Questions for Mormons

User avatar
mkprr
Posts: 92
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2009 12:39 am

Re: Questions for Mormons

Post by mkprr » Tue Apr 19, 2011 8:45 pm

Lee,
Thanks again for more thoughtful questions. I hope to be able to further clarify my understanding of God from an LDS perspective.

You seem to want “either or” answers from me but I don’t think I can give you that. You're right that these Isaiah passages appear to contradict some of the LDS doctrines of the Godhead, there is a way to understand them however that doesn’t contradict. No matter what your view of the Godhead is, classic Trinitarian, Oneness Pentecostal, Modalism or any number of other variations and views, you are going to find some passages that have to be understood in one particular way in order to fit the view that you hold when someone not holding that view might understand them in a different way. This isn’t because the bible contradicts itself, it’s because God is real, and as we often find in reality, real things can be more complex than they first might appear. This is what I like about TNP, Steve tends to encourage an atmosphere of exploration instead of strict dogma. I think the scriptures demand this kind of outlook.

By the way, I am curious as to what view of the Godhead you hold to if you wouldn't mind elaborating when you get time.

Before I answer your questions further I thought this definition of the LDS God might be helpful in shedding light on what we believe. It is from the official LDS website under “The Guide to the Scriptures”.
“There are three separate persons in the Godhead: God, the Eternal Father; his Son, Jesus Christ; and the Holy Ghost. We believe in each of them”… “These three persons are one in perfect unity and harmony of purpose and doctrine”

User avatar
mkprr
Posts: 92
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2009 12:39 am

Re: Questions for Mormons

Post by mkprr » Tue Apr 19, 2011 8:51 pm

Lee, You asked:
Question: Is there or is there not another God besides Yahweh?
I can, without contradicting Joseph Smith or the above statement from the LDS website, say that no, there is no God Besides Yahweh. Yahweh is a name that can refer to the Father or the Son. In the sense of their unity and harmony of purpose, the Father Son and Holy Ghost are not beside each other, they are one with each other.

Likewise Isaiah’s statement "Before me there was no God formed, and there will be none after me." Also does not contradict the LDS understanding of God. Our scriptures state that the faithful will become gods which sounds like a glaring contradiction but again, we won’t be gods after Yahweh, or before him, or besides Yahweh, we will be one with Him just as the Father is one with the Son, one in perfect unity and harmony of purpose and doctrine.

Now as far as the "Father having a Father" doctrine, it should be noted that Joseph Smith was clear in his statements on that matter that he is reasoning within the scriptures and these are his ideas on the subject. (most critics never mention this oddly enough) His statements on the subject weren’t conveyed as revelation or scripture in any account I have read and they have not been accepted by the church as scripture but I think they can be harmonized with the scriptures without much difficulty. The main point Joseph Smith made when talking about this subject is to not be afraid to dig into the scriptures to try to understand more. He said “I despise the idea of being scared to death at such a doctrine.” Note that it didn't seem bother him that not everyone was on board with his interpretation. As far as I know he never said that it was a revealed doctrine of the gospel. Please correct me if I am wrong, I could be.

I’ll have to write more about your scripture questions later.

lee
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 10:12 am

Re: Questions for Mormons

Post by lee » Wed Apr 20, 2011 5:04 pm

“You seem to want “either or” answers from me but I don’t think I can give you that.”

You can’t, but Scripture does.

“You're right that these Isaiah passages appear to contradict some of the LDS doctrines of the Godhead,”

Because they do.

“there is a way to understand them however that doesn’t contradict. No matter what your view of the Godhead is, classic Trinitarian, Oneness Pentecostal, Modalism or any number of other variations and views, you are going to find some passages that have to be understood in one particular way in order to fit the view that you hold when someone not holding that view might understand them in a different way.”

That is not correct. When you let the testimony of God’s divine revelation speak unmuffled, you will find that “Trinitarians” do not believe because they have concocted something, but rather they believe what all Scripture (OT & NT only, for logical reason) says. It is only later that we have the Modalists, Gnostics, Monarchians, Arians, etc. creep in and try to deny what had been believed based upon Scripture. And the only way to support this new “view” (as you would call it) is to sneak in new “scriptures” or cut out portions of real Scripture.

“This isn’t because the bible contradicts itself, it’s because God is real, and as we often find in reality, real things can be more complex than they first might appear. This is what I like about TNP, Steve tends to encourage an atmosphere of exploration instead of strict dogma. I think the scriptures demand this kind of outlook.”

They do not demand that type of outlook. They demand total worship of the one, true, God of Scripture who revealed Himself quite clearly and quite often.

“By the way, I am curious as to what view of the Godhead you hold to if you wouldn't mind elaborating when you get time.”

I believe what the Bible says. Read John 1:1, Phil. 2:5-10, and the passages which speak of the Holy Spirit as a personal being. The Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are all referred to as Yahweh, and as such are divine persons consisting of the same divine essence.

“I can, without contradicting Joseph Smith or the above statement from the LDS website, say that no, there is no God Besides Yahweh. Yahweh is a name that can refer to the Father or the Son. In the sense of their unity and harmony of purpose, the Father Son and Holy Ghost are not beside each other, they are one with each other.”

Absolutely false. It is not unity/harmony only, but essence and being. John 1 does not teach that Jesus is some other god besides Yahweh, but that He is Yahweh, along with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

“Likewise Isaiah’s statement "Before me there was no God formed, and there will be none after me." Also does not contradict the LDS understanding of God. Our scriptures state that the faithful will become gods which sounds like a glaring contradiction but again, we won’t be gods after Yahweh, or before him, or besides Yahweh, we will be one with Him just as the Father is one with the Son, one in perfect unity and harmony of purpose and doctrine.”

Let’s just look at this logically. God says that “before me there was NO God formed, and there will be NONE after me.” You commit the logical fallacy of equivocation. You equivocate by substituting the notion of “oneness WITH God” for the “oneness OF God.” In other words, you would have us believe that God really meant: “"Before me there was no God formed [were countless gods formed who are one in purpose with me], and there will be none after me [will be countless gods formed who are one in purpose with me]." Do you see the equivocation here?

“Now as far as the "Father having a Father" doctrine, it should be noted that Joseph Smith was clear in his statements on that matter that he is reasoning within the scriptures and these are his ideas on the subject. (most critics never mention this oddly enough) His statements on the subject weren’t conveyed as revelation or scripture in any account I have read and they have not been accepted by the church as scripture but I think they can be harmonized with the scriptures without much difficulty. The main point Joseph Smith made when talking about this subject is to not be afraid to dig into the scriptures to try to understand more. He said “I despise the idea of being scared to death at such a doctrine.” Note that it didn't seem bother him that not everyone was on board with his interpretation. As far as I know he never said that it was a revealed doctrine of the gospel. Please correct me if I am wrong, I could be.”

A false prophet is a false prophet. Joseph’s statements are both logically incoherent and contradict clear teaching of Scripture in numerous places.

User avatar
mkprr
Posts: 92
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2009 12:39 am

Re: Questions for Mormons

Post by mkprr » Wed Apr 20, 2011 8:16 pm

What is your take on Eusebius of Cæsarea who was part of the council in Nicea who obviously was in good standing with the church at that time. In a letter after the council he described the meeting by saying this:
On their dictating this formula, we did not let it pass without inquiry in what sense they introduced “of the essence of the Father,” and “one in essence with the Father.” Accordingly questions and explanations took place, and the meaning of the words underwent the scrutiny of reason. And they professed, that the phrase “of the essence” was indicative of the Son’s being indeed from the Father, yet without being as if a part of Him. And with this understanding we thought good to assent to the sense of such religious doctrine, teaching, as it did, that the Son was from the Father, not however a part of His essence. On this account we assented to the sense ourselves, without declining even the term “One in essence,” peace being the object which we set before us, and stedfastness in the orthodox view.
You can read the rest of the letter here. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.ix.ii.html

Saying that the Son and Holy Ghost are of the father is in perfect harmony with the LDS understanding of God as well.

