LDS Mormon Religion "...come unto me and have everlasting life"

[truefiction1]

I respect your beliefs, though it may be different than mine. I respect your intelligence, reading of scripture, and ability to listen to the Spirit. I am however, deeply hurt by your post #34 and the broad sweeping judgements you said there. If you wish to know me, my motivations, or about my relationship with Christ, you need just ask.

Why should you care about my judgements, Jane Doe? Only God's judgements are needful, and God, the Great Judge, is not judgemental.

 

[Jane_Doe]

Why should you care about my judgements, Jane Doe? Only God's judgements are needful, and God, the Great Judge, is not judgemental.

Obviously only God's judgement truly matters.

However, that doesn't give us mortals a pass to treat each other poorly. I would imagine that you too would not enjoy it is another person called you unintelligent, spiritually ill, or otherwise in a broad sweeping gesture simply because of your faith. Yes, you would think they are wrong in such sentiments, but that doesn't make listening to them a pleasant things.

 

[Rescued One]

I don't think I've ever been happier to be Oriental Orthodox...

As to the rest of this: poppycock. God the Father was never as we are; He was never a man. That idea completely perverts and distorts the incarnation. I'd like any Mormon to explain to me why the incarnation even happened in the first place, if God the Father had a physical body to begin with, as the Mormon religion also says.

A physical body doesn't make one a God per Mormonism. It is only one of the requirements. The other requirement is perfect obedience to the laws and ordinances of Mormonism.

 

[truefiction1]

Obviously only God's judgement truly matters.

However, that doesn't give us mortals a pass to treat each other poorly. I would imagine that you too would not enjoy it is another person called you unintelligent, spiritually ill, or otherwise in a broad sweeping gesture simply because of your faith. Yes, you would think they are wrong in such sentiments, but that doesn't make listening to them a pleasant things.

People pass all sorts of judgment on me because I tell them that I know that Jesus Christ is risen from the dead, has ascended into Heaven, and will return to judge all of the living and the dead when the latter are all raised up. We endure all for the Love of Christ, not for the love of a religion, and certainly not a religion founded by anyone other than Christ. I'm not treating you poorly by telling you the truth about this, anymore than I'm treating those who I tell about the resurrection poorly.

 

[Jane_Doe]

People pass all sorts of judgment on me because I tell them that I know that Jesus Christ is risen from the dead, has ascended into Heaven, and will return to judge all of the living and the dead when the latter are all raised up. We endure all for the Love of Christ, not for the love of a religion, and certainly not a religion founded by anyone other than Christ. I'm not treating you poorly by telling you the truth about this, anymore than I'm treating those who I tell about the resurrection poorly.

Passing judgement on me by saying I "don't know any better" and my relationship with Christ "very little to do with Spiritually enlightened reasoning and a great deal to do with passionate affliction", and "spiritually ill" are all passing judgement and flaming (against CF rules).

I'm trying to point this out to you kindly rather than reporting your post.

 

[dzheremi]

A physical body doesn't make one a God per Mormonism. It is only one of the requirements. The other requirement is perfect obedience to the laws and ordinances of Mormonism.

Yes, fine, but why did the incarnation happen, according to Mormonism? Do you know?

It makes very little sense to speak of an "incarnation" if God is already incarnate (possessing of a physical/carnal body). Whereas in Christianity, the Only-Begotten Son of God Jesus Christ is the incarnation of the Word/Wisdom (the Greek logos can mean both of these things) of the Father, the Father Himself being non-corporeal (theophanies of the OT being understood as testifying to God's ongoing presence in creation, rather than literally meaning that God the Father has a back and fingers and such, even as we say colloquially that the tablets given to Moses were "written by the finger of God", as per Exodus 31:18).

 

[dzheremi]

Passing judgement on me by saying I "don't know any better" and my relationship with Christ "very little to do with Spiritually enlightened reasoning and a great deal to do with passionate affliction", and "spiritually ill" are all passing judgement and flaming (against CF rules).

I'm trying to point this out to you kindly rather than reporting your post.

What on earth has truefiction1 posted that is worthy of reporting to the moderators? Please read post #39. They are not referring to you.

I think the post-reporting on this particular subforum is resorted to a bit too quickly, in some cases. Please take a moment to consider the context in which your interlocutor is speaking before assuming personal insult. Not everything is a personal attack on you just because others disagree with your faith.

 

[Jane_Doe]

Yes, fine, but why did the incarnation happen, according to Mormonism? Do you know?

Short answer: Christ was born, died, and rose again for our salvation. Our salvation from physical death in the breaking of the bonds of death, and our salvation from spiritual death via the Atonement.

 

[dzheremi]

Short answer: Christ was born, died, and rose again for our salvation. Our salvation from physical death in the breaking of the bonds of death, and our salvation from spiritual death via the Atonement.

Yes, that is what He did, but why was He incarnate? In Christianity, Christ is "the image of the invisible God" (Colossians 1:15), but in Mormonism God the Father is already incarnate. He already possesses a physical, fleshly body. So I do not understand why Christ had to become man, as your god the father already was man, or at least in a physical body like a man. (Depending I suppose on how much stock you put in things like your prophet's sermons and other LDS resources that portray God the Father as having been a man as we are. I know you will say these are 'speculations', but they are also believed by people in your community, and I assume that given their source at least considered carefully even among those who do not exactly place their faith in them.)

 

[Jane_Doe]

Yes, that is what He did, but why was He incarnate? In Christianity, Christ is "the image of the invisible God" (Colossians 1:15), but in Mormonism God the Father is already incarnate. He already possesses a physical, fleshly body. So I do not understand why Christ had to become man, as your god the father already was man, or at least in a physical body like a man.

Aka: why didn't the Father just push Christ aside and do everything himself, while Christ skipped the whole Savior thing and instead just twiddled his thumbs on the sideline?

 

[dzheremi]

Aka: why didn't the Father just push Christ aside and do everything himself, while Christ skipped the whole Savior thing and instead just twiddled his thumbs on the sideline?

Can you please answer the question I actually asked? I find this to be a needlessly rude rephrasing, and a dodge of the question.

 

[Jane_Doe]

Can you please answer the question I actually asked? I find this to be a needlessly rude rephrasing, and a dodge of the question.

Sorry if you found my answer rude, I was trying to highlight things and it evidently fell flat.

Christ's role is our Savior. Christ was the one to be born, died, and rose again for our salvation. The Father is going to let the Savior do His role.

 

[dzheremi]

Hmm. Okay. So in Mormonism the incarnation happened because God the Father, although he has a physical body, essentially willed his son to do it?

What I am trying to get at is some sense of the underlying reason why Christ had to become incarnate in Mormonism. By your incorrect rephrase of my question, it seems like you're saying that God the Father had to give His Son something to do, which doesn't really reach the level of understanding found in Christianity as to why this was Christ's specific mission, and the particular means by which it is accomplished.

From HH St. Athanasius the Apostolic's classic text On the Incarnation, chapter 2, titled "The Divine Dilemma and its Solution in the Incarnation":

His part it was, and His alone, both to bring again the corruptible to incorruption and to maintain for the Father His consistency of character with all. For He alone, being Word of the Father and above all, was in consequence both able to recreate all, and worthy to suffer on behalf of all and to be an ambassador for all with the Father.

For this purpose, then, the incorporeal and incorruptible and immaterial Word of God entered our world. In one sense, indeed, He was not far from it before, for no part of creation had ever been without Him Who, while ever abiding in union with the Father, yet fills all things that are. But now He entered the world in a new way, stooping to our level in His love and Self-revealing to us.

+++

In other words, in Christianity the uniqueness of the incarnation of Christ is understood as the incorporeal becoming corporeal: that God, Who before the incarnation had been present in creation in another way, actually enters into creation in a human body possessing of all that we possess save for sin (Hebrews 4:15).

By contrast, a god that begins corporeally and continues corporeally cannot be said to have even undergone an "incarnation", can He?

This is the issue I am trying to understand.

 

[truefiction1]

Passing judgement on me by saying I "don't know any better" and my relationship with Christ "very little to do with Spiritually enlightened reasoning and a great deal to do with passionate affliction", and "spiritually ill" are all passing judgement and flaming (against CF rules).

I'm trying to point this out to you kindly rather than reporting your post.

Those statements were made with regards to the false prophets and immediate followers of the false prophets, but not to you specifically, Jane Doe. Divulging the underlying psycho/social motives of such people is not the same as flaming when not directed at a fellow CF poster. I'm neither a prophet nor clairvoyant and I don't know you personally, so at best I can only make inferences about you from what you write, but not what you actually do or what is expressed in you bodily (psycho-somatically). Since people are known more by what they do and what there bodies express with regard to what's in their hearts, this means that I can't know if you have grace in you, or not, just by what you say. So my statements are about others.

My statements about false prophets and their followers are largely based on my own personal experiences with them, so the statements about them are true to my experience. The truth of my statements is also evidenced by the many tragic evils and abuses, which we know of because they've been reported, which have befallen the followers of false prophets, perpetrated and committed against them by their own leaders.

 

[Jane_Doe]

Those statements were made with regards to the false prophets and immediate followers of the false prophets, but not to you specifically, Jane Doe.

If you're going to lump Mormons in that category, you ARE saying such things about me. The fact that you're also directing such things and millions of other people doesn't negate that fact.

My statements about false prophets and their followers are largely based on my own personal experiences with them, so the statements about them are true to my experience. The truth of my statements is also evidenced by the many tragic evils and abuses, which we know of because they've been reported, which have befallen the followers of false prophets, perpetrated and committed against them by their own leaders.

My heart goes out to you in the fact that you've had bad experiences. But it is wise to be careful with ones words still and avoid generalizations.

I do like you truefiction1, and I have admired you throughout my time on CF as a good person. That's why the post in question threw me for such a surprise.

 

[truefiction1]

If you're going to lump Mormons in that category, you ARE saying such things about me. The fact that you're also directing such things and millions of other people doesn't negate that fact.

My heart goes out to you in the fact that you've had bad experiences. But it is wise to be careful with ones words still and avoid generalizations.

I do like you truefiction1, and I have admired you throughout my time on CF as a good person. That's why the post in question threw me for such a surprise.

What, in your opinion, makes it so that the Mormon religion was not founded by a false teacher and those who wanted to follow him? If you don't deny this, then how do you justify being a member of the religious organization that got its start in this way? If Joseph Smith is not a false teacher, then why isn't Charles Taze Russel (founder of Jehovah's Witnesses) a false teacher, or Marshal Applewhite, or Jim Jones, or L. Ron Hubbard, etc.? What makes Mormonism better than the religions founded by these other people?

 

[dzheremi]

Jane, do you not believe that you can criticize the theology held by a given people/church organization without saying anything about the people who hold to that theology/belong to those organizations?

I would be rather surprised if you cannot make that distinction, since you regularly attempt to criticize Christian theology (e.g., our frequent discussions of Trinitarian theology and what you see as the pitfalls or mistakes of it) while maintaining that you respect the people that hold it (e.g., all of this "I respect your view, even if I don't share it" stuff).

Why do you not grant others who criticize Mormon theology without talking about you specifically the same courtesy by which you are allowed to make your posts?

 

[Jane_Doe]

What, in your opinion, makes it so that the Mormon religion was not founded by a false teacher and those who wanted to follow him?

(This is getting away from the topic we were talking about, but I'll answer it)

My Lord and Savior is Jesus Christ, and no one else. Joseph Smith is viewed as a servant of the master, in no way the master Himself. I, upon through review of scripture and consulting with the Spirit, have found Christ's Church today to be the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, teaching His doctrine.

Of course, I realize you disagree with me in that regard, and respect your opinion and through/prayer in that matter. I am in no way here to change your view on your faith, or anyone else's. Rather, I very much enjoy hearing other people express their love of God and better come to understand them (this enables me to better love them). That's why I visit many non-LDS churches a year and joined CF.

If Joseph Smith is not a false teacher, then why isn't Charles Taze Russel (founder of Jehovah's Witnesses) a false teacher, or Marshal Applewhite, or Jim Jones, or L. Ron Hubbard, etc.?

I don't just go around accepting what anyone says to be True. Rather, my beliefs are the result of much study and prayer. If you want me to go into some specifics into any group, I can.

 

[Rescued One]

Yes, fine, but why did the incarnation happen, according to Mormonism? Do you know?

It makes very little sense to speak of an "incarnation" if God is already incarnate (possessing of a physical/carnal body). Whereas in Christianity, the Only-Begotten Son of God Jesus Christ is the incarnation of the Word/Wisdom (the Greek logos can mean both of these things) of the Father, the Father Himself being non-corporeal (theophanies of the OT being understood as testifying to God's ongoing presence in creation, rather than literally meaning that God the Father has a back and fingers and such, even as we say colloquially that the tablets given to Moses were "written by the finger of God", as per Exodus 31:18).

Oh! LDS usually don't use that term for the mortal ministry of Christ (in fact I never heard it used). They often talked about the mortal ministry of Christ, I thought, according to them, that Christ had no physical or glorified body before being born in Bethlehem. Before that time he was the firstborn spirit child of Heavenly Father.

When I was a Mormon, we were taught that Jesus was Jehovah of the Old Testament.

Soon after his baptism Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wild, uncultivated wilderness. There he remained for forty days and nights, preparing himself for the formal ministry which was then to begin. The greatest task ever to be accomplished in this world lay before him, and he needed divine strength. Throughout these days in the wilderness he chose to fast, that his mortal body might be completely subjected to the divine influence of his Father’s Spirit...
Jesus knew that if he were faithful to his Father and obedient to every commandment, he would inherit “all that [the] Father hath” (D&C 84:38)—and so would any other son or daughter of God. The surest way to lose the blessings of time or eternity is to accept them on Satan’s terms. Lucifer seemed to have forgotten that this was the Man who would later preach, “For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?”

...The question for us now is—will we succeed? Will we resist? Will we wear the victor’s crown? Satan may have lost Jesus, but he does not believe he has lost us. He continues to tempt, taunt, and plead for our loyalty. We should take strength for this battle from the fact that Christ was victorious not as a God but as a man.

It is important to remember that Jesus was capable of sinning, that he could have succumbed, that the plan of life and salvation could have been foiled, but that he remained true. Had there been no possibility of his yielding to the enticement of Satan, there would have been no real test, no genuine victory in the result. If he had been stripped of the faculty to sin, he would have been stripped of his very agency. It was he who had come to safeguard and ensure the agency of man. He had to retain the capacity and ability to sin had he willed so to do. As Paul wrote, “Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered” (Heb. 5:8); and he “was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin” (Heb. 4:15). He was perfect and sinless, not because he had to be, but rather because he clearly and determinedly wanted to be. As the Doctrine and Covenants records, “He suffered temptations but gave no heed unto them.” (D&C 20:22.)
Howard W. Hunter, The Temptations of Christ, General Conference, October 1976
The Temptations of Christ - Howard W. Hunter

​

 

[dzheremi]

Hmm. Thank you for that information, but I'm not sure it directly relates to what I am asking.

You see, the issue that I have with Mormonism on this point is not that they would teach that Christ did not have a material body before the incarnation (every Christian would agree with that), but that by teaching that God the Father has a material body, they remove the impetus for the coming of Christ: that He -- Christ specifically -- should be incarnate as the revelation of God to us, and suffer in the flesh upon the wood of the holy cross for our redemption and salvation.

Whereas if God the Father is already incarnate, as in Mormonism, there is no revelation of the unseen God (because God the Father is Himself a corporeal man, not unseen) in the Person of Christ, nor any need that Christ in particular become incarnate, because He is not in that particular sense any way distinguishable from the Father, as they both already are incarnate gods.

It's just like "Well, this happens because it's God the Father's plan for His son, and the Son has to do something", but there's no real reason why it has to be the Son, as He is not distinguished by virtue of having been incarnate (since the Father already is).

It kinda makes the incarnation of Christ seem like a non-event, as there's nothing about it that isn't also true of other gods in the Mormon henotheistic realm of multiple god the fathers of the Mormon afterlife, as we have discussed in previous threads. As Joseph Smith speculated, and Lorenzo Snow continued this idea that "God is as we once are now, and is an exalted man", and "As man is, God once was; and as God is, man may become."