Keeping the commandments and LDS theology

[Theo1689]

Can you explain to me why you do not understand that God the Son, and God the Father separate PERSONS but not separate GODS?

Because the Bible teaches that they are separate beings.

No, actually, it does NOT.
It teaches that the Father and the Son are distinct from one another, but it does NOT use the term "beings". "Beings" means multiple "gods" (which the Bible repeatedly DENIES). You simply CHERRY-PICK the term to try to promote your false doctrine.

Why don't you address the scriptures offered that demonstrate that that is what the Bible teaches. You all obviously don't believe the Bible.

<sigh>
We have, MANY times.
We have addressed Ps. 82 ad nauseum.
We have addressed 1 Cor. 8, ad nauseum.

In the meantime, YOU are the one who has not addressed Deut. 4:35,39, Deut. 32:39, 1 Kings 8:60, Ps. 86:10, Isa. 44:6,8, Isa. 45:5,21,22, Isa.46:9, Mark 12:32, 1 Cor. 8:4, etc. etc.

YOU are the one who "obviously don't believe the Bible".

That's why YOU are the ones who say the Bible is "corrupted".
That's why YOU are the ones who say the Bible has "plain and precious parts removed"
That's why YOU are the ones who say unless we have the originals, we cannot know what the Bible taught.

So which is it, BoJ? Is the Bible accurate, and we should believe it?
Or is the Bible inaccurate?
You can't have it both ways.

Together they are called God and each of them separately is called God. That would indicate that each of the three beings is individually a God and that together they form a team, so to speak, called God. The Bible clearly teaches that the are separate beings, I have demonstrated this before.

You can repeatedly claim, "the Bible clearly teaches; I have demonstrated".
But simply CLAIMING it doesn't make it so.

Christ's baptism is a prime example. They were in three separate places and each identified. Now, a single entity that is pretending to be three separate entities is just playing games. Does your God play games?

And now you're mocking and attacking Christianity because you can't defend your bankrupt Mormonism.

Does he do charades at the speed of light. Now I'm a voice from heaven, now I'm standing in the water, now I'm a dove, lets move them around, which one am I now? Does your God do that? If he is a single being who has three personalities, why doesn't he ever say that?

You are describing "modalism" (which the church has always rejected), not "the Trinity" (which is OFF-TOPIC for this forum).

So that begs the question of whether you are actually ignorant of the distinction between modalism and the Trinity, or whether you are intentionally misrepresenting what we believe (which is OFF-TOPIC for this forum).

He says I am one, and you assume that he has three heads but one body.

<sigh>
Not what we believe.
And our beliefs are OFF-TOPIC for this forum.
Why are you so afraid to try to defend your bankrupt Mormonism?

Oh, but it doesn't say that. That's the way you interpret it, but that's not what it says. You simply throw out the parts you don't like and ignore the passages db offered where the Bible teaches that the ONE God, is not the Son.

Wrong again.
Christians don't "throw out" ANY passages.
We simply reject your MISINTERPRETATION of them (apparently you don't understand the difference.

It is the MORMONS who "throw out the parts you don't like and ignore the passages".

Like all the "only one god" passages, Deut. 4:35,39, Deut. 32:39, 1 Kings 8:60, Ps. 86:10, Isa. 44:6,8, Isa. 45:5,21,22, Isa.46:9, Mark 12:32, 1 Cor. 8:4, etc. etc.

Like all the "not by works" passages", Eph. 2:8-9, 2 Tim. 1:9, Tit. 3:5, Rom. 4:1-8, Rom. 11:5-6, etc. etc. etc.

That's why you make up all these bogus excuses like:
"many plain and precious parts removed";
"corrupted by scribes";
"we cannot possibly know what the Bible says because we don't have the originals".

Funny thing, we don't have the originals of the BoM either, but you don't seem to have a problem trusting the accuracy of THAT book....
Double standards much?

The appropriate thing to do is explain how those verses mean something that they don't, that somehow they support your ludicrous definition of one God.

So you're calling the BIBLE, "ludicrous".
Good to know.

Deut. 4:35 ... the Lord is God; there is no other besides him
Deut. 4:39 ... the Lord is God... there is no other.
Deut. 32:39 ... and there is no god besides me;
2 Sam. 7:22 ... neither is there any God besides thee, ...
2 Sam. 22:32 For who is God, save the LORD?
1 Kings 8:60 ... the Lord is God; there is no other.
1 Chr. 17:20 ... neither is there any God besides thee, ...
Isa. 44:6 ... I am the first, and I am the last; and besides me there is no God.
Isa. 44:8 ... Is there a God beside me? yea,there is no God; I know not any.
Isa. 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God besides me:
Is. 45:21 ... there is no God else besides me;
Isa 45:22 ... for I am God, and there is none else.
Isa. 46:9 ... for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,

 

[dberrie2020]

Can you explain to me why you do not understand that God the Son, and God the Father separate PERSONS but not separate GODS?

What has that got to do with the fact the Biblical NT writers separated out God the Son from the "one God"? That God the Son--and the NT writers --testified the "one God" was the God and Father of Jesus Christ?

Care to engage that?

 

[Theo1689]

Meanwhile--the Early Church Fathers taught men may become gods--and stomping one's feet in denial won't change that.

Meanwhile--the Early Church Fathers taught only one god exists --and stomping one's feet in denial won't change that.

Meanwhile--the Early Church Fathers taught salvation is by faith alone --and stomping one's feet in denial won't change that.

Meanwhile--the Early Church Fathers taught sola Scriptura --and stomping one's feet in denial won't change that.

Do you still want to appeal to the "Early Church Fathers"?

Why are you running away from the BIBLE, anyway?

 

[dberrie2020]

The LDS connect keeping the commandments with entering into life:

Matthew 19:16-19---King James Version
16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Bump for anyone--to answer the OP. Why do the scriptures connect keeping the commandments with eternal life--while the critics here deny that.

The above scriptural testimony fits LDS theology well.

 

[Bonnie]

I asked you for a cite to back that up--the last time you posted that.

Please provide us with a cite.

Meanwhile--the Early Church Fathers taught men may become gods--and stomping one's feet in denial won't change that.

I thought this article interesting:

Lutherans and the Early Church Fathers - Lutheran Reformation

The Lutheran Reformation did not sweep away their predecessors into the dustbin of history. They were returning to the pure doctrine that the Church had taught from the time of Christ all the way up to their time.

lutheranreformation.org

A common misconception is that the Lutheran Church was only started in the 1500s. An historian could look at it this way, at least from a strictly chronological view, but this is not how the Lutheran Reformers saw themselves. The Lutheran Reformation did not sweep away their predecessors into the dustbin of history. They were returning to the pure doctrine that the Church had taught from the time of Christ all the way up to their time. First, they went to Scripture itself, drawing their teaching from Jesus Christ and His apostles. Second, the Lutherans also found this true and saving doctrine in the writings of the Early Church fathers, those men who had studied Scripture and passed on the faith in the classic formulations of Christian theology. The Lutheran Church did not start in the 1500s, but is the continuation of the one catholic (universal) Church, including everyone who taught and believed the one catholic faith.

In The Book of Concord, the Early Church fathers are referenced and quoted in every confessional document (except the Small Catechism). Here are all the ones mentioned:

Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian from the second century

Origen, Cyprian, Anthony of Egypt, Athanasius, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Hilary of Poitiers, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine, and Leo I covered the third, fourth, and fifth centuries

Gregory I, Bede, and John of Damascus from the sixth, seventh, and eighth centuries

These men taught and wrote throughout the Roman Empire: from Judea to England; from northern Africa to Italy and Asia Minor. They are the leading teachers of the whole Church throughout the first eight centuries of Christian history, and the Lutherans claim them as their fathers in the faith.

One of the main reasons a child turns to his father is to find help and guidance. When the Lutherans quoted an Early Church father they were not merely staying connected to the past. They were in a fight over pure doctrine. So, as they drew their teaching from Scripture, they also turned to their fathers for help in the arguments with the Roman Church and with the radical protestants.

Don't you know your church's own teachings about the GREAT APOSTASY?

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/true-to-the-faith/apostasy?lang=eng

So, this means that all of these ECFs existed AFTER the Great Apostasy happened and the Lord--supposedly--withdrew the Priesthood authority from the earth--doesn't it? Which means that what they wrote MUST be corrupt and without authority--right? Because they had no "priesthood authority"?

 

[Bonnie]

Meanwhile--the Early Church Fathers taught only one god exists --and stomping one's feet in denial won't change that.

Meanwhile--the Early Church Fathers taught salvation is by faith alone --and stomping one's feet in denial won't change that.

Meanwhile--the Early Church Fathers taught sola Scriptura --and stomping one's feet in denial won't change that.

