Joseph all aspects of theological knowledge all at once?
        It's disappointing that you maintain this DISHONEST approach -- please show me where I have made such a claim.

        No, but it CERTAINLY wouldn't be....
        I am still waiting for you to provide a good example of this, preferably in relation to the topic of this thread, the Trinity/Godhead. Give specifics. What was "teaching A" and what was "teaching B"?

        -7up
        For those readers who don't simply slam their eyes shut and ignore the evidence...
        http://www.mormonismi.net/pdf/Recons..._Alexander.pdf

        Smith made it up as he went along.
        "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by seven7up View Post
          7UP: Why do you think that talking to God or having the golden plates would automatically impart to Joseph all aspects of theological knowledge all at once?
          It looks like you've been to the "don't answer the question they asked - answer the question they SHOULD have asked" school. NOBODY HERE is claiming that Smith had "all aspects of theological knowledge all at once"? Where'd you get that? Is that in "Mormon Talking Points for Dummies"? How bout dealing with what we're actually SAYING, and stop playing Mormon Goofy Games?

          Yes. And the plates were the words of ancient prophets,
          No, they weren't. They were just made up by Smith, just like he would tell long drawn out grandiose stories at home as a child.

          some of whom did not always specify the members of the Godhead. Guess what? The Old Testament prophets did not specify either. Therefore, you have nothing but another double standard.
          So, God takes the time to hide some golden plates in the side of a hill, and 2,000 years after Christ, he gets a local conman to go dig them up, provides a "urim and thummim" and a precise translation process, CAREFULLY "lights up the letters one at a time", Smith CONFIRMS each letter so there is NO ERROR, and Smith STILL gets it wrong?

          Come on, 7, you're smarter than that.
          "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

          Comment


          • #65
            Here's what Mormons claim NOW:

            Source: MormonNewsroom.org


            DO MORMONS BELIEVE IN THE TRINITY?
            Mormons most commonly use the term “Godhead” to refer to the Trinity. The first article of faith for the Latter-day Saints reads: “We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.” Latter-day Saints believe God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are one in will and purpose but are not literally the same being or substance, as conceptions of the Holy Trinity commonly imply.

            © Copyright Original Source



            Here is what they USED to claim:

            Source: The Evening And Morning Star, Vol. I, INDEPENDENCE, MO. JULY, 1832. No. 2. page 12 (emphasis mine)


            “Through Christ we understand the terms on which God will show favour and grace to the world, and by him we have ground of a PARRESIA access with freedom and boldness unto God. On his account we may hope not only for grace to subdue our sins, resist temptations, conquer the devil and the world; but having ’fought this good fight, and finished our course by patient continuance in well doing, we may justly look for glory, honor, and immortality,’ and that ‘crown of righteousness which is laid up for those who wait in faith,’ holiness, and humility, for the appearance of Christ from heaven. Now what things can there be of greater moment and importance for men to know, or God to reveal, than the nature of God and ourselves the state and condition of our souls, the only way to avoid eternal misery and enjoy everlasting bliss!

            “The Scriptures discover not only matters of importance, but of the greatest depth and mysteriousness. There are many wonderful things in the law of God, things we may admire, but are never able to comprehend. Such are the eternal purposes and decrees of God, THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY, the incarnation of the Son of God, and the manner of the operation of the Spirit of God upon the souls of men, which are all things of great weight and moment for us to understand and believe that they are, and yet may be unsearchable to our reason, as to the particular manner of them.”

            © Copyright Original Source



            You appear to have two options, 7....

            A) Decry the Mormon publication The Evening and Morning Star is not "official" (that's what Mormons USUALLY do when confronted with MORMON sources they don't like)
            2) Launch into a kabuki dance explaining that "the Doctrine of the Trinity" meant something completely different, and "incarnation of the Son of God" does not mean that God became flesh in Christ.

            Last edited by Cow Poke; 05-01-2014, 08:10 AM.
            "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by seven7up View Post
              7UP: God the Father IS God/Deity. Jesus Christ IS God/Deity. It is quite difficult to "differentiate" between them because they act as "one".



              LDS scripture says that there is one God. For example, when Christ says in Doctrine and Covenants: "I am the true light ... I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one." (D&C 93:2-3)

              The question is: In what sense are they "one"? Oneness of God can be found in scripture in the following ways:

              (1) There is only one perfectly united, mutually indwelling, divine community. We call that community "God" and there is only one such community.
              (2) There is only one God who is our Father or the fount of divinity (ie "the Most High God).
              (3) There is only one divine nature or set of properties severally necessary and jointly sufficient for divinity.
              (4) When compared to the false gods of other nations, there was only one Lord/Saviour who could provide redemption/salvation

              God is quite clear that he is the ONLY God.

