Why Mormons aren't christians.

Rae · Dec 8, 2005

Three isn't one, no matter how people try to insist that it is. Of course the Bible contradicts itself on this issue. The Old Testament would never have accepted a man, any man, as God. The New does. If, as the original poster I responded to said, the Old contradicts the New, then just like Mormons, NO ONE is a Christian...as to be one is to contradict the truth of God in the Old Testament.

ladycat · Dec 8, 2005

Rae said:
Three isn't one, no matter how people try to insist that it is. Of course the Bible contradicts itself on this issue. The Old Testament would never have accepted a man, any man, as God. The New does. If, as the original poster I responded to said, the Old contradicts the New, then just like Mormons, NO ONE is a Christian...as to be one is to contradict the truth of God in the Old Testament.

I disagree with you but I won't argue the issue. It's obvious that neither of us will budge from our position, so let's just agree to disagree.

SwordOfGod · Dec 8, 2005

Me being the hardheaded person I am will continue to try to explain these supposed 'mysteries' of God. As I pointed out earlier God made us as triune beings (spirit, soul, and body) like Himself, many believe that He went further than this, that He left a clue for us to understand this unity of three in one. As I don't feel like typing for an hour please read the following website, if you take anything from it take that God has left us this creation so that we might understand Him better.(And the parts about time)

http://www.carm.org/doctrine/trinitylook.htm
Also as to the old testament stating that a man could not have been excepted as saviour... Neither does the New Testament(please challenge me with scripture) which states that Jesus Christ (first chapter of John) IS God.

P.S. the Bible never contradicts itself.

Rae · Dec 8, 2005

the Bible never contradicts itself.

Unfortunately for your wish to believe otherwise, it really does. And yes, the Old Testament does really say that God is not a man, which to me excludes the possibility of Jesus being the God of the Old Testament, at least. Any of our Jewish regulars here can explain those verses to you better than I.

DjDan · Dec 9, 2005

As the Trinitarian doctrine maintains, each of the persons of the Godhead is distinct, yet they are all each, by nature, God.
With time, for example, the past is distinct from the present, which is distinct from the future. Each is simultaneous. Yet, they are not three 'times,' but one. That is, they all share the same nature: time
With space, height is distinct from width, which is distinct from depth, which is distinct from height. Yet, they are not three 'spaces,' but one. That is, they all share the same nature: space.
With matter, solid is not the same as liquid, which is not the same as gas, which is not the same as solid. Yet, they are not three 'matters,' but one. That is, they all share the same nature: matter.
Note that there are three sets of threes. In other words, there is a trinity of trinities. If we were to look at the universe and notice these qualities within it, is it fair to say that these are the fingerprints of God upon His creation? I think so. Not only is this simply an observation, but it is also a good source for an analogy of the Trinity

^ simply makes no sense.

Time is changing. Present becomes past... future becomes present.
Or in any case... which time zone is the Holy Spirit in? the past? is Jesus in the future? no... he's already been. is he in the present then?

Regarding the solid, liquid, gas thing. List them as follows:
Solid = (Jesus?)
Liquid = (????)
Gas = (God??)

Doesn't make sense. Just isn't right! If you were in the same room as the 'trinity'.. what would you see? are they all invisible? do they live inside each other? is one a spirit, the other a body....? would you see them as being seperate one from another?

Trinity makes no sense. Why? because man invented it.

DjDan · Dec 9, 2005

SwordOfGod said:
I do not pretend to be an authority on the LDS Church, but please excuse me, are you actually stating that the religious texts of the mormon church do not state that one can become a god(and inherit a planet and have lots of little gods)?

Religious texts of the LDS church do not state that one can become a god and inherit a planet and have lots of little gods.

SwordOfGod said:
Also the book of Abraham (I know it's not in the book of mormon) talks all about the "council of the gods".

Yes, because we believe that there was a council in which the plan of the earth's creation etc. were decided upon. We believe that we lived as spirits with God before we came to this earth (Just like Jeremiah). What is meant when it says "council of the gods" isn't really made clear. In any case, though there are lords many and gods many, to us there is but one God. We worship God our father, the father of Jesus Christ in the flesh... the only God that we serve.

SwordOfGod said:
You might say that since mormons are henotheistic that the Bible just focuses on one God and happens to not mention the others, however...

DEUTERONOMY 6:4 Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one.

DEUTERONOMY 32: 39 See now that I myself am He! There is no god besides me.

Isaiah 44: 6 This is what the Lord says, Israel's King and Redeemer, the Lord Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God.

Isaiah 45: 5 I am the Lord, there is no other; apart from me there is no God.
New Testament
Mark 12: 29 Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One.

Ah... but let us not forget the mormon teachings, so let us hear from the prophet himself...

"In the beginning the head of Gods called a council of the Gods; and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and people on it...in all congregations when I have preached on the subiect of the Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods." Joseph Smith, History of the (Mormon) Church, Vol. 6, pp.308, 474.

Now onto the Mormon definition of the trinity, I think that the best way of putting it can only come from the prophet himself...

I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods. If this is in accordance with the New Testament, lo and behold! we have three Gods anyhow, and they are plural; and who can contradict it?...Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are only one God. I say that is a strange God anyhow - three in one, and one in three! It is a curious organization." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Pages 370&372)

Joseph Smith was right in both his sayings. It's a shame the rest of Christendom isn't so enlightened with God's truth.

ladycat · Dec 9, 2005

Rae said:
Unfortunately for your wish to believe otherwise, it really does. And yes, the Old Testament does really say that God is not a man, which to me excludes the possibility of Jesus being the God of the Old Testament, at least. Any of our Jewish regulars here can explain those verses to you better than I.

Jesus is mentioned all through the Old Testament. He is NOT a man, He is GOD.

[BIBLE] Isa.7
[13] And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?
[14] Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
[/BIBLE]

Rae · Dec 9, 2005

[BIBLE] Isa.7
[13] And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?
[14] Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.[/BIBLE]
Hate to burst your bubble, but this prophecy has nothing to do with Jesus. It was made to a King and says, in accurate translation, that a young woman IS with child and that said child will save the King from his oppressors.

Isaiah 53 also isn't about Jesus, but about God's suffering servant, the nation of Israel. Just in case you were thinking about bringing that one up.

umaiyad · Dec 9, 2005

I mean, both Paul and Joseph Smith claimed to have seen Jesus, and both are now second from Jesus. Why is revelation of Joseph Smith less credible than revelation of Paul?

Both will also fit to warnings in Matt.24:23 and 24:26.

SwordOfGod · Dec 10, 2005

"In any case, though there are lords many and gods many, to us there is but one God. We worship God our father, the father of Jesus Christ in the flesh... the only God that we serve."

These are contradicting statements, please clarify as I do not see how you believe in only one god and many. As it appears you have admitted there are many gods, you are still faced with the problem of God Himself stating that there are no other gods.(please see first post... yet again) While I don't completely understand what you mean, I'll take a shot at it and say that you mean there are many gods and you worship the One who created us all. This idea still contradicts the Bible as I pointed out in the last sentence. So now DjDan you are faced with a dilemma that has only two clearly defined answers, either you except that the Bible is the uncontestable word of God and without contradiction, or you believe that the Bible is flawed as Rae pointed out, that in time it has lost its meaning and is no longer infallible, or you accept that the book of Mormon is the correct word of God and the newest attempt by God to keep His Scripture from being corrupted by the hand of man.

Also, Rae I challenge you to prove me wrong about the non contradiction of the Bible, and anyone else who wishes to prove me wrong.

Onto the Trinity which actually makes a great deal of sense if some thought is put into it. Time consists of three parts: past, present, and future. These three work simultaneously as time yet separately as these three components. This is the model in its most simple form, not at all complex yet profound in its application.

BourbonFromHeaven · Dec 10, 2005

BS'D

Shalom DjDan,

DjDan said:
where in the book of mormon does it plainly state that there are multiple Gods?

You do believe in Jesus, The Father and the Holy Spirit as three seprate and distinct beings. That is, in essence, Polytheism or Henotheism.

arunma · Dec 10, 2005

umaiyad said:
I mean, both Paul and Joseph Smith claimed to have seen Jesus, and both are now second from Jesus. Why is revelation of Joseph Smith less credible than revelation of Paul?

Both will also fit to warnings in Matt.24:23 and 24:26.

Because Paul was specifically commissioned by Jesus, was canonized in God's Bible, and wrote his addition to the Scriptures before the Gospel of Matthew. The problem with your logic is that it can be applied to anyone. One could claim that Isaiah is a false prophet because he came after Moses, or that our blessed Lord Jesus is a false prophet because he came after Ezekiel. Our rejection of Joseph Smith has little to do with the fact that he came after Jesus.

BourbonFromHeaven said:
You do believe in Jesus, The Father and the Holy Spirit as three seprate and distinct beings. That is, in essence, Polytheism or Henotheism.

I would be tempted to agree with you, except that Trinitarians have always maintained that we believe in only one God. We believe that the Persons of the Trinity are three separate persons, but we don't believe that they are three distinct beings (at least not in the sense that you've used the word). Of course, I can see how it's easy to confuse the doctrines of Trinitarianism and polytheism.

But ultimately, there is a difference between Christian and Mormon doctrines of the Trinity, and you were probably referring to the latter. If so, sorry for making this random comment.

Cassiopeia · Dec 10, 2005

arunma said:
I would be tempted to agree with you, except that Trinitarians have always maintained that we believe in only one God. We believe that the Persons of the Trinity are three separate persons, but we don't believe that they are three distinct beings (at least not in the sense that you've used the word). Of course, I can see how it's easy to confuse the doctrines of Trinitarianism and polytheism.

But ultimately, there is a difference between Christian and Mormon doctrines of the Trinity, and you were probably referring to the latter. If so, sorry for making this random comment.

You see this is the confusion...you agree they are three seperate persons yet you don't see that as just a different way of stating three distinct beings. Well...please help me out here, what do you mean by three seperate persons.

I see it as semantics.

Casi

SwordOfGod · Dec 10, 2005

"Unfortunately for your wish to believe otherwise, it really does. And yes, the Old Testament does really say that God is not a man, which to me excludes the possibility of Jesus being the God of the Old Testament, at least. Any of our Jewish regulars here can explain those verses to you better than I."

At no point have I claimed that God is a man (you are correct, the Old Testament states that a man cannot save anyone). When Jesus Christ came to the earth, He came as Spirit manifested in flesh... in other words He was the spiritual Body of God in a body of flesh. (Don't freak out, I'm gonna give the verses.) Furthermore the Old Testament does not disprove the divinity of Jesus Christ, quite the opposite, it proves it.

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pentecostal/One-Ch4.htm

It is important to note Rae, that Isaiah 7 is a prophecy that does have to with Jesus Christ as Matthew 1:22-23 points out.
God bless you and keep you all, and Good Night.

SwordOfGod · Dec 10, 2005

One more thing, I will reiterate what I said in a past comment.

"Onto the Trinity which actually makes a great deal of sense if some thought is put into it. Time consists of three parts: past, present, and future. These three work simultaneously as time yet separately as these three components. This is the model in its most simple form, not at all complex yet profound in its application."

SwordOfGod · Dec 10, 2005

Time being a comparison to God.

arunma · Dec 10, 2005

Casiopeia said:
You see this is the confusion...you agree they are three seperate persons yet you don't see that as just a different way of stating three distinct beings. Well...please help me out here, what do you mean by three seperate persons.

I see it as semantics.

Clement of Alexandria wrote in The Stromata,

I understand nothing else than the Holy Trinity to be meant; for the third is the Holy Spirit, and the Son is the second, by whom all things were made according to the will of the Father.

Saint Patrick understood the Trinity as the three leaves that come from one clover. Some modern Christians have also argued that the Trinity is like the three states in which water can exist. The three Persons of the Trinity are distinct in their function, but they are of one mind, one will, and one substance. They are One in a way that no created beings can be. I hope that makes more sense.

ladycat · Dec 10, 2005

arunma said:
Saint Patrick understood the Trinity as the three leaves that come from one clover. <snip> The three Persons of the Trinity are distinct in their function, but they are of one mind, one will, and one substance. They are One in a way that no created beings can be. I hope that makes more sense.

Good description!

BourbonFromHeaven · Dec 10, 2005

arunma said:
But ultimately, there is a difference between Christian and Mormon doctrines of the Trinity, and you were probably referring to the latter. If so, sorry for making this random comment.

My comment was directed towards Mormon doctrine. I'm aware that Trinatarians ( Christians, I should say ) believe that the 3 are of the same essence but seprate in office.

Since I can't get into the Unorthodox Theology forums and cry havoc and let slip the dogs of Apologia, I can't take Mormons to task on the "Ancient Polytheism" of Israel idea, so poor DjDan will have to feel the brunt of it

peepnklown · Dec 10, 2005

Rae said:
Hate to burst your bubble, but this prophecy has nothing to do with Jesus. It was made to a King and says, in accurate translation, that a young woman IS with child and that said child will save the King from his oppressors.

I would like to add:

ladycat said:
[14] Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Not only do you have to read the correct translation (from Hebrew) but you have to read the entire context. Isaiah 7:14 Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel. Not only is the Hebrew word young woman but the word for sign indicates an imminent sign, not one in a distant future. Isaiah 7:3 And the Lord said to Isaiah, "Now go out toward Ahaz, you and Shear-Yashuv your son, to the edge of the conduit of the upper pool, to the road of the washer's field. If you read the context, Isaiah was sent to Ahaz, now read Isaiah 10-13 and you will see that the sign was for Ahaz.

Read further into Isaiah 8 and you will see the sign, Immanuel was born.

Why Mormons aren't christians.

Pro-Marriage. All marriage.

Regular Member

Regular Member

Pro-Marriage. All marriage.

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Pro-Marriage. All marriage.

Active Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Flaming Calvinist

Otherwise Occupied

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Flaming Calvinist

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

rabbi peepnklown

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency