If God the Father has a Father, and if the concept of “Godhead” isn’t infinitely expandable to include all Gods, then our Father belongs to two Godheads, one of which Jesus is not a part of. If God the Father does have a Father, and if the Godhead is infinitely inclusive of all exalted Gods, then the Godhead that is “one” is potentially comprised of an infinite number of Gods.
Also, if Jesus becomes a Heavenly Father with his own “Firstborn Son”, and if the concept of “Godhead” isn’t infinitely inclusive of all Gods, then Jesus will belong to a Godhead that our Father doesn’t belong to.
If the concept of “Godhead” isn’t infinitely inclusive of all Gods, just how many Godheads can a God in the Mormon universe belong to?
Can you imagine Jesus saying to the Father, “I’ll be hanging out with my other Godheads this weekend”?
I think it interesting that when you cannot answer my questions, you routinely fall back on telling me I am proud, hard-hearted, and need to repent.
How about I do that when you don’t listen to or accept the evidences of the BOM or my testimony of it?
Jack- are you using a different standard? You believe something about God without Biblical support, and you simply dismiss my pointing that out to you. Yet you point the finger at LDS for having faith or beliefs that you don’t find Biblical support for. Instead you insist on hard-fast evidence for everything we believe and clear Biblical elucidation.
you know what i wish we had back is the book of Lehi, now that would really help. who decided to exclude that from the BoM and why do you think?
Jim, this is a pretty cool table, on a site full of good info for ya: http://www.ntcanon.org/table.shtml
setfree,
I took a quick look at the table. Very useful.
Even if we allow for some plus or minuses in the interpretations of what the early authorities thought, the picture that emerges is that the Canonical NT is full of ticks.
Compare that with the non-canonical writings, which struggle to get anyone’s attention.
From this it should be clear that;
* The early Christians had a consensus on what they thought the Christian Gospel was
* They saw that Gospel clearly articulated through various writings, but not others
* The writings that articulated that Gospel have been preserved in our current New Testament.
Conclusion: If you want to know what the first Christians thought about the Gospel, go to the New Testament.
It’s all there.
It hasn’t been lost.
No need for some 19th Century American treasure-hunting con-man to restore it.
Jim,
I have faith that God preserved his Word. It is the basis of Christian faith. Do you have so little faith in God that you would believe he would allow the apostasy and have his Word destroyed? Granted it is a question that has lingered for 2000 years. But you place your faith in a man – Joseph Smith. The modern record of his life shows he was no prophet, but you, for some reason, will discount Irreanus, and believe Smith. I choose the former, because I believe and have faith in GOD – when he said ‘the gates of hell would never prevail against his church’. As for what makes Smith different, it is his ‘priesthood authority’. Can you honestly believe him in the light of this evidence:
Date:October 25–26, 1831
Location: Orange, Cuyahoga Co., Ohio, home of Sirenes Burnett
Description:… a general Conference …
[Moderator]:[Joseph Smith]
Clerk Oliver Cowdery
Names of those ordained to the High Priesthood:
Joseph Smith Jr.
Oliver Cowdery
John Whitmer
Hyrum Smith
Sidney Rigdon
Samuel H. Smith
Simeon Carter
Reynolds Cahoon
Martin Harris
Joseph Smith Sr.
Wheeler Baldwin
John Smith (license taken) (not of the Prophet’s lineage)
(See, http://www.saintswithouthalos.com/m/311025-26.phtml#pwr )
Lyman Wight, baptized by Cowdery in 1830 states in his Letterbook:
“On the 4th of June 1831, a conference was held at Kirtland, represented by all the above named [named] branches; Joseph Smith our modern Prophet presided; and here I again saw the visible manifestations of the power of God as plain as could have been on the day of pentecost and here for the first time I saw the Melchisedec priesthood introduced into the church of Jesus Christ as anciently; whereunto I was ordained under the hands of Joseph Smith, and I then ordainded Joseph and Sidney and sixteen others such as he chose unto the same priesthood. The spirit of God was made manifest to the heeling of the sick, cast out devils, speaking in unknown tongues, discerning of spirits, and prophesying [6] with mighty power, After the two days the conference broke up receiving the revelation which appointed 28 elders their Mission to Missouri”
Concerning the above:
“The Conference of April [4–5], 1831 is important for several reasons. It is the first conference of the church in Kirtland. The High Priesthood is bestowed for the first time §. Lyman Wight has a vision of the Savior on the right hand of God and prophesies of the second coming. Joseph tells the conference that John the Revelator is with the Ten Tribes, who will return for the second coming, that some present will witness the second coming, and some will be martyred.
Three or more elders are possessed by the devil, who is either cast out or departs on his own.
The Far West Record reports only the names of those ordained. [including Smith] But we have seven eyewitness accounts—the largest number of first-hand reports of any Church meeting that I know of during Joseph Smith’s lifetime. For most meetings in the Ohio/Missouri period we can rely solely on the Far West Record. Of the seven accounts, the first, by Levi Hancock, is the longest and is rich in detail §. It was written no later than August 1831 and could be based on an earlier draft. The second, by Ezra Booth, was written in October 1831 and also goes into considerable detail §. The accounts of John Whitmer § and John Corrill § were written between 1835 and 1838. Next follow the accounts of Lyman Wight (1857) §, Zebedee Coltrin (1878) §, and Philo Dibble (1892) §. The Manuscript History version was penned by W. W. Phelps §, who arrived in Kirtland ten or eleven days after the conference concluded.” Read all of the accounts here: http://saintswithouthalos.com/m/310603-06_x4.phtml#x1
This was two years after Smith said the Priesthood was restored by P, J & John. The D&C was changed later to ‘retrofit’ Smith’s account. In the light of this, I’ll put my faith in God and that he preserved his Word.
Martin, thank you for evaluating and giving conclusions about the link. I don’t know if you’ve realized it, but you’ve helped me a few times like that, and I kinda depend on you for that – and appreciate it! :}
This thread got way off topic, I suspect because most Mormons didn’t want to comment on the godhead thing. Thanks again to Ralph who actually did so.
And now, mostly to Ralph, since he is likely the only one who will respond, what does 2 Nephi 25:29 mean? (I mean, since you are only supposed to worship HF, right?)
29 And now behold, I say unto you that the right way is to believe in Christ, and deny him not; and Christ is the Holy One of Israel; wherefore ye must bow down before him, and worship him with all your might, mind, and strength, and your whole soul; and if ye do this ye shall in nowise be cast out.
Martin,
So you are comfortable basing your doctrine on majority-rules policy?
The table demonstrates my point very well- Thank you setfree.
Nothing in the table counters my argument or provides new information.
What authority did any those fathers have? Really. Knowing certain people? When was that ever God’s way of choosing servants to lead His people or establish His word?
Why don’t you find a similar table for theology and look for a consensus there too.
Consensus eventually landed in the lap of the Catholic church- why do you not accept that consensus?
The opinions varied widely on both canon and theology, and your attempts to minimize that fact are counter to everything we have documenting that period in “the church.”
You are left with statistics and best guesses. Ultimately, you stand on the opinions and consensus of religious “experts.”
Now consider that the religious “experts” at the time of Christ were those that facilitated His crucifixion.
You do not have the bedrock, unquestionable, linear foundation you think you have.
I’ll stick with revelation and priesthood.
Grindael,
You said “I have faith that God preserved his Word. It is the basis of Christian faith. Do you have so little faith in God that you would believe he would allow the apostasy and have his Word destroyed?”
It is fine that your beliefs are based on faith and not “proofs.”
I absolutely believe that God could do anything He says He will do. It is just that He never said He would “preserve” the Bible as EVs like to think. That is your unsupported assumption.
Jim, like it or not, it’s really all you’ve got. The book of Mormon is nothing but Joseph Smith’s understanding of the Bible, his times, and freemasonry.
What of the OT, you don’t like it either? Although you can see in the NT how Jesus accepted it as scripture?
Yes, so you’ll go SOLELY with the word of Joe Smith. You should be quite satisfied with that method.
Jim, who compiled the Book of Mormon? What authority did they have? Why were the other books that were written, like the Book of Zelph, not included in Mormon’s record? How do we know that Mormon was not himself an apostate that only compiled books that represented his false doctrine? Seeing how Mormon’s books disagree with the biblical record, and the archaeology of the North American continent, it would seem better to rely on the works with greater manuscript attestation and historical support, which are canonized in our modern bible. I know this is foolish, but I say abundant evidence always trumps no evidence whatsoever.
Also, since I know you won’t bring it up. We have numerous copies of the Books of Lemonjello, Orangello, Coriuntuuuummmmgottathinkaofaweirdsoundingnamesocowderydoesntknowimmakingallofthisup, Zoozaramrumshimshamman, Wowcowderyizadop, but no extant copies of any books currently Canonized in the Book of Mormon, it seems that these books should be given much greater credence since they were obviously copied in much greater numbers than Mormon’s so-called canonized works. Why did Mormon fail to include them in his personal canon?
You see Jim, we can play your game, too. Tag, you’re the one with the double standard now.
OJ,
Sigh…What to do with you? I guess pray. I know the Spirit is working to bring you the truth. That’s God’s grace in your life. Fortunately for all of us, God is indeed a patient God. He will be patient with you, OJ. But, the time will come when you will reach the moment of truth: either receive God’s grace or reject it. I don’t think such a moment has really occurred yet for you; at least I hope not. Trying to reason with you is pretty much useless; you base all your arguments on faulty premises, and introduce straw men and red herrings. You don’t quite grasp the concept of faith, and think blind faith is noble. You fight against the validity and authority of God’s Word with the arguments your church as equipped you. Comments such as “I’ll stick with revelation and priesthood” reveal that you don’t truly understand the NT; actually, you don’t understand the tenor of the biblical text. But, I blame all that on JS et al. You’re a victim, OJ, of JS lies. But, at some point, you are going to have to respond to the truth God is so graciously revealing to you.
Praying for you, OJ…
Setfree and liv4jc,
Good questions.
The BOM was compiled by Mormon, hence the name given to the book by his son Moroni.
Mormon was commissioned by Jesus Christ, just as each of the previous writers in the Nephite record were commissioned, starting with Nephi. That detail is included in the record and outlined carefully.
The difference was that the collection was compiled by one having direct authority and instruction from God. We know his name. We now a lot about him. We don’t have the same information about the Bible. Its writers certainly were authorized by Christ, but the handling of the record in the earliest period and its compilation is unclear.
The OT- same thing. Christ quoted from it because it is scripture, just like the NT. I use both just as He did.
But He never said that every book of holy scripture was contained in the OT. Same is true of any book of scripture, including the BOM.
That is a great difference between us- you believe God has stopped talking to mankind in a scriptural sense, and that what is contained in the Bible is all there ever was or will be.
I believe what we have is the tip of the iceberg, and someday we will receive much more.
The BOM has plenty of evidences.
Again- please provide evidence for the events described in Genesis. Should we dismiss that sacred book?
Ultimately, it comes down to faith and personal revelation. No old manuscript will prove spiritual truths to those who don’t want to accept them.
Jim,
Just a few comments on your reply to Grindael
and live4jc.
You said, ” So you are comfortable basing your
doctrine on majority-rule policy?”
Mormon apostles have not always been in agree-
ment on certain doctrines, yet the majority have
sided with the prophet who then would ask the
membership in Conference for a vote.
you said, ” I’ll stick with revelation and priest-
hood.”
I think if one looks at examples of what Mormon
leaders have pronounced as truth from God, with
special attention to scriptural interpretation,
I sure the answer would be, “no thanks”.
you said concerning God,
” It is just that He never said He would
‘preserve’ the Bible as EV’s like to think.
That is your unsupported assumption.”
I think God has seen fit to make sure His Word
is available to us here at this time. Most LDS
carry with them a Bible every Sunday to church.
We can open that Bible and learn about the One
True God, and the fact that He sent His Son to
die for sinful man so that all people can be
reconciled with God, etc. that faith in Jesus
Christ, repentence, baptism, and the code of
lifestyle that God desires us to live, all are
written there for us.
LDS curriclum has taught that the message in Acts
and the Epistles have been preserved for us today.
(and it uses the word, “preserved”)
Since it is said that Mormon prophets and apostles
are teachers who give the true interpretation of
the scriptures today, we should evaluate this
truth claim,since Jesus warned us that sincere
yet false teachers would arise in the latter days.
We have God’s Word.Do Mormon prophets “rightly
divide it” [ 2Tim.2:15; 2Pt.2:1 ]
Forgive me for my sarcasm above. Sometimes my flesh takes over. I’m not sure if it’s true or not because somebody misplaced the original copy, but it’s reported that a man named Paul, who may or may not have actually existed (all we actually have is the name Paulos at the beginning of some ancient writings that aren’t very trustworthy), wrote a letter to a church in Rome. Now bear in mind that all we know about this city called “Rome” has been passed down through tradition and continuous inhabitation. We have very few ancient documents that actually confirm that this city was originally called Rome, and archaeology is subjective…, but I digress. This guy Paul claimed to be an apostle taught by Jesus Christ (need I go into the spotty evidence we have for his existence?). Paul said that although he had been saved by God’s grace and was no longer under the law, which is spiritual, he was still carnal, sold under sin. “For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find(Romans 7:15-18).” It would be comforting to be able to trust those words and the teaching that follows in verses 24 and 25, “O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? I thank God-through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin”, but alas, all I have is a corrupt bible canonized by evil apostates.
