I’m back at it with Part 2 in my quest to answer Greg Trimble’s 51 questions that might lead you to Mormonism. Here is Part 1 in case you missed it.
Some quick caveats for those that missed my first post.. These answers will be short and to the point. I’m not trying give a complete answer, nor am I trying to convert anyone out of Mormonism. If I throw in a joke or two it’s to keep things interesting and not a personal attack on Trimble or an attempt to disrespect the Mormon faith.
On with the show!
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5
6. Who was “God” talking to when He said “Let us” make man in “our” image and after “our” likeness? (Genesis 1:26-27)
God was speaking to the other members of the Trinity. God is made up of three separate and unique persons in eternal community. Trinitarians are SO GLAD to see the word “let us” and “our” in Genesis. Plural personal references are exactly what we would hope to see. It’s a shadow of the revealed truth about God found in the New Testament.
7. Why do people believe God the Father and Jesus Christ are one being when Christ refers to himself and His Father as two men? (John 8:17-18)
Good news! We agree with Mormons that the Father and the Son are unique persons.
I don’t know if I should roll my eyes at questions like this or just suck it up and accept my lot in life that I will forever be answering the same question about the Trinity. Spirit Prison should be fun in comparison. For a number of reasons Mormons confuse Trinitarian beliefs with Modalism (the idea that there is one God who puts on a different mask for different purposes). We believe there is ONE God made up of THREE persons. This doesn’t mean we believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all the same. It also doesn’t mean that we believe that there are three gods. Confusing right? It’s even more confusing when you hope to pigeon hole us into something we don’t believe. I attempted to clear up the confusion on these ideas with a fun infographic found here.
8. The first Hebrew word for “God” renders the word “God” in the plural. Is there more than one god?
No there is only ONE God. It just so happens that there are three persons who exist as that deity. Traditional Christians walk a balancing line between the Biblical revelations that declare that there are THREE persons who are God and Biblical revelations that say there is only ONE God. Isaiah 45:5 is one example:
I am the Lord [Jehovah], and there is no other; apart from me there is no God. . .
9. Why does Paul say that there are lots of gods? (1 Cor 8:5)
Here’s 1 Corinthians 8:5-6
“For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), yet for us there is but one God, the Father,from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord,Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.”
Ummm, awkward. . . .I’m tempted to believe that answering this is piling on. . .but what the heck. . . Paul is acknowledging that people worship all kinds of “gods”. That doesn’t mean that Christians should think they actually exist. [Seriously dude, you can do better than this, right?]
10. Why do so many of the “Early Christian Fathers” (those that were closest to the New Testament church) and respected Christian scholars such as C.S. Lewis speak of there being multiple gods?
Context, Context, Context. After our little adventure into 1 Corinthians I imagine this could be quite a wild ride in the follies of poor reading comprehension and proof-texting. In all of those instances, even with the most generous reading toward Mormon thought, the context shows that God is all together different than mortal humans. They are not one in the same species. They are in completely different categories.
11. The word “God” is a title. It’s not the actual name of Christ and it’s not the name of Heavenly Father. So could others like you and I be called using that same title someday if we are faithful children of a being with the title of “God”? (John 10:30-36) (Romans 8:16-17)
Traditional Christians believe that God is an “uncreated creator”. We are “created” and therefore can NEVER be “uncreated creators”. Even if we somehow create in a pattern similar to God it is IMPOSSIBLE for us to be “uncreated”.
My children are adopted. They have every right to everything I may have but they can NEVER be a part of my biological line (that’s good news for them as puberty approaches). The New Testament makes it quite clear that we are sons and daughters of God via adoption. We have all that he has but we can not be deity even if we are invited to judge and create along side of him. [I can’t divert too deeply here but in John 10 Jesus is quoting Psalm 82 which condemns foreign judges who judge unjustly despite being recognized as “gods”. Jesus is telling the Pharisess “why are you so concerned with me saying that I’m God when you are like those corrupt foreign judges” JESUS SMACK].
12. Christ tells us to become perfect. God is perfect. Does that mean we can become like God? (Matt 5:48)
I tell my daughter to do her chores. Does that mean she can become a man?
Though we have a path to perfection through Christ we can NEVER be an “uncreated creator”. We are a different thing than deity.
13. Why would Christ be resurrected with his actual body if he was only just a manifestation of the Father?
The Son is not a manifestation of the Father (look at that, I used bold, underline and italics). They are separate persons. You have us confused with Modalist. Jesus was resurrected with his actual body because that’s his body (and he’s the only member of the Trinity to have a human body).
14. You must accept Christ in order to be saved. But what if you never even heard of the name of Christ while in your lifetime?
Oh boy, buckle in. There are LOTS of different answers to this question. . . Ah forget it I’m not going to recap every book written on this topic. I’ll just give you my viewpoint.
In Romans 1 and 2 Paul says that people who have never heard the law are still in judgment because they have creation before them which testifies to them that God exists. All men are judged for their own sins and for what knowledge of God they possess. God knows every heart and will judge fairly based on each individuals understanding.
God is a GOOD judge so I trust him.
15. Would a just God condemn someone merely because of the space of time in which they lived on the earth?
No. People condemn themselves by their own rejection of God. Time and space have nothing to do with it. People don’t need to hear the name of Jesus to be judged and (I don’t think) they need to hear the name “Jesus” to be saved BUT no one can save them but Jesus.
By the way, has anyone told you that you’re a pestilent can of cheese whiz with the disposition of an arthritic orangutan with multiple hemorrhoids? No? Good because no one should have to put up with that kind of disrespect.
16. If baptism is required for salvation as taught by Jesus Christ (John 3:3-5), what happens to those that never had the chance to be baptized such as infants that died near child birth?
Jesus also tells the thief on the cross that he will be in Paradise that very day with no chance to be baptized. Baptism is important but not necessary for salvation.
Also when Jesus mentions “born of water” in John 3:5 he means that “water birth” is natural birth and it is different than “spirit birth”. I KNOW you think I’m just making that up but go look into what NT Wright or someone else smart has to say about it.
Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.
17. Why would Paul speak to the Corinthians about baptism for the dead, and why is this concept overlooked in mainstream Christianity? (1 Cor 15:29)
All of my research into this topic has led me to conclude that the Corinthians had an isolated practice of baptizing corpses. When they baptized the dead, they were LITERALLY baptizing dead bodies. There is no indication that this is proxy baptism as practiced by Mormons. So . . . if this is important to you, you better start digging up some graves.
We have A LOT of writings from Early Christianity. Christians weren’t widely instructed to follow this practice. I KNOW, I KNOW this is evidence of the Great Apostasy. . . OR it could be an example of early Christians trying to figure out how important baptism was. 1 Corinthians is one of the first books written in the New Testament. That there was no further mention of this practice seems to mean something (but not necessarily everything). The Book of Acts gives us clear instruction as Gentile believers to avoid meat sacrificed to idols but we’re all going out for Chinese food because later instruction said it was okay.
18. Why would Christ preach to the dead if the people that had died without confessing Christ had no chance in the after life? (1 Peter 3:18-19) (1 Pet 4:6)
It seems that people who died BEFORE Jesus’s death on the cross had an opportunity in the afterlife.
Why would Mormons make ignorant people accountable for knowledge of the Gospel if they stand a better chance of receiving the message in the afterlife? Seems like a lot of time and effort could be saved if you really believe that eternity exists to sort this out.
19. Many pastors get paid big bucks to be pastors when Paul says we should minister for free? Should a church have a paid or unpaid ministry? (1 Cor 9:18)
I want to be VERY clear about this. There are some people in “Christian ministry” who are making obscene amounts of money and it would be better for them to have a millstone around their necks. They are disgusting.
That being said. The average Christian pastor in the United States makes around $28,000. I have defended the LDS church’s practice of paying General Authorities despite the fact that most of them get paid over six figures. If you think Paul is condemning practice you’re not reading him carefully enough. He’s actually supporting it all the while rejecting his opportunity to receive financial support. I think it’s GREAT that Mormon Bishops serve without pay. It has its pluses and minuses.
But don’t be so naive to think that the LDS church does not have people in paid ministry. Everyone in the Quorum of the 70 on up is receiving a salary, not to mention all the CES instructors, Mission Presidents and staff at Church headquarters.
Many of the wealthiest Christian pastors receive most of their income from book sales. Rick Warren and Francis Chan both donate 90% of their income away. Even Joel Osteen [shudder] refuses a salary from his church. The Quorum of the Twelve Apostles are also receiving income from their book sales not to mention the salaries as board members of church owned for-profit businesses.
Did you know Mormon bishops in Utah used to receive 8% of all tithing income in their ward?
If you want to debate with me the difference between a salary and a “living allowance” I can assure you I’m NOT INTERESTED.
20. What does Paul mean when he says we can become an heir of God and a joint-heir with Jesus Christ? (Romans 8:16-17)
Thanks for asking! I really appreciate how interested you are in what I think. Thanks for setting aside the time to ask me these questions and to listen patiently to my answers.
