Differences between Mormon & Christian theology

[_Fortigurn]

So you disagree with the argument the way you interpreted it.

No, I disagreed with your inaccurate unqualified statement that 'elohim means 'gods''.

I showed other scriptures that better presented my case. I see no reason to continue harping on this one.

I've dealt with the passage you felt was the strongest.

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

No it would not. Please read the passages in question, and re-read my post.

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.

So at present the LDS church has not yet restored true Biblical Christianity?

If you would like to present an argument for a variant reading of "elohim" from Psalms 82:6 then do so.

When you speak of a 'variant reading', do you mean 'a reading in Psalm 82:6 other than the word elohim' (which is what a variant reading would mean), or do you mean something else?

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

No I didn't. I made a suggestion as to what you should be doing in order to convince us that the LDS church is Christian.

You can't walk past Mormons without kicking them, can you?

Well that was gratuitous. I didn't kick anyone. The fact is that you made the accusation that I lack objectivity because of my religious position. I pointed out that you also hold a religious position (one prejudiced against mine), but believe yourself capable of objectivity. Your accusation was a mere slur. Then you became outraged because you thought I had leveled the same slur against 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.

Thanks, but none of this addresses what I wrote. I did not impugn LDS scholars.

If you really think that being a Latter-day Saint precludes objectivity...

No I didn't. Please don't attribute to me statements I haven't made.

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

I will repost it for you.

[_Fortigurn]

That's laughable. You only have your own personal interpretation to offer up.

If you do even a little research, you will find that reading of the passage from 2 Maccabees 7 is very far from my own personal interpretation.

I've shared an article from the Harvard Theological Review.

You cited an article (you didn't exactly share it), but you didn't explain why you believe it's correct, and you didn't even explain the author's reasoning.

I have a paper on this very issue being published in May. I have done research.

Great, so let's see the research. I'd like to see this research. I have to bear in mind that whatever this research was, it led you to this conclusion:

Creatio ex nihilo did not exist in the Jewish or Christian worlds until the second century AD. Not a respectable scholar in the world thinks otherwise. You may believe they taught it originally, but no facts support that theory.

Every single sentence here is wrong:

* Creatio ex nihilo existed in the Jewish world at least as early as the 2nd century BC

* There are many respectable scholars in the world who believe this

* There are indeed facts supporting the theory, and the passage in 2 Maccabees 7 is one of those facts

By the way, how do you deal with the following Qumran fragment:

From the God of Knowledge comes all that is and shall be. Before ever they existed He established their whole design, and when, as ordained for them, they come into being, it is in accord with His glorious design that they accomplish their task without change.

1QS 3:15

Source. Surely you didn't miss that in your research? The article to which you directed me doesn't mention it at all, strangely.

You have refused to read the article...

How bizarre of you to say this. Where did I refuse to read the article? As it happens, I've chased it down and read it. Here is the relevant passage:

The author of 2 Maccabees, on the other hand, says in passing that “God made them out of things that did not [really] exist.”36 This famous statement, which has often been taken as evidence for an early Jewish notion of creatio ex nihilo, rather seems to convey Platonic ontology, suggesting that matter does not belong to the realm of real existence.37

It is in any case striking that the author does not show any awareness of breaking new ground. If he had indeed advocated a revolutionary idea subversive to the biblical creation account, he would surely have explained himself in more detail. He would have expounded the opening of Genesis. His omission of such indicates that he was not yet troubled by the issue of pre-existing matter.

37May, Schöpfung aus dem Nichts 6–8; Jonathan A. Goldstein, II Maccabees. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New York: Doubleday & Co., 1983) 307–15; cf. J. C. O’Neill, “How Early is the Doctrine of ‘creatio ex nihilo’ ?” JTS 53 (2002) 449–65, who recently advocated again the interpretation of 2 Macc 7:28 as evidence of an early Jewish creatio ex nihilo theology.

That's it. That's all he writes. No explanation of how he reaches this conclusion, no justification for inserting the word 'really' into the text, no evidence that his interpretation of the words in a manner different to the way they read (so different that he has to insert a word to change the relevant phrase), is valid. The parts I've placed in bold are pure speculation. The more likely reason why the author shows no awareness of breaking new ground, is that he lived in a community where others held the same view.

Is this what you call 'research'? The rest of the paper is pretty good, but this is most definitely not.

...and not shared anything at all outside of your own exegesis.

Not yet, no.

By all means, point me in the direction of a scholarly work that backs up your assertion. I would love to read it.

Gladly. But I want you to explain to me why I shouldn't understand the text on face value.

[_Fortigurn]

I see the trinity as the focus of the Nicene Creed.

Why would you, seeing that it says absolutely nothing about the trinity?

The goal of that creed and that council was to establish once and for all the nature of Christ's relationship with the Father.

Yes, nothing at all about the trinity.

Arius promoted a subordinate Christ and the rest promoted an equal Christ.

Equal in nature, subordinate in position. The Nicene Creed discreetly says nothing about the equality of Christ with God.

The most ridiculous round of philosophic aerobics that was ever executed by mankind took place in an attempt to reconcile three gods and one god together. The result was the Nicene Creed.

No, you're thinking of the Athanasian Creed. The Nicene Creed did nothing to 'attempt to reconcile three gods and one god together'. It doesn't mention anything like it.

You can compare the differences between the 'Apostles' Creed', the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, here. Other than that, I agree with you that both the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds are trash.

[_maklelan]

No, you're thinking of the Athanasian Creed. The Nicene Creed did nothing to 'attempt to reconcile three gods and one god together'. It doesn't mention anything like it.

You can compare the differences between the 'Apostles' Creed', the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, here. Other than that, I agree with you that both the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds are trash.

We don't have an original of the Nicene Creed, but the one you shared will do just fine:

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.

This was what Constantine recommended. This was the great compromise that he forced all of the bishops into signing. It was a completely unknown doctrine up to this point, but it's been championed ever since. It's the foundation of the trinity and it's what I've been referring to the entire time.

[_Fortigurn]

No, you're thinking of the Athanasian Creed. The Nicene Creed did nothing to 'attempt to reconcile three gods and one god together'. It doesn't mention anything like it.

You can compare the differences between the 'Apostles' Creed', the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, here. Other than that, I agree with you that both the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds are trash.

We don't have an original of the Nicene Creed, but the one you shared will do just fine:

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.

This was what Constantine recommended. This was the great compromise that he forced all of the bishops into signing. It was a completely unknown doctrine up to this point, but it's been championed ever since. It's the foundation of the trinity and it's what I've been referring to the entire time.

Ok, so you're still not actually addressing what I wrote. Your claim was that the Nicene Creed was an 'attempt to reconcile three gods and one god together'. In fact, he Nicene Creed did nothing to 'attempt to reconcile three gods and one god together', and the section you quoted doesn't say anything about that. At best it tries to reconcile a belief in two persons who are God, certainly not three.

There's no doubt that the Nicene Creed was an important element in the trinitarian doctrine which developed later, but it was not an attempt to do what you claimed for it.

[_Aquinas]

This was what Constantine recommended. This was the great compromise that he forced all of the bishops into signing. It was a completely unknown doctrine up to this point, but it's been championed ever since. It's the foundation of the trinity and it's what I've been referring to the entire time.

Aside from the fact that this is an imperfect list created by an imperfect perception of God (don't you guys also hold that nothing can ever be known about God?), the bold item is part of the Nicene Creed, which was instituted originally in AD 325 at the request of a pagan emperor. He literally suggested the term consubstantial in an effort to reach a compromise between two opposing viewpoints. It was never taught before and the paper was signed under the penalty of banishment. It's hardly Christian. Afte rthe council several of those who signed the paper wrote back saying they were ashamed of themselves for having subscribed to blasphemy because of intimidation from a pagan emperor.

Okay, enough is enough. Where are you getting this foolishness? Give us a reference to what historical lunacy you drew this drivel from. And please, something slightly more studious than "The Da Vinci Code."

The Constantine stuff is just nonsense. [Maklelan's] errors are many:
Constantine was at least some kind of Christian at this point, he had
little to do with the actual debates at Nicaea, he didn't propose
consubstantial/homoousious, which isn't a compromise at all between
orthodoxy and Arianism (and he probably wouldn't have understood
anyway). I don't remember if there were many/any recanters.

This came from a friend of mine who has been studying the Church Fathers for 9 years, has a master's degree in History and is well educated in Greek and Latin. So far, he is the most qualified to speak on this subject (and in case you were wondering, that includes Dan Brown).

[_Aquinas]

I would like make a correction on a characteristic of the Mormon God I have been attributing to him:

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

As far as I know, the Mormon church would classify their God as "infinite," in at least the Platonic sense that he, like the rest of humanity, has always existed, and he like everyone else, was never created. I would like to point out that even this may present some philosophical and perhaps scientific difficulties since the Mormon God is said to have a body, but aside from that, since the Mormon God is confined to time and space, he couldn't be infinite in the strictest sense of the word. God described by Traditional Christianity however isn't confined to time and space, and thus in this sense is truly infinite. Also, the Christian God, unlike the Mormon God, is infinite in power, knowledge, goodness, etc. From now on, I will attribute "eternal" to the God of Mormonism, as this seems to more properly fit with the doctrine, since the attribute has more to do with chronological existence.

[_Jason Bourne]

I would like make a correction on a characteristic of the Mormon God I have been attributing to him:

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

As far as I know, the Mormon church would classify their God as "infinite," in at least the Platonic sense that he, like the rest of humanity, has always existed, and he like everyone else, was never created. I would like to point out that even this may present some philosophical and perhaps scientific difficulties since the Mormon God is said to have a body, but aside from that, since the Mormon God is confined to time and space, he couldn't be infinite in the strictest sense of the word. God described by Traditional Christianity however isn't confined to time and space, and thus in this sense is truly infinite. Also, the Christian God, unlike the Mormon God, is infinite in power, knowledge, goodness, etc. From now on, I will attribute "eternal" to the God of Mormonism, as this seems to more properly fit with the doctrine, since the attribute has more to do with chronological existence (how long he existed).

Mormons believe God is uncreated and speculate that he may not have had a body to start with but understood that he needed a physical body to experience the fulness of life as well as that would be how his all spirits would eventually progress to a fullness of godliness. Like Jesus becoming a man with a body so God the Father may have, on the first world he created taken on physical form and been that world's savior.

Of course one point your theology seems to miss when critiqueing the limits of a physical body is that Jesus is God incarnate, took on a physical body and had now kept it. This posist problems. If the Father indeed is a spirit outside of time and space then Jesus is not and differs significantly from the Father and even has experiences that Father cannot and has not had.

Also, Mormons believe God is is infinite in power, knowledge, goodness, etc. I am not sure where you get the idea that they do not believe this.

Thanks

[_maklelan]

Okay, enough is enough. Where are you getting this foolishness? Give us a reference to what historical lunacy you drew this drivel from. And please, something slightly more studious than "The Da Vinci Code."

The Constantine stuff is just nonsense. [Maklelan's] errors are many:
Constantine was at least some kind of Christian at this point, he had
little to do with the actual debates at Nicaea, he didn't propose
consubstantial/homoousious, which isn't a compromise at all between
orthodoxy and Arianism (and he probably wouldn't have understood
anyway). I don't remember if there were many/any recanters.

This came from a friend of mine who has been studying the Church Fathers for 9 years, has a master's degree in History and is well educated in Greek and Latin. So far, he is the most qualified to speak on this subject (and in case you were wondering, that includes Dan Brown).

I don't know why you keep referring to the DaVinci Code. I've never said anything even remotely related to that. Are you just one of those people that think everyone's out to get you because of the DaVinci Code? As to your friend's responses, "some kind of Christian" doesn't really mean anything. He adopted Christianity as a means of quelling the disruptions it caused to his empire. He minted coins with pagan gods on them for some time after his "conversion," so we know if he was any kind of Christian at Nicea it was a bad one. He didn't get baptized until he was dying, and by that poiint he had completely changed his views on Christianity and had pardoned Arius. The only sources that say he had little to do with the debates are fifth and sixth century Catholic apologetic sources, and they say it in response to numerous accusations that he did have a whole lot to do with it. The quote I shared from Eusebius makes perfectly clear that he intimidated many into signing a "blasphemy." How is he supposed to have intimidated them if he didn't have anything to do with the outcome? That your friend is not aware of many/any recanters is a clear indication that he hasn't studied this situation with much depth. The fight between Arius and the others actually continued for decades after Nicea, and Arius had the support of the empire for a good portion of it. There were indeed recanters. There's a lot more going on here than you and your friend appear to be aware.

I don't think this thread will be at all edifying with my continued presence here. Aquinas, have fun with your thread.

[_Aquinas]

Of course one point your theology seems to miss when critiqueing the limits of a physical body is that Jesus is God incarnate, took on a physical body and had now kept it. This posist problems. If the Father indeed is a spirit outside of time and space then Jesus is not and differs significantly from the Father and even has experiences that Father cannot and has not had.

One major philosophical difference in Jesus having a body and the Mormon God having a body is that supposedly (and I realize you say it is debated amongst Mormons, and it may very well be) the Mormon God, not being created, would had to have a body that was uncreated (as corporeality is part of his essence). But no body is put into motion by itself (read Aquinas' argument from motion I cited in one of my most recent posts), it must be put into motion by something else (ultimately, the non-corporeal first mover). Thus to say he had a body and to say it was uncreated implies a contradiction. Now, while Jesus is eternal and being God is also infinite and uncreated in all ways, took on a body, so the body was put into "motion" by the power of the Holy Spirit (as we are told in scripture) by Mary's concieving of Jesus as a virgin. While Jesus existed before he became man, his human nature (which is corporeal) did not. Thus we can still have an uncreated being (Jesus) who took on a body that was put into motion by the first Mover (the Holy Spirit, who is God). Now, if you are going to argue that the Mormon God was incorporeal first, then took on a body much like Jesus did, you would avoid the philosophical dilema. As far as Jesus still having a body, you are correct about this belief. I must admit I have not studied or thought enough to have a good defense for how someone who has a body could be outside time/space, or if we need to say Jesus is outside time/space altogether... good point though. I need to look into it further (not that there isn't a good answer for it, it's just that I don't know it).

However, while I am sure there are those LDS who debate these issues because they realize the philosophical implications, it still cannot be reconciled with the fact that the churches' credibility stands or falls on the claims of Joseph Smith. It seems that for the Mormon church to remain credible, it cannot contradict any of Joe Smith's teachings, since his claim was a restored church that contained the fullness of the gospel.

Also, Mormons believe God is is infinite in power, knowledge, goodness, etc. I am not sure where you get the idea that they do not believe this.

Again, while Mormons may believe this, the God described by the Mormon church logically cannot hold these characteristics, without implying contradiction. Thus by professing this belief, you are believing a contradiction (by the way, I know of at least one Mormon philosopher who believes and teaches that Mormon God is not omnipotent, omniscient, etc, because he realizes 1) Mormon doctrine and 2) the philosophical implications). As I noted before, Mormon God could not both be progressing eternally and be infinite; as progression implies the state of potentiality while "infinite" is the state of actuality. Also, he cannot be omnipotent if there are many like him, I also argued this point in my original arugment that started the thread, so this would destroy any possibility for infinite power.