Do you still want to appeal to the "Early Church Fathers"?

Why are you running away from the BIBLE, anyway?

Look at the appeal to the ECFs who lived AFTER the supposed "Great Apostasy" supposedly happened and the supposed "priesthood authority" had been removed from the earth. Which means all of the ECFs that Mormons appeal to were all apostates with no priesthood authority to teach, preach, etc. Which means that what the ECFs taught is apostasy, as well.

Logic isn't the strong suit in Mormonism, is it?

 

[Bonnie]

Bump for anyone--to answer the OP. Why do the scriptures connect keeping the commandments with eternal life--while the critics here deny that.

The above scriptural testimony fits LDS theology well.

"For God so loved the world, that HE gave His One and Only Son, so that whoever BELIEVES IN HIM will not perish, but have eternal life."

"Your FAITH has saved you; go in peace." (Luke 7:50)

"3 For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering.] And so he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit." (Romans 8)

"4 But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, 6 whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life. 8 This is a trustworthy saying. And I want you to stress these things, so that those who have trusted in God may be careful to devote themselves to doing what is good. These things are excellent and profitable for everyone." (Titus 3)

"Now to the one who does NOT work, but justifies the UNgodly, His FAITH is credited as righteousness." (Romans 4)

 

[Bonnie]

There is nothing in your reference above which states the LDS believe the apostasy happened all at once. The LDS believe the apostasy happened gradually. Your claim the LDS believe a "complete apostasy" happened suddenly just isn't true--and neither does the article you posted above, claim that.

The Early Church Fathers were united for centuries that men may become gods.

EDITED

But the apostasy DID happen, according to your church, AFTER the last apostolic witness died--right? So, since nearly all of the ECFs lived AFTER the first century, then that means they were in the Great Apostasy and what they wrote is apostasy--right? So, why do Mormon continue to quote them, to--supposedly--back up heretical Mormon teachings, when the ECFs were in the Great Apostasy???

Remember what your church wrote in that link?

One example is the Great Apostasy, which occurred after the Savior established His Church. After the deaths of the Savior and His Apostles, men corrupted the principles of the gospel and made unauthorized changes in Church organization and priesthood ordinances. Because of this widespread wickedness, the Lord withdrew the authority of the priesthood from the earth.

Apostasy

Apostasy

www.churchofjesuschrist.org

Sure sounds as if the Great Apostasy happened rather abruptly AFTER Jesus and His apostles died--which happened in the first century, did it not? Which means that by the second century, AFTER the apostles had all died, the church went into the Great Apostasy--doesn't it? Which mean that the EFCs that came along in the 2nd century and afterwards were ALL apostates and what they wrote must be heresy--right?

 

[dberrie2020]

It teaches that the Father and the Son are distinct from one another, but it does NOT use the term "beings". "Beings" means multiple "gods" (which the Bible repeatedly DENIES).

So--is your claim that in order for it to be rendered "beings"--the term "gods" would have to be used?

Psalm 82:1---English Standard Version
1 God has taken his place in the divine council;
in the midst of the gods he holds judgment:

 

[Bonnie]

So--is your claim that in order for it to be rendered "beings"--the term "gods" would have to be used?

Psalm 82:1---English Standard Version
1 God has taken his place in the divine council;
in th

There is nothing in your reference above which states the LDS believe the apostasy happened all at once. The LDS believe the apostasy happened gradually. Your claim the LDS believe a "complete apostasy" happened suddenly just isn't true--and neither does the article you posted above, claim that.

The Early Church Fathers were united for centuries that men may become gods.

Do you not realize that my church and what it believes are off topic for This board? And do you not remember that Theo dealt with your assertion many times, by pointing out that they were all monothesists, contrary to what your church teaches? And that even though much of what they wrote about is true, they are not infallible and what they write MUST be judged ultimately by what the BIBLE says, as it is the ultimate litmus test for doctrinal truth?

 

[dberrie2020]

Do you not realize that my church and what it believes are off topic for This board?

And just how are you relating that to my post?

dberrie2020 said:
So--is your claim that in order for it to be rendered "beings"--the term "gods" would have to be used?

Psalm 82:1---English Standard Version
1 God has taken his place in the divine council;
in the midst of the gods he holds judgment:

 

[Theo1689]

But that was almost two millennium ago. You are claiming the LDS believe the apostasy happened suddenly, or all at once. That isn't true. The LDS believe the apostasy was accelerated at the time following the living apostles--but not all at once.

