Are Mormons' Christians?

[PD1]

Paul, none of this has to do with creedalism. Yet, it has everything to do with biblical revelation. I quoted this earlier, but will do so again for your edification. Acts 17:24-25 says,

"The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; neither is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all life and breath and all things."

From this passage, what do you think it is talking about in respect to what we've been talking about?

[PD1]

PD1,

I'm truly sorry that you feel that you cannot answer what is a fairly basic question about God. Do you not realize that your whole eternal destiny could be in jeopardy? May God help you, before time runs out, to see Him as He is, and not what LDS theology has characterized Him as being.

In Jesus name,

Amen.

1 JUDGE not, that ye be not judged.

2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother

[Del March]

Now, God is above justice?

God is FREE from justice. I already said so.

Just because you READ otherwise in what I said before doesn't mean I thought so.

For we know that the LDS God was not always God, but became God.  Even Joseph Smith taught that.  Therefore, since God became God, and was in fact a man prior to, then just what was needed by this God for him to become, and what is needed now for him to maintain.  You say nothing, but is that necessarily true?

First: you are the one who argues, without any support from the Bible that God couldn't be God if He needed to do something in order to maintain His Godhood.

Second, just because we have had no revelation as to how God became a God and about how He MAYBE maintains His Godhood, doesn't mean that you can argue that this necessarily implies that God didn't become a God and isn't a God and will stop being a God someday. What you are doing is called SPECULATION. And when it is based on NOTHING as yours is right now, then it is POINTLESS.

But, for now, are you saying that there is, absolutely, not one thing that God needs for him to able to maintain his existence as God?

As far as I know, no, there's nothing God needs for Him to be able to maintain His existence as God.

Happy?

Del

[Zakuska]

No one is judging anyone. em stated that he could not answer the question. I was simply typing a prayer to God that one day, soon, em would be able to.

Besides, if one cannot answer some pretty basic questions about the person God, especially when they claim to be one of God's, then ought that not to tell the questioner about the relationship the questionee has with God?

Sounded like a prononcement of Judgment to me.

The Person God? So God is a man huh?

[PD1]

I'm truly sorry that you feel that you cannot answer what is a fairly basic question about God. Do you not realize that your whole eternal destiny could be in jeopardy? May God help you, before time runs out, to see Him as He is, and not what LDS theology has characterized Him as being.

Your impossible dude - you can't take time to clarify what your trying to get at and then start preaching from your perch.

Fine - let's go to the basics and if you can not answer these questions. Your at risk of hell fire if you can not!

Can God create something so big he can not move it?

Can God make a distance so long that He can not travel it?

What was God doing for the infinite amount of time before the creation?

Your soul rest on your ability to answer these questions.

P.S. I've always wanted to meet the guy in Monte Python and the Holy Grail who was the keeper of the bridge. "Answer me these questions three". Now I have met him.

What is there to clarify? I asked if God needed something to exist as God? You said you couldn't answer the question. I prayed for you, and now you're all bent out of shape. Anyway, to answer your questions:

(1) Since God cannot defy himself, or do that which is contrary to his nature, the question makes no sense.

(2) See response #1.

(3) There is no such thing as time in infinity, and according to what scripture tells us, God and Jesus, and most certainly the Holy Spirit, were enjoying each other's company (Jn. 17:5), glorifying one another.

Thanks for the questions, though, but my soul's destiny rests on much more important questions than those which are illogical, or ignorant of scriptural pronouncements. And since you refuse to answer my question about the person of God, I will simply let you know that I will be praying for you. Take care.

[PD1]

If you want to argue that LDS believe God is not perfect, then you do not understand what LDS believe.

[Zakuska]

PD1,

Thanks for the questions, though, but my soul's destiny rests on much more important questions than those which are illogical, or ignorant of scriptural pronouncements.

What kind of like this response?

(1) Since God cannot defy himself, or do that which is contrary to his nature, the question makes no sense.

Sounds like this God of yours isnt powerful enough, and someone is guilty of limiting God. How is your God omnipotent if there is something he cannot do?

There are certian laws even God must obey.

1) Thou shall not bare false witness. God is not a liar.

2) Thou shall not kill. (Hmm this one could get us all introuble since God is a blood thirsty meroder)

[YH8]

According to you PD1, God is not subject to any law or principle, right?

Can God go against His word? Can God lie?

I'm guessing you'll say no. If so, He is subject to laws and principles. And thus, you contradict yourself.

I answer, yes . . . God can go against His word and God can lie. However, He won't go against His word and He won't lie. Otherwise, He would cease to be God. Again, He is subject to laws and principles. No matter how one slices it, God is subject to laws and principles and yet He is still perfect.

God is with body, parts, and passions. If not, He is not a personal God. God chooses to comply with the laws and principles of godliness, if not He is not a personal God. God relates to us, if not He is not a personal God. Somehow, God and humankind are of the same genus (or whatever the correct word), if not God is not a personal God.

If perfection means one does not change and one becomes perfect, it means that one no longer changes.

Even though I hate this phrase, "the Bible says" that we become perfected in Christ, right? If so, then we don't change after that. In fact, BAC/EVs believe once saved one cannot sin, right? So, it sounds like you believe that imperfect humans can become perfected and then not change. If so, why is it so hard to think about God progressing from something else (exactly what, LDS are not sure, and if intellectually honest you'll concede this point), becoming perfect and never changing?

[PD1]

So when I die and stand before the Lord Jesus and kneel and say "my Lord and my God", He will check to see if in mortality I believed properly in Sola Scriptura and the Trinity and Sola Fide before accepting my faith in Him.

Just out of curiosity, if I am a KJV-only guy, believe in modalism, and believe in election only, is that close enough to correct belief so that my faith in Christ counts?

Inquiring minds want to know.

You were doing so well, then you took a lefthand turn on me.

Paul, the issue is God. Do you believe that God needs something to exist as God?

Would God be God if all there was was God?

Good question. What's the LDS answer?

That was directed at you. Are we playing games now?

As far as "the LDS response" to this question. It is a matter of speculation. I'm guessing you will grab on to an "improper" response and not let it go - much like your insistence on claiming that LDS do not believe God is perfect because you interpret their beliefs to mean as much. Nevermind what LDS actually believe, stick with your interpretation of what they believe and act as if there are no other options - much like your view of the Bible. Sure there are other interpretations, but yours is the only one that has the possibility of being valid a la some sort of empirical evidence that you've got.

In other words, I'm hesitant to give you my speculation on this matter, because it appears you are not interested in discussion, but rather telling LDS how it is.

No one is playing games. I simply asked you to answer your own question. So, what's the answer?

As far as anything being a matter of speculation, it is, in fact, no such thing. It is a matter of revelation, and how scripture conflicts with LDS ideas about God. The question becomes, which are you going to believe: What the Bible has to say about God and aseity, or what the LDS have to say about God becoming God, and his obvious needs along the way, if not those which are still in place for him to be able to maintain his status?

And I'm not asking for speculation. I'm asking for answers to my question concerning God's need(s) to be God. Does he have any? If so, then how can that which is in need be perfect, and why would you want to worship something or someone that is imperfect? And if you're worshiping something that is imperfect, then what should that say about your "Christianity?" Thanks.

[Del March]

The problem, though, is that the LDS are not comparable to the Samaritans.  For the LDS theology espouses a belief about God that is inconsistent with what Jesus had to say about Him.     

As did the Samaritans.

Jesus said to be perfect, "as your heavenly Father is perfect."

And as I already pointed out, if God was never a man and we can never be God, then this injonction was comparing apples and oranges. If men and gods are two completely different species, then men can NEVER be perfect like gods. If perfection is the attribute of the gods, and men can never become gods, then men can never be perfect.

Yet, when one considers that the LDS God has not always been God, and was in fact a mortal man at one time, then begin to see that this individual has some serious issues and needs inconsistent with Jesus' idea of perfection.

Quite the opposite in fact. If (and that's a big IF) God was once an imperfect man, who became a perfect God through progression, then it makes perfect sense that Jesus would ask us to be perfect like God: because it is then possible. IOW, Jesus would be saying :"you can become perfect: your Father did."

Let me ask you: what do you think Jesus was saying when He told us to be perfect? Do you believe any man can be perfect? If not, then why do you think Jesus asked us to be perfect anyway?

For instance, when this God existed as a mortal man, what caused his mortality?  And when he became God, which deals with potential, what governing principle is God subordinate to which precludes him from potentially ever ceasing from being God?  It certainly cannot be him as the principle, for the principle must have been in place long before he ever became God.  Furthermore, the principle or "law" had to have been founded upon someone, rather that no one, otherwise God would be subject to something impersonal, and that does not make any sense. 

Speculations, speculations and more speculations.

Whatever God was before we were created doesn't matter. What matters is what He is now: God.

Rejecting what He is now because of some unfounded speculations on what He might have been before we were created is completely absurd.

but it should be clear that the God the Samaritans eventually place their faith in was not the same God the LDS say they believe in.

That's pretty much a given, but that was never my point. My point was that the Samaritans' theology was vastly different from the Jews', including on the all-important matter (in your idea) of the nature of God. And yet Jesus accepted their belief in Him as their Christ. Why would He refuse ours?

Del

[YH8]

Y, did you not read what I said? I said the LDS are telling me what they believe in black and white. The question then is, do the LDS understand what they believe in light of the questions I'm asking?

Spare me.

You're not interested in discussion are you. Rather, you talk, we listen.

[Paul McNabb]

Paul, none of this has to do with creedalism. Yet, it has everything to do with biblical revelation. I quoted this earlier, but will do so again for your edification. Acts 17:24-25 says,

"The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; neither is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all life and breath and all things."

From this passage, what do you think it is talking about in respect to what we've been talking about?

I believe it has absolutely nothing to do with what's being discussed here.

This is from Paul's sermon on Mars' Hill to the Athenians. He is surrounded by pagan temples and he is beginning his sermon. He is getting the crowd to listen to him. He is telling them there is a living God that is over all things--greater than all their temples and all the gods displayed in and around the Areopagus. This God doesn't need any offerings or any structures or anything else. This God of whom Paul speaks is THE GOD.

It has absolutely nothing, zilch, to do with the origin of God or God's aseity. It is not talking about God's ontological nature or his philosophical self-sufficiency. This is Paul giving the first Christian sermon these folks have ever heard. He's getting ready to tell them about Jesus. He's not teaching Philosophy 401.

Trying to squeeze this kind of meaning out of these scriptures is merely taking a preconceived doctrine and hunting for scriptures that seem to support it. Everyone does this, Mormons too, so don't feel too bad.

[YH8]

As far as anything being a matter of speculation, it is, in fact, no such thing. It is a matter of revelation, and how scripture conflicts with LDS ideas about God. The question becomes, which are you going to believe: What the Bible has to say about God and aseity, or what the LDS have to say about God becoming God, and his obvious needs along the way, if not those which are still in place for him to be able to maintain his status?

And they say LDS don't think for themselves! When did you stop thinking? Oh that's right, things LDS aren't worth thinking about*, right? Becasue they just can't be true, right? The Bible says, right? Not . . . BAC/EVs interpret the Bible to say, right?

* as per PD1: What you believe about God does matter. For worshiping someone or something other than the God revealed in Scripture makes one an idolater, not a Christian. And we know that there is no room in heaven for those practicing idolatry.

[Zakuska]

All... a few observations... The crux of the matter seems to be this.

If Im reading straight.... According to PD1....

1) Somehow God once being a man or some how being less than perfect or he some how in "becoming" a God, somehow implies that he cannot be God.

I would like to know why based on what PD1 thinks the bible reveals. How this is inconsistant?

[YH8]

As for misunderstanding the LDS concept of God, again, is it me that is doing the misunderstanding, or is it the LDS who really understand who their God is versus the God of the Bible? Acts 17:24-25 states,

"The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; neither is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all life and breath and all things."

What version of the Bible are you quoting here? The KJV states:

24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;

25 Neither is worshipped with men

[Del March]

The question becomes, which are you going to believe:  What the Bible has to say about God and aseity, or what the LDS have to say about God becoming God...?

And what, exactly, does the Bible have to say about aseity? I'm still waiting for your answer on that one.

Del

[YH8]

(3) There is no such thing as time in infinity, and according to what scripture tells us, God and Jesus, and most certainly the Holy Spirit, were enjoying each other's company (Jn. 17:5), glorifying one another.

Don't you also believe ("scripture tells us") in the Trinity? Then God is hanging out with himself, glorifying himself?

[emaughan]

Don't you also believe ("scripture tells us") in the Trinity? Then God is hanging out with himself, glorifying himself?

Don't forget:

God prayed to himself often.

God said He was greater than Himself.

God sent voices to Himself to testify of Himself.

God called out to Himself on the cross.

God abandond Himself on the cross.

God declared Him and us as co-heirs of Himself.

God said that we shouldn't worship Him that we should worship Him (that one really makes me go huhhh?)

God was in the beginning with Himself (must be multiple personality syndrom).

God resurected but had not yet acended to Himself.

God refers to Himself as His Father and in some cases as His son.

God is His own mediator between us and God.

When God let Stephen see Him, He caused Stephen to be stricken with cross-eyes because Stephen saw two beings - not one.

Gee the trinity is so obvious 3 in 1, 1 in 3. Anyone reading the scripts should see it is so plain as day - except for that mystery thing.

[Paul McNabb]

Paul, none of this has to do with creedalism. Yet, it has everything to do with biblical revelation. I quoted this earlier, but will do so again for your edification. Acts 17:24-25 says,

"The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; neither is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all life and breath and all things."

From this passage, what do you think it is talking about in respect to what we've been talking about?

I have noticed something over the years in talking to many conservative Protestants. There seems to be the belief that Christian doctrine originated from the Bible and the philosophical framework was built up around scripture rather than the reverse.

It is almost like people believe the following occurred sometime in the past:

"Hey, Claudius! Come over here. Look what I've found. I was just reading Acts 17:24-25. I bet this means that God is aseitic. No one ever suggested that before! I'm glad I'm reading the Bible to create our philosophic framework!"

The reality appears to be a gradual adoption of a Hellenistic approach to theology, with people then looking in the scriptures for support for that theology.

[Zakuska]

By golly I think you are right Paul. Is that not what is taught in Bible study every week?

Test every Idea against the ruler stick the bible.

Did you know God invented the light bulb?

Whats even worse.... is the fact that its a nuance in the english. Not even the Original language.

Modern Christians seem to aprozch the scriptures like the scribes and the Pharasees of old.

Lets let Christ tell us about the Authority of Scripture.

Matt 7

24

[PD1]

Y, did you not read what I said?  I said the LDS are telling me what they believe in black and white.  The question then is, do the LDS understand what they believe in light of the questions I'm asking?

Spare me.

You're not interested in discussion are you. Rather, you talk, we listen.

Actually, Y, your questions seem to be backwards. For if you really wanted to discuss, you would. Instead, you ignore what has been said, including the questions asked of you, just so that you can dictate whatever conversation that you think you want to have. The fact of the matter is that I know what the LDS believe when it comes to the person of God, because they keep giving the details. And when coupled with my questions, those same beliefs do not represent sound theology.

I'm sorry that you feel it necessary to act hostile when confronted with those results, and would rather divert the conversation instead of participate in it. Such is your choice. If you change your mind, though, and want to actually engage the topic, please do. Otherwise, I will simply assume that you are guilty of the charge that you're trying to lay at my feet. Take care.

[PD1]

Paul, none of this has to do with creedalism.  Yet, it has everything to do with biblical revelation.  I quoted this earlier, but will do so again for your edification.  Acts 17:24-25 says,

"The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; neither is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all life and breath and all things."

From this passage, what do you think it is talking about in respect to what we've been talking about?

I believe it has absolutely nothing to do with what's being discussed here.

This is from Paul's sermon on Mars' Hill to the Athenians. He is surrounded by pagan temples and he is beginning his sermon. He is getting the crowd to listen to him. He is telling them there is a living God that is over all things--greater than all their temples and all the gods displayed in and around the Areopagus. This God doesn't need any offerings or any structures or anything else. This God of whom Paul speaks is THE GOD.

It has absolutely nothing, zilch, to do with the origin of God or God's aseity. It is not talking about God's ontological nature or his philosophical self-sufficiency. This is Paul giving the first Christian sermon these folks have ever heard. He's getting ready to tell them about Jesus. He's not teaching Philosophy 401.

Trying to squeeze this kind of meaning out of these scriptures is merely taking a preconceived doctrine and hunting for scriptures that seem to support it. Everyone does this, Mormons too, so don't feel too bad.

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

[Del March]

There is scriptural support for God's aseity,

Where?

(That's only the third time I ask)

Del

[Del March]

Conversely, to say that God ... is omniscient, yet does not know future decisions,

??

Where did you see that we believe that God doesn't know future decisions?

Del

[PD1]

As far as anything being a matter of speculation, it is, in fact, no such thing.  It is a matter of revelation, and how scripture conflicts with LDS ideas about God.  The question becomes, which are you going to believe:  What the Bible has to say about God and aseity, or what the LDS have to say about God becoming God, and his obvious needs along the way, if not those which are still in place for him to be able to maintain his status?

And they say LDS don't think for themselves! When did you stop thinking? Oh that's right, things LDS aren't worth thinking about*, right? Becasue they just can't be true, right? The Bible says, right? Not . . . BAC/EVs interpret the Bible to say, right?

* as per PD1: What you believe about God does matter. For worshiping someone or something other than the God revealed in Scripture makes one an idolater, not a Christian. And we know that there is no room in heaven for those practicing idolatry.

Y, instead of attacking me personally, why not just "think" about what you've been asked to comment on, and leave it at that? What does the LDS God need to exist as God? The Bible says that God needs nothing, but that all things created need God for their existence. Is the LDS view of God consistent with biblical revelation? Apparently not, according to some of your friends and leaders. So, if the LDS are worshiping an imperfect God, due to his need, then why would they not be guilty of committing idolatry? And if the LDS are committing idolatry, and the Bible is quite specific that idolaters do not inherit heaven, then (1) what is going to be their ultimate demise, and (2) how can they prevent such a destiny?

Think on those things, and please reply, since you obviously "think" incorrectly that what the LDS "think" are not worth considering.