Post Reply
Switch to Forum Live View Mormonism 101: What do Mormons believe about God?
3 years ago  ::  Mar 24, 2012 - 4:31PM #1
Theo
Posts: 4,691

What do Mormons believe about God?


The Mormon Church says, God is often referred to in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as our Heavenly Father because He is the Father of all human spirits and they are created in His image (see Genesis 1:27). It is an appropriate term for God who is kind and just, all wise and all powerful. God the Father, His Son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost constitute the Godhead or Trinity for Mormons. Latter-day Saints believe God is embodied, though His body is perfect and glorified.


1) Indeed, Mormons often address God as Heavenly Father; and the fact that He is a father, (according to the LDS Church) means that He is human, only more evolved than we mortals. Christians also refer to God as Heavenly Father; it's in the Bible, Jesus referred to God using this title, it is found 6 times in the Gospels. However, we also address Him as God the Father, and with many other titles found in Scripture. The fact that God is our Heavenly Father, however, does not mean that God is a man - it means that God is heavenly, not earthly, and therefore He is our Maker. Christians believe that all born again believers have been adopted into God's family, and thus He is "our Father in heaven."


2) Mormons believe God (i.e. highly evolved human) begot our spirits before creation, meaning that we existed before the beginning - Christians believe only God and Jesus Christ pre-existed, in as much as He shared glory with God before creation... John 1:1-3/John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was. Moreover, Christians believe human life begins at conception, not way back in some vague pre-mortal existence the Bible never talks about... Job 38:4 "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding." And this is why most Christians are "pro-life," while the LDS Church allows Mormons politicians to be pro-choice, while the Church allows for abortion in cases of rape, the life of the mother and when the baby is too defective to live outside of the womb.


3) Mormons use many Christian words to describe what they believe - often in ignorance and contrary to the actual meaning of the words. For example they equate the word "Godhead" & "Trinity." But Godhead does not mean Trinity, it means "Divine Nature," and Trinity (Tri-unity) means three in one.


Godhead is an archaic English word only used these days in theology, but it means Divine Nature... and it is singular, not plural. Mormons believe that the Father, the Son and Holy Ghost constitute the Godhead, which for most Christians sounds right - but for Mormons the Godhead consists of three separate Gods united in love and purpose.


In the Bible Godhead is used like this; Col 2:8-10 > "Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. For in Him all the fullness of the Godhead (i.e. Divine Nature) dwells bodily; and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power. So the Bible says that the Godhead dwells in Christ, it does not say that Christ is one of three Gods that constitute the Godhead. So while Mormons say they believe that Heavenly Father, the Son and Holy Ghost constitute the Godhead... they actually contradict the meaning of Godhead because they believe They are three separate Gods.


Mormons believe in three Gods, but if that is not enough heresy, they also believe in many other Gods, the blooming Universe is filled with Gods according to them. Moreover, human beings are gods in embryo, and given the right conditions will someday evolve into gods, namely those who obey the Laws and Ordinances of the Gospel - i.e. live as devout Mormons.


4) The word "Trinity" means "three in one or three in unity," whereas Godhead means "Divine Nature." Christians believe in three Persons of God, distinctly different Persons, yet united in essence. Thus the Trinity consists of three Persons who are united in Godhead, i.e. Divine Nature. Moreover, in as much as God is "Spirit," and He dwells in Christ, the Bible says that all the fullness of the Godhead dwells in Jesus - bodily. This is hard to conceptualize, and harder still to articulate; but what it means is that God dwells in the fullness of His glory, in the glorified body Christ, i.e. the body Jesus received when He rose from the dead and ascended to heaven. Thus at once, Jesus is God to us, because the Father indwells the Son; and He is God the Son to us, because that is who He is. And this is why the Nicene Creed says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son... because all the fullness of God dwells in Jesus Christ.


This does not mean that Jesus is God the Father and the Holy Spirit - that is Modalism. It means that God the Father dwells in the Son, and that the Holy Spirit proceeds forth from Him.


Thus Christianity uses these words (Trinity and Godhead) according to their proper usage and meaning, while Mormon teachings use the same words, but twists their proper definitions so they no longer mean what most Christians think they mean. Mormons want you to be confused about what you think they believe, its how they sell themselves and proselytize Christians.


5) Mormons believe God, (i.e. Heavenly Father) is embodied - meaning that He has a physical tangible body all His own. Christians believe that God is Spirit, and that only Jesus has a body. Moreover, we believe that God the Father manifests His glory through the body of Christ - thus all the fullness of the Divine Nature dwells in Jesus - bodily. Our belief that the Father indwells the Son is consistent with Scripture, as is our belief in One God - Mormons believe God is a man, and in many other Gods.


Do Mormons believe in the Trinity?


The Mormon Church says; Mormons most commonly use the term “Godhead” to refer to the Trinity. The first article of faith for the Latter-day Saints reads: “We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.” Latter-day Saints believe God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are one in will and purpose but are not literally the same being or substance, as conceptions of the Holy Trinity commonly imply.


Christian apologists coined the word Trinity back in the second century, it means three in one, or 3 in unity. Mormons believe that after the last apostle died, Christianity fell into total apostasy, well before the second century mind you. Therefore these "post-apostolic apologists" were apostates - according to the LDS Church; nevertheless, they still see fit to use and abuse the words these "apostates" coined. Mormons do not believe in the Trinity any more than they believe in the Godhead, they simply lack the forthright honesty to articulate what they actually believe; they redefine our words so they sound similar - its all part of their web of deception. Christians believe in One God, and in the Unity of the Godhead three Persons of God exist; Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 24, 2012 - 6:40PM #2
Ironhold
Posts: 11,670

Mar 24, 2012 -- 4:31PM, Theo wrote:


Christians believe that all born again believers have been adopted into God's family, and thus He is "our Father in heaven."



...except for the Southern Baptists & co., who regard humanity more like God's bastard children than adoptive heirs.


Or do you not know about how fire-and-brimstone some of these guys can be?


Moreover, Christians believe human life begins at conception, not way back in some vague pre-mortal existence the Bible never talks about... Job 38:4 "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding."



Actually, this is God smacking down an annoying fanboy who wants to know why his favorite TV show doesn't match the fanfic he envisioned.


And this is why most Christians are "pro-life," while the LDS Church allows Mormons politicians to be pro-choice, while the Church allows for abortion in cases of rape, the life of the mother and when the baby is too defective to live outside of the womb.



So "recognizing the fact that there might be times in which it's either the mother or the infant" makes us evil now?


Godhead is an archaic English word only used these days in theology, but it means Divine Nature... and it is singular, not plural.



[citation needed]


Mormons believe in three Gods, but if that is not enough heresy, they also believe in many other Gods, the blooming Universe is filled with Gods according to them. Moreover, human beings are gods in embryo, and given the right conditions will someday evolve into gods, namely those who obey the Laws and Ordinances of the Gospel - i.e. live as devout Mormons.



So believing that humanity has a higher purpose than to just be "a planet of playthings" makes us heretical?


Christians believe in three Persons of God, distinctly different Persons, yet united in essence.



You've never read the Athanasian Creed, have you?


That makes God sound like either an amorphous blob with split-personality disorder or an oroborous.


Christians believe that God is Spirit,



Got a source for that beyond the KJV rendering of John 4:24?


Mormons do not believe in the Trinity any more than they believe in the Godhead, they simply lack the forthright honesty to articulate what they actually believe; they redefine our words so they sound similar - its all part of their web of deception. Christians believe in One God, and in the Unity of the Godhead three Persons of God exist; Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  




So you're basically saying that since we disagree with you we must all be liars?


How "Good Christian" of you.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 25, 2012 - 11:36AM #3
mecdukebec
Posts: 14,904

Two thirds of the LDS (male) gods have bodies; there is also a Goddess who is the "Mrs" component of the LDS gods.  This is polytheism. 

*******

"Wesley told the early Methodists to gain all they could and save all they could so that they could give all they could. It means that I consider my money to belong to God and I see myself as one of the hungry people who needs to get fed with God’s money. If I really have put all my trust in Jesus Christ as savior and Lord, then nothing I have is really my own anymore."
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 25, 2012 - 4:57PM #4
Theo
Posts: 4,691

iron:

...except for the Southern Baptists & co., who regard humanity more like God's bastard children than adoptive heirs. Or do you not know about how fire-and-brimstone some of these guys can be?


Yes I know about them... remember Clifford?


So "recognizing the fact that there might be times in which it's either the mother or the infant" makes us evil now?


It makes the LDS Church something other than pro-life... just sayin.


Godhead is an archaic English word only used these days in theology, but it means Divine Nature... and it is singular, not plural. / [citation needed]



GODHEAD (from The New Unger's Bible Dictionary. Originally published by Moody Press of Chicago, Illinois. Copyright © 1988.)