lee
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 10:12 am

Re: Questions for Mormons

Post by lee » Thu Apr 21, 2011 4:34 pm

My argument is still from Isaiah 43:10. Frankly, I do not care what Eusebius said. As per my posts in the discussion on the sufficiency of the OT & NT over and against any other document supported by cited scriptures (Eph. 2:20; Acts 8; Mat. 10:2), I contend that only the OT & NT provide God's intended revelation concerning His nature and purposes for His people, which includes Isaiah 43:10. The grammar of Isaiah 43:10 is quite clear and equivocating between the "oneness OF God" and "oneness WITH God" is an obvious and dishonest handling of the text. To press the point that there is only one God, and that God did not progress through stages of developing into a God, Mal. 3:6 clearly states that God does not change.

Why do you have such a stake in trying to become a god anyway?

User avatar
mkprr
Posts: 92
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2009 12:39 am

Re: Questions for Mormons

Post by mkprr » Wed May 18, 2011 2:21 am

You are adamant that we deny the oneness of God but it simply isn’t true. That is mostly my fault using the word “with" so much. Let me clarify if I can from our scriptures. Isaiah 43:10 is a very important part of our scripture and the doctrine it teaches is very important. Here are more of our scriptures that again emphasize the Oneness of God

2 Ne 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 15:2-5
2And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son—
3The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—
4And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.
5And 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.
And here are many more that are similarly adamant on this subject. Alma 11:44; 2 Ne 11:27,36; Morm.7:7 D&C 20:28; 35:2; 50:43; 93:3.

LDS Christians can’t deny the oneness of God unless they are completely ignorant of their own scripture, or like me, if they are not careful with their wording :D .

At the same time without reservation we declare that Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Ghost are three personages which, I understand, appears contradictory. All confusion on the subject however can be settled with the simple words of Jesus as he prayed in the garden, please don’t dismiss this passage. I have already cited it but you seem to have overlooked it It’s important because to understand Isaiah properly, you need to also take into account what Jesus himself taught about His nature in believers and in the Father.

John 17:20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
21That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

Look, we as believers in the apostles’ testimonies become one in Jesus as Jesus is one in the Father! Now we both know that if Fred is a true Christian and Jan is a true Christian, they will both be one in Jesus as Jesus is one in the Father. But they will also both still be two individuals. So it appears to be with the Father and son according to Jesus. Understanding this principle I think is really the only way to reconcile the many seemingly conflicting Bible verses about Jesus and the Father. Even the verses you cited to prove the oneness of God use some strange language to describe a single being , John 1:1 talks about the Word being “with” God, and Phil 5 speaking of Christ said that God “exalted him” and gave him a name as opposed to saying that He exalted himself and gave himself a name. We find that Jesus prays to the father all throughout the scriptures, he appears on the right hand of the Father (Colossians 3:1; Mark 16:19; Acts 7:56), when he is baptized the Father’s voice is heard from heaven (Matt 5:17) etc. It also appears that the Father left the Son at the cross to let him take on the burden alone. (Matt 27: 46)

Anyway, I believe Jesus is God, and I believe that Father is God, and I believe they are one. And I also believe they are two individuals capable of interacting with each other just like two Christians are capable of interacting with each other, and I see no contradiction in the matter.

I realize I haven’t answered all of your questions yet, and that there are still dozens of questions on other threads that I would love to have time to dig in to but I have to go to bed. :) You also asked
“Why do you have such a stake in trying to become a god anyway?”
which is a great question that I’ll have to defer to next time. I just want to add that I really appreciate you taking the time to ask questions and for continuing to interact with me. I want to grow closer to Jesus Christ and critical questions help to keep me digging for greater understanding. I wish I had more time to dig and discuss.

lee
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 10:12 am

Re: Questions for Mormons

Post by lee » Wed May 18, 2011 5:35 pm

I just want to add that I really appreciate you taking the time to ask questions and for continuing to interact with me.
I likewise appreciate the positive interaction. I look forward to more conversing. I will probably have some time this weekend to respond to your posts...

