Are Mormons' Christians?

[PD1]

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.

How can someone who has supposedly always been, become, as Joseph Smith said about God?

In order to understand the subject of the dead, for consolation of those who mourn for the loss of their friends, it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how He came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God.  We have imagined and supposed God was God from all eternity.  I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see.

[Teancum]

T, we've been talking about some of the prerequisites (needs) as we've been going along here; a Father and Mother, obeying "x" laws, having a wife, etc.

Other then the wife show me in LDS scripture where it says a god needs anything else.

Now, while I agree that Jesus is God, and always has been God, are you saying that he met all the conditions that the LDS stipulate are necessary to becoming a God prior to coming to earth?  May I ask, just who was Jesus married to before he came to earth?

You are twisting my words. Jesus was God before coming to earth and did not need a wife. Got it?

As for God having a physical body, I'm sure you've checked Num. 23:19 and John 4:24.

I know the passages and I know they do not teach what you think. And anyway, if God is just a spirit only he still is embodied as the OT clearly demonstrates over and over again.

On the other hand, are you saying that a physical body is necessary in order that God may exist as God?

There is nothing in LDS scripture that indicates he must have a body.

And yes, Jesus took on a physical body, but we're not talking about Jesus

The example was used to illustrate. Jesus is after all the image of His Father.

So, if God does not need anything to exist as God, then he obviously does not need to obey any laws, as Johnny alluded to in other post, to remain as God either. 

God establishes the laws. I would assume however, that if the laws are a moving target then this would be a God we could not trust.

  Yet, in order for the LDS to become gods, like him, they must be perfectly obedient to someone who is not needful of being obedient himself

.

LDS becoming gods is not the same thing as being God.

Of course, that goes without saying that God does not need a wife, as the LDS believe that he possesses anyway, yet in order to achieve the status of god, one needs to be married (D&C 132:19ff.).

I am not sure how you wandered down this path.

Does that make any sense, all these double standards?

You are not making sense to me. It seems that you have twists and turns at every junction,

The rest of the post was not worth bothering with.

Teancum

[Teancum]

Does God save and damn his creations before they are in existenec?

Ephesians 1:5 He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will,

2 Thessalonians 2:13 But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.

Scripture, taken as a whole does not teach the kind of predestination you use these passages for. John 3:16 says Whoever believes not just the chosen. These passages mean that certianly God has chosen those Paul is writing to but they are chosen because they exercised faith in Him.

If God does not need anyting then why did he create us?

Revelation 4:11 "Worthy art Thou, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for Thou didst create all things, and because of Thy will they existed, and were created."

Colossians 1:16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-- all things have been created by Him and for Him.

And these tell us why God created us exactly how? If he does not need anything was he bored?

What was God doing before he created us and this universe?

John 17:5 "And now, glorify Thou Me together with Thyself, Father, with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was.

John 17:24 "Father, I desire that they also, whom Thou hast given Me, be with Me where I am, in order that they may behold My glory, which Thou hast given Me; for Thou didst love Me before the foundation of the world.

So God was Glorying himself and Jesus? Since this is Jesus refering to Himself and God and their relationship you still did not answer what God was doing before he created everything. And was Jesus His Son then?

Does God make the rules that govern this universe?

Hebrews 3:4 For every house is built by someone, but the builder of all things is God.

Ephesians 3:9 and to bring to light what is the administration of the mystery which for ages has been hidden in God, who created all things;

I assmume that is a yes.

[

QUOTE]Does he exist within those rules?

Daniel 9:14 "Therefore, the LORD has kept the calamity in store and brought it on us; for the LORD our God is righteous with respect to all His deeds which He has done, but we have not obeyed His voice.

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

[Del March]

Guys,

I don't understand why you keep on discussing with PD1. He doesn't deserve any such attention. PD1 is a liar who pretends that people have said things they never said, that people believe the opposite of what they say they believe, and so on. PD1 is a deceiver who twists everything someone says to his own ends, even when he knows fully well that the person never meant to say anything even remotely like that. And PD1 is a coward who won't answer the questions asked of him, and who will lie and pretend that he did when he didn't.

The only treatment he deserves is the one I gave him: ignore him.

Del

[Teancum]

Your questions have been answered, as well as have been everyone else's

.

Thank you.

And while you may characterize an infinitely perfect God, who has no need of anyone or anything to exist as a "monster,"

No. I characterized a God that would create sentient, self aware, emotional creatures that he would whimsically select some to eternal bliss and some to eternal torture. A god that would do that and not give the creature a chance to act out of free will is not infinitely perfect. Yes that God is a monster. If you believe your God is that He is not perfect and He is a monster.

