Just to be specific, Trinitarianism teaches that the Father and the Holy Spirit are spirit only. The Son, due to His bodily resurrection and bodily ascension, retains His glorified/resurrected body, prefiguring our own resurrection. The Son therefore has a body of flesh and bones.
Yes, as of approximately 2000 years ago, but before the Incarnation, which happened in time, the Son, also known as the eternal Word spoken by the Father, did not have a body of flesh and bones.
Yes. But He is also spirit. Keep in mind that He is still God. He may have emptied Himself to become human, but He never gave up His Divine nature. He was, is, and always will be God.
Mormons do not teach Modalism or Triniatrianism. Modalism teaches that one God plays different roles at different times. That is not what Mormons believe.I am a Trinitarian and believe that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. The Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit. The Son is not the Father or the Holy Spirit, and The Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son. They are three individuals and not various aspects of one. The Three being One God. They are Spirit and have no flesh and blood as humans have. When God is described as having human traits the description is used metaphorically. When God said “Let us make man in our image”, he meant that we also are spiritual and have a soul/spirit.
Therefore, Mormonism does not teach mainstream Trinitarianism, but modalism.
PAX DOMINI
Shalom Aleichem
“Critics insist that the doctrine of theosis is unBiblical and unChristian. Unfortunately for the critics, a review of Christian history illustrates that this doctrine was and is a common belief of many Christians; modern critics are perhaps the exception, rather than the rule.”
Since there is no Mormon creed or catechism or statement of belief, why would we believe what you say Mormons believe rather than what, for instance, Joseph Smith said or wrote in the Book of Mormon?
Rebecca,
There is not need for catechism to define our Theology. This teaching is in the Sunday School Manuals, the Ensign Magazine, the official magazine of the Church and in the scriptures. How can one dispute the clarity of the scripture below?
Many people interpret that the Bible teaches modalism, others think it teaches Trinitarianism and others think other isms. All based on the same book…the Bible. So, it is not surprising that the critics interpret Mormon scriptures the same way. Mormons don’t teach Modalism or Trinitarianism, but that God, Jesus and Holy Ghost are separate and distinct beings and they are one in purpose and love.
The same authority God gave other prophets like Moses. God has not shut off comunications with men. No where in the Bible says that revelations ceased.
Doesn’t the Bible have that? That is why some are modalists, others are Trinitarians, etc…based on the Bible and not the Book of Mormon.
Didn’t that happen in the Bible? Peter receiving revelation to preach the gospel to the gentiles? Doesn’t that contradict previous revelations in the Bible itself? Why are you so surprised?
No.
No. There aren’t any Christians that believe this.
No it doesn’t. That is only your Mormon thinking. The Kingdom of Heaven is just that…Heaven. Which is where we are promised to live with Christ forever. The Church is the Kingdom of Heaven on earth.
It implies no such thing. God made us to be with Him. By the Fall of Adam we were cut off from God. There was no restore us to God, take it away, restore us again, take it away. That is just nonsense. If you believe Jesus Christ restored what the sin of Adam removed, then it is just that. One Perfect Sacrifice FOR ALL. This is not dependent on our obedience. We are dependent on God’s LOVE.
Jesus is talking about Heaven. As His Sacrifice, on our behalf, enables us to live there with Him. He says nothing of a pre-existence.
Rebecca,
If Christ was talking about building His Church on Revelation alone, there would be no need to designate a person or persons on who the Church is built. So there would be no need for Peter, the other Apostles, or anyone in particular. As all the baptized and confirmed have the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Peter was the Rock, the text is clear. There have been breakdowns of the text in Greek that clearly show the Apostles were Bishops and their successors were also Bishops. A quick search should bring it up. Can’t remember where I read it or I’d paste it.
Again, what the LDS believe and what the mainline Christians believe of God are two entirely different things. God is one. No flesh and bones. three distinct persons with one Divime Nature. God IS from all eternity, He did not “develop” as did the LDS “God”. The “God” the LDS “worship” and the God we mainline Christians worship are not the same. No matter how hard the LDS tries, the two cannot be reconciled, regardless of whatever is written in the BOM and other LDS literature. The LDS may say that their teaching is not modalism, but no matter how you slice it, it is!
“Peter” means “rock.”
It’s pretty clear. In Scriptural history, you don’t change someone’s name for nothing. When God changes someone’s name it is to both signify and effect that name change. Further, do you dispute that in several places the NT clarifies that the foundation of the Church are the Apostles? Why so odd, then, that one of them, their leader, would have a special place?When selecting Matthias, the language used was to replace Judas’s bishopric (though Judas had been an apostle). The terms are synonimous. We just give special honor and position to the 12 for having been the first and having been with Christ from the beginning, thus we grant them a capital A and usually reserve the title for them.
It is evident that Mormons do not believe the same thing as mainstream Christianity. If you read the definition of modalism you will see clearly that Mormons are not modalist. We believe there are three Gods separate and distinct that may manifest at the same time as three Gods. They are one in purpose and Love. That is the only meaning of ONE. How can Mormons be modalist when the Father and the Son appeared to Joseph at one point in time?Again, what the LDS believe and what the mainline Christians believe of God are two entirely different things. God is one. No flesh and bones. three distinct persons with one Divime Nature. God IS from all eternity, He did not “develop” as did the LDS “God”. The “God” the LDS “worship” and the God we mainline Christians worship are not the same. No matter how hard the LDS tries, the two cannot be reconciled, regardless of whatever is written in the BOM and other LDS literature. The LDS may say that their teaching is not modalism, but no matter how you slice it, it is!
PAX DOMINI
Shalom Aleichem
This is one of those many red flag incidents from JS. Jesus himself said no one has seen the Father but him (John 6:46, John 1:18). Paul reiterated this (1 Tim 6:15-16). So who do we believe? John’s account of Jesus’s words, as well as Paul? Or Joseph Smith with an unprecedented claim?
So after Christ comes and saves us all, and now God Himself has come to us and revealed himself to us more fully than ever in the Incarnation, and has himself built HIS Church, and has for the first time in a unique way also sent us his Spirit and given us many promises, established a New and Everlasting Covenant while making all things New–after all this, the Church is going to fall and fail worse and more quickly than ever before?
That is the point of this thread. Modalism is seen and taught in your Book of Mormon, and it is seen in the differing accounts of Smith’s claimed vision. Smith obviously was modalistic in his doctrine of deity. It changed, to what you now are saying here, and what Mormons believe, which is a polytheistic view of deity. What you call, pluralism.
No. God does not develop. Jesus is fully divine. His divine nature never changes. The Incarnation did not cause the divine nature of God to become something different.
Yes, this is one aspect of what LDS do. The other is an attempt to co-opt Christian words and phrases, give them different meaning. This includes the word “Trinity”, where LDS would like to twist and apply a meaning that is wholly manmade in origin. There is only two possible reasons for this. Either LDS are trying make themselves look Christian, out of a desire to be accepted as Christians. Or they are trying to deceive people into thinking their beliefs are Christian in nature.
Jesus is Jewish and is the fulfillment of the promise to the Jews. Hardly a condition for something being “not in line with the teachings of God”. As, He IS GOD, and as promised to His chosen people throughout time, He is their Messiah. The very first to be baptized were Jews who understood, believed Him, and followed His commandment to be baptized.
No, Christ never left us orphans. Mormonism arose, with new ideas, and teachings that are counter to the teachings of Christ. Like a teachings that says Christ was needed because of an “apostasy” of Judaism, but even He, with the Father and Holy Spirit, are not strong enough to maintain His own Church, so Smith had to do it for Him.