bluebell Posted April 18, 2015 Author Posted April 18, 2015 The ever changing God of Joseph Smith. The last paragraph is important. Modalism Joseph Smith did not understand the difference between the doctrine of the Trinity and the teachings of Modalism. Modalism was the "second century heresy" that made the assertion that God exist as one person that reveals himself in different modes, manifestations or dimensions, but God is not three distinct Persons(Trinity). In other words, in Oneness(Modalsim) thinking, since God is one, but in the Bible the Father is called God, Jesus is called God, and the Holy Spirit is called God, therefore Jesus is the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. The one person (Jesus) has two natures, divine being the Father and human being the Son. Thus, in this doctrine, Jesus acts sometimes as the Son (human) and sometimes as the Father (God) and yet other times the Holy Spirit. So, what does Modalism have to do with Joseph Smith? Answer: the Book of Mormon teaches "both" Trinitarian and Modalism. However, I find that the Book of Mormon is more modalistic than Trinitarian, though. First, observe these decidedly modalistic passages in the Book of Mormon. The introduction of Mosiah chapter 15 reads:How Christ is both the Father and the Son--He shall make intercession and bear the transgression of his people. . . . (emphasis added).Then, starting at verse 1:And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself [the Father] shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son. The Father because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son. And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and earth. And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God. . . . (Mosiah 15:1-5; emphasis added)That Jesus is the Father, is a teaching that is clearly taught in Smith's, Book of Mormon:Behold, I am the he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am the Father and the Son. . . . (Ether 3:14; emphasis added)Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father? And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth, and all things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last (Alma 11:38-39; emphasis added). Amazingly, a mere five verses later the Book of Mormon seems to be teaching to what resembles the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity:but every thing shall be restored to its perfect frame, as it is now, or in the body, and shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit , which is one Eternal God. . . . (ibid., 11:44; emphasis added).And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen" (2 Nephi 31:21; emphasis added).And as previously quoted, the "Testimony of the three Witnesses" do NOT agree with the present-day LDS teaching (three separate Gods). Rather, the converse is stated: And honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God (Book of Mormon, Introduction). The nature of God is not the only doctrine that Joseph Smith CHANGED in his lifetime. However, it is the doctrine of God that would determine one's salvation. Only the true God is able to save- the God of biblical revelation, a false god does not exist. Jesus was very concerned as to the different beliefs of Him, which would deceive mankind. Jesus taught that having accurate knowledge of Him was a prerequisite to salvation: This is not the topic of the thread. If you want to discuss this then you need to make your own thread.
bluebell Posted April 18, 2015 Author Posted April 18, 2015 Love when you quote allegorical verses. Hmmm here's a good one Psalm 91:4 Does this mean God has wings and feathers? Stop the nonsense. Jesus said himself that no one has seen the Father John 6:46, many verses have been posted about the invisible Father.....After all the Father is a Spirit and not of flesh and bones. The Bible is crystal clear on that front... I'll take the words of Jesus over the words of a failed prophet JS I mean really JS couldn't get is first vision straight.....and his fiasco over the BOA. Still no plausible explanation over that debacle. Darn why did pieces of those Egyption funneral tests have to turn up. We wouldn't have had to come up with all those bogus possibilities that are proven to be utter nonsense. Darn why did the kinderhook plates end up being a fraud. And on and on and on. JS the founder of mormonism was such a con artist. Again I will choose the Biblical Jesus that said no one has seen the father and the many other verses that indicate that non one has seen the father. NOT JS and his every changing story You're not understanding the way the bible uses the word 'invisible' here. (and please stop with all the JS stuff-at this point you're just throwing everything you can think of as us hoping something will stick. It's annoying and makes any kind of real discussion impossible. You can create your own thread to talk about JS if you want to). For a better understanding of the way the bible uses 'invisible' and to show that Mormon doctrine does not contradict the bible, I again quote Jeff Lindsay (because there's no reason to try to re-state what he has already stated). "Things are invisible when they can't be seen, but that doesn't mean they have no form or body or could not ever be seen. Romans 1:20, for example speaks of "invisible things of him from the creation of the world" that are "clearly seen." The Greek word for invisible, , can simply mean "unseen" without necessarily describing the permanent physical nature of something.With rare exceptions, God the Father remains unseen and invisible, not appearing to man. Appearance before men is generally done by the Son (a few examples of men seeing God are given in Exodus 24:9-11 and 33:11; Num. 12:8; Deut. 34:10; and Acts 7:55,56, though only the last reference necessarily involves the Father). Though the Father almost always remains unseen to men, He still has a form. In fact, He looks like His Son, who is in the image of the Father. Colossians 1:15, for example, teaches that Christ "is the IMAGE of the INVISIBLE God, the firstborn of every creature." And Hebrews 1:3 teaches that Christ is "the express image of his [the Father's] person." We are created in the physical image of the Father and the Son - who said "let US make man in OUR image," using a Hebrew word that describes physical appearance (see, for example, Gen. 5:1-3). That Christ is the image of God is again affirmed in 2 Cor. 4:4. As Col. 1:15, Heb. 1:3, and 2 Cor. 4:4 imply, to see Christ is to see the Father, for Christ is the express image of the Father. Thus, Christ could tell His disciples, "He that seeth me seeth him that sent me" (John 12:45). It's not that the Father has no form or body to see (indeed, Stephen saw Christ standing at the right hand of the Father in Acts 7:56), but He is unseen to us and thus "invisible."
bluebell Posted April 18, 2015 Author Posted April 18, 2015 According to Mormons, God has a body of flesh and bones. Does the Bible support this? "God the Father has a body of flesh and bones" - Joseph Smith, D&C 130: 22Update: I am the one amazed because of those limiting God to a human appearance as if God needed to have muscle tone and bone mass. Elements that clearly need to subsist on earthly elements such as water, food and oxygen. The Bible does not support this. Let's examen a few things: What is the “finger of God” in... show moreUpdate 2: Did Moses see God literally? No. John 1:18 - “No man hath seen God at any time, [...]” John 6:46 - “Not that any man hath seen the Father, [...]” Is their a contradiction? No. Because what Moses, Abraham and others saw was actually the Angel of God appearing in God's stead. Acts. 7:37, 38, 53 - “This... show moreUpdate 3: Those resurrected into heavens obtain a spiritual body? Yes. 1Cor. 15:44 - “it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body; there is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body; Is Jesus a spirit? Yes. 1Cor. 15:45 - “The last Adam [Jesus] was made a quickening [life-giving] spirit.” The... show more This is a whole lot of extra biblical teachings that you are leaning on here, considering your previous declaration that you don't trust anything other than the bible.
bluebell Posted April 18, 2015 Author Posted April 18, 2015 I don't know if this was already mentioned but this dawned on me last night while thinking of your post, bluebell.Recently I've been intrigued by the title "Son of Man". It is found in both traditional and restorative scripture but it is the latter only, so far ad I know, which places this title into perspective. A Guide to the Scriptures explicitly states that Son of Man was the name of jesus Christ. The full title of Son of Man would be Son of Man of Holiness. Man of Holiness was the title of the Father. Right there, I think, declares affirmitively that Jesus Christ was the Son of God even premortally; carrying with Him a specific title none other had. This, to me declares Him as YHWH being the Son of God.https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/son-of-man?lang=engMoses 6:57 declares Son of Man as Jesus Christ, the "Only Begotten" of the Father and this title was used "in the language of Adam".https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/moses/6?lang=eng Good thoughts. What you said about the title "Son of Man" is great, and one that most if not all other Christians understand in such a different way.
JAHS Posted April 18, 2015 Posted April 18, 2015 JAHS , that was not the point I was making.....sorry I thought I was being clear that only the Bible is my source of truth.But in my post I was only responding to the link you provided. That was the point I was making. This is of course a pro-Mormon board where most of the members believe in other scrptures along with the Bible as the source of truth and you will not convince us that we are wrong about our own beliefs. Now if you want to discuss certain points of doctrine then there's no problem with that. But cutting and pasting large sections of text from anti-Mormon websites won't do much good, because we have heard it all before and are comfortable with our own analysis of such information. 1
jackson20 Posted April 18, 2015 Posted April 18, 2015 You're beliefs about JS aside (because they don't matter for this discussion), this idea that the bible obviously teaches that God is only a spirit because of that verse in John and that only mormons don't get it isn't correct. I know you're a fan of context so it should be interesting to you to understand how the ancient Jews would have understood that verse. George Christopher Stead, who was a professor at the Cambridge Divinity School (and not a mormon), explained how a statement that God is spirit would have been interpreted within ancient Judaism:"By saying that God is spiritual, we do not mean that he has no body … but rather that he is the source of a mysterious life-giving power and energy that animates the human body, and himself possesses this energy in the fullest measure." BlueBell , Mormonism would not exist if it wasn't for JS....so any topic imo has the under current of JS. The whole church is predicated on the validity of the First Vision and not only has that been questioned, but there is NO, supporting science to back any of JS's Claims up. No Hebrew DNA, No over sea migration, No artifacts, Not a single example of any of the battle fought. No accurate geographical representations. The book of Abraham was a fabrication, "translated" from a funeral scroll 2000 years AFTER the time of Abraham. The list goes on. So to state I should put the founder of Mormonism aside....makes no sense to me. .
bluebell Posted April 18, 2015 Author Posted April 18, 2015 BlueBell , Mormonism would not exist if it wasn't for JS....so any topic imo has the under current of JS. The whole church is predicated on the validity of the First Vision and not only has that been questioned, but there is NO, supporting science to back any of JS's Claims up. No Hebrew DNA, No over sea migration, No artifacts, Not a single example of any of the battle fought. No accurate geographical representations. The book of Abraham was a fabrication, "translated" from a funeral scroll 2000 years AFTER the time of Abraham. The list goes on. So to state I should put the founder of Mormonism aside....makes no sense to me. . That's like saying that protestantism wouldn't exist without Luther so there can be no discussion of protestant beliefs or doctrine without also discussing Luther. It's nonsensical. Joseph Smith is a different topic than the Gospel of Jesus Christ, just like Luther is a different topic than the Gospel of Jesus Christ. You can easily discuss the Gospel without having to include the founder of each religion that teaches the gospel.
JLHPROF Posted April 18, 2015 Posted April 18, 2015 That's like saying that protestantism wouldn't exist without Luther so there can be no discussion of protestant beliefs or doctrine without also discussing Luther. It's nonsensical. Joseph Smith is a different topic than the Gospel of Jesus Christ, just like Luther is a different topic than the Gospel of Jesus Christ. You can easily discuss the Gospel without having to include the founder of each religion that teaches the gospel. I don't know why you are still engaging with him. He is just throwing out all the same old anti-Mormon claims in barrage style. He has absolutely no interest in discussion. He thinks he has new information to disprove Mormonism but doesn't seem to get that he's just another new arrival with the same attacks we've dealt with forever. Nothing new here.He'll lose interest when he realizes he's not convincing any Mormons of anything. But it's your thread I suppose.
bluebell Posted April 18, 2015 Author Posted April 18, 2015 I don't know why you are still engaging with him. He is just throwing out all the same old anti-Mormon claims in barrage style. He has absolutely no interest in discussion. He thinks he has new information to disprove Mormonism but doesn't seem to get that he's just another new arrival with the same attacks we've dealt with forever. Nothing new here.He'll lose interest when he realizes he's not convincing any Mormons of anything. But it's your thread I suppose. I don't mind engaging in a discussion with anyone, as long as they are willing to do the same (and in my own thread, try to stay at least semi on topic). If it reaches the point where Jackson refuses to discuss and instead just wants to tell us all 'what's what', then i'll quit. I don't mind at all talking about these things, but the shotgun approach to conversation get's annoying very fast! 2
Bobbieaware Posted April 18, 2015 Posted April 18, 2015 (edited) BlueBell , Mormonism would not exist if it wasn't for JS....so any topic imo has the under current of JS. The whole church is predicated on the validity of the First Vision and not only has that been questioned, but there is NO, supporting science to back any of JS's Claims up. No Hebrew DNA, No over sea migration, No artifacts, Not a single example of any of the battle fought. No accurate geographical representations. The book of Abraham was a fabrication, "translated" from a funeral scroll 2000 years AFTER the time of Abraham. The list goes on. So to state I should put the founder of Mormonism aside....makes no sense to me..So I guess in your mind what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander. Dawkins and his his entourage of fellow atheists forcefully and confidently assert that there is no empiricle evidence whatsoever that any of the miracles of the Bible took place; and what scanty documentary evidence there is that does exist is totally unverifiable. So go ahead and try to prove to these atheists that the miracles of the Bible were true events and you're soon going to realize you're in precisely the same evidentiary boat you accuse the Latter-day Saints of occupying. The Lord himself said the only sign of evidence the wicked sign-seekers would receive is the sign of Jonah. Yet virtually every sign seeker since the Savior uttered those famous words never witnessed the Lord rise from the dead or saw him stand before them as a resurrected being! And so I tell you it"s likely the only sign you're ever going to get that the LDS Church is true is the Book of Mormon -- which, unlike the sign of Jonah, the Lord has actually allowed you to see. One day, either to you great benefit or tremendous disappointment, you're going to learn for yourself that the Book of Mormon is the word of God, and that it's coming forth at the hands of a semi-literate and woefully undereducated farm boy is at least as great a miracle as the opening of the Red Sea. You want evidence? The Book of Mormon is the evidence you seek that the Prophet Joseph was called of God. But remember, while you're now (apparently) gleefully engaged in trying to discredit and tear apart the divine message of Book of Mormon, in the meantime know that I know for a surety that the Book of Mormon is true.Like many non-LDS Christians, you act as if the Bible contains all of God's truth. Yet in the New Testament the Apostle Paul twice admonished the saints of His day that there was much more sacred truth he wanted to reveal to them but was unable to do so because they were yet carnal and spiritually unprepared to receive the "strong meat" doctrines he so yearned to give them. One day you're going to learn the LDS teachings you decry as being "unbiblical" are simply some of the same strong meat doctrines that have been revealed in theses latter-days to the Latter-day Saints, and that these things are some of the same teachings Paul wanted to give the members of the church of his day. Because you're unprepared to receive it, you're gagging and choking on the strong spiritual meat of the gospel in fulfillment of Paul's warning that if the mysteries of the gospel are served to the unprepared they will, as it were, spit them out of their mouths and tell all who will hear that the deeper things of God are evil. I'm curious to know if you actually believe the Bible contains all gospel knowledge, or if you believe the Savior (with his unrecorded forty-day post-resurrection ministry among the disciples) and John (with his knowledge of what the voice of the seven thunders uttered that he was forbidden to write) and Paul (with the strong meat doctrines he was forbidden to teach) knew gospel truths that are not recorded in the Bible? Edited April 18, 2015 by Bobbieaware
theplains Posted April 18, 2015 Posted April 18, 2015 A father creates or produces a son. If the Father didn't create or produce Christ then how exactly was he the Son before he came to earth? From what I have read in LDS Church teachings, Jesus is the first spirit child of Heavenly Motherand Father. I assume this is how he is considered the son of God. Under this rationale, Luciferis also a son of God. Regards,Jim 1
bluebell Posted April 18, 2015 Author Posted April 18, 2015 From what I have read in LDS Church teachings, Jesus is the first spirit child of Heavenly Motherand Father. I assume this is how he is considered the son of God. Under this rationale, Luciferis also a son of God.Regards,JimTrue. But I think he's asking that question from a Protestant or Catholic perspective.
