He was the one who kept on and on about free will and ex nihilo being incompatible.
Announcement
Collapse
LDS - Mormonism Guidelines
Theists only.
Look! It's a bird, no it's a plane, no it's a bicycle built for two!
This forum is a debate area to discuss issues pertaining to the LDS - Mormons. This forum is generally for theists only, and is generaly not the area for debate between atheists and theists. Non-theists may not post here without first obtaining permission from the moderator of this forum. Granting of such permission is subject to Moderator discretion - and may be revoked if the Moderator feels that the poster is not keeping with the spirit of the World Religions Department.
Due to the sensitive nature of the LDS Temple Ceremonies to our LDS posters, we do not allow posting exact text of the temple rituals, articles describing older versions of the ceremony, or links that provide the same information. However discussion of generalities of the ceremony are not off limits. If in doubt, PM the area mod or an Admin
Non-theists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.
Forum Rules: Here
Look! It's a bird, no it's a plane, no it's a bicycle built for two!
This forum is a debate area to discuss issues pertaining to the LDS - Mormons. This forum is generally for theists only, and is generaly not the area for debate between atheists and theists. Non-theists may not post here without first obtaining permission from the moderator of this forum. Granting of such permission is subject to Moderator discretion - and may be revoked if the Moderator feels that the poster is not keeping with the spirit of the World Religions Department.
Due to the sensitive nature of the LDS Temple Ceremonies to our LDS posters, we do not allow posting exact text of the temple rituals, articles describing older versions of the ceremony, or links that provide the same information. However discussion of generalities of the ceremony are not off limits. If in doubt, PM the area mod or an Admin
Non-theists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Mormon Trinity
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View PostHe was the one who kept on and on about free will and ex nihilo being incompatible.For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>
Comment
-
Originally posted by seven7up View PostFor starters, let's not pretend that Christians have always represented the "Trinity" consistently. There is STILL debate amongst Christians concerning that doctrine.That's what
- She
Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
- Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)
I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
- Stephen R. Donaldson
Comment
-
From a paper given on May 3 at the 1980 Mormon Association Meetings in Canandaigua, New York
So, things started out pretty "contemporary" with other religions, even though Mormonism was to set all other religions aside, and Smith was to establish the "TRUE Religion". (bolding in the articles is mine, of course)
We can start there.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Before 1835, Mormon publications at the time seemed to assume that God or Christ was the creator, but didn't differentiate much at all between Christ and God. Who was in charge of these publications at that time?
Smith's 1832 account of the First Vision spoke only of one personage. In the 1838 version, of course, there's the differentiation.
So WHY would God have Smith denounce ALL OTHER RELIGIONS, then borrow their Trinity, only to poo-poo it later? Again, God is not the author of confusion.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostBefore 1835, Mormon publications at the time seemed to assume that God or Christ was the creator, but didn't differentiate much at all between Christ and God. Who was in charge of these publications at that time?
Smith's 1832 account of the First Vision spoke only of one personage. In the 1838 version, of course, there's the differentiation.
So WHY would God have Smith denounce ALL OTHER RELIGIONS, then borrow their Trinity, only to poo-poo it later? Again, God is not the author of confusion.I am Punkinhead.
"I have missed you, Oh Grand High Priestess of the Order of the Stirring Pot"
~ Cow Poke aka CP aka Creacher aka ke7ejx's apprentice....
Comment
-
Originally posted by ke7ejx View PostThe God of Mormonism is.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Godhead in early Mormonism
7UP: Are you asking whether or not Joseph Smith received from God every concept (related to the nature of the Godhead) all at once at the very beginning?
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostAnd AGAIN I answer, no --- I'm specifically referring to what I THINK should be a very important and fundamental doctrine -- Who JESUS is.
7UP: Tell me who you think Jesus is, and tell me where you think Joseph got it wrong.
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostThat's not important.
Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post-- what's important is that Smith had a "clean sheet" upon which to write what God said about Jesus. A reasonable person would THINK that, given this incredibly important "ALL religions are corrupt and I'm here to set things straight" moment, that Smith would have gotten it right the first time.
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostAfter all, why did God pick Smith to condemn all religions and establish a new one, if Smith was "just another guy" who couldn't get things right the first time?
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostBecause God is not the author of confusion.
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostSmith SUPPOSEDLY had things handed to him "on a golden platter" (so to speak) and professed to be speaking directly for God.
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostI suspected I would get "the party line", but I had thought you were a little more "straight shooter" than you appear to be.
7UP: I live in Texas, like you, where there are not many LDS. I listen to Christian radio, and depending on the pastor, 80-95% of the time I find myself agreeing with what is being taught.
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostI think the Mormon Church is trying everything it can to be "more Christian", and Mormon teachings are becoming more like Christian denominations. ... So, have these religions suddenly become "acceptable"?
A while back, I was listening to a Christian radio show, where the pastor/host told a story about how he always taught about salvation throughout the decades of his ministry. The emphasis of his sermons were were always about grace and forgiveness. One day a caller dialed up and asked simply , "What about repentance?" This question shook him. The pastor said that one of his biggest regrets was preaching an incomplete gospel, whereby he did not sufficiently preach about turning away from sin.
This is a theme that I have seen stressed more and more frequently in some Christian churches, which is an improvement from a lot of the 'Free Grace Theology' points of view. In other words, in certain groups of Christianity, I see more criticism of those advocating an acquiescence in sin by allowing greatly sinful behavior to exist together with the same assurance of salvation as someone who does not currently allow greatly sinful behavior. Some of these teachings are headed more in the LDS direction.
Originally posted by Bill the CatHe was the one who kept on and on about free will and ex nihilo being incompatible.
7UP: I consider all of my own weaknesses and flaws and often wonder, "What would I have done if I had been raised in that culture and placed in those very difficult circumstances? Would I have done any better?" Sure, it is easy to look back and snipe and say, "oh, well I would of done this or that." But as they say, hindsight is 20/20.
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostI imagine you're a pretty decent guy. I would think that you would recognize the incredibly important task you had before you, having been chosen by God to set things straight, and to establish the "REAL" Church of God.
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostTherefore, I would (and I imagine you would, too) be VERY careful about my pronouncements, personal character, trustworthiness, sexual conduct, faithfulness to my wife, consistency of doing what I say, etc. I wouldn't shrug it off as, "aw shucks, boys will be boys, and people will just have to accept me as I am".
-7up
Comment
-
7UP: For starters, let's not pretend that Christians have always represented the "Trinity" consistently. There is STILL debate amongst Christians concerning that doctrine.
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View PostNo there isn't. There is debate between Christians and those who THINK they are Christians, but not between Christians.
Case in point.
However, the way Bill handles those theological debates is to brand those he disagrees with as heretics and non-Christians. Problem solved ... right Bill?
Jesus stands "at the right hand of the Father".* This is a position which represents the second person in authority.* This contradicts the idea of the members of the "Trinity" being "coequal".* We read in verse 3 that Jesus is not the same substance as the Father, but instead is a COPY of the Father or the "image/stamped imprint/facsimile/ of the Father's person".* There is a difference because the phrase "same substance" implies that they are literally the same being. That is not what the scriptures said.*
Bill brought up the earlier discussion of Ex Nihilo creation, whereby I argued that there is no true free will in Ex Nihilo creation theology. I also addressed how the philosophical problems of evil and suffering in that scenario are insurmountable. I lay out some of the details of those issues here in a video series: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...lH9MxxLwwWnAea
However, I did not yet create the video which discussed how Ex Nihilo Creation theology affected the development of Trinitarian dogma.
The Arian controversy following the era of Apostolic Christianity was mishandled.* The reason that the debate was fruitless is because almost all of the Christians had adopted "Ex Nihilo" creation theology by then, and creation "from nothing" was a foundation from which correct doctrines could not develop. We can all agree that if Jesus was "created out of nothing", then he could not be Deity.* In a sense, the Arians / Semi-Arians and subordinationalists had very good points, but the concept of creatio ex nihilo made it impossible to defend their case coherently.
Justin Martyr's analogy of Deity being a substance like fire is interesting. Let's say you take a fire and light another fire. You have the Father and the Son. Each has the same characteristics of Deity and therefore each person, in and of themselves, are fully Deity. This would even be true in the impossible/theoretical scenario of one of the flames going out. The other flame would STILL be fully Deity.
-7up
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostBefore 1835, Mormon publications at the time seemed to assume that God or Christ was the creator, but didn't differentiate much at all between Christ and God.
Hebrews 1 is a good place to start in this discussion, and it does not teach what most of the Christian world would like it to teach (it does not teach the Trinity as most Christians understand it.)* The chapter starts in the present and goes back in time describing Jesus and His relationship with God the Father prior to his incarnation. **The chronology of Christ's appointment to authority, then being born into mortality and then resurrection and return to the right hand of the Father is given.*
The first scene I will bring up chronologically (verse 9), shows God the Father seeing the superior qualities of Jesus amongst the other "sons of God" or among the "morning stars"* -** Remember that Christ is called the "Bright Morning Star", which is an angelic title (see Rev 22:16 and 2Pet.1:19 (see also Job 38:7 for another reference to the many "sons of God"). Nevertheless, we see that Jesus has superior qualities when compared to the other sons of god.
Heb 1
9*You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.
You see here that God (the God of Jesus) chose and anointed Jesus from among his "companions" (sometimes translated "fellows") ... his fellow angels mentioned in the context of the passage (verses 4-9).* Why was he chosen above the others? According to the verse we read, it was because Jesus loved righteousness and hated lawlessness.*
We see in Hebrews chapter 1 that God the Father elevated this perfect angel to the status of "God", and to have the status of godhood forever.
Heb 1
8*But to the Son, He (God the Father) says:
Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
As Jesus is elevated to the status of Deity, the gives the scepter/throne of the Father's kingdom to the Son, and it will be the Son's Kingdom forever.
Heb 1
7*And of the angels He says:
Who makes His angels spirits
And His ministers a flame of fire.
The other angels are subject to Jesus.* Elsewhere in the New Testament we see that Jesus was chosen by God the Father to organize the hosts of heaven, organizing the powers, thrones, principalities and so forth (see 1 Col 1:16). Jesus was placed at the head of the hosts of heaven and became God's right hand; His Word, who fulfills the Father's will.* Jesus was also to be the Creator of the physical Universe as we know it (Heaven and Earth) under the direction of the Father, as mentioned in verse 2 and 10 of this chapter.*
Let's look at verse 4, because it is important in this conversation:
Heb 1
4*having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
How did Jesus obtain the name and title of God?* He "obtained" it by INHERITANCE, by being elevated from among the other sons of God to a higher position!* Please note that Hebrews chapter 1 teaches that Jesus was "chosen/anointed" and that Jesus "obtained" the "more excellent name".* However, it is clearly well deserved.* As the only perfect spirit, Christ had no flaws and therefore could unite His will perfectly with God's, thus he "became better than the angels" becoming "one" with God and thus deserving the name of God.* Now read verses 2 and 3:
Heb 1
2 [God the Father] has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; 3*who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.
Thus Jesus Christ, an exalted angel/son, who was "appointed" to be "heir of all things" and to be known as Jehovah in the Old Testament, and who now sits again on the right hand of the "Most High God".*
That is how subordinationism was taught in the New Testament and understood within the Apostles' New Testament Church.* This was long before the changes in doctrine which began to occur in the mid to second century A.D. in order to fit Greek philosophical monotheism. The doctrinal changes solidified in Nicea and was found in creeds which describe the Father and Son to be "coequal" and "same substance" and and other terms/phrases not found in scripture. How does one "inherit" that which was already his? In the Trinity, the same Being is appointing itself, sending itself, and inheriting from itself.
That, in my opinion, is wrong. The very same titles that belong to God the Father are given to the son. Jesus was already spiritually perfect, and therefore Deity/God BEFORE entering mortality and had "inherited a more excellent name" BEFORE entering mortality. The names and titles which are applicable to our Heavenly Father became applicable to the Son. Jesus Christ was the God of Israel, who interacted with the people, under the will and direction of the Father.
So, when the Book of Mormon said, Mary "is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh," it is accurate. We would especially expect this wording from the perspective of someone like Mosiah, who was seeing the God of the Old Testament, Jehovah, as becoming flesh. The change was made as clarification by Joseph Smith for the benefit of us readers who, unlike Mosiah, are looking at it from a New Testament perspective and want to know which member of the Godhead is being referred to. Yet even from our perspective, it is correct to say that Mary is the mother of God. It is correct to say that "God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people." Only those who deny the Deity of Christ would be restricted from such wording.
-7up
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostYes, because the god of Mormonism had a perfect opportunity, creating a BRAND NEW religion, to get things right from the start. Instead, the god of Mormonism apparently chose a man who couldn't seem to keep his own story straight about a number of very critical events and issues pertaining to the foundation of this "new religion".
Mormonism is not claimed to be a "brand new religion" any more than Christianity was a "brand new religion". The very same kind of criticism that you toss at the LDS faith are the same criticisms that Judaism tosses at Christianity.
Now, back to the Book of Mormon and the view presented on the nature of Deity.
In Ether 3:16, the premortal Jesus presents himself to the Brother of Jared. In that text, the Old Testament God indicated that His spirit is anthropomorphic (having human form).
“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.”
This presents the uniquely LDS teaching that we are actually created in the "image and likeness" of God. (So really, it is more accurate to say that we humans are "theomorphic".)
Modalists and Trinitarians hold to a definition of God who is an eternal, omnipresent, indivisible, immaterial spirit essence, “without body, parts, or passions.” (A view which was derived from Greek philosophical thought.) This very concept is why modalism came into existence in the first place. If “God” is an eternally unchanging and indivisible essence, then you can't have three persons who are called “God”.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Book of Mormon DOES refer to Jesus Christ as the “Father”. However, it also clarifies in what sense Jesus is understood as "Father". There are 3 different ways that Christ can be called Father:
1)Jesus Christ is “the Father of Heaven and of Earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning.”
This is still consistent with the Bible and current LDS doctrine, which teaches that all was created "by and through Jesus Christ".
2) Second, Jesus is called “Father” in the sense that those who are saved by Him become His children when we are "born again" in Christ.
There are several examples of this in the Book of Mormon, IF you bother to read the context.
3) The last one is the one that we often find in the Bible, and people often mistake it for modalism. This is the idea of “Divine Investiture of Authority.” As I explained in my previous post, Jesus was given the Father's name.
Jesus Christ is the chief representative of the Father’s will. The Father placed His name upon the Son; and Jesus Christ spoke and ministered in and through the Father’s name. In terms of power and authority and will, His words and acts were and are those of the Father. Look at the Biblical example where God placed His name upon or in the Angel who was assigned to Israel during the exodus. Concerning that Angel, God said:
‘Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not;
for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name
is in him.’ (Exodus 23:21)”
So, you cannot say that the Book of Mormon teaches "Trinitarianism" or "Modalism". And the LDS faith is not a "brand new religion". It is a continuation of the previous religion, only with more light, more knowledge and revelation.
-7upLast edited by seven7up; 04-29-2014, 04:07 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seven7up View PostMormonism is not claimed to be a "brand new religion" any more than Christianity was a "brand new religion". The very same kind of criticism that you toss at the LDS faith are the same criticisms that Judaism tosses at Christianity.
When God wanted us to know about Salvation through Christ, He sent us a sinless Savior prophesied throughout the Old Testament, and one in whom no guile was found, and sinless.
When Smith wanted us to believe that God sent HIMSELF to "restore" what Christ had done, God supposedly used a glass looking money digging woman chasing self promoting opportunist who couldn't get his story straight right from the beginning.
Yeah, I see the similarity!
The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seven7up View PostSo, you cannot say that the Book of Mormon teaches "Trinitarianism" or "Modalism".
And the LDS faith is not a "brand new religion". It is a continuation of the previous religion, only with more light, more knowledge and revelation.
The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seven7up View PostObviously he wasn't perfect,
Nah, didn't happen.
but I don't think that Joseph made as many errors as people accuse him of.
I think that God placed him in very, very difficult circumstances.
I know you don't believe that God did this, but just imagine for a moment.
Imagine that God personally visits you tonight and asks you to start practicing polygamy as a direct command. How would you handle it? How would you go about it? Who would you ask? How would you tell your wife?
How do you buy this nonsense, 7up? How do you make yourself believe that God would have Smith threaten his faithful wife with DESTRUCTION for no other reason that she got tired of his sexual exploits outside of their marriage?Last edited by Cow Poke; 04-29-2014, 06:46 AM.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Comment