In a conversation I have been having back and forth by way of letters and emails with a LDS gentleman I met about a year go, he recently wrote that he wasn't going to address the many scriptural references that I had given him regarding the nature of God that contradicted the LDS view of God because, "I think I could do that but not to your satisfaction. Why? Because you view the scriptural passages through the lens of the Nicene Council’s work and the generations of traditional interpretation that followed."Focusing on only the triune aspect of God and not addressing the many other problems with God being a man who once lived as we do, he tries to assert that the Trinity is a fourth century development that forever changed the perception of God.
I wrote back,
"although I think that it is mere name calling by the LDS church, let’s assume for a moment that your statement is true. So what? It has no bearing on whether God is triune or not. I could say that you view the scriptural passages through the lens of a self proclaimed prophet from New York in the 1800s and the generations of traditional interpretation that followed. Oh wait, you do. So, why is one bad and the other good? The question that needs to be addressed is whether or not it is true.Check out this video from Dr. Michael Brown, a Jewish believer in Jesus Christ and founder of ICN Ministries, describing the clues we see in the Old Testament about the Trinity. Brown is responding to the common Jewish objection that worshipping Jesus amounts to idolatry and uses the Hebrew Tanach to show how the complex plural-unity of God was revealed prior to Nicaea and even the New Testament.
The triune nature of God is replete throughout scripture. There are things about the nature of God that only make sense in light of His tri-unity. But here’s the deal. You and I agree that the Father, Son and Spirit are distinct persons and are divine. We agree that the Father and the Son are of the same substance (Mormonism teaches that ALL people have this inherent god nature, while we have not arrived at godhood yet, we are innately the physical offspring of God). So the point where we disagree with regard to the doctrine of the Trinity is that there is only one God. This has nothing to do with Nicene. This is not a new interpretation. This is an ancient Jewish perspective that has not changed within the Judeo/Christian tradition until the 1800s with the rise of many new religions declaring restored truth about the nature of God/Christ that included Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christadelphians and Christian Scientists. Faithful Jews were and have always been monotheistic (Deut 6:4). That doesn’t mean that they only worshipped one of many gods like many of the Greeks and Pagans. The Jews were clear in that they believed that there was ONLY ONE true and living God and they were hated by outsiders for this belief. The God of the Jewish people said that He knew of no other gods (Isa 44:8). He said that all other gods were merely wood and stone and metal idols and had no power (Deut 29:17-18, 32:17-21). He says that He is the first and the last (Isa 43:10, 44:6); that He was the only one (Isa 45:5, 14, 18, 21-22, 47:8, Deut 4:35) and there were no others like Him (Isa 46:9)."
HT: I Love Mormons
Posts
39 comments:
What exactly does that mean - of the "same substance?"
What is substance?
I've never had a classical Christian apologist manage to explain that concept to me without completely contradicting himself, but you're welcome to give it a shot.
Hey Seth,
So out of all the references to there being only one God, you want to talk about the word "substance"? Ok, I’ll bite…
The simple answer is that the Greek word used in the creed, homoousis, means "of the same substance or nature." Jesus has the same inherit character; constitution; essence as the Father. This was added to the creed to combat and exclude the heretical ideas of Arianism (taught that the Son, while similar in nature, was created, not eternal and not equal to the Father; not divine) and subordinationism (taught that the Son, while eternal and divine, was still not equal to the Father in being or attributes; the Son was inferior and subordinate). The council wanted to make clear that Christ had the exact same nature as the Father, that He was fully God. So here’s the problem in Mormonism. LDS want to affirm that Christ is eternally divine, but according to Mormonism there was a time when Christ wasn’t (He didn’t exist). The same goes for the Father. Unless Heavenly Father was the Christ of His world, He wasn’t always divine as well. If they were both eternally divine, then the only examples of becoming a God are two persons who have always been eternally gods. This can’t give much hope to the LDS who hopes to become a god and who is not now eternally divine. Mormons want to deny the abominable creeds of Christianity and argue about what substance and nature mean, but believe that they are the same nature, essence, species as God, just not as progressed. According to Mormonism, we are all made of the same intelligences; we are literally the children of Heavenly Father, His offspring and gods in embryo.
As a Christian, I know that I have the same nature as my earthly father and his father, all the way down the line to Adam. I know that I am fallen. I do not have the same nature as my heavenly Father who is uniquely God, but has adopted me and now sees me as He sees the Son, who has His exact perfect nature.
So now I’ve shown my hand. You know what I believe. Seth, do you agree that the Father and Son are of the same nature? Is there more than one true and living God?
What Mormonism has done, I believe, is to push the problem to another planet. God is hard to understand, so Joseph Smith put Him in terms that people could wrap their minds around. The first problem with making Him a man who progressed to be a god, is that it's not Biblical. Another problem is that it doesn't answer the question: where did the first man come from?
It's the chicken or the egg, thing. Did a person spontaneously come to life on a first world, conquer all the laws (become perfect), and go on to become a god, after which he made new worlds and new gods sprang up? was there a first god that came from nothing, who created the first world, and started letting men become gods?
The Bible is the one that clears it up. The Bible says God exists outside of the 'natural', that He has always existed and that He created man.
I have no idea as to His substance. Chances are, I can't know, because I am confined to the natural.. in time, space, and matter, where He is not.
Tim, that just makes me ask what you mean by "essence."
But let's hold on a sec here.
Mormons don't believe there was ever a time when Jesus didn't exist.
Mormons don't believe in creation ex nihilo. We believe that all beings, and all matter is and are eternally co-existent with God the Father.
So Jesus is not an ex-nihilo created being in Mormon thought for the simple reason that there IS no such thing as a "created" being in Mormon thought.
So Jesus is perfectly co-eternal with the Father in Mormon theology, and your objection on those grounds is beside the point.
This is also why Mormonism avoids the problems of Arianism. We don't believe in creation ex nihilo. They did. That changes the entire argument.
Mormons believe in One God. Three individuals perfectly united in thought, purpose, and love. Social Trinitarianism, in a word.
…that just makes me ask what you mean by "essence." Seth, you know what essence means… it’s what is essential. It’s synonymous with nature, substance, inherit character and constitution. The point is that whatever God is, Jesus is as well and Christianity holds to that. The problem is that Mormonism holds to that as well, but adds that ALL MATTER is made up of this same eternally co-existent essential material thereby upholding the creeds plus some. My question is, what is it about the creeds (like the Apostle’s Creed and the Nicene Creed) that caused Jesus to call them abominable? You say that LDS believe in one God as well, so where is the discrepancy? What is it about “substance” that causes God to say in disgust and hatred for these creeds that it all needs to be restored? How has Mormonism restored these creeds?
Mormons don't believe there was ever a time when Jesus didn't exist. I understand that is what you believe, but (stay with me here) according to Mormonism Jesus exists now. There was a time when He was on this earth. Prior to his time on earth, His spirit existed in a pre-mortal existence. There was also a time prior to that when no other spirit children (you and I and everyone else that has ever existed) existed by Heavenly Father, when Jesus was the first born. Going back even further there was a time when Heavenly Father was mortal and Jesus’ spirit had not yet been conceived. We can go back even further to a time when Heavenly Father was in a pre-existent state. Even further back there was a time when Heavenly Father’s Heavenly Father had not yet conceived of Heavenly Father, and so on. Seth, help me understand here, how did Jesus exist before He existed? If all matter is co-eternal, including Heavenly Father, Jesus, you, me, that rock over there and the stale piece of pizza in the trash, what is unique about eternality? God uses His eternal nature, essence, as a means of differentiating Himself in scripture. God tells us that He is eternal, nothing else, especially not man or God’s creation is eternal. He makes a REALLY BIG DEAL about it.
Mormons don't believe in creation ex nihilo. In Christianity, God is the only thing that is eternal. Everything comes from Him. In Mormonism, the equivalent would be the intelligences. Heavenly Father is just the latest in a long line of gods and not even remotely all powerful. He is subject to time and a moral code outside of Himself. Does morality come from the intelligences as well? According to Joseph Smith, Heavenly Father, “never had the power to create the spirit of man at all.” He needs to procreate spirit children and raise them to become gods to progress. How is this any different than a pyramid scheme?
Mormons believe in One God. Three individuals perfectly united in thought, purpose, and love. Social Trinitarianism, in a word. Seth. Seth. Seth. Really? Come on now. This is exactly what I am talking about. Either there is one God and the creeds are not an abomination and Joseph WAY OVERREACTED (lied) about his first vision account or there are many gods (what Joseph Smith and Mormonism teaches) and you are lying. If this is the case, then the creeds should read, “We believe there are many gods but we only worship Heavenly Father” and my point is made that where we disagree has nothing to do Nicaea, but everything to do with monotheism.
No, I don't know what essence is. It's an utterly artificial neo-Platonist construct derived as a way of looking categorically at things. Personally, I don't think it's a very good way of looking at things. Nicene Christianity is simply laced with Greek philosophical constructs. And while these devices are certainly clever, I believe they yield utterly nonsensical results when wedded to the Bible.
Additionally,what makes you think spirit children are "conceived" in Mormon theology?
Where did you get this idea? A YouTube cartoon?
Incidentally, Calvin's TULIP IS an "abomination." All five points of it. I've honestly never encountered a more reprehensible and ugly doctrine in my life. Even reincarnation looks positively lovely compared to Calvin's monstrosity.
Also, keep in mind that the Christianity Joseph Smith grew up with and was surrounded with, is much, much different than the Christianity of today. You guys have evolved a LOT in a couple centuries. So I don't think it makes a ton of sense to ask what is abominable about today's Christian beliefs in light of a statement made about Christian beliefs 200 years ago.
Infant baptism, damnation for scores of undeserving people, opportunistic charlatan priests, denial of the gifts of God, claiming that God needs to basically shut up today because he said everything we care to hear in our precious Bible, the denial of the personal nature of God - turning him instead into some cold, passionless, cosmic blob of super attributes with not a trace of humanity to be found... All these things were thick in the air in Joseph's day. I imagine that's what he had in mind.
Final point: There is nothing unique about eternal existence. God's statements about his own eternal nature are basically affirmations of his eternal righteousness and his eternal commitment to perform his promises. It's not even remotely an ontological statement spawned of Greek philosophical concerns.
What's wrong with the universe just "being?" Why does it need a starting point?
In fact, positing a starting point yields ridiculous results. What on earth possessed God to create a universe in the first place?
Was he bored? Was he deficient in some way? What caused him to create at all?
If you want to talk about "essence," what exactly caused God to change his own essence from:
"a being that does not create"
to
"a being that does create"
?
No, I don't know what essence is. But you sure seem to know that it’s wrong. What are the “nonsensical results when wedded to the Bible”?
what makes you think spirit children are "conceived" in Mormon theology? I never want to misrepresent Mormonism. I’ve heard it from dozens of LDS (including LDS missionaries) that have explained it to me in this way often using the analogy of our earthly parents as a direct parallel to our Heavenly parents. I also find evidence for this idea in places like the LDS Eternal Marriage Student Manual. Under the heading of Eternal Increase we read,
1st Presidency—Heber J. Grant, Anthony W. Ivins, Charles W. Nibley “Man is the child of God, formed in the divine image and endowed with divine attributes, and even as the infant son of an earthly father and mother is capable in due time of becoming a man, so that undeveloped offspring of celestial parentage is capable, by experience through ages and aeons, of evolving into a God” (in Clark, Messages of the First Presidency, 5:244).
Elder Melvin J. Ballard “What do we mean by endless or eternal increase? We mean that through the righteousness and faithfulness of men and women who keep the commandments of God they will come forth with celestial bodies, fitted and prepared to enter into their great, high and eternal glory in the celestial kingdom of God; and unto them through their preparation, there will come spirit children. I don’t think that is very difficult to comprehend. The nature of the offspring is determined by the nature of the substance that flows in the veins of the being. When blood flows in the veins of the being the offspring will be what blood produces, which is tangible flesh and bone; but when that which flows in the veins is spirit matter, a substance which is more refined and pure and glorious than blood, the offspring of such beings will be spirit children. By that I mean they will be in the image of the parents. They will have a spirit body and have a spark of the eternal or divine that always did exist in them” (Melvin J. Ballard—Crusader for Righteousness, 211).
(Ooooooh, ooooh, Apostle Ballard uses the words nature and substance. I like him. He also seems to affirm that God is in fact Spirit and not flesh and bone. I really like him.)
Elder Bruce R. McConkie “Mortal persons who overcome all things and gain an ultimate exaltation will live eternally in the family unit and have spirit children, thus becoming Eternal Fathers and Eternal Mothers. (D&C 132:19–32) Indeed, the formal pronouncement of the Church, issued by the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve, states: ‘So far as the stages of eternal progression and attainment have been made known through divine revelation, we are to understand that only resurrected and glorified beings can become parents of spirit offspring.’ (Man: His Origin and Destiny, p. 129.)” (Mormon Doctrine, 517).
continued...
Brigham Young also taught, "God has made His children like Himself to stand erect, and has endowed them with intelligence and power and dominion over all His works, and given them the same attributes which He himself possesses. He created man, as we create our children; for there is no other process of creation in heaven, on the earth, in the earth, or under the earth, or in all the eternities, that is, that were, or that ever will be." (Journal of Discourses 11:122-123).
Apostle Bruce R. McConkie taught, "Exalted parents are to their children as our Eternal Parents are to us. Eternal increase, a continuation of the seeds forever and ever, eternal lives -- these comprise the eternal family of those who gain eternal life. For them new earths are created, and thus the on-rolling purposes of the Gods of Heaven go forward from eternity to eternity" (The Millennial Messiah, p.23).
Apostle Orson Pratt taught "As soon as each God has begotten many millions of male and female spirits, and his Heavenly inheritance becomes too small, to comfortably accommodate his great family, he, in connection with his sons, organizes a new world, after a similar order to the one which we now inhabit, where he sends both the male and female spirits to inhabit tabernacles of flesh and bones" (The Seer, p. 37).
So according to Mormonism, spirit children are the offspring of celestial parents with spirit bodies and Heavenly Father begat us in the same way that we create our children. Seth, if not conceived, then how are spirit children in existence? It doesn’t make any sense that spirit children are somehow eternally existent if after begetting millions of spirit children, God then becomes crowded and has to create a new world for sake of space. Again my question is, prior to conception; procreation; becoming begotten, how did you or Heavenly Father or Jesus exist eternally?
The TULIP is not a creed, is a thousand years after Nicaea and has nothing to do with the Trinity. The argument is a red herring. I could agree with you for the sake of argument and it makes no difference. I don’t deny that there was not a single doctrine that was held by men that was false. The point is that Jesus says, “All their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt.” I also reject your caricature of the Christian church in the early 1800s. All the atrocities you mentioned are still around today (opportunistic charlatan priests? glad that’s all cleared up) and there were certainly orthodox Christian churches that have not changed their doctrine in the last 200 years. I would argue that the change you are observing in the last 200 years between Mormonism and Christianity is actually the LDS conforming, although mostly in rhetoric, to try to blend in with Christianity. For goodness sake, when LDS describe God as “Social Trinitarianism,” what has become of Mormonism? Joseph Smith has to be rolling over in his grave.
continued...
There is nothing unique about eternal existence. I disagree. God tells Moses in Exodus 3:13-14 I AM that I AM, “I am the Eternal One.” According to you Seth, Moses should have said, “Well duh, who isn’t.” Whatever is eternal is the first cause or prime mover, if we are all eternal, then we are all in a sense God in a pantheistic way. All of God's attributes are infinite, they are without limit. There is nothing lacking in any quality of God. God is perfect. God's attributes are infinite. There are no limits to His power, understanding, etc. We are limited and that includes our existence. If His eternality is in reference to His righteousness or power, you would have to agree that because we do not have eternal righteousness and power that He was not once a man like us. Seth do you believe that God was a sinner like us?
What's wrong with the universe just "being?" 1. God’s word tells us that there is a beginning. (Gen 1:1) 2. An eternal universe has the HUGE problem of an infinite regression (without a beginning, we could never arrive at the present). 3. The evidence for a universe that has a beginning is overwhelming. 4. This idea has problems even within Mormonism because it teaches eternal progression. If everyone existed eternally, then how is it that some are chosen to be gods eons ago and some like Heavenly Father are just recently chosen to inhabit bodies and be exalted? Obviously not everyone will be exalted. Are the ones who will be exalted then eternally exalted? It’s starting to sound a lot like predestination.
As far as God’s creative essence, He does not cease to be creative because He is not physically creating. An artist does not stop being an artist while he sleeps. God was never a being that could not create.
“Man is the child of God, formed in the divine image and endowed with divine attributes, and even as the infant son of an earthly father and mother is capable in due time of becoming a man, so that undeveloped offspring of celestial parentage is capable, by experience through ages and aeons, of evolving into a God”
OK... and nothing in that statement demands a spiritual conception. It simply draws a parallel.
"there will come spirit children. I don’t think that is very difficult to comprehend. The nature of the offspring is determined by the nature of the substance that flows in the veins of the being. When blood flows in the veins of the being the offspring will be what blood produces, which is tangible flesh and bone; but when that which flows in the veins is spirit matter, a substance which is more refined and pure and glorious than blood, the offspring of such beings will be spirit children. By that I mean they will be in the image of the parents. They will have a spirit body and have a spark of the eternal or divine that always did exist in them”
This one is stronger. There is still room to claim this is mere imagery meant to express a relationship. But it does seem that Melvin J. Ballard at least is assuming the concept.
By the way, when Ballard uses the words nature and substance, I can almost guarantee you he didn't mean them in the philosophical and theological sense that you have in mind. Mormons throughout that period of the early 20th century, developed largely in isolation from the theological discourse surrounding other religions in the US. When a Mormon uses a term, you cannot assume the same meaning.
“Mortal persons who overcome all things and gain an ultimate exaltation will live eternally in the family unit and have spirit children, thus becoming Eternal Fathers and Eternal Mothers. (D&C 132:19–32) Indeed, the formal pronouncement of the Church, issued by the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve, states: ‘So far as the stages of eternal progression and attainment have been made known through divine revelation, we are to understand that only resurrected and glorified beings can become parents of spirit offspring."
Again, the imagery is there. But it still leaves us questioning whether the offspring are made such via adoption or generation.
Now for a couple more quotes to chew on:
"[I]f there be two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the other, yet these two spirits, notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum, or eternal. . . . These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all." (Book of Abraham 3:18-19).
Here we have a declaration of spirits being without beginning.
Then we have a string of Joseph Smith quotes about the eternal nature of spirits:
August 1839: “The Spirit of Man is not a created being; it existed from eternity and will exist to eternity.”
February 1840: “I believe that the soul is eternal; and had no beginning.”
January 1841: “If the soul of man had a beginning it will surely have an end. . . . Spirits are eternal.”
March 1841: “The spirit or the inteligence of men are self Existent principles.”
April 1842: “the spirits of men are eternal.”
Charles Harrell, Development of Mormon Theology, 85-86.
Then you get this:
"Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the INTELLIGENCES that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones; And God saw these SOULS that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were SPIRITS, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born." (Abraham 3:22-23).
And it seems the point is thoroughly contested.
Another Joseph Smith quote:
"[S]o I must come to the resurrection of the dead, the soul, the mind of man, the immortal spirit. All men say God created it in the beginning. The very idea lessens man in my estimation; I do not believe the doctrine, I know better. Hear it all ye ends of the world, for God has told me so. . . . [W]e say that God himself is a self existing God; who told you so? it is correct enough, but how did it get into your heads? Who told you that man did not exist in like manner upon the same principles? (refers to the old Bible,) how does it read in the Hebrew? It dont say so in the Hebrew, it says God made man out of the earth, and put into him Adam’s spirit, and so became a living body. The mind of man is as immortal as God himself."
Final Joseph Smith quote:
"Is it logic to say that a spirit is immortal, and yet have a beginning? Because if a spirit have a beginning it will have an end; good logic. I want to reason more on the spirit of man, for I am dwelling on the body of man, on the subject of the dead. I take my ring from my finger and liken it unto the mind of man, the immortal spirit, because it has no beginning. Suppose you cut it in two; but as the Lord lives there would be an end.-All the fools, learned and wise men, from the beginning of creation, who say that man had a beginning, proves that he must have an end and then the doctrine of annihilation would be true. But, if I am right I might with boldness proclaim from the house tops, that God never did have power to create the spirit of man at all. God himself could not create himself: intelligence exists upon a self existent principle, it is a spirit from age to age, and there is no creation about it. . . . I know that when I tell you these words of eternal life, that are given to me, I know you taste it and I know you believe it. You say honey is sweet and so do I. I can also taste the spirit of eternal life; I know it is good, and when I tell you of these things, that were given me by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, you are bound to receive it as sweet, and I rejoice more and more."
So who am I supposed to prefer here? Your sources? Or Joseph Smith himself and the Book of Abraham - canonized scripture?
As for whether the TULIP is a "creed" - it's not a formalized creed like the Nicene Creed, Apostles Creed, etc.
But this is not the only meaning of "creed." A simple definition of the word is that a creed is a statement of belief.
Under this reading creed simply means the formalized statements of belief of the churches of Joseph Smith's day.
And this statement is obviously not rejecting EVERY creed held by Christian sects in those days. Obviously statements of the divinity of Christ were not an "abomination." Nor would the Ten Commandments be.
So a couple points:
1. Christ's statement to Joseph Smith about the creeds thereof being an "abomination" is not necessarily targeting the formalized landmark examples of Nicea and so forth - but rather simply refers to held formalized beliefs.
2. Christ is not attacking all beliefs held by those Christian sects. His statement is not meant to be comprehensive.
But yes, I would consider the TULIP to be a creed - and subject to Christ's rebuke. Not that Christ deigned to be specific enough to finger the TULIP, but in my mind it's a pretty darn good candidate for an "abominable" piece of theology.
"if we are all eternal, then we are all in a sense God in a pantheistic way."
This statement does not follow - unless you ASSUME classical Christian notions of the definition of God - which Mormon theology rejects.
Just because you are eternal does not make you - by definition - God.
You are begging the question here.
"Seth do you believe that God was a sinner like us?"
I'm not particularly wedded to the idea. I'm sympathetic to the arguments of modern Mormon theologians that God was never anything less than divine at any time. They make a pretty compelling case for God being eternally "God" and never "a sinful man." But for now, I'm content to remain agnostic on the topic. It certainly doesn't bother me that God might once have been like I am.
Seems to me that the central point is that he's perfect now. Thus he merits my reverence and worship.
"God’s word tells us that there is a beginning. (Gen 1:1)"
According to your reading of the scripture. The Hebrew word here is bereshit. Here is a quote from an LDS apologetics site:
"The Hebrew word roshit occurs some 50 times in the Old Testament. The vowels in the word indicate that is a construct form - that it means "beginning of" and not just "beginning". Of the other 50 occurrences, 49 of them follow this pattern. The exact same construction with the prefix be- occurs in four other places (Jer. 26:1; 27:1; 28:1; 49:34), and in each instance is generally translated as "In the beginning of the reign of ..." The other instances of roshit follow this construct pattern except for one in Isaiah 46:10, where we read: "I am God ... declaring the end from the beginning." Here there can be little doubt that the word cannot be read as a construct. And this one occurrence is often used to justify reading bereshit in Genesis 1:1 as an absolute and not a construct. To which we respond, is a grammatical error in one location reason to justify an adoption of a similar reading here? Why should we adopt the reading favored by one example over the dozens of alternatives?"
Basically you're reading Genesis 1:1 wrong. It doesn't mean "THE beginning." It means "the beginning OF..."
As in "the beginning of our story."
No ex nihilo here.
If you'd like, I can also address the Kalam Infinity argument.
"It certainly doesn't bother me that God might once have been like I am."
And there you have it, the quintessential Mormon shrug over the issue of whether God the Father was once a filthy, carnal sinner, who now sings to the Most Even Higher God, "Amazing grace, how sweet the sound, that saved a wretch like me."
I'm sympathetic to the arguments of modern Mormon theologians that God was never anything less than divine at any time. They make a pretty compelling case for God being eternally "God" and never "a sinful man."
You'll have to be more specific, since some Mormons would say that and yet merely be affirming that God was always of the divine species, but not necessarily always fully God in the progressed sense of all-knowing and all-powerful, etc.... whereas other (even fewer, being in the extreme minority position) Mormons would say that same above thing and yet mean that God has always been all-knowing and all-powerful, etc., except for his kenosis experience, and without any qualifications for "spheres" of knowledge and power (as Brigham relativized "perfection"). Of course, both of these positions reject the traditional Mormon Lorenzo Snow couplet theology, and usually shrug at it as though it isn't blasphemous anyway.
Welcome Aaron and thanks Seth for your comments.
I invite any others reading to join in as well. This is a blog, not a private conversation. No toes will be stepped on.
Seth, I want to understand your position correctly, so let me repeat back to you what I hear you saying.
Heavenly Father, Jesus, you, I and everyone who has ever lived or ever will live are eternal beings that have always been and will always be. Heavenly Father is not literally our spiritual parent in the sense that we come from Him. We somehow are assigned or adopted under His parentage in the Spirit World after a time when He has already lived a mortal existence and pre-mortal existence under another Heavenly Father which He has no direct relation to (again adopted or assigned but not begotten in the sense that we understand). And this cycle will repeat endlessly to account for the infinite eternal spirits who are left waiting to become part of an adopted pre-mortal, then mortal, then exalted family.
Am I close?
I am sure that you could show me an endless amount of quotes that demonstrate the eternal nature of spirits, but most LDS I have talked with (and apparently many LDS leaders) have a very different understanding of eternal beings that they can come into existence (usually by a sexual means) and then become retroactively eternal somehow. There is also the complication of God being eternally God and yet being NOT God for a time. Seth, I am glad that you understand that eternal really means eternal, but with your position come problems. I will try to address them when I get confirmation that I understand your position.
Also, we have strayed somewhat (I am at fault as well) from the original post regarding the differences in the nature of God. Seth you have evaded the question of what is nature, essence, substance. Fine. My original intention for mentioning this in regard to the Trinity was to ask if LDS believe that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are equal with God?
It's close enough as a summary Tim.
Although I leave a bit of room for doubt as to what the true nature of time actually is and how exactly it applies to a being like God.
As for whether Son and Spirit are equal to the Father - I would say that they are fully equal - but that this equality is derived FROM the Father.
I would also assert that they propose to share this equality with us as well - if we are faithful and willing.
Hi Aaron. Good to see you again.
Aaron is wrong on one point - there is no hierarchy of beings in my view of exalted beings. Questions like - who has more power, or who is better, are meaningless within the profound unity of love enjoyed by exalted beings. God promises us all that he has in return for our willingness to unite with him in perfect love (perichoresis).
Love doesn't talk about "who is better" or who has the most Celestial wattage. These are crude and tacky concerns that have no place in a truly loving relationship.
Jesus himself hinted at this when his apostles were evidencing similarly low thoughts of hierarchy and asking which of them would be greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
Jesus then decides to break the paradigm. He sets a meek child in their midst and says whoever would be greatest in heaven must become as a child.
That includes God the Father himself Aaron. Greatness in heaven is not judged by hierarchy, or who gets to roll the most damage dice. It is attributed to those who are the most willing to share - and to embrace. He who is willing to sink to the lowest and embrace them lovingly in, and share EVERYTHING (even status) with them.
THAT is he who is greatest in heaven Aaron - the man who is so great that he withholds nothing from us - even godhood itself.
Even Mormons who reject Brigham's idea of the eternal progression of divine attributes like knowledge and power in favor of Pratt's essential view that all the exalted Gods are equal in knowledge and power, etc. still generally affirm a hierarchy of relationships, i.e. our Father remains our Father, and we remain a father to our spirit children, and our spirit-grandfather (if there is one, as taught by Smith) remains the father of our Father. Whichever way you go in Mormon theology, short of denying the existence of Heavenly Father's Heavenly Father (like Ostler does) or denying that exalted children will always worship their spirit fathers (something you sound like you might be open to rejecting), the hierarchy of relationships still remains for most.
As for me, my God will always be better, and greater, and more powerful, and have more Celestial wattage than me while I eternally progress in knowledge and love and power toward the unreachable infinite being that God is. It is more blessed to give than it is to receive, absolutely, but God will always be the ultimate giver, and I will always be an ultimate receiver.
Take care,
Aaron
Yes, and I'm saying God is bigger than such concerns. He offers EVERYTHING he has.
I'm OK with a bit of uncertainty here. It does not impact my commitment to - or faith in God the Father.
The doctrine of the Trinity
There is one eternal being of God – no
indivisible and infinite – yes
God is shared by three co-equal, co-eternal persons, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit – yes
The Father is not the Son - yes
The Son is not the Spirit – yes
The Spirit is not the Father - yes
The Trinity is based on three Biblical doctrines. 1) There is one and only one God, eternal and immutable. 2) There are three eternal Persons described in Scripture - the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. These Persons are never identified with one another - that is, they are carefully differentiated as Persons. 3) The Father, the Son, and the Spirit are identified as being fully deity---that is, the Bible teaches the Deity of Christ and the Deity of the Holy Spirit.
Tim does seem to make his original point. Seth agrees with all points of the Trinty except that there is only one god.
Seth - The summary I gave is not Mormonism. From the lds.org site under God the Father it states that “We are all literally children of God, spiritually begotten in the premortal life.” The Bible Dictionary in my quad says under the heading God, “…man is literally God’s offspring, made in his image, whereas all other things are but the work of his hands…” From my Gospel Principles, p. 9, ”We Are Children of Our Heavenly Father - God is not only our ruler and creator; he is also our Heavenly Father. "All men and women are . . . literally the sons and daughters of Deity. . . . Man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father, prior to coming upon the earth in a temporal [physical] body" (Joseph F. Smith, "The Origin of Man," Improvement Era, Nov. 1909, pp. 78, 80). Every person who was ever born on earth was our spirit brother or sister in heaven. The first spirit born to our heavenly parents was Jesus Christ (see D&C 93:21), so he is literally our elder brother (see Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 26).”
Seth, do you consider yourself to be within orthodox Mormonism? Would others? Do you belong to some sect/offshoot of Mormonism?
The problem with your Sethronism is that if all people were eternally spirits, they could never become man or God by the plan of salvation. Why? If all are spirits, there are no mortal bodies to inhabit because there are no exalted mortals (gods) to create them. There is no initial “image of God” from which all other images come forth. Philosophically Sethronism is self refuting. If all are spirits equally infinte, all would be equally progressed. There is no force to direct them into this arbitrary adoption that would require spirits to worship their equal. What is eternal is perfect is God. Sethronism makes all God. I am not surprised by your doubts of time in Sethronism. It is a mess pointing to the impossibility of traversing an actual infinite.
Sethronism is (no surprise) unbiblical as well. John records Jesus making the distinction that He is from Heaven and we are not and that His existence is prior to ours. He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all. And what he hath seen and heard, that he testifieth; and no man receiveth his testimony… And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world. John 3:31-32; 8:23Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. John 8:58 And he [Christ] is before all things, and by him all things consist. Col 1:17 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. 1 Cor 15:46
Joseph Smith says, “I have another subject to dwell upon... It is associated with the subject of the resurrection of the dead,--namely, the soul--the mind of man--the immortal spirit....All learned men and doctors of divinity say that God created it in the beginning; but it is not so: the very idea lessens man in my estimation.... and I agree but to man’s rightful position with respect to God, not as His equal. “The mind or the intelligence which man possesses is co-equal with God himself....I am dwelling on the immortality of the spirit of man....The intelligence of spirits had no beginning, neither will it have an end....There never was a time when there were not spirits; for they are co-equal (co-eternal) with our Father in heaven. ...The first principles of man are self-existent with God.”
You have obviously abandoned some of the tenets of modern Mormonism (the idea that Heavenly Father conceives His literal children) because you are trying to have it make sense rationally because you are not willing to make “eternal” something that it is not. I appreciate that. Sethronism seems to hold most closely to the Book of Abraham as your source. Supposedly being the oldest LDS scripture, I can appreciate that as well. You seem to really be trying to figure out your beliefs and have a strong inclination to want to defend them online. I think that’s great. You seem like a rational guy. You have not yet appealed to an emotional epistemology of Mormonism. I would encourage you to carefully consider the idea that Joseph Smith’s theology changed over time and was reflected in his “revelation” culminating in the Book of Abraham.
The Book of Abraham. has been shown to be without a doubt a text manufactured from Joseph’s imagination and the evidence shows that the papyrus was simply a prop used to dupe his followers. If I “translated” revelation from God to you from an artifact that had been discovered and you found out that it was on old Chinese Take-out Menu, I hope that you would reject that revelation and me as well as a liar. The document Joseph used was not written in the time that he stated, was not written by Abraham, and definitely did not say what Joseph claimed it did. The document was a first century A.D. Book of Breathings, a common funeral text that makes no mention of Abraham. Here’s what the papyrus actually says where Joseph indicates that He is translating the Book of Abraham: [. . . .] this great pool of Khonsu [Osiris Hor, justified], born of Taykhebyt, a man likewise. After (his) two arms are [fast]ened to his breast, one wraps the Book of Breathings, which is with writing both inside and outside of it, with royal linen, it being placed [at] his left arm near his heart, this having been done at his wrapping and outside it. If this book be recited for him, then he will breathe like the soul[s of gods] for ever and ever. (The left side of the fragment begins the series of spells to be recited.)
Seth, this fabrication by Joseph Smith is what you are trusting over and above the Bible, God’s word that he declares All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness 2 Tim 3:16 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Prov 30:5 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. Psa 12:6-7 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. Matt 24:35 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever. Isa 40:8 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you. 1 Pet 1:23-25
The problem with the whole question of “was Heavenly Father a sinner?” is that if Heavenly Father was a sinner, then Heavenly Father is not the God of the Bible. If he was perfect as Christ was, then the only examples of exaltation are of perfect mortal men. This combined with Mormon theology of forgiveness like in The Miracle of Forgiveness can’t give any hope to the perceptive LDS.
It all starts with the first lie. Joseph needs an apostasy. Joseph is making a truth claim here. He is ultimately saying that God/Jesus failed or lied. Was Jesus not The Good Shepherd (John 10:11)? And he spake this parable unto them, saying, What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it? And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing. Luke 15:3-5 A complete apostacy as Mormonism teaches and is necessary for Joseph’s restoration story to work says that Jesus is a horrible shepherd that lost EVERY SINGLE SHEEP from the face of the earth. John 10:27-29 says, “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.” Who’s not telling the truth here? God or Joseph?
Who says this is just my opinion Tim?
I gave you sources from Mormon teaching backing me up.
You replied with a quote from lds.org that did NOT actually disagree with what I said. And now you are trying to claim that this is just my own private religion.
I didn't make this stuff up on my own you know. I got it from canonized scripture and Joseph Smith's own statements.
And by the way - you can traverse an actual infinite.
Reach out and touch your computer screen.
You just did it.
Seth - why so evasive? Do you consider yourself orthodox? If you taught the Sethronism summary in most wards would you get a hearty "Amen!"?
Look Seth, this guessing game is getting old. Why can't you give a straight answer? You said you had a problem with the word "conceived" and I showed many examples from modern Mormonism that say that we are literally God's begotten spirit children. If you've got a point to make, then make it. Why do I have to guess at and summarize your beliefs and then defend Mormonism against them? This is a pet peeve of mine with Mormons that continually conceal their true beliefs playing games, stalling and giving the run around. I am more concerned with clarity of ideas and getting at truth, especially when it involves what I see as the two most important questions we can address; who is God and how can I be restored to Him? Is that a real concern of yours for those outside of Mormonism?
The distance between me and my computer screen is a finite distance.
The reason we're noncommittal is that there is no real official explanation of what it means to be "begotten" "conceived" "children" or any of the other terms you've been throwing around here. Within Mormon theology, these things are not officially explicated.
All you've given is a lot of quotes that could be interpreted in multiple ways and implied that they should be interpreted in a single way - you're preferred reading.
Well, I disagree. I do not think you should be allowed to nail down the meaning of any of these terms for Mormons when our own sources leave the terms open to interpretation.
I feel that Mormonism should remain undecided on these issues and allow people to explore their own conclusions from what we have.
As for myself, I am not convinced we are "conceived" by God in the sense that you mean it. I understand all human beings to be eternally existent in some form or other. What that form is - I do not know.
I am sympathetic to the idea that human souls are eternal, and are begotten of God and conceived of God via an adoptive process. I have never put much stock in the "spirit childbirth" model that Evangelical countercultists are so fond of (mostly because it allows them to use crass imagery about God to score cheap-shots against Mormonism). Why would such a process be needed for eternal beings?
But I'm basically agnostic on the topic.
Final point - actually, there is infinite space between you and your computer screen - infinitely divisible.
Between your finger and the computer screen are an infinite number of discrete spatial steps that you must traverse in order to actually touch the screen.
It's called Zeno's Paradox. Space is infinitely divisible and yet all divisions must be accounted for in any movement. Therefore movement should be logically impossible.
Yet we do it all the time.
How?
Simple - you take away the artificial divisions and simply touch the screen.
Same with the Kalam Infinity argument. Once you take away the arbitrary and completely artificial divisions that Kalam is premised on, traversing an infinite becomes not only possible, but downright mundane.
Basically Seth wants Mormons to be allowed to be open to the belief that God the Father and Heavenly Mother(s) have regular sexual intercourse to beget spirit children but doesn't want them (nor leaders who acquiesce to this unrepudiated idea) to be held accountable for it since it isn't an officially binding position.
Similarly, other Mormons want members to be allowed to be open to the belief that God the Father had sexual intercourse with Mary, but don't what them (nor the leaders who acquiesce to the unrepudiated idea) to be held accountable for it since it isn't an officially binding position.
Similarly, other Mormons want members to be allowed to be open to the belief that God the Father could himself have once been a wife-beater, porn addict, compulsive gambler, alcoholic, thief, coveter, temple prostitute, and idolater, but don't what them (nor the leaders who acquiesce to the unrepudiated idea) to be held accountable for it since it isn't an officially binding position.
If it's not ultimately official and mostly strictly binding, they don't want it to be a part of the target at which evangelicals can fire. But they want to give Mormon leaders a free pass for waving aloof hands at beliefs (and openness to certain beliefs) that perpetuate in Mormonism, even though all it would take is about 10 minutes at General Conference to definitively take care of such issues, i.e. "We the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve issue a proclamation that God never sinned, that he and his wife or wives definitely do not engage in sexual intercourse to beget spirit children. Don't believe that stuff, that's pagan. Also, God the Father did not have sexual intercourse with Mary. Bruce McConkie was wrong. Thank you very much. Drinking caffeine is OK, go ahead and sell and drink Coke at BYU, my brothers. In the name of Jesus Christ, amen."
While we're waiting for that much, at least they've clarified in a First Presidency letter that "one-tenth of all their interest annually" in D&C 119:3–4 refers to income (First Presidency letter, 19 Mar. 1970). Whew! Glad that fog was cleared ;-)
No offense Seth, but being noncommittal on a position is just as bad as being committed to the wrong position. The Church doesn't encourage that kind of noncommittal attitude toward whether the Church is true and whether Smith was a prophet, yet it fosters apathy over the issue of whether God the Father was once a wretched sinner who was in need of another savior's atonement. It values knowing the correct mode of baptism over knowing whether or not the God of the universe was once a serial rapist.
Friend, wake up, and be alive in Christ!
Regarding the appeal to Zeno's paradox:
"... such an objection fails to reckon with two crucial disanalogies of an infinite past to Zeno's paradoxes: whereas in Zeno's thought experiments the intervals traversed are potential and unequal, in the caes of an infinite past the intervals are actual and equal. The claim that Achilles must pass through an infinite number of halfway points in order to cross the stadium is question-begging, for it already assumes that the whole interval is a composition of an infinite number of points, whereas Zeno's opponents, like Aristotle, take the line as a whole to be conceptually prior to any divisions which we might make in it. Moreover, Zeno's intervals being unequal, sum to a merely finite distance, whereas the intervals in an infinite past sum to an infinite distance. Thus, his thought experiments are crucially disanalogous to the task of traversing an infinite number of equal, actual intervals to arrive at our present location."
William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, pp.
122-123
Aaron's implied points:
1. Sex is degraded and filthy
2. The Atonement has no real power to perfect
3. Faith is impossible if everything isn't spelled out for you
William Lane Craig points out that in Zeno the divisions are unequal, whereas in an infinite past the divisions are equal.
What he fails to address is that in both instances the divisions are still utterly arbitrary and artificial.
Basically, his argument boils down to saying - "you cannot traverse an infinite because I say so."
Thanks Greg!
Aaron, great insight, I agree.
“For a wise and glorious purpose Thou hast placed me here on earth, and withheld the recollection of my former friends and birth… Seth, is it difficult for you to sing the LDS hymn O My Father? Have you petitioned the LDS church to change the children’s hymn I Am a Child of God to I Am a Co-Equal Spirit Assigned to Heavenly Father (Only Figuratively)? I don’t know if you have children, but I do and would not let them be indoctrinated by singing something that I felt was not accurate. Seth, you’re already too invested in this particular belief regarding the pre-mortal relationship with Heavenly Father to claim agnosticism.
there is no real official explanation of what it means to be "begotten" "conceived" "children" or any of the other terms you've been throwing around here. Within Mormon theology, these things are not officially explicated. We’re still talking about revelation from God here right? This isn’t some evangelical plot to pigeon hole Mormons. These are common words. I am not “throwing them around” or giving them a “preferred reading.” If God has revealed to Joseph Smith and other prophets that we are literally Heavenly Father’s begotten children, in the absence of any statement to the contrary, it would seem necessary to understand these words in the way that they are defined. Seth, if I introduced you to my parents and said, “These are my parents. This is my literal father and mother. Yep, I’m their begotten child; their offspring; their firstborn. I actually have a lot of the same attributes as both my father and my mother. I was created by them in the same way as all children are created by their parents. In fact both my parents have a unique blood type flowing through their veins and of course I have that same blood type as well.” Seth, what you’re telling me is that you would, without skipping a beat, ask me, “so are you adopted then?” Do you see how ridiculous that sounds Seth? This is my frustration with much of Mormon apologetics that changes the meaning of words to seem Christian but allow for any and all Mormon interpretations. Seth, this is the kind of manipulation you need to go through to defend Mormonism. Red flags should be going off in your head that something is severely wrong here.
I smelled Zeno’s paradox coming in your last post. That is why I was very careful in the words I used because words actually have meaning. I said, “The distance between me and my computer screen is a finite distance.” You responded, “actually, there is infinite space between you and your computer screen - infinitely divisible.” There is a difference between an infinite space (distance) and an infinitely divisible distance. All distances are infinitely divisible. If my computer screen was an infinite distance away, I could never touch it. No matter how fast or far I traveled, the computer screen would be further, infinitely so. I once had a Mormon tell me that when he became exalted that he was going to shake the hand of every god that had ever been exalted. I replied that you could never shake the hands of an infinite number of gods. He said, “Sure I could, I have an infinite amount of time.” I hope that you can see the problem here. An infinite number of gods would mean that if ever you thought that you had completed the task, there would always be at least one more, in actuality an infinite amount more.
In the end it really doesn’t matter if spirits are born, adopted, assigned, co-opted, whatever. If they are eternally existent spirits, even given varying levels of progression as spirits, they CAN NOT become mortal without an exalted being to help them and the exalted being CAN NOT exist because they were an eternally existent spirit who CAN NOT become mortal without an exalted being to help them and the exalted being CAN NOT exist because they were an eternally existent spirit who CAN NOT become mortal without an exalted being to help them… (repeat until it sinks in).
Seth, your elevated view of man is blasphemy and it is both painful to hear and I am saddened that this is where your trust lies because of Joseph Smith. I do not think you should be allowed to nail down the meaning of any of these terms for Mormons when our own sources leave the terms open to interpretation. They are open to interpretation largely because Joseph died. Given more time, the confusion that Joseph created might have been addressed by the prophet in another “just in time” revelation that wipes the slate clean of what God has revealed about Himself in the past. The problem is that latter-day prophets and revelators don’t prophesy or reveal anything about God since Joseph (ok, Brigham did as well, but God revealing that He was Adam was all an anomaly right?).
Seth, turn away from the god of Mormonism. He is lying to you by telling you that you are initially no different that the true God; that you can attain all that the true God is by denying the sufficiency of Christ’s completed work on the cross and instead trusting in your elevated view of man and his ability to be perfect.
Tim, are you the type of guy who goes up to adopted kids telling them - "that guy is not your dad - he just ADOPTED you"?
I am a child of God. In every sense that matters.
And you can save the heartfelt pleas to "turn from your false god."
My experience is that people - both Mormon and other Christians - only whip out the emotional appeals when they feel like their arguments aren't working.
Seth, Tim and others who have contributed to this discussion...
I've been reading the posts and trying to listen hard to the positions all of you are taking. Here is what I have observed so far. Seth, you believe something about the nature of God and the nature of Salvation. Tim and the other contributors believe something different about the nature of God and the nature of Salvation.
I was an atheist for 35 years and I would have said that all of you are wrong; there is no God and none of you have any idea what you are talking about. It seems to me that both sides of this discussion are trying to ground their beliefs in two kinds of revelation. First, there is the natural revelation of what we can all see and understand from the natural environment around us. Great. But the exploration of our environment can only tell us so much, and this is why both sides then look to some additional authority to discover more. The Christian side looks to the special revelation of Scripture. The Mormon side looks to the authority of Joseph Smith as a prophet and the writings he produced.
When I first came to faith, I simply examined the evidence. Half of my family is Mormon. Most of the rest are atheists. I read the Bible and examined the history of the early believers and the transmission of the early documents. I read the Book of Mormon and the D and C and the Pearl of Great price. I prayed about it. Then I examined the truth about Joseph and the Book of Abraham. That was enough for me. Joseph is a demonstrable liar. As a detective who works with evidence for a living and makes cases in front of juries all the time, it was obvious. The evidence is direct and clear. It's called the Book of Abraham. I've written about it here:
http://www.pleaseconvinceme.com/index/Can_We_Trust_the_Book_of_Abraham
http://www.pleaseconvinceme.com/index/Is_There_a_Defense_for_the_Book_of_Abraham
I don't spend a lot of time arguing about theology with Mormons only because they have based their beliefs on the work of a consummate con artist and deceiver. I know that sounds harsh, but it's true. It all comes down to Joe, and Joe was not who he claimed to be. People can come to whatever conclusion they want about the nature of God, but to base one's conclusions on the work of a liar is nonsensical.
I may be completely wrong about what I believe about God. There may not be any God at all. Christianity may be completely false. But one thing is for sure. Mormonism is DEMONSTRABLY false. Christianity doesn't suffer from any of the problems that Mormonism faces when trying to revive the credibility of Joseph Smith. If there is a God and if this God is concerned with TRUTH, it might be important for us to seek truth. When we encounter a lie and a liar, it might be wise for us to re-examine what we believe.
Blessings to all of you!
jim
Jim, I could produce stuff arguing with you why the Book of Abraham is NOT demonstrably false. And believe me, I've already heard all the stuff you've "sleuthed" out. I could also point out that if the Mormons have the Book of Abraham as a problem, all Christians have the Book of Genesis as a "problem." I could wade into all that if you wanted.
But I don't see the point right now, honestly.
Instead let me leave you with this:
I don't care what you think about Joseph Smith the man. It's ultimately irrelevant to the core of my conviction as a Mormon. What I care about is the content of his teachings and writings - the power of his theology.
Let me spell it out for you.
I-don't-care what you think about Joseph Smith.
I don't care if he was a fraud, if he stole everyone's money, if he was a sex-maniac, or if he ate live kittens for breakfast every Tuesday.
I only care if his theology is any good.
And it is good Jim.
The best.
Have a nice day.
Seth, I would have been lying to you in the example I gave regarding my parents if I had known that I was adopted. While there are many similarities, the specific examples I gave show the differences. These examples were ideas taken from Mormon sources. God could tell us that we were adopted as He does in scripture when we become believers. Adoption is beautiful. It is just not what is described in Mormon theology regarding man's premortal existence with Heavenly Father.
Seth, I have been nothing but honest with you. I don't feel like my arguments aren't working. What I feel is connection to you. I don't know anything about you. Seth might not even be your real name. Nevertheless I have been praying for you. You are on my mind often throughout the day as I ponder our conversation. Every Mormon I have ever talked with about God has started with inner conflict for me. I am naturally very shy, but compelled to share Christ. I am happy to converse once I get started and always shocked by the devotion to a false gospel, false Christ and false God trusting in Joseph Smith rather than God’s word. I usually mourn for about a day (ask my wife) as I have with our conversation Seth. I have cried many times over Mormons that I meet and converse with. I bring the sorrow to God and put it in His hands, for His glory and in His time. I only hope that I can be a good ambassador of Christ, proclaiming His truth in His unchanging word.
Most Mormons I meet with have NO urgency to evangelize or give great evidence for the hope that is Christ because they figure that some will convert to Mormonism and the rest get a second chance in spirit prison. I see MUCH more passion for their works for the dead than for the living. In the end they believe that God will accommodate these poor, misguided Christians in some lower level of Heaven and that is good enough. My fear for you Seth is that you are worshipping a false God who has told you that you are co-equal with the true God and that salvation awaits those with the right authority, works, secret passwords and handshakes.
Thanks for listening to my concerns Seth. I think I understand where you are coming from based on your reaction. I will let your own words speak for the validity of your position.
Thanks again and all the best to you,
jim
Tim, trying to have an emotional connection with someone over an impersonal medium like type on the Internet is an exercise in futility.
The only thing that matters here is the quality of your arguments. Emotional appeals don't really have much force in this medium. Save it for the people you meet face to face.
Seth,
how does your belief coincide with John 1:30 "This is He on behalf of whom I said, 'After me comes a Man who has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.'
As a Mormon, I would expect you to believe that this refers to Jesus' elder-brother-hood. But from what I've read above, this would not be possible in your view
Save it for the people you meet face to face. Seth, are you asking me out?
Joking aside, I'd love to buy you lunch and talk sometime if you're serious about talking about the nature of God and willing to be reasonable. If you're interested, just contact me directly by email.
I think that my arguments stand on their own. I was not making an appeal to emotion, but was just sharing honestly. That's what people do (even on the internet). The written word (by hand or typing, email, Facebook, whatever) can be incredibly personal and connecting.
I blocked your last response to Staci because you refuse to answer the question or offer an argument of your own and instead expect us to jump through your hoops.
I don't understand why you blocked the comment Tim.
I simply quoted your own Bible translations.
Staci's entire Premise is reliant on using only ONE Bible translation. All the others do not support her argument.
Why you thought this needed to be blocked is quite beyond me. I would have thought that quoting additional Bible verses for context of what the passage meant was one of the most inoffensive things I could have done on a Christian blog.
All John's passage is really doing is showing Jesus to be preeminent in authority and power over John the Baptist. The other Bible translations support this reading.
Why block that argument?
And I really do want to know why Staci is only using one Bible rendition out of many - the ONLY one that really supports her reading.
Post a Comment