Evidence for God from Science

We'll be moving on from here and I am thinking of exploring the Mormon doctrine of Salvation in more details. It seems we stopped before really exploring this. So to begin:

Mormon’s when speaking to Christians concerning salvation it is good to know that the Mormon definition is not the same as Bible’s. The bible is the source to measure doctrine and false doctrine. Mormons use the same words like eternal life, salvation, heaven, hell, outer darkness, grace as orthodox Christianity uses, however, they redefine these words to fit their point of view. Again, the bible itself clarifies the meanings of these words very clearly. So as we explore this in more details, you will see this come to light.

Mormonism teaches that there is a general salvation and an individual salvation. As much as I admire Glenn Beck and rally behind his efforts to unite the County – he does use the term Individual Salvation. If he is using this in the context of Mormon thought, I do not know. I do know he means well, but he does need to question with equal boldness Mormon doctrine and history.

General Salvation – means basically the resurrection of the body/soul/spirit every one receives without obeying gospel law. It means immortality. If any Mormons read this, feel free to expound more.

Individual Salvation in Mormonism does not mean the salvation of the individual through God’s gift of true Grace as the bible teaches. It means, according to Joseph Fielding Smith in, Doctrine of Salvation 1:134 in summery this that individual salvation is the means by which human beings merits / earns through their own acts/deeds during this mortal life by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel in order to achieve exaltation i.e. become a god (The gospel as interpreted by the LDS church)

In other words, you got to earn the right to become a god through doing certain works of the law, LDS church membership, marriage, etc…Individual salvation results in becoming your own god by doing great and good LDS church ordained LDS church interpretation of gospel good works.

That is it in a nutshell. If anyone would like to add more, please do…

We’ll continue latter on…
-
-
-

The LDS do not oppose the "trinity" I would say from the OP (original post) Mormons vehemently oppose the trinity as the OP believes it. I had to add a little so that it is clear that the beliefs of each party differ.

1stjohn0666 wrote:The LDS do not oppose the "trinity" I would say from the OP (original post) Mormons vehemently oppose the trinity as the OP believes it. I had to add a little so that it is clear that the beliefs of each party differ.

Mormonism teaches against the biblical trinity.

Mormons never use the word trinity because we believe in the Godhead as explained in the first article of faith; “We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost”. We believe they are separate beings but one in the same purpose; providing a plan of salvation for mankind.

from:http://iamamormon.wordpress.com/2011/03 ... y-trinity/
What Mormonism teaches is not the trinity. They teach their own view of the "Godhead".

rick is quite right on this 1stjohn0666 if that is even your real name o_O lol

I oppose the trinity all together. The doctrine of the trinity is "post biblical" and comes from the creeds. Depending on which one you go by is also a factor on how you believe it. That is to say, does one have to believe the trinity to be saved or not? The Creeds have both statements. John 17:3 will suffice that Jesus excludes himself from the "only true God" 1 Cor 15:24-28 say that Jesus must hand back what was given to him, so that his Father and our Father, his God and our God can be all in all. Jesus is never omniscient because he does not know the hour of his return. John 1:1-18 lack the trinity doctrine in this sense, there is never mention of the 3rd member in those texts. Gen 1 "and God (the Father) spoke" John 1 "in the beginning was the word" Deut 18:18 I will raise up a prophet from among you "and put my (the Father) words in his (the Messiah) mouth. But as Mormons oppose the trinity, they do not. Here is from the book of Mormon, Mormon 7:7 7 "And he hath brought to pass the redemption of the world, whereby he that is found guiltless before him at the judgment day hath it given unto him to dwell in the presence of God in his kingdom, to sing ceaseless praises with the choirs above, unto the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one God, in a state of happiness which hath no end." It should be noted that here is plain evidence of the trinity "unto the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one God" There it is plain as to all can see 3 in 1

Unity of purpose does not suffice as a definition of the Trinity, for such a definition does not see the three Persons as homoousios--of the same substance. Perhaps Tritheism but not Trinitarianism.

I would believe the "homoousios" thing if it was actually in the written texts of the bible. It most certainly exists in the "post biblical" Creeds. The Creeds in my honest opinion are not scripture or even "inspired" God breathed documents. The LDS still do not oppose the "trinity" theory. However I do

The place of so-called non-biblical words in theology is irrelevant to the point I made. You said that Mormons believe in the Trinity because the talk about "The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." I just pointed out the fact that such wording is insufficient to define the Trinity. The Mormon understanding of those terms is a unity of purpose, not a homoousios. Since the Trinity necessarily, definitionally presupposes the homoousios, then Mormons, in opposing the homoousios, necessarily oppose the Trinity.

1stjohn0666 wrote:I would believe the "homoousios" thing if it was actually in the written texts of the bible. It most certainly exists in the "post biblical" Creeds. The Creeds in my honest opinion are not scripture or even "inspired" God breathed documents. The LDS still do not oppose the "trinity" theory. However I do

The creeds were written with the language of the times in a way that the people of the times could understand them.
If the creeds were to have been written NOW, the wording and words used would be far different.
If they had been outside of Hellenistic/Greek culture of word usage, they would also have been different.

PaulSacramento wrote:

1stjohn0666 wrote:I would believe the "homoousios" thing if it was actually in the written texts of the bible. It most certainly exists in the "post biblical" Creeds. The Creeds in my honest opinion are not scripture or even "inspired" God breathed documents. The LDS still do not oppose the "trinity" theory. However I do

The creeds were written with the language of the times in a way that the people of the times could understand them.
If the creeds were to have been written NOW, the wording and words used would be far different.
If they had been outside of Hellenistic/Greek culture of word usage, they would also have been different.

Would you then say that the meaning of the creeds would also have been different?

If a word is not in the bible, it is only common sense that the word is "not biblical" I will give credit to translation however. I would like to know where in the bible is God an "essence" I do know that we could agree that God is "Spirit" Pneuma for the Greek. As for homoouisa, it is not supported by scripture or even translatable from the scriptures. As for a theological purpose, yes the words need and must be present to support such a radical claim. The Creeds are preached "into" scripture, rather than "from" scripture.
Peace John

1stjohn0666 wrote:If a word is not in the bible, it is only common sense that the word is "not biblical" I will give credit to translation however. I would like to know where in the bible is God an "essence" I do know that we could agree that God is "Spirit" Pneuma for the Greek. As for homoouisa, it is not supported by scripture or even translatable from the scriptures. As for a theological purpose, yes the words need and must be present to support such a radical claim. The Creeds are preached "into" scripture, rather than "from" scripture.
Peace John

John 4:24 "God is spirit.."

What is a Spirit?
-
-
-
Note also 2 Co 3:17 - 1 Ti 1:17 for reference and...

...As for Mormonism - Romans 1:20, 23

Why not grab a Lexicon and look up "bible words", you will find Pneuma (Spirit) but you will not find "essence" or as the Geek ousia. Still my question is unanswered "Where in the bible is God an essence or ousia?"

homoousian
And
http://www.basictheology.com/definitions/Homoousios/

1stjohn0666 wrote:Why not grab a Lexicon and look up "bible words", you will find Pneuma (Spirit) but you will not find "essence" or as the Geek ousia. Still my question is unanswered "Where in the bible is God an essence or ousia?"

God and Jesus are of the same nature, or essence. We're not saying God is an "essence". We're saying God's essence, or his nature is... The Greek ousios, is nature or essence in English.
Homo, means same. When homo, and ousios are put together, it makes homoousios. Which means, same nature, or same essence.