Romans 8:14-17
“For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God. The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again;rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship. And by him we cry, “Abba, Father.” The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children. Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory”
It means that we get everything God can give us. His glory and his suffering. Unfortunately for us God can not make his creations “uncreated”. Despite receiving resurrection, glory, honor and praise that won’t make us deity.
Hey! We’re over a third of the way there. Way to go… to all of us… but mostly me.
LDS & Evangelical Conversations 
“12. Christ tells us to become perfect. God is perfect. Does that mean we can become like God? (Matt 5:48)”
Christ does not say that. He said (says), “Be perfect…”
That imperative means now. Not marching orders for a project to be completed somewhere down the line.
Just an FYI. Thanks.
Good catch, theoldadam.
Tim, will this appear in hardback or paperback?
Mormons presumably would agree with that. But what “everything” is, of course, depends, as you suggest, on what the nature of humankind is. I’d say that this issue is probably the biggest difference between Mormon and traditional/orthodox Christianity.
I think you stated your perspective well. But I do have one question; What is your source for believing that literally dead people were being baptized during Paul’s time? That’s the first time I’ve heard that explanation. I’d say that the most straightforward reading is that some Christians were undergoing proxy baptisms for reasons that Paul doesn’t explain. If I weren’t LDS, I’d think that they were doing that perhaps as a way of honoring the deceased or perhaps because they found baptism such a rewarding spiritual experience that they looked for ways to do it again. I think you (as a traditional/orthodox Christian) could acknowledge the historicity of proxy baptism without believing that it was an efficacious ritual.
The Trinity questions here are definitely bush league–as usual, they’re a criticism of Modalism, which we Trinitarians agree is a heresy. All of the verses Mormons trot out to supposedly refute Trinitarianism are the same ones we Trinitarians use to support Trinitarianism and refute Modalism. So, prooftexting fail because Trinitarianism fail. You need to actually know what you are criticizing before you can criticize it well.
I still think that the best that can be said about the Trinitarianism argument is this: the Bible explicitly teaches God’s Oneness but then turns around and shows us God’s apparent Threeness. Trinitarianism is the only way to resolve this without claiming that the Bible’s teachings about God’s oneness are wrong or that the Bible’s demonstration of God’s threeness is merely an illusion. All non-trinitarian conceptions of God have to go in one of these directions, but they are both unacceptable answers because they create worse contradictions than they solve.
Eric said
I agree
I’ll see if I can find it again, It’s been many years.
I agree, I think it’s an inoffensive waste of time. Weird but not really heterodox.
Is there more evidence for it than just 1 Cor 15:29?
Eric,
The Pillar Commentary on 1 Cor has a good break down of a number of views on 1 Cor 15:29. The footnotes provide a number of larger references.
The authors reasons are almost all negative. He doesn’t give reasons FOR being a Mormon, he just seems to be attacking Protestant Christianity, without understanding it in the least, or offering any reason why the Mormon approach is any better (or even as good). His first point is ludicrous: If 40,000 Christian denominations is bad, how does forming number 40,001 (or, 40,100) improve this in any way? I gave up half-way through the list, but from what I saw, you do a good job of debunking, Tim.
The authors complete lack of familiarity with the Christian view of God is shocking. I don’t understand how anyone could read either the Bible or the Book of Mormon and come away with the idea that the great ‘I Am’ is actually one of many equally powerful Deities. Even the Book of Mormon is Monotheistic, and has a triune view of God. If the Nicene creed is wrong, then the books of Alma and Mosiah are wrong.
Its certainly not wrong for a Mormon to mis-understand Christianity, but is is wrong to slam Christianity without even attempting to understand it in the least.
Kullervo and Gundek: Wikipedia, which I am loathe to ever cite because its dependability is so wildly variable, lists numerous interpretations of the verse and provides some limited ancient history of the practice. I think the best that can be said is that while the standard LDS interpretation of the verse is reasonable, namely that proxy baptism of some sort occurred during Paul’s time, it’s not the only plausible interpretation.
Kullervo said, “Is there more evidence for it than just 1 Cor 15:29?”
The non-Mormon Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible says, “There is evidence of some such rite [baptism for the dead] being practiced by early heretical sects.”
Eric, I’m not just talking about evidence of proxy baptism as a plausible interpretation of 1 Cor 15:29, I’m talking about evidence of proxy baptism as a bona fide historical practice.
