This is the Christ of Mormonism:
1. He lives as a humanoid god on a star near Kolob along with his father god, bound by the physical world; he does not transcend the material.
2. He is the brother of satan.
3. He had to earn his own salvation while he was on earth.
4. He offers his “grace” only to those who work hard enough.
5. He is not from everlasting to everlasting, but was created a finite time ago by his father god, who in turn was also created by his own father god, who in turn was created by his own father god, so on and so forth
6. He is not the greatest being possible.
7. He is finite.
8. His blood is not powerful enough to wipe away any sin.
9. He aided his father in creating earth by organizing already existing matter; he is not capable of creating things out of nothing.
10. He must submit to a moral law that existed before he did.
11. You can one day become just like him.
This is the Christ of the Bible:
1. He is a spirit being that transcends space and time.
2. He is the brother of no creature; He is God, from everlasting to everlasting. No one can claim kinship with Him except those He purchased for Himself on the cross. And He is not the same type of creature they are. He is not a creature, He is God.
3. Jesus is the Author of Salvation; to say that He needed to earn His salvation is absurdity.
4. He offers His sovereign grace to whomever He sovereignly chooses; we are all tainted by sin and vile in His holy eyes. Therefore, no one is more worthy than any other human being. Thus, His grace that He offers is given unconditionally. His grace is true grace, a beautiful gift.
5. He is from everlasting to everlasting. He was never created, and Has been in relationship with the Father and the Holy Spirit forever.
6. He is the greatest being possible, the Most High God. There is no one like Him and there is no one who will ever be anything like Him.
7. He is infinite, both in essence and in His divine perfections.
8. His blood is powerful enough to wipe away any sin, regardless of heinousness and duration. The only sin that cannot be forgive is blasphemy against the Holy Ghost; and this is not because the blood of Christ is not powerful enough to wash it away, but because God has so sovereignly decreed that all persons who blaspheme the Holy Ghost should not receive forgiveness.
9. He created everything that exists out of nothing by the mere word of His mouth.
10. There is no external law that He submits to; He is the Author and the Source of the Law.
11. No one can ever come near to obtaining the glory and excellency of Christ.
No, i was just putting the name of the first false god that came to mind.
Here, this is who i was referring to – http://www.bible-history.com/resource/ff_baal.htm
"But why not look up info about it in current time?"
You can do whatever you want, but i´ll make sure that from now on i won´t use the name of any other god that will distract you from what i was actually saying.
mutu, thanks for sharing your opinion. While I could'nt agree with any of your comments, I do
have a comment on a few. #2 Of Jesus : "He is the brother of Satan". You said that this amounted
to disrespect of the essence of Mormon doctrine, yet in the very next sentence you agreed with it !
The statement was simple , Jesus is the brother of Satan, or do you want it to read "lucifer" instead?
I think the point is that in Mormon doctrine Jesus is'nt unique as He was just one son among many in
pre-existence, simply the first one born of God and one of His wives. The Bible rejects this false belief
and portrays Jesus as Jehovah, The Almighty Creator who is unique . Jehovah was not the sexually
produced spirit son of God and wife , that is "modern day revealed truth" from Mormon prophets/apostles
not from Bible prophets/apostles. [ part 1 ]
cont. [ part 2 ] # 3 stated that Jesus " earned" His salvation. What we glean from the teachings
of Mormon leaders concerning this could lead to what #3 stated, It is said that Heavenly Father[HF]
through obedience to all the laws required of Him that He , " worked out His salvation". This same
phrase is used reguarding man's salvation,and words such as "earn" , "merit" are used to describe
it by Mormon authorities. Since it is also taught that our path to salvation is the same path HF trod
eons ago and also that Jesus is said to "tread in His Father's tracks", then with this all considered
it is'nt a stretch to come to the conclusion that Jesus earned His salvation. Perhaps though #3 should
have said " exaltation" instead ?
[ part 3 ] Also in your comment to #3 you said that Jesus was the best the heavenly host had to
offer, and that God chose the right heir to be the Savior. These two statements, when I read what
Mormon authorities have taught concerning them, reveal just how far the Mormon Jesus is from
the Jesus revealed in the Bible. What do we see when these two statements are investigated ?
We see that supposedly in pre-existence, Jesus [Jehovah] being born first readily applied himself in
learning all the laws and truths necessary to progress into becoming a God. The other spirit sons
were also leaning. The older ones were learning the deeper truths , one of which was " the art and
science of world making" ! This "truth" came from the pen of a Mormon apostle. Going further, we see
in the great heavenly council that HF told His assemblemed sons and daughters that He had a plan
of salvation, He called for volunteers to become the redeemer in this plan. Two sons answered his
call, Lucifer, and Jesus[Jehovah ] .A great debate ensued . Some wanted Lucifer , some wanted
Jesus, HF chose Jesus . This choice was apparently only because Lucifer wanted to modify HF's
plan, not because he was of an inferior nature from Jesus, they were two brothers , one was just older
and perhaps more ahead in His schooling . So this "best the heavenly host had to offer" was only
better because his own plan agreed with his Father's. This is a very disturbing scenario. It is Mormon
doctrine but not Bible doctrine.
[part4] #5 you said that HF was the one God of our creation. Perhaps you should have
said that He was one of the Gods of our creation. Would'nt that have been more to the point?
