HUGE Questions for Mormons

[BJ_Colbert]

Thank you so much for that answer about the Didache…it is very concise and clarifys completely.

As for Mary sightings that also clarifys, but still is hearsay and a person must have faith to believe the sightings, just as I have faith that God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ appeared to the boy Joseph Smith Jr. It is all a matter of each of us having faith that these things occured. You have faith in Mary, and I have faith in God and Jesus Christ.
BJ

 

[Subrosa]

BJ Colbert:

I do not think Mary would appear thousands of times, I think that any holy personage sighting would be very rare and to very special people for special reasons.

Hi again, BJ Colbert,

Marian apparitions happen on average every two years. There have been some very famous ones. Fatima, Lourdes, Guadelupe.

Here’s one that you may find interesting.

zeitun-eg.org/zeitoun1.htm

Jerry

 

[Tmaque]

BJ Colbert:

Thank you so much for that answer about the Didache…it is very concise and clarifys completely.

As for Mary sightings that also clarifys, but still is hearsay and a person must have faith to believe the sightings, just as I have faith that God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ appeared to the boy Joseph Smith Jr. It is all a matter of each of us having faith that these things occured. You have faith in Mary, and I have faith in God and Jesus Christ.
BJ

BJ,

Look into the sightings at Fatima and at Zeitun. They were witnessed by non-believers. Faith had nothing to do with it. In fact, most of the thousands of witnesses at Zeitun were Muslim. Why do you call first hand accounts from many witnesses hearsay? That is evidence that any jury would believe. It as most definitely not hearsay.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

BDawg,

To start off, the big question I have for Mormons is: Do any Mormon teachings contradict the Bible?

Also I know I havent spent nearly the number of hours as some people have, but from what I have seen in the short time is there are key issues, such as the nature of God, which I see major errors in the LDS teachings that go against the Bible.

1)The LDS teach that the Father has a phsical body of flesh and bones.
The Bible:
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. (Matt16)
There is an example that distinguishes a flesh and bones (humans) and the Father which takes on no restrictions.

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,)
Again, the Father was never flesh and bones.

2)The LDS teach that God is the literal father. So if I understand this right that means that God is male and literally “produced” children as men and women do.
The Bible:
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply…(Gen1)
God is not male or female, he doesnt create as humans create. He doesnt have a body and is not restricted to a body.

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.(Gen2)
Man is made of dirt, ie made from stuff on earth, not reproductions of God via childbirth. The way I see the LDS use the term “image” it means literally same physical looks, thats not what the Bible is saying.

3)The LDS teach this about Jesus: “all mankind are His brothers and sisters, eldest of the spirit children”.
I dont know where to start here. What are you talking about here?
Where do these children come from? and what is a spirit children in which Jesus is no much better than them?

4)Concerning BDawg’s position on the Trinity.
“Mormons believe that God is ONE. They are one in that they are bound in a deep, eternal unity that is so profound that humans cannot fully understand it. It is so profound that we can sometimes say that they are one God”
The historical teaching is that yes it is so profound that there is a lot we cant fully grasp. But the problem you have is that it is not up to us to assign a “sometimes” and not an “othertimes”. Why dont the LDS use the passage from Jonh 1:1? (I looked and didnt see it). Yes there are times when there is distinction between the Persons, but never are they separate Gods. Second of all Jesus is not both the “Father and the Son”. The reason why “they are completely unified in will, love, purpose, and covenant” is exactly why it is One undivided God, not “sometimes they are one”, but always!
Next, "separate anthropomorphic beings, so in another sense they can be called “Gods.” So what is an anthropomorphic being?
There is one God and to call anything else “a God” even for descriptive usage is blasphemy.

“How there can be 3 different persons who exist as a single, indivisible Being? This is a mystery for humans.”
We dont try to explain the unexplainable. There are limits to our understanding, we only reconcile this mystery to the extent that a human can understand it, we dont push the limit to be God or pretend to know more than God. There is one God at all times, the Bible is very clear on this.

