LDS, contradictions in scripture and doctrine

[Robert_in_SD]

The “one and only God” or “one and only Savior” of the Old Testament was and is Jehovah, Jesus Christ, who is truly the one and only Savior just as the Bible teaches throughout.

I infer from this comment that you have quite a different understanding of the Trinity.
Parker:

Jesus truly has and had a Father. They are One.

What do you mean when you say they are “One?” Do you mean they are consubstantial? Or do you mean they are of one purpose? Or do you mean something else entirely? I think your response is just dancing around the edges of the issue. Please explain what the LDS Church teaches its members about being “one” with the Father and the Son.
Parker:

Jesus prayed that His followers be one with Them.

In John, Chapter 17, Jesus prays:

[20] “I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word,
[21] that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
[22] The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one,
[23] I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me.
[24] Father, I desire that they also, whom thou hast given me, may be with me where I am, to behold my glory which thou hast given me in thy love for me before the foundation of the world.
[25] O righteous Father, the world has not known thee, but I have known thee; and these know that thou hast sent me.
[26] I made known to them thy name, and I will make it known, that the love with which thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.” (Jn 17:20-26)

So, are you saying this supports the LDS church teaching that its members can become a god? Or does the LDS church teach something different - e.g. that all of its members can be united together perfectly, as one in Christ Jesus? If the former, then I see a great distinction between what this passage is saying, and the LDS church teaches. If the latter, then why all the confusion about the unique LDS doctrine of exhaltation? Maybe you could state in clear language - defining words that need defining - so we can all understand why it is there is such misunderstanding on this point between Mormons and non-Mormons, over what the LDS church teaches its members.
Parker:

A Bible reader, serious about knowing what God offers throught the atoning grace of His Beloved Son, Immanuel, the Anointed One, should be very familiar with John 17 and should also become very familiar with the Book of Revelation, where John was shown the promises that describe what John 17 was talking about, in greater detail, describing the blessings to “he that overcometh”.

Again, why don’t you simply explain what it is the LDS church teaches its members about John 17, Revelation, and the blessings that come to those who overcome, and why the LDS teachings don’t contradict scripture? You’re not really supporting or clarifying the LDS position by simply saying… “read the bible.” You can assume all of us here do that.

Peace,
Robert

 

[SteveVH]

Zhane,

Absolutely not, is the answer to both of your questions.

The “one and only God” or “one and only Savior” of the Old Testament was and is Jehovah, Jesus Christ, who is truly the one and only Savior just as the Bible teaches throughout.

Jesus truly has and had a Father. They are One.

Jesus prayed that His followers be one with Them.

His covenant followers, if they keep all of their covenants, can become one with Them, just as Jesus prayed in His intercessory prayer. See John 17, entire chapter.

A Bible reader, serious about knowing what God offers throught the atoning grace of His Beloved Son, Immanuel, the Anointed One, should be very familiar with John 17 and should also become very familiar with the Book of Revelation, where John was shown the promises that describe what John 17 was talking about, in greater detail, describing the blessings to “he that overcometh”.

I don’t think you are being quite honest here, Parker. You believe that our God(s) (Father is one God, Jesus is one God and the Holy Spirit is one God - united only in purpose, not in substance) is only the God of this universe and that there are many, many other God’s of other universes or worlds. You also believe that you will be the God of your own world, procreating for eternity with your wife (or wives) in order to create spirit children who will in turn worship you, just as we worship our God.

I just don’t understand why you are always so afraid of just admitting what you really do believe.

 

[TexanKnight]

The biggest contradiction I have addressed before

The Apostle John and the 3 Nephites never left the earth, they had the Priesthood. So why was it needed to be restored? Did the Apostle John somehow lose his priesthood? Was Joseph somehow better and more powerful than the Apostle John?

