Biblical Christianity

[Nominee]

Jesus does not rule over just this world, He created and rules over the universe as God (not just "a God"). He and His Father, with the Holy Ghost, are united as one God. They are one. From what has been revealed to us, we should all understand that Jesus Christ is God, not just "a God." He is God the Son, the Creator.

I have always argued that the LDS understanding of the oneness of God is very similar to the doctrine of the Trinity. The Trinity does not say that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are literally one being, it says they are one God; nor does it the "one in substance" concept mean that they are literally composed of the same material. All it means is that they are united as one divine being called God. This is similar to how we describe it: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are in perfect unity as one God, members of one Godhead who rule over all. Unfortunately, the way the doctrine of the Trinity is explained is what makes people misunderstand it. This is why Mormons and evangelicals constantly talk past each other, because neither understands the other's doctrines at all.

I do not believe that there are other "Christs" for other worlds. The scriptures say that Jesus Christ created and atoned for all the worlds God has created, and "the inhabitants thereof are sons and daughters unto God" through faith in Christ. When it is said that there are other "gods," I believe it in light of what Paul said, that there are beings "that are called gods" -- divine beings who act under the authority of God the Father. Jesus Christ is "a god" because He is a divine being, but He is also God. He has been and will be God forever.

I feel it's important for Latter-day Saints to understand this. Jesus Christ is not just "a god." He is God. There is a huge difference there that needs to be understood.

Thank you, Steve. I don't know that I could have worded that as well as you have. I agree with every word and great job getting it out here.

[Nominee]

Nominee,

Your answer to my question appears to be that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three Gods, but that only one of them, the Son Jesus Christ, made and rules over this world:

Perhaps you could explain how your answer here compares to or fits with what some of your leaders have taught. Here are some examples, all taken from lds.org:

"The Church's first article of faith states, 'We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.' These three beings make up the Godhead. They preside over this world and all other creations of our Father in Heaven" ("Godhead," Study by Topic).

"The first article [in the Articles of Faith] anchors our belief in God, our Eternal Father, in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost. How grateful we are for a knowledge of Supreme Beings that rule and govern this world. Our belief does not come from the speculations of men about the existence and nature of God, but from firsthand experience from the Prophet Joseph Smith in the Sacred Grove. His experience clarified for mankind the existence of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. Thus to the world came the vision that three personages comprise this great presiding council of the universe and have revealed themselves to mankind as three separate beings, physically distinct from each other as demonstrated by the accepted records of their divine dealings with mankind" (L. Tom Perry, "The Articles of Faith," general conference address, April 1998).

These statements affirm that all three, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, rule over the world.

I really need to give altersteve credit for answering this. I think he was writing the answer down at the same time you were posing the question. Does his post satisfy? If not, why?

[Mudcat]

We often hear that Mormons aren't Christians because we don't practice Biblical Christianity. I think the biggest and most obvious problems with that term is that Christians for the first couple of centuries did not have a Bible, and therefore could not be considered "Biblical" Christians. Now you might argue that Mormons don't practice "Historic" Christianity, but which Historic Christianity don't we practice? Would that be Primative Christianity, Catholic Christianity, Protestant Christianity, Evangelical Christianity, etc?

Please feel free to ask more related questions to this thread with responses, because obviously I did not exhaust the topic.

Seems like the thread has turned into another discussion on Trinity vs. LDS Godhead. I don't plan on making any comments in that direction.

I'll pass on commenting on that part because my "futility" muscles are in great shape at the moment. In fact after taking a few months of focusing on pressing multiple sets of "irreconcilabel differences" I can lift twice my body weight in "unproductive discussions".

That being said, I think it actually is a fair statment that LDS do not practice Biblical Christianity in an exact sense.

Certainly that doesn't mean that some of the teachings of the CoJCoLDS can't be found within the Bible or that their teachings are not Biblically consistent in areas. Rather, what I am suggesting, is that even though LDS include the Bible as part of their Scriptures, it is considered the poorest translation amongst them and the actual bulk of LDS teachings can be taught without the need of the Bible and in many cases LDS teachings are beyond the scope of what the Bible teaches.

Temple marriage, sealings, exaltation, LDS views on the priesthood, proxy baptism, evangelism to the dead and the LDS Godhead are some examples of large divergence from Biblical Christianity or a Biblical view.