 

[ese]

Tmaque:

BJ,

Look into the sightings at Fatima and at Zeitun. They were witnessed by non-believers. Faith had nothing to do with it. In fact, most of the thousands of witnesses at Zeitun were Muslim. Why do you call first hand accounts from many witnesses hearsay? That is evidence that any jury would believe. It as most definitely not hearsay.

The visions of Mary are to be taken lighty, and with lots of faith that it may be a message from her, but on the other hand Satan can cause these same images just to fool those who take everything as real just because it can be seen.

Just like all who believed JS and his talks with the angels and Jesus and even God.

 

[tkdnick]

BJ Colbert:

You must have been in some other church, or had your head stuck somewhere. Everyone knows the LDS church is famous for their Deseret Industries and for the food, clothing, money and charitable donations of all kinds that they give all over the world, they are first on the scene at any disaster and give help where ever and when ever it is needed to all people. They have their own welfare system where their members do not need to go on public welfare. They work with Catholic Charities in many instances together with the Red Cross and Salvation Army. One week after the Tsunami hit Asia, the LDS church shipped 2 tons of medical, and needed supplies to the people and took up a special offering from the whole church to send cash directly to the Tsunami victims. My husband donated through his parish and I donated through the LDS church. What President did you talk to when you asked where all the money went? The President of the USA.
Your post just shows your ignorance and you had better study a lot more before you embarass your Catholic Church with your illiterate postings. Sorry, you are very wrong about your ideas, and you have no right to espouse that garbage in a serious discussion of religion. We have differences, but we do not attack each other’s beliefs the way you have done here. America is about freedom to believe in God in our own way, and allowing others the same priviledge. The answer to your question are we celebrating the resurrection today, is NO we celebrate the resurrection tomorrow on Easter Sunday. If you are celebrating on Saturday you must be mixed up about what church you belong to now maybe it is Seventh Day Adventist, not Catholic. Now which is it?
BJ

Wow, that was pretty harsh! You’re usually more graceful and patient than that.

 

[ese]

Catholic Dude:

BDawg,

To start off, the big question I have for Mormons is: Do any Mormon teachings contradict the Bible?

Also I know I havent spent nearly the number of hours as some people have, but from what I have seen in the short time is there are key issues, such as the nature of God, which I see major errors in the LDS teachings that go against the Bible.

1)The LDS teach that the Father has a phsical body of flesh and bones.
The Bible:
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. (Matt16)
There is an example that distinguishes a flesh and bones (humans) and the Father which takes on no restrictions.

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,)
Again, the Father was never flesh and bones.

2)The LDS teach that God is the literal father. So if I understand this right that means that God is male and literally “produced” children as men and women do.
The Bible:
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply…(Gen1)
God is not male or female, he doesnt create as humans create. He doesnt have a body and is not restricted to a body.

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.(Gen2)
Man is made of dirt, ie made from stuff on earth, not reproductions of God via childbirth. The way I see the LDS use the term “image” it means literally same physical looks, thats not what the Bible is saying.

3)The LDS teach this about Jesus: “all mankind are His brothers and sisters, eldest of the spirit children”.
I dont know where to start here. What are you talking about here?
Where do these children come from? and what is a spirit children in which Jesus is no much better than them?

4)Concerning BDawg’s position on the Trinity.
“Mormons believe that God is ONE. They are one in that they are bound in a deep, eternal unity that is so profound that humans cannot fully understand it. It is so profound that we can sometimes say that they are one God”
The historical teaching is that yes it is so profound that there is a lot we cant fully grasp. But the problem you have is that it is not up to us to assign a “sometimes” and not an “othertimes”. Why dont the LDS use the passage from Jonh 1:1? (I looked and didnt see it). Yes there are times when there is distinction between the Persons, but never are they separate Gods. Second of all Jesus is not both the “Father and the Son”. The reason why “they are completely unified in will, love, purpose, and covenant” is exactly why it is One undivided God, not “sometimes they are one”, but always!
Next, "separate anthropomorphic beings, so in another sense they can be called “Gods.” So what is an anthropomorphic being?
There is one God and to call anything else “a God” even for descriptive usage is blasphemy.

“How there can be 3 different persons who exist as a single, indivisible Being? This is a mystery for humans.”
We dont try to explain the unexplainable. There are limits to our understanding, we only reconcile this mystery to the extent that a human can understand it, we dont push the limit to be God or pretend to know more than God. There is one God at all times, the Bible is very clear on this.

Dude Ever feel like you’e talking to a brick wall ?
All these things you have stated about mormonism, it doesn’t matter if they are true or not to a mormon, they have a fail prove test that tells them that what is and isn’t true.

It is their yoke so to speak, that keeps them in line with what the lds church teaches, and sorry to say it is a direct contradiction to what the bible says, and that is THE TEST…of all tests, ask God if the book of mormon is true, and if you ask with a sinsere heart he will reveal the truth to you.

What this test is saying is if you don’t believe that the book of mormon is true, you didn’t ask with a sincere heart, and therefore God will not show you the truth.

The bible says to never put God to the test…

 

[tkdnick]

Gosh! I just have to say, after reading this entire thread…what happened to everyone? You all used to be so nice, and this thread (for the most part) has had a rather hostile tone to the writings.

 

[ese]

BDawg:

I’m with fool,

What, exactly, is the question that Mormons are supposed to respond to? These are all topics that you can find freely discussed by Mormons all over the internet, so the charge that this is “inner-circle stuff” is absurd.

Here’s a bit of advice. When you are studying another religion, the easiest thing in the world is to go “contradiction hunting.” It is easy because everyone takes certain statements literally, and others figuratively. That’s just the way humans talk to each other. All one has to do is take all of them literally, and voila!!!, you have contradictions. A more productive way to proceed is to ask how the group in question harmonizes the seemingly contradictory statements, because (unless they are brainwashed Mobots like some of you delightful people seem to think we are) you can pretty much count on the fact that they noticed the problem before you did. I know, I know, you did a whole 4 hours of research on the LDS web site. But believe it or not, some Mormons have done even MORE (gasp!!!) research into their religion.

Let me give you an example. The Bible says that there is ONE God. It also presents 3 obviously separate individuals as God. How can this possibly be reconciled? There are different ways.

Mormons believe that God is ONE. They are one in that they are bound in a deep, eternal unity that is so profound that humans cannot fully understand it. It is so profound that we can sometimes say that they are one God, or that the Jesus is both the Father and Son, because they are completely unified in will, love, purpose, and covenant. On the other hand, we believe they are all separate anthropomorphic beings, so in another sense they can be called “Gods.”

Catholics must reconcile the same kinds of things. However, for you God is one in that God is defined is a unique and eternal spiritual substance without any internal division whatsoever. Therefore, for you God is one in Being, but three in that there are different Persons involved. How there can be 3 different persons who exist as a single, indivisible Being? This is a mystery for humans.

So there you have it–two different ways to reconcile the oneness and plurality of God. Thus, the real question between us is not whether God is “one” or “more than one,” but HOW God is “one” AND “more than one.”

Another pertinent question between us is whether God is an indivisible, eternal, unique spiritual substance, or whether God is an anthropomorphic being.

How about we discuss the point about HOW God is one and plural first?

BDawg

How God is one and plural ???

Well it isn’t written anywhere in scripture as such, but when taken as a whole it is understood.

Take for instance the alfa and the omega, the first and the last. I am the first and I am the last, before me there was no God formed or after me there shall be no God formed. I take this to mean that there is only one God for all eternity, and that’s a long time.

God said he created everything, and that there is nothing that he didn’t create. So if we believe that Jesus created the world, he must be that one God. The bible also says that the Holy Spirit created the world, then he must also be the same God since only one God created the world.

The bible says that Jesus lowered himself below the angels and became man, well if he was above the Angels there is only God above the angels then he must be that one God.

Every where in the bible that gods are mentionel, if you read the context in which it is said you will see they are talking about false gods or idols, which are man made.

 

[BDawg]

Tmaque:

BJ,

Look into the sightings at Fatima and at Zeitun. They were witnessed by non-believers. Faith had nothing to do with it. In fact, most of the thousands of witnesses at Zeitun were Muslim. Why do you call first hand accounts from many witnesses hearsay? That is evidence that any jury would believe. It as most definitely not hearsay.

Can you tell us what was “sighted”? At Fatima, didn’t the sun seem to wiggle and people with wet clothes were dried off?

BDawg

 

[Subrosa]

ese:

The visions of Mary are to be taken lighty, and with lots of faith that it may be a message from her, but on the other hand Satan can cause these same images just to fool those who take everything as real just because it can be seen.

Just like all who believed JS and his talks with the angels and Jesus and even God.

It is true that Satan is the Prince of Liars.

The Catholic and Orthodox Churches full investigate claims of sightings. They are keenly aware of Satan and his deceptions. Many claims are denounced as false. Many others are confirmed as true.

Accepted as proof are miracles that occur, such as spontanious healings. Here are pictures of Saint Bernadette who claimed to speak with Mary at Lourdes, France, 1858. Her body has not decayed!

catholicpilgrims.com/lourdes/lourdes_photo_aa.htm

Some links to Apparitions:

198.62.75.1/www1/apparitions/http:/index.htm

I like this one. It’s got pictures!

zeitun-eg.org/zeitoun1.htm

Anyway, there’s a lot about it. Some are true, others not.

 

[Tmaque]

tkdnick:

Gosh! I just have to say, after reading this entire thread…what happened to everyone? You all used to be so nice, and this thread (for the most part) has had a rather hostile tone to the writings.

Part of that may be my doing. Let me just say that I apologize to BJ. I was a little rude.

 

[Subrosa]

ese:

How God is one and plural ???

Have a look at Matthew 28:19:

“Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit,”

There are without question three persons mentioned here, Father, Son and holy Spirit.

Look at the word “name”.

It is singular, not plural.

One Name, three Persons.

Think of it this way. Note that the language of family is used, I think not by accident. What do we call a mom, dad and children? A family.

The word “family” is singular, but a family is made up of a group.

The concept of a group being thought of in singular terms is not foreign to us.

I am not suggesting that this is the relationship of the Father Son & holy Spirit. No one can know that.

I am only showing how a group can be thought of as singular.

 

[Subrosa]

BDawg:

Can you tell us what was “sighted”? At Fatima, didn’t the sun seem to wiggle and people with wet clothes were dried off?

BDawg

Hi BDawg -

It is called “The Miracle of the Sun”

Here is an account:

fatima.org/essentials/facts/miracle.asp

 

[Subrosa]

More stuff about the Fatima Apparition:

fatima.org/essentials/facts/1917appar.asp

 

[BDawg]

Yo Dude,

I would rather tackle one topic at a time. Is that ok with you? Since I brought up the Trinity question, I’ll stick to that for a while.
Catholic Dude:

4)Concerning BDawg’s position on the Trinity.
“Mormons believe that God is ONE. They are one in that they are bound in a deep, eternal unity that is so profound that humans cannot fully understand it. It is so profound that we can sometimes say that they are one God”
The historical teaching is that yes it is so profound that there is a lot we cant fully grasp. But the problem you have is that it is not up to us to assign a “sometimes” and not an “othertimes”. Why dont the LDS use the passage from Jonh 1:1? (I looked and didnt see it). Yes there are times when there is distinction between the Persons, but never are they separate Gods. Second of all Jesus is not both the “Father and the Son”. The reason why “they are completely unified in will, love, purpose, and covenant” is exactly why it is One undivided God, not “sometimes they are one”, but always!
Next, "separate anthropomorphic beings, so in another sense they can be called “Gods.” So what is an anthropomorphic being?
There is one God and to call anything else “a God” even for descriptive usage is blasphemy.

First, I don’t have a problem with John 1:1. The Word was “with God,” implying some distinction between the Father and Son, and the Word “was God,” implying some kind of essential unity between the two. So there must be some way they are plural, and some way they are one. Again, the question is HOW, not whether, these things are true. Please, try to put yourself in our shoes for a moment and think about what we might say to some of these things.

Regarding your assertion that it is blasphemy for us to talk about “Gods,” even for descriptive purposes, is blasphemy, you’d better fire up the stake for St. Justin Martyr, who called Jesus

another God [or a “second god,” deuteros theos] and Lord subject to the Maker of all things; who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things–above whom there is no other God–wishes to announce to them… I shall endeavour to persuade you, that He who is said to have appeared to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, and who is called God, is distinct from Him who made all things,–numerically, I mean, not[distinct] in will. (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 56, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers 1:223.)

Hmmmm. Here we have a very early Christian calling Jesus a “second god,” who is “subject to” the Father, and distinct from the Father “numerically” but one “in will.” I disagree with Justin on some points, but this seems to me like a really good summary treatment of how Mormons view the unity and plurality of the Trinity, and horrifically heretical for Catholics. Should St. Justin be stripped of his sainthood for teaching gross heresy, a blasphemer, or should we conclude that the Trinity doctrine was a bit different in A.D. 150, or so?

I can give you more examples from early Christianity, if you like.

However, here is an example from the Bible. If you can, please tell me where the Bible says that the Trinity is unified in “substance,” or “Being.” The only passage I know of that describes HOW God is one is found in John 17, and it just doesn’t fit the bill.

20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, [art] in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

Here it seems to imply that Christians can be “one in” Christ and the Father “even as,” or in the same way, as the Father and Son are one. Now, in mortal life we will never become as unified with God as the Father and Son are unified together, but this is the ideal we are supposed to shoot for, is it not? And maybe in the eternities to come we will make it all the way.

It all seems to make sense to me. However, what doesn’t make sense to me about your Trinity doctrine is why you believe God has to be “simple” (this is from Vatican I), i.e., not having parts. In are view, “God” has parts–e.g., the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as separate Beings in a corporate unity. Where do you get the idea that God shouldn’t have “parts”? (I’ll tell you where I think the idea comes from later.)

BDawg

 

[Catholic_Dude]

BDawg:

First, I don’t have a problem with John 1:1. The Word was “with God,” implying some distinction between the Father and Son, and the Word “was God,” implying some kind of essential unity between the two. So there must be some way they are plural, and some way they are one. Again, the question is HOW, not whether, these things are true. Please, try to put yourself in our shoes for a moment and think about what we might say to some of these things.

So why is John1 not even mentioned in the LDS many verses regarding the Godhead?
(scriptures.lds.org/tgg/godhead?sr=1)
It never uses the term Gods it is only God. So the plural aspect cant be due to them being two different Gods. I dont really know how to put myself in an Lds shoes becuase this is so different to me I dont know where to start.

Regarding your assertion that it is blasphemy for us to talk about “Gods,” even for descriptive purposes, is blasphemy, you’d better fire up the stake for St. Justin Martyr, who called Jesus

Hmmmm. Here we have a very early Christian calling Jesus a “second god,” who is “subject to” the Father, and distinct from the Father “numerically” but one “in will.” I disagree with Justin on some points, but this seems to me like a really good summary treatment of how Mormons view the unity and plurality of the Trinity, and horrifically heretical for Catholics. Should St. Justin be stripped of his sainthood for teaching gross heresy, a blasphemer, or should we conclude that the Trinity doctrine was a bit different in A.D. 150, or so?

You got me on the “descriptive” thing,.I was quickly going down the list of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit, in my original post when I made this thread, and it says “the Holy Ghost is a God” so I was originally talking about that.
It doesnt compare to that quote of StJustin, (though you did trip me up on what I originally said), because Im pretty sure he doesnt use the term God to indicate separate Gods the way your teaching does. Is there a site where I can read more in context of what he said?, I really doubt that StJustin denied the Trinity (as Catholics see it).

I can give you more examples from early Christianity, if you like.
However, here is an example from the Bible.
…
Where do you get the idea that God shouldn’t have “parts”? (I’ll tell you where I think the idea comes from later.)

You make some good points here, I will get back to you on this. (hopefully later tonight)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

BDawg:

However, here is an example from the Bible. If you can, please tell me where the Bible says that the Trinity is unified in “substance,” or “Being.” The only passage I know of that describes HOW God is one is found in John 17, and it just doesn’t fit the bill.

