Are LDS Protestants or are they separate?

[Nan_S]

Yep. And you expect me to believe that three Persons are One Being. The difference is that I can understand why you came to that particular conclusion, given various metaphysical assumptions, whereas you can’t seem to get your head around the way we think about it. Of course, you conclude this means that our view is hopelessly contradictory. But since I don’t have any trouble understanding our viewpoint, I conclude that you maybe need to think a little harder and talk a little less.

Oh, I think I understand your viewpoint. “God” as you see it is not so much a unique being as it is a concept, a spiritual cosmic black hole force that eternally assimilates men who achieve exaltation. It’s kind of like Star Trek’s Borg - many elements with one mind and one purpose - only not malevolent.

The problem with this god-concept is that it is not unique, not unchanging, and therefore not eternally constant. A black hole absorbs everything within its event horizon, gradually expanding in size and force. In the same way, the assimilation of each new exalted man into the godhead, however united in purpose with his predecessors, subtly changes the godhead by adding a new enhancement. It changes, it grows, and over time it shifts. The shifts are, by definition, always towards a greater good, but they are still shifts.

This god-concept is indeed incompatably contradictory with God as described in the Book of Isaiah, a God who is complete, perfect and unchanging throughout all eternity.

Catholics draw a line between “creator” and “creature”. The creator is eternally unchanging, eternally stable, and eternally complete. Creatures change. Yes, there is a God, and it’s not me. I hope to join the heavenly choir, perfectly one in purpose with God, but never do I imagine that means I will be God.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I’m trying to honestly answer questions, Paul. I see no need to accuse me of dishonesty.

**
According to the sources I cited, the main problem with the creeds is that they stifle further revelation by setting beliefs in stone. Given the importance of “continuing revelation” to the LDS, this is truly an “abomination” to us.**

Christ set quite a few important things in stone. Eternal truths that cannot change. Are these also abominations?

To us, religion is supposed to bring us into communion with God, so we can receive revelations from Him and make His will and mind, ours.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Yep. And you expect me to believe that three Persons are One Being.

Yeah, our God is not like those gods the ancients used to worship. He’s simple yet the Uncomprehendable One. There is nothing you can do before the Trinity except bow your head because of the awe that surrounds Him. Unlike the comfortableness of worshipping your sun god, or what have you, the one True God is not as easy to grasp like the moon or sun. He is Three Divine Persons but One God.

Beautiful explanation of the Trinity

I explain the Trinity this way. It is like water. Ice, steam and liquid water all have the same properties, even though they appear to be completely different. It can be tangible or intangible. It can be visible or invisible. Ice becomes liquid, liquid becomes steam, steam becomes liquid again, which can turn to ice or back to steam. No matter how often it changes forms, water is always water.

Like God, water is everywhere. It is in the atmosphere, in the environment and within every cell of our bodies…all at the same time. We drink it. We breathe it. We immerse ourselves in it. It is as vast as the ocean. It is so minute that we cannot see it at all. No matter how big or how small the portion is, water is water.

Water can be tranquil, soothing our souls. It can also be a powerful and destructive force. The gentle rain that brings new life can become the hurricane that extinguishes it. A drop of water doesn’t seem to have much of an impact on the world. Endless drops of water will change it.

Like God, water is limitless. Pour some into a glass and examine it. That very same water you now hold kept the Ark aloft as it covered the earth. It was parted in the Red Sea. Jesus was baptized in it. It may have even flowed from His side. It has touched trillions of lives before coming to you, right now, and it will touch trillions more long after you use it, consume it or pour it out.

Close your eyes for a moment and picture water. What did you see? Was it vast or small? Was it placid or turbulent? Was it in a natural or man made setting? Was it hot, cold or tepid? What feelings did it evoke? What are the odds that your picture of water is identical to mine? Whose is right?

Is it necessary for everyone to know that water is one atom of oxygen bound to two atoms of hydrogen or is it enough to know that water is water?

Now close your eyes for a moment and picture God.

God is the father. God is the Son. God is the Holy Spirit. He is seen and unseen. He can be touched. He can only be felt. He has a body. He is a spirit. He is a voice. He is the thunder in a storm and the whisper in a wind. He is in heaven. He is on earth. He is right here, with me, right now. He is also with you.

God is not limited by human understanding! Don’t try to be the scientist who must know God before you can know Him. Instead, be the child who accepts Him and loves Him because God is God. One God in the Trinity; a human attempt to explain what is unexplainable.

*“Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, but those who drink the water I give them will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”
*† John 4:14

 

[zaffiroborant]

To us, religion is supposed to bring us into communion with God, so we can receive revelations from Him and make His will and mind, ours. The purpose is not to allow us to pass some multiple choice test given at the Pearly Gates. So to us, the whole idea behind the creeds is an abomination. It wipes out the main reason from having a religion.

And by the way I agree with Paul it is an ugly thing to say our faith is training to pass a multiple choice test at the Pearly Gates while also implying it has nothing to do with coming into communion with God.

Your answer has shades of Joseph Smith’s view of the people in other churches who hearts are far away.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Mountain meadows was not made up of all mormons. It was a small group of people who acted alone. They made a mistake and a dear one at that. But one cannot blame the lds church for this mistake.

According to the show I just watched on the History Chanel the Indians interviewed said they were requested to participate by BY. And it strikes me wrong that witnesses didn’t come forward until BY struck a deal with the government. And that testimony was given that members were told by BY to say it was committed by Native Americans. It couldn’t be blamed on the church if members had done other than BY ordered but since they obeyed…

 

[zerinus]

Mormons do not know Christ as God why bother with what they think?

Do you really think they have given any indication of properly interpreting Scripture or Tradition or given any real consideration to the ECFs writings? Lets be honest now: they do not confess Jesus as God. Its the most basic precept of CHRISTianity and they got it wrong. Their words are void and hollow.

We think traditional Christianity is Apostate.

zerinus

 

[Nan_S]

Christ set quite a few important things in stone. Eternal truths that cannot change.

There isn’t a line in the Credo that could possibly change.

The abomination is believing that God changes His mind so often, that we should leave things open, just in case. Rather than accepting as Truth what He has revealed.

You start by repenting of your sins and being baptized.

Abomination is right. The eternally unchanging, eternally stable, and eternally complete God whom we know gradually reveals previously unforseen truths, but He is not, and never has been, contradictory with regard to any previously revealed truths.

The Mormon god’s “truths” and revelations have contradicted themselves so often that it is difficult to know what to believe. This is well documented. The rewriting of “truth” is kind of like George Orwell’s “1984” and the revisionist history of prominent politicians.

 

[Philothea53]

Yes, I’ve been to the Temple many times, and I already said in my post that we have ritual handclasps in the Temple. So why would you accuse me of lying? Auntie M seemed to be saying that we had secret handshakes to recognize one another on the street, so we don’t have to say we’re Mormons out loud. This is untrue.

So, how many times have you been through LDS Temple rituals?

And why would ritual handclasps be such a big deal, anyway? Catholic Masses are viewed as sacrifices where the host and wine are turned into the actual body and blood of Jesus. I guarantee you that outsiders would see that as weirder than anything Mormons do in the Temple.

I was a card-carrying member of the Mormon church for 10 years. My husband and I were sealed in the temple exactly 55 weeks after we were baptized and attended the temple every Friday for 10 years. Yes, I have been to the temple.

You are a typical relativist spinner. You said you have ritual handclasps which I further explained are to recognize one another as you ‘pass through the veil’ and you turn it around and start talking about the Catholic Church. Aren’t you the one who talked about discussing one another’s belief’s with in a nice tone? That sure didn’t last long.

 

[ljahns]

The Indians were victims of christian bigotry. It was okay to kill them off because they were savages went the logic of the time. And protestant and catholic churches need to take responsibility for this bigotry. The diseases were brought to the Indians via the white man and woman. And no one cared.

Wrong! There were Catholic theologians and philosophers in Spain during the first century after Columbus discovered America that were deeply concerned with how the indeginous peoples were being treated. Francisco de Vitoria (1492 - 1546) , a Dominicon, is considered the father of international law and it all started with their deep disgust for what was happening to the Indian people.

 

[ljahns]

I said it was John and others who were “translated,” to remain immortal on the Earth until Christ’s coming.

Ok, I’m getting confused. What does “translated” mean?

 

[BDawg]

Ok, I’m getting confused. What does “translated” mean?

It means “changed to an immortal state,” but it is not as great a change as resurrection.

And although some people here have made fun of the LDS use of this word/definition, I earlier posted some passages from a Protestant translation of some early Christian writings that used the same word in the same way. We didn’t make it up, in other words.

 

[BDawg]

Well I see finality in your 13 statements? I’m feeling evaded

Which creeds is God talking about? A straightforward reading of JS says all of them.

And a creed is a statement of belief, according MW on line:

1: a brief authoritative formula of religious belief
2: a set of fundamental beliefs; also : a guiding principle

Your first sentence says the NC is not just a statement of belief but 13 is, how so?

Hi zaffiroborant,

First, read Article of Faith 9. If you still think they have a ring of finality, look for the phrase, “and so on” in the rest of them.

If you watch the talk by Jack Welch that I linked, he answers your question about how the creeds were used in great detail. I know it’s a lot to ask, since the talk is kind of long (maybe 30 minutes, or so,) but he really does go into considerable historical detail, and I don’t have time to type that much.

 

[BDawg]

And by the way I agree with Paul it is an ugly thing to say our faith is training to pass a multiple choice test at the Pearly Gates while also implying it has nothing to do with coming into communion with God.

Your answer has shades of Joseph Smith’s view of the people in other churches who hearts are far away.

Well, I can’t help it if some of you are overly sensitive to disagreement. But consider that many of the creeds have statements about how if anyone says x, “let him be anathema.” In any case, I only meant that comment as an illustration of why having exactly correct doctrine all the time is not as important to us as being in touch with God and learning.

 

[BDawg]

Wrong! There were Catholic theologians and philosophers in Spain during the first century after Columbus discovered America that were deeply concerned with how the indeginous peoples were being treated. Francisco de Vitoria (1492 - 1546) , a Dominicon, is considered the father of international law and it all started with their deep disgust for what was happening to the Indian people.

I’m curious. What did the Popes do about the situation, and how long did it take them to get around to it?

 

[Stephen168]

Well, I can’t help it if some of you are overly sensitive to disagreement. But consider that many of the creeds have statements about how if anyone says x, “let him be anathema.”

Which creeds are those?

 

[ljahns]

It means “changed to an immortal state,” but it is not as great a change as resurrection.

And although some people here have made fun of the LDS use of this word/definition, I earlier posted some passages from a Protestant translation of some early Christian writings that used the same word in the same way. We didn’t make it up, in other words.

Yes, I read them after I posted this. Thanks!

 

[AMDGtoo]

And although some people here have made fun of the LDS use of this word/definition,

Actually, I don’t think so. And it is merely an opinion that we have. Please don’t assume.

 

[ljahns]

I’m curious. What did the Popes do about the situation, and how long did it take them to get around to it?

To be honest, I don’t know. I’ll try and find out but it will probably take me a while. What I do know is that the Spanish King enacted the Laws of Burgos (1512) and of Valladolid (1513). These laws were to govern the conduct of Spanish officials in their interaction with the natives. It was an honest attempt, but ultimately failed due to several factors. Most being due to simple greed and misunderstanding in human nature. But logistics played a role too.

But it is a situation that the Catholic Church did not ignore as seen with Father Francisco de Vitoria (he was part of the theologians and jurists who developed the laws I cited above). He argued that all men are equally free; on the basis of natural liberty, they proclaimed their right to life, to culture, and to property.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Well, I can’t help it if some of you are overly sensitive to disagreement. But consider that many of the creeds have statements about how if anyone says x, "let him be anathema.

You mean like this?

Galations 1

8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.

Also, you are aware that the Bible has many declarations of faith, where people are declaring “I believe” (or a credo), right?

 

[majick275]

Hi zaffirobirant,

The creeds God was talking about were not just statements of belief. Everyone has to have statements of belief. But like I said to Paul, to Mormons the main issue with the Christian creeds was the idea of finality behind them. We ain’t down wit dat.

which part of the creeds do you feel are subject to change? does that mean that your articles of faith are NOT absolute truths? that man MIGHT be punished for adams transgression after all?