Mormons and authority

[Tarquin]

1

To the question, “why does no other Christian Church in the world Protestant or Catholic consider your Church a Christ like Church?, you replied:

Hearken to these plain and precious truths given by the Lord (who cannot lie) unto Mormons:

*“For if there be no Christ there be no God;”- 2 Nephi 11:7 *
(3 = 1 because: if 3 - 1 = 0, then 3 = 1)

Janderich: And the next statement is,“if there be no God we are not.” I believe this makes three, God, Christ, and ourselves; all individual, all distinct. You see 3 does not = 1, I could ask my 5 year old and she would get it right. However, 1+1+1 does equal 3.

Thank you. I did go back and check. You are correct. After “If there be no Christ there be no God,” the verse does indeed continue, “and if there be no God we are not,” and further adds explains, “for there could have been no creation.” Finally the verse returns to its original statement (as so many verses in the Book of Mormon do): *“But there is a God, and he is Christ, and he cometh in the fulness of his own time.” *

You are trying hard, and I appreciate such determination and willingness to analyze to get to the root of issues. However, your explanation in this case is faulty primarily for the following reason. I’m speaking in terms of the Book of Mormon, not the Bible, not Catholic doctrine, and not my own beliefs, but the Book of Mormon itself:

In the case with Jesus, the statement is not “if there be no God, then Jesus is not” but if there is no Jesus. then God is not!" No “some God” or “a God” or “one-third of the Gods” but, singular, singly, and solely, “God.”

Do you agree that in one case (if no “God,” then no “we”) the object (“we” - people) is dependent on God’s existence; and in the other case God himself is either dependent on the existence of another (Jesus) or is that other by identity (if no “Jesus,” then no “God”)?

Though some of these should be straightforward, when the obvious is denied, it takes quite a bit more work to elucidate. I will make an honest attempt to respond to your other commentary as I am able.

God bless you in your search for True God.

 

[Tarquin]

2

J: You see 3 does not = 1, I could ask my 5 year old and she would get it right. However, 1+1+1 does equal 3.

To which I, Tarquin, reply, I agree that 1+1+1=3. If you are suggesting that that is what the Book of Mormon is saying, you would be wrong. If those 3 are God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost, then if you were to take away one, Jesus, you would then have 1+1=2.

But since what the numbers are equal to is “God”, then you are saying that if you have “God the Father” + “God the Son” + “God the Holy Spirit” = “One God”
and then subtract Jesus, you still have the two adding up to “One God:”
“God the Father” + “God the Holy Spirit” = “One God”

However reasonable that may seem to you, and however reasonable it may be to assert that two Gods equal one God or two Gods have the power of three Gods, it is contrary to what the Book of Mormon actually, clearly states. I am not primarily arguing against its reasonableness, though there is merit in that. What I am claiming is that you are arguing against the Book of Mormon not for it. The Book of Mormon says:
“One God” minus “Jesus” = “no God”. Do you not see that? “For if there be no Christ there be no God.”

God is not “an office” or “a title” or “a function.” God refers to the transcendent, dependentless, single, whole, “perfect” (in the philosophical sense) Be-ing. That is the God that the Book of Mormon is talking about.

One problem is that when the Book of Mormon was written, “God” was seen by Joseph Smith and his followers in the traditional Christian way, as a Being transcendent of human limitations. After a few years, however, and for whatever reasons, the concept of “God” was redefined as a more evolved human being, but still a human being, and still with limitations. So passages in the Book of Mormon that refer to God are talking about a transcendent Being, while today’s Mormon’s beliefs in God are about an ordinary human who has some extra knowledge. For Mormons, God is a genius rather than a genus.

 

[TexanKnight]

2
To which I, Tarquin, reply, I agree that 1+1+1=3. If you are suggesting that that is what the Book of Mormon is saying, you would be wrong. If those 3 are God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost, then if you were to take away one, Jesus, you would then have 1+1=2.

But since what the numbers are equal to is “God”, then you are saying that if you have “God the Father” + “God the Son” + “God the Holy Spirit” = “One God”
and then subtract Jesus, you still have the two adding up to “One God:”
“God the Father” + “God the Holy Spirit” = “One God”

However reasonable that may seem to you, and however reasonable it may be to assert that two Gods equal one God or two Gods have the power of three Gods, it is contrary to what the Book of Mormon actually, clearly states. I am not primarily arguing against its reasonableness, though there is merit in that. What I am claiming is that you are arguing against the Book of Mormon not for it. The Book of Mormon says:
“One God” minus “Jesus” = “no God”. Do you not see that? “For if there be no Christ there be no God.”

God is not “an office” or “a title” or “a function.” God refers to the transcendent, dependentless, single, whole, “perfect” (in the philosophical sense) Be-ing. That is the God that the Book of Mormon is talking about.

One problem is that when the Book of Mormon was written, “God” was seen by Joseph Smith and his followers in the traditional Christian way, as a Being transcendent of human limitations. After a few years, however, and for whatever reasons, the concept of “God” was redefined as a more evolved human being, but still a human being, and still with limitations. So passages in the Book of Mormon that refer to God are talking about a transcendent Being, while today’s Mormon’s beliefs in God are about an ordinary human who has some extra knowledge. For Mormons, God is a genius rather than a genus.

it is important to remember that mormons, like many of the heresies, have made God into something small that can be understood by humans. That is why their god is a former sinful man.

 

[JamesCollins]

it is important to remember that mormons, like many of the heresies, have made God into something small that can be understood by humans. That is why their god is a former sinful man.

A lot of Mormons claim their Father in Heaven was a Savior on another world who was perfect. They don’t really know – He might have been a former sinful man or he might have been like Jesus. Of course when they become gods they will have formerly been sinful people themselves so some planet out there is going to be dealing with a forgiven god. Their Mormon prophets don’t really know much about it.

 

[Tarquin]

3

[Tarquin]: “Therefore, I would that ye should be steadfast and immovable, always abounding in good works, that Christ, the Lord God Omnipotent . . .” - Mosiah 5:15 (apposition not concatenation)

I see no contradiction here, just because one person is omnipotent doesn’t mean another cannot be. It is not a competition, the will of the Father is the will of the Son.

Of course you see no contradiction. But not because there isn’t one. Mormons are determined to see no fault in the Book of Mormon and at the same time no fault in current Church teachings. They are told feelings and faith are more credible than evidence and reasoning. Mormons are trained to take this stance because that is what their prophets have taught for over a hundred years. Christians are not to be trusted, except Mormon Christians. To wit: “With a regard to true theology, a more ignorant people never lived than the present so-called Christian world.” (Brigham Young) “Christianity…is a perfect pack of nonsense…” (Prophet Taylor) “Are Christians ignorant? Yes, as ignorant of the things of God as the brute beast.” (same). Makes one wonder why Mormons try so hard to be recognized as Christians.

That is what I think prevents some from seeing clear contradictions between their scriptures and their current teachings.

If so many people see a religious tenet as inadequate, it may be that they are wicked, lying or stupid. On the other hand, some may really see what they say they see. If you could see the above tenet from the point of view of the honest people, would it hurt? You would have courageously embraced truth, rather than fearfully fled it because it’s different from what you already believe.

But again, Janderich, you miss the point. Two Beings cannot both be omnipotent. If each were truly omnipotent, neither could have power over the other. The potency of each is limited by the potency of the other! If two are omnipotent, neither is. One would create a blue sky; the other, a green sky. One would forgive; the other, condemn. One would restore the priesthood; the other, remove it. If something prevented them from having power over each other, or drove them to cooperate, that would be the omnipotent thing. If there is any omnipotent Being, it cannot be other than a Single, Simple, Unified, Indivisible Being.

But here’s the larger problem. You skipped the issue of the number of Gods there are, and whether Jesus is God and went off on a tangent about omnipotence! The question was the number of Gods and who they are. Read the verse again: “Christ the Lord God Omnipotent”. Note: “Christ the Lord God.” Not “a Lord God.” I believe the final phrase in the verse also refers to Jesus, as do other characteristics normally ascribed to God the Father:

3:5 For behold, the time cometh, and is not far distant, that with power, the Lord Omnipotent who reigneth, who was, and is from all eternity to all eternity, shall come down from heaven among the children of men, and shall dwell in a tabernacle of clay …
5:7 And now, because of the covenant which ye have made ye shall be called the children of Christ, his sons, and his daughters.

Clearly, “the Lord Omnipotent” who “was and is from all eternity to all eternity” is God the Father, while the one who “shall come down from heaven among the children of men” is God the Son. However, they are the same Being. There is no contradiction. I mean, there is no contradiction with Catholic teaching, although there is profound contradiction with Mormon teaching which can only not be seen if I drop my eyelids, jam my fingers into my ear-holes, and loudly ululate, “La-la-la-la-la.”

Lest there be doubt:

3:8 And he shall be called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning; and his mother shall be called Mary.

Jesus Christ the Son of God is the Father (God the Father) of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning, and Mary, to borrow Catholic terminology, is “the Mother of God.”

Mormons have thoroughly confused their theology. “Children of Christ” in lieu of children of God. Of course King Benjamin could have been offering merely his opinion. There is no reason to believe anything that Benjamin said was inspired or sanctioned by God. For all we know, he was a heretic. In fact, he certainly was! He encouraged the violation of the Mosaic law.

Mosiah 2:3 And they also took of the firstlings of their flocks, that they might offer sacrifice and burnt offerings according to the law of Moses.”
… they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, Hebrews 8:8-9
…‘Their hearts are always going astray, and they have not known my ways.’ So I declared on oath in my anger, ‘They shall never enter my rest.’ Hebrews 3:10-11 Were there no priests? If not who performed the sacrifice? Were there priests? If so, how was it that the people had firstlings? It seems unlikely there were priests as not until 6:3 does the record say priests were “appointed.” Those might have been false priests, however. Ordination is superior to appointment, but that was not mentioned. Benjamin taught false doctrine and participated in practices contrary to the Law of Moses. If one is going to weave a tale of a Biblical people, he should know his Bible, or his tale will suffer many contradictions, and people will notice. Then one can either admit his error, or dig in his feet and thereby compound his errors.

 

[Tarquin]

“And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations” – Book of Mormon “Title Page”

Again, no contradiction. Christ is the eternal God, the Father is the eternal God.

Howin God’s name can you say Catholics are wrong to believe in one God manifest in three persons when you are doing the exact same thing! It is because you are using the word “God” as an office or title, which it is not. “God” refers to the Being Himself, not his function. Of course from your perspective, many people can be gods because its an office like deacon or street-sweeper, just a more elevated one. Truly, Mormons cannot comprehend Deity. Deity itself. You comprehend the notions of creation, maintenance, mercy, forgiveness, judging, punishment, salvation, exaltation. But they are all based on a humanistic religious foundation. For Mormons, there is no God! For Mormons there is an eternity of aliens (“god-men” or “men-gods”) creating and procreating, one after the other. And one of the worst, most impossible parts, is that Mormons believe this has been going on for an impossibly “infinite” amount of time.

We’re talking in circles as long as your notion of God is so contrary to the Bible, contrary to the Book of Mormon, and contrary to reason itself.

Janderich, maybe what you need is to clarify the Nature of God before you can see what’s wrong with the Book of Mormon teaching two Gods in one, which it does, in the traditional Christian sense, not in the sense that Mormons now see God as an “exalted man” who got his position by learning more laws better than others have done. That is the contradiction. Not that there are or are not two Gods, but that the Book of Mormon teaches traditional Christian thought – One God in Two/Three Persons – while Mormon people teach Three Gods in Three Persons. (Actually more than three, but for the sake of this thread, three.)

It is so frustrating to try to talk about God with someone who has no concept of God.

When I say the Nature of God, I am not talking about human beings of any calibre. I am talking about what it is that makes it so that something exists rather than nothing, and that makes it possible for there to be such things as matter, motion, awareness, conscience, attraction, curiosity, love, a sense of justice, a sense of beauty, a sense of truth. What makes that happen, either brought it into being or maintains it now that it is in being?

You lack an understanding of “God” the Being that is the Creator of the very beginning of everything, not just a star-maker and body-maker, but the One who created all the principles and relationships upon which your God depends for His existence (formed from primal immaterial “intelligence” into a spirit body, and that earlier spirit body somehow implanted into a later physical body and then taken out again, and then put back in again (except for sons of perdition)), authority (Priesthood) and progress (eternal progression with unending numbers of spirit children).

 

[FathersKnowBest]

2
To which I, Tarquin, reply, I agree that 1+1+1=3. If you are suggesting that that is what the Book of Mormon is saying, you would be wrong. If those 3 are God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost, then if you were to take away one, Jesus, you would then have 1+1=2.

But since what the numbers are equal to is “God”, then you are saying that if you have “God the Father” + “God the Son” + “God the Holy Spirit” = “One God”
and then subtract Jesus, you still have the two adding up to “One God:”
“God the Father” + “God the Holy Spirit” = “One God”

The problem is with the equation. It’s not 1+1+1; rather, it’s
infinity + infinity + infinity = infinity

 

[FathersKnowBest]

it is important to remember that mormons, like many of the heresies, have made God into something small that can be understood by humans. That is why their god is a former sinful man.

Exactly. See my previous post.
infinity + infinity + infinity = infinity

 

[in_servitude]

But again, Janderich, you miss the point. Two Beings cannot both be omnipotent. If each were truly omnipotent, neither could have power over the other. The potency of each is limited by the potency of the other! If two are omnipotent, neither is. One would create a blue sky; the other, a green sky. One would forgive; the other, condemn. One would restore the priesthood; the other, remove it. If something prevented them from having power over each other, or drove them to cooperate, that would be the omnipotent thing. If there is any omnipotent Being, it cannot be other than a Single, Simple, Unified, Indivisible Being.

Thanks Tarquin.

I’ve been reading this thread as it has been going along, and I very much appreciate the attention you are giving to the issues raised.

Your point on our Omnipotent God is very illuminating. I just want to say that I very much appreciate your efforts, and I think that your efforts will ripple a long way from here (as folks like me carry it out to help others see the contradictions).

 

[Janderich]

…But again, Janderich, you miss the point. Two Beings cannot both be omnipotent. If each were truly omnipotent, neither could have power over the other. The potency of each is limited by the potency of the other! If two are omnipotent, neither is. One would create a blue sky; the other, a green sky. One would forgive; the other, condemn. One would restore the priesthood; the other, remove it. If something prevented them from having power over each other, or drove them to cooperate, that would be the omnipotent thing. If there is any omnipotent Being, it cannot be other than a Single, Simple, Unified, Indivisible Being.

The bold statement you have provided is false. As I said, “just because one person is omnipotent doesn’t mean another cannot be. It is not a competition, the will of the Father is the will of the Son.” It seems that trinitarian theology has confused this truth. The Father and the Son work together through the Spirit. One would not contradict the other or else they could not both be saved. For salvation consists in being like the Father. As Christ himself said, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). They do not compete. You have created a false competition.

Tarquin:

But here’s the larger problem. You skipped the issue of the number of Gods there are, and whether Jesus is God and went off on a tangent about omnipotence! The question was the number of Gods and who they are. Read the verse again: “Christ the Lord God Omnipotent”. Note: “Christ the Lord God.” Not “a Lord God.” I believe the final phrase in the verse also refers to Jesus, as do other characteristics normally ascribed to God the Father:

3:5 For behold, the time cometh, and is not far distant, that with power, the Lord Omnipotent who reigneth, who was, and is from all eternity to all eternity, shall come down from heaven among the children of men, and shall dwell in a tabernacle of clay …
5:7 And now, because of the covenant which ye have made ye shall be called the children of Christ, his sons, and his daughters.

Clearly, “the Lord Omnipotent” who “was and is from all eternity to all eternity” is God the Father, while the one who “shall come down from heaven among the children of men” is God the Son. However, they are the same Being. There is no contradiction. I mean, there is no contradiction with Catholic teaching, although there is profound contradiction with Mormon teaching which can only not be seen if I drop my eyelids, jam my fingers into my ear-holes, and loudly ululate, “La-la-la-la-la.”

