Why does Mormonism want to be Associated with Christianity?

[TheBarrd]

Except that you didn't answer my question. Here it is again:

"What is it that the "Mighty God" you mention can do that our understanding of God cannot?"

I answered it. The Mighty God I worship is truly eternal, as He was never a man, but was God from before the Universe...or any matter at all...existed.
The Mighty God I worship can simply say "Let there be light"...and there is light. With nothing more than His will alone, He can send huge balls of fiery energy whizzing through the vastness of space...just because He willed it to be so.
In your understanding, the god of this world is not the god of the universe...there are who-knows-how-many gods ruling who-knows-how-many planets, each of whom was once a man, and each of whom also promotes who-knows-how-many other men to godhood... The Mighty God I worship had no need to be exalted to His Godhood, nor does He exalt anyone else to His throne. Rather, it is His good pleasure to give to us the Kingdom.
I don't know how to put it any plainer than that.

Considering that in my attempt to explain the LDS view of God I stated Jesus existed "in the beginning" it isn't logical for you to suggest that I have somehow forgotten that in the last couple of days.

How do you differentiate between Jesus and any other of your god's "spirit children"? For instance, for how long have you existed? Do you know?
Frankly, I'm rather confused on this issue

In fact, this entire response "seems to forget" that the LDS doctrine on this matter is that God was man in the exact same way Jesus was. How can that possibly be a comparison of apples to cats? :o

Your idea that Jesus was once a man is skewed, because you are using His Incarnation as a way to prove the notion that God was once a man.
Jesus was God along with the Father from before there was time. He was fully God when He walked with among men. There was never a time when Jesus was not God.
Like His Father, Jesus did not have to be exalted to a Godhood that was already His.
He was already God, from the beginning. He left His throne, to be born a Man, for our sakes...but even as a Baby, He was still God.
To compare His immense sacrifice in leaving His glory behind in order to be our perfect sacrifice to the notion that God was ever a man is comparing apples to kitty cats, because first of all, God the Father was never a man, and secondly, because Jesus Who was already God voluntarily left His throne for our sakes did not need to be exalted to a Godhood that was already His.

Got it. Did the prayer. Got the wisdom.

Ha! You have your own dose of sarcasm, I see. I appreciate your wit...it is something I admire in other people, even when it is directed at me.
You have made me smile...

Good thing I don't do that. Because then I could see the flaws with your statements quite readily.

Unfortunately, you are still having a problem seeing the flaws in your own. However, I still have hope...

 

[Norah63]

On just this forum,there seem to be mostly women that search for flaws in LDS.
Are we just naturally more curious, I wonder about that.
Anyway the exchange is always revealing and interesting. All the LDS have remarkable ability of patience with so many repete questions.

 

[katerinah1947]

Except that you didn't answer my question. Here it is again:

"What is it that the "Mighty God" you mention can do that our understanding of God cannot?"




Considering that in my attempt to explain the LDS view of God I stated Jesus existed "in the beginning" it isn't logical for you to suggest that I have somehow forgotten that in the last couple of days.

In fact, this entire response "seems to forget" that the LDS doctrine on this matter is that God was man in the exact same way Jesus was. How can that possibly be a comparison of apples to cats? :o




Got it. Did the prayer. Got the wisdom.




Good thing I don't do that. Because then I could see the flaws with your statements quite readily.

Hi,
TFT, has just told everyone yesterday, that my God is incompatible with your Religion. He said that to someone else, and this is after both of you, said I did not have to "Give Up God", to join your religion.
LOVE,
...Kate., .... .

 

[RevelationTestament]

Your idea that Jesus was once a man is skewed, because you are using His Incarnation as a way to prove the notion that God was once a man.

Please find man's doctrine of "incarnation" in the scriptures. Who says He did not have physical form before being born on earth? He appeared to Moses and the 70 elders. He appeared to Abraham.

Jesus was God along with the Father from before there was time.

Unscriptural. He was YHWH Elohim with the Father before the beginning of this creation. He was NOT El Elyon, the Most High El/power which is still Heavenly Father.

He was fully God when He walked with among men. There was never a time when Jesus was not God.

According to scripture there was a time He was not God's Son - before He was begotten, and before the Father said to Him, that He would be a Son to Him.
Heb 1:4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

Like His Father, Jesus did not have to be exalted to a Godhood that was already His.

He did not come as El Elyon, the Most High El, but His Son per Luke. He inherits the glory of the Father, the government of the Father, and the title of Eternal Father per Isaiah. Your statements plainly ignore these scriptures and confound the term "God" with El Elyon, Elhohim, YHWH, etc. They are not interchangeable or God wouldn't use them all of Himself.

He was already God, from the beginning. He left His throne, to be born a Man, for our sakes...but even as a Baby, He was still God.

To be scriptural about it, Jesus was Elohim from the beginning per Genesis 1 and as Elohim created the world. He was not, and is not El Elyon, the Most High. As a baby He was the Son of the Most High El per Luke.
He did nothing of Himself, but that He saw the Father do. He performed His miracles not by His own power, but by the power of the Father. He did not know all things but is told all things by the Father before they come to pass, Isaiah 42:9, so was not omniscient.

Stop using generalized platitudes taught in the trinitarian world and look to the scriptures which contain the truth.

 

[TheBarrd]

On just this forum,there seem to be mostly women that search for flaws in LDS.
Are we just naturally more curious, I wonder about that.
Anyway the exchange is always revealing and interesting. All the LDS have remarkable ability of patience with so many repete questions.

There is no "searching for flaws", but only pointing out the flaws that are already there.

Just between us gals, I suspect we are the wiser ones.

What is revealing and interesting is that you do not seem to see the patience in those that keep asking these questions, in the hope that some of you might actually seek for answers somewhere other than "church doctrine".

 

[katerinah1947]

Please find man's doctrine of "incarnation" in the scriptures. Who says He did not have physical form before being born on earth? He appeared to Moses and the 70 elders. He appeared to Abraham.
Unscriptural. He was YHWH Elohim with the Father before the beginning of this creation. He was NOT El Elyon, the Most High El/power which is still Heavenly Father.
According to scripture there was a time He was not God's Son - before He was begotten, and before the Father said to Him, that He would be a Son to Him.
Heb 1:4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

He did not come as El Elyon, the Most High El, but His Son per Luke. He inherits the glory of the Father, the government of the Father, and the title of Eternal Father per Isaiah. Your statements plainly ignore these scriptures and confound the term "God" with El Elyon, Elhohim, YHWH, etc. They are not interchangeable or God wouldn't use them all of Himself.

To be scriptural about it, Jesus was Elohim from the beginning per Genesis 1 and as Elohim created the world. He was not, and is not El Elyon, the Most High. As a baby He was the Son of the Most High El per Luke.
He did nothing of Himself, but that He saw the Father do. He performed His miracles not by His own power, but by the power of the Father. He did not know all things but is told all things by the Father before they come to pass, Isaiah 42:9, so was not omniscient.

Stop using generalized platitudes taught in the trinitarian world and look to the scriptures which contain the truth.

Hi,
No matter what you say, as long as my God is not compatible with your God, as TFT has recently said, my God being Trinitarian and revealed by God to me, not by man, then for any of you to have once said, I do not have to give up God, to be a Mormon, far outweighs anything anyone else has to say now.
Please understand. I was told by two here. I was told I did not have to give up God. I could bring God and still be a Mormon. Then someone told me my God is incompatible with your religion, because my God is Trinitarian.
I told you guys that. I told you how I knew. I told you. Those guys said fine. Those guys said as long as my God is not determined by the doctrines of men, I could bring Him and still be Mormon. That was not correct. I was told last night that is not correct.
For me to join your religion, I have to give up My God. (Remember my God is revealed, and it has been approved by the church. Even Psychologists and Psychatrists agree that in my case, no form of mental illness is involved, when I say not only that I have seen God in His Essense, but I have heard His personal voice.....Each of them, of the one God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit)
Now I am told, that what was said earlier, that I would not have to give up God, is not true. I was told God as He is, is not compatible with your Religion.
LOVE,
...Katherina., .... .

 

[RevelationTestament]

On just this forum,there seem to be mostly women that search for flaws in LDS.
Are we just naturally more curious, I wonder about that.

Morn Norah! I wouldn't say that. There are plenty of men as well.

Anyway the exchange is always revealing and interesting. All the LDS have remarkable ability of patience with so many repete questions.

The main sticking points between LDS Christianity and Orthodoxy are generally the same for everyone. The critics on the internet use basically the same repeat points over and over. As missionaries church members will face these same questions over and over with other Christians, so as LDS we basically have to address them repeatedly. Thank you for your open Christian mindedness. May God be with you today

 

[RevelationTestament]

Hi,
No matter what you say, as long as my God is not compatible with your God, as TFT has recently said, my God being Trinitarian and revealed by God to me, not by man, then for any of you to have once said, I do not have to give up God, to be a Mormon, far outweighs anything anyone else has to say now.
Please understand. I was told by two here. I was told I did not have to give up God. I could bring God and still be a Mormon. Then someone told me my God is incompatible with your religion, because my God is Trinitarian.
I told you guys that. I told you how I knew. I told you. Those guys said fine. Those guys said as long as my God is not determined by the doctrines of men, I could bring Him and still be Mormon. That was not correct. I was told last night that is not correct.
For me to join your religion, I have to give up My God. (Remember my God is revealed, and it has been approved by the church. Even Psychologists and Psychatrists agree that in my case, no form of mental illness is involved, when I say not only that I have seen God in His Essense, but I have heard His personal voice.....Each of them, of the one God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit)
Now I am told, that what was said earlier, that I would not have to give up God, is not true. I was told God as He is, is not compatible with your Religion.
LOVE,
...Katherina., .... .

Hi Katherina,
I'm not sure exactly what you are saying. My God is the God of scripture. If that is your God, then they are compatible. If you are saying you heard the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, I say wonderful!
Indeed, you will not find it written so clearly in the Bible as in the Book of Mormon that they are one.
2 Nephi 31:21
21 And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.

So if you believe the scriptures, which is sounds as if you try to follow, look up those scriptures which I posted, and confirm what they say about God. Can I suggest you use a Restored Name KJV? One is available for free at Theword.net. Learning the titles of God will help you to understand Him don't you agree since that is how He describes what He is being for us? That is a great start rather than just thinking in terms of the amorphous English word "God." Then add to them those passages from Isaiah and Hebrews(esp 1 & 5). There is also The Acts 13. These are the truth about Jesus our Savior. I am not trying to undermine your faith in the God of the Bible but to strengthen it! That is where His truth is - not in the creeds.
The Nicean Creed was promulgated in controversion of a prior council that ruled the term homoousios was heretical. Did you know that?
The Nicean Creed was not promulgated nor approved by even a simple majority of the approx 1200 bishops of the church. Did you know that? When did that become the proper means by which to promulgate new doctrine? The apostles were nominated by majority vote of the apostles based on the Holy Spirit, and then chosen by lot according to The Acts. Bishops were married family men chosen because of their proven ability to govern their families well. 1 Timothy 3. History shows they were the heads of the local churches. They were not the apostles. There was no precedent for the bishops to receive revelation on new doctrine for the entire church, much less being able to do so based upon a vote of 1/4 of their numbers. Now is it possible they could? If they were called as prophets of the Lord, I would say yes. But I see no evidence of this in the ecumenical councils. Indeed, the creeds promulgated are conflicting or inconsistent, and evolved over time. They are also dogmatic. There is no evidence that they were written by inspiration of the Holy Ghost or even the result of prayer. The bishops do not even state that they were of any agreement based on prayer. They do not state that the words were inspired through the Holy Spirit either. They just state that this is the way it is going to be presented to the church and if you don't agree you will be anathema or excommunicated. They represent an interpretation that was thrust down the throat of the church even though history shows a good number of bishops disagreed with them and held other councils to try to undo what had been done.
While as an LDS Christian I do believe in progressive revelation, such revelation should not conflict with itself or existing scripture. The creeds promulgated by the early councils have the hallmark fingerprints of being uninspired. They certainly were not universally agreed upon by the church. Since they contradict scripture, I do not follow them. Because I do not follow them, my mind is open to the truth of God as revealed in His scriptures which are His word. By these truths I am set free, and not by those half-truths promulgated by men. Whatever scriptures you would like to discuss with me, I am open to. I will discuss the apocrypha as well, but I do not consider them as inspired scripture nor do I accept the Septuagint as an inspired translation of the Tanakh, and will be happy to discuss why.
Cheers

 

[2ducklow]

Christianity will never teach God the Father was once a man and became God!

Christianity will never teach that people will become a God like Him.

Christianity believes there is only ONE God!

Christianity will never teach Satan is Jesus brother! (Yes, Mormonism teaches this).

The Bible (Christianity) teaches that there is only one uncreated, eternal, true God (Exodus 3:14; Deuteronomy 6:4; John 17:3).

• Exodus 3:14 (ISV) And God said unto Moses, “I Am That I Am.” And He said, “Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, ‘I Am hath sent me unto you.’”
• Deuteronomy 6:4 (NIV) Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.
• John 17:3 (ISV) And this is eternal life: to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent—Jesus the Messiah.

The Bible teaches that there will never be any other uncreated, eternal, true God or God(s) to come into existence (Isaiah 43:10; 44:6-8; 1 Kings 8:59-60; Romans 3:29-30; 1 Corinthians 8:4-6; Galatians 4:8).

• Isaiah 43:10 (ISV) “You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord, “and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and trust me and understand that I am the One. Before me no God was formed, nor will there be one after me.

Are you reading Isaiah 43:10? No God or gods have existed before God! And no God or gods formed in the future.

Why has Mormonism not just said we are another religion that leads to God? Our (Mormonism) experience and encounter believes we have heard from God! Why say we are a branch of Christianity? Understand clearly, Jesus has to be the same one God not another God. Or the Jesus of the New Testament was a blasphemer and and Idolater! Why? Because Jesus received worship! God does not share his worship with ANYONE! Period!

• Exodus 34;14 says: for you shall worship no other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.
• Exodus 20 :3-5 - You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not bow down to them or worship them.

Isaiah 43:10 says, there are no other Gods in the past or future! If your Mormon God forms another God or gods He will violate Isaiah 43:10! God cannot change His mind concerning Isaiah 43:10! Malachi 3;6: “I am the LORD, and I do not change. To change, He (God) would be considered a liar and an Idolater! That is not the God of Christianity!

The premise is totally wrong. Mormons think they are the only ones that are really Christians. So they don't want to be associated with nonmormon Christians, cause in their opinion they ain't Christians.

 

[2ducklow]

Hi,
No matter what you say, as long as my God is not compatible with your God, as TFT has recently said, my God being Trinitarian and revealed by God to me, not by man, then for any of you to have once said, I do not have to give up God, to be a Mormon, far outweighs anything anyone else has to say now.
Please understand. I was told by two here. I was told I did not have to give up God. I could bring God and still be a Mormon. Then someone told me my God is incompatible with your religion, because my God is Trinitarian.
I told you guys that. I told you how I knew. I told you. Those guys said fine. Those guys said as long as my God is not determined by the doctrines of men, I could bring Him and still be Mormon. That was not correct. I was told last night that is not correct.
For me to join your religion, I have to give up My God. (Remember my God is revealed, and it has been approved by the church. Even Psychologists and Psychatrists agree that in my case, no form of mental illness is involved, when I say not only that I have seen God in His Essense, but I have heard His personal voice.....Each of them, of the one God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit)

what about when you aren't saying that you have seen god in his essence? What do Psychatrists say then?