 

[Jerusha]

I’m going way out on a limb, here, but bear with me. Joseph Smith’s family was committed to Masonry. He couldn’t get in until the Nauvoo era. Masonry was set up in opposition to the Catholic Church (not that it didn’t need reforms in that age). In order to legitimize themselves as older than the Catholic Church, Masonry developed a false history for themselves. ( No matter that the Catholic Church owes a great debt to Judaism) Masonry has
Three Grand Master architects in Masonic legend are named Gibulum, Joabert, and Stolkyn.
Simple transition to “three Nephites,” reflecting the underlying Masonic system of belief. He just wanted to transform Masonry from a men’s social organization (sort of) into a church. And he did that during the Nauvoo years.

 

[rock17]

I’m going way out on a limb, here, but bear with me. Joseph Smith’s family was committed to Masonry. He couldn’t get in until the Nauvoo era. Masonry was set up in opposition to the Catholic Church (not that it didn’t need reforms in that age). In order to legitimize themselves as older than the Catholic Church, Masonry developed a false history for themselves. ( No matter that the Catholic Church owes a great debt to Judaism) Masonry has
Three Grand Master architects in Masonic legend are named Gibulum, Joabert, and Stolkyn.
Simple transition to “three Nephites,” reflecting the underlying Masonic system of belief. He just wanted to transform Masonry from a men’s social organization (sort of) into a church. And he did that during the Nauvoo years.

interesting idea, i have been told that the mormons believe the knights templar found out the secrets to solomons temple and masons claim to be descendants of the knights so maby that also plays a role in the three Grand Master theory. I guess we wont know for sure until we get some discussion going though.

 

[wussup]

The difference is that Mormons believe that the universe has always existed and that their “god” is a product of the universe and arose from within it, while Christians believe that God created the universe (as well as time) and therefore is independent of the universe and lives outside of it.

That is essentially our belief, not exact, but close enough. The ‘gospel of wussup’ (i.e., my opinion, worth essentially nothing) says that it is illogical that from nothing, came something. There is either an infinite amount of something, or there is nothing. By nothing, I mean no God, god, ‘intelligence’, an infinite amount of absolute nothing. 0x0=nothing… My understanding is there was God. God is ‘Something’, there was something. I believe that is syllogistically sound. Since there was something, there could be no such thing as nothing. I believe Catholics are so afraid of the taint of pantheism, they have a difficult time with this idea.

Paul and I go back a few years. I hope he remembers my questions are not made to challenge the RC faith, but I truly try to be respectful of the doctrine. Please, I make no polemic points. Having said this, How can it be proven logically that God created something from nothing? I have read the Summa, and if it is addressed therein, I somehow missed it. I guess that would pretty much mean I didn’t read it all.

They believe that all matter, including their gods and we, have always existed, though in more primitive forms, so we are all co-eternal with their god. They do not believe that their god is the first god. In fact, they believe that their god has a god who has a god… ad infinitum.

Actually, this incorrect, taken in its totality. It is not inconsistent in LDS theology to have a ‘first cause’. The last discussion I heard from a GA I recall hearing that our Heavenly Father was the ‘first cause’. I say this somewhat in the RC sense meaning that God the Father was the creator of all (through Jesus Christ).
On the other hand, we do believe that spirit matter, that most basic ‘stuff’ can neither be created nor destroyed. In a sense we are co-eternal with the Father, but only in the same way you would say the Farmers manure is co-eternal with next years baby being born at St. Paul’s Hospital.

They believe that their god (and all of us) started out as raw “intelligences”, whatever that means, and that gods are intelligences that progressed until they became gods. They think that they can also progress to godhood.

One thing they never deal with is: How did the very first god claw his way up from intelligence to godhood?

Great question, and like many doctrines of RC faith, it is a mystery we may never know the answer to.

At present, to become a god your “intelligence” must be born into a spirit-child of a “heavenly father-god and heavenly mother-goddess”, be sent to an earth-like planet to obtain a physical body, and obey all the rules of your heavenly father-god. If you are completely obedient, then your heavenly father-god will “exalt” you and make you into a god. You and your eternal wives (now heavenly mother-goddesses) will have spirit-children and start the whole cycle again.

