Are Mormons Christian: Continue The Discussion

[volgadon]

Would I make it in to heaven with out CJCLD rituals/ordinances?

Yes. I wonder if you realise that we believe in different degrees, or levels, of heaven.

Spiritually what is more importantant to a mormon- Your action on earth, your relationship with Jesus, or your ordinances?

Does your eye often tell your hand it has no need of it?

[volgadon]

I like the Grace without works philosophy. How can it be a gift if first you must work for it.

You are placing a different cultural premium on things than the people in the Bible did. For them, what mattered was not if one had to work for, or with a gift or not, what mattered was the motivation behind the gift. What also mattered was the attitude of the reciever.

Given this context we can discern that grace in antiquity was not only the initial gift of the giver, but also included the response of the receiver. DeSilva confirms, “Grace thus has very specific meaning for authors and readers of the New Testament, meanings derived primarily from the use of the word in the context of the giving of benefits and the requiting of favors.” This

suggests implicitly what many moralists from the Greek and Roman cultures stated explicitly: Grace must be met with grace; favor must always give birth to favor; gift must always be met with gratitude. An image that captured this for the ancients was the picture of three goddesses, the three “Graces,” dancing hand in hand in a circle…From [many] ancient witnesses, we learn that there is no such thing as an isolated act of grace…Only a gift requited is a gift well and nobly received. To fail to return favor for favor is, in effect, to break off the dance and destroy the beauty of the gracious act [9].

This reciprocal nature of grace fits quite comfortably into LDS scripture:

For if you keep my commandments you shall receive of his fulness, and be glorified in me as I am in the Father; therefore, I say unto you, you shall receive grace for grace (D&C 93:20).

And may God grant, in his great fulness, that men might be brought unto repentance and good works, that they might be restored unto grace for grace, according to their works (Helaman 12:24).

Warren Zev Harvey of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem defines “grace” in Judaism (the native religion of the New Testament authors) as follows:

The Hebrew hesed (plural hasadim) is usually translated as "grace" or "loving-kindness," but sometimes also as "mercy" or "love." An act of hesed is an act of kindness done neither to repay a debt nor for the sake of gain, but freely and purely out of love [10].

Judah Goldin (one of the most prominent Jewish scholars of the 20th century) defines hesed as a “word expressing the phenomenon of “loyalty”, “devotion”,” corresponding “fairly closely to the Latin pietas [piety]…” He further explains that an “act of grace” or gemilut hasadim is an “act by means of which one demonstrates his response to someone, in obedience to him or out of loyalty to him. In short, it really is an act of piety. And strictly speaking, any action...which an individual carried out as a fulfillment of a divine command, was an act of gemilut hasadim” [11].

http://walkstar.blogspot.com/2010/12/grace-and-faith-in-history-and-within.html

[Calm]

Thereagain I understand that once you are "truly" born again you would have no desire to sin.

Do you know of anyone who has no desire to sin?

[urroner]

Rob Bowman drew a circle and threw drew me out.

Christ drew a circle and drew me in.

Hmmm, which circle would I rather be in, Rob's or Christ's?

Sorry Rob.

Edited September 2, 2012 by urroner

[thesometimesaint]

I really wanted to have a respectful tone in my post, and im sorry it upset you and other people. But I'm here to have a healthy convo about all this and it seems like you are too. Let me try to respond to the points you made as best as i can.

1) Like i said I am very new to the church of Jesus Christ and later day saints and i just chose to use Mormon instead of the large title. And my bad on the typoes. Thanks for sharing the info on your faith.

2-4)I know you and alot of other people on here are going to want to beat me, but i have to say that based on what i know so far about CJCLS I see major differences in the theology your church teaches Vs other christian sects.I want to be clear: I am not Judging anyone here, Jesus said we have no ability or authority to judge people, I am simply pointing out discrepancies in your theology when refrenced with the bible.there is a big difference. Mainly being in the nature of out salvation. This is purely theological, and hard to explain. I did my best in my posting. I do not by any means think people in the church are condemned to hell as you put it. I am just concerned the doctrines specifically unique to your religion take away emphis from your relationship with Christ and place more focus on things like ritual and obedience to the law. The two things that are important but only a healthy relationship with Christ will truly set you free. Which i have seen members of CJSLS have! It just worries me that people will think they can do good and be saved. We both know you have to accept Jesus and have a relationship with him to be saved bottom line.

I backed this up with biblical quotes.

Satin is a great deceiver, and Jesus said there would be many false profits I'm trying to be responsible in my investigation of phrophetic claim. Jesus also talked about wolves in sheep's clothing. I'll get bashed for this I'm sure and probably called an idiot but this is how i see it.

Question for you:

could you answer in your own words again like you did before.

Would I make it in to heaven with out CJCLD rituals/ordinances?

Spiritually what is more importantant to a mormon- Your action on earth, your relationship with jesus, or your ordinances?

sorry if this upsets you, I am just genuenly concerned. Im truely fearful for my brothers in the CJCLS.

Thanks for the respose bro and god bless you!

Did not know that thanks for the info, How do you use that symbol in your faith? Do you pray with it or what?

You didn't upset me. But I encourage you to ask me what I believe and not tell me what I believe. It works better that way.

The name of the Church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It works better for me if you stick with what our legal name is. While I personally have no objection to being called a Mormon I prefer Saint, or Latter-day Saint to be more accurate. Because that is what our Savior calls us and what we call ourselves.

I have no desire to beat you or anyone else. But I will attempt to clarify false or misleading statements about what I believe. I am 61 and have been a convert member of the Church for over 40 years. I know what the Church teaches and what I personally believe. There is no daylight between the two.

There are over 40,000 different Christian churches in the US alone. If you don't believe there are many theological differences between them. I suggest you learn more about the last 1600 years of European history. Particularly about the bloody wars that have been fought over different views of Christian religion.

We believe the Bible to be the word of God. The founder of our Church was a young man who read, and believed the Bible. In English speaking countries we use the King James version of the Bible. We have a rotating four year study of our Scriptures. The Old Testament, the New Testament, The Book of Mormon, and Church history(Which is largely our Doctrine and Covenants). As a rule the Latter-day Saints are better informed on what the Bible actually says than any other religious group.

Again it is better to ask a question than it is to tell me what I believe. No member that I know of has ever denied other Christian sects are Christians. Though we do disagree with some of their interpretations of the Bible.

Our emphasis is always on Christ. What he did for us, and what we must do to return to him. We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Our salvation comes only through the Atonement of Jesus whom is the Christ. As per the Bible every person ever born will be rewarded or punished for their own works. The Devils believe but they still tremble. How can you love Jesus and not obey his commandments as he instructed? You know the Biblical verse "If you love me keep my commandments".

That is good to hear that you personally don't believe I'm going to Hell just because I happen to be a Mormon brand of Christianity. However I have personally heard it from other Protestant/Catholic Christians. You know the old saying "Once burned twice cautious". I've been "burned" more than once.

How can you possibly not do good and still claim to love Jesus? Works themselves won't save us, but if you don't do good works your faith is dead. As per the Bible.

As I already said I accepted Jesus as my Lord and Savior over 40 years ago. I became a member of his Church.

Yes he is. His name means The Accuser. You are accusing the Saints. What does that make people that constantly accuse?

The Church doesn't seek after profits, but we do have Prophets of God. Yes there are false prophets, but the Lord has also promised us that in the last days there are true Prophets of God.

You didn't upset me. Personally I'm more concerned about my own sins and troubles than I am about anyone else's. But we should all repent and come unto Jesus the Christ.

Without all three of those we are damned. But I'll leave that judgement up to God. I'll ask you a couple of questions in return. Can a person truly love Jesus without doing what he commands? What separates the goats from the sheep? Should we not follow the Sermon on the Mount? Is not faith without works truly dead?

The angel Moroni is the symbol we use on top of our Temples. We have no icons in our Chapels of other Church buildings such as our Ward buildings.

We pray with bowed heads and folded arms or hands. We use no Crosses or Rosary Beads or other instrumentality when we pray.

God blessing you, and have a wonderful Sunday.

Edited September 2, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[Tacenda]

Do you know of anyone who has no desire to sin?

I think I know from whence you speak. You're probably saying most people do not desire to sin but it can happen and we make mistakes. I think that what chris is saying is the awesome gift of eternal life "grace" without works makes one get that certain relationship with Him. And feeling like a sinner vs. the other makes you all the more grateful. If one works and works and is chasing the carrot do they ever feel good enough? That's the meaning behind chris's question "are you saved?" Edited September 2, 2012 by Tacenda

[Tacenda]

Or to put it in another context, knowing you're a sinner already and how relieved one is to be saved. I believe this is how chris believes.

Edited September 2, 2012 by Tacenda

[Rob Bowman]

Pahoran,

You told The Grimace:

A Christian is someone who believes in Jesus Christ as the uniquely definitive figure in her faith, not someone who meets some arbitrary test for doctrinal correctness.

False dichotomy. There are other choices between defining a Christian without any doctrinal test at all and defining a Christian as someone who meets an arbitrary doctrinal test.

You wrote:

I've seen you say this before, and I'm still not clear what you actually mean by it. Are you admitting that a believing Latter-day Saint is ipso facto a believing Christian?

If not, what are you actually saying?

Although I doubt you are going to be receptive to my position on this issue, I will try to answer. According to your doctrine-free definition, Mormons are Christians. And so is the liberal Episcopal who professes to follow Jesus and who claims that the way to do this is to deny that Jesus rose bodily from the grave and make tolerance of everything from abortion to same-sex marriage the highest value. And so is the Jehovah's Witness who thinks Jesus was God's first created angel, that Jesus did not rise physically from the grave but was recreated as an angel, and that to follow Jesus means (among other things) avoiding the celebration of birthdays and holidays, refusing to give or receive blood transfusions, and observing a host of other taboos. In other words, one may certainly use such a definition, but the consequence is that the term becomes so broad as to be close to valueless.

The fact is that there are a variety of ways to define the terms Christian and Christianity. I am more interested in clarifying what people mean when they say that Mormons are or are not Christians, or that Mormonism is or is not Christianity, than in demanding that everyone agree on one definition. When the typical evangelical says that Mormons are not Christians, what she usually means is that Mormons espouse a heretical theology that is incompatible with orthodox Christianity. You are free to reject her preferred definition, but what she means is coherent and meaningful, and there is nothing bigoted or absurd about her statement. When Mormons say they are Christians, what they typically mean is that they regard Christ as the Savior and are seeking to follow him. I accept this claim also as coherent and meaningful; that is, I accept that Mormons view themselves in this way. Trouble arises only when people equivocate or when they try to preclude others from expressing their sincere beliefs.

Equivocation is rampant in these discussions. For example, many Mormons seem to think that if they could only get evangelicals to concede that Mormons are Christians, there would be no reason for evangelicals to criticize Mormonism. But evangelicals can concede that Mormons are "Christians" in your generic, doctrine-free sense but still think that Mormons are in need of the true gospel and of a sound doctrinal foundation. The argument that if Mormons are Christians there is nothing about Mormonism to criticize assumes a more doctrinally and religiously robust definition of "Christian" than the doctrine-free generic definition. Bill Hamblin in his recent post on his blog insists that while evangelicals may think he's a heretic he is at least a Christian heretic. As I have said, I'm perfectly happy with such a conclusion.

Finally, I notice that you used the qualification "believing"--a believing Mormon, a believing Christian. But Pahoran, to be "believing," they must be believing something. This means there must be some doctrinal content of relevance, whatever that might be. We will no doubt disagree about what that is, but I think at least in some ways you recognize that it is fair to attach some doctrinal test to the term Christian--hence, as I note above, your qualification "arbitrary" in referring to a doctrinal test.

[Calm]

You're probably saying most people do not desire to sin but it can happen and we make mistakes.

Actually I am saying that I've never known anyone who has had no desire to sin...I assume that based on behaviour. People act on their desires, therefore if they sin, they desire to sin.

So in my opinion, if having no desire to sin is a criteria of being fully born again, I don't see that happening until the next life.

[thesometimesaint]

Rob Bowman:

Pahoran,

You told The Grimace:

False dichotomy. There are other choices between defining a Christian without any doctrinal test at all and defining a Christian as someone who meets an arbitrary doctrinal test.

You wrote:

Although I doubt you are going to be receptive to my position on this issue, I will try to answer. According to your doctrine-free definition, Mormons are Christians. And so is the liberal Episcopal who professes to follow Jesus and who claims that the way to do this is to deny that Jesus rose bodily from the grave and make tolerance of everything from abortion to same-sex marriage the highest value. And so is the Jehovah's Witness who thinks Jesus was God's first created angel, that Jesus did not rise physically from the grave but was recreated as an angel, and that to follow Jesus means (among other things) avoiding the celebration of birthdays and holidays, refusing to give or receive blood transfusions, and observing a host of other taboos. In other words, one may certainly use such a definition, but the consequence is that the term becomes so broad as to be close to valueless.

