Differences between Mormon & Christian theology

[_Fortigurn]

So elohim doesn't mean gods?

That is not what I wrote. I said that it is inaccurate to say 'elohim means 'gods'', because it conveys the impression that this is the only meaning within its semantic domain. You may say that elohim 'contains the meaning 'gods' within its semantic domain', but it is incorrect to say that elohim 'means "gods"'.

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?

No, Christ's rebuttal had everything to do with the accusations of the Jews. They said 'You're making yourself equal with God'. He said 'If God referred to them (the Jews) as THEOI (a more loaded term than 'son of God'), how can you accuse me of claiming equality with God, since I said I am the son of God?'.

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.[/quote]

Why would you argue that true Biblical Christianity is not what the LDS church has restored?

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.

* It is not a straw man (you seem not to understand what a straw man is), all you have to do is look at the Greek in the New Testament and the LXX, and use a halfway reputable lexicon

* I am not making any assumptions about what you are trying to show with your arguments (on the contrary, I made a suggestion as to where you should start)

* I find it odd that you, as a Mormon, would accuse me of lacking the capacity for objectivity in a debate on Christianity (I could make the same accusation as you, but where does throwing stones get us?)

I note you haven't replied to my last posts regarding creation ex nihilo, or the Nicene Creed. But then there wasn't much you could say, was there?

[_Yoda]

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.

And there are those of us who simply believe that if you are kind to one another, and live your life in the service of your family and your fellow man, the hereafter will work itself out. :)

[_Aquinas]

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.

So why aren't missionaries required to discuss this with Christians before baptizing them? I know you can't possibly answer that question, but I think it's a good one for Mormons to ask themselves. I apreciate your honesty, many Mormons I know try to distract people from what they believe because it is difficult to defend, but I see you are at least facing that head on.

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.

Do you have a reference for this? I don't know if they transcribe conference meetings or not.... I would appreciate a reference if you had one. Again, I don't understand why, if the Mormon prophet acknowledges a different Jesus, the Mormon Church athorities wouldn't require their missionaries to teach this, seems rather important, don't you think?

Please understand, for Christians (Catholics and Protestants for those who have a problem with me using that term) any belief or teaching of another Jesus is very dangerous grounds indeed. For if there exists one God, and Jesus is a person of the Trinity, then another Jesus would constitute another God. If the God of Christianity is the one true God (who is love, all powerful, etc, etc.) then following another God/Christ is in violation of the 1st commandment and determental to salvation. These are the consequences if the Mormon Church is wrong about God. "For false Christs and false prophets will appear and preform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect- if that were possible." (Mathew 24:24)

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.[/quote]

LDS may claim to hold some of these, but only the "infinite" attribute I possited would be logically consistent with the God of the LDS church, all the others would fall based on sound reasoning. Just take the doctrine of eternal progression for one example (there are others), if it is always possible to progress in goodness, power, knowledge, etc, then it means the being that is progressing, lacks these characteristics to some degree.

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.

Even if the Mormon "God" wasn't a man on another planet, you still have a very big philosophical problem on your hands. The Mormon God is corporeal (has a body), so he could not be the first mover in St. Thomas Aquinas' proof for the existence of God (Question 2 Artcile 3: "I answer that" in the Summa Theologica will give you the argument from motion, you can look up the Summa online at www.newadvent.org). For if something contains matter (here, a body), it has to be moved, but if it is moved, it cannot be moved by itself (I won't explain this here, but Aquinas' argument explains it for those with a desire to learn). Thus, something would have to have "moved" the Mormon God, since he had a body, that something would have to be the one, incorporeal God, who is the first mover (unmoved Himself). This is the God described by Christianity (although not explicitly Trinitarian in Aquinas' argument, the Trinity does not contradict this attribute and is something Aquinas later defends in the "Prima Pars" portion of the Summa).

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.

Scanty evidence? Our reasoning based on the moral and even scientific evidence we know from our world is evidence enough. Reasoning brings us to belief (again, read Aquinas) in at least that God exists and he is one. Humanity was made by God, so naturally He made it so we are able to know Him.

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.

I don't see how they could have the same mind and thoughts if they are 1) not one in essence and 2) bodily (except for the HG), and the "attributes" are listed as "attributes," so I'm not sure what you mean specifically by that. But you are at least right that Mormonism doesn't teach that the three persons are one in being.

Nice post. Thanks

Again, I appreciate addressing my argument head on.

[_maklelan]

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.

And there are those of us who simply believe that if you are kind to one another, and live your life in the service of your family and your fellow man, the hereafter will work itself out. :)

I tend to think that, but for some reason we're the one group that is least likely to be allowed to do so in peace.

[Mayan Elephant]

And there are those of us who simply believe that if you are kind to one another, and live your life in the service of your family and your fellow man, the hereafter will work itself out. :)

Aww, that's soo cute! Unfortunately it is a complete undermining of that fact that Christ came to take sin upon Himself and die on a cross so we have a chance at salvation. If you know anything about the teaching of scripture, human nature is such that no one, other than Christ (and Mary, but we do not get that explicitly from scripture but from the early church), ever actually lived the life you are describing to the degree that we would have to, to be with God. That is why Christ died.

This is just sloppy and lazy thinking.

[_maklelan]

That is not what I wrote. I said that it is inaccurate to say 'elohim means 'gods'', because it conveys the impression that this is the only meaning within its semantic domain. You may say that elohim 'contains the meaning 'gods' within its semantic domain', but it is incorrect to say that elohim 'means "gods"'.

So you disagree with the argument the way you interpreted it. I showed other scriptures that better presented my case. I see no reason to continue harping on this one.

No, Christ's rebuttal had everything to do with the accusations of the Jews. They said 'You're making yourself equal with God'. He said 'If God referred to them (the Jews) as THEOI (a more loaded term than 'son of God'), how can you accuse me of claiming equality with God, since I said I am the son of God?'.

So it would be accurate to say that Christ interpreted the scripture and presents it as meaning "gods," and nothing else?

Why would you argue that true Biblical Christianity is not what the LDS church has restored?

I believe that the restoration is the prophecied dispensation of the fullness of times. We have all the truth from Christ's dispensation and whatever truths needed restoration or to come forth for the first time.

* It is not a straw man (you seem not to understand what a straw man is), all you have to do is look at the Greek in the New Testament and the LXX, and use a halfway reputable lexicon

I have been doing that for years and I feel quite comfortable with the conclusions at which I have arrived. If you would like to present an argument for a variant reading of "elohim" from Psalms 82:6 then do so.

* I am not making any assumptions about what you are trying to show with your arguments (on the contrary, I made a suggestion as to where you should start)

You assumed that I was trying to prove that they believed proto-Mormon doctrines.

* I find it odd that you, as a Mormon, would accuse me of lacking the capacity for objectivity in a debate on Christianity (I could make the same accusation as you, but where does throwing stones get us?)

You can't walk past Mormons without kicking them, can you? If you look into biblical scholarship you will find that LDS scholars are very highly respected. Drs Ricks, Parry and Pike are three of the most respected Dead Sea Scroll scholars on the planet, and BYU has produced the technology that made possible the studies being done today. Christian Bay and Tom Wayment are pioneering a technology here at BYU that is revolutionizing papyrology. David Paulsen has published in the Harvard Theological Review. Daniel C. Peterson just wrote a book that is being called the best book on Islam ever written by a Christian. He is widely regarded as a pioneering scholar of Islam. His text initiative program is the first of its kind for Islamic literature. John Welch is widely respected in the Jewish community, both for his scholarship in law and chiasmus. The newest and arguably the best translation of the Popol Vuh was just published by an LDS scholar. If you really think that being a Latter-day Saint precludes objectivity then you've got your head too far up you backside to garner another response from me to any of your posts.

I note you haven't replied to my last posts regarding creation ex nihilo, or the Nicene Creed. But then there wasn't much you could say, was there?

I'm afraid I don't know exactly to which post you refer.

[_Yoda]

And there are those of us who simply believe that if you are kind to one another, and live your life in the service of your family and your fellow man, the hereafter will work itself out. :)

Aww, that's soo cute! Unfortunately it is a complete undermining of that fact that Christ came to take sin upon Himself and die on a cross so we have a chance at salvation. If you know anything about the teaching of scripture, human nature is such that no one, other than Christ (and Mary, but we do not get that explicitly from scripture but from the early church), ever actually lived the life you are describing to the degree that we would have to, to be with God. That is why Christ died.

This is just sloppy and lazy thinking.

How is what I said denying the divinity of Christ? I completely acknowledge that Christ died for us, and paid for our sins in a way that was impossible for us to ever do. Being kind to one another and caring for one another is at the core of Christ's teachings. How is stating that living a life focusing on his prime teachings "sloppy or lazy thinking"?

What I was trying to say is that I know that there is no way I could do anything remotely close to what Christ did for us. The only thing I can do is live my life as close to his teachings as possible, and trust that He will judge me of his own accord, because He is God. That's what I meant by the hereafter working out. I trust Christ to make that call.

[_maklelan]

And there are those of us who simply believe that if you are kind to one another, and live your life in the service of your family and your fellow man, the hereafter will work itself out. :)

Aww, that's soo cute! Unfortunately it is a complete undermining of that fact that Christ came to take sin upon Himself and die on a cross so we have a chance at salvation. If you know anything about the teaching of scripture, human nature is such that no one, other than Christ (and Mary, but we do not get that explicitly from scripture but from the early church), ever actually lived the life you are describing to the degree that we would have to, to be with God. That is why Christ died.

This is just sloppy and lazy thinking.

How is what I said denying the divinity of Christ? I completely acknowledge that Christ died for us, and paid for our sins in a way that was impossible for us to ever do. Being kind to one another and caring for one another is at the core of Christ's teachings. How is stating that living a life focusing on his prime teachings "sloppy or lazy thinking"?

What I was trying to say is that I know that there is no way I could do anything remotely close to what Christ did for us. The only thing I can do is live my life as close to his teachings as possible, and trust that He will judge me of his own accord, because He is God. That's what I meant by the hereafter working out. I trust Christ to make that call.

Liz I don't think Catholics are generally far off what you have said. Aquinas appears to just want to argue with everyone, but if you look up infant baptism in any Catholic Encyclopedia you'll find that their doctrine concerning unbaptized infants is basically that they trust that things will work out in the afterlife. Everyone has to admit that God's plans are not revealed in their entirety to anyone. At some point everyone has to say they don't know.

[_Mary]

Mak said:

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.

Liz, I wasn't imputing anything to Aquinas! Mak got my argument to a tee. I also agree with you where you state this:

And there are those of us who simply believe that if you are kind to one another, and live your life in the service of your family and your fellow man, the hereafter will work itself out. :)

From 1 Corinthians. 13

I may speak in the languages of humans and of angels. But if I don't have love, I am a loud gong or a clashing cymbal.
I may have the gift to speak what God has revealed, and I may understand all mysteries and have all knowledge. I may even have enough faith to move mountains. But if I don't have love, I am nothing.
I may even give away all that I have and give up my body to be burned. But if I don't have love, none of these things will help me.
Love is patient. Love is kind. Love isn't jealous. It doesn't sing its own praises. It isn't arrogant
It isn't rude. It doesn't think about itself. It isn't irritable. It doesn't keep track of wrongs.

Now we see a blurred image in a mirror. Then we will see very clearly. Now my knowledge is incomplete. Then I will have complete knowledge as God has complete knowledge of me.

Along with Jesus message that the foundation of the law was to love God with all our hearts and to love our neighbour as ourselves, (and that it was through loving others that we showed our love for God) I find these 'bashing' arguments futile and very pharisaic.

Mary

[_Jason Bourne]

quote]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.

So why aren't missionaries required to discuss this with Christians before baptizing them? I know you can't possibly answer that question, but I think it's a good one for Mormons to ask themselves. I appreciate your honesty, many Mormons I know try to distract people from what they believe because it is difficult to defend, but I see you are at least facing that head on.[/quote]

Like you said I no not know. But when I was a missionary 26 years ago we taught that Joseph was told to join none of the Churches because they were wrong and that the creeds were one of the main reasons they were wrong. We did teach the concept that we believed God had a body and that the members were three separate beings, though we did not get into the theological depths of it.

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.

Do you have a reference for this? I don't know if they transcribe conference meetings or not.... I would appreciate a reference if you had one.

I do not. I looked through the past number of year conferences on lds.org. They are not searchable on their own. But if you go to lds.org click on gospel library and then church magazines they are searchable. Conference talks are found in the May and November issues. I am pretty certian that it was in the past 4 or 5 years. I perused all the talks by Pres. Hinckley from 2003 on in conference and it did not leap out at me. But I only spent 15 minutes or so.

Again, I don't understand why, if the Mormon prophet acknowledges a different Jesus, the Mormon Church athorities wouldn't require their missionaries to teach this, seems rather important, don't you think?

Yep. I would not have a problem with it. The new discussions may have a section like ours that talk about God having a body.

Please understand, for Christians (Catholics and Protestants for those who have a problem with me using that term) any belief or teaching of another Jesus is very dangerous grounds indeed. For if there exists one God, and Jesus is a person of the Trinity, then another Jesus would constitute another God. If the God of Christianity is the one true God (who is love, all powerful, etc, etc.) then following another God/Christ is in violation of the 1st commandment and detrimental to salvation. These are the consequences if the Mormon Church is wrong about God. "For false Christ's and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect- if that were possible." (Mathew 24:24)

I understand this but see it more as a man made construct. You know as well as I that the development of Christian theology took hundreds of year. The earliest Christians may have been more subordinates when it comes to Jesus and they certainly did not see God in the way those post Chalcedon did. How do you deal with that in light of the comment above?

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.[/quote]

LDS may claim to hold some of these, but only the "infinite" attribute I posited would be logically consistent with the God of the LDS church, all the others would fall based on sound reasoning. Just take the doctrine of eternal progression for one example (there are others), if it is always possible to progress in goodness, power, knowledge, etc, then it means the being that is progressing, lacks these characteristics to some degree.

Mormons do not agree about whether God is progressing. Apostle Bruce R McConkie did not and called it one of the seven deadly heresies that had come into the LDS Church.

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.

Even if the Mormon "God" wasn't a man on another planet, you still have a very big philosophical problem on your hands. The Mormon God is corporeal (has a body),

Yes I understand this. An interesting note that you may not know is that the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants contained 7 lectures called the Lectures on Faith and were considered part of LDS canon till 1921 when they were removed. The fifth lecture stated that God is a personage of spirit. It was not till 1838 that D&C Sec 130 declared that God had a body. It seems that at least from 1829 to 1838 the LDS Church believed the Father was a personage of spirit. You should also read D&C 20:1-38. This was written in 1830 and among other things very forcefully declares that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are One God. Similar passages in the Book of Mormon do to. Later LDS theology seems to conflict with the earlier stuff.

so he could not be the first mover in St. Thomas Aquinas' proof for the existence of God (Question 2 Article 3: "I answer that" in the Summa Theological will give you the argument from motion, you can look up the Summa online at www.newadvent.org). For if something contains matter (here, a body), it has to be moved, but if it is moved, it cannot be moved by itself (I won't explain this here, but Aquinas' argument explains it for those with a desire to learn). Thus, something would have to have "moved" the Mormon God, since he had a body, that something would have to be the one, incorporeal God, who is the first mover (unmoved Himself). This is the God described by Christianity (although not explicitly Trinitarian in Aquinas' argument, the Trinity does not contradict this attribute and is something Aquinas later defends in the "Prima Pars" portion of the Summa).

I am not an expert in these writings so I cannot discuss it intelligently.

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.

Scanty evidence? Our reasoning based on the moral and even scientific evidence we know from our world is evidence enough. Reasoning brings us to belief (again, read Aquinas) in at least that God exists and he is one. Humanity was made by God, so naturally He made it so we are able to know Him.

We could debate whether God has really been clear about what He is but based on all the wrangling, debate and differing views it sure seems that it is not very clear.

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.

I don't see how they could have the same mind and thoughts if they are 1) not one in essence and 2) bodily (except for the HG), and the "attributes" are listed as "attributes," so I'm not sure what you mean specifically by that. But you are at least right that Mormonism doesn't teach that the three persons are one in being.

Some Mormons believe that somehow they divinely indwell each other. Maybe that does push towards essence or substance. Again I think you would enjoy Blake Ostler.