LDS: Why try to convert Catholics, what do we lack for salvation?

[ParkerD]

ParkerD -

Religious Debate 101 - Attack ideas not the person.

Lax16,
I did discuss the ideas. I also said the person did not have correct understanding regarding LDS teachings, even though they had presented themselves as though they did.

I have a right to not be misrepresented as to my beliefs, and I am LDS, nor do I feel like I am in a “debate.” I have tried to clarify my beliefs, and sometimes that means challenging the way a person attempts to discredit my beliefs by acting as though they know what those beliefs are yet getting it wrong.

Peace.

 

[AtticusFinch]

No wonder you left the LDS church. You didn’t understand the doctrine then and you don’t understand it now.

ah…the typical LDS response. If one left the Church, they must have not understood the doctrine. Perhaps, it is beeter sais that the only reason you are still LDS is because you do not understand the doctrine.

Of course all of the Bible is about Jesus Christ. That is better taught in Mormonism than in any other religion.

That is certainly not true. The Mormon God was once a sinful man. That is not Biblical at all. I have gained a far better understanding and relationship with Jesus as a Catholic than I ever did as LDS. I loved being LDS and I will always treasure my mission, but the LDS does not teach Jesus better than any other religion

Jesus Christ is Jehovah, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He is in no way “only our spiritual elder Brother”–that is to not understand anything about His position in the pre-mortal world or His position in eternity. He was completely unique and was God the Son who became “God with us” on earth.

Yet, it was once taught that Adam is our God…how does that fit in with your views that LDS teach Jesus better than anyone? Joseph taught that God was Spirit, then, later, that God was flesh and bones. How does that fit in?

Mormons can understand why the Trinitarian doctrine evolved from the Bible and its teachings. Since the Old Testament talked about “One God”, and since Christ came to earth as “God with us”, of course people trying to reconcile their beliefs about the Old and New Testaments would say to themselves, “OK–Jesus is God and there is One God, so Jesus is that One God and there needs to be a doctrine that says God is three-in-one.” But this does not make it a correct doctrine, nor an understandable doctrine–it makes it a doctrine that accommodates the earlier teaching of there being “One God” which really was talking about Jesus Christ as Jehovah and as the God who has the primary responsibility for the salvation of the children of God on this earth.

You are guilty of what many others have likewise guilty of: You try to fit an incomprehensible God into a small understandable box. Mormons believe in a plurality of gods, yet the Bible was clear: There is only one God. God even said, “I know of no other Gods”. He did not say, …for this eath". He said there were no other Gods, period. There is only One. Period. That is why we believe in the Trinity…because we believe God.

 

[sablouwho]

ParkerD;6442113:

Of course all of the Bible is about Jesus Christ. That is better taught in Mormonism than in any other religion.

That is certainly not true…

Atticus, I am glad that you replied to the above statement by Parker. It caught my eye as well. Having converted to faith in Christ only a little over 4 years ago, I have since been to many churches, first attending a Protestant church, and then later, for somewhere between a year and 18 months, I investigated the LDS church. And for a while now I’ve been hanging with the Catholics.

I find Parker to be a pleasant person despite my having different ideas than he does about faith.

As someone from OUTSIDE of Christianity, without a pre-determined idea nor stake in any particular group being “true”, and having earnestly studied/prayed/“investigated” as a seeker in Protestant, LDS and Catholic settings, and doing a LOT of studying and reading both on my own as well as with mentors who are faithful members of all of the above groups I can say quite confidently that in my experience, LDS certainly did not do a “better” job of teaching this.

I have to question whether Parker has actually had any firsthand experience as a “student” in Protestant and Catholic settings. From what I can tell/have gleaned from his posts, Parker appears to be cradle LDS, thus I have a sense that his experience as a seeker in non-LDS settings where Christ it taught would be limited to non-existant. (Parker, please correct me if I am wrong here.)

In my experience, there is way more focus on JC in Protestant and Catholic settings than in LDS settings. I found that in the LDS setting, there was a lot of focus on other things besides JC – Jesus’ name was rarely used, instead he was referred to often as simply “the Saviour”.

