How does the LDS Church reconcile their 1st Article of Faith and selected quotes

[Gordon]

made into the earth

Actually, the earth, in it's basic form, was already here...see Genesis 1:2

the same stuff but organized into "Jesus"

No, He would have had intelligence. While not understanding/knowing the detailed process, having intelligence implies having an awareness to some degree...not simply "matter".

you believe Jesus was a created being

You weren't paying attention.

 

[Gordon]

the next time you mormons say salvation is not obtained via works

One, this is a tangent. Two, you are, purposely or not, misrepresenting our stance between general and personal salvation.

received the righteousness of Christ Jesus

No, you haven't. If so, you make Christ a sinner.

His blood washed away our sins

The Atonement redeemed us from the Fall (general salvation), while we must repent to receive forgiveness for our own sins (personal salvation).

not by works

...of the Mosaic Law.

You Evangelicals definitely do not understand scripture.

reduce Jesus to a shaped, gathered "intelligence"

We don't "reduce" Him to anything. He is the Christ. The Only Begotten of the Living God.

 

[Gordon]

Where does the bible teach this?

It doesn't need to.

God was communicating with the...Father, Son and Holy Spirit...who were of the same divine essence and nature yet separate in personhood.

So He was talking to... Himself?

In the above you said God decided to create existence

That's not what I said...at all. I suggest you read the post again.

From your other post you say God created

I never said He "created" Jesus.

Jesus was brought into this existence by God.

As has been pointed out to you numerous times...He always "existed".

you claim Jesus always existed

You just contradicted yourself.

that is if you can.

Petty baiting tactics.

 

[CrowCross]

Actually, the earth, in it's basic form, was already here...see Genesis 1:2

...and???

No, He would have had intelligence. While not understanding/knowing the detailed process, having intelligence implies having an awareness to some degree...not simply "matter".

Now your speculating and try to pass it off as fact.

You weren't paying attention.

Apparently.....or you don't really know what you're talking about and can't explain it very well.

 

[CrowCross]

One, this is a tangent. Two, you are, purposely or not, misrepresenting our stance between general and personal salvation.

Yeah....OK.

No, you haven't. If so, you make Christ a sinner.

How would me receiving the righteousness of Christ Jesus make Jesus a sinner? Other than the fact that my sins were imputed to Him.

The Atonement redeemed us from the Fall (general salvation), while we must repent to receive forgiveness for our own sins (personal salvation).
...of the Mosaic Law.

Kinda reminds me of the Bon Jovi song....you're half way there living on a prayer.

You Evangelicals definitely do not understand scripture.

Not by works...do you wanna see the biblical quote?

We don't "reduce" Him to anything. He is the Christ. The Only Begotten of the Living God.

As in not always existing and being begotten by a mommy and daddy in heaven.

You reduced Jesus from being God eternally....to some strange form of "intelligence" being birthed in heaven then made into a god.

 

[CrowCross]

It doesn't need to.

It doesn't need to teach Jesus was some form of intelligence like energy just existing in the ether wisping among the nothingness.....because it never happened.

So He was talking to... Himself?

I don't know whether or not they actually used verbal words....but, yes they were communicating. Why would they not?

That's not what I said...at all. I suggest you read the post again.
I never said He "created" Jesus.
As has been pointed out to you numerous times...He always "existed".

Yeah, in the form of some sort of ingredients that had to be "birthed" in heaven.

You just contradicted yourself.
Petty baiting tactics.

I suppose.

Get back to us when you actually have answers. You mormons flap in the breeze like laundry on a clothes line when you don't have your cook book to construct your apologetics from.

 

[Theo1689]

Actually, the earth, in it's basic form, was already here...see Genesis 1:2

Is the Mormon Bible missing verse 1?

Gen. 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. ​

To most people who have mastered elementary school English, this is saying:

1) God created the heavens;
2) God created the earth.

 

[Gordon]

To most people who have mastered elementary school English

More insults...?

Is the Mormon Bible missing verse 1?

Perhaps you're unaware of what a chapter heading, or overview is...

Overview: a short description of something that provides general information about it, but no details.

Verse 1 is an overview of the subsequent text. How do we know? Well, on the first day, God created "light" (verses 3-5). He didn't create "heaven" until day 2 (verse 8), and "earth" until day 3 (verse 10).

 

[Theo1689]

More insults...?

I wasn't aware that you considered education to be "insulting".
As a teacher myself, I'll try not to be offended.

Perhaps you're unaware of what a chapter heading, or overview is...

No, I'm pretty well aware of such things.

Verse 1 is an overview of the subsequent text.

That's a very novel interpretation.
What scholars do you recognize who are allegedly of the opinion that Gen. 1:1 is simply an "overview", and not part of the main text?

You might want to compare with the Book of Mormon, which puts overviews in italics.
(You're welcome.)

How do we know? Well, on the first day, God created "light" (verses 3-5). He didn't create "heaven" until day 2 (verse 8), and "earth" until day 3 (verse 10).

Okay, so now you are finally ADMITTED the God DID create the earth ("day three (verse 10)").

 

[Gordon]

and???

...it refutes what you just said.

pass it off as fact.

Nope. Just using logic and common sense.

can't explain it very well.

No... I'm pretty sure the problem is on your end.

How would me receiving the righteousness of Christ Jesus make Jesus a sinner?

If you have "His", personal, righteousness as a sinner...that means His righteousness sins. It's not that hard to comprehend.

Other than the fact that my sins were imputed to Him.

Another heretical belief.

do you wanna see the biblical quote?

With or without the context?

You reduced Jesus from being God eternally

He has been God since "the beginning". That's what the Bible states.

because it never happened.

According to you...

wisping among the nothingness

Which is what you think your version of God was doing...

yes they were communicating.

God would have been communicating with...Himself.

It's hilarious, though, seeing Evangelicals strain all credibility trying to explain multiple individuals being "one" individual...based on "essence". Even if they were of a different "nature"... there's still more than one of them. Period.

in the form of

... intelligence.

flap in the breeze

No... I'm very consistent.

your cook book

Oh, I don't need help to school you.

 

[Gordon]

I wasn't aware that you considered education to be "insulting".

Trying to suggest that I don't have basic elementary English is what you did. You know it.

No, I'm pretty well aware of such things.

Apparently not.

That's a very novel interpretation.
What scholars do you recognize who are allegedly of the opinion

I don't need "scholars"...I spelled it out for you in plain English.

You might want to compare with the Book of Mormon, which puts overviews in italics.

Irrelevant.

Okay, so now you are finally ADMITTED the God DID create the earth ("day three (verse 10)").

Yes...and it wasn't in verse 1

When He actually started creating...it was in verse 2...and the earth (mass) and water was already there.

 

[Gordon]

That's a very novel interpretation.
What scholars do you recognize who are allegedly of the opinion that Gen. 1:1 is simply an "overview", and not part of the main text?

While I observed this on my own (not from FAIR/FARMS, for example)...I was curious as to your query. I found this right away:

"Many scholars now argue that Genesis 1:1 should not be interpreted as the first act of the creation narrative. They instead argue that the first verse of the Bible should be interpreted as an introductory summary or title of the creation narrative.6 [Franz Delitzsch was among the first modern scholars to argue this position. See Delitzsch (1888, 72–81)].Scholars of this summary-statement interpretation argue that a semantic discontinuity necessarily exists between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.

These scholars explain this semantic discontinuity from two different, yet compatible, perspectives. One perspective focuses on the Hebrew phrase אֵת הַשָּמַיִם וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ in Genesis 1:1. Scholars argue that this phrase is always used in the Hebrew Bible as a merism describing the complete and ordered universe, and because Genesis 1:2 is a description of the earth in an incomplete and unordered state, Genesis 1:2 cannot then logically be a description of the product created in Genesis 1:1 (Driver 1904, 3; Gunkel 1997, 179). Other scholars go so far as to argue that the merismic phrase takes on a tertiary meaning that distinguishes it from the meaning of its individual words that comprise it (Waltke 2007, 179).7 Thus, a semantic discontinuity necessarily exists between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, and only the summary-statement interpretation can explain this dilemma." (from Answers Research Journal)

This is from the Winebrenner Theological Seminary:

"The initial posts of this series examined the leading Hebrew words of Genesis 1:1. The posts that followed focused on whether Gen. 1:1 is a grammatically independent statement, as the vast majority of English versions translate it, or whether it is grammatically subordinate to 1:2 or 1:3, as some late 20th and early 21st century translations render it."

 

[CrowCross]

It's hilarious, though, seeing Evangelicals strain all credibility trying to explain multiple individuals being "one" individual...based on "essence". Even if they were of a different "nature"... there's still more than one of them. Period.

They're all of the same "intelligence".

 

[Gordon]

They're all of the same "intelligence".

Cool.

 

[CrowCross]

Cool.

Yes, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit...all the exact same God in nature, intelligence and essence. They are 3 persons in one being. Not 3 separate gods. God is one in more the purpose alone.
“You are my witnesses,” declares the LORD, “and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me. Isaiah 43:10

 

[Gordon]

Yes, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit...all the exact same God in nature, intelligence and essence. They are 3 persons in one being. Not 3 separate gods. God is one in more the purpose alone.

Sarcasm, dude... sarcasm. You are just repeating rote Evangelical-speak....none of it is Biblical.

 

[CrowCross]

You reduced Jesus from being God eternally

He has been God since "the beginning". That's what the Bible states.

Yup, that's what the bible says....but it's not what the mormons teach.

I found this on a mormon web page...
We believe Jesus is the Son of God the Father and as such inherited powers of godhood and divinity from His Father. ref

Most people are accustomed to using the term "God" to identify only one being, the Father. But the scriptures sometimes use the term to designate others as well. In this sense, while the faithful worship only one God in spirit and in truth, there exist other beings who have attained the necessary intelligence and righteousness to qualify for the title "god." Jesus Christ is a God and is a separate personage, distinct from God the Father ref

 

[Gordon]

Yup, that's what the bible says....but it's not what the mormons teach.

You are misunderstanding what "the beginning" means. The beginning of the day? The race? What? You falsely assume it means the beginning of existence...it doesn't.

 

[dberrie2020]

The LDS Church believes in more than one God. This is brought out in my first two statements below. Yet the Book of Mormon contradicts these statements (see quotes below).

From an official LDS page titled Do Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Believe in the Trinity?

Three distinct beings

The Church’s first Article of Faith states, “We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.” We believe They are three distinct personages, not one singular being. We call Them the Godhead.

By definition this would be considered "Polytheism."

How does that differ from belief in the Trinity?

How do Mormons reconcile the above 2 statements from the following quotes from the Book of Mormon?

Alma 11:26-35:

26 And Zeezrom said unto him: Thou sayest there is a true and living God?

27 And Amulek said: Yea, there is a true and living God.

28 Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God?

29 And he answered, No.

30 Now Zeezrom said unto him again: How knowest thou these things?

31 And he said: An angel hath made them known unto me.

32 And Zeezrom said again: Who is he that shall come? Is it the Son of God?

33 And he said unto him, Yea.

34 And Zeezrom said again: Shall he save his people ain their sins? And Amulek answered and said unto him: I say unto you he shall not, for it is impossible for him to deny his word.

35 Now Zeezrom said unto the people: See that ye remember these things; for he said there is but one God; yet he saith that the Son of God shall come, but he shall not save his people—as though he had authority to command God.

The same way it reconciles to the Biblical NT testimony:

1 Corinthians 8:6---King James Version (KJV)
6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

1 Timothy 2:5--King James Version (KJV)
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Ephesians 4:4-6--King James Version (KJV)
4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

Could you explain for us how separating out God the Son from the "one God" of the Biblical NT--isn't polytheism--in the context of your OP?

 

[jamesh]

I will be happy to accommodate you. The following is what you teach.

"Like many Christians, we believe in God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. However, we don't believe in the traditional concept of the Trinity. We believe that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are three separate beings who are one in purpose."

First of all this statement clearly states, "However we don't believe in the traditional concept of the Trinity." The definition of the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity is not an "assumption." It is the normative systematic theology of God in Christianity and is based on the fact that the Bible is explicit in telling us there is, was and forever will be only ONE God and the fact that the Bible identifies three (and only three) PERSONS as God."

In other words, the ONE God chose to manifest Himself in the Bible as three DISTINCT persons, period. Your definition says, "We believe that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are three separate beings who are one in purpose." Three separate beings mean three separate gods which is polytheism.

Moreover, there is a difference between the definition of the words, "being" and "person." Secondly, it is a given that the three persons of the Trinity are one in purpose. Now, please explain your understanding or your Church's understanding of John 10:30? What do you think it is teaching?

IN GOD THE SON,
james