LDS The 'beginning' of God in Mormonism

[Peter1000]

The last few Mormon posts have really shown the stark contrast between Mormon belief and that of Christians. Addicted as they are to their materialist viewpoint, LDS apparently cannot help but direct all of their questions to bodily matters, and hence preoccupy themselves with silly questions about the physics behind Christ's miracles (shades of Christian Science, perhaps? Mary Baker Eddy claimed to have discovered the 'science' behind Christ's miracles, too...but no, Joseph Smith is the real deal! ), whereas the Christian has no trouble with the concept that divinity is unbounded, because by Christ's own words, before Abraham was, He is (John 8:58). The objections of the Jews to this point (that He -- meaning Jesus -- is not yet fifty years old, so how can He claim to be greater than Abraham when He could not have even seen him, as Abraham died long ago) are like those of the Mormons: logical, in a sense, but also revealing that they don't really know the One they are discussing. They try to enclose the uncircumscribed Logos according to their human understandings of space and time, but Christ our God is clearly having none of that.

Have fun accompanying the Jews in their disbelief in Christ, Mormonism!

Your Coptic learning puts you right in the heart of ancient Greek and Egyptian logic. Pure energy is godly, a material body of f&b is the farthest away from God. Your Greek/Egyptian logic has been incorporated into your religion and into your nature of God.

The bible however does not follow Greek/Egyptian metaphysical logic.

The interesting little secret, from the bible, is that God is f&b, His Son, Jesus is f&b. Wow, what a contrast to the Greek/Egyptian nature of God.

What do you think God means when He says let us create man in our image and in our likeness. Did you think God meant to create man in His pure energy nature? No. Is man pure energy, without body, parts, or passions? No. Then according to Genesis 1:26 neither is God.
God created man with f&b just like Him. Wow, what an interesting concept, one that changes the entire nature game and starts making sense of the entire bible. So when the bible says that men saw God, well, they actually did see Him, just like the bible says.

Oh, but doesn't the bible say that no man hath seen God. If that is the case, nobody saw Jesus. This is a whole other discussion.

Just understand that when you meet Jesus in the next world, you will put your hand forward and he will put his hand forward and you will shake hands, physical hands. You will probably get a physcal hug too.
So when this happens, I want you to remember a Mormon told you so.

 

[Peter1000]

You seem to be a little short on reading comprehension. I never speculated, I said no one could know for sure. It is you who is speculating.


Of course you have to say and believe that to fit your agenda. That would be limiting Jesus to say that he cannot be in more than 1 place physically.

He may CHOOSE to appear in human form in only 1 place at a time, but that does not mean he CANNOT appear anywhere else at the same time.

He may CHOOSE to appear in human form in only 1 place at a time, but that does not mean he CANNOT appear anywhere else at the same time.

[/QUOTE]

This is a silly statement.

 

[dzheremi]

Post 338 is so full of incoherent arguments, I hesitate to reply to it, but since you, Peter, went out of your way to quote my post, I suppose it's the least I could do. I'm getting tired of this thread that I made that is supposed to be about where Mormonism's god comes from being used by Mormons as a platform to spread their strange ideas about other things, though, e.g., that God the Father has a physical body. I'm considering asking a mod to close it if this continues. Mormons may start their own threads to talk about the physical nature of their god, if they wish. I asked essentially about Mormon metaphysics (what/who is Mormonism's 'first cause', given that they have endless gods), not about whether or not God the Father has a physical body.

Your Coptic learning puts you right in the heart of ancient Greek and Egyptian logic. Pure energy is godly, a material body of f&b is the farthest away from God. Your Greek/Egyptian logic has been incorporated into your religion and into your nature of God.

Alright, right off the bat, no. Just no. I'm not going to sit here and be lectured to by someone who clearly doesn't know the first thing about "Egyptian logic". You're just throwing around labels that sound good to you without knowing what you are talking about.

What you are describing here, this system wherein energy is godly but flesh is the farthest away from God, is a form of dualism. It is again more akin to the beliefs of those like Christian Scientists, who do not believe in the physical reality of the world. Egyptian Christians are not dualists. If this were so, the Church would not have the sacraments, icons, or the theology of the Incarnation that we have.

The Gospel response from the Nativity (Christmas) liturgy sums it up pretty well, in spite of your foolishness directed against Egyptians for having "Egyptian logic" (whatever that is; the only distinctly Egyptian thing I see in here that the Greeks or other westerners would not share is the miaphysite Christology, which in no way denies the physical reality of our Lord and God Jesus Christ):

A star appeared in the East, and the wise men followed it, until it led them to Bethlehem, and they worshiped the King of ages.


The Lord of Glory was called a Son, according to the words of John before he saw Him, the Eternal Word became flesh, and dwelt in us and we saw Him.


For He who was born is God, born without pain from the Father, and He was also born according to the flesh, without pain from the virgin.


One nature out of two, Divinity and Humanity, wherefore the Magi silently, worship uttering His Divinity.


