LDS people are sincere, and friendly, and I always try to find time to talk with them when they come to my door.

As Jeremy says, although some of what they believe is very different much is like many fundamental christian churches.

The bottom line is “what must we do to have eternal life” and that is where biblical Christianity leaves organized religion regardless of its name.

John 20:30-31

PS Hello Jeremy, long time no talk. Sorry life is keeping me way to busy as well.

B: Explain to me, then, Archangels, Satan and demons.

g: God is the CREATOR. All else is created. There is but one CREATOR. God created ALL things. All things means everything. Since the very definition of words in Mormonism differ from normal usage I must be very clear. Before God created, nothing existed except God. (I use the word “before” anthropomorphically.) That is, God created all things ex nihilo. The “god” of Mormonism cannot “create,” he merely builds stuff out of preexisting material. The so called “god” of Mormonism is but some sort of “superman.” Compared to God he is nothing, in fact, the gods of Mormonism do not exist. Satan and the demons are fallen creatures. God created all things good. He gave them free will and some chose to disobey Him. That is the origin of sin.

B: If they aren’t demi-gods, then what are they?

gkm: They are mere creatures which exist by God’s mere pleasure. He upholds ALL things by the “word of His Power.”

B: When Christians say they believe in one god, what I see is belief in one supreme god. Christians have lots of little gods running around, just like every other religion.

gkm: Let Christians tell You what we believe, don’t speak for us. I have books written by Mormons which state what I say about Mormonism. But in the case of Mormonism, things are a little different, since I can quote “inspired” prophets for your doctrines.

B: Plus, Aquinas PROVED nothing. His first principles were anything but self-evident. Furthermore, his whole argument for the existence of the God of Xian scripture is based upon and reinforced by the existence of the God of Xian scripture.

gkm: I’ll not argue about what Aquinas proved. He proved it to my satisfaction. His first principles are self-evident. Have you actually read HIM?

B: Aquinas was very smart, but he couldn’t prove god any more than Descartes or Aristotle could. There is no proof. That’s why it’s called FAITH.

gkm: No. That is not true. The God that Aquinas proved MUST exist just happens to be the God described in Scripture as far as being Creator and being ONE. It is true that saving truth is REVEALED by Scripture. And the fact that God exists as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is reveale and not proved by Aquinas.

B: I simply don’t understand why you people want to take something as seemingly wonderful as faith and reduce it to the mundanity of mere fact.

gkm: I don’t. Faith is being convinced. Heb. 11. Saving faith is being convince of the truth that Christ is the guarantor of everlasting life to all who believe in Him for it. But since you change the meaning of most terms used by Christians, you can “say” you believe things we believe but not believe them at all.

Gary

Explain to me, then, Archangels, Satan and demons. If they aren’t demi-gods, then what are they? When Christians say they believe in one god, what I see is belief in one supreme god. Christians have lots of little gods running around, just like every other religion.

Plus, Aquinas PROVED nothing. His first principles were anything but self-evident. Furthermore, his whole argument for the existence of the God of Xian scripture is based upon and reinforced by the existence of the God of Xian scripture.

Aquinas was very smart, but he couldn’t prove god any more than Descartes or Aristotle could. There is no proof. That’s why it’s called FAITH.

I simply don’t understand why you people want to take something as seemingly wonderful as faith and reduce it to the mundanity of mere fact.

Bullet: And how is this different from Christianity?

Christians beleive that there is only one God. In fact, Aquinas PROVED from first principles, which are self-evident, that God exists and that He is the God revealed in Scripture.

Gary

You realize you’re describing a LOT of Christians, too, right?

Gary:
They are poly theists, pure and simple.

And how is this different from Christianity?

aquinas:
we need more real dialogue and less the perpetuations of stereotypes and religious polemic.

Except for atheists, against whom you need to be defended

—

I simply don’t have time to go into everything that’s wrong with Mormons Are Christian ’s translation defense. Read Chinese-to-English-by-way-of-Korean electronics instructions, then explain to me how any translation of any language, much less dead languages, can ever be wholly accurate. After that, try to imagine a researcher in the next millenium or so trying to translate “gay”, “bad”, “cool” or “awesome” from twentieth century texts.

—

All religions are ultimately cults. Christianity was once just a Jewish cult. The success of missionaries, size of membership and wealth of treasury do not give any “religion” more legitimate claim to “truth” than Jeremiah Wright, Falun Gong or the Branch Davidians. Any religion that still seeks to be divisive or controlling still deserves the cult label.

As always, I applaud Jeremy for seeking to understand. I think he (with the help of various commenters) has illustrated, again, the differences between those who seek truth and those who claim it.

It is understandable that somehow the topic of Mormonism is controversial but the traditional kind of apologetics isn’t going to advance our mutual understanding. The apologetics that has been used for the last century hasn’t increased our understanding of the faith perspectives of each other. Rather, it has only promoted more animosity and misunderstanding. It would seem there are many who want to keep continuing the “debate” without looking at the results and outcome of such a debates. These kinds of religious debates can be found all over the internet: on blogs, message boards and chat rooms. We have enough of that. What is rare to find however, and what is not being done, and what we need now, is the very thing that you are advocating: to “endeavor to become friends with someone of that group” to better understand them and not some instinctive or defensive reaction to “blast someones life, theology, or practice”. Until and unless this is done we simply will never really understand each other.

Of course, one of the main problems is that there are many people who don’t want to understand each other, or they feel they already understand the religious other because some book told them what others believed or some member of their religious community did all the research for them so they wouldn’t have to do it themselves and told them what others believed. The attitude is “What’s to understand? They are wrong. End of story.” This kind of method is the very method that has lulled people into believing they actually know about others without even communicating with them and engaging them in civil discourse. However, more and more people are realizing that this hasn’t worked. I applaud your efforts and point of view and I hope that others realize the value in actually seeking to learn about others, not to learn where best to land a blow, but to learn to better understand their neighbor. I recently attended a event where a Mormon and a Baptist engaged in this kind of civil and respectful dialogue about their respective faiths and similar to your feelings I came away with the stronger conviction that we need more real dialogue and less the perpetuations of stereotypes and religious polemic.

On the other hand, the simple relation between God and His Son (his only begotten) as contained in the New Testament was mystified with the incomprehensible Nicene Creed. God went from an embodied spiritual Being, the Father of Jesus Christ to an ethereal spirit, without body, parts, or passions.

A literal reading of the New Testament points to God and Jesus Christ , His Son , being separate , divine beings , united in purpose. . To whom was Jesus praying in Gethsemane, and Who was speaking to Him and his apostles on the Mount of Transfiguration?

The Nicene Creed”s definition of the Trinity was influenced by scribes translating the Greek manuscripts into Latin. The scribes embellished on a passage explaining the Trinity , which is the Catholic and Protestant belief that God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The oldest versions of the epistle of 1 John, read: “There are three that bear witness: the Spirit, the water and the blood and these three are one.”

Scribes later added “the Father, the Word and the Spirit,” and it remained in the epistle when it was translated into English for the King James Version, according to Dr. Bart Ehrman, Chairman of the Religion Department at UNC- Chapel Hill. He no longer believes in the Nicene Trinity. .

Scholars agree that Early Christians believed in an embodied God; it was neo-Platonist influences that later turned Him into a disembodied Spirit. Harper’s Bible Dictionary entry on the Trinity says “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.”

The Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) views the Trinity as three separate divine beings , in accord with the earliest Greek New Testament manuscripts.

•A Response to your question re: Theosis

Divinization, narrowing the space between God and humans, was also part of Early Christian belief. St. Athanasius of Alexandria (Eastern Orthodox) wrote, regarding theosis, “The Son of God became man, that we might become God.” . The Gospel of Thomas (which pre-dates the 4 Gospels, but was considered non-canonical by the Nicene Council) quotes the Savior: He who will drink from my mouth will become as I am: I myself shall become he, and the things that are hidden will be revealed to him. (Gospel of Thomas 50, 28-30, Nag Hammadi Library in English, J.M.Robinson, 1st ed 1977; 3rd ed. 1988) The Church of Jesus Christ (LDS agrees with Athanasius and Thomas regarding theosis.

I do not agree at all with your appraisal.

Mormons do not usually fully disclose their doctrines which are repugnant, just as the Calvinists do.

I presume that you HAVE read some of their own official doctrinal literature?

They are poly theists, pure and simple. They believe in many “gods,” and further a central doctrine of Mormonism is that they can become god, just as Jesus Christ did and his father did.

The teach that Adam was God and that he had sexual intercourse with eve.

Read the “Pearl of Great Price,” and their “Doctrine and Covenants.”

They not only deny the Trinity, they deny every central doctrine of Christianity concerning God, which of course is most important.

You should not base your opinion of them by meeting some of them who may not even be privy to the doctrines of Mormonism.

A central tennant of Mormonism is:

“It is a ‘Mormon’ truism that is current among us and we all accept it, that as man is God once was and as God is man may become.”
— Elder Melvin J. Ballard
General Conference, April 1921

“From President Snow’s understanding of the teachings of the Prophet on this doctrinal point, he coined the familiar couplet: ‘As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become.’ This teaching is peculiar to the restored gospel of Jesus Christ.”
Marion Romney (1st Presidency)
General Conference, October 1964

“The Lorenzo Snow couplet expresses a true statement: ‘As man is, God once was; and as God is, man may become.’”
Seventy Bruce C. Hafen
The Broken Heart: Applying the Atonement to Life’s Experiences, 1989, p.133

“This process known as eternal progression is succinctly expressed in the LDS aphorism, ‘As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.’”
Encyclopedia of Mormonism 4:1474

Gary

Thanks for the comments. I completely agree. Say hello to Dale!