LDS Question - How did the first church fail?

[Javl]

Xavierlives,
Hello and good day. Christ is so much more than a church. Is that not clear to you from the Bible?

Hi Parker:

Yes, Jesus is so much more than a church, but then He IS THE Church. This is clearly taught in the Bible. God Bless.

Len

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Javl]

Zach,

Not necessarily, Christ did not start as a man, but became a man…and “the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.” John 5:19

So, It is possible that the father also atoned for the sins of another mankind on another planet.

Hi eveanfaust:

Your statement about the Father atoning on another planet may be possible, as you say, but not probable according to the Bible.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[paul_c]

Official Mormons beliefs are in the canonical books and in the first presidency pronouncements and sometimes in conjunction with the 12 apostles. Individual speeches do not constitute official doctrines. But a good starting point would be lds.org

Actually, I read this: Gospel Principles, which I found very instructive. The basic moral values of the LDS are not hugely different from Catholics. I liked what I read here. However, The theology is worlds apart. It all comes down to the credibility of Joseph Smith, doesn’t it. If you believe that their was a great apostasy, as he claims, AND you believe that he was THE PROPHET of God, as he also claims, then you become a Mormon. If you don’t find Joseph Smith credible, there is nothing at all to Mormonism. Its all about him.

 

[sablouwho]

The basic moral values of the LDS are not hugely different from Catholics. I liked what I read here.

I am glad to hear you say that Paul.

However, The theology is worlds apart. It all comes down to the credibility of Joseph Smith, doesn’t it. If you believe that their was a great apostasy, as he claims, AND you believe that he was THE PROPHET of God, as he also claims, then you become a Mormon. If you don’t find Joseph Smith credible, there is nothing at all to Mormonism. Its all about him.

I have an LDS friend (he tells me his opinion of the church, warts and all–he’s totally honest and doesn’t sugarcoat anything) and he says that he knows of LDS Church members who, believe it or not, underneath it all, don’t really care that much one way or the other about JS and whether the church is true. The LDS culture is their culture, so they just “go” with it because it’s what they know.

To be fair, the particular people he’s referring to are just not that “into” religion in the first place. I can think of Catholics who are the same way…ditto for Jews. My mom is this way…she’s happy being Jewish as a tradition/culture, and that’s enough for her…otherwise she doesn’t really think about religion all that much. She’s rather paint.

That said, yeah, in general the LDS thing is indeed very much centered on JS. Though I would say that because of their admirable values, it makes it a little harder to dismiss it as being totally about JS–I think that their values have merit on their own, regardless of origin. Yeah, I know, I’m contradicting myself

 

[paul_c]

I am glad to hear you say that Paul.

I have an LDS friend (he tells me his opinion of the church, warts and all–he’s totally honest and doesn’t sugarcoat anything) and he says that he knows of LDS Church members who, believe it or not, underneath it all, don’t really care that much one way or the other about JS and whether the church is true. The LDS culture is their culture, so they just “go” with it because it’s what they know.

To be fair, the particular people he’s referring to are just not that “into” religion in the first place. I can think of Catholics who are the same way…ditto for Jews. My mom is this way…she’s happy being Jewish as a tradition/culture, and that’s enough for her…otherwise she doesn’t really think about religion all that much. She’s rather paint.

That said, yeah, in general the LDS thing is indeed very much centered on JS. Though I would say that because of their admirable values, it makes it a little harder to dismiss it as being totally about JS–I think that their values have merit on their own, regardless of origin. Yeah, I know, I’m contradicting myself

You can easily see why the moral values and the sense of community of the LDS would be attractive to many. But those same values and sense of community can be found within the Catholic Church as well. Although I will readily admit that the LDS community seems to be actively driven by their church so more participate while for Catholics, you need to join church activities on your own. They will not be forced upon you. The big difference, and frankly, the one that matters toward salvation is the theology. If you are considering Mormonism, it all hinges on whether you find Joseph Smith credible. I, for one, do not find him credible.

 

[sablouwho]

You can easily see why the moral values and the sense of community of the LDS would be attractive to many. But those same values and sense of community can be found within the Catholic Church as well.

True, but in my experience, it is much more consistently lived in an obvious and public way among the LDS.

If you are considering Mormonism, it all hinges on whether you find Joseph Smith credible. I, for one, do not find him credible.

I guess it depends on why one is considering Mormonism. Your statement assumes everyone considers it based on theological motivations. And theologically I agree with you, that it does all hinge on whether one finds JS credible. No issue there.

All I’m pointing out is that there are o.ther reasons people are attracted to the LDS that have nothing to do with JS. I’ve heard members say this out of their own mouths…some of them don’t seem to care that much about JS…they seem to be in it for other reasons.

 

[JMJ4]

…cont

Further quotes from Irenaeus available here.

Said one Protestant theologian of Irenaeus:

Participation in God was carried so far by Irenaeus as to amount to deification. ‘We were not made gods in the beginning,’ he says, ‘but at first men, then at length gods.’ This is not to be understood as mere rhetorical exaggeration on Irenaeus’ part. He meant the statement to be taken literally.[12]

Clement of Alexandria (AD 150-215)
Clement, an early Christian leader in Alexandria, also taught the doctrine of deification:

yea, I say, the Word of God became a man so that you might learn from a man how to become a god.[13]
And:

…if one knows himself, he will know God, and knowing God will become like God…His is beauty, true beauty, for it is God, and that man becomes god, since God wills it. So Heraclitus was right when he said, “Men are gods, and gods are men.”[14]
Those who have been perfected are given their reward and their honors. They have done with their purification, they have done with the rest of their service, though it be a holy service, with the holy; now they become pure in heart, and because of their close intimacy with the Lord there awaits them a restoration to eternal contemplation; and they have received the title of “gods” since they are destined to be enthroned with the other “gods” who are ranked next below the savior.[15]

Origen (ca. AD 185-251)
And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God, as it is written, “The God of gods, the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth.” It was by the offices of the first-born that they became gods, for He drew from God in generous measure that they should be made gods, and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty. The true God, then, is “The God,” and those who are formed after Him are gods, images, as it were, of Him the prototype. [16]

The Father, then, is proclaimed as the one true God; but besides the true God are many who become gods by participating in God. [17]

Origen also defined what it means to “participate” in something:

Every one who participates in anything, is unquestionably of one essence and nature with him who is partaker of the same thing. [18]
Justin Martyr (d. ca. AD 163)

Justin the Martyr said in 150 A.D. that he wishes

to prove to you that the Holy Ghost reproaches men because they were made like God, free from suffering and death, provided that they kept His commandments, and were deemed deserving of the name of His sons… in the beginning men were made like God, free from suffering and death, and that they are thus deemed worthy of becoming gods and of having power to become sons of the highest…[19]

Also,

[By Psalm 82] it is demonstrated that all men are deemed worthy of becoming “gods,” and even of having power to become sons of the Highest.[20]

Hippolytus (AD 170-236)

Now in all these acts He offered up, as the first-fruits, His own manhood, in order that thou, when thou art in tribulation, mayest not be disheartened, but, confessing thyself to be a man (of like nature with the Redeemer,) mayest dwell in expectation of also receiving what the Father has granted unto this Son…The Deity (by condescension) does not diminish anything of the dignity of His divine perfection having made you even God unto his glory. [21]

Athanasius
In 347, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria and participant in the council of Nicea, said:

the Word was made flesh in order that we might be enabled to be made gods…just as the Lord, putting on the body, became a man, so also we men are both deified through His flesh, and henceforth inherit everlasting life…[we are] sons and gods by reason of the word in us.[22]

For as Christ died and was exalted as man, so, as man, is He said to take what, as God, He ever had, that even such a grant of grace might reach to us. For the Word was not impaired in receiving a body, that He should seek to receive a grace, but rather He deified that which He put on, and more than that, gave it graciously to the race of man. [23]
He also states that Christ “became man that we might be made divine.” [24]

Augustine (AD 354-430)
Augustine, considered one of the greatest Christian Fathers, said

but He himself that justifies also deifies, for by justifying He makes sons of God. For He has given them power to become the sons of God, (John 1:12). If then we have been made sons of God, we have also been made gods.[25]

Jerome (AD 340-420)
Jerome also described the deification of believers as an act of grace, which matches the LDS understanding precisely:

“I said 'you are gods, all of you sons of the most high.’" let Eunomius hear this, let Arius, who say that the son of God is son in the same way we are. That we are gods is not so by nature, but by grace. “but to as many as receive Him he gave power to becoming sons of God” I made man for that purpose, that from men they may become gods. We are called gods and sons!..[Christ said] “all of you sons of the Most High,” it is not possible to be the son of the Most High, unless He Himself is the Most High. I said that all of you would be exalted as I am exalted.[26]

Jerome goes on to say that we should give thanks to the God of gods. The prophet is referring to those gods of whom it is written: I said ‘you are gods’ and again ‘god arises in the divine assembly’ they who cease to be mere men, abandon the ways of vice an are become perfect, are gods and the sons of the most high…[27]

en.fairmormon.org/Nature_of_God/Deifica

evanfaust - I will repeat my question that got missed from this earlier post.
This timeline of the early Catholic Church fathers proves there was no Great Apostasy.
If these men are apostates, why would you quote them?

 

[kikkichan]

ParkerD,

Thanks, The snow was/is a bit of a struggle, lost power 2x, but survived; thanks for asking. i figure yous guys eat snow for lunch.

And thanks for the “translation” expounding . Don’t know if I ever heard about John, still hanging around. How is this known? It’s interesting, though, that he would still have to die, at some point. It seems that being “translated” would preclude needing to die.

Also, I see the “King Follett discourse” and “the Gospel Principles” being mentioned here and there. We’re told that “the Gospel Principles” is a good source for LDS truths and “King Follett discourse” needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Is there a designation within LDS literature such that it’s been “certified” to be “OK”? (e.g. free of error).

Certain Catholic literature is stamped with something called “Nihil obstat” or “Imprimatur” (near the title page). These means that the book doesn’t state anything that conflicts with Official Catholic Doctrine. I’ve come across a pdf book called “TRUE TO THE FAITH” which describes many basic LDS beliefs. I believe it be LDS-accurate, but would like to know definitely that it’s not opinion. One thing, I found very interesting is the LDS teaching of “confession” and the need to confess to a representative in the Church (e.g., bishop). I don’t hear much about LDS confession.

/***************************************/
*Nihil obstat (Latin, meaning “nothing hinders”) — This stamp indicates that the work has been examined and approved by the censor of the diocese, and that he finds it free of doctrinal or moral error. The censor is often a scholarly priest appointed by the bishop, and it is his task to work back-and-forth with the author of the work to correct any inaccuracies or problems.

Imprimatur (Latin, meaning “let it be printed”) — Finally, this stamp indicates that the work has been approved for printing by the bishop of the diocese, or other ecclesiastical authority.
These “stamps” and “signatures” are simply rendered in plain type on a page at the front of the book (i.e. they are not literal stamps and handwritten signatures), and are often followed by the date and place of signing, as on legal documents.*
/***************************************/

take care and prayers
–kc

Hi, Kikkichan,
I hope your family hasn’t had too much difficulty with the weather issues there in Washington DC. Thanks for asking about this in your always-kindly way.

A “translated being” is like what happened to Enoch and the city of Enoch, except that they were taken into “heaven” whereas John had asked to remain on the earth to bring people to Christ. It means he does so without revealing to them who he is, and does so wearing the clothes their own culture would wear, but he is able to be a “preparer of the way” just like John the Baptist was a “preparer of the way.” He visits with isolated people in remote parts of the world, and we don’t hear about it because they are not aware of who paid them a visit, but know their life is changed by the visit in that they come to a better understanding about Christ, because of the sincerity of their heart.

John will eventually “die” and be resurrected, and that will be a different kind of change in his body than the change that involves being “translated”. It is something God knows how to do with a mortal body so that it is not subject for the time being with aging and death.

