God in mormonism

[BilliardsBall]

There is no judicial specific word for 'work' in Greek. The words one can use for works or work all have more common uses. Words like: ergon, pragma, praxis, poeio etc. all have a more general use and meaning. The larger and more critical point is all such require an acting agent and this is the rub. Works, like faith or grace, are acts: deeds, things done by a subject. Now the subject may be Divine, as in theo ergon, Divine work, or Anthropo ergon the work of men. There is still an agent.

To my question and your reply: it appears, once on the bus, you cannot leave. The conclusion then is no act, however heinous or vile could change your ultimate destination: salvation and heaven. This means morality is irrelevant. Think back on the syllogism I gave you that was tied to your earlier statements:

1) God is good
2) Men must be like God to be saved (per your post #85)
3) Then, men must be good to be saved.

Based on your reply to the bus analogy and you prior assertion found in 2), you must reject 1). Therefore, Deity must be an amoral or immoral being. If you agree with 1) and still hold to 2) then there must be a moral element to a saved state. If there is a moral element to salvation (one must be good), then there must be free agency: only a free agent can be moral. This would then mean your notion that one can never get off the bus to salvation is wrong.

BilliardsBall, I think you've painted yourself into a corner. I think this has happened because of a dogmatic loyalty to a particular reading of scripture (that itself is a reading foreign to early Christianity). If you open yourself up to a larger Christian hermeneutic, you would not have to abandon reason to hold a theological position on either the atonement or salvation.

I would modify what you shared to the following:

Morality has no bearing on salvation, but it has bearing on reward. Remember that I would hold that line for both Christians and unbelievers. The unbeliever receives degree of punishment per their morality but a very good unbeliever cannot be saved apart from trusting in God for salvation.

Also, I would modify what you wrote to say:

1) God is perfect
2) Men must be perfect to be saved (per my posts and per Matthew 5:48 - "Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect"
3) Men cannot achieve perfection by their efforts, but Jesus may impute them perfection via trust/faith

I apologize for all the posts. I'm not trying to hog the thread but am wanting to reply to everyone and each excellent point they have raised.

 

[Thanda]

Have you read this whole thread? I live differently and/or aspire to because I WAS saved. Others attempt to live differently and/or aspire to do so to BE saved.

A simple but important difference. One group relies on Christ's atonement, the other is putting more emphasis on their personal efforts.

Maybe it is because that other group realises that salvation is not a one size fits all. Maybe it is because they understand that when Jesus said in his father's house there are many mansions he meant the are many types of rewards he has prepared for different levels of faithfulness. Maybe they understand that to have the reward of Abraham they must do the works of Abraham.

Let me put it this way. Let me agree with you that good works come after one is saved. Then let me put it to you that the level of your good works are an indication of the level of your salvation. The deeper the salvation the greater your works. Christ commanded us to be as perfect as God is. There is a salvation which allows us to have the power to do that. If we are not yet perfect then we have not yet received that salvation.

 

[Orontes]

I would modify what you shared to the following:

Morality has no bearing on salvation, but it has bearing on reward. Remember that I would hold that line for both Christians and unbelievers. The unbeliever receives degree of punishment per their morality but a very good unbeliever cannot be saved apart from trusting in God for salvation.

Also, I would modify what you wrote to say:

1) God is perfect
2) Men must be perfect to be saved (per my posts and per Matthew 5:48 - "Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect"
3) Men cannot achieve perfection by their efforts, but Jesus may impute them perfection via trust/faith

I apologize for all the posts. I'm not trying to hog the thread but am wanting to reply to everyone and each excellent point they have raised.

Your modification is not a syllogism. There is no logical necessity. It is simply three statements.
Per my syllogism again:

1) God is good
2) Men must be like God to be saved (per your post #85)
3) Then, men must be good to be saved.

Point 2) is your own words. Do you reject 1)?

 

[rrosskopf]

I would be comfortable with this line of thought if the Decalogue said, "Thou shalt have no other gods except me and Jehovah [or except me and El]." The plural oneness of Father, Son and Spirit is taught in both testaments.

