LDS The 'beginning' of God in Mormonism

[Ironhold]

So you claim continuity with something that you also believe completely stopped existing for X number of years.



con·ti·nu·i·ty
ˌkäntəˈn(y)o͞oədē/
noun
noun: continuity
1.
the unbroken and consistent existence or operation of something over a period of time.

http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Continuity

Try that definition.

 

[dzheremi]

http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Continuity

Try that definition.

From the link, which is a Wikipedia about Transformers, the 1980s children's toy/TV show (not an actual dictionary):

"A continuity is a fictional universe or timeline that is characterized by recurring characters and settings and an internal consistency with regards to characterization and depicted events."

Yep. Mormon ideas of their own continuity with the early Church are certainly fictional, to be distinguished from what actually happened according to the real timeline of events in the actual universe in which we all live.

Edit: Even if we are to go by that definition, that is a definition of "a continuity" (count noun), as used in that particular context (the Transformers franchise), not continuity (non-count noun) itself as a concept.

 

[Jane_Doe]

So you claim continuity with something that you also believe completely stopped existing for X number of years.

God's Truth is always continuous and never fades: it is God's.
Us humans however are fickle creature quick to leave love wickedness. Hence the need to reminds and coming back to the faith. It's happen many time throughout history, and many times through individual's life.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Your right he wanted to reform but knew there was no authority on earth.

Say what now?

He didn't know how it was going to come back.

How what was going to come back? "authority on earth"?

I think what we have here is a fundamental failure at understanding what the Reformation was about, and its context within the history of the Western Church.

Calvin, like Luther, held that Scripture was the chief authority on faith and practice; but neither Luther nor Calvin believed Scripture was to be read in a vacuum. Which is why both men appealed to the ancient fathers, creeds, and councils of the Church.

So of course there was an "authority on earth"--the norming principle of faith was to be found in Scripture, and Scripture read in the context of the historic faith of the Church catholic. Because the Reformers didn't believe the Church had disappeared, the Church didn't go anywhere, the Church was very much alive and present: the Catholic Church. Where the Reformers took issue was with a specific set of ideas which had become pervasive in the Scholastic period, with uneducated clergy improperly preaching, with various ecclesiastical abuses and scandals--and ultimately the Reformers were convinced that even the papacy itself was an error introduced late in the life of the Church. Which is also why early on both Calvinists and Lutherans made attempts at dialogue with the Eastern Church--that's a story for another time however.

The "authority" in and for and of the Church didn't go anywhere. The Church was still around even as it had always been since Christ founded it. Reform was necessary to correct abuses. Schism with Rome was not intended, but it was a consequence of the Reformation.

The reformers wanted to reform the old church. Each one had their reform that was specific to the church that was orgainzed after they had died. Some saw that baptism was important by immersion instead of sprinkling for example.

And this is why it is important to have a better grasp on the Reformation. For one, it's important to make a critical distinction between the Magisterial Reformation and the Radical Reformation. The Magisterial Reformation was reformation from within the ecclesiastical institutions, and so the Magisterial Reformers such as Luther, Melancthon, and Calvin. The Radical Reformation refers to the various groups which arose in opposition to the established ecclesiastical institutions--the Anabapists being a large umbrella term for a number of sects, the most prominent being the Mennonites; but also includes the Muntzerites and a host of radical, violent, and very often heretical groups. When speaking of "The Reformers" most mean the Magisterial Reformers.

To give just one example of how the Reformers regarded the radical elements of the time, Luther when referring to Ulrich Zwingli's teaching on Memorialism quipped, "I would rather drink pure blood with the Pope than mere wine with the fanatics!". And Zwingli was hardly even that radical in comparison to the likes of Karlstadt, Muntzer, or Servetus.

The Reformation was not a Primitivist or Restorationist movement. It was a reform movement from within the Catholic Church in the West that resulted in schism. And that is a monumentally important distinction to be made.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[fatboys]

Say what now?



How what was going to come back? "authority on earth"?