Dearest Paul, you have been watching the ‘Godmakers’ again, haven’t you. I thought we talked about that…no more ‘Godmakers’!
The above statement contains a little truth and a lot of fabrication and one really big falsehood. Yes, we believe we are born of spirit in a pre-existent life. This is Biblically sound doctrine. Yes, we believe we were sent to this mortal existence to accomplish two things, first to receive a physical body. Second, so we can learn faith in the Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The latter part is the most important. It is through our earthly trials and subsequent knowledge that we all fail and come short of the glory of God. It is only through faith in Jesus Christ, repentance, and acceptance of his extreme sacrifice atoning for all of our sins, that we become sanctified and enter into our Fathers Kingdom. It is a central tenet of LDS Doctrine that it is impossible for any of us to ‘obey all the rules’, i.e., no works of our own can help us with our salvation.

The LDS say that it means that although there are gods without number, there is only one god for this planet - only one god with whom we have anything to do, even though in Isaiah God says “Is there a God beside me? There is no God, I know not any.” (Isaiah 44:8)

If God says He does not know of any other god, then the LDS are claiming that either:

1. God is not all-knowing and is ignorant of this multitude of gods, or
2. God lied to Isaiah.

As Paul knows, the question is rhetorical. Who knew God could be so sardonic? Seems he has a sense of humor. (I am sure he is highly amused at watching me un-knot my line whilst fly fishing, sometimes I think he sends a little puff of wind at the most inopportune times just to watch me get frustrated.) There is NO savior but Jesus Christ, and only one Creator, the same. God is omniscient and he is not a liar.

i always thought the first sin of man was to become like God.

Rock, no man has become like God. NO man ever shall. Eve responded to the serpents temptation to partake of the fruit and gain the knowledge of Good and Evil, knowledge that was one of the attributes and the sole province of ‘the Gods’. The Bible, and LDS Theology does not believe Eve partook of the fruit so she could become a God.

 

[Miriam1947]

So, wussup, do you have to be approved by Joseph Smith to get into heaven or has that changed?

 

[wussup]

So, wussup, do you have to be approved by Joseph Smith to get into heaven or has that changed?

Just as the Savior told the twelve apostles they shall be judges over the tribes of israel. Relative to the title of this thread, the idea that Christ, as Supreme Judge, delegates judgement to others should be familiar to Catholics. It is the doctrine of the Church that none of those Judges of Israel will make a judgement in variance with that of the savior. In fact, you as a Catholic will also sit in judgement of others. For example, in the unlikely event the RC are correct and the LDS are in error , you will sit in judgement of me having attempted to point to me the error of my ways.

To all, I say this frequently in hope, often in vain, that I will be treated as a guest of your Church, in your home. I am not here to proselyte. As such, I expect to be treated with dignity and respect. This last question is a typical example. I am not saying Miriam’s question is in this vain, but I am familiar with the question, as well as its source. Often, again maybe not with Miriam, people use this as an attempt to get into a bible bashing event. I really only want to answer questions re my faith with an attempt to expand the questions related to Catholicism. I am legitimately trying to understand the RC view.

Having said that, is it not the position of the RC that priests, during confession have the authority to forgive one their sins?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Wassup, how would you answer the question, why is there something rather than nothing?.

 

[wussup]

So, wussup, do you have to be approved by Joseph Smith to get into heaven or has that changed?

Finally found it. I remember reading a fascinating explanation by Aquinas;

Wherefore a certain power for the removal of the aforesaid obstacle is bestowed on the ministers of the Church, who are the dispensers of the sacraments, not by their own, but by a Divine power and by the Passion of Christ. This power is called metaphorically the Church’s key, and is the key of "ministry.

I know this is an affront to the RC, but the LDS lay claim to these keys as well.

The biggest contradiction I have addressed before

The Apostle John and the 3 Nephites never left the earth, they had the Priesthood. So why was it needed to be restored? Did the Apostle John somehow lose his priesthood? Was Joseph somehow better and more powerful than the Apostle John?

To an extant you are correct. Technically, the priesthood never left (as per scripture), however, it was restored in the sense that worthy men of age were ordained to the priesthood as a matter of Church function.

Wassup, how would you answer the question, why is there something rather than nothing?.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it is RC doctrine that God is the Eternal God, everlasting to everlasting, always existing. If He exists forever, than there was always God. God is certainly not nothing, He is ‘something’, therefore something has always existed. It is my contention the existence of ‘nothing’ is impossible. For example, do you not agree that the love of God permeates all?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Correct me if I am wrong, but it is RC doctrine that God is the Eternal God, everlasting to everlasting, always existing. If He exists forever, than there was always God. God is certainly not nothing, He is ‘something’, therefore something has always existed. It is my contention the existence of ‘nothing’ is impossible. For example, do you not agree that the love of God permeates all?

Catholic teaching isn’t that God is some thing. God is the creator of all things. An attribute of God is that He IS. All else would cease to exist if God were something other than Who He is, because He is the creator of all things.

Your something, that is not God…why does it exist?

 

[wussup]

Catholic teaching isn’t that God is some thing. God is the creator of all things. An attribute of God is that He IS. All else would cease to exist if God were something other than Who He is, because He is the creator of all things.

Your something, that is not God…why does it exist?

I am speaking purely philosophically. When I say ‘something’, I do not mean to diminish God, but am attempting to understand the underlying structure. Thus, ‘something’ is meant to imply a…how do you say it? ‘something’ is that which fills were ‘nothing’ would otherwise be. Think of me as a potential convert and trying to understand what is meant by ‘god’ and ‘God’. At the same time, you as teacher want to begin at a basic level. To you at the most basic level is ‘He is’. But pretending I have no religious belief and indeed have developed in an irreligious environment, I choose to begin at ‘nothing’. As an investigator into the metaphysics, I choose to believe there is ‘something’ everywhere. I arrived at this because I realize that should there be even the tiniest location of ‘nothingness’, all would become nothing, sort of like a blackhole.

Why does it exist, this ‘something’? For the same reason ‘nothing’ does not exist, because it does.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I am speaking purely philosophically. When I say ‘something’, I do not mean to diminish God, but am attempting to understand the underlying structure. Thus, ‘something’ is meant to imply a…how do you say it? ‘something’ is that which fills were ‘nothing’ would otherwise be. Think of me as a potential convert and trying to understand what is meant by ‘god’ and ‘God’. At the same time, you as teacher want to begin at a basic level. To you at the most basic level is ‘He is’. But pretending I have no religious belief and indeed have developed in an irreligious environment, I choose to begin at ‘nothing’. As an investigator into the metaphysics, I choose to believe there is ‘something’ everywhere. I arrived at this because I realize that should there be even the tiniest location of ‘nothingness’, all would become nothing, sort of like a blackhole.

Why does it exist, this ‘something’? For the same reason ‘nothing’ does not exist, because it does.

Yes, indeed, you yourself are a sign that there is something. But you short circuit the question, and/or the answer when you say, just cuz. Making the question meaningless, which is a common response. Neither wrong or right, but it is rather atheistic.

 

[wussup]

With the ‘LDS’ next to my name, I have difficulty getting answers to questions at this forum without getting ad hominems. Not that your doing that. I am trying to figure out the RC view by positioning myself as a neutral party. Why do you think God exists? The only answer I have ever heard of is because he does.

 

[PaulDupre]

Paul and I go back a few years. I hope he remembers my questions are not made to challenge the RC faith, but I truly try to be respectful of the doctrine.

Really? I have no idea who you are.

Actually, this incorrect, taken in its totality. It is not inconsistent in LDS theology to have a ‘first cause’. The last discussion I heard from a GA I recall hearing that our Heavenly Father was the ‘first cause’. I say this somewhat in the RC sense meaning that God the Father was the creator of all (through Jesus Christ).

Did that GA mean, as LDS teaching has always been, that Heavenly Father is the “first cause” in the sense that he is the first being to “organize” this planet out of already-existing matter (a poor excuse for “first cause”), or is the LDS org re-inventing itself yet again??

Dearest Paul, you have been watching the ‘Godmakers’ again

No, my knowledge of LDS teachings comes from teaching it - as a missionary (Taiwan-Taipei mission 1977-1979), Gospel Essentials teacher, Gospel Doctrines teacher and counselor to two bishops. If we really “go back a few years” as you claim, then you would have remembered that.

Paul (formerly LDS, now gratefully Catholic)

 

[RebeccaJ]

With the ‘LDS’ next to my name, I have difficulty getting answers to questions at this forum without getting ad hominems. Not that your doing that. I am trying to figure out the RC view by positioning myself as a neutral party. Why do you think God exists? The only answer I have ever heard of is because he does.

Could be because I asked you a question, that you are answering with a question. This comes across as a form of avoidance.

I come from an atheist background, so I am very familiar with atheistic thought and arguments, and really, have no desire to converse online with atheists or atheistic arguments. I am not a teacher, here to convince atheists, or Mormons for that matter.

Why do i believe God exists? Because I encountered something, where I thought and believed there was nothing. Being at one time a right and proper nihilist, I know what it means to believe there is absolutely nothing.

It is a very basic question, that cannot be answered by Mormons. Why something exists instead of nothing, when the evidence is all around, there is something.

I wandered for many years, in and out of different belief systems. Yours is a new age style of belief. Of Eastern origins, such as Buddhism or Hindusim, both of which I studied and considered following. But those seek to to turn the something, into nothing.

So, my encounter with God, was in prayer and at Mass.

Why does God exist? Is not the same question as why is there something rather than nothing? Basic philosophy will teach you the premise of a uncaused cause, the unmoved mover, which Augustine and Catholics call God.

Mormonism has no first cause, and so I always have to wonder, how Mormons believe there is something rather than nothing. It is a serious question. What caused this something you believe in, that isn’t God?

In conversations with my atheist husband, he is fine with saying he doesn’t know, but for myself, I have stood at the abyss of nothing, and so the question of something is important to me. I can verify the truth of my encounter with God, this something as you call it, with experience. I can’t verify the something that you believe in. I can’t encounter it in any way. So why do you think it exists?

 

[wussup]

Really? I have no idea who you are.

… is the LDS org re-inventing itself yet again??

No, my knowledge of LDS teachings comes from teaching it - as a missionary (Taiwan-Taipei mission 1977-1979), Gospel Essentials teacher, Gospel Doctrines teacher and counselor to two bishops. If we really “go back a few years” as you claim, then you would have remembered that.

Paul (formerly LDS, now gratefully Catholic)

Ahh, yes, the Paul I remember. You and I have had similar dialogues a couple years ago. The ‘God Makers’ comment was made tongue in cheek. I know you would never watch such tripe.
-Saubona

 

[wussup]

Could be because I asked you a question, that you are answering with a question. This comes across as a form of avoidance…

Saukubona

 

[RebeccaJ]

Saukubona

still no answer, which is fine, I’m not trying to push you into answering. Just asking. Have a good evening.

 

[ParkerD]

hey parker
i was wondering if you could answers to the isiah quote about how no other gods will be formed and how God knows not of other gods?

Rock17,

Isaiah was inspired to tell the house of Israel that the world was going to have a Savior, the only One who would be the Savior, the Rock, the Redeemer of Israel, and certainly that there were no gods of wood or of stone (which have to do with the word “formed”).

I think the Savior made it absolutely clear in His teaching that “no man cometh unto the Father but by me” and also that no man can know the Son, except the Father reveal Him (See Matthew 16:17). So it makes sense that when one prays to the Father in the name of the Son as Jesus taught to do, that one of their most earnest prayers is that they can have knowledge about the Son and about His relationship to the Father. Then the Holy Ghost can become involved in revealing truths about the Father and the Son–but not through reading books or even reading the Bible about it, for the learned Jews rejected Jesus in the midst of all their scholarly knowledge and totally missed that He was the Anointed One, the Rock, the Bread of life, the Redeemer, the one and only Savior, the promised Messiah through the lineage of David. The Holy Ghost and the Father didn’t reveal knowledge to them about the Son, because they didn’t ask and were content with their studied knowledge which they thought they knew perfectly well–and He didn’t fit their expectations.