As used in theology the term means: (1) The divine notice; deity; (2) the supreme Being, especially as comprehending all His attributes; (3) divinity; a heathen god or goddess. The scriptural term Godhead (KJV) is rendered "divine nature" or "deity" in NASB and NIV. "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made" (Rom 1:20; Grk. theiotes); "For in Him all the fulness of Deity dwells in bodily form" (Col 2:9; Grk. theotes). In Acts 17:29 the Grk. theion is used: "Being then the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man.


GODHEAD (from International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Electronic Database Copyright © 1996, 2003, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)


(god'-hed): The word "Godhead" is a simple doublet of the less frequently occurring "Godhood." Both forms stand side by side in the Ancren Riwle (about 1225 A.D.), and both have survived until today, though not in equally common use. They are representatives of a large class of abstract substantives, formed with the suffix " - head" or " - hood", most of which formerly occurred in both forms almost indifferently, though the majority of them survive only, or very preponderatingly (except in Scottish speech), in the form -hood. The two suffixes appear in Middle English as " - hede" and " - hod", and presuppose in the Anglo-Saxon whichlies behind them a feminine "haeda" (which is not actually known) by the side of the masculine had. The Anglo-Saxon word "was originally a distinct substantive, meaning 'person, personality, sex, condition, quality, rank' " (Bradley, in A New English Dict. on a Historical Basis, under the word " - hood"), but its use as a suffix early superseded its separate employment. At first " - hede" appears to have been appropriated to adjectives, " - hod" to substantives; but, this distinction breaking down and the forms coming into indiscriminate use, " - hede" grew obsolete, and remains in common use only in one or two special forms, such as "Godhead," "maidenhead" (Bradley, as cited, under the word " - head").


The general elimination of the forms in -head has been followed by a fading consciousness, in the case of the few surviving instances in this form, of the qualitative sense inherent in the suffix. The words accordingly show a tendency to become simple denotatives. Thus, "the Godhead" is frequently employed merely as a somewhat strong synonym of "God" although usually with more or less emphasis upon that in God which makes Him God. One of its established usages is to denote the Divine essence as such, in distinction from the three "hypostases" or "persons" which share its common possession in the doctrine of the Trinity. This usage is old: Bradley (op. cit.) is able to adduce instances from the 13 th century. In this usage the word has long held the rank of a technical term, e.g. the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England, 1571, Art. I: "And in the unitie of this Godhead, there be three persons" (compare the Irish Articles of 1615, and the Westminster Confession, II , 3); Westminster Shorter Catechism, Q. 6: "There are three persons in the Godhead." Pursuant to the fading of the qualitative sense of the word, there has arisen a tendency, when the qualitative consciousness is vivid, to revive the obsolescent "Godhood," to take its place; and this tendency naturally shows itself especially when the contrast with humanity is expressed. Carlyle, for example (French Revolution, III, Book vi, chapter iv, section 1), speaking of the posthumous reaction against Marat, writes: "Shorter godhood had no divine man"; and Phillips Brooks (Sermons, XIII, 237) speaks of Christ bridging the gulf "between the Godhood and the manhood." "Godhood" seems, indeed, always to have had a tendency to appear in such contrasts, as if the qualitative consciousness were more active in it than in "Godhead." Thus, it seems formerly to have suggested itself almost as inevitably to designate the Divine nature of Christ, as "Godhead" did to designate the common Divine essence of the Trinity. Bradley cites instances from 1563 down.


The fundamental meaning of "Godhead" is, nevertheless, no less than that of "Godhood," the state, dignity, condition, quality, of a god, or, as monotheists would say, of God. As manhood is that which makes a man a man, and childhood that which makes a child a child, so Godhead is that which makes God, God. When we ascribe Godhead to a being, therefore, we affirm that all that enters into the idea of God belongs to Him. "Godhead" is thus the Saxon equivalent of the Latin "Divinity," or, as it is now becoming more usual to say, "Deity." Like these terms it is rendered concrete by prefixing the article to it. As "the Divinity," "the Deity," so also "the Godhead" is only another way of saying "God," except that when we say "the Divinity," "the Deity," "the Godhead," we are saying "God" more abstractly and more qualitatively, that is with more emphasis, or at least with a more lively consciousness, of the constitutive qualities which make God the kind of being we call "God."


The word "Godhead" occurs in the King James Version only 3 times (Acts 17:29; Rom 1:20; Col 2:9), and oddly enough it translates in these 3 passages, 3 different, though closely related, Greek words, to theion, theiotes, theotes.


