Cobalt-70 Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 John 17:3 does say that eternal life is knowing God the Father and Jesus Christ. Surely this means that if a religion radically misrepresents the nature of God, that religion is not a reliable path to eternal life. If orthodox Christianity is guilty of such misrepresentation of the nature of God, as you seem to believe, then we would not be teaching the truth about the way to eternal life. The same would apply to the LDS Church if it is guilty of such misrepresentation. At least one of our religions teaches serious error about God; that reality should not be ignored or sugar-coated. Therefore, it is important for people to face this issue and come to terms with it.John 17:3 is one of the most Gnostic verses in the Gospel of John. It is understandable that both Mormons and Evangelicals, which are both very gnostic forms of Christianity, would place so much emphasis on this one verse. From a purely historical perspective, this is also one of the verses that the historical Jesus is least likely to have actually said.
KevinG Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 Either they were "on the fringe" or maybe explained themselves in an odd manner. Jehovah/Christ has always been part of the Godhead according to my understanding of who the Messiah was/is.Best nic ever... Just sayin'Welcome to the boards.
Calm Posted November 5, 2011 Posted November 5, 2011 What about the difference in our beliefs regarding the corporeality of God? That kind of seems like a big issue, right?I find it ve ry interesting how LDS give significantly different 'weights' to different beliefs than other Christians do. I don't see it as attempting to make ourselves more mainstream then we are as some critics claim, but simply a result of starting from a dramatically different perspective.
ldsfaqs Posted November 5, 2011 Posted November 5, 2011 What about the difference in our beliefs regarding the corporeality of God? That kind of seems like a big issue, right?What about it? You do know that the Bible itself doesn't actually teach "directly" one way or another?In fact, if it wasn't for your religions misrepresenting the "God is a spirit" verse, the preponderance of the evidence of the Bible is that God most certainly does have a body.Further, we are talking about the original Nicene Creed. If LDS are excluded as "real" Christians by the Nicene Creed, then if it's the original, the closest version to Christ, and we are able to entirely agree with it, then how can LDS legitimately be excluded?Even further, why are LDS excluded anyway by an extra-Biblical document? By what "authority" does that document have over us and you? Did an Apostle create the document? No they didn't. In fact, Christ Himself actually spoke on the issue of lack of orthodoxy and authority in Mark 9 & Luke 9. He himself makes clear that other believers "not with you", ARE in fact also his children, and any attempt to be critical of said children, Christ has harsh words for it.
jadams_4242 Posted November 5, 2011 Posted November 5, 2011 While I agree with you overall, what I don't understand is how mainstream christianity views "being".Does being the same "being" mean that they know the same things? or have the same will? or iis it they simply have the same attributes, like omniscience...oh wait, if the Father knows something that Jesus does not then Jesus in not omniscient? well that doesn't fit...There must be something else going on... yea.. its called the advesary!
David T Posted November 5, 2011 Posted November 5, 2011 Jesus was God both during and before His mortal life. He has always been a member of the Godhead. He would not have had been able to do the things He did if He wasn't God.Atonement Proper Aside, nearly everything else attributed to Jesus during his ministry has also been attributed to other prior prophets or later apostles that we do not declare as God: healings, raising from the dead, multiplication of food, exorcisms, etc.Were you just referring to the Atonement proper when you said "the things he did", or was there something else unique you had in mind that Jesus did that would require him to be acting as divinity proper in order to accomplish?
diglot Posted November 5, 2011 Posted November 5, 2011 What about it? You do know that the Bible itself doesn't actually teach "directly" one way or another?Yes, the Bible contains contradictory things concerning God. But that is irrelevant to me because like the vast majority of Christians, I don't rely on the Bible alone as my source of theology.In fact, if it wasn't for your religions misrepresenting the "God is a spirit" verse, the preponderance of the evidence of the Bible is that God most certainly does have a body.And if we always went by what the Bible says then we would believe in a flat-earth three-tiered universe.Further, we are talking about the original Nicene Creed. If LDS are excluded as "real" Christians by the Nicene Creed, then if it's the original, the closest version to Christ, and we are able to entirely agree with it, then how can LDS legitimately be excluded? Who said anything about excluding LDS from being Christians? I didn't. All I have said is that we have different views of God. I don't equate that as meaning you can not be a real Christian.
Vance Posted November 5, 2011 Posted November 5, 2011 (edited) I've heard different views from LDS as to when Jesus became God. I have heard that he became part of the Godhead when he was resurrected. Is this a common view? Or did I just encounter a couple of LDS on the fringe?Matt 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.Question 1: When was Jesus given "all power"?Question 2: Why was it needed for Jesus to be given "all power"?Question 3: Who gave Jesus "all power"? Edited November 5, 2011 by Vance
diglot Posted November 5, 2011 Posted November 5, 2011 Matt 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.Question 1: When was Jesus given "all power"?I would say he was given it at the resurrection.Question 2: Why was it needed for Jesus to be given "all power"?Because he didn't have it prior to the resurrection.Question 3: Who gave Jesus "all power"?God.