The fact is that there are a variety of ways to define the terms Christian and Christianity. I am more interested in clarifying what people mean when they say that Mormons are or are not Christians, or that Mormonism is or is not Christianity, than in demanding that everyone agree on one definition. When the typical evangelical says that Mormons are not Christians, what she usually means is that Mormons espouse a heretical theology that is incompatible with orthodox Christianity. You are free to reject her preferred definition, but what she means is coherent and meaningful, and there is nothing bigoted or absurd about her statement. When Mormons say they are Christians, what they typically mean is that they regard Christ as the Savior and are seeking to follow him. I accept this claim also as coherent and meaningful; that is, I accept that Mormons view themselves in this way. Trouble arises only when people equivocate or when they try to preclude others from expressing their sincere beliefs.

Equivocation is rampant in these discussions. For example, many Mormons seem to think that if they could only get evangelicals to concede that Mormons are Christians, there would be no reason for evangelicals to criticize Mormonism. But evangelicals can concede that Mormons are "Christians" in your generic, doctrine-free sense but still think that Mormons are in need of the true gospel and of a sound doctrinal foundation. The argument that if Mormons are Christians there is nothing about Mormonism to criticize assumes a more doctrinally and religiously robust definition of "Christian" than the doctrine-free generic definition. Bill Hamblin in his recent post on his blog insists that while evangelicals may think he's a heretic he is at least a Christian heretic. As I have said, I'm perfectly happy with such a conclusion.

Finally, I notice that you used the qualification "believing"--a believing Mormon, a believing Christian. But Pahoran, to be "believing," they must be believing something. This means there must be some doctrinal content of relevance, whatever that might be. We will no doubt disagree about what that is, but I think at least in some ways you recognize that it is fair to attach some doctrinal test to the term Christian--hence, as I note above, your qualification "arbitrary" in referring to a doctrinal test.

Pahoran is fully capable of answering for what he believes.

Lets use the dictionary. Christian a follower of Christ.

The Bible make no such doctrinal claims. In fact the Bible refers to them as Saints. The term Christian was attributed to them by their pagan detractors.

We readily accept their Christianity even if we do disagree on what Jesus wants us to do. No one gave you the power or authority to include or exclude Christians from the title of Christians. It is ignorant, bigoted, and absurd to claim the power or authority over the definition of the word Christian. Catholic Christians and Protestant Christians have fought each other in bloody wars for millenia, burned each other as heretics at the stake, held inquisitions, over whom is and whom isn't a Christian.

Evangelicals are just the latest brand of Christian bigots who feel as though they have the exclusive right to tell other Christians what they have to believe to be Christians. That's been going on for thousands of years.

There is no Biblical doctrine for being a Christian other than a follower of Christ.

It is your brand of Evangelical Christianity that rejected both the western Roman Catholic and the eastern Greek Orthodox brand of Christianity. So by that narrow doctrinal differences definition it is you that is the heretic. Though we fully accept you as a Christian.

We believe it is what it was that Christ said about being his followers that counts and not what some modern day critic of his Church thinks makes for a Christian.

[Calm]

If one works and works and is chasing the carrot do they ever feel good enough?

Not sure what you mean by this, but having the assurance that God has given ordinances and other commandments to help guide me on my path back to him certainly makes me feel very good indeed, even if I haven't yet had the opportunity to become perfected in all of such or even participate at all in some because I trust the Lord will provide me with enough time and enough opportunities so that if I truly desire to be one with him, I will be fully one with him and even now, can experience oneness in a limited fashion.

OTOH, for those people who talk about how they are as filthy rags without Christ, are degraded in and other themselves, that they have nothing to give Christ save what he has taken for himself (when he causes them to turn toward him) etc. I at times wonder how they manage to "ever feel good enough". I am grateful that the Lord has told me he wants something from me, that even though I can never do enough to even begin to merit the gifts he gives me, there is such that I can do that brings him joy just as what he has done for me has brought me so much joy.

Edited September 2, 2012 by calmoriah

[The Grimace]

We readily accept their Christianity even if we do disagree on what Jesus wants us to do. No one gave you the power or authority to include or exclude Christians from the title of Christians. It is ignorant, bigoted, and absurd to claim the power or authority over the definition of the word Christian. Catholic Christians and Protestant Christians have fought each other in bloody wars for millenia, burned each other as heretics at the stake, held inquisitions, over whom is and whom isn't a Christian.

Who is claiming authority to define the word Christian? Who is claiming authority to exclude or include people from the title Christian?

[thesometimesaint]

The Grimace:

Our Christian friend Rob Bowman, and like Evangelicals.

[The Grimace]

The Grimace:

Our Christian friend Rob Bowman, and like Evangelicals.

I must have missed the post where he did that.

[zerinus]

Catholic Christians and Protestant Christians have fought each other in bloody wars for millenia, burned each other as heretics at the stake, held inquisitions, over whom is and whom isn't a Christian.

Actually, they did all of that not over who is and who is not a Christian. Heresy (or claimed heresy) was an issue over which they fought; but not whether one side is a Christian or not. That question never arose as far as I know.

The question of whether Mormons are Christians or not was invented by the Evangelicals as a countermeasure against the Mormon doctrine of the Apostasy. The Mormon doctrine of the Apostasy is very hard on the traditional Christian churches. It pulls the rug from under their feet. If true, it makes them all redundant, and makes the LDS Church the only valid form of Christianity around. So they decided to counter it by declaring that Mormons are not Christians at all! Then they got carried away with that idea, and started calling the Catholic Church not being Christian. Then they got carried away further, and started calling anybody who is not an Evangelical not a Christian. And now they are even calling each other not being Christian! Some years ago I chanced to go into an Evangelical Church in the town in which I live. I found a young woman in there who appeared to be one of their activists, and struct a conversation. At some point during the conversation I happened to mention another Evangelical church in another part of the town whose beliefs and practices were slightly different from theirs. She promptly replied without a moment's hesitation, "We think they are not Christians!" So in reality is has nothing to do whether anybody is a Christian or not. It is a desperate attempt to hold their own position against their opponents. And their wickedness has rebounded on themselves. They are now fighting among themselves, and accusing each other of not being Christians.

[Rob Bowman]

thesometimesaint,

You wrote:

No one gave you the power or authority to include or exclude Christians from the title of Christians. It is ignorant, bigoted, and absurd to claim the power or authority over the definition of the word Christian.

You quoted my post, but the evidence shows you did not actually read it. For example, I wrote:

"The fact is that there are a variety of ways to define the terms Christian and Christianity. I am more interested in clarifying what people mean when they say that Mormons are or are not Christians, or that Mormonism is or is not Christianity, than in demanding that everyone agree on one definition."

The disconnect between my post and your response could not be more complete.

[thesometimesaint]

Rob Bowman:

thesometimesaint,

You wrote:

You quoted my post, but the evidence shows you did not actually read it. For example, I wrote:

"The fact is that there are a variety of ways to define the terms Christian and Christianity. I am more interested in clarifying what people mean when they say that Mormons are or are not Christians, or that Mormonism is or is not Christianity, than in demanding that everyone agree on one definition."

The disconnect between my post and your response could not be more complete.

There is only one way to define a Christian without getting into sectarian differences. That is the use of the dictionary. A Christian is a follower of Christ. Christianity is all those whom are followers of Christ. We readily accept you into Christianity without agreeing with your sects' particular beliefs. You are attempting an exclusion of Mormons by your idiosyncratic definition. I am merely calling you on it.

Edited September 2, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[The Grimace]

Rob Bowman:

There is only one way to define a Christian without getting into sectarian differences. That is the use of the dictionary. A Christian is a follower of Christ. Christianity is all those whom are followers of Christ. We readily accept you into Christianity without agreeing with your sects' particular beliefs. You are attempting an exclusion of Mormons by your idiosyncratic definition. I am merely calling you on it.

Would you agree that the only way to define a Mormon is via the dictionary, too?

[thesometimesaint]

The Grimace:

Here is what my dictionary has as the definition of a Mormon.

Mor·mon

   [mawr-muhn] name given to a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I agree with it.

Edited September 2, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[The Grimace]

The Grimace:

Here is what my dictionary has as the definition of a Mormon.

Mor·mon

   [mawr-muhn] name given to a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I agree with it.

It was Bill Hamblin's article that started this discussion. On the same site, Bill Hamblin attempts to redefine what a Mormon is, in this article. Does Bill Hamblin have authority to redefine what it means to be called a Mormon?

