Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

The uniqueness of the LDS Church


Recommended Posts

Posted
13 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

They don't believe Jesus is God incarnate. Surely you know this theplains.

Well we believe Jesus is a member of the Godhead.
And we believe he had a physical mortal body.

SO technically we DO believe Jesus is God incarnate.  We just don't believe he's the exact same person as the other two Godhead members.

Posted
1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

We just don't believe he's the exact same person as the other two Godhead members.

Just for clarity's sake, Trinitarians don't believe that Jesus is the exact same person, either.

Posted
8 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Just for clarity's sake, Trinitarians don't believe that Jesus is the exact same person, either.

True.  But the explanation of individuality is a little more complicated.  ;)

 

Posted
1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Yes...

They don't believe Jesus is God incarnate. Surely you know this theplains.

I believe that the Book of Mormon does teach that Jesus is God incarnate. 

Posted (edited)
36 minutes ago, MacGyver said:

I believe that the Book of Mormon does teach that Jesus is God incarnate. 

It does, because IMO Joseph Smith believed that way until he didn't. Some scriptures were at first...Jesus is the son of God, vs. Jesus is God.

Edited by Tacenda
Posted
3 hours ago, theplains said:

I view the term "only begotten" as he was the only one who is God-incarnate.

Me too, just as our Church teaches.

Posted
3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Well we believe Jesus is a member of the Godhead.
And we believe he had a physical mortal body.

SO technically we DO believe Jesus is God incarnate.  We just don't believe he's the exact same person as the other two Godhead members.

I also believe Jesus is a member of the Godhead. I also believe he had a physical mortal body and now has a glorified physical body that from the resurrection forward has been and is immortal. I also don't believe he is the exact same person as the other two Godhead members. Collectively the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are God in three persons. So I and almost every trinitarian I know agrees with you on all of the points in your reply. 

Posted
2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

It does, because IMO Joseph Smith believed that way until he didn't. Some scriptures were at first...Jesus is the son of God, vs. Jesus is God.

Joseph Smith consistantly taught that Jesus was both God and the Son of God. It's not either or. 

Joseph Smith’s understanding of God increased, but I he ever stopped teaching that Jesus Christ is God or that he is God incarnate, as in God taking on mortal human flesh. 

Posted
5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Except that's not what "beget" means in biblical terms.  And the writers of the gospel would know that.  Begotten specifically refers to conception.

Good afternoon my friend. . . I hope you are ok if I respectfully offer this to the conversation. The BOM often paraphrases from or uses Biblical terminology. One challenge is that to correctly interpret the English phrase used, we have to go back to the Bible and back to the Greek and see how the word was used in subsequent translations and other NT uses, especially in this case where "only begotten" is not a common English term.  In this case we have monogene to unigenito to unique or one of a kind. I would suggest that the derivative meaning of the word monogene during Roman times was one of a kind, or unique. Of course this still leaves us with a task to interpret what unique, or one-of-a-kind means. That is something we have to approach with humility and uncertainty given our human tendency to attach meanings to words that conform or confirm our own apriori beliefs. At times we all do that. Thanks and best wishes for a great weekend.

Posted
5 hours ago, theplains said:

Does the Book of Mormon understand the phrase "literal Son of God" differently than the Bible?
If yes, how so?

Since the phrase "literal son of God" does not occur in Bible or BofM, I'm not sure what you mean, Jim.  Perhaps you could explain what you are asking?

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, MacGyver said:

Joseph Smith consistantly taught that Jesus was both God and the Son of God. It's not either or. 

Joseph Smith’s understanding of God increased, but I he ever stopped teaching that Jesus Christ is God or that he is God incarnate, as in God taking on mortal human flesh. 

I noticed in my post I said it backwards. You're aware of changes in the wording in parts of the BoM aren't you? Some say Joseph Smith changed the words because he no longer believed in the Trinity. I've tried to find a link, but no luck.

Edited by Tacenda
Posted
2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

You're aware of changes in the wording in parts of the BoM aren't you? Some say Joseph Smith changed the words because he no longer believed in the Trinity.

Yes, I'm aware of the change from the virgin (Mary) being the mother of God to the mother of the Son of God. 

I don't believe that this is evidence that Joseph Smith once believed in the Trinity and then no longer did.

Posted
On 1/4/2022 at 6:55 AM, MacGyver said:

Before I decide if it's worth my time responding to each of your points, I have two questions for you.

I was also thinking that we needed to stop and clarify meaning, because it's possible that we are simply misunderstanding each other.  I wanted to come up with a better way to illustrate my objection, but I just haven't had the free time this week to think about it (I had over 40 billable hours this last week, and that was just the billable hours).  I didn't want to leave your question hanging, so I'll try to briefly respond to your questions in a way that I hope will make sense.

On 1/4/2022 at 6:55 AM, MacGyver said:

1) Why are you so opposed to the idea that the name Jehovah can apply to the Father and the Son?

I'm not opposed to the idea that the name Jehovah can apply to the Father and the Son for the same exact reasons that I am not opposed to the idea that the title "Father" can apply to the Father and the Son.   But we have to be clear on what is meant when applying those name titles.  

Jesus can rightly be called the "Father" in that he is (1) the authorized and appointed representative of the Father over this earth (sometimes referred to as divine investiture of authority), (2) Jesus is the "Father" of creation (as is used in Ether 4:7), and (3) he is the "Father" of salvation, in that he is called the "Father" of those who are spiritually born again (as in Mosiah 5:7 and Hebrews 2:12-13).  All of these are in a figurative sense. 

As for the name Jehovah, Jesus is Jehovah, and it was by this name that the Father was made known unto all mankind in the Old Testament, since Jesus is the appointed representative of the Father by divine investiture of authority.  Consequently, when Jesus, the word, was "made flesh and dwelt among us", it is totally consistent with my view for Jesus to have quoted the Old Testament texts to declare his authority and to establish his appointment by the Father, who was represented in the Old Testament by Jehovah.

My objection has to do with how the name of Jehovah was treated by Jesus from that point forward.  Even though he may have quoted Old Testament texts to establish his authority, he doesn't seem interact with God the Father using the name Jehovah (YHWH), as he doesn't call on him or personally refer to him by that name.  But I think it's possible to still recognize God the Father as the Lord God, since that is what he was called in the Old Testament.  I just don't think that means that his actual name is Jehovah, but that name symbolically represents the Father.

 

On 1/4/2022 at 6:55 AM, MacGyver said:

2) What evidence would you be willing to accept that the name Jehovah doesn't just apply to Jesus Christ but also to the Father?

What I was looking for was evidence that Jesus called upon the Father by the name of Jehovah, and that he personally interacted with his Father using that name in the New Testament.  

Posted
On 1/7/2022 at 11:47 AM, Tacenda said:

Yes...

They don't believe Jesus is God incarnate. Surely you know this theplains.

Are you saying the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints doesn’t teach that Jesus Christ was the Eternal God before he was born in the flesh on earth? If so, how do you account for the following words spoken by the pre-incarnate Christ to the brother of Jared? 

14 Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have life, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters.
15 And never have I showed myself unto man whom I have created, for never has man believed in me as thou hast. Seest thou that ye are created after mine own image? Yea, even all men were created in the beginning after mine own image.
16 Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh. (Ether 3)

Posted
On 1/7/2022 at 1:28 PM, Tacenda said:
On 1/7/2022 at 12:53 PM, MacGyver said:

I believe that the Book of Mormon does teach that Jesus is God incarnate. 

It does, because IMO Joseph Smith believed that way until he didn't. Some scriptures were at first...Jesus is the son of God, vs. Jesus is God.

Or it teaches both (and still does), and Joseph Smith only made changes to clear up some minor ambiguity in the text.

The teaching that Jesus is God incarnate:

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."

Mosiah 7:27:   "And because he said unto them that 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--"

Mosiah 13:34:  "Have they not said that God himself should come down among the children of men, and take upon him the form of man, and go forth in mighty power upon the face of the earth?"

Mosiah 15:1-2  "AND now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.   2 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--"

Mosiah 17:8:  "For thou hast said that God himself should come down among the children of men; and now, for this cause thou shalt be put to death unless thou wilt recall all the words which thou hast spoken evil concerning me and my people."

The teaching that Jesus is God:

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 11:14:  "Arise and come forth unto me, that ye may thrust your hands into my side, and also that ye may feel the prints of the nails in my hands and in my feet, that ye may know that I am the God of Israel, and the God of the whole earth, and have been slain for the sins of the world."

And don't forget the title page of the Book of Mormon, which states as part of the purpose for the Book of Mormon:

"And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that JESUS is the CHRIST, the ETERNAL GOD, manifesting himself unto all nations-"

Apparently Joseph missed changing those parts :)
 

Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Or it teaches both (and still does), and Joseph Smith only made changes to clear up some minor ambiguity in the text.

The teaching that Jesus is God incarnate:

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."

Mosiah 7:27:   "And because he said unto them that 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--"

Mosiah 13:34:  "Have they not said that God himself should come down among the children of men, and take upon him the form of man, and go forth in mighty power upon the face of the earth?"

Mosiah 15:1-2  "AND now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.   2 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--"

Mosiah 17:8:  "For thou hast said that God himself should come down among the children of men; and now, for this cause thou shalt be put to death unless thou wilt recall all the words which thou hast spoken evil concerning me and my people."

The teaching that Jesus is God:

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 11:14:  "Arise and come forth unto me, that ye may thrust your hands into my side, and also that ye may feel the prints of the nails in my hands and in my feet, that ye may know that I am the God of Israel, and the God of the whole earth, and have been slain for the sins of the world."

And don't forget the title page of the Book of Mormon, which states as part of the purpose for the Book of Mormon:

"And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that JESUS is the CHRIST, the ETERNAL GOD, manifesting himself unto all nations-"

Apparently Joseph missed changing those parts :)
 

Thanks, this was very informative! What are your feelings on God/Jesus being flesh and blood and not just a spirit in heaven like other faiths believe. Also, do other faiths get confused when we call Jesus our brother, not God?

Edited by Tacenda
Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

First, let me say that we don't believe that God has a body of "flesh and blood".  The scriptural terminology for resurrected beings is "flesh and bones" (Luke 24:39, D&C 129:1-2, D&C 130:22).  The phrase "flesh and blood" generally refers to mortal men in scripture, and is sometimes used in contrast to the incorruptible things of heaven (like in Matthew 16:15-17).  It is an important distinction.

For those Christians who believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ, with him having a body of "flesh and bones", it seems to me that Jesus having a physical body poses a problem to the general idea that God is merely a spirit and can't have a body, because these same Christian will also tell you that Jesus is God.  But if God doesn't have a body, then how can Jesus be God and have a body?  Of course the doctrine of the Trinity teaches that the Father and Son are separate persons within the one being that is God, but it still introduces a physical aspect into that being.

And it always astounds me at the number of Christians I have encountered that don't believe in the physical resurrection.  Those who hold this view see heaven as a spirit realm and find physical things (like bodies) incompatible with heaven.  

But our view (and I would say even the Bible view) of "heaven" includes all the creations of God.  We are told that the meek inherit the earth (Psa 37:9-11, 18-22, 34, Matt 5:5), and even though the earth is "changed", the earth abides forever (Psa 78:69, Psa 104:5, Eccl 1:4, Rev 21:1).  Heaven and earth come together when all things are reconciled.  So our view that God the Father and Jesus, and all of us having a body fits perfectly in to the big picture. 

Terminology can be confusing between faiths, for any faith.  Most Latter-day Saints immediately think of God the Father when they hear the word "God", and when someone asks them if they believe Jesus is God, the question is sometimes perceived as being asked if Jesus is God the Father.  And the Christian asking the question might even be thinking that Jesus and God the Father are the same being (even if they distinguish between the persons).  And if the Latter-day Saint answers back that Jesus is not God (the Father), that is perceived by the Christian as denying the Deity of Jesus Christ.

So the best thing to do is explain the terminology.  I always answer in the affirmative that we teach that Jesus is God, because our scriptures clearly teach this (even in the Doctrine and Covenants).  But I also explain what I mean by that.  We believe in the Divinity of Jesus Christ, but we don't believe that Jesus and God the Father are one being. 

And when we refer to Jesus as our brother, that can also be confusing.  Biblically it is sound doctrine, but most Christians have been taught that there is a vast separation between the kind of being that God is and man, while we teach that God is the very Father of our spirits (Heb 12:9) and therefore we are all the kind of being that God is (we are his "offspring", or "genos" as it says in the Greek in Acts 17:28-29).  And Jesus is even said to have been the "firstbegotten" of the Father (Heb 1:6).  And while the fall of Adam brought about a separation from God, we are reconciled to God by the death of his Son (Rom 5:10).  As it says, speaking of Jesus in Hebrews 2:16-17: "For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people." 

For Christians who have been taught that there is a vast difference between God and man, the idea that Jesus is our "brother" is troublesome and they see it as diminishing his divinity.  They typically see the doctrine as man trying to bring himself up to the level of God, or man bringing Jesus down to the level of man.  But that is backward, and they don't get it.  The whole reason that Jesus came to earth in the incarnation is to make us aware of our relationship to our Heavenly Father and provide a way back to him.  If God is our Father, are we not all his children?  Didn't Jesus condescend to the level of mortal man in the incarnation?  Did doing so diminish his Divinity?  I think not.  Jesus redeemed us from the fall and brings us back into the family of God.  We become heirs of God and joint-heirs with Jesus Christ.  God put his hand down to us to bring us back up to him, and he did so through his divine Son, our elder brother Jesus Christ.  It's a wonderful and sound doctrine. 

Well, when you put it like that! :)

I feel I've been enlightened, more than I've learned anywhere, thank you!

But I've got another for you..

how do we get children when there's no blood? I'm speaking about those in the celestial kingdom.

Edited by Tacenda
Posted
9 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

how do we get children when there's no blood? I'm speaking about those in the celestial kingdom.

I don't think it works like that, and since it hasn't been explained anywhere, what I think doesn't matter :).   Why would we need blood for a spirit "birth" (whatever that means)?

Posted
On 1/7/2022 at 12:32 PM, Calm said:

Which means exactly what to you?

God became incarnate as Jesus Christ through a miraculous conception, but not with any
physical interaction between Heavenly Father and Mary.

Posted
On 1/7/2022 at 6:04 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Since the phrase "literal son of God" does not occur in Bible or BofM, I'm not sure what you mean, Jim.  Perhaps you could explain what you are asking?

I'll requote what the Ensign article says about the Book of Mormon.

The uniqueness of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints rests upon 
several basic principles and ordinances that the world has long forsaken in 
whole or in part. These unique features are taught in the Bible, but through
misinterpretation and misunderstanding they have been gradually deleted from 
the tenets of modern Christianity.

The most important principle, of course, is acceptance of Jesus Christ as the 
literal Son of God and the Savior of the world
.

This Ensign article says that the most important principle (Jesus being the literal Son
of God and Savior of the world) is taught in the Bible but that this principle has been
misinterpreted or misunderstood.

Does the Book of Mormon reveal to people how they should properly understand and 
interpret Jesus as the "literal Son of God and Savior of the world" and how this alternate
understanding and interpretation has been deleted from the tenets of modern Christianity?

Or is the proper way to understand and interpret this most important principle not taught
in the Book of Mormon?

Posted
On 1/7/2022 at 2:53 PM, MacGyver said:

I believe that the Book of Mormon does teach that Jesus is God incarnate. 

I believe you are correct.

Posted
On 1/10/2022 at 10:58 AM, Tacenda said:

Thanks, this was very informative! What are your feelings on God/Jesus being flesh and blood and not just a spirit in heaven like other faiths believe. Also, do other faiths get confused when we call Jesus our brother, not God?

Hi, Tacenda. I'm new to this board and am intrigued by the conversation in this thread. 

In answer to your possibly rhetorical question:

Calling the Lord Jesus "our brother" can contribute to a historical Christian thinking that the LDS person is experiencing category confusion. The foundational teaching that God is creator and man is creature (albeit in God's image) is often rooted in John 1:1.

Posted
59 minutes ago, theplains said:

I'll requote what the Ensign article says about the Book of Mormon.

The uniqueness of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints rests upon 
several basic principles and ordinances that the world has long forsaken in 
whole or in part. These unique features are taught in the Bible, but through
misinterpretation and misunderstanding they have been gradually deleted from 
the tenets of modern Christianity.

The most important principle, of course, is acceptance of Jesus Christ as the 
literal Son of God and the Savior of the world
.

This Ensign article says that the most important principle (Jesus being the literal Son
of God and Savior of the world) is taught in the Bible but that this principle has been
misinterpreted or misunderstood.

Does the Book of Mormon reveal to people how they should properly understand and 
interpret Jesus as the "literal Son of God and Savior of the world"
and how this alternate
understanding and interpretation has been deleted from the tenets of modern Christianity?

Or is the proper way to understand and interpret this most important principle not taught
in the Book of Mormon?

The late Professor Monte Nyman, the author of that article, was a member of the BYU Religion faculty, and had a doctorate of education (not a PhD in Bible or biblical languages).  His opinions were his own, and are not to be attributed to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  It is helpful to allow the Book of Mormon to speak for itself, and naturally that involves interpretation of various passages.  You are certainly capable of doing your own interpretations, Jim.  So, what do you conclude from your own reading of the text?

Do you agree with Nyman that "the most important principle...is acceptance of Jesus Christ as the literal Son of God and the Savior of the world"?  Or does the Gospel of Jesus Christ have far more important principles?  And what might they be?  Do you think that the Bible and Book of Mormon agree on those most important principles?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...