Mormonism

[Janderich]

Define omniscient, omnipotent, exist, eternal, God, eternities, progress, create

Very well, explain how something comes from nothing then we will discuss the above topics.

 

[TexanKnight]

Very well, explain how something comes from nothing then we will discuss the above topics.

That is a red herring argument.

Whether you believe in the true God who is, was, and ever shall be

or the lds who came from a ling line of gods who were once men (but had to have SOMETHING that started it all from the beginning

you believe in something coming from nothing.

Be Blessed

 

[Telstar]

Very well, explain how something comes from nothing then we will discuss the above topics.

The only One that has the power to create something from nothing is the All Powerful God, the Holy Trinity. He doesn’t need to start with anything. He “thinks” (wills) things into existence that never existed before. Yes, our God is that powerful. He doesn’t need to put things together like LEGOs. He created every atom and every molecule that exists in the entire universe, from nothing. If your conception of god didn’t do that, then he’s not God, at all.

 

[Allen2Saint]

I am not a Chaplain, but I, too, have taught in prisons. I believe we should be charitable to the people but very uncharitable to the heresies. If we do not speak out strongly against false doctrine, we acquiesce to it. If we do not speak boldly against untruth, we are de facto accepting of that false truth.

Our leaders have not told us to be meek against false doctrine, but to fight it with all our being.

My quotes speak for themselves.

As an ex Mormon who served as a missionary, I understand the danger of the doctrine.

Let’'s clear the air. Stop attacking me and my posts and stop trying to justify your behavior with my posts. If you choose to be uncharitable, which I feel you are, it’s your decision.

You should take a step back and look at what’s really going on inside you about your time as a Mormon. You attack their posts and their ideas with a zeal that is beyond the realm of just stating your beliefs. I am not being accusatory. I am simply stating what I see, which is that you are angry. The Mormons who visit is, unless they are breaking forum rules, have a right to be who and what they are and your anger isn’t going to stop them. Only love, as we have been told, will do that.

 

[Stephen168]

Very well, explain how something comes from nothing then we will discuss the above topics.

Defining terms is required before a discussion can take place; which is why I asked. Define your terms: omniscient, omnipotent, exist, eternal, God, eternities, progress, create

 

[Stephen168]

That is a red herring argument.

I agree. If you don’t define terms, how can you understand each other. Of course at times I believe that is the goal of Mormon proselytizing.

One Mormon claims Christ is THE creator and the next Mormon claims there was no creation. Clearly, they have not defined their terms; or one is teaching Mormon beliefs and the other is proselytizing.

 

[KathleenGee]

Didn’t a Protestant minister come on here stating that he worked with Mormons for 2 years, and found every single one having a different perception?

Mormonism is about man’s progression…so progression will depend on the person.

 

[LivingWaters7]

But she is a god/godess, just as the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost, who aided in the creation.

Right, however she is not a member of the Godhead. The Godhead has been defined as being the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Heavenly Mother (as well as other entities who have played/play important roles in salvation history), despite her role, is not a member of the Godhead.

 

[LivingWaters7]

The traditional Catholic understanding of hell (or hades) is that at one time it was composed of more than just one part. There was (and still is) the place where those who have chosen to reject God spend eternity and there was also the Bosom of Abraham which is where the righteous went before Jesus’ sacrifice opened the Gates of Heaven.

For Latter-day Saints, when we die, we go to the “spirit world”, which is divided into Paradise, for the righteous, and Prison, for the unrighteous and those that did not have the chance to accept to the Gospel in this life.

No. Jesus did not break the gates of hades. Those who turned away from God and chose hell were not allowed to leave hell and enter Heaven. His sacrifice opened the Gates of Heaven and allowed those who were in the Bosom of Abraham to enter Heaven. The passage refers to the hell sans Abraham’s Bosom (which no longer exists).

In the Summa Theologica, Augustine is quoted as saying that when Christ descended into hell (hades), “He broke down the gate and ‘iron bars’ of hell”. Is this incorrect?

No. Jesus said that the gates of hell shall not prevail against His Church.

Right, and His Church is made up of people, and I am making an analogy as to how death does not lay claim to us, and does not prevail, due to Christ’s atonement and resurrection, and how this also applies to a belief in the apostasy and restoration of the Lord’s Church, in light of the gates of hades not prevailing.

Oh, wow. Jesus’ Church DIED? I do not want to be accused of making assumptions so I am going to ask if the Mormon Church believes that it was the one that resurrected Jesus’ Church after its “death.” Please clarify.