Having begun down the wrong path, believing there can only be one omnipotent being in the universe, you have continued down the wrong path. Now arguing over the term “the” and “a”. Do you not see that there is no contradiction? If Christ, the Son, does as his Father would, through the Spirit, then they are both omnipotent and Christ can be called, “the Lord Omnipotent” as well as his Father. See the Father is in the Son through his Spirit (another truth lost over time) as he testifies to Philip, "Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me "hilip? He that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me (John 14:9-11). Christ is not the Father, nor is the Father the Son, they are different beings. But the Spirit that dwells in the Son also dwells in the Father. Likewise the Spirit of the Lord may dwell in us. It seems I have spent the better portion of this thread trying to explain the workings of the Spirit but there is so much false teaching that it is little understood or believed.

 

[iepuras]

The Father and the Son work together through the Spirit. One would not contradict the other or else they could not both be saved.

Wow. So you are saying that Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ needed to be saved? If they are God, why do they need to be saved? What do they need to be saved from? Who saved them?

It seems I have spent the better portion of this thread trying to explain the workings of the Spirit but there is so much false teaching that it is little understood or believed.

You have? Maybe it would be helpful if you defined who or what the “Spirit” is. The problem in discussing these things is that Mormons use the same words as Christians yet those words have entirely different meanings than what Christians understand them to mean. It is clear that the “Spirit” is not the same as the Holy Ghost who is the third member of the Mormon godhead. When you use the term “the Spirit”, Christians will often assume you are talking about the third person of the Mormon godhead, the Holy Ghost, when you are not. Perhaps a defining of terms is in order. Please define who or what the Spirit is as Mormons understand it.

 

[eddie_too]

janderich,

i would be happy if you would produce one shred of evidence of the mormon assertion that what the early church taught varied from what the apostles taught.

this assertion is the foundation of the LDS religion.

without any evidence of any kind, the LDS system is simply blind faith, unsupported by any evidence.

 

[RebeccaJ]

The bold statement you have provided is false. As I said, “just because one person is omnipotent doesn’t mean another cannot be. It is not a competition, the will of the Father is the will of the Son.” It seems that trinitarian theology has confused this truth. The Father and the Son work together through the Spirit. One would not contradict the other or else they could not both be saved. For salvation consists in being like the Father. As Christ himself said, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). They do not compete. You have created a false competition.

It is a matter of logic, not competition. If power is shared with 2,3,1000, logically, no one is omnipotent. You are describing ruling by committee.

As far as separate beings having shared will, this isn’t so in Mormon cosmology. Three heavens, each expresses a different will, each is ruled over by one of your Gods.

 

[TexanKnight]

The bold statement you have provided is false. As I said, “just because one person is omnipotent doesn’t mean another cannot be. It is not a competition, the will of the Father is the will of the Son.”

so two people have ALL the power? How does that work, exactly? That would mean that neither could have a thought of their own, because if it differs from the thoughts of the other, then how could either know who is right?

It seems that trinitarian theology has confused this truth. The Father and the Son work together through the Spirit.

Why is there a need to work together if each is omnipotent?

One would not contradict the other or else they could not both be saved.

So then neither is capable of independent thought?

For salvation consists in being like the Father. As Christ himself said, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). They do not compete. You have created a false competition.

No, you have

Having begun down the wrong path, believing there can only be one omnipotent being in the universe, you have continued down the wrong path.

lol…wrong path according to who?

Now arguing over the term “the” and “a”. Do you not see that there is no contradiction? If Christ, the Son, does as his Father would, through the Spirit, then they are both omnipotent and Christ can be called,

That is illogical. If my son does what he sees me do, is he then also a father? Not necessarily. Is he an attorney? No. Is he left handed? No. Your logic is severely flawed.

It is your trying to make God into something you can understand is your undoing.

".

 

[Janderich]

Wow. So you are saying that Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ needed to be saved? If they are God, why do they need to be saved? What do they need to be saved from? Who saved them?

No, I am simply stating what it means to be saved. Salvation consists in having the same knowledge, attributes, and power as the Father. As Joseph Smith said,

…or, where shall we find a saved being? For if we can find a saved being, we may ascertain without much difficulty what all others must be in order to be saved—they must be like that individual or they cannot be saved. We think: that it will not be a matter of dispute that two beings who are unlike each other cannot both be saved; for whatever constitutes the salvation of one will constitute the salvation of every creature which will be saved. And if we find one saved being in all existence, we may see what all others must be or else not be saved. We ask, then, where is the prototype? or, where is the saved being? We conclude as to the answer of this question that there will be no dispute among those who believe the Bible that it is Christ. (Lectures on Faith 7:9).

So the Father must be like the Son, and the Son the Father or they are not saved.

iepuras:

You have? Maybe it would be helpful if you defined who or what the “Spirit” is. The problem in discussing these things is that Mormons use the same words as Christians yet those words have entirely different meanings than what Christians understand them to mean. It is clear that the “Spirit” is not the same as the Holy Ghost who is the third member of the Mormon godhead. When you use the term “the Spirit”, Christians will often assume you are talking about the third person of the Mormon godhead, the Holy Ghost, when you are not. Perhaps a defining of terms is in order. Please define who or what the Spirit is as Mormons understand it.

Please see my post #83 in this thread. You could also investigate the reference to Widtsoe’s book found on the web. I also believe it is explained under “Spirit of the Lord” in Mormon Doctrine but I don’t have the book in front of me right now, so can’t be sure.

 

[in_servitude]

As I said, “just because one person is omnipotent doesn’t mean another cannot be. It is not a competition, the will of the Father is the will of the Son.”

In my effort to get my mind around this, I have to wonder how that could be applied in reality.

For example, in your future as a god, why not apply this principle to you and your wife (or wives)? It seems only fair.

You will be the all-powerful god - and what you say goes. And, your wife (wives) will also be the(another) all-powerful god - and what she(they) says(say) goes.

Is there a problem with that concept?

 

[Janderich]

It is a matter of logic, not competition. If power is shared with 2,3,1000, logically, no one is omnipotent. You are describing ruling by committee.

As far as separate beings having shared will, this isn’t so in Mormon cosmology. Three heavens, each expresses a different will, each is ruled over by one of your Gods.

The righteous ascend to one kingdom only, the Celestial. Indeed those who are not righteous will enter the Telestial or Terrestrial, but if there they will, to some extent, not be united as one. They will, in some form or fashion, walk there own way. To be like the Father, to be like the Son, is to be saved, “and to be unlike them is to be destroyed. On this hinge turns the door of salvation” (Lectures on Faith 7:16)

 

[Stephen168]

The bold statement you have provided is false.

It is true. All the eggs can’t be in your basket, and my basket at the same time.

The beauty of Catholicism is we have reason on our side. We know it is the true Christian faith, with true Christian authority.

 

[Janderich]

In my effort to get my mind around this, I have to wonder how that could be applied in reality.

For example, in your future as a god, why not apply this principle to you and your wife (or wives)? It seems only fair.

You will be the all-powerful god - and what you say goes. And, your wife (wives) will also be the(another) all-powerful god - and what she(they) says(say) goes.

Is there a problem with that concept?

I am as nothing. I reject the analogy of me as god. Even with a small “g”.

But God does not rule by force. He rules out of love. People will be drawn to him in this manner or they will not come. This is the problem I see.

 

[in_servitude]

I am as nothing.** I reject the analogy** of me as god. Even with a small “g”.

Oh well.

You say that it’s no contradiction to see that two people who both are be all powerful. People here are pointing out the problem with that issue. It’s very plainly problematic.

But God does not rule by force. He rules out of love. People will be drawn to him in this manner or they will not come. This is the problem I see.

This statement has nothing to do with my post. I find it patronizing.

The problem, Janderich, is that you’re trying to argue that:

Shared Power = Non-shared **Omnipotent **Power

You can’t work your way around a simple analogy that I placed before you. That’s the actual problem.