:-)

lee
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 10:12 am

Re: Questions for Mormons

Post by lee » Fri May 20, 2011 4:08 pm

Ok, my reply is actually pretty straightforward.

I would argue that you are conflating two categories. You are merging the idea of "being one with" (or harmony) with "the nature of being" (or essence).

For example, and this is a very crude example, obviously, a horse and jockey can be "one." If a person insisted that the horse and the jockey are literally one in "the nature of being," would you not correct them and say that because the horse and jockey are aligned for the purpose of aerodynamics, because the jockey holds himself close to the horse for compactness, and because the jockey bends his knees rapidly to absorb the shock from each of the horse's stride so as to not be projected from the horse, they are "one" in a continuously harmonious gallop, rather than a horse/rider creature?

To contrast, light, by its very nature, is both wave and particle. The photon is light. The wave is light. Both are light, but both have different attributes. Because they are one in essence, they would also be one in direction.

So, I would correct you and say that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one in "the nature of being" (or essence). They, together, form the triune God. And, of course, being one in nature will result in their harmonious unity of divine purpose.

Fortunately, God made it possible for us to share in this harmonious unity such that we can be "one" with/in Him. We can be enveloped in His light and proceed forth with Him in His direction. However, we cannot become gods, and God did not become God. He always was God in nature, and we will always be human in nature.

User avatar
mkprr
Posts: 92
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2009 12:39 am

Re: Questions for Mormons

Post by mkprr » Tue Aug 23, 2011 8:21 pm

Sorry it has been so long! Yes I would certainly say that a horse and Jockey, although they ride as one aren't one creature. I see the Godhead differently though. They are never not riding together so they can never not be considered separate creatures I guess is how I might explain it. Jesus said we are alive in him, but if we remove ourselves we die like a vine removed from the plant. I think this is also how the Father and Son are, the Son is God because He came from the Father, is in the Father and the Father is in Him. If He chose to remove himself from the Father I would guess that he would be free to do so (although that’s probably pointless speculation) but he wouldn’t be God if he did.

The term “god” in the KJV often means something other than the Father Son and Holy Ghost, and I think it helps to realize that when Joseph Smith talked about us becoming gods he was also using the word differently than the capital lettered word “God”. This LDS scripture on the subject might help clarify, notice that we believe we will always be subject to the Father and the Son. Talking about what the faithful will become who endure to the end in Christ the revelation says:
D&C 76
58 Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God—
59 Wherefore, all things are theirs, whether life or death, or things present, or things to come, all are theirs and they are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.
60 And they shall overcome all things.

Compare this to scriptures like Revelation 3:21 Romans 8:16 John 17:21-22 or Matt 5:48. Joseph Smith, under the influence of the Holy Ghost gave added detail and clarification on this and many other subjects but I don’t see any contradictions with what we see in the Bible.

You asked why it is important for me to believe that I will become a god? It is important to me because it was important enough for God to reveal. I guess the same could be asked about the importance of teaching a boy that one day he will be a man and maybe even a father. It gives a child a sense of what he is preparing for and gives them direction. Maybe that is part of why God found it important to reveal to us, but Joseph Smith wasn’t the first one to reveal it, I think it’s plain from the Bible alone that there is something greater that God wants us to become and that He will take us there if we follow Him and trust in Him. Joseph Smith described this something using the term gods, which isn’t a biblically inappropriate description as far as I can tell.

User avatar
jriccitelli
Posts: 1317
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:14 am
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:

Re: Questions for Mormons

Post by jriccitelli » Thu Aug 25, 2011 10:24 am

Just saying hello, i am a big fan of Greggs teaching style, and I am an ex-mormon. i spent many hours witnessing and conversing w LDS bishops and missionarys. Being in this church, and becoming aware that it was not biblical drove me to search and study my bible intensivly, i owe this fact to my having a love for God His Word and truth. I do love the mormon people (in general) it is a very friendly church. If u have any quest. feel free to post me. John Riccitelli

Post Reply

Return to “Latter Day Saints (aka Mormonism)”