Are Mormons' Christians?

[YH8]

You want to discuss God, then at least discuss the responses to the questions you throw out instead of ignoring them and dismissing them because they aren't easy or what you had hoped.

The problem is, there haven't been responses worth noting. Instead, what has been offered, thus far, have been like the one you just wrote, or one like TS' above. Lots of diversionary tactics that never answer the questions. Lots of extraneous accusations intended to vilify the questioner. But, no responses. Now, if you would care to change all of that, then please answer the initial question, and we'll go from there.

What does God need to exist as God? Got it?

PD1/?,

You're still at it?

What other username(s) have you used on this website?

[T-Shirt]

I don't recall ever saying that God needed anything.

T-Shirt

Have you ever thought that if you would have simply answered the question to begin with, that perhaps you wouldn't spend most of your time in denial?

Sigh.... I knew there would be no further attemp on your part to respond. Why do I bother? Oh well.

What am I denying?

The problem is, there haven't been responses worth noting.

Precisely! And therin lies the problem. Many responses have been given and since you don't like them you say they aren't worth noting. This is getting rather comical.

Instead, what has been offered, thus far, have been like the one you just wrote, or one like TS' above. Lots of diversionary tactics that never answer the questions.

Your question has been answered repeatedly, but it has bothered you to no end that no LDS will agree with your strawman argument. And just how many questions have you answered? Are you afraid?

Lots of extraneous accusations intended to vilify the questioner.

You mean like your very first post on this thread:

PD1 Posted: Mar 22 2005, 07:55 AM

On the other hand, is it possible that anyone could ever become a Christian given the theology of Mormonism? An honest appraisal should lead one to a definitive, "No."

And this from your second post:

PD1 Posted: Mar 23 2005, 07:41 AM

And once again, an honest and open appraisal of what Mormonism teaches about God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, Sin, Salvation, the Church, etc., should lead one to the conclusion that LDS beliefs could be everything but what it claims to be, and that is Christian.

And then this patently false statement:

PD1 Posted: Mar 24 2005, 10:43 AM

LDS beliefs about God, Jesus, Sin, Salvation, the Church, etc., are all contrary to what the Bible has to say about each of them. Therefore, if a LDS is a Christian, it is not because of what they have accepted as true according to Mormonism, but in spite of it.

And this one, which I am sure was said out of love:

For LDS theology cannot lead one to become a Christian. Not only is it humanly impossible, but it is theologically impossible as well.

and this one:

PD1 Posted: Mar 24 2005, 10:50 AM

When it comes to the essential doctrines, LDS theology is non-Christian.

And then this one:

PD1 Posted: Mar 24 2005, 10:59 AM

For the reasons you cite for being a member of the LDS Church are not reasons for one being a Christian. Furthermore, as already stated before, if the basic doctrines in Mormonism are flawed

[Teancum]

In LDS Theology God needs nothing to be God.

Here is what official LDS canon has to say about this. I use only the scriptures unique to the LDS Church:

He is the same today, yesterday and forever.

1 Ne. 10: 18

18 For he is the same

[PD1]

You want to discuss God, then at least discuss the responses to the questions you throw out instead of ignoring them and dismissing them because they aren't easy or what you had hoped.

The problem is, there haven't been responses worth noting. Instead, what has been offered, thus far, have been like the one you just wrote, or one like TS' above. Lots of diversionary tactics that never answer the questions. Lots of extraneous accusations intended to vilify the questioner. But, no responses. Now, if you would care to change all of that, then please answer the initial question, and we'll go from there.

What does God need to exist as God? Got it?

PD1/?,

You're still at it?

What other username(s) have you used on this website?

Still can't deal with a legtimate question, can you?

By the way, besides being Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble, I've also gone by the names of Max Headroom and Woody Boyd. Sheesh...get a life.

[PD1]

I don't recall ever saying that God needed anything.

T-Shirt

Have you ever thought that if you would have simply answered the question to begin with, that perhaps you wouldn't spend most of your time in denial?

Sigh.... I knew there would be no further attemp on your part to respond. Why do I bother? Oh well.

One more time, to go along with the half-dozen other times, here is the question: What does God need to exist as God? Now, if you're really intent on discussing the issue, then simply answer the question. Remember, the subject is not me, it's LDS theology.

[PD1]

In LDS Theology God needs nothing to be God.

Here is what official LDS canon has to say about this. I use only the scriptures unique to the LDS Church:

He is the same today, yesterday and forever.

1 Ne. 10: 18

18 For he is the same

[Paul McNabb]

One more time, to go along with the half-dozen other times, here is the question:  What does God need to exist as God?  Now, if you're really intent on discussing the issue, then simply answer the question.  Remember, the subject is not me, it's LDS theology.

Sheesh, I don't know where you guys get all the time to post. Do you have jobs?

I'll take a crack at it again.

(1) I don't know what God needs to be God. I can't think of anything in the LDS scriptures that implies that God needs anything. We do know there are things He wants and things He doesn't want. We also know there are things He likes and things He dislikes. We even know there are things that make Him angry, things that make Him weep, and things that give Him joy. We also know that there are things that are "co-eternal" with Him. We know there are things He just won't ever do. There are attributes attributed to Him that we understand, or at least in part.

As for me, I know that God is loving, God is just, God is merciful, God is holy, God knows anything that needs to be known, and God can do anything He chooses to do. (Note my careful sidestepping around omniscience and omnipotence. ) I have no clue about His aseity and to me it is an absolute non-issue. Your theology is driving the aseity issue, not some abstract, universal, absolute theology.

(2) Even if we managed to come up with something God needs, I would have no problem whatsoever in claiming that He was still God. It is purely your theology that demands that God be aseitic in order to be God. It is purely your theology that requires aseity for perfection. I don't believe it. I don't believe the Bible requires it. And even if the Bible says that God is in fact aseitic, for me that doesn't mean that He couldn't be God otherwise.

Am I answering your question?

Since Mormons don't seem to have anything in their "theology" that deals with the issue of "what God needs to be God," maybe a better question is what do Mormons think God is like. Now that's something Mormons talk about. Since LDS are focused on how God reveals Himself rather than the theological/philosophical definitions of God, you'll find it a bit more productive to deal with LDS in these areas that actually form part of their religion.

You'll note that LDS almost always take the approach of "God is such-and-such because that was said by so-and-so or because I've experienced so-and-so" rather than "God is such-and-such because of the following line of reasoning." Of course Mormons reason about their faith, but an "authoritative statement about what God is" seems to always trump an "argument based on reasoning." If the "evidence" seems contradictory, LDS tend to say that someday we'll get more evidence or a better argument to resolve the conflict and then they just move on.

I know this can be baffling and frustrating for someone who has lived and studied only within a formal-theology-based belief system, but rather than trying to convert Mormons to being theologians, you will find it more profitable to try to understand Mormons on their own terms, and not try to impose a structure that is unrelated to their belief system.

If you don't know the following, or don't believe them, please reconsider trying to post on these message boards. You'll just get incredibly frustrated and it could ultimately affect your health...

(1) Mormons don't have a formal or systematic theology.

(2) Mormons don't believe a formal or systematic theology is required to know truth.

(3) Mormons believe that revelation from God always trumps reasoning from man, no matter how illogical the revelation may seem to be and no matter how airtight the logical argument appears.

[Teancum]

Alright, T, if what you've presented is true,

It is true based on Canon.

then why have you given me "official LDS canon" statements that do not back up your claim? 

uh, not sure I follow. I gave you official LDS canon that DOES back up my claim-God needs nothing to be God. The verses I gave you should not be objectionable at all to you as the confirm God's aseity.

For we know that the LDS God has not always been God;

I said I was basing my claim on LDS canon. The KFD is not LDS canon. However, I will concede that it is quasi official due to its usage. However, it has never been canonized.

even Joseph Smith said that.

Yes. But the KFD is not canon.

Was he not a man prior to becoming God?

I believe IF he was a man he was a man like Jesus not a puny little man like you or me.

So, right off the bat you've managed to contradict what is commonly believed among the LDS concerning who/what the LDS God was prior to becoming God.

I did not contradict canon. Speculative statements are not canon. The only statement about God being a man that I would concede as quasi official id the KFD. All other commentaries are not canon.

Furthermore, when one looks over the rest of your recitations, they will not support the LDS claim that he needs nothing to exist as God,

AS official canon they certainly do.

simply because we know from other statements from LDS leaders that the man who eventually became the LDS God was like one of us; a mortal man.

Certainly there have been statements to the effect. But they are not canon.

And what is the primary reason for anyone being mortal?  Sin.

Are you saying you God created us to sin?

And we know that the only thing that precludes one from sinning, is if they are as Jesus was, God very God, to begin with.  Yet, the man who became the LDS God was not God at the time of his mortality.  He became God, like you supposedly can, remember? 

No I don't remember. Based on the KFD it is reasonable to concede that if He was man it was in the same way Jesus is.

Therefore, he was a sinner, who needed a savior to atone for his sins.

No. He was the Savior.

  The question, then, being, who was this savior, and why would the LDS God no longer need him? Did not God's father assist him in his climb to divinity?

I cannot answer as you are putting words in my mouth.

So, T, while I appreciate the effort in providing what you think justifies the idea that the LDS God needs nothing to exist as God, I

Based on LDS CANON, you dope, I have justified that God needs nothing to be God.

'm sorry, but your effort only continues to demonstrate just the opposite.

Please show how my effort demonstrated just the opposite. Which passages demonstrate that God needs something. you are looking rather foolish by saying this.

And the farther we get along in discussing LDS theology, it will be further demonstrated just how imperfect and impotent the LDS God really is.  Hopefully, you'll stick with it long enough to see it.

OK. I will play you game:

Based on NON CANONICAL Statements by various LDS leaders To be God God needs:

1: A body

2: A mortal existence

3: Matter to organize but he cannot create it.

4: A wife

5: Increase or Children

6 A god before him

7 Ordinances as part of His mortal life.

8 Obedience

Happy now.

So have at it. regardless of what I say you will certainly correct me.

A discussion is impossible in with the cards stacked this way.

Teancum

[Zakuska]

And the Pomposity continues flowing forth PD1s keyboard...

The problem is, there haven't been responses worth noting. Instead, what has been offered, thus far, have been like the one you just wrote, or one like TS' above. Lots of diversionary tactics that never answer the questions. Lots of extraneous accusations intended to vilify the questioner. But, no responses. Now, if you would care to change all of that, then please answer the initial question, and we'll go from there.

Ah yes... we're all just deviant Merman pond scum.

All hail great PD1! Im not worthy!

[urroner]

Zak, that is "evil, pondscum Merman types"!!!!!

[Paul McNabb]

OK.  I will play you game:

Based on NON CANONICAL Statements by various LDS leaders To be God God needs:

1:  A body

2:  A mortal existence

3:  Matter to organize but he cannot create it.

4:  A wife

5:  Increase or Children

6  A god before him

7  Ordinances as part of His mortal life.

8  Obedience

Happy now.

So have at it.  regardless of what I say you will certainly correct me. 

A discussion is impossible in with the cards stacked this way.

Teancum

Teancum,

Even if one were to grant that those are things that are true about what God is or has, that does not imply that those are necessary attributes for Godhood.

You are answering just like a pure mormon. You are describing what God is based on what has been revealed in the scriptures and to the prophets.

PD1, is asking the pure "hellenized" Christianity question: What must God be given philosophical assumptions about the nature of ultimate, transcendent reality?

PD1 just doesn't get it. He can't even recognize the disconnect is both real and honest, let alone understand and accept it.

Teancom, you are talking in the language of semitic revelation. PD1 is talking in the language of Nicean philosophy. PD1 is trying to "trap" you into accepting his whole theological framework and arguing on his terms. PD1 will see you as being borderline irrational and as waffling; you end up viewing him as preaching the philosophies of men mingled with scripture.

God's aseity is an utterly irrelevant issue for everyday Mormon living. You are free to discuss it and think about it and believe whatever you want, but it has no impact on your salvation. When you and PD1 are both dead, you can ask God the details.

[Teancum]

OK.

[PD1]

One more time, to go along with the half-dozen other times, here is the question:

[PD1]

Alright, T, if what you've presented is true,

It is true based on Canon.

So, Joseph Smith, et al, believed and taught things to the Mormon people that were not true? Or is it that you're under the false impression that as long as something is not specifically stated in the LDS canon, then it is not Mormon doctrine?

Is President Lorenzo Snow

[Zakuska]

PD1,

So, Joseph Smith, et al, believed and taught things to the Mormon people that were not true? Or is it that you're under the false impression that as long as something is not specifically stated in the LDS canon, then it is not Mormon doctrine?

May I quote Plato to you PD1?

[PD1]

PD1, is asking the pure "hellenized" Christianity question: What must God be given philosophical assumptions about the nature of ultimate, transcendent reality?

Wait, wait, wait, Paul. I'm asking no such thing. I'm asking a biblically theological question, that even the ECF's discussed.

PD1 just doesn't get it.  He can't even recognize the disconnect is both real and honest, let alone understand and accept it.

No, it's the LDS who "don't get it." You cannot believe in a God who has all kinds of needs to maintain his existence, and in the same breath claim to be worshiping and serving a perfect God. Furthermore, if a being is as unstable as the Mormon God is, having to "progress" in accordance with laws established by someone else in the process, then once again, that is not the type of God spoken of in Scripture.

Teancom, you are talking in the language of semitic revelation.  PD1 is talking in the language of Nicean philosophy.  PD1 is trying to "trap" you into accepting his whole theological framework and arguing on his terms.  PD1 will see you as being borderline irrational and as waffling; you end up viewing him as preaching the philosophies of men mingled with scripture.

Again, I suggest you look through the Bible and see what it say about God and his independence (aseity). And when you're done there, may I suggest that you think about what the ECF's had to say about the same. You'll discover that Nicea has nothing to do with source of my question.

For while the Gentiles, by offering such things to those that are destitute of sense and hearing, furnish an example of madness; they, on the other hand by thinking to offer these things to God as if He needed them, might justly reckon it rather an act of folly than of divine worship. For He that made heaven and earth, and all that is therein, and gives to us all the things of which we stand in need, certainly requires none of those things which He Himself bestows on such as think of furnishing them to Him. But those who imagine that, by means of blood, and the smoke of sacrifices and burnt-offerings, they offer sacrifices [acceptable] to Him, and that by such honors they show Him respect,

[Alexander]

You cannot believe in a God who has all kinds of needs to maintain his existence, and in the same breath claim to be worshiping and serving a perfect God.

I'm not jumping into the discussion you are having with Paul, but I want to use this part of your message to ask a question.

What are the attributes of a perfect God that make him perfect and what are the biblical supports for each attribute?

[Tanyan]

I agree with Alexander, and use no Greek/Neo Platonic/Gnostic/Hellenistic/Rhetorical/Dialectic please.

[1dc]

What does God need to exist as God? Got it?

Well, let's see now. First you asked about a translation, got an answer and griped about it Next you you asked about aseity. Yep, got an answer and griped about it too.

To this most recent question the answer is it depends . . starting with which definition of God you may be using and perhaps going on from there. Trinitarian perspective of a united being? Only 1 person using who's definition of His attributes, etc. Scripture seems to indicate Christ needs Heavenly Father. Scripture seems to indicate Christ follows the model of Heavenly Father . . so that would lead one to speculate what we can't know without more scripture. The Holy Ghost needs a body to be resurrected. Lots of answers are possible to vague questions.

The purpose of discussion is to try and understand each other. Griping isn't discussion. So either honestly engage the responses or keep griping. But don't act like you didn't get answers because they raise problems for you. If you already know the answer you want, don't phrase your ideas as a question. Got it?

[1dc]

PD1 just doesn't get it.

[Zakuska]

PD1 Demonstrates his further disconnect:

Furthermore, if a being is as unstable as the Mormon God is, having to "progress" in accordance with laws established by someone else in the process, then once again, that is not the type of God spoken of in Scripture.

The laws already where. No one needed to "establish" them.

[urroner]

If God is love, doesn't He need something to love, even if it's Himself?

[PD1]

You cannot believe in a God who has all kinds of needs to maintain his existence, and in the same breath claim to be worshiping and serving a perfect God.

I'm not jumping into the discussion you are having with Paul, but I want to use this part of your message to ask a question.

What are the attributes of a perfect God that make him perfect and what are the biblical supports for each attribute?

Alexander, if God is perfect (Matt. 5:48), then any attribute which God has revealed that characterizes his person is perfect as well. The Bible speaks of God needing nothing

[PD1]

I agree with Alexander, and use no Greek/Neo Platonic/Gnostic/Hellenistic/Rhetorical/Dialectic please.

The LDS believe in a Hellenistic concept of God, who was once a man, and comes from a long line of gods, and you're concerned about my dialectic? Tanyan, just check out the biblical references, and the ECF statements that I've given you to read. You'll soon discover that if anyone is steeped in Hellenistic paganism, it is Mormon theology.

[PD1]

What does God need to exist as God?