I think, if you had two children and you randomly selected on tow keep warm happy and safe and the other you repeatedly starved, tortured and burned society would classify you as a monster. I would hope that a infinitely perfect God would be above what our weak human society can figure out is a monster.

at least he's not what the LDS keep alluding to which appears to be nothing more than an idol.

Our God is perfectly Just and perfectly merciful. That is a God worthy of worship. You may think that an idol. But I would take an idol over your monster any day.

Teancum

[Teancum]

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?

The LDS GOd is not imperfect. You are playing the straw man here.

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.

It would make sense for God to command us to do something we cannot be or do?

Teancum

[Paul McNabb]

Paul, thanks for the reply.  So, we're on the same page then as far as God's aseity.  He needs nothing to exist as God.  The problem, though, remains as that agreement comes into conflict with LDS thinking.  For LDS theology affirms that God is, indeed, in need of a whole host of things, some of which is being affirmed by the LDS here.  How are we going to resolve this major issue? 

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?

Thanks.

Actually, I'm not sure about God's aseity. It isn't an issue for the vast majority of Latter-day Saints. LDS generally don't think about God in the same way that many theologically-minded Christians do. LDS seldom talk about whether God is aseitic, impassive, transcendent, immutable, indivisible, or most other "fundamental" attributes that form part of the theology of other branches of Christianity.

Of course LDS philosophers and thinkers (do LDS have theologians??) have spoken and written on these issues, but for most people, the image is of an "all-powerful," "all-loving," "all-knowing," "eternal" Father. The details of what those terms means is not a frequent topic of lessons and talks. Platonism, Neo-platonism, and other Hellenistic philosophies do not form the basis of Mormonism.

Mormons view knowledge about God as being revealed rather than reasoned. Mormons generally consider all reasoned arguments about God as being subject to change as arguments are refined and new evidence found. For that matter, Mormons generally consider that the revealed knowledge of God will be supplemented over time as well as God reveals more about Himself. It does not generally cause a problem for Mormons to think that today we might have a better understanding of God than Mormons in the 1840s, the same way that Christians believe that New Testament believers had a clearer understanding of the nature of God than did Old Testament believers, including even prophets.

Your statement that "If [God] does need anything, then he's not perfect" is not one I would agree with. I don't believe that contingency implies imperfection. Nor do I believe that mutability or passivity imply imperfection.

Why do you believe that God must be noncontingent, aseitic, immutable, impassive, and/or transcendent to be either perfect or God?

In fact, just what are the characteristics that make God God?

[YH8]

PD1,

Are you rabanes, Elihu/Nepheye/seeryou, FormerLDS, or . . . ?

[PD1]

PD1,

Are you rabanes, Elihu/Nepheye/seeryou, FormerLDS, or . . . ?

Absolutely not.

[YH8]

PD1,

Are you rabanes, Elihu/Nepheye/seeryou, FormerLDS, or . . . ?

Absolutely not.

Have you used any other username on this website? If so, which one?

[Bikeemikey]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

[PD1]

Actually, I'm not sure about God's aseity.

[Teancum]

Howdy PD1.

So you want theology. Fair enough.

Here is a book by a very bright Latter-day Saint:

Exploring Mormon Thought: The Attributes of God

by Blake T. Ostler

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=glance&s=books

Editorial Reviews

About the Author

Blake T. Ostler is a practicing attorney specializing in educational law, employment law and intellectual property. He holds a J.D. from the University of Utah. He has published widely on Mormon philosophy in journals such as Religious Studies, International Journal for the Philosophy of Religion, Dialogue: Journal of Mormon Thought, BYU Studies and FARMS Review of Books.

Product Description:

In this, the first volume of a planned series of works on Mormon thought, Blake T. Ostler explores Christian and Mormon notions about God. Written for both Mormons and non-Mormons interested in the relationship between Mormonism and classical theism, his path-breaking Exploring Mormon Thought: The Attributes of God is a critique of classical theism regarding some of the central concepts that have formed the Christian understanding of God. He deals with questions of traditional philosophical theology including free will and foreknowledge, the nature of God and Christology. The approach to these questions is from the analytic philosophical tradition and includes detailed arguments relating to the coherence of Christian belief, scripture and practice. However he recognizes that religious faith is far more a product of intimacy with the divine than of ultimacy of reason, more a product of relationships than of logical necessities.