Peace to you and your family, Kikkichan

 

[evanfaust]

evanfaust - I will repeat my question that got missed from this earlier post.
This timeline of the early Catholic Church fathers proves there was no Great Apostasy.
If these men are apostates, why would you quote them?

JMJ4,
First of all the apostasy in terms of doctrine was more gradual and not so sudden. We still see traces of truth in the wiritings of the fathers. I see the apostasy being composed of loss of doctrine and loss of authority. The loss of authority was more sudden witth the death of the apostles, while the loss of doctrine part of it was more gradual.

We quote the Old and the New Testament, even though they are both legacy of the Jew, who do not accept Jesus Christ as the Messiah. We may quote passages of the Talmud, the Zohar and the apochrypha as supporting evidence of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. Even during a period of apostasy there is still evidence of truth. Not all truth is lost or evaporated overnight. We see evidences of truth in Bhudism, Islam and many other religions. Every religion, no matter how apostate, they still possess traces of truth. It is not a matter of black or white.

 

[evanfaust]

Quote from XavierWell it is hard for a polytheist to understand the Trinity. I’m sure you’ve heard all of the standard attempts to explain it. How can water be liquid, solid, and gas and still be water, etc. I do like it though, because things of the spirit are described as liquid water, Christ is a solid, and the Holy Ghost is, well… I shouldn’t say gassy.

Xavier,
It is hard for anyone to understand the Trinity concept, since it was put together by men and not by God’s inspired servants. Yes, I heard the about the egg, the different stages of water, etc. Besides being confusing, it violates the fundamental principle of individuality. For example, Christ praying to the father (himself), Christ asking the father (himself) to “remove this cup, but thy will be done.”

I also reject the term polytheist, since the definition does no apply to Mormons. If you ask a Jew or Muslim if Christians in general are monotheist they will say NO, and categorize them as polytheists too. No matter how you slice it, the Christian God in the view of many is considered polytheist too. So, I would be careful when labeling Mormons polytheists, because it can backfire on you!

Since Mormons worship only one God, but acknowledges the existence of other gods, they should not be framed as polytheist, according to the definition. Check the differences below:

• Monotheism (belief that there is only one God)
• Tritheism (understanding the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as distinct Gods)
• Polytheism (worship of, or belief in, more than one God)
• Henotheism (worship of one God without denying the existence of other Gods; also called Monolatry)
• Trinitarianism (belief that God consists of three Persons in one substance)
• Social Trinitarianism (belief that the oneness of the three Persons is not one of substance but is social in nature [e.g., unity of thought, etc.])
• Modalism (belief that there is only one God that does not exist as three separate Persons but rather manifests itself in three different “modes” )

 

[RebeccaJ]

Henotheism and monolatry are not the same thing, though they are close. Either one can describe mormonism, depending on the individual view of a member of the LDS church. However, both are forms of polytheism.

henotheism: belief in more than one god, while worship is focused on one god. Other gods being viewed as worthy of worship.

monolatry: belief in more than one god, while worship is focused on one god. Other gods being viewed a never to be worshiped.

---

Polytheism contradicts “there is no God but ONE”.

 

[JMJ4]

JMJ4,
First of all the apostasy in terms of doctrine was more gradual and not so sudden. We still see traces of truth in the wiritings of the fathers. I see the apostasy being composed of loss of doctrine and loss of authority. The loss of authority was more sudden witth the death of the apostles, while the loss of doctrine part of it was more gradual.

We quote the Old and the New Testament, even though they are both legacy of the Jew, who do not accept Jesus Christ as the Messiah. We may quote passages of the Talmud, the Zohar and the apochrypha as supporting evidence of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. Even during a period of apostasy there is still evidence of truth. Not all truth is lost or evaporated overnight. We see evidences of truth in Bhudism, Islam and many other religions. Every religion, no matter how apostate, they still possess traces of truth. It is not a matter of black or white.

Hi evanfaust - I will quote from The Restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ (page 8, The Great Apostasy) given to be by LDS missionaries:
:
“This apostasy resulted in the formation of many churches with conflicting teachings. During this time, many men and women sought the truth, but they were unable to find it. Many good people believed in God and Jesus Christ and tried to understand and teach truth, but they did not have the full gospel or priesthood authority. As a result, each generation inherited a state of apostasy as people were influenced by what previous generations passed on, including changes to Christ’s gospel.”

This clearly contradicts what you just said.

 

[evanfaust]

How do you know that the LDS church received full authority to act in God’s name and true knowledge to prepare the people for the second coming of Christ? Because Joseph Smith claimed that? Thats completely laughable. What did he ever do to prove he was the prophet of God? He did plenty to prove he was not, as we have discussed. His original wife, Emma Hale Smith, who helped transcribe the Golden plates didn’t even believe him. When he was shot, she broke off from the church forever, and married a non-mormon. If she didn’t believe him, why should anyone else?.

Paul,

First, I have a confirmation of the restoration, Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith from the Holly Ghost.
Second, the history of Joseph Smith, his revelations and the heavenly manifestations that accompanied his followers are undeniable.
Third, everything Joseph Smith said has a taste of truth.
Fourth, the restoration makes sense and fits the Bible puzzle like a glove!

As far as Emma Smith, she always believed Joseph. Joseph died and she became free to marry whoever she loved.

These are her words at 76 before she died, these words were recorded by her son Joseph Smith III

“My belief is that the Book of Mormon is of divine authenticity - I have not the slightest doubt of it. I am satisfied that no man could have dictated the writing of the manuscripts unless he was inspired; for, when acting as his scribe, your father would dictate to me hour after hour; and when returning after meals, or after interruptions, he could at once begin where he had left off, without either seeing the manuscript or having any portion of it read to him. This was a usual thing for him to do. It would have been improbable that a learned man could do this; and, for one so ignorant and unlearned as he was, it was simply impossible.”

moroni10.com/witnesses/Emma_Smith.html

 

[evanfaust]

Henotheism and monolatry are not the same thing, though they are close. Either one can describe mormonism, depending on the individual view of a member of the LDS church. However, both are forms of polytheism.

henotheism: belief in more than one god, while worship is focused on one god. Other gods being viewed as worthy of worship.

monolatry: belief in more than one god, while worship is focused on one god. Other gods being viewed a never to be worshiped.—

Polytheism contradicts “there is no God but ONE”.

Rebecca,

Are Christians monotheists?
Any discussion with Jews or Muslims will quickly demonstrate no Christian is, strictly speaking, a monotheist.

One of the chief objections by Jews and Muslims is Christians are polytheists. Most brands of Christians insist on the divinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In addition, the very word those who crafted the great ecumenical creeds used to describe the deity of Jesus, his Father and the Holy Spirit is “trinity,” meaning three. Additionally, they insisted the three Persons should not be confounded, as such would be deemed modalism (one of the primary heresies that led to the formation of the ecumenical creeds and various confessions). Modalism often insists the one God merely appears to us in three different ways (i.e., as Father, Son and Holy Spirit), and this is exactly what the creeds deny.

en.fairmormon.org/Polytheism

 

[sablouwho]

It is hard for anyone to understand the Trinity concept…

Well, so, what of it? There is an underlying assumption embedded in this “objection” that seems to be: the things of God should be easy to understand.

since it was put together by **men **and not by God’s inspired servants.

Are God’s inspired servants not men?

Yes, I heard the about the egg, the different stages of water, etc.

These analogies couldn’t possibly explain the nature of God. I find them to be mere human attempts at explaining the unexplainable. The difference seems to me, having firsthand experience in both settings, that Catholics are more comfortable with mystery, whereas Mormons seem to like to have more pinned down explanations.

 

[ParkerD]

ParkerD,

Thanks, The snow was/is a bit of a struggle, lost power 2x, but survived; thanks for asking. i figure yous guys eat snow for lunch.

(1) And thanks for the “translation” expounding . Don’t know if I ever heard about John, still hanging around. How is this known? It’s interesting, though, that he would still have to die, at some point. It seems that being “translated” would preclude needing to die.

(2) Also, I see the “King Follett discourse” and “the Gospel Principles” being mentioned here and there. We’re told that “the Gospel Principles” is a good source for LDS truths and “King Follett discourse” needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Is there a designation within LDS literature such that it’s been “certified” to be “OK”? (e.g. free of error).

Certain Catholic literature is stamped with something called “Nihil obstat” or “Imprimatur” (near the title page). These means that the book doesn’t state anything that conflicts with Official Catholic Doctrine.

(3) I’ve come across a pdf book called “TRUE TO THE FAITH” which describes many basic LDS beliefs. I believe it be LDS-accurate, but would like to know definitely that it’s not opinion. One thing, I found very interesting is the LDS teaching of “confession” and the need to confess to a representative in the Church (e.g., bishop). I don’t hear much about LDS confession.

/***************************************/
Nihil obstat (Latin, meaning “nothing hinders”) — This stamp indicates that the work has been examined and approved by the censor of the diocese, and that he finds it free of doctrinal or moral error. The censor is often a scholarly priest appointed by the bishop, and it is his task to work back-and-forth with the author of the work to correct any inaccuracies or problems.

Imprimatur (Latin, meaning “let it be printed”) — Finally, this stamp indicates that the work has been approved for printing by the bishop of the diocese, or other ecclesiastical authority.
These “stamps” and “signatures” are simply rendered in plain type on a page at the front of the book (i.e. they are not literal stamps and handwritten signatures), and are often followed by the date and place of signing, as on legal documents.
/***************************************/

take care and prayers
–kc

Kikkichan,
Good to hear from you, and thanks for asking these questions for clarification. (We’ve had a much easier winter than your area has had.)

(1) Joseph Smith asked in prayer about the meaning of the verses of John 21:21-23, and received the revelation that is in Doctrine and Covenants 7 and contained the words of the Apostle John about his having received the promise from Christ to “tarry until I come in my glory, and shalt prophesy before nations, kindreds, tongues, and people.” There are also verses in the Book of Mormon, 3 Nephi 28:4-32, that describe three Nephite disciples of Christ who also received the special power of being “translated beings”. They will not “endure the pains of death”, but their body will need the change from being a translated being to the further change of being a resurrected being. This can be likened to “death” and resurrection, but not a painful death. Thus, both John and the brethren were being truthful (though perhaps not really understanding until later) when John wrote, "that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, “If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?” (John 21:23)

(2) Since the current Gospel Principles manual was carefully reviewed by the Quorum of the Twelve (not so much the earlier Gospel Principles manual given that a few important clarifications were made in the current manual), then it is a good doctrinal source, as is “True to the Faith.” If one ascertains that a document or manual besides the scriptures has been reviewed by the entire Quorum of the Twelve, then one may rely that it contains direct quotes that can be relied on as doctrine. (Parts of the King Follett Discourse have been quoted in LDS manuals in recent years, so those quotes were reviewed and approved by the Quorum of the Twelve. This is important because the transcription was from Joseph Smith’s talk and has been pulled together from several different sources who wrote what they remembered him having said.)

(3) It appears from looking in “True to the Faith” that you are talking about the section on “Repentance” where there is the sub-heading, “Confession”, which says “serious transgressions, such as violations of the law of chastity, may jeopardize your membership in the Church. Therefore, you need to confess these sins to both the Lord and His representatives in the Church…While only the Lord can forgive sins, these priesthood leaders play a critical role in the process of repentance…If you partially confess, mentioning only lesser mistakes, you will not be able to resolve a more serious, undisclosed transgression…find the peace and joy that come with the miracle of forgiveness.” (p. 134)

This manual is given to most LDS youth (potentially all LDS youth may have a copy), for their reference and use, and also to new members for their reference and use. Other members also use this manual to good use as a basic doctrinal source.

Confession within the LDS context thus involves only those cases where a serious moral or ethical sin has been committed by a member, and most sins involve only confession to God, through sincere and repentant prayer.

Peace to you always, Kikkichan, and may you and yours stay warm.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca,

Are Christians monotheists?
Any discussion with Jews or Muslims will quickly demonstrate no Christian is, strictly speaking, a monotheist.

One of the chief objections by Jews and Muslims is Christians are polytheists. Most brands of Christians insist on the divinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In addition, the very word those who crafted the great ecumenical creeds used to describe the deity of Jesus, his Father and the Holy Spirit is “trinity,” meaning three. Additionally, they insisted the three Persons should not be confounded, as such would be deemed modalism (one of the primary heresies that led to the formation of the ecumenical creeds and various confessions). Modalism often insists the one God merely appears to us in three different ways (i.e., as Father, Son and Holy Spirit), and this is exactly what the creeds deny.

en.fairmormon.org/Polytheism

Christians, who understand the Holy Trinity, are quite clear there is One God. Not three, and only one is worshiped. We worship One God. Jews and Muslims not understanding the Trinity does not logically follow that their non-understanding created three separate Gods for us.

This is the facts of mormonism evanfaust: a belief in at least 4 gods (including a heavenly mother). This is polytheism. It is not a misunderstaning, or a non-understanding of your belief. It is what your church teaches.

edit: Also, aren’t mormons always asking people to understand their beliefs by going to mormon sources? So, why would you site Muslims or Jews to understand Christian belief, and then compare that to your own?

 

[evanfaust]

Xavier quoteAgain, go back and read the scripture. Stephen says he saw God’s Glory, not God. And I said when you are dead and separated from your flesh, of course there are a lot of other things that will be going on too, so it will all happen in God’s timing.

Xavier,
I went back and this is what I see recorded:

“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. And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.” Acts 7:55-56

So, you don’t need to go back…the verse is clear…He really saw Jesus at the right hand of God! I agree that he saw the glory, but NOT ONLY the glory…he IN FACT saw the glory, the son and the father!

This is very clear!

 

[sablouwho]

“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. And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.” Acts 7:55-56

So, you don’t need to go back…the verse is clear…He really saw Jesus at the right hand of God! I agree that he saw the glory, but NOT ONLY the glory…he IN FACT saw the glory, the son and the father!

This is very clear!

(Evan! You really like to use exclamation points! A lot! )

Well, if you read the verse LITERALLY, as Mormons are prone to doing, then yes…

Such a reading of the Bible which seems to purposely gloss over known literary form and devices is rather myopic IMO. This phenomenon can be seen in other faiths too, not just LDS–ther are literalist Protestants, Jews, Catholics, etc. Total unawareness of historical critical method, however, wherever it comes from, does violence to the text, and diminishes, rather than amplifies, our understanding of God.

 

[Javl]

Rebecca,

Are Christians monotheists?
Any discussion with Jews or Muslims will quickly demonstrate no Christian is, strictly speaking, a monotheist.

One of the chief objections by Jews and Muslims is Christians are polytheists. Most brands of Christians insist on the divinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In addition, the very word those who crafted the great ecumenical creeds used to describe the deity of Jesus, his Father and the Holy Spirit is “trinity,” meaning three. Additionally, they insisted the three Persons should not be confounded, as such would be deemed modalism (one of the primary heresies that led to the formation of the ecumenical creeds and various confessions). Modalism often insists the one God merely appears to us in three different ways (i.e., as Father, Son and Holy Spirit), and this is exactly what the creeds deny.

en.fairmormon.org/Polytheism

The reason why Jews and Muslims ( and some others too ) consider Christians polytheists is because they do not, or refuse to, accept and understand what has been revealed in scripture. Christians believe in only ONE GOD. Beginning with Genesis and ending with Revelation, He has revealed that there are three persons in the One God. The full revelation of which is most likely beyond the human mind to comprehend or understand.
We Christians accept the existence of the Trinity on what has been revealed to us as a matter of faith, and rightly so.

Much as our earthly fathers are our source of authority and we do what we see them do
and and depend upon them for almost everything in filial adoration, so too does Jesus derive His authority from the Father and do what the Father does.

Christians worship only the One God. Christians deny the existence of any other god, for it would be in violation of the first commandment to acknowledge any other. The Christian creed explains all this.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem