LDS What caused eternal matter to exist?

[Peter1000]

Ignatius the Kiwi,

The very neutrality and simple statements of truth in the rule allows both of us to come together and celebrate the gospel. I have always maintained that on the first level of doctrine, we all can agree and be brothers in the Lord. This was the position of the early church. Fairly simple and more straight-forward.

Gradually, men started to drill deeper into the mysteries, such as the Gnostics and other heresies, and by the time all of the apostles were dead, and by 200 especially, we were in real trouble and the church eventually got caught in a quagmire of doctrinal subtleties that brought about hundreds more heresies and many divisions and even schisms in the church and it has not been able to recover even to our times. That is why there are hundreds of Christian churches, all teaching different doctrines and subtle nuances pertaining to the gospel, so that we cannot be united in Christ. I will give you a perfect example:
The council of Nicea stated: Jesus is God, consubstantial with the Father.
The council of Ephesus stated: Jesus is both divine and human in 1 Person. This statement rejected Nestorianism which states: Jesus has 2 distinct beings, 1 divine and 1 human, inhabiting 1 body.
Then the council of Chalcedon states: Jesus is 1 Person, but this 1 Person existed in 2 complete natures, 1 divine and 1 human.
Are you seeing the play on words and the sophistry and subtlety and rediculous drilling into the nature of Christ, especially when this is just a debate and a vote with the majority winning the day.
Well many decided this was too much, Chalcedon had betrayed them and so they decided to refuse to commune with the rest of the Great Church because of these subtleties and went their own way, now as a new and liberated Oriental Orthodox Church. Now millions of people were out of the Great church, but they had their own new church and everyone was happy and content. Oh BTW, they are an 'autocephalous' church, which means their church's highest bishop does not have to account to any other authority. It was a clean break. Now they could believe exactly what they wanted, when they wanted and for as long as they wanted, without interference from Rome or Constantinope, or Antioch, or Jerusalem, or even Alexandria. I wonder what they would have done in 70ad and one of the apostles noticed they were believing something that was not quite right? Would they have thrown the Jerusalem-based apostle out on his head?

The OO became a church because of the philosophical drilling. To bad.

Mormons. obviously do not look at God as a weak and impotent man, nor do we look to Him as a super hero, regardless of when lifeless matter was formed (again, mindless dribble). We look to God the Father as our Creator, our God and our Father, just like Jesus does. (John 20:17)

Read John 20:17 and tell me if you agree with Jesus too, especially the part when Jesus says, "I ascend to my Father, and your Father, and to my God and your God".

Or if you do not agree with Jesus, tell me who you do agree with? Ya know, I remember dzheremi brought up some Nicene Chruch Father that tried to help us understand what Jesus was really saying in this scripture. 2,000 words later he just got himself all tangled up in his words and I was not impressed, and he did not solve the puzzle. And that was his problem, it was not a puzzle to begin with, it was a straight-forward statement from Jesus that needed no explanation, unless you do not agree with him, then all kinds of word gyrations are necessary to get around it. If you believe his words, it's simple.

 

[Peter1000]

Colossians 1:16
For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.
Colossians 1:17
And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

If God made all things and God holds all things together, then Nothing can exist before God made it.

The word 'created' does not mean 'make something out of nothing'. To some Jews, and some Christians, God created things 'out of nothing'. Many other Christians believe that God created things from 'unformed matter'. Many other Christians believed other concepts about how God created, so it was an unsettled question that did not bother too many people until the time the Nicene Council took place they tried to put the final doctrine to rest. They really did not need to try to answer a thorny question, and could not even answer it, so it became a matter of debate and a vote and 'out of nothing' received a majority of votes. That is how councils come to the truth. Vote on it.

Mormons don't adhere to this kind of doctrinal consensus, and so we wait until Jesus Christ tells a prophet how it is, and that is what we believe. We do vote as an entire church to uphold the prophets words, so to show unity and oneness. But we do not go to council and debate, and argue, and hammer out a consensus majority about the truths of the gospel.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

That is how councils come to the truth. Vote on it.

Mormons don't adhere to this kind of doctrinal consensus, and so we wait until Jesus Christ tells a prophet how it is, and that is what we believe. We do vote as an entire church to uphold the prophets words, so to show unity and oneness. But we do not go to council and debate, and argue, and hammer out a consensus majority about the truths of the gospel.

It's much easier for a cult leader to declare himself a "prophet" in order to preclude anyone else in the cult to have any say on any matter that requires spiritual discernment. This is how they rule as the dictator of the cult. Why let anyone else think or understand anything when it may jeopardize the power held by that person?

We know that Joseph Smith was a false prophet by virtue of his failed prophecies (i.e. lies). Therefore, since he was not a true prophet, he was just a cult leader who ruled with an iron fist. We see that in his polygamy, how he lied to various people about his polygamy and had to declare that it was a 'revelation' that he was supposed to marry other people's wives and children. Since Joseph Smith, every false prophet in the mormon church has forbidden anyone else to do any thinking or decision-making nor have they consulted with anyone. It's amazing how quiet the mormon god has been since these prophets do pretty much nothing, have no revelations - you have to wonder why they even need a prophet if there are no revelations anymore.

I think it's pretty clear that the mormon model of a (false) prophet who rules as dictator and changes "revalations from God" at his own will and discretion is really just a cover-up for his desire to retain dicatorship over the religion. Those who know the history of Christianity know the truth about the councils and the history of Christians having consensus rather than "voting". It's just another mormon smear based in their ignorance the history of Christianity.

 

[Jane_Doe]

It's much easier for a cult leader to declare himself a "prophet" in order to preclude anyone else in the cult to have any say on any matter that requires spiritual discernment.

You're making few HUGE assumptions here:
1) The person proclaiming prophethood has not done tons of discernment on the matter
2) Anyone accepting this proclaimed prophet has not done tons of discernment on the matter
3) That anyone who acknowledges that God sends prophets automatically becomes a mindless "yes sir" robot.

 

[dzheremi]

1) The person proclaiming prophethood has not done tons of discernment on the matter

Is the person proclaiming prophethood doing tons of discernment about their own claim what determines whether they should be accepted? The Muslims say their prophet did that (e.g., first he wasn't sure what was going on; he asked his wife Khadija about it; etc.); in fact, they even say that others discerned his prophethood, via the Sergius Bahira legend. Yet Mormons obviously do not accept Muhammad as a prophet. Why not?

2) Anyone accepting this proclaimed prophet has not done tons of discernment on the matter

See above. The same question applies to a supposed prophet's followers. Presumably there are people who prayed and maybe even fasted or subjected themselves or their wider community to a lot in the name of scrutinizing would-be leaders so as to make sure they were not following the wrong people. And yet we know that in the past there were many false prophets (e.g., Mani, Montanus and his prophetesses Priscilla and Maximilla, etc.), and in our own times there have also been many (e.g., David Koresh, Jim Jones, Vassula Ryden, etc). Does the discernment done by the people who nevertheless ended up following these personalities somehow change the ultimate fact that they are false prophets?

3) That anyone who acknowledges that God sends prophets automatically becomes a mindless "yes sir" robot.

I don't think you'll get very far with this idea given that all Christians believe that God has sent prophets.

 

[Jane_Doe]

Is the person proclaiming prophethood doing tons of discernment about their own claim what determines whether they should be accepted? The Muslims say their prophet did that (e.g., first he wasn't sure what was going on; he asked his wife Khadija about it; etc.); in fact, they even say that others discerned his prophethood, via the Sergius Bahira legend. Yet Mormons obviously do not accept Muhammad as a prophet. Why not?

The section you quoted was about that person proclaiming prophethood doing their own discernment on the matter, not about any one else's thoughts on the matter.

See above. The same question applies to a supposed prophet's followers. Presumably there are people who prayed and maybe even fasted or subjected themselves or their wider community to a lot in the name of scrutinizing would-be leaders so as to make sure they were not following the wrong people. And yet we know that in the past there were many false prophets (e.g., Mani, Montanus and his prophetesses Priscilla and Maximilla, etc.), and in our own times there have also been many (e.g., David Koresh, Jim Jones, Vassula Ryden, etc). Does the discernment done by the people who nevertheless ended up following these personalities somehow change the ultimate fact that they are false prophets?

It sounds like you are advocating "just because some people claiming to be prophets are fake that means ALL prophets are fake!". No.

I don't think you'll get very far with this idea given that all Christians believe that God has sent prophets.

Agreed. Which is one of the reasons why I don't understand the attitude I discussed above, or claims such as ArmainianJohn made.

 

[dzheremi]

The section you quoted was about that person proclaiming prophethood doing their own discernment on the matter, not about any one else's thoughts on the matter.

I am aware of that. That's why I asked the question that I did. Other religions have prophets who their adherents will say did a lot of their own discernment on the matter. If this fact is supposed to mean something about whether or not their prophethood is 'real', then why do you accept Joseph Smith but not Muhammad, Felix Manalo, Joseph Lundgren, etc.?

It sounds like you are advocating "just because some people claiming to be prophets are fake that means ALL prophets are fake!". No.

No. What I'm actually doing is asking what the relation is between discernment on the part of the self-proclaimed prophet and/or their followers and the truth of their prophethood. Your reply to ArmenianJohn suggests a link between discernment and prophethood, so I'd like to know more about how it's supposed to be realized.

 

[BigDaddy4]

You're making few HUGE assumptions here:
1) The person proclaiming prophethood has not done tons of discernment on the matter
2) Anyone accepting this proclaimed prophet has not done tons of discernment on the matter
3) That anyone who acknowledges that God sends prophets automatically becomes a mindless "yes sir" robot.

And you ignore Scripture, the very thing you claim to hold in high regard:

Hebrew 1:1-2
In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe.

No more need for prophets. We are in the last days. The Son (Jesus Christ) has sent the Spirit to guide us (Acts 1 and 2). It is a HUGE and false assumption of the lds church that prophets are still needed as they were in the OT times.

 

[BigDaddy4]

The section you quoted was about that person proclaiming prophethood doing their own discernment on the matter, not about any one else's thoughts on the matter.

Here is your supposed prophet seeking, and ignoring, guidance on his "vision":

Joseph Smith - History 1:21
Some few days after I had this vision, I happened to be in company with one of the Methodist preachers, who was very active in the before mentioned religious excitement; and, conversing with him on the subject of religion, I took occasion to give him an account of the vision which I had had. I was greatly surprised at his behavior; he treated my communication not only lightly, but with great contempt, saying it was all of the devil, that there were no such things as visions or revelations in these days; that all such things had ceased with the apostles, and that there would never be any more of them.

Joseph Smith—History 1

He then goes into his persecution/victim complex in verses 22 and 23. In verse 24 he tries to validate his vision by appealing to the Apostle Paul's interaction with King Agrippa. Then, in verse 25, JS goes totally un-Biblical (Exodus 33:20, John 1:18, etc. ) and reaffirms his vision of "two Personages".

Not very impressed with your so-called prophet's method of discernment. Yet, you choose to follow him and his words, claiming them to be from God. Following a false prophet has eternal consequences. No make up exams are allowed (Hebrews 9:27)

 

[Jane_Doe]

And you ignore Scripture, the very thing you claim to hold in high regard:

Hebrew 1:1-2
In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe.

No more need for prophets. We are in the last days. The Son (Jesus Christ) has sent the Spirit to guide us (Acts 1 and 2). It is a HUGE and false assumption of the lds church that prophets are still needed as they were in the OT times.

Big daddy, is your Bible end at Hebrews? Or does it continue to include many other books? Does your theology also come from creeds written centuries afterwards?

 

[Jane_Doe]

I am aware of that. That's why I asked the question that I did. Other religions have prophets who their adherents will say did a lot of their own discernment on the matter. If this fact is supposed to mean something about whether or not their prophethood is 'real', then why do you accept Joseph Smith but not Muhammad, Felix Manalo, Joseph Lundgren, etc.?

Discernment. Again, there is no blind acceptance here nor blind rejection.

No. What I'm actually doing is asking what the relation is between discernment on the part of the self-proclaimed prophet and/or their followers and the truth of their prophethood. Your reply to ArmenianJohn suggests a link between discernment and prophethood, so I'd like to know more about how it's supposed to be realized.

Through the Spirit.

 

[dzheremi]

Discernment. Again, there is no blind acceptance here nor blind rejection.

Again, the followers of these other prophets who you do not accept, and the self-proclaimed prophets themselves, would say that they have done nothing else. So why do you not accept them? By what measure is Joseph Smith's prophethood [more] 'true' than theirs, if they too are practicing the discernment that you claim is necessary in order to be sure that you're following true prophets and not false ones?

 

[BigDaddy4]

Big daddy, is your Bible end at Hebrews? Or does it continue to include many other books? Does your theology also come from creeds written centuries afterwards?

Did God lie?

 

[Jane_Doe]

Again, the followers of these other prophets who you do not accept, and the self-proclaimed prophets themselves, would say that they have done nothing else. So why do you not accept them?

Discernment of the Holy Spirit directly with the Spirit. Whatever anyone else does has zero barring on it.

By what measure is Joseph Smith's prophethood [more] 'true' than theirs, if they too are practicing the discernment that you claim is necessary in order to be sure that you're following true prophets and not false ones?

Each person has to discern for themselves. It is not my role to stand between someone else and the Holy Spirit (or vise versa).

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Neutrality is an impossible standard. Mormons can no more be neutral when looking at the fathers than I can since we have two radically different views. You believe corruption and evil to have followed in the wake of God’s not sending a prophet to guide his people and I believe that prophets were not necessary to lead God’s people. This doesn’t abscond us from the responsibility to trying to be fair though and trying to enter into the world of our opponents. Mormons I feel on a whole are incapable of doing this, because ultimately there is viewpoint that the fathers (many or most) were not sincere in their beliefs. I say that because if they were sincere, if they truly followed God as much as they were able then there is simply no excuse for the god of Mormonism not guiding them into the actual truth. Thus you must consider their motives suspect in order to justify Mormon theology.

Your recounting of the history is appreciated but when you accuse the council fathers of being sophists and pointlessly going into the detail about the life of Christ I get the idea you’ve never actually read why the fathers were concerned with such things. We could look at Chalcedon and say that the term the Mother of God was only sophistry or we could look at Saint Cyril’s writings and try to get behind the term to see the theological reason for why this title is so important. Is it to do with Mary or is it to do with Christ? It was fundamentally Christological, avoiding the potential introduced by Nestorius to render Christ and Jesus into two distinct beings. It was about seeing the reconciliation of our own species by God doing what was unbecoming and taking on what is lesser, humiliating himself for our sakes in order to redeem fallen humanity. You can reduce Chalceodn to the simple formula of 1 person, 2 natures, but then you have to go deeper and actually see what they were getting at. It wasn’t a petty attempt to categorize something that was irrelevant but to clarify how our salvation occurs in the incarnation.

As for calling the Oriental Orthodox a Philosophical Church I am in no position to speak on that because I have not read too much Oriental Orthodox Theologians. Philosophising itself isn’t bad though. I would argue that since Mormons are discouraged to think about certain problems inherent within your religion (Where God comes from for instance, why does God need a heavenly wife, why do we worship a being who is not all powerful?) that you are hamstrung into not responding to people like myself who have legitimate questions concerning these things.

You say God isn’t weak but he is. He cannot create without his wife (showing he is dependent on her in order to bring about your existence). He is limited by his physical body, time and space and thus cannot attend to all matters at once personally, so he must give authority to the Holy Spirit to do what he personally cannot. He needs to take on a material body in order to be God (he cannot be God in of himself). He is perhaps smaller than some men and women on earth. He could have a God above him and that God a God above him and etc ad infinitum. The list goes on and all Mormons can say is, speculation, don’t care, not important.

You think Mormonism offers simple and clean answers when in reality I would say it just adds to the problems. The Christians of the early centuries were keen to have a cohesive faith, an articulated faith that didn’t answer all mysteries but did seek understanding of the most important points. Ecumenical councils were called to respond to crises within the Church which threatened to divide the Church and as lamentable as the schisms were, they were necessary and those offshoots never went too far or prospered. It is notable that despite the various heresies we see four main ancient Christian traditions. The Roman Catholic, the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox and the Syriac Church. All of which are united in a common confession of the Nicene/Constantinopolitan creed.

Ignatius the Kiwi,



The very neutrality and simple statements of truth in the rule allows both of us to come together and celebrate the gospel. I have always maintained that on the first level of doctrine, we all can agree and be brothers in the Lord. This was the position of the early church. Fairly simple and more straight-forward.



Gradually, men started to drill deeper into the mysteries, such as the Gnostics and other heresies, and by the time all of the apostles were dead, and by 200 especially, we were in real trouble and the church eventually got caught in a quagmire of doctrinal subtleties that brought about hundreds more heresies and many divisions and even schisms in the church and it has not been able to recover even to our times. That is why there are hundreds of Christian churches, all teaching different doctrines and subtle nuances pertaining to the gospel, so that we cannot be united in Christ. I will give you a perfect example:

The council of Nicea stated: Jesus is God, consubstantial with the Father.

The council of Ephesus stated: Jesus is both divine and human in 1 Person. This statement rejected Nestorianism which states: Jesus has 2 distinct beings, 1 divine and 1 human, inhabiting 1 body.

Then the council of Chalcedon states: Jesus is 1 Person, but this 1 Person existed in 2 complete natures, 1 divine and 1 human.

Are you seeing the play on words and the sophistry and subtlety and rediculous drilling into the nature of Christ, especially when this is just a debate and a vote with the majority winning the day.

Well many decided this was too much, Chalcedon had betrayed them and so they decided to refuse to commune with the rest of the Great Church because of these subtleties and went their own way, now as a new and liberated Oriental Orthodox Church. Now millions of people were out of the Great church, but they had their own new church and everyone was happy and content. Oh BTW, they are an 'autocephalous' church, which means their church's highest bishop does not have to account to any other authority. It was a clean break. Now they could believe exactly what they wanted, when they wanted and for as long as they wanted, without interference from Rome or Constantinope, or Antioch, or Jerusalem, or even Alexandria. I wonder what they would have done in 70ad and one of the apostles noticed they were believing something that was not quite right? Would they have thrown the Jerusalem-based apostle out on his head?



The OO became a church because of the philosophical drilling. To bad.



Mormons. obviously do not look at God as a weak and impotent man, nor do we look to Him as a super hero, regardless of when lifeless matter was formed (again, mindless dribble). We look to God the Father as our Creator, our God and our Father, just like Jesus does. (John 20:17)



Read John 20:17 and tell me if you agree with Jesus too, especially the part when Jesus says, "I ascend to my Father, and your Father, and to my God and your God".



Or if you do not agree with Jesus, tell me who you do agree with? Ya know, I remember dzheremi brought up some Nicene Chruch Father that tried to help us understand what Jesus was really saying in this scripture. 2,000 words later he just got himself all tangled up in his words and I was not impressed, and he did not solve the puzzle. And that was his problem, it was not a puzzle to begin with, it was a straight-forward statement from Jesus that needed no explanation, unless you do not agree with him, then all kinds of word gyrations are necessary to get around it. If you believe his words, it's simple.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Discernment of the Holy Spirit directly with the Spirit. Whatever anyone else does has zero barring on it.

Each person has to discern for themselves. It is not my role to stand between someone else and the Holy Spirit (or vise versa).

What if the Holy Spirit tells me your holy Spirit is wrong?

 

[Rescued One]

I'm so grateful that many are led by the True Spirit of God.

John 16
13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

1 Timothy 4
1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

I pray for the unbelievers.

 

[dzheremi]

As for calling the Oriental Orthodox a Philosophical Church I am in no position to speak on that because I have not read too much Oriental Orthodox Theologians.

I don't see why that should matter. Peter clearly hasn't read any of them either, and yet look how he writes about their church anyway.

 

[Jane_Doe]

What if the Holy Spirit tells me your holy Spirit is wrong?

If a person can't trust and listen to God, there's some mega issues going on.

 

[dzheremi]

How does that reply answer Ignatius the Kiwi's question, Jane? He didn't ask how can you trust God.