Because of the way Protestant churches are set up, with the focus of worship being preaching, I found that there was QUITE a focus on teaching about Jesus. And Catholics do it different, but the liturgy each week teaches about…um…what’s him name again? Oh yeah, Jesus.

Perhaps the LDS experience is different for actual members than it is for investigators as LDS members attend a different Sunday school class than do the investigators. But from what I experienced in Gospel Principles class, sacrament meeting and Relief Society, there was a lot of time spent talking about JS and other topics that were not JC-centered.

That was, of course, my experience. Others’ mileage may vary.

 

[ParkerD]

Atticus, I am glad that you replied to the above statement by Parker. It caught my eye as well. Having converted to faith in Christ only a little over 4 years ago, I have since been to many churches, first attending a Protestant church, and then later, for somewhere between a year and 18 months, I investigated the LDS church. And for a while now I’ve been hanging with the Catholics.

I find Parker to be a pleasant person despite my having different ideas than he does about faith.

As someone from OUTSIDE of Christianity, without a pre-determined idea nor stake in any particular group being “true”, and having earnestly studied/prayed/“investigated” as a seeker in Protestant, LDS and Catholic settings, and doing a LOT of studying and reading both on my own as well as with mentors who are faithful members of all of the above groups I can say quite confidently that in my experience, LDS certainly did not do a “better” job of teaching this.

I have to question whether Parker has actually had any firsthand experience as a “student” in Protestant and Catholic settings. From what I can tell/have gleaned from his posts, Parker appears to be cradle LDS, thus I have a sense that his experience as a seeker in non-LDS settings where Christ it taught would be limited to non-existant. (Parker, please correct me if I am wrong here.)

In my experience, there is way more focus on JC in Protestant and Catholic settings than in LDS settings. I found that in the LDS setting, there was a lot of focus on other things besides JC – Jesus’ name was rarely used, instead he was referred to often as simply “the Saviour”.

Because of the way Protestant churches are set up, with the focus of worship being preaching, I found that there was QUITE a focus on teaching about Jesus. And Catholics do it different, but the liturgy each week teaches about…um…what’s him name again? Oh yeah, Jesus.

Perhaps the LDS experience is different for actual members than it is for investigators as LDS members attend a different Sunday school class than do the investigators. But from what I experienced in Gospel Principles class, sacrament meeting and Relief Society, there was a lot of time spent talking about JS and other topics that were not JC-centered.

That was, of course, my experience. Others’ mileage may vary.

Sablouwho,
You have raised some important distinctions about language.

When I wrote that the Bible is about Jesus Christ in both the Old and the New Testaments and the LDS teach this “better than in any other religion”, I was not talking about whether His formal name is used more often in the services or the classes. The LDS would tend not to use His formal name as much because His name is considered a name to be reverenced and not used repeatedly, but rather one would hear the use of the title of the Savior or the Lord more often, as you noted. This only means that they are giving reverence to the formal name, as they have been both formally taught to do and as the Spirit has confirmed to their heart that they should do, and that reverence and respect are treated by not repeating the formal name over and over in a talk or in a class.

As to my real point, it was about Jehovah being Jesus Christ, and that the LDS teach this and that the promised Messiah of the Old Testament, Alpha and Omega, the King Immanuel, the Son of David, the Branch, Wonderful, Counselor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace, the fulfillment of the law of sacrifice, He who frees humankind out of their prison as promised in Isaiah 61:1-3, is the Savior who walked the earth in the days described by the four gospels.

Further, that this same Savior was the Son of God in pre-mortal life and was the Creator and was in complete Oneness with His Father in agreeing to the plan whereby humankind would come to this earth and complete a process of being both tested and gaining experience to gain wisdom and show what kind of faith they would be willing to show through their actions in life away from His visible, physical presence. Also, that that plan was given to the spirits for their acceptance and many shouted for joy and gave glory to the Son even then, as we do now, for His infinite love and His complete willingness to do the will of His Father to bring mercy and grace to the spirits who had that choice given to them (meaning us–all of us).

 

[Michael_Vernon]

Any LDS participant in this forum would find it ridiculous to dispute my understanding of LDS doctrine if he/she were fully aware of my background in the LDS Church. But any Christian who wants to know what Mormons believe about hell, salvation, glorification, and exaltation can easily read it for themselves in The Doctrine and Covenants Sections 19, 76, and 132. scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/ These are not lengthy or complicated documents, although non-Mormons and new Mormons usually find them to be somewhat arcane. Anyone who is familiar with both Mormon and Christian doctrines regarding hell, and salvation will easily see stark differences if they can scale the language barrier. As has been noted in this thread and elsewhere in CAF, Mormons use many of the same terms that Christians do so that it can easily go unnoticed that we are talking past each other. But the sad and alarming thing is that Mormons who remain blindly in their own religion will not know the LOVE of GOD because they will not know GOD. Don’t be deceived that we are even talking about the same Jesus. Yes they will say that Jesus is Jehovah who created the Earth, but their Jesus is a separate being from God the Father whom they call Elohiym and their Jehovah created the earth with the help of Michael/Adam.

 

[sablouwho]

Sablouwho,
You have raised some important distinctions about language.

When I wrote that the Bible is about Jesus Christ in both the Old and the New Testaments and the LDS teach this “better than in any other religion”, I was not talking about whether His formal name is used more often in the services or the classes.

Yes, I understood that this is not what you meant. The fact that I mentioned the LDS tendency to not use his actual name but instead use the titles of the Savior or the Lord more often, doesn’t take away from the REST of what I was saying. My comments stand irrespective off whether JC’s actual name is used or if it is his title as the saviour is used.

As to my real point, it was about Jehovah being Jesus Christ, and that the LDS teach this and…

Parker, you did claim above that it was your opinion that the LDS did this “better” than any other religion. Obviously the LDS teaching differs in some important ways from mainstream Christianity, as the continuation (which I snipped) of your post shows. But I think “better” is in the eyes of the beholder.

 

[dianaiad]

No worries, I didn’t think you were mocking at all, I apologize if my comments made it seem like I thought otherwise.

Well, yeah, fair 'nuf! Defending what you believe makes sense.

Not sure what to tell you on that, for a coupla reasons. First, I see the point they are making and I also understand yours. And second, I really cannot comment on “Paul’s” statement because I don’t believe Paul is the author of Hebrews. You see, many biblical scholars (not just Catholic ones), don’t attribute Hebrews to Paul (there are other letters that are traditionally attributed to him that he didn’t write either, I would have to get my notes to tell you which ones as I don’t have them memorized). So, since I don’t believe Paul is the one who wrote the verses in question…well, it’s a non-starter for me.

Interesting…

OK, suppose that Paul may not have written Hebrews. Someone did…and the words of that someone are considered to be scripture…that is, exactly the sort of revelation that the words themselves are being interpreted as not happening. It’s not quite as deliciously ironic as if Paul himself had written the words, but the principle, I think, remains.

 

[sablouwho]

Interesting…

OK, suppose that Paul may not have written Hebrews. Someone did…and the words of that someone are considered to be scripture…that is, exactly the sort of revelation that the words themselves are being interpreted as not happening. It’s not quite as deliciously ironic as if Paul himself had written the words, but the principle, I think, remains.

FWIW, I didn’t expect someone else besides Paul being the author of Hebrews would effect your viewpoint on this.

As for the rest of the discussion re: public revelation, I am too new to Catholicism (not even technically Catholic yet, won’t be for a few more weeks) and not (or at least, not yet) schooled enough in this particular Catholic belief to comment with anything more than pure opinion.

 

[lax16]

Interesting…

OK, suppose that Paul may not have written Hebrews. Someone did…and the words of that someone are considered to be scripture…that is, exactly the sort of revelation that the words themselves are being interpreted as not happening. It’s not quite as deliciously ironic as if Paul himself had written the words, but the principle, I think, remains.

Dianaiad - Either I am tired or you are confusing me…What is it you are trying to say?

This is still re: public and private revelation, right?

 

[sablouwho]

Dianaiad - Either I am tired or you are confusing me…What is it you are trying to say?

This is still re: public and private revelation, right?