              Deuteronomy 4:35
              You were shown these things so that you might know that the Lord is God; besides him there is no other.

              Isaiah 44:6 “This is what the Lord says—
              Israel’s King and Redeemer, the Lord Almighty:
              I am the first and I am the last;
              apart from me there is no God.
              7 Who then is like me? Let him proclaim it.
              Let him declare and lay out before me
              what has happened since I established my ancient people,
              and what is yet to come—
              yes, let them foretell what will come.
              8 Do not tremble, do not be afraid.
              Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago?
              You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me?
              No, there is no other Rock; I know not one.”

              Isaiah 46:9
              Remember the former things, those of long ago; I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me.

              So there is only one God, there were none before him, and will be none after him. And there is none like him.
              Either the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one God, one diety, or if the LDS idea that Jesus is Jehovah in the OT is right, then Jesus is the only God and the Father is not God at all.

              Once again the LDS shoot themselves in the foot with their own doctrines.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                7UP: Why do you think that talking to God or having the golden plates would automatically impart to Joseph all aspects of theological knowledge all at once?



                Yes. And the plates were the words of ancient prophets, some of whom did not always specify the members of the Godhead. Guess what? The Old Testament prophets did not specify either. Therefore, you have nothing but another double standard.
                Yet when God gave them words to speak to the people or to write down, they wrote them down exactly as God wanted. No mistakes. But you claim Smith could not do this? That with God standing right there telling him what to say, he still couldn't get it right? If that is the case, then Smith is one of the worst prophets of all time and you should not believe a thing he said because you can't be sure if it is true or a mistake.





                He had to understand it in order to relay the doctrines to other people. I explained an example to Cow Poke. Joseph understood from the First Vision and the translated plates that we truly are created in the image of God (likeness and image). However, there was not anything in his experience or in the translation which would have clarified the idea that God the Father was not only a Spirit. It took a specific revelation to reveal that the Father, like Jesus, is a Spirit that dwells within flesh and bone. As Paul describes it, "a spiritual body" which Christ demonstrated in the resurrection to be tangible.
                Surely God could tell him the things he needed to understand? Surely Smith could have at least repeated what God wanted him to say?




                You act as if he was entirely controlled by God in everything he did, said or wrote. Sorry, but Joseph was not a puppet. That isn't how it works.
                Never said he was a puppet. He was a "prophet" - someone who God dictated to and who was supposed to give God's words to the people UNCHANGED and CORRECT. In the OT if a prophet got it wrong, they were to be stoned and not believed. Therefore, if Smith got it wrong, even once, then he should not have been believed. It is YOU who want a double standard.



                Even when Jesus attempted to correct them, they still did not grasp it fully.
                The apostles were not prophets. They were followers.






                Here is an example of a straw man. You don't have to "point out" to LDS that the Joseph and the Book of Mormon are not perfect. We knew it all along. In fact, it is specifically taught in the LDS church that there are flaws. Only evangelical Christians hold to "inerrancy". The Book of Mormon is claimed to be "an abridgment of the record of the people of Nephi, and an abridgment taken from the Book of Ether also, ... And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God " Prophets and apostles are given revelations or have experiences with God, then they write down those revelations or experiences (sometimes history). The very fact that spiritual ideas have to be placed in human language ruins the idea of "inerrancy".

                Even the original plates were not claimed to be completely "perfect" and admits the idea of faults/mistakes. Certainly you have in mind the phrase Joseph Smith said about the Book of Mormon being "the most correct of any book on earth". Of course, anti-mormons often take that phrase out of context, and purposefully miss the point that Joseph was making. Being "correct" was not referring to punctuation, spelling, grammar, or even deep doctrine. Joseph said: “I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book. His point was about Christ-like living and drawing closer to God in a personal relationship. Anti-Mormons purposefully ignore that part and pretend that Joseph meant something entirely different.
                The most perfect book ever written is full of flaws? Then how do you know what is truth and what is flaw? You can't trust any of it.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                  7UP: The similarity isn't that Joseph measures up to Jesus. Not even close.



                  I see that instead of discussing the topic of this thread, you prefer to run through all the anti-Mormon talking points. Including the ones that you likely know very little about. And why would you? The anti-Mormon websites never give the context.
                  I have not visited one anti-mormon site in years. This is stuff that is so obvious to anyone except mormons, that I am sure the same points come up in many places. But instead of engaging, you just use "anti-mormon" as a way to handwave away the topic and not even think about it. And your replies are from "pro-LDS" literature and sites, repeating the same "answers" but showing you have no understanding of the point in the first place.
                  Allow me to inform you, since you refuse to inform yourself. Since this was recorded after Joseph's death, some people have doubts that Joseph even said it, or at least not in the way that it is recorded. However, I think that it is likely that Joseph said it. So, let's assume that the quote is 100% accurate. Why was Joseph "boasting"? All we have to do is look at the context of the discourse.

                  The part you quoted says, "Come on! ye prosecutors! ye false swearers!" He says this because there were people in the crowd who had just attacked him. They persecuted him to try to stop him from building the Church.

                  With that in mind, let's also see what Joseph said. First he read from one of Paul's letters in the New Testament.

                  2 Corinthians 11:
                  "Would to God ye could bear with me a little in my folly: and indeed bear with me.... For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles. ... As the truth of Christ is in me, no man shall stop me of this boasting in the regions of Achaia. ... I say again, let no man think me a fool; if otherwise, yet as a fool receive me, that I may boast myself a little. That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord, but as it were foolishly, in this confidence of boasting. Seeing that many glory after the flesh, I will glory also. For ye suffer fools gladly, seeing ye yourselves are wise. ... Howbeit whereinsoever any is bold, (I speak foolishly,) I am bold also."

                  Paul goes on to boast about being a minister, his lineage as a Hebrew, about being whipped, being shipwrecked, persecuted, etc.

                  "Christians" had pulled Joseph Smith from his home, beaten him and tarred and feathered him. So, shortly after, Joseph read to the anti-Mormons about Paul, who also was persecuted, but then boasted. But the point of Paul's boasting was not to glory in himself. Paul goes on to say later that in all this he glories in Christ, who made it possible.

                  So, Joseph Smith reads this chapter from Paul to his audience, then goes on to "boast". Like Paul, he is purposefully boasting from a worldy/"foolish" perspective. After he is done using Paul's tactic, later in the discourse, Joseph then goes on and says that he "teaches the things of Christ" and admonishes the members of the Church to be humble.

                  So, it is proven again how little you know. The anti-Mormon websites will leave you looking like a fool every time.

                  -7up
                  Thanks for the context. I have read it all by the way. The problem is not Smith claiming to be boasting, but WHAT he is boasting. He is boasting that he is greater than Jesus because he held the church together and even Jesus was not able to do that.

                  That is pure arrogance, and a lie.

                  In that quote, Smith sounds exactly like what he was: the Spawn of Satan himself.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                    Yet you cannot demonstrate that the "Trinity" is what the Apostles taught their students all along, or even that the Apostles taught it at all.
                    What I can show is that the Apostles and their students taught 1) Monotheism, and 2) the Triadic formula. It was not until the second was challenged internally by the novel ideas of Arianism, Monarchianism, Patripassianism and Sabellianism that the church had to formally ratify the existing beliefs of the relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as one substance (ousia) and three co-equal persons (hypostaseis).


                    The early creeds (like the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed) did not define things that specifically. Why don't you provide me with your modern detailed definition of the Trinity, your "creed" so to speak. Then we can discuss it.
                    The relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is one substance (ousia) and three co-equal persons (hypostaseis). There is only one God, eternal, uncreated, and unchangeable in His eternal Godhood. There exists within that one substance we call God 3 distinct centers of consciousness, all equally God due to sharing that substance. All 3 centers of consciousness have eternally existed as God, all 3 being uncreated. There never was a time when any of them "attained" that substance, nor can any other being attain it.


                    However, I have a feeling that we will be given into the Trinity word games and become lost.
                    Not if you preserve monotheism as the central key.

                    What does it mean to be "co-equal"?
                    It means that one is not "less God" than another. None of them "became God". They are all 3 fully God, yet there is only one God.

                    The definition is "equal with one another; having the same rank or importance".
                    All are equally God. One can not be taken away from being God, nor can any other being "join" them as God.

                    Not only does it imply equality between two things or two beings, but the same "rank" would mean the same authority.
                    Not true. My wife and I are both co-equally human beings, yet we do not share the same authority. Ontologically, we share our humanity while functionally, she is subservant to me, as I am to Christ.

                    So you have to say, as you do here, that they are not equal in authority, but instead in "essence" or "glory" or "power".
                    Correct.

