.jpg)
In a lot of places in the world, Mormons come knocking on your door to spread their faith. Josh Williamson, along with Jon Speed, had a Mormon come to visit on the 7th October 2009 while in Dallas, Texas. They were able to record the discussion and undoubtedly, you'll sure be shocked at some of the things that the Mormon elder admits by the end of the conversation.
Listen (38:06 mins - 8.7MB)
For more Operation 513 resources, visit the Audios and Videos page.
As a Mormon I have a question that no Evangelical has answered.
ReplyDeleteThe bible says that we are created in the exact image of God, MALE & FEMALE. Assuming you believe in the resurrection, what is the eternal purpose of physical/mental gender roles?
Personally, being a male is CENTRAL to my identity. I could not imagine being a female or neither. Gender identity is at the core of my being. I would argue this is the most basic of all human attributes.
Why does the Bible teach that the "image of God" is BOTH "male & female?" Why don't Evangelicals have any doctrine of gender roles in heaven?
I find it very absurd to think that we will all be living in heaven with defunct, obsolete relics of physical gender. Not to mention the pyscological aspects of such roles. Did God make a mistake? This seems to be a massive oversight and frankly, a deal breaker for Protestant theology.
Mormons have a profound doctrine of gender roles in the eternities. It just makes more sense and better reflects the divinely instituted patterns of life on Earth. On Earth as it is in Heaven.
What say you?
As a Mormon I have a question that no Evangelical has answered.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate questions, and I will endeavour to answer.
The bible says that we are created in the exact image of God, MALE & FEMALE. Assuming you believe in the resurrection, what is the eternal purpose of physical/mental gender roles?
First off, we need to ask the question what was the imago dei (image of God). Was it a physical image (I.e. does God have flesh and bones like we do?) Or, was it a spiritual image (I.e. Did we have the moral nature of God - Sinlessness).
Personally I would disagree with the Latter-Day Saint position that states that God is physical, therefore that was the imago dei. The reasoning behind this disagreement is not my own personal opinion, but rather the Mormon doctrine does not align with what Scripture says. For instance in John 4:24, Jesus says:
God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.
Since, God the Father is spirit, does that mean He has physical body? No, Jesus once again says For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have. (Luke 24:39)
Based on the aforementioned Scripture, the image of God, cannot be a physical image. Rather, it must be a spiritual one. That spiritual image allowed us freedom of choice, sinlessness etc. However, we lost that image when Adam sinned against God. Now, we are born with original sin, we have no freedom to choice when it comes to God, but rather we only have the freedom to choose what sin we commit.
Now, what is the eternal purpose of our gender. Personally I don’t know. Is there gender in Heaven. Of course! How do we know this? Well, it talks about Abraham in Heaven (Luke 16), he was a male. Also, Jesus Christ is recognized as a male in heaven, so there must be genders. The purpose of our gender is something I cannot answer, but I can answer our purpose for salvation, and that is to glorify God.
Why does the Bible teach that the "image of God" is BOTH "male & female?" Why don't Evangelicals have any doctrine of gender roles in heaven?
I presume you are referencing Genesis 1:27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
Interesting to note that it is specifically the male that is mentioned as being made in the image of God “in the image of God he created him”. Also, this is brought out in Paul’s writings in 1 Corinthians 11:7, where he states that man is the image of God, but woman is the image of man.
But, that is beside the point. Your presupposition is that the “image of God” is a physical image. Now you have an issue, as does the LDS church. Because if God made humans after His physical image you have Heavenly Father as a hermaphrodite. Which I would presume you would reject. This is just another proof to point to the image of God being spiritual now physical.
As for evangelicals not having any doctrine on gender roles, I would disagree with you. There is a rich field of theology dealing with this very issue. In fact people like Wayne Grudem have addressed this issue, as has Hoekema in his book “Created in God’s Image”.
I find it very absurd to think that we will all be living in heaven with defunct, obsolete relics of physical gender. Not to mention the pyscological aspects of such roles. Did God make a mistake? This seems to be a massive oversight and frankly, a deal breaker for Protestant theology.
If your misunderstanding of Protestant theology is the reason you have a “deal breaker”, then I guess you had better come over to the Christian camp quick smart. Because we do have a theology on gender roles in Heaven. And, we do believe in gender in Heaven. No where in Scripture does it teach we won’t have male and female in heaven. It isn’t a massive oversight, but rather you have constructed a straw man argument (a false argument which you argue against). You have clearly misunderstood protestant evangelical theology.
Thanks for your response. I do not believe this is a straw man argument since we are talking about a very serious eternal reality. Obviously gender distinction is the most basic human attribute and the core of our identity.
ReplyDeleteWe are really talking about two issues here, the "image of God" and "gender roles." It is the latter I consider to be the deal-breaker. The truth is you have no doctrine of physical gender roles. You would have to allow marriage and reproduction, unless Protestants know of some other function! That being the case you are trapped with just two options: First, we will have resurrected bodies with male and female anatomy for NO eternal purpse (dead weight relics). Or second, there will be no physical gender (we won't be male or female). Both of these are disturbing and totally unacceptable. There is really no way to wiggle out of this reality.
As for the "image of God" issue, consider Genesis 1:26, "Then God said, Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let THEM (male & female) rule..."
ReplyDelete"Likeness" is a good translation of the Hebrew. Here's what Daniel Webster has to say about it:
"like·ness: noun
1 copy, portrait
2 appearance, semblance
3 the quality or state of being like: resemblance, agreement or correspondence in details...implies similarity chiefly in APPEARANCE or EXTERNAL qualities."
According to this definition we look like God. The writer's chose a deliberate word. 1 John 3:2 expalins that "we are children of God...when he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is."
Also, there is actually no implicit scripture that states women were not created in the image of God. Your only support for this is Genesis 1:37 where the word "his" is used. However, the words "man" and "his" are commonly used to cover all humanity in a general sense, so that is flimsy semantics.
Again, it states "God created man in His own image (comma, not period) male and female," There is no break in that phrase. The image of God is both male and female. This has implications for a Mother in heaven, a debate for another time perhaps.
You are attempting to turn this account of the literal creation into allegory. Why would the details of man's physical creation be the only part in a long creation drama that is faked? Is anything else in the creation an allegory? No. That's out of context. By making just that one part allegory you have ripped it out of reality. All of the creation in Genesis is the real deal. Physical and material stuff. Your view is jarring in this reality.
John 4:24 does say "God is spirit." Ironically, now I am saying allegory and you are saying literal. But in this case we can prove that literalism is out of context.
The proof is in the rest of the passage, God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship IN SPIRIT and in truth." To use your interpretation we would have to literally take off our bodies to worship God in spirit only! This is not the case. 1 Corinthians 6:17 agrees: "He who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit." Paul is not defining man as a spirit any more than John is defining God as a spirit only. We can achieve oneness with God through a spiritual life (with bodies).
So Mormons correctly look at John 4:24 the same we we look at 1 John 1:5, Hebrews 12:29 and 1 John 4:8.
Also, you qouted Luke 24:39: "For a spirit does NOT have flesh and bones as you see that I HAVE." The problem is that this is the resurrected eternal Lord telling us he has a body! This contradicts your position. According to this verse you must reject the divinity of Jesus as part of the Godhead because he is not "spirirt." You can't have it both ways.
Paul affirms in Romans 6:9, "Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again. Death no longer has mastery over him." Jesus still has a body. There are many accounts of Him showing people His body and even eating food.
The simple fact is that if Christ is God then God has a physical body, end of story.
Thanks for reading and merry Christmas.
We are really talking about two issues here, the "image of God" and "gender roles." It is the latter I consider to be the deal-breaker. The truth is you have no doctrine of physical gender roles. You would have to allow marriage and reproduction, unless Protestants know of some other function!
ReplyDeleteNo where in Scripture does it talk about celestial marriage or reproduction in Heaven. That comes from LDS doctrine, not Scripture. Look at what Jesus said in regards to Heaven and marriage. The context of the following verse comes from Jewish leaders asking Jesus whose wife a certain woman will be in heaven, pay attention to God’s reply:
For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. - Matthew 22:30
Jesus plainly states that in Heaven, there will be no marrying or being married. It would be interesting how the LDS would answer that verse. Since the at this point of theology the Mormon’s agree with the Jewish leaders and not God Himself.
As for your statement about not having purpose in Heaven if there is gender. The purpose of everything in heaven is the glory of God. So yes, you have a purpose and males will bring glory to God, just as much as females. God isn’t interested in the eternal celestial sex of Mormonism, but rather He is interested in His Glory.
As for the "image of God" issue, consider Genesis 1:26, "Then God said, Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let THEM (male & female) rule..."
"Likeness" is a good translation of the Hebrew. Here's what Daniel Webster has to say about it:
"like·ness: noun
1 copy, portrait
2 appearance, semblance
3 the quality or state of being like: resemblance, agreement or correspondence in details...implies similarity chiefly in APPEARANCE or EXTERNAL qualities."
Firstly, why are you using an English dictionary to give a definition of a Hebrew word? You are basing your argument of the English translation and not the original language.
Secondly, your traditions and presuppositions make you assume that the “likeness” is a physical image. Is it not possible that we could have a ‘likeness’ to God in a spiritual sense? In that we were like Him when it came to freedom, choice, creativity, sinlessness? Is that not in the ‘likeness’ of God?
According to this definition we look like God. The writer's chose a deliberate word. 1 John 3:2 expalins that "we are children of God...when he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is."
That verse does not state we are the physical image of God. If we are the physical image of God, then you have an issue. As the question must be asked, what colour is God? (could this theology have lent itself to why the LDS said black skin was a curse?) What sex is God? How tall is God? How fat is God? What colour hair has God?
If you are going to push the argument that we are the physical image of God you must answer the above questions, since everyone in this world is different. Moreover, the argument you present is once again built upon the traditions and presuppositions of the Mormon church. For the LDS believes that every person in the world is a child of God. This of course goes against what the Bible says:
But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, - John 1:12
If, we ‘become’ the children of God, does that not imply that at one stage we are not the children of God? Since, we cannot ‘become’ something we already are. Moreover, Jesus didn’t believe everyone was a child of God, for He called people ‘children of the devil’ (John 8:44).
You aren’t arguing from Scripture, you’re arguing from the teachings of the LDS, which are in clear opposition to the Bible.
Also, there is actually no implicit scripture that states women were not created in the image of God. Your only support for this is Genesis 1:37 where the word "his" is used. However, the words "man" and "his" are commonly used to cover all humanity in a general sense, so that is flimsy semantics.
ReplyDeleteDid you read the other verse I gave you? 1 Corinthians 11:7:
For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man.
Man is the image of God, but woman is the image of man. Moreover, I do not base my argument of Genesis 1:37 (since no such verse exists). I also use Genesis 1:27, where God says He made HIM in the image of God. Now, you have an issue here. Is God literally meaning “HIM” or is He meaning something else? You have accused me of allegorizing the text, when you seem to be doing that very thing.
The image of God is both male and female. This has implications for a Mother in heaven, a debate for another time perhaps.
That is why Mormonism has more in common with witchcraft than it does Biblical Christianity. As it teaches that there are many gods and a mother god. Something which is taught no where in Scripture. You think God would know if there were other gods but He says:
Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any. - Isaiah 44:8
If Heavenly Father knows of no other gods, then you must be greater than He, for you claim to know of other deities. Either that, or there is one God (1 Tim. 2:5) and not a plurality of gods as the Mormons teach.
Now I will briefly address your scandalous accusations that I take the Creation account allegorically. I believe that the creation account of Genesis 1 & 2 is a literal account. The world was created in 6 literal 24hr days and on the seventh day God rested. I do not allegorize the text.
As for your statement about Jesus Christ having a physical body. I agree that Jesus Christ had a physical body before He was crucified, then after He arose again He had a physical body. This is testified to in the Scripture many a time. But, just because Jesus Christ has a physical body in no way supports the notion that Heavenly Father has one. John 4 is addressing the worship of the Father, and Jesus clearly states He is Spirit. But, the doctrine of the Trinity (3 persons but 1 God) teaches that the second person in the Godhead became flesh (John 1:14). It is interesting to note, that if the second person of the Trinity became flesh at the incarnation, does that not imply that before that time the all the Godhead was spirit and not physical? Wouldn’t that go against your teaching of a physical Heavenly Father?
Have a Happy and safe Christmas!
"Likeness" is actually a perfect translation of the Hebrew. Why don't you trust the English translation? Is it fallible? That argument is actually for Mormonism. If you agree that the translation has been compromised then that puts you on shaky ground since that is your sole method of interpretation. You're better off agreeing with Webster's definition and preserving your sola scriptura outpost.
ReplyDeleteDiffering races, hair color etc, do not undermine this argument. All mankind is the same species (Human race). An alien species visiting Earth would think we all look the same. Variation is negligable. All are still in the image of the Father.
Your claim that the eternal purpose of gender is merely to "bring glory to god" in some abstract sense is just not logical or sufficient. So you confirm what I suspected. You have no doctrine of physical gender roles in heaven, although we will retain full anatomy. Eternity is a long time to be stuck with such awkward relics. So that's not really an answer. God only being interested in us prostrating ourselves in His own glory makes Him sound like a real egotistical narcissist. That's not how I treat my children. I want my kids to have what I have someday, my work and my glory are my children.
The term "endless celestial sex" is propaganda designed to make Mormons look bad. The fact is Mormons didn't invent gender or sex. God instituted them. Be careful not to mock God and the sacred marriage and family patterns He designed which have gender roles and (yes, sexuality) at their core. After all, you admit that physical gender will exist in heaven, even if you are confounded by the puzzling literal implications. Just because Protestants are uncomfortable with God's eternal workmanship that does not give them license to denegrate the divine powers of creation. We are still men and women. Here and there. Mormons just have an answer that isn't malarkey.
As for marriage, read Matt 22:30 again closely: "At the resurrection people will neither MARRY nor be GIVEN in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven." This is talking about the ceremony, not the state of marriage! This verse does NOT ever say that
ReplyDeletemarraige will not exist in heaven. It specifically states that no ceremonies will be performed there. Mormons agree. Eternal marriages must be performed on Earth. The Jews were apostate during that time, the man's marriage Jesus is referring to is not sealed in a binding eternal covenant. So heaven is too late to enter a mariage covenant, just as baptism must be performed here.
This verse has a dire warning for those not married in the covenant here: They will be single, ministering angels without the ability of increase. In 1 Cor. 11:11 it is clear that "Neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord."
A curious qualification indeed to be "in the Lord."
The bible never states marriage doesn't exist in heaven. If it has little or nothing to say about marriage that is hardly proof of non-existence. The bible doesn't mention China, yet it's there. So why the secret silence? Well, accoriding to the early Christian writings eternal marriage was kept sacred. We now have many more authentic early Christian scriptures than what are contained in the canon. These have been popping up all over the ancient world and they have a lot to say about marriage. The widespread volume of these texts rule out any claims of "gnosticism" or isolated forgery. They all say the same thing, this is what the Christians believed before the 2nd Century (the oldest New Testament text copies we have are centuries after Christ). These are 1st Century:
The Gospel of Philip says that "Christ came to Earth for the express purpose of bringing them together in eternal life. Thanks to him those who are united in the Bridal Chamber will never more be separated...For there is glory above glory and power upon power...The Holy of Holies and the Bridal Chamber, these are the ultimate...Though sin still enslaves us, when the truth is revealed the perfect life will flow for everyone...that those who were separated may be united and fulfilled...All who enter the Bridal Chamber may beget in the light—not after the manner of nocturnal mating...Whoever becomes a Son of the Bridal Chamber will receive the light...and when he goes out of the world he shall already have received the true instruction through types and images.”
Origen, an early Christian writer, confirms a common belief in eternal marriage: "After the resurrection there will be marriages, and the begetting of children…. Such are the views of those who, while believing in Christ, understand the divine Scriptures."
You'll have to take this up with the early Christians and ask them why they believed so fervently in eternal marriage.
A poignant text called the "Hymn of the Pearl" was found in the Gospel of Thomas (who doubted) and this hymn tells the parable of a young man who left the kingdom (pre-existence) of his father the king and mother the queen (mother in heaven) and his elder brother, the 2nd in
command (Jesus) and went to Earth to obtain a pearl of great value. It was written in 70 AD, very old. The hymn is basically the entire LDS temple presentation in detail. Signs, covenants, tokens, sacred garment and robe, a veil, symbolic signs in the palm of Christ, re-entering the presence of his father and mother, etc. Here's the kicker: This text was discovered 60 years after Joseph Smith published "The Pearl of Great Price," a scripture that deals with the same themes. That is impossible luck.
As for "other Gods," this is another type of propaganda to make Mormons look bad. Isaiah 44:8 does say: "Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any." In context this is easily explained. He is not speaking of other gods in the eternities. He is addressing the nation of Israel and warning them not to follow the invented pagan idols of neighboring nations. This was a real problem for Israel and God wanted to make clear that there is NO other God beside him over the Earth. The God of Israel was the true God.
ReplyDeleteThis passage is just targeting the neighbors of Israel and their false gods. Modern Christians have twisted this context to be more inclusive than it is. Mormons are NOT polytheistic (worship multiple gods). We worship ONE God, the Father of this world. The fact that there may be other Gods in other places does not affect us here. For example, my dad is not the dad of my neighbors. Likewise, I do not have allegience to any other dads than my own, even though I am aware of other dads I do not follow them. The notion of "other gods" does not threaten the supremecy of our Father.
Thanks to Paul, 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 says it better than me:
"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."
To rely on one out of context scripture in Isaiah is foolish when there are many places in the bible that allude to other gods:
For starters, the Hebrew word "Elohim" is a PLURAL form of the word for "God." Every time "The Elohim" are mentioned it is "The Gods." That phrase pervades the Old Testament. We have already mentioned the creation account (which we agreed was literal in all senses), God uses the phrase "let US make man...." Always referring to "us" and "our." Plurality is a given here.
Below is a sampling of the many passages that make clear the plurality of Gods, as the early Jews and Christians understood it:
Exodus 15:11: ""Who among the gods is like you, O LORD ? Who is like you majestic in holiness, awesome in glory, working wonders?"
Duet 10:17 "For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome..."
Joshua 22:22
2 Chron 2:5
Psalms 82:1, 86:8, 95:3, 135:5, 136:2, 138:1-2
1 Sam 4:8
Daniel 2:28, 2:47, 4:8-9, 5:11, 14, 5:18
Thanks for sharing your thoughts Bristol but I also disagree with you. Not only from what Josh has said so far but also on the whole image of God in our sexuality issue: what do you with these words of Jesus's?
ReplyDelete'The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."
Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given.
For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."'
Mat 19:10-12 (see also the numerous comments of Paul on this same issue: 1 Corinthians etc.)
If you are right then those who abstain from marriage in this life are not reflecting the image of God and have "useless relics" for sexual organs. Why then would God in flesh (and one of His apostles) say this is a good thing to be doing?