Re: Is the LDS a Christian Religion

[the_last_gunslinger]

You mean you understand that most Christians do not accept that the Son of God is a created being? Well, That is very "understanding" of you.

This again is irrelevant. I believe Jesus is the Son of God and the Savior. That is what the Bible says we must do in order to be a follower of Christ. Nowhere does it say one must believe a set list of particular doctrines to be considered a Christian.

[ChristNU]

You mean you understand that most Christians do not accept that the Son of God is a created being? Well, That is very "understanding" of you.

This again is irrelevant. I believe Jesus is the Son of God and the Savior. That is what the Bible says we must do in order to be a follower of Christ. Nowhere does it say one must believe a set list of particular doctrines to be considered a Christian.

It is irrelevent that the Son of God that LDS teaches and that you believe in is a created being?? Thats your answer?? Then when you say that you believe in the Son of God, that too is irrelevent.

[the_last_gunslinger]

It is irrelevent that the Son of God that LDS teaches and that you believe in is a created being?? Thats your answer?? Then when you say that you believe in the Son of God, that too is irrelevent.

What's irrelevant are the specifics of Christ that, according to the Bible, salvation is not predicated upon. The Bible says that one must call upon Christ as his savior, proclaiming him to be the Son of God. That's it. It does not say, on top of that, that one must believe a laundry list of things about Christ.

And I clearly believe in the Son of God, as the Bible says as much. You appear to want to ignore this. The Bible is clear on who Jesus Christ is, and it is not how you describe him. Your version of God was a man made doctrine birthed in a council where they voted on the very nature of God. It is only at this point that the doctrine of the Trinity became part of the traditional Christian's doctrine. This is where you seem to place your faith.

[Thankfulldad]

Simply put; I realize I am saved...by believing.

God Bless...I am moving on Smile

And that is terrific. I'm glad that you have such a testimony. I'm only asking that we can be brothers in Christ. We accept him as our Savior, as the Bible says. Just because we believe some different things about him does not mean we can't be united in our faith, despite theological differences.

1John 5:20...We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know Him who is true.  And we are in Him who is true...even in His Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.

Friend...Jesus is the true God...He is eternal life; God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son...He who has the Son has Life.  But, this Life can only be found in JESUS THE TRUE GOD.

My faith rests there; yours rests in a faith not of God...but of man.  You can argue until you are blue in the face...but, this does nothing to change the difference in our faith.  

So...again with a heavy heart; I am once again done with this merry go round...my brothers are found in Jesus Christ our God our Eternal Life.

[Johnb]

A little more enlightenment:

Mormonism teaches the following non Christian, non biblical doctrines.  (Note that all the documentation is taken from Mormon writers and Mormon scriptures.)

God used to be a man on another planet, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 321; Joseph Smith, Times and Seasons, vol. 5, p. 613-614; Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p. 345; Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 333)

God resides near a star called Kolob, (Pearl of Great Price, p. 34-35; Mormon Doctrine, p. 428).

"The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s..." (Doctrines and Covenants 130:22).

God is in the form of a man, (Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p. 3).

"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!!! . . . We have imagined that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea and take away the veil, so that you may see," (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345).

After you become a good Mormon, you have the potential of becoming a god, (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345-347, 354.)

There is a mother god, (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 443).

God is married to his goddess wife and has spirit children, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 516).

The trinity is three separate Gods: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. "That these three are separate individuals, physically distinct from each other, is demonstrated by the accepted records of divine dealings with man," (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 35.).


In contrast to these teachings, Christianity and the Bible teaches that God has always been God and was never a man (Psalm 90:2).  The Bible no where says he lives near another star or that the Father has a body of flesh and bones -- which Christ contradicted in John 4:24 and Luke 24:39.  We do not have the potential of becoming gods because there are no gods formed (Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8; 45:5).  The Trinity is one God (Deut. 6:4), not three.  (http://carm.org/mormonism)

These were written and taught by "the prophet Joesph Smith" but is not what mormons teach and believe.  Then you don't have much faith in your prophet!

[LightHammer]

It is irrelevent that the Son of God that LDS teaches and that you believe in is a created being?? Thats your answer?? Then when you say that you believe in the Son of God, that too is irrelevent.

What's irrelevant are the specifics of Christ that, according to the Bible, salvation is not predicated upon. The Bible says that one must call upon Christ as his savior, proclaiming him to be the Son of God. That's it. It does not say, on top of that, that one must believe a laundry list of things about Christ.

And I clearly believe in the Son of God, as the Bible says as much. You appear to want to ignore this. The Bible is clear on who Jesus Christ is, and it is not how you describe him. Your version of God was a man made doctrine birthed in a council where they voted on the very nature of God. It is only at this point that the doctrine of the Trinity became part of the traditional Christian's doctrine. This is where you seem to place your faith.

That's not exactly accurate gungslinger. The Trinity and especilly the belief that Jesus Christ as God were around way before the Council of Nicaea. If we are to remain to true to the history of the Christian faith, the Council only had to even address Christ's divinity because a bishop named Arius formed a party that officially denied such. Furthermore you can't claim that the Council of Nicea is where Christ's divinity and the Trinity was born because we know that with regards to this topic the clergy of the Catholic Church weren't developing the doctrine; they were arguing the two points that were already wdespread. That's why its called the Arian Controversy, meaning a dispute between an oppsing school of thought i.e. triniatrianism.

[the_last_gunslinger]

Read Jn 1: 1.
"The word[Jesus] was with God, [Theos] and the word [Jesus] was God [Theos]".

If Jesus isn't God [Theos] Then God isn't God [Theos], You can't have it both ways.

Now look at Gen 1: 26.
" God [Elohm, Plural] said let US [Plural] make man in OUR [Plural] image after OUR [Plural] likeness.

God introduced Himself as Plural, [Three in one].
Gen 1: 1.
In the begining God [Elohim Plural] created.."
The Bible teaches God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.


Your problem is, You believe the mormon misunderstandings rather than the Bible.

Gen 1:26 supports my position, not yours. Let US make man in OUR image. If the father and son are numerically one, how are we to understand this? Is God talking to himself?

I know what Elohim means, and I agree with it, just differently. The father and the son were both involved with creation. They can both be seen as God from a certain perspective. Jesus Christ is the one who created the heavens and the earth under the direction of the father. He is the God of the Old Testament. The father and son are both God in that they share all the attributes needed to be God, perfect love, mercy, justice, etc. Yet they are separate beings. The Bible clearly teaches this. You seem to reject the most basic Christian doctrine, that Jesus is the Son of God. This is what I believe, yet you do not.

[the_last_gunslinger]

That's not exactly accurate gungslinger. The Trinity and especilly the belief that Jesus Christ as God were around way before the Council of Nicaea. If we are to remain to true to the history of the Christian faith, the Council only had to even address Christ's divinity because a bishop named Arius formed a party that officially denied such. Furthermore you can't claim that the Council of Nicea is where Christ's divinity and the Trinity was born because we know that with regards to this topic the clergy of the Catholic Church weren't developing the doctrine; they were arguing the two points that were already wdespread. That's why its called the Arian Controversy, meaning a dispute between an oppsing school of thought i.e. triniatrianism.

The idea may have been present before the council, but it seemed to have become officially codified at the Council of Nicaea. I don't pretend to be an expert on ancient Christian history, and I think I'd lose an argument on that subject as you probably know a considerable amount more than I do on the subject. However, I think there is ample proof that, at the very least, there were numerous ideas about the nature of God prior to the Nicaea that were not Trinitarian, nor would they be considered orthodox today. Even some of the Early church fathers like Irenaeus and Tertullian did not seem to subscribe to this exact model. Both believed that God had not always been a Trinity, but had "put forth a son" at some point. And the latter figure borrowed many of his ideas from stoicism, believing God to be a material being.

All that being said, I still find it difficult to accept what men who were not prophets or apostles of God say about God's nature, especially since in the Bible, not only is Trinity not mentioned, but no follower of Christ ever puts forth the Nicaean definition.

With all this in mind, I find it a little offensive when people use this to establish who is and is not Christian. Even if we were 100 percent in the wrong, I find no place in the Bible that says salvation is predicated on knowing what God is made of. So I think that's my biggest gripe.

[the_last_gunslinger]

If you knew the Bible you would know that God the Father is God, Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God....I THOUGHT YOU SAID YOU BELIEVED THE BIBLE??.
I think you have been telling me porkies.

So do you think the Bible was mistaken when it said that Jesus was the Son of God? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's pretty hard to be your own son.

[LightHammer]

That's not exactly accurate gungslinger. The Trinity and especilly the belief that Jesus Christ as God were around way before the Council of Nicaea. If we are to remain to true to the history of the Christian faith, the Council only had to even address Christ's divinity because a bishop named Arius formed a party that officially denied such. Furthermore you can't claim that the Council of Nicea is where Christ's divinity and the Trinity was born because we know that with regards to this topic the clergy of the Catholic Church weren't developing the doctrine; they were arguing the two points that were already wdespread. That's why its called the Arian Controversy, meaning a dispute between an oppsing school of thought i.e. triniatrianism.

The idea may have been present before the council, but it seemed to have become officially codified at the Council of Nicaea. I don't pretend to be an expert on ancient Christian history, and I think I'd lose an argument on that subject as you probably know a considerable amount more than I do on the subject. However, I think there is ample proof that, at the very least, there were numerous ideas about the nature of God prior to the Nicaea that were not Trinitarian, nor would they be considered orthodox today. Even some of the Early church fathers like Irenaeus and Tertullian did not seem to subscribe to this exact model. Both believed that God had not always been a Trinity, but had "put forth a son" at some point. And the latter figure borrowed many of his ideas from stoicism, believing God to be a material being.

All that being said, I still find it difficult to accept what men who were not prophets or apostles of God say about God's nature, especially since in the Bible, not only is Trinity not mentioned, but no follower of Christ ever puts forth the Nicaean definition.

With all this in mind, I find it a little offensive when people use this to establish who is and is not Christian. Even if we were 100 percent in the wrong, I find no place in the Bible that says salvation is predicated on knowing what God is made of. So I think that's my biggest gripe.

You claim you're not knowledgable but loosely throw around the names Irenaeus and Tertullian.lol I appreciate the humiliy but when you mentioned stoicism you entered a world of knowledge that is pretty much forgotten by the norms that fill our forums here.

I will say that I understand your frustration when it comes to not being called Christian for not adhering to the traditional Trinity. Our site is very diverse and you don't have to pass a history test to come in and fellowship with us. Many who do fellowship here are not well-versed in Christian history mainly because most of them are Protestants who come from church homes who focus more on the living of the faith rather than the study of it. You don't need to know the historic background of the Christian faith to lead good and wholesome Christian lives so most people do not.

Though, if you ever want to get into Sacred Scripture in depth when it comes to the Trinity I'd love to dialogue with you.  I bunked with a Mormon at Army basic training in Oklahoma a few years back. I understand you guys have a special preference for the KJV Bible. Maybe we can do a compare and contrast with the KJV and the Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price sometime.

[the_last_gunslinger]

You claim you're not knowledgable but loosely throw around the names Irenaeus and Tertullian.lol I appreciate the humiliy but when you mentioned stoicism you entered a world of knowledge that is pretty much forgotten by the norms that fill our forums here.

I only claimed I wasn't an expert, never said I was entirely bereft of knowledge on the subject 

I've got a passing familiarity with stoicism because I've had a ton of Humanities classes and I've got a small collection of philosophy books, but I am in no way proficient and as I've said, I don't think I know enough to carry out a lengthy historical discussion.

I will say that I understand your frustration when it comes to not being called Christian for not adhering to the traditional Trinity. Our site is very diverse and you don't have to pass a history test to come in and fellowship with us. Many who do fellowship here are not well-versed in Christian history mainly because most of them are Protestants who come from church homes who focus more on the living of the faith rather than the study of it. You don't need to know the historic background of the Christian faith to lead good and wholesome Christian lives so most people do not.

This is good to hear. I've actually found this site to be quite tolerant of other viewpoints. I've been on others before who moderate individuals differently merely because of the faith to which they subscribe. I don't see too much of that here.

The frustration part is mostly born of the fact that, by at least most Protestant definitions, Mormons would be Christians. I've been told over and over that all you need to do is believe Christ to be the Savior, repent of your sins and accept him into your life. We do that, but then the goal posts are moved on us and we must now accept these doctrines, understand this passage in such a way and reject this teaching or that teaching. People can think we are Christians or not, but I'd appreciate it if they were at least consistent with their definition.

Though, if you ever want to get into Sacred Scripture in depth when it comes to the Trinity I'd love to dialogue with you.  I bunked with a Mormon at Army basic training in Oklahoma a few years back. I understand you guys have a special preference for the KJV Bible. Maybe we can do a compare and contrast with the KJV and the Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price sometime.

Sounds cool. I've debated dozens of times on the concept of the Trinity, and I don't know if I'm any closer to understanding it than I was in 2002 when I first found out that this was a widely held Christian belief. I am better, though at realizing the difference between modalism and trinitarianism. For the longest time, I thought the latter was the former.

But yeah, I don't mind exploring this concept with others in a more friendly environment. I'm not particularly great at debates, nor do I actively seek them out. So if this sounds like something you'd like to do, I'm all for it.

[the_last_gunslinger]

You really don't know the Bible..DO YOU??.
Although Jesus was God, Jn 1: 1.  Tim 3: 16. 1 Jn 5: 7.
He never operated as God, He operated as the Son of God, He left His God side in heaven when He came to earth to save us.
Phil  2: 5--8.

You've got to be kidding me right? You're saying that God is in heaven, then decided to send himself down in mortal form, but broke a part of himself off so some of his godliness was left in heaven...My goodness, this is a convoluted doctrine. God is not the author of confusion, keep in mind, and this is downright confusing.

It also defies the laws of logic. How is he God's son, if he is God? That's an impossibility. You can't be your own son.

[the_last_gunslinger]

You really really don't know the Bible..DO YOU?? Even though I have shown you.

God is one God manifested in three persons.
The Hebrew word and meaning for "God" is,..."Elohim".

Elohim is the verb and is plural, God is the subject and is singular.

Elohim can also mean "gods" meaning more than one. A cursory look through scholarly resources will show that there is tremendous ambiguity in the Bible as to what the word "Elohim" means in certain instances. Some versions of the Bible translate the word into "Angels" or Powers."

Even so, it doesn't make sense mathematically. If there is one God, how can he be plural? Are you saying that 1=3?

One God manifested in three persons.

Where does it say that in the Bible? Is there any verse that definitively says that there is one god manifest in three persons?

Jesus Was God but didn't operate as God. The un-regenerated human mind cannot understand it, The is the reason why you can't understand it.
1 Tim 3: 16,  says it is a great mystery.

You are making this doctrine look incredibly foolish. So Jesus is God, but he left his "God" part in heaven to fulfill a different role? This sounds like a desperate attempt to reconcile the Trinity with what the Bible actually teaches. I'll ask you this, if Jesus is God, why did he never claim this? In fact, if he is God, why did Christ himself say that he is subject to the Father? If the two are co-equal, how can one be greater than the other? And why would Christ call the Father his "God" if they are both God?

Your problem is, You don't believe the Bible....You have been telling me porkies..NAUGHTY.

Why do you continually lie and attempt to defame me? Show me one place where I said I didn't believe in the Bible. Since I said no such thing, knock it off, it's obviously not true and you look incredibly foolish making such a claim.

[Dr. Truth]

Read Jn 1: 1.
"The word[Jesus] was with God, [Theos] and the word [Jesus] was God [Theos]".

If Jesus isn't God [Theos] Then God isn't God [Theos], You can't have it both ways.

Now look at Gen 1: 26.
" God [Elohm, Plural] said let US [Plural] make man in OUR [Plural] image after OUR [Plural] likeness.

God introduced Himself as Plural, [Three in one].
Gen 1: 1.
In the begining God [Elohim Plural] created.."
The Bible teaches God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.


Your problem is, You believe the mormon misunderstandings rather than the Bible.

Gen 1:26 supports my position, not yours. Let US make man in OUR image. If the father and son are numerically one, how are we to understand this? Is God talking to himself?

I know what Elohim means, and I agree with it, just differently. The father and the son were both involved with creation. They can both be seen as God from a certain perspective. Jesus Christ is the one who created the heavens and the earth under the direction of the father. He is the God of the Old Testament. The father and son are both God in that they share all the attributes needed to be God, perfect love, mercy, justice, etc. Yet they are separate beings. The Bible clearly teaches this. You seem to reject the most basic Christian doctrine, that Jesus is the Son of God. This is what I believe, yet you do not.

God, Elohim in Gen 1: 26, The US  & OUR is refering to,
God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy GHost.
Jesus is God, Jn 1: 1--3.
The Holy Ghost is God, Acts 5: 3--4.... Se also 1 Jn 5: 7.

You belief is different from the Bible's.

[fcadcock]

Even so, it doesn't make sense mathematically. If there is one God, how can he be plural? Are you saying that 1=3?

One God manifested in three persons.

The Trinity is one of the hardest parts of the bible to understand because it deals with God, God, and God; and none of those things are understood by man.  To man 1=3 is wrong.  One man is not three men.  But we aren't dealing with men when we speak of the Trinity, we speak of God.

This is the same God that created the universe and everything in it.  He created physics, math, and everything you man will ever learn about science.  He created a home planet for us at the perfect distance from our Sun to heat us, with enough spin to cool us, with a moon close enough to create waves, and enough oxygen for us to breathe, and everything else we don't even see that goes into us having life.  His power and knowledge is beyond anything we can ever dream of.  For us to say that one God doesn't equal three God(s) is absurd.  We don't know that.  We can't know that.

God is God.
Jesus was the son of God.  He was a different entity as God (He prayed.  You don't pray to yourself do you?) and yet he was OF God.
The Holy Spirit is the spirit of God in our hearts and minds.  It is OF God, yet it is not the same entity as the God we know.

All three of those things are different entities.  There is God, the father of Jesus and the creator of all things.  There is Jesus, the son of God and the sacrifice made to death on our behalf.  There is the Spirit, the living word of God in our hearts we can all hear and feel in our lives.

All three of those things may very well be ONE and the SAME; we don't know.  God's math is much more complicated than we realize.  We don't even understand the math behind things as simple as gravity, how could we know the math behind something as complex as what is and is not God?

To us, 1=1.  To God it may also equal all sorts of things.

The more important question here isn't "are they the same entity or not" but "what does the name and number of God matter?"  God is God, you are you.  Do your part, live right, and you'll have a place in Heaven to ask Him yourself some day.  That is what matters.