He provides an overview of the most influential Christian notions of deity, exploring themes and resources within this discourse that might be helpful to Latter-day Saint explorations. Also highlighted are various perspectives within Mormonism itself including a detailed analysis of Joseph Smith

[T-Shirt]

T-S, from what I read, your questions were not relevant.

How so? The questions I asked were directly relevant to the discussion.

Therefore, I will only divert attention away from the topic at hand

Actually, it seems that you don't want draw attention to questions you have no answer for.

to answer them when warranted.

So what will warrant an answer from you?

Until then, may I encourage you to go back through the posts and enlighten yourself to the topic,

Why the condescending attitutde?

and then freely jump in with your responses to the questions being asked.  Thanks.

So, you may ask the questions, but us Mormons must not dare ask questions? Why are you so hesitant to answer questions?

T-Shirt

[Teancum]

YOU can read a number of reviews Ostler wrote in response to The New Mormon Challenge here:

http://www.fairlds.org/apol/TNMC/

You can read Ostler's review of The Mormon Concept of God by Beckwith and Parrish here:

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=226

Teancum

[PD1]

Howdy PD1.

So you want theology. Fair enough.

Here is a book by a very bright Latter-day Saint:

Exploring Mormon Thought: The Attributes of God

by Blake T. Ostler

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=glance&s=books

Editorial Reviews

About the Author

Blake T. Ostler is a practicing attorney specializing in educational law, employment law and intellectual property. He holds a J.D. from the University of Utah. He has published widely on Mormon philosophy in journals such as Religious Studies, International Journal for the Philosophy of Religion, Dialogue: Journal of Mormon Thought, BYU Studies and FARMS Review of Books.

Product Description:

In this, the first volume of a planned series of works on Mormon thought, Blake T. Ostler explores Christian and Mormon notions about God. Written for both Mormons and non-Mormons interested in the relationship between Mormonism and classical theism, his path-breaking Exploring Mormon Thought: The Attributes of God is a critique of classical theism regarding some of the central concepts that have formed the Christian understanding of God. He deals with questions of traditional philosophical theology including free will and foreknowledge, the nature of God and Christology. The approach to these questions is from the analytic philosophical tradition and includes detailed arguments relating to the coherence of Christian belief, scripture and practice. However he recognizes that religious faith is far more a product of intimacy with the divine than of ultimacy of reason, more a product of relationships than of logical necessities.

He provides an overview of the most influential Christian notions of deity, exploring themes and resources within this discourse that might be helpful to Latter-day Saint explorations. Also highlighted are various perspectives within Mormonism itself including a detailed analysis of Joseph Smith

[Teancum]

I'm not looking for books, I'm looking for answers from people just like you.  Thanks anyway, though.

You complained about the dismal state of LDS Theology.

I provide you some great resources,.

And you do not want to check it out?

I am not a theology expert and I am certainly not a philosopher.

Much of your complaints deal with a philosophy.

Ostler is steeped in philosophy.

If you really want to understand us and where LDS thoughts are on some of these things check it out.

BTW, Ostle pan Mcmurrin on many topics.

Teancum

[Tanyan]

I 2nd Teacum's last post. Sacrifice, Seek,Search, don't go The Lazy Man Way", or in other words "Just give me the answer", no Spiritual/Temporal learning is done that way. Seek and ye shall find, Knock and it will be open unto you !. In His Grace/Debt, Tanyan.

[PD1]

I 2nd Teacum's last post. Sacrifice, Seek,Search, don't go The Lazy Man Way", or in other words "Just give me the answer", no Spiritual/Temporal learning is done that way. Seek and ye shall find, Knock and it will be open unto you !. In His Grace/Debt, Tanyan.

Tanyan, if the LDS cannot answer the simplest of questions about the person of God, and yet are referring people to those who they think are thee answer or authority on such questions, then who really are the ones being "lazy" here. I've read both Ostler, and have obviously already cited McMurrin, so it's not like I have not done a little bit of homework on the subject. The question remains, though, have the LDS in terms of thinking about their theology?

Something else I think is worth noting, I remember having had a conversation with a LDS one time, and brought up Ostler as saying thus and such about whatever we were talking about, and he ended up telling me, and I paraphrase, "He's not an authority in the church. He's simply giving his opinion." So, are you now telling me that Ostler is some kind of authority on Mormon theology? If so, when did he becomes this authority. If not, then why were you recommending him?

Notice this quote from Ostler as he contradicts John 1:3:

In contrast to the self-sufficient and solitary absolute who creates ex nihilo (out of nothing), the Mormon God did not bring into being the ultimate constituents of the cosmos

[Tanyan]

PD1, I am reminded of Col 2:8. Thanks for sharing.

[PD1]

PD1, I am reminded of Col 2:8. Thanks for sharing.

Colossians 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.

And Paul's quote has what to do with what you've been asked to comment on?

[Zakuska]

John 1:3 (Young's Literal Translation)

Young's Literal Translation (YLT)

Public Domain

3all things through him did happen, and without him happened not even one thing that hath happened.

Perhaps you aught to check your tanslation PD1. Because its not teaching ex nihilo. Which was a later greco/platonic "inovation". For you see... it was the greeks and plato who came up with creation ex nihilo. Not the Bible.

5. This is the discourse concerning Hades, wherein the souls of all men are confined until a proper season, which God hath determined, when he will make a resurrection of all men from the dead, not procuring a transmigration of souls from one body to another, but raising again those very bodies, which you Greeks, seeing to be dissolved, do not believe [their resurrection]. But learn not to disbelieve it; for while you believe that the soul is created, and yet is made immortal by God, according to the doctrine of Plato, and this in time, be not incredulous; but believe that God is able, when he hath raised to life that body which was made as a compound of the same elements, to make it immortal; for it must never be said of God, that he is able to do some things, and unable to do others. We have therefore believed that the body will be raised again; for although it be dissolved, it is not perished; for the earth receives its remains, and preserves them; and while they are like seed, and are mixed among the more fruitful soil, they flourish, and what is sown is indeed sown bare grain, but at the mighty sound of God the Creator, it will sprout up, and be raised in a clothed and glorious condition, though not before it has been dissolved, and mixed [with the earth]. So that we have not rashly believed the resurrection of the body; for although it be dissolved for a time on account of the original transgression, it exists still, and is cast into the earth as into a potter's furnace, in order to be formed again, not in order to rise again such as it was before, but in a state of purity, and so as never to he destroyed any more. And to every body shall its own soul be restored. And when it hath clothed itself with that body, it will not be subject to misery, but, being itself pure, it will continue with its pure body, and rejoice with it, with which it having walked righteously now in this world, and never having had it as a snare, it will receive it again with great gladness. But as for the unjust, they will receive their bodies not changed, not freed from diseases or distempers, nor made glorious, but with the same diseases wherein they died; and such as they were in their unbelief, the same shall they be when they shall be faithfully judged.

http://reluctant-messenger.com/josephus-hades.htm

Notice how plato and the greeks thought the soul was created. Hmm... that sounds just like modern Christians... Like Johnny and you. Mormons know better and know the soul is eternal from infinity past to infinity future. And it is made from the same elements the body is only more refined.

[PD1]

John 1:3 (Young's Literal Translation)

Young's Literal Translation (YLT)

Public Domain

3all things through him did happen, and without him happened not even one thing that hath happened.

Perhaps you aught to check your tanslation PD1. Because its not teaching ex nihilo. Which was a later greco/platonic "inovation". For you see... it was the greeks and plato who came up with creation ex nihilo. Not the Bible.

And you know how to translate the Greek text? Then please parse egeneto in John 1:3, and then cite me a couple of Greek grammars and lexicons that the LDS have produced to support their "weak" translation. From my side of the fence, here's what Daniel Wallace has to say from his Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics book:

panta di' autou egeneto

all things came into existence through him

    The Logos is represented as the Creator in a "hands-on" sort of way, with the implication that God is the ultimate agent.  This is the typical (though not exclusive) pattern seen in the NT: Ultimate agency is ascribed to God the Father (with hupo), intermediate agency is ascribed to Christ (with dia), and "impersonal" means is ascribed to the Holy Spirit (with en or the simple dative), 434.

And from the Louw-Nida Greek Lexicon:

13.80  ginomai: to come into existence - 'to be formed, to come to exist.' panta di' autou/ egeneto 'everything came into existence through him' Jn 1.3; prin Abraam genesthai ego eimi, 'before Abraham came into existence, I existed' Jn 8.58.

[Tanyan]

PD1, I am reminded of Col 2:8. Thanks for sharing.

Colossians 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.

And Paul's quote has what to do with what you've been asked to comment on?

Its a mystery !.

[Zakuska]

Perhaps you aught to check your tanslation PD1. Because its not teaching ex nihilo. Which was a later greco/platonic "inovation". For you see... it was the greeks and plato who came up with creation ex nihilo. Not the Bible.

And you know how to translate the Greek text? Then please parse egeneto in John 1:3, and then cite me a couple of Greek grammars and lexicons that the LDS have produced to support their "weak" translation. From my side of the fence, here's what Daniel Wallace has to say from his Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics book: