MERGED Questions about Mormonism

[EcceAgnusDei]

Here is another one: 1 + 1 + 1 = 3, but 1 x 1 x 1 = 1. These are clever ways to explain the three in one concept, but I prefer to find the explanation in the Bible.

The Bible is only one of the three legs of the Church – Sacred Tradition and the Magesterium are the other two. Those other two legs predate the Bible and are therefore most useful in helping us understand the Bible.

I also find it interesting that you are searching for an explanation in the Bible when most doctrines unique to the LDS church are not found there, but are instead in the D&C. As a Mormon, you should appreciate a reliance upon the Magesterium.

 

[mtolympus]

The Bible is only one of the three legs of the Church – Sacred Tradition and the Magesterium are the other two. Those other two legs predate the Bible and are therefore most useful in helping us understand the Bible.

I also find it interesting that you are searching for an explanation in the Bible when most doctrines unique to the LDS church are not found there, but are instead in the D&C. As a Mormon, you should appreciate a reliance upon the Magesterium.

We believe in modern revelation and that the Church was restored by revelation and not by trying figure out the Bible. I use the Bible because it pre dates modern revelation and it is the only source of truth that LDS and tradition Christianity share in common. We believe the revelations of the Old Testament prophets and that the apostles continued to receive revelation to keep the Chruch united in doctrine.

 

[TexanKnight]

Wasn’t this from the “first vision”?

Aren’t there about 8 or 9 versions of it?

No…it is from Lectures on Faith. Joseph claimed that The Father was Spirit and the Son was flesh. LDS Apologists have tried desperatly to overcome that little issue, but their efforts are not pursuasive.

As to the First Vision: Yes, there were at least 9 versions of the vision. Apologists will say the different versions are not very different. That is simply wrong. In some versions, he was 14, others 15, in some only God appears. In other God and Son appear. In some there is an angel. In some there are many angels. In some God only tells him that his sins are forgiven. In some he says all churches are bad. It is amazing how different the versions are.

 

[mtolympus]

No…it is from Lectures on Faith. Joseph claimed that The Father was Spirit and the Son was flesh. LDS Apologists have tried desperatly to overcome that little issue, but their efforts are not pursuasive.

As to the First Vision: Yes, there were at least 9 versions of the vision. Apologists will say the different versions are not very different. That is simply wrong. In some versions, he was 14, others 15, in some only God appears. In other God and Son appear. In some there is an angel. In some there are many angels. In some God only tells him that his sins are forgiven. In some he says all churches are bad. It is amazing how different the versions are.

I have never even heard of the contorversy! I guess I am out of the loop. But then I tend to stick with the scriptures and the basics of the gospel. This is what the Doctrine and Covenants says: “For the Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit.” (D&C 130:22)

 

[HonoraDominum]

I have never even heard of the contorversy! I guess I am out of the loop. But then I tend to stick with the scriptures and the basics of the gospel. This is what the Doctrine and Covenants says: “For the Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit.” (D&C 130:22)

You are out of the loop because Mormons are not catechised on the truth as it really is. Odd that you’ve never heard of the controversy - it’s on the FAIR site so it’s obviously something that’s come to the attention of someone in LDS leadership. Also, if anyone is curious as to what is meant when ex-LDS members refer to “mental gymnastics”, this is the LDS Mental Gymnastics Olympics.

But there’s actually a very good explanation as to why the concept is new to you. Mormons are only catechised on what the LDS leadership wants you to learn. Emma was not a modern-day Mary, she left the LDS church and followed the RLDS leadership. Also, she pitched a fit when she heard about Celestial Marriage. The Book of Mormon has been changed over 1,500 times. Not one hieroglyphic of the Book of Abraham was translated into anything resembling a real translation. There are multiple versions of the First Vision given by Joseph Smith, and the one currently in the Pearl of Great Price is a conglomerate of a couple of the last versions.

None of these things are taught in Seminary, Institute, Relief Society or Elder’s Quorum. You haven’t heard them because the LDS leadership doesn’t want you to hear them.

And this doesn’t seem to bother you much, seeing as how you’re using the D&C to prove your point that God is 3 in1. Or God is 3 in 1 purpose. Or wait, what is your point again? I kind of got lost a few posts back.

 

[TexanKnight]

I have never even heard of the contorversy! I guess I am out of the loop. But then I tend to stick with the scriptures and the basics of the gospel. This is what the Doctrine and Covenants says: “For the Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit.” (D&C 130:22)

That may be true. But it is not what Joseph taught in the School of the Prophets and that he wrote in "Lectures on Faith.

“There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power over all things–by whom all things were created and made, that are created and made, whether visible or invisible: whether in heaven, on earth, or in the earth, under the earth, or throughout the immensity of space–They are the Father and the Son: The Father being a personage of spirit, glory and power: possessing all perfection and fulness: The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made, or fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and likeness of man”

Lecture 5

 

[mtolympus]

You are out of the loop because Mormons are not catechised on the truth as it really is. Odd that you’ve never heard of the controversy - it’s on the FAIR site so it’s obviously something that’s come to the attention of someone in LDS leadership.

And this doesn’t seem to bother you much, seeing as how you’re using the D&C to prove your point that God is 3 in1. Or God is 3 in 1 purpose. Or wait, what is your point again? I kind of got lost a few posts back.

I quoted the D&C only to show the “official” teaching of the LDS Church. Here is my point again from the Bible in case you missed it:

The Father and Jesus Chirst are separate beings. Jesus was resurrected with a body of flesh and bones (Luke 24:36-39) That is the way Jesus was taken into heaven and that is the way he will return to the earth. (Acts 1:10:11) Jesus’ resurrected body of flesh and bones is permanent for He will never die again. (Romans 6:9) Stephen saw Jesus, who has a body of flesh and bones in heaven standing on the right hand of God. (Acts 7:55-56) Jesus with His body of flesh and bones is separate from the Father, and when Jesus was compared to the Father, Jesus was desribed as “being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person.” (Heb. 1:3) This all makes sense only because man was created in the image and likeness of God. “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” (Gen. 1:26) emphasis added

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

The Book of Mormon has been changed over 1,500 times.

To be fair, the VAST majority of those changes are simple things like punctuation, word order, etc.

Not one hieroglyphic of the Book of Abraham was translated into anything resembling a real translation.

This, I think, is one of the biggest issues that Mormons haven’t even thought about. I know I didn’t even think about it in my Mormon days, which rather blows my mind now. I mean, I knew that Ancient Egyptian was a translatable language, but I never thought to see what Egyptologists would have to say about the facsimiles in the Pearl of Great Price or the surviving original papyrus. Mormons are left with 3 very unsatisfactory conclusions from the fact that what Joseph Smith claims the papyrus said has NOTHING in common with the actual translation.

1. Joseph Smith made the whole thing up (so much for the LDS church)
2. Egyptologists have no idea what they are talking about (it’s the world’s greatest coincidence that all their translations work even though they’ve got it all wrong)
3. The Hugh Nibley solution: The papyrus was not the real Book of Abraham, but God used it to give Joseph Smith the translation of the real Book of Abraham.

No wonder most Mormons haven’t even thought about nor heard about this most difficult of issues…

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

I quoted the D&C only to show the “official” teaching of the LDS Church. Here is my point again from the Bible in case you missed it:

The Father and Jesus Chirst are separate beings. Jesus was resurrected with a body of flesh and bones (Luke 24:36-39) That is the way Jesus was taken into heaven and that is the way he will return to the earth. (Acts 1:10:11) Jesus’ resurrected body of flesh and bones is permanent for He will never die again. (Romans 6:9) Stephen saw Jesus, who has a body of flesh and bones in heaven standing on the right hand of God. (Acts 7:55-56) Jesus with His body of flesh and bones is separate from the Father, and when Jesus was compared to the Father, Jesus was desribed as “being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person.” (Heb. 1:3) This all makes sense only because man was created in the image and likeness of God. “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” (Gen. 1:26) emphasis added

All of what you quote is exactly in-line with and understandable through the doctrine of the Trinity. I think you are confusing person and being, as most non-Trinitarians do.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

Do Mormons believe that Jesus was married ,answer after you read journal od discourses ol 11 P269 and then give your answer

It’s not an official teaching/doctrine per se, but in my experience growing up Mormon most Mormons believed it. They would cite things like the doctrine that to get to the highest level of the celestial kingdom you had to be married, so it would make sense that Jesus was married. Or that God has a wife, so why not Jesus. They would say that Jesus followed Rabbinical tradition by starting his ministry at age 30, and Rabbis were married by tradition, so he must have been. They would point to Mary Magdelene being the first woman to see him and insinuate she must have been his wife, etc.

 

[Porknpie]

This doesn’t explain why God the Son has a resurrected body of flesh and bones.

Olympus -

God is exists as Spirit (John 4:24)

God is Spirit, and those who worship him must worship in Spirit and truth.
and as a Spirit is invisible ( Colossians 1:15)

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.

but though the Son is one of three persons in the Trinity, is God and God is a Spirit, took the “form” of a man to dwell on earth (Phillipeans 2:5-8).

5 Have among yourselves the same attitude that is also yours in Christ Jesus,*
6 Who,* though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped.
7 Rather, he emptied himself,taking the form of a slave, coming in human likeness;
and found human in appearance

And the bodily resurrection was necessary (1 Corinthians 15)

12 But if Christ is preached as raised from the dead, how can some among you say there is no resurrection of the dead?
13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then neither has Christ been raised.
14 And if Christ has not been raised, then empty [too] is our preaching; empty, too, your faith.
15 Then we are also false witnesses to God, because we testified against God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if in fact the dead are not raised.
16 For if the dead are not raised, neither has Christ been raised,
17 and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is vain; you are still in your sins*.
God can “appear” when he wants, how he wants, where he wants to us on earth. He is God. If God appeared to Moses in a burning bush, he can appear in human form to us, and it was essential that he was resurrected in his human form. Why does this surprise you and what do you think he should have returned as??

 

[mtolympus]

God can “appear” when he wants, how he wants, where he wants to us on earth. He is God. If God appeared to Moses in a burning bush, he can appear in human form to us, and it was essential that he was resurrected in his human form. Why does this surprise you and what do you think he should have returned as??

Of course Jesus Christ was resurrected with a body of flesh and bones since He is the Son of God and man was created in the image and likeness of God. The resurrected Lord first appeared to Mary Magdalene:

“Jesus saith unto her, Mary, She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master. Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.” (John 20:16-17)

Why would Jesus have to ascend to the Father if they were not separate? And why would Jesus call the Father “my God” if they were the same being?

 

[TexanKnight]

I see MT can’t respond

 

[SteveVH]

Absolutly, Joseph Smith was simply stating the obvious. If there are three divine beings there are three Gods. Nevertheless, we worship the Father, the only true God in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ who was sent to us by the Father. (John 17:3) They are one God deriving authority from the Father to do the will of the Father.

Well, which is it?

The Father and Jesus Chirst are separate beings. Jesus was resurrected with a body of flesh and bones (Luke 24:36-39) That is the way Jesus was taken into heaven and that is the way he will return to the earth. (Acts 1:10:11) Jesus’ resurrected body of flesh and bones is permanent for He will never die again. (Romans 6:9)

Well, you got the part about Jesus’ body correct, but you still don’t understand that you can’t have one God when you believe that they are each separate beings.

Stephen saw Jesus, who has a body of flesh and bones in heaven standing on the right hand of God. (Acts 7:55-56)

I think most people today realize that the “right hand of God” is a metaphor for “power”, not a literal “right hand”.

Jesus with His body of flesh and bones is separate from the Father, and when Jesus was compared to the Father, Jesus was desribed as “being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person.” (Heb. 1:3) This all makes sense only because man was created in the image and likeness of God. “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” (Gen. 1:26) emphasis added

Scripture also says, referring to Christ and the Father “Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:” (Collossians 1:15)

Doesn’t sound like Paul thought the Father has a body of flesh and bone. One other thing to remember, Jesus “became” man. He didn’t always have a body of human flesh.

 

[jrtrent]

No…it is from Lectures on Faith. Joseph claimed that The Father was Spirit and the Son was flesh. LDS Apologists have tried desperatly to overcome that little issue, but their efforts are not pursuasive.

Your problem is, Joseph claimed the Son was flesh and that the Father was a “personage of Spirit”…how do you reconcile that?

Did you read the article at the link I posted earlier? What is it about the possible explanations there that you find unsatisfactory?

This is the one that seems most reasonable to me:

“the lectures affirm that God the Son has a flesh-and-bones body, humanlike in form, while God the Father has a spirit body, also humanlike in form. As mentioned, Joseph later knew that the Father, as well as the Son, has a glorious, incorruptible body of flesh and bone. No doubt, his understanding of the mode of the Father’s embodiment was enlarged and refined as he continued to receive and reflect on revelation.” en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_the_nature_of_God/God_is_a_Spirit/Lecture_of_Faith_5_teaches_the_Father_is_%22a_personage_of_spirit%22

Another article, link below, also says there are a couple of possible understandings for Joseph Smith’s saying that God is a personage of spirit, and goes into a bit of detail about the options.

“We cannot avoid the possible conclusion that Joseph Smith simply did not understand the corporeal or physical nature of God at the time the Lectures on Faith were delivered in the winter of 1834–35. His knowledge of things—like that of all men and women—was often incremental, and his development in understanding was thereby accomplished in “line upon line” fashion. . . A second possibility is that Joseph Smith did indeed understand that God has a body but that the passage in Lecture 5 under consideration has simply been misunderstood.” rsc.byu.edu/archived/lectures-faith-historical-perspective/discussion-lecture-5-supreme-power-over-all-things-do

I haven’t seen evidence of the “desperation” among LDS apologists that you mention, and I fail to see how this is an “issue” or problem for Mormons. I certainly don’t remember its being an issue or concern when I was a member.

What is the significance of the “personage of spirit” statement for you?

 

[jrtrent]

Why the ongoing quibbling over terms with respect to Mormon teaching on the nature of God? The question has been answered numerous times in this thread along with links to articles and websites full of more detailed information. You don’t need to accept Mormon teaching on the subject, but it really isn’t so hard to understand.

". . . we know that the members of the Godhead are three separate beings. The Father and the Son have tangible bodies of flesh and bones, and the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit (see D&C 130:22).

Although the members of the Godhead are distinct beings with distinct roles, they are one in purpose and doctrine. They are perfectly united in bringing to pass Heavenly Father’s divine plan of salvation." lds.org/topics/godhead

By contrast, the orthodox understanding of the trinity is:

"Following the Holy Scriptures and the Church Fathers, the Church believes that the Trinity is three divine persons (hypostases) who share one essence (ousia). It is paradoxical to believe thus, but that is how God has revealed himself. All three persons are consubstantial with each other, that is, they are of one essence (homoousios) and coeternal. There never was a time when any of the persons of the Trinity did not exist. . .

The source and unity of the Holy Trinity is the Father, from whom the Son is begotten and also from whom the Spirit proceeds. Thus, the Father is both the ground of unity of the Trinity and also of distinction. To try to comprehend unbegottenness (Father), begottenness (Son), or procession (Holy Spirit) leads to insanity, says the holy Gregory the Theologian, and so the Church approaches God in divine mystery, approaching God apophatically, being content to encounter God personally and yet realize the inadequacy of the human mind to comprehend Him." orthodoxwiki.org/Holy_Trinity

 

[twopekinguys]

Why the ongoing quibbling over terms with respect to Mormon teaching on the nature of God?

The answer to this is quite obvious.

If everyone is using their own definition for a word as opposed to everyone using the same definition, then you have people agreeing to things they really don’t agree with.

Simply put. Mormons believe in ***a ***trinity, Bit it is not ***the ***trinity rest of Christianity does. Because of the difference in definitions.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

“Jesus saith unto her, Mary, She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master. Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.” (John 20:16-17)

Why would Jesus have to ascend to the Father if they were not separate? And why would Jesus call the Father “my God” if they were the same being?

Again, you are showing a clear misunderstanding of the difference between “person” and “being.” This understandable; in everyday language we use person and being interchangeably. But in theology they are different things entirely. To clarify matters, perhaps try using “substance” instead of “being.”

Also, remember that Christ was 100% God and 100% human. That can help clarify matters when Jesus speaks of “my God.”

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

Why the ongoing quibbling over terms with respect to Mormon teaching on the nature of God?

We are “quibbling” because Mormons have been consistently trying to claim that their beliefs concerning God are not really all that different from Christian beliefs and therefore they are Christian. This is simply not true. It constantly amazes me how difficult it is for Mormons to state that they don’t believe in the Trinity, but instead believe in a plurality of Gods, when the teachings from their own church are so clear on the matter, not to mention it is the blatant and unavoidable logical conclusion of their theology.

Perhaps some are so uncomfortable admitting openly and clearly such falsehoods about the nature of God because the God, truth, and rationality (one of our faculties that is made in the image of God) is quietly whispering to them that it is not true.

 

[mtolympus]

We are “quibbling” because Mormons have been consistently trying to claim that their beliefs concerning God are not really all that different from Christian beliefs and therefore they are Christian. This is simply not true.

The LDS beliefs on the trinity are very different than the Catholic view. We believe that Catholic doctrine on the trinity, including your obsession with absolute monotheism, came from the Nicene Creed which defined your beliefs in 425 AD. If LDS beliefs were “not really all that different” there would have been no need for the restoration of the true gospel of Jesus Christ.