Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Even the very first point is stated rather politically by referencing "at the time" of the events of the Bible. That's wrong. He wasn't just God "at the time". Jesus is God. He always has been and always will be. He is true God. He is not simply "part" of God, nor is he "a god". He is God.
I think you're missing something big here Vizio. One of the very compelling things about Mormonism (and to a lesser degree, the other Restorationist faiths): Is their belief that God is, not was.
Frederic Nietzsche postulated that "God is dead" as the precursor to his own bizarre philosophy of elevating certain humans to godlike status. But stop and think for a second. Why would Nietzsche conclude that God is dead? Possibly because God hadn't bothered to speak to humankind for almost 2000 years?
This is where the notion of a closed canon becomes so very puzzling. It establishes this notion that a loving and eternal God used to speak but stopped at some point -- leaving the door wide open for idiots like Nietzsche to point the finger and say "clearly, if there ever was a God, he is either dead or he has completely abandoned humankind." In the LDS faith, God still speaks. Whether you accept their apostles and prophets as legitimate is another question entirely, but the idea is extremely compelling.
Also (depending on how I'm interpreting your statement) your statement that "Jesus is not part of God" contradicts the Nicene Trinity that you apparently believe so fervently. If Jesus is the whole of God and not just one part of the whole that is God, then Jesus becomes the Father and the Holy Spirit. That or your statement deletes Father and Spirit from God entirely, making them all one and the same person (Unitarianism). That's the trouble with the Trinity: It is layer upon layer upon layer of contradiction and confusion. After spending years and years trying to understand it, I gave up. Only after giving up did I truly come to realize that the formal doctrine of the Trinity isn't even taught in the Bible. The Trinity is simply one possible interpretation of the God described in the Bible.
I've asked this before but I don't think you've ever given me a straight answer. The Ecumenical Council of Nicaea was only the first of several Ecumenical Councils that essentially created the formal doctrine of the Trinity out of thin air. Do you believe that the Ecumenical Councils are superior to the Bible in authority from God?
Overbearing PRIDE in what one believes and intolerance to those who believe otherwise is what has produced the many evils the church has been heir to . . . like witch burnings, Inquisitions, massacres of heretics, and the like. Whether or not one calls it hatred . . . the result is the same . . . unconscionable evil. There is no Christ in such Christianity. I am confident that they will be among those to whom Christ will say "Depart from me . . ."
You're sitting here in judgment of us because we dare to say someone is incorrect in their understanding of the Bible, and you are comparing us to people that burned witches at the stake and massacred heretics.
A correct assessment of the nature or heart of those who believe they can cast stones; it's a vexation to the Spirit of Christ.
Katzpur never avoided explaining her Church's position. She did so often, thoroughly, and with great patience.
To suggest otherwise is to do her a grave disservice.
Amen. Katz repeatedly explained her views on what Mormons considered Jesus Christ to be. She tried vainly to establish a distinction between what is actually LDS doctrine and what is and has been mere opinion of various leaders . . . a distinction the haters refused to countenance. They wanted to focus on and expected her to defend indefensible opinions from anti-Mormon sites . . . because the non-doctrinal opinions of some of the leaders found there fed their preferred hatred and disdain for Mormonism. Rather than try to understand the truth . . . they simply wanted to (and continue to want to) just bash Mormonism.
You're a fairly new poster so (I'm cutting you a massive break here even though your low blow is noted) perhaps you don't understand that Katzpur has been freely explaining her religion on C-D for a very long time. She was even explaining it in the POC threads during the last presidential election.
She's one of the smartest, and fairest, posters on C-D. If you took the time to look at her past posts you will see that she has had a great deal of patience dealing with the same questions over and over. She's had her faith attacked over and over. She has a reason for not wanting to post here anymore.
It is NOT because of what her church teaches. It is also not a desire to avoid having to defend the LDS church. You'll just have to trust me on that. You can also trust me on one more thing:
It's not a lack of courage.
As someone who's seen this cycle over and over, it's pretty clear to my why she's not posting here anymore. But I'll keep it to myself.
Sadly this thread has departed from the OP.
With apologies to the op, this thread is now closed
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