Well here are a few more:
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.(1Jn5, not in some Bibles)

29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand. 30 I and my Father are one. 31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.(Jn10)

19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost(Matt28, courtesy of Subrosa)

Here it seems to imply that Christians can be “one in” Christ and the Father “even as,” or in the same way, as the Father and Son are one. Now, in mortal life we will never become as unified with God as the Father and Son are unified together, but this is the ideal we are supposed to shoot for, is it not? And maybe in the eternities to come we will make it all the way.

Are saying that one day we have the chance to become a god or equal to god? In reading the whole chapter it is a deep deep love that Jesus has for His people. What greater love is there than the Son to the Father? If humans could be that way, I do agree it is an ideal we should shoot for, but not to become God, but to understand and love as He loves. Catholics stand at the front of the line when it comes to recieving God, its called The Eucharist, which Jesus says is His real body. While I was looking on the LDS.com webpage I read a part where JS changed “this is my body” to say “this represents my body”.

It all seems to make sense to me. However, what doesn’t make sense to me about your Trinity doctrine is why you believe God has to be “simple” (this is from Vatican I), i.e., not having parts. In are view, “God” has parts–e.g., the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as separate Beings in a corporate unity. Where do you get the idea that God shouldn’t have “parts”? (I’ll tell you where I think the idea comes from later.)
BDawg

I dont know what you mean about “simple” or fully know what you mean by “parts”. It seems to me here is the part where I cant fully understand the LDS position, by “Beings” do you mean Gods? The easiest idea that God shouldnt be looked at as 3 separate Gods (if that is what you are saying) is because all throughout the OT it was almost always God, singular. Plus the Father and Son relationship indicates they have a special unity, like a human father has to his son (same flesh and blood), but the human son was created, but we know that Jesus was never created so there is a deeper bond/relation than we can understand.

 

[ex-mormon]

BDawg:

Yo Dude,

I would rather tackle one topic at a time. Is that ok with you? Since I brought up the Trinity question, I’ll stick to that for a while.

First, I don’t have a problem with John 1:1. The Word was “with God,” implying some distinction between the Father and Son, and the Word “was God,” implying some kind of essential unity between the two. So there must be some way they are plural, and some way they are one. Again, the question is HOW, not whether, these things are true. Please, try to put yourself in our shoes for a moment and think about what we might say to some of these things.

BDawg,
I don’t think John 1:1 implies distinction between the father and son.The Mormon church teaches that there are many Gods. The Bible teaches that there is one only. Joseph Smith taught “that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father,” and that “you may suppose that He had a Father also.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith) Orson Pratt said, “If we should take a million worlds like this and number their particles, we should find that there are more Gods than there are particles of matter in those worlds.” (Journal of Discourses, vol.2, page 345) The Bible teaches throughout it’s pages of there being only one God. Even the Book of Mormon teaches monotheism:

“And Zeezrom said unto him: Thou sayest there is a true and living God? And Amulek said: Yea there is a true and living God. Now, Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God? And he answered, No.” Alma 11:26-30

“…I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end.” 3 Nephi 9:18

“so that from the rising of the sun to the place of its setting men may know there is none besides me. I am the LORD and there is no other.” Isaiah 45:6

" …I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me." Isaiah 46:9

“…Is there any God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.” Isaiah 44:8

“Thou, even thou, art LORD alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein…” Nehemiah 9:6

The God who made the universe says he is LORD alone. I believe he leaves no room for doubt. If God had a father wouldn’t he know of him? If there really were other Gods why is there no mention of them in the Book of Mormon or the Bible? The message God sends time and time again is that he is the only God.