I think what we have here is a fundamental failure at understanding what the Reformation was about, and its context within the history of the Western Church.

Calvin, like Luther, held that Scripture was the chief authority on faith and practice; but neither Luther nor Calvin believed Scripture was to be read in a vacuum. Which is why both men appealed to the ancient fathers, creeds, and councils of the Church.

So of course there was an "authority on earth"--the norming principle of faith was to be found in Scripture, and Scripture read in the context of the historic faith of the Church catholic. Because the Reformers didn't believe the Church had disappeared, the Church didn't go anywhere, the Church was very much alive and present: the Catholic Church. Where the Reformers took issue was with a specific set of ideas which had become pervasive in the Scholastic period, with uneducated clergy improperly preaching, with various ecclesiastical abuses and scandals--and ultimately the Reformers were convinced that even the papacy itself was an error introduced late in the life of the Church. Which is also why early on both Calvinists and Lutherans made attempts at dialogue with the Eastern Church--that's a story for another time however.

The "authority" in and for and of the Church didn't go anywhere. The Church was still around even as it had always been since Christ founded it. Reform was necessary to correct abuses. Schism with Rome was not intended, but it was a consequence of the Reformation.



And this is why it is important to have a better grasp on the Reformation. For one, it's important to make a critical distinction between the Magisterial Reformation and the Radical Reformation. The Magisterial Reformation was reformation from within the ecclesiastical institutions, and so the Magisterial Reformers such as Luther, Melancthon, and Calvin. The Radical Reformation refers to the various groups which arose in opposition to the established ecclesiastical institutions--the Anabapists being a large umbrella term for a number of sects, the most prominent being the Mennonites; but also includes the Muntzerites and a host of radical, violent, and very often heretical groups. When speaking of "The Reformers" most mean the Magisterial Reformers.

To give just one example of how the Reformers regarded the radical elements of the time, Luther when referring to Ulrich Zwingli's teaching on Memorialism quipped, "I would rather drink pure blood with the Pope than mere wine with the fanatics!". And Zwingli was hardly even that radical in comparison to the likes of Karlstadt, Muntzer, or Servetus.

The Reformation was not a Primitivist or Restorationist movement. It was a reform movement from within the Catholic Church in the West that resulted in schism. And that is a monumentally important distinction to be made.

-CryptoLutheran

I know you believe this. I understand that you believe that the authority remained on the earth. Do you believe that the reformers had a valid argument for what they saw as the church having doctrines that were not biblical.

 

[dzheremi]

God's Truth is always continuous and never fades: it is God's.
Us humans however are fickle creature quick to leave love wickedness. Hence the need to reminds and coming back to the faith. It's happen many time throughout history, and many times through individual's life.

Okay. Wouldn't it then follow that, as God's truth is continuous and does not fade, that it is not 'taken away'? That's the entire point of my post. If it's going to be continuous, then it doesn't stop existing because some people believe in something else, whether for a few years (as Peter claimed; I don't see how that can be the case without claiming by necessity that the apostasy happened a lot later than Mormons seem to say it did, or alternatively positing that certain groups in the more remote past were some kind of proto-Mormons, which is getting shot down pretty easily right now by ViaCrucis concerning the Reformers, the one example that Mormons in this thread have come up with) or for a long time. Something can't be continuous and be taken away, as the Mormons claim happen to the Church. If it's taken away only to be 'restored' later, then it is by definition not continuous.

Ironhold's preferred definition, from the Transformers wiki, is about continuity within the narrative of a fictional story, which I'm much more willing to grant Mormonism, as that doesn't require that anything that the LDS claim be an actual historical event, and hence does not do violence to Christian history and ecclesiology as the claim of a literal/historical 'great apostasy' does. The trouble is that as a restorationist movement, Mormonism does claim that an apostasy actually happened, not as a kind of literary device to tie together its preferred fictional narrative (as in Transformers), but as an ecclesiological principle by which its church is organized and distinguished from the preexisting Christian Church.

 

[BigDaddy4]

Was one of the names of the foundations named 'Judas'?
Was one of the names of the foundations named 'Paul'?
Was one of the names of the foundations named 'Barnabus'?

There was many more than just 12 apostles. So which of the apostles gets their names on a foundation?

I believe what you are looking at in Revelations could be a real wall with 12 foundations, with the names of the original 12 apostles on each foundation (but then you would have to have the name of Judas there too.) So this wall is in remembrance of the original 12. So what does that have to do with having 15 apostles to make sure the church is staying on track and growing the right way?

You could have hundreds of apostles and still have a wall that memorializes the original 12. Everyone looks back to the original 12 with reverence. But that in no way means that the Lord is stuck with using 12 apostles, and 12 only, even if he needs more to finish the work before the second coming. You would argue for that position, I would argue that the Lord does as he pleases and as is necessary, not what was done 2,000 years ago for a church just getting off the ground.

Names are not important. The importance is that the foundation has already been established. No lds home improvement projects are necessary to change or add to that foundation.

 

[Jane_Doe]

Okay. Wouldn't it then follow that, as God's truth is continuous and does not fade, that it is not 'taken away'?

As I said, humans are fickle and quick to abandon God. Humans abandoned God's teaching-- corrupted it with falsehoods, and because of that He took His authority away. God did not take the Truth away: humans throw it away.

 

[BigDaddy4]

Your church foundation has 0 apostles. That should make you stop and think.

That would be a false statement. The foundation of my church is based upon Jesus Christ and the Gospel he provided through his apostles as recorded in the Bible.

 

[NYCGuy]

As I said, humans are fickle and quick to abandon God. Humans abandoned God's teaching-- corrupted it with falsehoods, and because of that He took His authority away. God did not take the Truth away: humans throw it away.

Could the LDS church fall into apostasy?

 

[fatboys]

Could the LDS church fall into apostasy?

It could if the apostles and prophets were killed off as at the time of Christ. The church needs that continual link of revelation and guidance. That being said the church is set up so that these types of things are really hard to do. There are three apostles that make up the first presidency. This presidency hold all the keys necessary for the church to function. Next is the quorum of the twelve. The whole quorum holds all the keys. Next is the seventy and so forth.

 

[Peter1000]

You claim Calvin believed in "the apostasy" but don't back that up. And can't, because quite frankly the Magisterial Reformers didn't believe that the Church had fallen into apostasy and needed to be restored, they believed that errors had crept into the Church--recently--and thus there was need for reform.

Even in your quote you present Calvin as affirming that what he was teaching was, in his view, connected to the historic teachings of the Church--the Creeds, the fathers, and the councils, the very things which have always defined Christian orthodoxy.

-CryptoLutheran

As I am reading this book, I am seeing that this is what the reformers were fighting against:

Total corruption from pope to priest.
Secularized and humanist clergy-meaning many were not even Christian
Clergy that live oppulent, immoral lives, especialy bishops, cardinals and pope
The whole worldly problems that are brought about by money and power, absolute power that corrupts absolutely.
Unlearned, ignorant priests
Arrogant and haughty clergy-the bible says God hates this attitude
Absent Bishops and benefice corruption
Complete state controlled clergy, especially bishops
Murder, and wholesale slaughter and massacre of innocents
Indulgence corruption
Clergy were forbidden to marry-a biblical prophecy about apostasy
Icon worship
Mary adoration and outright worship
The inquisition tortures and outrages
Spying and mischievous and intriguing jesuits against kings & the people
Burning innocents at the stake in the name of Jesus Christ

This History of the Reformation is not just a history of the reformation, it could be renamed the History of the Great Apostasy from 1400 - 1600 ad. The story of an apostasy on a grand scale.

With this list of unconscionable unChristian conduct for centuries upon centuries, is it any wonder that reforming this organization would be impossible?

With this list of unconscionable unChristian conduct for centuries upon centuries, is it any wonder that the doctrinal debates and final conclusions to doctrinal beliefs lead to a changing of doctrines such as baptism, the holy sacrament of the Lords supper, forgiveness of sin, priesthood issues, the nature of God and His Son and the HS, etc., etc., etc.

Calvin wanted to get back to the original church. He could not do it. He did not even come close. If he had come close, his reformer clergy and even his followers would have put him to death.

 

[Peter1000]

Could the LDS church fall into apostasy?

From the beginning of the Mormon church there has been individual apostasy. There have been men that lead small groups of people away from JS and the church. It is going to happen and there is no way to stop it. We all have our free will.

The difference is that the Lord told JS that there would be splinter groups that would apostatize, but that these splinter groups would not amount to a rival that would take the focus off of the true restored church.

That is exactly what has happened. Lot's of splinter/apostasy groups, but none have come about to be a rival to the Salt Lake City Mormon church.

 

[dzheremi]

From the beginning of the Mormon church there has been individual apostasy. There have been men that lead small groups of people away from JS and the church. It is going to happen and there is no way to stop it. We all have our free will.

The difference is that the Lord told JS that there would be splinter groups that would apostatize, but that these splinter groups would not amount to a rival that would take the focus off of the true restored church.

That is exactly what has happened. Lot's of splinter/apostasy groups, but none have come about to be a rival to the Salt Lake City Mormon church.

It's difficult to not see this as essentially a fancy way of saying "might makes right", applied to ecclesiology.

Why is it that the SLC LDS church is the real one, and not any of the other sects claiming to be the real one?

 

[miknik5]

In a recent thread on the LDS concept of God, an LDS poster stated that "God had a father, who had a father, who had a father..." (and so on), which has me wondering: if God/gods in Mormonism are all the result of this kind of reproduction, then where does Mormonism's original God figure come from?

In Christianity, God is not made by anyone such that it would be appropriate to have this 'chain of reproduction'. The Nicene Creed is very clear on this, stating that Christ is begotten, not made (read: He is not made as the rest of are of human seed). And of course God the Father is not made or begotten in any sense, but rather has begotten Christ (His Logos), and has sent the Holy Spirit. But if Mormonism by contrast says God has a father, who has a father, who has a father, and so on back through the ages, then it seems that there must be someone who is the 'first father', so to speak. Who is this, according to Mormon theology?

And if there isn't such a figure in Mormon theology, then what does it mean to say that God "has a father, who has a father, who has a father, etc."?

This is a huge, in fact I would go so far as to say insurmountable theological difference between Mormonism and Christianity, and one for which I have never seen much of an answer from any Mormon source. I'm assuming that the answer is out there and I just haven't found it yet, so I'd be interested to hear any Mormon's opinion on this. Thank you.

Do you mean that they do not believe that THE SON came forth from THE FATHER and into the world just as GOD's WORD says?

Why would they offer more above what GOD has given us by HIS WORD?

 

[Jane_Doe]

Do you mean that they do not believe that THE SON came forth from THE FATHER and into the world just as GOD's WORD says?

Why would they offer more above what GOD has given us by HIS WORD?

Would you like to hear what an actual LDS person beliefs?

 

[withwonderingawe]

Do you mean that they do not believe that THE SON came forth from THE FATHER and into the world just as GOD's WORD says?

Why would they offer more above what GOD has given us by HIS WORD?

We believe Jesus is Yahweh the Son El. He created this earth under the directions of El. He came from the presences of the Fatherr/El to bring us the word or message of El. That message is the Yahweh/Jesus is bringing us the Atonement and saving us from our sins.

 

[dzheremi]

Do Mormons often use Hebrew wording as you are doing now, WWA? I've never heard or seen that before.

 

[Jane_Doe]

Do Mormons often use Hebrew wording as you are doing now, WWA? I've never heard or seen that before.

Only when it's particularly useful, such as this situation.

 

[dzheremi]

How is it particularly useful to do that, from a Mormon perspective? Is there something conveyed by using Yahweh and El instead of English?