Bubblewrapmyhead212 Posted November 5, 2011 Posted November 5, 2011 I would say the power was "given" to him at the Mount of Transfiguration. I believe that it was there Christ recieved what we call the Endowment along with Peter, James, and John. Both Moses and Elias appeared and talked with them, and gave Priesthood keys to them.I believe that Christ always had the aforementioned powers, but they were "unlocked" during that moment. I could be wrong though
irenaeus Posted November 5, 2011 Posted November 5, 2011 It also is acceptable, but it's a bit more wordy.The only issue LDS have with the creed is how "one substance" is interpreted. It is my view that the original intention and interpretation of that phrase was in reference to Christ being the "only begotten son", i.e. the only son to be born of the Father, and not created as man were. Thus, they would in fact be of the "same substance" i.e. one etc. If you note the context of that statement is the same context of the only begotten part, that they were simply adding more fluff to the same idea/principle.I believe that as a part of the apostasy, religions gradually changed that interpretation to the one that is believed now by so-called traditional christianity, that one substance is in reference to them being the same actual being, rather than of the same substance.I would like to add also that current versions of the Creed in the Catholic Church and especially in other religions have significant changes.The only change that the Roman Catholic church has made to Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed is the the addition that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Son. The Eastern Orthodox have always recited the creed in its original form. The 'substance' 'being' distinction is just a matter of translation, in fact the recent revision of the English Roman missal changes 'being' to 'consubstantial' in the creed. You are correct in stating that the council was trying to state clearly that Jesus was God (eternal, uncreated) in the same sense that the Father was God. Jesus is not a creature like we are. But the Son was also believed to be distinct from the Father, even though they are both part of the uncreated reality that is God.
irenaeus Posted November 5, 2011 Posted November 5, 2011 Even further, why are LDS excluded anyway by an extra-Biblical document? By what "authority" does that document have over us and you? Did an Apostle create the document? No they didn't. In fact, Christ Himself actually spoke on the issue of lack of orthodoxy and authority in Mark 9 & Luke 9. He himself makes clear that other believers "not with you", ARE in fact also his children, and any attempt to be critical of said children, Christ has harsh words for it.A Catholic or Orthodox Christian would answer that the creed is binding on Christian believers because of the authority that Christ gave to his church, which continued to be present in duly ordained bishops - the successors to the apostles as they say. If you don't accept the authority of those bishops then of course you have no reason to accept the creed unless it happens to coincide with your prior understanding of Christian doctrine.
Rivers Posted November 5, 2011 Posted November 5, 2011 Mormons also believe that God is an uncreated reality. The difference is that we believe that all of us are the uncreated reality as well. Joseph Smith taught that man is co-eternal with God.
mnn727 Posted November 5, 2011 Posted November 5, 2011 (edited) The problem with stating what mainstream Christianity believes is that there are so many differing beliefs that its impossible.The defination of the Trinity runs from almost exactly what LDS believe, all the way up to one 'personage' that has 3 parts.And even if you pin down what the official belief of a denomination is, if you ask its members you'll often get different beliefs. Edited November 5, 2011 by mnn727
diglot Posted November 5, 2011 Posted November 5, 2011 The problem with stating what mainstream Christianity believes is that there are so many differing beliefs that its impossible.The defination of the Trinity runs from almost exactly what LDS believe, all the way up to one 'personage' that has 3 parts.And even if you pin down what the official belief of a denomination is, if you ask its members you'll often get different beliefs.Whats your point? I can say the same thing of the LDS Church.
irenaeus Posted November 5, 2011 Posted November 5, 2011 Mormons also believe that God is an uncreated reality. The difference is that we believe that all of us are the uncreated reality as well. Joseph Smith taught that man is co-eternal with God.I agree, that is the main difference between Mormons and other Christians. It is the source of much of the divergence in their respective theologies and worldviews.
irenaeus Posted November 5, 2011 Posted November 5, 2011 The problem with stating what mainstream Christianity believes is that there are so many differing beliefs that its impossible.The defination of the Trinity runs from almost exactly what LDS believe, all the way up to one 'personage' that has 3 parts.And even if you pin down what the official belief of a denomination is, if you ask its members you'll often get different beliefs.If you ask your average Christian believer you probably would get a wide range of definitions of the Trinity. In terms of actual theologies, however, most major Christian denomination share the share view on the Trinity: one divine substance/being in three distinct persons. Just don't ask exactly what the difference is between person and being! 1
mnn727 Posted November 5, 2011 Posted November 5, 2011 If you ask your average Christian believer you probably would get a wide range of definitions of the Trinity. In terms of actual theologies, however, most major Christian denomination share the share view on the Trinity: one divine substance/being in three distinct persons. Just don't ask exactly what the difference is between person and being!Actually I have taken a survey before - theres a wide difference.
mnn727 Posted November 5, 2011 Posted November 5, 2011 (edited) Whats your point? I can say the same thing of the LDS Church. Actually, no you can't. Our theology is very clearly defined to all members and unless you ask a complete newbie or a total inactive 'member' you'll get the same answer. Edited November 5, 2011 by mnn727
saemo Posted November 5, 2011 Posted November 5, 2011 Often times in debates with others not of our Faith; John 17: 3 is quoted…Even though this scripture shows a clear distinction between the Father and the Son, critics quote it to point out that we have the wrong Jesus, and this is why we will not have eternal life.This scripture come from Christ’s prayer unto the Father in the Garden of Gethsemane. In this prayer Christ makes it clear that he is willing to submit “his will” to his Father’s. If they are the same being manifest in three “persons”…how could they have opposing wills?In this prayer he also thanks God the Father for those whom “he gave him”…how does the same being give something to himself?Also in this prayer he explains through his words what “being one” really means, as he hopes the same relationship to exist among us, as he enjoys with the Father.All the while, teaching us to pray as he had already commanded us to do “unto the Father”.A few other short examples…The Father knows when Christ will return “he” Christ does not.Christ felt as if the Father abandoned him in his greatest hour of need, how would one conceal this from oneself?Yet most in other Churches no longer pray to the Father as commanded by Christ, because they believe that “Father, Son and Holy Ghost” are the same being, therefore as long as your prayers are to anyone of the “three persons” it is to the same being.I attended a funeral yesterday and no prayers were offered to the Father, but unto Christ. I fear the Nicene Creed has killed the Father, but at a minimum cased the need for the “Restoration”.Do any agree, or can you offer more examples from the Bible that make clear that (although united) they are not the same being?God IS: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Father is revealed by the Son and the Son is revealed by the Father. The Father and the Son reveal the Spirit. That is how we know Who God is. By what God has revealed about God.John 17 is a beautiful prayer, which is one of the deepest meanings for our Life through Jesus Christ. Jesus teaches here very clearly, He is in the Father and the Father is in Him....there is no better explanation of the Trinity than this.
irenaeus Posted November 5, 2011 Posted November 5, 2011 Actually I have taken a survey before - theres a wide difference.I wasn't referring to surveys of believers, but rather what the actual theologies of the Roman Catholic church, the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox church (those three consituting the majority of Christian believers), the Anglican, Lutheran, and Methodist churches etc teach about the Trinity. They all subscribe to the 'one God in three persons' formula or if you like, 'one substance and three distinct persons'. Not three separate idependant gods nor a god who is a single person but manifests himself in three different modes.If you are a member of one the denominations listed above and you subscribe to those sort of views then you are going against the consistent teachings of those churches. Those denominations may have many things that divide them from each other, but the dogma of the Trinity isn't one of them. As far as non-denominational Christians go, I guess anything is possible if they don't subscribe to any formal creeds or catechisms.
diglot Posted November 5, 2011 Posted November 5, 2011 Actually, no you can't. Our theology is very clearly defined to all members and unless you ask a complete newbie or a total inactive 'member' you'll get the same answer.Actually yes I can. So what if there are clearly defined beliefs in the LDS church? It doesn't stop Mormons in these forums from holding different beliefs concerning God.Its hypocritical for an LDS to disparage mainstream Christianity due to its adherents having different beliefs concerning God. Look at the plank in your own eye before criticizing someone else for the plank in their eye.
diglot Posted November 5, 2011 Posted November 5, 2011 Actually I have taken a survey before - theres a wide difference.And I have seen very different beliefs concerning the nature of God from Mormons.
altersteve Posted November 5, 2011 Posted November 5, 2011 God IS: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Father is revealed by the Son and the Son is revealed by the Father. The Father and the Son reveal the Spirit. That is how we know Who God is. By what God has revealed about God.I would add that the Spirit testifies of the Father and the Son, and gives us knowledge of Them, but really, nothing that you said here is something that a Latter-day Saint would disagree with.
saemo Posted November 6, 2011 Posted November 6, 2011 I would add that the Spirit testifies of the Father and the Son, and gives us knowledge of Them, but really, nothing that you said here is something that a Latter-day Saint would disagree with.Yes, then, why all the confusion over the Holy Trinity? Trinity is a short hand way to say what we just said. I confess, One God, in three Persons.
Recommended Posts