They offered Him frankincense for He is God, and gold for He is King, and myrrh as a sign, of His Life-giving death.


Alleluia Alleluia, Alleluia Alleluia, Jesus Christ the Son of God, was born in Bethlehem.


This is He who is worthy of glory, with His good Father, and the Holy Spirit, both now and forever.


Blessed be the Father and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the perfect Trinity, we worship Him and glorify Him.

+++

What the Church actually prays is its rule of faith, not what others have to say about what they think It's doing or why. So the words are here for all to see, and if you still think that your dualistic idea somehow fits the Egyptians, then you need to read more carefully before attempting to discuss its theology with one of its members. You couldn't be more off base if you were actually trying to be.

The interesting little secret, from the bible, is that God is f&b, His Son, Jesus is f&b. Wow, what a contrast to the Greek/Egyptian nature of God.

Sorry, I don't do "secret" Bible readings (Egyptian Christians are also not gnostics; the Gnostic Egyptians had their own writings, theology, cosmology, etc.), and things are not true or Biblically supported just because you say they are.

What do you think God means when He says let us create man in our image and in our likeness. Did you think God meant to create man in His pure energy nature? No. Is man pure energy, without body, parts, or passions? No. Then according to Genesis 1:26 neither is God.

This is quite a leap. By this logic, since God created me and I live in California, God lives in California. Or maybe since God created you and you're a Mormon, God is a Mormon (but maybe your neighbor is a Presbyterian, so God's a Presbyterian, etc.). Or maybe since God created Hillary Clinton, God is the Democratic nominee for president this year, after several years of serving in the New York Senate. Or maybe since God created Donald Trump, God is a real estate mogul turned reality tv star turned Republican presidential candidate. Or maybe since God created the oceans and the seas, God is water. Hmmm...God sure is an awful lot of things and people!

Or you're not making sense. One does not follow the other.

God created man with f&b just like Him. Wow, what an interesting concept,

I beg to differ. It is the least interesting concept ever. It is foolishness.

one that changes the entire nature game and starts making sense of the entire bible. So when the bible says that men saw God, well, they actually did see Him, just like the bible says.

It doesn't change anything. You have an awfully high view of your theology, but it's not shared by any Christian church, so I don't know by what right you can claim that it changes anything for anyone who isn't Mormon. Gain a sense of perspective, please.

Oh, but doesn't the bible say that no man hath seen God. If that is the case, nobody saw Jesus. This is a whole other discussion.

Don't be silly. Christ is called "the image of the invisible God" (Colossians 1:15), who declares Him to the people who have never seen Him (John 1:18). And of course Christ Himself openly states that if you have seen Him, you have seen the Father (John 14:9). So it is not a contradiction at all to say that no man hath seen God, but people have seen Jesus Christ. God the Father and His Only-Begotten Son Jesus Christ are not the same Person, though they are both fully and completely God.

And of course there are various instances in the Old Testament before Christ's incarnation where it can be argued that people did 'see', or at least converse with/be in the direct presence of, God (Moses' receiving the tablets comes to mind), though you are right, this is another discussion.

Just understand that when you meet Jesus in the next world, you will put your hand forward and he will put his hand forward and you will shake hands, physical hands.

Uh...I thought this handshake thing was a feature of the Mormon temple rites. I'm not a Mormon. I'm not going to Mormon heaven to be greeted by the Mormon Jesus. I, along with everyone else, am going to stand before the Just Judge to account for my life and my many sins, so I do not want to add to them by embracing a theology that directly contradicts 2,000 years of Christian witness, including the scriptures, the fathers, the councils, etc.

You will probably get a physcal hug too.
So when this happens, I want you to remember a Mormon told you so.

I would not be so arrogant as to want to be remembered at such a time when so many other more important things are actually going on. The prayers of the saints, and most of all the pure mother of all Christians, St. Mary, are enough for me, as I do not believe myself to be anything out of the ordinary in the context of historical Christianity (throughout which their prayers have availed much), and as they have already gone where I too hope to go, I remind myself of their consistent teaching that this life is given for repentance, not for being right on the internet and rubbing other people's noses in it (much less doing so in the afterlife! What a weird notion). May the Lord have mercy on us all.

 

[Jane_Doe]

Mormons may start their own threads to talk about the physical nature of their god, if they wish.

Actually no. Forum rules forbid "non-Christian" Mormons from starting threads, especially to clarify LDS theology.

One of the many downsides of such as system is that when someone asks a question that is the theological equivalent of calculus (such as this OP) but does not the basics behind it, we must first back up and explain the basics. This causes great frustration on both sides.

 

[Peter1000]

Post 338 is so full of incoherent arguments, I hesitate to reply to it, but since you, Peter, went out of your way to quote my post, I suppose it's the least I could do. I'm getting tired of this thread that I made that is supposed to be about where Mormonism's god comes from being used by Mormons as a platform to spread their strange ideas about other things, though, e.g., that God the Father has a physical body. I'm considering asking a mod to close it if this continues. Mormons may start their own threads to talk about the physical nature of their god, if they wish. I asked essentially about Mormon metaphysics (what/who is Mormonism's 'first cause', given that they have endless gods), not about whether or not God the Father has a physical body.



Alright, right off the bat, no. Just no. I'm not going to sit here and be lectured to by someone who clearly doesn't know the first thing about "Egyptian logic". You're just throwing around labels that sound good to you without knowing what you are talking about.

What you are describing here, this system wherein energy is godly but flesh is the farthest away from God, is a form of dualism. It is again more akin to the beliefs of those like Christian Scientists, who do not believe in the physical reality of the world. Egyptian Christians are not dualists. If this were so, the Church would not have the sacraments, icons, or the theology of the Incarnation that we have.

The Gospel response from the Nativity (Christmas) liturgy sums it up pretty well, in spite of your foolishness directed against Egyptians for having "Egyptian logic" (whatever that is; the only distinctly Egyptian thing I see in here that the Greeks or other westerners would not share is the miaphysite Christology, which in no way denies the physical reality of our Lord and God Jesus Christ):

A star appeared in the East, and the wise men followed it, until it led them to Bethlehem, and they worshiped the King of ages.


The Lord of Glory was called a Son, according to the words of John before he saw Him, the Eternal Word became flesh, and dwelt in us and we saw Him.


For He who was born is God, born without pain from the Father, and He was also born according to the flesh, without pain from the virgin.


One nature out of two, Divinity and Humanity, wherefore the Magi silently, worship uttering His Divinity.


They offered Him frankincense for He is God, and gold for He is King, and myrrh as a sign, of His Life-giving death.


Alleluia Alleluia, Alleluia Alleluia, Jesus Christ the Son of God, was born in Bethlehem.


This is He who is worthy of glory, with His good Father, and the Holy Spirit, both now and forever.


Blessed be the Father and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the perfect Trinity, we worship Him and glorify Him.

+++

What the Church actually prays is its rule of faith, not what others have to say about what they think It's doing or why. So the words are here for all to see, and if you still think that your dualistic idea somehow fits the Egyptians, then you need to read more carefully before attempting to discuss its theology with one of its members. You couldn't be more off base if you were actually trying to be.



Sorry, I don't do "secret" Bible readings (Egyptian Christians are also not gnostics; the Gnostic Egyptians had their own writings, theology, cosmology, etc.), and things are not true or Biblically supported just because you say they are.

This is quite a leap. By this logic, since God created me and I live in California, God lives in California.

Or maybe since God created you and you're a Mormon, God is a Mormon (but maybe your neighbor is a Presbyterian, so God's a Presbyterian, etc.). Or maybe since God created Hillary Clinton, God is the Democratic nominee for president this year, after several years of serving in the New York Senate. Or maybe since God created Donald Trump, God is a real estate mogul turned reality tv star turned Republican presidential candidate. Or maybe since God created the oceans and the seas, God is water. Hmmm...God sure is an awful lot of things and people!

Or you're not making sense. One does not follow the other.



I beg to differ. It is the least interesting concept ever. It is foolishness.



It doesn't change anything. You have an awfully high view of your theology, but it's not shared by any Christian church, so I don't know by what right you can claim that it changes anything for anyone who isn't Mormon. Gain a sense of perspective, please.



Don't be silly. Christ is called "the image of the invisible God" (Colossians 1:15), who declares Him to the people who have never seen Him (John 1:18). And of course Christ Himself openly states that if you have seen Him, you have seen the Father (John 14:9). So it is not a contradiction at all to say that no man hath seen God, but people have seen Jesus Christ. God the Father and His Only-Begotten Son Jesus Christ are not the same Person, though they are both fully and completely God.

And of course there are various instances in the Old Testament before Christ's incarnation where it can be argued that people did 'see', or at least converse with/be in the direct presence of, God (Moses' receiving the tablets comes to mind), though you are right, this is another discussion.

Uh...I thought this handshake thing was a feature of the Mormon temple rites. I'm not a Mormon. I'm not going to Mormon heaven to be greeted by the Mormon Jesus. I, along with everyone else, am going to stand before the Just Judge to account for my life and my many sins, so I do not want to add to them by embracing a theology that directly contradicts 2,000 years of Christian witness, including the scriptures, the fathers, the councils, etc.

I would not be so arrogant as to want to be remembered at such a time when so many other more important things are actually going on. The prayers of the saints,

and most of all the pure mother of all Christians, St. Mary, are enough for me,

as I do not believe myself to be anything out of the ordinary in the context of historical Christianity (throughout which their prayers have availed much), and as they have already gone where I too hope to go, I remind myself of their consistent teaching that this life is given for repentance, not for being right on the internet and rubbing other people's noses in it (much less doing so in the afterlife! What a weird notion). May the Lord have mercy on us all.

This is quite a leap. By this logic, since God created me and I live in California, God lives in California.

Wow, did you miss the point. Let me put it as near as I can to your statement.
Since God created me and I live in California, God must have a body of f&b, because He says in Genesis 1:26 that He created me in His image and in His likeness. Therefore He did not create a formless being.

Most Christians believe that God has no body, parts, or passions. If that is so, why did God create me with a body, parts, and passions?

You would think if God was creating me in His image and likeness, I would have no body, parts, or passions.

Since I have been created with a body, parts, and passions, then it follows that my Creator, Who created me in His image and likeness also has a body, parts, and passions.

Since God the Son has a body, parts, and passions and God the Father and God the Son and God the HS are 1 God, then that 1 God must have a body, parts, and passions.

Uh...I thought this handshake thing was a feature of the Mormon temple rites. I'm not a Mormon. I'm not going to Mormon heaven to be greeted by the Mormon Jesus. I, along with everyone else, am going to stand before the Just Judge to account for my life and my many sins, so I do not want to add to them by embracing a theology that directly contradicts 2,000 years of Christian witness, including the scriptures, the fathers, the councils, etc.

How do you think that interview will go? If Jesus finds you worthy to enter into heaven, you think he will point to the door that you take and then say, 'next', without even a smile on his face?

I believe after the interview and you have been given the gift of eternal life with him, I believe he will come down from his throne and welcome you into his kingdom with a big hug and a statement like,
'well done thou good and faithful servant'. So regardless of what your 2000 years of tradition tells you, get ready for a big physical hug. You will love it.

and most of all the pure mother of all Christians, St. Mary, are enough for me,

I would hate to think that you would leave God out of your equation.
If meeting St. Mary is the most important thing that is going to happen at that time, and is enough for you, you are going to be sorely disappointed. Far above St. Mary is God Jesus. I would not slight him, even in favor of his mother. May the Lord have mercy on all of us.

 

[dzheremi]

Actually no. Forum rules forbid "non-Christian" Mormons from starting threads, especially to clarify LDS theology.

Not even in this particular forum? Huh. I wasn't aware of that. Seems odd.

One of the many downsides of such as system is that when someone asks a question that is the theological equivalent of calculus (such as this OP) but does not the basics behind it, we must first back up and explain the basics. This causes great frustration on both sides.

Indeed!

 

[Jane_Doe]

Not even in this particular forum? Huh. I wasn't aware of that. Seems odd.

Especially on this forum: the system literally makes it impossible for a Mormon to post a thread. In the theology areas the system also makes it literally impossible for a Mormon to say anything.

As a person who finds great excitement in interfaith dialogue I find it most frustrating. I would love to converse with others in a respectful environment about their faith, but I physically cannot.

 

[dzheremi]

Wow, did you miss the point. Let me put it as near as I can to your statement.
Since God created me and I live in California, God must have a body of f&b, because He says in Genesis 1:26 that He created me in His image and in His likeness. Therefore He did not create a formless being.

My statement was deliberately ridiculous, so as to show why your logic does not work in this situation.

Most Christians believe that God has no body, parts, or passions. If that is so, why did God create me with a body, parts, and passions?

Most Christians also understand that God does not have to first be something in order to create that thing. And furthermore the adjacent text of the verse says that "He created them male and female" -- does this mean that the Mormon God is a hermaphrodite? If your answer to that is immediately no, then perhaps you can understand why your own line of logic here is dismissed as immediately absurd.

You would think if God was creating me in His image and likeness, I would have no body, parts, or passions.

No you wouldn't, because that's not what 'image' means. It does not mean a 3D replica. The Greek of the LXX uses the same word (εἰκόνα) from which we get the English word 'icon', and icons are (or have traditionally been) deliberately representative/not photo-realistic.

Here is a Coptic icon of Christ Pantocrator from the 12th century:

Here we have an εἰκόνα of Christ our God in which proportions are deliberately not realistic (or perhaps you think that Christ had deliberately enlarged fingers), and He is surrounded by angels who are without physical bodies, and so on. It is just as much an 'image' of God as any of us are, although we are of flesh and blood and it is made with paint. Notice how there are no internal organs or whatever included, since that has nothing to do with what an 'image' is.

Since I have been created with a body, parts, and passions, then it follows that my Creator, Who created me in His image and likeness also has a body, parts, and passions.

It does not follow, or else the scriptures would not say, as I have already mentioned, that Christ is the image of the invisible God. The scriptures have it right. Your presuppositions are erroneous.

Since God the Son has a body, parts, and passions and God the Father and God the Son and God the HS are 1 God, then that 1 God must have a body, parts, and passions.

Again, no, this does not follow at all. You are taking your own presuppositions as a given and then arguing from them as though they are self-evident, when they are denied in scripture, in the fathers, in the councils, and in everything that makes up 2,000 years of consistent Christian witness.

How do you think that interview will go?

How should I know? It hasn't happened yet.

If Jesus finds you worthy to enter into heaven, you think he will point to the door that you take and then say, 'next', without even a smile on his face?

It does not matter. Jesus is not a Walmart greeter -- He's the almighty creator, sustainer, and judge of everything in existence.

I believe after the interview and you have been given the gift of eternal life with him, I believe he will come down from his throne and welcome you into his kingdom with a big hug and a statement like, 'well done thou good and faithful servant'. So regardless of what your 2000 years of tradition tells you, get ready for a big physical hug. You will love it.

Er...alright. I don't really see this as something worth continuing to discuss.

I would hate to think that you would leave God out of your equation.

And I would hate to think that you think I have!

If meeting St. Mary is the most important thing that is going to happen at that time, and is enough for you, you are going to be sorely disappointed. Far above St. Mary is God Jesus. I would not slight him, even in favor of his mother.

Where did I write or even imply that meeting St. Mary is "the most important thing that is going to happen at that time"? When did I write that she was somehow above Jesus, her Son and God? ("My soul doth rejoice in my Savior", she said of Him.) To say that she is the greatest of all the saints is uncontroversial and standard Orthodox theology, though no one raises her above where she should be. (You'll have to look to the Roman Catholics for some of that, with their strange but thankfully-not-doctrinal 'mediatrix' business, which has nothing to do with what we do.)

May the Lord have mercy on all of us.

Amen.

 

[Ironhold]

Not even in this particular forum? Huh. I wasn't aware of that. Seems odd.

Blame the powers that be.

Once upon a time, there was only one "debate" section, and people could post and start new threads as they pleased.

Thing is, we "heretics" and "cultists" were doing too good a job of pushing back against the "Good Christians" that were after us. A lot of the posters that tried to challenge us tried to do so using decades-old challenges that had already been answered to at least some degree, while others showed such an absolute lack of understanding about whatever religious group they were targeting that they opened the floor up for everyone to give the basic missionary lessons of their faith. This was such a direct challenge to the official narrative of us being ignorant savages, and so someone on the administration staff decided that they had to intervene in order to ensure the desired outcome.

This section here was intended to be a turkey shoot, as the "heretics" and "cultists" were forbidden from starting threads or entering discussions about religious groups that weren't their own. If we wanted to start our own threads, we would have to go to a separate, non-debate area where we really couldn't challenge what we were being told.

 

[Peter1000]

My statement was deliberately ridiculous, so as to show why your logic does not work in this situation.

Most Christians also understand that God does not have to first be something in order to create that thing. And furthermore the adjacent text of the verse says that "He created them male and female" -- does this mean that the Mormon God is a hermaphrodite? If your answer to that is immediately no, then perhaps you can understand why your own line of logic here is dismissed as immediately absurd.

No you wouldn't, because that's not what 'image' means. It does not mean a 3D replica. The Greek of the LXX uses the same word (εἰκόνα) from which we get the English word 'icon', and icons are (or have traditionally been) deliberately representative/not photo-realistic.

Here is a Coptic icon of Christ Pantocrator from the 12th century:

Here we have an εἰκόνα of Christ our God in which proportions are deliberately not realistic (or perhaps you think that Christ had deliberately enlarged fingers), and He is surrounded by angels who are without physical bodies, and so on. It is just as much an 'image' of God as any of us are, although we are of flesh and blood and it is made with paint. Notice how there are no internal organs or whatever included, since that has nothing to do with what an 'image' is.



It does not follow, or else the scriptures would not say, as I have already mentioned, that Christ is the image of the invisible God. The scriptures have it right. Your presuppositions are erroneous.



Again, no, this does not follow at all. You are taking your own presuppositions as a given and then arguing from them as though they are self-evident, when they are denied in scripture, in the fathers, in the councils, and in everything that makes up 2,000 years of consistent Christian witness.



How should I know? It hasn't happened yet.



It does not matter. Jesus is not a Walmart greeter -- He's the almighty creator, sustainer, and judge of everything in existence.



Er...alright. I don't really see this as something worth continuing to discuss.



And I would hate to think that you think I have!



Where did I write or even imply that meeting St. Mary is "the most important thing that is going to happen at that time"? When did I write that she was somehow above Jesus, her Son and God? ("My soul doth rejoice in my Savior", she said of Him.) To say that she is the greatest of all the saints is uncontroversial and standard Orthodox theology, though no one raises her above where she should be. (You'll have to look to the Roman Catholics for some of that, with their strange but thankfully-not-doctrinal 'mediatrix' business, which has nothing to do with what we do.)



Amen.

Most Christians also understand that God does not have to first be something in order to create that thing. And furthermore the adjacent text of the verse says that "He created them male and female" -- does this mean that the Mormon God is a hermaphrodite? If your answer to that is immediately no, then perhaps you can understand why your own line of logic here is dismissed as immediately absurd.

Interesting observation. So let's look at the creation:
Genesis 1:3 God said...
Genesis 1:6 God said...
Genesis 1:9 God said...
Genesis 1:14 God said...
Genesis 1:20 God said...
Genesis 1:26 Is different
In vs 26 God said, "let us make man in our image, after our likeness".

The answer to my absurd logic, is answered here in the bible.

Who is the 'us' and who is the 'our' in verse 26?
Who is God referring to when He says,
our image?
after our likeness?

Since there is male and female being created, it follows that there were Male and Female Creators.

The name Elohim signifies 'Gods', but it does not signify the gender of the 'Gods'.

Elohim confirms in vs 26 that there are indeed 'Gods' active in the creation.

So here is the point. If the bible says that God created male and female in His image, after His likeness, so either:
1) the bible is making a false statement, (because certainly a female is not in the image or likeness of God the Father)
2) God is a hermaphrodite
3) there is another explanation. That other explanation is that 1 of the 'us' was a Female.

Here is a Coptic icon of Christ Pantocrator from the 12th century:

You will notice in this 'image of God' that God has a head and a torso and 2 arms and 2 legs, and 10 fingers and 10 toes.
This indeed is the correct 'image of God'

Now let's talk about God's likeness. You always leave out 'likeness'. Likeness has to do with being made 'like' Him. Like out of the same stuff as He is. So since I am f&b, and I am in the 'likeness' of God, it follows that He has a body of F&B too.
You always leave out 'likeness' because it leads to this conclusion, and you do not like it.

The scriptures do have it right, but you and the Fathers, and the councils and the thousands of books and manuscripts have it dead wrong.

You words exactly about Mary, but I am going to take back what I said. I believe you when you say Mary is important, but Jesus is the focus of your world and I know that your soul doth rejoice in Him. Thank you for loving Jesus.

 

[Peter1000]

The last few Mormon posts have really shown the stark contrast between Mormon belief and that of Christians. Addicted as they are to their materialist viewpoint, LDS apparently cannot help but direct all of their questions to bodily matters, and hence preoccupy themselves with silly questions about the physics behind Christ's miracles (shades of Christian Science, perhaps? Mary Baker Eddy claimed to have discovered the 'science' behind Christ's miracles, too...but no, Joseph Smith is the real deal! ), whereas the Christian has no trouble with the concept that divinity is unbounded, because by Christ's own words, before Abraham was, He is (John 8:58). The objections of the Jews to this point (that He -- meaning Jesus -- is not yet fifty years old, so how can He claim to be greater than Abraham when He could not have even seen him, as Abraham died long ago) are like those of the Mormons: logical, in a sense, but also revealing that they don't really know the One they are discussing.

They try to enclose the uncircumscribed Logos according to their human understandings of space and time, but Christ our God is clearly having none of that.

Have fun accompanying the Jews in their disbelief in Christ, Mormonism!

They try to enclose the uncircumscribed Logos according to their human understandings of space and time, but Christ our God is clearly having none of that.

Try finding the word 'uncircumscribed' in the bible.

Don't get confused about our belief in Jesus Christ. We would die rather than deny Jesus Christ.
We simply differ about his nature and the qualities you insist he possesses.

There is nothing in the scriptures that lead us to believe that Jesus can be in 2 or 10,000 places at the same time throughout the universe. His light and influence can be felt throughout the immensities of space and his representatives are in all places, but he physically can only be in 1 place at 1 time.

Just a reality check from the metaphysical philosophies of the ancient Egyptian and Greek pagans about God.

 

[dzheremi]

Try finding the word 'uncircumscribed' in the bible.

I don't have to. There are equivalent passages which point to God's being outside of time and space (e.g., 2 Peter 3:8), and besides, the word is found in the Fathers and in our hymns, so it is theologically settled. You are not arguing with a 'Bible only' Christian here, so this kind of argument really falls flat.

Don't get confused about our belief in Jesus Christ. We would die rather than deny Jesus Christ.
We simply differ about his nature and the qualities you insist he possesses.

Yes, you have another Christ of your own making, and another Father of your own making, and all these other things of your own making. This much is obvious to every Christian who has ever looked into Mormon theology. That's why your religion is not accepted as Christian in the first place.

There is nothing in the scriptures that lead us to believe that Jesus can be in 2 or 10,000 places at the same time throughout the universe. His light and influence can be felt throughout the immensities of space and his representatives are in all places, but he physically can only be in 1 place at 1 time.

You're quite simply wrong about that. Ephesians 1:23 states that the Church is His body, the fullness of Him Who fills all things.

Just a reality check from the metaphysical philosophies of the ancient Egyptian and Greek pagans about God.

Could you get off this stupid "metaphysical philosophies of the ancient Egyptians and Greek pagans" garbage? Again, you don't know what you're talking about, and as a member of the Egyptian Church which very much has a standard/traditional Christian theology, it is incredibly offensive. I have posted already the prayers from my own Church which reveal no such thing as you appear to believe about us, so the matter is settled and your continuing to bring it up when it has no basis in what we actually do and pray is just trolling, and very much not appreciated. I started this thread, and I can have it ended if you simply cannot help yourself.

Besides, it is not anyone else's fault -- be they Egyptian, Greek, or other -- that you cannot believe what has been standard theology and ecclesiology since the beginning of the Church. This is something you have inherited from Mormon theology, and it makes no sense that anyone else should have to make any kind of apology from that vantage point which, after all, they do not share (recall my earlier argument with another Mormon poster about not demanding that they argue as though they are not Mormon). Whether you like it or can understand it or not, this idea of the Church being the body of Christ and His literal presence among believers is neither controversial nor particular to any one confession. The Byzantines (Eastern Chalcedonians/Melkites) say it most succinctly when they greet one another with "Christ is among us!", we in the Coptic Orthodox Church pray during our litanies that the Lord protect us when gathered together for worship in "this place, and every church, and every monastery, and every place which is Yours" (because Christ is in all of these places, you see), because -- as our Catholic and Protestant friends would also point out (since, again, this is shared by all Christians) -- the Lord Himself told us that when two or three are gathered in His name, He is there among them. (Matthew 18:20)

 

[Jane_Doe]

That's why your religion is not accepted as Christian in the first place.

Correction: LDS are rejected by because we refuse to accept non-scriptural man-made documents as being authoritative.

 

[dzheremi]

Correction: LDS are rejected by because we refuse to accept non-scriptural man-made documents as being authoritative.

Yeah...except when they're the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, or the Doctrine & Covenants. Those non-scriptural man-made documents are right on.

And, nope, that's not why. The vast majority of Protestants don't explicitly affirm the councils or bother with the Fathers, and yet they retain the traditional Trinitarian theology that is outlined and expounded upon by the same. Mormons are rejected for rejecting basic Christian theology, not for their non-acceptance of particular councils, fathers, or writings.

 

[Jane_Doe]

Yeah...except when they're the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, or the Doctrine & Covenants. Those non-scriptural man-made documents are right on.

Apples and oranges.

The Bible, Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, and the Doctrine & Covenants are considered God-given scripture by LDS. Obviously you disagree some of these, which is your right.

Everyone (LDS, you, etc) agrees that the mainstream Christian creeds not scripture or given by God.

And, nope, that's not why.

It's not because LDS reject the man-made non-scriptural creeds like the Nicene Creed? Cause I'm pretty sure that's the non-scriptural ruler CF uses to define "Christian".

The vast majority of Protestants don't explicitly affirm the councils or bother with the Fathers, and yet they retain the traditional Trinitarian theology that is outlined and expounded upon by the same.

Aka: As outlined in non-scriptural man-made documents.

Mormons are rejected for rejecting basic Christian theology, not for their non-acceptance of particular councils, fathers, or writings.

I'm pretty sure the basics of the Christian faith is found in the Bible. LDS accept the Bible. We reject non-scriptural man-made documents.

 

[dzheremi]

Apples and oranges.

I don't see why, beyond that you say so (which is not good enough). The truth of the matter is that for non-Mormons (a.k.a. Christians), these additional works that are accepted by Mormons but not anyone else are just as non-scriptural as the Fathers and the Councils are. The difference is that for those traditional Christians who hold to some kind of standard in continuity with the early Church as attested to by the actual writings, councils, etc. that this same Church produced, things don't have to be considered as scripture to be authoritative. Even the first Protestant reformers did not seek to completely do away with tradition (hence you will find people like Luther defending calling St. Mary 'Theotokos', though that was codified at Ephesus in 431, in opposition to Nestorius), only perhaps to elevate the scriptures to the level of being the primary or final source on doctrinal matters, so as to eliminate what they saw as traditions which were in conflict with the scriptures.

The Bible, Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, and the Doctrine & Covenants are considered God-given scripture by LDS. Obviously you disagree some of these, which is your right.

Everyone (LDS, you, etc) agrees that the mainstream Christian creeds not scripture or given by God.

This is irrelevant, given the above. You don't get to create some kind of special exception for your own non-Christian religion whereby you have all these extra things but that's okay because they're "scripture" for you, while actual Christians must stick only to what you say the Bible means because otherwise they are following extra things that are not the scriptures.

Or, rather, you can, but you shouldn't then be surprised or act incredulous when people point out that this is hypocritical nonsense, and renders any point you might make about who is "following scripture" and who isn't completely void.

My Church, through our holy father St. Athanasius the Apostolic, gave you and all Christians the standard 27-book canon of the NT. He also, according to some traditions, wrote the Nicene Creed. So there is no contradiction between embracing both, as surely the man who gave the Bible its standard canon must have something to say about the content of the faith.

If he doesn't, or if the bishops gathered together with him at Nicaea do not, then please stop using that same Biblical canon to argue against what has been established by these same men.

I don't even get it...Mormonism, unlike Christianity, believes that there are modern day prophets who speak for God and receive revelations from Him and whatnot, and yet the saints who lived so much closer to the time of our Lord, including some who learned at the feet of the apostles themselves, are not to be trusted. It doesn't make sense. It's foolishness. Again, you want exceptions for your guys, but our guys are clearly waaaay off base, despite the fact that you (mis)use what they gave all of us to try to prop up your church.

It's not because LDS reject the man-made non-scriptural creeds like the Nicene Creed? Cause I'm pretty sure that's the non-scriptural ruler CF uses to define "Christian".

Again, it is because Mormons do not accept and affirm standard/traditional Christian theology. Yes, that is what is contained in the Nicene Creed. It's you who is adding this "non-scriptural" nonsense to it, as though that means anything in this context beyond the fact that you disagree with it and want to whine about how you're apparently so undeservedly sidelined for it.

Aka: As outlined in non-scriptural man-made documents.

That's right: pick a non-point and harp on it. That's how arguments work.

I'm pretty sure the basics of the Christian faith is found in the Bible. LDS accept the Bible. We reject non-scriptural man-made documents

Did I get lost in my own thread? Is the topic now "Things are true because Jane Doe says they are"? No. It isn't. And yes you do accept non-scriptural man-made documents, you just call them scripture. That does not make them so.

 

[Jane_Doe]

Dzheremi, you listen to a man who Peter's student's student's student's student's....( skipping a lots of iterations here) student. That is good.

I listen Christ directly. That is best.

That is the simple logic behind our disagreement.

 

[NYCGuy]

Dzheremi, you listen to a man who Peter's student's student's student's student's....( skipping a lots of iterations here) student. That is good.

I listen Christ directly. That is best.

That is the simple logic behind our disagreement.

This shows a very fundamental lack of understanding of Catholic/Orthodox theology.

 

[dzheremi]

Dzheremi, you listen to a man who Peter's student's student's student's student's....( skipping a lots of iterations here) student. That is good.

I listen Christ directly. That is best.

That is the simple logic behind our disagreement.

I would say if it's anything, it is a gross misrepresentation of Christianity from a Mormon engaging in special pleading (as they always do, because they have to) in order to make their own acceptance of a theology wildly at variance with anything that has ever been accepted by any Christian somehow seem as though it has come from Christ Himself. [Staff edit].

 

[Peter1000]

I don't see why, beyond that you say so (which is not good enough). The truth of the matter is that for non-Mormons (a.k.a. Christians), these additional works that are accepted by Mormons but not anyone else are just as non-scriptural as the Fathers and the Councils are. The difference is that for those traditional Christians who hold to some kind of standard in continuity with the early Church as attested to by the actual writings, councils, etc. that this same Church produced, things don't have to be considered as scripture to be authoritative. Even the first Protestant reformers did not seek to completely do away with tradition (hence you will find people like Luther defending calling St. Mary 'Theotokos', though that was codified at Ephesus in 431, in opposition to Nestorius), only perhaps to elevate the scriptures to the level of being the primary or final source on doctrinal matters, so as to eliminate what they saw as traditions which were in conflict with the scriptures.



This is irrelevant, given the above. You don't get to create some kind of special exception for your own non-Christian religion whereby you have all these extra things but that's okay because they're "scripture" for you, while actual Christians must stick only to what you say the Bible means because otherwise they are following extra things that are not the scriptures.

Or, rather, you can, but you shouldn't then be surprised or act incredulous when people point out that this is hypocritical nonsense, and renders any point you might make about who is "following scripture" and who isn't completely void.

My Church, through our holy father St. Athanasius the Apostolic, gave you and all Christians the standard 27-book canon of the NT. He also, according to some traditions, wrote the Nicene Creed. So there is no contradiction between embracing both, as surely the man who gave the Bible its standard canon must have something to say about the content of the faith.

If he doesn't, or if the bishops gathered together with him at Nicaea do not, then please stop using that same Biblical canon to argue against what has been established by these same men.

I don't even get it...Mormonism, unlike Christianity, believes that there are modern day prophets who speak for God and receive revelations from Him and whatnot, and yet the saints who lived so much closer to the time of our Lord, including some who learned at the feet of the apostles themselves, are not to be trusted. It doesn't make sense. It's foolishness. Again, you want exceptions for your guys, but our guys are clearly waaaay off base, despite the fact that you (mis)use what they gave all of us to try to prop up your church.



Again, it is because Mormons do not accept and affirm standard/traditional Christian theology. Yes, that is what is contained in the Nicene Creed. It's you who is adding this "non-scriptural" nonsense to it, as though that means anything in this context beyond the fact that you disagree with it and want to whine about how you're apparently so undeservedly sidelined for it.



That's right: pick a non-point and harp on it. That's how arguments work.



Did I get lost in my own thread? Is the topic now "Things are true because Jane Doe says they are"? No. It isn't. And yes you do accept non-scriptural man-made documents, you just call them scripture. That does not make them so.

Just a question about St. Athanasius the Apostolic.

1) What supernatural thing did he do to warrent Sainthood?
2) Is he an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ?

Thanks for your response.