Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

David Waltz

James Whiteâ??s YouTube diatribeâ?¦

Recommended Posts

Hi all,

Good discussion so far. Smacâ??s following thoughts are worth repeating:

>>Meanwhile, I can't help but chuckle at the the irony of trinitarians pulling this term out as an accusation against Mormons. True monotheists (such as Jews and Muslims) apparently don't agree that trinitarianism is compatible with monotheism.>>

And it is not just Jews and Muslims who charge Trinitarians with â??polytheismâ??; it is important to point out that some Trinitarians charge other Trinitarians with â??polytheismâ??!!! In the follow thread, I quote an Eastern Orthodox scholar who charges John Calvin with tritheism:

http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2008/10/...ic-heretic.html

I should also point out that many Evangelical scholars have emphatically stated that Social Trinitarianism is tritheistic...

When all is said and done, one should take serious the reflections of the Evangelical scholar, Larry Hurtado, who penned:

Grace and peace,

David

How can it be a "good discussion" when Smac does not speak officially for the Mormon Church who declares that we, Trinitarians are really espousing modalim. This is a pro-Mormon apologetic and discussion site.

Scholarship doesn't necessarily prove spirituality/truthfullness of what is espoused by scholars. The idea behind scholarship is the disciplne of study one embarks on (Scripturally speaking):

Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also. . . .Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (2 Timothy 2:1-2, 15)

Mormons also share a common misunderstanding of the â??Trinitarianâ? teaching concerning the nature of God and His relationship to creation. They along with Jehovahâ??s Witnesses and other groups think that Trinitarians believe (we donâ??t) that Jesus and the Father are the same person (some might/do believe this way).

The following statements reflect that misunderstanding (come from Joseph's statement in the King Follet discourse:

Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost is only one God! I say that is a strange God anyhowâ??three in one, and one in three! It is a curious organization. . . .All are to be crammed into one God, according to sectarianism. It would make the biggest God in all the world. He would be a wonderfully big Godâ??he would be a giant or a monster. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.372)

Elder: . . .BUT WHAT DO WE LEARN ABOUT GOD FROM THE EXPERIENCE OF JOSEPH SMITH?

Brown: That he has a real body.

Elder: Yes, he does. THE CHURCHES ALSO TAUGHT THAT GOD THE FATHER AND JESUS CHRIST, HIS SON, WERE BOTH THE SAME PERSON. . . . (A UNIFORM SYSTEM FOR TEACHING INVESTIGATORS, Aug. 1961, p.12)

The Oneness of the Father and the Son: There has been much misunderstanding regarding the oft-repeated statement that Jesus and his Father are one. A careful reading of the seventeenth chapter of John should clarify this matter fully. As Jesus was about to be offered up, he prayed unto his Father and thanked him for his apostles, saying, â??that they may be one, as we are.â? (John 17:11). . .Now it is very apparent that Jesus was not speaking of oneness of personage, but oneness of purpose, . . .(John 17:24). . .Again it is evident that the oneness referred to has no reference to oneness of personage, for if Jesus and his Father were one in person, how absurd to think that Jesus would pray unto himself, . . . (A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, LeGrand Richards, p.22)

If Jesus were the Almighty God, he would not have prayed to himself, would he? Since Jesus prayed to God, . . .the two could not be the same person (You can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, p.39)â?

Concerning Paulâ??s writings, Peter has the following to say:

Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvationâ??as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures. (2 Peter 3:14-16)

Both Jesus and the apostles appealed to â??it is writtenâ? as the basis for establishing the truth claims of the word of God. My motivation in light of Godâ??s Word is to avoid being contentious (different from contending) and to speak the truth in love. The following are my guidelines in the pursuit of that truth, â??it is writtenâ? and Judeâ??s admonition:

But He answered and said, â??It is written, â??Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.â?? â? (Matthew 4:4)

Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. (Jude vs. 3, 4)

Every word that proceeds out of the mouth of men in any Church's leadership, mim included, isn't necessarly the word from God, especially if it is in contradiction the the revealed Word of God as Scripture is.

President Bensonâ??s talk, â??FOURTEEN FUNDAMENTALS IN FOLLOWING THE PROPHETâ? (February 26, 1980, at BYU), included the following quotes in part [Even their own scripture can be trumped by a â??living prophetâ??]:

Second: The living prophet is more vital to us then the standard works. . . .When he concluded, Brother Joseph turned to Brother Brigham Young and said, â??Brother Brigham, I want you to take the stand and tell us your views with regard to the living oracles and the written word of God.â? Brother Brigham took the stand, and he took the Bible, and laid it down; he took the Book of Mormon, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and laid it down before him, and he said, â??There is the written word of God to us, concerning the work of God from the beginning of the world, almost, to our day. And now,â? said he, â??when compared with the living oracles those books do not convey the word of God direct to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or man bearing the holy priesthood in our day and generation. I would rather have the living oracles than all the writing in the books.â? That was the course he pursued. When he was through, Brother Joseph said to the congregation: â??Brother Brigham has told you the word of the Lord, and he has told you the truth.â? (In Conference report, October 1897, pp.18-19). . .

Said Brigham Young, â??I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call scriptureâ? (Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. . . .13:95)

This idea of a living prophet is no different then the RCC and the pope who basically overrides Scritpture (at certain points) in the sense (teaching magesterium of Roman Catholicism) that the Mormon Prophet does in the above.

Here is the basis for me responding this way. I repeat my earlier statement here (from ZLMB) to emphasize that an Mormon apostle held the view/taught, â??that it is my province to teach to the Church what the doctrine isâ? in an internal letter of correction to a church member:

The following statement was contained in an in-house letter of correction to Eugene England (February 19, 1981), a professor at BYU (now deceased), who had been instructing certain things in relation to the concept of God always increasing in knowledge. In response, writing as an LDS apostle, Elder McConkie was in disagreement with that idea. I think it is instructive in how the recognized leadership of the Church views their authority in establishing what doctrine the Church teaches:

Dear Brother England: This may well be the most important letter you have or will receive (p.1). . . .It is not in your province to set in order the Church or to determine what its doctrines shall be. . . .This means, among other things, that it is my province to teach to the Church what the doctrine is. You do not have a divine commission to correct me or any of the Brethren. The Lord does not operate that way. If I lead the Church astray, that is my responsibility, but the fact remains that I am the one appointed with all the rest involved so to do. The appointment is not given to the faculty at Brigham Young University or to any of the members of the Church. . . .And those at (p.8) the head of the Church have the obligation to teach that which is in harmony with the Standard Works (p.9). . . .

Share this post


Link to post
"Christians explain this in an abstruse, labyrinthine concept call The Trinity. Basically, the three gods are one god, the one god is three gods, and if you don't understand that you are an ignorant twit who will burn in Hell."

What kills me is that the metaphysics of all this is related directly to alchemy. The alchemists believed that all metals had the same "substance" which simply manifested itself in different "appearances" -- so theoretically it would be possible to convert that substance found in lead into manifesting the appearances of gold-- thereby turning lead into gold. This is the basis of "trans-substantiation" which changes the substance of flesh and blood into the appearance of the host. It is also the basis for the belief in three persons having one substance -- ie: the trinity.

Of course alchemy was not too succesful, because there is no such thing as "substance", yet billions believe it exists in a religious context. Go figure. :P

Three persons are three persons. Period. Unified in purpose? Now that makes sense!

Share this post


Link to post
How can it be a "good discussion" when Smac does not speak officially for the Mormon Church who declares that we, Trinitarians are really espousing modalim.

So, who is speaking officially for the Evangelicals or any of the mainstream Christian religions? coolrok, just because you proclaim that all Christians believe X, why should we believe you? Did God call you to be His official prophet?

Share this post


Link to post
Your verbal tap dancing aside, and "official doctrine" or not, is it not accurate to say that Mormons believe that there is more than one God?

Those of us who respond to this stuff: how many times will we go on actually responding to this kind of post?

This line is so totally sterotypical of the stuff we have heard so many times, why do we still bother with it? How many times have you heard this? Let's talk about something substantive!

Share this post


Link to post

Hi coolrok,

You wrote:

>> How can it be a "good discussion" when Smac does not speak officially for the Mormon Church who declares that we, Trinitarians are really espousing modalim. This is a pro-Mormon apologetic and discussion site.>>

Me: My-oh-myâ?¦a couple of comments: first, Trinitarians (social and EO) accuse Trinitarians (Augustinian/Western) of espousing modalism; and second, the CoJCoLDS does not in an â??officialâ? capacity declare that, â??Trinitarians are really espousing modalimâ? [sic]. The following interview should be of interest to you (and many others):

http://www.modernreformation.org/default.p...ead&var5=24

Grace and peace,

David

Share this post


Link to post
She is mentioned in the Bible, both OT and NT. See Margaret Barker's writings about this. She is often mentioned as Wisdom in the OT, especially in the Psalms.

When Margaret Barker's writing is accepted as Mormon so-caled "Scripture" then it can be said to be official teaching within Mormonism. A heavenly Mother is not taught in the Bible as widom is personified as female like in here (the term mother above is not to a heavenly mother but once again personified in the female gender. the error of Mormonism here, being under the law not grace):

Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Hagar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free. (Galatians 4:21-31) speaking about the judaisers

Share this post


Link to post

Thank you for linking this David (really).

I really like Dr. Paulsen, and I (personally) can't wait to see what he produces in the future in regards to Mormon thought (and Christian thought in general for that matter). It will be interesting to see where LDS thought goes once he and Ostler are used as spring boards of sorts.

Share this post


Link to post
Hi coolrok,

You wrote:

>> How can it be a "good discussion" when Smac does not speak officially for the Mormon Church who declares that we, Trinitarians are really espousing modalim. This is a pro-Mormon apologetic and discussion site.>>

Me: My-oh-myâ?¦a couple of comments: first, Trinitarians (social and EO) accuse Trinitarians (Augustinian/Western) of espousing modalism; and second, the CoJCoLDS does not in an â??officialâ? capacity declare that, â??Trinitarians are really espousing modalimâ? [sic]. The following interview should be of interest to you (and many others):

http://www.modernreformation.org/default.p...ead&var5=24

Grace and peace,

David

Scholarship does not speak officially for the Mormon Church. Most people at our level here understand the things espoused by the Mormon Church's leadership contained in the writings I quoted from. They don't deal with scholarship. They declare what is to be believed. Just like the pope does for the RCC.

Share this post


Link to post

Hello again coolrok,

You said:

>> Scholarship does not speak officially for the Mormon Church. Most people at our level here understand the things espoused by the Mormon Church's leadership contained in the writings I quoted from. They don't deal with scholarship. They declare what is to be believed. Just like the pope does for the RCC.>>

Me: IMHO, you are wrong on both assumptions: first, â??the things espoused by the Mormon Church's leadership contained in the writings I quoted fromâ? may or may not contain â??official doctrine/sâ?; and second, a Popeâ??s teaching(s) is only considered â??officialâ? if it is an ex cathedra pronouncement (and those are VERY rare).

One more link of interest:

http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp...0004e94610aRCRD

â??â?¦I told them that a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such.â? (Joseph Smith Jr., History of the Church, Vol. 5.265.)

Grace and peace,

David

Share this post


Link to post
Scholarship does not speak officially for the Mormon Church. Most people at our level here understand the things espoused by the Mormon Church's leadership contained in the writings I quoted from. They don't deal with scholarship. They declare what is to be believed. Just like the pope does for the RCC.

Are you saying that Evangelicals scholars speak officially for Evangelicals? Who speaks officially for Evangelicals?

Share this post


Link to post
Thank you for linking this David (really).

I really like Dr. Paulsen, and I (personally) can't wait to see what he produces in the future in regards to Mormon thought (and Christian thought in general for that matter). It will be interesting to see where LDS thought goes once he and Ostler are used as spring boards of sorts.

He doesn't speak for the brethren as does a General Authority for the Mormon Church. I've read it myself before.

Share this post


Link to post
Hello again coolrok,

You said:

>> Scholarship does not speak officially for the Mormon Church. Most people at our level here understand the things espoused by the Mormon Church's leadership contained in the writings I quoted from. They don't deal with scholarship. They declare what is to be believed. Just like the pope does for the RCC.>>

Me: IMHO, you are wrong on both assumptions: first, â??the things espoused by the Mormon Church's leadership contained in the writings I quoted fromâ? may or may not contain â??official doctrine/sâ?; and second, a Popeâ??s teaching(s) is only considered â??officialâ? if it is an ex cathedra pronouncement (and those are VERY rare).

One more link of interest:

http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp...0004e94610aRCRD

â??â?¦I told them that a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such.â? (Joseph Smith Jr., History of the Church, Vol. 5.265.)

Grace and peace,

David

Rare or not the claim is he is Christ's vicar on earth exclusively which is not the Biblical teaching. Even ex cathedra is not a Biblical justification for the pope to declare as such that He is speaking for God. Neither is the Mormon Prophet who like the pope does the same thing.

The misionary training manual is official teaching that gave instruction to missionaries to teach what I quoted. It was initiated by Elder Hinckley as indicated in the following Sunstone article referenced ovr at ZLMB:

Whoâ??s that knocking at the door?

________________________________________

Itâ??s usually Mormons/JWâ??s (they, Joseph Smith/Charles Taze Russell, both canâ??t be right at the same time but they both can be wrong; I believe they are both wrong, not chosen by God).

I wanted to expand a little on how I came to interact with LDS Missionaries and their teaching concerning The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. A past ZLMB discussion concerning the new â??Preach My Gospelâ? missionary tool was a point discussed in a past thread. Thatâ??s how I became familiar with the following article.

There was an article on the missionary program of the LDS Church in Sunstone magazine (September 2005). It is entitled: â??THE NEW MISSIONARY DISCUSSIONS AND THE FUTURE OF CORRELATIONâ? by Jon-Charles Duffy:

________________________________________

President Boyd K. Packer told mission presidents that Preach My Gospel is â??a major change in directionâ? for LDS missionary teaching, a change that had already been signaled, in part by a First Presidency letter of December 2002 instructing missionaries to stop memorizing their presentations. The Church News trumpeted that Preach My Gospel is â??perhaps the most dynamic revamping of missionary labors since the missionary discussions were introduced in the 1930s.â? . . .Church leaders have touted the new manual as equipping missionaries to more effectively teach by the Spiritâ??that is, by freeing them to rely more on inspiration as opposed to following a standardized program. . . .

In its most familiar sense, â??correlationâ? refers to the process of centralizing, standardizing, and simplifying Church organizations and publications that has been underway since the 1960s, first through the Correlation Committee, created under the leadership of Harold B. Lee in 1961, and more recently through the Correlation Department, which as of 1987, must approve all church publications and programs. . . .Correlation is about much more. . . .Correlation encompasses a philosophyâ??one might even say, a theologyâ??. . .As I use the term, â??correlationâ? refers to this philosophy. . .Church headquarters moves to define â??the gospelâ? and to manage diversity within the Church.

________________________________________

He sets out in FIGURE 1 on p.29 the following:

________________________________________

The Standard Missionary Discussions.

Since the mid-20th century, the Church has produced five sets of standardized missionary discussions. Each set superceded the one before.

1952 A Systematic Program for Teaching the Gospel

1961 A Uniform System for Teaching Investigators

1973 The Uniform System for Teaching Families

1986 The Uniform System for Teaching the Gospel

2004 Preach My Gospel

The first set of missionary lessons to come from Church headquarters, A Systematic Program for Teaching the Gospel, was created in 1952 under the direction of Gordon B. Hinckley. Though published by the Church, A Systematic Program was designated for optional use. . . .

In 1961, the same year as the creation of the Correlation Committee,, Hinckley, then an assistant to the twelve, unveiled A Uniform System for Teaching Investigators at the first worldwide seminar for mission presidents. These were the first missionary discussions intended for mandatory churchwide use. They were also the first to be called â??discussionsâ? rather than â??lessonsâ?. Six in number, the 1961 discussions were written as a series of dialogues with the investigator, now named Mr. Brown, who was led via question-and-answer into agreement with a series of numbered conclusions. Flannel board images provided a visual supplement to the spoken presentation.

The 1961 discussions were superseded in 1973 by The Uniform System for Teaching Families. . .

________________________________________

These were the lessons in force (1973) when I first encountered missionaries for the first time (1979). After meeting my LDS friend in 1984, the 1986 lessons came into play. This was the time period when I became really familiar with Mormon proselytizing.

The following are the text of the documents sent to someone I used to know (he allowed me to make a copy of them- was no longer â??Mormonâ? but Christian). They were sent to him when he was called to be a missionary as a Latter-day Saint:

THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS

OFFICE OF THE FIRST PRESIDENCY

SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111

March 23, ****

Elder ******* ******** ******

***** Ward, ********** **** Stake

**** *******

**** ******* ********** *****

Dear Elder ******:

You are hereby called to be a missionary of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to labor in the ******* Mission.

You are scheduled to enter the Mission Home in Salt Lake City at 119 North

Main Street on ********, ***** **, ****.

Your presiding officers have recommended you as one worthy to represent

the Church of our Lord as a Minister of the Gospel. It will be your duty to

live righteously, to keep the commandments of the Lord, to honor the holy

Priesthood which you bear, to increase your testimony of the divinity of

the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, to be an exemplar in your life of all

the Christian virtues, and so to conduct yourself as a devoted servant of the

Lord that you may be an effective advocate and messenger of the Truth.

We repose in you our confidence and extend to you our prayers that the Lord

Will help you thus to meet your responsibilities.

The Lord will reward the goodness of your life, and greater blessings and

More happiness than you have yet experienced await you as you serve Him

Humbly and prayerfully in this labor of love among His children.

We ask that you please send your written acceptance promptly, endorsed

By your presiding officer in the ward or branch where you live.

Sincerely yours,

[signed] Joseph Fielding Smith

President

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

47 E. SOUTH TEMPLE ST. SALT LAKE CITY. UTAH 84111

Dear Missionary:

I am directed by the Missionary Executive Committee to send you the enclosed copy of the standard missionary teaching plan, â??A UNIFORM SYSTEM FOR TEACHING INVESTIGATORSâ? which is published by the Church and used by missionaries throughout the world.

The Committee is sending you this material now with the request that you begin studying and learning it immediately so that when you report to the Missionary Home in Salt Lake City you already will have memorized some or all the lessons.

Please bring this copy with you as it will form the basis for a number of discussions while in the missionary Home. When you report in, you will be advised where you may obtain an inexpensive cover for your copy of the plan.

Praying the Lord to bless you as you prepare for your missionary labors, we are

Sincerely your brethren,

THE MISSIONARY COMMITTEE

By (signed) Ned Winder, Secretary

A UNIFORM SYSTEM FOR TEACHING INVESTIGATORS (August 1961)

TEACHING THE INVESTIGATOR- Our hope in teaching the Gospel is to convert people and baptize them. . . . (p.3)

FIRST DISCUSSION

THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST

I. OUTLINE

B. Joseph Smith story [*]

A. Create need for prophet [*]

1. Nature of Godhead

2. Importance of Joseph Smith

C. Apostasy

1. Set up church (Eph. 2:19-20.)

2. Collapse church on flannel board

3. Compare churches

D. Baptismal date

E. Restoration

1. Divine messengers (Matt. 17:11-13.)

2. Total restoration

F. Secure commitments

1. Baptism

2. Study, pray, attend church

BASIC CONCLUSIONS*

1. We need a prophet today.

2. The Father and the Son have bodies.

3. Joseph Smith was a prophet of God.

4. The church must be the same as it

was at the time of the Savior.

5. Apostles and prophets are necessary in the

Church today.

6. The priesthood is necessary to act for God.

7. There is no priesthood today without

apostles.

8. I agree the Church must be like this today.

9. There was a complete apostasy and my church

is false.

10. I will be baptized as I come to believe the

restoration.

11. There was a complete restoration of the priesthood

and the true church.

12. I will study, pray, and attend church to

meet a specific baptismal date.

* Conclusions given in bold face at end of each section (p.9) [the bold above is mine]

Share this post


Link to post

If Mormonism isn't polytheistic, why did Joseph Smith accuse "some old Jew" of censoring it out of the book of Genesis and instead inserting the doctrine of monotheism.

On 12-29-08, James White posted an anti-Mormon video on YouTube:

Four days later, he posted the same video on his AOMIN site:

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3058

Within the first minute of his diatribe, James states:

â??Mormonism is the most polytheistic religion that I have ever encounteredâ?¦â?

Yet, the LDS apostle, Jeffrey R. Holland, in the October 2007 GC address that James is critiquing, states:

There are many serious problems with Jamesâ?? video; but, for the moment, I would like to address the issue of whether or not Latter-day Saints are polytheistsâ??as such, I am looking forward to your responses.

Grace and peace,

David

Share this post


Link to post
The nature of the godead is found in Scripture (the Bible) but is distorted in the specific Mormon so-called "Scripture".

Both your assertions can be questioned. The second especially is just simply wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
>>Meanwhile, I can't help but chuckle at the the irony of trinitarians pulling this term out as an accusation against Mormons. True monotheists (such as Jews and Muslims) apparently don't agree that trinitarianism is compatible with monotheism.>>

And it is not just Jews and Muslims who charge Trinitarians with â??polytheismâ??; it is important to point out that some Trinitarians charge other Trinitarians with â??polytheismâ??!!! In the follow thread, I quote an Eastern Orthodox scholar who charges John Calvin with tritheism:

http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2008/10/...ic-heretic.html

I should also point out that many Evangelical scholars have emphatically stated that Social Trinitarianism is tritheistic...

Since you raise it, I was a passive observer today on a message board discussing the flap between Glenn Beck and Focus on the Family over Beck's LDS beliefs. It quickly devolved into online fisticuffs among mainstream Christians over the nature of the Trinity, Christology, and monotheism vs. polytheism in the traditional creeds.

Granted, this was by no means a high theological discussion, merely an argument between lay Christians, but I thought it was interesting. Despite the number of times it gets hashed out here, I just can't get my head around the idea that my immortal soul is in peril for failing to understand what is apparently not understandable, and something that many ordinary Christians can't seem to agree on themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
If Mormonism isn't polytheistic, why did Joseph Smith accuse "some old Jew" of censoring it out of the book of Genesis and instead inserting the doctrine of monotheism.

Have you ever heard of the reformation that occurred at the time of Josiah in the OT. It inserted radical monotheism into the OT. It started the change of moving the worship of the Lord from the temple to the synagogue and the Law of Moses.

Share this post


Link to post
Have you ever heard of the reformation that occurred at the time of Josiah in the OT. It inserted radical monotheism into the OT. It started the change of moving the worship of the Lord from the temple to the synagogue and the Law of Moses.

Do you believe the following are true or false statements?

1. God the Father is a God

2. God the Father's Father is a God

3. You can become a god

Bottom line is that you BELIEVE in more than one God, but that you don't necessarily worship more than one.

Share this post


Link to post
Since you raise it, I was a passive observer today on a message board discussing the flap between Glenn Beck and Focus on the Family over Beck's LDS beliefs. It quickly devolved into online fisticuffs among mainstream Christians over the nature of the Trinity, Christology, and monotheism vs. polytheism in the traditional creeds.

Granted, this was by no means a high theological discussion, merely an argument between lay Christians, but I thought it was interesting. Despite the number of times it gets hashed out here, I just can't get my head around the idea that my immortal soul is in peril for failing to understand what is apparently not understandable, and something that many ordinary Christians can't seem to agree on themselves.

But Aquilifer, all the core belief of Christianity are shared by all Christians with no disagreements. I have been told so by many EVers here on this board and when asked to specify what these core doctrines are, the silence is deafening...well, actually, the sounds of rabbit creating new trails and red herrings flopping around on the ground are overwhelming, but this is all for another thread.

I wonder how far this thread will go in showing that Christianity agreement on the Trinity isn't all that agreed upon, but those mainstreamer will do everything possible to drag this thread off track or they will refuse to answer questions about their differences.

Share this post


Link to post
when asked to specify what these core doctrines are, the silence is deafening...well, actually, the sounds of rabbit creating new trails and red herrings flopping around on the ground are overwhelming, but this is all for another thread.

I've given them to you. You chose to ignore them. So your statement is not quite kosher, is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Do you believe the following are true or false statements?1. God the Father is a God2. God the Father's Father is a God3. You can become a godBottom line is that you BELIEVE in more than one God, but that you don't necessarily worship more than one.
Actually, you are trying to derail the thread. Is this thread about what Mormons believe about the Trinity or about what mainstream Christians believe about the Trinity. When it's pointed out that the unification of mainstream Christians on this subject is not all that unified, too many people, all mainstream Christians, will attempt to derail this thread and make it all about what we LDSers believe. Billy, I hope you won't be guilty of trying to deflect a light being shined on the truth of mainstreamers and their varied beliefs in the Trinity.
I've given them to you. You chose to ignore them. So your statement is quite kosher, is it?
I hope you don't attempt to derail this thread Hoops.

Share this post


Link to post
But Aquilifer, all the core belief of Christianity are shared by all Christians with no disagreements. I have been told so by many EVers here on this board and when asked to specify what these core doctrines are, the silence is deafening...well, actually, the sounds of rabbit creating new trails and red herrings flopping around on the ground are overwhelming, but this is all for another thread.

I wonder how far this thread will go in showing that Christianity agreement on the Trinity isn't all that agreed upon, but those mainstreamer will do everything possible to drag this thread off track or they will refuse to answer questions about their differences.

OK lets start with a few

1. We do not believe that God the Father had a father

2. We do not believe that God the Father has a wife or multiple wives

3. We do not believe that God the Father and his wife had spiritual children in a pre earth life

4. We do not believe that Jesus is our brother

5. We do not believe that Jesus is Satans brother

6. We do not believe that God the Father lived on another planet as a man

7. We do not believe that God the Father is the literal father in the flesh of Jesus

8. We do not believe that God the Father has a physical body

9. We do not believe that the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost are Three SEPARATE Gods

Share this post


Link to post
I hope you don't attempt to derail this thread Hoops.

Not at all. Just setting the record straight. Carry on.

Share this post


Link to post
OK lets start with a few

1. We do not believe that God the Father had a father

2. We do not believe that God the Father has a wife or multiple wives

3. We do not believe that God the Father and his wife had spiritual children in a pre earth life

4. We do not believe that Jesus is our brother

5. We do not believe that Jesus is Satans brother

6. We do not believe that God the Father lived on another planet as a man

7. We do not believe that God the Father is the literal father in the flesh of Jesus

8. We do not believe that God the Father has a physical body

9. We do not believe that the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost are Three SEPARATE Gods

Rabbit trails all over the place. Start a new thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Actually, you are trying to derail the thread. Is this thread about what Mormons believe about the Trinity or about what mainstream Christians believe about the Trinity.

This thread is not about the Trinity, go back to the OP and re-read it. It is about whether or not the LDS are POLYTHEISTS.

On 12-29-08, James White posted an anti-Mormon video on YouTube:

â??Mormonism is the most polytheistic religion that I have ever encounteredâ?¦â?

. . .I would like to address the issue of whether or not Latter-day Saints are polytheistsâ??as such, I am looking forward to your responses.

Grace and peace,

David

So again I will ask you the answer to the following questions

1. Is God the Father a God?

2. Is God the Father's Father a God?

3. Can you become a god?

If you answer yes to more than one of the above questions, then you are a polytheist. It is as simple as that.

Share this post


Link to post
Actually, you are trying to derail the thread. Is this thread about what Mormons believe about the Trinity or about what mainstream Christians believe about the Trinity. When it's pointed out that the unification of mainstream Christians on this subject is not all that unified, too many people, all mainstream Christians, will attempt to derail this thread and make it all about what we LDSers believe. Billy, I hope you won't be guilty of trying to deflect a light being shined on the truth of mainstreamers and their varied beliefs in the Trinity. I hope you don't attempt to derail this thread Hoops.

This is the op of the thread (you should go back and read it urroner):

. . .There are many serious problems with Jamesâ?? video; but, for the moment, I would like to address the issue of whether or not Latter-day Saints are polytheistsâ??as such, I am looking forward to your responses.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...