Concening who the Gods over this earth are/were, Mormon leaders have offered us all some
very interesting choices. Their confusion on this fundamental doctrine is enough evidence for
me to excuse them from being considered as reliable spiritual guides. ww
willy, you say, "While I could'nt agree with any of your comments, I do have a comment on a few. #2 Of Jesus : "He is the brother of Satan". You said that this amounted to disrespect of the essence of Mormon doctrine, yet in the very next sentence you agreed with it ! The statement was simple , Jesus is the brother of Satan, or do you want it to read "lucifer" instead?"
I call it "disrespectful" yet then go on to agree with it for the very reason that "disrespect" does not amount to wrong, nor even to "misrepresentation"–a word which I used to summarize a few of the other tenets in the blog's listing. There is no denying that in my Mormon faith, Satan (or Lucifer, such a distinction makes little difference to me) was the spirit brother of all the Sons (& Daughters) of God in the Preexistence, including Jesus Christ, the foreordained Lord of heaven & earth. That is the full representation of Mormon belief caricatured by the tenet as it appears on this list. Reducing the belief to such terms amounts to misrepresenting Mormon doctrine. If you honestly think, willy, that it does no such thing, then you are guilty of convenient naivety. Really, you & fmelo are hardly naive to what I'm talking about. While I can't speak for the anonymous poster of the blog, both you & fmelo are intellectually capable of knowing why Mormons do not like their doctrine being stated in such terms, & why Mormons get sick of hearing their doctrine reduced to such partial caricatures by scheming Evangelicals. (Thank you very much, Mike Huckabee.)
For the record (not that I really think you need the clarifying — but perhaps reminding), Mormons believe that God the Father in some way sired as literal spirit "children" — the faithful, of whom have inhabited this planet in the course of its history; but also the unfaithful, who in some degree influence this earth realm as spirits who, because of their rebellion against God, will never be given life. While JS to my knowledge never used the word "sire" or "procreate" to explain this admittedly mysterious, pre-mortal process of giving existence to our spirits, his teachings & prophecies concerning the relationship between God, man, & the sexes (particular in the temple liturgy), & his plain teachings against classical Theism, quite plainly point in this direction, so it's not at all surprising that Mormon theology for over a century as used such explicit, non-creational language when referring to the ontological correlation between God & us. And we continue to declare to our Christian fellows that the language of sireship found abundantly in the NT connecting God to man (Father/Son/children) was NOT intended by Jesus in some figurative sense. Yes, I'm well aware of the adoption analogies found in Romans & Galatians, but I (like all Mormons) understand them in terms of RE-deeming individual Spirits BACK to their original status as sons & daughters of God.
Satan, on the other hand, kept not his first estate in heaven, & was therefore denied the inheritance that all of us now enjoy (some to the full extent of Spiritual adoption). That is one more reason why it is absolutely misrepresentative to say that in Mormon belief "Satan IS the brother of Jesus." He long ago forfeited his inheritance, & therefore is no longer a Son of God (nor a brother of Jesus). And so will we follow in his forfeited sonship if we follow his legacy of rebellion.
That, sir, is the just representation of Mormon belief. To reduce it to "Jesus is the brother of Satan" is about as respectful as a Frenchman approaching you on the streets of Paris & greeting you, "Bonjour, American–fellow citizen of Jeffery Dahmer."
While this statement would of course in one sense be misrepresentative (seeings the late Dahmer forfeited both his citizenship & his life through his reprehensible crimes), an Anti-American Frenchman might no doubt argue for its truth all the same. And in a technical sense, misrepresentative or not, he certainly has a case for Dahmer being your fellow American. Furthermore, he might choose to find in this trite technicality some sort of significance for holding contempt against you, & for rallying other Frenchmen for holding contempt against you.
I don't know about you, willy, but when I go on vacation, I certainly hope for better.
Sincerely, mutu.
No, Clyde, that´s exactly why we are not all catholics.
Except that Jesus´ status wasn´t determined in Nicea, even though mormons believe that myth.
Where was it determined???
" Mormons do not like their doctrine being stated in such terms, & why Mormons get sick of hearing their doctrine reduced to such partial caricatures by scheming Evangelicals."
Ok, so this is not about accuracy, it´s all about how it looks and sounds like. All about image!
And what about that – scheming Evangelicals!! hahahah – just like the scheming mormons that try to misrepresent the doctrine of the Trinity, first century Christianity, the Council of Nicea, The Reformation, the Bible, etc., etc., etc.
I think a real caricature of the situation would be to say that Jesus and Satan were buddies. Other than that there´s no caricatures – the statement is correct. The reason you don´t like it is what i already stated – that it puts Jesus on the same plane as Satan, a being that has evil in his nature and could actually choose to be evil if he wanted to(which he did). Your problem is that you´re not capable of facing the reality of what your doctrine points to, not the way how it is represented here or elsewhere.
"And we continue to declare to our Christian fellows that the language of sireship found abundantly in the NT connecting God to man"
Actually if you read the passages that deal with it in context it would be clear that the scriptures deal with a spiritual rebirth, not a literal one. That´s how we become the children of God according to John, by believing in Jesus.
"That is one more reason why it is absolutely misrepresentative to say that in Mormon belief "Satan IS the brother of Jesus." He long ago forfeited his inheritance, & therefore is no longer a Son of God (nor a brother of Jesus)."
Except that he IS. Satan might no longer be Jesus´ brother in a spiritual sense, but he still is in an ontological sense.
"That, sir, is the just representation of Mormon belief."
No, that´s you just flowering it up so that things don´t look so bad.
mutu, thanks for your reply. I must say that the case you tried to make denying that Jesus IS the
brother of Satan , was a lot to say but nothing accomplished. Satan forfeited his inheritance so
he ceased being the actual spirit brother of Jesus ? Really? I suppose Cain ceased to be Abel's
actual brother after he rebelled and killed him. Mutu, Mormons are uncomfortable with this doctrine
because it is so "out there", it is so foreign to the Bible. You may try and be technical in an effort to
downplay it, but it's pure Mormonism. The God who the Bible declares is the Creator did not
originate from the source that His creation did, He created all the angels/spirits, He is not one\of
them. To reduce Jehovah/Jesus to a brother of Satan is so wrong. May you reject this spiritual
food served up by Mormon prophets.
Mutu, A brother will always be a brother no matter what that person does. My Brother can die, he can kill someone, he can get married or go to jail, he can even reject Jesus as Lord and Savior, but he will always be my brother. You cannot change the facts to fit your thinking. My brother and me were born by the same parents, so no matter what we do we will always be brothers and nothing he or I do will change that fact. Nice try though.
I don't know clyde, why don't you do some authentic investigation rather than depend on the drivel produced by the LDS church to support the idea that the secular government defined who Jesus was. You seem to be the king of the drive by one line post. If you want to get into the debate here why don't you spend some time in serious study and frame a meaningful response.
I've been down this road all too often with LDS on this blog. Do you want me to do a Cliff Notes version for you on Nicea so you don't have to spend any real time and effort in meaningful study and research? That's why people get stuck in cults. They accept, without question, what the cult puts-out and when they feel good about it, claim a witness from the Holy Ghost.
Oh, another one line Molotov cocktail thrown by our Mormon poster.
I seem to be closed minded? Look in the mirror clyde.
In typical Mormon fashion, you seem to be stuck in denominational thinking. That's the party line going back to the occultist and seer stone gazer Joseph Smith.
Christ's "Church" is the Mystical Body of Christ, made up of those who are born again by the Spirit of God regardless of their denominational tag. Jesus said that the gates of hell would not prevail against His church. Mormonism, having denied the authentic Jesus, is one aspect of the gates of hell Jesus referenced.
Mormonism denies the Lord Jesus and substitutes a Christ of its own liking. The Mormon Jesus has no power to save and bring to redemption the Mormon populace that professes faith in him.
False prophets, apostles, heretics and apostates have, over the centuries, attempted to devalue Jesus and make Him something less than He is. Mormons, with their false god, cling to a fictional tale that they can become gods also. In order to accomplish this, not only must Jesus be down-graded, but also the Father, the Holy Ghost, the revealed Word of God-the Bible, and God's plan of salvation.
OK, I may as well have a go at this; produced mainly for the Mormon folks who come by here and read and don't post. From Christian History Issue 85.
Question: In the council (Nicaea), the bishops cooperated with-some would say, were co-opted by-the state. Was the die cast at the council for the state church model that would dominate the church for 1200 years and more?
Answer: The simple answer is this: what does the church do when it winds up convincing most of the society to become Christian? That's what was happening by the fourth century. I don't think the church was co-opted by the state. It was the other way around; It's Constantine who changes. And once that happens, it means that the church assumes responsibility for forming the society-a task it didn't have before. At the Council of Nicaea, called by the emperor Constantine, the bishops confessed the triune God, the God of the Bible, the Creator who sent Christ into the world to save sinners, in a very public forum. It meant that the biblical God displaced the gods of Rome. Constantine built churches, not temples to the Roman gods. So at the end of the fourth century, when the emperor Theodosisus proclaims that the empire is now going to be officially under God, it's the God of Nicaea, it's the God of the Bible, it's the Trinitarian God he affirms. The Nicene Creed is a way of proclaiming that the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Jesus, that is, the biblical God, is the God to whom we as a society are now beholden. Now we will give this God our worship and adoration. (Robert Louis Wilken Professor of Early Christian History-University of Virginia)
Professor Wilken is asked:
Q. What are bishops doing at the Council of Nicaea? Who were these bishops, and why should they have anything to say to the church?
A. It's very clear that from the beginning the church is not simply a collection of individuals. It's a community. And a community needs leadership, persons in authority to whom people could look for direction, someone to teach and to preside at worship.
We know that from early on in the church's history, these figures were called bishops. Bishop simply means "overseer." They were charged to teach what they had received from the apostles. And so by the end of the first century, anywhere you would look in the church, the primary leader was the bishop, and he was the focal point of the community. Ignatius of Antioch says, "Where the bishop is, there the church is."
Twice in 1 Corinthians, Saint Paul says, "That which I have received I have handed on to you." The leaders of the churches understood themselves as teachers who had received something from those who had preceded. This is in contrast to the way we think as Americans. When we have an issue before us, we gather different opinions, we consult this and we consult that, and try to come to an agreement. But the early church always asked the question, "What have we received?" Then it asked, "How can we understand what we have received in light of this new situation?" Many had a say in the deliberations, but in the end someone finally had to be responsible and that was the bishop.
By the time you get to the third century, then, it is understood that the bishop is the guarantor of the apostolic tradition and is charged to teach what has been received. So it's natural, then, that the bishops are going to be the decision-makers at the council. It was a gathering of those who were most responsible for the church's teaching.(end of quote)
Now the Mormon self-serving myth of the lost gospel is more of Joseph Smith's creative fanciful thinking that doesn't fit the historical documentation. Smith had to come up with a reason for his aberrant and eventually blasphemous concepts including those regarding the nature of God and Jesus Himself. Without a myth of a lost gospel, there is no need for Smith's invention. While there is substantial documentation regarding the gospel of Jesus Christ that is proclaimed by the Church through the centuries and today, there is zero evidence of any form of Mormonism present in the first century church.
The problem with Mormons is, having accepted Joseph Smith as a prophet, they must now cast about for some evidence to substantiate (Smith's) claims. This evidence doesn't exist so as a substitute the Mormons come up with the concept of progressive and personal revelation and the physical "burning bosom" scenario. While this has the effect of making the Mormon feel all warm, fuzzy and on some sort of spiritual ego trip, it has no basis in reality.
So Mormons will claim, "But we have prophets and apostles." To which I say "Big Deal!" Calling yourself one doesn't make you one and when we measure the body of work of the Mormon prophets and apostles, we find it wanting. What these Mormon pretenders have produced is a constant flow of error and speculation that reveals their ignorance and nothing near the truth. When you have at least one of these geniuses declaring that the signers of the Declaration of Independence appeared to him demanding that temple work (much of it stolen from Free Masonry) be done for them, we know these guys are a bag of fries short of a Happy Meal.
But having swallowed the Mormon burger and drink, the average Mormon can do without the fries thinking that the one who served up this meal actually provided them with good service and a nutritious snack.
Ouch.
Mutu wrote: "And we continue to declare to our Christian fellows that the language of sireship found abundantly in the NT connecting God to man (Father/Son/children) was NOT intended by Jesus in some figurative sense."
My response is that you may declare the above all you wish; but that is clearly not what in indicated in the following passages of Scripture:
John 3:1-12, NKJV, 1 There was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2 This man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, “Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him.” 3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 4 Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” 5 Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.” 9 Nicodemus answered and said to Him, “How can these things be?” 10 Jesus answered and said to him, “Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things? 11 Most assuredly, I say to you, We speak what We know and testify what We have seen, and you do not receive Our witness. 12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?
1 Peter 1:22-25, NKJV, 22 Since you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit in sincere love of the brethren, love one another fervently with a pure heart, 23 having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever, 24 because “ All flesh is as grass, And all the glory of man as the flower of the grass. The grass withers, And its flower falls away, 25 But the word of the LORD endures forever.” Now this is the word which by the gospel was preached to you.
Titus 3:3-7, NKJV, 3 For we ourselves were also once foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving various lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful and hating one another. 4 But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, 5 not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
James 1:18, NKJV, Of His own will He brought us forth by the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures.
James 1:18, NLT (New Living Translation), He chose to give birth to us by giving us his true word. And we, out of all creation, became his prized possession.
And, regarding your use in an earlier post of the phrase 'redeemed Lord,' Jesus is not our 'redeemed Lord." He is our Redeemer!
Ephesians 1:7, NKJV, 7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace
1 Peter 1:18-19, NKJV, 18 knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold, from your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.
Matthew 20:28, NKJV, just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” [to redeem us]
Ransom: Usage Number: 1 Strong's Number: <G3083>, Original Word: λύτρον, lytron, Usage Notes: "a means of loosing" (from lyō, "to loose"), occurs frequently in the Sept., where it is always used to signify "equivalence." Thus it is used of the "ransom" for a life, e.g., Exod. 21:30, of the redemption price of a slave, e.g., Lev. 19:20, of land, Lev. 25:24, of the price of a captive, Isa. 45:13. In the NT it occurs in Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45, where it is used of Christ's gift of Himself as "a ransom for many."
From <G3089> (luo); something to loosen with, i.e. a redemption price (figurative atonement) :- ransom.
James Strong, Strong's Talking Greek & Hebrew Dictionary, (Austin, TX: WORDsearch Corp., 2007),
WORDsearch CROSS e-book, Under: "3083".
F Melo,
I am not so certain that the LDS people produce revelations arbitrarily. OD1 and OD2 were issued at particular times for particular reasons. I would think all LDS works are in response to something which needed addressing for some reason or another.
The other questions are a matter of faith, and your knowledge of the works of the OT and NT. "Crazy" is a judgement, and a subjective one at that. Some aspects of rabbinic judaism are very interesting, but to others some of the rules seem crazy and arbitrarily. Like seperate dishes for milk and meat products, not being able to turn on lights on saturday, the particular appearance of people in certain ultra orthodox sects, to some that seems 'crazy'. Mormons wearing the temple garment hardly get noticed, and in a number of ways are more inalignment with American culture, whatever that means.
""Crazy" is a judgement, and a subjective one at that. Some aspects of rabbinic judaism are very interesting, but to others some of the rules seem crazy and arbitrarily."
They are crazy when compared to historic Christianity and Judaism, from the perspective of Christianity.
"I am not so certain that the LDS people produce revelations arbitrarily. OD1 and OD2 were issued at particular times for particular reasons. I would think all LDS works are in response to something which needed addressing for some reason or another. "
You´re pointing to the exception. What about the two priesthoods? The office of high priest being resurrected and moved around? Polygamy? etc, etc, etc, etc.
My goodness – you´re so far from the point i originally made that i´m considering deleting my post…
but go on if you want to… whatever
Just remember we are talking about Jesus here, not Heavenly Father. In other words, we are discussing one part of the Trinity, not the whole as some answers are doing. And yes, they can be separated.
so let’s get to some of these points –
1) If Jesus was resurrected never to die again (Romans 6:9), and the Bible talks about death as being the spirit separated from the body (James 2:26), then Jesus must have His physical body and spirit combined forever, – ie He must be “humanoid” – otherwise He has died again. So where is His body at this point in time? Is it floating around in space or does it ‘reside’ on some celestial body, be it planet, asteroid, plate of elements, etc?
This makes point #1 for the ‘Christ of the Bible’ section moot, as it is discussing Heavenly Father, not Jesus.
3) I have never heard this taught in our church before. We never believe that He had to earn His salvation on this earth – He is salvation, so how can He earn Himself?
4) What is the difference between Him offering His grace to those who ‘work hard enough’ and to ‘whomever He sovereignly chooses’? We teach that He has sovereignly chosen those who decide to follow His commandments (ie who ‘work hard enough’), thus He has given us the standard of His choice. Rather than arbitrarily choosing people on a random whim without any standard except that they have to believe in Him – and even then, that is no guarantee.
6) No. He is not ‘the greatest being possible’. I believe that Heavenly Father fills that position and that Jesus comes in second (John 14:28). Even Jesus called Heavenly Father His God and our God (John 20:17). Jesus submitted to His Father’s will, indicating that there was a ‘higher power’ to Him, to which He was subordinate (John 5:19, John 8:28, Matt 26:39, Mark 14:36, Luke 22:42, John 5:30, John 6:38).
10) I believe this is answered in #6
mutu, I have some further comment on your reply to me where you stated that it's a misrepresentative
to say that in Mormon belief, " Satan is the brother of Jesus", because Satan rebelled and therefore
lost his inheiritance and hence he is no longer a brother of Jesus. That's quite a theory you hold. I
like how you attempted to bolster it by creating an illustration starring Jeffery Dalmer. I had to read
that three times in order to understand your reasoning.But frankly mutu, I think you have a propensity
to go deep in your offerings here and I think you went so deep with this attempt that you got stuck
because frankly it had nothing to do with whether you have correctly espoused Mormon belief on
this doctrine . Now some correction is in order for you to see that your theory is incorrect. [ part 1 ]
[ part 2 ] mutu, since you're talking about "Mormon doctrine" here, I'm sure you'll agree that it would
be wise to place the testimony from the teachings of Mormon General Authorities above your own
offerings on this issue. What I see is that Satan is the brother of Jesus according to these men.
Authorities such as Spencer W. Kimball as well as the offical magazine of the your Church have
both taught that at the time of Jesus' temptation ( Matt.4) that Satan and Jesus ARE brothers.
Of course you may reject this testimony all you want, but it is Mormon doctrine straight forward.
I have to respectfully dismiss your attempt to deny this doctrine. Now I hope I have understood
your position correctly because if you are indeed saying that satan is not now Jesus' brother,
then you are at odds with your leaders more than me. Mutu, would you please surrender this
terrible teaching to Jesus, let Him take it from your life. Jesus is not , nor has ever been the
sexually produced, biological, spirit brother of Satan . Let Jesus rid you of this belief. May God
grant you the strength to do so. ww
WOW Ralph, you sound like a Mormon; as confused as ever.
Have you ever heard of a resurrected body? Jesus is the first born of the dead in God's new economy. He has a resurrected body. Did they find His body in the tomb? Where is it? It was transformed at the resurrection. Read the post resurrection accounts in the Bible.
"He has sovereignty chosen those who decide to follow His commandments……." Ah Ralph, you're talking about Mormonism here right? That's not orthodox Christianity but a patch-work quilt of confusion proposed by your rock gazing founder and those that followed him who were just as blind to spiritual truth. The Mormon god is limited by the choices that those who he sovereignly chose make? Yea, that sounds like par for the course for "a god" who isn't all that special being one of countless millions or perhaps billions of gods.
Back to the drawing board Ralph.
I'll continue to pray for you and your family that you may come to salvation through the only qualified Savior that there is, Jesus Christ. The Mormon Jesus, is not Jesus.
gpark5, thank you for compiling that list of scriptures about Jesus, it was great .
ww
Falcon,
I am not as confused as you are –
I asked where was Jesus resurrected body, not if He was resurrected. A resurrected body (according to the Bible) is a physical and immortal body. This is where the spirit and the body reunite NEVER to be separated again (again from the Bible). So where in the universe is Jesus with His physical, immortal body? Is it just floating around out there, or is it on some kind of physical platform – be it a planet, asteroid, chunk of rock or a plate of elements? So what if we LDS believe that He lives on another planet at this point in time, at least that is an answer we can give to that question. But what you have written does not answer my question, it just adds to the point I was making that Jesus still has His physical body now.
When I said that Jesus "has sovereignly chosen those who decide to follow His commandments" I was discussing LDS doctrine, or wasn't that clear when I said "We teach…" before that comment? My point was that in both belief systems Jesus chooses whom He saves, but in the LDS doctrine He has given His criteria for His choice so that we can follow it. Unlike the Traditional Christian doctrine where there are no other criteria other than have faith in Him – but even then, it's His choice so that it's not a 100 percent guarantee that you will be saved. And if you are not saved, even though you did have faith in Him, it is just and fair that you go to hell for eternity.
Of course your confused Ralph. You don't even know where Jesus is. I know where He is. The Bible clearly teaches where Jesus is. Reading your answer sounds like you're getting your theology from Star Trek or Star Wars. You see this is why you're confused. Mormonism is a mish mash of bizarre speculation and a religion that sounds like, the way you explain it, science fiction.
Hebrews 10:12-14 says that "but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time onward until His enemies be made a footstool for His feet. For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified". Now I might add, those of us who know who Jesus is and have received Him as Lord and Savior are perfected for all time. Why is that? Because of the sacrifice He made for sins by the shedding of His blood and our accepting this sacrifice through faith. Jesus was the perfect sacrifice and this cannot be added to by some religious ordinances, rituals or rites. It isn't even about piety or righteous living. It's about Jesus. If you don't know who He is or where He is or what He has done for those who are willing to receive the gift of eternal life through faith, what hope do you have? Hope placed in a false god and a false Jesus with a works righteousness solution to man's sinful condition is pure folly.
In Acts 7:55-56 we read about Stephen: "But being full of the Holy Spirit, he gazed intently into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God: and he said, 'Behold, I see the heavens opened up and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God'. As Stephen was being killed, Jesus rose up and stood. The heavens were opened up.
See Ralph, it's all in the Bible. The problem is you're putting your faith and trust in a religious system of false apostles and prophets rather than in God and His Holy Word. You cling to a false Scripture that has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be a figment of Joseph Smith's imagination and his "ability" to plagiarize the work of others; not to mention all of the false notions he borrowed from other religious free thinkers of the time and incorporated into his religious invention.
The LDS cannot claim this perfection nor eternal life because they have rejected God, His Christ and the plan of salvation. Mormons have substituted a perverted notion that they will become gods, due at least in part, by their own system of works righteousness. So where do you get the LDS criteria Ralph? From one of those faux prophets that you'd be willing to murder or steal for. You've made a very bad bargain and it will be a loss for you and your entire family if you follow after Joseph Smith.
So Falcon,
You are saying that Jesus is somewhere at this point in time, namely on the right hand of God (whether its sitting or standing makes no real difference). So where is the right hand of a spirit being that transcends time and space? Yes, there must be a right hand if Jesus has a physical body and the Bible says that He is in that position. Otherwise where else is He? If you don’t know where He is (and saying at the right hand of God is not an answer to WHERE) then just say so. But because Jesus has a physical body, He must be somewhere, just as you keep pointing out about our belief in Heavenly Father having a physical body – it must be somewhere, not everywhere.
The ‘LDS criteria’ (as you put it) comes from the Bible, BoM and the D&C. It covers things from the 10 commandments, to baptism, to Jesus new commandment given in the NT, to temple service, etc. So you still haven’t addressed my original comment that in both belief systems (ie LDS and Traditional Christian) it is Jesus that chooses whom He saves and that the difference is that we LDS give His list of criteria for His choice – meaning that point 4 above is moot.
I have put my faith in Jesus. True, my ideology about Him is different to yours, but both of ours are interpretations only of the Bible. So you can say all you want to about me following a false Jesus, I believe that you are the one following the false Jesus. One or both of us are going to fall out on the Day of Judgment and it’s not going to be pretty for whoever it is. But that is faith – a hope of the future and what our God will bring for us.
"So where is the right hand of a spirit being that transcends time and space?"
Oh my goodness… are you taking that passage literally? That expression refers to authority, not a physical location…
Here, take a look at the Greek word hand used in Mark 16:19 – http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/kjv…
Please, Ralph, that´s pretty basic… i know mormons die to make that literal, but it was never meant to be taken like that.
I do look in the mirror. I see someone who is in the image of God. I see someone who pre=existed. I see someone who believes in God. At times you seem to be like torquemada but you're not as fanatical as he was-at least I hope so. I look at God from a different angle. You seem to think I am a heretic. Sounds awfully torquemadaish. I have to figure out my salvation by myself. You and I may be living the right kind life but seeing God all wrong. I like my one line Molotov cocktails. I hope they make people think. ALL it takes is just one thought.
Ralph,
melo answers you perfectly. That's why Mormonism is so messed-up. Not only do you follow a man with a magic rock but you have no clue how to interpret the Bible. That's how cults are launched and maintained; some nut case with a new improved revelation coupled with a total lack of understanding or systematic approach to interpreting God's Word, leads people down a merry path to spiritual destruction. In cults it's all about feelings masquerading as truth and revelation. Honestly Ralph, the fact that you can't see through this stuff speaks volumes to the dark spiritual cloud you are under.
Ralph, your interpretation of the Bible plus your desire to follow a false prophet is what has put you at odds with God. Reading the Bible with Mormon magic glasses will not reveal to you Ralph, who Jesus is. How bizarre and nonsensical is the Mormon version of Jesus. Ralph, read the NT. Does it say that Jesus is the off-spring of a mother and father god who live on a planet or near a planet called Kolob? Get a grip man! This is the Jesus that you think is going to save you, not in the orthodox Christian sense of the word, but make you a god? You are absolutely right. It will not be pretty for you on the day of judgment following a false Christ.
Perfectly said melo!
I am amazed at the work God has done and is doing in you. I rejoice. I almost stand up and shout out praises to God when I read your posts. It is possible for someone who is lost in the bleak, dark spiritual vacuum of Mormonism to come out and find faith in God. I can't pretend for a moment to know what it's like to have a cult mind-set and have the black sticky goo of deceit gumming up my thought processes. I would think that these folks would see the sheer folly of their explanations when they attempt to defend this blasphemy against God. And they think they are really into some deep spiritual knowledge that only those who receive the Mormon bosom burning can understand. I think the burning in the bosom they describe actually fries their mental circuits and renders their thought processes useless.
I do feel sincerely sorry for these folks and am grateful to God that He does provide a pathway out that some choose to take.
F Melo,
I am not sure exactly about the two priesthoods, but I think it has to do with JS understanding of certain passages reguarding the M. Priesthood, why there had to be two. I don't even know what you are refering to about resurrected and moved around. But it sounds interesting. Polygamy I think was meant to create a people along with the religion. In a sense I am an 'ethnic' mormon, other people have used the term. In some ways it sort of worked, because family, ancestry, history etc are such important values for lds people. Some made such big sacrifices for the church, no proof of anything really, but it is a binding factor.
Falcon,
I was at work when I wrote the last reply, hastily trying to get it finished before my lunch break was finished, so let me try again so you can understand.
First, you and I both agree that Jesus has an immortal physical body now because He is resurrected. This totally contradicts point number 1 in the section 'Christ of the Bible' above. That was and is my main point – that whoever wrote the points above got it wrong from the Traditional Christian perspective.
My second point was to try and answer the comment about where Jesus resides at the moment. That is why the question, where is Jesus at the moment? He has a physical body so He must be somewhere at a single point in space right now, so does the Traditional Christian doctrine teach where He is or is that left out because no one knows? We LDS teach that He resides on a planet right now where He can watch over this earth and look after it, and that planet's name is Kolob. But the 'where He is and what it's name is' at this point in time is not really an issue, but the fact that the person who wrote the points above got the first one wrong from a Traditional Christian stance about Jesus being a spirit is interesting because no one picked it up.
fmelo,
I know what the Traditional Christian interpretation of that scripture is. I was addressing Falcon's answer to my question about where Jesus is right now. He used scripture and stated that Jesus is on the right hand of God. Since Falcon pointed out earlier that Jesus has a physical body I was just trying to figure out what Falcon meant by 'on the right hand of God', because since Jesus has a physical body and presence He is in one point in space, so does this mean that Falcon now believes that God has a right hand side, or wasn't he thinking when he wrote that answer? So I wasn't taking that scripture literally, just prying Falcon for a meaning.
Ralph,
Where Jesus is is frankly a dumb question and foolish speculation, in my opinion. You see this is where cults get off into meaningless tid bits that have nothing to do with who Jesus is and what He did for us on the cross. Who really cares where Jesus resides right now? I don't. But cults develop whole doctrines and belief systems around trivial matters. To them, it sounds smart and has some sort of odd intellectual appeal. So cult members are skipping merrily into hell thinking they are on their way to some fabulous reward like becoming gods.
Ralph here's a better question, "Where does the Holy Spirit reside?" I'll tell you where. He resides in the hearts of those who have been born again by Him through their faith in Jesus. That's the bottom line Ralph. If you're not born again by the Spirit of God you will not reside with God when you die. Believing in a false Christ will not result in your being born again no matter how sincere, pious and devout you are.
So you spend your time speculating about a fictitious planet called Kolob where the Mormon Jesus resides I guess with the Mormon god and his many wives. I don't know, I guess the Mormon Jesus must have wives also or he wouldn't have made it into Mormon heaven.
And this is all in the Bible right Ralph. Oh I forgot, the Bible is wrong and Joseph Smith, the man with the magic rock, is right. Ralph, doesn't this all get a little embarrassing for you? It's all collapsing under the sheer volume of evidence and spiritual truth that God has revealed. I think you need to get out of the building Ralph before you are totally buried in the rubble of lost hopes and dashed dreams.
I will continue to pray for you and your family that the eyes of your understanding will be opened and you will be brought to the saving knowledge of the grace of Jesus Christ.
Ralph,
You obviously have not read my posts above about the post resurrection appearances of Jesus to the disciples. I'm not going to go through it all again, but the point was that the resurrected Christ took the disciples back through the Scriptures, the Law and the Prophets, and demonstrated from the Word who He is.
These aberrant, heretical, and blasphemous notions, perpetrated by Joseph Smith and his subsequent false prophets are all the products of their own deranged thinking and have no foundational basis in the Scriptures. I could list for you the entire references for Jesus' pronouncement but I'm not going to do your work for you. If you are serious about coming to a personal relationship with the authentic Jesus, the risen Christ, you will go to the references Jesus cited.
Mormonism isn't there Ralph. You believe it because you got a feeling that you think demonstrates that what you believe is true. I repeat, the Mormon Jesus is not in the Scriptures.
I will continue to pray for you and your family; that the Holy Spirit will open your eyes of understanding of the Scriptures so that like the first disciples, you will come to know the real Jesus.
So I think we can see one of the games our friend Ralph plays. It's pretty characteristic of cult members who really can't demonstrate from the Scriptures what they say is the "truth". Here's what they think is their trump card: "Well its all in how you interpret the Scripture." Now with that point-of-view, what is being said is that there is no objective truth or proper way to interpret the Scripture. Everyone has "a truth" based on their own personal feelings.
Sorry but that dog just won't hunt. If there is no proper method of interpreting Scripture or translating the ancient documents for that matter, then there is really no basis for having a discussion with someone. There needs to be ground rules but as we know, cults do not like ground rules. By any objective standard, for example, the BoM is a total farce. In order to believe it is anything but an invention of its author Joseph Smith, takes not only a leap of faith but the suspension of credulity. That's why the Mormons push for individual truth based on a feeling. That feeling then needs to be extrapolated to the Mormon church, the current Mormon prophet and Joseph Smith.