                    Well, you then have to explain why they would be equal in glory and power, if one has authority over the other.
                    Because they are the one God.

                    Why does the essence have authority here, but that same essence does not have authority there.
                    It is a function of the being.

                    Or if they are the same essence or the same being, how can it have authority and rank over itself?
                    Because they are distinct centers of consciousness within that one essence, but not of separate substances.

                    You then have to make up more phrases like "Functional subordination vs. ontological equality" in order to twist it into a level where people finally have to just say, "Eh, its a mystery."
                    Seriously? You want to play the "twister" game? How can the Father be God if Jehovah (Jesus) said there were no other gods except Him? How can Jehovah (Jesus) tell the Jews to only worship Him, yet when He came to earth, he told them to worship Elohim (Heavenly Father), thus breaking Torah commands himself and telling others to break them? How can Jehovah (Jesus) have earned his godhood from his father Elohim (Heavenly Father), who earned his own, say that there was no God formed before him, when his father clearly was formed before him in the Father's own mortal existence?


                    7UP: We read in verse 3 that Jesus is not the same substance as the Father, but instead is a COPY of the Father or the "image/stamped imprint/facsimile/ of the Father's person".* There is a difference because the phrase "same substance" implies that they are literally the same being. That is not what the scriptures said.*
                    Yes it does. And the phrase means that Jesus' human form is a physical representation (or manifestation if you can ignore the not-applicable temporary nature of the term manifestation) of the glory of God.


                    Is God the Father "omnipresent" by nature?
                    Yes. So is the Son. His ADDITIONAL Human nature, which did not in ANY way change His divine nature, was not omnipresent.

                    Does God the Father bow Himself to a higher authority by nature?
                    No. Neither do Jesus or the Spirit. They do that as a result of their function. That means they do so by choice.

                    Does the Father beget by nature?
                    No. He does so by function.

                    You say the "exact" representation, and Mormons would agree with that. However, your theology has to start qualifying that statement by shaving off certain characteristics.
                    No we don't. You seem to not understand the difference between nature and function. By nature, humans are 98.6 degrees farenheight. By nature, we breathe, our heart beats, and our brain synapses fire. By FUNCTION, we work for other humans, we have children, and we worship God. The man Jesus is the exact physical representation of who God is, not what He chooses to do.


                    The only way I failed was to get you to understand the Theodicy.
                    Nope. Your whole argument was nothing more than "In Ex Nihilo, God CAN do better, so He SHOULD do better"

                    It was not my fault that you didn't get it. The other people I spoke with understood it, but your mind is so entrenched in the Ex Nihilo mindset, that you cannot comprehend the implications that come with thinking any other way.
                    No they didn't "get it". Nick certainly didn't. RBerman didn't. 37813 didn't. Nor did Sparko or Cow Poke. And we have no problem accepting the "implications" of God not doing what WE think is better.



                    Case in point:

                    7UP: I lay out some of the details of those issues here in a video series: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...lH9MxxLwwWnAea
                    However, I did not yet create the video which discussed how Ex Nihilo Creation theology affected the development of Trinitarian dogma.
                    The Arian controversy following the era of Apostolic Christianity was mishandled.* The reason that the debate was fruitless is because almost all of the Christians had adopted "Ex Nihilo" creation theology by then, and creation "from nothing" was a foundation from which correct doctrines could not develop. We can all agree that if Jesus was "created out of nothing", then he could not be Deity.* In a sense, the Arians / Semi-Arians and subordinationalists had very good points, but the concept of creatio ex nihilo made it impossible to defend their case coherently.
                    Ex Nihilo is why Arianism was relatively easy to defeat, especially from a scriptural standpoint. As I pointed out to you before the crash, the early church taught that only God was uncreated, therefore, the Son, if "created" can not be God.


                    In LDS theology, the characteristics of Deity ARE inherent eternally with Jesus Christ.
                    Are you now denying that Jesus attained his godhood in Mormon theology? If so, then I'm done here, because this is the Mormonism forum, and the LDS church DOES teach it. If not, then we can progress through scripture showing you that it is impossible to "attain" the nature of God.

                    The thing is, when you say 'create', you mean something different, because in your mind you are thinking of creation "from nothing."
                    I realize that. In your mind, "creation" means moving things around from place to place.


                    The thing is, that the "second" fire is not to be considered entirely separate from the first.
                    Correct. It is not, as Justin puts it, as if the essence of the Father were divided; as all other things partitioned and divided are not the same after as before they were divided (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/01289.htm)

                    It was described by Justin Martyr more like a fire that is "spreading" and becoming more encompassing, and drawing in more individuals.
                    No it wasn't. Justin admits the example was not perfect, saying that he used one fire starting another fire merely as an example of Jesus' power not merely being a portion of God's power, but "remains the same" power.

                    I suppose the correct way to word it is that fire is singular and the flames spread and become more as more fuel is pulled in, thus the glory of God continues to increase into eternity.
                    That was not what Justin was talking about.

                    Justin Martyr placed the genesis of the "Logos" as a voluntary act of the Father before the beginning of creation.
                    "Before anything was created". He was begotten, not created. Everything was created after the genesis of the logos. Yet the Logos always existed in God. Jesus is the Wisdom of God. Was there ever a time where God lacked wisdom? Where He lacked the Word?

                    This is fine from an LDS perspective as long as you understand that this is not meant to imply creation from nothing. The "flames" spread to a unique and uncreated intelligence which had perfect characteristics from eternity.
                    If it had perfection ALREADY, it did not need the original flame.

                    Jesus Christ became the Firstbegotten in spirit and was "naturally" Deity (which gave Him the birthright to become the Firstbegotten in physical immortality as well). This concept fits Scripture.
                    No it doesn't. It also makes a mockery of what Justin was saying.

                    How do Trinitarians get around the teaching of Jesus being created/begotten?
                    We do not believe He was created. He was begotten in eternity, meaning He has always existed as God's Wisdom. And He is all God, not just part of His power.

                    That would be problematic because, from the Ex Nihilo perspective, that would imply that Jesus is not an eternal being.
                    Only if you persist in the strawman that we believe Jesus was created, not begotten.

                    So, those making the creeds invented the phrase "eternally begotten", as if the Son must be continuously sustained and issued forth from the Father.
                    Which He is. He is the Wisdom of God. God did not ever NOT possess Wisdom, nor did He lose it when He generated the Son.

                    I find that phrase problematic because, "in Christ all the fullness of Deity dwells bodily". (Col 2:9)

                    How can the "fullness of Deity" be found withing Jesus Christ himself, if he has to be "eternally begotten"?
                    Same way the fullness of flame can be found in a lit fire. This isn't like Sisyphus, who has to start over from scratch every day.

                    To the contrary, according to my view, in the Godhead, there is a "oneness" that exists among 3 beings, each of whom are fully "Deity", because, for example, the fire spread to another eternal being, who now has this fullness of Deity as a result. However, keep in mind that they are not "separate" in the complete sense, because they also hold a deep interpersonal relationship.
                    Yet each was lit by someone else at a different time, hence "forming another god after the one formed before it".

                    Now, IF they were not each considered fully Deity individually, it could not be said of Jesus that he has "the fulness of Deity" as the scriptures claim, because according to your view, the fulness of Deity must include all 3 as one being. In other words, Trinitarians (and Modalists) contradict the scriptures because they force themselves into a position whereby the fullness of Deity must be referring to all three together as an immutable, incomprehensible and omnipresent essence - Logically this means that the fulness of Deity cannot exist within Jesus bodily.
                    This sort of argument was what Justin was arguing against when he said "but not by abscission, as if the essence of the Father were divided; as all other things partitioned and divided are not the same after as before they were divided"

                    And finally, the LDS faith simply defines "oneness" differently than you do, as we use "oneness" in the same way as it is used in the Bible.
                    No you don't. You select only ONE use in scripture which was describing the unity Jesus had while on earth with the Father, one of intimate communion, while ignoring the rest of the uses of "oneness" in relation to the physical number of Gods in existence.

                    We do not take the idea of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit being "one" to the literal extreme that Trinitarians and Modalists do. We understand that being "one" refers to that harmony and "perichoresis" of the those within that deep interpersonal relationship whereby their spirits hold a constant communication and singular will.
                    Which is only HALF of the story. You must also take their oneness to mean that numerically, there is only one God in existence, and that there was never a god before or one after Him. the Hebrew word bad means absolute numeric one

                    "You are the God, You alone [bad], of all the kingdoms of the earth." 2 Kings 19:15
                    "You alone [bad] are Yahweh." Nehemiah 9:6
                    "You alone [bad], Yahweh, are God." Isaiah 37:20
                    That's what
                    - She

                    Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                    - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                    I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                    Stephen R. Donaldson

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                      No they didn't "get it". Nick certainly didn't. RBerman didn't. 37813 didn't. Nor did Sparko or Cow Poke. And we have no problem accepting the "implications" of God not doing what WE think is better.
                      "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                        I have not visited one anti-mormon site in years.
                        There is no need. Mormon history and Mormon websites are testimonies against Mormonism. LONG AGO, I decided it was futile to try to use "anti-Mormon" websites or sources -- MUCH better to use LDS.org or FairMormon.org or actual Mormon spokespersons.

                        Obviously, however, when we use a Mormon source, it suddenly becomes "not official".
                        "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                          There is no need. Mormon history and Mormon websites are testimonies against Mormonism. LONG AGO, I decided it was futile to try to use "anti-Mormon" websites or sources -- MUCH better to use LDS.org or FairMormon.org or actual Mormon spokespersons.

                          Obviously, however, when we use a Mormon source, it suddenly becomes "not official".
                          exactly. I usually go to LDS.org to find what they teach. And even if I do read something claimed by someone who is "anti-mormon" I will go to the LDS official sites to double check it myself, and will give links and cites to the LDS sources.

                          Which as you point out, all of a sudden become "non-official"

                          And boy do they love to throw Brigham Young under the bus!

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            exactly. I usually go to LDS.org to find what they teach. And even if I do read something claimed by someone who is "anti-mormon" I will go to the LDS official sites to double check it myself, and will give links and cites to the LDS sources.

                            Which as you point out, all of a sudden become "non-official"

                            And boy do they love to throw Brigham Young under the bus!
                            It's always the same argument --- "well, Smith wasn't PERFECT", as if we thought he WAS, then they begin throwing the REAL prophets under the bus.

                            we KNOW Smith was not perfect. He was a POSTER BOY for how NOT to be an Ambassador for Christ.
                            "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                              7UP: God the Father IS God/Deity. Jesus Christ IS God/Deity. It is quite difficult to "differentiate" between them because they act as "one".
                              Because they are one. They both share the nature of God.


                              LDS scripture says that there is one God. For example, when Christ says in Doctrine and Covenants: "I am the true light ... I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one." (D&C 93:2-3)
                              This doesn't say specifically that there is one God. In fact, it doesn't address the numerical count of gods at all. It is referring to another subject. Try again.

                              The question is: In what sense are they "one"? Oneness of God can be found in scripture in the following ways:

                              (1) There is only one perfectly united, mutually indwelling, divine community. We call that community "God" and there is only one such community.
                              This is getting kind of close. But it needs to be stipulated that the community is closed to new members, and the 3 members in it have always been in it.

                              (2) There is only one God who is our Father or the fount of divinity (ie "the Most High God).
                              More like the eternal source of the divinity.


                              (3) There is only one divine nature or set of properties severally necessary and jointly sufficient for divinity.
                              Which is inherent only to God. No other can possess them. Ever.

                              (4) When compared to the false gods of other nations, there was only one Lord/Saviour who could provide redemption/salvation
                              So, that would also mean that the others in the "community" were incapable of providing it


                              All of them are "sons of God" in the spiritual sense.
                              Then to every one of them, He can say that they are His sons, and that makes a mess of this entire chapter.

                              However, as the First born spirit and the chosen/anointed one, Jesus was to be the ONLY Begotten son according to the flesh.
                              No. He is the only begotten son, period. 1 John 4:9 says "9 By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him." Notice it says He SENT His ONLY BEGOTTEN INTO the world, meaning that Jesus was the only begotten BEFORE coming here. Additionally, in John 3:13 Jesus says to Nicodemus, “No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven–the Son of Man. This means that no one CAME from heaven except Him.

                              The wording is consistent with LDS doctrine.
                              Only superficially.

                              Jesus was the Firstbegotten in spirit and,
                              No, He was the ONLY begotten in spirit.

                              [quote] as the anointed Savior and Only begotten in the flesh, he was given power to become the Firstbegotten in the resurrection.

                              “Jesus Christ is the heir of this Kingdom—the Only Begotten of the Father according to the flesh, and holds the keys over all this world” (Smith, Teachings, 323 - emphasis added).
                              I'll trust Jesus over Joseph Smith's lies any day.

                              Heb 1
                              9You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
                              Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
                              With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.




                              Yes, and it refers to Jesus Christ, who is Deity.
                              It was to prove Jesus is the King of Israel. That's it.