Mocking Jim’s position was not loving or respectful, and I apologize, but sometimes sarcasm serves to prove a point.
Jim,
Any thoughts on the Priesthood Restoration info I posted? No Pressure. And is it ok to infer things from God’s word? Like the gates of hell shall not prevail against God’s church meaning he would not let it apostatize? Mormons INFER a whole doctrine of baptism for the dead from one scripture. What about this scripture:
“The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” Psalm 12:6-7
Doesn’t that count for ALL God’s words? Doesn’t that say he will preserve his word for us? Do you believe that writer was inspired to write this to give us solace that God would preserve His Words for us…the things NECESSARY for us to know? I do.
MikeR,
When the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve make decisions affecting the church, there is unanimous agreement among them. Until then, they work out their differences between them.
There are of course exceptions in the past. But then again, Paul and Peter didn’t always agree either. And that is OK.
But they were commissioned servants of Christ with the authority to lead and guide His kingdom on earth. That is the difference.
The problem is when self-appointed leaders develop a “consensus.” That amounts to following-the-pack mentality.
The Bible- nothing I have said contradicts our belief that the Bible is a holy book of scripture to be read, studied, and heeded. Its message is that Christ is the only means of salvation. I totally agree and love it completely.
But that does not mean it is inerrant or that it contains everything ever uttered by God to man or everything God intends to give to man in the form of holy scripture. Make sense?
It does not mean the Bible has the authority on which to build Christ’s church without commissioned servants. It doesn’t mean that the Bible clarifies every doctrine satisfactorily. Take baptism for an easy example- there has been great debate for 2,000 years over whether it is required and how it is to be done. There are honest, sincere, God-fearing people on both sides of the debate. Who is right?
EVs here love to scream that I am “bashing the Bible.” The truth is that I am criticizing their conclusions and assumptions about the Bible as well as the enormous extrapolations they make, the foremost being the idea that “the Bible is all you need.”
Liv4jc- I admire your humility above. I too get worked up at times. I try to keep my focus on what I think are the faulty methods and conclusions in the arguments of those with whom I am engaging. But it can be difficult not to make value judgments about people sometimes.
ah yes, the Bible gave us the basics about getting saved, (and of course we needed the BoM to remind us that His salvation only works “after all you can do”) but what god really wanted to show us was how to become gods.
in light of that, i have to wonder what has yet to be revealed? i mean, godhood is pretty BIG NEWS already, ain’t it?
Grindael,
I believe very much in the account of John the Baptist visiting the prophet as well as Peter, James and John. What occurred in Far West is not entirely dissimilar to what happens every time a new President and Prophet is “set apart.” The acting President of the Quorum of the Twelve sets the newly appointed Prophet to that office.
You see something similar in the BOM when Nephi and the 12 Apostles were baptized after Christ’s visit to the Americas. Nephi had been a prophet prior to this event. I think there was some organizational need for what seems to you and me to be redundancy in these ordinances. This meeting in 1831 was the first meeting of the Priesthood after the restoration.
Your point about Matt 16 is a very interesting topic. What did Christ mean by the “gates of hell.” It has been pointed out that the phrase “gates of hell” was not used with the meaning we give it today until about a thousand years after Christ. It was likely an acquired meaning that came later as people referenced Christ’s words to communicate surety and confidence. During His lifetime, it would have referred to the gates of Sheol, or Hades, meaning the resting place for the spirits of those who had died.
Could Christ’s words been used in a literal sense? In other words, literally it would have meant that the gates or boundaries of that place that confines the spirits of the dead will not exist forever. Because of His atonement and triumph over death, those spirits would be freed. And because of the vicarious work of the gospel ordinances, all those willing would be afforded the chance of being a part of Christ’s church.
This fits into the context of His conversation with Peter. He gave Peter the “keys” and told him that what he “bound” on earth would be “bound in heaven.” I believe Christ was referring to work for the dead being made possible through His atonement. And those “keys” were required for that work and for leading the church.
Jim, will you be honest? If you hadn’t been taught that the “keys” and binding and loosing in Matt 16:19 were about the Mormon church and vicarious work for the dead and priesthood, would you have ever found it there in a million years? And if you think so, prove it! Show how you would have put it together all by yourself.
By the way, did you know that the word for “bind” in the scripture means “put in chains”? That very same greek word is used in Matt 12:29,30, Matt 14:3, Matt 21:2, Matt 22:13 and Matt 27:2… what an interesting word for a Mormon to cling to, isn’t it?
…Mark 5:4, Mark 6:17, Mark 15:1,7, Luke 13:16, John 18:12,24, Acts 9:2,14,21, Acts 12:6, Acts 22:5, Rev 9:14, Rev 20:2…
are you getting a clearer picture here, Jim? (hint: bound/bind/bondage – the opposite of free)
Jim,
How can you say it is being set apart, that is totally wrong when you read comments like this one by PP Pratt:
“On the sixth of June, 1831, a general conference was convened at Kirtland, consisting of all the Elders, far and near, who could be got together…Several were then selected by revelation, through President Smith, and ordained to the High Priesthood after the order of the Son of God, which is after the order of Melchizedek. This was the first occasion in which this priesthood HAD BEEN REVEALED and conferred upon the Elders in this dispensation, although the office of an Elder is the same in a certain degree, but not in the fullness. On this occasion I was ordained to this holy ordinance and calling by President Smith.”
You are reading a lot into the Matthew comment. It takes all the Mormon Restoration doctrine to make that fly. I believe you said you read the NIV, (my favorite) it translates it this way:
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
How do you get world of spirits in relation to the Church? Doesn’t make sense in the context of the quote. (to me, anyway) and thank you for corresponding, I appreciate your patience in this forum, you really are one among many lately.
In contrast, “loose” is used in Mark 7:35, Luke 13:15,16, John 11:44, Acts 2:24, Acts 22:30, Rev 20:3,7
I’d say, personally, it sounds better to be loosed than bound, in the NT sense of the word.
Gotta love those Revelation verses- any Mormon reading ought to stop and consider if you really want the Mormon “priesthood” holders to bind you. Kinda gives the following a whole new meaning, doesn’t it? Outta curiousity, if you’re “bound” to your spouse or child or parent, and they go to “outer darkness”, then what? You’re bound for eternity! to them, and whomever they’re bound to, and whomever the ones they’re bound to are bound to, ….
1. Temples and Family History
Receive sacred ordinances, including those that bind husband and wife together for eternity, as well as join children and parents (Malachi 4:5). This work is to identify their ancestors and enable them to bind their families together for eternity in holy temples.
2. Covenant
A binding and solemn agreement, contract, or promise between God and a person or group of persons upon which eternal blessings are based.
http://www.mormon.org/mormonorg/eng/search-results?vgnextoid=ade8c2826b130110VgnVCM1000003a94610aRCRD&locale=0&bucket=AllMormonorgContent&query=bind
I think we ought to thank OJ for giving such an outstanding clinic on biblical eisegesis.
Blessings…
Setfree,
Christ gave Peter the “keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.” It is clear that Christ gave Peter some power or authority to do certain things for Christ. And it is quite clear that that authority would be involved in “binding” things on earth, and that that action would have consequences in “heaven,” or the hereafter.
I am not alone in concluding that authority from God is needed to act for Him- countless Christians have concluded the same thing, including some pretty famous Christian thinkers. It is the theoretical basis for the Catholic church.
What exactly do you propose Christ meant by “bind?” Any suggestions that fit with the context of the text?
Gindael,
I looked a little deeper into the Far West meeting:
The Far West meeting was the first time somebody was ordained to be a High Priest within the Melchizedek Priesthood in this dispensation. Prior to that, Joseph and others had been ordained to be Elders.
“This was the first occasion in which this priesthood had been revealed and conferred upon the Elders in this dispensation, ALTHOUGH THE OFFICE OF AN ELDER IS THE SAME IN A CERTAIN DEGREE, BUT NOT IN THE FULLNESS. On this occasion I was ordained to this holy ordinance and calling by President Smith.”
As far as Hades, Sheol, or the world of spirits- The NT teaches that after Christ was “put to death in the flesh” he “went and preached unto the spirits in prison.” There is a lot of early Christian literature on the topic. Suffice it to say- there was a very clear understanding and tradition that Christ taught in the spirit world (or whatever you want to call the place where the spirits of the dead reside) during time between His death and resurrection.
“Gates of Hades” literally refers to the “gates” or limiting boundaries that hold souls back in the place where spirits go after death. Those boundaries would not hold back or “prevail” against Christ’s church. Why? Because of His atonement and ministry to those in Hades.
Jim,
“Gates of Hades” literally refers to the “gates” or limiting boundaries that hold souls back in the place where spirits go after death. Those boundaries would not hold back or “prevail” against Christ’s church. Why? Because of His atonement and ministry to those in Hades.
That makes no sense. Jesus is saying Hell (Satan) will not prevail against the Church. Simple. You are reading way more into it than is there.
You are ignoring THIS WAS THE FIRST OCCASION IN WHICH THIS PRIESTHOOD HAD BEEN REVEALED…
There are lots of witnesses to this, David Whitmer the most explicit:
“In no place in the word of God does it say that an Elder is after the order of Melchisedec, or after the order of the Melchisedec Priesthood… This matter of ‘priesthood,’ since the days of Sydney Rigdon, has been the great hobby and stumbling-block of the Latter Day Saints… Authority is the word we used for the first two years in the church—until Sydney Rigdon’s days in Ohio. This matter of the two orders of priesthood in the church of Christ, and lineal priesthood of the older law being in the church, all originated in the mind of Sydney Rigdon. He explained these things to Brother Joseph in his way, out of the old Scriptures, and got Brother Joseph to inquire, etc… This is the way the High Priests and the ‘priesthood’ as you have it, was introduced into the Church of Christ almost two years after its beginning—and after we had baptized and confirmed about two thousand souls into the church… In Kirtland, Ohio, in June, 1831, at a conference of the church, the first High Priests were ordained into the church”—An Address to All Believers in Christ, David Whitmer, 1887, p. 64.
Wm. McLellin, one of Smith’s original Apostles, had this to say:
“I never heard one word of John the baptist, or of Peter, James, and John’s visit and ordination till I was told some year afterward in Ohio.”
The Angelic visits were a fabrication, retrofitted after the fact.
I like it when Mormons bring up Matt. 16:13-20. Since this is an important passage for Mormons (even though the Bible isn’t authoritative for them unless they think it fits their agenda), I actually did an exegetical study on it. The context of the passage is the identification of Jesus: “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” The disciples give a host of responses, all of which were not true. This shows us that it is important what we believe about Jesus. But, the point of the inquiry is not really about the “people” per se, but about the disciples: “Who do you say I am?” This is the question for all believers: who do we say that Jesus is? We need to be able to answer the way Peter did: “You are the Christ (or Messiah), the Son of the living God.” All Judaism understood this response to mean that Jesus was indeed God. This is why they accused Him of blashemy.
We get into Mormonism’s favorite territory with the next passage: Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed toyou by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.”
Mormons come away teaching that the “rock” upon which Jesus built His church is revelation. Now, we can apply what we already know about God, which is what it means to view the biblical text with the proper lenses. The OT is replete with references to Jesus as the “rock.” He is the “Rock” spoken of here. He builds His church on Himself. Jesus is using a word play with Petros and petra.
Let’s get to the “keys of the kingdom” and “binding” things. Actually, the Catholics have a stronger position using this passage to refer to Peter as the first Pope than the Mormons do in referring to Peter as the first prophet. Now, what is the business of the kingdom? To save souls. We know that Peter is later commissioned to preach to the Gentiles: these keys were not given only to Peter.
cont’d
When Jesus first says, “I give you,” the “you” is in the singular; however, when he says “you” in the very next sentence, it is in the plural form. We can’t forget that Peter is not there alone with Jesus–the other disciples are there as well. Jesus is speaking to all of them.
Jesus then goes on to speak about the perpetual existence of the church (which Mormonism undermines with its claim of an apostasy): not even hell will prove stronger than it. It is not to be destroyed, which is the opposite of what Mormonism teaches.
That’s all the text offers. An eisegetical approach starts with a faulty presupposition that “revelation” is the focus of the pericope. One takes that premise and applies it to the text to support the idea that personal revelation is more important than God’s word as revealed in the biblical text–and that there is no measuring stick for it. It is its own adjudicator.
I have found it rather interesting that even Peter doesn’t take these words of Jesus to mean that he has some special priesthood set aside only for him. He is the one who teaches about a priesthood of believers, a royal priesthood of which we are all members as followers of Jesus Christ. In fact, Peter refers to Jesus as the living Stone: “As you come to him, the living Stone–rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him–you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood…But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy” (1 Pe 2:4-5a, 9-10).
The biblical text reveals that Christ is the “rock” and that the royal priesthood is the priesthood of believers. Mormonism contradicts these teachings with an purely eisegetical effort.
cont’d
I need to say one more thing regarding Matt.16:17. Personal revelation is indeed necessary. It was important that the disciples understood Jesus as the Messiah not because they walked with Him and witnessed the miracles, but because God had communicated the truth to them about Jesus Christ. So, I will agree with the Mormons that we can’t get away from the importance of personal revelation. In the text, however, the revelation is pertinent to who Jesus is–NOT about anything else. To take this scripture and apply it to whether or not JS was a prophet, etc. is pure manipulation of God’s word for one’s own purposes. This passage has only to do with Jesus Christ as Messiah–as all scripture ultimately points toward. The Mormons have exchanged the witness of Jesus Christ for the witness of JS.
Now, regarding Christ preaching to those in the spirit world. Again, we have to understand the entire biblical text: Jesus taught to those who were lost as a result of the Flood. These are the only people mentioned. But, this is all the biblical text gives us. To build a doctrine and practice out of it is to take liberty with God’s word where this is no such liberty to do so.
Peace and blessings…
Jim,
You said,
” When the F.P. and Quorum of the Twelve make
decisions affecting the church, there is un-
nanimous agreement among them.Until then they
work out their differences between them.”
How do they make up these differences? no doubt by
taking a vote.This was the point of my comment.
You said,
” There are of course exceptions in the past.”
This does’nt square with your first comment.Then
you used an example of Paul and Peter not being
in agreement.You said to that, “And that is OK”.
Peter was slipping into false doctrine, Paul
confronted him on this, and you say that was “OK”.
Strange.
You next proclaimed your trust in the Bible’s
message which is that Christ is the only means
of salvation. I would echo that.
You said,
” But that does not mean it is inerrant or that it
contains everything ever uttered by God to man
or everything God entends to give to man in the
form of holy scripture.Make sense?”
John 20:31 would answer the first part of your
comment.What does’nt “make sense” is the record
left by Mormon leaders for the past 170 years
concerning their authoratative claims relative
to scriptural interpretation.
You said,
” It does’nt mean that the Bible clarifies every
doctrine satisfactorily” You then used baptism
for an example of people disagreeing with how it
is to be done etc.
Because people disagree that means everyone is
wrong? Furthermore, the Mormon church has’nt
solved this problem.Mormons disagree on some very
fundamental doctrines.[ Aaron has documented
where some LDS believe heavenly Father might
have been a sinful man in His past.Also there
are Mormons who believe that Jesus was married,
others don’t ].
As for the belief that your leaders have been
commissioned by God with the authority to guide
His church. Whether they have been or not, the
verdict is the same for any prophet who does not
advance true doctrine.ANY teacher who claims the
authoratative
I’m a little late getting into this conversation ,but I have been away for a while. We find in the BoM these words –
BoM Title page; And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men
Moroni 8:17 And if there be faults they be the faults of a man.
1 Nephi 19:6 Nevertheless, I do not write anything upon plates save it be that I think it be sacred. And now, if I do err, even did they err of old; not that I would excuse myself because of other men, but because of the weakness which is in me, according to the flesh, I would excuse myself.
There are a couple more that say the same thing but these are suffice. Is there the same in the Bible? No; not that I am aware of. Does this mean that the Bible is error free? No; and we all know it. For example contradictions in the Bible –
Gen 32:30 states “…for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.” VS John 1:18 states, “No man hath seen God at any time…”
1 Samuel 31:4-6 says “…Saul took a sword and fell upon it. And when his armourbearer saw that Saul was dead and…died with him. So Saul died…” VS 2 Samuel 21:12 says “…the Philistines had slain Saul in Gilboa.”
Factual/scientific errors. One would think that if the book was written by the Creator and not fallible humans then it would be correct on these matters –
Lev 11:20-21: “All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.” Fowl do not go upon all four.
Deut 14:7: ” “…as the camel, and the hare, and the coney: for they chew the cud, but divide not the hoof.” For the hare this is wrong on both counts: Hare don’t chew the cud and they do divide the “hoof.”
Matt 4:8: ” Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them.” Unless the world is flat, altitude simply will not help you see all the kingdoms of the earth.
These examples are from http://www.freethoughtdebater.com/tenbiblecontradictions.htm but others are on the net.
We also have at least 3 inclusions in the Bible. There is the Joannine Comma (1 John 5:7), the story of the adulteress (John 8:3-11) and Mark 16:9-20. A possible fourth is found in the epistle of Paul where he discusses women keeping silence in church (1 Cor 14:34-35. This one is being debated but if it were an inclusion, they believe that it was ON THE ORIGINAL TEXT as either a side note by Paul (himself) or by one of his contemporaries.
Then there are the different translations, not just into English but into other languages. For instance James 2 uses ‘works’ in English. The word in the Finnish translation means ‘acts’ or ‘deeds’ in English. Slight difference, but gives a different connotation. Then there is the JW translation which places the comma in Luke 23:43 after the word ‘today’. This gives a whole new meaning to the verse. But the Greek did not have punctuation so why shouldn’t they put it there?
Knowing that there are these errors in the Bible means that it is not inerrant or perfect. Anyone wanting to argue otherwise does not have a leg to stand on with all of the historical evidence against them. However, despite the evidence, many Christians still believe that the Bible is 100 percent perfect and inerrant.
This is why we have the 8th article of faith stating that the Bible is the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. It is the word of God but it does contain errors. Since the BoM acknowledges this already, we do not need to put a ‘disclaimer’ into the article of faith as we do for the Bible. But in placing the ‘disclaimer’ in there against the Bible, does not mean that we cannot use the Bible as being scripture and true, we just need to be careful as to how it’s used. It does not mean that we do not trust the Bible or that we do not find it authoritative. We are just making clear that it does contain errors.
cont.
office of “prophet” or “apostle”, and says
their teachings are truth, they are held
accountable by God for what they teach. God
puts the highest value on His Name. To those
prophets who use it has a reference point, as
their authority to try and validate their
teachings on God and salvation,He reserves the
strongest penalty.It matters not if the prophet
is a moral, sincere family man. They have no
more respect as leaders/teachers.
Grindael,
Hades was the Greek word substituted for the Hebrew “Sheol.” (This is probably not news to you) Sheol was used almost 60 times in the OT. It does not mean “satan” as you suggest- that is a much more modern adaptation.
Rather, it means the resting place of the dead, both righteous and wicked. If you question this, I invite you to research it- it is very well established.
So Christ was saying the gates of this resting place would not prevail against His church and work. It makes a great deal of sense. He would brake the bands of death through His resurrection, and the place where the dead were imprisoned would not triumph over the church.
Again- consider what the word meant when Christ used it.
Jackg- you have done nothing to explain what “Keys” and “bind” or the passage in general means. We are discussing whether Christ was saying that there would be no apostasy.
You have essentially simplified the statements of Christ down to mean “it is really important to believe in Christ.” Why did He not just say that?
To put my take on the 8th AoF in response to Ralph: I believe the difference is that the translation of the BOM was through divine means, with God’s approval. The translation of the Bible was done by non-commissioned copyists, no matter how well-intentioned.
MikeR- the verse from John in no shape or form claims that the Bible is inerrant or contains everything ever revealed by God. Your citation really makes your argument look weak.
Ralph,
You kill me! Why you have to cite an atheistic
source for your position reguarding the Bible is
beyond me.Then again, you’re the “christian” who
believes that one day you’ll be worshiped as an
Almighty God. No doubt you’ll use the Bible to
cite this desire of yours. Please Ralph, may you
humble yourself before our Great God and Savior
and see how His Word is trustworthy to reveal
His truth to you.
Jim,
The verse in John concerned the fact that the
Bible does’nt contain all that Jesus said or
did.That was my point. I never addressed the
issue of inerrantcy.I could have made that
plainer. The Bible reveals the message of Christ
He is the only means of salvation. That sums it
up to me.
Concerning your use of the word “weak” in relation
to my comments, I might expect that as a response
from you.I’ll let others decide though.
OJ,
You keep missing the point. When a pericope is properly exegeted, you pull out what is there; you don’t add what you want it to say. I can’t make it say anything more than it says. Take off the faulty lense of the 8th AOF, and you will see things more clearly. All you do is biblical exegesis!!!
Ralph,
When you say: “One would think that if the book was written by the Creator and not fallible humans then it would be correct on these matters,” you reveal yourself to be exactly as falcon describes you: naive. We’re not saying that God’s “finger” wrote anything–it’s called inspiration through the power of the Holy Spirit. This is what OJ can’t get, either. But, hey, we’ve beaten the dead horse into godhood.
Let’s see, you will say that God used fallible human beings to write the BOM, and fail to see that is exactly what we are saying. You’re not as adept at making straw men as OJ.
Regarding your argument about the biblical disclaimer you all use: think about it, Ralph, you have chosen to follow a false prophet you gave you a disclaimer so he could have free reign in creating his own religion and behave as he pleased.
P.S. Ralph, there were no gold plates. I would say I hate to break that news to you, but that wouldn’t be what Christ would do.
Praying you guys…
OJ,
Sorry, man, but I gave you too much credit. You don’t do exegesis, you do eisegesis. Perhaps you don’t know the difference???
Peace…
MikeR,
What is the difference using an athiest site or a Christian site (and there are some) or just finding my own examples of errors in the Bible. They are there and people (including Christians) acknowledge them. Even the pop-up for the scripture Mark 16:9-20 states that some of the earliest manuscripts do not include these verses. Or do you have an explanation as to why these are not errors, especially the inclusions?
Jackg,
I know the BoM was written by human hand by inspiration from God, and because of this there are mistakes in it. I am not missing that point. But you seem to be arguing that there are no errors in the Bible regardless of it being written and maintained by humans. It is imperfect, it has errors and that is why we have the 8th article of faith state that the Bible is the word of God as far as it is translated correctly.
The originals, that came by revelation/inspiration from God, are true and correct. After these when they were copied and annotated and footnoted, etc then what? Some of the errors that crept in were inclusions due to margin notes that were not by revelation/inspiration from God. Although these are known now to not be Biblical, there are many hundreds of years where people believed in them and used them as scripture. People still do it now, including using the Johannine Comma to ‘prove’ the Trinity.
PS – there were gold plates. There were at least 12 witnesses to their physical presence not including JS.
MikeR,
I am trying to understand your line of argument. Be patient.
Referring to my belief in the Bible, I said:
“But that does not mean it is inerrant or that it
contains everything ever uttered by God to man
or everything God entends to give to man in the
form of holy scripture.Make sense?”
To which you responded:
“John 20:31 would answer the first part of your
comment.”
The text of John 20:31 to which you refer reads: “But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”
Does that verse say the Bible is inerrant? No
Does that verse say the Bible contains everything ever uttered by God to man? No
Does that verse say the Bible contains everything God would ever reveal to man? No
I see in no way that verse answering my points? What am I missing?
Although there will always remain unanswered questions no matter how much God does reveal, the restored gospel has answered and clarified tons of issues and questions relating to salvation, the atonement, scripture, heaven, etc. etc.
Jack- you have not addressed the fundamental and simple questions I brought up about the passage in Matt- What was meant by “keys” and “bind?” You may dismiss my argument all you want, but until you provide a reasonable alternative, your continued rhetoric offers nothing.
We were not talking of the testimony element in those verses. Rather we were talking about what was meant by “keys” and “binding.”
Regarding exegesis vs. eisegesis- who has confused the terms?
Claiming you are correct doesn’t make up for your inability to answer basic definitional questions about words in the verse. I at least made an attempt and gave a rationale.
olsen jim asked me
I don’t think my internal processes are different from anyone else on this. Yes, I am comforted when I find a bunch of other people who agree with me. No, that’s not the end of the story. If I think there’s something wrong with something, I don’t care how many people disagree with me.
I honestly don’t know why I believe some things and not others, given that I am exposed to the same information as everyone else. Except, that if there is such a person as the Holy Ghost, and if He did have some influence on me, then the shift of my focus onto certain values and he importance of certain ideas is exactly what I would expect Him to do. Its what I think Jesus was alluding to in John 3:8.
As for the formulation of the NT and other historical arguments, I differentiate between a compelling case and faith. As I have noted here before, there is a compelling case that the Christianity of the first Christians was reliably captured in the NT documents, as we have them today.
The compelling case, however, will not force you to believe that it’s what you should believe (see Matt 11:21). However, as noted here many, many times, the pattern for Biblical Faith complements the compelling case, rather than denying it. Consider the opening statement of the 10 Commandments in Ex 20:2; does it not appeal to an observed, compelling historical fact as the basis for God’s relationship with His people?
What annoys me intensely is the claim of Mormonism to have “restored” the Christianity of the First Christians. If you truly believed that, then you would set yourself out to serve the NT, rather than looking for ways to get it to serve you. You would rid yourself of Joseph Smith and all his bastard doctrines.
Why kick against the pricks (Acts 26:14)?
Why fight against the Christianity of the first Christians by denying the scriptures that they wrote?
Jim,
John 20:30,31; 21:25 these verses state that the
Bible does’nt contain literally everything that
Jesus said or did. If you want to argue that there
is more revelation from God in addition to the
Bible then I would think it should’nt be contrary
to what we have in the New Testament. In my opinion, the “restored” gospel of Mormonusm does
just that.When I read the teachings of Mormon
prophets/apostles I see Gods, Goddesses, temple
marriage,secret temple rituals etc.these are not
taught in the N.T. in the Church Jesus founded.
Therefore , in my opinion, they constitute
“another” gospel. the message of God’s Word,
the Bible is that Christ is the only means of
salvation. That message is all we need, and it
has been preserved by God for us today. I have
to take Jesus’ warning seriously when He said to
“Beware” of those who claim to be prophets. These
prophets may be sincere and family oriented, but
their message does’nt line up with what Jesus or
His apostles taught, thus they are termed, false
prophets/teachers.
By the way Jim, did you ever address the topic of
this thread? It seems you have a knack for sliding
the conversation over to the inadequacy of the
Bible and the need for the Book of Mormon.Since
that appears to be the case, might you address
the topic at hand.Do Mormon prophets in their
teachings on the Godhead reveal a concept such
as Aaron has brought up on this thread?
Ralph,
With decades of Bible manuscript research, we know
where the “problems” lay concerning what verses
have the best atestation of being accurate.There
is’nt a fundamental doctrine that is in question.
The issue is: Does the teachings of Mormon prophets contradict the teachings of Jesus and
His Apostles as recorded in the New testament?
You can start with where it clearly teaches your
belief of desiring to be worshiped one day as an
Almighty God, or where secret temple words and
handshakes are the”way” to be reconciled to God.
OJ,
The answer is actually in there. You just don’t want to see it. The one thing I didn’t address was application of a passage, bringing it from the then to the now. The question has to be answered by all of us. So, when the Mormon attempts to answer “who do YOU say that I am?” they can’t help but swim in heretical waters when their answer contains the following: “the brother of Satan.” So, you see, there is a point to exegeting the biblical text properly. Proof-texting will only supply the reader with shallow theology.
Ralph,
Let’s work from the passage OJ is trying to use to support whatever it is he’s trying to do. The only witness that we need is that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of the living God. We don’t need a witness regarding gold plates that people saw with their “spiritual” eyes. Falcon has already done a wonderful job to address this issue in previous posts on previous threads. Go ahead, Ralph, and continue to believe in a made-up story designed for JS to practice unbiblical behaviors without apology or shame. In order for you to believe that way, Ralph, you have to discount and denigrade the biblical text. I used to do the same thing, Ralph. Your church hasn’t equipped you to read the Bible, Ralph. It has equipped you to read a poorly written, fictitious, novel, which you elevate above the Bible. Any lurker on this site will see that Mormons don’t trust God, and that Mormons don’t truly believe in the Bible.
Praying for you…
Jim,
As can be seen by the many references I gave above of the use of “bind” and “loose” by the NT writers, “bind” means to tie up or chain up or put into prison. “Loose” means to release or set free. The “keys”, in this imagery, are the keys to lock(bind/imprison) or unlock(loose/free) something.
I think it’s probably quite important to get that idea into your mind FIRST, before trying to figure out what would be locked and unlocked from the context.
Now, that you have the image settled in your mind, look at this commentary, and see if it doesn’t make sense?
“The power here given to Peter was soon after extended to the rest of the apostles (Mt 18:18). The apostles were to lay down, as they afterward did, the organic law of the new kingdom, defining what things were prohibited and what permitted. Their actions in this behalf would of course be ratified in heaven, because they were none other than the acts of the Holy Spirit expressed through the apostles.”
Read more here:
http://www.godsbibletruth.com/BindingAndLoosing.html
http://www.gotquestions.org/binding-loosing.html
http://www.crivoice.org/bindloose.html
Ralph said something interesting above. He said “I know the BoM was written by human hand by inspiration from God, and because of this there are mistakes in it.”
What I can’t figure out then, Ralph, is why the BofM DOESN’T HAVE A SIMILAR DISCLAIMER
“We believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly”
Isn’t that weird? Especially since there are ABSOLUTELY NO DOCUMENTS AROUND to check it out with, and since MAJOR DOCTRINAL CHANGES have been made to it!
Jim and Ralph,
I hope to say this in as few words as possible, to make it as clear as possible.
What the BIBLE IS FOR is to teach people TO BELIEVE IN JESUS. That’s it.
And that’s what it does. The OT, even with mistakes here or there, points to Jesus as the coming Savior, making no excuses for the sinfulness of mankind.
The NT gives us the story of Jesus, and sticks around long enough to get us to realize that Jesus wants “mercy NOT sacrifice” – that His Gospel is Grace. It, also, was written just to get us to believe in Jesus.
And that’s why the Bible is inerrant. Because IN IT’S PURPOSE of POINTING TO JESUS, it wonderfully and in all possible imaginable ways
SUCCEEDS.
Now, we have a BoM, a PoG, and a D&C that claim to be further revelation that we needed from God. Seriously? Well then, they should have done the same thing that the Bible did – point JUST TO JESUS. But they don’t. They point to Mormons as gods.
Now, Jim did a terrific job of staying completely off-topic on this thread. Hopefully, he can now answer the question Aaron asked, or at least go to a new thread, and try responding directly to that one? 😉
Martin,
I completely respect your position of faith in the Bible.
The core question is what exactly was the faith and practices of the earliest church. You believe it is accurately and completely represented by the NT. And that is fine.
Just understand that the allusions to practices, whether it is baptism for the dead or whatever, in the NT, you cannot claim to know with certainty that those were not actually practices of the early church. Why? Because of the abscence of records in that earliest period.
The point is that you may disagree, but the beliefs of LDS are absolutely plausible for an ancient church setting.
Mike R- I simply responded to the discussion that was occuring before I joined. Forgive me.
Jack- you never answered my questions. It was not “in there.”
Setfree- the quotation you cite could not be more vague. What “actions” would be binding in heaven? Why did they need the “keys” and what were they? Why didn’t Christ just say that the Spirit would guide their actions? He said that very thing elsewhere.
As far as Aarons question- don’t know and don’t care. I have just been responding to the discussion on this thread. It was others who took it that direction.
Jim said:
Martin,
So you are comfortable basing your doctrine on majority-rules policy?
Here is McConkies description of Kimball’s Priesthood Revelation:
Obviously, the Brethren have had a great anxiety and concern about this problem for a long period of time, and President Spencer W. Kimball has been exercised and has sought the Lord in faith. When we seek the Lord on a matter, with sufficient faith and devotion, he gives us an answer. You will recall that the Book of Mormon teaches that if the Apostles in Jerusalem had asked the Lord, he would have told them about the Nephites. But they didn’t ask, and they didn’t manifest that faith; and they didn’t get an answer. One underlying reason for what happened to us is that the Brethren asked in faith; they petitioned and desired and wanted an answer—President Kimball in particular. And the other underlying principle is that in the eternal providences of the Lord, the time had come for extending the gospel to a race and a culture to whom it had previously been denied, at least as far as all of its blessings are concerned. So it was a matter of faith and righteousness and seeking on the one hand, and it was a matter of the divine timetable on the other hand. The time had arrived when the gospel, with all its blessings and obligations, should go to the Negro.