So did the apostasy happen BEFORE or AFTER Athanasius, and the other ECF's you like to quote to try to defend your false teachings?

If "Before", then why do you expect us to accept (in your view) unreliable and corrupt witnesses?
If "After", then why do you refuse to accept ECF teachings that contradict your false theology?
Double standards much?

edited

1) That's not true.
2) That's not the proper topic for the MORMONISM forum.

Why do you keep trying to RUN AWAY from discussion of "Mormonism"?

so what is your beef with the Early Church Father's claim men may become gods--for centuries--and were fairly united on that front?

Because you're unfamiliar with the ECF's, and are misinterpreting them, and misrepresenting them, and ripping them out of context.

Because you intentionally IGNORE the ECF's when they teach "only one god exists", showing your misinterpretation to be the false claim that it is.

Because theology is based on the BIBLE (which ALSO teaches only one god exists), which is infallible and inerrant, and is not based on the ECF's, which are neither infallible nor inerrant.

Um, how many reasons do you need?

 

[Bonnie]

But that was almost two millennium ago. You are claiming the LDS believe the apostasy happened suddenly, or all at once. That isn't true. The LDS believe the apostasy was accelerated at the time following the living apostles--but not all at once.


No. It means the apostasy progressed as time went on.

The fact is--your church relied heavily on the Early Church Fathers for their doctrine(particularily in the confessions)--so what is your beef with the Early Church Father's claim men may become gods--for centuries--and were fairly united on that front?



You make conclusions which isn't even backed by what the article states. Here is your reference:

Apostasy​

When individuals or groups of people turn away from the principles of the gospel, they are in a state of apostasy.
Periods of general apostasy have occurred throughout the history of the world. After times of righteousness, people have often turned to wickedness. One example is the Great Apostasy, which occurred after the Savior established His Church. After the deaths of the Savior and His Apostles, men corrupted the principles of the gospel and made unauthorized changes in Church organization and priesthood ordinances. Because of this widespread wickedness, the Lord withdrew the authority of the priesthood from the earth.
During the Great Apostasy, people were without divine direction from living prophets. Many churches were established, but they did not have priesthood power to lead people to the true knowledge of God the Father and Jesus Christ. Parts of the holy scriptures were corrupted or lost, and no one had the authority to confer the gift of the Holy Ghost or perform other priesthood ordinances. This apostasy lasted until Heavenly Father and His Beloved Son appeared to Joseph Smith in 1820 and initiated the restoration of the fulness of the gospel.

That seems gradual and with time.

So--how does that touch the fact your church relies heavily on the testimony of the Early Church Fathers---and they testified, for centuries, in a unified way--men may become gods?

So did the apostasy happen BEFORE or AFTER Athanasius, and the other ECF's you like to quote to try to defend your false teachings?

At what point in history did apostasy finally take over? It sounds fairly sudden and complete, from what the LDS website says. So, at what point did the ECFs become apostate?

If "Before", then why do you expect us to accept (in your view) unreliable and corrupt witnesses?
If "After", then why do you refuse to accept ECF teachings that contradict your false theology?
Double standards much?

Double standards VERY much! I have seldom seen a better example!

1) That's not true.

Indeed it is not.

2) That's not the proper topic for the MORMONISM forum.

No, it is not. I will not discuss my church on here.

Why do you keep trying to RUN AWAY from discussion of "Mormonism"?

See my debate tactics 1-5 in my signature and you will know why.

Because you're unfamiliar with the ECF's, and are misinterpreting them, and misrepresenting them, and ripping them out of context.

Exactly, as you and others have shown on here many times. Theosis isn't becoming Gods/deities, but becoming more LIKE God--holy as He is.

Because you intentionally IGNORE the ECF's when they teach "only one god exists", showing your misinterpretation to be the false claim that it is.

Because theology is based on the BIBLE (which ALSO teaches only one God exists), which is infallible and inerrant, and is not based on the ECF's, which are neither infallible nor inerrant.

Um, how many reasons do you need?

And all God's children say "Amen!"

 

[Bonnie]

And just how are you relating that to my post?

What has that got to do with the fact the Biblical NT writers separated out God the Son from the "one God"? That God the Son--and the NT writers --testified the "one God" was the God and Father of Jesus Christ?

Care to engage that?

Care to answer my questions in post no. 327 in this thread?

 

[Theo1689]

Exactly, as you and others have shown on here many times. Theosis isn't become Gods, but becoming more LIKE God--holy as He is.

And very specifically, what the ECF's are referring to is God giving us the gifts of:
- immortality;
- incorruptibility;
- impassibility;

Not about becoming "actual gods".


Pretty much what Paul refers to here:

1 Cor. 15:51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?

 

[Bonnie]

So--is your claim that in order for it to be rendered "beings"--the term "gods" would have to be used?

Psalm 82:1---English Standard Version
1 God has taken his place in the divine council;
in the midst of the gods he holds judgment:

"I am the LORD {YHWH} and there is NO OTHER; apart from Me, there is NO GOD." (Is. 45)

"Isaiah 44:

I am the first and I am the last;
apart from me there is no God.
7 Who then is like me? Let him proclaim it.
Let him declare and lay out before me
what has happened since I established my ancient people,
and what is yet to come—
yes, let them foretell what will come.
8 Do not tremble, do not be afraid.
Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago?
You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me?
No, there is no other Rock; I know not one.”

God Himself through Isaiah says that He knows of NO OTHER GODS apart from Himself, doesn't He? Why doesn't He know about the gods in Ps. 82? IF they are real, true deities? So, why doesn't God know about THEM, especially since Ps. 82 was written long before Isaiah 44? Is God forgetful or something? Slipped His mind?

 

[Bonnie]

Mormon Canon clearly says impossible for more than ONE GOD ​

Hoist by their own petard! Which once again proves that the BoM contradicts their other exclusively Mormon "scriptures."

 

[dberrie2020]

At what point in history did apostasy finally take over?

My point was not to identify any specific point, as I believe that would be very difficult to specifically identify--as it depends on what parameters are injected into the model to even begin that discussion.

My point was your speculation the LDS thought the apostasy happened all at once--is not a very accurate description of what the LDS belief is.

It sounds fairly sudden and complete, from what the LDS website says. So, at what point did the ECFs become apostate?

Then you see something I don't.

Could you identify what specific area of the article you are referring to?

 

[dberrie2020]

"I am the LORD {YHWH} and there is NO OTHER; apart from Me, there is NO GOD." (Is. 45)

"Isaiah 44:

I am the first and I am the last;
apart from me there is no God.
7 Who then is like me? Let him proclaim it.
Let him declare and lay out before me
what has happened since I established my ancient people,
and what is yet to come—
yes, let them foretell what will come.
8 Do not tremble, do not be afraid.
Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago?
You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me?
No, there is no other Rock; I know not one.”

God Himself through Isaiah says that He knows of NO OTHER GODS apart from Himself, doesn't He? Why doesn't He know about the gods in Ps. 82? IF they are real, true deities? So, why doesn't God know about THEM, especially since Ps. 82 was written long before Isaiah 44? Is God forgetful or something? Slipped His mind?

That's a good question, Bonnie--and the very one I am asking you:

Why doesn't God know about those divine gods--which He takes His place among?

Psalm 82:1---English Standard Version
1 God has taken his place in the divine council;
in the midst of the gods he holds judgment:

Bonnie--posting scriptures which then states He knows of no other gods----does not address the concern of why God knows nothing of the gods of the divine council.

Pitting the scriptures against one another--only renders the Biblical text an unreliable source of truth.

How do you collate the "one God" verses--and the gods of the Biblical testimony?

And the plot thickens--how do you explain the very God of the OT--who makes the "know of no other god" testimonies--was then separated out from the "one God" of the Biblical NT--and claimed He also had a God and Father?

Anyone???

 

[Bonnie]

My point was not to identify any specific point, as I believe that would be very difficult to specifically identify--as it depends on what parameters are injected into the model to even begin that discussion.

My point was your speculation the LDS thought the apostasy happened all at once--is not a very accurate description of what the LDS belief is.



Then you see something I don't.

Could you identify what specific area of the article you are referring to?

But the fact remains--your church claims it happened after Jesus' death and resurrection and the apostles had died....that would be after the first century, right? But I guess Mormons get to pick and choose which ECFs were apostates and which were not--is that it?
The ones that SEEM on the surface to promote deification are the ones that were correct--right? While the ones that proclaimed that ONLY one true God exists; the Triune Godhead; salvation by grace through faith and not by works; and sola scriptura were the ones that were "apostate"--right?

Can we say this?



Yes, we can--can't we?