Do LDS openly acknowledge that their religion teaches the belief of multiple gods?

[chris2009]

As for what he looks like…those to whom he’s shown himself too, except for Christ, have all been afraid to look.

That’s one of the reasons so many of us are quizzical about LDS. Everyone but JS has had fear?

Peace Be With You,
Heather

I’m not sure why you think JS didn’t have some degree of fear when seeing God. He describes it as an experience that left him with little strength afterwards. He saw a pillar of light that he thought would consume the trees as a fire would. He saw BOTH the Father and the Son, Jesus standing on the right hand of God. He realized for the first time that they BOTH had perfect resurrected bodies of flesh and bone. He did not know this before. Following the dark ages, light came to the earth.

Stephen had a similar experience of seeing the Father and the Son:
“55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,
56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.” (Acts 7:55-56)

The Bible teaches us that man looks like God. Why not, God is our Father after all. The Bible teaches God has a face, hands, fingers, feet, mouth, back parts, etc and that Jesus looks like the Father.

God created man after His image and likeness:
“26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” (Gen 1:26-27)

I realize there are some who don’t like to take this literal. But in turn to Gen 5:3 and we read: “And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth”. Seth looks like Adam the same way Adam looks like God. It’s as plain as day. An “image” is a visual representation. Though Aristotle would never agree because matter to him is evil.

Abraham often spoke with the Lord in person:
“And the Lord went his way, as soon as he had left communing with Abraham: and Abraham returned unto his place.” (Gen 18:33)

Jacob spoke with God face to face:
“And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.”(Gen 32:30)

Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu and seventy elders saw God:
“9 Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel:
10 And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness.”(Ex 24:9-10)

God has fingers:
“And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.”

Moses spoke with God face to face as a friend:
“And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend.”(Ex 33:11)

Moses saw the Lord’s back parts:
“22 And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:
23 And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.”(Ex 33:22-23)

Jesus was resurrected with a body of flesh and bone:
"Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. "(Luke 24:39)

Christ is in the form of God:
“5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God”(Phil 2:5-6)

Our bodies will all be resurrected like Christ’s body was:
“…the Lord Jesus Christ:
21 Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body…” (Phil 3:21)

Christ is in the express image of God:
“1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person”(Heb 1:1-3)

Sons of God become like Christ:
“Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.” (1 John 3:2)

The righteous will sit with Christ on His throne (as kings and queens) the same way Christ sits with the Father on his throne:
" To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne."(Rev 3:21)

 

[chris2009]

Yes, Jesus prayed to His Father, Jesus was baptized, the Spirit was in the form of a dove, and heard the Father’s voice, Genesis talks about “us” and “our”, etc. Trinitarians fully agree with all of this. Yes, there are three, but three what? We believe that they are three “Persons”. They are completely distinct, which is why Jesus could pray to the Father and He wasn’t praying to Himself. What makes them one God is that they are of the same divine essence. There aren’t three different divine natures. There is only one. One Person is not more divine than another.

So you are saying they are three distinct persons made up of the same essence, substance or “stuff”. So are you suggesting that me and my father are the same as how you see the Son and the Father? My father and I are two distinct “persons”, but we are made up of the same essence or substance (same genes, molecules, cells, etc). Is this a correct analogy? If not, then why?

This doctrine is from the Nicene Creed in 325 AD, a resolution of the big arguement of whether the Father and Son were made of the “same substance” or “similar substance”. I’m saying that Constantine and the bishops got it all wrong, that the “similar substance” was the correct answer. But Rome was getting to large and Constantine couldn’t afford any divisions. Now why would the very nature of God be in question anyway? I would think that would be obvious to a unified church. During the time of Peter, the arguement would have easily been settled by revelation to the prophet of God. But in 325 AD there were no prophets – there wasn’t even a pope.

 

[TheosisM]

So you are saying they are three distinct persons made up of the same essence, substance or “stuff”. So are you suggesting that me and my father are the same as how you see the Son and the Father? My father and I are two distinct “persons”, but we are made up of the same essence or substance (same genes, molecules, cells, etc). Is this a correct analogy? If not, then why?

Close, but not the same. Firstly, you and your father are not made up of the same genes, molecules, cells, etc. You have some of the same genes as your father, but not all the same (meiosis and all that).

When we say “essence”, we are referring to the “stuff” that makes God, God (or divine) and us not. It is the divine nature. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are also one in purpose, will, intent, etc. This oneness is beyond anything we can experience at this point. The “essence” of something is ultimately what it is. Roughly, this is human nature vs. divine nature.

This doctrine is from the Nicene Creed in 325 AD, a resolution of the big arguement of whether the Father and Son were made of the “same substance” or “similar substance”. I’m saying that Constantine and the bishops got it all wrong, that the “similar substance” was the correct answer. But Rome was getting to large and Constantine couldn’t afford any divisions. Now why would the very nature of God be in question anyway? I would think that would be obvious to a unified church. During the time of Peter, the arguement would have easily been settled by revelation to the prophet of God. But in 325 AD there were no prophets – there wasn’t even a pope.

Please explain why “similar substance” was the correct answer.

To understand why this issue was in question, one has to understand the purpose of Ecumenical Councils, as well as the development of doctrine, throughout the history of Christianity. An Ecumenical Council is called when heresies arise, and the Church needs to assert the true faith over falsehoods that arise. In the early Church, there were many Christological heresies, surrounding the nature of Jesus Christ. The Church has always believed that Jesus Christ is God, became incarnate on the earth, etc. However heretical groups sprung up, saying that Jesus was not divine, was divine but less so than the Father, etc. and the Church had to proclaim the true Faith. Before these Councils, there was no need to specifically define such matters, because those heresies were not around yet. The Church was unified, however there are always heretical groups. This is why Creeds were written. Practically every line in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed is an assertion of doctrine over some heresy.