Well, in that setting, on the first day of June in this year, 1978, the First Presidency and the Twelve, after full discussion of the proposition and all the premises and principles that are involved, importuned the Lord for a revelation. President Kimball was mouth, and he prayed with great faith and great fervor; this was one of those occasions when an inspired prayer was offered. You know the Doctrine and Covenants statement, that if we pray by the power of the Spirit we will receive answers to our prayers and it will be given us what we shall ask (see D&C 50:30). It was given President Kimball what he should ask.
He prayed by the power of the Spirit, and there was perfect unity, total and complete harmony, between the Presidency and the Twelve on the issue involved.” – McConkie, ‘All are Alike Unto God’
Honestly, how is this any different from what you are saying above Jim? They all prayed Kimball said, yup it’s time to let em have the priesthood, they all agreed (they have to or it can’t be presented to the church) and then they took it to a vote in the church to sustain the revelation. No ‘Thus saith the Lord’s here. Then McConkie says Kimball had ‘anxiety’ about it, they WANTED an answer, and prayed about it. Then McConkie says ‘It was given to Kimball what he should ask’. Isn’t that kinda redundant? I don’t see anything special here, all I see is that they claimed to have ‘inspiration by the Holy Ghost’. Then it still has to be a unanimous vote, by the Twelve and then the Church. Of course they are going to ‘agree’ with their prophet. There is no need for special ‘Priesthood Authority’ to ask God for an answer to a question . The only difference here is that they ‘claim’ it is a ‘revelation’. Bottom line, it is still done by vote, and Smith’s Priesthood Authority assures that those under the Prophet will sustain him in his revelations, as long as they all agree on it.
Setfree,
I appreciate your contributions to the discussion. Guys like OJ will never get it until they give themselves over to the Holy Spirit and trust in God rather than in a false prophet.
Blessings…
Setfree,
See one of my posts earlier. I show that there is a ‘disclaimer’ for the BoM where it states that it was written and handled by fallible humans, so if there are mistakes they are from the human touch, not from God. So we don’t need to put something in the 8th article of faith for the BoM, just the Bible.
Jackg,
I said there are witnesses to the physical presence of the plates – this means that they physically handled them, not just saw them through their ‘spiritual eyes’ as you have remarked. Emma Smith is one, David Whitmar’s mother is another. Emma handled the plates while they were under a towel, so she did not see them, but she knew that they were there and that they were a metal. David Whitmar’s mother was shown the plates by Moroni outside the influence of JS et al.; ie they were nowhere near her to influence her in this. Others were like Emma Smith, they did not actually see the plates but they felt them or saw them while they were wrapped up.
MikeR,
“You can start with where it clearly teaches your belief of desiring to be worshiped one day as an Almighty God”. I have given this thread once before – John 1:1-3 Jesus was (a) God.
Matt 28:18, John 16:15 Jesus inherited all power and everything His Father has.
Romans 8:16-18 We are joint heirs with Jesus
Revelation 3:21 We will sit on God’s throne with Jesus if we overcome this world.
There are others that can be used but these are the basics I found (NOTE I found, not I was shown) when I was study the Bible on my mission. Esp the Romans verses we will inherit what Jesus did – all power and everything God has. So this shows we can become like God and Jesus with all power, etc. And if we sit on the throne with Them, that is basically saying that we will be esteemed similar to Them, but not to the same extent – like a king’s ambassador is esteemed similar to a king. So it’s in there, just like the ‘Trinity’ is in there.
Ralph, (in response to your reply to MikeR)
This stringing together of verses is exactly what setfree mentioned in the Brainwashing article.
For one, terrible straw man. Absolutely terrible. The request was to show where the bible teaches your belief of being “worshiped one day as an Almighty God.” Instead, you bring together contextually separated verses that you claim are rightfully interpreted to mean we 1) become like God and Jesus “with all power” and etc., and 2) will end up on Their throne and be “esteemed similar to Them, but not to the same extent.”
I’m worried I have the chronology down wrongly:
First, we inherit all that Jesus inherited (all power and everything the Father has);
Also, since Jesus was “(a)” God, we inherit godhood (catch me if I’m wrong on this part).
Second, if we overcome this world, we sit on God’s throne.
Third, that makes us a God on God’s throne.
If we didn’t inherit godhood, that means we’re just “esteemed similar.”
Either way, the evidence you provided doesn’t put us on any other throne than God’s, which is where we’d have to be worshiped in order to fulfill MikeR’s request for biblical evidence of your beliefs of being “worshiped one day as an Almighty God.” Key word: biblical.
So if we were being “worshiped one day as an Almighty God,” according to your evidence, it’d either be 1) on God’s very own thrown as a God (which is not supported in either of our belief systems) or 2) while only being “esteemed similar” to Them, yet still on Their throne. I’m hoping you just mean “Almighty God” isn’t enough to describe Him, therefore being an Almighty God = “esteemed similar”.
And really I’m just hoping you were throwing up a straw man. That’d be a better claim than claiming those verses expound on how clearly the bible teaches your belief of being worshiped one day as an Almighty God.
Of course, these are just “the basics” you found in the bible. Feel free to recover yourself by revealing those “others that can be used”.
Ralph,
I missed your comment. It’s 2am I’m getting ready
for work so I have to brief.
Ralph, stringing verses together like you did
enables a person to create any doctrine they
desire. In Rev.3 the throne believers will sit
on with Jesus is the throne of His human office
as the son of David.The picture of the conquering
King, the King of Israel.We are in no way worthy
to share His throne as the Eternal God, this He
shares with His Father only.[Isa.42:8]
Matt.28. Jesus did’nt “inherit” Godhood. He was
Almighty God before He came to this earth! But He
was given something as the Messiah/Savior–
“authority”.
Rom. 8 “inherit” , You sure highjacked that term.
You said that we will inherit EVERYTHING that God
has.Really? Does that include some of His wives?
I can still remember 30 years ago when I heard in
the news that some old rich lady in California had
left some of her money to her cat.It was in her
will.Her cat inherited it. But cats are’nt human.
Ralph, the very thought of you, a sinful creature,
desiring to be worshipped as God, is so foreign
to the Scriptures. Why would anyone want to fall
down and worship You? The Bible decalres that
there is only one true Eternal Creator of all, He
alone is to be worshipped forever by all His
creation, you, me, everyone. That’s exciting.
Ralph, repent of this delusion.Put down your
Ensign magazine, pick up the Word of God.