The Lord once told us how what we should do if we love Him:
"15 ¶ So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.
16 He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
John 21: 15-17
Should a servant of the Lord therefore feed His sheep or mock them for wandering away?
Your forgot John 10:14
14"I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me—
We're trying to introduce you to the Shepherd. For some reason you keep declining to know him and cling to the idea of a god who was once a man. In order for the Shepherd to feed the sheep, they must be part of His sheep hold. In him is everlasting sustenance...it is to be found in Him alone, not through His sheep.
"Should a servant of the Lord therefore feed His sheep or mock them for wandering away?
You are assuming anyone is one of His sheep. Not a good assumption. Some are goats.
You are assuming that this command is the only command in scripture. Not a good assumption.
We urge you, brethren, admonish the unruly, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with everyone. I Thess 5:14 - different strokes for different folks.
You should also look at Jesus' own words about those who distort God's Word, the Bible...
“Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness. Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.” — Matthew 23:27, 28
You are turning reality on its head to suit your cultish insistence. If We Who Are Called By His Name see sheep trying to feed their souls on poisonous meal, we are first called to separate the sheep from the poison, THEN feed them good food. Your faux prophet, Joseph Smith, did the same thing you are trying to do, not surprisingly. Mormonism is based upon the poisoning of minds then feeding rancid meal to the manipulated masses.
You've made several assumptions which may – or may not – be so. One, is that Lds have been “inside the flock” to begin with as once-upon-a-time true sheep.
The apostle Paul and Jesus addressed that not all donning the doorsteps of church facilities are to be categorized as "sheep":
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.” (Acts 20:28-31)
Some "sheep" are simply "grievous wolves" who speek "perverse" (literally twisted) things. Listen, LDS engaging in massive polygamy; labeling black skin a "curse,"; labeling Adam as "god," labeling god as a spiritually evolved man, encouraging men to atone for their own sins via shedding of their own blood, etc. etc. etc...these have ALL been twisted things that wolflike disciples have used to "draw men after them."
Essentially, Paul was echoing Jesus:
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I NEVER KNEW YOU: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. (Matthew 7:15-23)
Not every “Lord-caller” is going to enter heaven (Mt. 7:21). Unlike the false gospel of the alleged “pre-existence,” Jesus counters this impression among the religionists of His day by calling the Pharisees "children of Satan" in John 8:41,44 and ones he ”never knew” in Mt. 7:23. Lds basically shove this back into Jesus' face, and say to Him, “No Jesus you were wrong to call the Pharisees as of sons of 'your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do.'” (John 8:44).
And: "What? Jesus? Did you forget? Why, we were all spirit bros in the pre-existence! And how come you told them you never knew them? Did you forget coming down Mary's birth canal that we were all spirit bros back then?"
Sorry, but the apostle Paul 5 TIMES said we need to be “adopted” as His children! (Rom. 8:15,23; 9:4; Gal. 4:5; Eph. 1:5). The apostle John says God gives us the "right" – the Greek word is exousia -- the authority to BECOME the sons of God. (John 1:12) We BECOME his sons; we are not automatic sons of the pre-existence!
As for your many of your last 1/2-day old comments about interpretive comments that you say are either of...
...love
...hate
...evil
...insulting
...wrong
...and mockery
...would you please explain how “loving” and not "insulting" it is to send 60,000+ missionaries and countless Ward-based people and countless media resources calling us...
...“apostate”
...“wrong”
...“corrupt”
...100% putrid creed-wise???
...and to be taking such a million-missionary, world-wide initiative for the past 180 years to do so??? As compared to a few dozen for a bit over a decade of FREERepublic???
Don't you and other Lds make a “mockery” of our beliefs to say ALL of our creeds are an abomination to God? (I've never said every LDS belief is putrid!)
You wondered about the mention of Him or His Gospel in post #26:
Well, I testify that Jesus' blood was powerful enough not only to atone for Adam's sin, but mine. I have his rich blood streak running over every part of my sinful body, my sinful mind, my sinful soul, my sinful spirit. I am drenched in His blood; saturated in it; bathed in it. It cleanses me entirely of all past sins, my present sins, and every sin I'll commit (or action I'll fail to responsibly commit) because I entrust that His blood is sufficient for me.
His blood,
His mercy,
His grace
...makes me "worthy"--tho the fact that He went to the cross for me shows my ultimate value.
Like any heir, I'm an heir by His death and His gift to me...NOT an heir based upon...
...my works,
...my obedience,
...my self-promotional worthiness,
...my commandment-keeping,
...my bishop-graded temple recommend,
...my Word-of-wisdom keeping,
...my exaltation checklist,
...who I marry,
...if I marry,
...and all the other plural "My-s" I can ever list--as if my life was to center on...
...me
...or as if all my good works were primarily or unconsciously done to boomerang back on my bootstraps to kick me into divinity...
...rather than simply to love the One I serve.
TomH| 3.16.09 @ 10:21AM
Jeremy:
If you’re going to be critical of the Mormon view of God, the very least you could do is actually make an accurate comparison?
There is something very strange with your comparison. Mormon prophets counsel members to “avoid” R-rated movies and “the Watchmen” is probably one of the worst R-rated films out in theaters right now. So, for Mormons who don’t frequent poorly crafted R-rated movies, or who don’t read comic books, you’re silly critique of and attempt to ridicule the Mormon view of God will not resonate with them.
The modern doctrine of deity involves two important areas of study: the reality of existence (the nature of matter and energy) and necessary theological foundations that are in agreement with it.
And Jeremy, why choose Hopkin’s book as the definitive comparative text?
How about “The Mormon Doctrine of Deity,” by B.H. Roberts, or “The Theological Foundations of the Mormon Religion,” by Sterling McMurrin, and how about this one - “The Doctrine and Covenants,” which is official Mormon scripture?
The Mormon doctrine of deity has more to do with the Old and New Testament than it does with the comic book, “The Watchmen.” Why not make those comparisons? Oh, right, because your analogy would fail. Got it.
To all:
Jeremy advances the “classic view” of God as “spirit only” but runs into an impenetrable “flesh and bone” wall when we must account for the literal resurrection of Jesus Christ.
If Jesus Christ was literally resurrected, and ascended to heaven as such, then, “houston, we’ve got a problem:” God is no longer only “a spirit” but is spirit, flesh, and bone.
The resurrection “localizes” God inside the universe - in space and time - related to reality in the universe - not according to human understand only.
Creation:
The classic theological view of the creation of all things (ex nihilo) is incompatible with the laws of conservation and energy. Simple put – matter cannot be created or destroyed. To argue that this is only our perception is to argue that God is faking us out – or using a deception to “test” whether or not we’ll continue to believe that “God is no where but everywhere, that he is so small he can dwell in our heart but so large that he fills the immensity of space.” Such was the debate for centuries in early Catholicism and those sympathetic to the Hellenized view of God, ultimately won the debate and New Testament Godhead theology was snuffed out until 1820.
The classic theological view of the creation is only an untenable theological position. Why? When we reduce this view of God from before the creation, we see only a pure consciousness – ever existing in an eternity past – ever perfect but never creating. This “consciousness” has consciousness in itself. However, this is a stolen concept from reality. The purpose of consciousness is to be conscious of “something.” The something is “existence” or matter and energy. To be conscious only belongs to the reality where in there is existence co-dwelling with a consciousness.
Omniscience:
The classic view of omniscience only works if God has “eyes.” Since it is said that he is outside the “universe” bubble and can “LOOK” into the bubble, he must have “eyes” to peer into this bubble. But not just one eye, millions of eyes, so he can see the bubble from all angles and perspectives. And, what evidence do we have that such “eyes” can even accomplish such a thing in the first place?
But, if he’s everywhere INSIDE THE BUBBLE, (omniscience) then he’s really not exclusively outside space and time is he? See the problem? Mormons define omniscience as knowing all truth in existence: things as they were, as they are, and as they will be – God remembers all laws and events in existence (reality), knows all current events and processes in existence, (reality) and knows what future events or processes will occur in the future. The real question should be, How does the Mormon God do all of that without existing outside space and time? The answer: through God’s glory and his connection to all matter and energy in the universe.
Omnipresence:
No, Jeremy, Mormons do not believe that because God is corporeal he is subject to the same limits AS HUMANS. Your “watchmen” analogy just failed, again.
In Mormonism, God is perfect which does not refer only to a perfection of form but a perfect of substance. God has overcome all inherit weaknesses of human flesh and therefore, all things are subject to him – he is not subject to them. While God’s physical body is localized, his glory and influence fill the immensity of space, and the Holy Spirit and his influence also testify and witness throughout space of the reality (literal existence) of the Father and Son.
Change:
No, Jeremy, Mormons do not claim that God is “ever-evolving.” Mormons claim that God is perfect and has been perfect for longer than we can comprehend – there is no increase to his perfection, but only that his glory and dominion expand because of his NEW creations.
Classic theists hold a very curious position when it comes to God’s “unchanging nature.” Ultimately, it is an untenable position. Why? Remember what we did above when we reduced the classic view of God to a pure consciousness originating from outside space and time? Where God dwelled – ever perfect and never creating? If God’s perfection was complete in such a state, then why did he “change” and start creating? The view of God as a static non-creator turned creator only 6000 years and 6 days ago, is the most recent and dramatic theological change in history and would categorize the Christian God as the “newest” creator on the cosmological block. In Mormonism, God has been creating for billions upon billions of years - the earth isn’t his first creation wherein he has “peopled” a planet and saved and sanctified its inhabitants - his children.