I don't believe that all prophets have had the exact same comprehension of who God is and who his son is. The whole concept of God having a son seems to contradict any notion of monotheism. Some have tried to bridge the gap by saying it is one person who appears as three, but that doesn't really explain the facts at all. There is no point at all of Jesus praying to his father, if they were the same person, or different faces of the same person. Jesus asked not to suffer the atonement, but subordinated his will to that of his father. Clearly there are at least two separate individuals here, which have their own wills, and which communicate back and forth with each other. The martyr Stephen also saw them both together, not as one person but as two. To say that there is just one God requires someone to define God in a new and unique way, one that doesn't contradict the known facts. The LDS solution is very clever and does just that, and also has biblical support. In the Book of Revelation, God appears to John, saying "I am Alpha and Omega...", but when John later starts to worship the being, the being admits to only being an angel, and not God at all. So how did an angel talk like he was God? The angel acted under the authority of God, and therefore acted as if he was God. He represented God. In John 1:1, we have a verse that has lost almost all meaning because of a faulty translation. LOGOS is the Greek word that is here translated as "Word", but LOGOS has many different definitions, depending on the context. If we were talking about sentence structure, then "word" would be the best definition. The trouble is that the subject isn't sentence structure. The subject describes the relationship of Jesus to God. A better translation would be "In the beginning was the Spokesman, and the Spokesman was with God, and the Spokesman was [a] God..." As a spokesman for God, Jesus had the authority to speak as if he was God, just as the angel who spoke to John. So in this sense, the title of God actually refers back to one God, not many. Jesus taught that we should all be "one" with him as he is with the Father. So in a way all the faithful become gods, although in reality they are representing just one God.

 

[rrosskopf]

*content moderated*

Some of what the guest speaker claims to be Mormon doctrine is just anti-mormon hype with no basis in reality. Mormons have no doctrine on how spirits are organized. God hasn't revealed it. Mormons do believe that Mary was a virgin. It states as much right in the Book of Mormon. The Bible may not be our entire universe, but it is the first book in our canon of scripture. The Book of Mormon never claims to be infallible; it states just the opposite... "if there are mistakes, they are the mistakes of men..." The guest speaker has a real us vs. them mentality. He never even tries to determine whether any of these beliefs that seem uniquely Mormon were also taught by 1st century Christians. He sets himself up as the definer of Christianity. Without any acknowledged authority from God, he sits in the seat of God and talks as if he were God. I hope he doesn't represent all Christians.

 

[JFish123]

Some of what the guest speaker claims to be Mormon doctrine is just anti-mormon hype with no basis in reality. Mormons have no doctrine on how spirits are organized. God hasn't revealed it. Mormons do believe that Mary was a virgin. It states as much right in the Book of Mormon. The Bible may not be our entire universe, but it is the first book in our canon of scripture. The Book of Mormon never claims to be infallible; it states just the opposite... "if there are mistakes, they are the mistakes of men..." The guest speaker has a real us vs. them mentality. He never even tries to determine whether any of these beliefs that seem uniquely Mormon were also taught by 1st century Christians. He sets himself up as the definer of Christianity. Without any acknowledged authority from God, he sits in the seat of God and talks as if he were God. I hope he doesn't represent all Christians.

But if the Book of Mormon states that "if there are mistakes in it..." Then how can you even trust it? The Bible, say even just the New Testament has historical verification on people, places, events etc... doesn't the Book of Mormon fail on that regard? I'm just saying, anyone can trust a religious document from any religion, as it's just belief. But if that document fails on earthly things (historical people, places) how can it be trusted for spiritual or heavenly things? The Bible passes that with flying colors but the same cannot be said about the Books of Mormonism can they not?

 

[Nicholas]

This may be too off topic, but I have not read every post to see if anyone mentioned it. Do not know if it weakens or strengthens the LDS notion of humans being gods in embryo. To a Xtian I guess it weakens it, to me it does not.

The non-Xtian faiths of Buddhism, Jainism, Hinduism all support a path to divinity or god-like status or godhood. Or in the case of Mahayana Buddhism, becoming a buddha, which is considered superior to any god.

 

[Katzpur]

I disagree with #s 1 and 2, but agree that if one trusts Jesus, we live forever in Heaven/the new Earth/new Universe, not in Hell.

Okay, well what do you believe with regards to my first and second points then? And are you really saying that all you need to do is trust Jesus and you're assured of a future in Heaven regardless of how you live your life?

 

[Katzpur]

I would be comfortable with this line of thought if the Decalogue said, "Thou shalt have no other gods except me and Jehovah [or except me and El]." The plural oneness of Father, Son and Spirit is taught in both testaments.

Could you define "plural oneness" please?

 

[Katzpur]

This may be too off topic, but I have not read every post to see if anyone mentioned it. Do not know if it weakens or strengthens the LDS notion of humans being gods in embryo. To a Xtian I guess it weakens it, to me it does not.

The non-Xtian faiths of Buddhism, Jainism, Hinduism all support a path to divinity or god-like status or godhood. Or in the case of Mahayana Buddhism, becoming a buddha, which is considered superior to any god.

Since I believe that pretty much every religion contains some elements of truth, I'm always interested in finding common ground between Mormonism and other religions. To me, the belief that man can become god-like strengthens the LDS position. Obviously, non-LDS Christians are going to see this as heretical, but most of them simply ignore the non-Biblical writings of the early Christian period, when this doctrine was widely taught and commonly believed. It blows my mind when I realize that most Christians just seem to think that what they believe it what was taught from the very beginning of Christianity, when even a small amount of research on their part would clearly reveal that they're wrong.

 

[Katzpur]

But if the Book of Mormon states that "if there are mistakes in it..." Then how can you even trust it?

So you're apparently one of those folks who believe that every last word in the Bible (whichever version you personally use) is letter perfect, despite the fact that we have absolutely none of the original documents, despite the fact that it was hand copied hundreds of times over the years, transcribed, and translated by human being. There is not a true Biblical scholar alive today who is that pathetically gullible.

The Bible, say even just the New Testament has historical verification on people, places, events etc... doesn't the Book of Mormon fail on that regard?

For crying out loud, all we know about where the Book of Mormon events took place was that they were somewhere in the Western Hemisphere. If you think archeologists have discovered all there is to find everywhere on the western hemisphere, you are sadly mistaken. Jerusalem still exists today and we know precisely where it is. But many, many ancient cities lie in ruins that have never been found. Heck, my husband grew up in a coal mining community in central Utah. His family left there when he was 16 years old. As the mines dried up, everyone else eventually left the town, too. He and I drove down to that area a few months back. Where an entire town stood just 50 years ago, there is absolutely NOTHING left. Nothing!!!! If archeologists were looking for a place called Spring Canyon a thousand years from now and knew only that it was somewhere in the western hemisphere, how likely do you think it would be that they could find it? Would that mean that it never existed? Would that mean that any mention of it in writings from 1950 were false?

I'm just saying, anyone can trust a religious document from any religion, as it's just belief. But if that document fails on earthly things (historical people, places) how can it be trusted for spiritual or heavenly things? The Bible passes that with flying colors but the same cannot be said about the Books of Mormonism can they not?

And I'm just saying that you really need to do a whole lot more research before you say much more about Mormonism. And when you have something more of a negative nature to say, don't use the LDS DIR to do it in. Billiards Ball is asking questions to understand Mormon doctrine. You are simply using the LDS DIR to bash Mormonism.

 

[Orontes]

But if the Book of Mormon states that "if there are mistakes in it..." Then how can you even trust it? The Bible, say even just the New Testament has historical verification on people, places, events etc... doesn't the Book of Mormon fail on that regard? I'm just saying, anyone can trust a religious document from any religion, as it's just belief. But if that document fails on earthly things (historical people, places) how can it be trusted for spiritual or heavenly things? The Bible passes that with flying colors but the same cannot be said about the Books of Mormonism can they not?

Mormonism rejects both textual inerrancy and ecclesiastical infallibility. Both positions are logically problematic.

I take the rest of your post as: archeology and history constitutes a proof text for the Bible's veracity. If that's what you intended, it's not a well thought out position. On purely historico-archeological grounds, large swaths of the Bible have little grounding. The Exodus is a simple example. This is a fundamental event in the Biblical narrative. From an historical perspective there is little to no evidence it ever occurred. There is no evidence of an enslaved Hebrew people in Egypt around the time of the event. There is no evidence of a mass migration out of Egypt into the lower Levant. There is no evidence of a massive conquest of Canaan by foreign peoples. Further, from the uncovered Ugaritic texts, the very base theological underpinnings of Judaism is Canaanite and can be traced in its development over multiple centuries all within the context of the local region. The very name Yahweh is the name of a Canaanite god. If one's devotional loyalty is based on secular understanding, it will come up wanting. The core thrust of Mormonism is personal experience of the Divine. This is where trust derives.

Note: you shouldn't be posting anti-Mormon video in the Mormon DIR it's bad form. Further, posting poorly argued anti-Mormon videos in the DIR isn't wise as it can reflect back on the post creator as simply ignorant and opens them up to be simply laughed at.

 

[Orontes]

This may be too off topic, but I have not read every post to see if anyone mentioned it. Do not know if it weakens or strengthens the LDS notion of humans being gods in embryo. To a Xtian I guess it weakens it, to me it does not.

The non-Xtian faiths of Buddhism, Jainism, Hinduism all support a path to divinity or god-like status or godhood. Or in the case of Mahayana Buddhism, becoming a buddha, which is considered superior to any god.

Hello,

Is a Xtian a Christian? There are three great divisions within Christendom: Orthodoxy, Catholicism and Protestantism. It is only within Protestantism that deification became anathema. This is largely due to the fact the movement is based on a particular reading of St. Augustine, with a heavy focus on original sin and human depravity.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Maybe it is because that other group realises that salvation is not a one size fits all. Maybe it is because they understand that when Jesus said in his father's house there are many mansions he meant the are many types of rewards he has prepared for different levels of faithfulness. Maybe they understand that to have the reward of Abraham they must do the works of Abraham.

Let me put it this way. Let me agree with you that good works come after one is saved. Then let me put it to you that the level of your good works are an indication of the level of your salvation. The deeper the salvation the greater your works. Christ commanded us to be as perfect as God is. There is a salvation which allows us to have the power to do that. If we are not yet perfect then we have not yet received that salvation.

Since sin is imperfection, are you saying that Christians prior to Christ’s return may live utterly without sin whatsoever now? That is a very rare stance, although I do know a few who believe it.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Your modification is not a syllogism. There is no logical necessity. It is simply three statements.
Per my syllogism again:

1) God is good
2) Men must be like God to be saved (per your post #85)
3) Then, men must be good to be saved.

Point 2) is your own words. Do you reject 1)?

Yes, I reject 1. God isn’t “good”. God is perfect and perfectly good. Men must be perfectly good to be saved, not “sort of pretty good at most times”, which is usually known as "religious". I know some LDS members who are exceptionally fine, upstanding, religious, kind and gentle people--and I can see I've encountered still more lovely people right here on this thread. It's not enough. Once I asked an LDS member, "If you think I'm saved, what might be a benefit of me joining an LDS church?" They replied, "So you can do many more works and become more certain." I don't think I can live comfortably with that level of insecurity.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Since I believe that pretty much every religion contains some elements of truth, I'm always interested in finding common ground between Mormonism and other religions. To me, the belief that man can become god-like strengthens the LDS position. Obviously, non-LDS Christians are going to see this as heretical, but most of them simply ignore the non-Biblical writings of the early Christian period, when this doctrine was widely taught and commonly believed. It blows my mind when I realize that most Christians just seem to think that what they believe it what was taught from the very beginning of Christianity, when even a small amount of research on their part would clearly reveal that they're wrong.

Trying to answer all three of your inquiries on this post:

* One is lost without Jesus regardless of how they live their life, no matter how good. So one is saved regardless, yes. Sure. The Bible teaches assurance. Again, I can do some pretty bad things. I don’t think I can worship the devil, though—I can’t even stop witnessing! I know too much. I’m loved too much.

* There is One God. Father God, Jesus and the Spirit are one entity. Being spirit beings, Jesus is able to inhabit a man’s body.

* I AGREE that man can be godlike as you mentioned from early sources. We just disagree on the timing. One is imputed the perfection of God to be saved now. One comes into a perfect body at the Rapture. By saying we will be more and more godlike through eternity over time, you are again putting too much emphasis IMHO on man’s efforts. God does this all for us.

 

[Thanda]

Since sin is imperfection, are you saying that Christians prior to Christ’s return may live utterly without sin whatsoever now? That is a very rare stance, although I do know a few who believe it.

Yes they can. I believe that is the true miracle of the gospel. Jesus turned water into wine - he can also turn a sinner into a saint. Jesus said "whatsoever you ask in faith shall be done unto you". Those who ask in faith for God to deliver them from all their sins will receive the desired blessing. Those who ask for God to deliver them from most sins but to also leave them to commit "a little sin" here and there will also receive what they have asked for.

Jesus, in Matthew 7, said:

9 Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?

10 Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?

11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?​

So likewise what man is there who could ask God to free him from all sin, is freed only from some of them some of the time? There is none. Any man who gives their life over to the will of the Lord is upheld and sustained by God and God keeps him in the paths of righteousness and far from the power of the devil.

 

[Katzpur]

Trying to answer all three of your inquiries on this post:

* One is lost without Jesus regardless of how they live their life, no matter how good. So one is saved regardless, yes. Sure. The Bible teaches assurance. Again, I can do some pretty bad things. I don’t think I can worship the devil, though—I can’t even stop witnessing! I know too much. I’m loved too much.

* There is One God. Father God, Jesus and the Spirit are one entity. Being spirit beings, Jesus is able to inhabit a man’s body.

* I AGREE that man can be godlike as you mentioned from early sources. We just disagree on the timing. One is imputed the perfection of God to be saved now. One comes into a perfect body at the Rapture. By saying we will be more and more godlike through eternity over time, you are again putting too much emphasis IMHO on man’s efforts. God does this all for us.

I'm not going to debate you on this, BilliardsBall, particularly not on the LDS DIR. We're simply never going to interpret the scriptures the same way when it comes to salvation. About all I'm going to say is that it seems to me as if your focus is on being saved and Mormonism's focus is on becoming better people. You see Mormonism as putting too much emphasis on man's efforts. I see your religion as concerning itself too much with "what's in it for me?" and not enough with "how can I live in such a way that I can show my Savior that I love Him?" I wish you well, but I'm pretty much done with this particular conversation.

 

[Orontes]

Yes, I reject 1. God isn’t “good”. God is perfect and perfectly good.

This statement is a non sequitur. The adverb adds nothing relevant to the point. It is the same as if one were to reply "God isn't good, He's super duper marvelously good". The base issue is if you recognized God as a moral being. If so, then:

1) God is good (post #157)
2) Men must be like God to be saved (per your post #85)
3) Then, men must be good to be saved.

Your acceptance of 1) and 2) show you are drawing the wrong conclusions. You cannot escape the moral element to salvation which means free agency is intrinsic to the process. You don't understand you own viewpoint.

* There is One God. Father God, Jesus and the Spirit are one entity. Being spirit beings, Jesus is able to inhabit a man’s body.

Just as an aside, the above statement is problematic. It embraces modalism, a fundamental heresy condemned early on in Christian trinitarian circles. It also runs afoul of the very Bible you appeal to. Christ is a resurrected being and stressed that point to His disciples. This means He has a body. He did not die a second time.

 

[JFish123]

Mormonism rejects both textual inerrancy and ecclesiastical infallibility. Both positions are logically problematic.

I take the rest of your post as: archeology and history constitutes a proof text for the Bible's veracity. If that's what you intended, it's not a well thought out position. On purely historico-archeological grounds, large swaths of the Bible have little grounding. The Exodus is a simple example. This is a fundamental event in the Biblical narrative. From an historical perspective there is little to no evidence it ever occurred. There is no evidence of an enslaved Hebrew people in Egypt around the time of the event. There is no evidence of a mass migration out of Egypt into the lower Levant. There is no evidence of a massive conquest of Canaan by foreign peoples. Further, from the uncovered Ugaritic texts, the very base theological underpinnings of Judaism is Canaanite and can be traced in its development over multiple centuries all within the context of the local region. The very name Yahweh is the name of a Canaanite god. If one's devotional loyalty is based on secular understanding, it will come up wanting. The core thrust of Mormonism is personal experience of the Divine. This is where trust derives.

Note: you shouldn't be posting anti-Mormon video in the Mormon DIR it's bad form. Further, posting poorly argued anti-Mormon videos in the DIR isn't wise as it can reflect back on the post creator as simply ignorant and opens them up to be simply laughed at.

I'm just curious, for if someone has a book, any book, that they base their life upon it, in fact their eternal life upon what's written inside it, and it's not without error (not infallible or inerrant) how can one trust it with anything, as it might also be false?