Even if we were to look at available historic examples of the early Church, I think we would be hard pressed to say that what LDS teach vs. what has been taught are the same. I think there are some similarities between LDS teachings and some heretical doctrine. In example, the LDS Godhead is not Arianism, but Arianism is closer to it than the Trinitarianism, but its certainly not the same.. especialy given the consideration to a Father that is espoused to one if not many "Goddess".

In these respects the CoJCoLDS is a new advent and I don't think consistent agreement can be found within "historic" Christianity for it. As an afterthought, I do think proxy baptism potentially has some creedence.. at least the practice. But certainly the notion of tying it to evangelistic efforts to the dead doesn't seem to have any valid Biblical connection.

Just some thoughts.

Regards,

Mudcat

[Vance]

Nominee,

Your answer to my question appears to be that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three Gods, but that only one of them, the Son Jesus Christ, made and rules over this world:

Perhaps you could explain how your answer here compares to or fits with what some of your leaders have taught. Here are some examples, all taken from lds.org:

"The Church's first article of faith states, 'We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.' These three beings make up the Godhead. They preside over this world and all other creations of our Father in Heaven" ("Godhead," Study by Topic).

"The first article [in the Articles of Faith] anchors our belief in God, our Eternal Father, in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost. How grateful we are for a knowledge of Supreme Beings that rule and govern this world. Our belief does not come from the speculations of men about the existence and nature of God, but from firsthand experience from the Prophet Joseph Smith in the Sacred Grove. His experience clarified for mankind the existence of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. Thus to the world came the vision that three personages comprise this great presiding council of the universe and have revealed themselves to mankind as three separate beings, physically distinct from each other as demonstrated by the accepted records of their divine dealings with mankind" (L. Tom Perry, "The Articles of Faith," general conference address, April 1998).

These statements affirm that all three, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, rule over the world.

Bowman is trying to shift the argument away from the Bible because he is losing.

The Bible is very clear that the "one God" is "the Father" and that "the Father" isn't Jesus Christ.

So, if Jesus is divine then there MUST BE more than one divine being/person/entity.

[Vance]

John 17:

1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:

2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.

3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

Ah, what did Jesus know about this topic compared to the "Biblical Christians"?

Edited January 13, 2012 by Vance

[rameumptom]

For those claiming the "Bible" was always around for the earliest Christians, I would agree that most of the separate documents were available. That said, I would include that dozens or hundreds of others were also available. Books of Enoch, Shepherd of Hermas, and many many more were frequently used in the early Christian Church. The Nag Hammadi library contained sacred texts of the Gnostic Christians, which were so popular at one time, they almost overwhelmed the proto-orthodox faith.

Then there is the issue that many of the books in the Bible were not written by those claimed to have written them. Half of Paul's epistles are probably pseudepigrapha, as well as Hebrews and Revelation. So, should those really have been included in a book that was supposed to contain only the writings of the prophets and apostles?

[Rob Bowman]

Steve,

You wrote:

Jesus does not rule over just this world, He created and rules over the universe as God (not just "a God"). He and His Father, with the Holy Ghost, are united as one God. They are one. From what has been revealed to us, we should all understand that Jesus Christ is God, not just "a God." He is God the Son, the Creator.

I have always argued that the LDS understanding of the oneness of God is very similar to the doctrine of the Trinity. The Trinity does not say that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are literally one being, it says they are one God; nor does it the "one in substance" concept mean that they are literally composed of the same material. All it means is that they are united as one divine being called God. This is similar to how we describe it: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are in perfect unity as one God, members of one Godhead who rule over all. Unfortunately, the way the doctrine of the Trinity is explained is what makes people misunderstand it. This is why Mormons and evangelicals constantly talk past each other, because neither understands the other's doctrines at all.

I think I understand the LDS doctrine of God about as well as possible given that the reality is that the primary sources of LDS doctrine teach conflicting doctrines of God. You and I have been around this mountain before, Steve, and I'm not sure how fruitful another pass would be. Redefining the doctrine of the Trinity so that God is not literally one being but three is just that, a redefinition. Our respective theologies are not at all similar, and no amount of massaging the data will overcome the problem. In LDS theology, the three members of the "Trinity" are three Gods, with separate bodies, and none of them is personally omnipresent. This means that if the Father is in one place and the Son is in another place, they are not personally present with each other. They may be "united" in purpose or some such thing, but they are functionally and ontologically separate beings existing in separate locations. This is about as radically different from the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity as one could ask. If we add that in the traditional LDS understanding the three Gods became Gods at different points in time and in different places--even under differing circumstances--the contrast between LDS theology and orthodox theology becomes even starker. The usual view is that the Father was a mortal man who became a God, and who then as Heavenly Father became the literal father of billions of spirit children, the firstborn of which was Jehovah (Jesus Christ), and he then became a God in the preexistence. Thus, they are not even co-eternally God. I recall that you don't accept that view, but I am concerned with the dominant doctrine that the LDS Church has and still teaches.

[Rob Bowman]

rameumptom,

You wrote:

For those claiming the "Bible" was always around for the earliest Christians, I would agree that most of the separate documents were available. That said, I would include that dozens or hundreds of others were also available. Books of Enoch, Shepherd of Hermas, and many many more were frequently used in the early Christian Church. The Nag Hammadi library contained sacred texts of the Gnostic Christians, which were so popular at one time, they almost overwhelmed the proto-orthodox faith.

Naw, there was never any real danger of that happening. The Gnostic writings were generally elitist by the very nature of the religion they represented. Most of the noncanonical writings to which you refer (there were not "hundreds") had both limited appeal and limited circulation. Yes, the early church used extracanonical books; so do evangelical Christians. In a few cases there was some uncertainty about precisely which books were Scripture and which were not; some accepted Hermas but not 3 John, or what have you. But the general shape of the NT developed not long after the last of the NT books were written and by the late second century the four Gospels, Paul's epistles, Revelation, and a scattering of other books were widely recognized as Christian Scripture.

You wrote:

Then there is the issue that many of the books in the Bible were not written by those claimed to have written them. Half of Paul's epistles are probably pseudepigrapha, as well as Hebrews and Revelation. So, should those really have been included in a book that was supposed to contain only the writings of the prophets and apostles?

Your assertions here are debatable at best and flat wrong at worst. Hebrews cannot be pseudepigraphal because it doesn't give a name for its author at all! Few scholars would argue that Revelation is pseudepigraphal; they may argue that the John who wrote it was not the apostle John, but they usually don't argue that the author's name was not John. As for the Pauline epistles, seven are undisputed, three (the Pastorals) are regarded by liberals as pseudepigraphal, and three (Eph., Col., 2 Thess.) are contested (i.e., even some liberals think Paul wrote them). Good arguments are available showing that Paul was the author of all 13, though in the case of the Pastorals likely Paul's scribe took a more active role in their composition (some recent scholars have cogently argued for Luke as that scribe/co-author).

[CV75]

We often hear that Mormons aren't Christians because we don't practice Biblical Christianity.

I think whoever says this, once they read Mormon 7:8-9, will see that we practice Christianity according to what is written in the Bible as well as the Book of Mormon:

“Therefore repent, and be baptized in the name of Jesus, and lay hold upon the gospel of Christ, which shall be set before you, not only in this record [the book of Mormon] but also in the record which shall come unto the Gentiles from the Jews [the Bible], which record shall come from the Gentiles unto you. For behold, this is written for the intent that ye may believe that; and if ye believe that ye will believe this also…”

[MMMillie]

Paul's statement concerning baptism for the dead I often find to be somewhat cryptic. I sometimes get the sense that he didn't actually teach baptism for the dead and that he neither accepted nor rejected it. He seems to just acknowledge that somebody, somewhere within the early Christianities, practiced it. I try to imagine to whom he was talking and why, and who it was ("they") that he was talking about. I try to reconstruct a full dialogue including his "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?" and I can't come up with one that makes complete sense. He seems to be talking to someone who doesn't believe in resurrection by referring to a group that does as manifest by the fact that they baptize for the dead. Paul himself said that Christ did not send him out to baptize. It's interesting.

[MMMillie]

zerinus,

You wrote, regarding the Bible referring to three Gods:

I always appreciate your desire to get into the Bible itself.

Genesis 3:22 does not refer to a plurality of Gods. There is no reference to "Gods" as a numerical plural in this verse. Orthodox Christians traditionally have understood the plural pronouns in Genesis 1:26 and 3:22 to refer to the plurality of divine persons in the one God, though some have suggested other interpretations. In any case, the text does not actually speak of a plurality of Gods.

How does Judaism interpret their scriptures? Does that shed any light?

[CQUIRK]

No. My interpretation of the Bible is fallible and non-authoritative,

So there's a possibility that you're wrong in your arguments here then?

Perhaps, I could say the same for many of the EV pastors and scholars out there too.

and my activity of reading and interpreting the Bible is irrelevant to the definition of biblical Christianity. Rob Bowman is not in any sense a part of the definition of biblical Christianity. Biblical Christianity existed before I was born.

Indeed, and that could also be well said of the "we're right, all of you are wrong" attitude of evangelical christians in general- who are they to define what Christianity is?

Tell me, what is Latter-day Saint Christianity?

The Christianity that was preached and taught when Jesus and his 12 Apostles were here on the earth, long before Constantine the Great and the Councils of Nicaea came around.

And was later restored in the early 19th Century by a sincere farm boy from upstate New York.

Of course, that's our view

[MMMillie]

So there's a possibility that you're wrong in your arguments here then?

Perhaps, I could say the same for many of the EV pastors and scholars out there too.

Indeed, and that could also be well said of the "we're right, all of you are wrong" attitude of evangelical christians in general- who are they to define what Christianity is?

The Christianity that was preached and taught when Jesus and his 12 Apostles were here on the earth, long before Constantine the Great and the Councils of Nicaea came around.

And was later restored in the early 19th Century by a sincere farm boy from upstate New York.

Of course, that's our view

Long before Constantine and the Councils, and long before even the Apostolic Fathers, Jesus appeared in the Western Hemisphere and I assume taught the very same Christianity that he taught to his 12 Apostles and established in this original Church. This was long before the Great Apostasy that later wracked the original Church in the East. Of all the things that were later lost in that Great Apostasy, what specifically did Jesus teach in the Americas that were preserved in the Book of Mormon, protected from the later Apostasy an ocean and decades away?

[altersteve]

Long before Constantine and the Councils, and long before even the Apostolic Fathers, Jesus appeared in the Western Hemisphere and I assume taught the very same Christianity that he taught to his 12 Apostles and established in this original Church. This was long before the Great Apostasy that later wracked the original Church in the East. Of all the things that were later lost in that Great Apostasy, what specifically did Jesus teach in the Americas that were preserved in the Book of Mormon, protected from the later Apostasy an ocean and decades away?

It was not any specific teachings that were lost, it was priesthood authority that was lost. With no priesthood authority, there is no revelation, and with no revelation, there is no Church. Many teachings were still intact, but because of no revelation, these doctrines were corrupted.

[Mudcat]

Paul's statement concerning baptism for the dead I often find to be somewhat cryptic. I sometimes get the sense that he didn't actually teach baptism for the dead and that he neither accepted nor rejected it. He seems to just acknowledge that somebody, somewhere within the early Christianities, practiced it. I try to imagine to whom he was talking and why, and who it was ("they") that he was talking about. I try to reconstruct a full dialogue including his "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?" and I can't come up with one that makes complete sense. He seems to be talking to someone who doesn't believe in resurrection by referring to a group that does as manifest by the fact that they baptize for the dead. Paul himself said that Christ did not send him out to baptize. It's interesting.

Hi MM,

First off, welcome to the forum. I an EV who posts here on occasion.

I agree with the cryptic nature of the verse in question. Most of the commentaries on this verse seem to treat it cryptically as well. No one can be for certain what Paul actually meant.

My own speculation on the matter relates to the persecution of Christians in the 1st century. Seems most of the apostles met bitter ends because of their beliefs. I think it reasonable to surmise that the same was the case for many vocal Christians.

I would think that baptism for martyred Christians who had yet to recieve a water baptism was possibly what was happening. It's just speculation, but seems reasonable at least.

edit add- though certainly there were likely other reasons for an untimely death by the sheer lack of medical knowledge. Malria and other diseases were untreatable.. a failure in the pancreas was a death sentence without insulin, etc.

Regards,

Mudcat

Edited January 14, 2012 by Mudcat

[zerinus]

Genesis 3:22 does not refer to a plurality of Gods. There is no reference to "Gods" as a numerical plural in this verse.

That is not how I read that verse. One of us is as good as saying "Gods".

Orthodox Christians traditionally have understood the plural pronouns in Genesis 1:26 and 3:22 to refer to the plurality of divine persons in the one God, though some have suggested other interpretations.

It is more than just a "plural pronoun," like the royal "we". When it says one, followed by of, followed by us; that means more than one.

In any case, the text does not actually speak of a plurality of Gods.

I think it does; see above.

[altersteve]

Paul's statement concerning baptism for the dead I often find to be somewhat cryptic. I sometimes get the sense that he didn't actually teach baptism for the dead and that he neither accepted nor rejected it. He seems to just acknowledge that somebody, somewhere within the early Christianities, practiced it. I try to imagine to whom he was talking and why, and who it was ("they") that he was talking about. I try to reconstruct a full dialogue including his "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?" and I can't come up with one that makes complete sense. He seems to be talking to someone who doesn't believe in resurrection by referring to a group that does as manifest by the fact that they baptize for the dead. Paul himself said that Christ did not send him out to baptize. It's interesting.

I think Paul is condemning the practice of baptism for the dead "if the dead not rise at all." Apparently, there was a group of people ("they") who did not believe in the resurrection, but they still had the practice of baptism for the dead. Paul was asking the hypothetical question, "If they don't believe in the resurrection, then why are they baptized for the dead?"

I could be wrong, of course, but this is how I have always interpreted it.

Edited January 14, 2012 by altersteve

[Calm]

I'll pass on commenting on that part because my "futility" muscles are in great shape at the moment. In fact after taking a few months of focusing on pressing multiple sets of "irreconcilabel differences" I can lift twice my body weight in "unproductive discussions".

Absolutely love it.

[6532]

[Calm]

Beware the above link. It says with no hint of what it is about:

Due to the graphic nature of this content, you must be at least 18 years of age to view.

By clicking the button below, you confirm that you are at least 18 years of age. Don't lie to us.

add-on: looks like spam, some advert for a Marilyn Manson site.

Edited January 14, 2012 by calmoriah

[Nominee]

banned villain

Born Villain is Marilyn Manson ~ probably shouldn't be posted here. I would avoid letting your curiosity get the best of you.

Edited January 14, 2012 by Nominee

[Ron Beron]

Born Villain is Marilyn Manson ~ probably shouldn't be posted here. I would avoid letting your curiosity get the best of you.

Uh...Nominee, you just reposted what was originally removed. LOL

[Ron Beron]

Temple marriage, sealings, exaltation, LDS views on the priesthood, proxy baptism, evangelism to the dead and the LDS Godhead are some examples of large divergence from Biblical Christianity or a Biblical view.

With the possible exception of exaltation (ie theodicy), proxy baptism, preaching to the dead and a LDS Godhead I would have to agree these are divergent paths. Sealings can be found to an extent in ancient Christian baptism rites while the others are simply the product of an open canon resident in the first two centuries in the church and subsequent LDS revelation.

Hope all is well....

[Storm Rider]

That being said, I think it actually is a fair statment that LDS do not practice Biblical Christianity in an exact sense. ....

Temple marriage, sealings, exaltation, LDS views on the priesthood, proxy baptism, evangelism to the dead and the LDS Godhead are some examples of large divergence from Biblical Christianity or a Biblical view. ....

Mudcat

This interesting because almost all of the items you cited above are first taught in the bible. The fact that it is not part of 4th century Christianity is a only evidence of the apostasy. However, to state that ithey are not held within a Bibiical view is inaccurate. Sealings, priesthood, exaltation, proxy baptism, evangelism of the dead, and LDS Godhead are all biblical. Temple marriage is a logical deduction of sealings and thus is alluded in the Bible.

Again, this is a highly subjetive area where semantics are used to produce a pre-designated end.

Mud, I know you have gone through and are going through trials and frustrations. It may be of value to read a story by Hugh B. Brown, It may not be directly related to your position, but I pray it lightens the load.

[Calm]

Uh...Nominee, you just reposted what was originally removed. LOL

She did quote it before it was removed. I make it a habit never to quote something doubtful so neither the mods nor myself have to go back and edit it.