Edited September 2, 2012 by The Grimace

[thesometimesaint]

The Grimace:

I'll let Bro. Hamblin speak for himself.

[The Grimace]

The Grimace:

I'll let Bro. Hamblin speak for himself.

I'm simply suggesting that it is odd to be so inclusive about Christianity's definition while being so exclusive regarding Mormonisms's.

[thesometimesaint]

The Grimace:

I'm pretty generous when it comes to whom I include in Mormonism. If I can still truthfully answer the baptismal questions. I'm a Mormon. If I can truthfully answer the Temple Recommend questions. I'm a Mormon so much the better. Finally if when I stand before my maker I can stand not ashamed and claim to be a Saint following after the most high God. I'm a Mormon.

Others will have to address as to what they believe a Mormon is.

[zerinus]

If only that is what you had actually proceeded to do, everything would have been fine. Instead you completely ignored the specific exegetical observations about the text that I provided. That is, you went around the exegetical evidence I presented instead of actually addressing the points I made. That this is what you did will be demonstrated beyond reasonable dispute below.

I didn’t ignore your “exegetical argument”. I sidestepped it because it was not an argument at all. Your argument was basically that Jesus’ declaration that the disciples should be one with themselves, as well as with the Father and the Son, had no other significance besides that they should have love for one another, so that the world might know that they are His true disciples. Well, I agree that that was one of the consequences of their being one with each other, as well as with the Father and the Son. I had no need to comment on that because I am not disputing it. What I am disputing is that that is all that it means or implies. Your argument was that John 17 cannot be interpreted to mean that the disciples should be one with the Father and the Son in the same way that the Father and the Son are one. That is the argument that I was countering, and I gave evidence to support it. You are continuing with your usual tactic of obfuscation I see.

Apparently, it is okay for Bill Hamblin to refer people to a lengthy blog article he has written, but it is not okay for Rob Bowman to do exactly the same thing. I can only assume this is because he is Mormon and I am not. If you don’t have an interest in reading an article I wrote on John 17 (it’s not really that long), you obviously don’t have sufficient interest to engage in a discussion with me about John 17. So again, why should I take anything you say about this seriously?

There is a difference between referencing a blog post, when the entire post is to be a matter discussion; and responding to a simple question by referencing a blog post where the post itself is not relevant to the question; but only a small tangential paragraph inside it which is not even intended to directly address the question. That was your way of sidestepping a question the answer to which you knew would be problematic for you.

Your argument at this point appears to be begging the question. That is, you are assuming that this text means that we are to be one in every sense that the Father and the Son are one. Since this is the very point at issue, you are assuming what you need to be showing from the text. Nothing in John 17:20-26 says or implies that human beings can or should become “eternally one” with each other and with God. Now again, I agree that the oneness that Jesus prays for is something that true disciples will have forever, not just here on earth. But the question remains what kind of oneness this is.

Well I think the text implies that. If you don’t agree then I suppose we will have to put it to an arbitration panel of some kind. I don’t know what else I can do to demonstrate that which the text clearly implies.

I should also point out that in my theology the Father and the Son really are “eternally one.” In fact, they were one before the creation of the world (cf. John 17:5; see also John 1:1-2, etc.). This is something we can never attain, because it is truly eternal, i.e., it truly transcends any temporal limitations. The Father and the Son are not simply going to be one for the rest of time; they are indeed eternally one. They always have been one, and they always will be one. Creatures cannot become one in this sense because if they aren’t already eternally transcendent beings then they never will be.

“Your theology” is one thing, the Bible is another. The language of the Bible is clear; that the disciples will be one with the Father and the Son, as they are one. It makes no distinction between the two kinds of “oneness”. If your theology cannot stomach that, then that is a problem for your theology that you need to resolve. It is not a problem that I need to solve.

This is your strongest point, but it doesn’t prove what you claim. There are two “glories” in John 17. There is the glory that Jesus has always had, even before creation (John 17:5), and there is the glory that the Father gave Jesus in his humble incarnation to give to the disciples (v. 22). What Jesus says is that by giving his disciples this glory, they will become one as he and the Father are one, so that the world will know that the Father sent Jesus and that he loves them (vv. 22-23). Notice that Jesus says that he had already given the disciples this glory, yet they were not at the time deified beings; they were in fact still mortal. Therefore, whatever this “glory” is that the Father gave to Jesus to give to his disciples, it is not deification. Jesus does not pray that the disciples will have glory just as he and the Father have glory, which would come closer to what you are trying to find in this passage. He prays that as a result of this glory they will be one as he and the Father are one. And again, we must read this in context to determine what this being “one” means here.

I see no two different glories; it is all one glory. You are ignoring the hyperbole and figurative and exaggerated form of speech that characterises oriental and Semitic languages. In verse 11 it says: “And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee” (John 17:11). That did not mean that He was literally no longer in the world; but that He soon would not be. It is a way of speech that is common to Semitic and oriental languages. The fact that He talks about His glory in different terms and different ways does not mean that they are different kinds of glories. It is the same glory, but looked at from different perspectives and time frame angles.

Again, I have never claimed that the oneness the disciples were to have would be limited to this mortal life. Rather, I have pointed out that according to Jesus this oneness is something the disciples could experience and realize in this mortal life. That proves it cannot be referring to deification, because even Mormon theology doesn’t think mortals can be deified while they are still mortals. Jesus prays both that the disciples will be one in loving unity in this mortal life and that eventually they will be reunited with Jesus and come to behold the Father’s glory. I certainly believe these things will happen for Jesus’ true followers.

See above. He is referring to the future but referencing it using the present. Their unity with the Father and the Son is (to be) so perfect and complete that it is compared with (and equated to) the unity of the Father and the Son. The implication of that is clear to me. If you want to deny what is obvious from the text, that is up to you. I don’t think I need to do any more about that except to refer people to that text, and let them judge for themselves. I can’t persuade you if you don’t want to be persuaded; but I can demonstrate to others that your argument is untenable. As long as I can do that my purpose is accomplished, whether you choose to accept the arguments or not.

The fact is that nothing in John 17 suggests that believers can ever become “one” with the Father and the Son in the attributes that make them God. Nothing in the passage suggests that believers can become eternal beings whose existence transcends temporal limitations. (Again, if you’re not already such a being, you can never become one, by the simple law of noncontradiction.) Nothing in the passage suggests that believers can become all-powerful or all-knowing beings....

That is Evangelical theology. It has nothing to do with the Bible or the text of John 17. John 17 simply says that they will become one with the Father and the Son as the Father and the Son are one. The rest are what you are adding to it. You keep stretching the argument beyond your original questions which gave rise to the responses given. Your original question was this:

For that matter, I am having trouble putting the following claims together:

1. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost comprise the Godhead.

2. The Godhead is one in the sense that its members are of one will with each other.

3. Exalted humans can never become members of the Godhead.

4. Exalted humans can become one with the Father and the Son, in just the same way as the Father and the Son are one with each other.

Since the Father and the Son are members of the Godhead (from #1), claims #3 and #4 appear to conflict with each other. This apparent incoherence is confirmed by claim #2, since the point of that claim seems to be that humans can attain the same oneness of will with each other and with the Father and the Son that the members of the Godhead have with each other.

That was your original question, which gave rise to the responses given. Now that you are beaten in your original question, you are trying to pretend that the original question included a whole bunch of other questions which was never asked, and therefore have not been addressed. Your original question is highlighted above, to which adequate answer has been given. Now if you have other questions about deification or something else, then start another thread, not pretend that your nonexistent questions have not been answered in this thread.

Now, after your badgering me for an answer, I have fully responded to you. I have done so despite your offensive and false accusations against me and despite the fact that you have already demonstrated indifference toward what I actually say about the issue. Now it is up to you to make a good-faith effort to do better than you have done so far and to engage the issues with me in a respectful way, giving due consideration to my arguments and keeping the focus on the issues and not on your personal feelings about me. If you can make such an effort, we can move forward with an interesting discussion. If not, that would be too bad.

Give me a break.

Edited September 3, 2012 by zerinus

[Zeta-Flux]

I'm simply suggesting that it is odd to be so inclusive about Christianity's definition while being so exclusive regarding Mormonisms's.

I agree. If the blog had been about "Minimal Beliefs to be a Believing Mormon" or something like that, then it would have been fine.

Similarly, if the other article had been about "Mormons are not Evangelicals" or "Mormons don't believe in the traditional Christian creeds" or something like that I would have been fine (if they had then gotten our beliefs correct).