Now I am told, that what was said earlier, that I would not have to give up God, is not true. I was told God as He is, is not compatible with your Religion.
LOVE,
...Katherina., .... .

 

[Rescued One]

The premise is totally wrong. Mormons think they are the only ones that are really Christians. So they don't want to be associated with nonmormon Christians, cause in their opinion they ain't Christians.

Yep.

 

[Rescued One]

On just this forum,there seem to be mostly women that search for flaws in LDS.
Are we just naturally more curious, I wonder about that.
Anyway the exchange is always revealing and interesting. All the LDS have remarkable ability of patience with so many repete questions.

No, I haven't seen that at all! Do you come here to judge people or discuss the topics of the various threads?

 

[katerinah1947]

what about when you aren't saying that you have seen god in his essence? What do Psychatrists say then?

Hi,
In the last full psychiatric exam that I a have, which is only last year and again for permissions to do something this time with Government money and the last time for something else, this time the Psychologist was very careful to let me know some things. One is I have no Pathologies.
That is their words for, in no place in my life, is there any mental illnesses what so ever.
I am hyper sane, it seems. The first psychologist said that 40 years ago. The next one did, when I was accused by a real mental case of being mental. The next two or three did also, each to counter charges that I am Pathological in some way, when it turned out later, they were.
Why did you ask me this? I am curious now. Is it becuase you are scientific? Your approach is sounding like a scientist. You have asked a reasonable question, in light of the conversation.
LOVE,
...Katherina., .... .

 

[katerinah1947]

Hi Katherina,
I'm not sure exactly what you are saying. My God is the God of scripture. If that is your God, then they are compatible. If you are saying you heard the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, I say wonderful!
Indeed, you will not find it written so clearly in the Bible as in the Book of Mormon that they are one.
2 Nephi 31:21
21 And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.

So if you believe the scriptures, which is sounds as if you try to follow, look up those scriptures which I posted, and confirm what they say about God. Can I suggest you use a Restored Name KJV? One is available for free at Theword.net. Learning the titles of God will help you to understand Him don't you agree since that is how He describes what He is being for us? That is a great start rather than just thinking in terms of the amorphous English word "God." Then add to them those passages from Isaiah and Hebrews(esp 1 & 5). There is also The Acts 13. These are the truth about Jesus our Savior. I am not trying to undermine your faith in the God of the Bible but to strengthen it! That is where His truth is - not in the creeds.
The Nicean Creed was promulgated in controversion of a prior council that ruled the term homoousios was heretical. Did you know that?
The Nicean Creed was not promulgated nor approved by even a simple majority of the approx 1200 bishops of the church. Did you know that? When did that become the proper means by which to promulgate new doctrine? The apostles were nominated by majority vote of the apostles based on the Holy Spirit, and then chosen by lot according to The Acts. Bishops were married family men chosen because of their proven ability to govern their families well. 1 Timothy 3. History shows they were the heads of the local churches. They were not the apostles. There was no precedent for the bishops to receive revelation on new doctrine for the entire church, much less being able to do so based upon a vote of 1/4 of their numbers. Now is it possible they could? If they were called as prophets of the Lord, I would say yes. But I see no evidence of this in the ecumenical councils. Indeed, the creeds promulgated are conflicting or inconsistent, and evolved over time. They are also dogmatic. There is no evidence that they were written by inspiration of the Holy Ghost or even the result of prayer. The bishops do not even state that they were of any agreement based on prayer. They do not state that the words were inspired through the Holy Spirit either. They just state that this is the way it is going to be presented to the church and if you don't agree you will be anathema or excommunicated. They represent an interpretation that was thrust down the throat of the church even though history shows a good number of bishops disagreed with them and held other councils to try to undo what had been done.
While as an LDS Christian I do believe in progressive revelation, such revelation should not conflict with itself or existing scripture. The creeds promulgated by the early councils have the hallmark fingerprints of being uninspired. They certainly were not universally agreed upon by the church. Since they contradict scripture, I do not follow them. Because I do not follow them, my mind is open to the truth of God as revealed in His scriptures which are His word. By these truths I am set free, and not by those half-truths promulgated by men. Whatever scriptures you would like to discuss with me, I am open to. I will discuss the apocrypha as well, but I do not consider them as inspired scripture nor do I accept the Septuagint as an inspired translation of the Tanakh, and will be happy to discuss why.
Cheers

Hi,
To bring you up to speed, because you said you do not know what I am refereing to.
1.) I know virtually nothing, not nothing, but almost nothing about LDS.
2.) God has revealed Himself, to me, and like one other has asked, am I mentally ill in any way, outside of what I say about God revealing Himself to me. The answer to that by five mental health professionals over the years is no. I even have the last one in writing, but it is for a Government Priveledge, thus maybe off topic, but if I have to I will publish that for you.
3.) I was told that I would not have to give up God, the revealed God, the one I intereact with, who is Trinitarian, and to which I have said that many times.
4.) Yesterday I was told.
Originally Posted by katerinah1947 View Post
Hi,
It is said Joseph Smith said that, and taught that. It is also said that the Trinitarian God, who is exactly what the Christians say He is, is totally acceptable to the LDS. If both these statements are true, then it is up to many here to try and find out why. Once explanation might be, even Joseph Smith, did not know what he translated, if the Book of Mormon is correct. Another explanation might be The Book of Mormon is wrong.
Who has the answer, or is the answer unknown? I don't see why I should have to do research here, someone surely must have done the work by now. I hope.
LOVE,
...Katherina., .... .
I think you're confusing yourself. The substantial nature of the Trinitarian God is not compatible with the substantial nature of God as taught in the Restored Gospel.
__________________

Thus, I am not allowed to keep my God as I was told. That is what I am talking about. I was told I can, then the same person tells another person, I cannot keep my God, as my God is incompatible with your religion.
LOVE,
...Katherina., .... .

 

[Norah63]

One who sees judgement where there is none, is thinking for me.
Just observing and following along. Reading to find the most Christian type of posts.
That's the true measure of a Christian.
Blessings!

 

[RevelationTestament]

Hi,
To bring you up to speed, because you said you do not know what I am refereing to.
1.) I know virtually nothing, not nothing, but almost nothing about LDS.
2.) God has revealed Himself, to me, and like one other has asked, am I mentally ill in any way, outside of what I say about God revealing Himself to me. The answer to that by five mental health professionals over the years is no. I even have the last one in writing, but it is for a Government Priveledge, thus maybe off topic, but if I have to I will publish that for you.

I am not here to debate your mental status. I believe in continuing revelation...many Christians do not. Whether or not you have truly heard God cannot be proved. As I posted in my first post to "where is the beef?"
I am left to judge by your fruits. If they contradict the scriptures or the truth as revealed to me by our Lord, then I must judge whose spirit you say you heard. We are all in that boat. There are many others who to this day have written books, and made claims that they have seen God, Jesus, Mary, etc. Some have made predictions of when Jesus would return only to be disproven. One was on this forum just a few weeks ago. While she was very sweet, I cannot say she was believable. So I am sorry if I don't just take you at your word. But maybe next time you talk to Jesus you can ask Him if He is "eternally begotten" or whether He was begotten by the oath of His Father on a day in time as the scriptures say?

3.) I was told that I would not have to give up God, the revealed God, the one I intereact with, who is Trinitarian, and to which I have said that many times.

I believe in the revealed Godhead which is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and that together they are one Elohim or family of stone, and I am LDS. Am I wrong? Is that what you are telling me?
Now if you want to call that trinitarian or triune, that is fine with me. My problem arises when the trinitarian doctrines and creeds get applied to them - proclaiming things which aren't scriptural.

4.) Yesterday I was told.
Originally Posted by katerinah1947 View Post
Hi,
It is said Joseph Smith said that, and taught that. It is also said that the Trinitarian God, who is exactly what the Christians say He is, is totally acceptable to the LDS. If both these statements are true, then it is up to many here to try and find out why.

I would say the difference lies in how "Trinitarian" is defined, and not even "Trinitarians" agree on that. Some accept the later creeds that Jesus is "eternally begotten" while some do not and only accept the Nicean creed. I have seen one who accepts the Nicean creed but says God is a monad. It is acceptable to me to say that as Elohim God is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. However, to me the Son is an office. It is His calling.
Ephesians 1:18 The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,
The Father made Jesus His "adopted" Son by covenant. And at the end of this world He will no longer be the Son, but the Father, so I cannot agree to the common view that God is immutable and that therefore the Son is eternally the Son. He is no longer the Son when He inherits all the Father hath. These two theologies are not compatible.

Once explanation might be, even Joseph Smith, did not know what he translated, if the Book of Mormon is correct. Another explanation might be The Book of Mormon is wrong.

Joseph Smith did speak of "gods" but because Elohim is a plural word. He was not speaking of gods as all being El Elyon, the Most High. We cannot run off and be "God" in our own right. Joseph Smith also said if we aspire to be exalted, we must obey every principle of the gospel even as Jesus Christ did.

I think you're confusing yourself. The substantial nature of the Trinitarian God is not compatible with the substantial nature of God as taught in the Restored Gospel.

I am not confused at all. I agree that God as revealed in the Creeds is incompatible with the gospel, which is why I am not "trinitarian."
Here is a comparison of the creeds vs the Bible:

.. ...................................................Bible vs Roman Creeds/Trinitarianism

Invites men to come freely (godly love)...................................Use of fear, compulsion, & persecution (adversary)
Bible - Covenant with God, Isaiah 61:6-8.........................................Roman Creeds - words from where?
"man shall live by every word of God" Luke 4:4.................... promulgated under the maximum priest of Roman gods
Rome is the Beast of Daniel 7:19-20 ................................(pontifex = builder of the way/roads) Pontifex Maximus office
and Rev 13, Rev 17 Woman on beast ...............................of Constantine and later Bishop of Rome (Roman Church)
Mystery, Babylon 1 Peter 5:13, Rev 17:5................................Babylon was beast of Dan 7:4 and head of image Dan 2

Apostles and Christians had no .................................................................. none 33 A.D - 325 A.D.
creeds for 3 centuries and were persecuted .............................approx 325 Nicea 1st Creed -required by Roman law ............................................................................................to be read in churches - persecution stops

Elohim - a plural Hebrew noun ex. Family .....................Deity(Latin) - a singular "god" idea/word from Rome & Greece
Gen 1:26 "And Eloheim said let US..............................................Rome is beast of Dan 7:19-20, Dan 2 kingdom of iron
make man in OUR image." (includes Father & Son).........................Greece is beast of Dan 7:6, Dan 2 kingdom of brass
God created the world through Jesus Christ Eph 3:9......................Persia is beast of Dan 7:5, Dan 2 kingdom of silver
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Babylon is beast of Dan 7:4, Dan 2 head of gold

Godhead Acts 17:29 KJV, Col 2:9, Ps 82:1..........................Trinity - coined by Tertullian who also said the Son had a ........................................................................................beginning - sorry Trins
https://www.lds.org/topics/godhead?lang=eng.......................... ANF03. Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian

"The Father and I are one"
Father - Most High(El Elyon) - Psalms 47:2-3, Psalms 110:1, Acts 7:55...................Father "co-equal, one substance, ............................................................. .........................................................one being" the Almighty

Son - Holy One of Israel - Isaiah 54:5 KJV, Acts 13:35....................Son "co-equal, co-substantial, one being"
Son of the Most High, servant - Isaiah 42:1, 6, 8, .................................... Son of the Almighty God
"Enough Breast" (El Shaddai) - Rev 1:8, 4:8, Jn 8:58, Gen 17:1 ...................per Apostles Creed and others
"The Father is greater than I."
"Who hath seen me, hath seen the Father."
"Whatsoever the Father doeth the Son doeth likewise." "I am the way." Jn 14:6
Inheritor - now on right hand, but will sit in Father's stead & be called Father .......... immutable - Son forever ................................................................................................Platonic/Aristotlian(Greece again) concept
Isaiah 9:6, "inheritor of my mountains" Isaiah 65:9; Heb 1:4.......................but already "co-equal"; denies ...........................................................................................................inheritance; enemy to Christ
Under the Hebraic law, the firstborn or begotten inherited all his father had.

only begotten .................................................. ........................325 creed - "begotten before all worlds"
Heb 7:28 Oath of the Father - .........................................................under Bishop of Rome as Pontifex maximus
"Thou art my Son, this day I have begotten thee." ............................... became "eternally begotten"

John 15:16 Pray/ask the Father in the name of Jesus Christ .......................... Pray to Son or Mary

Holy Ghost ...................................................................................... Holy Ghost - not declared
Matt 12:32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, ...... co-substantial in Nicean Creed - oops!
it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, .............Constantinople 381 A.D.- ................................................................................................declared as co-equal & one substance
it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come............... with the Son ...............................................................................................................(blasphemy against HG?)

Baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.
Descended upon Jesus in form of dove in River Jordan ...............sprinkle sinless infants with "holy water" salted ...............................................................................................like in pagan roman holy water

Prophets/Apostles/Bishops, etc.....................................vicarius filii dei (666) in Donation of Constantine until ruled ........................................................................................a fake (fallible?)
. . . .. .. .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . .. .. . . . .. . . . . . .. .. . . .tiaras destroyed by Napoleon
Jesus: "call no man Father" Matt 23:9....................................."pope" from popa or literally daddy, father; "holy father"
John 14:30 Hereafter I will not talk much with you: .............. dark ages, inquisitions, crusades against "heretics"
for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me. ...........who made claim to Jesus' name
"You shall know them by their fruits" Matt 7:15-16

John 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.......Truth suppression, fabrications John 8:44
Gen 3:3,22.......................................................................................Gen 3:1,4,5
Acts 3:20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution[restoration] of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.
Josh 24:15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, ... but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.
"The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints." Ephesians 1:18.
AMEN

Gen 3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

The Matt 28:20 Church
Copyright RevelationTestament.net - license granted for one copy, no reproduction


I don't follow a god of the Amorites or the Romans. I follow the God of scripture.

 

[katerinah1947]

I am not here to debate your mental status. I believe in continuing revelation...many Christians do not. Whether or not you have truly heard God cannot be proved. As I posted in my first post to "where is the beef?"
I am left to judge by your fruits. If they contradict the scriptures or the truth as revealed to me by our Lord, then I must judge whose spirit you say you heard. We are all in that boat. There are many others who to this day have written books, and made claims that they have seen God, Jesus, Mary, etc. Some have made predictions of when Jesus would return only to be disproven. One was on this forum just a few weeks ago. While she was very sweet, I cannot say she was believable. So I am sorry if I don't just take you at your word. But maybe next time you talk to Jesus you can ask Him if He is "eternally begotten" or whether He was begotten by the oath of His Father on a day in time as the scriptures say?
I believe in the revealed Godhead which is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and that together they are one Elohim or family of stone, and I am LDS. Am I wrong? Is that what you are telling me?
Now if you want to call that trinitarian or triune, that is fine with me. My problem arises when the trinitarian doctrines and creeds get applied to them - proclaiming things which aren't scriptural.
I would say the difference lies in how "Trinitarian" is defined, and not even "Trinitarians" agree on that. Some accept the later creeds that Jesus is "eternally begotten" while some do not and only accept the Nicean creed. I have seen one who accepts the Nicean creed but says God is a monad. It is acceptable to me to say that as Elohim God is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. However, to me the Son is an office. It is His calling.
Ephesians 1:18 The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,
The Father made Jesus His "adopted" Son by covenant. And at the end of this world He will no longer be the Son, but the Father, so I cannot agree to the common view that God is immutable and that therefore the Son is eternally the Son. He is no longer the Son when He inherits all the Father hath. These two theologies are not compatible.
Joseph Smith did speak of "gods" but because Elohim is a plural word. He was not speaking of gods as all being El Elyon, the Most High. We cannot run off and be "God" in our own right. Joseph Smith also said if we aspire to be exalted, we must obey every principle of the gospel even as Jesus Christ did.
I am not confused at all. I agree that God as revealed in the Creeds is incompatible with the gospel, which is why I am not "trinitarian."
Here is a comparison of the creeds vs the Bible:

.. ...................................................Bible vs Roman Creeds/Trinitarianism

Invites men to come freely (godly love)...................................Use of fear, compulsion, & persecution (adversary)
Bible - Covenant with God, Isaiah 61:6-8.........................................Roman Creeds - words from where?
"man shall live by every word of God" Luke 4:4.................... promulgated under the maximum priest of Roman gods
Rome is the Beast of Daniel 7:19-20 ................................(pontifex = builder of the way/roads) Pontifex Maximus office
and Rev 13, Rev 17 Woman on beast ...............................of Constantine and later Bishop of Rome (Roman Church)
Mystery, Babylon 1 Peter 5:13, Rev 17:5................................Babylon was beast of Dan 7:4 and head of image Dan 2

Apostles and Christians had no .................................................................. none 33 A.D - 325 A.D.
creeds for 3 centuries and were persecuted .............................approx 325 Nicea 1st Creed -required by Roman law ............................................................................................to be read in churches - persecution stops

Elohim - a plural Hebrew noun ex. Family .....................Deity(Latin) - a singular "god" idea/word from Rome & Greece
Gen 1:26 "And Eloheim said let US..............................................Rome is beast of Dan 7:19-20, Dan 2 kingdom of iron
make man in OUR image." (includes Father & Son).........................Greece is beast of Dan 7:6, Dan 2 kingdom of brass
God created the world through Jesus Christ Eph 3:9......................Persia is beast of Dan 7:5, Dan 2 kingdom of silver
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Babylon is beast of Dan 7:4, Dan 2 head of gold

Godhead Acts 17:29 KJV, Col 2:9, Ps 82:1..........................Trinity - coined by Tertullian who also said the Son had a ........................................................................................beginning - sorry Trins
https://www.lds.org/topics/godhead?lang=eng.......................... ANF03. Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian

"The Father and I are one"
Father - Most High(El Elyon) - Psalms 47:2-3, Psalms 110:1, Acts 7:55...................Father "co-equal, one substance, ............................................................. .........................................................one being" the Almighty

Son - Holy One of Israel - Isaiah 54:5 KJV, Acts 13:35....................Son "co-equal, co-substantial, one being"
Son of the Most High, servant - Isaiah 42:1, 6, 8, .................................... Son of the Almighty God
"Enough Breast" (El Shaddai) - Rev 1:8, 4:8, Jn 8:58, Gen 17:1 ...................per Apostles Creed and others
"The Father is greater than I."
"Who hath seen me, hath seen the Father."
"Whatsoever the Father doeth the Son doeth likewise." "I am the way." Jn 14:6
Inheritor - now on right hand, but will sit in Father's stead & be called Father .......... immutable - Son forever ................................................................................................Platonic/Aristotlian(Greece again) concept
Isaiah 9:6, "inheritor of my mountains" Isaiah 65:9; Heb 1:4.......................but already "co-equal"; denies ...........................................................................................................inheritance; enemy to Christ
Under the Hebraic law, the firstborn or begotten inherited all his father had.

only begotten .................................................. ........................325 creed - "begotten before all worlds"
Heb 7:28 Oath of the Father - .........................................................under Bishop of Rome as Pontifex maximus
"Thou art my Son, this day I have begotten thee." ............................... became "eternally begotten"

John 15:16 Pray/ask the Father in the name of Jesus Christ .......................... Pray to Son or Mary

Holy Ghost ...................................................................................... Holy Ghost - not declared
Matt 12:32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, ...... co-substantial in Nicean Creed - oops!
it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, .............Constantinople 381 A.D.- ................................................................................................declared as co-equal & one substance
it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come............... with the Son ...............................................................................................................(blasphemy against HG?)

Baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.
Descended upon Jesus in form of dove in River Jordan ...............sprinkle sinless infants with "holy water" salted ...............................................................................................like in pagan roman holy water

Prophets/Apostles/Bishops, etc.....................................vicarius filii dei (666) in Donation of Constantine until ruled ........................................................................................a fake (fallible?)
. . . .. .. .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . .. .. . . . .. . . . . . .. .. . . .tiaras destroyed by Napoleon
Jesus: "call no man Father" Matt 23:9....................................."pope" from popa or literally daddy, father; "holy father"
John 14:30 Hereafter I will not talk much with you: .............. dark ages, inquisitions, crusades against "heretics"
for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me. ...........who made claim to Jesus' name
"You shall know them by their fruits" Matt 7:15-16

John 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.......Truth suppression, fabrications John 8:44
Gen 3:3,22.......................................................................................Gen 3:1,4,5
Acts 3:20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution[restoration] of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.
Josh 24:15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, ... but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.
"The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints." Ephesians 1:18.
AMEN

Gen 3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

The Matt 28:20 Church
Copyright RevelationTestament.net - license granted for one copy, no reproduction


I don't follow a god of the Amorites or the Romans. I follow the God of scripture.

Hi,
It is not you who were called confused. It was me. That is a response, maybe not clearly delineated, by a Mormon to me, telling me that I am confused. I am told by him that the Trinitarian God, not that I believe per se, but the One I deal with, is incompaitlble with LDS theology.
You were not the one being called confused. It is I that was being called confused, by an LDS person.
LOVE,
...Katherina., .... .

 

[RevelationTestament]

Hi,
It is not you who were called confused. It was me. That is a response, maybe not clearly delineated, by a Mormon to me, telling me that I am confused. I am told by him that the Trinitarian God, not that I believe per se, but the One I deal with, is incompaitlble with LDS theology.
You were not the one being called confused. It is I that was being called confused, by an LDS person.
LOVE,
...Katherina., .... .

Oh. OK. Thank you for clarifying that Katherina.
You really haven't presented your understanding of God or what He revealed to you, so I cannot say anything more about you personally then. I am just speaking to the differences between the general LDS understanding and that of the trinitarian creeds.

 

[Ran77]

I answered it. The Mighty God I worship is truly eternal, as He was never a man, but was God from before the Universe...or any matter at all...existed.
The Mighty God I worship can simply say "Let there be light"...and there is light. With nothing more than His will alone, He can send huge balls of fiery energy whizzing through the vastness of space...just because He willed it to be so.

You may have replied, but it did not answer the question. In order to have answered the question you would have listed something that the "Mighty God" that you are referencing could do that the LDS understanding of God could not. You did not provide one single example of an ability that fits the criteria.

In the above you list:

God is eternal - so is the LDS understanding of God.

God was God from before the universe - so is the LDS understanding of God.

God said "Let there be light" and there was - same in the LDS understanding of God.

God can send fiery energy hurtling through space - pointless, but the same in the LDS understanding of God.


Two responses from you and the Mighty God that you mentioned turns out to be the equal to the LDS understanding of God. Imagine that.

In your understanding, the god of this world is not the god of the universe...there are who-knows-how-many gods ruling who-knows-how-many planets, each of whom was once a man, and each of whom also promotes who-knows-how-many other men to godhood... The Mighty God I worship had no need to be exalted to His Godhood, nor does He exalt anyone else to His throne. Rather, it is His good pleasure to give to us the Kingdom.
I don't know how to put it any plainer than that.

God of this world is not the God of the universe = not LDS doctrine.

How is being exalted to God's throne different that being given His kingdom? That means the same thing. :o

How do you differentiate between Jesus and any other of your god's "spirit children"? For instance, for how long have you existed? Do you know?
Frankly, I'm rather confused on this issue

You may be confused but I have hope . . .

Your idea that Jesus was once a man is skewed, because you are using His Incarnation as a way to prove the notion that God was once a man.
Jesus was God along with the Father from before there was time. He was fully God when He walked with among men. There was never a time when Jesus was not God.

Like His Father, Jesus did not have to be exalted to a Godhood that was already His.

He was already God, from the beginning. He left His throne, to be born a Man, for our sakes...but even as a Baby, He was still God.

Which is what the LDS believe about God. Since there is no difference in this and what we believe your apples to kitty comment proves false.

To compare His immense sacrifice in leaving His glory behind in order to be our perfect sacrifice to the notion that God was ever a man is comparing apples to kitty cats, because first of all, God the Father was never a man, and secondly, because Jesus Who was already God voluntarily left His throne for our sakes did not need to be exalted to a Godhood that was already His.

Whatever. Since we see that God went through the same experience the apple to kitty comment is inaccurate.

Ha! You have your own dose of sarcasm, I see. I appreciate your wit...it is something I admire in other people, even when it is directed at me.
You have made me smile...

It wasn't sarcasm. It was truth.

Unfortunately, you are still having a problem seeing the flaws in your own. However, I still have hope...

Where we are at is you are still having a problem presenting a viable argument.

 

[Ran77]

On just this forum,there seem to be mostly women that search for flaws in LDS.
Are we just naturally more curious, I wonder about that.
Anyway the exchange is always revealing and interesting. All the LDS have remarkable ability of patience with so many repete questions.

Thank you, but I am not all that patient. Happy Easter.