MERGED Questions about Mormonism

[mtolympus]

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.”

The phrase, “of one substance” was introduced into the Nicene creed by Constantine. This is the point of my previous post.

 

[TexanKnight]

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?

Well…if you comapre it with D&C, the Holy Spirit is called “a personage of Spirit”. So, it means Spirit. Unless you want to tell me that the Holy Spirit is really flesh.

Yes, I read your apologetic response. It does not hold water. Joseph said the Son was flesh and Father was Spirit. All your apologetics can’t escape that.

 

[mtolympus]

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

Why would any one who really believed the Bible think this was a metaphor?

“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness and: let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him, male and female created he them.” (Gen. 1:26-27)

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.

The Bible tells us that man was created in the image and likeness of God, not that God was made in the image and likeness of man.

 

[TexanKnight]

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.

Actually, monotheism comes from God who says that HE is the ONLY God, there are NONE before Him and NONE after.

Now, are you saying God lied to us?

 

[jrtrent]

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.

Mormon understanding of the nature of God, Christ, and the Holy Ghost is different from the traditional, trinitarian view held by Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and most Protestants. However, their faith in Christ and his work isn’t very different from “Christian” beliefs, and I’m not so sure they aren’t Christians.

“Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world and the Son of God. He is our Redeemer. Each of these titles points to the truth that Jesus Christ is the only way by which we can return to live with our Heavenly Father. Jesus suffered and was crucified for the sins of the world, giving each of God’s children the gift of repentance and forgiveness. Only by His mercy and grace can anyone be saved. His subsequent resurrection prepared the way for every person to overcome physical death as well. These events are called the Atonement. In short, Jesus Christ saves us from sin and death. For that, He is very literally our Savior and Redeemer.” lds.org/topics/jesus-christ?lang=eng

 

[jrtrent]

Well…if you comapre it with D&C, the Holy Spirit is called “a personage of Spirit”. So, it means Spirit. Unless you want to tell me that the Holy Spirit is really flesh.

Yes, I read your apologetic response. It does not hold water. Joseph said the Son was flesh and Father was Spirit. All your apologetics can’t escape that.

What I’m still missing is why it matters that he said it. Again:

“. . . 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_a…e_of_spirit%22

Why isn’t it acceptable to you that Joseph Smith later came to know that God the Father had a body of flesh and bones? I just don’t see the problem.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

The LDS beliefs on the trinity are very different than the Catholic view.

Thank you for admitting that. Now please tell it to other Mormons who are trying to reconcile the irreconcilable: Mormonism and Christianity. And yes, the fundamental nature of God is, well, fundamental to the gospel. Joseph Smith said as much when he claimed that:

God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret… It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know… that he was once a man like us… Here, then, is eternal life – to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves… the same as all Gods have done before you…”
(emphasis mine) “King Follett Discourse,” Journal of Discourses, v. 6, pp. 3-4, also in Teachings of the Prophet of Joseph Smith, pp. 345-346.

It is the first principle, according to your prophet. And it is SO vastly different from Christianity.

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.

Again, thank you for admitting that your beliefs are very different from Christian beliefs. It is refreshing to hear a Mormon admit as much, when most Mormons are bending over backwards to try to say that Mormonism and Christianity aren’t all that different.

As for our “obsession” with monotheism… will you likewise admit that Mormonism is polytheistic? The belief that there is more than one god, even if you only worship one of them? If not, I refer you to Joseph Smith’s quote above.

And finally, there was no need for the restoration because Christ promised that the Church would be built upon Peter and that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. The gates did not prevail and Christ’s One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is still around today.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

Mormon understanding of the nature of God, Christ, and the Holy Ghost is different from the traditional, trinitarian view held by Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and most Protestants. However, their faith in Christ and his work isn’t very different from “Christian” beliefs, and I’m not so sure they aren’t Christians.

“Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world and the Son of God. He is our Redeemer. Each of these titles points to the truth that Jesus Christ is the only way by which we can return to live with our Heavenly Father. Jesus suffered and was crucified for the sins of the world, giving each of God’s children the gift of repentance and forgiveness. Only by His mercy and grace can anyone be saved. His subsequent resurrection prepared the way for every person to overcome physical death as well. These events are called the Atonement. In short, Jesus Christ saves us from sin and death. For that, He is very literally our Savior and Redeemer.” lds.org/topics/jesus-christ?lang=eng

Yes, those sound like very Christian words. But once you start to delve into the Mormon meanings behind each and every one of them you will find major differences. Using the same words as Christians doesn’t make them Christian unless the words have the same meaning. For example, the Christian view of “Son of God” is so very different from the Mormon view. Mormons take it literally – that Jesus’ physical father was Eloheim (I remember a conversation at my dinner table with my father and a few other Mormons as they discussed the miracle of God’s sperm entering into Mary’s womb). “Redeemer”: not from Adam’s fall and original sin, since Mormon’s believe the fall was exactly what God wanted to happen and that there is no original sin. “Return to live with our Heavenly Father”: we can’t “return” because we’ve never been there before, and their concept of “Heavenly Father” is vastly different from Christian’s “God the Father.” We could go on and on and on.

The same words with different meanings don’t have the same meanings. Mormon theology, expressed using Christian words but without Christian meanings, is not Christian theology.

 

[mtolympus]

Again, thank you for admitting that your beliefs are very different from Christian beliefs. It is refreshing to hear a Mormon admit as much, when most Mormons are bending over backwards to try to say that Mormonism and Christianity aren’t all that different.

As for our “obsession” with monotheism… will you likewise admit that Mormonism is polytheistic? The belief that there is more than one god, even if you only worship one of them?

Do you believe that believing in God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost is polytheistic? Constantine had the solution to solve the problem in 425 AD. In describing Jesus Christ and the Father, Constantine suggested that the word homoousios, which is translated means “of the same subtance” be included in the creed. By decree of the Roman Emperor the problem was solved.

 

[jrtrent]

Yes, those sound like very Christian words. But once you start to delve into the Mormon meanings behind each and every one of them you will find major differences. Using the same words as Christians doesn’t make them Christian unless the words have the same meaning. . . Mormon theology, expressed using Christian words but without Christian meanings, is not Christian theology.

Different groups, all calling themselves Christian, have different understandings of several practices and terms used to describe their faith (grace, baptism, justification, predestination, even the nature of the Trinity is different depending on whether the filioque is inserted in the creed). Mormons may have greater deviations from what most would consider the norm, but that doesn’t make their use of the terms wrong and that of other denominations right.

I agree with this blurb from an article at the LDS website:

". . . if a special definition is created under which Christian means “only those who believe as I do,” then others might claim Latter-day Saints aren’t Christians—but all this would really mean is that while Mormons believe in Christ, we don’t believe exactly as they do. . . if the word Christian is given an overly narrow definition, then it is merely a way of saying LDS Christians differ in some degree from other Christians. No one “owns” the term Christian or has the right to deny it to others who worship Jesus as the divine Son of God. lds.org/new-era/1998/05/are-mormons-christians

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

Do you believe that believing in God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost is polytheistic?

No, it is not polytheistic. One God, three Persons. Monotheism = One God.

Constantine had the solution to solve the problem in 425 AD. In describing Jesus Christ and the Father, Constantine suggested that the word homoousios, which is translated means “of the same subtance” be included in the creed. By decree of the Roman Emperor the problem was solved.

The “solution” was before that, when the truths were revealed to the Apostles. The Ecumenical Council which formulated the Creed and subsequent dogmas was simply affirming truths taught by Christ to the Apostles and confirmed by the Holy Ghost. The emperor’s role in no way diminishes those truths, as you are implying.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

Different groups, all calling themselves Christian, have different understandings of several practices and terms used to describe their faith (grace, baptism, justification, predestination, even the nature of the Trinity is different depending on whether the filioque is inserted in the creed). Mormons may have greater deviations from what most would consider the norm, but that doesn’t make their use of the terms wrong and that of other denominations right.

Ok, the question is one of deviation then. At what point does the deviation become so great that the term loses all its meaning? If I said, “I am a Christian because I believe in Jesus Christ” and then you ask me “who is Jesus Christ” and I say “he is an alien that lives on the moon…” am I still a Christian? Where do we draw the line? The majority of Christians agree that the Mormon definitions of the word have too great a deviation to be considered Christian. Doesn’t that count for something?

I agree with this blurb from an article at the LDS website:

". . . if a special definition is created under which Christian means “only those who believe as I do,” then others might claim Latter-day Saints aren’t Christians—but all this would really mean is that while Mormons believe in Christ, we don’t believe exactly as they do. . .

The logic here is correct, but it is a straw man, presenting the argument against Mormons as simply being subjective and that’s that. We’re not saying “only those who believe as I do” but instead we are saying “only those who believe as Christians do, to an acceptable degree of deviation.” The word Christian denotes a believer in the Christian religion. It HAS to have some boundaries in order to be meaningful.

If the word Christian is given an overly narrow definition, then it is merely a way of saying LDS Christians differ in some degree from other Christians.

And if it is given an overly broad definition, then it becomes meaningless.

No one “owns” the term Christian

This is silly. No one truly “owns” any term (despite copyright laws, etc). I suppose I could start calling myself a Lilliputian. No one owns it, Jonathan Swift is long dead and the copyright has expired. But calling myself a Lilliputian, despite the word being “ownerless” does not make me a Lilliputian.

or has the right to deny it to others who worship Jesus as the divine Son of God. lds.org/new-era/1998/05/are-mormons-christians

Aha! This LDS article gets to the crux of the matter. Do Mormons worship Jesus as the divine Son of God in the same way that Christians worship Jesus as the divine Son of God? And we’re back to the reason why we’ve been “quibbling” over the nature of God. The Mormon deviation from the meaning of “divine Son of God” (all three nouns in that phrase) is so great as to be outside the boundary of Christian.

 

[mtolympus]

No, it is not polytheistic. One God, three Persons. Monotheism = One God.

Does this mean you believe in Person the Father, Person the Son and Person the Holy Ghost?

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

Does this mean you believe in Person the Father, Person the Son and Person the Holy Ghost?

Despite your mocking tone (and you are mocking God, by the way), you do have it somewhat right. The Father is the First Person of the Holy Trinity, the Son is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, and the Holy Ghost is the Third Person of the Holy Trinity. So yes, I do believe that the Father is a Person, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost. And they are all “consubstantial” – of the same substance – and that substance is God, so they are all one God.

This is the way that God has chosen to reveal Himself to us, the way He has determined is the best way for our miniscule minds to understand the Great Mystery of His Self.

 

[TexanKnight]

What I’m still missing is why it matters that he said it. Again:

“. . . 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_a…e_of_spirit%22

Why isn’t it acceptable to you that Joseph Smith later came to know that God the Father had a body of flesh and bones? I just don’t see the problem.

It matters because it shows Joseph was a false prophet with a doctrine that continually changed. I thought you understood that. A guy who claimed to see God more than once and talk to him all the time would not need to come to that understanding gradually. And his comments were difinitive in nature…not “as I have learned so far”.

Nice try. You are one of the nicest Mormons I have dealt with on this board.

 

[mtolympus]

Despite your mocking tone (and you are mocking God, by the way), you do have it somewhat right. The Father is the First Person of the Holy Trinity, the Son is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, and the Holy Ghost is the Third Person of the Holy Trinity. So yes, I do believe that the Father is a Person, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost. And they are all “consubstantial” – of the same substance – and that substance is God, so they are all one God.

Sorry, no mocking intended. Just trying to understand. It is usually my beliefs about God that are on the defensive on this website. Anyway, glad I have it somewhat right.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

Sorry, no mocking intended. Just trying to understand. It is usually my beliefs about God that are on the defensive on this website. Anyway, glad I have it somewhat right.

I am sorry if I misunderstood your tone – you know how internet posting can do that sometimes.

If you’ve got a little time for some reading, I highly recommend C. S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity, book 4. It is an excellent and simple introduction to the Trinity as believed by Christians (Lewis was Anglican). You can even find it online in PDF format here: usminc.org/images/MereChristianitybyCSLewis.pdf Skip down to book 4, which is on page 75.

I think that might help you understand the Trinity better, especially the differences between person and being. It’s a quick and easy read.

 

[jrtrent]

The word Christian denotes a believer in the Christian religion. It HAS to have some boundaries in order to be meaningful.

That’s an excellent point. I guess, at least in some ways, I draw the boundaries a little wider than you do. A church that accepts the Bible as scripture and endeavors to live by its precepts, a church that teaches that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, who suffered and died for our sins, who rose again and is the only hope for our salvation–I guess that’s Christian enough for me. I know that Mormons have faith in Christ, even if some of the things they teach about Christ is unorthodox. Oddly, I let seemingly more minor issues bother me more. For example, I can accept LDS or JW teaching about God and Christ as a heartfelt, honest attempt to understand the scriptures and live according to their teachings, but have a really hard time accepting as Christian those denominations that ordain women or condone homosexuality. Well, I’m still a work in progress . . .

 

[Porknpie]

That’s an excellent point. I guess, at least in some ways, I draw the boundaries a little wider than you do. A church that accepts the Bible as scripture and endeavors to live by its precepts, a church that teaches that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, who suffered and died for our sins, who rose again and is the only hope for our salvation–I guess that’s Christian enough for me. I know that Mormons have faith in Christ, even if some of the things they teach about Christ is unorthodox. Oddly, I let seemingly more minor issues bother me more. For example, I can accept LDS or JW teaching about God and Christ as a heartfelt, honest attempt to understand the scriptures and live according to their teachings, but have a really hard time accepting as Christian those denominations that ordain women or condone homosexuality. Well, I’m still a work in progress . . .

“Accepts the bible as scripture” with a very twisted interpretation. But even before you discuss the bible, one has to ask

“Was Joseph Smith a Prophet?” and was is the “Book of Mormon” equal to the bible?

Mormon.org states “Joseph Smith was a prophet just like Moses, Isaiah and others in biblical times” and that the Book of Mormon was translated (someone else can explain how) from golden tablets buried in the ground (that no one ever saw) and that the BOM contains the “fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ”.

mormon.org/faq/topic/book-of-mormon

So one problem with Mormonism is a belief in multiple gospels, the BOM having the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ while the bible itself is less, only “important, revered and sacred.”

 

[pmccombs]

So one problem with Mormonism is a belief in multiple gospels, the BOM having the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ while the bible itself is less, only “important, revered and sacred.”

Claiming a “fullness” is not the same thing as multiple gospels.