Gods and Goddesses, Kings and Queens
In November 2004 Dr. Richard Mouw, president of Fuller Seminary, spoke in front of a packed house at the Mormon Tabernacle on Temple Square. Dr. Mouw apologized for the way evangelicals had borne “false witness” about the teachings of Mormonism. Later, when asked to clarify his statement, Dr. Mouw wrote,
“I have received emails in the past few days where evangelicals have said that Mormonism teaches that God was once a human being like us, and we can become gods just like God now is. Mormon leaders have specifically stated that such a teaching, while stated by past leaders, is something they don’t understand and has no functioning place in present day Mormon doctrine.”
A few years later (2007), in the thick of Mitt Romney’s presidential bid, FOXNews.com asked the LDS Church to comment on 21 questions regarding some controversial beliefs allegedly promoted by Mormonism. Two questions and answers of interest were:
Q: Does the Mormon Church believe its followers can become “gods and goddesses” after death?
A: We believe that the apostle Peter’s biblical reference to partaking of the divine nature and the apostle Paul’s reference to being ‘joint heirs with Christ’ reflect the intent that children of God should strive to emulate their Heavenly Father in every way. Throughout the eternities, Mormons believe, they will reverence and worship God the Father and Jesus Christ. The goal is not to equal them or to achieve parity with them but to imitate and someday acquire their perfect goodness, love and other divine attributes.
—
Q: Does the Mormon Church believe in the existence of another physical planet or planets, where Mormons will “rule” after their death and ascension?
A: No.
The June 2009 issue of Ensign magazine sheds some light on LDS teachings related to the above statements. In “Our Refined Heavenly Home” by Seventy Douglas L. Callister we learn,
“I imagine that our heavenly parents are exquisitely refined. In this great gospel of emulation, one of the purposes of our earthly probation is to become like them in every conceivable way…” (page 55)
“Your Father in Heaven has sent you away from His presence to have experiences you would not have had in your heavenly home–all in preparation for the conferral of a kingdom. He doesn’t want you to lose your vision. You are children of an exalted being. You are foreordained to preside as kings and queens.” (page 58)
“…may we become worthy to enjoy the refined society of heavenly parentage, for we are of the race of the Gods, being ‘children of the most High’ (Psalm 82:6).” (page 58)
To summarize, the LDS gospel is one of “emulation” of God the Father and His heavenly partner. Human beings are of the “race of the Gods,” and as such, each person’s goal is to become like his or her heavenly parents “in every conceivable way.” Once a person is prepared for “the conferral of a kingdom,” he or she will fulfill the foreordained plan to “preside” therein as a king or queen and enjoy the “refined society of heavenly parentage.”
Mr. Callister’s comments are refreshingly straightforward. I hope readers benefit from his teaching and gain expanded insight into a few Mormon doctrines.
Comments (107)
I wonder how our LDS posters react to Dr Mouw’s statement; “Mormon leaders have specifically stated that such a teaching, while stated by past leaders, is something they don’t understand and has no functioning place in present day Mormon doctrine.”
Is it true that the current LDS leadership does not understand what Lorenzo Snow (and Joseph Smith and co.) taught? If it doesn’t, why, in heaven’s name, is it leading the LDS movement? Maybe it should resign so that someone who does understand the doctrine can take the reigns.
Furthermore, I don’t see any indication from recent posts that rank and file LDS regard exaltation as having “no functioning place” in their faith. I understand that they might be keen to correct what they perceive as the misunderstandings of others, but, still, the core idea does not appear to be something that they’ll give away anytime soon.
Maybe its because the missionaries are still young and not ‘worldly wise’ enough that they decide not to teach the doctrine, but it is in the ‘Preach My Gospel’ quite clearly.
p 31 “God is our Heavenly Father. We are His children. He has a body of flesh and bone that is glorified and perfected.”
p 48 “He wants us to become like Him.”
p 49 “Only in this way could God’s children progress and become like Him”
p 53 “They will live in God’s presence, become like Him, and receive a fullness of joy.”
Its all in there and meant to be taught We do not keep it a secret from investigators. So its up to the missionaries to teach it properly.
You have to admire the LDS leadership slight-of-hand, don’t you? Like claiming a verse from the Bible says that “we are of the race of the Gods, being ‘children of the most High’ (Psalm 82:6)”
Looking at the whole “I said..” quote:
Psalm 82: 6-7 “I said, “You are gods,
sons of the Most High, all of you;
nevertheless, like men YOU SHALL DIE,
and fall like any prince.” ”
So according to LDS interpretation, the sons of the Most High are already gods. And yet, they are going to die.
Can real gods DIE? Isn’t immortality sort of hand-in-hand with being a god?
Is this verse talking about the gods who have already gone through the life experience? Or the ones yet to? If the former, gods must be able to die. If the latter, then you were already gods to begin with.
I suggest that this verse is not telling us that there are many gods, nor that we are or can be gods. Rather, it is yet another comparison the writers of the Bible have made between the One True God and the “so-called gods” (1 Cor.
which are man-made idols and not really gods.
I believe we let the leaders of the Mormon church off a little too easily. If they say that they don’t understand this is not doctrinal, or that they don’t understand it or teach it, as Gordon B. Hinckley did in Time Magazine in 1997, then if we subsequently find that they ARE teaching it, then we have to believe at best they are being hypocrites and at worst they are lying. So ARE they teaching the doctrine of men becoming Gods? Yes. They are.
In “Gospel Principles” in lesson 47 they list the blessings given to exalted people. Number 2 on that list is “They will become gods.” (Page 302)
In the current course of study for Relief Society and the Priesthood Quorums, “Teachings of Presidents of the Church – Joseph Smith” in lesson 42 (page 481) the manual quotes D&C 132:20 which says ““Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue;
then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.”
So it seems to me that if this principle is being taught in the current lesson manuals for Sunday School, the Relief Society, the Priesthood Quorums, and in the current editions of the LDS scripture, it is disingenuous at best to say “I don’t know that we teach that.” Clearly, we do teach that.
The whole point of Sharon’s article is that a lot of these folks lie a lot. That’s one of the first thing’s I learned when I was becoming familar with Mormonism all those years ago. Pinning them down is like trying to nail jello to the wall. They will bob and weave and dance and shuck and jive and spin until you’re dizzy.
Andy Watson/Berean has some stories to tell alnog these lines. One of which is when the two missionary boys brought some “back-up” along to his house in the person of an old man who claimed he had seen Jesus. Well anyway, Andy was quite pointed with the guy regarding the god program and the old dude wouldn’t give it up. So Andy points to all of his (Andy’s) Mormon reference material and the geezer gets so mad he bolts out of Andy’s house. Andy collars one of the missionaries before he could get out the door and says, “You do teach that men can become gods don’t you?” The missiionary gets this sheepish look on his face and finally says “Yes we do”.
On page 50 of his book “Beyond Mormonism” Jim Spencer relates how he found out about the progression to godhood.
“I had been disturbed by an incident in the early morning priesthood meeting. The priesthood teacher had mentioned in passing a concept he called Eternal Progression. He said that God had once been a man and ad progressed to godhood! I found that impossible to believe and protested, saying it was blasphemous to talk about God having once been a man.”
It should be pointed out that Jim had been in the program and wasn’t someone going through the missionary lessons. This is a sad but often told tale in Mormonism.
I suggest reading the first quote from Dr. Mouw again. You guys are so anxious to make LDS look bad, it truly amazes me.
Look at the quote that is the point of contention- “As man is, God once was, and as God is, Man may become.”
We clearly teach that we can become like God- NOT EQUAL WITH HIM- PLEASE DO NOT GO OFF ON THAT. But the concept that God was once mortal is something we clearly do not understand well. I think this is what the leaders are referring to when they say “we do not teach or understand this very well.”
The leaders are not referring to the teaching that we may become like God, rather they are saying that we do not understand well the doctrine that God was once a mortal. And please do not tell me we believe God was a sinner. Every hint of this doctrine in the scriptures also hints toward the Father having been a mortal in the same sense that Christ was a mortal- perfect and sinless.
You guys pick parts of quotes and manipulate them in any way possible to make us into liars. It is so disingenuous and deceptive. This is a great example of critics making a “man an offender for a word” and baring false witness. Please don’t do it.
Olsen Jim,
There is not a person alive (except perhaps a skilled politician) who, knowing nothing about Mormonism, could watch the Larry King interview clip with Mormon Prophet and Seer Gordon B. Hinckley and NOT think that he denied the LDS teaching/belief that men can become gods and women a kind-of side kick god (who never really gets mentioned all that much, invisible really). It really comes down to the definition of “know that we teach it” – what does “teach” really mean. Does it mean that “we may believe it, but we don’t teach it?” Does it mean “of course we don’t believe that, we don’t teach it?” The common lay person hearing “we don’t teach it,” and thinks Mormons don’t believe that god was once a man, or that men can become gods. They take it at face value. Big mistake that. Mormons get into a parsing of words – gods, but not equal to God. Dr. Mouw is correct on a Mormon technicality, for the gods that men become will never be equal to god in the same time/place space continuum – for our god who ascended from man is a little further along in the program. Mouw’s contention that men becoming gods “has no functioning place in present day Mormon doctrine” could also be seen as true on a technicality. Mormon doctrine/creed = believe the prophet. All else is negotiable. See, nothing there about men becoming gods. This distinction about God was a man, but not a sinful man? What does it matter by Mormon standards? It is such a great blasphemy that God almighty is not eternally God but worked his way there (how?), that being a sinner or not is pointless. And men gods ruling over our own planet(s)? Yes, yesterday, No tomorrow. So Olsen Jim, I think you’re crying foul rings a bit hollow – for it is the Mormon parsing of words over a doctrine that genuinely separates from all Christians that gets them into so much hot water. The prophet and seer came to the precipice of denying the doctrine but for the definition/parsing of the word “teach.”
Ralph, you might find this of interest. I asked a number of Mormons on the streets of Manti if they would “describe the difference between becoming a god, and becoming like God”. What followed was interesting. Some of them said that becoming a god means you become equal with God in knowledge and power, and rule over your own worlds and spirit children; also, that to become “like God” was tantamount to simply becoming morally pure. Even the Mormons understood that, plainly, the language of becoming “like God” gives people a different impression than “becoming gods”. Yet they were noticeably ambivalent on it, because internally Mormonism uses the euphemistic language of “becoming like God” to cryptically communicate the idea of “becoming Gods”.
See the 1997 changes to Gospel Principles where this usage of new euphemisms is explicit, supplanting the more forthright older language.
When it comes to expressions of theology, we should be like Paul:
maybe i misread all the posts above, but….
what exactly does Genesis 3:22 refer to by
“And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever”?
clearly a declaration of how ‘we’ were once like “us” until we fell due to sin.
why does it translate as “as” instead of “like” one of us?
and furthermore “us”?…plural
Genesis 1:27
“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”
IN his own image….compelling grammatics there.
this idea is once again restated – Eph 4:24; Col 3:10, etc…
The New Testament only confirms the traditional Christian belief that we are made and conformed in God’s spiritual image, not physical image. We don’t get plastic surgery to look more like Jesus. We instead are sanctified.
Olsen,
I have come to the belief that you don’t know what Mormonism is all about. You totally misrepresent the beliefs of the Mormon Church. Why do you do that? Mormonism teaches that men will become gods and create worlds and populate them through sexual intercourse. How can you deny that unless you’re either deceived and don’t know or you’re intentionally trying to mislead us? If that doesn’t sound like becoming equal with God, then I don’t know what does. And, then, if you want to say that God lived in a condition just like us, you CANNOT avoid the inference that God was in need of a Savior, because that is the exact condition in which we find ourselves. “As man now is, God once was…” What is man? A SINNER. What was God according to this ridiculous couplet of Lorenzo Snow? A SINNER. Your pleading not to go there is NOT authoritative, and we must examine what Mormon theology implies. That is only fair, as it holds your leaders ACCOUNTABLE for their “prophetic” utterances. If you’re struggling with the implications of the false doctrines they have taught and continue to teach, I suggest that you take note of the red flags and start responding to the grace of God in your life as He yearns for you to follow Him out of the darkness of Mormonism and into the Light of True and UNADULTERATED Christianity. To state that God was once mortal is NOT BIBLICAL. I’m sorry, but I will take the truth of God’s Word over the lies of Mormon leaders any day. The Holy Spirit bears witness to the Truth, and it WON’T contradict the literary work He inspired through a fallen humanity. You’re using the wrong measuring stick, Olsen. Measure Mormon doctrine against the Bible, NOT the Bible against Mormon doctrine. The approach you are using is BACKWARDS, as is Mormon theology. You’re following a false spirit, Olsen. Turn away from the folly of the teachings of JS and open your heart for the Truth of God’s Word.
Praying for you!
When I was Mormon, I believed just as subgenius and asked the same questions regarding the “image of God.” So, I understand his position. As I read the passages he posted because he felt they supported his view, I couldn’t help but notice that they actually spoke to knowledge and character–and NOT physical form. Now, regarding physical form, I want to share a passage that is very interesting: “Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, BEING MADE IN HUMAN LIKENESS. AND BEING FOUND IN APPEARANCE AS A MAN, he humbled himself and became obedient to death–even death on a cross!” (Philippians 2:5-8). Question: if man is in the physical form of God, why is it stated that Christ was found in appearance as man? There would be no need to make such a statement if the “image of God” referred in any way to a physical resemblance. The “image of God” actually speaks to His character and holiness. We know that we must be holy to dwell in the presence of a holy God. The implication is that Adam and Eve shared in His holiness prior to their disobedience and subsequent Fall. God’s purpose is to restore us to that state of holiness, which is the essence of God’s character and rooted in love. The commandments Jesus gave bear this out: Love God and love your neighbor. The 10 commandments are relational: the first four speak to our relationship with God, while the last six speak to our relationship with each other. If we love God and neighbor, we will not break the 10 commandments. This is the foundation for understanding what the “image of God” means, which is His character as outlined in Galatians 5:22-23a as the “fruit of the Spirit.” Notice they are connected, as well as generated by love.
Peace and Grace!
Good post JackG. I actually had a deep talk with my brother about love tonight. I spoke to two ex-catholics today and their main argument with catholicism is that it’s too strict. Mormonism is the same way imo..
That got me thinking.. People aren’t understanding God’s love and the love we are to have for him. God’s greatest command is to love the Lord your God with all you heart, mind, and soul. Do I try my best to keep his commandments because I’m afraid he might smite me? Disown me? not allow me into his Kingdom? — NO!– I try my best because I love Him. Do I not pick up my dirty underwear or wash the dishes because of fear of my wife biting my head off? – NO! – I do it because I love her and she deserves my respect and love. (thats the two greatest commandments right there, yes?)
Bottom line – I “do all I can do” because God showed his uncensored mercy and grace to me by sending his son to die for me. Not so I can someday impregnate a bunch of my wives (too many I can’t even have a real meaningful relationship with every one of them) and rule over my children.
Love is more powerful than fear and for people who truly understand that Jesus Christ did the work for us that we could never do for ourselves, it is freedom and salvation for those who call on His name.
subgenius,
My take is that Adam and Eve had an intellectual awakening, and that is what God is referring to when he said “Like us” as he spoke to the angels. I think Aaron is right about the spiritual image, although I do not know where in the NT he is specifically pointing to? Aaron would you please provide more specifics? Thanks
Eph 4:24; Col 3:10; Rom 8:29
Grace and peace in Christ,
Aaron
I’d agree with the above posts on being made in God’s image (Gen 1:27) as referring to a person’s character and spiritual make-up.
JackG – thanks for your comments on Phil 2:5-8. As you put it so well “..if man is in the physical form of God, why is it stated that Christ was found in appearance as man?” If the “image of God” was about physical likeness, then the passage is superfluous at best and misleading at worst.
However, I think there’s more to it than just a cerebral dimension. Being in God’s image is also about being God’s representatives. We represent the unseen world of the Heavens to the seen world of the earth. We are the means by which the invisible God makes Himself seen, or makes Himself known. If you read the Bible, you’ll find that this is high on God’s agenda. Its what I call incarnational theology and it means that what we do is important, in all aspects of our lives. I think it also brings true meaning to what it means to be a “witness” of God.
Of course, though we all bear the image of God, its broken and distorted by sin. Jesus, the sinless one, is the exception, which is why we can refer to Him as the “image of the invisible God” (Col 1:15). Jesus has made the Father “fully known” (John 1:18, NIV), and He shows us that the purpose for which we were created is to “declare” the Father (John 1:18, KJV) in our living.
So, being made in the image of God is something that should draw us to holiness, righteousness and, above all, love because these are God’s defining characteristics. To do otherwise would be to deny the reason for which we exist.
Olsen Jim wrote “And please do not tell me we believe God was a sinner.”
Jim, I understand that you might find the idea as repulsive as I do, but consider the implications of Lorenzo Snow’s pronouncement. To put it in context, here it is again…
Still, tis no phantom that we trace
Man’s ultimatum in life’s race;
This royal path has long been trod
By righteous men, each now a God:
As Abra’m Isaac, Jacob, too,
First babes, then men–to gods they grew.
As man now is, our God once was;
As now God is, so man may be, –
Which doth unfold Man’s destiny. . . .”
…the clear thrust of this is that the path we are following now is the path that God followed in the past. Its a path we are familiar with; our experiences in this life tell us what God experienced. See “As man now is, our God once was” in particular.
Now, you and I know that we need a saviour. Why do we need a saviour? Because we have sinned. No rocket science here.
Here’s the rub. If God did not need a saviour, then the path He trod is profoundly different from ours. Yet Snow insists that the path He trod is the same. Given that our path is defined by our need to be saved from our sin, Snow’s couplet can only be true if God did sin. Alternatively you could say that having a saviour is an optional extra on life’s journey – not really necessary (as GRCluff put in on another subject).
What do you think?
If I take a photo of the Taj Mahal, I now have an image of the Taj Mahal. I do not own the Taj Mahal, and the photo – if cleverly taken will be worth some money, however – it will never be equal in value or stature to the actual Taj Mahal. It will always be a reflection of the glory of the actual structure. Dimensionally it is not even the same, yet it is still an image of the actual building.
Likewise man and the eternal creator God.
Andy Watson/Berean was telling me that when he was recently in the Philippines and encountered a couple of missionary gals; the strategy being used was to present the “god” program upfront. Andy was saying that due to the poverty, religious ignorance of the people and lack of access to the internet, that feature and benefit of Mormonism was seen as a real plus.
So Mormons know when to push the godmaker aspect of the religion and when to hide it, deny it, ignore it, or reinvent the religion on the spot.
When I watched an LDS missionary training video, the trainer was telling the trainees that when someone asks a question they should “Answer the question the prospect should have asked, not the one they actually asked.” So in-other-words deflect, change the subject or do some sort of end run but don’t tell the person the truth.
At the turn of the last century Utah wanted to become a state. The U.S. Senate was not real happy with Mormonism so they held an investigation as to whether to seat Reed Smoot as senator. The senate committee called the then prophet, seer and revelator of the LDS church to testify. In response to a question he stated that he didn’t figure he heard from God any more than any other Mormon. Very cagey guy. When news got back to Utah regarding his testimony it sent shock waves out among the faithful because he was basically denying his role as the prophet and what it meant. No problem though, these guys can wink and straighten it all out when they get back home. This sort of thing is part of the culture of Mormonism. Remember how the Mormon leadership denied up and down that they weren’t practicing polygamy while they actually were practicing it.
As we have seen on this thread, the Mormons are so invested in the program that they can come up with any number of reasons as to what was said really wasn’t said. It’s all about being and thinking Mormon.
Let us examine a few things said on this thread that people seem to have failed to think through.
First: Why would it say that Christ was in the likeness of man if we were created after the image of God?
Simple: God is immortal and glorified. His body is of a different material than ours. We are in his image (i like the picture analogy given above) in that we have the same basic structure to our body. We are not exactly like God, as we are not glorified or immortal. Christ is in the likeness of Man because he is of mortal blood. However, he is also of immortal, devine parentage, thus he is not exactly like man, but in the likeness of man.
Second: The meaning of Lorenzo Snow’s words. Do they imply that God was a sinner?
No, they do not. To say so would be to call Christ a sinner (for he followed the same path as us, only perfectly), which we know is false. Also, Christ has told us that “The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he aseeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.” So, as Christ is only doing what his Father did before him we can assume that God was the savior of his generation, and thus is without sin.
Shem’s logic is so convoluted, I won’t try to make sense of it all, but let’s start with ” Do {Lorenzo Snow’s words] imply that God was a sinner? No, they do not. ”
Yes, they do Shem.
I know you want them to mean something else, but wanting them to mean something else does not make them mean something else, despite the theological camouflage you try to put on them.
Don’t you take the words of your own prophets seriously enough to take care not to re-interpret them according to your own preconceptions?
Firstly, Snow refers to Abraham and Isaac as examples. Now if these examples of God have sinned (and, yes, they did, see Deut 9:27 or Romans 3:23), then God must have sinned too, else they are not examples.
But, what’s even more problematic is Snow’s assertion that the path of God is something that is not mysterious or unachievable (“…tis no phantom that we trace…”), but its familiar, normal and natural. Now, what is familiar and normal to us is our experience of sin, and what is vitally important is our need for a Saviour. So, it follows that just as we have sinned and we need a Saviour, so God must have sinned and God must have needed a Saviour too. If He didn’t, then the path He treads is utterly and profoundly different to ours, yet Snow insists that they are the same.
Alternatively, you can say that God did not need a saviour and He got Himself to Godhood by His own merits, industry and effort (see Milton R Hunter). If this is so, and I can get myself to Godhood by the same means, what do I need a Saviour for? I’d rather not go there, its a Christ-less Christianity, which is as much a non-entity as the name suggests.
There’s a simpler and more robust solution, and you even alluded to it yourself. Calling Christ a sinner is false. What Lorenzo Snow taught, and what the LDS movement holds forth as “Gospel” is, therefore, inescapably and undeniably false.
Martin_from_Brisbane, wonderful thoughts on being in God’s image.
shematwater, you, like many defenders of Mormonism, take the “special strain of savior gods” view (I know you didn’t use that exact phrase). I have dealt with this objection and others on GodNeverSinned.com in the Q&A section.
In my experience of talking to LDS about these issues, the “special strain of savior gods” view seems to be in the minority. The video I’ve done is partially to counter the Mormonism-defender-on-the-internet notion that the “special strain of savior gods” is the traditional, mainstream, and even institutional view.
You see this is a problem that Mormons face; their leaders often say really dumb things and this leaves the faithful scrambling to come up with some sort of plausible explanation. What also happens is that their leaders say something and then the faithful fill it up with their own meaning.
Denial that something was ever said or done is also a response that Mormons use. The problem is that we have reliable written records, in LDS publications, that verify what was said. Even allowing for context doesn’t excuse or wipe away the meaning of the words of LDS leaders. Mormons are simply stuck with their history and the utterances of their leaders.
Mormons have bought the program on an emotional level and now they’re left trying to come up with some sort of logical/rational explanation for all of the loose strings that hang from the LDS sweater. That’s why we get a particular kind of thinking and thought process that appears to those of us outside of the Mormon religion as illogical, unreasonable and frankly kookie. That’s why it’s important for Mormons to talk to each other because first of all they have this common strain of thinking that cam make anything fit the Mormon template.
Reading what our Mormon posters write does give the impression of a drowning person flailing around in the water. It’s really not a lot of fun when one is forced to confront the truth of a deeply held belief that can’t hold-up under close scrutiny. A quick trip back to the safety and security of the ward is usually the antedote to this religious truth serum. Having gulped down some reassuring pepto, settles the stomach momentarily and puts the religious digestive system back in order…..for a little while.
Olsen Jim, do Mormons not teach that God is only God of this solar system, and not the whole universe? And isn’t it the ultimate goal of all serious Mormon men to progress to godhood and eventually rule over their own planets, populating those planets with their own spirit children through their many wives? How could this not be viewed as becoming equal with God?
Martin,
I was going to respond to Shem’s attempt at a response regarding what Snow said and its implications, but you said what I wanted to say, so I am just going to say AMEN!! to your comment, and thank you for putting it so plainly and clearly.
Grace and Peace!
Megan,
This is the way the godmaker program works. The good and faithful Morman man can work his way to becoming a god, but he will never be equal with his god, nor will his god be equal with his god. Mormonism was a celestial escalator (figuratively speaking) that the dudes get on at a cetain point. Their god is “X” number of steps ahead of them on the hierarchy. So they will claim that they will never be “equal” with their god.
I don’t think the godmaker program allows for jumping the line. If you read the Bible carefully all of this is clearly taught there……OOPS…….my bad…..I forgot that all of this was left out of the Bible by that dastardly conspiracy which left all of the Mormon stuff out.
See that’s where revelation comes in. That’s why Mormonism can change such fundamental, sacred and everlasting teachings and practices such as plural marrage, blacks and the priesthood and the temple rituals (i.e. no more throat cutting, or disembowelment gestures or no one playing the part of the corrupted Christian ministers).
“God, of course, regularly communicated with Joseph as well his folowers. The imparting of heavenly truth began with the BoM but by no means did it end there. The Lord routinely issued commandments to Joseph, continually revealing sacred principles that needed to be revised or changed outright. Indeed, the notion that each Mormon prophet receives guidance from an ongoing series of revelations was, and remains, one of the religion’s crucial tenets….” (Under the Banner of Heaven, p.72)
So if it serves the Mormon Church, at some point it could dump the godmaker program and go down a whole new path. Or, as is the case today, new prophets arise all the time in the Mormon tradition of revelation, forming their own groups. “If one person may speak for God, why may not another? By claiming an ongoing dialogue with divinity, Joseph Smith opened the door to a social force he could barely control.” (Richard L. Saunders
For those who think I am denying that we believe we can become gods:
Read my posts again. I argue that when Gordon B. Hinckley responded to the statement “as man is God once was, and as God is man may become” he was saying that we do not really teach that God was once like us. He said we don’t really understand that and we don’t really teach it. I believe that is what he was responding to.
The idea that we may become gods is clearly taught in our doctrine. I fully embrace that. And I don’t think he was denying that.
Critics love to talk about our supposed belief that we will be gods over our own worlds and have lots of wives, and be equal to God, etc. etc. They love the shock value.
Our doctrine is that this earth will eventually become a celestial kingdom where we will live. Does a king need an earth of his own to be a king or to have a kingdom? You people make the most unsupported and rediculous assumptions in order to produce the most sensational and selaciuos claims possible. It is absolutely the Enquirer mentality. But it is entertaining.
It is the tendancy to make every statement from LDS leaders as shocking and weird as possible that I am laughing at and criticizing. You are truly like a bunch of children criticizing the adults. Please show some maturity and give folks just a little benefit of the doubt just once in a while.
Although Aaron and others often claim we believe God was once a sinner, there is absolutely nothing in our doctrine, scripture, or statements from our prophets that would suggest this. But Aaron et al know this would be a stunning doctrine, so they say it over and over and over. Aaron clearly is willing to bend the truth in baring false witness about the restored gospel.
I suppose the belief in easy and instant salvation is conducive to a person justifying the way they misrepresent others. But ultimately, we each must give an accounting for ourselves.
Megan,
LDS do not believe that God is God of only this world. We believe He has created “worlds without number” over which He reigns.
You guys would so much rather talk about LDS doctrine than your own. Again, I say with all soberness that you have absolutely no foundation on which to speak or judge.
I see nobody has attempted serious responses to my claims about your religion or its foundation. You claim all you need is the Bible because that is all you have.
I fully embrace our 8th article of faith. We know the means by which the Book of Mormon came forth- the “gift and power of God.” Yet, the vast majority of non-LDS Christians have absolutely no idea where the Bible came from or how it was compiled. Again, I claim that you worship a book whose history you know little about. Yet you like to pain yourselves as academicians and historians. Hah!
Olsen Jim, I asked you serious, point-blank questions but you used most of your comments to complain and criticize the other side. Let’s not waste our time here. I am taking you seriously, would you please do me the honor of taking me seriously by answering my questions more in-depth? I don’t feel like I got much of an explanation, mainly just a long and vehement rant.
Thanks!
Can I remind everyone here that the only alternative you have to eternal progression is eternal stagnation? Is that what you really want to believe? Go nowhere and do nothing meaningful for eternity? No growth, no progress?
What if your God actually asks to do do something? Are you going to check first – will that make me be more like God? Well, there is no way I will do it! You will spend eternity rebelling against God– and you call that heaven? I have another word for it.
Megan,
You said “Olsen Jim, do Mormons not teach that God is only God of this solar system, and not the whole universe? And isn’t it the ultimate goal of all serious Mormon men to progress to godhood and eventually rule over their own planets, populating those planets with their own spirit children through their many wives? How could this not be viewed as becoming equal with God?”
I thought I answered your question. My rant really wasn’t directed toward you- it was for general consumption.
Lets break down your questions more specifically:
God being God only this solar system? Like I said- we believe God has created worlds (and solar systems) without number. He rules and reigns over all His creations.
Mormon men becoming Gods and ruling over planets, etc.? This has a very sexist sound to it doesn’t it. We believe all individuals- sons and daughters of God have the potential to develop into gods, becoming like our Father, Heavenly Father. Does this necessarily translate into ruling over planets of our own? Don’t really know. I think this is mostly spoken of by mocking critics. Like I said above, we believe this earth will become a celestial kingdom that we will inhabit if we follow Christ.
Mormon men having many wives? Again, quite a sexist twist. I do not believe it is a doctrine that to become like God requires a man or woman to participate in plural marriage. And no, the scripture in D&C doesn’t say we must all participate in it- it says we must accept it. Two different things.
We don’t believe we will ever be “equal” to God. He will always be our God, creator, and ruler. But as promised in the NT we can be heirs with Christ and receive of the divine nature- we take these things literally. Don’t know how else to take them.
Again, my rant was not directed to you, although reading my post again, I can see how you may have thought that- sorry. My challenge to the authority of critics is directed to all.
Nice try CLUFF with the progression/stagnation line. I can see someone at Mormon HQ has been working over-time to come up with that little slogan. I’ll add it to the ever growing list of pity little no substance responses provided by Mormons to serious challenges to their belief system.
As Christians we believe we are complete in Christ. Our destiny, our hope lies with the Son of God not with a celestial self-impovement plan. The progress that Mormons talk about is in their hope of becoming a god if they complete the works/reighteousness program. This self-serving drivel alluding to Mormons becoming smarter, holier, filled with increased knowledge and wisdom is a cover for the lie that you will become gods. That’s really the bottom line.
The progress that Christians focus on is becoming like God in character, not in substance or essence. Our living hope is to be in God’s presence for eternity as the Bible clearly teaches. Mormonism’s unsystematic approach to Biblical interpretation and the “revelations” of their false prophets have led them down a road of self-grandizemnet, pride and delusion.
There is one God. He is eternal and unchangeable. This “you can become a god too” is a challenge to the very nature and being of God. The result of this challenge Mormons make to the living God will come when they have to face Him.
Thanks, Jim, that was better. I do see now how you thought you answered my questions. I am still confused though–so the gods ruling over other planets with multiple wives is just something those mean anti’s took out of context and sensationalized? I completely agree with you; it does sound sexist. And as a woman, the whole having multiple wives in the afterlife is pretty repugnant to me. But then, I find a lot of Smith’s “marriages” to be repugnant too.
I have a very dear, devout Mormon friend who has a wonderful relationship with her husband. They are very close, and love each other with their whole hearts. One time we were talking about theological issues, and she said that the only thing that bothers who about her religion is envisioning her husband having extra wives in the Celestial Kingdom. She said, “If God just explained it to me, then I could understand and it would be easier to accept.”
My understanding of the polygamy issue is that Mormons believe that God instituted it for a time on earth to build up the LDS church until the late 1800’s. But, the principal of polygamy is still valid and it will be practiced in the afterlife by exceptionally righteous Mormons.
You don’t have to answer all this if you don’t want to. Others, feel free to step in!
This Mormon concept of dynamic spiritual growth as opposed to what they see as Christian spiritual stagnation is all part of the pride and arrogance of Mormonism and provides for their group a false sense of spiritual superiority. Luciferianism is all about pride. We see in (Ezekiel 28:11-19) the birth of this sin.
The result of course was “….I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherbu, from the midst of the stones of fire. Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightnes…”
We see the birth of sin was the result of pride. We see a perfect example of Mormonism in the world Satan created: “Satan’s purpose did not consist merely in rejecting God; he was designing a vast cosmos world system in which he proposed to utilize and misappropriate the elements which belong to God’s creation, which, in themselves, are good. Satan creates nothing. No step in the satanic cosmons project was more essential than that he should secure the allegiance of humanity.” (Systematic Theology, Vol. II, pp. 249, 250)
“The course followed by the tempter is quite clear. In the first place he sows the seeds of doubt by calling the good intention of God in question and suggesting that His command was really an infringement of man’s liberty and rights. When he notices from the response of Eve that the seed has taken root, he adds the seeds of unbelief and pride, denying that the command was prompted by the selfish purpose of keeping man in subjection. He asserts that by eating from the tree man would become like God. The high expectations thus engendered induced Eve to look intently at the tree, and the longer she looked, the better the fruit seemed to her. Finally, desire got the upper hand, and she ate and also gave unto her husband, and he ate.” (Systematic Theology, p. 223)
Desire and pride took root in the Garden and continues today.
No matter were we seem to travel in our discussion here, it always comes back to the nature of God. Mormonism corrupts the knowledge of the holy, everlasting, never changing God into a picture of a man who improved himself. Millions of dollars are spent every year by Americans in the hope that they might improve themselves and secure a better life and future for themselves and their families.
Mormons invest heavily both in time and treasure on a self improvement course not meant to better their station in life, but in the false hope that they will become a god. While they deny it, they are really supplanting God with their own vain ambition. In the Mormon system “God” is supplanted by gods. It’s a form of Mormon mythology.
No longer is God seen in His awesome splendor but He is degraded to be just one of many; some of whom are further along the godmaker glide path of enlightenment than even He. It’s karma, reincarnation and occult New Age enlightenment mixed in with a pinch of 19th century evangelical Chrisitanity revivalism. The latter is added to provide, in just enough quanity, to deceive the folks that are willing to receive it.
To the Christian, our goal is to conform ourselves to the character of Jesus Christ. In doing so we honor God who provided for us the means of salvation and eternal life. Lucifer couldn’t mount a successful attack on the throne of God, but while he has time, he is attempting to deceive humans into thinking that God isn’t who He really is and in the process, convince people that they can be another human made god.
Megan,
I think the perception you allude to about mormon aspirations is largely the result of prejudice and preconceived notions. It is as accurate as describing the act of partaking of the sacrament of the Lord’s supper as cannibalism- consuming the flesh and blood of another. Get my drift. It is the spin provided by antis, whatever their motive, that produces such an inaccurate and grotesque picture.
Lets consider the two different perspectives. The first is the view of a “mormon man” sitting on a throne ruling with power and coercion over his own personal throne with a harem of submissive women behind them. This in no way describes the celestial kingdom or those who will inhabit such a place- in fact it is opposite.
The second view is that of family. Outside a person’s sacred relationship with God, none is more sacred than the relationship to spouse and the children they have created in partnership with God. Nothing is more universal than the loving, intimate, and caring bonds that exist in these relationships. You could consider a family a little “kingdom.” The fathers that I respect the most are those that are humble servants to their wives, children, and grandchildren. “Whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.” Matt 23:12 This is the secret of eternal progression through the Atonement of Christ. Christ descended below all. It is through selfless service that a person becomes like God.
As mortals, the power to create children is one of the greatest gifts He gives to us. It is also one of the things that make us most like Him- it is an immense power. This gift is given to all, but unfortunately, too many destroy or desecrate this power through sin. It is through the righteous and responsible use of this power that life’s greatest joys and accomplishments are achieved.
I am not yet a grandparent, but based on my own experience as a dad and in seeing and hearing from others who are grandparents, I believe the reward and joy in family is augmented and increased with each generation as one’s “little kingdom” grows.
Consider father Abraham. He was promised by God a posterity that would be as the sand of the sea, without number. Through Him would come the Savior. Through Him the whole world would be blessed with the gospel. Why the importance and emphasis placed on Abraham’s family and posterity if in the end, those things go by the wayside? Was God appealing to Abraham’ desire for attention and fame? The truth is that because Abraham was so faithful, humble, and righteous, his family was blessed, and He was blessed with an ever-increasing joy in his “kingdom” or family. This eternal, celestial type of kingdom is the antithesis of what we normally think of as a kingdom. D&C 121 describes the attributes and manner of leadership that lead to all this. And it is not domineering, forceful, or sexist.
Realize that you and I are viewing polygamy through the eyes of post-modern, sexually “liberated,” feminist influence, whether we like it or not. I think we would both admit that ours is a sexually immoral society and generation with what is probably a very flawed construct of the role of sex. I think it impossible for our view of sexuality to not be skewed by this “scatter effect.” We see such an arrangement as polygamy as being based on sex and a man’s drive to satisfy appetites. Such a perception is very much tainted by our time. It does have elements of truth because the nature of man is so consistent. But there is a pure and Godly version of what Satan tries to imitate.
There have been times when God desires such an arrangement to raise a righteous generation as he describes in Jacob 2 in the BOM.
Consider what it would require of both men and women to function well within polygamy. Forget about the examples we see in the media, etc. I can hardly imagine managing the emotional challenges of more than one woman- I don’t say this is a bad way. Men and women are simply different, and it is a challenge to get along and understand each other. Not to mention the financial, mental, and spiritual requirements of a man and women. In order to achieve a working and selfless version of all this would require huge humility, dedication, and faith.
Abraham and Moses were both men with multiple wives (forget the argument about whether they were commanded to do so by God). Do you think either of these men lived lives that were consumed with physical passions and lusts? Hardly.
I maintain that we really do not understand the role of polygamy very well. We are told that it has been and will be practiced in only certain scenarios, both in this life and the next. We also understand that it is not required of all to practice. Critics who mock and condemn do so out of ignorance.
falcon said:
Nice try CLUFF with the progression/stagnation line. I can see someone at Mormon HQ has been working over-time to come up with that little slogan.
Hey! Don’t give Mormon HQ credit for something I came up with all on my own. I hit the nail on the head on what eternal progression is all about, and you call it no substance?
You make heaven sound like a child who returns from college and refuses to get a job. He eats my food, happy just to be back home. When Dad says, GO GET A JOB you say:
The progress that graduates focus on is becoming like Dad in character, not in actually working for a living. Our living hope is to be in Dad’s presence for eternity and living in his house as the Bible clearly teaches. Dad’s belief that college should lead to employment has led him down a road of self-grandizemnet, pride and delusion.
Ha – now I have found the “real” self-serving drivel. You are speaking it in code.
The concept of eternal progression can be supported by these biblical verses:
Matt 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
1 Samuel 2:8 He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD’s, and he hath set the world upon them.
Romans 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
1 Cor 8:5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
John 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
Psa 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
GRCluff,
This is well-stated: “The concept of eternal progression can be supported by these biblical verses:”.
Here, let me try:
The concept of Jesus being sad because we’re all alcoholics can be supported by these biblical verses:
Psalms 107:27 “They reel to and fro, and stagger like a drunken man, and are at their wits’ end.”
John 2:24-25 “But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all [men],
And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man”
John 11:35 “Jesus wept.”
The references you gave reek of Topical Guide, or some LDS manual. I’m not saying any of this to mock you but to point out a big LDS stink.
Taking verses out of the Bible and putting them together how ever you see fit started with Joseph Smith, and it is how the LDS leadership can keep on lying while all the while APPEARING like they are “believing the Bible” in any way, shape or form.
Since leaving Mormonism, I have realized two things about the Bible.
YOU CANNOT TAKE BIBLE VERSES OUT OF CONTEXT,
and
YOU MUST TAKE THE ENTIRE BIBLE INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN DEALING WITH A DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND PASSAGE!
The verses you referenced have all been strung together to present your idea. And yet, when read in context, they say nothing of the sort.
To show you what I mean, let’s look at the first verses on the list, Matt 5:48. IS Jesus talking about progressing into godhood? Absolutely HE IS NOT!!!
Jesus is talking to Jews. How do we know this? A few ways. One, he’s talking to people who have always had the law and tried their best to keep it. Another, he makes reference to “the Gentiles” as if they’re a separate group (one He’s not talking to).
And what is He telling the Jews? That even their best law-keeping is falling short of what God expects. They have to be perfect.
Hey, duke this out with your own BYU professors and fellow members. I’m just relating to people what Mormons relate to me in their own words. What Mormons have said in the GodNeverSinned.com video is in their own words. See it for yourself. Also, I find it intellectually dishonest to go so far as to say that nothing in the statements from your prophets suggests the notion of God being a sinner. Even many Mormons who vehemently hold to the “special strain of savior gods” idea often still admit that the traditional understanding of the Lorenzo Snow couplet can suggest that God was once a sinner.
Also, remember that I am not saying that “Mormons believe God was once a sinner” as though it is an explicated teaching. What I am specifically saying is that many Mormons believe that it is possible that God was once a sinner, and that this is a natural extension of the traditional Mormon worldview for the majority of LDS members.
I have already debunked this at “Christianity Has a Far Greater View of Eternal Progression than Mormonism Does”. See here and scroll a little more than halfway down.
Not to mention those pesky Mormon leaders.
Olsen says,
If Olsen doesn’t take prophets like Brigham Young and John Taylor seriously, then why should we?
Many Mormons believe they can become equal with God in knowledge and power. This is what Gospel Principles teaches in the chapter on exaltation. This is part of the debate between Orson Pratt (who believed we could become equal with God in knowledge and power) and Brigham Young (who believed God himself was always progressing ahead of us in knowledge and power). Young condemned Pratt’s view in a FPS and yet Pratt’s view won out and became the mainstream view. Bruce McConkie even went on to denounce Young’s view as a deadly, damnable heresy. Mormonism is a messy religion full of contradictions. That’s one of the biggest reasons we evangelicals shouldn’t stereotype it.
(continued)
What’s really terrific is that Jesus is setting them up for the New Covenant. The one where if they ACCEPT HIM AS RESURRECTED LORD AND SAVIOR, they get to HAVE GOD’S RIGHTEOUSNESS IMPUTED TO THEM!
How does one get as righteous as Jesus is describing? By working at it for time and all eternity. Amazingly enough, that’s not what Jesus says. Can you find Him saying that?
No. However, Jesus goes on to say “Seek ye first the kingdom of God and HIS righteousness”.
What does that mean? “LET THE BIBLE INTERPRET THE BIBLE”.
Where else does it talk about HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS? A LOT OF PLACES. One is Rom 3:22-26:
“Even THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD [which is] by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
Whom God hath set forth [to be] a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
To declare, [I say], at this time HIS RIGTHEOUSNESS that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.”
Back to the familiar theme: God justifies (imputes His own righteousness to) those who believe in Jesus. None of us are good enough. All of us can have free justification by God’s grace, so He gets all the glory.
This theme just keeps coming up again and again and again in the Bible. The trick to finding it, however, is just to read the Bible.
(continued)
The other verses you quoted, GRCluff, are even easier to debunk by showing their context. I do want to specifically point out 1 Corinthians 8:5, because I especially love this LDS trick — putting “chapter headings” in, so that they can quickly throw you off the trail before you even get started.
LDS Chapter Heading: “There are gods many and lords many — to us there is one God (the Father) and one Lord, who is Christ.”
Yeah, that’s lovely. Now let’s actually read it. Starting with verse 1:
“NOW AS TOUCHING THINGS OFFERED TO IDOLS…”
Can you believe it? He’s giving us his own beginning line? We’re going to talk about idols.
“…as concerning… things that are offered in sacrifice to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is NONE OTHER GOD BUT ONE. FOR THOUGH THERE BE THAT ARE CALLED GODS, whether IN HEAVEN OR IN EARTH (as there be gods many, and lords many) BUT TO US THERE IS BUT ONE GOD, THE FATHER…”
Now, having previous bias given to you by LDS HQ, we can say “oh yeah, there’s that part where it says there are many gods”.
Only, it’s talking about gods that are “so-called”. Did you see that? The beginning line was about idols (so-called gods), and if you read through to the end, it is still talking about not eating things offered to idols.
Here’s another Bible passage to help clarify:
2 Kings 19:15-19 “Hezekiah prayed before the LORD and said, “O LORD, the God of Israel, who are enthroned {above} the cherubim, You are the God, You alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth. You have made heaven and earth… Truly, O LORD, the kings of Assyria have… CAST THEIR GODS into the fire, for they were not gods but the work of men’s hands, wood and stone… Now, O LORD our God, I pray, deliver us from his hand that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that You alone, O LORD, are God.”
There are MANY passages like this where God is put in comparison to man’s idols. Just like 1 Cor 8.
Aaron,
Provide just one statement from LDS scriptures or LDS prophet that suggests God was a sinner. And I don’t mean a vague sentence from which a biased critic like you who has a vested interest in making us look bad can insinuate and extrapolate such a false doctrine.
And I don’t have to “duke it out” with any of the BYU professors. How much energy did Peter and the other apostles exert in correcting false doctrine and clarifying scripture? Would it be fair to take those false and pagan doctrines and claim they were doctrines of the ancient Christian church?
You act like an innocent bystander simply making observations. This is an act. I have watched you make every attempt to stir up controversy and make the most possible uproar from the most benign and inconsequential perceived inconsistencies. This is anything but the Lord’s way, my friend. The standard you hold LDS and their prophets to is ridiculous. You expect there to be no questions, no challenges of faith, no difficulties in an organization of millions.
I read the link you suggested on the Christian idea of eternal progression. It provided absolutely no light on the non-LDS perspective of eternal progression. You simply outline a debate within the LDS leadership 120 years ago over God’s knowledge.
I repeat again- it is not our doctrine that we must practice plural marriage in order to be exalted. Accepting the practice and actually participating in it are two different things.
Aaron- you said “Mormonism is a messy religion full of contradictions. That’s one of the biggest reasons we evangelicals shouldn’t stereotype it.” Are you kidding? You spent your life’s energy stereotyping our religion.
Still no responses to the fact that you have absolutely no ground on which to stand? No authority. You have nothing more than the interpretations of man- nothing more.
Olsen Jim,
I still don’t understand why it is such a problem if God the Father was a sinner if your view of God is informed by Mormon theology/doctrine? If God was once a man like we are, and we may become gods like He is – tell me exactly why is it a problem??? I viewed Aaron’s video where he interviewed a number of Mormons in temple square and many there had no problem with the concept of God being a sinner. You might want to go talk to some Mormons at the local ward and find out why they are thinking this way, rather than looking for Christians to explain an idea we find complete heresy from beginning to end. I am with you on this one – God the Father was NOT a sinner, and I may add – NOT a man. He has always been eternally God, the Alpha and Omega, the triune One God. The UNcreated creator of ALL that exists. The One and ONLY true God. He defines perfect righteousness. In him there is no unrighteousness – He is holy, holy, holy. God is not a man that he should lie. (Numbers 23:19)
mobaby,
It is a problem in the same way it is a problem to claim Jesus was a sinner.
God was once a man in the same sense that Jesus was once a man. Neither was a sinner. Is that so difficult for people to understand? I suppose that doesn’t make for as shocking a slander as saying we believe He was once a sinner.
Olsen Jim,
In conversations between a Mormon and an “EV”, it very soon becomes obvious that there is no benefit in referring to printed “scripture” because of the “continuing revelation” idea that yesterday’s “truth” may or may not apply today.
Also, “truth” about the church believes varies from one Mormon to another.
What Aaron has done is to find a way to communicate without having to rely on anything that has been written down. The point of his “Could God have been a sinner?” question is not to say that all believe it, or that the church teaches it. It’s that regardless what is being held as the current doctrine of the church, the FACT IS that whatever doctrine has been coming down the pipes for however long has led Mormons to believe that God the Father was possibly a sinner.
The FACT that many Mormons believe it IS A PRODUCT of what they have learned as Mormons, regardless of whether or not it has been taught from the pulpit.
To say that the LDS God was a sinner would be like an LDS saying that the Traditional Christian God cannot forgive sins and make men perfect.
We all know from the Bible that God has promised that those who believe in Him will have their sins forgiven and He will remember them no more. That through the blood of Jesus all our garments, although they be as scarlet will be washed white as pure as snow. I could possibly find a few more but these make the point. We are perfected and our sins are removed never to be remembered as if they never happened – in fact according to God they never did happen (that is the point of NOT REMEMBERING). In this respect any person who achieves heaven (ie the presence of God whether LDS or Traditional Christian) for eternity are perfect and sinless.
Now we don’t teach nor spend much time discussing our Heavenly Father’s life before He gained His potential, but if He was like us instead of a Saviour of His world, then any wrong He did has been forgiven and forgotten and He was perfected and made sinless. So no He never was a sinner nor did He commit sin. That is the role of the Saviour – to completely remove sin from the person being saved because He paid the price and we have been freed.
Lastly, this earthly life is what – a blink of an eye in eternity. When looked at like that, then when the whole amount of sin has been forgiven and forgotten by God, it really is an insignificant thing, that one can say that God definately was not a sinner. It all has to do with the role of a Saviour and forgiveness.
Ralph and Olsen,
I can understand that to say God was a sinner is unpalatable; however, it is the implication of what you believe: “As man is; God once was; as God is, man may become” (Lorenzo Snow). So, we must ask, what is the condition of man? Sinful. If God was once as man, then we cannot come to any other conclusion than that He was sinful. It is your false prophets who have made this ridiculous claim. Will your creations say about you that you were never in need of a Savior? See how messed up Mormon theology is? I know it’s tough trying to defend, but you all choose to try. So, let’s take this all the way: God was never in the condition that man is in–sinful. I think you will agree with me on that based on your apparent disgust at the thought. Okay, here it goes…man will never become a god as God is God, meaning that man will never create worlds and galaxies, etc. I know Shem thinks this will be a boring life without growth, but that just goes to show that Mormonism has warped the thinking of its members (Now, Shem, in all seriousness, I think you would be a better choice for President of the Church than Monson. You have moxi; he hides and lets guys like you do all the defending of indefensible doctrine). Additionally, Ralph, the comparison with which you begin your last post is not a valid comparison and, therefore, falls into the category of fallacious reasoning (at least you distinguish between the Mormon god and the True and Living God of Christianity).
The red flags are there, guys…stop ignoring them and receive the grace Jesus is offering you.
Blessings…
JackG,
I never said tha I find that claim unpalatable. I was merely showing how I can say that He was without sin. I specified that we do not know nor do we teach what He did and was like on His earth.
The comparison is true – I have been given a promise from God and Jesus that if I have faith in Jesus and repent, my sins will be forgiven and will be remembered no more. This will ultimately make me sinless in the sight of God and thus through Jesus Atonement I can and will become perfect and without sin.
“As man is God once was, as God is man may be.” Now consider that in the traditional Mormon worldview of the “eternal round” of things.
Whether God was once perhaps a sinner is “benign and inconsequential”?
Then you read the article in the spirit of selective-listening. I explained a Christian view of eternal progression and if you didn’t catch it you didn’t read closely enough. I guess people see what they want to see.
“Doctrine” being the weasel word here. Of course it’s not actively taught, but it once was authoritatively taught and was never repudiated with the same degree of authoritativeness. Mormons to whom I expose the relevant qutoes on this subject often will tell me, “I don’t know, we’ll just leave that issue up to God.” The Church doesn’t have an official “doctrine” (however you want to define that word) that a person doesn’t have to be polygamous to be exalted, etc., either.
Now you just sound grumpy and angry.
Olsen, if you want to adhere to the idea of a special strain of sinless savior gods, then go for it. But when you attempt to generalize that as the Mormon belief, or imply that it is the institutional or general traditional understanding, you sound like you’re in denial. Come to Manti with me next year and observe as I talk to Mormons about this issue. I even had Mormons explicitly tell me they believed God could have been an addict to pornography and a practicing homosexual (who then repented and was exalted unto godhood). You have to hear it with your own ears. Yes, there are few people in the world like me asking Mormons crazy and out-of-this-world notorious questions like that, but the answers I get are astounding, even to Mormon ears who haven’t thought much about the issue.
Olsen, are you hearing this from Ralph? You might want to talk to him about these things first instead of grilling me on them.
Ralph, I deal with this in the Q&A of GodNeverSinned.com. I answer the question, “Shouldn’t we respect the power of the atonement by overlooking God’s putative sins?”, with, “The whole beauty and power and value of the atonement is based on the fact that it was accomplished by a God who never, ever sinned.” I’ve heard this from a lot of Mormons: that if God the Father was a sinner he has had his sins cleansed by another atonement, so now it is “as though he never sinned.” I have even talked to one Mormon who said that God (and his own God above him) had a (if you’ll let me use my own crass language for a moment) cosmic brain-fart, literally and actually and non-figuratively forgetting that a sin was even ever committed. As a theist who doesn’t believe God literally “forgets” anything, I believe the language of not remembering my sins means that he will never hold my sins against me, even though he can, in a manner of speaking, recall in his memory that I did sin. I find that very important, because I believe I will be, in a manner of speaking, singing Amazing Grace for all eternity. It’s hard to eternally thank God for his grace if both he and I literally forget that I ever sinned.
God, however, doesn’t sing Amazing Grace to his own God. He never was a wretch like me.
Ralph, if I could put all my cards on the table face-up: You need to repent of believing that God the Father could have been a wretch like you, and stop justifying it by saying that an atonement would have rendered it as though he never sinned. God the Father never needed an atonement, ever. Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was, and is, and is to come.
Grace and peace in Christ for those who freely receive eternal life,
Aaron
Megan commented on an LDS friend’s statement; She said, “If God just explained [the doctrine of plural marriage in the afterlife] to me, then I could understand and it would be easier to accept.”
Back to the start of the thread…
…Isn’t that the job of the current LDS leadership, its prophets and its “continuing” revelation? Shouldn’t they be acting as the “mouthpiece of God” and explain it in ways that make sense to folks like Megan’s friend. If they “don’t understand” the doctrine, who can?
If the head-honcho can’t do his job, then sack him and get someone who can.
P.S. Megan, the only way to really understand the doctrine is that it attempts to justify Joseph Smith’s adulteries, but I doubt that your friend would like it. It’s also why you’ll never get a satisfactory explanation out of the LDS leadership.
Olsen,
You said: “Provide just one statement from LDS scriptures or LDS prophet that suggests God was a sinner.”
Okay, I’ll make this simple. Provide me just one statement from LDS scriptures or an LDS prophet that states that your heavenly father was the savior of another planet somewhere and was without sin. When you complete that then I would like for you to explain to us here the difference between your heavenly father being a savior and your “jesus” being a savior. Your “jesus” was “a god” before he came here. Your heavenly father, if he was a savior, eternally progressed and became a god after his death. He also got his own planet near Kolob and procreates. Is the same of your “jesus” as well?
LDS advertisements all ove the web state that they have the answers to man’s questions. I’ve got at least 100 right now. This is the first I’ll ask of you. I asked Crispin last week one and he said he’d back the next day with the answers and have the LDS baptismal tank ready for my baptism. He hasn’t been back here since.
Again, back it up with LDS authoritative sources from the First Presidency, the other GA’s or church manuals. I’m anxiously awaiting to expand my LDS education and I thank you in advance for enlightening me.
Martin,
To answer your question about why the current Mormon prophet doesn’t just clear all of this messy business up; it’s because he’s not a prophet, plain and simple. These guys rise to the office because they’re good church politians. That’s why they speak as they do. The early guys like Smith and Young had tremendous egos and would go into a free flow stream of consciousness and emit all sorts of incredibly stupid statements which current Mormons are trying to either defend or run away from. When they defend them they look like idiots and when they run away from them they damage their own credibility.
So the current “prophet” travels the country side saying nothing while saying a lot and getting treated as the oracle of god. All that’s really important is to keep the faithful in tow and paying into an organization that’s more interested in buying cattle ranches in Nebraska, retail malls in Utah or vast tracks of land in the UK. Today money is the mother’s milk of the Utah based LDS church. Why mess all of that up by actually saying something to clear-up all of these nasty controversies?
The bottom line is that the “prophets” of the Mormon church can hide because there isn’t anyone that will ever hold them to account.
Andy Watson,
That is a great debate strategy- insist the opponent produce proof from LDS leaders that we don’t believe a certain doctrine that is never taught. Show me where in the Bible it says that Pluto is not inhabited by green donkeys.
Andy and Aaron- if you insist we believe and teach such things- show it. You simply cannot do this. And there are a couple of scriptures in our canon that allude to all of this. Given your access to the library of all things LDS, I will let you find them. But I suppose that would require you to actually read our canon.
Andy- about your 100 questions- does the inability to answer every single possible question reveal the absence of truth or authority? If so, evangelicals have a serious problem.
Aaron- I did read your link on evangelical progression. Am I mistaken or did you say absolutely nothing about your view, rather you rant again about Young vs. Pratt.
And “doctrine” was not a weasel word. It is not taught nor believed nor written that we must be polygamist to be exalted. You are simply wrong.
You critics live on the fringe. As a result, your fascination and focus on far out doctrines and possibilities gives you a very skewed view of our religion. Hence, you really do not understand our religion. You expect an answer for everything. That is simply unrealistic and childish. When in the past did prophets give an answer for every possible detractor and complaint?
Olsen, read it again. I promote the idea that we will ever-increasingly grow in the knowledge and power of God forever. I agree with Pratt that God doesn’t progress in knowledge and power, and I agree with Young that we will forever increase in knowledge and power, but I reject Pratt’s idea that I can become equal with God in knowledge and power (because God is infinite) and I reject Young’s idea that God is still progressing in knowledge in power. Surely you have heard before someone explain their beliefs in terms of contrast?
Olsen, I’m not sure how to reason with you as it seems you are in denial, even turning a blind eye on this very discussion thread to a fellow Mormon (Ralph) who has essentially articulated that he believes God the Father could have been a sinner. If that isn’t sufficient for you, read a discussion between Mormons that is only days old, particularly this part of it. When you read fresh arguments from Mormons like that, who explicitly open the door for the historical possibility that God was a sinner, what do you do? Do you imagine that they are evangelical spies pretending to be Mormons?
“Come now, let us reason together, says the Lord: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool.” (Isaiah 1:18)
Grace and peace in Christ for those who freely receive eternal life,
Aaron
Ralph,
I would like to point out a red flag for you: the fact that you don’t find that statement unpalatable. It ought to make you sick to your stomach even to consider such a heretical statement and thought that God just might have needed a Savior because He was full of sin and filthy just as WE are. God is HOLY, Ralph. He never had sin because He never lived on an earth as you and I. To believe that He did is the same as saying that God was a created being rather than the CREATOR. He created out of nothing, Ralph. He didn’t just organize matter that was already in existence. He breathed life into nothingness, Ralph, because He IS LIFE ITSELF. His breath generates existence, Ralph. You have been believing a lie, Ralph, regarding God. You need to repent of that felonious thinking, Ralph, and let the Holy Spirit do His work in you. I had to repent of the same heretical thinking myself, Ralph, and I know that with God all things are possible. He has cleansed me from the heresies of Mormonism, and now I proclaim His grace to you, Ralph. Praying for you, Ralph.
Peace and blessings to you and yours.
Olsen,
You can’t dismiss what I say because I WAS IN YOUR SHOES AND IN YOUR SENSE OF ARROGANCE. God had to humble me before I could accept His beautiful truth. The same needs to happen to you. We don’t live on the fringe, Olsen, despite your weak attempts to make it sound that way. You accuse us of ranting and raving, yet do the same thing. Your father, JS, has left you as an orphan to defend his heretical teachings, Olsen. You have no answers. I know because I had no answers, either. But, Olsen, the biblical text is filled with TRUTH, if you would but read it without the lense of your 8th AOF. The words of your leaders imply that God was a sinner because WE are sinners. But, you choose to ignore what is presented to you, and you choose to ignore the sick and heretical implications of the words of me you call prophets but are merely doing Satan’s bidding. That’s the plain truth of it, Olsen, and I am speaking harshly to you because you want to speak as one who has authority, but you don’t. Our authority comes from the living God through the empowerment of the Holy Spirit, Olsen, and I for one cannot sit idly by while you preach a heretical doctrine that will only lead men to eternal death, because you definitely don’t preach the Word of God that brings life through the power of the blood of Jesus Christ ALONE!.
Peace and Grace to all who will hear the True Word of God!
jackg, AMEN. You have given me “gospel bumps” on my skin reading your comment this morning.
Let me say a few things to all the ignorant and idiotic people who want to claim the LDS church teaches what it doesn’t.
First, what I said about the Snow quote is perfectly true. What was said by Bruce McKonkie does not contradict it. What people were believing was that the Father acted as a savior for another planet that he had created. They were holding to the view that after he had become a God and had created planets and peopled them that he acted as a savior for them. This was in part due to what Joseph Smith said, and also in part to the fact that they could not comprehend (or had not yet been taught) that our Father in Heaven has his own Father, and so on through the generations of Gods. They believed that our Father was the first, thus if he acted as a savior it must have been for another planet that he had created. This is what Brother McKonkie was rejecting, not that he was the savior of his generation.
Now, the argument that what Snow said must mean God sinned is the stupidest thing I have ever heard, and all the explanations given just keep making it worse. “He was as man, and as all men sin he must have sinned.” Well Christ was also man, and yet he was without sin. In fact, I have heard many Christians teach that Christ was all man (even though he was also all God). If he was all man than, as all men sin, he must have sinned, right? I have even heard Christians who believe this for this very reason.
Please try to apply the same logic to LDS doctrine that you apply to your own. If what our leaders have taught implied that God sinned, than what the Christians teach implies that Christ sinned.
Now, let me touch on poligamy.
The prophets do not clarify it at this time because we do not practice it at this time, and thus it is not needed for us to understand it right now. When the time comes for us to live it again, that will be the time for us to have it explained.
Even with this, reading the words of the early prophets can help. I do know that Brigham Young taught quite plainly that it was your attitude towards the doctrine that would condemn or save you. He condemned those who accepted it openly, but in their hearts rejected it. As Olsen says, it is required that we accept the practice, that in our hearts we support those who choose to live it. It is not required that we live it.
It is also true, from all the reading that I have done, that in the 1800’s it was the woman who accepted it gladly, and the men who had to be constantly chastised for not “doing their duty” towards the women.
Let me explain a few things that I understand about doctrine.
It is required of to be married or they cannot enter exaltation and become gods. It is also understood by many that there will be more woman who meet all other requirements than men. So, if you have 100 men, but 120 women, for all of them to receive exaultation some men are going to have to have multiple wives.
In this way it is justice that requires this law to be lived. (But notice that not all men will be able to have more than one wife.)
Also, as our children are our glory, both in this life and the eternal life, the more wives a man has the more children will be born to the family thus increasing the glory of the family (all parents).
Just a few more small details.
As to being Gods over our own worlds, the Church has never said anything on this subject. In all truth, they have remain wisely silent as to the condition in which we will live as gods in the Celestial kingdom (or as angels in any of the kingdoms). We know many of the things that will happen to effect the transition from this existance to that, but once there nothing has been said.
So, allow me to descibe the two main ideas that exist. For the most part members see this existance as a man and his wife (or wives) going off and created their own little world (or worlds) which they will rule. Their family will be the gods to their spirit children.
However, the second, and much less known or even understood, is the idea that we will all rule together. This is the one I personally agree with, and for many reasons. We are taught that there was a great counsel of the gods in Heaven. Thus, there must be a similar counsel with our generation, as we are going to be like our heavenly parents. Also, Joseph Smith has taught that all those who lived on this earth who inherit the Celestial Kingdom will remain on this earth. Thus we will not be separated to our own little worlds, but will be as a large family (with Adam at our head)ruling from this earth.
Now, I know that neither of these view points has ever been expressly stated by the church leaders. However, the second is supported by other things they have said, while the first is simply a more comfortable belief. In all truth it really does not matter which an individual believes in, as long as they are willing to accept either one when the time comes.
I explain this for a simple reason. Many things that spoken of against the church are only supported if you accept the first concept but are easily explained if you accept the second. So, when you start to speak on beliefs that have not been confirmed by divine revelation, consider all possible beliefs, as some fit better.
“The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them and they refused to accept them” (Brigham Young, 19 August 1866, Journal of Discourses 11:269).
“Of those whose marriage endures in eternity, the Lord says, ‘Then shall they be gods’ (D&C 132:20); that is, each of them, the man and the woman, will be a god. As such they will rule over their dominions forever” … “We will become gods and have jurisdiction over worlds, and these worlds will be peopled by our own offspring” (Achieving a Celestial Marriage Manual, 132).
See also The Mormon Doctrine of Materiality for a related excerpt from B.H. Roberts’ Mormon Doctrine of Deity (pages 255-258). Here is a portion of that excerpt:
A few personal notes
JACK
You are still full of arrogance, you have simply added hatred to your being now. You are not humble, and your words prove it to anyone who actually listens or reads them.
The Bible is full of truth, but two-thousand years of evil and designing men have tainted it, twisted it. Thus one must read with the spirit of prophecy in them or they will be lead atray. I have the spirit of prophecy, do you? I have it because I believe in Christ, and that is the spirit of prophecy (revelation 19: 10).
I know you do not have this spirit, for you deny this spirit. Most of the Christian world denies that there are prophets in our day, and yet it has been told to us that all those who have a testimony of Christ have this spirit. As you cannot have what you deny, it must therefore also follow that your faith is not in the Christ of the Bible, but in the creation of those evil men who have altered the words of God. Thus you are lead atray. But through this spirit I know the truths taught in the Bible, and they are the truths of Gospel, and the only church that teaches these truths is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day saints.
AARON
As Olsen says, you are a hypocrite. You claim to sipply observe and to share your observations. But you put a twist on those observations, and then you ridicule anyone who tries to correct what you have twisted. You take the words of men inspired by God “in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures” unto your own destruction, as do most of the people on these threads.
To all faithful saints who are on this thread. I appologyse for any harshness in my words that you may find unwise in useing. However, I am tired of being accused of the worst of crimes and simply taking it. I am tired of the sumbissive approach.
@ JIM – “The standard you hold LDS and their prophets to is ridiculous.” Absolutely comical. Shouldn’t you hold them to the highest of standards, as they are supposedly capable of receiving revelation from your “GOD”.
We don’t have to “practice” polygamy, we just have to “accept” it.
If Broseph wasn’t using “accept” in terms of “practice”, then 6.7 billion people on this earth would’ve had to come from one “Heavenly Mother”. Impressive. I’ll call Guinness.
Look, for all the Mormons posting on this topic. I resigned my name from the “church” less than 1 year ago. I sit here and see who I once was. You must understand that there is no comparison between the divinity of the GOSPEL of our ONE TRUE GOD and what you believe. Don’t lie to yourself and take information at face value, not through a “seer stone” or a megalomaniac’s faulty interpretation. The “Occam’s Razor” principle can be used with Mormonism quite effectively. I suggest your try it, especially linguistically, archaeologically, and historically when researching your “church”.
In any case, keep posting LDS church members. I always need a good chuckle and reaffirmation to why I left a brain-washing henotheistic cult. Mormons, you may want to look up “MONOLATRY”, as well.
BTW – I just picked up “Reformed Eyptian for Dummies” at Amazon. What a wonderful read!
shematwater, you have just lost a lot of credibility, and Sharon has more than adequately shut you down.
I invite you to do a civil, reasonable public audible podcast with me. You can grill me all you want, but I think people will see how silly your claims are when you are asked to substantiate them. I for one would be happy to substantiate my claims on the air.
E-mail me at aaron@mrm.org with either your phone number or a Skype username, and propose a time that works for you. If you’re willing.
Usually, people like you here do the standard grandstanding but then shrink back when asked to do on-the-air Q&A.
Sorry, Shem, but you’re attempts to attack my character are not going to be able to stifle my voice regarding the heresies of Mormonism. I have pity for the victims of Mormonism, which is what you are. If I am angry, I am angry at the lies of JS et al. Now, since you brought up polygamy…let’s take a little look at the first person to practice it. We read in Genesis four, about six generations into the lineage of Cain about a man named Lamech. It states that he took for himself two wives. Before we continue, we need to understand what has been happening historically in the biblical text. We read about the disobedience of Adam and Eve, and then the disobedience of Cain, which is followed by the disobedience of Lamech. Not only does Lamech take two wives for himself, but he kills a younger man in an act of revenge. So, he is not a God-fearing man at all. What the biblical text so adroitly does is present our Adamic DNA, if you will, which is sin nature. Adam and Eve: disobedience that leads to a self-sovereign decision and then blame-shifting; Cain: offering God his leftovers, killing his brother and lying about it; Lamech: polygamy and murder out of revenge. So, polygamy was initiated by man and runs incongruent to what God established in the Garden of Eden. There is so much to talk about here that totally destroys Mormon theology, especially with regard to the fact that the condition of the world is NOT as God intended. You see, Shem, the only evil men who have twisted the Word of God have been JS, BY, and all the other leaders that JS spawned. Follow Jesus, Shem. Follow Jesus.
Still praying deliverance for you and yours…
I guess it’s time for me to step in, which I normally do when this topic gets to this point, and remind everyone that Mormonism isn’t Christianity. If the Mormons want to have a god that was a sinful man who needed to be redeemed and prove himself through works of righteousness so that he could become a god, I guess that’s their perogative. But please Mormon friends, don’t even begin to suggest that this is original first century Christianity.
If you want to piddle around with your Mormon mythology (not theology), I could care less. Much the same way I feel about Hindus or Buddists or whatever world religion is floating around out there. But if you’re claiming to be the restored gospel, you’ve got more problems than you can even began to cover with a burning in your bossom.
Happily, we have several exMos making the case for traditional orthodox Christianity. They’ve been there and experienced the mind bending it takes to keep the Mormon myth going. All I can say to you exMos is that I am really proud of the way you’ve done the hard work of research and study. You present your case clearly and with reasoned passion.
Olsen said: “Andy- about your 100 questions- does the inability to answer every single possible question reveal the absence of truth or authority? If so, evangelicals have a serious problem.”
No, Olsen, it’s the inability of the LDS Church to answer even the simplest of questions or even one question that I have that is the problem. I asked Crispin, the former LDS resident scholar here at MC, three questions last week that were very simple and he disappeared despite promising to return the next day with the answers. I said if he could answer those three easy questions I would join the Mormon Church and let him baptize me. He boasted of his LDS education which included being an LDS teacher for 30 years. It’s now Monday night and Crispin is AWOL. This should be a serious “red flag” to anyone! When it gets right down to it our Mormon friends cannot produce the answers from what they teach and believe.
I can’t go to Yahoo or to the Fox News website without seeing constant advertising by the LDS Church with “warm-fuzzy” adds of little children running around advertising free Bibles (despite what Articles of Faith #8 says) with ads of transcripts of online chats between LDS Church members and fictitious non-LDS members claiming to have the answers to man’s questions. Mormons tell me that they like Mormonism because it all makes sense. However, when I ask them some basic questions they have no answers and give me a blank stare or they say, “It hasn’t been revealed yet.”
You don’t have the answers. You don’t have any authority. You don’t engage in serious study or scholarship. You don’t have anything noteworthy to add to this discussion other than talking points and cry-baby tactics. If Shem and yourself are the products of what is coming out of institute these days, then the LDS Church education department needs a serious overhaul. The level of LDS scholarship on this blog and the ward classes that I have attended is a pathetic joke.
@ andy and aaron – well said, each of you. you intellect and steadfastness is admirable.
that being said, i cannot wait to see the skype chat between shem and aaron – although i doubt it will take place. nevertheless, I have my popcorn and microbrew ready!
one more thing … if not shem, then why not trying to schedule a discussion of the most compelling topics on this forum (or take a vote for questionable topics of mormonism in general) between an lds mormon coffee user and an authority figure from either a local ward or his/her ward? i’d pay to see that.
FIGJAM referred to “Occam’s razor”,
Just as an aside, this goes back to William of Ockham, a 13th Century Franciscan Monk from Surrey in England.
There are several ways to express it, but the colloquial is “if its irrelevant, ignore it”. Its a favorite for rationalists, but it doesn’t provide the end solution because you always need to ask the question “how do I know if its irrelevant?”.
In context, though, I believe that William of Ockham was speaking to the current scholastic method. Up to then, the Church had trained its scholars to start with a hypothesis, write the antithesis, then to write down what everybody of note had written previously. By the 13th Century this became quite an arduous task because every time you needed to say something, you had to go back over at least 13 centuries of scholarship (maybe more if you go back to Aristotle and the Greeks); hence Ockham’s razor, which allowed the scholar to disregard what he thought was irrelevant.
Now, LDS might invoke Ockham’s razor in the sense that 18 Centuries of scholarship were irrelevant to the restoration.
However, what I think you’re trying to say is that when you ask the obvious, don’t get sidetracked by something unrelated to the issue at hand. For example, if we ask why the LDS leadership cannot explain a core doctrine, we shouldn’t get deflected with loyalty rhetoric, such as “we must not criticize God’s mouthpiece for today”, or “I have a testimony that these guys are authentic”, or, even “that’s not an important issue”. etc etc.
On the last objection, I’d say it jolly well is an important issue, given the claims of the LDS leadership about holding the sole franchise on God.
Finally, you may have noticed that William of Ockham lived right in the heart of the “Great Apostasy”, which kind of discounts him as an ally for the LDS world-view.
I have a vague memory of hearing about Ockham’s razor a few years ago, but had forgotten what it was or what it meant. Thanks, Martin, I always enjoy learning something new.
AARON
I would love to go into a live chat with you, but I am a poor man about to be evicted from the house that I am renting. I can barely afford the few minutes each day I spend posting. I cannot afford skype or other forms of long distance, live communication by internet.
However, as I am attending school I will try and find out if someone here can make this possible.
The one problem with the challenge is that many of the things I know are not taken from dirrect statements from the leaders. They are simply the logical conclusion that follows the collective teachings of these men. I do not have documented proof, as it has never been given. But, as I said, I have the spirit of prophecy, and I feel confident that, if God wants me to enter this challenge, he will tell me what to say.
ANDY
Ask your questions again. I missed them, so please repeat. I am confident that I can answer all one hundred, but let us start with your supposedly simple three. And you should be confident that I will reply, based on my past history on this site.
My scholarship is not high, I will admit. However, I do not need to know what philosophers or christians said a thousand years ago to know what my church teaches. I only need to know the scriptures and the past two hundred years of history.
JACK
Your character speaks for itself, I simply describe it. In doing so I had no thought to stifle your voice (maybe a little, but no real hope as your arrogance would prevent such a thing). But you have done just that to me, Ralph, Olsen, and any others who come here to reason with you and explain the errors you have in your understanding of LDS doctrine.
There has not been a thread that I have read where the first attack on character was made by a member of the LDS church. Usually we make such statements only after several people have done so against us. As I said, I am tired of being submissive to those whose only real motivation is to vilify and destroy that which they obviously know very little about.
On these threads the LDS have been called devil worshipers, arrogance, ignorant, foolish, unable to think, brainwashed, and many other things. In return we have, for the most part, calmly shown our intelligence, our understanding, our love for God, our independence in thought, only to be once again attacked. And the worst of these attacks come from those who once shared our faith.
You may speak the words of Christ, you may invoke his grace in our behalf, you may voise your concern for us, but in so doing you have made yourself a hypocrite. You follow not his words, you understand not his grace, and your only concern is to destroy our faith.
Oh Yeah
as touching polygamy, what you said is actually very stupid when you consider it.
Where does it say that Lamech was the first to take a second wife? It doesn’t. All it says it that he did have two wives. Why does it say this? Because the geneology was being given, and it was important information. It was not given to show the sins of this man. It was given to finish the geneology of Cain.
We cannot say that this was the first time a man took a second wife. We do not know who was the first.
shematwater, Skype-to-Skype is free, and if you have a landline, I can call that from my own Skype application (at no cost to you).
I see Shem is again resorting to the “you don’t know Mormon doctrine” theme. I guess that’s the best he can do. The problem is that they hate it when former members such as myself reveal what the Church actually does teach. I don’t really mind the character assassination attempt by him or the others. The one thing that is interesting is how they reject words of grace and truth and spin it into something it’s not. They eisegete the biblical text, so when one exegetes it for them, they can only contend with the “where does it say…” red herring questions. The biblical text speaks for itself, and Mormons can’t cope with that. Their thinking is so convoluted because of the lies they have been taught by their leaders that the Bible is NOT authoritative for them, which is clearly evident by what they say. But, alas, Shem can only resort to saying that my comments are stupid despite the fact that what I presented was purely biblical. So, it’s not that he is attacking what I said, but rather he is attacking the biblical text. And, I am a hypocrite because I don’t allow for him and the others to bully me with their constant attempts to say I don’t know what Mormonism teaches. As for destroying your faith…well, Shem, your faith is in the lies of JS. Such a faith in a false prophet and a created god from that prophet’s imaginations needs to be destroyed in order for True faith in the True and Living God to take root in your heart. So, even your attempt to try and dissuade me from speaking the truth by your use of the word “destroy” is not authoritative enough to keep me from speaking to you the Truth about God’s Word and the falseness of the church established by JS, the false prophet. I am weary of walking on egg shells when proclaiming the Truth against the lies of JS. You are merely a victim, Shem, and I truly do have pity for you. I wish you knew about God’s grace, Shem, and how beautiful it is.
Praying for you always…
Shematwater,
You will notice that when an honest question about the foundation of the non-LDS Christian religions is asked here, the person asking the question is accused of attacking character or causing an uproar. I have repeatedly challenged anybody here to answer basic and simple questions about the authority of protestant/EV religion and their doctrine. I was then asked “why are you even posting here, what are your motives.” It really seems the LDS critics here are only comfortable asking rediculous and unrealistic questions about far-out doctrines about which we have never claimed to possess every detail and answer. They are not willing to ask or try to answer the most basic questions directed at them.
In their view, its not clear whether baptism is required. It isn’t clear if the laying on of hands is necessary. God Himself is very poorly defined. There is little explanation of what happens to the majority of humanity who have never heard of Christ. There really isn’t an actual church, just the “mystical body of Christ.” All ordinances and outward expressions of religion were done away when Christ died on the cross. There is no authority outside the Bible, only the “Priesthood of the believers.”
This is all very interesting when one realizes that the protestants have made many, many changes to the Bible over the last several centuries.
So many gray areas and ill-defined concepts. Nothing is concrete or sure. The only sure thing is that the Bible is perfect and is the word of God is its entirety- He cannot speak again.
All this is the result of apostasy and the lack of authority. Human nature left TO ITSELF. They have no authority or foundation.
Olsen Jim,
You’re talking about “the priesthood keys” that JS “restored”, right? This is your “authority”? May I ask you for your explanation: how is it that the “keys” were lost, given that according to Mormonism, John the Beloved and three Nephite Apostles, all of whom should have had “the priesthoods”, never died but are still walking the earth today?
Olsen Jim,
Also, hasn’t it been shown already that the Mormon Melchezidek Priestood comes from JS’s involvement with the Freemasons? If not, you’ll find it if you do the research. Are you okay with your “authority” coming from them?
Yes- of course it is the Priesthood keys that were restored with the authority to administer in the ordinances of the Priesthood and to represent Christ in leading His church on the earth. There has also been the additional knowledge and witness of further holy writ.
Good question, although I think you know the answer. Yes, technically, John the Beloved and the three Nephites have remained on the earth holding the Priesthood. But the church organization was lost as well as the Priesthood in its role in leading the church. I see it as being much like Mormon in the BOM being told by the Lord to not actively preach among the Nephites in their most wicked of times. Those blessings were being withheld from the people and a result of rebellion.
We claim a full restoration of Apostolic Priesthood authority with all its manifestations and blessings. It is either true or not true. But the claims from EVs simply make no sense. They are nowhere supported outside of their box. Nor are they in any way consistent with anything God has done in interracting with His children in the past. They are claiming authority while also saying nobody has authority. The simple question “how does one know the religious claims of the Holy Bible are true” reveals the convoluted nature of their claims to authority and their religion. They are working in a vacuum.
When has God ever actively lead His people without working through commissioned, authorized servants? Never.
@ MARTIN – it is like you read my mind! sorry if i wasn’t more descriptive, but yes, your definition of my meaning is correct (as well as the sarcasm).
@ the Morg – If you believe in LDS “authority” and its validity today, then you have to neglect the historical facts according to J. Smith and the his witnesses. The LDS mandate is baptism prior to laying on the hands for priesthood ‘rights’. However, mormon history states that J. Smith and Cowdery received priesthood prior to baptism, correct? (P. of G.P. J.S. History 1:68-73) You cannot baptize one without “authority”, correct? Even Adam, as you teach, was baptized by the spirit of the Lord. My question … if this is the true gospel and church of Christ, why would he omit such a practice. Surely, knowing the importance of such doctrine, the almighty would’ve conferred priesthood only after he or John baptized (either spiritually or in a resurrected state) J. Smith and Cowdery. Or would he? Just something to think about. Also, wouldn’t such a method (priesthood prior to baptism) be rejected today?
Olsen Jim
You “see it being much like…”, but do you know? Why would Jesus allow them to stay around at all? Because of WHY they wanted to stay:
3 Ne 28:9 “…all this will I do because of the thing which ye have desired of me, for ye have desired that ye might bring the souls of men unto me, while the world shall stand.”
By LDS scripture, John the Beloved and the Three Nephites, all holding “priesthood keys”, have been around all this time to bring souls to Jesus.
How, oh please tell me how, were they doing this?
Why, if people were finally able (for whatever reason) to get “the blessings” of priesthood, couldn’t Jesus’ loyal apostles, who had been working for him for so so so long, be the ones to organize it and give it to everyone?
You didn’t answer my question about it being okay with you if the MP comes from Freemasonry.
As far as God actively leading His people without working through commissioned, authorized servants? You know the answer. He is still using the same ones. Hebrews 1:1-2.
I know you keep claiming that the Bible is messed up. To do so, you are admitting you know very little about it. God wrote into the lives of the OT people the things that He wanted people to know so that there would be no mistaking it.
This was accomplished over hundreds of years, and a variety of people.
You’re still accusing THE ALMIGHTY GOD of not being able to hold things together.
or, or, or… JS (out of the blue) needed to bring back the Freemasonic Melchezidek Priesthood because Jesus couldn’t keep His church together..
hmmm
by the way… another quick dilemma? Why Peter, James and John? OOPS! Peter and James are dead, but John…..
Mormons and Catholics alike are living in the Old Testament and refuse to accept all of what the true Jesus Christ has done for mankind. Work? It is finished. Law? It is finished. Hey, He said it, not me. If he has authority to say that those who believe in Him and Call His name will be saved, I’m not about to pipe up and say waaaaait a minute, don’t we need priesthood and prophets and all these old men surrounding us telling us what we need to do?
OPEN YOUR EARS (and your heart)
What do you need Monson for? To tell you not to be bad every general conference and be a good husband/father/son/daughter/mother/etc.? How bout you do this instead -
Love the Lord your God with all that you are and love your neighbor, and you will keep his commandments.
Know this, Mormons, that God offers uncensored grace as a gift and laid out the plan of salvation in His word. If you wish to continue to reject it to have your ears tickled and ego stroked by some organization of deception, then that is your choice.
As for me and my house, our president of our Church is Jesus Christ.
Andy Watson/Berean told me the other day that some Jehovah Witnesses were telling him that Jesus returned to the earth in 1914 and is living in Brooklyn New York. Maybe John the Beloved and who-ever-else are there also. As nutty as that JW claim about Jesus is, these JW folks believe it!
It would seem reasonable, given what Mormons believe, and that they and the JWs intersect in a couple of other ways so why wouldn’t our Mormon friends buy into that belief also? John the Beloved could be in Brooklyn, right? We can make this work in both Mormon mythology and Mormon logic. Joesph Smith…..New York…right? It all comes together very nicely if a person will just learn to think Mormon.
Mormons are tested, you see, by verifiable evidence. The more they continue to testify regardless of the evidence, the more in esteem they are held in the Morg. So our TBMs suspend credulity and continue down this path because this type of thinking is imbedded in the Mormon culture and is reinforced by the group.
Now how jackg, SetFree, FIGJAM, Arthur Sido, Paige and all the other folks break loose from this psychological trap is truly amazing to me.
So to my exMo friends who write so eloquently, passionatley and with fully documented facts remember; you’re writing for the questioning Mormons that show-up here and read. It would take a whole squad of deprogrammers to get through to the Mormon posters. The Mormons are here to expose how truly twisted the Mormon thought process really is.
SETFREE
Again you show a lack of understanding. The Three Nephite disciples did not remain on the Earth, at least they did not remain among the people.
Mormon 1: 16 “And I did endeavor to preach unto this people, but my mouth was shut, and I was forbidden that I should preach unto them; for behold they had wilfully rebelled against their God; and the beloved disciples were taken away out of the land, because of their iniquity.”
And Mormon 8: 10 “And there are none that do know the true God save it be the adisciples of Jesus, who did tarry in the land until the wickedness of the people was so great that the Lord would not suffer them to bremain with the people; and whether they be upon the face of the land no man knoweth.”
While we do not know what actually happened to John, I believe he was also taken. These men were no longer to remain among men, but were to appear to a few, such as Joseph Smith, when the Lord commanded it.
Thus all the authority was taken off the Earth.
As to your claim that we accuse God of not being able to hold things together, are you really that stupid?
This is a common accusation made by those apposed to the LDS church as an attempt to dismiss the evidence of the apostacy.
Let me ask you this. Why couldn’t he keep it together from Adam to Noah? Things got so bad there he was forced to start over.
Why did Moses have to come and restore the law? Why could God keep it together from the time of Jacob and his sons? After all, that was only 400 years, not 2,000. Yet the gospel had been corrupted.
What about from Moses to Christ? Why was it necessary for Christ to reorganize the church? Could God hold it together?
More than once the saints have fallen from the true gospel, and each time a new man was called to restore what was lost.
We do not accuse God of failing at anything. We praise him for allowing us, and all men, to fail.
(continued)
As to the priesthood, no it was not Masonic in origin. I know you like to believe it, but please look at the dates of events in history.
It was in the spring of 1829 that Joseph Smith received the Priesthood at the hands of the ancient Apostles. It was over five years later that he joined the Freemasons. Thus he could not have based the Priesthood on Masonic teachings, as he did not know Masonic teachings at the time.
Now, the claim of him taking the Temple ceremony from Free Mason makes more sense, but this is not the extent of the priesthood. Please get your facts strait before you try and present something as fact.
FIGJAM
I like your little comment on Baptism and Priesthood. I don’t know whay it was done this way, but I have no problem with it. What God commands cannot be a sin, and as they were commanded to act in this way they it is fully binding. I understand why we do not do it this way now.
I would also point out that after they were baptised Oliver and Joseph did re-ordain each other to the Priesthood.
I would also say that Laws can change to fit the circumstances. After all, incest in wrong today, but what did Adam and Eve’s children do but marry their brothers and sisters.
Finally, JACK
To claim the Bible says what it doesn’t say is stupid. It is twisting the words of the Bible to fit what you want to believe.
If it does not say that Lamech was the First Man to have more than one wife than where is your proof that he was. That is what I am asking. Show me where it actually says this. It doesn’t.
You could just as logically say that after Cain killed Abel there were no more murders until Lamech killed the one man. Of course, we really don’t know this to be true, but this is the second one recorded so it must be the second one to occur, right.
It must also follow that no one died of natural causes before Adam since he is the first to be recorded as dieing. And after God cursed cain he didn’t communicate with anyone until he walked with Enoch, as this is the next account of such communication.
Oh, yeah. No one could have loved their children until Abraham, as he is the first that we are told loved his son (that all the way in chapter 22).
The logic is the same. However, I think we will all agree that the examples I have given really don’t make sense. Yet what you say concerning the first man to live polygamy must be true because it agrees with you.
(Following the same logic has lead many to accept as fact that there were three wise men who came to the infant Christ, yet the scriptures never give a number.)
We do not know who was the first to take plural wives because the Bible does not tell us who was first. This is a fact that is easily read in the text. You can believe it does all you want, but your belief does not prove anything.
Falcon, concerning Jehovah witnesses belief about Jesus returning in 1914 and living in Brooklyn: He did return in 1914 but it was invisible and he’s actually not on the earth. He directs his prophet, the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses, which is in Brooklyn. I find it interesting that LDS authoratative belief and JW authoratative belief is exactly the same, ie the need for a modern day prophet to reveal God’s truth to man kind. Like LDS the Jw Jesus is not unique he is one of many “sons”. The JW Jesus is a god, the first creation by Jehovah God.
shem,
You’re too smart for me. I will keep praying for you, though. Blessings to you and your family, and I really mean that. I will be praying for you and your apartment situation. Did you say you were in school? Where?
Peace and Grace!
JACK
I attend Missouri Southern State University in Joplin, MO.
@ falcon,
lol, and there you have it…
Shem,
The logic doesn’t follow that the authority was “taken off the earth” just because the apostles were taken out from among the wicked. Didn’t Jesus of the BoM tell them they could stay until he got back? Wow, your Jesus (the one who also lied in the Bible when he said the gates of hell would not prevail against His church) is a weak and insufficient guy isn’t he? It’s no wonder you have so little regard for him.
No, the problem of the long-living apostles is easily resolved by reading John 21:20-24.
“Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved (John the Beloved, who is writing this) following; which (John) also leaned on his (Jesus’) breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?
Peter seeing him (John) saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man (John) do?
Jesus saith unto him (Peter), If I will that he (John)tarry till I come, what is that to thee (Peter)? follow thou (Peter) me.
Then went this saying (rumor)abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said NOT unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?
This is (John writing) the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true (because he’s giving a first-hand account of what happened).
FYI:
Joseph Smith, Sr. was raised to the degree of Master Mason on May 7, 1818 in a lodge in NY.
Hyrum was also a member of a New York lodge, pre-BoM.
William Morgan’s expose “Illustrations of Masonry” was published in 1826 and spread like wildfire due to his death, people afraid of and people deciding to practice the arts he described.
Joseph Smith Jr had prior-to-BoM knowledge of Freemasonry.
shematwater, you asked setfree, “are you really that stupid?” Don’t talk to her like that. Treat a lady with some respect. If you see an evangelical talking to an LDS like that, please tell me, because it’s wrong either way.
There are more intelligent and constructive ways to essentially ask someone, “are you really that stupid?”
AARON
There are more constructive ways to discuss things. However, there are very few threads where you won’t find a Non-LDS say the same thing about the LDS. Oh, I admit they cover it in a nice little paskage, disguising it in a vow of care and love, but it all amounts to the same thing. I am just being a little more blunt than they are.
We, as LDS, have been directly called Devil Worshipers, liars, frauds, ignorant, and a few other things. In directly we have been called spiritually dead, stupid, gulible (however you spell it), and a few other things. So forgive me if I get a little annoyed.
SETFREE
Again you show a lack of knowledge (to be more blunt about it, you are ignorant of the scriptures). What Christ actually said is this:
“Therefore, more blessed are ye, for ye shall never taste of death; but ye shall live to behold all the doings of the Father unto the children of men, even until all things shall be fulfilled according to the will of the Father, when I shall come in my glory with the powers of heaven.”
Does this say they will be among the people, preaching. No. It says they will witness all things. I didn’t say they were taken off the Earth, only that they were taken from among the People. So, it all fits. They have become silent observers of the works of God.
Now, the logic is perfectly sound. If you take every person who has the authority off the earth then the Authority has been taken off the Earth as there is no one left who holds it.
If you removed all citizens of the United States from the Earth who would have the Authority to be the President. Since the Constitution says the president must be a born citizen, and must be elected by the rest of the citizens, who would be the president. No one could, because there would be no one left who could claim the authority.
(continued)
As to John, what is in John 21 does not tell us either way. From this it is possible he tarried, but it is possible he didn’t. So, to clarify it a little I would quote from Revelation 10: 11 where John eats the little book: “And he said unto me, Thou must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings.” So, it seems that he likely tarried so that he could fulfill this commission.
Now, concerning Joseph Smith: Again you make assumptions that have no real proof.
I don’t know when his father and brother became Masons, but they would not have told him about the Freemasons because that was forbidden. As to the book, unless you can prove that either every person at that time read it, or that Joseph Smith actually had a copy, you are assuming what cannot be proven.
Even if he had a copy you would need to prove that he could read it, which is doubtful. In all the accounts of his translating the Book of Mormon it was not uncommon for him to spell words out because he had no clue how to pernounce them, or even exactly what they meant. He questioned things in the translation, like Jeruselem having walls, because he didn’t know.
So, all you have is the assumption that because he knew members of the Freemasons, and because there was a book published he had to know about them. It is not a fact, but an assumption based on your desire for it to be a fact.
Shem,
1. To quote you: “I didn’t say they were taken off the Earth…If you take every person who has the authority off the earth then the Authority has been taken off the Earth”.
I’m sorry, but I’m not understanding this. Isn’t this a contradiction?
2. Looking at other translations of the Bible, there seems to be an agreement that Rev 10:11 says “about” rather than “again before”. Regardless, though, John did, didn’t he? He wrote it down, and now the prophecies he was to share have been shared. They are about many people, nations, tongues, and they also have been taught to many people, nations, tongues…
3. The larger point here, Shem, is why you’re okay with JS being involved with Freemasonry at all. Much less using their stuff. Thought all of his “revelations” came from God? No? Why are you okay that they didn’t? Why are you okay with any of the stuff that sheds light on him, and exposes “the church” for having lied to/misled people about him?
SETFREE
1. There is no contradiction. The Authority was taken out of the world (parden me if I said off the Earth, it was a slip). The world is the People, not the planet. The Authority was taken out from among the people that lived on the Earth. So, while the Three may have remained on the Earth, they were not in the world.
2. Personally, I don’t care what other translations say. I was simply using the Bible (the translation I believe in) to illustrate the doctrine of the LDS church. As it is the LDS doctrine we are talking about I have no trouble in directing you to D&C 7. This section is the JST of the John 21 quote.
3. I never said he got any of his revelations from the Freemasons. I don’t believe he did. I believe every revelation he received came directly from God. He was a Freemason, as were hundreds of the early members. This is not proof that he did not receive revelation from God. It is a coincedence, one that is handy for those who want anything they can get to fight against the church. It means nothing to me, or to any who truly have faith in Christ’s church.
Shem,
1. To bring together a couple of separate arguments…
God has always faithfully preserved for Himself a “remnant”. Even when He flooded the earth, He saved out Noah and his family to His Glory.
To jump to the conclusion that because men are basically evil, God cannot keep His Word around is to call Him a liar, a fool, a weakling. Understand?
The Gospel has always been the same thing, Jesus. In a nutshell, Jesus is God’s Justice, His Righteousness, His Mercy, His Love, His Word, His Faithfulness, His Grace, His Image. God wants a way to be able to dwell with man. In Jesus, He provided it. How could it be more simple than that? Corruption of the Gospel is to add more to it than is in Jesus.
2. You said that you believe in the KJV. I’m glad to see you really looking at the words. How about looking at these:
Col 1:15 Who (Jesus) is the image of the invisible God…
Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man…
John 4:24 God is a Spirit
Deut 5:8 Thou shalt not make thee [any] graven image, [or] any likeness [of any thing] that [is] in heaven above, or that [is] in the earth beneath…
or on the other extreme…
Deut 13: 1-3, 5 If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, ‘Let us go after other (made-up, in an image we have seen or can conceive, something other than His self-description) gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth (is testing) you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul…And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God.
Sounds exactly like your founder prophet to me. You?
SETFREE
1. Quite obviously he did not do it this time. Why do you think we call it the Great Apostacy? It is because for the first time since God created the Earth there was no one who held the Authority of the Priesthood, therefore there was no one authorized to lead or organize the church of Christ.
This is prophecied by Isaiah in chapter 29 of his writings. Read it.
9 Stay yourselves, and wonder; cry ye out, and cry: they are drunken, but not with wine; they stagger, but not with strong drink.
10 For the Lord hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes: the prophets and your rulers, the seers hath he covered.
All men are effected. They have no guidance, staggering about in spiritual confusion. No more does the Lord have prophets or seers, those men who were appointed to lead the church.
But Isaiah continues
11 And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed:
The vision of All is as this. Not even the wise men, the scholars can understand it.
What do you think this is talking about but a world wide darkness of spirit, a global apostacy, where none have the truth, and none have the authority to act in the name of God.
(continued)
2. Nice Try, but just because I believe it to be the best translation to use does not mean I believe it to be a perfect translation.
Col 1: 15 In appearance Christ looks just like his Father, thus he is in the image of him (or the invisible God).
Romans 1: 23 Not sure what you are getting at since we haven’t reduced God to anything but the perfect being that has always been.
Deut 5: 8 When have we ever done this?
Now, John 4: 24 would be one of those mistranslated parts that I mentioned. I would direct you to the JST to see what it originally said.
Deut 13: 1-5 I know what you are saying, but I have to disagree. From all that I have witnessed and read Joseph Smith has done more to bring men to the one true God, the God who dilivered our ancestors from Egypt, than anyone else, except Christ himself. In all truth, I would say that this applies to the rest of Christianity, except that in general they are very lacking in the dreams and signs department, so it would not be completely accurate.
Shem,
You really think I’m just butting heads with you personally, don’t you.
I don’t give you info from the Bible to see what you know from Mormonism. I put it out here to refute Mormonism. I was a Mormon. I know what you believe. But Mormonism is a trap, a lie, a fraudulent work of the evil one, start to finish.
If you knew what it was like to really know Jesus, and have Him be personally in charge of your life, you’d give up “the church” to have Him!
SETFREE
I know why you post here, and I never said anything else. But my purpose for being here (aside from a good debate) is to show that your attempt at refuting really doesn’t refute anything.
While what you say may be enough for some to accept your belief, it is not enough to give a conclusive evidence of anything, and that is my point.
The only real traps are those systems of belief outside the true Gospel, which means everything that is not LDS. Of course, to say this means about as much as you saying what you did. The only proof of anything of this nature is the witness of the Holy Ghost, which is an individual thing, and thus cannot be used to as proof in persuading anyone else.
I have a couple questions that go along more with this thread than the most current one (Sorrowful Times in Nauvoo).
I wonder if any of the LDS can help me on these?
1. Is God the Father (Elohim) the first god? or does he have a father?
2. Is God the Father (Elohim) the prayer listener-to/answerer? or is God the Father (Jehovah)? How does he (which ever one it is) hear and answer prayers?