Do You Really Want to Become a God?


When I was very young, I became ill. The medicine my mother was going to administer was of the worst kind, in my mind, and there was no way I was going to obediently take it. So, I quickly hid in a closet, closed my eyes, bowed my head, and said “Dear Heavenly Father, please give me a magic wand, so that I can make myself better”.

That was a pretty silly prayer to expect God would answer, I doubt many would argue. And yet, how many of us have been pretty close?

We don’t know an answer to a test question: God, is it B, D, or E?

We are stuck in traffic: God, please get these people off the road.

We are lonely: God please send me a soul mate.

We are tired: God, please get my boss to let me go home.

We want a nice car: God, please get me a raise.


How many of us have ever thought, if only I were God?

Think of the possibilities.

You could think the thought, and make the neighbor’s dog stop barking.

You could wiggle your finger, and your son’s tattoo would be gone.

You could simply want some breakfast, and it would appear, bedside.

What would you get for yourself, if you were a god? How about:

A mansion with swimming pool and tennis courts and servants?

An intergalactic Lamborghini?

The best-looking, most fun, sexiest lover to be had (or many of them)?

Or, thinking on a larger scale, would you, if you were a god:

Establish world peace?

Abolish diseases? Flies? Weeds?

Get rid of crime, poverty, societal problems of every kind?

(How noble of you. J)

What do you think you would do with your “power” if you were a god? Take a minute, think it over.

Ok. Here are some other questions pertaining to godhood that you may not so readily ask yourself:

Would I have to be “perfect”? What would that mean? Could I be angry? Jealous? Could I prefer something over another thing? Could I love? Hate? Be excited? Have to not get excited?

What would my responsibilities be? Would I have to answer to anyone?

Who would I be responsible to/for? Would I have to spend godhood the way God is? Would I have to have spirit children? Would I have to answer my children’s prayers night and day, day and night, for thousands of years?

Will I allow free agency for my spirit children? Will I have to? If so, what will I do about the ones who hate me? Who sacrifice my other children to idol gods? Who want to follow other gods in the universe besides me? What will I do with the ones who rape, murder, torture, defile my other children? Will I create a hell for them? Will I destroy them?

What if I just don’t allow free agency? Is there any thing wrong with that?

What if I don’t want all that responsibility? Will I have to have it, or can I say “no”, that I’d rather just populate my world with cool plants and animals? Will that make me a lesser god?

What if I get tired of being a god? Can I opt out? Can I give my world over to a different god to run for me? Can I just assume that once I am in heaven, I will always want to be a god, and for eternity, I will never change my mind? Never get tired and want to do something else? Will I be eternally content? Happy with being a god?

It may be easy to dismiss any or all of these kinds of questions with a “well, we’ll know later”. Easy for us to dismiss what “god” means, by just saying “well, he was like us, so, whatever!”

The prayer I offered up for a magic wand revealed my childlike understanding of God and how miracles happen. I am older now, and I have learned much more about “reality”. And yet, there is so much that I don’t know and may never understand.

I do believe, however, that if we were created by God, then there is an absolute truth about God, about what it means to be a god, and about whether or not godhood is possible for anyone besides God.

Consider the possibility that there is a One, a Power, a Knowledge, a Wisdom, a Presence that is so far above everything else as to be The Absolute. It knows so much more than me, that I could spend forever just learning about it and from it. It is so much more loving than I am, that I could spend forever being happy just being close to it. It has so much more than I do, that for eternity, I will never lack for provision, work, play, rest, enjoyment, growth, etc. It is infinitely personal and relational and intimate. He is so complete in himself that I will never ultimately need anything else but Him.

The Holy Bible suggests that God is like this.

It says God is everywhere; there is no place where He is not.

It says God is eternal; there was never a time when He was not God.

He has ALL of the power; He is absolutely Sovereign.

He is the source of everything; there is nothing that can exist without Him.

The Holy Bible’s description of God eliminates the possibility of there being more than one of them. How could there be, with attributes like these?

On this forum there are basically two God views up for grabs. Neither can explain where God came from. Neither can explain how or why He became God.

But personally, the Biblical view gives me peace I never had when I subscribed to the other view. It takes the illusion of control away from me. It absolves me from making myself my own hero. I have such freedom of mind and soul, knowing that God created me, that He worked/is working out my salvation, and that He will be my heaven when this life is over. Given what He has created and surrounded me with so far, I’m extremely excited to find out what He has planned!

About setfree

God trusting, Bible believing, Jesus lover.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

206 Responses to Do You Really Want to Become a God?

  1. jackg says:


    God works through a broken humanity. He always has and he always will. He raised holy men to Himself during the times you refer to as the apostasy of the Church. Try reading some of their words, Shem, and you will see that the Spirit has moved throughout humanity since the Day of Pentecost. The Spirit was not given only to be removed. This is where Mormonism errs. Pentecost brought the Holy Spirit to the earth, and there is nothing that will take Him from the earth. He has been moving in men since then, and I can tell you this with certainty: JS followed a false spirit. That’s easy to conclude when you read his writings and test them against God’s Word, which we know as the Bible. You have exchanged the Truth of God’s Word for a lie. JS was not a prophet of God, Shem, no matter how hard to want to believe it and defend it.

    Praying for you…

    P.S. Whatever happened with your housing situation? Just curious…

  2. Rick B says:

    You guys dont want to share them with us, your not helping yourselves because their are lurkers who never speak, only read. They see you guys dodging, then the Bible says, Give everyman an answer that asks, I’m asking, but you guys judge my heart and then decide to with hold answers, Can you show me from Scripture where it says to do that?

    The Bible does tell us at some time we simply need to move on, but at the same time, were talking that verse speaks to more of a face to face talk, not one via the internet.

    So if you really want to use that verse, then you simple need to stop coming here forever, Other wise if the person asking questions (Me at the time) is being civil, and giving honest replies and asking honest questions and not dodging them, then you really need to reply.

    Otherwise if you move onto another topic and keep dodging questions, then you will look like a liar and like you cannot answer with truth like you claim.

  3. Ralph says:


    You could not be more wrong, and I know we don’t agree.

    If you go into Google and look up ‘steel bows’ you will find out that in India, between 269 and 237 BC, steel bows were made for warfare. Then there is a company that makes steel bows out of Damascus steel and sells them for archery. Finally (for a third witness) the University of Manchester has a collection of bows from throughout history and some of these are steel. So steel can be used to make workable bows. The references do say they are not as good as composite bows, but they were made and used throughout history.

    About breaking a steel bow – the conditions in that area of the world are 60-92% humidity with plenty of salt and heat (from an eyewitness who lives in that area, as well as a book “Discovering Lehi” author toured that area). Good conditions to make steel rust and rusted steel can break easily. So there is a possibility for this to be true.

    As far as the boats, you and I have had a good discussion outside of this blog about this. I told you to ask an engineer if they would work. You did and he agreed that they would. He did say they would fill up with water only if the top and bottom holes were open at the same time. If you read the BoM, the Jaredites were told to open the holes individually, not at the same time. God does things differently for different circumstances as seen throughout the Bible – which you and I agreed on in the discussion. So the reason these boats were built differently than the ark is because they were for a different purpose to the ark. But even given all of this you did not/could not accept it because you have an agendum to push.

  4. Rick B says:

    I dont recall telling you that my friend who works in the field of Psychics said the boat WOULD work, He did say it would not work and went onto explain to me in terms way over my head why the whole story could not possible work and how stupid it was.

    I also do not buy that the bow would break, regardless of the conditions. No one is going to have so little care for their weapon for deference or food that they simply let it rust away till breaking.

    Then I also tried looking into evidence of steel dating way back then, as near as I can tell, only iron existed back then, not steel. I could be wrong and if I am please provide sources. Then I am still waiting for credible sources stating Reformed Egyptian exists. So much evidence does not exist how can you stand it? Rick b

  5. setfree says:

    Thinking about it this morning, I realized that a point that really needs to be brought out again comes from here:

    “…there is a One, a Power, a Knowledge, a Wisdom, a Presence that is so far above everything else as to be The Absolute…
    The Holy Bible suggests that God is like this.
    It says God is everywhere; there is no place where He is not.
    It says God is eternal; there was never a time when He was not God.
    He has ALL of the power; He is absolutely Sovereign.
    He is the source of everything; there is nothing that can exist without Him.
    The Holy Bible’s description of God eliminates the possibility of there being more than one of them. How could there be, with attributes like these?”

    The fact of the matter is, LDS and anyone, that the BIBLE ONLY EVER SPEAKS OF and ONLY EVER ALLOWS FOR ONE TRUE GOD.

    So, to come up with another one means you have to reject the Bible.

    You can say all you want “well, there were parts removed”

    But to say that all the parts about there being another God were removed is just ridiculous! To say so would mean that you haven’t yet caught the main message that exists from start to finish in the Bible!

    So… if you cannot agree with the Bible that there only is ONE and only has ever been ONE and only will ever be ONE GOD, then you need to stop using any Bible verses to prove your points, because you have literally rejected the Bible as a whole.

    The LDS tend to think that the verses are up for grabs in the Bible, but truthfully, it is one large book of the experiences of a certain group of people through which God reveals to us WHO HE IS!


    If you wrote a book about yourself, would you want someone going around telling people things that were untrue, based on just a couple of passages from your book?

    Seriously… give God a little respect

  6. shematwater says:


    If God wanted to teach test the family of Lehi he could have easily broken the bow, so what you say is just silly.
    As to the boat, I have often thought of the bumpy ride the Jaredites had crossing the water, but if that is what God commanded then what does it matter if it didn’t seem condusive to their health.
    You speak of these stories without considering the hand of God in them.

    As to the challenge, I do think that it can be done, but not to your satisfaction, and that is my point. No matter what I say you can always fall back on the two ideas I presented, and thus you can always claim that I failed. I do see many clarifications, but you will deny that they are such regardless of what I say so what is the point in teaching you.


    The spirit of Christ has been on men for many years, but his Priesthood was not held by men for many centuries, and even Martin Lurther agreed with this statement. The Holy Ghost is a gift that comes only through the priesthood, so when it was lost the gift of the Holy Ghost was also lost. But the spirit of Christ, as prophecied, was poured out on all men.
    I do plan to read the works of many of these men who spoke with this spirit (I have not had the time as yet) but that does not make them prophets, nor does it make their words scripture, for they were not given the gift of prophecy. They are great men, and they will be exalted in the Celestial Kingdom, but they were not prophets, and so when the prophet declares them in error I will listen to the prophet.

    Say what you like about Joseph Smith, he was a prophet, one of the great seven spoken of in the Apocrapha, an Archangel, head of this last Dispensation, and all men will come to know this to be truth eventually.

  7. jackg says:


    Please enlighten me further regarding Martin Luther’s comments on the priesthood you believe you hold (I am assuming you hold the Mormon priesthood). The Spirit was here to stay after Pentecost! Hallelujah for that !!!!


  8. Shem,

    I am sad to hear that you think the Bible is in error. How bad would the errors have to be before you chuck the whole thing?

    Personally, I do not think the “problems” you have sighted are really problems. I am not a Hebrew scholar but other versions render the word in Genesis as “test”. I am fairly sure that the face-to-face thing is an idiom and as such it does not literally have to mean face to face.

    “All the records you speak of as Pre-Apostacy really don’t mean much. The apostacy had started in the days of the Early Apostles, and so the only records pre-Apostacy are the those written during the life of Christ.”

    Well then the NT record does not count as it was written after Christ’s earthly ministry. If the apostasy started while the apostles were still alive one has to question how much anything apostolic is worth. Is the restoration of any value if the primitve church was never whole? How can you be sure your church has not apostasized, or that Joseph Smith was a prophet and then fell as some Mormons claim?

    I have to be honest and state that I think your position is born out of apologetic necessity and not consistency. Mormons maintain that there was a total apostasy, and indeed only a complete and total apostasy would warrant a restoration. As such, if you were to convince me a non-Mormon that Christianity is true, it is Mormonism, and that the church fell away (completely) then was completely restored . . . You would need to show that a total apostasy did in fact take place. Mormons gloss over this foundtional starting point. How would anyone know that an total apostasy took place other than to take your word for it?

  9. Ralph says:


    If you look up Steel in Wikipedia you will find that there are artifacts made of steel dating back to 1400 BC in East Africa. The oldest found artifact is about 4000 years old. It has been used constantly in weaponry from the 4th century BC onwards by the Romans and Chinese. Of course, this is Wikipedia, so another reference is

    As far as Nephi’s bow, no one said that he broke it in half, or in part of the thicker sections of the bow. For the bow to be useless, all that needs to be done is to disable the attachment of the string to the frame. So if the thin area around this point rusted and broke, the string can not be attached and the bow is useless. yes, he would have kept it in as best condition as possible, but once rust starts it cannot be stopped easily. When I worked as a chemical engineer trainee at the steel making factory here in Newcastle, we were told that rust is the ‘cancer’ of iron and steel.

  10. liv4jc says:

    How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Are we seriously using the fact that there are steel bows to prop up the BoM? I caught a rapist last night. He said he didn’t do it. He said I can’t prove it because there is no DNA evidence. I have a lot of other physical evidence, but hey, wait a minute…I did read about several other cases where rapists were not convicted due to lack of DNA evidence. He’s telling the truth! Does that work in anyone’s world?

    How in the world can a person actually know that the BoM said what JS said it did? Nobody got a chance to examine it, and the evidence against it is stacked so high only a fool would believe it is what JS claimed it was. I know, I know, that’s part of the beauty of it. We only “think” you guys are fools. In reality you are “super spiritual”, and the Holy Ghost placed a pocket hand warmer right next to your bosom. To what lengths will a person go to convince themselves that what they believe is true?

    Shem said, “I just don’t really care about evidence outside the scriptures or the direct revelation from God to me. It is the same church, but no amount of human records can prove it as such, and thus to demand such evidence is rediculous. In fact, to demand such evidence for anything concerning God is rediculous. We should not turn to men, but to God, for the answers. This is what I do”

    Did Jesus not do signs and wonders? Miracles were manifested to men as an authentication of the message and the messanger. Jesus did not say, “I’m the Christ. No, seriously. Pray about it and ask God if it is true.” The Bible is clear, historical evidence. The BoM is vapor.

    Ralph. Seriously? The boats wouldn’t fill up unless both holes were open at the same time? That may be true if the open hole was on the bottom, but the idea that God would be so stupid as to require men to build a boat that would be rolled over and over again is just riduculous. How would anyone survive the journey without being beat to death?

  11. Rick B says:

    20 And the Lord said unto the brother of Jared: Behold, thou shalt make a hole in the top, and also in the bottom; and when thou shalt suffer for air thou shalt unstop the hole and receive air. And if it be so that the water come in upon thee, behold, ye shall stop the hole, that ye may not perish in the flood.

    It seems as I said, they pulled a plug and water was coming in, so they needed to put the plug in.

    Common sense would say, pull the plug above your head since if your standing up right, that would mean up above you would be the air. So if they pull that one and water comes in, you must be under water. God supposedly had them build boats, not submarines.

    Then as I said before, if water is coming in from the pulling a plug, it is likely from the top, so they could not pull the other plug to let in air, and as water comes in, then it leaves less room for air, and as more water fills in the more likely your boat will fill and sink.

    But yet you guys really believe that this story somehow adds to my salvation by being in the BoM, and you believe God was this stupid to build a boat with plugs, then says, if it starts filling with water put the plug back in. Rick b

  12. shematwater says:


    The evidence of the Apostacy is in the prophecies made by several of the prophets, as well as the history of the Christian religion. However, the only way anyone can know any truth is through the devine inspiration of the Holy Ghost, who testifies of truth.
    I do not seek to persuade you in these threads that the LDS church is true. I cannot do so, for that is a power reserved to the Holy Ghost and yourself. My only intent in any of these threads is to explain and teach the doctrine of the LDS church, for the romous, theories, and errors that have been spread (and are generally excepted by most on these threads) are false and will prevent any real understanding of the true doctrine taught. This is all I want to do.


    Let us actually think about the story, considering that the Lord had a direct hand in directing all that occured.

    First, there were plugs, for the boats were submarines in a sense, for they were made completely water tight, having a roof, and the ends rounded off or peaked. (verse 17)
    Now, you are correct that when the water came in it meant they were under the surface. It may seem stupid, but God watched over them. When they needed air he lifted them above the surface so that they could replenish the air. During this time they also likely bailed out any water that had accumulated in the past.
    Thus, the design was truly fine and exquisite, designed to be carried and cared for by God. Yes, if God was not helping them it would have been stupid, but they trusted God, and obeyed his command, and they were preserved.

    As I said, your comments do not consider the hand of God in the story, and thus they are silly. Before making any more such comments please consider how the power of God made the event possible. Without this you sound much like atheists arguing against the Bible (again, very silly).

  13. Shem,

    Where in the Bible is a complete and total apostasy predicted? It’s not. If such an event were on the horizon it seems like not enough ink could be spilled warning people about of it. Do tell me where in Christian history is the apostasy?

    As far as the Holy Spirit goes . . . I have Him and He has me. I know you may doubt that or think you have Him to, but their is no shortage of people with a spirit. They contradict each other on several points so they all cannot be right.

    Where have people misrepresented LDS doctrine. If you think this site has gone beyond mere criticism into lies, then who and where are the accurate non-Mormon critics? If you cannot name any then perhaps that is because Mormon counter- critics label any criticism as lies.

  14. Rick B says:

    I do not see the hand of God in that story because it makes him look so stupid, unlike the stories in the Bible. Then it never said in the BoM that they surfaced and bailed out water. If they were under the water, if the hole was large enough, then the water would rush in so fast they would die.

    Then in the Bible if God created the ark for noah, why would he do a complete and stupid boat that even the people had to question if it would work?

    You can try all you want and say God was upon or in this story, but you really have to want to believe that for it to make any sense at all, other wise if this story was in a book or a movie, we would think, who wrote such stupid story. Rick b

  15. Ralph says:


    I never said I was proving the BoM true because of the existence of steel bows. RickB made the comment that –

    “First off, Bows are not and will not be made out of steel, then if you take swords which are thinner and used for battle, they sometimes break in the heat of battle, but from much abuse. A steel bow made of “Fine” steel as it is pointed out would be thicker in the middle and even ends and be closer to a bar than flat like a sword. They guy cannot be so stupid as to beat his bow and therefore break it.

    Try breaking a bar of steel, just not going to happen, so no that is not only stupid, but does not add to my knowledge of salvation.”

    “Then I also tried looking into evidence of steel dating way back then, as near as I can tell, only iron existed back then, not steel. I could be wrong and if I am please provide sources.”

    3 points he raised – 1) Bows are not and will not be made of steel; 2) Cannot break a bar of steel; 3) steel was not used/known in those days. I was just showing that 1 & 3 are incorrect and a plausible answer to 2. He does not have to agree with my answer to 2, but from what I know about steel it is very plausible (I worked at a steel making factory as a chem. eng. for a year).

    as far as the hand of God not being seen in these stories – well talk with my atheist friend about the Bible and she will say the same thing. It’s what you and I choose to believe as to how and where we see the hand of God.

  16. liv4jc says:

    Ralph, I beg to differ about atheists. Although I cannot convince anyone (that should be pretty obvious from the conversations had here), especially an atheist, that the Bible was ispired by God, I have had much better luck convincing atheists of the existence of God and the possibility that the Bible was inspred by God than I have convincing Mormons that the BoM is not based upon a real culture and that it is a lame attempt to copy a true divinely inspired book: the Bible.

    The reason is simple: Most atheists have never truly read the Bible, heard who God is, or of their need for forgiveness. Not even atheists who formerly attended religious services. But I can build a very strong case for the existence of God based upon the existence of an intricately designed creation. Creation=Creator. From there it is a simple jump to a being that could create a universe could also communicate. Creation, especially humans, communicates, so they bear a resemblance to their creator. This Creator would want acknowledgment from its creation and would reveal itself to humans. The written word would be the best way to preserve and accurately tranmit that knowledge. The presence of a consscience is powerful evidence for an inherent moral standard given by this Creator, who if He has impressed upon His creation that lying, stealing, rape, murder, etc. is wrong, then He must be the embodiment of Goodness, not evil. Once the conscience has been pricked I can move into the gospel and man’s need for a Savior; This savior is Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit opens their eyes/heart, and voila, a newborn God-fearing Christian believer.

    The Bible contains all of that information and says that that is exactly who our God is. There is ample archaelogical evidence of the places named in the Bible, and ample manuscript evidence to prove an accurate transmission of the Bible. The BoM only boasts poor copies of these truths, and has no archaelogical or manuscript evidence.

    Yet you believe…

  17. liv4jc says:

    Some further thoughts on this Ralph. I believe that the use of apologetics, like showing the fingerprints of God in an intricately designed creation and the archaelogical evidence for the places and civiliations recorded in the bible, cannot convert anyone.

    Unlike you, I believe the Bible is inerrant. So I believe Psalm 19:7, “The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul; The testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple”

    Before being converted a person must at least have a glimmer of the depths of their depravity before an almighty Holy God. Rember, “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom.” I can use God’s law and standards from the Bible to explain to an unbeliever that without Christ’s atoning sacrifice they have no chance at all of seeing the kingdom of God. There is no goodness in them apart from Christ. That knowledge of sin often drives them to their knees in acknowledgment of their condition before God and makes them cry out for mercy. Christ is merciful and hears their cry. There has never been a lost sinner that cried out for Christ’s mercy that did not receive it.

    Mormons on the other hand have hardened themselves against God’s means. You start from a Pelagian position, believing that you were born like Adam and make a choice to sin or not to sin. You refuse to admit that you are not a sinner because you have sinned, but you sin because you are born depraved, having inherited Adam’s curse. Without the mercy of Christ we believe that even the stillborn baby would be consigned to Hell before it had done good or evil (Romans 9:6-13, especially verse 11) because it has inherited this sinful nature.
    You are then consigned to the Arminian position whereupon you believe that God is powerless to convert you unless you first activate your salvation by asking for it. Did Christ indeed die for those who are saved or just make salvation possible for all? Having salvation in yourselves you are then required to maintain it.

  18. liv4jc says:

    To the men who would be gods: Below I have listed three passages. In each example, who are you? 1) The Pharisee or the tax-collector? 2) The judges or Paul questioning the judges? 3) The Pharisees and teachers of the law or Jesus’ disciples?
    1) To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable: “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’ “But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Luke 18:9-13
    2) You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness leads you toward repentance? (Romans 2:1-4)
    3) Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. They tie up heavy loads and put them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them. “Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long; they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; they love to be greeted in the marketplaces…

  19. shematwater says:


    As I said, to truly know the truth one must receive it from the Holy Ghost, which comes only after baptism by water, as it is the baptism by fire that was promised by Christ. Thus, it can only come through the priesthood.
    However, again I cannot prove this.

    As to lies told on these threas, they are common enough, and no matter how much the members show them to be false people will never admit they are.
    Two great examples are the Adam / God theory, and idea that all men must have more than one wife to be exalted. Neither are true doctrines of the church. Neither one was ever taught by any leader of the church. Yet, the majority of people on this site except both as actual doctrine of the church, or talk of it as “changed doctrine” which is another misrepresentation.

    As to prophecies in the scriptures, they do exist. However, for those who wish to deny the apostacy they can be made to mean differently.

    (to be continued)

  20. shematwater says:

    A few prophecies that I would say point to a world wide apostacy.

    Isaiah 24: 3-5 “The land shall be utterly emptied, and utterly spoiled: for the Lord hath spoken this word. The earth mourneth and fadeth away, the world languisheth and fadeth away, the haughty people of the earth do languish. The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.”
    Notice that this is the condition of the whole Earth, and all the inhabitants.

    Isaiah 29: 9-10 “Stay yourselves, and wonder; cry ye out, and cry: they are drunken, but not with wine; they stagger, but not with strong drink. 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.”
    Here the world knows not the workings of God, for there are no prohets or seers, and all stagger in spirit without having direction.
    If you read in verse 11 and 12 you also get a prophecy of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.

    Isaiah 60: 2 “For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the Lord shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee.”
    Before the Lord returns, and before Israel rises again, a gross darkness will cover all the earth, a spiritual darkness over the minds of men.

    Amos 8: 11-12 “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord: And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord, and shall not find it.”
    The word of God, or the truth of the gospel, will be taken from the earth, and men will search but not find it.

    (To be continued)

  21. shematwater says:

    2 Theselonians 2: 2-3 “That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;”
    A faling away must occur before the second coming.

    Even the parable of the wheat and tares prophecies of the apostacy.

    There are also many references in the Epistles of Paul and the other Apostles that speak to the saints of that time being led away, or following false prophets, or turning unto fables. This is evidence that the Apostacy began very soon ofter Christ (in fact, even in Christ’s life it began, as we read in John 6: 66).

    While you may see these as having a different meaning, this is the evidence from the Bible that convinces me that the apostacy has occured. I cannot prove it to you, but these words and the spirit of God have proven it to me.

  22. Shem,

    “Neither are true doctrines of the church.”

    I would agree with this, as presently your church does not teach the things mentioned. However, whether these doctrines were taught at one time or should be official . . . That is the very bone of contention that many on this site have. So to call them “lies” or a “misrepresentation” is inaccurate at best, deceptive at worst. Just because we do not accept at face value the words of Mormons that frequent this blog does not mean non-Mormons here are telling lies.

    I am fully aware of the verses Mormons use to point towards an apostasy but if you look at those carefully they do not speak of a total and worldwide apostasy. If you look at the wording they definitely tell us a partial falling away, and not a total one was occurring. Phrases like – “many of his disciples turned back” and “a falling away” do not imply a total but rather a partial apostasy. If you truly believe that these verses suggest a total and complete worldwide apostasy then you must admit God is the author of it –

    “For the Lord hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes” (Isa 29)

    Shem, if a total apostasy toward monotheism took place it should not be that hard to demonstrate. Furthermore, according to Mormonism another apostasy took place in the Americas. The ancient Americans once had the gospel then lost it. If two such total apostasies have taken place, then suggesting that your church has fallen away (which is what many other Mormon groups suggest) is not that far fetched. This would also explain many of the “changes” that have occurred within your church.

  23. shematwater says:


    The basic lie that has been spread, whether intentional or not, is that the doctrine of teh church has changed, because it has not. The claim to change only holds up if you misrepresent the doctrine that was taught.

    I do understand that most people on this sight do not really understand that this is happening, but it is. If I thought that the people on this site were doing so intentionally I probably would not continue on it. It is the belief that they themselves have been deceived by others that prompts me to correct the errors that they unknowingly spread.

    As to the apostacy, I did say that the prophecies I referenced could be seen with a different meaning. However, the ones is Isaiah do speak to the entire earth being covered by this effect, which is why I hold to the meaning I give. As to teh Lord being the author of it, in a sense he is, for he withdrew his power and the Holy spirit from the earth. When men fall into sin they lose the guidance of the First Comforter.

    As to demonstrating the apostacy, try demonstraing the existance of God to a devout atheist and see how easy it is. It is the same with the apostacy. I cannot convince you of these things, nor can you convince me of your belief. All we can do it explain what we believe, and in some cases why we believe it. I have done this.
    If you want a more in depth explanation using sources and philosophies not in the Bible I would suggest you read the preface to the first volume of church hystory, as it does a very nice job of laying it all out.

    As to an apostacy in LDS church, this happened when all these splinter groups apostacized from the true church.

  24. liv4jc says:

    Shem, we do have a very different interpretation of the passages you cited above. Prophecy has been misused for generations. Fulfilled prophecy proves to us that the Bible is true and God is all-knowing, all-powerful, and sovereign over all things. Read through Isaiah 40-46. God declares this over and over again. He is God, and there is no other. For instance Isaiah 46:8-11, “Remember this, and show yourselves men; Recall to mind, O you transgressors. Remember the former things of old, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things that are not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will do my pleasure,’ calling a bird of prey from the east (Cyrus), the man who executes my council(on Babylon), from a far country (Medo-Persia). Indeed I have spoken it; I will also bring it to pass. I have purposed it; I will also do it.
    How many “free-will” decisions would God have to account for if he is not able to declare things and have them come to pass? The great thing is that Jesus declares that not one jot or tittle of the law will pass away until all is fulfilled, and declares that His church will prevail. Even in the “falling away” of 2 Thess 2 (yet to come), there will still be a remnant, because the word of God, the Bible, will still contain the truth. And it has always been that way. As long as the word of God is on the earth, truth will be on the earth. You cannot prove that the Bible was so corrupted after the Apostle’s death that all truth was lost. Ever heard of the Reformation? Even prior to that there were men who read and knew God’s word, and therefore the truth. Where is the evidence of this kind of lineage for the BoM? It is a figment of one man’s imagination, not a fulfillment of Isaiah 29:11,12, except by your personal revelation, which is extremely subjective.

  25. Shem,

    “As to demonstrating the apostacy, try demonstraing the existance of God to a devout atheist and see how easy it is. It is the same with the apostacy.”

    It is not the same. I think you know down deep that there were no proto Mormons in the 1st or 2nd century A.D. so you must take this stance. If the first Christians believed in a finite god, deification, the Melchizedek & Aaronic priesthoods, and a hole host of other peculiar LDS beliefs then we would see some signs of that in ancient literature. We don’t see them believing that, in fact they had beliefs that are very similar to Christians today. I think it is apparant that Mormons believe in the total apostasy of the church out of apologetic necessity.

    As far Adam-God and polygamy goes, I think there is no doubt that BY and some of the 19th century Mormons believed in those doctrines. BY was a prophet and whatever he taught concerning religious matters (especially at General Conference) should be doctrine in your church. I understand that this is not the case, but there in lies the inconsistency that many non-Mormons here see. If a true prophet can have a heretical view of God, and lead people into that heresy, then what is the point of having a prophet?

    Indeed, by using the same arguments you have given me here, complete with an appeal to the Holy Ghost, could not an FLDS Mormon or a TLC Mormon say the same thing to you?

  26. shematwater says:


    Brigham Young NEVER taught the Adam-God theory, and that is part of my point. His words have been taken and twisted by men who knew the truth at the time, and now many people are deceived by this. The same with Plural Marriage.
    I believe in all the words of Brigham Young, and what he taught is still taught today. All he said is still true, is still doctrine.

    I believe that Adam is “our Father and our God, and the only god with which we have to deal,” but I do not believe he is the Father in heaven. He is Micheal, the great Archangel, not Eloheim, the Head of the Gods. And this is what Brigham Young taught. Adam is never called our Heavenly Father by any of the early leaders.
    As to Plural Marriage, I believe it is with all my heart, and if God commands I will take a second wife. However, he has not commanded me, so my acceptance of the doctrine is all that is required, not the second wife, and this is all that was ever required.

    These are the things that people spread, the false theories and doctrines that lend support to the fable of changing doctrine, and this is what I hope to correct in the minds of the misguided and deceived.

    As to these doctrines being in the 1st and 2nd centuries, the simple fact that we don’t have the records is not proof that they weren’t taught. You can never prove something doesn’t exist, all you can do is prove that you haven’t found it.
    We know of at least three epistles written by Paul that we do not have. We know of over a dozen books written in the time of the Old Testiment that we do not have. Thus, these doctrines could have been taught, but have been lost (or destroyed by evil men). Also, many of these doctrines I see in the New Testiment itself.

    I am not trying to convince you that I am right, only that it is impossible to prove me wrong.

  27. shematwater says:

    As to the splinter groups claiming us in apostacy, they do. However, they are lacking in a few points. First, many no longer accept the Book of Mormon as scripture, which is a large indicator that they have strayed from the true Gospel restored by Joseph Smith, as he declared it to be the Key Stone of the religion.
    Those who call themselves the fundamentalists have ignored the basic concept of Common Concent. All things in the church are to be done by common consent, meaning that no man can be called to position of leadership without the consenting voice of the People, which people stayed with this church.
    Also, it is stated that if the President of the church falls and his calling as president is taken from him, he will still need to give his authority, or his keys, to the man who takes his place (D&C 43: 3-4 And this ye shall know assuredly—that there is none other appointed unto you to receive commandments and revelations until he be taken, if he abide in me. But verily, verily, I say unto you, that none else shall be appointed unto this gift except it be through him; for if it be taken from him he shall not have power except to appoint another in his stead.) Thus, these splinter groups must deny all the revelations of Joseph Smith to have the authority they claim, thus they have left the church that was Organized by Joseph Smith.
    Whether you believe he was right or not, the only church that holds to the teachings and doctrine that were taught by Joseph Smith is the LDS church. The splinter groups have altered what he himself has said, and thus cannot be the church he founded.

  28. shematwater says:


    I never claimed you didn’t have different understandings, or that these passages could not be seen in the way you see them. My only claim is that the interpretation I see in them is just as logical from the words as yours.

    Now I was a little confused by the comment “LIV4JC

    I never claimed you didn’t have different understandings, or that these passages could not be seen in the way you see them. My only claim is that the interpretation I see in them is just as logical from the words as yours.

    Now I was a little confused by the comment “LIV4JC

    I never claimed you didn’t have different understandings, or that these passages could not be seen in the way you see them. My only claim is that the interpretation I see in them is just as logical from the words as yours.

    Now I was a little confused by the comment “How many “free-will” decisions would God have to account for if he is not able to declare things and have them come to pass.” What exactly do you mean by this.

    Also, I find it very difficult to discuss anything with people constantly deride and belittle the faith others. I really don’t care what your personal feelings are regarding Joseph Smith, but you have no proof he was not a prophet except your personal belief. His vision has no less proof than Abraham’s, or Jacob’s, or Moses, or any of the great Prophets of Old. The only real proof you have of their visions is your faith, so please allow me my faith in Joseph Smith’s visions, and his calling as a prophet of

  29. liv4jc says:

    Shem, how old are you? You sound like a 5 year old whos mother just admonished him to stop talking to his imaginary friend. “You can’t prove Fred doesn’t exist, mom. Stop berating me!”

    We use faith every day. If I go to a restaurant and eat I have no idea who is cooking my food. I don’t know if the food is fresh or if the cook is insane and has decided to poison me. I eat it based upon past experience, and the experience of others. It is not blind faith. When I get on a jet I am exercising faith. I have no idea who is piloting the aircraft or if the jet has had the needed maintainance, yet I choose to get into a metal tube that is going to travel at 500 mph at 35,000 feet. Why? Because experience has shown me that those jets rarely crash.

    But if my neighbor who has an eighth grade education and works as a fry cook at Mcdonalds builds a jet out of tin, ductape, and bailing wire in his garage, I am not going to get in it as it is dropped from a C-130, and expect it to fly. I have examined the evidence about who my neighbor is and the probability that the craft will actually fly, and decided that I cannot just pray and ask God if the plane will actually fly. My neighbor may protest, “You can’t prove it won’t fly” all day long, but God has given me a brain and I’m going to use it.

    I will respect your wishes, though, Shem. What you see as attacks are efforts by me and others to make you use your brain. I will no longer respond to any of your posts.

  30. shematwater says:


    Sorry about the duplication of statements, that was an accident.

    As to what you say, your analogy does not fit. As I said, you have no more evidence regarding Moses than you do regarding Joseph Smith.
    Thus, to compare the situation to the difference between a well made plane that has been inspected an improved by professionals and one made of paper and ductape does not fit.
    More appropriately it is like telling me that I am an idiot for choosing one airline over another with no real evidence that either one is better than the other.

    I have seen the evidence of both sides, and I know the arguments, and there is nothing that has altered my mind on even one point.
    There is no way that Joseph Smith could have written the Book of Mormon in the time he did without devine help. There is no way he could have known so much about the ancient Americas that was not known then without devine help. The evidence against the Book of Mormon is simply that somethings have not yet been confirmed, and that is not evidence.
    (Speak to a few statistic professors, and they will agree with what I said. You can either prove that something does exist, or you can’t, but you can’t prove something doesn’t exist.)

    You claim that this makes me sound like a child, when in truth it is a higher understanding thought and philosophy than you have.

    I believe the way I do for two simple reasons. One, nothing else makes as much sense. All other religions and philosophies are incomplete and contradictory. How do most Christians deal with this? Simple. “How great are the misteries of God, for his ways are not our ways.” I have yet to find an actual contradiction in the doctrine and teaching of the LDS church, inspite of the many attempts to show such on the part of ignorant non-believers.
    The second reason, which really seals the deal for me, is the wonderful testimoy of the Holy Spirit that has been planted in my heart, one which I cannot deny.

  31. jackg says:


    You said, “Two great examples are the Adam / God theory, and idea that all men must have more than one wife to be exalted. Neither are true doctrines of the church. Neither one was ever taught by any leader of the church.”

    This is an outright lie. I guess you have never read anything by BY. Praying for you…


  32. Shem,

    I believe that Adam is “our Father and our God, and the only god with which we have to deal,”

    If you really believe this then you do not, or rather should not, “deal” with Eloheim as he is a different god. Shem there is a whole history to the Adam-God doctrine, an Adam-God era if you will. Many Mormons, including BY, wrote about it and had an understanding that differs from yours. This is similar to the situation with the Bible, the primitive church, and a alleged apostasy. The Christians of the NT era and immediately following, did not interpret the scriptures the way you do. Nobody did, because they were not proto-Mormons.

    “As to these doctrines being in the 1st and 2nd centuries, the simple fact that we don’t have the records is not proof that they weren’t taught. You can never prove something doesn’t exist, all you can do is prove that you haven’t found it.”

    Awe, but we do have what they wrote down and it flatly contradicts Mormonism. We do not have records testifying to your beliefs, but we do have several that contradict what you believe and these go back to the earliest times, back to the 1st century A.D.

    “As to the splinter groups claiming us in apostacy, they do. However, they are lacking in a few points.”

    And then you try to reason with me on those “few points”. They claim revelation like you, and they truly believe in their heart-of-hearts that God has told them they are right. They would try to reason with you about your church that it is apostate and how you do not follow the teachings of early Mormon Presidents. If you are claiming revelation, and revelation only (as opposed to any kind of reasoning, as that is considered the wisdom of men), then be consistent.

    Also, I think you are wrong about the TLC and FLDS Mormons rejecting the BoM. They believe in it and many (though maybe not all) of the other splinter groups believe in the BoM. Maybe you have the Community of Christ in mind?

  33. shematwater says:


    Nothing I said was a lie, and to claim such only shows the great ignorance you have concerning the subject.


    I worship the great Eloheim because he is my Father in Heaven, the ruler of all his creations. When it is said that Adam is our Father it speaks to his being the Father of all the Human family on this Earth. When it says he is our God it speaks to the heirarchy of authority that will exist in heaven. Adam will be the God of this earth, but he will act under the authority of Christ, who is the God of all the worlds created by the Father. Adam is our God, and the only God with which we will have an immediate intercourse with, for Christ will be gone to other worlds frequently.
    It is much like in the church today. The Stake President could be could the president of our church, and the only president with which we have to do. He has great authority in directing the stake, and in many cases the general authorities defer judgement to him. This does not mean we are to take his words over the general authorities, simply that he has a more immediate knowledge and can act more promptly than the General authorities.

    Thus, Adam is our Father, and our God, and the Only God with which we have to do, but he is not our Father in Heaven whom we worship and whom we will always revear through-out eternity.

    I have read the words of the Early leaders, and nothing they say contradicts what I have said. The problem, which is one I am trying to correct, is that people have been taught for many decades that they did have a different meaning, which lie has caused many people to be deceived.

  34. Michael P says:

    Wait, Shem, I am confused: Adam is only God of this earth, and Christ is not God of this earth? Adam acts under the authority of Christ, but Christ is not our God (because if Adam is, Christ cannot be, unless you akowledge polytheism).

    Adam is the only one we will always have contact with because Christ is off on other missions?


  35. shematwater says:


    If you are confused it is simply because you are not trying to understand, as I explained it very simple and plain.

    Let me address what you say.

    Adam is only God of this Earth, but Christ is also God of this Earth. However, Christ is the God of all the earths creatured by the Father, and thus Adam acts as head of this Earth.

    As to aknowledging Polytheism, in a way we do, for we do believe in many gods, and we do believe in a heirarchy among the gods that now exist, and the same heirarchy among those of our generation who will attain godhood. Thus, to this extent we are polytheistic.
    However, never will we worship Adam as our Father, for he does not hold that position. There is one God who is our Father, who is over all, and that is the God we worship and pray too. Adam will be a god, and in the Heirarchy of the Eternities he will be the god that we have a more direct dealing with as the ruler of this earth, but we will still worship the Father.

    As to your last statement, that is not true, nor is it what I said. I said that while Christ is administering to other worlds it will be Adam that we will deal with. However, this does not mean we will never have contact with Christ. He will visit from time to time, and we will enjoy his company when we have it. Also, we will be able to be in direct contact with him if we need to be. However, the governing of this Earth will be left in the hands of Adam, under the counsel and direction of Christ.
    Read my comparrison to the Stake Presidency and it really should all be easy to understand.

  36. jackg says:


    I have told you before that you can’t use the “you’re ignorant” argument on me. I know what you believe as LDS because I once believed the same. You are only deflecting and avoiding engagement in the discussion because there really isn’t much for you to use as a defense. Adam is the father of the human race, and because of that we have Adamic DNA, which means that we are born with sin nature and a proclivity to sin. With Adam came death, and with Christ comes life! Christ wants to infuse us with His spiritual DNA.

    Adam is not a god, Shem, no matter how much you want to believe in the god-maker program–it is simply not biblical and therefore heresy. At least you’re honest about being a polytheist–I’ll give that to you everytime. But, your beliefs are not rooted in biblical foundations. You try to interpret the Word of God through prooftexting techniques rather than exegetical foundations, and this is why you come up with false teachings. So, you can claim that Adam will be your god all you want, but you will end up in hell with Satan. Or, you can claim Jesus as your Savior, LORD, and God, and the only God with which you have anything to do with (after all, there is no god beside him–read Isaiah to discover this for yourself, Shem). So, as you vainly attempt to use the “you’re ignorant” rhetoric, remember that I have been in your shoes, using your same weak arguments, and feeling puffed up in the presentation of Mormon doctrine and theology. I just want remind you that God is patient, and He will continue to present the Truth about Him and His gospel because of His love for you, and because of His mercy and grace and desire to be in relationship with you forever. Right now, He is saying: “Turn away from your false beliefs and idol worship, Shem, and come to Me.” Praying for you, Shem.


  37. Michael P says:

    Shem, I get your argument. I really do. You say that Adam is indeed a god, though a sort of lesser god that is under the authority of the greater god Jesus, who is then under the authority of the father. Adam, while god, is isolated in his authority to act only regarding to the beings of earth, and cannot act for other worlds, which both Jesus and the father can. And even though Adam is a god, he is not worthy of worship, because that only goes to the father, and thus Jesus isn’t worthy of worship (if it can onl be given to the father.) I also understand that you say Jesus comes around every so often, and so Adam is not the exclusive authority here, but nonetheless, he must act as such from time to time.

    I get these things, but they are so wrong and so contrary to so much that has been discussed by LDS around here it is really fascinating to me. And it is these differing takes that confuses me, not what you wrote.

    Another interesting point is that there is absolutely no biblical basis for this theory. None, unless you care to convince me otherwise.

  38. jackg says:

    Although it may appear that Shem’s view differ from other LDS posters, it really doesn’t. What makes Shem special and sets him apart from the other LDS posters is that he is not afraid or ashamed to stand up for what the LDS Church truly believes. Everything he said about Adam is exactly what has been taught. Now, there are other times when Shem says things that I think are outright lies, but from his perspective he is not lying.


  39. shematwater says:


    Thank you for admitting that what I say is what the LDS church teaches. I will admit you are not ignorant, as you have shown knowledge of the subject. However, from your last statement you did show ignorance, as you claimed this is not what Brigham Young taught.

    As to the rest, I see it in the Bible, in many places, and that is all that really matters for me concerning this site. I have no real hope of convincing anybody that what I believe is true through online discussions. My only hope is to teach them what the LDS church teaches so they do not believe false information concerning it.


    As Jack says, most LDS on this site actual do agree with what I have said. However, it is a touchy subject for many, and many do not fully understand all the implications of the doctrine, thus they avoid going into a full discussion of it. I have a good enough understanding of the doctrine, and other doctrine directly connected to it, that I am comfortable discussing this. I know what is true concerning what the LDS church teaches, and I know what is conjecture on the part of members. I also know what is appropriate for these discussion, and am able to keep myself from discussing that which is not appropriate.

    As to it not being in the Bible, while I agree that it is not explicitly taught in plain words, the Bible does contain many references that indicate such. For this reason I understand that many people interpret them differently, but will always hold that the interpretation I give them is just as logical as any other.

  40. setfree says:

    Like has been said to you before, your interpretation is not just as logical as any other, because when you go to the Bible, you go to it fully clothed and armored in Mormonism.
    You can not, and I repeat CAN NOT, find Mormonism in the Bible if you study it AS IT IS, for itself, and by itself to see what it is really saying. The only way you can interpret Bible scriptures into something similar to Mormon beliefs is to bring the Mormon beliefs with you, and stuff them in.

  41. shematwater says:


    You can’t find modern Christianity either, so what is your point.

    The Bible has been around for way too long, and has way too many philosophies based around it for anyone to claim they do not approach it with some bias, unless they are of the heathen nations that have never even heard of its existance. As such, for me to say I see LDS doctrine in it is no more illogical than for you to say you see mainstream Christian doctrine in it. We both see what we have been taught and have lived with most of our lives.

    Personally, if you want to go to simple interpretation without having a preconceived idea I am happy to do so, but in general people want to approach the Bible as if they have the only real understanding of what it says and what it means. That is also fine, if you allow me to approach it in the same way. The real conflict is that you want to be the only one allowed to use this appraoch, which I do not accept.

    I will approach the Bible in the same way you do. I do not say I will ahve the same back ground, nor do I claim the same bias as you. However, the method is essentially the same.

  42. Michael P says:

    Well, Shem, I share with the idea that at least you are true to what has been taught. Doesn’t make it right, but at least you don’t seem to obfuscate as much as most. Alas.

    For whatever it is worth, slavery was once justified through Biblical text. Does that make it right?

    The Bible is the most powerful book on earth, which is why we need to be careful to consider it fully. Within its power is the power to be destructive. That power is administered through a faulty approach to its understanding. What then is a faulty approach? One that fails to consider it in its entirety and not look for nuggets that fit a preconceived notion of what it means. In other words, the correct approach is to consider what the words truly mean in light of other scripture. Ignoring one part of scripture in favor of another will always lead to trouble.

  43. shematwater says:


    I couldn’t agree more. However, even doing this seems to lead to very different understandings of theses, which is why I never really try to persuade people, only explain my beleif.

    (Just so you know, even though he disaproved of slavery, Joseph Smith did declare it a practice of the Bible, allowed by God, and thus he advised the elders teaching the gospel not to teach slaves without the permission of the master.He actually gave a create discourse on it. He did not like slavery, and would have been happy to see it abolished, but knew that as long as the Earthly law allowed it God’s Law would not deny it.)

  44. Michael P says:

    Shem, maybe you havenot thought about this, but I wonder if a reason you don’t defend your beliefs from the Bible is because you can’t.

    In other words, you are very comfortable in your beliefs, and while you feel you can make a case, you understand that it is not very good when defended from the Bible alone. You take a verse here or there to make the conclusion the Bible supports your view even though there is another place in the same book that throws a wrench into your conclusion.

    Because of that, you have to stay away from the Bible. And that can be done by minimizing its accuracy, not using it at all, calling what is written opinion, and other ways. The bottom line is that in each of those you take away from its authority.

    You say that doing a full comparison of what is in the Bible leads to very different understandings. I am curious what you see those different understandings as. Would you be willing to explain that for me? I ask because I see a remarkable similarity in all of them.

  45. shematwater says:


    I do not generally defend my beliefs at all, simply explain them. When I do defend them on this site I do my best to use only the Bible.

    The problem is not that I can’t use the Bible, but that you will not except what I say concerning the Bible, so what is the point. I am perfectly willing to show you were I see the various doctrines of the LDS church in the Bible if I thought people here were actually curious as to how and where I find it. That is not generally the case. Most often their only motivation is to get me to use teh Bible so they can launch into a multiple post attack against what I have said with nothing to back up their statements but their own beliefs. This is why I have refained from using the Bible in general. While I enjoy a good discussion, and even a lively debate, Bible Bashing is not enjoyable.

    As to the differences, I will give a few examples, though not a full explanation of the comparrisons and differences.

    The main one is saved by Grace through faith without works. I understand people see this in the Bible, and I know all the references used to support it. But, many of those references I see as direct support of Salvation through Faith and works, not Faith alone. Thus, when I read the Bible it seems plain to me that our personal works play a large part in our salvation, but to most Christians they have no part, and to even suggest they do is blasphamy.
    Another example is the God being our literal Father, which I do see throughout the Bible, but which Christians disagree with.
    Also, the Pre-existance, which is not believed by Christians. And the spirit prison and paradise, the place where spirits await the resurrection.
    All these I see in the Bible, not just in a few select verses, but in numerous places, and have found nothing that is an actual contradiction of the doctrine. However, Christians have read the Bible and say that all are wrong if you take the entire Bible.

  46. Michael P says:

    Shem, yes we do.

    See, perhaps putting this in will help.

    What does it mean to you that all of our works are filthy rags? (Is. 64:6)

    What does it mean to be deemed righteous apart from works? (Rom 4:6)

    How does grace fit in? (Rom 11: 5, 6)

    I could go on, but you don’t really have an answer for these ideas, even though you say you do.

    The pre-existence is in question based on the creation story found right at the beginning: God created Adam and Eve, Adam from the dust and Eve from his rib.

    I think you believe that we ignore such ideas like faith without works is dead, and the commands that we follow Christ’s example. This simply is not true. Works are an integral part of our lives in following Christ. We just do not put salvation in those works. Salvation only comes through faith, but that does not mean we do not work.

    We take these two ideas, coupled with the message that in Christ we are a new creation, born again in Christ, all of which is in the Bible and to create our story. We address that our works are meaningless, faith saves (but that we must work), and that we are a new creation to form our doctrine. That doctrine is that only our faith saves us, and once we accept Christ we are new creations who will work to glorify Him who saves. But no matter how much we work, we do not achieve anything greater than what we have from the first moment of belief.

    Our works are worthless to Him. They do not get us over a bridge or up a ladder as you believe. Christ does not meet us halfway. He comes all the way down to take us where we need to be, and when we act on our own or in a way that we think brings us more glory (now or later) we actually get in the way of what He’s doing for us.

    All of this is supported by the ideas I just presented, and all are in the Bible. You ignore the filthy rags and the notions that our works get us nothing.

    Before you say you consider all of the Bible, consider what it is I have written.

  47. shematwater says:


    I understand what you believe, but that does not mean I agree with it, nor does it mean that I see the same thing in the Bible.

    Isaiah 64 is describing apostate Israel. At this time Israel had left the true faith and were leaning on the ordinances to save them. This mind set makes us filthy, for without faith we cannot please God, no matter how much good we do. Thus, for Israel at this time, who had lost faith, their works were as filthy rags.
    Also, when compared to God, man is nothing. We cannot do the work that Christ did for us, and in comparrison, what we do is nothing.
    It is very like the statement by Moses (in the Book of Moses 1: 10) after seeing God. He says “Now, for this cause I know that man is nothing, which thing I never had supposed.” I do not think he was saying this literally, but in comparrison to God. In like manner, Isaiah places our works (or particularly the works of an apostate Israel) in comparrison with God and his works and declares us as “filthy rags,” the word as indicating a comparrison, not a direct statement.

  48. shematwater says:

    Romans 4 does not deny works. It is from the grace of God that all good things come. God receives the glory. Why? Because without him we could not do what is necessary. Yes, God imputes righteousness without works, but this does not mean he garuantees salvation. He imputes righteousness by giving us the power to do those works that are required, and to walk in the faith of Abraham. He does not impute sin, as it later says, for he will not give us the power to defy him.
    Simply put, when we believe he gives us power to be righteous, and this power comes without us having any works. However, we must choose to use this power, and this is where works come in.
    If it was by our own power, or by the Law, faith would have no effect. It is not by our own power, and thus we have nothing to glory in ourselves, only in God, but it is by our choice.

    Romans 11 does not speak of salvation in Heaven, but of the promises and blessings that we receive at our birth. The election of Grace brought certain spirits from heaven into a more blessed life. Those born into the covenant line of Abraham were blessed above the rest of the world. Those who were born into Israel were blessed above the rest of Abraham’s desendents. These blessings came not because these men were righteous in this life (as it was a blessing of birth) nor because their parents were righteous. This was the Election of Grace, or the Forordination of certain spirits to certain lives on the earth.
    This is in line with the first chapter of Jeremiah when God says “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.” Even if you do not believe in the Pre-existance, the eleventh chapter of Romans has the same basic meaning as this verse in Jeremiah, just one is applied to one man, while the other to a nation.

  49. shematwater says:

    Finally, the creation story, from what I read, includes the pre-existance, even in the Genesis account. As to the Rib taken from Adam, this is a symbolic description to show that Eve was made after Adam, and in his general form.

    As to where the creation story speaks to the Pre-Existance, it is in chapter 2: 5, 7 “And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field efore it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground… And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”

    Everything was created before it was placed on the Earth. With this is the statement that after his body was created God breathed life into Adam. Thus, the spirit existed before the Body, and this can likewise be applied to the animals and plants, for they were also created before they were in the Earth.

    Now, I do understand that you see this differently, so please do not try and tell me I am wrong. This is simply how I see this passage.

    Along with this are the Jeremiah and Romans quotes given above, as well as Ephesians 1: 4.
    Also, in Job is speaks of the “Sons of God” shouting for joy when the Earth was created. (38: 7) While some claim this refers to the angels, humans are the only ones that have ever been refered to as the Sons of God, so why does this single verse carry a different meaning.
    Then there is Ecclesiastes 12: 7 which speaks of the spirit returning to God, thus indicating that it was with him sometime in the past (or before the person was born).
    In John 9 we read of a man born blind and the question is asked whose sin made him blind, his or his parents. Thus, the idea of a pre-existance was known to them at this time, as without that idea how could this man have possibly sinned before he was born. A prime opportunity for Christ to deny the pre-existance, but he does not do so.

  50. shematwater says:

    These, along with the many scriptures that speak of us as his sons and daughters, and his offpring, teach clearly, at least to me, that we existed long before this Earth was created.

    As I said, I know others will have their understanding of these same verses. As such, not even in taking the whole Bible you cannot garuantee that you will get the doctrine right. So, I will continue to simply explain and teach what my church believes, and leave it up to each person as to what they will believe, always praying that God will guide them to the truth.

Leave a Reply