                              It is entirely proper to say that the God of Jesus Christ is God the Father.
                              But not to use it outside the intent of the writer of Hebrews, who was explaining to the angel-worshipping Jews of the time that Jesus was not an angel. He was above them as God, even while He was here and "emptied", or having been made lower than them through mortality. Nowhere does it claim they are Jesus' "fellows"

                              Also, as a side note, IF God and Jesus were the same Being, and IF God the Father were literally omnipresent, then Jesus would not have to "ascend" to Heaven in order to be in the presence of the Father.
                              Not even dignifying that stupidity with a response...

                              7UP: You see here that God (the God of Jesus) chose and anointed Jesus from among his "companions" (sometimes translated "fellows")
                              Which is a prophetic fulfillment from Moses:

                              Deuteronomy 18
                              A New Prophet like Moses

                              15 “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers—it is to him you shall listen—
                              16 just as you desired of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly, when you said, ‘Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God or see this great fire any more, lest I die.’
                              17 And the Lord said to me, ‘They are right in what they have spoken.
                              18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. And I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him.
                              19 And whoever will not listen to my words that he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him.



                              The writer of Hebrews is EQUATING angels and humans, just like Latter Day Saints do.
                              No he is not. He is telling the Jews, who were hyper-reverencing angels (as obvious from Justin's Dialogue with Trypho), that they needed to be worshipping their King, because even the angels do.

                              Humans and angels are the same people, as we are all spiritual sons of God.


                              Jesus was the Only Begotten according to the flesh, but there were other "sons of God" according to the spirit.
                              Only via God's ex nihilo creation of them. And they were not pre-humans, as God's retort to Job so eloquently explains.

                              Hebrews 1 is speaking of the angels in comparison to the "firstbegotten":
                              No, it is speaking of worshipping angels in comparison to their rightful God and King.

                              Heb 1
                              4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
                              5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
                              6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
                              7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
                              8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
                              9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.


                              You are right that Psalms is referring to humanity, but it is clear from the context that Hebrews is referring to the other sons of God (i.e. angels).
                              No it isn't. It is showing the Jews that Jesus is the fulfillment of their scriptures for who their rightful King was to be, which then gives way to Jesus being their rightful High Priest, which gives rise to why HIS priesthood, as King and Priest, is better than the Levitical priesthood.

                              This is because humanity and the sons of God are the same and Jesus was chosen from among these fellow beings, due to His superiority.
                              Wrong. God told Job the exact opposite.


                              He was only 'made lower than the angels' in the sense that His glory was veiled. At the mount of transfiguration, apostles saw the glory of Christ which was the true reality. Jesus still had command over his "fellows" (the angels) even in mortality.
                              Sorry, but you are trying to apply the Deuteronomy prophecy to angels. You are wrong. His "fellows" were the Jews, over whom He was to rule as King and High Priest.


                              Here is a scripture referring to Jesus Christ, who was Jehovah in the Old Testament:
                              "He blessed Joseph, and said, 'The God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked, The God who has been my shepherd all my life to this day, The angel who has redeemed me from all evil,'" (Genesis 48:15-16 - emphasis added)

                              We also know that "morning star" and "son of the morning" are angelic titles.
                              Sorry, but the Hebrew word "malak" is not a description of a species, it is a description of a function that one serves in to take a message from one person to another.


                              As I showed above, the context of Hebrews 1 is speaking of angels,
                              Only in that the Jews were worshipping them instead of their rightful King.

                              and how Jesus was chosen/anointed from among his "fellows".
                              In fulfillment of Moses' decree from God that His "fellows" were the Jews.

                              Christ's foreordination occurred from BEFORE the foundation of the world. (1 Peter 1:20) , before Adam had even been created and before anybody became human/mortal.
                              Correct. Which is why He was to be worshipped, and not the angels He commands.


                              Your complaint against the concept of "organizing" in creation simply stems from your Ex Nihilo mindset.
                              Of course it does. And you've yet to prove that it is wrong.

                              Your understanding of creation does not match the way it is used in the Bible.
                              Yes it does.

                              I addressed that in my New Testament presentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XFST2-vfIY
                              Let's look at your video, shall we?

                              1) You start with a genetic fallacy, which you waste several slides on in relation to pas trying to disprove the meaning of "all". Bill Clinton would be proud of you.
                              Thayers Greek-English Lexicon lists the following meanings and usages of the word:

                              2. Without a substantive
                              a. Masculine and feminine every one, any one, in the singular without addition

                              (6) Panta, in an absolute sense, all things that exist, all created things (as used in Eph 3:9 and 1 Peter 4:7)


                              The other instances show your reliance on Strongs and your inability to read Greek.

                              2) You harken back to your creation video where you mistakenly equate 'bara "create" in the Qal form to 'bara "cutting out" in the Piel form.

                              3) You mistakenly assume that there are things outside of heaven and earth (or the known universe as you call it) that are not God Himself. You also mistakenly assume that Paul means space only when he mentions "heaven" with no warrant for this assumption outside your own unproven thesis. That is circular reasoning. In fact, that is the second heaven according to the Jews. The third heaven is not in our known universe, but is in the spiritual realm outside of our universe. God created that too.

                              4) You then take Hebrews 11:3, which literally translates: by faith we understand the ages to have been prepared by a saying of God, in regard to the things seen not having come out of things appearing Young's Literal Translation and try to make it fit your ex materia preconceptions. Paul simply meant that the universe, and time itself, was prepared by God through Christ, and that it was not made of the things they could see right then. That would mean that matter itself was not eternal, again something the Hebrews were also mistakenly believing.

                              5) You then mistakenly equate those things that were seen by the Hebrews as the writer of Hebrews saying that "things unseen" were eternal, and what made up the things seen. By that, I mean you make a leap in stating that by the writer's refuting eternal matter, he means there was some pre-existing eternal substance that was used to make what was seen. The text does not say that, nor does the grammar support it. It only says that the things they could see were not made from the things they could see. It does not say at all what they were actually made of, nor HOW they were made.
                              That's what
                              - She

                              Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                              - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                              I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                              Stephen R. Donaldson

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Inheritance for the Firstbegotten Son and Authority

                                Heb 1
                                4having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

                                7UP: How did Jesus obtain the name and title of God? He "obtained" it by INHERITANCE, by being elevated from among the other sons of God to a higher position! Please note that Hebrews chapter 1 teaches that Jesus was "chosen/anointed" and that Jesus "obtained" the "more excellent name". However, it is clearly well deserved. As the only perfect spirit, Christ had no flaws and therefore could unite His will perfectly with God's, thus he "became better than the angels" becoming "one" with God and thus deserving the name of God.

                                Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                                The "Name" that was given was "Jesus", the name by which we are saved.
                                When a father passes on something as an "inheritance", it means that the father possesses the very thing that he is passing on.

                                Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                                Jesus is not an angel, nor are the angels similar to Him.
                                Amongst the sons of God ("sons of the morning" / "morning stars"), Jesus was entirely unique. He was Deity by his very nature, while the other sons of God were not.

                                Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                                Jesus was NEVER considered the same species as angels in the NT or by the Apostles. He may have shared their function as a messenger of the Father, but He was never considered the same as them. He was God and man.
                                There were many "sons of God" / "sons of the morning" / "morning stars" ; there were many spirits who were foreordained before the foundation of the world; and Jesus is the "Firstbegotten" among them, which is the term which designates Him as the principle heir of the Kingdom among those sons of God, who has made it so that we may be "joint heirs" with Him.



                                7UP: How does one "inherit" that which was already his? In the Trinity, the same Being is appointing itself, sending itself, and inheriting from itself.

                                Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                                Again, bastardizing the Trinity doctrine.
                                Please explain how you think what I said above does not correspond to Trinity doctrine. The Father and Son, in the "Trinity" are the same Being/substance.

                                Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                                The Son is never called the Father (with the exception of the unnecessarily vague translation in Isaiah).
                                You are referring to Isaiah 5:9, which reads: "For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace."

                                However, I was thinking more of titles like "Lord/Adonai", "God", "Theos" , "Holy One" , "Eheyeh/I become" , "Maker/Creator" , etc.



                                7UP: The names and titles which are applicable to our Heavenly Father became applicable to the Son.

                                Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                                They never weren't.
                                How does he "inherit" names from the Father, if the name were always applicable. From the LDS perspective, Jesus was appointed to gain these titles before the creation of the physical Universe.

                                Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                                So, are you claiming that Jesus was forever God, and that his "fire" was not lit at some point in the distant past by the Father's? Maybe there is hope for you yet...
                                I am claiming that the eternal intelligence of Christ was perfect by nature, therefore, unlike the rest of us, was Deity by nature. The Father recognized this before the creation of the physical universe and "chose/anointed" Jesus from among the other sons of God to be the heir of the Kingdom. And that is how Christ was given authority over creation and the sons of God (angels). I repeat, the authority was given to Jesus Christ and these things became subject to Him and this endowment of authority was something that was determined by the Father.

                                -7up

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X