We believe that the answer to many of the specific questions on how the Father, Son, and Spirit are related did come through inspiration from God. We believe that all Ecumenical Councils are protected by the Holy Spirit. This does not mean that everyone present is open and listening to the Spirit, however the ultimate conclusion of every Council is God-inspired.

Who told you that there wasn’t a Pope in 325 AD? The Pope at that time was Pope Sylvester I, who had representatives at the Council. And of course Catholics believe that prophets and prophetesses have been around forever. Many of our canonized saints were prophets and prophetesses, including some Popes. We don’t believe however that the Church ever was supposed to have a “Prophet-President” as its head. We also believe that the inspiration of the Holy Spirit at Ecumenical Councils provides us with infallible statements on various doctrinal matters.

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

I’m sorry, that didn’t simplify anything for me. Are you suggesting that splits up into seperate beings and then combines again? Define “ONE IN BEING”. Does God have a shape and form or is God just a giant power that fills the universe? Does Jesus still have a resurrected body? Or did he get rid of it?

He has it but to keep in line with mormon teaching, it is a lot whiter now!

On Kolob, He and His brother, Lucifer, are sending contrary notions to the Prophet of the LDS church in SLC for ships and giggles. (you know: no blacks or dark people in our ‘church;’ oops, dark people are okay [1973]; multiple wives [from BY himself, no less!]’ oops, we’re being sued in the US Supreme Court and we wanna be a state, so, new revelation: no more Big Love).

Hey, chris2009; why do mormons proof-text the Bible to support their non-Christian religion???

Inquiring minds want to know. Thanks, buddy.

Robert

 

[why_me]

He has it but to keep in line with mormon teaching, it is a lot whiter now!

On Kolob, He and His brother, Lucifer, are sending contrary notions to the Prophet of the LDS church in SLC for ships and giggles. (you know: no blacks or dark people in our ‘church;’ oops, dark people are okay [1973]; multiple wives [from BY himself, no less!]’ oops, we’re being sued in the US Supreme Court and we wanna be a state, so, new revelation: no more Big Love).

Hey, chris2009; why do mormons proof-text the Bible to support their non-Christian religion???

Inquiring minds want to know. Thanks, buddy.

Robert

You seem to have acquired a more mocking taste these days. By the way, who created satan? I think that when you think about this question, the answer would be: heavenly father. And who created christ? I do believe that it was heavenly father. If so, that would make christ and lucifer brothers. Strange, isn’t it?

And by the way, ‘dark’ people have always been welcomed in the lds church.

 

[Techno2000]

You seem to have acquired a more mocking taste these days. By the way, who created satan? I think that when you think about this question, the answer would be: heavenly father. And who created christ? I do believe that it was heavenly father. If so, that would make christ and lucifer brothers. Strange, isn’t it?

And by the way, ‘dark’ people have always been welcomed in the lds church.

begotten, not made

THE NICENE CREED (381 A.D.)

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.

Through him all things were made.

For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.

On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.

With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.

He has spoken through the Prophets.

We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

 

[rinnie]

I’m sorry, that didn’t simplify anything for me. Are you suggesting that splits up into seperate beings and then combines again? Define “ONE IN BEING”. Does God have a shape and form or is God just a giant power that fills the universe? Does Jesus still have a resurrected body? Or did he get rid of it?

How about this.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the WORD and the WORD was GOD.

John 20:28 Thomas said MY LORD and MY GOD>

And if that don’t do it for you there is no easier way to put it then the way Jesus himself did.

Jesus said to them before Abraham was made I AM. Now I could Jesus be here before Abraham if it was indeed not God himself.

If you really really listen to what Jesus is telling you he will explain why he had to come into the world as Man. Think back what he tells the Apostles Man can not glorify himself. Just think about that statement. It is a really powerful statement. That is why he said the Son will glorify the Father. Jesus say’s I am the son of Man. Just think about that.

 

[FCEGM]

So you are saying they are three distinct persons made up of the same essence, substance or “stuff”. So are you suggesting that me and my father are the same as how you see the Son and the Father? My father and I are two distinct “persons”, but we are made up of the same essence or substance (same genes, molecules, cells, etc). Is this a correct analogy? If not, then why?

This doctrine is from the Nicene Creed in 325 AD, a resolution of the big arguement of whether the Father and Son were made of the “same substance” or “similar substance”. I’m saying that Constantine and the bishops got it all wrong, that the “similar substance” was the correct answer. But Rome was getting to large and Constantine couldn’t afford any divisions. Now why would the very nature of God be in question anyway? I would think that would be obvious to a unified church. During the time of Peter, the arguement would have easily been settled by revelation to the prophet of God. But in 325 AD there were no prophets – there wasn’t even a pope.

St. Pope Sylvester I was the pope from A.D. 314-335, followed in A.D. 336 by Pope St. Marcus, and then by Pope St. Julius I.

This article might help you better understand Nicea and the role of Constantine:

catholic.com/thisrock/2009/0902tbt.asp

If you are serious about coming to an understanding of the Church’s teaching on the nature of God and the Most Holy Trinity, Frank Sheed’s Theology for Beginners would be a good place to start:

catholicfreeshipping.com/Products/cfs_gensym-64.html