The belief in an apostasy of Christ’s Church means that it (and the priesthood of God) was not present on the earth during that time. The Church did of course exist in Heaven, as it is not only an earthly body. However it was not present on the earth. Similarly, when Jesus Christ died, although He did die, He still existed elsewhere. This is therefore analogous to the situation with an apostasy. Jesus Christ did die, however He conquered death, and is resurrected. Therefore death did not prevail. Similarly, if Christ’s Church “died”, was not present on the earth, but then was restored by God, the gates of hell/hades certainly did not prevail, since the Church has been restored. That is one way to understand the “gates of hell” passage in light of a belief in apostasy. Latter-day Saints believe that God “resurrected”/restored the Church.

 

[LivingWaters7]

OK; I have read what you provided (thank you!) in the links. Some of it was presented to me in an earlier post. Both links state things that appear to me to be fallacious. For example, the article I am led to using the second link states:

Men and women can thus relate to him as a father and pray to him with the perfect assurance that he understands our struggles. His experience contributes to his empathy as well as to his omniscient and all-loving capacity to judge his children. President Young observed that “it must be that God knows something about temporal things, and has had a body and been on an earth, were it not so He would not know how to judge men righteously, according to the temptations and sin they have had to contend with.”

When a Being is omniscient He knows absolutely everything. Omniscience is not like a college degree that one can obtain by studying and learning. Part of the definition of God is omniscience; without it He is not God. It is the same with omnibenevolence. God (the Holy Trinity) has been in existence forever. God did not have to start off as a human being and learn. From whom would He learn? He created us! He created us *as *an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent Being but somehow He learned how to become omniscient and omnibenevolent from us? He was around long before human beings were around. He created us. He CREATED us. We were not living here on earth before we were created. We could not have been as we did not exist. God exists in all time - not us. He is the Creator - we are the created.

An omniscient Being does not have to be taught by His creations as to how to “judge men righteously…” An omniscient Being (and there is but one - God) knows how to judge men righteously because He is omniscient. I am no expert in logic but there is something wrong with the reasoning in what I read in both statements from both links.

President Young’s statement is not true. We are created in God’s image; He is not created in ours.

I will have to respond to the first link later.

God bless.

Thank you.

Latter-day Saints believe that we are created in God’s image. We believe that this is both physical and spiritual. God is embodied, therefore since we are in His image, our bodies are similar to His. Latter-day Saints do not believe that we were living on this earth before God created us.

On omniscience, perhaps this quote from Ostler’s boo I mentioned earlier will be helpful in understanding the Latter-day Saint view (which we readily acknowledge is not shared by traditional Christians):
**
Joseph Smith saw in this primordial story the truth that God confronts good and evil through direct experience. He interpreted these often overlooked scriptures to mean that God continues to learn from experiences forever and has always been engaged in this experiential learning process. Thus, even a person who is already divine has a reason to become mortal: to continue the process of learning through experience.

The idea that a divine person may learn through mortal experience something that cannot be learned in any other way also has biblical support:

Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in all things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of his people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succor them that are tempted. (Heb. 2:17–18; emphasis mine)

Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all that obey him. (Heb. 4:8–9)

These scriptures find an echo in Alma 7:12: “And he will take upon him their infirmities, that his bowels may be filled with mercy, according to the flesh, that he may know how to succor his people according to their infirmities.”

There is a type of perfection that is possible only through first-hand experience. Experiential knowledge is, by its very nature, gained only through experience itself. Though Christ was very God, yet he learned from the things that he suffered and was made perfect thereby. Elsewhere I have argued that Joseph Smith taught that there is an aspect of divine knowledge, experiential knowledge, that is inexhaustible and to which there is no end or intrinsic maxima.39 Thus, there is an infinite possibility of experiential knowledge open even to God.**

 

[LivingWaters7]

Was this a personal revelation from God to Joseph Smith? I have to admit I am troubled because something that is so important to me - the character of God - is defined in different ways by different Mormons. To me this means there is no authority that has been given the power to bind and loosen, as the Church was given by Jesus. It reminds me a bit of “Cafeteria Catholics” who pick and choose which doctrines and dogma they will accept (usually the ones that fit with their preconceived notions and allow them to continue sinning without feeling guilty). God is what God is. If some Mormons believe one thing and other Mormons believe another, opposite thing about God and if those differing beliefs are accepted by the Mormon Church, that shows me that there is a severe problem. Are those differing beliefs acceptable to the Mormon Church? Is there a teaching authority similar to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church?

In my view as a believing Latter-day Saint, this shows that there is no definitive revelation at this time on the matter. What has been revealed is that the Godhead consists of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, three separate divine Persons united in perfect love, purpose, power, will, etc as one Godhead, one God. The Father and the Son are Spirit, and also have bodies of flesh and bone (i.e. are spiritually and physically embodied). The Holy Ghost is only Spirit. On something that has not been definitively revealed, speculative teachings arise, such as what we see on this issue.

But Jesus is God and we would be gods, am I correct? So we are not at the same level as Jesus or God the Father or God the Holy Spirit? It’s true that we can share in God’s divinity and perfection, as nothing that is imperfect can enter Heaven. But even in Heaven we are lowly compared to God. All the saints in Heaven (and those in Purgatory) praise and glorify God. They do not believe they are equal to Him in any way. They are not omnipotent or omniscient. To Catholics and most non-Catholic Christians the height of our being in Heaven with God is to humbly adore Him. We can share some of His being but we can never become gods nor would we want to. Never.

What does it mean to “share some of His being” or to “share in God’s divinity and perfection”? For Latter-day Saints, God will always be our God, and will always be above us (i.e. we will not be at the same level as Him). Through the atonement of Jesus Christ, we become heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, participating in the life that God lives. We are granted the opportunity to sit in Christ’s throne with Him, the same as He sits in the Father’s throne, etc. Partaking of the divine nature, sharing in God’s divinity, etc. all mean to me that we will be “gods”, since that is what divinity/divine nature is referring to. That does not mean that we are separated from God, that He is no longer our God and Father, that we won’t adore Him, etc.

 

[LivingWaters7]

Again, it appears that what would be considered infallible (dogma) to the Catholic Church is relativistic in the Mormon Church. Some believe this, some believe that and it’s OK? As far as Jesus, He is God Incarnate. He was not a human being who became God. God the Father was never a human being. It doesn’t speak volumes of the power of atonement because if God sinned who forgave His sins? God? Did God forgive God’s sins? If God the Father was a man did He live on earth? I have heard that Mormons believe that God lived on another planet and if we become gods we will be given planets to rule. Is that true?

Again, for Latter-day Saints, where there is no definitive revelation from God on a matter, speculative teachings arise, etc. To me, this is analogous to the Catholic understanding of what happens to unbaptized infants. Limbo of Infants has been taught, not as a dogma of the Catholic Church, but as a doctrinally correct (i.e. it accords with what has been shown to be dogma) teaching. According to “THE HOPE OF SALVATION FOR INFANTS
WHO DIE WITHOUT BEING BAPTISED” from the Vatican, “The conclusion of this study is that there are theological and liturgical reasons to hope that infants who die without baptism may be saved and brought into eternal happiness, even if there is not an explicit teaching on this question found in Revelation.”, “The idea of Limbo, which the Church has used for many centuries to designate the destiny of infants who die without Baptism, has no clear foundation in revelation, even though it has long been used in traditional theological teaching. Moreover, the notion that infants who die without Baptism are deprived of the beatific vision, which has for so long been regarded as the common doctrine of the Church, gives rise to numerous pastoral problems, so much so that many pastors of souls have asked for a deeper reflection on the ways of salvation.”. Similarly (to a degree), on issues in the Church of Jesus Christ where there is no definitive revelation, speculative teachings arise that seek to explain those gaps, until the time where revelation from God is given on the matter. Speaking on these matters is speaking on areas where there is no revelation, however we may seek to speak on them in light of what has been taught and revealed.

To me, if one believes (I do not, and I believe that there is adequate support for the view that God the Father’s incarnation was like Christ’s, in that He never sinned) that the Father was a sinner who became God, whatever the process was where He was forgiven of His sins, as we on this earth are forgiven of our sins through repentance, and become clean, it speaks volumes of the power of that atonement and forgiveness if our sins are wiped away as if they never occurred.

Also, in light of this discussion of whether the Father lived on an earth, whether He was a sinner, whether He progressed from not God to God, etc., perhaps you will find some of the thoughts of Latter-day Saint author Blake Ostler. I am particularly fond of his books on “Exploring Mormon Thought”, and he has also written various articles available online. He posits that in light of what the King Follett Discourse actually states (noting that there are a number of versions of it, since they are based on hand written notes from those who attended the funeral), the Sermon on the Grove, and what the scriptures state, the correct way to view this matter is that God the Father is the Most High God, all others are subordinate to Him, if and when He incarnated on an earth, He was Divine prior to that, did not sin while on the earth, etc., since He did the same as Jesus Christ did (we believe that Jesus Christ was divine and the God of the Old Testament prior to His birth on earth), etc. While the best treatment of this is found in his book “Exploring Mormon Thought: Volume 2, The Problems of Theism and the Love of God”, Chapter 12, God the Eternal Father, you can read some of his views on this matter in his article “Bridging the Gulf”, a review of the book “How Wide the Divide? A Mormon and an Evangelical in Conversation” (I’ve read this book and found it fascinating). Scroll down to the sections “Robinson on God and Deification of Humans” and “Robinson on the Nature of God”

It has been taught that in becoming heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, we may receive worlds in the hereafter (as part of being heirs of God, living the life that He lives, etc., through Christ’s atonement). This reminds me of a part of the Jewish Talmud which apparently states this:
**
The Holy One, blessed be He, will in the future call all of the pious by their names, and give them a cup of elixir of life in their hands so that they should live and endure forever. . . . And the Holy One, blessed be He, will in the future reveal to all the pious in the World to Come the Ineffable Name with which new heavens and a new earth can be created, so that all of them should be able to create new worlds. The Holy One, blessed be He, will give every pious three hundred and forty worlds in inheritance in the World to Come. . . . To all the pious the Holy One, blessed be He, will give a sign and a part in the goodly reward, and everlasting renown, glory and greatness and praise, a crown encompassed in holiness, and royalty, equal to those of all the pious in the World to Come. The sign will be the cup of life which the Holy One, blessed be He, will give to the Messiah and to the pious in the Future to Come.

 Midrash Alpha beta diRabbi Akiba BhM 3:32**

Either way, this really isn’t something that everyday Latter-day Saints think about, as it is more peripheral to what is important to receiving the gift of eternal life in the presence of God.

 

[LivingWaters7]

I wonder about your statement about the gift of repentance. Repentance isn’t a gift. Absolution, justice, and mercy are gifts. Free will is a gift. We are able to repent because God gave us free will. When we repent and atone through the Sacrament of Reconciliation we are absolved of our sins - that is the gift.

To me, repentance is a gift. Repentance, forgiveness of our sins, is made possible through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, the ultimate gift from God. If Christ did not suffer and die for us, we would not be able to receive forgiveness of our sins, eternal life in His presence, resurrection, etc. So I’m grateful for the gift of repentance in my life. It is okay if you view it differently.

Thanks for the links. I will check them out (I have a sick cat to tend to so my time here is limited). It is certainly complicated.

No problem, hope everything works out. I’m a pharmacy student and also have very limited time here sadly.

 

[TexanKnight]

Let’'s clear the air. Stop attacking me and my posts and stop trying to justify your behavior with my posts. If you choose to be uncharitable, which I feel you are, it’s your decision.

You should take a step back and look at what’s really going on inside you about your time as a Mormon. You attack their posts and their ideas with a zeal that is beyond the realm of just stating your beliefs. I am not being accusatory. I am simply stating what I see, which is that you are angry. The Mormons who visit is, unless they are breaking forum rules, have a right to be who and what they are and your anger isn’t going to stop them. Only love, as we have been told, will do that.

Sir, I have not once attacked you. If you can point to any attack, please do, and I will apologize. I have not been uncharitable. I have done what Jesus and the Popes have told me to do- fight heresy. If you disagree with their teaching, that is between you and God.

Additionally, you seem to project. I am not angry at all. Yes, I attack with zeal. I do all the God has told me to do with zeal. However, if you seek to find anger, you will usually be successful. As I have stated, I have nothing against people, but I will fight as instructed the teachings.

Again, please show me an attack so that I may apologize. I simply disagree with your all-inclusive ideas that seem to go against what the Popes have taught us regarding heresy.

If that makes you feel attacked, then please accept my apology.

Be Blessed.

 

[RebeccaJ]

To me, if one believes (I do not, and I believe that there is adequate support for the view that God the Father’s incarnation was like Christ’s, in that He never sinned) that the Father was a sinner who became God, whatever the process was where He was forgiven of His sins, as we on this earth are forgiven of our sins through repentance, and become clean, it speaks volumes of the power of that atonement and forgiveness if our sins are wiped away as if they never occurred.

But this isn’t what Mormonism teaches.

“And now, verily I say unto you, I, the Lord, will not lay any sin to your charge; go your ways and sin no more; but unto that soul who sinneth shall the former sins return, saith the Lord your God.” - D&C 82:7

the correct way to view this matter is that God the Father is the Most High God, all others are subordinate to Him, if and when He incarnated on an earth, He was Divine prior to that, did not sin while on the earth, etc., since He did the same as Jesus Christ did (we believe that Jesus Christ was divine and the God of the Old Testament prior to His birth on earth), etc.

There is but One God. What you propose here is polytheistic.

This reminds me of a part of the Jewish Talmud which apparently states this

The opinion of one Jewish person doesn’t make it a belief, let alone a belief of what the Talmud is teaching. Further, LDS have a habit of cherry picking, and applying Mormon teaching to the teaching of other religions and cultures. Obscuring and changing the meaning of what is being taught to suit the purpose of Mormonism. I can’t say I trust what you have cherry picked here. I would need to see it in the context of Jewish teaching, NOT Mormon teaching.

 

[TexanKnight]

But this isn’t what Mormonism teaches.

“And now, verily I say unto you, I, the Lord, will not lay any sin to your charge; go your ways and sin no more; but unto that soul who sinneth shall the former sins return, saith the Lord your God.” - D&C 82:7

There is but One God. What you propose here is polytheistic.

The opinion of one Jewish person doesn’t make it a belief, let alone a belief of what the Talmud is teaching. Further, LDS have a habit of cherry picking, and applying Mormon teaching to the teaching of other religions and cultures. Obscuring and changing the meaning of what is being taught to suit the purpose of Mormonism. I can’t say I trust what you have cherry picked here. I would need to see it in the context of Jewish teaching, NOT Mormon teaching.

good response

 

[Stephen168]

] Oh, wow. Jesus’ Church DIED?

Yes, you would have to believe Christ’s Church died. Of course this is not a historical event but a belief made up in the 18th century. (It does make you wonder what the purpose of Christ coming to earth was all about if his church did not really require his physical presents.) After talking to Mormons long enough about the “Great Apostasy” of the “Great and Abominable Church,” I realized that simply put: Joseph Smith made up a bunch of stuff which is contrary to Christianity so therefore there was an apostasy. That is what you will find at the end of the day.

 

[TexanKnight]

Yes, you would have to believe Christ’s Church died. Of course this is not a historical event but a belief made up in the 18th century. (It does make you wonder what the purpose of Christ coming to earth was all about if his church did not really require his physical presents.) After talking to Mormons long enough about the “Great Apostasy” of the “Great and Abominable Church,” I realized that simply put: Joseph Smith made up a bunch of stuff which is contrary to Christianity so therefore there was an apostasy. That is what you will find at the end of the day.

To me, the worst part of the “church dying” is the cruelty Christ had to have.

Imagine…Christ knows what will happen in the future. So, assume the apostacy is true. Christ, knowing his apostles would all be killed, most by absolutely HORRIFIC methods, still sent his best friends out to die those horrible deaths KNOWING that the cause for which they would be killed by sword, being dragged thru the streets by horses, hanged, crucified, beaten with a club, beheaded, flayed, whipped to death, speared, shot with arrows, stoned and beheaded, and tortured and beheaded, was a cause that would die soon after their deaths.

I cannot imagine anyone more cruel than someone who would do that.

And Christ would never be that cruel.

 

[Stephen168]

To me, the worst part of the “church dying” is the cruelty Christ had to have.

Imagine…Christ knows what will happen in the future. So, assume the apostacy is true. Christ, knowing his apostles would all be killed, most by absolutely HORRIFIC methods, still sent his best friends out to die those horrible deaths KNOWING that the cause for which they would be killed by sword, being dragged thru the streets by horses, hanged, crucified, beaten with a club, beheaded, flayed, whipped to death, speared, shot with arrows, stoned and beheaded, and tortured and beheaded, was a cause that would die soon after their deaths.

I cannot imagine anyone more cruel than someone who would do that.

And Christ would never be that cruel.

Very true!!

 

[Janderich]

The only One that has the power to create something from nothing is the All Powerful God, the Holy Trinity. He doesn’t need to start with anything. He “thinks” (wills) things into existence that never existed before. Yes, our God is that powerful. He doesn’t need to put things together like LEGOs. He created every atom and every molecule that exists in the entire universe, from nothing. If your conception of god didn’t do that, then he’s not God, at all.

Thanks Lori. In many ways this view is consistent. However, it does ignore fundamental laws of nature. Do Catholic’s believe that God can break the laws of the universe? I believe God works within laws. Yes, he has the ability to use these laws in ways we do not understand but he still abides law. This does not diminish God in my eyes. It is simply fact. It does not mean he is not omnipotent, for to do otherwise would be impossible. I also find it ennobles the work that science is trying to accomplish.

Defining terms is required before a discussion can take place; which is why I asked. Define your terms: omniscient, omnipotent, exist, eternal, God, eternities, progress, create

Stephen, Don’t you think discussing the term “create” is a good and fair beginning?