Before God Was God

In March I posted “Least Influential Mormons” here on Mormon Coffee. I wrote,

“If we were making a list, I think we might include the names of at least the first five LDS prophets as those whose doctrines are often considered irrelevant in Mormonism today. A number of their significant teachings have fallen by the wayside.”

Lorenzo Snow, fifth prophet of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day SaintsI provided examples of some of these teachings, including Lorenzo Snow’s couplet on the nature of God (“As man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may be.”) A Latter-day Saint reader responded:

“Haha. I can only laugh at this posting. The thought came to me: Who better to tell ME (a proactive and faithful member of the LDS Church) what teachings are ignored or taught in the Church, than Sharon? It’s hilarious.

“The Lorenzo Snow couplet is one of the LEAST ignored teachings in the Church. I hear it, at least, twice a month…. Which is a lot, considering.

“…So, you made me laugh, Sharon. You say that Lorenzo Snow’s couplet is an ignored teaching, when I hear it ALL THE TIME, in the Church. It really hurts your credibility.” (Excerpted from lengthier quote)

Sometime later I came across Krista Tippett’s January 2008 interview of LDS scholar Robert Millet (Speaking of Faith on American Public Media). In this interview, Ms. Tippett asked Dr. Millet about the LDS godhead. She expressed her understanding that the Mormon idea of God is that He is a product of something like spiritual evolution: “God who was once a man, and moved into this very different kind of being.”

Dr. Millet acknowledged the fact that Joseph Smith and other LDS prophets taught that God was once a man. He continued,

“but you know, it’s talked about so little, so infrequently; I hear much, much more of that teaching from those who are outside the LDS faith than I do from people within.”

How could the church experiences of our Mormon reader and Robert Millet be so different? One hears the doctrine “all the time” in the Church, and the other hears it “so little, so infrequently.”

In March I suggested that this could be a case of public Mormonism vs. private (members only) Mormonism. This idea seems to be borne out in a Church News report of the 61st annual Joseph Smith Memorial Lecture. Speaking to a Utah audience, Joe J. Christensen, then of the Presidency of the Seventy, told this story during the Memorial Lecture, related here by Church News:

“He [Christensen] told of speaking to a university class in the Southwest on the Church during a Religion in Life Conference. After the class, the professor approached him [Christensen] and asked him if he believed the statement, ‘As man is God once was, and as God is man may become.’

“‘I had purposely not used that statement during my remarks to the class because I felt that I could raise more dust with that one than I would be able to settle in one class period,’ he recalled. ‘After circumlocuting around and around the question, I finally said, ‘”Yes, we believe that.”‘” (Church News, 2/4/1995, 4; emphasis retained from the original)

Mr. Christiansen admitted the truth of the doctrine in the end. During the Tippett interview Robert Millet also admitted believing that God was once a man, for he thinks it’s “part of the faith.” Dr. Millet added,

“but it’s rather theologically tangential in the sense that we believe He’s a man; what went on before He was God we just have no idea.”

Chain Gang -- Hard WorkDr. Millet referenced Joseph Smith’s King Follett Discourse earlier in the interview when he acknowledged prophets had taught God was once a man. It seems that if Dr. Millet is willing to believe Joseph’s teaching on that point, then Joseph’s statement on the pre-godhood of God should inform Dr. Millet on that as well. Joseph Smith said,

“…you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 346-347)

So, according to the Prophet, what went on before God became God was this:

  • He was learning how to be a God;
  • He was learning how to be a king and a priest to His God;
  • He was going from one small degree to another;
  • He was going from a small capacity to a great one; etc.

This seems pretty clear to me; and it’s pretty important as well. Those who believe the Bible can in no way consider the doctrine of God “theologically tangential.” Knowing God as He is–and worshiping Him alone–is theologically essential.

“‘…let him who boasts boast in this, that he understands and knows Me,…'” *

* Jeremiah 9:24. In addition, please consider Jeremiah 10:10; Exodus 34:14; John 17:3

About Sharon Lindbloom

Sharon surrendered her life to the Lord Jesus Christ in 1979. Deeply passionate about Truth, Sharon loves serving as a full-time volunteer research associate with Mormonism Research Ministry. Sharon and her husband live in Minnesota.
This entry was posted in God the Father, King Follett Discourse, Lorenzo Snow. Bookmark the permalink.

179 Responses to Before God Was God

  1. David says:

    subgenius,

    The major difference between the LDS position and the monotheistic position is that the “other gods” are of a different substance, a different kind as our God. They are not “gods” or at least not “true gods” as it were. Psalm 82 clearly shows this whether one interprets it as “gods”, “judges” or “angels”. They die like men unlike the one true God.

    Our God is not the same as your God as he is not of the same specie as man. This is why we can rightly call him the one true God. He is unique; angels, gods, demons, and men do not have the same “ness” as He. From where I am standing I do not see how you can rightly call God the one true God, when in your cosmology, many true Gods exist (even if you don’t worship them).

    Other Gods (in your cosmology) rightly receive worship and some of those Gods may, or even probably, are older and more powerful than the deity of the Bible (Like God’s dad). If there is only one universe, created by only one God, then it is He alone that any and every being should worship.

    I do not know why Mormons try to employ Psalm 82 as proof of their cosmology as it shows God is essentially God of gods. The OT demonstrates His claim to be worshipped, not because of some right based on descent (He is our dad) but because of power. He is more powerful than the other “gods” because He alone is God.

    LASTLY, I do not know why MORMONS on this blog keep doing THIS.

  2. Michael P says:

    I post this to suggest a source from which to go by in terms of the debate on polytheism. The work of Mark S. Smith, who is basically the head of Near Eastern Studies and the Department Chair of Hebrew and Judaic Studies at New York University has published a few books stemming from Psalm 82 that suggest early Jews actually came from a polytheistic background.

    I am skeptic of his thesis as it seems to focus on a terribly narrow line of texts for Ugarit, in Syria. Perhaps this is the best we have, but to make such broad sentiments off a very limited scope of documents I find premature. There are other issues, but I offer as a reference point.

  3. Lautensack says:

    subgenius said,The rules of logic often have no application in the discussion of Spiritual knowledge; Really, prove this? If we are dealing with the spiritual, prove that the spiritual is not necessarily logical. Prove that God is not logical.

    Also you say, They can constantly use themselves to prove and disprove each other without moving your Spirit in any direction; perhaps they are best for exploring Physical knowledge. Are the laws of logic physical? Can I reach out and touch them? Or, are they spiritual? Are they something that does not exist in the physical realm but the spiritual one?

    You said, These two logical means of reasoning are usually ways of self-deception or self-distraction. According to your reasoning this statement is which? Is it self-deception or self-distraction?

    Now I do believe that many people are self deceived. Take this example of Mrs. Smith and her son Joe:
    One day Mrs. Smith gets a call from the local police department. The officer on line states that Joe is in jail for vandalism. The evidence is clear that Joe has been vandalism at a local 711. A plethora of spray cans matching the colors bought only an hour before his arrest. Fingerprints on the cans left at the scene. Fingerprints in paint on the wall of the 711. Video footage of his act. Joe is Mrs. Smith’s pride and joy, yet she begins to show affective symptoms of believing the proposition that Joe is a vandal. She avoids places that remind her of his actions. She moves Joe to a new area, she begins to watch Joe more attentively, yet would never admit this. She persuades herself that the police must have had a grudge against her son, and that he could not have done this. She forgets the evidence, and refuses to look at it objectively, this is her son, he cannot be a vandal. In private she lashes out at Joe in ways she would not have before, yet in public she holds him up as a figure of community and excellence, which astonishes and embarrasses others.

  4. Lautensack says:

    When the neighbors ask about the new red dragon sprayed upon their garage door Mrs. Smith flushes, fidgets, and turns away answering in a halting fashion or changing the subject, though she did just find an empty can of red spray paint in her kitchen garbage. She treats the evidence in an unusually distorted way, while at the same time being satisfied that her interpretations are quite plausible.
    Clearly Mrs. Smith has deceived herself, believing her son Joe to be a pillar of virtue when in reality he is a vandal. Clearly the evidence is there that she knows Joe is a vandal but because of her discomfort at this thought and her emotional attachment to Joe she is motivated to hide this from herself, and examine the evidence in odd ways. She leans entirely on the concept that the police were out to get her son, and implausible interpretations of the facts against her son. This brings her to believe that she does not believe Joe is a vandal. She conceives of herself as trusting this untrustworthy son, and while guarding herself against his untrustworthiness she enthusiastically affirms her belief in him to others.

    Anyways not that that rabbit has run its course, on the issue of 1 Corinthians 8:5-6, I understand it to be your position that Paul is talking about God the Father’s brothers and/or Father perhaps? Are these the so called Gods of verse 5, since in verse 4 Paul writes “there is no God but one”? Also what of when David wrote, “For all the gods of the peoples are idols, but the LORD made the heavens.” Could Paul, knowing the scriptures not be speaking to this very subject in a passage referring to idols? Just some things to think about.

    Lautensack

  5. falcon says:

    Subgenius,
    Actually you can believe whatever you want and worship whatever or whoever you want, but understand this, your view that there are many gods is neither orthodox Judism or Christianity. I’m confident that 2,000 years of Christianity and 4,000 or so years of Jewish scripture interpretation and subsequent tradition have well defined the nature of God. If you want to operate outside this sphere, have at it. By-the-way, the reason you don’t quote the BoM is because it has a monotheistic view of God. When Joseph Smith concocted the BoM, he was still pretty much a monotheist. Go and visit the web site of the Community of Christ Mormon group. They seem to hold to what they say was the original view of the Mormon doctrine. They pretty much look like evangelical Christians who can’t let go of Joe’s novel.

  6. amanda says:

    David,

    You think that I am LAME and CHILDISH because I use CAPS? Well, however childish that maybe, it is sometimes necessary when communicating online in order to give a sense of vocal inflection. You have chosen to see me in the worst possible way. But I forgive you.

    ” (i said) “Bishops in early Christianity decided to make up the doctrine of the trinity”. (David says) So when and where did this happen?”

    Where in the bible does it outline a specific doctrine of the trinity? It doesn’t, so SOMEONE had to make it up, or had a revelation of sorts (which can’t be what you believe in, since you so adamantly disagree with direct revelation from God to man).

    A real setback to those who only accept the bible to be scripture is sheer lack of CONTEXT (I can use that term now because you so competently defined it for me) in understanding its’ doctrines. God has given His children many resources to learn His gospel. The bible itself was not composed as ONE book, it was MANY books written by those who were commanded to make accounts, and even those who just decided to make accounts. It’s like saying “I only knew the book of Matthew, so the other accounts in Luke and Mark are testifying of ANOTHER Christ and I cannot accept it or use it in understanding Matthew”. It’s a history of God’s communication with His children. He still communicates with us, whether we write down our testimonies in our journals for our children to read, or the prophet writes a book about grace and works. The book of mormon is an account of His other sheep. Evangelicals limit themselves to the bible as if it were written as one book- and it wasn’t. You accept it as one book because a few Christians in earlier centuries compiled it as such. It did not fall out of the heavens.

    Thank you for your patronizing tone, however. I do find it amusing.

  7. Jeffrey says:

    Amanda, I don’t know what Christians you are speaking of that only think the Bible is one book. A lot of the Christians on this site use scripture from other books of the Bible to interpret the others in the Bible. That’s what is so beautiful is the books of the Bible are in harmony of each other.

    Unfortunate that one can’t say the same about the words of the LDS prophets and their own scripture.

    I believe God can communicate whenever, however, and wherever he wants with anyone in the world. You are for some reason thinking us evangelicals don’t believe that. I don’t limit the powers of God and I don’t think any Christian here would either.

    The mere fact of the matter though is that the Bible shows the path to Salvation and it does not need to be added upon.

    Mormons keep saying that the Book of Mormon contains the fulness of the Gospel in our day and age. Tell me, Amanda, what does the Book of Mormon teach us that the Bible does not?

    And in case you haven’t heard, the Holy Bible is in wide circulation in the United States, so its not like we need some extra stories about some ancient american indians. Especially giant cultures of people that have left no traces of their existence.

  8. Michael P says:

    Jeffrey answered much of the concerns to Amanda, but I’d like to focus on this: she thinks we do not believe in revelation. I think this is an example of the most common distinction between Mormonism and Christianity: different definitions of the same words.

    Christians DO (emphasis) believe in modern revelation. God speaks to us often, every day in fact. God reveals his will to us constantly and in a number of ways. Through emotiion, intellect, through prayer, through observation, through study of scripture, through study of other sources, through daily experiences, through nature, through our chidlren, parents, co-workers, you name them, you name it, God speaks to us through them and it.

    What is the topic of revelation? Could be anything and everything. From the most mundane to the most important aspect of our lives. Which cereal to buy in the store to where we should live. From which occupation to what to drive. Anything under the sun is appropriate for revelation.

    However, this revelation must be followed up with some double checking. Doubt is not a bad thing, necessarilly. Is this emotion from God, or is it from another source? How do I find out? I don’t just pray for it, I check the scriptures!

    Revelation is rooted in the Bible, and must be vrified through it.

    To the Mormon, revelation is something different. I am not sure I can put a finger on it, but it seems separated from scripture, the Bible. It seems revelation trumps scripture, so scripture is rendered secondary. I am not sure what may be subject to finallity in revelation vs the Bible.

    In the end, revelation is hugely different between our faiths. God does speak to us, yes, but how and what we make of it is where the pudding is.

  9. Rick B says:

    Jeffery said to Amanda,

    Mormons keep saying that the Book of Mormon contains the fulness of the Gospel in our day and age. Tell me, Amanda, what does the Book of Mormon teach us that the Bible does not?

    Amanda, I have said the same thing, even using my , Bruce M Challange to prove the point.

    But to give Credit to Ralph, he is trying to take me up on the Challange. Rick b

  10. Ralph says:

    Lautensack,

    In answer to your question to subgenius ”The rules of logic often have no application in the discussion of Spiritual knowledge; Really, prove this? If we are dealing with the spiritual, prove that the spiritual is not necessarily logical. Prove that God is not logical.”, I believe it was God who said in the OT something like ‘My ways are not your ways, My thoughts are not your thoughts.’

    Examples – Whittling down an army to a few hundred men to fight against an army of thousands is not logical. Telling someone to wash in one specific river that was more polluted than others to heal leprosy is not logical; even the person involved questioned this. If God is spirit and perfect and we are to be perfect like Him and worship Him in spirit then what is the logic in a physical resurrection? That would be less perfect than Him and because of the physical will inhibit our full worship of Him. The list can go on.

    I read the quote on the other page from the Bible dictionary. It proves nothing to your case as it says that the idea evolved from passages in the Bible not the idea was written in the passages. It shows how people came up with the idea but does not show any support for or against the Trinity. So either it’s in there (which it isn’t according to the dictionary) or it’s not.

    Falcon,

    I have a book “Gift of the Jews” by Thomas Cahill. In it there is a brief description of the Hebrews being polytheistic before monotheistic. A few years ago on TV was a 3 part programme by a Brit Journo who had been kidnapped in the Middle East. He was made to read both Bible and Koran and compare the two. After his release he did more research. Part of his findings were that the ancient Hebrews were polytheists, they had their God, his consort, their Son and a messenger/secretary. A website http://www.geocities.com/serraphazel/fiction/hebrew.html gives an introduction into this argument then refers to other sites for ongoing documentation.

  11. Lautensack says:

    Ralph,
    Is your argument for the illogic of God a logical one based upon the wisdom and traditions of men or an illogical one based upon the illogic of God? Does it have a natural flow and logic one can follow or is it so very illogical that is to spurious to follow? If it is the former, and I would argue since there is a flow logic to the argument that it is, then it is obviously not from God as according to your argument. Thus your argument for an illogical God is self refuting, as this moment it could be true and the next it might not be.

    As for your arguments against the logic of God via examples, I would disagree that God is illogical in these cases. On the reducing of the army, I will assume you are speaking of Gideon, don’t we do this even in our day with speed assaults and tactical strikes? Also we must remember that the battle belongs to the LORD.(Proverbs 21:31) As for the washing incident we see the Logic of God proving His prophet, Elisha, is from Him.(2 Kings 5:8) The question of the resurrection being illogical if God is spirit, as we are to be perfect. I’ll allow your faulty presupposition to slide because this leads to the deeper question, what is perfection? Is it an attribute of God like omnipotence (God’s Greatness) or is it like love (God’s Goodness)? If it is the latter than we as creatures can reach that while still maintaining a body as we have a spirit as well.

    Finally though I mentioned the harper article on the “Catholic Parish Registers Off-Limits to LDS Church” post I will just quote the last line that follows your one line argument. “Nevertheless, the discussion above and especially the presence of trinitarian formulas in 2 Cor. 13:14 (which is strikingly early) and Matt. 28:19 indicate that the origin of this mode of thought may be found very early in Christian history.” Clearly the contributers believe the Trinity is Biblical, and entered into the thought of Paul and Matthew, though not stated in Nicene Terms.

    Lautensack

  12. David says:

    Where in the bible does it outline a specific doctrine of the trinity? It doesn’t, so SOMEONE had to make it up, or had a revelation of sorts (which can’t be what you believe in, since you so adamantly disagree with direct revelation from God to man).

    Amanda, if you desire charity then it helps to show some 🙂 I do believe that God has and still does reveal Himself to man, and guess what . . . I am not a Mormon! So why do assume that I do not believe in modern day revelation?

    No Trinity in the Bible eh? Well, that is another assertion. Can you at least see it as such?

    Allow me to go down the rabbit hole with this –
    “God has given His children many resources to learn His gospel.”

    I would say church traditions are part of this. If you have ever bothered to look at the writings of ancient bishops and theologians, you would see that they testify to Christ. Going back to the first century, there are extra-biblical writings, drawings, and inscriptions that speak of Christian doctrine. What they say does not even resemble Mormon teaching, especially about God (yes, this is an assertion but one I am willing to back up if given the chance). The religion of the first Christians looks much more like my faith than it does yours. You must deny the Trinity and its historicity as it is essential to the Mormon idea of a total apostasy (and thus a restoration of the church).

    Ralph – if (huge if) the Hebrews went from polytheism to monotheism then your faith is destroyed as well. The later, monotheistic stage of Hebrew beliefs is when the Bible was written. So, when the Bible was written the Hebrew prophets had a view of God (as contained in the scriptures) that contradicts your view of God. Do you see the problem?

  13. falcon says:

    Ralph,
    I think that your point that the Hebrews were polytheistic before being monotheistic (without agreeing with your premise) gives hope to all Mormons that they to can turn from their belief and recognition of polytheistic false gods to the One true God of the Bible. I would invite you to recognize the God of the Bible and foresake all other gods whether you worship them or not.
    Let’s develop AMANDA’S theme of “making it up”. Start with the Book of Abraham. It has been proven that Joseph Smith made it up. How about the BoM. There’s all kinds of evidence that it wsas made up. And since we’re discussing men becoming gods and god once being a man, someone had to “make it up”. And Joseph Smith being threatened wsith a sword by an angel if he didn’t take on more women as wives, sounds like a made-up story. Men, could you imagine coming home with that story? HA!

  14. subgenius says:

    Lautensack wants proof? How scientific, rather than faithful. However, I have said before, even though this is way off the subject for this thread, I enjoy this game.
    FIRST
    The rules of logic donot apply to spiritual matters, see 1COR 2:5- “ That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.”, or perhaps 1COR 2:11-14 especially 14 –“But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned”. Perhaps Matthew 16:8 and the blatant contrast of Jesus’s perception versus those that “reason” or better yet “..O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves..”. Or how do you read Matthew 16:17 “And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.”
    SECOND
    Yes the laws of logic are completely physical. How do you use logic? Where is the logic in love? Where is the logic in beauty? Logic, by definition and application, is a formal science, it is reason, probability, argument, and inference. Are these the means by which you base your belief and worship of God? Does God just “add up” to you, or is not your soul moved by His power and His love, which is incapable of being subjected to any scientific method. How do the miracles of Jesus coincide with the logical method? They are not inductive because you have never witnessed them, and it is not deductive because the laws of logic claim that deductive reason cannot lead to actual truths. Remember logic is not a relative endeavor nor is it subject to your attempted allegories. Granted there is always a “moral” to your stories, but they are hardly logical arguments…..which brings us to

  15. subgenius says:

    THIRD
    (wait a second- the self-deception-distraction comment could be either, it is a summation of your long-winded spray paint story…she is self-deceived and distracted). Anyway, I have noticed that some supposed logic is tragic flawed. Take your story of the dolphin’s attributes, you claim we may share attributes but we are not dolphins – however you fail to realize that sharing attributes also means you are the same – in other words sharing attributes may mean you are a dolphin (walks like a duck, quacks like a duck…). Additionally your spray can vandalism is a lesson in the failure of deductive reasoning to provide truth. The story is about a mother in self-denial, someone who refuses to see the error in something they hold so dear, however your argument is based on assumption. The assumption is that the error exists. Sure it exists in the story because you said it does, you provided the fingerprints, however our discussion has not been about vandalism at the 7-11. Our discussion has been about God. Those that use simplistic similes and hyperbole have no questionable motivations. The Word of God is truth and it cannot be reduced to some anecdotal evidence used to promote one’s ego. (The anecdotal flaw in logical arguments is simple – someone slips on a banana peel and states that banana peels should be illegal because they cause injury). Our society is permeated with this basic flaw in logic (just turn on CNN). Just because you spin a clever tale that works itself out does not make it true or false, just makes it entertaining. Your allegorical arguments are illogical and fundamentally flawed, but I believe you are trying to defy logic and speak to the spirit of your reader?

  16. Michael P says:

    Subgenious, actually, the corallary evidence from the spray paint story to God can be found. This is his point. We have loads of evidence to show the Bible to be a reliable source, and a credible one. What it says about the past is pretty accurate, no? We can then reasonably assume what it says about God is true.

    Lets contrast that with Mormon books. Historically accurate? Far from it. And the revelator (Joseph Smith) has been caught in a number of questionable circumstances. Are we to reasonably assume what is contained is true?

    The problem is excarebated when the crux of your proof lies on a “burning of the belly” that cannot be proven (or disproven). Can this burning reasonably be explained as emotion? I’ll leave that question unanswered now, but the intellectual honest answer is obvious.

    So, we have a faith that is based on a sound book. We have instructions in that book to test everything based on it. We have examples of groups doing exactly that, and they are called noble. Then we have a faith based on a questionable book from a questionable source which provides its proof through a “burning in the bosom.”

    No, God does not always work logically, but he makes sense. God also does not ask us to suspend reason, even when he asks us to walk by faith. Faith is where he resides, to be sure. Logic can only take us so far. But we spurn him when we do not use the logic he gave us. Given the above, which makes more sense?

  17. subgenius says:

    Michael P
    There is no corollary evidence. Maybe you mean another word, that word is, by definition, a term of subjective opinion. Anyway, prove your so-called spray can evidence in the context of our discussion. My point is that just because he tells a colorful story to state his claim does not make it a truth or falsehood, no more than it would for me (and this is blatantly within the rules of logic). However, perhaps spiritually he speaks truth or falsehood?
    You have a bold claim with “loads of evidence”…perhaps you can elaborate with just 3 examples (no biblical quotes allowed). I do not need these examples, because it is not logic that guides my faith in the Bible it is the Truth found in its Spirit. Is historical accuracy what you need to believe?, then perhaps we should start a thread on the two different creation stories or the modern day existence of any physical evidence from the Bible. Yes, “burning in the bosom” can not be proven or disproven and that is exactly my point.
    God also actually does not ask us to reason at all on matters of the spirit, see my quotes above.
    Read the following carefully and undersatnd.
    I do not “spurn” logic. I use logic on many aspects of my PHYSICAL life, however logic is not applicable for SPIRITUAL life and the Bible definately supports this idea (by the way miracles, by definiton, do not make sense). This is my last allowed post today, and i will be moving my thoughts to another topic on this board. Good luck to everyone.

  18. falcon says:

    I can see why a Mormon wouldn’t want to use logic and evidence in spiritual matters. Logic and evidence really takes the free flow of creativity out of revelation. Logic and evidence means you actually need some substance to support your assertions. It’s also a lot easier to manipulate and control people using emotions like joy, euphoria, and fear. Two of my favorite movies are The Flim Flam Man (old movie from the 60s with George C. Scott) and The Sting. Both movies show how emotion is used to effectively hook people and dupe them. So if you look at the claims of Mormonism, it is absolutely necessary for adherents to not look at evidence and to suspend logic. That’s how the testimony is then able to be received.

  19. Lautensack says:

    Now in my dolphin analogy, I said we share attributes with a dolphin, does this make us a dolphin? Not necessarily. Does it mean that we are not a dolphin? Not necessarily. However when we compare the differences between us and dolphins we clearly are not. Yet according to your logic you would hold that since we share these attributes dolphins are humans and humans are dolphins, which is absurd.
    As to the analogy of self-deception yes it works out in the end. You may deceive yourself into thinking that this woman is not deceived, which I believe you are, but that in and of itself is a self-deception. Furthermore to say that God has not left His “fingerprints” in the world is an absolute absurdity coming from a theist. However if you by your unrighteousness suppress this truth, then you too are self-deceived. Please also note I did not apply self-deception to anyone, prior to now, I was simply stating how it works. This is not to say that I do not believe some people on this blog are self-deceived.
    I agree, society is very illogical. This comes from not submitting to the Revelation of God as the source of Truth, for what is revealed from God as True comes from Truth Himself. Hence why all systems of thought that do not come from Biblical Christianity have the problem of the One and the Many.
    You say I appeal not to logic but to the spirit? I submit I appeal to both. Logic is spiritual, it is a tool of thought used to enhance and enrich our fellowship with God, leading to a deeper enjoyment of Him and His Truth. You say you do not use logic in your faith, perhaps that’s because you are not seeking to “take every thought captive to obey Christ.”(2 Cor 10:5)
    Finally I would like to say even if I had God’s infinite knowledge and laid out the logic of all of creation, of miracles, of all things, unless you changed your mind, or you were given a new heart, converted by God, you would never believe. This is the depth of the self-deception of those who hate God.

    Lautensack

  20. Lautensack says:

    subgenius,
    You seem to have the assumption that faith and reason are at odds with each other. This if that is so then why is there anything logical in the world at all if all proceeds from, and was created by God. Now I agree that the scientific method is not what is used to prove matters of faith, yet you are clearly interchanging that for Logic. Now I suggest that the wisdom of men is not innately logical, however if God is true, God never lies or contradicts Himself, then the ‘law of non contradiction’ (so called), is simply that which describes His character. Since from this fundamental law all of logic is derived that the Laws of Logic are simply an expression of the very nature of God.
    Now your argument is not actually for the illogicalness of God, but against the logic of men. I completely agree that the natural man cannot submit to the things of God. Therefore when men use logic they submit to a presupposition that they deny is true, and suppress by their unrighteousness(Rom 1:18,19), that is the Triune God. However faith is not something illogical but rather something intrinsically logical, because we are imitating as creatures the perfect trust that the three persons of the Trinity have for one another.
    Now as to logic being something physical. Tell me where I can see, touch, taste, smell, or hear a law of logic not coming from thought. Thought is something spiritual. This is not to say that all thoughts are about something spiritual, however the act of thinking is a spiritual act. As are the acts of emotions. This again is not to say that all thoughts or emotions are logical. Now I do not see the dichotomy between God moving my soul and me logically coming to Him, in fact it is just the opposite. God draws me to Him in such a way that it would be illogical not to go to Him. Does this mean at the time I was thinking of this logic, not at all however to say that coming to Christ was not logical is fallacy.

    .CONTINUED.

  21. jer1414 says:

    Ralph,
    You asked about “us” in Genesis. Haven’t had time to see if this has been answered yet, but since you directed this to me in part, I’ll give a very short explanation. The plural “us” is used reflecting three Personages, not three Gods. I know you reject this. A very short explanation is to say that there is only one God in existence (Isaiah 44:8). He knows of no other God in existence. Before Him there were no Gods formed, neither will there be any Gods formed after Him (Isaiah 43:10). There are three separate personages (Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost), who are the one eternal God. I know this is unacceptable having been taught that God and man are the same type of being. There is no comparison between man and God – Man is created, one dimensional if you will. God is eternal and multidimensional (like the potter and the clay analagy). Through the word “Trinity” is not mentioned in the Bible (neither is “Bible”), the concept is there. Again, I know this goes against your teaching, but since you asked the question, I have made a very short attempt at answering it. May God bless.

  22. Lautensack says:

    In the words of Willy Wonka “Strike that. Reverse it.” Yes I am fallible, my comments from yesterday should be reversed, sorry for any confusion this may have caused.

    Lautensack

  23. subgenius says:

    jer1414
    Though i agree with part of your answer (that “us” is perhaps best explained by them being the other 2 personages) i do not agree tht “us” is one. This would seem to color God as mildly schizophrenic, talking to himself. Or should it not be said that Jesus sits at the right of hand of himself? There is more reference in the Bible to 3 seperate personages than the occasional use of my father and i are one. This oneness is similar to “oneness” man and wife.
    now, i really mean it, on to another topic.

  24. David says:

    So I guess the Shayma is wrong-

    Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one.

    The nation of Israel got it wrong for thousands of years before Jesus?! Jews and Christians are monotheists because (in part), in both Greek an Hebrew, the pronouns used towards God are masculine and singular.

    Psalm 86:10 – For You are great and do wondrous deeds; You alone are God.

  25. falcon says:

    I’m just sitting here, working my way through (again), my big fat unabriged, one volume Christian Theology text and something occurred to me. I’m sure I’ve had the thought before, but I was wondering why Mormons want to be considered part of the Christian family while denying the basic tenets of the faith? Being a Green Bay Pakers fan, I was thinking that it would be like the Chicago Bears wanting to dress-up in Packers’ uniforms. Or perhaps, the Milwaukee Brewers claiming they play football and want to be in the NFL. But since we were having a discussion here with our Mormon friends concerning their assertion that religion can’t be approached logically, maybe it would be acceptable that the Brewers would be claiming to play football. Well anyway, this big fat Christian Theology Book supports the traditional view of the nature of God and the doctrine of the Trinity. Way too many chapters dealing with the topic to even begin to summarize it, so I guess we’re going to have to be content with the notion that Christians are Christians and Mormons are Mormons. We have to bet on which side is right. No big deal….just eternal life, salvation of the soul, at stake.

  26. Rick B says:

    Falcon,
    I did a topic on my blog a year or so ago called (What if).
    Like your football example, I said, What if, I dressed up like a Mormon Missionary, went door to door and said I am an LDS member, but then gave the Gospel I believe according to the Bible, Grace Alone, One God, No works Ect. The LDS would not be happy and even try to get me to stop. Yet they do the same thing by preaching a different Gospel, yet claiming to be Christian.

    So why would it be wrong for me to do it, yet LDS can and do, do it? Rick b

  27. falcon says:

    Rick,
    Let’s do it! We’ve never met but we live within a hundred miles of each other so I’m sure we could put this deal together. What do we need? Is there somewhere on the web where we can buy the outfit and name tags. Do they carry a Bible, BoM…what? I’m way out of the age range but I act really young….OK maybe immature is a better word. Is there a personna we’ll have to adopt?

  28. Berean says:

    RickB and Falcon,

    I’ll tell you what I have done when I have heard Mormons say they are Christians. It always shuts that line down. I say to the Mormon:

    “You say that you are Christian, right? If I were to tell you that I DO NOT believe that Joseph Smith is a propthet of God, I DO NOT believe that the Book of Mormon is the word of God, I DO NOT believe that the LDS Church is the restored church today and I DO NOT believe that Thomas Monson is a prophet today, then would it be fair for me to go around tell people that I am a Mormon? No, right? You wouldn’t like that because it wouldn’t be accurate to what Mormons believe, right? Well, that is the exact case with Christians. Christians don’t believe in Joseph Smith, Thomas Monson, the Book of Mormon or the LDS Church.”

    If Christians wanted to be spiteful we most certainly could dress up like Mormons. Oh, I’ve been tempted to do it everytime I look at my white shirt and black tie in the closet just to offset their neighborhood campaigns around here.

    The latest thing the LDS missionaries are doing here in Vegas is hanging out in the parking lots of Home Depot and the grocery stores offering to load people’s cars and then let them know families can be together forever conveniently leaving out the Mormon law that one will have to live by. Either times are getting hard for the LDS membership drive or the local mission president has too many missionaries to contend with and has sent them to the local vendors to help with loading cars and putting the carts back in the stalls in the parking lots to keep them busy.

    Once you talk to them one time and refute their heretical teachings with the Bible they will run away when they see you come back to the store again. I’ll be carrying my Bible with me from now on when I go buy nails and fertilizer seed at Home Depot or buy a bag of oranges at the store. You never know who is going to show up. We have to talk to them and pray for them!

  29. Michael P says:

    Berean,

    Out here in Fairfax, VA just outside DC, I have seen the missionaries in growing numbers hitting the parking lots. I have commented to my wife that they are out in force these days. That you see them in Vegas too suggests a shift in strategy perhaps. Why, I am not sure. Guess its a way to better confront people than disrupting them at home and by doing a service.

    Subgenious,

    You apply logic to your physical life but not to your spiritual? So, your spiritual life is completely separated from your physical life? There’s no logic behind the ritual ordinances? There’s no logic behind how you live your life based on your faith? That’s the logical conclusion of your stance there, and that is impossible to truly live a life of faith.

    As to logic in faith, it is interesting that Pual reasons with so many in the scriptures. If faith has nothing to do with reason/logic, then it would all be about the burning. But that’s not what Paul does. God also says in Isaiah (1:17-19)that we are to reason together, just before saying how we will be cleansed. We also cannot deny the reference in Acts to the Bereans for verifying everything in scripture.

    Sure, we are to be like children, but we are also to put aside childish things when we grow up. We must believe, an act of faith, but we also must be ready with an answer for our faith, logic/reason. Logic only gets us so far to Christ. I admit this. But it is clear we are to have sound reason for our faith.

    Finally, the archeological evidence ultimately cannot prove the Bible spiritually, but it gives it credence. If what it says happened in history, then it makes it more probable it speaks of truth in spiritual matters. Contrast this with the BoM. No evidence, none, that what it says is true from an historical perspective. Why should we believe it in spiritual matters? This is beyond logic, and we go back to the previous paragraphs.

    Contd

  30. Michael P says:

    The lack of definition in the burning of the bosom is a problem. Do you not see this? Anyone can say anything or feel anything and claim it to be true if we accept this as a standard. This is relativism through and through.

    Now, you are likely to say that this is unmistakeably from God. OK, I say, but what of the burning of the FLDS? Or Jehovah’s Witnesses testimonies? Or how about the passion of the Jihadists? Look at the people following Barak Obama at his speeches. Do they not feel a burning in their hearts? Could they be mistaken? All of them? Of course! But do not tell them that. They will swear there is no way they could be wong.

    This is why its inability to be verified or falsified is a problem. Unfortunately, your burning is no different, and needs to be exposed as such. Despite the absolute certainty you claim it to be, you very well could be wrong. I submit it is wrong, and do so based on what is found in the historically accurate books of the Bible, written over thousands of years by multiple authors and with remarkable consistency. (You asked for three examples– David, Canaanites, and various cities and customs– but this doesn’t matter since facts are nasty things that get in the way of true faith.)

    Now, I expect you to write back and skim the issues I have raised. But if you are intellectually honest, you would concede the merits of these criticisms. Rather, I do expect a skim, and I expect you to hide behind the burning which I cannot refute, nor can anyone, the burning which you cannot prove and flies in the face of all other sensible arguments.

  31. Lautensack says:

    David,
    A small correction. God does use plural pronouns for Himself, note Genesis 1:26, “us” and “our.” Now I agree that there is one God eternally existent in three divine persons, but this is not seen from the pronouns but from the verb structure. Whenever the Bible says God speaks it uses the third masculine singular verb tense. “VaYomer (Verb, Qal Imperfect Third Masculine Singular of Amar[to say] vav consecutive) Elohim (Masculine Noun [God] Masculine Plural Pronominal Suffix) Naase (Verb, Qal Imperfect 1 Common Plural of Ashah[to make]) Adam (Noun [Man]) Btzalmanu (Masculine Noun [Image] Common Plural Pronominal Suffix Bet Preposition [In]) Kidmutheenu (Adverb [In The Likeness Of] Common Plural Pronomial Suffix Cap Preposition [Like])…” Just a slight clarification. It should be noted that elsewhere Elohim uses singular pronouns, as does YHWH Elohim. Those silly original languages, they keep getting in the way of bad theology.

    Lautensack

  32. Berean says:

    The “Us” and “Our” in Genesis 1:26 is the Hebrew word “Elohim”. In the Hebrew language this word “Elohim” is a majestic plural referring to supreme greatness. This would show the pluralistic nature and majesty of God. The Hebrews will be quick to tell you that Elohim does not mean that there is more than one God. The Jews and Christians have one thing in common and that is we both are monotheistic: the belief in only one God.

    Elohim is directly tied to singular pronouns. Examples of this would be “I, he, me, his, my” etc. This takes place 99% of the time in the Old Testament. (Hey Amanda, I know you don’t like my pronouns. Again, these aren’t mine so you can take it up with Heavenly Father and complain to Him that you didn’t like it and see what He tells you if you decided to stay in Mormonism.)

    If there was ever anyone who would know if there was more than one God it would be Jesus and He didn’t acknowledge any other strange gods in Mark 12:29. In Gen 1:26 we have Jesus taking part in the creation (Col 1:16) and The Holy Ghost too (Gen 1:2). In Genesis 1:27 we are back to singular pronouns “his own”.

    For my Mormon friends I ask this: Do you believe that members of the Godhead are “one in purpose”? If so, is it possible that the Holy Ghost would ever contradict what the Father or Son has already revealed?

    Please show me one passage in the Bible or the BOM where it says that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three separate gods (as Joseph Smith taught) that are perfectly united only in purpose? (John 17 shows that the Father and the Son are perfectly united in purpose, but never does it say they are separate gods.)

    Berean

  33. Lautensack says:

    Berean,
    I must correct you in your first statement, “The “Us” and “Our” in Genesis 1:26 is the Hebrew word “Elohim,” for the sake of Honesty and Consistency. The words Us and Our do not come from Elohim, they are spoken by Him. If you note in my previous post we see the first two words of the text are Vayomer Elohim. Vayomer is from the root word amar, to say, but in this form it is He said. Now Elohim, the second word modifies the first, who is the he, it is Elohim. (Hebrew syntax is usually Verb, Subject, Indirect Object, Direct Object.) Now the “Us” and “Our” in Genesis 1:26 are modifying by the very words they are linked to. The entire English phrase “Let us make” comes from one Hebrew word, Naase. Likewise the phrases “in our image” and “after our likeness” are singular words, Btzalmanu, and Kidmutheenu respectively.

    Now while I agree the Bible clearly teaches One God, verse 27 singular verbs bara [to Create] used in singular forms twice of Elohim, once in the perfect, once in the imperfect, we must not use false arguments to explain God, for how can falsehood explain Truth?

    Lautensack

  34. falcon says:

    All right you guys, cut it out. You’re making my head hurt with all of this intellectual word study. You’re taking all of the fun out of this. Let’s just do impressions, feelings and revelations. They take way less work and they let us just kind of free fall and express opinions. Seriously, I really do appreciate your efforts here. It’s been my impresson that Mormonism is about a quarter of an inch deep (that’s generous)when it comes to solid evidence and intellectual pursuit. They depend on religious urban legends, which they pass on with great confidence, and dubious conjecture to support their claims of a restored gospel. So again, thank you for your offerings here, but remember, our Mormon friends operate off of a testimony which trumps any intellectual argument or solid evidence.

  35. David says:

    Lautensack,

    I really do not consider it a correction so much as an addition. I had kind of assumed that people would have known that some of the pronouns were plural becaused “us” was already mentioned. That is why I did not use the word “always”.

    My whole point was if one is going to make a case from the use of a plural pronoun like “us” then other pronouns and verbage should be looked at too. I know some Mormons (I think Joseph Smith too) try to make a case for a tri-theistic godhead because Elohim ends in “im” which denotes a people group. The construction of the other Hebrew words around “Elohim” bar this view. Appealing to Hebrew grammar to support a tri-theistic godhead is going to blow up in one’s face

    The situation does not get any better for Mormons in the Greek. However, I would not put all my theological eggs in the grammar basket, but when joined with clear statements of monotheism in the Law and Prophets plus the history of biblical interpretation both before and after Christ’s earthly ministry, one does not get Mormon tri-theism.

  36. Berean says:

    Lautensack,

    Thanks for explaining that. I stated what my reference books said on the subject. I’m no Hebrew scholar! I know that the Bible is consistent and that God will not contradict Himself. When I see a verse that may say something that is confusing I fall back on the overwhelming and clear verses that state otherwise (God is a spirit; there is one God).

    Falcon,

    You’re right. It’s all about the testimony. I was having a conversation with one of the teachers up at the ward and I asked him how he found out that Mormonism is true. He told me that he watched the DVD “The Restoration”. He said, “I know they were only actors in the film, but when I saw the actor playing Joseph Smith see Heavenly Father and Jesus in the woods I got a burning in my chest and something told me it was true.” I asked what he did after that. He said, “Well, then I prayed about what I saw in the movie and was told again it was true.” He said eventually he did go to scripture, but it was after he was told it was true. This is the first Mormon I have heard say this to me that didn’t involve the text of Moroni 10:3-5. I told him that I rely completely on scripture to test and validate what I hear from someone and even what I see. I gave him the texts from the Bible regarding testing. He did agree with that, but did say that eventually I would have to pray about it. I told him that I don’t have to pray to find out if the Bible is true. It proves that all on its own. I wonder if Mormons would be willing to pray and ask God if the Bible is true, trustworthy and totally complete without need for anything else?

    This is alarming to me. Look, I’ve had warm fuzzies when I have watched “Forest Gump” and “The Green Mile”. My wife and I watched “Castaway” last night. She was convinced that was a true story. I had to convince her it wasn’t. Hold it, I just noticed the similarity here. All these movies have Tom Hanks in them. Could it be that Tom Hanks is a prophet?

  37. falcon says:

    I was somewhat challenged by Ralph’s assertion that the Jews had once been polytheists. I’m often intrigued as much by Mormon strategy in justifing their positions as I am the positions themselves. Anyway, in the book “Becoming Gods: A Closer Look at 21st-Century Mormonism” the author Richard Abanes writes: “Thanks to BYU-based apologists, many Latter-day Saints are now using a fairly new argument to defend their belief in multiple gods. They are claiming that the early Israelites were polytheistic. Therefore, according to this argument, Mormons are only returning to what was once accepted as true in ancient Israel. This claim rests on the theory that Israel initially held to polytheism, which gave way to monolatry, which in turn evolved into monotheism. Such a scenario matches what is tautht by most non-Christians and liberal scholars-the same scholars quoted by LDS apologists when discussing Israel’s so-called polytheism.”
    To me, it seems Mormons often align themselves with the point of view of liberal scholars or non-Christians. What Mormons have in common with these folks is the assertion that the Bible is basically mythology or is wrought with clandestine revisions and dubious edits. So the end game is to degrade the Bible and orthodox Christian doctrine. This is a strategy that is consistant with all false prophets. This approach does attract a certain segment of the population who won’t trouble themselves to dig alittle deeper for the truth.

  38. jer1414 says:

    Subg from May 10 –
    Your comments are common ones among Mormons. They indicate a misunderstanding of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, as evidenced by the fact that your argument is against something Christians consider heresy (Modalism), not the Trinity. Briefly, it is important to understand there are different types of “beings” – God, man, and angels. There is one eternal, infinite being of God, shared fully and completely by three persons, Father, Son and Spirit. The Father is not the Son, The Son is not the Spirit, etc. so one doesn’t “talk to himself”. One what, three who’s.
    I’ve touched here on a brief article that may help at http://vintage.aomin.org/trinitydef.html!
    May you be blessed.

  39. amanda says:

    Falcon,

    “It’s been my impresson that Mormonism is about a quarter of an inch deep (that’s generous)when it comes to solid evidence and intellectual pursuit.”

    You might be right, since we rely more on FAITH than we do the wisdom of men. However, I have to completely challenge your idea of intellectual pursuit. I believe pursuits in the spirit are highly intellectual because they give insight into God’s knowledge- which, as you must know, is far greater than the knowledge of men. How do we, as LDS, pursue intellectually in the spirit? We read scripture…and obey God’s commandments- we heed the prophet, yes. I think your point of view regarding intellectual pursuit is so limited by your lack of understanding Faith and obedience as outlined in the scriptures…and by Christ Himself, as an integral part in God’s plan for us.

    May I suggest you read Neal A. Maxwell’s “Not My Will, But Thine”. You might have to enter a Deseret bookstore, but I would respect you greatly if you attempted to challenge your point of view regarding true intellectual capacity…and how true knowledge is gained. If not, then I should categorize you as you have categorized Mormonism.

  40. subgenius says:

    jer1414
    though it is always futile to argue points of doctrine outside of the Scriptures, i would ask only this question about your assertion of “one what, three who” as derived from your article-link.
    If the Bible tells us that there are only 3(three)classifications of beings, which of these beings is the Son or rather the Spirit? Is the Spirit a man? Your article is a weak basis for this argument. The article actually introduces a fourth being – “person”. Note that the Trinity is defined a 3 “persons” in that article. Overall the article is unsubstantiated and without merit; there is no support, temporal or spiritual for the notion that there is God and three others. There seems to be an intense misunderstanding of the hierarchy in our Spiritual lives. Our Heavenly Father has given us the physical gift of Jesus Christ and the spiritual gift of the Holy Spirit. Through His grace and benevolence we are here today. How is this traditional polytheism? is it not abundantly clear that I WORSHIP only one God – Our Heavenly Father. Yet there are obviously other spiritual beings- things known only unto Him and revealed only through Him.

  41. Sharon Lindbloom says:

    subgenius wrote:

    “How is this traditional polytheism? is it not abundantly clear that I WORSHIP only one God – Our Heavenly Father.”

    The traditional definition of polytheism, as noted above (defined in a comment on May 6th), is belief in more than one God. Nevertheless, if you choose to define it here, for the sake of discussion, worship of more than one God, I am still left wondering. You state you worship only one God — Heavenly Father — who, according to Mormonism, is one God. Does this mean that you do not worship Jesus Christ who, according to Mormonism, is a second God?

    Late President Gordon B. Hinckley said, “We honor Him, we worship Him, we love Him as our Redeemer, the great Jehovah of the Old Testament, the Messiah of the New Testament.” (“A Testimony of the Son of God,” Ensign, 12/2002 p. 4) And, “He is the central focus of our worship. He is the Son of the living God, the Firstborn of the Father, the Only Begotten in the flesh…” (“We Look to Christ,” Ensign, 5/2002 p. 90)

    So to me it looks like Mormons who agree with President Hinckley are polytheists, whichever of these two ways they choose to define the word.

  42. falcon says:

    Amanda,
    Why in the world would I want to read Neal A. Maxwell’s “Not My Will But Thine” when it would be merely the wisdom of man. I would much prefer to go to the scriptures and let God reveal Himself to me there.
    Pursuits in the spirit, you say, are highly intellectual. Would that include people who are involved in the occult pursuits of white magic, black magic, wicca. I was standing at the checkout in a bookstore the other day and a young woman was buying several books on new age enlightenment. Intellectual spiritual pursuit I guess. All that glimmers isn’t gold I’ve heard. That goes for what passes as spiritual intellectualism.
    Hmmmm, my limted understanding of faith. Please share with me what my understanding of faith is.

  43. Ralph says:

    Falcon said,

    ”Thanks to BYU-based apologists, many Latter-day Saints are now using a fairly new argument to defend their belief in multiple gods. They are claiming that the early Israelites were polytheistic.”

    Sorry, never heard of any of these arguments. I got my ideas from my own research on the internet, TV programmes I have watched, books I have read and others that I have worked with who are non-believers and are trying to get believers to stop with their unnecessary faith. If you didn’t notice the web sites, TV show and book I referred to are all non-LDS. I haven’t seen any LDS sites discussing this point yet, but then again, I haven’t looked at other LDS sites for a while, I mainly come here in my free time lately.

  44. falcon says:

    Ralph,
    Well, as I mentioned, and you confirmed (“….others that I have worked with who are non-believers and are trying to get believers to stop with their unnecessary faith.”) Mormons align themselves with folks like this in order to degrade the Bible and Christian doctrine. This must be done by Mormons in an attempt to try and support what they call the restored gospel. It’s been said that if you want to know something about someone look at who they hang around with. It’s very telling. Having aligned themselves with nonbelievers, Mormons have proven themselves enemies of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Having rejected the Gospel of Jesus Christ, Mormons have placed themselves in the camp with nonbelievers. In doing so they will not inherit the Kingdom of God or the salvation God offers through His son Jesus Christ.

  45. subgenius says:

    Sharon Lindbloom
    yes, if you worship more than one, it is polytheism. Thanks for restating what i had already said. As for President Hinckley’s comment, i do not agree with his use of the word “worship”, and this may be just an argument of semantic, which is prevalent on this board. However, as a mormon, i and we only pray TO Our Heavenly Father. Though your quote has minor merit, it is hardly a statement of doctrine. It is hardly a revelation that any religious doctrine may have a verse, statement, or idea that is an inconsistency or contradiction. Even as a prophet, man is not, and never can be, perfect.

  46. Jeffrey says:

    subgenious,

    If making your own definitions for polytheism makes you feel any less polytheistic, then have at it. Personally, I think it’s rather ridiculous though considering every definition of Polytheism that you look up in a dictionary or on the internet, it states “Belief OR Worship in more than one God.”

    At least Ralph said the following –

    “Also if you notice, I never contradicted you when you said I was polytheistic, I have no problems believing that I worship One God but there may be others with Him.”

    You disagree with your prophets spoken words? unheard of!

  47. amanda says:

    Falcon,

    You missed, I’m afraid, the entirety of my point. I was referring to the only legitimate spiritual pursuit-TRUTH- there is only one truth. Your response contained many needless diversions.

    My object in requesting you read that book, was to see things from a different perspective- it was an honest and reasonable request- but I guess you are simply afraid of humbling yourself to even learn something from a mormon! Heaven forbid!

    Regarding Faith and Obedience…I believe that is the ONLY way we can learn the mysteries of God and his unique plan for His children. Time and time again we are taught in the scriptures to not rely on our own strength but to have faith in God and HIS plan for us. His plan is revealed through personal revelation (by reading scriptures, as you pointed out), guidance from a prophet (who holds priesthood keys to guide Christs church),prayer, and the Holy Ghost manifesting Himself through these pursuits. These things provide principles that we must ACT on (faith and obedience) in order to learn line upon line God’s purposes for us. Because our secular knowledge is so limited by our mortal understanding and capabilities, it becomes incredibly important that God have a mouthpiece on earth and request His children be obedient and trust HIM, not man.

    I’m sure similar principles are taught in other churches, however, I do believe it is a stark contrast from your prescription to finding truth… proving things by the standards of men, rather than the standards of God.

    My belief of Joseph Smith as a prophet, and the Book of Mormon as scripture, come from my experiences with the Holy Ghost. Through this process I have come to a true knowledge of their veracity. Because of that, I don’t trust in any other source, no matter how factual they seem to be through the spectacles of man. This is the purpose of the Holy Ghost, to teach with eternal spectacles.

  48. Jeffrey says:

    Amanda, honest question here.

    What has any prophet said, since the day you were born, that you didn’t already know was necessary for your salvation and exaltation? You said that we need a prophet to guide us. I’m just wondering because since I can remember, no prophet in many years has ever gave any new revelation. They have only emphasized being a good person and the many facets of that (parenthood, fatherhood, mother hood, compassion, etc..)

    So really, what spiritual needs are there that a prophet has fulfilled? They share a message about living Christ-like lives which you can find in any Christian congregation.

    Amanda said – “Because our secular knowledge is so limited by our mortal understanding and capabilities, it becomes incredibly important that God have a mouthpiece on earth…”

    Tell me Amanda, what aspect of LDS doctrine do you think has been hard for members and even non members to understand? That we are literal children of God? Not hard. That there are many God’s? Not hard. That we can become God’s like God? Not hard.

    It sounds rude, but the current prophets are just about as useful as any old bishop in a ward.

    I would say the biggest thing they do these days is try and sanitize the history of their own church and its past prophets. Which is unfortunate that one would need to do that.

    Amanda said “I’m sure similar principles are taught in other churches, however, I do believe it is a stark contrast from your prescription to finding truth… proving things by the standards of men, rather than the standards of God. ”

    We prove things by the standard of God. His holy Bible. Where did you hear we prove things by the standards of men?

  49. falcon says:

    Amanda,
    I believe that Joseph Smith was a false prophet and my experience with the Holy Ghost confirms this. God has revealed Himself to me through one of the Gifts of the Holy Ghost known as prophesy. I don’t have to have a “mouthpiece” in the form of another man when I have direct access to God through His Son Jesus Christ and the gifts of the Holy Ghost. The Bible tells us that there is one mediator between God and man and that is Jesus Christ. It isn’t a Mormon prophet. I go directly to God. I don’t use middle men. For more discussion of the Gifts of the Holy Ghost see First Cor. 12,13,14. You are absolutely right, there is only one truth. The truth proclaimed by Joseph Smith wasn’t the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It was an imitation meant to draw men away from the truth proclaimed in the Bible. By-the-way, if you’re going to ignore the facts concerning the restored Gospel, you are doomed to follow a false prophet with a false message.

  50. jer1414 says:

    Amanda,
    My testimony received from the Holy Ghost and confirmed by Scripture completely negates yours. I testify to you that Joseph Smith is not a prophet of God and I know the Book of Mormon is not scripture. We each have experiences with the Holy Ghost that are contradictory. The purpose of the Holy Ghost is not to contradict or negate Scripture. I do not prove things by the standards of men, but rather than the standards of God. The Mormon faith is based on the man Jospeh Smith and his claims. Praise God we don’t need a man prophet to speak to us on behalf of God, for Hebrews 1:1-2 says “Long ago God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son…”

    Amanda, please accept my caution that the personal, subjective sense of what a person thinks God or the Holy Ghost is telling them does not trump the objective Scripture. When we rely on our subjective experiences we can be led astray (2 Cor. 11:13-15 where satan and his angels appear as angels of light), and we must test the spirits! You must test what you believe to be the Holy Ghost speaking to you. 1 Tim. 4:1 talks about seducing spirits, 1 Jn. 4:1 tells us to try the spirits and believe not every spirit, etc.

    The foundation of our confidence cannot be placed on the subjective side, because it’s too easy to be misled by subjective elements. We must have some objective foundation. I realize you “know” your faith is true and to find it not true would be devastating. But please test all things, hold fast to that which is good.

Comments are closed.