Differences between Mormon & Christian theology

[_Fortigurn]

t say elohim, which means "gods."

Exactly how much do you know about the word 'elohim'? That you think it only means 'gods' shows you haven't even read a standard lexicon.

[_Jason Bourne]

I am a Catholic, I do believe that there can exist good, constructive argument amongst those of other faiths. However, I do not think it is constructive to hold the false assumption that Mormons generally believe the same things as Christians; or vise versa. I will attempt to demonstrate the most significant difference between Mormon and Christian theology. I realize a lot of non-mormons, Christian and non-Christian alike, focus on topics such as salvation by grace, inconsistencies in early Mormon Church leader's writings, flaws of Joseph Smith the person, etc. These traditional topics of discussion that are labeled "anti-mormon" by members of the Mormon Church are important to research, but ultimately do not illustrate the most significant difference; the God described by Mormonism is not the Christian God.

Well first off Mormons believe the Orthodox or historical understanding of God is apostate and that the true knowledge about God was restored to the earth. Mormonism in its purest sense would claim to be THE CHRISTIAN Church with others holding come truth but generally apostate in nature.

But yes we do have theological differences. President Gordon B Hinckley said as much in a general conference talk a few years ago. He said our critics state we worship a different Jesus then they. He said that in some ways they are right. The Jesus we worship is not the Jesus of false historical creeds but the Jesus of revealed truth to the Prophet Joseph Smith.

1) A being is such that a) it has an essence (meaning some attributes of the being are essential to the being's nature b) different essential attributes constitute different beings
2) God is a being
3) God's essential attributes in Christianity are described as:
- omnipotent (all powerfull)
- omnisciente (all knowing)
- omnibenevolent (all good)
- creator of all things
- Trinity
-infinite

LDS do hold to many of these but may interpret them differently.

4) God's essential attributes in Mormonism are described as:
- infinite

Ok

- one of many like Himself (God of this planet was a man once with another God whom He worshiped, other planets have other Gods as well, men can become Gods themselves through eternal progression)

Well this is debatable among Mormons even. Yes there is the teaching God was once a man. How he was a man we do not know. Personally I believe if he was a man it was in the same way Jesus was a man. Also, many LDS, myself included believe that the Father is the Eternal GOD of all the other gods mentioned in D&C 124 and hold to an idea that the ETERNAL GOD of all other gods may actually have never been a man. But not all Mormons hold to this and your summary in not incorrect. I just want you to know we debate this internally. You might want to read anything you can find by Mormon philosopher Blake Ostler.

- has a body

Yes.

- not a creator in the strictest sense (did not create out of nothing), only an organizer, a member of the universe, subject to laws (such as the supposed law of eternal progression)

Yes LDS believe that God organized everything from chaotic matter.

5) Thus, the God of Christianity is not the same being as the God of Mormonism, since they do not share the same essential attributes

I agree that they are different. Are the differences enough to call them entirely different Gods? Maybe, maybe not. I think God does not get to uptight about it because unless we see him we are just doing our best to figure him out based on the scanty evidence he has provided.



It is essential to the Christian God to be omnipotent, Trinity, Creator, etc.; as it is essential for the Mormon God to be bodily, one of many like Himself, etc. Likewise, we could not hold all of these essential attributes of God in a single being, because they are contradictory attributes!

Another example is the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. The doctrine explains that God is one being, three persons. Whether you believe in the doctrine of the Trinity or not, it is clearly not consistent with Mormon doctrine. Mormon doctrine explains that there exists the God whom we worship (the Father), Jesus (God's son, a separate being from God the Father) and the Holy Ghost (another completely different being, who unlike Jesus and the Father, does not have a body). This is another key ESSENTIAL difference between the God described in Mormonism (who, properly speaking, has one personhood- “the Father”) and the God of Christianity (three persons, one being).

Mormons believe the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one God in all attributes except for substance or essence. They share the same mind, thought, purposes, attributes, desires etc. One is not God without the other and they divinely indwell one another.


Nice post. Thanks

[_maklelan]

t say elohim, which means "gods."

Exactly how much do you know about the word 'elohim'? That you think it only means 'gods' shows you haven't even read a standard lexicon.

I'm well aware of the various meanings. I do study Hebrew and will teach it for a living. The passage in Exodus has been debated since before Christ. The Psalms passage, however, is crystal clear. Christ gives us a perfectly clear Greek translation. If one believes Christ was mistaken or lying then I will have to use another proof text, but for a believing Catholic it is crystal clear. If you're a believing Christian the NIV, no matter how infatuated someone is with it, does not trump Christ.

[_Mary]

Aquinas, just a question to you amongst all this debating on who has the right christian theology.

There are two people.
One believes in a good god who is all knowledgable, all intelligent, all loving, sinless and eternal, and with each passing day endeavours to learn, to grow in intelligence, to love others and to avoid temptation to do that which is not productive. This person is humble and in awe at the beauty of nature. They don't however believe in Jesus, since they grew up in a country where Jesus is not taught.

Another believes in Jesus as God, believes in the inerrancy of the Bible, has fixed views on exactly who God is and argues that others must believe in this exact definition of God or they aren't true 'christians'. This person is arrogant, bigotted, argues with his wife, and beats his children, momentarily feels sorry for it, but then just does it again. He steals, cheats, and has committed adultery on occassion.

Which is the 'christian' in this scenario? Which has the right 'christian theology'?

Just asking....

[_Aquinas]

Aquinas, just a question to you amongst all this debating on who has the right christian theology.

There are two people.
One believes in a good god who is all knowledgable, all intelligent, all loving, sinless and eternal, and with each passing day endeavours to learn, to grow in intelligence, to love others and to avoid temptation to do that which is not productive. This person is humble and in awe at the beauty of nature. They don't however believe in Jesus, since they grew up in a country where Jesus is not taught.

Another believes in Jesus as God, believes in the inerrancy of the Bible, has fixed views on exactly who God is and argues that others must believe in this exact definition of God or they aren't true 'christians'. This person is arrogant, bigotted, argues with his wife, and beats his children, momentarily feels sorry for it, but then just does it again. He steals, cheats, and has committed ery on occassion.

Which is the 'christian' in this scenario? Which has the right 'christian theology'?

Just asking....

Miss Taken, my original argument was just that: an argument. If you do not care for argument, logic, debate or reason itself, that’s fine, I don’t really care, and obviously nothing in this debate will convince you of anything. I’m sure you would be pleased to watch me struggle to answer you with logical reasoning, but ultimately it would sound like nonsense as I would be addressing a nonsensical question. This was not a reasonable question, so I will not attempt a reasonable answer.

I will say a few things. This scenario is obviously a passive-aggressive way of trying to say something without actually saying it. What you fail to realize is that by implying that what we believe is not important (only how we live our lives), you not only insult me and the others who are debating, you insult 2000 years worth of great Christian thinkers like St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, St. Ignatius, St. Jerome, St. Thomas Aquinas and others, some of whom where martyred and all of whom lived lives devoted to primarily to Christ, but also to theological reasoning, debate and scripture; so that the truth about Christian Theology like the Trinity, The incarnation of Christ, etc. could live to see the 21st Century. St. Thomas Aquinas wrote an over 2000 page masterpiece of strictly philisophical and theological arguments, calling it the "Summa Theologica." Please don't insult these great thinkers by implying what we believe is not important, especially when you cannot produce an adequate arugment to support such a lofty claim.

Lastly, you insult the Christian churches who teach these tenets of faith and consider them so important as to require belief in them for church membership, baptism and even salvation. If you are familiar at all with scripture, belief in Christ is clearly a requirement for salvation.

[_Fortigurn]

t say elohim, which means "gods."

Exactly how much do you know about the word 'elohim'? That you think it only means 'gods' shows you haven't even read a standard lexicon.

I'm well aware of the various meanings. I do study Hebrew and will teach it for a living.

Then please don't say that elohim 'means "gods"'. You may say that elohim 'contains the meaning 'gods' within its semantic domain', but it is incorrect to say that elohim 'means "gods"'.

The passage in Exodus has been debated since before Christ. The Psalms passage, however, is crystal clear. Christ gives us a perfectly clear Greek translation. If one believes Christ was mistaken or lying then I will have to use another proof text, but for a believing Catholic it is crystal clear. If you're a believing Christian the NIV, no matter how infatuated someone is with it, does not trump Christ.

The problem for you is that Christ quotes the psalm in such a way as to demonstrate that men are the referent. He is not affirming polytheism. You also fail to take into account the fact that THEOI has a semantic domain which is broader than simply 'gods', just like 'elohim'.

Your real issue is to demonstrate that true Biblical Christianity affirms more than one God. You would need to show that Christ and the apostles taught this as essential Christian doctrine. Then you could say that this part of Mormon theology is an authentic restoration of original Christian teaching.

[_Fortigurn]

...you insult 2000 years worth of great Christian thinkers...

I hate to be pedantic, but you can't start the list of 'great Christian thinkers' at 2 AD (taking 4 BC as a reasonable estimate of the birth of Christ). The list of 'great Christian thinkers' starts after the ascension of Christ at the very earliest.

[_Yoda]

Aquinas, just a question to you amongst all this debating on who has the right christian theology.

There are two people.
One believes in a good god who is all knowledgable, all intelligent, all loving, sinless and eternal, and with each passing day endeavours to learn, to grow in intelligence, to love others and to avoid temptation to do that which is not productive. This person is humble and in awe at the beauty of nature. They don't however believe in Jesus, since they grew up in a country where Jesus is not taught.

Another believes in Jesus as God, believes in the inerrancy of the Bible, has fixed views on exactly who God is and argues that others must believe in this exact definition of God or they aren't true 'christians'. This person is arrogant, bigotted, argues with his wife, and beats his children, momentarily feels sorry for it, but then just does it again. He steals, cheats, and has committed adultery on occassion.

Which is the 'christian' in this scenario? Which has the right 'christian theology'?

Just asking....

I think you're setting up strawman arguements with your examples here. I've seen your arguments on prior posts, and admire you greatly. You're smarter than this. ;)

There are many variances in religious theology, both Christian and otherwise, to the examples you pose here.

In answer to your question, using a "big picture" analysis....Why does there HAVE to be a "right" or "wrong" Christian theology, or theology of any kind, for that matter?

In my opinion, all beliefs which inspire man to be productive, compassionate, and kind should be respected and encouraged.

It's interesting to learn the various tenets of various religions, but I wouldn't classify any religion, or the people who practice it, as being "wrong". We are all free to choose what works best for our own lives.

And, in the meantime, it's fun to learn about each other's cultures, religions, etc.

[_maklelan]

Then please don't say that elohim 'means "gods"'. You may say that elohim 'contains the meaning 'gods' within its semantic domain', but it is incorrect to say that elohim 'means "gods"'.

So elohim doesn't mean gods?

The problem for you is that Christ quotes the psalm in such a way as to demonstrate that men are the referent. He is not affirming polytheism. You also fail to take into account the fact that THEOI has a semantic domain which is broader than simply 'gods', just like 'elohim'.

So Christ's rebuttal really had nothing to do with the accusations of the Jews. Is that what you're saying, or are you just trying to dilute the situation by pointing out that this word can mean other things in other contexts?

Your real issue is to demonstrate that true Biblical Christianity affirms more than one God. You would need to show that Christ and the apostles taught this as essential Christian doctrine. Then you could say that this part of Mormon theology is an authentic restoration of original Christian teaching.

I'm not trying to show that at all. The paper I'm publishing in May argues against that. I think your real issues are (1) introducing straw men like the idea that Christ's words were actually not referring to "gods," but to another meaning of the Greek, (2) making assumptions on what other people are trying to show with their arguments, and (3) lacking the capacity for objectivity.

[_maklelan]

Aquinas, just a question to you amongst all this debating on who has the right christian theology.

There are two people.
One believes in a good god who is all knowledgable, all intelligent, all loving, sinless and eternal, and with each passing day endeavours to learn, to grow in intelligence, to love others and to avoid temptation to do that which is not productive. This person is humble and in awe at the beauty of nature. They don't however believe in Jesus, since they grew up in a country where Jesus is not taught.

Another believes in Jesus as God, believes in the inerrancy of the Bible, has fixed views on exactly who God is and argues that others must believe in this exact definition of God or they aren't true 'christians'. This person is arrogant, bigotted, argues with his wife, and beats his children, momentarily feels sorry for it, but then just does it again. He steals, cheats, and has committed adultery on occassion.

Which is the 'christian' in this scenario? Which has the right 'christian theology'?

Just asking....

I think you're setting up strawman arguements with your examples here. I've seen your arguments on prior posts, and admire you greatly. You're smarter than this. ;)

There are many variances in religious theology, both Christian and otherwise, to the examples you pose here.

In answer to your question, using a "big picture" analysis....Why does there HAVE to be a "right" or "wrong" Christian theology, or theology of any kind, for that matter?

In my opinion, all beliefs which inspire man to be productive, compassionate, and kind should be respected and encouraged.

It's interesting to learn the various tenets of various religions, but I wouldn't classify any religion, or the people who practice it, as being "wrong". We are all free to choose what works best for our own lives.

And, in the meantime, it's fun to learn about each other's cultures, religions, etc.

I think the point that Miss Taken is trying to make is that it seems ridiculous to her to hold orthodoxy as the more sure route to salvation than orthopraxy. Many people (in a very Greek manner) think that it doesn't matter how you live, but how you perceive God that saves you. Others believe that knowing about God is important, but that a correct perception of God does not trump living a Christ-like life. Semitic religions were never orthodoxic, and that Christianity usually is is a testimony of the Hellenistic roots of its orthodoxy. They have nothing to do with the religion Christ established.