When the post resurrected Jesus appeared to His disciples, He proved who He was based on the Scriptures not on how the disciples were feeling. Through out the Book of Acts we have the disciples going to the Scriptures to make the case that Jesus is the Christ. Mormon can't do that to prove their notions of who god is, who Jesus is, or what God's plan of salvation is.
I could paper the walls with examples from the Book of Acts alone regarding how the disciples continually appealed to the Scriptures to make their case for Jesus being the Christ. Mormons cannot do this. They appeal to a feeling that they say is confirmation regarding the BoM. Incidentally, what does the BoM teach about God? It isn't what Mormons believe.
There's something wrong here when their own holy book, as phony as it is, doesn't even support what they believe. This is what happens when people cut themselves off from the Spirit of God and the Word of God and follow after men who having been deceived, perpetrate their deception on others.
So it's a favorite Mormon tactic to say, "Well that's your opinion" or "Well that's your interpretation." Notice in those statements we have an, "I give-up" white flag. Rather than try to defend their position(s) on whatever topic is at hand, Mormons like to suggest that everything is an opinion or interpretation. As I have pointed out, that sort of muddying of the waters approach, is emotionally satisfying to them and is sort of "save their bacon" approach to real dialogue.
Mormons have to do this because they are up-against-it. The Scriptures don't support their aberrant notions. The traditions of the Church don't support their position. History does not support them, period.
So just say, "It's a matter of interpretation" or "That's your opinion" and we have a ready made "all better now" blankie to wrap-up and keep warm in.
Or. . 'Mormon scholars don't agree with that.'
F Melo,__Does this have anything to do with superstitions around the left and right hands?
The section in religion is interesing.__ "On one count, the bible contains over 100 favourable reference to the right-hand and 25 unfavourable references to the left-hand. E.g.: The right hand of the lord doeth valiantly, the right hand of the lord is exalted (Psalm 118 vv15,16) "____And in Islam its the left hand which often does some unclean work. __
http://www.anythinglefthanded.co.uk/lh-info/myths…
"I am not sure exactly about the two priesthoods, but I think it has to do with JS understanding of certain passages reguarding the M. Priesthood, why there had to be two."
According to the Bible the aaronic priesthood was finished in Christ. Joseph brought that priesthood back to life, took the High priest from there and placed it in the Melc. priesthood, etc. Still arbitrary.
Thank you! It also amazes me that i used to be like Ralph once… I also feel like shouting praises to God for opening my eyes to such beautiful Truth!!
Let´s keep praying for Ralph, He could one day open his eyes too!
F Melo, D&C 107 explains the LDS reasoning for this placement. Do evangelicals have any priesthood at all?
Or….."Mormon scholars answered all of that a long time ago."
Here we get the meeting of the buzz words "scholars", "answered", "all", "a long time ago".
Scholars=really super smart people.
answered=I don't know what the answers are but the really smart people do and I'll live vicariously through them.
all=everything, no stone has been left unturned.
a long time ago=it's ancient history. Are people still talking about that trivial stuff? It not worth bothering with.
There's the story of the young Mormon woman who goes to her bishop because the BoM says that Jesus was born in Jerusalem and the Bible prophesy is Bethlehem. The Mormon bishop's answer? "Jerusalem is close to Bethlehem." All better now!
Mormons just can't figure out how Mormonism could be wrong when they are getting all of these spiritual feelings. They have no clue that what they are feeling doesn't come from the Spirit of God but comes out of their own souls; the latent power of which is capable of producing all sorts of spiritual phenomenon and tingles and hot flashes. All that a Mormon could hope for.
Actually the same thing happens within some Christian groups but at least they have their theology straight. There's nothing as seductive as "spiritual" feelings. That's why people are so vulnerable to those who can create them. Mormons traffic in this especially when they are out doing their missionary work. It's all bogus and dishonest but since they are looking to make a sale, all techniques are fair game in their eyes.
Falcon,
I have told you many times, I have more than just a 'feeling' (as you put it) that the LDS church is true, which is why I choose to believe in it. But that's beside the point as it has nothing to do with this post.
I'd like to make a little observation about this post using your 'rules/definitions/logic'. As I said in my last post, it appears that we agree that Jesus has a physical body. Meaning that the first point giving a difference above is invalid as the author has his first point under 'Christ of the Bible is incorrect. This means that he does not know the true Christ of the Bible in your sense of the term. So from what you keep saying about the LDS church, it follows that the writer of the post is not Christian and is not saved. Which means that this whole post is a waste of time as this person does not support your faith and doesn't believe in your Jesus.
Then there are the other points that this person got wrong as well which I mentioned above.
Now before you go on your usual rant about the LDS church not having the right Jesus, we already know what you think about the LDS, I am discussing the post here.
Falcon
The other response I have heard is that the BOM was originally addressing an audience in the Americas. Bethlehem may have been either not built yet, or was obscure in the memory of the people there. But Jerusalem was known. Its like saying New York, rather than some smaller town nearby that nobody heard of.
If I said "Eagle River" most people wouldn't know. But If I said "Anchorage" that would be on the mental map of many more people. Eagle river is a town about 10 miles north of anchorage.
Clyde,
I had to look up torquemada. I think there is a difference, but it might seem like it in type. Probably only confined to internet speak. The one liner thing, and single thought thing makes me think of the Zen Koans. Sometimes there can be depth to single sentences. Certain philosophical statements can take volumes to defend or destroy.
Ralph,
What is more than a feeling? Its a supernatural confirmation that the LDS faith is true, and that one can trust its leadership? So does this superceed any external objective physical evidence that its false? If any is found, or presented?