Hi I'M A Mormon And I'M An Atheist

[Calm]

Problem with your analogy is that there can be more than one Richard.

Unless you are suggesting there is more than one God the Father, we are thinking about the same person, just have different understandings about him....like the blind men and the elephant.

I believe that God the Son's mortal life is described in the Bible, was born, lived and died on the Cross to redeem Mankind. I believe that God the Father is the father of God the Son and he sent him as our saviour to redeem us and bring us back into his presence. I identify God the Father and God the Son with those whom the Bible identifies as the Father and the Son. If I am wrong in my assumption and you don't believe the Father and the Son are taught to us through the Bible and you deny any connection between the Father and Son and the Bible, then we could very well believe we are talking about four different persons, but if not, if our descriptions of the Father and Son share the essential identification in the Bible, I do not see how we can be talking about different persons.

If you don't believe that God the Father and God the Son share those characteristics, then it is possible we are talking about different people, but if you do, unless you can point to someone else who did those exact same things, we are talking about the only persons capable of doing those things for us and therefore any differences that we apply to them is a difference in our thought, not a difference in their actual persons.

As far as Christian, there is one agreed upon meaning that has not dwindled into meaninglessness as long as people don't try to attach various conditions onto it and that is the standard dictionary definition of a person who believes and follows Jesus Christ. When adjectives are added to the noun all it tells us is what kind of Christian that person is, it is not defining the term Christian itself.

Edited July 10, 2012 by calmoriah

[djholmess]

There are many many other gods in our world and history -all idols, but all believed to be real Gods by those who worshiped and serve them. Therefore if we each talk about a God but our descriptions of him are substantially different then surely we are talking about two different Gods.

Then if we have the belief (which we both have I assume) that there is only one real God and all other Gods are idols we each would come to the conclusion that the other person’s God is an idol.

If there was no possibility that someone could be worshiping an idol then of course we would be talking about the same God – if there are idols ‘other Richards’ and if there are significant differences between our descriptions we would have to conclude we are talking about different Richards.

Following Jesus example in John 5:37-50:

³⁷ And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.

³⁸ And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not.

³⁹ Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

⁴⁰ And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

In talking to the Jews who knew and read the OT – who said they worshiped the God of the OT, Jesus tells them they do not recognise him even though their scriptures testify about him. Therefore I do not assume just because someone says they worship God and Jesus that they really are worshiping the actual Father and Jesus.

Maybe we are just quibbling over words; different idea of Jesus vs different person/being of Jesus. However if the differences are big enough then eventually we would have to agree that we are talking about different Jesus.’ If someone came along and claimed they worshipped Jesus of the Bible but they now believe he is a giant octopus roaming the sea after his resurrection I would have no problem saying that person’s Jesus is a different Jesus to mine.

From my understanding of who Jesus is he could never be likened to a giant octopus. I would include that anyone who thinks he could does not know him and that the ‘Jesus’ they worship is an idol they have made up in their mind. If they responded that their Jesus has to be a giant ocotpus and that if I don't think he is then I must be the one who has made an idol, I can understand and respect their view.

[Storm Rider]

DJ, your logic can end up in some pretty odd places when carried to the end. Exactly how precisely do we need to explain the same person before you determine they are different. The analogy cited above on the elephant is very a propos to this conversation. They all described the elephant differently, but it was the same elephant. The issue is that each never felt/knew the entire elephant. They only touched parts of the elephant. Is it appropriate to say that these men did not know the elephant or is it better to say they each had only a limited understanding?

The Apostles Creed is always a good point of discussion when discussing Christianity:

I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.

I bel

ieve in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord.

He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.

He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.

He descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again.

He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

He will come again to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,

the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints,

the forgiveness of sins,

the resurrection of the body,

and life everlasting. Amen.

I have crossed out the only thing that LDS do not believe. Everything else is LDS doctrine. If people believe in these things, it is typically assumed they believe in the same God. What you propose is that we distinguish between our beliefs about God and segregate accordingly. Therefore, all those who think Jesus had blue eyes must believe in a different Jesus. Those who believe Jesus had white skin also believe in a different Jesus. Then there are those who believe in a Bible that has an Apocrypha, they also must believe in a different Jesus. Those who think Jesus has a body of spirit today, also believe in a different Jesus.

The result is that you would dice the world into so many different Jesuses that religion becomes meaningless. It would seem better to understand that many believe have different beliefs about God the Father, his Son, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. There are many beliefs that are fundamental about Jesus, such as those cited in the Apostles Creed above. We all pray to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; we pray in the name of the Son, Jesus. Do you honestly think that God is so weak or limited that he cannot hear the prayers of those who may have differing views about him? You believe he is only a spirit, therefore God will hear your prayers and not those who believe differently? If God is great enough to hear all those who pray to him, why would think think you are able to segregate his children from one another; you don't believe in my God and you have a different God. Surprise, God answers them all liberally and without distinction.

Your desire to dice up believers into different Gods is motivated by something else; it turns into a game of semantics and sensationalism. I know that my God hears and answers your prayers and I can rejoice in that just as I rejoice when he hears and answers mine.

Edited July 10, 2012 by Storm Rider

[djholmess]

Storm Rider

I do agree with you in part. There are many people who hold different views about Jesus who all believe in the same Jesus. If someone believed everything I do about Jesus but only that he had blue eyes (not that I have a belief on the matter) I wouldn’t say they have a different Jesus.

But surely there comes a point where the differences are so vast that you would have to conclude that because their Jesus is so vastly different to your Jesus you, whilst using the same name, are talking about two different things.

Now starting with my presuppositions and beliefs (including sola scriptura) I have to conclude that the Mormon Jesus is different to my Jesus. Whilst I do hold to the Apostles Creed and understand a Mormon may also be able to say all of it I know what we mean by our words are actually different things.

I don’t know a great deal about the specific authors of the Apostles Creed but I could imagine that if presented with the specifics of what a Mormon would mean when they said the words they would be quick to say that that is not what they meant e.g. I believe in God, the Father almighty, referring to the self existent one who is a spirit, having always existed as God in the same way he is God now. Not referring to a man who has been exulted to the position of God who has a body of flesh and bones.

Regarding prayers:

God does indeed hear all prayers. That’s not the issue-the issue is are all prayer pleasing to him. I see no sign that prayers made to Baal as seen in the OT pleased God. For sure they were answered, but they would have been answered with wrath.

Coming back to Jesus; if the concept of Jesus that a person has and prays to is so far removed from the presentation Jesus himself and his Apostles made of him so as to be dishonouring of Jesus (or even classed as idolatrous) why would he respond with love and kindness?

Therefore I see it as necessary and loving to have some separating line from which you can encourage people who may be slightly misguided ‘your prayers are still to the Biblical Jesus’ or warn because or series differences ‘your prayers are not to the real Jesus.’ Again my presuppositions come into this viewpoint as from your last post I think we would see the term ‘children of God’ differently. I see the NT use of this word in most cases to be referring to a specific group of people, not mankind in general.

[KevinG]

Hello DJholmess - welcome to the board.

The issue I have with the attempt to define LDS in or out of Christianity is not that we have to agree on all doctrines but that it has been used as an excuse to try to portray us as not being Christian in the sense that we are followers of Christ.

Many critics of the LDS church try to convince others that we are not followers of Christ. When we as a church began to educate others that we are not followers of Mormon as our nickname may imply but as our proper name shows we are the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - some of our detractors took more insidious arguments that we did not follow the "real Christ".

I have no argument with those who genuinely disagree with my doctrines and beliefs but i do take great offense at those who knowingly try to portray my relationship with my Savior in a twisted way in order to scare others away from my religion. Sadly that is the origin of the parsing of the definition of who is truly Christian. That is also why you may find some of us defensive to this line of discussion - we've heard it from some hostile sources.

For an excellent talk on our belief in Christ and Salvation go here: http://www.lds.org/ensign/1998/05/have-you-been-saved

[KevinG]

I don't recall any Biblical admonition that belief in Jesus Christ as the literal son of God and not part of a trinity disqualifies our faith in Him as our Savior.

Now that's just making stuff up.

[Calm]

But surely there comes a point where the differences are so vast that you would have to conclude that because their Jesus is so vastly different to your Jesus you, whilst using the same name, are talking about two different things.

If you want to tell people you don't believe in the Christ of the Bible because Mormons do, feel free. I am not going to protest about that.

LDS do believe in the Jesus that is spoken of in the Bible and anyone who says differently doesn't know what they are talking about or are lying, imo. When I read the Bible about what it says of Christ, there is not one thing i do not believe.

Edited July 10, 2012 by calmoriah

[djholmess]

KevinG, thanks for the welcome.

I certainly have no intention of being hostile but I can understand the defensiveness.

Specifically qualifying what is saving faith and what isn’t is certainly a much bigger and complicated topic than I imagine getting into. I’m not sure about a belief in Jesus being a literal son of God (depends if you were referring to ‘spirit son’ or ‘son in the flesh’) as I haven’t thought about it too much but I could, from my beliefs, see how it might. Obviously there is no specific biblical admonition either way.

I’m new to Mormonism – there aren’t many in Ireland, so I guess I was just surprised to hear/learn about your beliefs (and how different they are to mine) and yet find out that you still want to be labelled with the term Christian.

[Calm]

defensiveness.

Insisting that one's beliefs are not misrepresented in an interfaith discussion is not defensiveness.

[djholmess]

If you want to tell people you don't believe in the Christ of the Bible because Mormons do, feel free. I am not going to protest about that.

LDS do believe in the Jesus that is spoken of in the Bible and anyone who says differently doesn't know what they are talking about or are lying, imo. When I read the Bible about what it says of Christ, there is not one thing i do not believe.

Calmoriah,

I'm not trying to start a debate in anyway just exlpaining how I see things.

I think I would say;

Mormons claim to believe in the Biblical Jesus

I also claim to believe in the Biblical Jesus

In my view we are talking about two different concepts of Jesus and therefore either one or both of us are mistaken.

[Calm]

Calmoriah,

I'm not trying to start a debate in anyway just exlpaining how I see things.

I think I would say;

Mormons claim to believe in the Biblical Jesus

I also claim to believe in the Biblical Jesus

In my view we are talking about two different concepts of Jesus and therefore either one or both of us are mistaken.

Which I have no problem with, but I don't see how that affects both of us claiming the label of Christian seeing as how that is defined as in common usage as "a person who believes in and follows Jesus Christ". Edited July 10, 2012 by calmoriah

[KevinG]

Did you read the talk I linked?

What requirement other than believing in Jesus Christ as our Savior is there for the atonement?

[KevinG]

Evil apologist propaganda: http://en.fairmormon.org/Jesus_Christ/The_%22Mormon%22_vs._the_%22Christian%22_Jesus

[Storm Rider]

Storm Rider.....

Now starting with my presuppositions and beliefs (including sola scriptura) I have to conclude that the Mormon Jesus is different to my Jesus. Whilst I do hold to the Apostles Creed and understand a Mormon may also be able to say all of it I know what we mean by our words are actually different things.

Using the Creed I noted above, what specific statements would you say your beliefs differ from the LDS beliefs? I assume that you know them given that you say there is such a wide divide between our to beliefs about those words.

I don’t know a great deal about the specific authors of the Apostles Creed but I could imagine that if presented with the specifics of what a Mormon would mean when they said the words they would be quick to say that that is not what they meant e.g. I believe in God, the Father almighty, referring to the self existent one who is a spirit, having always existed as God in the same way he is God now. Not referring to a man who has been exulted to the position of God who has a body of flesh and bones.

I think I understand your position, if you say God the Father, creator of the universe, you don't really mean the creator of the universe, or God the Father. What you mean is God the Father, the Spirit, who created the universe. Do you really think that everyone that prays to God, must believe that he is a Spirit or it is a different God? Curious, if believing that Spirit is so important that it was left out of the Creed. It is only one word, it could have easily been included if that is what was meant.

Regarding prayers:

God does indeed hear all prayers. That’s not the issue-the issue is are all prayer pleasing to him. I see no sign that prayers made to Baal as seen in the OT pleased God. For sure they were answered, but they would have been answered with wrath.

Coming back to Jesus; if the concept of Jesus that a person has and prays to is so far removed from the presentation Jesus himself and his Apostles made of him so as to be dishonouring of Jesus (or even classed as idolatrous) why would he respond with love and kindness?

Therefore I see it as necessary and loving to have some separating line from which you can encourage people who may be slightly misguided ‘your prayers are still to the Biblical Jesus’ or warn because or series differences ‘your prayers are not to the real Jesus.’ Again my presuppositions come into this viewpoint as from your last post I think we would see the term ‘children of God’ differently. I see the NT use of this word in most cases to be referring to a specific group of people, not mankind in general.

I appreciate Sola Scriptura because the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the restored Church of Jesus Christ, believes firmly in scripture and the vast, as in almost all, of our doctrines can be taken from the Bible. We are not talking about talking to Baal, we are talking about when LDS pray to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the name of Jesus Christ. They are not thinking of Baal, Ahura Mazda, Kali, or any other god. I know of only one God the Father, his Son Jesus Christ who died for all mankind, and the Holy Spirit.

I have no problem using children of God in the limited sense; his disciples, followers, those who seek after him.

You are demanding a doctrinal purity that is not supported by the Bible. I could be mistaken and if I am, please show me where the followers of Jesus were told to pray to God in his name and are required to know that God is a Spirit only. In fact, Jesus never demanded any doctrinal belief except to know that he was the Son of God, to repent, and be baptized. He taught in parables so as that only the true in heart would hear and understand; leaving the pharisees to be stunned in ignorance and incomprehension at his words.

I am reminded of Nicodemus' question to Christ, should I climb back into my mother's womb to be born again? He just could not understand Jesus' words.

If Jesus did tell his followers that they must believe a specific doctrine to be saved, I would really like to see it. It is one of the simplicities of Sola Scriptura; if it ain't there, then we have to drop that belief.

[djholmess]

KevinG

Depends on what you mean by ‘believe,’ ‘Jesus,’ ‘Saviour’ and ‘atonement’

For example I would define a saving belief to be a faith that comes to God with empty hands; bringing no good works upon which to partially merit/deserve/be given the ‘atonement’

From your article: (I did read it)

Some Christians accuse Latter-day Saints who give this answer of denying the grace of God through claiming they can earn their own salvation. We answer this accusation with the words of two Book of Mormon prophets. Nephi taught, “For we labor diligently … to persuade our children … to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do” (2 Ne. 25:23). And what is “all we can do”? It surely includes repentance (see Alma 24:11) and baptism, keeping the commandments, and enduring to the end.

Now if you were to say that the only requirement for gaining the atonement is believing in Jesus Christ as our Saviour and yet by believe you meant a belief that includes effort on you part (baptism, keeping commandments etc) then from my viewpoint I would have to define that as not saving belief.

Calmoriah:

Like I think I said before, I was asking more from a general surprise to see the LDS individuals were passionate to have the name Christian – it may just be a cultural thing I’m getting the impression ‘Christian’ is more of a general term in the US.

[KevinG]

Matthew 7:21 ¶Not every one that ^asaith unto me, ^bLord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that ^cdoeth the ^dwill of my Father which is in heaven.^e

[djholmess]

Storm Rider

I think you’re missing my point. When Jesus or the NT authors say anything they are speaking in their own context and so their words carry a specific meaning. Further as I believe the entire Bible consists of the words of God I believe that the words spoken are all spoken in the wider context of God’s revelation in the Bible.

To stick with God being spirit and not flesh and blood; Jesus said in John 4:24

‘God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth’

This definition is therefore one that I would hold as being consistent throughout the Bible when it speaks of God the Father. Further, if the name God when used by Jesus and his Apostles in the Jewish context carried the clear assumption that God was a Spirit and thus everyone heard it and understood it to be so. That would provide evidence that when Jesus and the Apostles used the term they intend to communicate that specific meaning. (I couldn’t comment on if this is actually the case or not).

Therefore to say I believe in the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob meaning a God of flesh and bones (specifically not spirit) hollows out the identity of the God you speak of if the usage and intended meaning of the Bible when speaking of God is a God who is spirit.

With regard to the Apostles Creed if (again I don’t know) the general context of the statements within it was one where everyone thought God was a God of spirit then there would be no need for the actual word spirit to be in the creed. Yet you could still conclude that saying the creed whilst referring a God with flesh and bones would be a violation of the creeds beliefs as held by the authors – whether it was a minor or serious violation is a different matter.

[djholmess]

Matthew 7:21 ¶Not every one that ^asaith unto me, ^bLord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that ^cdoeth the ^dwill of my Father which is in heaven.^e

What is your point?

[KevinG]

What is your point?

That obedience to His doctrines is not separate from faith in His atonement. You are falling for that false argument that we're not essentially Christian because we've added things to the requirements for Salvation. We have not. Obedience to His word has been a part of our requirements for Salvation from the beginning of time.

[djholmess]

KevinG

As I think I have made clear earlier I don't hold the term Christian as is used these days in too high a regard so I've never been trying to argue Mormons aren't Christian.

I agree with you that obedience is't separate from faith. I do disagree with you on WHY anyone obeys God?

That verse doesn't say those who enter the kingdom are allowed in because of their obedience, only that those obeying are the ones that enter. Paul makes it clear that no obedience can ever be a requirement for Salvation In the sense that the obedience is the reason upon which God partly or fully allows you to enter his Kingdom.

[KevinG]

KevinG

As I think I have made clear earlier I don't hold the term Christian as is used these days in too high a regard so I've never been trying to argue Mormons aren't Christian.

I agree with you that obedience is't separate from faith. I do disagree with you on WHY anyone obeys God?

That verse doesn't say those who enter the kingdom are allowed in because of their obedience, only that those obeying are the ones that enter. Paul makes it clear that no obedience can ever be a requirement for Salvation In the sense that the obedience is the reason upon which God partly or fully allows you to enter his Kingdom.

I obey God because I love Him and I know He loves me. I have faith His plans will bless me in this life and the next.

There is no right minded Mormon in the world that believes their works or obedience saves them. It is after all we can do (which is never sufficient for we all fall short of perfection) that we are saved by grace.

You have been getting bad information about Mormon beliefs.

[Calm]

Paul makes it clear that no obedience can ever be a requirement for Salvation In the sense that the obedience is the reason upon which God partly or fully allows you to enter his Kingdom.

Obedience prepares us for the gift of grace, it does not earn grace for us.

Christ said if you love me, keep my commandments. This is what we teach and this is why as Kevin said, any Mormon with their head screwed on straight is obedient.

For example: http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=21bc9fbee98db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=899f735f764bb010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1

Edited July 10, 2012 by calmoriah

[KevinG]

Obedience prepares us for the gift of grace, it does not earn grace for us.

Gee do you think they will let us remain Mormons with beliefs like that?

[djholmess]

KevinG

But you just said before that your obedience is nessecary for salvation? How then is it nessecary?

In that article the writer quoted 2 Nephi 25:23 and Moroni 10:35 saying that God's grace is sufficient after all you can do. So are you saying you have to have done obedience in order for God's grace to be yours or not?

[Calm]

http://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-35-obedience?lang=eng