Are Mormons' Christians?

[PD1]

PD1 Quotes John 4:24

As for God having a physical body, I'm sure you've checked Num. 23:19 and John 4:24. On the other hand, are you saying that a physical body is necessary in order that God may exist as God? And yes, Jesus took on a physical body, but we're not talking about Jesus. We're talking about God the Father.

He must have missed this post on the Anthropomophic God by Tanyan.-

The late Raymond Brown [Catholic Theologian] who was considered by many in the world to be the Worlds leading scholar/Theologian on the Gospel of John stated regarding John 4:24 -" This is not an essential definition of GOD, but of GOD'S dealing with men; it means that GOD is spirit tward men because he gives the spirit [xivv 16] which begets them anew". There are in fact two other descriptions in Johns writtings : "GOD is light [1 JN 1:5], GOD is Love [1

[Zakuska]

You dont understand John 4:24.

It says nothing about the aseity ( I think you callled it) being of God.

Neither does Numbers 23:19.

Especially when Christ is called a Spirit. Men are called Spirits. Angels are called spirits and all of them have bodies.

Where did God lose his?

[YH8]

Is it that I don't understand John 4:24, or is it that the LDS do not understand Raymond Brown?

It must be that LDS don't understand something. You are Born Again, right? That means you no longer sin and/or make mistakes right? You are now perfect, right? Thus your understanding of theological things is unadulterated, right? Wait, how can it be that you are now perfect if you were imperfect at one time? How can we trust that you will never make a mistake again?

I know, I know, I'm asking questions again. Irrelevant ones at that; because they are not designed to support your point of view.

[PD1]

Paul, believe what you will, but Acts 17:24-25 is dealing, in part

[Zakuska]

Yh8,

God poured himself into PD1 and now he's his little sock puppet. He can do no wrong. Every word that comes out of his mouth is dictated from the lips of God... oh wait... God doesnt have lips or a mouth.

Apparently... Man cannot live becuase no bread can come out of a non existant immaterial mouth.

[Guest johnny_cat]

Yh8,

God poured himself into PD1 and now he's his little sock puppet. He can do no wrong. Every word that comes out of his mouth is dictated from the lips of God... oh wait... God doesnt have lips or a mouth.

Apparently... Man cannot live becuae no bread can come out of a non existant immaterial mouth.

I don't see the need to get personal here, Zak.

[Guest johnny_cat]

For it is not just a matter of interpretation, it is a matter of consistency. God either needs something to exist as God, or he does not. If he does need anything, then he's not perfect. In fact, he's contingent. If he doesn't need anything, then he is perfect, and is in fact, completely self-sufficient, with all of creation totally relying upon him for its existence. The latter view seems to be more in line with what the LDS believe about God than the former, even though there are persistant denials to the contrary. Yet, one cannot have it both ways. One cannot be saying that God needs nothing to exist as God, and then turn around and provide a grocery list of things that he needs. So, once again, how are we going to resolve this?

Let me get this straight. You come up with a grocery list of things God "needs" to be God. I and others tell you repeatedly that God does not need such things to be God. This you call "persistent denials" meaning apparently that you think we disagree with our own theology. I don't get it. Once again, it's very frustrating to even attempt to talk with someone who views every conversation as a chess game with a predetermined outcome.

[Zakuska]

Personal?

Im beating up a strawman Johnny cat. Nothing more.

[PD1]

Yet, what did this God need prior to becoming God, and given his potential to make such a drastic change in being, what is going to prevent such a being from drastically changing again? For it certainly cannot be something inherent within him.

If God the Father is the same kind of being as Jesus, we must ask the same question of Jesus. What did Jesus "need" need prior to becoming God, and given his potential to make such a drastic change in being, what is going to prevent such a being from drastically changing again? For it certainly cannot be something inherent within him.

If Christ, being God, could become man, what prevents the Father from having done the same? Christ's becoming man has nothing to do with His needing anything to be God.

Again, if God is who he says that he is, then there is no potential for him to be anything other than he is. He said that the mortal man not only had the potential to change, but that he actually did change, into something other than he was.

Given this logic, Jesus could not have been a man at any point.

What Joseph failed to do, though, was to take into consideration what scripture has to say about God's immutability, and then proceeded to violate his aseity, as well, by formulating a story about God needing assistance in the transformation. Then when one factors in laws, wives, physicality, etc., into what it takes to remain God, one comes to the conclusion that this God is not really God at all. For God is not imperfect that he should need anything to be.

God needs no assistance in transformation from God to human. Did Jesus need assistance in becoming human?

So, while I thank you for bringing to attention Joseph Smith's King Follett Sermon, it only served to further prove just how imperfect the LDS God really is.

Nonsense.

1. Jesus never became God, for he always was, is, and will be God the Son. So, your question is moot in that respect, and my question remains unanswered.

2. What precludes God from becoming a man is that Jesus accomplished what the incarnation was intended to do, and that was to redeem the lost.

3. Taking on another nature is not the same thing as changing one's being. For Jesus took on a human nature, yet remained the same being. The LDS God, on the other hand, completely changed from a human being to a divine being, and that not of his own being. Which leads back to the question of the being that assisted God the Father in his change. Who was it?

4. No one said anything about Jesus' transformation, or incarnation rather, from his divine status to humanity. What was said was in reference to the LDS concept of God the Father, as a man, being supposedly transformed into a God, and who was needed to help him do it.

5. Well, if the LDS God is perfect, then why does he need so many things/persons to exist as he is? Laws? Wives? Ancestry? Gods? Etc.?

[PD1]

PD1,

Let me see if I understand where you are coming from and where you are going wiith this.

[Zakuska]

2. What precludes God from becoming a man is that Jesus accomplished what the incarnation was intended to do, and that was to redeem the lost.

So where were they lost from?

[PD1]

PD1,

So, can I expect an answer or not?

T-Shirt

When you jump in on the conversation proper.

[Guest johnny_cat]

1. Jesus never became God, for he always was, is, and will be God the Son. So, your question is moot in that respect, and my question remains unanswered.

Now, you're starting to understand. Jesus did not become God by gaining a body. According to Joseph Smith, God the Father had the same type of experience as Jesus. It's not a moot point at all.

2. What precludes God from becoming a man is that Jesus accomplished what the incarnation was intended to do, and that was to redeem the lost.

Which, according to Joseph, is precisely what the Father did. How does that preclude God from becoming a man?

3. Taking on another nature is not the same thing as changing one's being. For Jesus took on a human nature, yet remained the same being.

My point exactly.

The LDS God, on the other hand, completely changed from a human being to a divine being, and that not of his own being.

Not according to the KFD.

Which leads back to the question of the being that assisted God the Father in his change. Who was it?

No one. It was the same change that you just said Christ did without help and without changing his nature.

4. No one said anything about Jesus' transformation, or incarnation rather, from his divine status to humanity. What was said was in reference to the LDS concept of God the Father, as a man, being supposedly transformed into a God, and who was needed to help him do it.

I can't help it if you misunderstand the KFD.

5. Well, if the LDS God is perfect, then why does he need so many things/persons to exist as he is? Laws? Wives? Ancestry? Gods? Etc.?

Um, he doesn't.

[PD1]

Matthew 5:48 "Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Why would God give a command for something that we could never accomplish?

Excellent question, and thanks again for citing a scripture that I used earlier to show how contradictory it would be for an imperfect being to require others to be something that he is not.

Now, Z, you answer the question. For if the LDS God is imperfect, due to the needs that he has, then why would this same God command others to be something that he is not? Because it does not make sense to me either. Conversely, if God is perfect, as Jesus is explicitly alluding to the fact that he is, and in need of nothing for his existence, then the command makes all kinds of sense. Could it be that the LDS God is not the same God that Jesus has in mind?

[Zakuska]

There again you are beating up a strawman named LDS according to PD1.

It says nothing about the status of God in some distant aeon of time eternity past.

He is Perfect now. But was he always?

[PD1]

Thats the age old question PD1.

Chicken or egg.

God Is.

I Am that I Am.

To be or not to be.

[Zakuska]

PD1,

When applied to the John 1:3 verse, that which had no being, until God brought it into being, did not exist as if it had being. To state otherwise is to engage in the epitome of absurdities and to propagate ideas which result in nothing but meaningless drivel.

Wow... In one fail swoop.... PD1 just destroyed creation ex nihilo.

It existed but was dead. Gods spirit moved on the face of the watery chaos and brought forth creation.

Matter/Energy is not created nor destroyed... only changed from one form to another.

[PD1]

You dont understand John 4:24.

It says nothing about the aseity ( I think you callled it) being of God.

Neither does Numbers 23:19.

Especially when Christ is called a Spirit. Men are called Spirits. Angels are called spirits and all of them have bodies.

Where did God lose his?

I did not cite John 4:24 as a reference to his aseity. I referenced John 4:24 as a scriptural citation dealing with God's essence. And when one look grammatically at how John structure that verse, it is spirit that he is stressing which comprises God's being, and that which must be engaged if one is to worship him truthfully.

Numbers 23:19 simply states that God is not a man, that he should lie. The LDS say otherwise. Therefore, is God a liar as well as a man? I've never known a LDS to claim that God lies, so why claim that he is a man, when God says that he isn't one?

Indeed, Christ is called a spirit, and angel's and men possess spiritual natures. But, that begs the question concerning the person of God, for just because Christ is a spirit, who took on a human nature, and just because angel's and men possess spiritual natures does not necessitate that God must possess a quality of physicality. That just does not make sense. God the Father is a completely distinct being from any of those that you've mentioned, and most particularly from those that are created by him (angels and men). Now, before you go off the deep end on what I mean by distinct from the Son, let me calm you by saying that God the Father and God the Son share equally, perfectly, and harmoniously the same essence as God. Yet, they are distinct as persons, without diminishing who they are as God.

And God did not lose that which he never possessed. Otherwise, the God of the Bible would be as in need as the LDS God is, and that is a logical, as well as ontological, absurdity.

[PD1]

Yh8,

God poured himself into PD1 and now he's his little sock puppet. He can do no wrong. Every word that comes out of his mouth is dictated from the lips of God... oh wait... God doesnt have lips or a mouth.

Apparently... Man cannot live becuae no bread can come out of a non existant immaterial mouth.

I don't see the need to get personal here, Zak.

Thank you, Johnny. I appreciate that! I really do.

[Zakuska]

And Im sure you know of other verses that State that God is man. So who is Lieing?

God isnt a Liar, like man is.

Neither one has anything to do with his physycal self.

Indeed, Christ is called a spirit, and angel's and men possess spiritual natures. But, that begs the question concerning the person of God, for just because Christ is a spirit, who took on a human nature, and just because angel's and men possess spiritual natures does not necessitate that God must possess a quality of physicality. That just does not make sense. God the Father is a completely distinct being from any of those that you've mentioned, and most particularly from those that are created by him (angels and men). Now, before you go off the deep end on what I mean by distinct from the Son, let me calm you by saying that God the Father and God the Son share equally, perfectly, and harmoniously the same essence as God. Yet, they are distinct as persons, without diminishing who they are as God.

And God did not lose that which he never possessed. Otherwise, the God of the Bible would be as in need as the LDS God is, and that is a logical, as well as ontological, absurdity.

I thought everything came from God. He could make himself a body out of these rocks. God posses all Bodies.

So look me in the face and tell me God deosnt have a body.

Is not man created in that Image and likeness? or Not.

Ezekiel sure thought the man he saw sitting on his throne had physicallity. So did... Michael Angelo.

The best you could say from John 4:24 is that God is more spirituall than anything he created. But it still doesnt preclud him from having a Glorified Immortal Body as his son does.

[PD1]

For it is not just a matter of interpretation, it is a matter of consistency. God either needs something to exist as God, or he does not. If he does need anything, then he's not perfect. In fact, he's contingent. If he doesn't need anything, then he is perfect, and is in fact, completely self-sufficient, with all of creation totally relying upon him for its existence. The latter view seems to be more in line with what the LDS believe about God than the former, even though there are persistant denials to the contrary. Yet, one cannot have it both ways. One cannot be saying that God needs nothing to exist as God, and then turn around and provide a grocery list of things that he needs. So, once again, how are we going to resolve this?

Let me get this straight. You come up with a grocery list of things God "needs" to be God. I and others tell you repeatedly that God does not need such things to be God. This you call "persistent denials" meaning apparently that you think we disagree with our own theology. I don't get it. Once again, it's very frustrating to even attempt to talk with someone who views every conversation as a chess game with a predetermined outcome.

Johnny, I'm not the one coming up with the grocery list, the LDS are. And I'm not trying to frustrate you, as if you were playing a chess game. I'm trying to understand how the LDS can say two conflicting things at the same time, and believe that they're abiding by the truth.

On the one hand the LDS are saying, as you suggest, that God needs nothing to exist as God. I agree wholeheartedly. On the other hand, when asked about God's Father, wife, laws, physical body, etc., all of sudden, he needs those things. So, which is it?

Personally, after reading through so many of these posts, and LDS material on the subject, I think the LDS who actually wrestle with this subject know that they're hamstrung. They agree with what God has revealed in the Bible that he is not in need, but they're forced to deny that with which they agree because a contradictory proposition has been forced upon them that they must accept.

The question then becomes, which way does one go to resolve the contradiction? Does one say that God has no needs to exist as he is, and then live by that belief, or does one merely say it, yet covertly believe to the contrary, hoping that no one, including God, will notice? For ultimately, if one takes the latter course, then they're an idolater, if not just plainly deceiving their self. Whereas, if one takes the former course, then not only do they have a real grasp on the one true God, then they must makes additional adjustments which will cause them some social discomfort. Frankly, I think a social adjustment is something much more worth enduring, than having God tell me that He didn't know me, because I really did not know Him. The choice is yours, though. I hope you make the right one. Take care.

[Zakuska]

The only contradiction I can see is in your head PD1.

Gods word is sharper than a two edged sword.

Will God cast you off for not beleiving that right way?

matt 7

21

[Guest johnny_cat]

On the one hand the LDS are saying, as you suggest, that God needs nothing to exist as God. I agree wholeheartedly. On the other hand, when asked about God's Father, wife, laws, physical body, etc., all of sudden, he needs those things. So, which is it?

I've already told you that, just as the premortal Christ and the Holy Ghost does not need these things, neither does God the Father. I do not see any contradiction here.

God is not a contingent being in the sense derived from Platonic thought. Rather LDS scripture teaches in Doctrine and Covenants 88:6-13

He that ascended up on high, as also he descended below all things, in that he comprehended all things, that he might be in all and through all things, the light of truth;

Which truth shineth. This is the light of Christ. As also he is in the sun, and the light of the sun, and the power thereof by which it was made.

As also he is in the moon, and is the light of the moon, and the power thereof by which it was made;

As also the light of the stars, and the power thereof by which they were made;

And the earth also, and the power thereof, even the earth upon which you stand.

And the light which shineth, which giveth you light, is through him who enlighteneth your eyes, which is the same light that quickeneth your understandings;

Which light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space�

The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things.

Doesn't sound particularly like a God who depends on others and other things to be God.

[PD1]

On the one hand the LDS are saying, as you suggest, that God needs nothing to exist as God. I agree wholeheartedly. On the other hand, when asked about God's Father, wife, laws, physical body, etc., all of sudden, he needs those things. So, which is it?

I've already told you that, just as the premortal Christ and the Holy Ghost does not need these things, neither does God the Father. I do not see any contradiction here.

So, one more time, you are saying that God could exist without the need of a Father or Mother to bring him into existence in the first place. Is that correct?

And since you keep bringing Jesus into the picture, are you saying that Jesus, in his current state, is able to exist without the need of his Father?

[Guest johnny_cat]

So, one more time, you are saying that God could exist without the need of a Father or Mother to bring him into existence in the first place. Is that correct?

How can someone who is and has always been be brought into existence?

And since you keep bringing Jesus into the picture, are you saying that Jesus, in his current state, is able to exist without the need of his Father?

Jesus has always been in the picture. Why do you keep trying to take him out of it?

Jesus is perfect and is God. I don't see anything on your grocery list that He needs to exist.

Godhead has always existed and always will.