Nosca Posted April 18, 2015 Posted April 18, 2015 I did read it already when it was first posted. It seems to say that according to Catholicism, Christ is both eternally the Son of God and created by Him. Part of the point I'm trying to make Bluebell about understanding the words "Son of God," is if you look at that as meaning Jesus is God's son because he was born on earth as a human, (which appears to be how you think about it - please tell me if I have that wrong) then that is NOT how the RCC/Prot/EV's see it. He was born on earth as a human - yes. That did NOT make him the Son of God. He was already the Son of God, always had been, always will be - that is based on the doctrine of the Trinity. The words Son of God much more so point to recognition of his Divinity than his earthly birth. So we believe Jesus is eternal, we do not believe God created Him. We believe Jesus and the Holy Spirit are God, are eternal and have always been. Can we fully explain this - no. Is our language to explain it inadequate - yes. Is it completely non-sensical - not at all. But if you approach it from a LDS standpoint of there are three gods, all in unison with each other but still three, and Heavenly Father created them, then it may seem non-sensical to say that God did not create Jesus. Trust me or not on this, the document does NOT say, nor does the church, that God created Jesus. And His birth on earth did not make Him the Son of God. A lot of the key to this from a non-LDS view is you have to understand what we mean by the Trinity. Whether you believe the doctrine or not is irrelevant. Here are two more links that may help - the first is RCC the second is EV I think but seems accurate: 1) http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm and 2) http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=10&article=272 And this is probably where we end. I have no desire to talk to anyone who is only interested in making sure i understand their beliefs but has absolutely no desire to understand mine. That's not a discussion, that's a lecture. There's some real Freudian projection going on with you Bluebell. I didn't say I had no desire to understand your beliefs, I think I do understand most of your beliefs. That's not the point of your opening post. You asked in that post: 1) I've been thinking about this this morning and am wondering, from a non-LDS Christian point of view, whether or not Jesus was the son of God before the earth was created? 2) I know that for many non-LDS Christians the idea that Jesus was created by God-is God's spirit Son-is offensive. That would seem to imply that Jesus is only considered the Son of God because of his mortal birth as such. 3) So before Jesus was born as the physical Son of God, what was His relationship with God the Father? So I answered those questions for you from a non-LDS Christian point of view - just as you asked. The answer to #1 is Yes, #2 is No and #3 is Jesus is eternally part of the Godhead, one with the Father, one God, not three gods, before and outside of time. That is not a lecture, it's giving you information from the Church about how we understand the words "Son of God" which is, in part, tied up in the doctrine of the Trinity. What I was trying to say beyond that is, the doctrine is what it is. The Church believes what it believes, period. It's not up for debate. You wanted an answer to your questions from a non-LDS Christian perspective and you have it. So if you want to take those answers and go down a path of "but what does Son really mean?" and "what does the Greek for begotten really mean?" you can, I just won't be a part of that. I'm not saying that's bad, I'm just saying it doesn't matter whether or not you agree with the Church. Think of it this way - it would be like me asking you to explain the LDS understanding of men progressing to be a god and then me arguing with you about it. Your doctrine is your doctrine - right? Telling you your doctrine is wrong may be appropriate for another discussion, but not if I ask you to first please explain the doctrine to me - it is what it is. It was not meant as an insult. If something is a mystery, then it's not known. I Projection again - I didn't take your words as an insult. I simply said that I didn't say what you said I did - because I didn't - that's all. You said this: So, if i'm understanding you right, you're saying that yes, Jesus has always been the Son of God - Yes. Though you have no idea how or why. I didn't say that - you didn't ask me that. Jesus has always been the Son of God, part of the Trinity because 1) we believe He taught that, 2) the Bible tells me that 3) the Tradition of the Church tells me that. I don't know what more authority I need than that. If something is a mystery, then it's not known. The Church calls the Trinity a mystery; as we do the Eucharist, the incarnation, the virgin birth, and other things. A mystery is NOT something that is not known - it is something that in not FULLY known. This is where faith and trust in the Church and Christ come into play. In John 6 Christ said "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood will have life." So what the heck is that supposed to mean? We believe it means that when a Priest consecrates the bread and wine in Mass that they become the body and blood of Christ. Why, because Christ told us they do. And the Church through her understanding from the apostles supports that. Do we fully understand that - of course not. Do you understand how a spirit child becomes a human? How someone progresses to become a god? Thanks for your answer. You're welcome and I apologize if I mad you made - not my intent. I'm happy to discuss points of my faith with you and vice versa. I'm not out to lecture anyone. When members ask questions they truly appear to want an answer to, or are curious about, versus really wanting to start a debate, then I'm happy to help. I'm simply saying for me, personally, spending hours on this forum as some people obviously do, to post tons of stuff to make their point with someone of another faith where they're NEVER going to agree is pointless - life is too short. Peace
igonzals Posted April 18, 2015 Posted April 18, 2015 The implicit and explicit doctrine that relies in the Book of Mormon, D&C and PGP is very clear about the eternal divine nature of Jesus. This is a very interested topic. This divine nature of the person of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is that we must see in the root of this debate. This nature is usually misunderstood by members of the Church but never in our Scriptures. This nature is not the premortal angel nature of Christ in the premortal life and, by the way, is not the falible (but saint) mortal or divinized-perfect resurrected man nature of the person of Jesus; but we talk about that nature that was in him from the begining and for what, from eternity He was and is different from us: He was God from all eternity, and not created. We read: "Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God" (BoM, Title Page)"And I looked and beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea, the Everlasting God" (1 Nephi 11:32, 1830 ed)"And as I spake concerning the convincing of the Jews, that Jesus is the very Christ, it must needs be that the Gentiles be convinced also that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God" (2 Nephi 26:12)"Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God" (Alma 11:44)"last sacrifice will be the Son of God, yea, infinite and eternal" (Alma 34:12)"Hosanna! Blessed be the name of the Most High God! And they did fall down at the feet of Jesus, and did worship him" (3 Nephi 11:27)"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1:1) Christ was God before heavens, earth and all universe were created spiritually and phisically: "Christ was the God, the Father of all things, and said that he should take upon him the image of man, and it should be the image after which man was created in the beginning; or in other words, he said that man was created after the image of God, and that God should come down among the children of men, and take upon him flesh and blood, and go forth upon the face of the earth" (Mos. 7:27)"Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son... this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created" (Ether 3:15-16)"I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all" (Abraham 3:19)"Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee ... Then said I, Ah, Lord God!" (Jer. 1:5-6)"Thou art fairer than the children of men... Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever" (Psalm 45:2,6) Christ was God prior that moment when "Plan of Salvation" started and any thing (idea or any class of eternal existant being) enter into the scene, a time that some prophets call "the begining": “Everlasting covenant was made between three personages before the organization of this earth and relates to their dispensation of things to men on the earth. These personages … are called God the first, the Creator; God the second, the Redeemer; and God the third, the Witness or Testator.” (Joseph Smith) When we say that "Jesus id Jehova" we are saying that He was God allways. Full divinity is in him. Otherwise He cannot be Jehova (Exodus 3) Then the confusion ussually is the reason why we talk about Jesus like be minor that the Father. And in that discussion we must clearly differentiate of what nature we are talking: God, Angel or Man. Like God there cannot be progress and He is equal with the Father and the Holy Spirit in Deity, the same nature. As God allways was perfect in every attribute, in every sense. Like Angel and Man, by love to us, sacred obidience to God His Father, and not by necesity, he voluntary descended from his throne as God, and make himself like an Angel in premortal life to show us a perfect example, and so on, like a mortal man he did the same. That was 1st book of Nephi implicit want to teach about "condescendence" of Christ and Trinity. And about the eternat title "Son" of course, with all his divine names (Father, Jehova, Creator, Light, Life.. etc), those names that exalt his divine nature are with him from the same begining: "the Only Begotten of the Father, who is without beginning of days or end of years, who is full of grace, equity, and truth" (Alma 13:9)"Behold, I am Jesus Christ the Son of God. I created the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are. I was with the Father from the beginning. I am in the Father, and the Father in me" (3 Nephi 9:15)"Even those things which were from the beginning before the world was, which were ordained of the Father, through his Only Begotten Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, even from the beginning" (D&C 76:13)"But, behold, my Beloved Son, which was my Beloved and Chosen from the beginning" (Moses 4:2)"Kiss the Son" (Psalm 2:12) I dream with the day when we, the members of His true Church, see unto him how Great is He, Our God-Example, Our Pious & Condescendent God allways walking with us to show us the Light to be converted like him some day. PD: I'm clear that not-believers of mormonism tergiverse the true Person of Christ of true mormonism with polemic quotes of past General Authorities. If they fall in that temptation to persist in believing that the Jesus was a God that was not God in some point they could remeber themselves and they followers that our Scriptures have preeminence over personal opinions. Each mormon can comprehend better the person of his Redemer and change the more reduced paradigm about Christ that Christ that teach our Scriptures (including of course the Holy Bible). Jesus is more than "Older Bethren". Best Regards, igonzals
bluebell Posted April 18, 2015 Author Posted April 18, 2015 (edited) Part of the point I'm trying to make Bluebell about understanding the words "Son of God," is if you look at that as meaning Jesus is God's son because he was born on earth as a human, (which appears to be how you think about it - please tell me if I have that wrong) then that is NOT how the RCC/Prot/EV's see it. You are wrong on how you believe LDS (or myself) understand the words Son of God and that's probably part of our communication problem. When i asked the question in the OP (Opening Post), i was asking it from a non-LDS Christian perspective. I believe that Jesus was the Son of God long before He was born into mortality and that His Sonship is not predicated upon His mortal birth. My question is more along the lines of, if Christ is literally the Son of God but not created by Him or 'related' to Him, or adopted by Him (which is how 'son' is defined) then what makes Him the Son of God from a non-lds Christian position? Why does He have that designation if it's not literally true? The words Son of God much more so point to recognition of his Divinity than his earthly birth. So we believe Jesus is eternal, we do not believe God created Him. We believe Jesus and the Holy Spirit are God, are eternal and have always been. Can we fully explain this - no. Is our language to explain it inadequate - yes. Is it completely non-sensical - not at all. But if you approach it from a LDS standpoint of there are three gods, all in unison with each other but still three, and Heavenly Father created them, then it may seem non-sensical to say that God did not create Jesus. It doesn't seem nonsensical to believe that God did not create Jesus. It does seems nonsensical to believe that Jesus is the Son of God (based on the definition of the word 'son') when He's not actually His son (based, again, on the definition of the word 'son'). Trust me or not on this, the document does NOT say, nor does the church, that God created Jesus. And His birth on earth did not make Him the Son of God. It was this quote which led me to believe that Catholics believe, in one sense at least, God created Jesus- "We have to be careful to understand this term. It is often used as synonymous with "to be born" but it really means "to cause to be." Even though the Son is eternally existent, the Father "causes him to be." I don't understand how someone can 'cause someone to be' but not have created them (unless I completely suspend all common definitions of the english language). It appears i'm misunderstanding what they are saying but I have no idea how else to interpret it. A lot of the key to this from a non-LDS view is you have to understand what we mean by the Trinity. Whether you believe the doctrine or not is irrelevant. Here are two more links that may help - the first is RCC the second is EV I think but seems accurate: 1) http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm and 2) http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=10&article=272 I've actually studied the Trinity quite a bit, but it's still as clear to me as mud. There's some real Freudian projection going on with you Bluebell. I didn't say I had no desire to understand your beliefs, I think I do understand most of your beliefs. It was this quote of your's that led me to believe you weren't interested in what I had to say but only wanted me to listen to you. "This is a good place to point out how LDS talk past Christians and why I don't spend lots of time here..." I'm sorry if i have misunderstood you but that line was pretty condescending and also seemed to imply that you weren't interested in discussing things because they 'devolve into nothing'. My understanding of your tone and point of view may have been wrong, but i don't think it was an unreasonable interpretation, much less "freudian". What I was trying to say beyond that is, the doctrine is what it is. The Church believes what it believes, period. It's not up for debate. You wanted an answer to your questions from a non-LDS Christian perspective and you have it. So if you want to take those answers and go down a path of "but what does Son really mean?" and "what does the Greek for begotten really mean?" you can, I just won't be a part of that. Ok. That post of mine was in response to a poster who DID want to discuss the greek meaning of words. He brought it up so i obliged him. It's fine if you don't want to be a part of it. No one expected you to be a part of a conversation not started or addressed by you. I'm not saying that's bad, I'm just saying it doesn't matter whether or not you agree with the Church. Think of it this way - it would be like me asking you to explain the LDS understanding of men progressing to be a god and then me arguing with you about it. Your doctrine is your doctrine - right? Telling you your doctrine is wrong may be appropriate for another discussion, but not if I ask you to first please explain the doctrine to me - it is what it is. I'm not trying to argue with you about what your church teaches, i'm trying to understand it. When I asked questions just assume that is my motivation. The Church calls the Trinity a mystery; as we do the Eucharist, the incarnation, the virgin birth, and other things. A mystery is NOT something that is not known - it is something that in not FULLY known. This is where faith and trust in the Church and Christ come into play. In John 6 Christ said "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood will have life." So what the heck is that supposed to mean? We believe it means that when a Priest consecrates the bread and wine in Mass that they become the body and blood of Christ. Why, because Christ told us they do. And the Church through her understanding from the apostles supports that. Do we fully understand that - of course not. Do you understand how a spirit child becomes a human? How someone progresses to become a god? The way you are talking here leads me to believe that you think that i think it's a bad thing for something to be unknown (or partially unknown). I don't. I'm completely fine with it. If that's the only answer you have for my questions, then that's fine. There's no reason to launch into everything that LDS have to take on faith to prove some kind of point. Edited April 18, 2015 by bluebell
bluebell Posted April 19, 2015 Author Posted April 19, 2015 The implicit and explicit doctrine that relies in the Book of Mormon, D&C and PGP is very clear about the eternal divine nature of Jesus. This is a very interested topic. This divine nature of the person of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is that we must see in the root of this debate. This nature is usually misunderstood by members of the Church but never in our Scriptures. This nature is not the premortal angel nature of Christ in the premortal life and, by the way, is not the falible (but saint) mortal or divinized-perfect resurrected man nature of the person of Jesus; but we talk about that nature that was in him from the begining and for what, from eternity He was and is different from us: He was God from all eternity, and not created. We read: "Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God" (BoM, Title Page)"And I looked and beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea, the Everlasting God" (1 Nephi 11:32, 1830 ed)"And as I spake concerning the convincing of the Jews, that Jesus is the very Christ, it must needs be that the Gentiles be convinced also that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God" (2 Nephi 26:12)"Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God" (Alma 11:44)"last sacrifice will be the Son of God, yea, infinite and eternal" (Alma 34:12)"Hosanna! Blessed be the name of the Most High God! And they did fall down at the feet of Jesus, and did worship him" (3 Nephi 11:27)"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1:1) Christ was God before heavens, earth and all universe were created spiritually and phisically: "Christ was the God, the Father of all things, and said that he should take upon him the image of man, and it should be the image after which man was created in the beginning; or in other words, he said that man was created after the image of God, and that God should come down among the children of men, and take upon him flesh and blood, and go forth upon the face of the earth" (Mos. 7:27)"Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son... this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created" (Ether 3:15-16)"I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all" (Abraham 3:19)"Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee ... Then said I, Ah, Lord God!" (Jer. 1:5-6)"Thou art fairer than the children of men... Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever" (Psalm 45:2,6) Christ was God prior that moment when "Plan of Salvation" started and any thing (idea or any class of eternal existant being) enter into the scene, a time that some prophets call "the begining": “Everlasting covenant was made between three personages before the organization of this earth and relates to their dispensation of things to men on the earth. These personages … are called God the first, the Creator; God the second, the Redeemer; and God the third, the Witness or Testator.” (Joseph Smith) When we say that "Jesus id Jehova" we are saying that He was God allways. Full divinity is in him. Otherwise He cannot be Jehova (Exodus 3) Then the confusion ussually is the reason why we talk about Jesus like be minor that the Father. And in that discussion we must clearly differentiate of what nature we are talking: God, Angel or Man. Like God there cannot be progress and He is equal with the Father and the Holy Spirit in Deity, the same nature. As God allways was perfect in every attribute, in every sense. Like Angel and Man, by love to us, sacred obidience to God His Father, and not by necesity, he voluntary descended from his throne as God, and make himself like an Angel in premortal life to show us a perfect example, and so on, like a mortal man he did the same. That was 1st book of Nephi implicit want to teach about "condescendence" of Christ and Trinity. And about the eternat title "Son" of course, with all his divine names (Father, Jehova, Creator, Light, Life.. etc), those names that exalt his divine nature are with him from the same begining: "the Only Begotten of the Father, who is without beginning of days or end of years, who is full of grace, equity, and truth" (Alma 13:9)"Behold, I am Jesus Christ the Son of God. I created the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are. I was with the Father from the beginning. I am in the Father, and the Father in me" (3 Nephi 9:15)"Even those things which were from the beginning before the world was, which were ordained of the Father, through his Only Begotten Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, even from the beginning" (D&C 76:13)"But, behold, my Beloved Son, which was my Beloved and Chosen from the beginning" (Moses 4:2)"Kiss the Son" (Psalm 2:12) I dream with the day when we, the members of His true Church, see unto him how Great is He, Our God-Example, Our Pious & Condescendent God allways walking with us to show us the Light to be converted like him some day. PD: I'm clear that not-believers of mormonism tergiverse the true Person of Christ of true mormonism with polemic quotes of past General Authorities. If they fall in that temptation to persist in believing that the Jesus was a God that was not God in some point they could remeber themselves and they followers that our Scriptures have preeminence over personal opinions. Each mormon can comprehend better the person of his Redemer and change the more reduced paradigm about Christ that Christ that teach our Scriptures (including of course the Holy Bible). Jesus is more than "Older Bethren". Best Regards, igonzals Interesting thoughts, thanks for sharing.
HOLY CATHOLIC Posted April 19, 2015 Posted April 19, 2015 Best Regards, igonzals Your post sure doesn't sound like the Jesus of Mormonism The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak as been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times. He together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the matters of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages." (Church News, June 20, 1998, p70)
Darren10 Posted April 19, 2015 Posted April 19, 2015 Best Regards,igonzalsYour post sure doesn't sound like the Jesus of MormonismThe traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak as been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times. He together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the matters of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages." (Church News, June 20, 1998, p70)I would agree that I ingozals did not get every single scripture right but the essence he presented is very much "what Mormons believe". What you present is merely the fact that the LDS Church rejects the *historic/traditional* creeds regarding Holy Trinity. Mormons are very much trinitarians, just not what the creeds declare. This is hardly a secret.
Darren10 Posted April 19, 2015 Posted April 19, 2015 (edited) John 4:24 - The trickiest of them. I'll refer you to the esteemed people over at "Fairmormon"Luke 24:39 - Christ says he is not a spirit because he has a body. The Father isn't mentioned.Alma 18:26-28 - taken out of context24 And Ammon began to speak unto him with boldness, and said unto him: Believest thou that there is a God?25 And he answered, and said unto him: I do not know what that meaneth.26 And then Ammon said: Believest thou that there is a Great Spirit?27 And he said, Yea.28 And Ammon said: This is God. And Ammon said unto him again: Believest thou that this Great Spirit, who is God, created all things which are in heaven and in the earth?Ammon did not call God a spirit. He likened God to what King Lamoni's pagan style religion referred to as the "Great Spirit". This would be like me likening the Father to "Allah" if speaking to a Muslim investigator or a Greek and a Roman comparing Zeus and Jupiter. This was not a declaration that God is a spirit being with no body. His body is never mentioned.Alma 22:8-11 - same thing.Keep in mind that at the time Ammon preached to King Lamoni, it was Old Testament times. The one focal point which lead to King Lamoni's conversion and that of his queen was the testimony they gained of God's mercy for eventually becoming man ("born of a woman"). Thus, their conversion to the God of Israel was to the pre-mortal Jesus Christ who was, at that time, only a spirit. For an outstanding insight on these miraculous events, I highly recommend Matthew L. Bowman.http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/father-is-a-man-the-remarkable-mention-of-the-name-abish-in-alma-1916-and-its-narrative-context/ Edited April 19, 2015 by Darren10 1
ChristKnight Posted April 19, 2015 Posted April 19, 2015 My question is more along the lines of, if Christ is literally the Son of God but not created by Him or 'related' to Him, or adopted by Him (which is how 'son' is defined) then what makes Him the Son of God from a non-lds Christian position? Why does He have that designation if it's not literally true? It doesn't seem nonsensical to believe that God did not create Jesus. It does seems nonsensical to believe that Jesus is the Son of God (based on the definition of the word 'son') when He's not actually His son (based, again, on the definition of the word 'son'). It was this quote which led me to believe that Catholics believe, in one sense at least, God created Jesus- "We have to be careful to understand this term. It is often used as synonymous with "to be born" but it really means "to cause to be." Even though the Son is eternally existent, the Father "causes him to be." I don't understand how someone can 'cause someone to be' but not have created them (unless I completely suspend all common definitions of the english language). It appears i'm misunderstanding what they are saying but I have no idea how else to interpret it. From the Catholic perspective, the belief is that the Persons of the Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, exist in eternal relationships with each other. They have always existed, and have always existed as the Trinity. The Father does cause the Son (and the Holy Spirit) to "be" (note that the quote states "causes", not "caused", btw), however this is an eternal relationship, an eternal causation. The Father eternally begets the Son, and is indeed the Father and Christ is indeed His Son, because that is their eternal relationship (without addressing the Incarnation). This belief is often referred to as the "eternal sonship of Jesus Christ" or the "eternal generation of Jesus Christ", and Googling these phrases turns up various explanations. Hope that helps. http://www.theopedia.com/Eternal_Sonship_of_Jesushttp://www.theopedia.com/Eternal_generation_of_the_Son 3
igonzals Posted April 19, 2015 Posted April 19, 2015 Best Regards,igonzalsYour post sure doesn't sound like the Jesus of MormonismThe traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak as been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times. He together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the matters of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages." (Church News, June 20, 1998, p70) If you re-read Hinckley's statement you will see a key fact in what mormonism add and not erase beauty to the Trinity traditional doctrine and in that way is diferent because it makes it more full: The Person of the Son is in all ways & likehood as the Person of the Father. It is a tremendous contribution in knowledge to the Godhead knowledge. It adds one aditional aspect about the Father unknown until that day. In other words I read statement of Hinckley like this: "Until the day of JS's First Vision mankind at best case knew Jesus is true God and true God and the Father is true God, because until that was acceptable creed in hearts of true believers, but now we know say more: Jesus is true God and true Man and the Father is true God and true Man also"
igonzals Posted April 19, 2015 Posted April 19, 2015 * at best case knew Jesus is true God and true Man
HOLY CATHOLIC Posted April 19, 2015 Posted April 19, 2015 (edited) If you re-read Hinckley's statement you will see a key fact in what mormonism add and not erase beauty to the Trinity traditional doctrine and in that way is diferent because it makes it more full: The Person of the Son is in all ways & likehood as the Person of the Father. It is a tremendous contribution in knowledge to the Godhead knowledge. It adds one aditional aspect about the Father unknown until that day. In other words I read statement of Hinckley like this: "Until the day of JS's First Vision mankind at best case knew Jesus is true God and true God and the Father is true God, because until that was acceptable creed in hearts of true believers, but now we know say more: Jesus is true God and true Man and the Father is true God and true Man also" ”The life appeared, we have seen it and testified to it, and we proclaim to you the Eternal Life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us.” 1 John 1:2 King James and we are in him who is the true even in his son Jesus, He is the True God and Eternal Life,” 1 John 5:20 King James Jesus is as much the TRUE GOD as GOD the FATHER 2 Nephi 26:12 And as I spake concerning the convincing of the Jews, that Jesus is the very Christ, it must needs be that the Gentiles be convinced also that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God; 3 Nephi 11:17 Hosanna! Blessed be the name of the Most High God! And they did fall down at the feet of Jesus, and did worship him. Mosiah 3:5 For behold, the time cometh, and is not far distant, that with power, the Lord Omnipotent who reigneth, who was, and is from all eternity to all eternity, shall come down from heaven among the children of men, and shall dwell in a tabernacle of clay, and shall go forth amongst men, working mighty miracles, such as healing the sick, raising the dead, causing the lame to walk, the blind to receive their sight, and the deaf to hear, and curing all manner of diseases. 3 Nephi 19: 18 And behold, they began to pray; and they did pray unto Jesus, calling him their Lord and their God. Mosiah 5:15 Therefore, I would that ye should be steadfast and immovable, always abounding in good works, that Christ, the Lord God Omnipotent, may seal you his, that you may be brought to heaven, that ye may have everlasting salvation and eternal life, through the wisdom, and power, and justice, and mercy of him who created all things, in heaven and in earth, who is God above all. Amen. 2 Nephi 10:3 3 Wherefore, as I said unto you, it must needs be expedient that Christ—for in the last night the angel spake unto me that this should be his name—should come among the Jews, among those who are the more wicked part of the world; and they shall crucify him—for thus it behooveth our God, and there is none other nation on earth that would crucify their God. Jesus is God above all, our Lord and God, God from Eternity, the Most High God and the eternal God according to the Book of Mormon and of course Jesus does have a flesh and bone body in heaven, but not the Father 1 Timothy 2 1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; 2For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. 3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Edited April 19, 2015 by HOLY CATHOLIC
bluebell Posted April 19, 2015 Author Posted April 19, 2015 From the Catholic perspective, the belief is that the Persons of the Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, exist in eternal relationships with each other. They have always existed, and have always existed as the Trinity. The Father does cause the Son (and the Holy Spirit) to "be" (note that the quote states "causes", not "caused", btw), however this is an eternal relationship, an eternal causation. The Father eternally begets the Son, and is indeed the Father and Christ is indeed His Son, because that is their eternal relationship (without addressing the Incarnation). This belief is often referred to as the "eternal sonship of Jesus Christ" or the "eternal generation of Jesus Christ", and Googling these phrases turns up various explanations. Hope that helps. http://www.theopedia.com/Eternal_Sonship_of_Jesushttp://www.theopedia.com/Eternal_generation_of_the_Son Thanks CK. I'm still not clear how someone causes another person to 'be' but does not create them, but that's o.k. It sounds like one of those doctrines that isn't really explainable. Is it Catholic doctrine then that no person in God could exist alone or separate from God? Could Christ exist (for lack of a better term) without God the Father?
HOLY CATHOLIC Posted April 19, 2015 Posted April 19, 2015 I would agree that I ingozals did not get every single scripture right but the essence he presented is very much "what Mormons believe". What you present is merely the fact that the LDS Church rejects the *historic/traditional* creeds regarding Holy Trinity. Mormons are very much trinitarians, just not what the creeds declare. This is hardly a secret. Tell me where the Book of Mormon disagrees with the Creeds or pre-1835 Joseph Smith JR ) 2 Nephi 31: 21And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen. Alma 11: 44 Now, this restoration shall come to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, both the wicked and the righteous; and even there shall not so much as a hair of their heads be lost; but everything shall be restored to its perfect frame, as it is now, or in the body, and shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God, to be judged according to their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil. Mormon 7: 7 And he hath brought to pass the redemption of the world, whereby he that is found guiltless before him at the judgment day hath it given unto him to dwell in the presence of God in his kingdom, to sing ceaseless praises with the choirs above, unto the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one God, in a state of happiness which hath no end. The Testimony of Three Witnesses And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen. Oliver Cowdery David Whitmer Martin Harris Doctrine and Covenants 20 : 28 Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen.
Recommended Posts