The Mormon Church teaches heretically that man can become a God, and that God was once a man. Joseph Smith taught, “First God himself who sits enthroned in yonder heavens, is a man like unto one of yourselves, that is the great secret… I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined that God was God from all eternity… God himself; the Father of us all dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did,… You have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves;…No man can learn you more than what I have told you.” This teaching is one of the root evils of Mormonism. Think about it- isn’t this very idea, that man can work his way up to being a God, a major tenant of humanism and new age belief? Think about it again- where is the first place in the Bible that one finds the idea of a man becoming like God? It was whispered by the serpent to Eve; saying eat of the apple and “…ye shall be as gods…”(Genesis 3:5) This was not whispered as a good thing, but as an enticement by the father of lies himself! The Bible does not teach about a changing God who once was a man, once died, and once sinned. It does not teach that a man can become a God. It teaches exactly the opposite. Again the Book of Mormon is in agreement:

“For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity.” Moroni 8:18

“For behold, God knowing all things, being from everlasting to everlasting,…” Moroni 7:22

“Behold I say unto you, he that denieth these things knoweth not the gospel of Christ; yea, he has not read the scriptures; if so, he does not understand them. For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and in him there is no variableness neither shadow of changing?” Mormon 9:8,9

“Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.” Hebrews 13:8

“(God has)…no variableness, neither shadow of turning.” James 1:17

" …I am God, and not man…" Hosea 11:9

“Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.” Isaiah 44:6

“God is not a man that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind…” Numbers 23:19

“O LORD are you not from everlasting?..” Habakkuk 1:12

“Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.” Psalms 90:2

“I the LORD do not change…” Malachi 3:6

continued…

 

[ex-mormon]

…more

“Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD…before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.” Isaiah 43:10 This is clearly the first and last God. We have not “imagined” that God was God from all eternity, the Bible says so definitively. The Bible leaves no room for other “Gods” to be formed. It emphatically states throughout its pages that God has always existed as God and has never changed. How could the Bible have made it more clear? God is God alone, and there never were, nor will there ever be any others. Also see Mosiah 3:5, Alma 11:39, Psalms 41:13, 93:2, 103:17, Proverbs 8:23, Revelation 1:8. It is important to note that when you study one of these passages in Hebrew, the case is made even more unambiguous. In Isaiah 43:10 for example, the word used for God is El meaning " mighty one". Once this is understood, it is obvious that the scripture is not talking about idols per Se, but about Gods. Thus read the scripture would say: “… Before me there were no ‘mighty ones’ formed, neither shall there be after me.”

Hmmmm. Here we have a very early Christian calling Jesus a “second god,” who is “subject to” the Father, and distinct from the Father “numerically” but one “in will.” I disagree with Justin on some points, but this seems to me like a really good summary treatment of how Mormons view the unity and plurality of the Trinity, and horrifically heretical for Catholics. Should St. Justin be stripped of his sainthood for teaching gross heresy, a blasphemer, or should we conclude that the Trinity doctrine was a bit different in A.D. 150, or so?

Here are some teachings of early Christians including Justin Martyr prior to the Nicean creed.

Justin Martyr

“We will prove that we worship him reasonably; for we have learned that he is the Son of the true God Himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third. For this they accuse us of madness, saying that we attribute to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all things; but they are ignorant of the Mystery which lies therein” (First Apology 13:5-6 [A.D. 148]).

Athenagoras of Athens

“The Son of God is the Word of the Father in thought and actuality. By him and through him all things were made, the Father and the Son being one. Since the Son is in the Father and the Father is in the Son by the unity and power of the Spirit, the Mind and Word of the Father is the Son of God. And if, in your exceedingly great wisdom, it occurs to you to inquire what is meant by ‘the Son,’ I will tell you briefly: He is the first- begotten of the Father, not as having been produced, for from the beginning God had the Word in himself, God being eternal mind and eternally rational, but as coming forth to be the model and energizing force of all material things” (Supplication for the Christians 10:2-4 [A.D. 177]).

Theophilus of Antioch

“It is the attribute of God, of the most high and almighty and of the living God, not only to be everywhere, but also to see and hear all; for he can in no way be contained in a place. . . . The three days before the luminaries were created are types of the Trinity: God, his Word, and his Wisdom” (Ad Autolycus 2:15 [A.D. 181]).

Irenaeus of Lyons

“For the Church, although dispersed throughout the whole world even to the ends of the earth, has received from the Apostles and from their disciples the faith in one God, the Father Almighty . . . and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became flesh for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit.” (Against Heresies 1:10:1 [A.D. 180]).

continued…