To theion means "that which is Divine," concretely, or, shortly, "the Deity." Among the Greeks it was in constant use in the sense of "the Divine Being," and particularly as a general term to designate the Deity apart from reference to a particular god. It is used by Paul (Acts 17:29) in an address made to a heathen audience, and is inserted into a context in which it is flanked by the simple term "God" (ho Theos) on both sides. It is obviously deliberately chosen in order to throw up into emphasis the qualitative idea of God; and this emphasis is still further heightened by the direct contrast into which it is brought with the term "man." "Being, then, the offspring of God, we ought not to think that it is to gold or silver or stone graven by art and device of man that the Godhead is like." In an effort to bring out this qualitative emphasis, the Revised Version, margin suggests that we might substitute for "the Godhead" here the periphrastic rendering, "that which is Divine." But this seems both clumsy and ineffective for its purpose. From the philological standpoint, "the Godhead" is very fair equivalent for to theion, differing as it does from the simple "God" precisely by its qualitative emphasis. It may be doubted, however, whether in the partial loss by "Godhead" of its qualitative force in its current usage, one of its synonyms, "the Divinity" (which is the rendering here of the Rhemish version) or "the Deity," would not better convey Paul's emphasis to modern readers.


Neither of these terms, "Divinity," "Deity," occurs anywhere in the King James Version, and "Deity" does not occur in the Revised Version (British and American) either; but the Revised Version (British and American) (following the Rhemish version) substitutes "Dignity" for "Godhead" in Rom 1:20. Of the two, "Dignity" was originally of the broader connotation; in the days of heathendom it was applicable to all grades of Divine beings. "Deity" was introduced by the Christian Fathers for the express purpose of providing a stronger word by means of which the uniqueness of the Christians' God should be emphasized. Perhaps "Divinity" retains even in its English usage something of its traditional weaker connotation, although, of course, in a monotheistic consciousness the two terms coalesce in meaning. There exists a tendency to insist, therefore, on the "Deity" of Christ, rather than his mere "Divinity," in the feeling that "Divinity" might lend itself to the notion that Christ possessed but a secondary or reduced grade of Divine quality.


In Acts 17:29 Paul is not discriminating between grades of Divinity, but is preaching monotheism. In this context, then, to theion does not lump together "all that is called God or is worshipped," and declare that all that is in any sense Divine should be esteemed beyond the power of material things worthily to represent. Paul has the idea of God at its height before his mind, and having quickened his hearers' sense of God's exaltation by his elevated description of Him, he demands of them whether this Deity can be fitly represented by any art of man working in dead stuff. He uses the term to theion, rather than ho theos, not merely in courteous adoption of his hearers' own language, but because of its qualitative emphasis. On the whole, the best English translation of it would probably be "the Deity." "The Godhead" has ceased to be sufficiently qualitative: "the Godhood" is not sufficiently current: "the Divine" is not sufficiently personal: "the Divinity" is perhaps not sufficiently strong: "Deity" without the article loses too much of its personal reference to compensate for the gain in qualitativeness: "the Deity" alone seems fairly to reproduce the apostle's thought.


The Greek term in Rom 1:20 is


theiotes


, which again, as a term of quality, is not unfairly rendered by "Godhead." What Paul says here is that "the everlasting power and Godhead" of God "are clearly perceived by means of His works." By "Godhead" he clearly means the whole of that by which God is constituted what we mean by "God." By coupling the word with "power," Paul no doubt intimates that his mind is resting especially upon those qualities which enter most intimately into and constitute the exaltation of God; but we must beware of limiting the connotation of the term-all of God's attributes are glorious. The context shows that the thought of the apostle was moving on much the same lines as in Acts 17:29; here, too, the contrast which determines the emphasis is with "corruptible man," and along with him, with the lower creatures in general (verse 23). How could man think of the Godhead under such similitudes - the Godhead, so clearly manifested in its glory by its works! The substitution for "Godhead" here of its synonym "Divinity" by the Revised Version (British and American) is doubtless due in part to a desire to give distinctive renderings to distinct terms, and in part to a wish to emphasize, more strongly than "Godhead" in its modern usage emphasizes, the qualitative implication which is so strong in


theiotes > Perhaps, however, the substitution is not altogether felicitous. "Divinity," in its contrast with "Deity," may have a certain weakness of connotation clinging to it, which would unsuit it to represent  theiotes. It is quite true that the two terms, "Divinity" and "Deity," are the representatives in Latin Patristic writers respectively of the Greek theiotes and theotes.


Augustine (The City of God, VII, 1 ; compare X, 1 ) tells us that "Deity" was coined by Christian writers as a more accurate rendering of the Greek theotes than the current "Divinity." But it does not follow that because "Deity" more accurately renders theotes, therefore "Divinity" is always the best rendering of theiotes. The stress laid by the Greek Fathers on the employment of theotes  to express the "Deity" of the Persons of the Trinity was in sequence to attempts which were being made to ascribe to the Son and the Spirit a reduced "Divinity"; and it was the need the Latin Fathers felt in the same interests which led them to coin "Deity" as a more accurate rendering, as they say, of theotes. Meanwhile theiotes and "Divinity" had done service in the two languages, the former as practically, and the latter as absolutely, the only term in use to express the idea of "Deity."


Theotes is very rare in classical Greek, "Deity" non-existent in classical Latin To represent theiotes uniformly by "Divinity," if any reduced connotation at all clings to "Divinity," would therefore be to represent it often very inadequately. And that is the case in the present passage. What Paul says is clearly made known by God's works, is His everlasting power and all the other everlasting attributes which form His Godhead and constitute His glory.


It is theotes which occurs in Col 2:9. Here Paul declares that "all the fulness of the Godhead" dwells in Christ "bodily." The phrase "fulness of the Godhead" is an especially emphatic one. It means everything without exception which goes to make up the Godhead, the totality of all that enters into the conception of Godhood. All this, says Paul, dwells in Christ "bodily," that is after such a fashion as to be manifested in connection with a bodily organism. This is the distinction of Christ: in the Father and in the Spirit the whole plenitude of the Godhead dwells also, but not "bodily"; in them it is not manifested in connection with a bodily life. It is the incarnation which Paul has in mind; and he tells us that in the incarnate Son, the fullness of the Godhead dwells. The term chosen to express the Godhead here is the strongest and the most unambiguously decisive which the language affords.


Theiotes may mean all that theotes can mean; on monotheistic lips it does mean just what theotes means; but theotes must mean the utmost that either term can mean. The distinction is, not that theotes  refers to the essence and theiotes to the attributes; we cannot separate the essence and the attributes. Where the essence is, there the attributes are; they are merely the determinants of the essence. And where the attributes are, there the essence is; it is merely the thing, of the kind of which they are the determinants. The distinction is that theotes emphasizes that it is the highest stretch of Divinity which is in question, while theiotes might possibly be taken as referring to Deity at a lower level. It not merely such divinity as is shared by all the gods many and lords many of the heathen world, to which "heroes" might aspire, and "demons" attain, all the plenitude of which dwells in Christ as incarnate; but that Deity which is peculiar to the high gods; or, since Paul is writing out of a monotheistic consciousness, that Deity which is the Supreme God alone. All the fulness of supreme Deity dwells in Christ bodily. There is nothing in the God who is over all which is not in Christ. Probably no better rendering of this idea is afforded by our modern English than the term "Godhead," in which the qualitative notion still lurks, though somewhat obscured behind the individualizing implication, and which in any event emphasizes precisely what Paul wishes here to assert-that all that enters into the conception of God, and makes God what we mean by the term "God," dwells in Christ, and is manifested in Him in connection with a bodily organism.


BENJAMIN BRECKINRIDGE WARFIELD



 


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 25, 2012 - 5:14PM #5
mecdukebec
Posts: 14,904

Splice, dice it:  It boils down to this:  The LDS gods, are 2/3 corpulent, 1/3 spirit/"ghost", and then there's a goddess in the sidelines. 

*******

"Wesley told the early Methodists to gain all they could and save all they could so that they could give all they could. It means that I consider my money to belong to God and I see myself as one of the hungry people who needs to get fed with God’s money. If I really have put all my trust in Jesus Christ as savior and Lord, then nothing I have is really my own anymore."
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 26, 2012 - 5:26PM #6
Esdraelon
Posts: 5,236

Mar 25, 2012 -- 5:14PM, mecdukebec wrote:


Splice, dice it:  It boils down to this:  The LDS gods, are 2/3 corpulent, 1/3 spirit/"ghost", and then there's a goddess in the sidelines. 




First they had to give up multiple wives, but only due to government decree, so one cannot expect these randy guys to go through eternity without some occasional satisfaction.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 26, 2012 - 6:11PM #7
mecdukebec
Posts: 14,904

Mar 26, 2012 -- 5:26PM, Esdraelon wrote:


Mar 25, 2012 -- 5:14PM, mecdukebec wrote:


Splice, dice it:  It boils down to this:  The LDS gods, are 2/3 corpulent, 1/3 spirit/"ghost", and then there's a goddess in the sidelines. 




First they had to give up multiple wives, but only due to government decree, so one cannot expect these randy guys to go through eternity without some occasional satisfaction.





I want to be clear that I am, in no way, opposed to the worship of the LDS gods.  They may, indeed, be "randy," but my point, reallyy, is to call attention to the gods of Mormonism as distinct from the God of the Bible. 

*******

"Wesley told the early Methodists to gain all they could and save all they could so that they could give all they could. It means that I consider my money to belong to God and I see myself as one of the hungry people who needs to get fed with God’s money. If I really have put all my trust in Jesus Christ as savior and Lord, then nothing I have is really my own anymore."
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 26, 2012 - 6:15PM #8
Esdraelon
Posts: 5,236

Mar 26, 2012 -- 6:11PM, mecdukebec wrote:


Mar 26, 2012 -- 5:26PM, Esdraelon wrote:


Mar 25, 2012 -- 5:14PM, mecdukebec wrote:


Splice, dice it:  It boils down to this:  The LDS gods, are 2/3 corpulent, 1/3 spirit/"ghost", and then there's a goddess in the sidelines. 




First they had to give up multiple wives, but only due to government decree, so one cannot expect these randy guys to go through eternity without some occasional satisfaction.





I want to be clear that I am, in no way, opposed to the worship of the LDS gods.  They may, indeed, be "randy," but my point, reallyy, is to call attention to the gods of Mormonism as distinct from the God of the Bible. 




Then the first thing that should be apparent to anyone  is that God states that He is a jealous God, sic, and there is none other............

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 26, 2012 - 6:18PM #9
mecdukebec
Posts: 14,904

Mar 26, 2012 -- 6:15PM, Esdraelon wrote:


Mar 26, 2012 -- 6:11PM, mecdukebec wrote:


Mar 26, 2012 -- 5:26PM, Esdraelon wrote:


Mar 25, 2012 -- 5:14PM, mecdukebec wrote:


Splice, dice it:  It boils down to this:  The LDS gods, are 2/3 corpulent, 1/3 spirit/"ghost", and then there's a goddess in the sidelines. 




First they had to give up multiple wives, but only due to government decree, so one cannot expect these randy guys to go through eternity without some occasional satisfaction.





I want to be clear that I am, in no way, opposed to the worship of the LDS gods.  They may, indeed, be "randy," but my point, reallyy, is to call attention to the gods of Mormonism as distinct from the God of the Bible. 




Then the first thing that should be apparent to anyone  is that God states that He is a jealous God, sic, and there is none other............




I believe there is one God; however that being said, the LDS do worship their gods, and that reality cannot be denied. 

*******

"Wesley told the early Methodists to gain all they could and save all they could so that they could give all they could. It means that I consider my money to belong to God and I see myself as one of the hungry people who needs to get fed with God’s money. If I really have put all my trust in Jesus Christ as savior and Lord, then nothing I have is really my own anymore."
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 26, 2012 - 6:23PM #10
Esdraelon
Posts: 5,236

Mar 26, 2012 -- 6:18PM, mecdukebec wrote:


Mar 26, 2012 -- 6:15PM, Esdraelon wrote:


Mar 26, 2012 -- 6:11PM, mecdukebec wrote:


Mar 26, 2012 -- 5:26PM, Esdraelon wrote:


Mar 25, 2012 -- 5:14PM, mecdukebec wrote:


Splice, dice it:  It boils down to this:  The LDS gods, are 2/3 corpulent, 1/3 spirit/"ghost", and then there's a goddess in the sidelines. 




First they had to give up multiple wives, but only due to government decree, so one cannot expect these randy guys to go through eternity without some occasional satisfaction.





I want to be clear that I am, in no way, opposed to the worship of the LDS gods.  They may, indeed, be "randy," but my point, reallyy, is to call attention to the gods of Mormonism as distinct from the God of the Bible. 




Then the first thing that should be apparent to anyone  is that God states that He is a jealous God, sic, and there is none other............




I believe there is one God; however that being said, the LDS do worship their gods, and that reality cannot be denied. 




Of course, it cannot be denied, however, by the same token,  the Christian church does not have to accept it (which it emphatically does not). I see what you are saying and basically I'm in general agreement.

Quick Reply
Cancel
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook