DiscussMormonism.com

Interesting comments, I would like to present a topic of discussion in response.

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

1) A being is such that a) it has an essence (meaning some attributes of the being are essential to the being's nature b) different essential attributes constitute different beings
2) God is a being
3) God's essential attributes in Christianity are described as:
- omnipotent (all powerfull)
- omnisciente (all knowing)
- omnibenevolent (all good)
- creator of all things
- Trinity
-infinite
4) God's essential attributes in Mormonism are described as:
- infinite
- one of many like Himself (God of this planet was a man once with another God whom He worshiped, other planets have other Gods as well, men can become Gods themselves through eternal progression)
- has a body
- not a creator in the strictest sense (did not create out of nothing), only an organizer, a member of the universe, subject to laws (such as the supposed law of eternal progression)
5) Thus, the God of Christianity is not the same being as the God of Mormonism, since they do not share the same essential attributes

Now an "essential attribute" is any attribute of a being, that without that attribute, the being would cease to be the same being. For example, an essential attribute of a triangle is three sided-ness. Any shape with more than three sides could not be a triangle, as any shape with three sides could be nothing but a triangle. Likewise, an object with four sides must either be a rectangle or a square. These are attributes essential to their respective shapes. There also exists non-essential attributes, like the color of my hair. If I had brown hair instead of , it would not change who or what I am (my essence). You would still consider me a man and still call me by my name, even with different hair color, because this attribute is non-essential to my nature. These latter forms of "attributes" are not the kind we are dealing with.

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

For example, If God as described in Mormon doctrine exists, He is one of many Gods (who rule other planets), and men can one day be like Him in the Celestial Kindom, ruling over a planet of our own. But such a God could not be omnipotent (all powerful) because if He is one of many, He necessarily must share power with the other Gods who rule their own planets. To illustrate this, let’s imagine two kings. One king has a kindom called "Earth" the other king has a kindom called "Mars." Each King dictates his own laws and governs his people; and his people give Him and only Him their allegiance. However neither king has power over the other kingdom, unless one king was to conquer the other, making only one king and one kingdom. Since there is more than one king, they logically MUST share power.

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

This is not a proof that the God of Christianity is the One True God, only a proof that He cannot be the same God described in Mormonism. I beg you, Mormon missionaries, do not mislead the Christians that you speak with by neglecting to tell them that the God described in Mormonism is different than the God of Christianity. Christians have a right to know that becoming Mormon they not only change what church they attend, but they also must give their allegiance to a completely different being. Give the people you talk with an accurate portrayal of the differences so they can make a well educated decision. If the Mormon church is the home of the Truth, why use tactics of deception on your missions? Isn't deception the enemy of Truth?

Lastly, from this I hope that those who read will be encouraged to explore further who the One, True God really is. I suggest reading Aquinas' five proofs of the existence of God. God Bless.

Aquinas wrote:Interesting comments, I would like to present a topic of discussion in response.

I am a Catholic, but I do believe that there can exist good, constructive argument amongst those of other faiths. However, I do not think it is constructive to hold the false assumption that Mormons generally believe the same things as Christians; or vise versa. I will attempt to demonstrate a significant difference (perhaps most significant) between Mormon and Christian theology.

Well, dear friend, as you know there are many out there who consider the catholic faith to be unchristian and catholics not to be christian. In fact, in by gone years, the catholic church was considered to be unbiblical and devilish. What to do? Catholics and Mormons have much in common when it comes to protestant churches thinking that both are not christian.

Be careful whose kettle you paint black.

Well, dear friend, as you know there are many out there who consider the catholic faith to be unchristian and catholics not to be christian. In fact, in by gone years, the catholic church was considered to be unbiblical and devilish. What to do? Catholics and Mormons have much in common when it comes to protestant churches thinking that both are not christian.

Be careful whose kettle you paint black.

I suggest you actually read my argument before commenting, because I wasn't arguing that Mormons are not Christians, but that Mormons believe in a different God than the Christian God, if they adhere to Mormon doctrine.

It does, in fact, happen to be true that Mormons are not Christian; one reason being that they don't accept the most fundemental Christian doctrine of the Trinity. If you knew even the basics about Catholic and Protestant theology, you would know that we share all the beliefs about God's attributes as outlined in my argument. However, "Protestant" is a broad term and can be misunderstood to include cults/groups like Jehovah's Witnesses, Unitarian Church or Seventh-Day Adventists; but it is fair to say the following Christian churches hold this fundemental tennet of Christian faith: Catholic, Evangelical, Presbyterian, Greek Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican, Methodist, Baptist, Pentecostal and the Assembly of God.

I challenge you to find one of these protestant churches that would disagree with the nature of God as outlined in my argument. Tell us 1) the name of the church, 2) what you think makes them protestant and 3) documentation that they teach a different nature of God. Readers, please note that he will not be successful.

Yes, perhaps some protestants would argue that Catholics are not Christian based on other doctrine, but I doubt you would find anything with substance to support this claim either. Most protestants, while opposing some Catholic doctrines (Mary's ever-virginity, Purgatory, the Eucharist as Christ's Body, etc.) consider the Catholic church still Christian, just misguided in some of their doctrine. On the other hand, I have never met a Protestant or a Catholic worth his/her salt that would say Mormons are Christian. But all of this is irrelevant to my argument, which focuses on the essential difference between the Christian and Mormon Gods.

But all of this is irrelevant to my argument, which focuses on the essential difference between the Christian and Mormon Gods.

Just a suggestion: maybe you could open a new thread? I don't want this to get lost in a thread about why LDS posters don't frequent this bulletin board.

Thanks.

Aquinas, let me start, and I'll be brief, by saying that I hold to no organised religion but do retain a belief in 'God'.

I kind of agree with you in some ways....but on the other hand if God is omnipresent, and omnipotent, and a host of other omni's then surely God can
make itself appear as a flaming bush, or a man, or a female, or whatever physical or spiritual entity God wants to present itself as.

Surely one of the beauty's of God is that God cannot be defined.

God is love, I would say is an essential characteristic, and that, Mormons and the wider christian world can agree on surely?

I don't write that flippantly.

For me, THE essential and defining characteristic of God is that God embodies love.

Just a few thoughts...
Mary

I'm gonna be late for Greek, but I wanted to comment on this. How apropos that you picked Aquinas as a name.

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

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

Aquinas wrote:4) God's essential attributes in Mormonism are described as:
- infinite
- one of many like Himself (God of this planet was a man once with another God whom He worshiped, other planets have other Gods as well, men can become Gods themselves through eternal progression)
- has a body
- not a creator in the strictest sense (did not create out of nothing), only an organizer, a member of the universe, subject to laws (such as the supposed law of eternal progression)
5) Thus, the God of Christianity is not the same being as the God of Mormonism, since they do not share the same essential attributes

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

Try again.

maklelan wrote:I'm gonna be late for Greek, but I wanted to comment on this. How apropos that you picked Aquinas as a name.

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

Aside from the fact that this is an imperfect list created by an imperfect perception of God (don't you guys also hold that nothing can ever be known about God?), the bold item is part of the Nicene Creed, which was instituted originally in AD 325 at the request of a pagan emperor.

No it isn't, and no it wasn't. The Nicene Creed says nothing about a trinity. It was intended to settle the dispute between the Arians and the Athanasians as to the nature of Christ. The Nicene Creed as it was formulated in 325 was an ineffective compromise, which enabled the Arians to confess to an ecumenical creed. It was for this reason that Christological disputes continued, and the Creed was added to and finally replaced. By the 5th century, the doctrine of the trinity had become orthodox, but this doctrine was not expressed in the Nicene Creed.

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

I guess the Jews of the Maccabean era didn't get the memo:

2 Maccabees 7:
28 I beseech you, my child, to look at the heaven and the earth and see everything that is in them, and recognize that God did not make them out of things that existed. Thus also mankind comes into being.

That was written in the 2nd century BC, nearly 400 years before the date you gave.

I guess the Jews of the Maccabean era didn't get the memo:

2 Maccabees 7:
28 I beseech you, my child, to look at the heaven and the earth and see everything that is in them, and recognize that God did not make them out of things that existed. Thus also mankind comes into being.

That was written in the 2nd century BC, nearly 400 years before the date you gave.

You couldn't read it from your post, but you made a good point, so I wanted to clarify for you, the small text in this quote says "God did not make them out of things that existed." Thanks for the post!

I'm gonna be late for Greek, but I wanted to comment on this. How apropos that you picked Aquinas as a name.


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

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

Try again.

Before addressing this drivel, I would like to point out again, that this is not a response to my original argument, and I suggest reading the argument before remarking “try again,” as I was successful in proving the point I set out to prove. I argued simply that the “God” of Mormonism is not the same being as the Christian God, who among other things is defined as Trinity. Recall, in my argument I said:

“…The doctrine [of the Trinity] explains that God is one being, three persons. Whether you believe in the doctrine of the Trinity or not, it is clearly not consistent with Mormon doctrine.”

And:

“This [argument] is not a proof that the God of Christianity is the One True God, only a proof that He cannot be the same God described in Mormonism. “

Maklelan is like a shoddy magician; he attempts to distract his audience from my argument with ostentatious language, yet fails because his tricks are in view of even the sightless. Answer me Maklelan, what argument do you have that the God of Christianity (Trinitarian, all powerful, etc.) is the same as the “God” of Mormon doctrine? I believe you fear the truth; that any argument against this you make will not be compelling to even the ignorant. Or is it that we are in agreement on my point? If this is so, concede to this before our readers, instead of cowering behind Da Vinci Code-like historical nonsense, which entices the imagination of fools, yet fails to represent anything true or accurate, in an attempt to muddle the truth in my argument.

However, I will humor you with a Biblical defense of the Trinity, only so those reading will know that even amateur thinkers (like myself) can use solid theological reasoning based on revelation found in scripture to make a good argument for this doctrine.

1) According to scripture, there is only one God (1 Timothy 2:5)
2) According to scripture, Jesus Christ is God (Exodus 3:13-14 and John 8 57-59)
3) According to scripture, the Father is God (John 4:21-24)
4) According to scripture, the Holy Spirit is God (Acts 5: 3-4)
5) Thus, The one God must be the persons of Father, Son (Jesus) and Holy Spirit (The Trinity)

1) 1 Timothy 2:5 “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus”

2) Exodus 3:13-14 “Moses said to God, ‘suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you, and they ask me ‘What is his name?’ Then what should I tell them? God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Isaelites: ‘I AM has sent me to you.

John 8 57-59 “I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.

Jesus claiming to be God is made abundantly clear by the Jews reaction: “they picked up stones to stone him.” What other reason did they have, in this context, to stone Jesus, other than what they considered blasphemy; His claim to be God?

3) John 4:21-24 -I will let the readers read this on their own if they choose, I will not quote it here for two reasons: 1) it is rather lengthy and 2) it is evident to anyone familiar with scripture that “The Father” spoken of by Jesus and his disciples is God. I doubt any true Mormon would disagree, but if they do, please read this passage and the point will be made clear.

4) Acts 5:3-4 “ Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? …. You have not lied to men but to God.”

Peter indicates that Ananias lied to the Holy Spirit and later, without switching the subject of who Ananias was dishonest with, says he lied to God; thus demonstrating that the Holy Spirit is God.

Maklelan, “try again.”