Cal, obviously Paul mentions baptism for the dead; that’s not at issue here. The issue is what did Paul mean by that, and as Eric has pointed out, proxy baptism for the deceased is just one plausible interpretation, and the one we are concerned with. So I am asking about historical evidence specifically for proxy baptism.
Of course, “bona fide” is in the eye of the beholder. But I think it’s safe to say that if it were a widespread, common practice, we’d have extracanonical sources that said so.
Sorry, I only meant “bona fide” in the sense that anyone actually did it. Bona fide history, not a bona fide practice.
I think 14 and 15 are huge problems for Arminians, and the reason why I roll my eyes about Arminian criticisms of Calvinism on moral grounds.
Kullervo, got ya.
How?
Eric,
Tim says you folks believe humans are of the same species as God. Though I’m aware that the LDS believes humans were never created, only organized, does the LDS ever use Tim’s phrase “same species” as he does?
Yes, they say it a lot.
Thanks, Katie. You’re nicer looking than Eric.
Kullervo,
I checked the Baker Encyclopedia again. It goes on to say,
“Chrysostom, an early church father, writing about the heretical Marcionites (2nd century AD), reported that when any catechumen (candidate for church membership) among them died without baptism, the Marcionites would conceal a living person under the couch where the corpse lay and ask if it would like to be baptized. The hidden person would reply yes and then would be baptized on behalf of the dead one.”
Does that answer your question? I wondered why you had been hiding under couches, Kullervo.
Sorry, Katie—my wife just said that was flirtatious.
Cal, thanks. That is a good example of what I was asking for–not just evidence of some historical practice called baptism for the dead (which, as we have discussed, could mean a variety of things), but specifically evidence for baptism of living people by proxy for individual dead people.
That said, it’s Chrysostom talking about the alleged practices of the Marcionites, so who knows how reliable it is. But it’s more than nothing.
Kullervo, good point.
Cal asked
Yes and no.
In any official way, the phrase itself has essentially no use. On the church’s voluminous website, I could find the phrase used only once in this context, in a magazine article from 1977 about Joseph Smith. The doctrine simply isn’t presented officially using that term.
Katie L is right, however. It is very common for the doctrine to be described that way by typical members.
Interestingly, there is nothing about this doctrine in our canonized scriptures that implies this beyond what already is in the Bible. The belief comes primarily from Smith’s King Follett sermon, in which God is described as an “exalted man.” Although extracanonical, that phrase is the one that is used most often in reference to the doctrine.
The belief can also be found in diluted form in the quasi canonical Proclamation on the Family.
The belief is described in one of the church’s recent essays like this:
So does all that imply we’re of the same species? I could argue either way, and it’s probably a semantic question as much as anything.
Many Mormons believe that God was a human being somewhere before He became God. I don’t.
This is important because, by contrast, orthodox Christians do not believe that humans are “children of God in a full and complete sense.” We’re God’s creations, not His children. We only become His children by adoption.
This is one of the reasons why Cal is desperate to blur the lines between Mormonism’s concept of God and the Biblical, orthodox picture of God. Cal is a part of the Word of Faith movement, which, among other things, has moved significantly away from the orthodox position on the distinction between creator and created. Make no mistake; Cal is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Amen, brother. I can certainly empathize with you. Hopefully you can empathize a little with us too next time you see a similar list of questions for Mormons.
Kullervo
“Trinitarianism is the only way to resolve this without claiming that the Bible’s teachings about God’s oneness are wrong or that the Bible’s demonstration of God’s threeness is merely an illusion.”
I have to disagree. The doctrine of the Godhead as taught by the LDS holds to both the oneness and the three of God, and thus resolves the issue just as effectively as Trinitarianism. The difference is that the Godhead doesn’t try to do this be claiming that a singular is a plural and thus making itself impossible to understand.
Simply put, there is One God. That one God is the Godhead, which is a ruling presidency. This presidency is comprised of three separate and distinct beings. Thus we have the oneness and the threeness.
Tim
1 Corinthians 8: 5
Maybe on this question you should use the translation that Trimble does.
“For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)”
While I realize that you can argue that this is referring to false gods, that is not the only way to see it. Actually, I would argue that it isn’t even the most logical way. You can clear it up by changing the translation, but then you get back to the question of contradictions within the text.
From the KJV it can be very logically argued that Paul was acknowledging that the title ‘god’ can and should be applied to many (as there are gods many), but for us we worship only one.
shematwater, that is denying God’s oneness. You’re re-defining oneness to mean threeness after all. When you use the same word but you mean the exact opposite, that doesn;t mean you’re saying the same thing.
Put another way, you’re basically doing the same thing as the Modalists who (effectively) contend that God’s apparent threeness is an illusion: you’re saying that the Old Testament pronouncements of God’s oneness are deceptive. There’s no way you can read Isaiah 44:6, 8 and Isaiah 45:5, 21 and think that it’s talking about a divine oligarchy.
Shematwater,
Ignoring for the moment the immediate context of false gods and idolatry in 1 Corinthians 8 why would you insist on the primacy of the King James translation for any passage? Doesn’t that simply ignore 400 years of accrued manuscript evidence and scholarship?
Eric,
Thanks for your very complete answer. You’re a valuable source.
Kullervo said, “the Biblical, orthodox picture of God”
If “biblical” and “orthodox” mean the same, why bother to use the word “orthodox”?
I recently observed an evangelical get himself into trouble on this forum when a very knowledgeable Mormon came along and quoted early church fathers in agreement with Mormonism. The evangelical lost his credibility when he admitted that early church fathers weren’t always correct. I feel it’s wiser to go straight to the Supreme Court, the Bible itself. Why mess around with secondary sources? Because we like arguing?
Cal, I use both Biblical and orthodox for clarity, because Mormons (and you) claim their picture of God is also Biblical.
Kullervo – I don’t think this is what you’re saying, but I hope none of us are under the illusion that Evangelicalism is part of orthodox Christianity.
Of course it absolutely is. (Evangelicalism is orthodox and catholic, although it is not Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic).
Kullervo
I never said we believe the same as you, only that our doctrine also solves the dilemma you mention, and does so without any internal contradiction. Of course I am saying something different than you.
However, I have in no way said that the claims of oneness are deceptive in any way. I clearly stated that they are completely true, but are misunderstood by trinitarians. I do a much better job of explaining it here https://shematwater.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=75&action=edit.
“There’s no way you can read Isaiah 44:6, 8 and Isaiah 45:5, 21 and think that it’s talking about a divine oligarchy.”
Sure there is. I do it every time I read Isaiah.
Gundeck
“Doesn’t that simply ignore 400 years of accrued manuscript evidence and scholarship?”
No. It simply questions it. And I am not the only one to do so. I like these article
http://www.biblicalresearchreports.com/bestbible.php
http://www.biblicalresearchreports.com/smallniv.php
Now, in regards to my last comment, the reason I said it should be used to answer the question is because it was used to ask the question. Using the NIV to basically dismiss a question promted by the KJV is a poor response, unless it is going to include some reason as to why the person asking the question should use the NIV instead. But that was not done here.
JT, yes, Evangelicalism is within orthodox Christianity.
Yeah . . . try selling that over in Europe. Good luck.
(Hint: They think you’re a cult)
What?
Ah, Europe… So very specific. And I imagine there are lots of folks in the US, too, who see Ev’s as nuts, too. What’s your point?
No, stop. We need to clear this up. Although “Evangelical” often gets used as a synonym for “American non-denominational Protestant,” that’s not the first or only sense of the word. From the Reformation, “evangelicalism” has simply meant a focus on the central message of justification by faith as the Gospel. Thus, people in and out of many denominations can be described as “evangelical.” That’s what we’re talking about here.
“Evangelical” is one of those terms that does have many meanings. I view it as those who accept the basic and fundamental teachings of Christianity, that is the identity of Christ, justification by faith alone, primacy of the Bible, and the Tri-une God. This is captured by many, many groups, not all have the word “Evangelical” in their names.
So Roman Catholicism is not a part of orthodox Christianity?
Don’t change terms on us, JT. Orthodox is different from evangelical, though there are real and important overlapping points of belief.
Of course it is. Orthodox Christianity is a larger category than evangelical.
JT, there are three branches of orthodox/traditional Christianity (small “o” orthodox)
1. Catholic
2. Orthodox (Eastern Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, etc)
3. Protestant
The term “Evangelical” is a bit like the term “confessional”. It can be applied across all three branches of the Christianity. Most people described as “Evangelical” happen to be Protestant but “Evangelicalism” is not a subset of Protestantism.
I’m looking specifically at Slowcowboy’s definition:
Right; that’s slowcowboy’s definition of evangelicalism, not his definition of orthodoxy. Most Roman Catholics can’t be described as evangelical.
In this context, since I brought up the word, it’s important to note that I am talking about an orthodox theology, not orthodox individuals. The doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation as spelled out in the historic Christian creeds are orthodox doctrines, and they are believed by almost all Protestants, Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox.
My apologies – didn’t read his comment closely enough – thought he was defining orthodox Christianity.
Tisk tisk.
🙂
No problem.