I’ve got a page (here), where I allow people to ask questions about Mormonism. On June 27th, Mitch.4.Him asked the following:
Mormon Apostle Orson Pratt taught, “We were begotten by our Father in Heaven; the person of our Father in Heaven was begotten on a previous heavenly world by His Father; and again, He was begotten by a still more ancient Father, and so on, from generation to generation”
Isaiah 43:10 says “… before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me”.
I think your real question is “why do you preach polytheism (the belief in many gods) when Isaiah apparently teaches Monotheism (the belief in one god)”?
Actually, this is a common question we receive from critics of the church who poorly understand Mormonism and incorrectly interpret this scripture. For Mormons are not Polytheists, and the assertion that Isaiah was teaching Monotheism is an icorrect. But first let me address the notion of polytheism.
Mormons are not Polytheistic, we worship only one God. They’re confusing Polytheism with theosis (human deification, or the belief that we can become like God), which is what we really are. The belief in theosis and being Monotheistic are not mutually exclusive, but are perfectly harmonious, and this scripture in Isaiah happens to point out why (I’ll get to that in a minute).
Additionally the belief in theosis is not, actually, unique to Mormons, but is shared among many early Christians and much of modern Christianity (Eastern Orthodox).
This official statement from the church on the idea that we can become like God was given in response to an interview by Fox News (here):
We believe that the apostle Peter’s biblical reference to partaking of the divine nature and the apostle Paul’s reference to being ‘joint heirs with Christ’ reflect the intent that children of God should strive to emulate their Heavenly Father in every way. Throughout the eternities, Mormons believe, they will reverence and worship God the Father and Jesus Christ. The goal is not to equal them or to achieve parity with them but to imitate and someday acquire their perfect goodness, love and other divine attributes.
This is theosis, or the belief that we can become like God.
Next, the assertion that Isaiah was teaching Monotheism isn’t accurate. Actually in Isaiah’s time, they were not Monotheistic either - so he wasn’t saying “there are no other gods”.
What he actually said was that before God, there were no gods, nor will there be any after him. But if you think about it, God is eternal, which means there never was a time in which God did not exist, so there never was a “before god”, nor a scenario that would be “after God”. But what then could he be talking about?
Further study of Isaiah reveals that this scripture is a comparison of Isaiah between the God of Israel (YHWH) and Ba’al, a deity worshiped by the Canaanites. Ba’al had defeated Yaam, his preceding deity, to become chief of the Canaanite pantheon. And as such, it was assumed he too could be superseded. But Isaiah wanted to make it clear that YHWH did not replace his god, nor could he be replaced (hence - there was no god before me, nor will there be after me). For he didn’t oust some prior diety to become God, and nobody else can remove him to take his place.
You’ll notice, therefore, that while he says there were no gods before him, or after him, there was no mention of any gods “during” him.
Hence, theosis, or the belief that we too can become like God, partaking of his divine nature (Peter), and becoming joint heirs with Christ (Paul), is not in contradiction to scripture, for in doing so, we do not replace god, we simply become like him. Regardless, he is our only God today, and will be our God eternally, our relationship with His is everlasting, but doesn’t preclude our ability to become like him. We are taught that we should become perfect, even as our Father in Heaven is perfect, that we become joint heirs with Christ, inheriting all the father hath.
What a beautiful and magnificent doctrine, to know that our goal is greater than salvation from sin, but rather ultimate exaltation.
Such a notion expands our minds to behold all new vistas of opportunities, and provides further foundation to the real understanding of the true nature of God (which I’ll cover shortly), and the concept that we must do more than just believe and be baptized (which I cover here). Actual exaltation and the opportunity for eternal progression requires a higher degree of dilligence, but is within our reach.
After all, we are children of a living God, and were created in His divine image, is it not fitting that such a loving father would desire that we should inherit all that he hath?
Rusty
Subscribe to Ongofu | Get Ongofu by Email
If you’ve enjoyed this post, please bookmark it by clicking on the button below, and selecting a service so others can find it too. Many thanks.
{ 143 comments… read them below or add one }
Next Comments →
There’s also the assumption of the question asker that Isaiah is dealing with a theologically abstract question of Polytheism vs. Monotheism, which is both reductionist and anachronistic.
Rusty, this is a wonderful explanation of an important doctrine. Clear and succinct for those who are open to accepting a higher understanding. It is important that when studying the Bible that each verse is kept in context of the time period, culture, and current events. Too many times people cling to a literal translation based on a modern view. One must remember that English was not the original language of these ancient texts, and that over the many ages and multiple translations there have been changes and clarifying passages have been lost. Those who are bent on criticizing our beliefs without this sufficient study & understanding display great disrespect & haste to pass judgment. Thank you for all your insightful and respectful articles.
Hi Rusty,
I stumbled upon your blog from the sign in page. It’s interesting to see a Mormon blogger.
From my discussion with Mormons (and I mean… perhaps two) I think the problem is not merely a question of monotheism.
You said:
“Mormons are not Polytheistic, we worship only one God.”
But I think this is a non sequitur. It doesn’t follow from only worshiping one God that one is polytheistic. Hence, henotheism (”polytheism” where only one God, who is considered supreme, is worshiped).
It seems to me that if this is the case that Mormons are indeed polytheists, but not polytheists like the peoples who surrounded the ancient Jewish nation.
However, I do have some questions for you regarding henotheism. I know that Mormons worship the Father. But I wonder whether Mormons also worship the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is a doctrine of traditional Nicean-Chalcedonian Christianity that the Son and the Spirit are worshiped and glorified with the Father.
Now, in Mormon theology, I believe I would be correct in saying that the Son and the Spirit each have a distinct essence from the Father (because Mormons deny Chalcedonian Christianity which says that there is one God in three persons [one ousia, three hupostasis]). But if Mormons worship in addition to the Father, the Son (and perhaps the Spirit), then it would indeed seem that Mormons are not merely henotheistic, but polytheistic in that they worship more than one God. Could you clarify this for me and give me your thoughts?
Next you say:
“They’re confusing Polytheism with theosis (human deification, or the belief that we can become like God), which is what we really are.”
But I don’t think this is being done. Perhaps with some more uncultured evangelicals. Oftentimes they have an appalling knowledge of doctrine and Church history, and so they hear “theosis” and find it repugnant (when they ought to know that salvation is a process of theosis, or divinization). The problem is a question of nature and grace.
Traditional Christianity holds that what God is by nature, man may become by grace. Hence, “God became man that man might become God. ” Or as St. Thomas said, “”The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.”"
It seems to me that the more serious question for Mormonism is whether God has a nature which is different than man. Consider this. I’ve heard statements from Mormon prophets to the effect that, “as man is, God the Father once was.” And likewise, Mormons believe that Jesus Christ has been exalted and is now like God the Father. Furthermore, each individual Mormon may himself be exalted and become a god the father to his own world. The King Follett discourse, although not Mormon canon, explains something like this. And I think a theology like this is more or less entailed by the Mormon understanding of God, exaltation and the soul– all souls are essentially alike, but differ only according to their level of exaltation. In my own words, the natures of all souls are essentially alike in the way that all individuals of a species (e.g., each dog) are essentially like each other. I quote from the King Follett discourse (by means of illustration of my point, not as if quoting an authority, for I do not think Mormons generally accept it as an authoritative document): “The mind of man is as immortal as God himself. I know that my testimony is true; hence, when I talk to these mourners, what have they lost? Their friends and relatives are separated from their bodies for only a short season; their spirits existed coequal with God, and they now exist in a place where they converse together, the same as we do on the earth”
This is what rankles adherents of traditional Christianity. To say that man becomes God by grace is traditional doctrine on theosis. To say that man is essentially like God by nature is completely different. There is no room for this in traditional metaphysics (and I confess to not understanding how this ultimately makes sense). In this way I think the Mormon view of theosis is completely different than traditional Christian view, for Christian theosis is always by participation in the divine nature.
You seem like a very irenic writer, and I look forward to discussing these things with you. Please give me a message over at my blog when you get around to responding. I’d really appreciate it.
May God bless you.
-Rob (”The Black Cordelias”)
http://theblackcordelias.wordpress.com/
Wonderful comments for a fascinating conversation. Let me address this in parts…, the latter of which you’ll hopefully find helpful in understanding how we find our belief in the nature of god, the separate entities of the Trinity, and theosis supported by true traditional Christianity.
Part 1 – Monolatry vs Henotheism:
I’m not sure that you would call us henotheists, but perhaps more accurately monolatrists, for while Henotheism worships only one God, but accepts that others can worship other Gods, monolatry sanctions only the worship of one God.
What’s more, monolatry is what has been recognized by scholars as most likely practiced in ancient Israel, which then gave way to monotheism as they later demoted the gods of the pantheon to angels. Additionally scholars have surmised that the Deuteronomic Code taught monolatry.
And Jews at the time of Christ were not monotheists. They believed in monolatry, or the worship of one god, with the existence of others. And it’s important to distinguish the two for the Bible tacitly refers to the existence of many gods, while only sanctioning the worship of one.
For instance, the Book of Psalms 86:8 “Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord; neither are there any works like unto thy works”.
Other scholars also postulate that Exodus 7:11-13 seems to demand a non-monotheistic explanation.
1 Corinthians 8:5-6 The Apostle Paul says “For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ,”
This appears to be another clear indication of monolatry rather than monotheism.
Part 2 – Separate entities, and the Nature of God
Having said that, the scenario you describe where our belief that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are entirely different entities, doesn’t therefore indicate hard polytheism, but rather further supports monolatry.
In fact the concept of theosis, or the deification of man, I find supportive of not only the concept of monolatry, but also enlightening in understanding the nature of god and supporting the belief that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three separate entities.
As you mentioned, traditional Christianity teaches “God became man that man might become God”, and as St Thomas said “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods”, and St. Athanasius of Alexandria: “God became human so humans would become gods”.
So we know a man can become a god (theosis – a traditional Christian belief), and in so stating, do we not describe the nature of a god - an exalted man; hence as you reference from the King Follett discourse “as man is God once was”.
Hence we believe the nature of God and Man are identical, one being in an exalted state, and the other with merely the potential for exaltation, or Godhood, for we were created in his very image.
This concept is further supported by Paul in saying that we can become joint heirs with him. Unless one believes that somehow that inheritance precludes the ability to have spiritual offspring, create planets, and do all the other things we learn that God has done, then we can naturally see that there’s no contradiction with the teaching that God is an exalted man, and as exalted men, we can become gods.
And if this is the case, then we learn not only about the nature of God, but also find an immediate inconsistency with the teaching that he is somehow anything other than of flesh and bones, or that he is somehow three beings in one.
Admittedly, this teaching of three distinct beings and this revelation of the nature of God flies in the face of much of modern Christianity, but then much of Modern Christianity also flies in the face of the early church and it’s doctrine as established by Christ (which I explore here). In fact, in the very Harper’s Bible Dictionary it is recorded that “the formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the New Testament”.
In fact, it wasn’t until the various creeds, beginning with the Nicene Creed, established over 125 years and 4 major councils beginning with the Council of Nicea by Constantine, which was meant specifically to address (among other things) the growing issue of God’s alleged “trinity in unity”, did this concept of the all-in-one trinity take form.
But it was a departure from original doctrine, and find that belief self-evident from from concepts such as theosis, and monolatry, but also from numerous biblical scripture, like “This is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou has sent”, the baptism at the hands of John where there were three distinct presences (Jesus in the water, the Holy Ghost descending, and the voice of God from heaven), or the experience on the Mount of transfiguration, or the martyrdom of Stephen, just as a few illustrations.
Christ said “The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do”. Does that not indicate that God, at one time, was in the position of the Son now, and that the two are separate and distinct. He also said “I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.”
Perhaps above all, the deferential subordination to His Father when Jesus said “Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God. And his statement “I go unto my Father, for My father is greater than I”.
Or to whom was Jesus pleading when he said “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me”, or “O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me”.
These scriptures make no sense under the fourth and fifth century, post-creedal view of the Godhead, but for the original Christian followers, and for Mormons (having fully restored the original doctrine of Christ from a state where doctrine was decided by men in creeds, and not by Christ), it not only make sense, but harmonizes as you’d expect with the teaching of theosis, or human deification.
So it should be seen that the belief by Mormons in the physical nature of God, and the distinct individuality of the Godhead, while first realized by the Prophet Joseph Smith in vision in 1820 where he saw the two standing together, is not solely based upon this revelation alone, but abundantly supported by scripture and doctrine.
Rusty
There is so much that is hair-splitting within this post and with the responses. Much of what is written assumes a particular position, then finds evidence of it in scripture. For instance, from Rusty’s last post, end of Part I: “1 Corinthians 8:5-6 The Apostle Paul says “For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ,” This appears to be another clear indication of monolatry rather than monotheism.”
Actually, to me it appears to be a clear indication of monotheism, because Paul does not acknowledge even the existence of other gods, rather dismisses it. It all depends upon the pre-suppostions.
Likewise:
“These scriptures make no sense under the fourth and fifth century, post-creedal view of the Godhead, but for the original Christian followers, and for Mormons (having fully restored the original doctrine of Christ from a state where doctrine was decided by men in creeds, and not by Christ), it not only make sense, but harmonizes as you’d expect with the teaching of theosis, or human deification.”
In the dialogue between Mormons and Christians, this is a stumbling block. The creeds are expositions of scripture. To say anything less than the creeds state is to say less than what scripture states. Creeds were Holy Spirit-led exercises.
Pondering Pastor
I don’t follow how you read that reference of Paul to be Monotheism, at least according to its definition. He says specifically “(as there be gods many, and lords many)”, there is no denial in these words, but then “to us, there is but one”. That’s monotheism by definition. None of that is based on pre-suppositions, but rather the socially accepted definitions of those terms and explicit statements in scripture. Perhaps you could explain how Monotheism is derived from this verse.
But it’s interesting that you would define these creeds as Holy Spirit led exercises. I understand why it’s viewd that way, but the stumbling block I have is in looking at the actual process by which they were derived. The more I learn (and admittedly, I need to learn more), the less it sounds like divine revelation.
Divine revelation as shown in scripture came directly to prophets who disseminate the information throughout the church without question or debate. Such was the importance of the role of a prophet, seer, and revelator… to communicate directly with God and pass on the commands/will/mind of God to the people.
But that’s not how these creeds came to be. At least as I study these creedal creations I find that they’re more based on heated debate and comprimize by churchmen, philosophers, and ecclesiastical dignitaries. After all, it took them 4 major councils and 125 years of this kind of debating to come up with the Nicene Creed, with later reformulations such as the Athanasian Creed. To me it just sounds an awful lot like formulation of doctrine by committee, a set of compromizes in order to present a unified front, than what the scriptures seem to tell me about true revelation, and the process by which that is given to a prophet of God.
Hence the discrepencies I pointed out with specific scriptures regarding the nature of the Godhead as three distinct beings. Again, the burden of explanation is not upon Mormons to support their viewpoint of the nature of the Godhead, for our beliefs are harmonious with these scriptures that seem to clearly deliniate distinct beings, but rather on those who believe that somehow they are still one person. It is upon them to describe what specifically is happening in each of these verses, and how it is possible that they indicate a single entity.
You say that the creeds are expositions of scripture, and to say anything less than the creeds state is to say less than the scripture states. But that was the point of the stalwart Harper’s Bible Dictionary which records that “the formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the New Testament”. In short, the creeds seem NOT to represent scripture. And what’s more, Harper’s Bible Dictionary was not created by Mormons, but by 180 members of the Society of Biblical Literature, representing some of the best biblical scholarship available.
So while the Mormon view of the Godhead may be a stumbling block for many Christians, that seems to stem more from devotion to tradition for tradition sake, then solid understanding of church history and scripture.
I understand how the story of the process of the establishment of the creeds does not seem spirit-led. It is often easier to see the work of Satan in those debates, which are said to even result in fistfights! I don’t deny any of that. What emerges, however, is indeed spirit-led. I don’t believe God abandoned that process. I’ve been in plenty of church meetings where there was intense disagreement, and people fighting for their own agenda. I’ve watched with amazement as the process eventually gave glory to God rather than those individual agendas. Often, the outcome has been more surprising and novel than anyone could have predicted at the outset.
I have less trouble with the work of the church in “committee” than an individual revelation, even if that person identifies themselves as a “prophet”.
Yes, the doctrine of the Trinity is not found *in that form* in the New Testament. Harper’s Bible Dictionary is right there … but Harper’s is a publication that is “anti-creedal”. It is generated by those Christian churches which also find the creeds suspect. (See, Mormons are not the only ones!)
But when I say that to say less than the creeds say is to say less than scripture says it is because the creeds take all the passages about Father, Son, and Holy Spirit together and without trying to discount any of them, include all of them in some kind of formulation. It is an uneasy and challenging
To worship God in three persons without the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is to be polytheistic … a perspective that our Jewish brothers and sisters have of Christianity anyway … denying that we have any claim to the Old Testament/Hebrew Scriptures. Mormons are even further from the fold.
When you say, “Divine revelation as shown in scripture came directly to prophets who disseminate the information throughout the church without question or debate.”, I hope you don’t mean that there was not objection to the prophet’s message. But, then, how can there be debate when a revelation comes to only one person?
St. Paul suggests that the revelation of the spirit be confirmed by others.
Pondering Pastor
For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Rusty–
Isaiah and the Jews are absolutely monotheists. I think Isaiah 43 is straight forward on its own, but even more convincing are the reactions of the Jews to Jesus’ statements of Divinity: they try to kill him. The issue is that Jesus is in fact claiming he is God, the Jews are in fact staunch monotheists, and they do not believe in theosis– and so they imagine that Jesus is committing blasphemy, a capital offense.
Also, Isaiah’s point over and over is not that YHWH can’t be superceded like Ba’al was superceded; Isaiah’s point is that unlike Ba’al and the other gods, YHWH is the only Living God. The other gods are pieces of wood and stone. He alone, then, is Savior, because only God can save. If men could become gods themselves, this other major theme is significantly disrupted.
Rusty,
The serpents original lie to Eve in the Garden was that mankind would “be like God”. The best we can hope for is to have the nature of Christ traded for our own filthy rags and keep our souls from the hell we deserve. The passages you cite only serve to condemn those who teach lies (cf. Romans 1-2, 2 Timothy 3-4).
Your conception of the Trinity is far from the orthodox tradition. A couple of excellent reads I would suggest to gain some fresh insight on the Trinity and the formulation of the creeds are For Us and Our Salvation by Stephen Nichols, and Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by Bruce Ware. Nichols shows how the creeds were formulated and why (to combat heresy), and Ware does an excellent job of showing the functionality of the Trinity.
May the God of all truth open His revelation to your mind and soul.
Andrew
Thank you, Andrew, for bringing up this dialogue from the archives. I follow this blog from recent comments, and this one had alluded me till now. And this is a great discussion!
I love pondering pastors words, especially about how committees (I’ve been on several) seem to bring contention and strife, and then magically emerges the solution clear as day. The old adage, “Two heads are better than one,” works well to find that solution, and as long as everyone has the same goal and don’t get prideful, the end result is better than a dictatorship-type solution.
But as always, it comes down to whether Joseph Smith was a true prophet. I think your term, “self-proclaimed” only biases your opinion as all prophets are self-proclaimed. Moses was alone when he climbed to the burning bush, for example. So how can you decipher a true prophet from a wolf in sheep’s clothing? As described above, 2 simple ways: 1) direct personal revelation (confirmation by the spirit), and 2) by their fruits. I suggest picking the low hanging fruit that is available to all–the Book of Mormon. I invite you to read any random 10-page sample from the book. You will find it is easier reading than the Bible. You will find that it testifies of Christ. You will realize that it is a divine work. You will reason that it would be impossible to create such a work within a few months with only a 3rd grade education unless Joseph had divine help. You will conclude that Joseph was a prophet, and therefore, the vision he saw at age 14 put the debate to rest.
How could a “committee” convince Joseph after he saw two distinct personages that the Holy Trinity is God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost wrapped in one? Because I esteem Joseph to be a prophet, I will shout from the housetops the amazing earth-shattering news. We now know the nature of the Godhead! And re-reading the bible with this in mind, makes sense! Every verse taken in the context of the new revelation Joseph received makes sense. No compromise, no confusion.
Even if you disagree with my belief in Joseph as a prophet, please acknowlege my stand and reasoning based upon my belief and tell me if my conclusion is wrong. I don’t see Mormonism as descension from the “fold”–I see us proclaiming to our Christian friends the “good news.”
Ryan invited me to reconsider Joseph Smith as a prophet. It’s not quite so simple as he would make it seem for me.
I’d first have to accept that Old and New Testaments were not sufficient. I’d also have to accept that for about 1800 years, God abandoned the Christian church allowing apostasy and corruption to dominate, despite scriptural promises to the contrary. (God never abandoned Israel for anywhere close to that long.) I’d also have to accept the possibility that the gnostics were the true arm of the church in the early years of Christianity, who were oppressed and condemned as heretics. I’d have to accept that in scripture, Paul is misunderstood and that anything he wrote about grace being sufficient has been wrongly characterized by Christians following him. I’d have to return to a Jewish understanding of salvation, that we are saved through our obedience, and distance myself from Christ.
If I were to accept Joseph Smith as a prophet, all this and much more would have to be amended. I don’t find the argument compelling enough to consider it for more than a fleeting moment.
What I do believe is that the same factors that produced gnosticism in the early years of the church combined with a particular American individualism produced Mormonsism. Joseph Smith, I believe was an imaginative and creative individual, able to see an itch he was able to scratch. When he did that, it was not as destructive as some more recent cult leaders, unless you count drawing people away from Christianity as dangerous. Christianity’s response to Mormonism was helpful for Mormonism in the early years, resulting in strength on account of persecution.
For what it’s worth.
Pondering Pastor
Rusty,
I don’t mean to come on too strong here, or be rude or disrespectful, but I was dumbfounded by some of your comments here. Your patently dishonest (ab)use of scripture and other texts on this post and comments section is shameful.
Just a few examples:
I CORINTHIANS 8:5-6 - For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”— yet for us there is one God, the Father…
How about we stitch these verses back from whence you tore them out?
I Cor. 8:4-6 - Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “an idol HAS NO REAL EXISTENCE,” and that “THERE IS NO GOD BUT ONE.” For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”— yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.
Paul’s point here in regard to the eating of food offered to idols could not be more explicitly obvious. Paul is arguing that the eating of this sacrificed food is not inherently sinful, because the supposed deities to whom it was sacrificed are fictitious. A biblical author’s recognition of “gods” does not equate to an affirmation of polytheism. It is here (and in similar statements throughout the Old Testament) simply recognizing reality: men worship gods. That’s it. These are not affirmations of these gods actual existence. They are, in fact, the opposite – they serve to demonstrate the difference between the true God of Israel and the false/pretender/non-existent gods of the pagans. To make Paul here say these idols are actually Gods - divine beings that truly exist - or that Gods other than the God of Israel truly exist, is to destroy his whole point.
ATHANASIUS - “God became human so humans would become gods”
Of course, Athanasius did not mean that humans would become Gods, in the Mormon sense. He clearly meant, as all early church fathers and Christians throughout the centuries have meant with this kind of language, Christians partake of the divine nature AS CREATURES OF THE CREATOR. As someone rightly noted above, Mormons make the blasphemous error of confusing categories and natures. God is God. We are His creation. God is eternal and has no beginning. We are created and did have a beginning. Etc.
In fact, Athanasius himself clarified this very thing in his third treatise against the Arians:
“To become as the Father is impossible for us creatures.”
“There be one Son by nature…we too become sons, not as He in nature and truth, but according to the grace of Him that calleth, and though we are men from the earth, and yet called gods, not as the True God or His Word…. We are sons, not as the Son, as gods, not as He Himself.”
To quote Athanasius in the manner you quoted him is to lie (intentionally or not).
HARPER’S BIBLE DICTIONARY - “The formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the New Testament”.
You conveniently (and again dishonestly) quote the first sentence of the final paragraph of this dictionary entry. The rest of the paragraph:
“Nevertheless, the discussion above and especially the presence of trinitarian formulas in 2 Cor. 13:14 (which is strikingly early) and Matt. 28:19 indicate that the origin of this mode of thought may be found very early in Christian history.”
Far earlier, in fact, then those nasty councils.
And as PP noted, not only are these biblical scholars anti-creedal (I’m not really anti- or pro- creedal; as long as Scripture remains authoritative, I can go either way); they’re anti-Christian. These aren’t believers. These are secular scholars who presuppositionally discount everything supernatural or divine in nature. These folks are no friends of Christians or Mormons. This kind of cherry-picking (dishonest cherry-picking, at that) of naturalistic/secular scholars once again evidences the desperation of the Mormon apologist.
Rusty, I’m really not intending to be combative. I just can’t tolerate lies. And I don’t mean to call you a liar. (I don’t believe you are intentionally espousing what you know to be untrue.) I would, however, ask you to consider the credibility of those who taught you these apologetic tactics. They should know better.
God Bless
Rusty, you have the patience of a saint!
I will be honest, sometimes after having ‘been there and done that’ going round and round on the merry-go-round, I just want to say “very well, have at it, I’m done.”
You are a fine example.
Did ya’ll catch Rusty’s bait and switch tactics? Rusty said,,,,,,
“Mormons are not Polytheistic, we worship only one God. They’re confusing Polytheism with theosis (human deification, or the belief that we can become like God), which is what we really are.”
AND
“This is theosis, or the belief that we can become like God.”
BUT THE MORMON CLAIM IS NOT TO BECOME “LIKE GOD”,,,,,, BUT TO BECOME A GOD.
I got a whole post on this Mormon use of this Non Sequitor fallacy.
Damon…
Well somebody woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning!
I guess I don’t see your “bait and switch”, so I’m hoping you can clarify.
I stated that we believe that we can become like God. That’s no secret, it’s well known, and taught in the scriptures. And what is God… well, a God of course. So becoming like God would naturally mean what? We become Gods.
You only see a non-sequiter because you’re failing to draw that statement out to it’s conclusion, since it competes with the docterine to which you’ve become accustomed. That’s okay, new doctrine is often hard to swallow, particularly when it so abrubtly contradicts heretofore held beliefs. Look at how Christ’s teachings were received, or many teachings of his prophets… all too often it’s with this same kind of rankor. Nobody likes having to change their perceptions and world view. But sometimes it’s necessary, and if we don’t, we only doom ourselves.
Rusty,
I found this blog by accident. I know that HF, His Son, and the HG are all separate beings. That we pray to HF,in His Son name, and that all three are Gods. I am at a loss as to how to explain, that we worship only one God.
Do we mean, one God , in purpose and spirit, and recognize that each is separate. Don’t ask me why I feel so confused, but I know that we worship Jesus and the Father, with the HG being a verifier of truth for a better word.
I am having the same discussions with a co-worker. He says he has read the BoM three times. I told him, that I changed the discussion, because I could not change anybody mind. But he sounds a lot like the people who are responding here to your blog.
I need to do my own reading, but this was interesting reading. As the 1st AoF states, We believe in God , the Eternal Father,and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.
Thanks for your time and energy.
As a matter of fact, at this very moment I’m writing a post about this very topic. I should be done shortly, and will post the link here. I’ll also email you a version of it, so you have it there too.
Rusty,
Well I did do some more reading. John chapter 5. Clearly distinguishes the difference between the Father and The Son.
So Yes we have three Gods, God the Father, God -Jesus Christ and the God the Holy Ghost, which form the Godhead, which is one in purpose, and we have one God that we worship. For whoever worships the Son, worships the Father. You cannot worship one without the other.
Also, I think the scriptures are 50/50 when discussing the the three are separate versus the three in one theory. As one reads the Bible, the Three Beings being separate is the only one that logically makes sense.
I realize that other religions want to call this polytheism, but when the gospel is understood, it is to understand that the Godhead is One Purpose, therefore One God. Just as when a man and woman marry and become one, they are still two separate being, but now are one in purpose.
Just wanted to let you know, that I did go back and do some reading and studying. I find your blog, very uplifting. I watched again the talk about forgiveness, and it was wonderful. Thank you for the time you put into this site.
R-
Rusty … I think you’ve been working too hard.
You wrote, “I stated that we believe that we can become like God. That’s no secret, it’s well known, and taught in the scriptures. And what is God… well, a God of course. So becoming like God would naturally mean what? We become Gods.”
I used to give my children rides on my back like a horse. I”m a horse!
Carob tastes like chocolate. It is chocolate!
I sometimes act like my mother. I’m my mother!
I’m becoming like my father. I’m my father!
This line of logic doesn’t make sense.
If A is like B that does not make A = B!
So becoming like God means … becoming like God, but not God, because God is god.
Pondering Pastor
Dear Pondering Pastor,
Your example is interesting, but still more. You have a father, that you will never be older than. You will have children, and become a father also. Are you now equal with your father? Or simply, your father is still your father, and you defer your respect to him (and become like him) but you are now a father also?
For those that become a God, it does not mean that they will not have a Heavenly Father (God) still. It only means that have become what He is, but not at the same level.
R-
Being like God is not the same as being a god.
Then what do you think being like God means? I’m curious.
Glad you asked.
Using the Bible as a source (since I don’t accept the Book of Mormon as scripture) to figure that out, and just searching the phrase “like God” one comes to the first reference in Genesis 3. The serpent says to the human, “…God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
Therefore, being like God = “knowing good and evil”
In Genesis 33, we read, Jacob said, “No, please; if I find favor with you, then accept my present from my hand; for truly to see your face is like seeing the face of God– since you have received me with such favor.” (This is an example of searching beyond the phrase “like God”.)
Therefore, being like God = being gracious and merciful.
In Exodus 7, God says to Moses, “See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet. 2 You shall speak all that I command you, and your brother Aaron shall tell Pharaoh to let the Israelites go out of his land.”
Therefore, being like God = speaking for God.
The phrase “like God” appears in Job 19, referring to the persistence of suffering.
Therefore, being like God = never relenting
Later in Job 40, the phrase appears again, this time dismissing that anyone is like God.
Finally, in Zechariah 12 the phrase appears for the last time in the Bible, and it refers to the house of David exercising God’s judgment on those who have opposed Jerusalem.
Therefore, being like God = being an instrument of God’s wrath.
It is impossible for you to find in the Old Testament any reference to being “like God” means to become a god, for that would be blasphemous. In fact, almost every reference to other gods or “ancient gods” has God destroying them. To suggest that Jesus begins something new here about becoming a god would mean that Jesus is not the promised Messiah, but rather a false prophet of another god.
That isn’t all, of course, and I want to address the quote above from Rusty’s post …
“We believe that the apostle Peter’s biblical reference to partaking of the divine nature and the apostle Paul’s reference to being ‘joint heirs with Christ’ reflect the intent that children of God should strive to emulate their Heavenly Father in every way. Throughout the eternities, Mormons believe, they will reverence and worship God the Father and Jesus Christ. The goal is not to equal them or to achieve parity with them but to imitate and someday acquire their perfect goodness, love and other divine attributes.”
But, I’m on my way to a family gathering.
More later.
Pondering Pastor
Dear Pondering Pastor,
I have a question for you. Are Mormons the only ones that believe in Jesus of Nazarath being the Christ, the promised Messiah, and that He is a separate Being from the Father and the Holy Ghost and do all other Christian religion believe in the “Trinity”? Does the question make sense?
A little background. My parents were both Methodists, and at the age of 14, I was invited to a Mormon Sunday meeting. Everything I was taught, made sense. I have no other way to describe it. It was years before I read the Book of Mormon, and everything in that book, teaches of Jesus Christ.
If the book is false, why hasn’t another person, done what Joseph Smith Jr did? The statistics don’t support a simple person being able to do something like this. The devil is not going to do anything that will bring someone to Christ, and have them have a broken heart and contrite spirit, Satan is the Father of all Lies and is contention himself.
So, after having a testimony of the Book of Mormon, and the rest making logical sense to me. I can only conclude, that if the Book of Mormon is true, then Joseph Smith Jr is a prophet of the Lord. Joseph Smith Jr, was not a perfect man, he made many mistakes, and they are found in the history of the Church, there is nothing hidden about his mistakes. But what did he really personally profit from his revelation, but to restore simple truths, esp the Godhead among many others things? There are many bad Mormons, and many good people who are not Mormons.
But if we (the Mormons) are the only ones who believe that the Godhead is made up of separate Beings , who are one in purpose, then it explains to me, why the other religions fight so hard against us. Because, whether or not we believe in being able to obtain Godhood at some point way in the future, we challenge all that other churches hold dear.
When Jesus told Mary, John 20:17, “I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. ”
You either have to take literally or figuratively
, I choose to take this scripture literally.
Respectfully yours,
R-
Ramona,
Mormons are not the only group that claim Jesus as Messiah and do not accept Trinitarian doctrine. Jehovah’s Witnesses would also be included in that category … as are some others.
I’d like to answer more directly about your phrase, “and that He is a separate Being from the Father and the Holy Ghost”, but you see this actually requires a more technical question. Trinitarian doctrine maintains that there are “three persons” in the Holy Trinity, but one God. The Athanasian Creed of the Christian Church works to defend Trinitarian doctrine. In part, that creed is reprinted below.
I maintain that in order for a group to be called Christian, there must be adherence to Trinitarian Doctrine. Rusty (and other Mormons) disagree.
You write, “If the book is false, why hasn’t another person, done what Joseph Smith Jr did? The statistics don’t support a simple person being able to do something like this. The devil is not going to do anything that will bring someone to Christ, and have them have a broken heart and contrite spirit, Satan is the Father of all Lies and is contention himself.”
People who do not believe Mormons are Christian might answer by saying that there have been others who have created “cults”, even large and powerful and influential cults, (ie Rev. Sun Yung Moon). They might also claim that the devil is successful in drawing people away from Christ by helping them believe in a false (read Mormon) faith. Your claim to recognizing truth or logic is not sufficient to “prove” the validity of a faith.
You also write, “But if we (the Mormons) are the only ones who believe that the Godhead is made up of separate Beings , who are one in purpose, then it explains to me, why the other religions fight so hard against us. Because, whether or not we believe in being able to obtain Godhood at some point way in the future, we challenge all that other churches hold dear.”
Please note that you have some commonality with the Athanasian Creed below … and some differences.
Pondering Pastor
Part of the Athanasian Creed.
That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance.
For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit. But the godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal.
Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet they are not three eternals, but one Eternal.
As also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated, but one Uncreated, and one Incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Spirit Almighty. And yet they are not three almighties, but one Almighty.
So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And yet they are not three gods, but one God.
So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord. And yet not three lords, but one Lord.
For as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge each Person by Himself to be both God and Lord, so we are also forbidden by the catholic religion to say that there are three gods or three lords.
The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is of the Father, neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
So there is one Father, not three fathers; one Son, not three sons; one Holy Spirit, not three holy spirits.
And in the Trinity none is before or after another; none is greater or less than another, but all three Persons are co-eternal together and co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
Dear Pondering Pastor,
You give a lot of answer. I absolutely disagree with the Jehovah’s Witnesses. The statement ” Trinitarian doctrine maintains that there are “three persons” in the Holy Trinity, but one God. The Athanasian Creed of the Christian Church works to defend Trinitarian doctrine. In part, that creed is reprinted below.
I maintain that in order for a group to be called Christian, there must be adherence to Trinitarian Doctrine. Rusty (and other Mormons) disagree. ”
So are you saying that the Trinitarian Doctrine, is the God in heaven,and is Jesus - God made flesh, and that they are the same being?
Cults do not bring anybody to Christ, and Lucifer certainly does not. It is absurd to suggest that Satan would draw people to the Mormon church, for what reason? We are to follow Christ, keep the commandments, etc, etc. It is not an easy religion to follow. Much is required in becoming Christlike, including loving those, that do you harm, (with which I am having conflict with a supervisor, because even though I should love her, I want to throw her under a bus).
Jim Jones, and the other true cults, exploited people, and ultimately brought harm to them. So again, why not another Book of Mormon? One reason is that the BoM makes sense to me, is that Jesus had a covenant with Abraham to teach all the tribes of Israel. So there will be another testimony that Christ taught the other tribes of Israel. Other sheep? How else does this make sense?
You did not answer the last question about the resurrected Jesus talking to Mary.
As to Mike Mantoon, it is not worth my time to talk about sexual predators. Joseph Smith Jr was not one, and neither was Brigham Young. Who? ,honestly want to deal with so many women, be truthful. and if you say, they were 14 yrs old, get real, the life span, was about 40, and my aunt was married at 15 yrs, and I myself was married at 16, so please , if we are talking about 9 yr old girls getting “married”, as were the people in Texas being accused of. Then there is a problem. Polygamy is not the issue. The bottom line is this. If the Book of Mormon is true, then it is all true, and through modern day revelations and prophets , we keep on course. If Joseph Smith Jr was “cult leader”, the cult would have died when he did. But it did not.
If others “break away”, then they truly are a cult.
But back to the original question? Leaving the Unitarianism and the JW out of the question, are then Mormons the only ones to believe that the Godhead consists of three separate Beings, with one united purpose? The Trinity says three persons, but are we saying three separate beings? Thank you for your time.
Respectfully,
Ramona
Ramona,
I hope I’m not reading a sharp tone in your reply to my note. I tried to answer the question factually without making accusations or condemnations.
You ask, “So are you saying that the Trinitarian Doctrine, is the God in heaven,and is Jesus - God made flesh, and that they are the same being?”
If you read the Athanasian Creed carefully, it says that there are three persons but only one God. So are God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit one God? Yes. Later in the creed, we read, “And in the Trinity none is before or after another; none is greater or less than another, but all three Persons are co-eternal together and co-equal.” Three separate beings? No. Three persons is the language, one God. That’s what makes the incarnation so important and special. (You are tackling one of the harder questions of Christian doctrine, and it is easy to move into error.)
On what basis do you disagree with Jehovah’s Witnesses and Unitarians? If Mormons are Christian then Jehovah’s Witnesses and Unitarians are Christian.
If Trinitarian doctrine defines Christianity (again, Rusty and other Mormons maintain it does not) then those who are not Trinitarian are drawing people away from the real Christ. That’s what many of the attacks on Mormonism hearkens back to. Some suggest that the devil is always involved where we’ve got to perform properly in order to be made right with God.
Why not another book like the book of Mormon? Maybe it is because it is unnecessary. We have what we need. The Book of Mormon conveniently fills in some gaps. Is that because of revelation or because of human construction? I’ve read other “inspired” books that made a lot of sense too, but that doesn’t make them authoritative. (Course in Miracles comes to mind.)
Sorry, I missed the question about Jesus talking to Mary. My answer, I don’t know exactly. I do know that Scripture is not wooden, and when there are idioms of speech and personal relationships involved, language can be quite misleading to those who overhear it. Maybe he was simply talking about ascension, and trying to clarify what it was since it wasn’t a common occurrence. Maybe it is proof that the Trinity is wrong. (I don’t believe that one, nor did the early Church Fathers, but then, many do.)
Pondering Pastor
Dear Pondering Pastor,
I appreciate your time in answering my questions, and I would not on purpose use a sharp tone. My apologies if I sounded in anyway offensive.
I did read the Trinitarian Doctrine and Athanasian Creed. I did not study them, they sound a little convoluted. To use your words, ‘(You are tackling one of the harder questions of Christian doctrine, and it is easy to move into error.)’
Personally, this is one reason I do believe in the vision that Joseph Smith Jr had, it makes it perfectly clear, and there is no error, that the Father and the Son are two separate Beings.
I did do some additional reading on the “Trinity”, and it makes me think that basically this is a Catholic doctrine, and as others “reformed” the teachings, this one they kept, because it is a difficult one.
On the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Unitarians (I agree with your statement). I do know some JW, and I do believe that they are Christians (they believe in Jesus Christ , and do their upmost to keep the commandments and be Christlike. I simply, if I was not Mormon, would not be a JW, because I completely disagree with their concept of not participating in the military (among other of their doctrine). It is because we are a free nation, that the JW was allowed to be, and continues to be. Israel has always had an army, and I believe that those who believe in God are allowed to defend themselves when attacked.
You said ‘ Some suggest that the devil is always involved where we’ve got to perform properly in order to be made right with God.’ I say, the devil is never going to have people act in ways that are contrary to evil. By that, I mean that you know the tree by its fruit. I “think” that the devil, leads people a stray when they think, that abortion is okay, the gay marriage is okay, when “nature is God”, when the devil can convince people that Jesus is a nice fairy tale.
In my small town, they are more churches than anything else. Even the Baptist do not even agree with each other. So how then do you know “we’ve got to perform properly in order to be made right with God.”
That is what makes so many people ask questions, and ponder what church to join. That is why the Book of Mormon is so important. Is it a second testament, that Jesus is the Christ, and the teachings are the same. Some things are made clearer, such as infant baptism, the practice of the Sacrament (Communion for others). What happens after death. It establishes again, that Jesus will teach those tribes of Israel.
What I meant by “another Book of Mormon”, is that if it is that easy to write a book, and create a new religion, then why hasn’t somebody done it, if only to show, that such a book could be written that easily?
I too have read many inspirational books, esp by C S Lewis. I do not agree with all his doctrine, because I think much was influence by the Church of England, but just about everything else I do. Truth is eternal, and cannot be altered if it really is truth. But the Book of Mormon is not just inspirational; it is another witness that Jesus came to the American continent to fulfill the Law of Moses, and to introduce the concept that the blood sacrifice was no longer needed, but a broken heart and contrite spirit.
Back to Mary and the Resurrected Jesus. The Bible is almost even on being literal or figuratively. Because of the clarity of revealed revelation and continuing, it is easier for me to know that I do believe it literally. That Jesus really does have a Father, and that Heavenly Father is a separate Being, and He is mine and yours Heavenly Father also.
There will always be those that character assassinate the Prophet Joseph Smith Jr, but it does not change truth. There are the witnesses of the three who saw the plates and an angel. Then the witnesses who saw the plates and hefted them. Some of these men had falling outs with the church, but none ever refuted what they saw and testified of.
I again thank you for the time you take to reply to me, have a wonderful New Year.
Respectfully yours,
Ramona
This has been a very interesting thread. Pondering Pastor, as always, I am impressed with the respectfulness of your comments and your conviction, even though I often disagree with you. I know I haven’t commented on your answer to my question. I’ve been too busy playing with my grandchildren, and no one comes before them (except my husband). After the New Year, I’ll try to do it justice. I know I must be factual and I appreciate how you make me stretch.
Ramona, you have done a wonderful job of defending our faith, and I wholeheartedly agree with you! I know you are one of those helpers that Rusty really appreciates.
What I see here is a debate that will probably never be won, but clarifies what we believe and why. I find it unfortunate that there is a large group out there who feel it is their mission to attack and anihilate us. We have no such feelings toward other faiths. We are not evil. Our fruits prove that we love all peoples and strive to do good to all. We are not perfect, and we all make mistakes.
Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, and many others of our leaders have made mistakes. There has been only one perfect man, namely Jesus Christ. Many lies are told about us, for which there is no factual basis, but are perpetuated by those seeking to destroy us. Unfortunately, many choose to believe those lies without really studying our scriptures and finding for themselves that they are true.
I testify that anyone who reads, searches, ponders, and prays with a sincere heart, will find that the Book of Mormon and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints are true. I know of no other Church that makes a similar claim. Try it and see.
When the Savior returns, all doubt will disappear. He just might ask you if you have read, studied and prayed about the Book of Mormon to find out for yourself. What would your answer be?
The more posts there are here, the more it becomes clear that it is very difficult for us to move past our preconceptions. For instance, Margaret writes, “When the Savior returns … Book of Mormon.” That’s not a question I expect to be asked.
Likewise, “I testify that anyone who reads, searches, ponders, and prays with a sincere heart, will find that the Book of Mormon and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints are true. I know of no other Church that makes a similar claim. Try it and see.” I’ve tried it. It rings false to me. So, it’s not true that anyone will find it to be true, unless you maintain that anyone who does not find it to be true has not read it with a sincere heart. That kind of logic is self-serving, and is also what I’ve heard from Mormons about the Bible “as far as it is translated correctly”, but the definition of “translated correctly” has to do with how Mormons translate it.
As I’ve read these posts and moved back to the main question, there is no doubt in my mind that Mormons are polytheistic with a hierarchy of gods. God the Father is worshiped. God the Son is worshiped. They are in the minds of Mormons separate and distinct gods. I’m not quite sure about the hierarchy however. Is Jesus higher than God the Father? I doubt most would say so, but in practice, it seems to be so. What I don’t see is worship of the gods the Mormons claim we become (as we become “like god” being a part of this worship.
Pondering Pastor
Dear Pondering Pastor,
You are correct when you say, that if you read the Book of Mormon, and still don’t believe, that you must not have had a sincere heart, and that it makes it sounds self-serving to us. (what rings false about it?, I’m curious)
The issue, the person needs to be questioning also. If someone is perfectly happy with the religion or no religion that they have, why would they bother to read the Book of Mormon to begin with?
Even with my children, they must decide for their self whether or not the book is true.
The main point being, if the Book of Mormon is true, then it is all true.
Jesus is not above the Father, but you cannot worship the Father without the worshipping the Son.
I asked my 17 yr old, (who goes to the Alabama School of Math and Science, so I do consider her educated compared to some of my other children), what does polytheism means, and give me an example. She said, it is the worship of many Gods, and the example she gave, was the Romans/Greeks, the worship of different Gods that represent many things.
My daughter and I have not discussed this topic, until then, and only after I was on this blog, and then did my own reading. The Mormons are monotheism, in that we worship the Godhead, which, as you know by now, I believe three separate Beings, but one purpose.
It also comes back to whether or not; the scriptures are to be taken literally or figuratively. I tend to understand (maybe incorrectly), that that was what the big issue was in the 3rd century, and still I think it was a Catholic doctrine, that other churches as they began to break away , kept it.
So back to the “Gods”, go back to John 5. It is generally accepted that there is no way back to Father but by Jesus, no other name, no other way. So the only way to worship the Father is through Jesus the Christ. We pray to the Father by way of the Son.
There is no hierarchy to speak of, except to say, that the Father is the Father , and the Son is the Son, and both are equal in respect. Do you respect your grandfather more than your father, or both equally?
You asked “What I don’t see is worship of the gods the Mormons claim we become (as we become “like god” being a part of this worship.” From what I understand, that will be quite far into eternity, (in that some will becomes Gods) and that there is eternal progression.
I won’t worship other Gods, but only my God, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, that I worship in the here and now.
I realize that this is discussion will not change either of ours ‘ minds, but I had never really thought about it, until my co-worker said that he believed in only one God. I thought so do I, and then I began to read again for clarity.
I do appreciate your time and comments. One day , we will all know, and hopefully be in the same place, with Jesus.
Do you think that the Trinity started off as a Catholic doctrine, and if so, then why is the Catholic Church not the true and only true church?
Respectfully yours,
Ramona
“Do you think that the Trinity started off as a Catholic doctrine, and if so, then why is the Catholic Church not the true and only true church?”
No, Trinity started off as Christian doctrine. Catholic means “universal” originally and at the time there was really only one church. Roman Catholic distinction begins around 1000 AD as the Eastern and Western Churches moved apart formally. At least that’s the simple answer.
Pondering Pastor
Ramona was right (in my opinion) when she said that those who were satisfied with their religious affiliation (or lack thereof) probably wouldn’t read the Book of Mormon, and if they did it wouldn’t be with a sincere heart. All other Churches I have looked into either didn’t make sense to me, or had things in them that I just couldn’t accept. My spirit within me recognized the truth in the Book of Mormon and the LDS Church, and the Holy Ghost confirmed it. Nothing any of our critics say can compete with a witness from the Holy Ghost.
There are many who will find a lot of surprises they didn’t expect when they meet the Savior, if they are blessed to do so. I expect some if I am one of the blessed ones. I certainly don’t have it all figured out yet, but I do recognize the truth I have found. I look forward to all I will learn if I make it there!
Margaret, have you ever seen a fish flopping on the top of the water before it goes belly up and dies? That’s what your hope of eternal assurance sounds like to me. If that’s all Mormonism offers to me, then I already been on that balancing scale and the weight of my sin condemned me eternally to hell. Do you really know and trust Jesus Christ?
Expanding on PP’s point earlier, sometimes I hear a song praising Jesus and I say to myself, “man that song is true.” But being true doesn’t mean that it’s God breathed or inspired like the Bible.
You always talk about this testimony you received regarding the Book of Mormon, but I’ve might have missed you actually sharing the details with us. Could you share that with us?
Randy, I feel nothing like a fish ready to die.
I feel more like a child who has found something glorious and wonderful! I scratch the surface, loving what I see and feel, and look forward to the time when I can be immersed and know and understand all things. Just knowing that day will come brings me great joy.
I have shared my story elsewhere on Rusty’s blog. Rather than taking up more space here, when I have more time, I will research where my story is and let you know. If you have more time than I do, you can do it yourself.
Margaret, evidently you had read my post wrong. I hoped to refer to your “hope of eternal assurance” with the dying fish analogy. I am directly pointing to where you had earlier written two “ifs”:
<if I am one of the blessed ones.
<if I make it there!
Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners. Do you believe that you are a sinner and Christ Jesus is your Savior? If you say “Yes” to this then why the “if”.
I’m really interested in hearing about this witness you received regarding the Book of Mormon.
OK, Randy, I’ll take a little time now to answer your questions to the best of my ability.
Yes, I am a sinner. Jesus Christ was the only perfect man, so all of us are. And Yes, I believe that Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior.
The “if” is because just knowing and confessing Christ is my Savior will not get me to where I want to be. We are “saved by Grace after all we can do”. To me that means that we must strive to do good, to follow Christ and live as He lived to the very best of our ability (works). Then His grace can make me eligible to enter in.
Now, the witness I received of the Book of Mormon (this may be a bit long to adequately explain). It didn’t come easily. It took years of effort on my part and started before I had even heard of the Book of Mormon. Even as a child, I knew that I had a Heavenly Father and that His son, Jesus Christ had lived and died to atone for our sins. I longed to be with them and felt very close to them.
What confused me was all of the churches and their varying doctrines from congregation to congregation. While in college, I became more aggressive in investigating churches. There were many that I looked at, but none seemed any more true than any other. I really wanted to find the one true church, and that was key to my search.
Mid way through my senior year in college, I met the LDS Missionaries. They gave me a copy of the Book of Mormon and gave me a reading assignment of various scriptures in it. I could tell from the moment I began reading that this was a very special book. I began consuming the book as if I were starving for the knowledge it contained, and really hoped that I would find that it was true. I met several times with the missionaries in the home of a family of members. The time came that they challenged me to be baptized. My family and all of my college friends were very much against me joining the LDS Church. I didn’t want to displease all of them, but it made sense to me to do what my Heavenly Father wanted me to do.
It was a Saturday, and my roommate and all of my closest friends had gone home for the weekend. I frequently worked on weekends, but this one I was off, and I was alone. I needed to know what the LORD wanted me to do. If I were going to take such an important step that would impact literally every aspect of my life, I had to know that it was the right one.
I got on my knees by my bed, and pleaded with the Lord for an answer. I needed to know. I literally pleaded for hours before the answer came.
It is difficult to describe the answer in words. The best I can do is tell you that it started as a burning feeling at the top of my head and moved slowly down through my body to my toes. The feeling scared me at first, as I had never experienced anything like it when praying about other churches. Then, along with the feeling came a knowledge of what it was and what it meant. I don’t remember hearing any words, or seeing any visions, but thoughts came into my mind.
Different people describe different experiences, but this was mine. The feelings I experienced and knowledge I gained were so strong that I could never deny or doubt it.
Remember that I really wanted and needed to know if it were true, and did my homework before I asked. That is what “a sincere heart and real intent” are.
I hope, that by sharing this sacred and personal experience with you, it will help you to understand what it takes to gain a testimony. It doesn’t come, just because you ask.
Margaret, I have read your story and do not doubt your truthfulness. I know you trust whole heartedly in the incident and that what followed as real answers to your sincerest prayers. Thank you for sharing it. Laying it out as you did certainly wishes my reply.
I was raised in a Catholic home. I performed all the church sacraments, learned about God, Jesus, Mary, and all the
biblical patriarchs. Yet after leaving the reach of my earthly father, I led a pretty worldly lifestyle filled with drugs, sex, and all the evils. I didn’t care about God because he was nothing to me. My world was just about me and satisfying my lusts. I disguised my lifestyle from my first wife and eventually that even turned adulteress and ended . After that if I couldn’t find free sex then I usually paid for it.
My older brother ran away from home when he was fourteen. He was my parent’s worst nightmare. I couldn’t even begin to tell you his story, but from what he told me it included selling his body to older men for sex to pay for his addictions. Then one day by the tender mercies of God, he became a bible toting Jesus preaching freak. All the family avoided him like the plague.
One day I was back visiting my parents and this Jesus freak brother of mine cornered me and asked me if I knew who Jesus Christ was. I replied “Get that crap away from me”, and hurriedly left the house. Many days, months, followed and his question haunted me as I continuously destroyed myself with my lifestyle.
Well, I did it. I started reading the Bible. Then I really started reading it. Then it just swallowed me up for days and days on end. I can’t tell you the tears I shed as its pure truth convicted me of my sin. I remember reading in bed and had to grasp for air as His Word literally punched me in the stomach. It condemned me to eternal Hell, that was my due. Then there came a hand reaching out for me and it was the hand of Jesus Christ. First He taught me who He was, and what He was like, and that I could trust Him, and that He was who He said He was. And all of this was leading up to a covenant between Him and me. Then I gave myself to him because I was already dead. He loves me without reason.
Margaret, God is so unexplainable Holy and Pure and likewise so are all of His Commandments.
How then can a man be righteous before God?
How can one born of woman be pure?
If even the moon is not bright
and the stars are not pure in his eyes,
How much less man, who is but a maggot—
a son of man, who is only a worm!
“Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!”
Randy,
Let me try explaining the “if” that you ask about. I know that Grace is what Jesus gave to everybody, that He paid the price. I know that He said in John 14:2, ‘In my Father’s house are many mansions:’
I believe that Grace is the gift, the “mansions”, is my reward. There are many types of mansions, so as most of us will agree that faith produces works, and good works continues to strengthen faith, as C S Lewis said, which blade of a pair of scissors is more important. Faith and Works go hand in hand.
The “if” part. I know that many a person, has gone to war, and not come home. I know many a person, who leads a Christian life, then some terrible happens to them, and instead of helping them, it destroy them, and their faith in Christ. My ‘co-worker’, would say, they never were a true follower if they fell away, and I say, we cannot judge. Pain does more to destroy than inspire.
So I hold my testimony of the Savior dearly, and do not take it for granted, because I don’t know what lies ahead, and I hope to endure to the end, but some may not.
I do know that I find my joy in Christ , and serving others. I was looking for something that made logical sense, when I found the church. Then when I read the Book of Mormon, I knew that no “man” could have written this, it would be a novel , if so.
But the studying of it, supports that the people were following what we call “Judaism” now, for that is what they were practicing when they left Jerusalem, and that is why Jesus visited them to bring them the “gospel’, and all that comes with it.
The Spirit did bear witness to me, but I know that argument also, but I am just saying the whole of the Church makes logical sense to me. Happy New Year to ya’ll from the deep south.
Ramona
Randy, your story deeply moved me. It takes courage to share such a story, and even more courage to make that mighty change that you made. I admire you and congratulate you. I’m glad that you shared it.
Ramona mentioned “mansions”. There are “many mansions” in Heavenly Father’s house. I believe that we will go to the mansion that the Savior has prepared for us, the one we have earned and will feel comfortable in. My greatest hope is that I will be surrounded by my family and friends. If I strive to be good and live like the Savior lived, even though I mess up sometimes, I believe He will wipe away the times I gave in to sin, and welcome me into His fold. I am now at a point where more of my life is behind me than ahead of me, and I so look forward to that time. But not yet. I hope to have about another 20 years on this Earth.
Randy, I would invite you to read the Book of Mormon as I did. If you have read it before, please read it again with a sincere heart and real intent. If you have questions, or want more, Rusty is a great resource, or Mormon.org. I am so impressed with Rusty, his knowledge, testimony and sincerety. I’ve never met him, but would be proud to call him a friend.
Margaret, I’m just wondering why after I shared with you the truth of Jesus Christ, and his love for the wretched sinner why anyone should desire anything else. You rightly say that in the Father’s house there are many mansions, but when Thomas asked how to get there, Jesus replied, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.”
I read your words as if you are still looking ahead to the atonement. Your big “IF” above… “If I strive to be good and live like the Savior lived, even though I mess up sometimes, I believe He will wipe away”. Margaret that is absolutely working your to heaven. It’s trying to buy your way into the kingdom. It’s a balancing scale where you lay your good works up on the left platter, hoping that it will tip the scale in your favor and you earn the atonement. That is not the gospel of Jesus Christ.
I believe that He has already wiped away my sin, all of it, now and future. And I stand before God’s throne justified through the blood of Christ. I believe that I am already his child because of Jesus’ work on the cross - not my work. Through His shed blood I have been legally declared as I now live as one of God’s sons. Now that I am His son, shouldn’t I be like Him?
Margaret, I strongly encourage you to read the Bible and learn of Jesus’ great love for you. His love is endless and reaches beyond any desire you may have to be with family and friends. In His loving arms is where you will desire to lay yourself to be with forever and ever.
But Margaret, you won’t find him climbing the ladder. That ladder you are climbing is deceiving you. What you think may be progressing towards Him is actually moving away from His love. Jesus is at the bottom of that ladder, where you are broken before Him with all of your sinfulness and unworthiness.
He is so Holy, that even the stars do not shine before him , how much us who are nothing but a worm in comparison.
Randy, I know that the atonement has taken place, that Christ suffered and died for the sins of all mankind (you and me included). It is there. What I need to do is live my life so I am worthy to take advantage of it. All the desires and passions I have at the time I pass into the next life are the same ones I’ll have when I get there. This life is the time I have to prepare myself to meet God. I need to keep preparing myself until I die. I know that none of us will achieve perfection in this life and that’s where grace comes in.
Just knowing all of this isn’t enough. I need to show Him by my thoughts, words and actions that I love Him, and am truely trying to be like Him. No unclean thing can dwell in God’s presence, and I don’t want to resemble anything that is unclean.
I know I will be resurrected. That is His gift to all. Exaltation is what I am striving for.
This has been discussed extensively elsewhere on this blog. We may not agree, but I still admire what you have accomplished, and wish you many blessings in your life.
Margaret, you are so filthy dirty and sinful that you can’t even feel it’s weight. Just because my outward sin was obvious to all doesn’t mean your inward sin is any less wretched to God. It was once asked, “Can a dead man feel the weight of sin?”
“A certain moneylender had two debtors. One owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. When they could not pay, he cancelled the debt of both. Now which of them will love him more?” Simon answered, “The one, I suppose, for whom he cancelled the larger debt.” And he said to him, “You have judged rightly.” Then turning toward the woman he said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave me no water for my feet, but she has wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not ceased to kiss my feet. You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment. Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven—for she loved much. But he who is forgiven little, loves little.” And he said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.” Then those who were at table with him began to say among [1] themselves, “Who is this, who even forgives sins?”
How much did this woman feel the weight of her sin in the parable compared to Simon. What lifetime of works did she do to earn forgiveness? She worshiped the one she knew was her Savior with a broken and contrite heart!
I can’t argue with anything you just said. We must have a broken heart and contrite spirit, We must have faith and believe that Christ’s atonement can work for us. Then we must confess our sins and truly repent of them. We must also be baptized by one with authority, as Christ was, and then we can receive the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands, also by one with authority. Weekly, on Sunday, we attend Sacrament meeting and partake of the sacrament and renew the covenants we made at baptism. The Holy Ghost helps us to steer away from the dangers of sin.
I agree, the woman the Savior spoke of above felt the weight and sorrow of her sins. I, too feel sorrow for my sins, as do you. The things I have done in the past have been forgiven, but as long as we are on this Earth, we are subject to sin. We, (at least I) have to constantly repent and try harder to do better. The Savior has done His part, and now I have to do mine. I must learn of Him, worship Him and try every day to be like Him. We’ve been told that the best way to show our love for the Savior is to serve our fellow beings. We need to wear ourselves out in service and never weary of well doing. I think of how the Savior never wearied of blessing and teaching all who came to Him. I long to be like that, but I am far from it.
God loves us all with an infinite love, but He does not love our sins. He longs to forgive us, and will if we do our part!
One more thing. I’ve told you what I need to do to be able to achieve exaltation (living with Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ). What do you need to do from now until you die to acieve exaltation?
Well, first to answer your last question, “What do you need to do to achieve exaltation?”
I believe Jesus Christ Is and I trust in the promise He offered to me many years ago when I learned of Him and His love. Through knowing Him and His Holiness, it was apparent that only He could save me. If you remember from the story I told you, I was pronounced dead in my sin and undeserving of anything. His offer of salvation did not come with any strings attached. They were just simple questions: “Do you believe in who I am?” and “Do you understand the free gift I offer to you?”
Now if He would have had the string attached “now you got to do your part”, then knowing who I was at the time, a man bent on his natural self, without even a spark of desire to achieve anything righteous, couldn’t even begin to agree to such a contract. It was beyond any ability I had and I knew I would soon again be destined to the same place I was currently headed for – Hell.
But His promise didn’t come with those strings. Instead, He said He would take away my stony heart and give me a new one. He would love me like a Father, caring and nurturing me. And I would come like a child. It would be Him shaping and molding me. When I was unfaithful, He would remain true. When I ran into the middle of the street, He would be there to lead me back to safety. When I cursed at Him, He would wash my mouth out with the tears in my eyes. And finally, when I fell into sin, He had it all covered forevermore. Would you not do that for your own?
Margaret, I really don’t think He wants me to do anything but love him. Which is the beginning and end of everything.
Holy Father, King of Righteousness, there is none like you. Blessed is your name in Heaven and on Earth.
Randy, first, I’ll kindly ask you to be more watchful of what you say about Margaret, or others who post on my blog (Mormon or non). You don’t know them, and it’s not for you to judge them. Yes, all sin is egregious to the Lord, and we all sin, but to call Margaret “filthy dirty” is something I just can’t allow.
Still, it seems like your heart is in the right place, and for that I commend you. You’ve accepted the Lord, realized your need of Him, and have turned to Him for help. Those are powerfully positive steps. What remains now is an accurate understanding of who He is and what He has said.
It’s easy to get caught up in the magnificent wonder of the miracle of the atonement, of its sweeping power and impact, and of the astonishing feelings that come from realizing that even we can be forgiven, that we then fail to see or take the steps necessary to realize those blessings. Perhaps it’s the profoundly human nature of man to just wish it all away, to say that their acceptance of Christ absolves them of any further action. Now that would be convenient.
But the doctrine of Christ, is not meant to be convenient. In fact, it was specifically designed to be otherwise.
We know that the path to exaltation is straight and narrow, with few who find it. We know that it is by our faith in Christ that we can be saved AFTER all that we can do. We know that he gave us commandments (things to do). We know that he taught us how to repent, and that we need to repent often. We know that we are judged according to our works (Rev 20:12-15), that it’s not the hearer, but the doers of the law that are justified (Romans 2:13-16, James 1:22-25), that God will render to us according to our deeds (Romans 2:5-11), that we shall be “rewarded according to our works” (Mathew 16:27), and most of all that not every man that claims they accept the Lord shall “enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he that DOETH the will of the Father” (Matthew 7:21-23).
“But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved” (Matthew 24:13). “What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man may say he hath faith, and have no works? Can faith save him?… For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.”
Indeed, we must take the crucial initial steps you have illustrated, acknowledging our sins, turning to the Lord, and accepting Him as our Savior, but then we cannot stop. That is the beginning of the journey, not the end. This is exaltation, not the lottery. The road is straight and narrow, which inherently implies that once we’re on it, it’s not easy, it’s not all said and done.
Unfortunately, many are led into a sense of carnal security under false pretences derived from incorrect or incomplete doctrine. It’s not bad to look and find yourself falling short, the way is straight and narrow. What matters is that you’ve taken the appropriate first steps, you’re on the right path, but you must continue in the faith, receive the ordinances of exaltation by those who have the authority, and endure to the end, repenting all along the way.
We may be saved by the grace of God, but then, and only then, after all we can do, will we find ourselves exalted, to become “joint heirs with Christ”. My brother, there is an awful lot of work for us to do.
Part of the responsibility that hangs over us is to give appropriate due diligence to the restored doctrines of the Latter-day Saints. The doctrines that have been restored through direct and ongoing revelation, through a living prophet, according to the Lord’s pattern (that his church be built upon the foundation of a prophet), are clear and compelling. They finally resolve the confusing paradoxes others are forced to simply accept.
Paradoxes like the belief in the Trinity, an all-in-one God, a single being. Yet the Bible tells us that an apostle saw Christ standing on the right hand of God. That Jesus prayed to the Father, addressing him as a separate person, and asked that He and His apostles might be one, even as he and the Father are one. But clearly, the apostles were separate beings, even as the Lord and His Father are separate beings. At the Lord’s baptism, was there not the voice of God from the heavens, the Holy Ghost descending, and all while the Lord stood in the water? There are countless other scriptural references so clearly representing three distinct personages, and we do not have to accept these paradoxes as unexplainable events.
Joseph Smith saw God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, as two distinct people, with the Lord standing on the right hand of God, just as explained in the Bible.
Such is the profound beauty of doctrinal clarity discovered in the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, and the comforting knowledge that again we may find ourselves led by a living prophet of God, and not a collection of creeds passed down for centuries after heated debates.
It’s okay to find yourself realizing that what is currently viewed as orthodox, doesn’t mean it’s accurate. Remember, the road is straight and narrow. Christ the Lord Himself had to destroy orthodoxy. He’d taught His people through prophets in the Old Testament, but then the time came when the orthodox beliefs departed so radically from the truth that He had to come and establish His church again. It’s a precedence He set Himself. It’s not so strange then, to see the affects of the apostasy today. The eventual departure of truth from mainstream “Christianity” that called for yet another restoration, establishing yet again His church on the earth, based on the same structure as before, with prophets, apostles, and so forth.
After all, the Lord is eternal and unchanging, so it makes sense that His church today would be based on the same structure as before.
And so I testify to you that the Lord has once again established the fullness of His gospel on the earth, restored His Church, called living prophets, and restored the priesthood authority. That those like you who have already taken the crucial first steps, might now take the rest… be baptized by immersion by one holding that authority, and continue in the paths of righteousness until we too, may find ourselves on the right hand of God.
The doctrine is here, you just have to study it with a sincere heart and real intent and base your eternal destiny on your own findings, and not those of anyone else.
Rusty
Rusty, thank you so much for saying so eloquently what those of us who have the fullness of the gospel know to be true.
Randy, accepting Christ as your Savior was a huge step for you, but, as Rusty said, it is only the beginning. We must continually prove our worthiness, as it is far too easy to fall back into our old ways. Satan works hard to pull us back into his clutches.
May God bless you on your journey.
Margaret and Rusty,
This is perhaps one of the greatest differences between how orthodox Christians and Mormons understand grace. From an orthodox Christian perspective, there is no grace in what Mormons describe. It still depends on human action. Margaret wrote, “We must continually prove our worthiness…”. From my perspective, that means that Christ’s saving work isn’t effective. Randy wrote about humans being “filthy dirty” which means that even our attempts to “prove our worthiness” are tainted by sin, incomplete and inadequate, no matter how good a job we might think we’ve done. To orthodox Christianity, this means that you don’t yet have the fullness of the Gospel (the good news).
Rusty, please read your Romans quotations again. In that section of Romans, Paul is constructing an argument about the insufficiency of depending upon our own worthiness or adherence to the commandments for salvation. He argues against the very things you are quoting as truth. Romans 3, 4 and beyond talk about the sufficiency of faith, and the difference that Christ makes. Reading Chapter 2 of Romans alone to glean truth is to misread the Bible (and you quoted it twice).
I’d also encourage you, if you are going to argue against Trinitarian Doctrine, to be careful in your language and get it right. Trinitarian doctrine says that God is in three persons yet there is one God. As the hymn says, “God in three persons, blessed Trinity.” You seem to suggest that Trinitarian doctrine doesn’t allow for more than one “personhood”. On Dec. 28, my post includes the following line from the Athanasian Creed, “For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit. But the godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal.”.
Pondering Pastor
Next Comments →