A question for mormons.
- Thread starter justbyfaith
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
As does the Book of Mormon chapter being referenced (quote/link below). It's so essential to look at the whole and not do one-verse theology.
"26 And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins.
27 Wherefore, we speak concerning the law that our children may know the deadness of the law; and they, by knowing the deadness of the law, may look forward unto that life which is in Christ, and know for what end the law was given. And after the law is fulfilled in Christ, that they need not harden their hearts against him when the law ought to be done away."
Full chapter: 2 Nephi 25
(Relevant note: this chapter was written well before Christ's coming, when people did practice the Law of Moses).
(Also: your post was well written mailmandan, I like it)
As do Protestants and Catholics.
Honestly @justbyfaith , shame on you trying to disparage an entire group based on one verse! Are you that stupid?
Would you take seriously a detractor of Protestant dogma, who attempts to undermine the faith with a single text?
Whether it's the entire faith, or just a crucial tenet, you show such profound ignorance and incompetence by removing the context from the verse.
Yes, the line that you cited, can be construed as work first, grace after. But due to its brevity and isolation, it can also mean everything that JD2 claims that it means. Just as easily as citing one verse from James, Jesus, Paul or Moses can mean a myriad of diverging and contradicting things, obviously.
You're badgering and antagonizing JD2, with a completely unwarranted and unqualified accusation. If you want to establish a particular groups doctrines and precepts, especially in order to refute them, at least cite 1 chapter, or 3 or 4 paragraphs, or 10 - 20 verses. I would never entertain, or take someone seriously, or consider them competent, if they didn't perceive the need to do so. You sound extremely foolish and inept right now.
What I have heard of the LDS group, I do not consider them to hold to Christian orthodoxy (Scriptural), to the point that I would consider them to be heretical, and thus, lost (not saved). @Jane_Doe22 sorry to be so frank about my views, but I do say this as a warning, ...something that we all must pay heed to, no matter of what Christian faith that we hold. Exegesis is an extremely challenging task.
But also JD2, for better or for worse, one might justifiably question your full adherence to LDS statement of faith. Your convictions do sound not entirely in accordance with the main tenets of their denomination. Again, for better or for worse (I'm seeing it as for the better).
...and personally JD2, I hope that you give JBF a punch in the nose (figuratively speaking).
Would you take seriously a detractor of Protestant dogma, who attempts to undermine the faith with a single text?
Whether it's the entire faith, or just a crucial tenet, you show such profound ignorance and incompetence by removing the context from the verse.
Yes, the line that you cited, can be construed as work first, grace after. But due to its brevity and isolation, it can also mean everything that JD2 claims that it means. Just as easily as citing one verse from James, Jesus, Paul or Moses can mean a myriad of diverging and contradicting things, obviously.
You're badgering and antagonizing JD2, with a completely unwarranted and unqualified accusation. If you want to establish a particular groups doctrines and precepts, especially in order to refute them, at least cite 1 chapter, or 3 or 4 paragraphs, or 10 - 20 verses. I would never entertain, or take someone seriously, or consider them competent, if they didn't perceive the need to do so. You sound extremely foolish and inept right now.
What I have heard of the LDS group, I do not consider them to hold to Christian orthodoxy (Scriptural), to the point that I would consider them to be heretical, and thus, lost (not saved). @Jane_Doe22 sorry to be so frank about my views, but I do say this as a warning, ...something that we all must pay heed to, no matter of what Christian faith that we hold. Exegesis is an extremely challenging task.
But also JD2, for better or for worse, one might justifiably question your full adherence to LDS statement of faith. Your convictions do sound not entirely in accordance with the main tenets of their denomination. Again, for better or for worse (I'm seeing it as for the better).
...and personally JD2, I hope that you give JBF a punch in the nose (figuratively speaking).
Last edited:
I'm actually very orthodox in my faith and hold the same beliefs as other members.
There are differences between different Christian groups. For example as you & I recently discussed: you believe in Sola Scriptura, and I don't. But it's the core of accepting Christ that is the most important thing.
...and just to add, yes I would think that one's Christology is paramount to defining orthodoxy and gaining salvation, as all things were created for him.
But also, all our beliefs do reflect on how we perceive God in all His glory and wisdom. That is, if we profess a doctrine that does not reveal the transcendent wisdom of God, His holiness, and ultimately, His glory, we need to redefine our beliefs.
Thanks!
If you talking Christology, here's a comparative blurb:
LDS Christians and Athanasian Christians (aka Christians that believe the Athanasian Creed) both believe:
Every single word about Christ in the Bible.
The Son of God, Jesus Christ is 100% divine.
The Father is 100% divine.
The Holy Spirit is 100% divine.
The Father, Son, and Spirit are all without beginning nor end.
The Father is not the Son, nor vice verse. Christ doesn’t pray to Himself. Neither of them are the Spirit. They are 3 different persons.
The Father, Son, and Spirit together are 1 God (are monotheists).
Christ was/is the great I Am, the Only Begotten Son of God.
Christ was one with the Father before the Earth was created. He then created the Earth, was born of a virgin, lived a mortal life with lots of suffering, took the world’s sins upon Himself, died on a cross, rose again on the 3rd day, later rose to heaven, and is coming back again.
The difference comes in:
LDS Christians believe that the Father, Son, and Spirit are 1 God through unity.
Athanasian Christians believe that the Father, Son, and Spirit are 1 God through consubstantiation (Consubstantiality - Wikipedia).
What difference does this make in the day to day:
Very little. Realistically, a lot of people sitting in Trinitarians pews have never even heard of the Athanasian Creed. This is a level of deeper theology which doesn’t affect day-to-day.
Actually, most Mormons are Tritheists because of the book of Abraham.
Actually not.
The Father, Son, and Spirit are three different persons. One God.
The Bible also refers to the Father/Son/Spirit in plural and we do see the multiple persons at point. For example, "let us make man in our image" (Gen 1:26) and Jesus's baptism with all three members of the Godhead present.
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are distinct from each other; but they are the same Person (not different Persons).
There is one Lord in holy scripture (Ephesians 4:5, 1 Corinthians 8:6) and scripture teaches us that this Lord is the Father (Matthew 11:25, Luke 10:21). Nevertheless, no one can say that Jesus is the Lord except by the Spirit of truth (1 Corinthians 12:3).
A Lord is a Person ruling...the Lord is one Person.
The same Spirit that inhabiteth eternity (Isaiah 57:15) is the same Spirit that dwells in Jesus Christ and is the Spirit of Christ (John 4:23-24, John 14:7-11). The eternal Spirit is the Father, if you would look up the verses (also Ephesians 4:4); and He dwells in Jesus Christ in all His fulness.
The Son is distinct from the Father in that He is come in human flesh. The Holy Ghost is distinct from the Son in that He is a Spirit and not in the flesh (see also Luke 23:46). The Holy Ghost is distinct from the Father in that He has lived a perfect human life and therefore understands humanity and is able to make intercession for us to the Father.
God, scripturally, is the Father (Romans 15:6, 1 Corinthians 8:6, Ephesians 4:6, James 3:9 (kjv)).
I would say that God (the Father) became a Man in order that He might die for us on the Cross, taking the penalty for our sin...see Isaiah 9:6. He also remained behind in eternity so that He could pour out His wrath on His future self. God the Father would become Jesus Christ:
Eph 3:11, According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:
It was not 1/3 of God who descended; and neither was it a 2nd God.
It was God.
Jesus is the Father come in human flesh (see John 21:5, for example; or consider carefully Hebrews 2:11-13 w/ Malachi 2:10). This is what makes Him the Son.
I understand that there are some Christians who hold to Tritheism along with the Mormons. I believe that they simply do not understand the doctrine of the Trinity as it is leveled out in doctrine; they have misconceptions about the Trinity.
There is one Lord in holy scripture (Ephesians 4:5, 1 Corinthians 8:6) and scripture teaches us that this Lord is the Father (Matthew 11:25, Luke 10:21). Nevertheless, no one can say that Jesus is the Lord except by the Spirit of truth (1 Corinthians 12:3).
A Lord is a Person ruling...the Lord is one Person.
The same Spirit that inhabiteth eternity (Isaiah 57:15) is the same Spirit that dwells in Jesus Christ and is the Spirit of Christ (John 4:23-24, John 14:7-11). The eternal Spirit is the Father, if you would look up the verses (also Ephesians 4:4); and He dwells in Jesus Christ in all His fulness.
The Son is distinct from the Father in that He is come in human flesh. The Holy Ghost is distinct from the Son in that He is a Spirit and not in the flesh (see also Luke 23:46). The Holy Ghost is distinct from the Father in that He has lived a perfect human life and therefore understands humanity and is able to make intercession for us to the Father.
God, scripturally, is the Father (Romans 15:6, 1 Corinthians 8:6, Ephesians 4:6, James 3:9 (kjv)).
I would say that God (the Father) became a Man in order that He might die for us on the Cross, taking the penalty for our sin...see Isaiah 9:6. He also remained behind in eternity so that He could pour out His wrath on His future self. God the Father would become Jesus Christ:
Eph 3:11, According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:
It was not 1/3 of God who descended; and neither was it a 2nd God.
It was God.
Jesus is the Father come in human flesh (see John 21:5, for example; or consider carefully Hebrews 2:11-13 w/ Malachi 2:10). This is what makes Him the Son.
I understand that there are some Christians who hold to Tritheism along with the Mormons. I believe that they simply do not understand the doctrine of the Trinity as it is leveled out in doctrine; they have misconceptions about the Trinity.
Last edited:
As we've discussed before, that is your modalist-style belief. It is not the classical view of the Trinity as taught by the Athanasian Creed or centuries of Christians teachings.
LDS Christian views are different than Athanasian Christian views, as I outlined in post #47.
My view of the Trinity is neither modalism and neither is it in any kind of contradiction with the Athanasian creed.
"For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost." - The Athanasian Creed.
Yes; and I do say that while they are in one sense distinct from each other; and that therefore the above is true: I also say that they are absolutely One.
I don't remember the exact quote out of one of the creeds; but I do believe that it says that while the Father is the Lord, the Son is the Lord, and the Holy Ghost is the Lord, that it would be inconsistent with the doctrine of the Trinity to say that they are three Lords.
Last edited:
The question was specifically if they are 1 or 3 persons.
I acknowledge your belief that they are 1 person.
I acknowledge the Athanasian Creeds statement that they are 3 persons.
I state my own belief that they are 3 persons.
And of course, while this is an important topic, it's not what defines a person as a Christian. A Christian is somebody whom has accepted Christ as their Lord & Savior, and strives to follow Him (empowered by Him). That relationship & His sacrifice is what saves, not a man's ability to Ace some theology test.
Thank you very much JD2, that was a great exposition. Yes, you've clearly shown that as far as expressions or points made, there is 'little' difference.
I wonder if God feels that these variances are insignificant, and whether that one brings Him glory, and the other doesn't, ...or that both are defaming (as we do have other Christologies within Christendom)?
Because the difference that you pointed out was on an ontological level, we are treading on serious issues now, i.e. which human parent would appreciate their children considering them to be some other species or genus, other than what they are, human. That is, where did this misconception arise from?
Last edited:
You must have been typing this while I was writing the above post.
We each are flawed human being. We struggle to understand the things of God. Misconceptions abound. But it's the relationship with Christ that makes a person a Christian.
Agreed, ...but to know someone, is to love them. The two principles cannot be separated. In other words, I don't believe that one's relationship with either God or Christ can be optimum, or even efficacious, if there is a misconstrued, and even bastardized, appreciation of their ontologies.
There is an extremely big difference in one's Soteriology by considering Christ as a man or God, or perceiving Jesus the Son as being as transcendent, omnipotent and authoritative as God the Father.
According to the latter view, one would have to truly question the logistics and soundness of God's judicial system, and wisdom, based on such an inconceivable and implausible relationship. That is, how do three equally omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent persons, interact in a meaningful, reasonable and non-redundant manner, with each other? You see the conundrum, and the potential offense that it lays upon God?
I digress, just wanted to demonstrate that one's Christology affects ones Soteriology, thus ultimately, reflecting on their perception of God the Father.
This is why Jews and Muslims have a hard time coming to Christ, the Niceane and Athanasian creeds are extremely convoluted, incomprehensible and implausible. One must truly question their veracity, in regard to their biblical accuracy. Again, there are more than two Christologies out there.
Last edited:
aspen
“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
So, are we saved by God’s Grace, as believed by Protestants and Catholics and reflected in the BOM or are we saved because of our faith, believed by Luther who was looking for any reasoning to break from the Catholic Church? Also, the fact is, faith is a gift from God and requires us to act upon it; our participation is a work! Faith and works cannot be separated, as James points out, to Luther’s chagrin.
A baby doesn't much understand their earthly father at all. But they are still the father's child. Academic understanding comes with maturity and growth.
Same with a newborn Christian and the Father.
I do think academic understand is super super important - don't get me wrong. But I've just seen people conflate a person's ability to pass a theology test that with salvation, and that's not ok.
Similar threads
