Christians who deny Christ's divinity/Trinity

[Katzpur]

Following is a comparison between Christian doctrine and Mormon doctrine. It will become very obvious that Mormonism does not agree with the Bible. In fact, Mormonism has simply used the same words found in Christianity and redefined them. But with a proper understanding of what Mormonism really teaches, you will be able to see past those definitions into the real differences between Christianity and Mormonism.

Oh, what the heck. I think I'll play along after all. I think it was the phrase "with a proper understanding of what Mormonism really teaches" that tipped the scales. So, for starters, maybe it would be a good idea for me to post what Mormonism really, really, really teaches, as opposed to what the Almighty CARM claims it teaches.

The difference is the difference between eternal life and damnation.

Good grief. Spare me the theatrics. Let's get down to business...

I'll start by saying that Mormons believe all of the biblical passages you have quoted, so there's no real need for me to comment on any of them, except in those cases where you added your interpretation to what the Bible actually says. You can pretty much bet I'm going to call you on those instances.

GOD:

Christian

• There is only one God (Isaiah 43:11; 44:6,8; 45:5)
• God has always been God (Psalm 90:2; Isaiah 57:15).
• God is a spirit without flesh and bones (John 4:24; Luke 24:39).

Mormons are in full agreement with these verses, and The Book of Mormon concurs: "And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end."

I'm afraid that John 4:24 says absolutely nothing about whether God has flesh and bones or not. And Luke 24:39, if interpreted as you are saying they should be interpreted, is really saying that Jesus wasn't God. If God truly is soley spirit, and Jesus Christ had a body of flesh and bone, He couldn't have been God. In other words, your first reference makes for a reasonably decent piece of evidence that God does not have a body, but only if you don't try to back it up with your second reference, which implies that Jesus Christ does not meet the physical criteria for God.

Mormon

"And they (the Gods) said: Let there be light: and there was light (Book of Abraham 4:3).

The Book of Abraham. Great. I appreciate your referencing a legitimate source of LDS doctrine. I assume that you object to the plural reference to "they (the Gods)." Do you also object to what the Bible says in Genesis 3:22? "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever..."

• "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!!! . . . We have imagined that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea and take away the veil, so that you may see," (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345).

Not doctrinal, so there is no need for me to comment. I will say though, that this statement -- when understood accurately and in context -- does not contradicts anything in the Bible. Since it was never canonized, however, I'm just going to leave it at that, unless you or someone else asks for clarification in the LDS DIR.

• "The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's," (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22; Compare with Alma 18:26-27; 22:9-10).

That's right, they do. The Bible tells us that the Son is "the express image of [the Father's] person," and we believe that to be true. If the Son of God could be "God" and have a physical body, His Father could also be "God" and have a physical body. A spirit is a life force. The word "pneuma," translated in John 4:24 as "spirit" is translated elsewhere in the Bible as "life." Therefore, "God is life" is every bit as accurate as "God is spirit," and we all know that when a spirit occupies a physical body, that body becomes "a living soul." Therefore, a spirit can and does occupy a physical body without ceasing to retain the qualitities of a spirit. It's life. It's not merely a mysterious essence that fills the universe.
That's it for now. Gotta go watch the finale of "Survivor: South Pacific."

 

[Rathus]

Rathus, you're working on becoming my new chief antangonist, aren't you? That's okay. It's been awhile since I've had a good sparing partner.

I'm as much a monotheist as you are. Ask any Muslim on this forum whether people who worship a God who has a Son are monotheistic or polytheistic? It's simply a matter of interpretation. I believe that the Father and the Son are physically distinct from one another, equally divine, and united in will, purpose, mind and heart to such a degree that we cannot even begin to conceive of it. They are both "God." It is impossible to worship one of them without simultaneously worshipping the other. They think, feel, and act as "one." Christ's great intercessory prayer (recorded in John 17) makes it clear that when Jesus said, "I and my Father are one," He was not saying they were a single physical substance. If they were, we could not become "one" with them or in the same way as they were "one."

Oh, I think we can find plenty of evidence that the early Christians believed pretty much the same thing as the Mormons did in this regard, but I would prefer that if we're going to discuss the doctrine known to Mormons as "Eternal Progression," we do so on another thread.

