• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Mormon or Christians?

TheGreaterGame

Active Member
2 Tim 3:15 refers to the holy Scriptures that Timothy has "known from infancy".... how exactly do you then decide that the very NEXT verse that references Scripture is the (yet unwritten and undefined by the Catholic Church) New Testament?
You make a valid point. I would argue this because of the progressive revelation revealed through the apostles in the NT. Did the writers of the NT realize that they were revelation? Yes. But it probrably wasn't fully realized until the Catholic Church (that is the Universal Church) sealed the 27 books of the NT in the complete Canon of scripture.
 

Scott1

Well-Known Member
TheGreaterGame said:
You make a valid point.
It happens every once and a while.;)
I would argue this because of the progressive revelation revealed through the apostles in the NT. Did the writers of the NT realize that they were revelation? Yes.
Progressive revelation???? ....a far cry from the "absoulute, authoratative...." Scripture you referred to in your last post.
But it probrably wasn't fully realized until the Catholic Church (that is the Universal Church) sealed the 27 books of the NT in the complete Canon of scripture.
So your whole theology rests on the validity of the Canon of scripture that was somehow "sealed" by this unknown, leaderless, amorphous mob of "universal Christians?

Scott
 

Scott1

Well-Known Member
TheGreaterGame said:
You say Roman Catholic . . . and I say "The Church" universal . . . that is before the corruption began.
So, your entire "Systematic Theology" is based on a premise where you believe (again) that the Canon of Scripture was defined by a unknown, leaderless, amorphous mob of "universal Christians..... and the only retort you'd like to make is that eventually there was corruption in this mob.... but I guess it's no longer a mob, it's Roman Catholic.... when exactly the universal becomes Roman Catholic, who knows?..... but you can be sure that when it became corrupted, by THEN it was Roman Catholic..... is that about right? :rolleyes:

It's not systematic..... and I say it's barely a theology...... more of a "wishful philosophy".

Thanks for the chat,
Scott
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
TheGreaterGame said:
I... appreciate you proving my point that Mormons make Jesus out to be a sub-god. I did think it was interesting that you quoted Paul to prove that there are in fact a multitude of Gods. However I think if you read

For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." (1 Corinthians 8:5-6)

You seem to think that Paul argues for a polytheism, when in the same text He says, "to us (to Christians) there is but one God. Contextually, Paul is dealing with the issues of someone making an idol a god. Not that there are any other God . . . but one.
Game,

Don't assume you know what Mormons believe. You obviously don't. Paul was stating the LDS viewpoint -- exactly: To us there is but one God. I really don't expect you to get it; your mind is made up and nobody's going to change it.

Is the Book of Abraham still apart of the LDS's canon? If it is . . . then it depicts everything that was alluded to by my counterpart.
I'm guessing this question is not a sincere inquiry. If you're such an expert of my religion, you should know the answer. It's really pretty basic. Furthermore, if the Book of Abraham "depicts everything that was alluded to by [your] counterpart," why don't you simply quote from it in the future instead of taking the liberty of putting our beliefs into your own words?

Kathryn
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
IacobPersul said:
This belief is Arianism as condemned at the Council of Nicea. As such I think it's rather a rare belief amongst those calling themselves Christian. Certainly, it is not found in any church outside those I would loosely describe as Protestant (i.e. including Mormons, JWs etc.), and not in the mainstream Protestant churches either.

James
James,

It's not Arianism. Arianism, as you should know, holds that Jesus was an ordinary mortal man who became God. According to noted Christian scholar, B.J. Kidd, in A History of the Church to A.D. 461, the Arians believed that Jesus "was by advance made God, from being made by nature a mere man" He was God not "by nature" but "by virtue." The Latter-day Saints reject this notion, believing that, like His Father, Jesus Christ was "God" in the beginning, prior to His incarnation. We do not believe that He was born as a mere mortal and later became God, as the Arians do.

Kathryn
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Uncertaindrummer said:
I was NOT making accusations. I shied away from making accusations becasue I am not sure what it is Mormons believe. I have heard Jesus is a God, Jesus is not a God, Jesus IS one with the Father, Jesus is NOT one with the Father, etc. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to the true Mormon doctrine?
If you were not making accusations, I apologize. I thought you were.

With regards to Jesus Christ, here are four passages from the Book of Mormon. I don't think you could find a much more authoritative statement of our belief than this:

2 Nephi 31:21 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. Amen.

Mosiah 15:5 And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God, suffereth temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation, but suffereth himself to be mocked, and scourged, and cast out, and disowned by his people.

Alma 11:44 Now, this restoration shall come to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, both the wicked and the righteous; and even there shall not so much as a hair of their heads be lost; but every thing shall be restored to its perfect frame, as it is now, or in the body, and shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God, to be judged according to their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil.

3 Nephi 11:27 And after this manner shall ye baptize in my name; for behold, verily I say unto you, that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one; and I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one.

Mormon 7:7 And he hath brought to pass the redemption of the world, whereby he that is found guiltless before him at the judgment day hath it given unto him to dwell in the presence of God in his kingdom, to sing ceaseless praises with the choirs above, unto the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one God, in a state of happiness which hath no end.

The issue is not whether we believe Jesus Christ to be God, but how we understand the use of the word "one." When a couple marries, they often hear the statement, "Now you two are one." Does marriage somehow make them part of the same physical being? Of course not. It makes them (or at least should make them) "one in purpose." Of course the Father's and the Son's unity is far more perfect than any unity we can experience here on earth. It's absolute; they are of one heart, one mind and one will. But they are not both part of a single substance or essence. They are physically distinct from one another, but "one" in every other way I can conceive of.

I hope this helps. :)

Kathryn
 

TheGreaterGame

Active Member
So, your entire "Systematic Theology" is based on a premise where you believe (again) that the Canon of Scripture was defined by a unknown, leaderless, amorphous mob of "universal Christians..... and the only retort you'd like to make is that eventually there was corruption in this mob.... but I guess it's no longer a mob, it's Roman Catholic.... when exactly the universal becomes Roman Catholic, who knows?..... but you can be sure that when it became corrupted, by THEN it was Roman Catholic..... is that about right? :rolleyes:
The Canon was closed by the providence of God through early councils of Godly men. Are you unaware of the abuses and indulgences of RCC througout the "Dark Ages?"
 

TheGreaterGame

Active Member
Don't assume you know what Mormons believe. You obviously don't. Paul was stating the LDS viewpoint -- exactly: To us there is but one God. I really don't expect you to get it; your mind is made up and nobody's going to change it.
I don't assume . . . this is fact. You have stated that you belive in a mulititude of God's under the LDS teachings of polytheism . . . yes or no? In a privious post you argued that Paul was clearly trying to asert that there a plethora of gods. If this is true then Jesus according to every LDS member who holds to this theology is nothing more then a sub-god . . . yes or no?

You seem as though your tired of this conversation . . . for me this is not a matter of who is right and who is wrong . . . this is an issue of eternal signifagance . . . come back to the table for more discussion.
 

TheGreaterGame

Active Member
To my RCC brothers . . . if you wish to continue a Protestant v RCC debate I say it is better on a new thread . . . but lets stay on the original dialouge "Mormon or Christian?" and the 3 arguements.
 

DeepShadow

White Crow
TheGreaterGame said:
You have stated that you belive in a mulititude of God's under the LDS teachings of polytheism . . . yes or no?
No. Polytheism is the worship of many gods. We worship one God.

In a privious post you argued that Paul was clearly trying to asert that there a plethora of gods. If this is true then Jesus according to every LDS member who holds to this theology is nothing more then a sub-god . . . yes or no?
No. Jesus is not a sub-god. She quoted you several scriptures regarding our belief that God and Jesus are coequal, and you've ignored them.

You seem as though your tired of this conversation . . . for me this is not a matter of who is right and who is wrong . . . this is an issue of eternal signifagance . . . come back to the table for more discussion.
I don't know about her, but I'm not tired of this conversation. I'm just tired of people warping my beliefs beyond recognition by their attempts to paraphrase them. In the future, why don't you look up what we actually teach and beleive at www.lds.org. That website has the complete text of our scriptures, sunday school manuals, and many magazines.

When you find something there that you want to discuss, cut and paste a quote from it here, along with whatever points you want to discuss about it.
 

Pah

Uber all member
TheGreaterGame said:
To my RCC brothers . . . if you wish to continue a Protestant v RCC debate I say it is better on a new thread . . . but lets stay on the original dialouge "Mormon or Christian?" and the 3 arguements.
I'll let it continue if others want it also
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
TheGreaterGame said:
I don't assume . . . this is fact.
You want to talk facts? Okay, here's a fact for you: As a life-long member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I have attended church services on pretty much a weekly basis for the better part of 57 years. It is a fact that I know LDS doctrine better than you do.

You have stated that you belive in a mulititude of God's under the LDS teachings of polytheism . . . yes or no?
No. (1) There is a huge difference between Gods (capital "G") and gods (lower-case "g"). (2) I believe that God is, as the Bible clearly states, "God of gods," and "a great God," -- scriptures you evidently choose to ignore, even though I specifically asked for your comments on them. (3) As do all Latter-day Saints, I believe that although there are many who may be called "gods," to us there is but one God. And, it appears that we're in pretty good company.

In a privious post you argued that Paul was clearly trying to asert that there a plethora of gods.
I merely quoted Paul. I believe you can take the credit for the creative interpretation.

If this is true then Jesus according to every LDS member who holds to this theology is nothing more then a sub-god . . . yes or no?
No.

You seem as though your tired of this conversation
Tired? On the contrary. There is nothing I enjoy quite so much as :banghead3 !

. . . for me this is not a matter of who is right and who is wrong . . .
Well, you could sure fool me!

this is an issue of eternal signifagance . . . come back to the table for more discussion.
And here I am -- ready to repeat myself once again!

Kathryn
 

TheGreaterGame

Active Member
No. Polytheism is the worship of many gods. We worship one God
According to Webster's- Polytheism is the belief or worship of more then one god?

Help me clarify your position for my understanding and for those reading.

LDS hold to the fact that there are other gods? Because this needs clarifacation. I think it has been stated that there are other gods and I and others reading would like just a plain answer. Abraham 3 & 4 teach this . . . yes or no?

And if this is true . . . why or why not would it logically flow that Jesus is nothing more (according to Mormon theology) a sub-god?

I'm glad to see your still vibrant for discussion . . . and I do belive this is about this is guninely about the truth . . . as I belive you are about the truth as well.

Deepshadow I hope you will speak on this issue as well
 

Pah

Uber all member
And if this is true . . . why or why not would it logically flow that Jesus is nothing more (according to Mormon theology) a sub-god?
And why would the Trinity not be considerd polytheistic? Because the singluar "Trinity" is called a "singular" Godhead? Three separate personas or manifestations comprise that Godhead. How can a question be directed at your perception of a "sub-god" when it is logical to call the Trinity polytheistic?
 

TheGreaterGame

Active Member
Well the trinity is seemingly a contradiction . . . but as we look closer at the text of scripture we see that the bible affirms that God is:
1. Three Persons
2. Equal in power in unity
3. One God that comprises the Godhead

I can say the Father is God . . the Son is God . . . the Spirit is God . . . not God is a god and Jesus is a god . . . and the Spirit is a god . . .

There is a difference I hope that you can see. This is an instance of "Paradox" not contradiction.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
TheGreaterGame said:
LDS hold to the fact that there are other gods? Because this needs clarifacation. I think it has been stated that there are other gods and I and others reading would like just a plain answer. Abraham 3 & 4 teach this . . . yes or no?
It would be helpful if you would quote Abraham instead of just referring to it. I would like to be able to address an actual verse or two instead of simply speaking in generalities. Obviously, we haven't accomplished anything by doing that.

And if this is true . . . why or why not would it logically flow that Jesus is nothing more (according to Mormon theology) a sub-god?
:bonk: Okay, maybe I'm just dense. I have no idea whatsoever how you are "logically" coming to this conclusion.

I'm glad to see your still vibrant for discussion . . . and I do belive this is about this is guninely about the truth . . . as I belive you are about the truth as well.
Yes, I am.

Kathryn
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
pah said:
And why would the Trinity not be considerd polytheistic? Because the singluar "Trinity" is called a "singular" Godhead? Three separate personas or manifestations comprise that Godhead. How can a question be directed at your perception of a "sub-god" when it is logical to call the Trinity polytheistic?
Excellent point, pah. I wish a Muslim or two would put in their two-cents worth on this matter. I've been told that Muslims Christianity to be polytheistic, and to me, their arguments are as valid (or invalid, as the case may be) as TheGreaterGame's arguments are about Mormonism being polytheistic.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
TheGreaterGame said:
I can say the Father is God . . the Son is God . . . the Spirit is God . . . not God is a god and Jesus is a god . . . and the Spirit is a god . . .
And when did either DeepShadow or I say, "God is a god and Jesus is a god . . . and the Spirit is a god"? Did you even bother reading the verses I provided from The Book of Mormon?

There is a difference I hope that you can see. This is an instance of "Paradox" not contradiction.
The difference being that now someone's questioning your belief!
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
sounds like a paradoxal contradiction ;)

The bible mentions other gods quite often and is specific that you arn't to worship them.
some examples:
Psalms 96:4 "For the Lord ... is to be feared above all gods."
Psalms 136:2 "O give thanks unto the God of gods."

The Mormoon position is
God 'the father' is God
Jesus is the son of God (not god himself)
the Spirit is the intermediary between God and others. A servent of God not God himself.

if the Trinity arn't 'sub gods' of the whole, then what are they? How is the Mormon view any more polythistic?
The difference is simply semantics, you wan't to see the Mormon position as somehow less valid than your own.

wa:do
 
Top