Corporeality:
True, Mormons do not agree with traditional Christianity’s view that God is “spirit” only. But, that position is inconsistent with the message of the Old Testament and New Testament witnesses of God. So where did this “spirit only” idea come from? Early Catholicism. From there doctrine stuck by creedal declaration and it was inherited centuries later by Protestants and passed down until today.
You see, when a person holds to the position that God is everywhere and nowhere or outside space and time – then God cannot be corporeal – at least according to classical metaphysics of the 3rd and 4th centuries. However, those theologians didn’t understand the true nature of matter, energy, and light.
Ultimately, this is a philosophical debate of whether the Mormon view of God is more compatible with the Bible.
Recently, it would seem that Christian scholars are unwittingly making concessions, that Mormon revelation on the creeds and the nature of God is correct, by demonstrating that the Orthodox Trinity doctrine is not a biblical doctrine. What scholars?
First, allow me to introduce Dr. Emil Brunner.
Emil Brunner was born near Zurich. He studied at both the universities of Zurich and Berlin, receiving his doctorate in theology from Zurich in 1913. Brunner insisted that Jesus was God incarnate and central to salvation. Brunner undoubtedly holds a place of prominence in Protestant theology in the 20th century and was one of the four or five system builders. Dr. Brunner is not an enemy of Orthodox Christianity. He is an Orthodox Christian scholar of the most upstanding type. He found:
“When we turn to the problem of the doctrine of the Trinity, we are confronted by a peculiarly contradictory situation. On the one hand, the history of Christian theology and of dogma teaches us to regard the dogma of the Trinity as the distinctive element in the Christian idea of God, that which distinguishes it from the idea of God in Judaism and in Islam, and indeed, in all forms of rational Theism. Judaism, Islam, and rational Theism are Unitarian. On the other hand, we must honestly admit that the doctrine of the Trinity did not form part of the early Christian-New Testament-message. Certainly, it cannot be denied that not only the word “Trinity”, but even the explicit idea of the Trinity is absent from the apostolic witness of the faith. The doctrine of the Trinity itself, however, is not a Biblical Doctrine…” Emil Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of God (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1949), 205, 236.
Second, The new “Godhead” conceived in the Nicene Trinity was not taught in the Church prior to the Council in 325 A.D. Edwin Hatch, (bio here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Hatch) an emeritus professor of Ecclesiastical History at the University of Oxford taught,
“And if the doctrine of God now espoused by the various sects is foreign to the thought of the primitive Church, what was the Godhead of the early Church like? Indeed, we find in the early Church the true doctrine of a Godhead consisting of three distinct persons who are completely separate in substance, but one in will - the Father presiding over the Son and the Son over the Spirit.” [Hatch, E., The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages upon the Christian Church, (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1957,) p. 124.]
Third, Justin Martyr, a follower of Christ from 100-161 A.D. wrote that God abides
“in places that are above the heavens:” the “first-begotten,” the Logos, is the “first force after the Father:” he is “a second God, second numerically but not in will,” doing only the Father’s pleasure. He also maintained that the Son is “in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third.” —[Justin Martyr, First Apology 13, in Davies, J.G., The Early Christian Church, (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1995,) p. 97.]
Fourth, another bible scholar states:
“...no doctrine of the Trinity in the Nicene sense is present in the New Testament ... there is no doctrine of the Trinity in the strict sense in the Apostolic Fathers ... to judge the Apologists by post-Nicene theology would be grossly unfair. Isolated passages could be cited to support the notion that the Apologists taught subordination within the deity”
- William G. Rusch, Lutheran Scholar (”The Trinitarian Controversy. Sources of Early Christian Thought”, Fortress Press, 1980, 2,3,6)
Fifth, “... it is absurd to imagine (as some fundamentalists seem to do) that Christians today, armed with no knowledge of Christian history but only with their Bibles, could arrive at orthodox theories of, say, the Incarnation or the Trinity ... tradition helps us to grasp - as we see preeminently with the doctrine of the Trinity - that a doctrine or idea can be deemed normative for Christians despite the absence of any clear proof texts specifically teaching it” [Stephen T. Davis, Conservative Protestant Philosopher, Professor of Philosophy and Religion, Claremont McKenna College, “Philosophy and Theological Discourse, St. Martin’s Press, 1997, 47-68]
Sixth, “... thus the New Testament itself is far from any doctrine of the Trinity or of a triune God who is three co-equal Persons of One Nature” [William J Hill, “The Three-Personed God”, Washington, D.C., The Catholic University of American Press (1982, 27]
I understand the need for Christians to worship God in their own way. I believe that all men must be permitted to worship God “according to dictates of their own conscience”.
However, that the doctrine of the Orthodox Trinity should be used as a measuring stick for God’s nature, or for Jeremy’s authority for ridiculing the Mormon view of God with a comic flair, is unbiblical and absurd.