This thread appears to be asking a question whether professing Christians who either deny Christ's divinity (which definitely does not include Mormons) and with those who disagree with the doctrine of the Trinity (which does include Mormons) are really "Christians." I'd be happy to continue our conversation elsewhere, though. And welcome to the forum, by the way. :yes:

I don't mean to "antagonize" you but I do like a good debate and sparring partner.

I really don't know this forum well enough to start a new thread on the topic you've brought up. I would love to discuss/debate it further with you. If you'd like to start the thread and share the link with me, I'd be happy to participate.

BTW, thanks for the welcome!

 

[Rathus]

I think what you're saying is that the Bible doesn't really explain the nature of God and the relationship between the members of the Godhead adequately, but that the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds do. Would that be an accurate statement?

The Bible simply presents God "as is".

"In the beginning God . . ." It's pretty much a "take it or leave it" position.

Both the Old & New Testaments are pretty clear that God is one. The New Testament does not hide the fact that Jesus is God and that He is "one" with the Father. Nor does it hide the fact that the Holy Spirit is God.

Now, I suppose it's up to us to figure out "how" God is one. And that, I suppose is where much of the confusion comes from.

 

[Me Myself]

The Bible simply presents God "as is".

"In the beginning God . . ." It's pretty much a "take it or leave it" position.

Both the Old & New Testaments are pretty clear that God is one. The New Testament does not hide the fact that Jesus is God and that He is "one" with the Father. Nor does it hide the fact that the Holy Spirit is God.

Now, I suppose it's up to us to figure out "how" God is one. And that, I suppose is where much of the confusion comes from.

I frubal you if you point to me ONE verse of the 4 testaments were JESUS says that he is God in a way that NO ONE ELSE is.

So things like when he justifies his divinity with "isn´t in the scriptures "you are gods" ? " doesn´t make him more divine than any other human. And places where he says "I am" as a name of God, it is still a phrase "I am" that would signify that all of the "I am"s (i.e: all of us) are also Gods.

Waiting for a reply.

 

[Quiddity]

“If the man doesn’t believe as we do, we say he is a crank, and that settles it. I mean, it does nowadays, because now we can’t burn him.” - Mark Twain

I could just embrace you artifically?

Everybody draws lines in the sand.

 

[Rathus]

I frubal you if you point to me ONE verse of the 4 testaments were JESUS says that he is God in a way that NO ONE ELSE is.

So things like when he justifies his divinity with "isn´t in the scriptures "you are gods" ? " doesn´t make him more divine than any other human. And places where he says "I am" as a name of God, it is still a phrase "I am" that would signify that all of the "I am"s (i.e: all of us) are also Gods.

Waiting for a reply.

Sorry, I'm new here. What is a "frubal" and why would I want one? (I'm assuming it's a good thing).

Can you give me eternal life? Or is this something only God can do? Answer this question and I will give you the verse you have requested.

 

[SageTree]

Anti-Trinitarians are considered heretics. We Unitarians are anti-trinitarians and rather proud of our heresy. Anti-trinitarian beliefs date back to the 1st and 2nd century so its not a new concept.

Was there a trinity to be 'anti' about in the 1st and 2nd centuries, as this isn't my understanding?

'Anti' is an interesting word for me in this and isn't how I'd describe myself as a Unitarian, as I feel it holds an aggressive tone, which is against my own Practice.

'Unitarian' is what I prefer to use, if I even ever find myself talking about it, because to me if I'm 'Unitarian' I'm NOT 'Trinitarian' obviously, and further more I like the 'Unity' party of bringing up that Oneness.

I'm not tell you that you are wrong by any means to use 'Anti' I'm just curious as to why you choose it?



I try to keep my actions first and christologies for conversations where it's worth sharing, like now.


Thanks for sharing back, if you end up doing so and sharing already.

:namaste
SageTree

 

[Me Myself]

Sorry, I'm new here. What is a "frubal" and why would I want one? (I'm assuming it's a good thing).

Can you give me eternal life? Or is this something only God can do? Answer this question and I will give you the verse you have requested.

Yes it is a good thing xD. It kind of like a methaphorical cookie that has a numerical value on the forum xD.

What and who can do what depends on different interpretations upon the same.

I am not sure how your question is relevant so I ask you to further elaborate. If you ask me, your life was never non eternal, it is just not eternally in the body you are currently wearing

So no, I can´t give you what you already have. If anyone could give you eternal life if you didn´t have it, it would be your own understanding. so yes I agree that if you had not eternal life only God could give it to you, because I, like Jesus, see all men as Gods.

edit: welcome to forum

 

[Rathus]

Yes it is a good thing xD. It kind of like a methaphorical cookie that has a numerical value on the forum xD.

What and who can do what depends on different interpretations upon the same.

I am not sure how your question is relevant so I ask you to further elaborate. If you ask me, your life was never non eternal, it is just not eternally in the body you are currently wearing

So no, I can´t give you what you already have. If anyone could give you eternal life if you didn´t have it, it would be your own understanding. so yes I agree that if you had not eternal life only God could give it to you, because I, like Jesus, see all men as Gods.

edit: welcome to forum

So the answer is based on our understanding of "eternal life". If you believe we are all "Gods" then eternal life is meaningless. However, if God is different from Men and if only God can give eternal life, then the answer to your request is simple. Jesus is God by the mere "fact" (according to the NT) that Jesus can give eternal life to those who believe in Him. If only God can give eternal life, then Jesus must be that same God.

The Gospel according to John records Jesus as saying: "I give them eternal life, and they will never perish —ever! No one will snatch them out of My hand." John 10:28

Later in that chapter the Jews accused Jesus of claiming to be God.

"We aren't stoning You for a good work," the Jews answered, "but for blasphemy, because You—being a man—make Yourself God."

John 10:33

As a matter of fact, John chapter 10 is an extremely powerful testimony to the fact that Jesus claimed to be God and those who heard Him understood this.

 

[Lucian]

I could just embrace you artifically?

Everybody draws lines in the sand.

Sure, you do it with all the others. I've seen the way you look at those other heretics. I want hugs too.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Was there a trinity to be 'anti' about in the 1st and 2nd centuries, as this isn't my understanding?

There was but it was looked at very differently. It was during the 3rd and 4th centuries that what we perceive of as the trinity was solidified. During the 1st and 2nd centuries there was much debate on the subject with many different ideas on what the trinity was and meant. Both the Unitarians and Universalists like to say their traditions date back to the time before the Nicene Councils but it is important to note that it was certain traditions only, not entire belief systems. There were no Unitarians or Universalists during the 1st and 2nd centuries.

'Anti' is an interesting word for me in this and isn't how I'd describe myself as a Unitarian, as I feel it holds an aggressive tone, which is against my own Practice.

'Unitarian' is what I prefer to use, if I even ever find myself talking about it, because to me if I'm 'Unitarian' I'm NOT 'Trinitarian' obviously, and further more I like the 'Unity' party of bringing up that Oneness.

I'm not tell you that you are wrong by any means to use 'Anti' I'm just curious as to why you choose it?

Like you, I find the choice of anti to be very negative but it's not my choice to use it. Trinitarians were the maintream therefore anyone disagreeing with them were labeled anti. After almost 2000 years it will be difficult to change the term. Although, these days few people are even aware of the terms trinitarian and anti-trinitarian. As for the difference in Unitarian and anti-trinitarian, Unitarian is a Christian denomination while anti-trinitarian is anyone who rejects the Godhead version of the Trinity. In other words, all Unitarian Christians are anti-trinitarian but not all anti-trinitarians are Unitarian Christians.

Thanks for sharing back, if you end up doing so and sharing already.

:namaste
SageTree

As always, you are very welcome.

 

[Me Myself]

So the answer is based on our understanding of "eternal life". If you believe we are all "Gods" then eternal life is meaningless. However, if God is different from Men and if only God can give eternal life, then the answer to your request is simple. Jesus is God by the mere "fact" (according to the NT) that Jesus can give eternal life to those who believe in Him. If only God can give eternal life, then Jesus must be that same God.

The Gospel according to John records Jesus as saying: "I give them eternal life, and they will never perish —ever! No one will snatch them out of My hand." John 10:28

Later in that chapter the Jews accused Jesus of claiming to be God.

"We aren't stoning You for a good work," the Jews answered, "but for blasphemy, because You—being a man—make Yourself God."

John 10:33

As a matter of fact, John chapter 10 is an extremely powerful testimony to the fact that Jesus claimed to be God and those who heard Him understood this.

If you keep reading that is exactly were he answers them that the scriptures say every man is a God.

About everlasting life, he is using himself as a methahpour of correct behaviour. He is one with us and us one with him. That is also why you will read in another verse "But Lord, when have we seen you hungry and feed you? when have we seen you homeless and shared our home? when were you sick and we tended you?" and then Jesus answered "When you did this to my brothers you did it with me"

Yes, Jesus is the truth the way and the light, but we are all Jesus. Ultimately, "I am" is the truth the way and the Light. And all of us are "I am"s

So as said, I 100% agree Jesus is the same God. The same God as God, the same God as me, the same God as you.

He said it himself.

 

[SageTree]

As Heinlein put it, "Thou Art God".

 

[javajo]

javajo, I'm surprised at you. I had come to expect better. Rather than respond to the specific arguments you presented, I'm going to just give you the benefit of the doubt and post something I'd appreciate your keeping in mind in the future...

In a 2007 statement issued by the Church, the following guidelines were given as to what constitutes LDS doctrine:

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The mistake that public commentators often make is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. This is especially common among reporters or researchers who rely on how other Christians interpret Latter-day Saint doctrine.

Some of what you have posted about Mormon doctrine is actually reasonably accurate, but much of it is half-truth, exaggeration and intentional misrepresentation. I can assure you that CARM is about as good a source of information on LDS doctrine as the National Enquirer is on world news. If you want to know what Mormons really believe about Jesus Christ, ask a Mormon, not someone who hates Mormons.

While I have great respect for people of the Mormon faith and I do not doubt your sincerity and love of God, I must say what I believe is the truth from the Bible. I'm not "anti-mormon nor do I nor CARM hate them either. If you notice my beliefs all come from the Bible while these other beliefs are from Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon (Book of Abraham), John Talmage's "Articles of Faith", the 8th Article of Faith of the Mormon Church and a couple other books I mentioned in my post. When they disagree with the Bible, and on very core doctrines, I must stick with the Bible. It would be wrong of me to do otherwise.

 

[javajo]

Oh, what the heck. I think I'll play along after all. I think it was the phrase "with a proper understanding of what Mormonism really teaches" that tipped the scales. So, for starters, maybe it would be a good idea for me to post what Mormonism really, really, really teaches, as opposed to what the Almighty CARM claims it teaches.

Hi, didn't see this post at first. Will try to respond.

Good grief. Spare me the theatrics.

While I respect your faith, my concern is whether the object of your faith is the same as that of the Bible, of one and only one God among no others who is from everlasting and has always been God (and never a man).

Let's get down to business...

I'll start by saying that Mormons believe all of the biblical passages you have quoted, so there's no real need for me to comment on any of them, except in those cases where you added your interpretation to what the Bible actually says. You can pretty much bet I'm going to call you on those instances.

When the Bible says God is Spirit, I take Him at His Word. I do not believe I am interpreting it wrong.

Mormons are in full agreement with these verses, and The Book of Mormon concurs:

"And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end."

So, which is it? One God or "They, the Gods"? It must be either/or as there is only one God and no other.

I'm afraid that John 4:24 says absolutely nothing about whether God has flesh and bones or not. And Luke 24:39, if interpreted as you are saying they should be interpreted, is really saying that Jesus wasn't God. If God truly is soley spirit, and Jesus Christ had a body of flesh and bone, He couldn't have been God. In other words, your first reference makes for a reasonably decent piece of evidence that God does not have a body, but only if you don't try to back it up with your second reference, which implies that Jesus Christ does not meet the physical criteria for God.

John 4:24 says that God is spirit. Jesus is God in human flesh. God became a man (not the other way around) so he could pay the penalty of our sins, which is death. The only way he could shed blood and die was to become a man, yet still fully God, and live a sinless life so he could be the Lamb without blemish who alone was able to pay the penalty for our sins. I do not believe God the Father has a human body nor do I believe the Bible teaches so. I believe God the Son took on a human body and I believe God the Holy Spirit resides within those who have trusted Christ and also convicts people who have not trusted Christ and is not confined to a human body of his own, but resides in all who trusted the Son to have paid the penalty for all their sins.

The Book of Abraham. Great. I appreciate your referencing a legitimate source of LDS doctrine. I assume that you object to the plural reference to "they (the Gods)." Do you also object to what the Bible says in Genesis 3:22? "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever..."

"They the Gods" clearly teaches more than one God which I do not believe. The phrase "as one of us" in Gen. 3:22, I believe refers to the plurality of God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. One God of three persons, a tri-une God, the Trinity or what you would call the Godhead.

Not doctrinal, so there is no need for me to comment. I will say though, that this statement -- when understood accurately and in context -- does not contradicts anything in the Bible. Since it was never canonized, however, I'm just going to leave it at that, unless you or someone else asks for clarification in the LDS DIR.

Yet Joseph Smith was saying that God was once a man and he really believed that. I believe God is from everlasting and has always been fully God and never man.

That's right, they do. The Bible tells us that the Son is "the express image of [the Father's] person," and we believe that to be true. If the Son of God could be "God" and have a physical body, His Father could also be "God" and have a physical body. A spirit is a life force. The word "pneuma," translated in John 4:24 as "spirit" is translated elsewhere in the Bible as "life." Therefore, "God is life" is every bit as accurate as "God is spirit," and we all know that when a spirit occupies a physical body, that body becomes "a living soul." Therefore, a spirit can and does occupy a physical body without ceasing to retain the qualitities of a spirit. It's life. It's not merely a mysterious essence that fills the universe.

Sorry, I do not believe God, the Father is in or confined to a human body. I believe God the Son took on a human body to pay for our sins. I also do not believe we existed as spirits who came and occupied human bodies but that we came into existence mind, body, soul and spirit at conception. Only Jesus left Heaven and became human, he is the only one who has descended from Heaven and returned. We will one day be with him in Heaven but we did not descend from there.

Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell? And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. Proverbs 30:4, John 3:13 (see also Ephesians 4)

 

[Katzpur]

While I have great respect for people of the Mormon faith and I do not doubt your sincerity and love of God, I must say what I believe is the truth from the Bible. I'm not "anti-mormon nor do I nor CARM hate them either. If you notice my beliefs all come from the Bible while these other beliefs are from Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon (Book of Abraham), John Talmage's "Articles of Faith", the 8th Article of Faith of the Mormon Church and a couple other books I mentioned in my post. When they disagree with the Bible, and on very core doctrines, I must stick with the Bible. It would be wrong of me to do otherwise.

No official LDS doctrines contradict the Bible, javajo. Not a single one. Some statements from past LDS leaders do appear to contradict the Bible, but they are merely the personal opinions of the men who made them, and do not represent LDS doctrine. This is why I specifically posted the Church's statement on what is and what is not official doctrine in my post #39. It's important to make the distinction between offical doctrine and someone's interpretation of doctrine. You've always been respectful of my beliefs, and it's not my intention to try to change your beliefs. I just want you to know that not everything ever said by any Mormon (even one in a high position) is considered doctrine, and that when you say that certain LDS core doctrines contradict the Bible, you are wrong. You just have to know what is and what is not LDS doctrine. (Hint: You're not going to get accurate information on the subject from the enemies of the LDS Church.)

 

[Katzpur]

While I respect your faith, my concern is whether the object of your faith is the same as that of the Bible, of one and only one God among no others who is from everlasting and has always been God (and never a man).When the Bible says God is Spirit, I take Him at His Word. I do not believe I am interpreting it wrong.

I take it at its word, too. I believe God is spirit, and I believe that a spirit is a life force. God is the source of all life.

So, which is it? One God or "They, the Gods"? It must be either/or as there is only one God and no other.

If 'the phrase "as one of us" refers to the plurality of God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit' (what the scriptures refer to as the Godhead), why can't "they, the Gods" mean exactly that -- the Father, Son and Holy Spirit? Jesus Christ created our universe under His Father's direction. That's what the Bible teaches (Hebrews 1:1-2), and I assume you believe it. If God the Father were to address His Son, could He not refer to Him as "God"? We know that the Son referred to His Father as "God."

John 4:24 says that God is spirit. Jesus is God in human flesh. God became a man (not the other way around) so he could pay the penalty of our sins, which is death. The only way he could shed blood and die was to become a man, yet still fully God, and live a sinless life so he could be the Lamb without blemish who alone was able to pay the penalty for our sins. I do not believe God the Father has a human body nor do I believe the Bible teaches so.

Well, it pretty clearly says we were created in His image, after His likeness. I know you don't interpret that literally, but I do. One of the reasons I do is that just a couple of chapters after the creation account, the Bible says that Adam had a son who was "in His image, after His likeness." The same exact wording was used to imply that Adam had a son that bore a physical resemblance to him, that just as Adam had a human form, so did his offspring. In the New Testament, we are told that Jesus Christ was "the express image of His [Father's] person." And even with that evidence, you deny that the Father has the image of a person. I just don't get it.

I believe God the Son took on a human body and I believe God the Holy Spirit resides within those who have trusted Christ and also convicts people who have not trusted Christ and is not confined to a human body of his own, but resides in all who trusted the Son to have paid the penalty for all their sins.

So is God the Father just 1/3 God, God the Son also just 1/3 God and God the Holy Spirit also just 1/3 God? You can't very well say that each one is God in full and not 1/3 God, and then turn around and say that there's only one God. That's an outright contradiction.

"They the Gods" clearly teaches more than one God which I do not believe. The phrase "as one of us" in Gen. 3:22, I believe refers to the plurality of God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. One God of three persons, a tri-une God, the Trinity or what you would call the Godhead.

So you believe that "as one of us" is referring to the plurality of God, but "they (the Gods)" is not? Why isn't it? I'm sorry, but the word "plurality" definitely means more than one.

Yet Joseph Smith was saying that God was once a man and he really believed that. I believe God is from everlasting and has always been fully God and never man.

Whether he believed it or not doesn't matter. It's not in the LDS canon and you could attend LDS Church services every Sunday for the rest of your life and never hear it taught. What does that tell you? (Here's what it should tell you: We teach our doctrines. We don't teach anything about God's beginnings. If this were an LDS doctrine, you can be sure we'd be teaching it, and not infrequently.)

At any rate, the Bible starts out "in the beginning," before the clock started ticking, so to speak. There was a time before the creation of our universe. Surely you wouldn't disagree with me on that point. But the Bible doesn't say anything at all about what was happening before "the beginning." Obviously something was going on. Let's just say, hypothetically speaking, that Mormons believed something that was happening before "the beginning," it wouldn't be contradicting the Bible, because the Bible is silent on what was happening before "the beginning," and you can't contradict something that isn't even mentioned.

Sorry, I do not believe God, the Father is in or confined to a human body.

That's an interesting way of putting it. The Bible says that Jesus Christ ascended into Heaven as His Apostles watched. It says He will return in like form. So you believe Jesus Christ has a body right now?

I believe God the Son took on a human body to pay for our sins.

Me too. But you make a distinction between God the Son and God the Father. While God the Son was here on earth, where was God the Father? If God the Son had a corporeal body and God the Father did not, how could they be a single substance? A substance cannot be two contradictory things -- i.e. both corporeal and non-corporeal.

I also do not believe we existed as spirits who came and occupied human bodies but that we came into existence mind, body, soul and spirit at conception.

That's fine. You can believe that if you want, but there is no where in the Bible where this is taught. On the other hand, there are a number of clues in the Bible to the contrary. I'll tell you what they are if you're interested.

Only Jesus left Heaven and became human, he is the only one who has descended from Heaven and returned. We will one day be with him in Heaven but we did not descend from there.

I guess this is something on which we will simply have to agree to disagree, but you'll have to admit that the Bible does not clearly say one way or the other.

Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell? And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

Proverbs 30:4, John 3:13 (see also Ephesians 4)

I'd have to agree with you there. No man has ascended to Heaven but Christ. The rest who have died are currently in the spirit realm awaiting their resurrections and final judgment.

 

[Katzpur]

TRINITY:

Christian

• The Trinity is the doctrine that there is only one God in all the universe and that He exists in three eternal, simultaneous persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Mormon

• The trinity is three separate Gods: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. "That these three are separate individuals, physically distinct from each other, is demonstrated by the accepted records of divine dealings with man," (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 35).

The Trinity is a concept that first came to be established as the result of a council called by a non-Christian emperor with a political agenda. Nobody in 34 A.D. believed in a God that was defined as the creeds would describe Him several hundreds of years later. There is nothing in the Bible to imply that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three persons which cannot be confounded (whatever that means) comprising a single substance, which cannot be divided. Clearly, if the Father was in Heaven while the Son was on Earth, the substance was divided. At one point, this substance even supposedly forsook itself. Now that's a good trick.

Here is what we believe about the Godhead. Regardless of the fact that you will undoubtedly disagree with what we believe, I don't believe you can prove any of it to be contradictory to what the Bible has to say about God. (Yes, it does contradict the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds. I'd be the first to admit that.)

Our first Article of Faith states: We believe in God the Eternal Father, and in His Son Jesus Christ and in the Holy Ghost. We believe that Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God in the flesh. While we believe that God is the Father of the spirits of each and every person who has ever lived, and that we are all His spirit offspring, Jesus Christ is most definitely in a class by Himself. He was with His Father in the beginning. Under His Father's direction, He created worlds without number. He was chosen to be "the Lamb" prior to the foundation of this world. He sits today on the right hand of His Father. Along with the Holy Ghost, the Father and the Son make up the Godhead.

We believe that our Father in Heaven and His Son Jesus Christ have a true father-son relationship. The words, "Father" and "Son," in other words, mean exactly what they say. They are not metaphorical or symbolic of a vague metaphysical relationship, in which two beings are some how both part of a single essence. We are each the physical sons and daughters of our mortal parents. Jesus Christ is the literal, physical Son of a divine Father and a mortal Mother. He was conceived in a miraculous way, but like all sons, was in the "express image of His Father's person." That is to say, He looked like Him. Dogs beget puppies, and cats beget kittens. God beget a Son who is the same species as He is. They both have bodies of flesh and bone (although, until His birth in Bethlehem, Jesus Christ was a spirit being only).

The Father and the Son are physically distinct from one another, and yet they are also "one." This doctrine is taught in the Book of Mormon as well as in the Bible. We just understand the word "one" to mean something other than physical substance or essence. We believe they are "one in will and purpose, one in mind and heart, and one in power and glory." It would be impossible to explain, or even to understand, the degree of their unity. It is perfect; it is absolute. They think, feel and act as "one God." Because of this perfect unity, and because they share the title of "God," we think of them together in this way. It would be impossible for us to worship one of them without also worshipping the other.

Most Christians also use the words “co-equal” and “co-eternal” to describe the relationship between the Father and the Son. We do not. We believe that, as is again the case with all fathers and sons, the Father existed prior to His Son. No son's existence precedes his father's, and Jesus Christ is no exception to this rule. We also believe Christ to be subordinate to His Father. He is divine because of His relationship with His Father. It is, however, important to understand what we mean when we use the word "subordinate." We understand that the Son holds a subordinate position in the relationship; we do not believe Him to be an inferior being. As an example, a colonel holds an inferior position to a general, but is not an inferior being. To most people's way of thinking, an ant, however, is an inferior being to a human.

The third member of the Godhead is the Holy Ghost. Unlike the Father and the Son, the Holy Ghost is a person of spirit only. It is by virtue of this quality that He is able to both fill the universe and dwell in our hearts. It is through the Holy Ghost that God communicates to mankind. We come to understand spiritual truths through the witnessing of the Holy Ghost, who communicates with us on a spiritual plane. It is through Him that we come to know the Father and the Son.

 

[Rathus]

No official LDS doctrines contradict the Bible, javajo. Not a single one. Some statements from past LDS leaders do appear to contradict the Bible, but they are merely the personal opinions of the men who made them, and do not represent LDS doctrine. This is why I specifically posted the Church's statement on what is and what is not official doctrine in my post #39. It's important to make the distinction between offical doctrine and someone's interpretation of doctrine. You've always been respectful of my beliefs, and it's not my intention to try to change your beliefs. I just want you to know that not everything ever said by any Mormon (even one in a high position) is considered doctrine, and that when you say that certain LDS core doctrines contradict the Bible, you are wrong. You just have to know what is and what is not LDS doctrine. (Hint: You're not going to get accurate information on the subject from the enemies of the LDS Church.)

Does the LDS Church have a book that outlines or gives in detail exactly WHAT constitutes official LDS doctrine? Kind of like a Catechism of the LDS Faith (similar to a Catholic Catechism book)?

 

[Katzpur]

Does the LDS Church have a book that outlines or gives in detail exactly WHAT constitutes official LDS doctrine? Kind of like a Catechism of the LDS Faith (similar to a Catholic Catechism book)?

We don't have anything quite like a Catholic Catechism, but this paragraph pretty much sums it up:

In a 2007 statement issued by the Church, the following guidelines were given as to what constitutes LDS doctrine:

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The mistake that public commentators often make is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. This is especially common among reporters or researchers who rely on how other Christians interpret Latter-day Saint doctrine.