It seems evangelicals would rather believe that God made a defective angel rather than accept the fact that Lucifer was raised in the same loving household as Jesus, taught the same divine principles but threw all of that away because of his pride. I find the fact that Christ is our older brother makes me love Him even more for the atonement he worked out for us, his siblings, so we could all come back to Heavenly Father if we so choose.
@@bethhodges9213 Why would they not? No where does the Bible claim that Angels lack freewill? The word "angel" is used for both mortal messengers of God as well as supernatural ones. It's a job, not a species.
Would you say that using examples of scriptural brothers who took different paths would be a good way to discuss this? Cain and Abel, Jacob and Esau, Joseph and his brothers, Moses and the Pharaoh, Nephi and Laman and Lemuel for those who are familiar with the basics of the Book of Mormon, and even Judas vs the other Apostles, etc. There are so many instances where one brother took the righteous path and the other brother(s) took the unrighteous path. They're types of Christ and that relationship, though simplified and with much lesser eternal stakes.
@@allieooop3923 In LDS belief everyone - humans, God, Jesus, angels, devils - are all ontologically the same, at least in potential. God is the giant oak tree, and we are the acorns. We may grow up to be an oak tree, but right now we only have the potential to be such.
@@allieooop3923 I'm not sure, but I wonder if one of your thoughts driving this is that LDS-Christians don't think Jesus is actually God? You didn't say that outright, but I hear some echoes of it. We fully affirm that Jesus is eternal God.
@@allieooop3923 I hear your concern. I used to share it, to be honest. The whole point of these videos is to offer education and inspiration to Latter-day Saints who want to share the Gospel with non-LDS folks so I appreciate you being able to provide one version of how the concerns go. Thank you.
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh yeaaaaaaaaaaaah, The Godmakers... that came out right when I had joined the Church. Lots of interesting conversations resulted therefrom.... yeeesh...
Yeah, having served my mission during the '80's, the Godmakers was huge. You'd see it on billboards of churches all over the place. Of course, dialogue, during tracking, often turned to, "we believe in a 'different Jesus' than you do." This often translated to they were poisoned by this book/movie, in believing members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't at this moment in time, that it became popular to discount the Church as being a "Christian Church". Eventually, leaders of the Church would accept this claim, only in the sense that we're not from the same origin as the Catholic Church, and later, the Protestant movement. Being a restored church suggests that we have no connection to the historical Christian Church(s), and it's a pretty significant distinction. However, from the standpoint of worshiping, following and adhering to the teachings of Jesus Christ, we absolutely are Christian. So, yeah, what Jennifer says makes perfect sense.
I think another reason why they have difficulty with this is that it inevitably leads to the doctrine of apotheosis. If we, the whole human race, are actually the offspring of the Father, then that means that he intends for us to grow into that nature. That’s a hard doctrine for any other Bible believing religion, even Eastern Orthodox members, which seem to be the closest to us in this belief.
When Jesus quotes the Psalm that says know ye not that ye are gods, Evangelicals have interpreted gods as being righteous judges or similar that are created beings rather than the uncreated God. I would still be happy and in awe if this is the case. LDS should avoid arrogance in our view of gods. I like to say my favorite hymn is “I swam today where Jesus walked” 😇
I think the biggest hangup for Evangelicals is the lack of knowledge of how the One (or Other) of Plato and the creation of Aristole (from nothing) replaced the scriptural concepts a few centuries after Christ and the early apostles. That is where the "ontological" differences come from and why the scriptures are hard for many to accept. And speaking of the Godmakers. I just had to laugh. When I was researching the Church of Jesus Christ when I was looking for the one true church, I found that book. Even at that time, without the internet, I was able to find many half or quarter truths and errors with the scriptures and history. The lack of substance in the antichrist literature genre helped me to join the Restored Church. Hard to accept the antichrist literature claims when there is always a lie or omission somewhere in everything there.
Much of this issue is really what is the nature of angels. LDS theology treats all souls as being part of the same family. My issue with how critics address this issue is that they imply LDS believe some sort of equality between Jesus and Satan, which is not the case at all. The pre-mortal Jesus was Jehovah, the God of the Hebrew Bible. Even before gaining a body he was part of the Godhead. Lucifer was nothing near that. It would be more accurate to say LDS believe that Satan used to be humanity's brother, before he was disinherited from the divine family and cast out.
@@allieooop3923 Not in LDS theology, nor in any other of which I am aware. Jesus was of the Godhead from the beginning. Satan, was just one of us. The only thing that made him special was the choice to rebel.
@@allieooop3923 I understand what the word "ontology", means, I just disagree they are ontologically equal. I do not think that just having the same parents makes the children ontologically equal. I find the very idea horribly offensive. Even using the analogy of mortal birth, everyone is unique. Two siblings might be very alike but could still have very different genetics and physicality. Just because one child is born with a birth defect does not mean all their siblings will as well. I find this line of thinking to be the worst kind of reductionism. It is the basic philosophical foundation for racism and prejudice of all kinds. It is essentially assigning worth based on factors beyond a person's control. Parentage does contribute to potential, as does environment, as does many other factors. Every soul is unique in ways that transcend parentage. Did Lucifer have divine potential that could have grown to become more like the exemplar of Jesus Christ? The answer, as it is for us all is yes. However, wasted potential is not equality with realized potential. There is no implication of ontological equality in LDS theology. Before losing his first estate Satan had hope to one day become a coheir of Christ through the power, mercy, and grace of the Atonement. Before creation, Satan lost that hope through his own choice.
@@allieooop3923 Of course we will. As noted in another discussion, since the Trinity does not exist in scripture as noted by all of the books on that concept's development, and there is no revelation post-New Testament that denotes that, then it is a man-made invention. However, many will avoid coming to that conclusion despite the fact of the matter.
@@allieooop3923 I do not think you understand ontology, which is the philosophical study of origins and categories. Scientifically there are both greater and lesser categories than that of species. So, equating ontological equality to species is to ignore and misunderstand the entire concept. Ontology is about recognizing the variety and diversity of fundamental natures and divisions of existence. Every set has multiple subsets and supersets. It is about existential identification, not power dynamics. Sharing a category does not translate to having "equal value". Equality is only possible between two identical examples. Just because two individual carbon crystals share the same category, "diamond" in no way implies that they have the identical value. Value based language is about objectification and exploitation. When applied to human being it can only lead to oppression and prejudice. It is the opposite of dignity and respect. Once "value" enter the equation, there is no more such thing as humanity, only assets to exploit. If "equality" is a ontological possibility, than so is "inequality". One cannot exist without the other. People exist outside of either equality or inequality. Terms such as "greater than", "lesser than" and "equal to" are inappropriate comparisons. Any intrinsic comparisons between people denies individuality, unique dignity, kindness, compassion, diversity, and respect. I find that kind of language to be inhumane.
My LDS view is that Jesus and Satan are NOT brothers. Satan left God’s family a long time ago! Jesus and Lucifer and all of us were spiritual siblings in the council in heaven. Lucifer rebelled and chose to leave God’s family. We have agency to choose relationships.
Been enjoying your videos since the beginning of the year. I've wondered how evangelicals handle the concept of God as the creator of everyone when it comes to Him creating people who are able to reject Jesus and receive eternal suffering. I've heard some different rational (e.g., God wanted creations that would choose to worship Him) but I imagine there got to be more. The LDS father/children relationship doesn't seem to have this issue as much since children disobeying parents is practically the natural order of things (at least in my house 😉), but the evangelical creator model suggests that God has intentionally made creatures with the absolute determination of damnation, which is concerning to me. I suppose this dovetails with the idea that those who die without a knowledge of Jesus are in trouble, but that seems to me more of a logistical problem with the roll out of the knowledge of Jesus to the world instead of the express nature that God makes in His creations. When you were an evangelical did you run up against these ideas, and if so how did you engage them? Since the topic of this video is tangent to my question I thought I'd ask. Appreciate your work.
@@jenniferroach595 If my math is right that should land us somewhere in Hebrews, no? Looking forward to it! So glad to have your unique perspective. It gives me a better idea where evangelicals are coming from and appreciate the restoration from a different perspective.
@@RB376-h7x The delightful surprise for me doing this series is how much I have come to appreciate the restoration even more. I say it all the time, but it's true, I wish I had joined this church decades ago.
Always look forward to these on Mondays. Would it be possible to explain how evangelicals view things such as the return of Elijah and the New Jerusalem… I heard an evangelical preacher say they don’t believe the Bible about a New Jerusalem and I wonder what their understanding is about things we have answers too.
The Trinity is still an issue for Latter-day Saints and it seems as time goes on, we're gonna start having issues with feeling like the brethren are lying or huding something. If you go to the Church website, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints describes the Trinity, as how I grew up understanding it so when the arguement came up you went "Ha ha! Ive got you! I can prove that God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are separate beings." We get comfortable on the couch ready to read Jesus' baptism, Garden of Gethsemane, the Cross, and Revelation with Jesus on the right hand of God, and even Jeffery R. Holland when he gave a Q and A at Harvard thats on UA-cam, he described the Trinity as we get all excited about and have our scriptures ready to debunk until Evangelicals say: "We dont believe that, thats called Modalism" and we shoot back in our chairs flabbergasted and dont know how to respond. Suddenly, the Trinity confuses us because it SOUNDS just like the Godhead and we ask "Wait, when did you adopt the doctrine of the Godhead?" And then we start to say we agree until they pull out the God is Spirit scripture and then we have nothing to counter, we've just admitted defeat. The scriptures we had ready to go to debate and debunk the doctrine of the Trinity are still good, but through the Churches website and how we've seen General Authorities discuss the Trinity view to us is Modalism and Evangelicals will laugh at you and say thats obsurd, where did you hear that? So, either the Godmakers got them thinking that they were wrong all along and somewhere changed the definition of the Trinity and then to excuse their ignorance slapped a title of Modalism onto it and started preaching the doctrine of the Godhead as the Trinity so as not to look like a fool when we say Jesus wouldnt pray to himself, thats still kind of true, by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints conveys that doctrine wrong and that needs to be better clarfied. And the Bible still stumps Latter-day Saints on "God is Spirit". When you bring up the first vision, you cant come out on top with that but instead are left asking yourself: "How could Jesus have missed that? How could he have let the mist fundamental and moat important doctrine of all slide past him and not have made it as firm and clear that the Father and Son are two totally separate individuals? That God is Spirit but that his eternal spirit is houses in a Godly physical body? Its a key doctrine that seemed to have been possibly lost with King Josiah, but Jesus came to clear all that up and it still got lost again, how did he not make sure that was made abundantly clear? An Evangelical could argue that, why is God all knowing and perfect and have let that key chunk not be made as serious and straight forward and something not to be misunderstood, thst it couldnt be lost as important as love and grace? The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints needs to re-think and reboot how others will explain the doctrine of the Trinity to us because we're teaching it wrong, and the brethren are teaching Modalism and we're not as prepared for those conversations. Those instances and scriptures are still valuable, but we dont know how to use them in an Evangelical world that rejects Modalism, at what point that changed I dont know, but you get a weird look once tou go through all that and they say: "Uh, no. Thats Modalism, we believe in the Godhead" and then we, again, say "But so do we, so whats the problem" rather than knowing the proper way to use those events and scriptures to still explain why the Trinity isnt compatible. Look up how the Church views and teaches us as the doctrine of the Trinity in Gospel Topics and the Church website, they tell us other Churches believe in (and proceed to describe Modalism) and youre gonna look like an idiot and a fool when you recite that
One wonders what’s worse, being the brother of Satan or the creator of Satan? You’d think our Evangelical friends would be a lot more perplexed and flustered about the notion of a God of perfect goodness, who knows the end from the beginning, who inexplicably ignores his own perfect foreknowledge and, while appearing to throw good sense and caution to the wind, creates a powerful, intelligent being whom he knows will become the malevolent, unalloyed essence of pure evil, and all the horrific destruction and endless misery that will flow from him… If one wants to play the guilt by association card, this is the guilt by association scenario to end all other guilt by association scenarios! At least history amply demonstrates that there have been millions of good brothers who've remained good and decent without the familial connections they share with their bad brothers unfairly transferring guilt to them. But due to God’s infinite foreknowledge, it seems reasonable to me that Evangelicals should have to admit that in their version of Christianity it appears the God of perfect love and righteousness is also the author and creator evil. But we already know what they’d say - without a hint of embarrassment they’d tell us this whole terrifying, impossibly illogical mess is an incomprehensible mystery, and just leave it at that.
Having been raised LDS for 40 yrs in an extremely orthodox LDS home it is clear to me that the church teaches that Satan and Jesus and all of us are literally the Father and heavenly mother's spirit children. We are itnelligences thatbhave always existed and will always exist. I can understand your need to make sense of your upbringing's teachings with the new teachings you are learning in the LDS church. However, President Hinckley stated clearly that the Chruch does not believe in the same Christ as christianity and part of that reasoning is because the LDS teaching of who Christ is as a spirit son of God ( just like us ) who became the perfect example of a saved being (see Joseph Smith's lectures on faith) is completely different form the biblical explanation. It was not until the 1990's that the church began to call themselves christians. Before that, they happily admitted that they were different and this was one of the reasons why. I believe it is important to stand by one's beliefs no matter how odd they may be. Sometimes, we seek sanctuary and allow ourselves to misrepresent doctrines in order to feel less different. But being different is ok. Evangelicals arent going to understand this doctrine. It is foreign to them and that is not because they are wrong and the church is right. Who Christ is is critical to both faiths and I feel acknowledging the dofference instead of using their doctrines to justify this belief is more honest and trustworthy.
So you saying i created my dad and not the other way around No wonder it was I that told my dad make me proud and not the other way around also makes sense now
@@brettmajeske3525 got me thinking now you can't be a father without a son and you can't have a son without a father She got me thinking now But then again can't have an egg without a chicken and you can't have a chicken without an egg It's sooooo crazy
No body is claiming otherwise. Are you aware that the word "angel" just means "messenger"? No more, no less? It is not a description of a species, but of a role.
The Hebrews had no metaphysics and would read that as how 2 beings can be one. The problems of the Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy that took over Christianity in the 4th century added the unscriptural homoousious (of one substance) to invent a metaphysical unity that didn't exist in Christianity before that time. Augustine of Hippo was a big example of someone who couldn't accept the Christian God until he could allegorize and use a Greek philosophical metaphysical paradigm for God instead.
The ontological argument comes from the introduction of Plato in the 4th century and not original Christianity. You should read your Old and New Testaments more. You will find were all the Sons of God came together and Satan also was among them. the grammar indicates he is one of the group. We are all known at the offspring of God and there is only one meaning for offspring. The Father is known as the Father of spirits (nothing allegorical about that either unless one wants to go against the clear language, and Christ told Mary Magdalene that he was going to His God and her God, and His Father and her Father (He used My and your in the scripture though). Again there is only one unavoidable conclusion unless someone wants to read something unscriptural into the scriptures.
@@bethhodges9213 I have, regularly, for 50 some years and many years in the early Christian sources. Those studies led me from Roman Catholicism to Evangelical Christianity to the Church of Jesus Christ.
Thank you
Thank you for your perspective on this. Very interesting to get a deeper understanding of our Christian brothers.
I really enjoy your perspective on these doctrinal topics. Thanks so much!
It seems evangelicals would rather believe that God made a defective angel rather than accept the fact that Lucifer was raised in the same loving household as Jesus, taught the same divine principles but threw all of that away because of his pride. I find the fact that Christ is our older brother makes me love Him even more for the atonement he worked out for us, his siblings, so we could all come back to Heavenly Father if we so choose.
man was given free will. Could it be Angels were also given some freedoms?
@@bethhodges9213 Why would they not? No where does the Bible claim that Angels lack freewill? The word "angel" is used for both mortal messengers of God as well as supernatural ones. It's a job, not a species.
Would you say that using examples of scriptural brothers who took different paths would be a good way to discuss this? Cain and Abel, Jacob and Esau, Joseph and his brothers, Moses and the Pharaoh, Nephi and Laman and Lemuel for those who are familiar with the basics of the Book of Mormon, and even Judas vs the other Apostles, etc. There are so many instances where one brother took the righteous path and the other brother(s) took the unrighteous path. They're types of Christ and that relationship, though simplified and with much lesser eternal stakes.
@@allieooop3923 In LDS belief everyone - humans, God, Jesus, angels, devils - are all ontologically the same, at least in potential. God is the giant oak tree, and we are the acorns. We may grow up to be an oak tree, but right now we only have the potential to be such.
@@allieooop3923 I'm not sure, but I wonder if one of your thoughts driving this is that LDS-Christians don't think Jesus is actually God? You didn't say that outright, but I hear some echoes of it. We fully affirm that Jesus is eternal God.
@@allieooop3923 I hear your concern. I used to share it, to be honest. The whole point of these videos is to offer education and inspiration to Latter-day Saints who want to share the Gospel with non-LDS folks so I appreciate you being able to provide one version of how the concerns go. Thank you.
@@jenniferroach595President Oaks could expound on that 😇
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh yeaaaaaaaaaaaah, The Godmakers... that came out right when I had joined the Church. Lots of interesting conversations resulted therefrom.... yeeesh...
Yeah, having served my mission during the '80's, the Godmakers was huge. You'd see it on billboards of churches all over the place. Of course, dialogue, during tracking, often turned to, "we believe in a 'different Jesus' than you do." This often translated to they were poisoned by this book/movie, in believing members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't at this moment in time, that it became popular to discount the Church as being a "Christian Church". Eventually, leaders of the Church would accept this claim, only in the sense that we're not from the same origin as the Catholic Church, and later, the Protestant movement. Being a restored church suggests that we have no connection to the historical Christian Church(s), and it's a pretty significant distinction. However, from the standpoint of worshiping, following and adhering to the teachings of Jesus Christ, we absolutely are Christian.
So, yeah, what Jennifer says makes perfect sense.
I think another reason why they have difficulty with this is that it inevitably leads to the doctrine of apotheosis. If we, the whole human race, are actually the offspring of the Father, then that means that he intends for us to grow into that nature. That’s a hard doctrine for any other Bible believing religion, even Eastern Orthodox members, which seem to be the closest to us in this belief.
When Jesus quotes the Psalm that says know ye not that ye are gods, Evangelicals have interpreted gods as being righteous judges or similar that are created beings rather than the uncreated God. I would still be happy and in awe if this is the case. LDS should avoid arrogance in our view of gods. I like to say my favorite hymn is “I swam today where Jesus walked” 😇
@@chriswkite I’m not sure what was arrogant about what I said. I’m sorry I came off that way. Thanks for your thoughts.
@@andrewbfrost7021you we’re not arrogant at all.
I think the biggest hangup for Evangelicals is the lack of knowledge of how the One (or Other) of Plato and the creation of Aristole (from nothing) replaced the scriptural concepts a few centuries after Christ and the early apostles. That is where the "ontological" differences come from and why the scriptures are hard for many to accept.
And speaking of the Godmakers. I just had to laugh. When I was researching the Church of Jesus Christ when I was looking for the one true church, I found that book. Even at that time, without the internet, I was able to find many half or quarter truths and errors with the scriptures and history. The lack of substance in the antichrist literature genre helped me to join the Restored Church. Hard to accept the antichrist literature claims when there is always a lie or omission somewhere in everything there.
Much of this issue is really what is the nature of angels. LDS theology treats all souls as being part of the same family. My issue with how critics address this issue is that they imply LDS believe some sort of equality between Jesus and Satan, which is not the case at all. The pre-mortal Jesus was Jehovah, the God of the Hebrew Bible. Even before gaining a body he was part of the Godhead. Lucifer was nothing near that. It would be more accurate to say LDS believe that Satan used to be humanity's brother, before he was disinherited from the divine family and cast out.
@@allieooop3923 Not in LDS theology, nor in any other of which I am aware. Jesus was of the Godhead from the beginning. Satan, was just one of us. The only thing that made him special was the choice to rebel.
@@allieooop3923 I understand what the word "ontology", means, I just disagree they are ontologically equal. I do not think that just having the same parents makes the children ontologically equal.
I find the very idea horribly offensive. Even using the analogy of mortal birth, everyone is unique. Two siblings might be very alike but could still have very different genetics and physicality.
Just because one child is born with a birth defect does not mean all their siblings will as well.
I find this line of thinking to be the worst kind of reductionism. It is the basic philosophical foundation for racism and prejudice of all kinds. It is essentially assigning worth based on factors beyond a person's control.
Parentage does contribute to potential, as does environment, as does many other factors. Every soul is unique in ways that transcend parentage.
Did Lucifer have divine potential that could have grown to become more like the exemplar of Jesus Christ? The answer, as it is for us all is yes. However, wasted potential is not equality with realized potential.
There is no implication of ontological equality in LDS theology. Before losing his first estate Satan had hope to one day become a coheir of Christ through the power, mercy, and grace of the Atonement. Before creation, Satan lost that hope through his own choice.
@@allieooop3923 And that is the scriptural basis as opposed to the Platonic and Aristotelian basis of the creeds and their inventors.
@@allieooop3923 Of course we will. As noted in another discussion, since the Trinity does not exist in scripture as noted by all of the books on that concept's development, and there is no revelation post-New Testament that denotes that, then it is a man-made invention. However, many will avoid coming to that conclusion despite the fact of the matter.
@@allieooop3923 I do not think you understand ontology, which is the philosophical study of origins and categories. Scientifically there are both greater and lesser categories than that of species.
So, equating ontological equality to species is to ignore and misunderstand the entire concept. Ontology is about recognizing the variety and diversity of fundamental natures and divisions of existence. Every set has multiple subsets and supersets. It is about existential identification, not power dynamics.
Sharing a category does not translate to having "equal value". Equality is only possible between two identical examples.
Just because two individual carbon crystals share the same category, "diamond" in no way implies that they have the identical value. Value based language is about objectification and exploitation. When applied to human being it can only lead to oppression and prejudice. It is the opposite of dignity and respect. Once "value" enter the equation, there is no more such thing as humanity, only assets to exploit.
If "equality" is a ontological possibility, than so is "inequality". One cannot exist without the other. People exist outside of either equality or inequality.
Terms such as "greater than", "lesser than" and "equal to" are inappropriate comparisons. Any intrinsic comparisons between people denies individuality, unique dignity, kindness, compassion, diversity, and respect. I find that kind of language to be inhumane.
How about this? Brothers, technically yes. But Lucifer was disowned when he fell.
How you get it?
Lucifer was never disowned , Lucufer’s choices were accepted , hence , consequences of his choices according to the law .
My LDS view is that Jesus and Satan are NOT brothers.
Satan left God’s family a long time ago!
Jesus and Lucifer and all of us were spiritual siblings in the council in heaven. Lucifer rebelled and chose to leave God’s family.
We have agency to choose relationships.
Been enjoying your videos since the beginning of the year. I've wondered how evangelicals handle the concept of God as the creator of everyone when it comes to Him creating people who are able to reject Jesus and receive eternal suffering. I've heard some different rational (e.g., God wanted creations that would choose to worship Him) but I imagine there got to be more. The LDS father/children relationship doesn't seem to have this issue as much since children disobeying parents is practically the natural order of things (at least in my house 😉), but the evangelical creator model suggests that God has intentionally made creatures with the absolute determination of damnation, which is concerning to me. I suppose this dovetails with the idea that those who die without a knowledge of Jesus are in trouble, but that seems to me more of a logistical problem with the roll out of the knowledge of Jesus to the world instead of the express nature that God makes in His creations. When you were an evangelical did you run up against these ideas, and if so how did you engage them? Since the topic of this video is tangent to my question I thought I'd ask. Appreciate your work.
Yes, we get there about 10 episodes from now!
@@jenniferroach595 If my math is right that should land us somewhere in Hebrews, no? Looking forward to it! So glad to have your unique perspective. It gives me a better idea where evangelicals are coming from and appreciate the restoration from a different perspective.
@@RB376-h7x The delightful surprise for me doing this series is how much I have come to appreciate the restoration even more. I say it all the time, but it's true, I wish I had joined this church decades ago.
Small mistake here, whenever the Old Testament says “sons of God” it’s talking about other gods. And the Satan in Job likely isn’t Lucifer.
Always look forward to these on Mondays. Would it be possible to explain how evangelicals view things such as the return of Elijah and the New Jerusalem… I heard an evangelical preacher say they don’t believe the Bible about a New Jerusalem and I wonder what their understanding is about things we have answers too.
Yes. We will get into all of that as the Come Follow Readings get there.
The Trinity is still an issue for Latter-day Saints and it seems as time goes on, we're gonna start having issues with feeling like the brethren are lying or huding something. If you go to the Church website, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints describes the Trinity, as how I grew up understanding it so when the arguement came up you went "Ha ha! Ive got you! I can prove that God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are separate beings." We get comfortable on the couch ready to read Jesus' baptism, Garden of Gethsemane, the Cross, and Revelation with Jesus on the right hand of God, and even Jeffery R. Holland when he gave a Q and A at Harvard thats on UA-cam, he described the Trinity as we get all excited about and have our scriptures ready to debunk until Evangelicals say: "We dont believe that, thats called Modalism" and we shoot back in our chairs flabbergasted and dont know how to respond. Suddenly, the Trinity confuses us because it SOUNDS just like the Godhead and we ask "Wait, when did you adopt the doctrine of the Godhead?" And then we start to say we agree until they pull out the God is Spirit scripture and then we have nothing to counter, we've just admitted defeat. The scriptures we had ready to go to debate and debunk the doctrine of the Trinity are still good, but through the Churches website and how we've seen General Authorities discuss the Trinity view to us is Modalism and Evangelicals will laugh at you and say thats obsurd, where did you hear that? So, either the Godmakers got them thinking that they were wrong all along and somewhere changed the definition of the Trinity and then to excuse their ignorance slapped a title of Modalism onto it and started preaching the doctrine of the Godhead as the Trinity so as not to look like a fool when we say Jesus wouldnt pray to himself, thats still kind of true, by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints conveys that doctrine wrong and that needs to be better clarfied. And the Bible still stumps Latter-day Saints on "God is Spirit". When you bring up the first vision, you cant come out on top with that but instead are left asking yourself: "How could Jesus have missed that? How could he have let the mist fundamental and moat important doctrine of all slide past him and not have made it as firm and clear that the Father and Son are two totally separate individuals? That God is Spirit but that his eternal spirit is houses in a Godly physical body? Its a key doctrine that seemed to have been possibly lost with King Josiah, but Jesus came to clear all that up and it still got lost again, how did he not make sure that was made abundantly clear? An Evangelical could argue that, why is God all knowing and perfect and have let that key chunk not be made as serious and straight forward and something not to be misunderstood, thst it couldnt be lost as important as love and grace? The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints needs to re-think and reboot how others will explain the doctrine of the Trinity to us because we're teaching it wrong, and the brethren are teaching Modalism and we're not as prepared for those conversations. Those instances and scriptures are still valuable, but we dont know how to use them in an Evangelical world that rejects Modalism, at what point that changed I dont know, but you get a weird look once tou go through all that and they say: "Uh, no. Thats Modalism, we believe in the Godhead" and then we, again, say "But so do we, so whats the problem" rather than knowing the proper way to use those events and scriptures to still explain why the Trinity isnt compatible. Look up how the Church views and teaches us as the doctrine of the Trinity in Gospel Topics and the Church website, they tell us other Churches believe in (and proceed to describe Modalism) and youre gonna look like an idiot and a fool when you recite that
One wonders what’s worse, being the brother of Satan or the creator of Satan? You’d think our Evangelical friends would be a lot more perplexed and flustered about the notion of a God of perfect goodness, who knows the end from the beginning, who inexplicably ignores his own perfect foreknowledge and, while appearing to throw good sense and caution to the wind, creates a powerful, intelligent being whom he knows will become the malevolent, unalloyed essence of pure evil, and all the horrific destruction and endless misery that will flow from him… If one wants to play the guilt by association card, this is the guilt by association scenario to end all other guilt by association scenarios! At least history amply demonstrates that there have been millions of good brothers who've remained good and decent without the familial connections they share with their bad brothers unfairly transferring guilt to them. But due to God’s infinite foreknowledge, it seems reasonable to me that Evangelicals should have to admit that in their version of Christianity it appears the God of perfect love and righteousness is also the author and creator evil. But we already know what they’d say - without a hint of embarrassment they’d tell us this whole terrifying, impossibly illogical mess is an incomprehensible mystery, and just leave it at that.
Having been raised LDS for 40 yrs in an extremely orthodox LDS home it is clear to me that the church teaches that Satan and Jesus and all of us are literally the Father and heavenly mother's spirit children. We are itnelligences thatbhave always existed and will always exist. I can understand your need to make sense of your upbringing's teachings with the new teachings you are learning in the LDS church. However, President Hinckley stated clearly that the Chruch does not believe in the same Christ as christianity and part of that reasoning is because the LDS teaching of who Christ is as a spirit son of God ( just like us ) who became the perfect example of a saved being (see Joseph Smith's lectures on faith) is completely different form the biblical explanation. It was not until the 1990's that the church began to call themselves christians. Before that, they happily admitted that they were different and this was one of the reasons why. I believe it is important to stand by one's beliefs no matter how odd they may be. Sometimes, we seek sanctuary and allow ourselves to misrepresent doctrines in order to feel less different. But being different is ok. Evangelicals arent going to understand this doctrine. It is foreign to them and that is not because they are wrong and the church is right. Who Christ is is critical to both faiths and I feel acknowledging the dofference instead of using their doctrines to justify this belief is more honest and trustworthy.
Jesus was greater den angels
Isaiah 43:10-11 debunks mormonism
Nope, but you keep repeating that old antichrist chestnut out of the context of the chapters.
So you saying i created my dad and not the other way around
No wonder it was I that told my dad make me proud and not the other way around also makes sense now
Are you implying that Satan is the son of Jesus?
@@brettmajeske3525 oh boy
Did you watch the video
She said Jesus created the father and not the other way around
@@brettmajeske3525 got me thinking now you can't be a father without a son and you can't have a son without a father
She got me thinking now
But then again can't have an egg without a chicken and you can't have a chicken without an egg
It's sooooo crazy
Cat!
God said don't be deceive they are many false prophets in this world
Jesus is not a angel, satan is a fallen angel created by Jesus the everlasting father Isaiah 9:6 and mighty God 🙏
No body is claiming otherwise. Are you aware that the word "angel" just means "messenger"? No more, no less? It is not a description of a species, but of a role.
Jesus Christ has always existed satan was created Jesus wasn't, John 10:30 I and my father are one, how can you say Jesus is the brother to satan 😢
The Hebrews had no metaphysics and would read that as how 2 beings can be one. The problems of the Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy that took over Christianity in the 4th century added the unscriptural homoousious (of one substance) to invent a metaphysical unity that didn't exist in Christianity before that time. Augustine of Hippo was a big example of someone who couldn't accept the Christian God until he could allegorize and use a Greek philosophical metaphysical paradigm for God instead.
No they are not brothers. Twist and spin it. Jesus is the Lord. Satan is a created being ( Angel) by God who became jealous and was cast out.
The ontological argument comes from the introduction of Plato in the 4th century and not original Christianity. You should read your Old and New Testaments more. You will find were all the Sons of God came together and Satan also was among them. the grammar indicates he is one of the group. We are all known at the offspring of God and there is only one meaning for offspring. The Father is known as the Father of spirits (nothing allegorical about that either unless one wants to go against the clear language, and Christ told Mary Magdalene that he was going to His God and her God, and His Father and her Father (He used My and your in the scripture though). Again there is only one unavoidable conclusion unless someone wants to read something unscriptural into the scriptures.
@@JD-pr1et Yes, I should. Perhaps you should too.
@@bethhodges9213 I have, regularly, for 50 some years and many years in the early Christian sources. Those studies led me from Roman Catholicism to Evangelical Christianity to the Church of Jesus Christ.
@@JD-pr1et Good for you. I am bought with blood and baptized with fire. I don't claim to know everything. In fact, I am thankful I don't.
False
I never heard this in the bible before please stop lying in the name of Jesus.