Is modern secular society headed down the path to Sodom and Gomorrah.

[BPPLEE]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches and believes that God's Priesthood Authority that the Lord Jesus Christ had given to His Apostles was taken from the Earth after their rejection and subsequent deaths.

This is when the world entered into what they call the "Great Apostasy" - the "famine" mentioned by Amos and the "falling away" mentioned by Paul - when men were being "tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine" because there were no authorized servants of God upon the Earth to lead them.

This is why they believe that God's Priesthood Authority - as well as "many plain and precious truths" which had been lost due to the corruption of Man - needed to be Restored to the Earth.

This was done by both the Father and the Son when They appeared to the boy Joseph Smith Jr in response to his prayer about which Christian sect he should join.

He claimed that the Lord Jesus Christ instructed him to join none of them for "all their creeds were an abomination in his sight" and that "they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof."

This is why the Latter-day Saints (LDS) refer to themselves as Restorationist Christians - as opposed to any type of Protestant - because they believe they have a direct line to the Lord Jesus Christ through His personal ministrations in these latter-days - and He has Restored His Gospel and His authority to the Earth.

The LDS Church does not adhere to the doctrine of the Trinity (they believe that that was proven incorrect the moment both the Father and the Son appeared to the boy prophet - which they call his First Vision - as well as the fact that the scriptures do not teach it) - and they also hold to a Father-Son relationship.

They believe that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are one Eternal God - although they are all separate and distinct individual Beings.

This idea can be confusing at first - but they also believe and teach that the term "God" can and has been used to describe other beings - such as angels, various men and even false deities in the scriptures - and determined that it is a title for a position of authority more than a name.

Therefore - even though the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are separate and distinct individual Beings - they hold the same office, nature, purpose and spirit - they are perfect.

Just like how a family may have multiple members in it - all are individuals, but they share the same name and similar characteristics - yet they are still only the one family.

The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are all the same "God" (family) and the ultimate desire of the Lord Jesus Christ is for all of Mankind to become "one" with the Father - just as He is one with the Father.

Meaning - He wants us all to partake of His goodness - to have faith in Him - rely on Him - submit our wills to the Father like He did - so that we all can become more like the Father - perfect and glorious - thus becoming "one" with Him.

I know these explanations were unsolicited - and I apologize for the length - but if you ever have any questions about the LDS doctrine or history - hit me up.

God bless.

Is there a mother in this LDS family?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Why do you believe that?

Essentially, because the theological differences between Mormons on the one hand, and traditionally oriented Trinitarian Christians on the other, are off the charts ...

... and because being the skeptical, critical and epistemologically attuned person that I am, I know historical and theological b.s. when I see it or hear it.

For instance, no Christian in history, from the time of Paul up to just before Joseph Smith came along ever believed or interpreted the Christian Tradition (which included the Bible) in a way that implies the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are each formerly human men who each also "became a god."

Plus, if we add The Book of Mormon to that pile of kindling (i.e. Mormon redefinition), we're fit one one big bonfire of non-historical ridiculousness.

... And this is me being academically generous to the Mormon position, kind of like how modern atheists are generous to the Christian position.

 

[Zaha Torte]

Is there a mother in this LDS family?

The LDS Church teaches and believes that the Father does have a wife - our Heavenly Mother - and that she is the "mother of spirits" (of Mankind) - just as the Father is the "father of spirits" (of Mankind) - as mentioned by Paul.

Our knowledge concerning our Heavenly Mother is very limited and there are at least two reasons for this -

The first that I have heard mentioned is the idea that the Father is protecting His wife from the hatred that is often directed at Him from His children during their sojourn in mortality.

The idea that He would need to defend the tender feelings of another glorious and perfected Being sets me at odds - but when you consider the mandate from God that husbands on Earth are to be protectors of their wives - perhaps this idea has some credibility.

The other reason that I know of - which I have come to know through my own ponderings and inspirations - is that mortality is a Priesthood ordinance much like a baptism - as such - only males can hold and operate within the Priesthood.

Just like how only the authorized servant and whoever he is baptizing enter into the water together - so does only the Godhead (The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit) enter into mortality with us while we experience this Priesthood ordinance.

Worthy males can hold the Priesthood and females are bestowed with Motherhood.

As the Lord Jesus Christ instructed - Latter-day Saints only worship the Father in and through the name of Christ.

The Lord Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life - the only means of Redemption and Salvation - our Mediator and Advocate - the only way to the Father is by Him.

Even though our Heavenly Mother is mentioned - mostly in song or as a reference to the perfect female archetype - She is not an object of worship nor is She mentioned in any modern-day scriptures or writings of the Prophet Joseph Smith Jr.

You can read more about this topic here:

Mother in Heaven

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that all human beings are beloved spirit children of a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother.

www.churchofjesuschrist.org

 

[Zaha Torte]

Essentially, because the theological differences between Mormons on the one hand, and traditionally oriented Trinitarian Christians on the other, are off the charts ...

... and because being the skeptical, critical and epistemologically attuned person that I am, I know historical and theological b.s. when I see it or hear it.

For instance, no Christian in history, from the time of Paul up to just before Joseph Smith came along ever believed or interpreted the Christian Tradition (which included the Bible) in a way that implies the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are each formerly human men who each also "became a god."

Plus, if we add The Book of Mormon to that pile of kindling (i.e. Mormon redefinition), we're fit one one big bonfire of non-historical ridiculousness.

... And this is me being academically generous to the Mormon position, kind of like how modern atheists are generous to the Christian position.

Your comment is very confusing to me.

How would any Christian not believe that the Lord Jesus Christ was a human being and God also?

Don't they believe that He descended and took on a body of flesh and blood - became mortal - for our sake?

I believe you have only a passing familiarity with LDS doctrine and history - and you certainly have not read the Book of Mormon or know much of what it contains.

I would consider you to be quite ignorant in regard to this topic.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Your comment is very confusing to me.

It shouldn't be for anyone who has taken the time to read slowly and decisively. I'm guessing you didn't?

How would any Christian not believe that the Lord Jesus Christ was a human being and God also?

Don't they believe that He descended and took on a body of flesh and blood - became mortal - for our sake?

Something like that. We just don't ALSO believe that the Father and the Holy Spirit were men who became gods.

I believe you have only a passing familiarity with LDS doctrine and history - and you certainly have not read the Book of Mormon or know much of what it contains.

To a certain degree you're correct---I have "only" a passing familiarity with LDS doctrine and history, like I do with several topics that aren't my major academic focus. But it wouldn't be right for me to say that I don't have access to those who are familiar with LDS or that I, personally, haven't cracked open my copy of The Book of Mormon in order to peruse its unhistorical narratives.

I would consider you to be quite ignorant in regard to this topic.

That's fine if you do. The actuality of what I know, or can know, always comes out in hindsight, though. And the extent to which my sources and scholars of reference are "ignorant" is another question altogether.

Then, there's the question of how much you know about nearly 2,000 years of Christian Church History and the Historically diverse development of doctrine among Catholics, Orthodox and various Protestants/Evangelicals. So, let's not make any hasty generalizations about each other at this point.

 

[DJWhalen]

Feel free to PM me about LDS (I love to learn) and I am a Baptist, I will always be a Baptist but I can't turn down a chance to learn.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Try harder to understand these things, Hans. It's the least you can do in return for insisting that Christians try harder to understand science (and reality).

The trinity gives me a headache just like crossing my eyes. You say you've studied philosophy -- work through the definitions with symbolic logic and see if works out.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The trinity gives me a headache just like crossing my eyes. You say you've studied philosophy -- work through the definitions with symbolic logic and see if works out.

Only a moron would require symbolic logic to be used on the concept of the Trinity, and for obvious reasons. You don't strike me as a moron, Hans, so, I'm going to let this faux suggestion of yours pass.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Only a moron would require symbolic logic to be used on the concept of the Trinity, and for obvious reasons. You don't strike me as a moron, Hans, so, I'm going to let this faux suggestion of yours pass.

What is that "famous" chart explaining the trinity? It has things like "A is X", "B is X", "A is not B", etc. where the parts of the trinity are inserted. I don't find the trinity logically coherent, and I only realized recently that despite my weekly proclamations that I accepted it, I did not actually accept its claims. My suggestion is not faux, but too much exposition attracts moderation.

 

[Zaha Torte]

It shouldn't be for anyone who has taken the time to read slowly and decisively. I'm guessing you didn't?

So much for not making "any hasty generalizations about each other at this point".

Something like that. We just don't ALSO believe that the Father and the Holy Spirit were men who became gods.

You realize that your initial claim - that the Lord Jesus Christ was not formerly a Man and God - is what led me to claim that your comment was confusing.

Instead of taking accountability for your error - you claimed that I somehow lacked reading ability or comprehension.

And now even with your second chance to reference this unofficial doctrine - you failed.

Why not properly reference your source for this idea and I will explain how it is not the official doctrine of the LDS Church and how you incorrectly referenced it twice.

Perhaps if you used your faculties to better study the subject in lieu of wasting them in a vain attempt to insult me - you'd have something substantive to add.

To a certain degree you're correct---I have "only" a passing familiarity with LDS doctrine and history, like I do with several topics that aren't my major academic focus.

Why do you act as if you are informed while also openly admitting your ignorance of the subject?

But it wouldn't be right for me to say that I don't have access to those who are familiar with LDS or that I, personally, haven't cracked open my copy of The Book of Mormon in order to peruse its unhistorical narratives.

Unfortunately for you having access to other people does not transfer their collective knowledge to you.

I do not believe that you know much if anything about the Book of Mormon. You have given me no reason to believe that you have ever "cracked" a copy open.

That's fine if you do. The actuality of what I know, or can know, always comes out in hindsight, though. And the extent to which my sources and scholars of reference are "ignorant" is another question altogether.

You claiming to know people that know things is not a flex. Bragging about not knowing something is lame.

Then, there's the question of how much you know about nearly 2,000 years of Christian Church History and the Historically diverse development of doctrine among Catholics, Orthodox and various Protestants/Evangelicals. So, let's not make any hasty generalizations about each other at this point.

I don't recall any of that being the subject of our interaction.

I am here to answer any questions you may have.

 

[Zaha Torte]

What is that "famous" chart explaining the trinity? It has things like "A is X", "B is X", "A is not B", etc. where the parts of the trinity are inserted. I don't find the trinity logically coherent, and I only realized recently that despite my weekly proclamations that I accepted it, I did not actually accept its claims. My suggestion is not faux, but too much exposition attracts moderation.

It does not make sense because it is not true.

 

[stevevw]

They are sprinkled throughout the scriptures, but the main references are in Matthew 24, Revelation 6-11; 13 and Daniel 7.

Ok I understand now. Yes the signs of the times are happening and that is what I am interested in. What signs are we seeing now that we are on the same road as those in S&G. I know it says that Gods people will be persecuted in Christs name and though this has happened in the past the tide seems to be turning against Christianity again.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So much for not making "any hasty generalizations about each other at this point".

You realize that your initial claim - that the Lord Jesus Christ was not formerly a Man and God - is what led me to claim that your comment was confusing.

Instead of taking accountability for your error - you claimed that I somehow lacked reading ability or comprehension.

And now even with your second chance to reference this unofficial doctrine - you failed.

Why not properly reference your source for this idea and I will explain how it is not the official doctrine of the LDS Church and how you incorrectly referenced it twice.

Perhaps if you used your faculties to better study the subject in lieu of wasting them in a vain attempt to insult me - you'd have something substantive to add.

Why do you act as if you are informed while also openly admitting your ignorance of the subject?

Unfortunately for you having access to other people does not transfer their collective knowledge to you.

I do not believe that you know much if anything about the Book of Mormon. You have given me no reason to believe that you have ever "cracked" a copy open.

You claiming to know people that know things is not a flex. Bragging about not knowing something is lame.

I don't recall any of that being the subject of our interaction.

I am here to answer any questions you may have.

I have no questions for you at the present time., but welcome to CF!

 

[Zaha Torte]

Ok I understand now. Yes the signs of the times are happening and that is what I am interested in. What signs are we seeing now that we are on the same road as those in S&G. I know it says that Gods people will be persecuted in Christs name and though this has happened in the past the tide seems to be turning against Christianity again.

The main ones that I see are wars, rumors of wars, natural disasters and the push by so many for a one-world government.

 

[Zaha Torte]

I have no questions for you at the present time., but welcome to CF!

Thank you. It's good to be here.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What is that "famous" chart explaining the trinity? It has things like "A is X", "B is X", "A is not B", etc. where the parts of the trinity are inserted. I don't find the trinity logically coherent, and I only realized recently that despite my weekly proclamations that I accepted it, I did not actually accept its claims. My suggestion is not faux, but too much exposition attracts moderation.

Oh, I don't find the concept of the Trinity to be "logically coherent" either. Forgive me if I gave the indication that I do since I think the non-comprehensive references we have to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, along with the "Problem of Religious Language," undercuts any human attempt to fully qualify it in symbolic terms.

Moreover, there is no rule stating that I have to incorporate the analysis or thinking of any particular persons outside of the 1st century in order to find relevance in 1st century Christian theology, and in this consideration, I'll take my Wittgenstein OVER Russell.

 

[Zaha Torte]

Oh, I don't find the concept of the Trinity to be "logically coherent" either. Forgive me if I gave the indication that I do since I think the non-comprehensive references we have to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, a long with the "Problem of Religious Language," undercuts any human attempt to qualify it in symbolic terms.

Moreover, there is no rule stating that I have to incorporate the analysis or thinking of any particular persons outside of the 1st century in order to find relevance in 1st century Christian theology, and in this consideration, I'll take my Wittgenstein OVER Russell.

Why do you believe that God would reveal anything to Man that would be incomprehensible to us?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Oh, I don't find the concept of the Trinity to be "logically coherent" either. Forgive me if I gave the indication that I do since I think the non-comprehensive references we have to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, along with the "Problem of Religious Language," undercuts any human attempt to fully qualify it in symbolic terms.

Moreover, there is no rule stating that I have to incorporate the analysis or thinking of any particular persons outside of the 1st century in order to find relevance in 1st century Christian theology, and in this consideration, I'll take my Wittgenstein OVER Russell.

There is no reason to think the trinity doctrine existed in the 1st century, and I have no knowledge or interest of either of those theologians.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Why do you believe that God would reveal anything to Man that would be incomprehensible to us?

I'm an existentialist, and for the usual sorts of philosophical reasons.

But, my outlook isn't what this thread is about, it's about how we think that the world is presently slouching further in its S&G brand lingerie.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

There is no reason to think the trinity doctrine existed in the 1st century, and I have no knowledge or interest of either of those theologians.

I wasn't implying that the term was being used in the 1st century.

Furthermore, I'm pretty sure that Bertrand Russell and Ludwig Wittegenstein, a student of his, weren't theologians. Why would you assume I was alluding to theologians when the context you injected was 'symbolic logic'? Tsk, tsk, Hans!

Anyway, since you don't care one way or the other, we can just stop with the superficial discourse here.