LAX–I am not Diana, but since she is replying to my post I will try and help. I had written upthread that it is a well known theory among biblical scholars that it is very very unlikely that Paul actually is the author of Hebrews.

And Diana is saying that even if Paul isn’t the author of Hebrews, that it really doesn’t change her stance on public revelation not having ended.

Diana, please correct me if I misstated anything.

 

[lax16]

Point…except that Paul recieved more than that, because he CLAIMED more than that…and he was told to stop fooling around and to teach the church. His words are scripture, and that alone means that it is the result of public revelation. If they are not, then you have to put them somewhere other than the bible, for they are no more important then than the comments of the local store front minister; his opinion only, and something we can not use as proof text for any doctrinal issue.

In other words, the fact that we all accept his words AS scripture is proof that they are the result of exactly that public revelation; revelation from God meant to guide the church.

Sablewhou - Hi and thanks for clarifying. I have included a past post regarding this discussion of public and private revelation that has been going on for a little while now. Your (name removed by moderator)ut is great. It seems this topic can become quite tricky when trying to understand what people mean when defining the terms and I admittedly get confused.

That being said, I have again spoken with a couple of people who are very knowledgeable in Catholic doctrine and said I would post their comments. They are also confused “about the confusion.” They reiterate the fact that as long as a person’s private revelation does not change anything that Jesus established on earth, then it is exactly that - a private revelation.

I understand that Diana has some questions and that’s great. I have never even read a word about this topic until she brought it up. Again, I have a non-Catholic to thank for asking challenging questions that require some thought and research!

 

[SteveVH]

“Revelation:” direct communication from God to man,

“Public Revelation” direct communication from God to man that is for the guidance and edification of the human race. It is, by definition, scripture.

Any time God speaks to a man and tells him to tell others what was said (“Thus saith the Lord…”) that man becomes, by definition, a prophet. That’s what MAKES him a prophet.

Whenever that prophet writes that revelation down, what is written is scripture.

It need not be 'new…" You DO realize that the vast majority of what Jesus taught was actually not new, in terms of doctrine? He Himself was not new–He was the fulfilment of a prophecy given to OT prophets. Many of the scriptures written in the NT repeat other things said by other men–in the NT. They are still scripture, and that is still revelation.

The problem is that you are still considering the Person of Jesus to BE the revelation…but in the NT, He is the One who was the SOURCE of it. It is HE who guided Peter and Paul in their writings…and that was all revelation.

Diana, thanks for your comments. My guess is that our understanding of the term “revelation” does hinder our ability to communicate with each other. What is strange is that I actually agree with your definition of Public Revelation. I also agree that Jesus is the Source of all revelation, but, at the same time He is the Truth that is to be revealed. The term “revelation” obviously means to “reveal”. When I say that the Person of Jesus IS God’s revelation, I mean that all of the OT prophesies point to and have their fulfillment in Him. God revealed Himself to us partially and slowly (pillar of fire, a cloud, a burning bush, a mysterious name "I AM WHO AM…) through the OT prophets. His revelation reaches its summit and its fullness in Jesus Christ. “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father”.

Where I would differ would be your position that it need not be “new” in order to be revelation. When a truth has been revealed it is no longer hidden. If a truth is not hidden there is no reason for it to be revealed again. We would say that by its very definition and nature, a revelation must be new. So in our way of thinking, or at least in my way of thinking, nothing new is required or will be given because all truth has been revealed in Jesus, in His life, in His words, in His suffering, death and resurrection. “I am the way, the TRUTH and the life”. These things were written down by witnesses to His life. Whether or not he wrote Hebrews, Paul “met” Jesus on the road to Damascus. What Paul received was not different than the other Apostles. He, as an unbeliever, received the revelation of Christ Himself in order to be used as a special instrument of God in converting the gentiles. So we have no argument that Christ spoke to him and guided him. But he did not receive a “new” truth, but rather the Truth (Jesus) that had already been revealed to the other Apostles. He was also an excellent communicator of this Truth, but he taught and wrote nothing that conflicted or added to the Truth the other’s had received.

So the question is, what is there to be revealed when the fullness of revelation has already been given to us in Jesus Christ? Hope I have explained myself adequetely.

Thanks for your thougthful response to my question. I really do appreciate it.

God bless you.

 

[AtticusFinch]

Sablouwho,
You have raised some important distinctions about language.

When I wrote that the Bible is about Jesus Christ in both the Old and the New Testaments and the LDS teach this “better than in any other religion”, I was not talking about whether His formal name is used more often in the services or the classes. The LDS would tend not to use His formal name as much because His name is considered a name to be reverenced and not used repeatedly, but rather one would hear the use of the title of the Savior or the Lord more often, as you noted. This only means that they are giving reverence to the formal name, as they have been both formally taught to do and as the Spirit has confirmed to their heart that they should do, and that reverence and respect are treated by not repeating the formal name over and over in a talk or in a class.

No, you meant that y’all teach about him better and having been to LDS< Protestant, and Catholic churches, I say you are wrong. JS even taught he did MORE for the Church than Jesus…

As to my real point, it was about Jehovah being Jesus Christ, and that the LDS teach this and that the promised Messiah of the Old Testament, Alpha and Omega, the King Immanuel, the Son of David, the Branch, Wonderful, Counselor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace, the fulfillment of the law of sacrifice, He who frees humankind out of their prison as promised in Isaiah 61:1-3, is the Savior who walked the earth in the days described by the four gospels.

And son to a god y’all believe was once a sinful man

Further, that this same Savior was the Son of God in pre-mortal life and was the Creator and was in complete Oneness with His Father in agreeing to the plan whereby humankind would come to this earth and complete a process of being both tested and gaining experience to gain wisdom and show what kind of faith they would be willing to show through their actions in life away from His visible, physical presence. Also, that that plan was given to the spirits for their acceptance and many shouted for joy and gave glory to the Son even then, as we do now, for His infinite love and His complete willingness to do the will of His Father to bring mercy and grace to the spirits who had that choice given to them (meaning us–all of us).

That begs the question…JS first taught that God was Spirit, later flesh and Blood and BY taught Adam was God. Seems y’all are a little confused…

 

[ParkerD]

That begs the question…JS first taught that God was Spirit, later flesh and Blood and BY taught Adam was God. Seems y’all are a little confused…

God is Spirit. Whoever worships God must worship Him in spirit and in truth. If I am going to worship God, I had better do it with the Spirit in my heart and with my spirit involved in the worship, so when I do that successfully then I am worshiping God in Spirit and in truth. Joseph Smith did indeed teach that God is Spirit, as does the Bible, and I certainly believe that also. If someone tries to worship God without the Holy Spirit being involved or without the connection to their own inner spirit and their own inner truth being involved, then they are not involved in true worship of God.

BY taught that God is God the Father, and Adam is Michael who had a significant pre-mortal role and will have a significant role when the Millenium begins and Christ returns to the earth. He taught that Adam is the Ancient of Days spoken of by Daniel the prophet. These roles make Adam a continuously significant person in the history of the world as it unfolds through to the Millenium.

No LDS has taught that God the Father progressed as a mortal by being “sinful”, and Joseph Smith taught that Christ did what He had seen His Father do, so that makes it absolutely clear that since Christ did what He saw His Father do, and Christ was perfect both in pre-mortal heaven and on earth, then His Father was perfect always, eternally, forever backward in time. It does, however, mean that God the Father has a body of flesh and bones, resurrected and eternal and omnipotent, just as Christ is resurrected and eternal and omnipotent.

 

[SteveVH]

God is Spirit. Whoever worships God must worship Him in spirit and in truth. If I am going to worship God, I had better do it with the Spirit in my heart and with my spirit involved in the worship, so when I do that successfully then I am worshiping God in Spirit and in truth. Joseph Smith did indeed teach that God is Spirit, as does the Bible, and I certainly believe that also. If someone tries to worship God without the Holy Spirit being involved or without the connection to their own inner spirit and their own inner truth being involved, then they are not involved in true worship of God.

BY taught that God is God the Father, and Adam is Michael who had a significant pre-mortal role and will have a significant role when the Millenium begins and Christ returns to the earth. He taught that Adam is the Ancient of Days spoken of by Daniel the prophet. These roles make Adam a continuously significant person in the history of the world as it unfolds through to the Millenium.

No LDS has taught that God the Father progressed as a mortal by being “sinful”, and Joseph Smith taught that Christ did what He had seen His Father do, so that makes it absolutely clear that since Christ did what He saw His Father do, and Christ was perfect both in pre-mortal heaven and on earth, then His Father was perfect always, eternally, forever backward in time. It does, however, mean that God the Father has a body of flesh and bones, resurrected and eternal and omnipotent, just as Christ is resurrected and eternal and omnipotent.

Parker, I’m confused. Didn’t you say that God is Spirit and then that God the Father has a body of flesh and bones? And when was God the Father resurrected?

I have to say that the whole idea that God progressed from a mortal to God the Father just seems I don’t know what to say. What is your opinion of a God who has always been God for eternity, the first and uncaused cause of everything else? Something does not come from nothing. Reason itself tells us that there has to be an uncreated, eternal Being who created everything that exists, including us. Who is God the Father in your opinion and when did he “progress” to His current state? From where did He come? More importantly from whom did he come?

 

[ParkerD]

Parker, I’m confused. (1) Didn’t you say that God is Spirit and then that God the Father has a body of flesh and bones? (2) And when was God the Father resurrected?

I have to say that the whole idea that God progressed from a mortal to God the Father just seems I don’t know what to say. (3) What is your opinion of a God who has always been God for eternity, the first and uncaused cause of everything else? (4) Something does not come from nothing. Reason itself tells us that there has to be an uncreated, eternal Being who created everything that exists, including us. (5) Who is God the Father in your opinion and when did he “progress” to His current state? (6) From where did He come? (7) More importantly from whom did he come?

SteveVH,
Those are very good questions.

(1) Yes, God is Spirit, meaning that He must be worshiped as a spiritual Being, first and foremost, so that means when we are worshiping Him we must use our own spirit and also be in communion with the Holy Spirit to do the worshiping that He asks us to do. If we were to focus on the physicality of His Person, this would not be worshiping correctly because our spirit would not be in communion with His Spirit. We must worship in the Spirit, by the Spirit, through communion with the Spirit in our personal relationship with God. This says nothing about whether He has a resurrected and eternal Body. Christ does, and Christ became as His Father is just as a Perfect Son becomes as a Perfect Father is–the Son like the Father (“like father, like son”). This is no better expressed than “in the image of God created He him. Male and female created He them.”

(2) Before the beginning of this eternity, so when your faith teaches that God is “uncreated” then I take that to mean that the sphere of this eternity is the dimension that those words are expressing, so that is one way of looking at the idea of “uncreated” and of being “outside of the universe”. God was God before this eternity began, and this eternity is a sphere of time and a dimension of time.

(3) I can accept that that belief would follow from describing this sphere of eternity as an entity of time and space in and of itself. It is a logical belief given the kind of knowledge we are given through the Bible, so that is OK as long as one doesn’t say to themselves, “I know all about God and all about where He came from.”

(4) I totally agree that “something does not come from nothing.” That is completely true. I disagree with the other statement. My reasoning does not lead in that direction, at all.

(5) My opinion is first and foremost, that God the Father does not need us to know about His origin, or if He progressed before this eternity began. It is not a subject I am going to worry about, because it has no bearing on my life or on what God wants me to do with my life, which is to do His will and follow the Savior. If He progressed during a prior sphere of eternity, then He did so perfectly at every point along the way and was thus able to resurrect Himself just as Christ resurrected Himself.

(6) Same answer as in (5).

(7) He could be the Original self-existing Being Who knew how to resurrect Himself and had omnipotence and thus could look around at intelligences and spirits in a less progressed condition, and find a way (because of His perfect love) to help them progress through the instrumentality of His Perfect, Only Begotten Son. This would have happened in a prior sphere of eternity, before this eternity began whereas in this sphere we have Alpha and Omega as His Only Begotten Son who is perfect as God the Son, and we have God the Father who is Our Eternal Father, the Supreme Ruler of the universe, both of Whom were and are perfect and omnipotent at every point during this sphere of eternity.

 

[SteveVH]

SteveVH,
Those are very good questions.

(1) Yes, God is Spirit, meaning that He must be worshiped as a spiritual Being, first and foremost, so that means when we are worshiping Him we must use our own spirit and also be in communion with the Holy Spirit to do the worshiping that He asks us to do. If we were to focus on the physicality of His Person, this would not be worshiping correctly because our spirit would not be in communion with His Spirit. We must worship in the Spirit, by the Spirit, through communion with the Spirit in our personal relationship with God. This says nothing about whether He has a resurrected and eternal Body. Christ does, and Christ became as His Father is just as a Perfect Son becomes as a Perfect Father is–the Son like the Father (“like father, like son”). This is no better expressed than “in the image of God created He him. Male and female created He them.”

To say that God is Spirit, IMO, describes his nature, not the manner in which He is to be worshiped. Of course we are to worship in spirit (small “s”) and in truth. But we worship Jesus Christ in spirit and in truth knowing full well that He has and will have for eternity a glorified human body. Scripture contains nothing that I know of that states that God the Father is anything but pure Spirit.

(2) Before the beginning of this eternity, so when your faith teaches that God is “uncreated” then I take that to mean that the sphere of this eternity is the dimension that those words are expressing, so that is one way of looking at the idea of “uncreated” and of being “outside of the universe”. God was God before this eternity began, and this eternity is a sphere of time and a dimension of time.

Sometimes I feel like we’re speaking different languages and in this case different languages in different universes, like a Superman comic. No, when I say that God was uncreated I mean just what I am saying. He has always been and will always be. He is the Creator, not the created. Eternity is eternity, there are not two eternities. It never begins and never ends and neither does God. It seems diffcult for most Mormons I have spoken with to accept a God that is beyond their understanding. The term “incomprehensible mystery” has been rejected by your Church. Would you not agree that if the human mind can fully grasp God then God is no greater than the one grasping Him? I’ve said it before, it seems that you are trying to pour an ocean into a bucket. No, the Catholic concept of God is that He is the uncaused cause from which everything else comes into existence. He is eternal (without begining or end). And He is so far above us in every way that He is beyond our ability to conceive.

continued…

 

[SteveVH]

Continued…

(3) I can accept that that belief would follow from describing this sphere of eternity as an entity of time and space in and of itself. It is a logical belief given the kind of knowledge we are given through the Bible, so that is OK as long as one doesn’t say to themselves, “I know all about God and all about where He came from.”

The last thing any Catholic will say is that “I know all about God and where He came from”. The only thing we know is what has been revealed to us through Jesus Christ (God incarnate). How do you define eternity? This is really kind of blowing my mind. There is no “sphere of eternity as an entity of time and space…”. Eternity is outside of space and time. It seems to me that you are more likely to hear a Mormon say that they know all about God and where He came from then you will a Catholic or even a Protestant. We have never pretended to fully know God because we believe it is beyond our ability.

(4) I totally agree that “something does not come from nothing.” That is completely true. I disagree with the other statement. My reasoning does not lead in that direction, at all.

And what direction does your reasoning lead? It all had to start somehwere. Everything created came from something else. If not an eternal, uncreated God with no beginning, then where and from whom?

(5) My opinion is first and foremost, that God the Father does not need us to know about His origin, or if He progressed before this eternity began. It is not a subject I am going to worry about, because it has no bearing on my life or on what God wants me to do with my life, which is to do His will and follow the Savior. If He progressed during a prior sphere of eternity, then He did so perfectly at every point along the way and was thus able to resurrect Himself just as Christ resurrected Himself.

Again, eternity doesn’t begin. That is what eternity is. You cannot think of it in terms of space and time. From where do you derive this concept of a “sphere of eternity”? No offense Parker, I truly mean that, but this idea of progression prevents you from understanding the true nature of God in my opinion.

(6) Same answer as in (5).

(7) He could be the Original self-existing Being Who knew how to resurrect Himself and had omnipotence and thus could look around at intelligences and spirits in a less progressed condition, and find a way (because of His perfect love) to help them progress through the instrumentality of His Perfect, Only Begotten Son. This would have happened in a prior sphere of eternity, before this eternity began whereas in this sphere we have Alpha and Omega as His Only Begotten Son who is perfect as God the Son, and we have God the Father who is Our Eternal Father, the Supreme Ruler of the universe, both of Whom were and are perfect and omnipotent at every point during this sphere of eternity.

God the Father was never resurrected, nor did He have a need to be resurrected because He never died. Death came through Adam, not God. That is one of the things that is so amazing about Jesus Christ, who humbled himself to suffer and die when He had no need to suffer and die. God the Father, however, could not suffer death because He cannot sin. Death came through the sin of Adam. This seems to get stranger and stranger from my perspective.

In any event, I do appreciate the conversation.

God bless you.

Steve

 

[AtticusFinch]

God is Spirit. Whoever worships God must worship Him in spirit and in truth. If I am going to worship God, I had better do it with the Spirit in my heart and with my spirit involved in the worship, so when I do that successfully then I am worshiping God in Spirit and in truth. Joseph Smith did indeed teach that God is Spirit, as does the Bible, and I certainly believe that also. If someone tries to worship God without the Holy Spirit being involved or without the connection to their own inner spirit and their own inner truth being involved, then they are not involved in true worship of God.

JS first taught that God did not have a flesh and bone body, then later taught that the did. I love your lengthy dodge of the issue, but it will not be that easy.

BY taught that God is God the Father, and Adam is Michael who had a significant pre-mortal role and will have a significant role when the Millenium begins and Christ returns to the earth. He taught that Adam is the Ancient of Days spoken of by Daniel the prophet. These roles make Adam a continuously significant person in the history of the world as it unfolds through to the Millenium.

No. BY taught that Adam was OUR God and the only one that we needed to deal with. It is a doctrine the LDS Church now denies.

No LDS has taught that God the Father progressed as a mortal by being “sinful”, and Joseph Smith taught that Christ did what He had seen His Father do, so that makes it absolutely clear that since Christ did what He saw His Father do, and Christ was perfect both in pre-mortal heaven and on earth, then His Father was perfect always, eternally, forever backward in time. It does, however, mean that God the Father has a body of flesh and bones, resurrected and eternal and omnipotent, just as Christ is resurrected and eternal and omnipotent.

Wrong again. It was taught that “As man IS, God once was.” Well, how IS man? Man is sinful. (Edited)

 

[lax16]

God is Spirit. Whoever worships God must worship Him in spirit and in truth. If I am going to worship God, I had better do it with the Spirit in my heart and with my spirit involved in the worship, so when I do that successfully then I am worshiping God in Spirit and in truth. Joseph Smith did indeed teach that God is Spirit, as does the Bible, and I certainly believe that also. If someone tries to worship God without the Holy Spirit being involved or without the connection to their own inner spirit and their own inner truth being involved, then they are not involved in true worship of God.

BY taught that God is God the Father, and Adam is Michael who had a significant pre-mortal role and will have a significant role when the Millenium begins and Christ returns to the earth. He taught that Adam is the Ancient of Days spoken of by Daniel the prophet. These roles make Adam a continuously significant person in the history of the world as it unfolds through to the Millenium.

No LDS has taught that God the Father progressed as a mortal by being “sinful”, and Joseph Smith taught that Christ did what He had seen His Father do, so that makes it absolutely clear that since Christ did what He saw His Father do, and Christ was perfect both in pre-mortal heaven and on earth, then His Father was perfect always, eternally, forever backward in time. It does, however, mean that God the Father has a body of flesh and bones, resurrected and eternal and omnipotent, just as Christ is resurrected and eternal and omnipotent.

ParkerD - Your post states that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young “taught” these ideas about God. I never really thought about them as teachers before but I guess it makes sense that they were.
When they taught, did they speak to a group of people, in writing, etc.?
Which of the books that Mormons have today contain their “teachings?” (Maybe it’s what Dianaiad has already mentioned).
Are their teachings doctrine, or have some of them changed? If they changed, who would have the power to change them?
Thanks!