Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
snowflake

Jesus as Lord and God

Recommended Posts

She wrote a book as well with some different theology. And iirc relayed a vision of Heavenly Mother along with encouraging people to pray to her. If she had kept her thoughts to herself for the most part, I don’t  see a problem. 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Well, I don't know, that's why I asked the question.

You answered your own question. You’ve been around here a long time. Surely you knew the answer when you asked it?

Quote

You have to admit that that passage is up for interpretation and is not just a clear "why don't you want to obey Jesus?" The vast vast majority of the Christian world prays to Jesus because we interpret that passage differently than you. Likewise, the vast majority of the Christian world prays the "Our Father" because we also interpret that passage differently than you.

NoI don’t have to admit that. After all, this is an LDS discussion group and our scriptures include the Book of Mormon. The scriptures I cited are explicit and very easy to understand. 

Quote

I could have been just as flippant and said: Jesus asked us to the pray the "Our Father." Why don't you want to obey Him? But I understand your interpretation, so I don't need to say that :) 

 I pray to the Father in the name of the Son, and I say the Lord’s Prayer once in a while. It’s quite beautiful.

Moreover, I claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of my own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may. And to pray however, wherever, or to whomever they may.

Edited by Bernard Gui
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Am I the only one here who has never heard of El Elyon?

 

I’ve heard of Jor-El and Kal- El. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Forbidden? How would that be enforced? Temple recommend? How would a bishop know? It’s not a recommend question.

At Church? Probably the bishop would talk to the person and teach him/her the correct doctrine and practice. Praying to the Father in the name of Jesus is what he asked us to do. Why would we want not to obey him?

We had a guy get up once, obviously a little new, during testimony meeting and testified of Jesus and then prayed to Jesus and then ended it “in the name of the father, the son, the Holy Ghost or the holy trinity amen and amen.” It was really heartfelt and everyone just had a little chuckle because it was so unique! As far as I know he was never corrected. Maybe late though.

Edited by SettingDogStar
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

You answered your own question. You’ve been around here a long time. Surely you knew the answer when you asked it?

Um, are you suggesting I asked a question in bad faith..?

Quote

NoI don’t have to admit that. After all, this is an LDS discussion group and our scriptures include the Book of Mormon. The scriptures I cited are explicit and very easy to understand. 

So... non-LDS interpretations shouldn't be brought up here?

Bernard, I'm kinda confused here. What's going on after all these years? You annoyed with me over something?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Um, are you suggesting I asked a question in bad faith..?

No. You honestly thought Mormons could be sanctioned or punished for praying to Jesus? I’m surprised.

Quote

So... non-LDS interpretations shouldn't be brought up here?

Why not?

I believe Jesus repeatedly gave his instructions in 3 Nephi to pray to the Father in his name for significant reasons. I don’ t believe doing so contradicts or dishonors the Bible. Is there a place in the Bible where Jesus commands his people to pray to him?. Is this what you might have in mind?

Quote

Paul. . . to the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ—their Lord and ours (1 Corinthians 1:1–2).

Quote

Bernard, I'm kinda confused here. What's going on after all these years? You annoyed with me over something?

Not at all. Just defending our faiths.

 

Edited by Bernard Gui

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

No. You honestly thought Mormons could be sanctioned or punished for praying to Jesus? I’m surprised.

I honestly didn't know where the line was drawn on this issue. That's why I asked: is it forbidden, discouraged, or not recommended? Those are different levels of disapproval and I was trying to figure out where this fell. It's probably the Catholic in me; we tend to categorize and classify everything.

Quote

Not at all. Just defending our faiths.

Great! :) 

Edited by MiserereNobis
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

You answered your own question. You’ve been around here a long time. Surely you knew the answer when you asked it?

NoI don’t have to admit that. After all, this is an LDS discussion group and our scriptures include the Book of Mormon. The scriptures I cited are explicit and very easy to understand. 

 I pray to the Father in the name of the Son, and I say the Lord’s Prayer once in a while. It’s quite beautiful.

Moreover, I claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of my own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may. And to pray however, wherever, or to whomever they may.

Wow! Talk about a harsh and accusatory way to respond to a question. Can you honestly not accept that there could be more than one interpretation of scripture? Of course you have your own interpretation, but others will have their interpretations as well, hence the opportunity for discussion.

Miserenobis asked a fair question so I'm not sure why you're so defensive about it. Why accuse him of asking a question in bad faith? People who have been members their whole lives ask all kinds of questions so it seems reasonable to allow a non-lds participant to ask questions as well. Don't you think?

BTW- if you think your kind of reaction is a defense of faith I'd ask you to reconsider

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 6/20/2019 at 3:39 PM, HappyJackWagon said:

I suspect it's because when Jesus prayed he prayed to the Father and the church teaches that we should follow Jesus' example. Also, LDS theology is a bit different than most other Christian denominations in that the church teaches that Jesus is the literal Son of God, a God distinct and separate from God the Father. Other denominations (as far as I understand) teach and believe that Jesus IS God the Father come down to earth. IOW the church and other Christian churches have fundamental difference in understanding and theology related to the nature of who God is.

Hi HappyJack.

I would like to offer a correction of a suggestion you made that no one else seems to have caught. I know you meant no ill, but you will understand why I would want the record to reflect that very few non-LDS for about the last 1700 years would defend what you propose as a common belief.     

I note that you concede that this is only "as far as I understand", but I can't imagine how anyone could get the idea that what is called Modalism (different modes of one person), or Sabellianism (after Sabellius, an early proponent of the error), is very widely believed today. I do not think it has been a very successful error at all. Lutherans, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Baptists, Methodists, Catholics and Orthodox, Nazarenes, and LDS all reject the idea. The Nicene Creed, which has informed much non-LDS theology, teaches that Jesus is "God from God, Light from light, true God from true God". Father and Son are eternally distinct. In the west the error eventually became known by an apt, but for modalists, problematic title, Patripassionism. This would be because if Jesus IS God the Father, it was the Father who bled and died for sins. While "modalism" might seem to solve some problems for monotheists, the Patripassionism which it implies, is unthinkable to virtually all Christians of today and from Apostolic times. It is probably because of this particular implication of Sabellianism, that the error never really achieved much success.  

Thanks...God bless.

Rory

Edited by 3DOP
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I honestly didn't know where the line was drawn on this issue. That's why I asked: is it forbidden, discouraged, or not recommended? Those are different levels of disapproval and I was trying to figure out where this fell. It's probably the Catholic in me; we tend to categorize and classify everything.

Great! :) 

As usual, LDS Christians are less into specific categories/labels than Catholic Christians.  Hence that lack of specific categorization/labeling here.  

In the LDS Christian theology: Christ tells us to pray to Father in the Son's name.  So we do that.  To do otherwise would be not doing what Christ asked of us.  If somebody were to be openly doing otherwise, it would perhaps be something that a friend/advisor could gently correct them on- after all we do want to do as Christ asks of us.  But there isn't a formal "disciplinary" process dealing with it (such isn't really LDS Christian way of doing things).

As to the example of praying to Heavenly Mother: back several decades ago, there were several people whom very publicly advocated that people should do this.  In other words: they were very publicly advocating that people should do something contrary to what Christ asks of us.   Such advocating/teaching is a problem, and they did not listen to their local leaders whom correct them on this.    Hence it became a bigger deal, with President Hinkley openly came out reminding us to do as Christ told us to do.  I don't remember what happened to the ringleaders advocating otherwise... they might have been excommunicated, honestly I don't remember.  

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
56 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

Hi HappyJack.

I would like to offer a correction of a suggestion you made that no one else seems to have caught. I know you meant no ill, but you will understand why I would want the record to reflect that very few non-LDS for about the last 1700 years would defend what you propose as a common belief.     

I note that you concede that this is only "as far as I understand", but I can't imagine how anyone could get the idea that what is called Modalism (different modes of one person), or Sabellianism (after Sabellius, an early proponent of the error), is very widely believed today. I do not think it has been a very successful error at all. Lutherans, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Baptists, Methodists, Catholics and Orthodox, Nazarenes, and LDS all reject the idea. The Nicene Creed, which has informed much non-LDS theology, teaches that Jesus is "God from God, Light from light, true God from true God". Father and Son are eternally distinct. In the west the error eventually became known by an apt, but for modalists, problematic title, Patripassionism. This would be because if Jesus IS God the Father, it was the Father who bled and died for sins. While "modalism" might seem to solve some problems for monotheists, the Patripassionism which it implies, is unthinkable to virtually all Christians of today and from Apostolic times. It is probably because of this particular implication of Sabellianism, that the error never really achieved much success.  

Thanks...God bless.

Rory

3DOP-

Thank you. I certainly didn't want to misrepresent other faiths. Honestly, I don't understand how the trinity works. I've never heard it explained in a comprehensible (to me) way so I guess I just glom on to the only way it can make sense to me.

For example this makes no sense to me, at least insofar as other Christians claim to be monotheistic. "God from God" doesn't really mean anything to me. It sounds like a platitude designed to hide the fact that no one knows how God(s) really work or exist.

Quote

 Jesus is "God from God, Light from light, true God from true God". Father and Son are eternally distinct.

If they are eternally distinct, then they must be 2 separate God's right? Is the Holy Spirit also a distinct God? I don't think that it would fly in most Christian denominations if I described their faith in God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit as a belief in 3 different Gods. Can you help understand this better? Claiming the Godhead as 3 distinct Gods is where other Christians take great exception with LDS theology but it sounds like you're claiming the same thing, but I doubt that's what you're really saying.

Edited by HappyJackWagon
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
42 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

As usual, LDS Christians are less into specific categories/labels than Catholic Christians.  Hence that lack of specific categorization/labeling here.  

In the LDS Christian theology: Christ tells us to pray to Father in the Son's name.  So we do that.  To do otherwise would be not doing what Christ asked of us.  If somebody were to be openly doing otherwise, it would perhaps be something that a friend/advisor could gently correct them on- after all we do want to do as Christ asks of us.  But there isn't a formal "disciplinary" process dealing with it (such isn't really LDS Christian way of doing things).

As to the example of praying to Heavenly Mother: back several decades ago, there were several people whom very publicly advocated that people should do this.  In other words: they were very publicly advocating that people should do something contrary to what Christ asks of us.   Such advocating/teaching is a problem, and they did not listen to their local leaders whom correct them on this.    Hence it became a bigger deal, with President Hinkley openly came out reminding us to do as Christ told us to do.  I don't remember what happened to the ringleaders advocating otherwise... they might have been excommunicated, honestly I don't remember.  

Thanks for your answer 😊

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

While "modalism" might seem to solve some problems for monotheists, the Patripassionism which it implies, is unthinkable to virtually all Christians of today and from Apostolic times. It is probably because of this particular implication of Sabellianism, that the error never really achieved much success.

I confess inability to comprehend your intricate statements.  My conviction is those kinds of statements resulted from the convoluted and contending priestcraft of men seeking for their own power.  Hence the many divisions and denominations in the Christian world.

From Google:  "Definition of Patripassianism. : the doctrine that in the sufferings of Jesus Christ God the Father also suffered — compare sabellianism.
In Christianity, Sabellianism in the Eastern church or Patripassianism in the Western church is the belief that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three different modes or aspects of God, as opposed to a Trinitarian view of three distinct persons within the Godhead."

From the catechisms http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P17.HTM  "266 "Now this is the Catholic faith: We worship one God in the Trinity and the Trinity in unity, without either confusing the persons or dividing the substance; for the person of the Father is one, the Son's is another, the Holy Spirit's another; but the Godhead of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is one, their glory equal, their majesty coeternal" (Athanasian Creed: DS 75; ND 16). - - - 267 Inseparable in what they are, the divine persons are also inseparable in what they do. But within the single divine operation each shows forth what is proper to him in the Trinity, especially in the divine missions of the Son's Incarnation and the gift of the Holy Spirit." 

These are all bewildering statements.  Might be considered circular statements.  I reject the excuse that they are mysteries when words of Christ should be taken at face value.  For example Jesus said:  "I came into the world NOT to do My Will but Him that sent Me."  No one should dispute that Jesus truly is subordinate to God the Father.  Jesus was commanded to create (organize) the Heavens and the Earth.  And in John 14:31 "But that the world may know that I love the Father; and as the Father gave me commandment, even so I do. Arise, let us go hence."

The catechism states that the Godhead is one, implying God is a single entity (with different aspects).  What is your understanding of the word  "ONE"?  Does it mean sameness or unity?  John chapter 17 is a great discourse by Jesus indicating that not only is the Godhead ONE (united in Purpose) but His Twelve Apostles can be ONE (united with God in carrying out His Purpose) AND the followers can also be ONE, united among themselves and with God the Father, Jesus and His Apostles.  What is your perspective on the entire chapter of John 17 (KJV)?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I think I remember reading on some thread somewhere about some women praying to Heavenly Mother. Would that be treated like this do you think or is it a step too far?

You may have also heard about her:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janice_Merrill_Allred

And she was excommunicated for her teachings regarding Heavenly Mother, but I'm not sure she taught to pray to her:

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/420280/LDS-EXCOMMUNICATE-FEMINIST-APPEAL-PLANNED.html

ETA:

This is interesting (and clarifies her teachings better):

https://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=56282764&itype=CMSID

Quote

 

A few months before Hinckley's speech, Janice Allred, a devout Mormon living in Provo with her husband and nine kids, gave a Mother's Day talk in which she discussed Heavenly Mother. It was well-received, she recounts in a recent Sunstone article titled "The One Who Never Left Us." Several congregants even asked for copies.

A year after Hinckley's remarks, however, Allred gave a speech at Sunstone Symposium, "Toward a Mormon Theology of God the Mother."

In it and subsequent pieces, Allred didn't advocate praying to Mother in Heaven, nor say she did so herself. She did, however, argue that God the Mother is the Holy Spirit.

"I proposed that the Eternal God is both a Man and a Woman — the Eternal Father and the Eternal Mother. They are both fully God and they work together to bring to pass our immortality and eternal life," Allred said of her 1992 speech. "To do this, the Father sacrifices his eternal body to become the Son to redeem us from our sins, and the Mother sacrifices her eternal body to become the Holy Spirit to comfort, enlighten and sanctify us."

Allred was excommunicated in 1995 for such writings.

A few years later, Allred's sister and respected Mormon feminist Margaret Toscano, was also excommunicated in part for writings about God the Mother. Others were reprimanded or threatened with discipline, and much of the public discussion went underground or went away.

Now Heavenly Mother seems to be flowing back into Mormon conversation bit by bit — even her relationship to the Holy Ghost.

A bit more (info on the book she wrote):

http://signaturebookslibrary.org/god-the-mother/

Quote

Janice Allred interprets Mormon theology from her perspective as a housewife and mother of nine. But for her efforts to expound the traditional Latter-day Saint belief in a Mother in Heaven, she was excommunicated just after Mother’s Day 1995, her writings catapulted suddenly into the public spotlight. “Jesus taught us to pray to the Father,” Allred writes, “not to set up barriers between us and God, but to remove them. [God is also] our Mother, a Mother who knows our needs before we can express them, a Mother who is here before we called out to her.” Although LDS church leaders forbid speculation about or praying to the Goddess, they have stopped short of repudiating her outright and left open the possibility of accepting her in the future

So, from the info in that quote, it does sound like she was open to the idea of praying to Heavenly Mother too.

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/20/2019 at 1:21 PM, snowflake said:

In the Book of Mormon Jesus' Apostles pray directly to him recognizing him as Lord and God.....almost all Christian sects accept Jesus as Lord and God (God in flesh)......and will pray directly to Him. It seems as though this is forbidden in LDS culture....Why doesn't the COJCOLDS accept him as Lord and God and pray directly to him as the first BOM Apostles did? 

3 Nephi 19:13 And it came to pass when they were all baptized and had come up out of the water, the Holy Ghost did fall upon them, and they were filled with the Holy Ghost and with fire.
3 Nephi 19:14 And behold, they were encircled about as if it were by fire; and it came down from heaven, and the multitude did witness it, and did bear record; and angels did come down out of heaven and did minister unto them.
3 Nephi 19:15 And it came to pass that while the angels were ministering unto the disciples, behold, Jesus came and stood in the midst and ministered unto them.
3 Nephi 19:16 And it came to pass that he spake unto the multitude, and commanded them that they should kneel down again upon the earth, and also that his disciples should kneel down upon the earth.
3 Nephi 19:17 And it came to pass that when they had all knelt down upon the earth, he commanded his disciples that they should pray.
3 Nephi 19:18 And behold, they began to pray; and *they did pray unto Jesus*, calling him their Lord and their God.

They were not Apostles, they were called Disciples. The Twelve Nephite Disciples are answerable to the Twelve Apostles.

1 Nephi 12:6-10 

So your lack of knowledge reveals your nitpicking.

3 Nephi 19:22 answers your question. You don’t need all the other junk mentioned in this thread.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Hi HappyJack.

I would like to offer a correction of a suggestion you made that no one else seems to have caught. I know you meant no ill, but you will understand why I would want the record to reflect that very few non-LDS for about the last 1700 years would defend what you propose as a common belief.     

I note that you concede that this is only "as far as I understand", but I can't imagine how anyone could get the idea that what is called Modalism (different modes of one person), or Sabellianism (after Sabellius, an early proponent of the error), is very widely believed today. I do not think it has been a very successful error at all. Lutherans, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Baptists, Methodists, Catholics and Orthodox, Nazarenes, and LDS all reject the idea. The Nicene Creed, which has informed much non-LDS theology, teaches that Jesus is "God from God, Light from light, true God from true God". Father and Son are eternally distinct. In the west the error eventually became known by an apt, but for modalists, problematic title, Patripassionism. This would be because if Jesus IS God the Father, it was the Father who bled and died for sins. While "modalism" might seem to solve some problems for monotheists, the Patripassionism which it implies, is unthinkable to virtually all Christians of today and from Apostolic times. It is probably because of this particular implication of Sabellianism, that the error never really achieved much success.  

Thanks...God bless.

Rory

I'm going to come out here and say this: a LOT of LDS Christians misunderstand Athanasian Christians (aka Christians that adhere to the Athanasian Creed) and mistakenly think that the Athanasian "trinity" = modalism.  It is a tragically common misconception.  As to how it originated / continues to be, in my observation it seems to be correlated with a few things--

1) A lot of people sitting in Trinitarian pews nowadays are not well studied and actually believe modalism.  Many Protestants haven't even read the Creeds.  An LDS Christian asks their Trinitarian friend "hey what do you believe?" and they answer explaining modalism.  Or just accidentally give a modalist explanation. 

2) Low-quality apologetic efforts (such as "anti-cult" preachers) continually deride LDS Christians for believing that the Father, Son, and Spirit are 3 different persons/beings.  Hence, the LDS Christian comes to the conclusion that the 'Trinity' is modalism (belief in 1 person/being).  The louder the "anti-cult" preacher shouts, the more and more cemented idea that Trinity = modalism becomes.  Hence yet another example of how low-quality apologetics are damaging to everyone. 

3) Once an idea becomes implanted in a group's collective head (like Trinity = modalism), it is just really hard to get out.

The way to better address this and improve things all around: it requires true Christ-like love, fellowship, and high-quality explanations.  I admire your stance and progress in that regard @3DOP, as well as @MiserereNobis, and try to be such an ambassador myself.  It's not an easy task, as the low-quality path of falling is some such easier and well traveled by people from both camps.

 

Edited by Jane_Doe
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Wow! Talk about a harsh and accusatory way to respond to a question. Can you honestly not accept that there could be more than one interpretation of scripture? Of course you have your own interpretation, but others will have their interpretations as well, hence the opportunity for discussion.

Miserenobis asked a fair question so I'm not sure why you're so defensive about it. Why accuse him of asking a question in bad faith? People who have been members their whole lives ask all kinds of questions so it seems reasonable to allow a non-lds participant to ask questions as well. Don't you think?

BTW- if you think your kind of reaction is a defense of faith I'd ask you to reconsider

Well, HJW, you misconstrued my comments. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I honestly didn't know where the line was drawn on this issue. That's why I asked: is it forbidden, discouraged, or not recommended? Those are different levels of disapproval and I was trying to figure out where this fell. It's probably the Catholic in me; we tend to categorize and classify everything.

Great! :) 

I apologize that I was curt with you. I thought you were being sarcastic about the way we pray, but I misunderstood. I think we were talking about different scriptures when you asked about varying interpretations. I was talking about those I quoted from 3 Nephi. They speak quite plainly to me.

 I quoted the Article of Faith to show you where I stand, which is with the instructions Jesus gave to the Nephites when he came to them. These instructions followed his giving them the example of how to pray that we all call the Lord’s Prayer. I’m not aware of many commandments given repeatedly and emphatically like this in such a short time. It must be important. This is why we as a Church don’t formally pray to Jesus.

What people do in privacy is up to them. The Church does not ferret out our personal praying practices. I have never been asked by an authority if I pray to Jesus. I strongly doubt I ever would be asked. Who cares if I do? In the meantime, I want to do as the Savior instructed. Also, as I said according to our AoF, we believe everyone has the right to worship and pray however or to whomever they wish. 

For convenience, here are the instructions to the Nephites. Note the use of the word always. We can read the scriptures and then decide what we want to do.

Quote

3 Nephi 3 Nephi 13: 9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name.....
17 And it came to pass that when Jesus had spoken these words unto his disciples, he turned again unto the multitude and said unto them:
18 Behold, verily, verily, I say unto you, ye must watch and pray always lest ye enter into temptation; for Satan desireth to have you, that he may sift you as wheat.
19 Therefore ye must always pray unto the Father in my name;
20 And whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, which is right, believing that ye shall receive, behold it shall be given unto you.
21 Pray in your families unto the Father, always in my name, that your wives and your children may be blessed.

17:3 Therefore, go ye unto your homes, and ponder upon the things which I have said, and ask of the Father, in my name, that ye may understand, and prepare your minds for the morrow, and I come unto you again.

18:16 And as I have prayed among you even so shall ye pray in my church, among my people who do repent and are baptized in my name. Behold I am the light; I have set an example for you.

19: 6 And the twelve did teach the multitude; and behold, they did cause that the multitude should kneel down upon the face of the earth, and should pray unto the Father in the name of Jesus.
7 And the disciples did pray unto the Father also in the name of Jesus. And it came to pass that they arose and ministered unto the people.
8 And when they had ministered those same words which Jesus had spoken—nothing varying from the words which Jesus had spoken—behold, they knelt again and prayed to the Father in the name of Jesus.
9 And they did pray for that which they most desired; and they desired that the Holy Ghost should be given unto them.

20:31 And they shall believe in me, that I am Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and shall pray unto the Father in my name.

Moroni 2:2 And he called them [the 12 Nephite disciples] by name, saying: Ye shall call on the Father in my name, in mighty prayer; and after ye have done this ye shall have power that to him upon whom ye shall lay your hands, ye shall give the Holy Ghost; and in my name shall ye give it, for thus do mine apostles.

Moroni 7:26 And after that he came men also were saved by faith in his name; and by faith, they become the sons of God. And as surely as Christ liveth he spake these words unto our fathers, saying: Whatsoever thing ye shall ask the Father in my name, which is good, in faith believing that ye shall receive, behold, it shall be done unto you.

 

Edited by Bernard Gui
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, longview said:

I confess inability to comprehend your intricate statements....These are all bewildering statements.  Might be considered circular statements.  I reject the excuse that they are mysteries when words of Christ should be taken at face value.  

Maybe they cannot be understood. As one once famously said, “That’s the beauty of it.” 

Edited by Bernard Gui

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Jane_Doe said:

I'm going to come out here and say this: a LOT of LDS Christians misunderstand Athanasian Christians (aka Christians that adhere to the Athanasian Creed) and mistakenly think that the Athanasian "trinity" = modalism.  It is a tragically common misconception.  As to how it originated / continues to be, in my observation it seems to be correlated with a few things--

1) A lot of people sitting in Trinitarian pews nowadays are not well studied and actually believe modalism.  Many Protestants haven't even read the Creeds.  An LDS Christian asks their Trinitarian friend "hey what do you believe?" and they answer explaining modalism.  Or just accidentally give a modalist explanation. 

2) Low-quality apologetic efforts (such as "anti-cult" preachers) continually deride LDS Christians for believing that the Father, Son, and Spirit are 3 different persons/beings.  Hence, the LDS Christian comes to the conclusion that the 'Trinity' is modalism (belief in 1 person/being).  The louder the "anti-cult" preacher shouts, the more and more cemented idea that Trinity = modalism becomes.  Hence yet another example of how low-quality apologetics are damaging to everyone. 

3) Once an idea becomes implanted in a group's collective head (like Trinity = modalism), it is just really hard to get out.

The way to better address this and improve things all around: it requires true Christ-like love, fellowship, and high-quality explanations.  I admire your stance and progress in that regard @3DOP, as well as @MiserereNobis, and try to be such an ambassador myself.  It's not an easy task, as the low-quality path of falling is some such easier and well traveled by people from both camps.

 

Could you clarify something for me? Are you saying non-LDS Christians are OK with the Father and Son being separate physical beings as per the First Vision? Not that they believe Joseph, but that his description of them was theologically correct?

Share this post


Link to post
57 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Could you clarify something for me? Are you saying non-LDS Christians are OK with the Father and Son being separate physical beings as per the First Vision? Not that they believe Joseph, but that his description of them was theologically correct?

(Disclaimer: I am NOT a Trinitarian.  I'm just a person who best tries to understand what it is Trinitarians believe.  I COMPLETELY welcome any actual Trinitarians to answer this question).

The actual Trinity (not modalism) acknowledges that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three different persons.  Christ doesn't pray to Himself, nor does He pat Himself on the back with "Behold my beloved Son".  It's the Father saying that line, and to whom the Son is praying to.  They are 3 different persons, a point that LDS Christians agree with.  The point of disagreement is the *how* 3 are 1: LDS Christians pointing to unity.    Trinitarian Christians point to ontological oneness through a shared substance (wherein they differentiate between a 'person' and a being')  -- yes this is extremely confusing for all folks, hence the difficult in explanations for all involved.

As to the First Vision: a Trinitarian isn't going to have any issue with the fact that the Father and Son are different persons.  What they are going to have an issue with is the Father (like the Son) wearing a tabernacle of perfected flesh, versus being spirit like the Holy Ghost.  And that then consumes the discussion. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

This may help, from a non LDS Christian warrior friend of mine who has studied early christianity for several years now who has a website devoted to early christianity and is doctrinal teachings - https://www.christian-history.org/definition-of-the-trinity.html 

the Atonement, It is The Central Doctrine

Washing My Garment in His Blood

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS, Saint, Christian, Sentinel, Son Of Thunder, Kryptonian Warrior

 

Edited by Anakin7

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

I'm going to come out here and say this: a LOT of LDS Christians misunderstand Athanasian Christians (aka Christians that adhere to the Athanasian Creed) and mistakenly think that the Athanasian "trinity" = modalism.  It is a tragically common misconception.  As to how it originated / continues to be, in my observation it seems to be correlated with a few things--

1) A lot of people sitting in Trinitarian pews nowadays are not well studied and actually believe modalism.  Many Protestants haven't even read the Creeds.  An LDS Christian asks their Trinitarian friend "hey what do you believe?" and they answer explaining modalism.  Or just accidentally give a modalist explanation. 

2) Low-quality apologetic efforts (such as "anti-cult" preachers) continually deride LDS Christians for believing that the Father, Son, and Spirit are 3 different persons/beings.  Hence, the LDS Christian comes to the conclusion that the 'Trinity' is modalism (belief in 1 person/being).  The louder the "anti-cult" preacher shouts, the more and more cemented idea that Trinity = modalism becomes.  Hence yet another example of how low-quality apologetics are damaging to everyone. 

3) Once an idea becomes implanted in a group's collective head (like Trinity = modalism), it is just really hard to get out.

The way to better address this and improve things all around: it requires true Christ-like love, fellowship, and high-quality explanations.  I admire your stance and progress in that regard @3DOP, as well as @MiserereNobis, and try to be such an ambassador myself.  It's not an easy task, as the low-quality path of falling is some such easier and well traveled by people from both camps.

 

  This may help Jane Doe - https://www.christian-history.org/definition-of-the-trinity.html   

May True Grace Be with you and all.

Anakin7

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Thanks.  I quickly y read over this and have in=depth studied many similar in the past.

 You must speed read !, he has several sections on his site dealing with this along with a 461 page book entitled ; DECODING NICEA which he gives dozens of quotes from early christian leaders on this subject. I would implore you or anyone else to obtain this publication,

Grace To All.

Edited by Anakin7

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...