On March 4th 2013 the U.S. Tax Court ruled that Mormon plaintiff George Thompson would not be allowed to consider his church tithe a “necessary expense” in regards to paying back taxes owed to the government. Mr. Thompson owes $883,000 in back taxes, which he intends to pay, over time. In deciding how much Mr. Thompson could pay per month toward this debt, the IRS looked at his income and expenses, determining that he could afford $8389 – if he did not pay his tithing. Mr. Thompson argued that his $2110 monthly tithe was a “necessary expense” and should therefore lower the amount of his monthly debt payment. But he didn’t convince the court, so his request was denied. (Find a pdf document of the court’s decision here.)
In the course of the case, Mr. Thompson cited the “necessary expense” rule — with a twist. The rule states that a necessary expense must either provide for the taxpayer’s health and welfare or the production of income. Mr. Thompson argued that paying tithing was necessary for his spiritual health and welfare.
How so? asked the court.
Mr. Thompson is a temple shift coordinator and stake scouting coordinator in the Mormon Church. He told the IRS that if he didn’t pay his tithing he would no longer be allowed to hold these callings, citing a letter from his bishop that informed him that if he didn’t pay his tithing he’d have to resign his Church positions. The court had little sympathy for this, saying callings are regulated by the Church and revocation of callings is solely a Church decision, unrelated to the interests of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. (See here and here for more background on Mr. Thompson’s case.)
Mr. Thompson provided very little evidence to support his claim that paying tithing was necessary for his spiritual health and welfare, and the Tax Court seems justified in rejecting his claim. But that doesn’t change Mr. Thompson’s conviction that paying tithing to the Mormon Church is necessary for his spiritual well-being. What does he believe will happen to him, spiritually speaking, if he doesn’t pay his tithing?
Though the LDS Church Handbook of Instructions (2010) says members should expect nothing other than “the Lord’s blessings” from tithing (Handbook 1, p. 128), Mormon Scripture is rather more pointed:
“Behold, now it is called today until the coming of the Son of Man, and verily it is a day of sacrifice, and a day for the tithing of my people; for he that is tithed shall not be burned at his coming. For after today cometh the burning—this is speaking after the manner of the Lord—for verily I say, tomorrow all the proud and they that do wickedly shall be as stubble; and I will burn them up, for I am the Lord of Hosts; and I will not spare any that remain in Babylon.” (D&C 64:23, 24)
This sounds serious, as does this statement from past LDS President Joseph F. Smith:
“He [God] has said that those who will not observe it [tithing] are not worthy of an inheritance in Zion.” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith, 277).
In Mormonism, paying tithing is an important part of living a “celestial law.” And living the whole celestial law is necessary for spending eternity in God’s presence, in the celestial kingdom. Bill McKeever wrote of this,
“Another important aspect of celestial law is participation in the temple endowment ceremony. But herein lies the catch. In order to enter an LDS temple, it is necessary to obtain a temple recommend. A recommend is granted only when the Mormon has been found faithful in numerous categories, including tithe-paying. If a Mormon does not pay his tithes, he cannot get a recommend. If he cannot get a recommend, he cannot go to the temple. If he cannot go to the temple, he cannot go to the celestial kingdom; hence he receives damnation in the next life.”
Joseph Fielding Smith, another past Mormon President, quoted yet another past Mormon President to explain that anything less than a full 10% tithe was the same as no tithe at all.
“He has said that the man who fails to pay his tithing shall have no place among the people of God. Yet here are these Temples erected by the sacrifice of the poor, and to give recommends to parties who pay little or no tithing, how can you feel to take this responsibility? I could not. Part of a tithing is not tithing at all in the eyes of the law that the Lord has revealed.” (Joseph Fielding Smith quoting Lorenzo Snow, Conference Reports, April 1940, 97).
In June 2011 Henry Eyring of the Mormon Church’s First Presidency wrote,
“To receive the gift of living with Him forever in families in the celestial kingdom, we must be able to live the laws of that kingdom (see D&C 88:22). He has given us commandments in this life to develop that capacity. The law of tithing is one of those preparatory commandments.” (“The Blessings of Tithing,” Ensign, June 2011, 4-5)
To sum up, Mr. Thompson’s church says (or implies) that one who fails to pay a full 10% tithe to the Mormon Church will be:
- Burned at Christ’s coming
- Deemed unworthy of an inheritance in Zion
- Unable to hold a temple recommend
- Designated a breaker of God’s law
- Without a place among the people of God
- Denied the eternal gift of living with God and family forever
According to past LDS Authority Bruce McConkie, this all amounts to “damnation” (Mormon Doctrine, 177).
If Mr. Thompson had told the court that neglecting his tithing would result in his eternal damnation the IRS might have had sympathy for his plight and agreed that, for a Mormon, tithing is indeed a necessary expense.
“Each one must give as he has decided in his heart,
not reluctantly or under compulsion,
for God loves a cheerful giver.”
(2 Corinthians 9:7)
The broken record of the Mormon Bubble. This is the summum bonum of what OC has to say here. He will repeat this ad nauseum, over and over again because this is all that he can come up with for a rebuttal to the lies he perpetuates. He will also keep using the words twist and distort, opinion and hearsay in connection with the teachers of Mormon doctrine. This is the mindset of cult, and is all you will see from OC.
It is impossible for a man to be saved from ignorance when inside the bubble. ~ The Intelligent Version of Jo Smith’s Teachings, page 1.
“for they exhibit a delusion about their own subjective faith as if it was objective reality.. and in doing so they distort and twist the meaning of bible text they claim to respect in order to force upon it their own deluded ideas.”
I think you got your faiths mixed up OC. That would describe Mormons perfectly.
If there is a Mormon Bubble as you guys claim..It’s the Bubble of truth, which is quite unlike the bubble of delusion that our critics live in..
Truth based on what?
I agree.
Brewed
“Name the verses that tell me I will gain the LDS version of exhalation, complete with eternal families and becoming a god? Where does Jesus ever give affirmation to anything uniquely LDS?”
What’s the point? Would you accept them for what they are, or just tell me that I don’t understand the Bible and give an alternate interpretation? I have to say that the latter is far more likely, and thus there is little point is giving detailed explanations in a forum of this nature.
However, I will mention 1 Corinthians 15: 29, in which baptism for the dead is affirmed. This is supported by 1 Peter 3: 18-20 and 4: 6. It is also supported by Isaiah 61: 1, in which it is prophesied that Christ would open the prison and deliver the captives, which Christ himself, quotes in Luke 4: 18. All these scriptures teach the truth of Salvation for the Dead. Of course, as I said, one must be open to receive this truth before they will understand it.
“Why? What will that entail for you that’s so much better than worshiping and having a relationship with Him?”
Imagine a son who is told that all he will ever be able to do is watch his father work and praise him for everything he does. Would not that son receive a greater reward if he was allowed to assist his father, being taught the necessary skills to do the work himself and thus become skilled like his father and do the same work that his father does?
This is what I am talking about. It is far greater to do what my Father does, and help Him in His work, then to merely know Him and worship Him. I will have both these things, but I will also have much more, for I will be like Him, not just near Him.
“God never offered for us to become a god…Wanting that is selfish. It’s putting promises into God’s mouth because what he promised isn’t good enough.”
Yes he did promise this. But, more to the point, you are attempting to judge my character based on what you believe. This is a false judgment. It doesn’t matter if you believe that God made these promises. What matters is that I believe He did, and thus I can act on that promise without having any selfish thoughts or desires. It is like calling a person a liar because they were in error as to their information. It doesn’t work.
You don’t usually stoop to such actions, and I have to say I am a little disappointed in this.
“Why do you even worship God? In your belief system, he’s just another created being who was exalted by who knows what power. Shouldn’t we worship the power that exalted him if this was the case?”
Once again you prove you do not know our doctrine. You do not understand what we believe concerning the nature and character of God, and you continually base your thoughts and opinions on this false understanding.
We worship God because of who He is? He is our Father, the director of our existence. It doesn’t matter how He came to be this. It only matters that He is this. It also doesn’t matter that we can become like him. Did you stop honoring your Earthly father when you became an adult? Why would we stop honoring and worshiping our Heavenly Father simply because we share in his existence?
Jaxi
“How can a Mormon acknowledge the Bible with any authenticity and authority if the people that compiled it had no authority or truth?”
Because they didn’t write it; all they did was gather together those things written by the prophets of God. Why would we reject the prophets because it was uninspired men that collected their writings into a single volume? There is no logic in this argument. It is like saying we should reject that Shakespeare wrote his plays because men with no talent collected them into an anthology.
You make many odd claims about us, but I have found that the reasoning of the rest of Christianity is far more bizarre than anything in the LDS church.
Old Man
I know Old Man said he would not be discussing this anymore. I merely address this comment to him so that others will understand to whom I am responding.
Now, I have figured out the problem in my communication with Old Man. He wants to restrict the term “Law” to describing that specific law that was given to Moses after Israel rebelled. Thus to him when we say “Law of Tithing” we have to be referring back to that portion of the Law of Moses which deals with tithing. Any other use of the word ‘Law’ or the phrase ‘Law of Tithing’ is thus stated to be wrong because it does not discuss this aspect of the Law of Moses.
Of course, to support this position Old Man has ignored the fact that David, in 1 Chronicles, declares that a Law was given as part of the Abrahamic Covenant. He tries to explain way this very clear reference that I have given, simply because in his mind nothing outside the Law of Moses can actually be considered a law.
So, let me just set the record straight on this point. I have never claimed that the Law of Tithing that we follow is the same law that was given to Moses. As I pointed out, many things were added at the time of Moses, and it seems that the Law of Tithing was altered to fit the faith of Israel at that time. However, this does not prove that others did not follow another Law of Tithing that was distinct from that contained in the Law of Moses. Nor does it prohibit the reinstatement of such a law in later years.
So, Old Man accuses me of not being able to “reply directly to a criticism” and that I “attempt to move the discussion away from the subject at hand & on to a different level.” The real problem is that when I consider tithing my thoughts are not narrowly restricted to one time period and distinct method. So, when I try to point out that other people practiced what can be described as tithing I am accused of moving the discussion away from tithing.
As I said earlier in this thread, Old Man has tried to control the discussion by restricting it to his definition of the term, and excluding or discrediting any attempt to use any other definition. It seems very plain that he is determined to continue to do this.
Shem
As you continue to misrepresent me I feel I must reply to you, previous statements to the contrary notwithstanding
First off, you accuse me of trying to restrict discussion to my ‘definition of the term’ that’s totally wrong, I attempt to confine the definition of tithing to a Biblical context & the Biblical context does not include the LDS definition.
You said
“Now, I have figured out the problem in my communication with Old Man. He wants to restrict the term “Law” to describing that specific law that was given to Moses after Israel rebelled. Thus to him when we say “Law of Tithing” we have to be referring back to that portion of the Law of Moses which deals with tithing. Any other use of the word ‘Law’ or the phrase ‘Law of Tithing’ is thus stated to be wrong because it does not discuss this aspect of the Law of Moses. Of course, to support this position Old Man has ignored the fact that David, in 1 Chronicles, declares that a Law was given as part of the Abrahamic Covenant. He tries to explain way this very clear reference that I have given, simply because in his mind nothing outside the Law of Moses can actually be considered a law..”
I’m not sure if you’re confused or if you’re attempting to sow confusion, it’s probably a little of both as clearly you do not understand the things you read. David is talking about the covenant God made with Abraham & it has NOTHING WHASOEVER to do with tithing. Are you hoping by your policy of obfuscation to make me look as if I don’t know what I’m talking about? So no, I haven’t ignored 1 Chronicles, but unlike you I don’t twist the meaning to support my argument.
“, and it seems that the Law of Tithing was altered to fit the faith of Israel at that time. However, this does not prove that others did not follow another Law of Tithing that was distinct from that contained in the Law of Moses. Nor does it prohibit the reinstatement of such a law in later years.”
Once again, there was NO law of tithing to be altered neither was there ANOTHER LAW of tithing. What Abraham gave was a free will offering & as was made clear in my previous post Christians are NOT required to tithe.
As you seem unable to understand what I’m saying perhaps you can understand this quote from another Christian site which says the same as me but perhaps with greater clarity & which, hopefully, will make it easier for you.
“Abraham was never taught or instructed by God to give a tenth, nor did he discover the law of tithing. This was a one time only event in his life. Abraham is recorded giving this tithe only ONCE in his lifetime. Abraham had NOT tithed of his own property or income, …….. If Abraham was being blessed through the tithing system, as some claim, why did he do this only once? He never repeated it again for the rest of his life, and neither did he teach this to any of his sons. According to the Bible tithing does not become a command until Moses’ time. This is ignored by today’s lawful tithers. Instead it is replaced by clever teaching on Abraham’s tithe to make it a requirement for the church. Just because a tenth is mentioned does not mean it is a tithe. We need to go back to when God first instituted it as a requirement of law for the people. We find the Bible states the Law came through Moses not Abraham (Jn.1). Moses introduced the tithe because of the priesthood and the sacrificial system as Israel was to be a theocracy. Leviticus 27:30:
“Does Jacob giving God a tenth prove that tithing was practiced before Moses? NO. Jacob vowed a vow to God for safe passage, for food and clothing and this promise was conditional. Tithing was not a conditional act, it was like a tax for the nation of Israel. Again this is one time occurrence, it is never mentioned again in Jacob’s life. There was no Levitical priesthood or tabernacle that would be necessary for a tithe. Just because a tenth is mentioned does not mean it is a tithe. Tithing is something you do regularly not on a conditional basis, not once in a lifetime nor once a year.”
“If tithing was before the Law then it should apply apart from the Law. The Bible says that tithing was of the Law 400 years after Abraham. The Bible does not say that Abraham was commanded to give a tithe; the Bible does not say that Jacob was commanded to give a tithe. In fact, before Moses and the Law, the Bible does not record anyone giving tithes to God as a yearly, Monthly or weekly practice. There is NO such command.”
Finally you said
“So, when I try to point out that other people practiced what can be described as tithing I am accused of moving the discussion away from tithing”
You do move the discussion away from tithing but it’s good that you say ‘what can be described as tithing’ Yes, what you’re talking about can be described thus but only if you happen to be a member of the LDS organization & refuse to accept the clear teaching of Scripture.
“Old Man has tried to control the discussion by restricting it to his definition of the term, and excluding or discrediting any attempt to use any other definition. It seems very plain that he is determined to continue to do this..”
Right, I will continue to do this, as I said at the beginning of this post the definitions I use are Biblical, I refuse for obvious reasons to accept LDS definitions unless of course they concur with Scripture.
Shem,
I am glad you keep coming here and having conversations. This particular subject is very upsetting for me. I am sorry to hurl accusations at you. I just cannot wrap my head around it. The God I know is awesome to be worshiped. I love worshiping him. I cannot understand wanting more then that, to me it seems selfish and seems to come a lack of understanding in who God is and what power he possesses.
Thank you for pointing out some Bible verses. I would like to discuss them further.
1 Corinthians 15:29 was one of the first verses my husband and I looked at while learning about the LDS church vs. orthodox christianity. He saw it as confirmation of baptism for the dead until we both really honed in on the verse. The latter part of this verse says “If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them”. What does that mean to you Shem? To me it means the baptism of the dead is done for nothing. Their fate was already decided upon death, they have not been raised therefor baptizing for them is useless.
The other verses you cited, could you elaborate on how they affirm LDS teachings about baptism for the dead?
Honestly, I only see God teaching us about his power and the difference between physical life/death and spiritual life/death. Maybe I am missing something here.
As for God promising us we can become gods. Lets come from a different angle here.
When Adam and Eve are tempted in the Garden, Satan tells them they will be like God if they eat the fruit. Gen 3:5
They never become like God, in fact the opposite happens and there is a huge chasm created between them and God. Eating the fruit places a horrible curse upon Earth allowing death and suffering to come into a once perfect world.. If Satan wants us to want to be “like God”, there must be something inherently wrong with it. Something deeper and more sinister. We should pay close attention to what Satan’s intention is here. What made satan fall in the first place anyways? I think they are connected.
Read Ezekeil 28. God has a lot to say about man becoming gods and what happened with Satan.
Brewed
I really don’t want to get into a long discussion on salvation for the dead on this thread. That is not the subject at hand, and it will take a fair amount of time to discuss it. I do have my own blog, though I don’t update it as often as I should right now. If you really want a detailed explanation as to the meaning of the verses I sited I will post such on my blog, and you are welcome to come and discuss it there. Here is the web address http://shematwater.wordpress.com/.
I will, however, make a comment on 1 Corinthians 15: 29. The context of this entire chapter is the resurrection. Paul is addressing this because many in Corinth had begun to deny this doctrine.
In verse 12 Paul writes “Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?”
He argues that to deny this doctrine is to deny Christ, as Christ is preached to be raised from the dead. If this is false than the apostles are false teaches, the faith is vain and all those who died in that faith are lost. (13-19)
He then declares the reality of the resurrection, talking about how it overcomes the effects of Adam’s Fall. He preaches the reality of the resurrection, as well as the order; Christ being first, then the faithful, then everyone else.
Then we have verse 29 “Else what shall they do which are baptized the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?”
What he is saying is this: “Why do we practice baptism for the dead if there is no resurrection. Why baptize someone who has no hope of being raised from the dead.” This is said to counter the disbelief in resurrection. He is arguing that to believe in Baptism for the Dead and not resurrection is illogical, and thus, because we teach the one (baptism for the dead) we must also accept the resurrection.
This is the meaning I see in his words. This chapter is all about the resurrection, and he is using the practice of Baptism for the Dead to persuade the Corinthian Saints that the resurrection is true.
Genesis 3
People frequently sight this as proof that God never promised that we can become like him. The problem is that they do not fully understand the subtlety of Satan and his craftiness in this story. In verse four he says “ye shall not surely die.” This was the lie that he told Eve, as is proven later by their spiritual and physical deaths. However, in verse five he does not lie. He states “For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.” In this he insinuates the lie that God gave the command to prevent them from gaining knowledge, but what he actually says is not a lie. This is shown in verse 22. “And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil” Here we have God confirming that in eating the fruit Adam and Eve became like God in the very manner in which Satan declared. They became like God in their understanding of good and evil.
So, this story does not refute the doctrine that we can become like God. Rather it actually supports it in that through the fall we have already progressed a little in that direction, becoming like God in our understanding.
What Satan want’s is for us to fall and be miserable like himself. To accomplish this he is crafty, and frequently mixes truth with lies; using the truth to lore the person in, and the lies to cause their fall. He knew the result of eating the fruit, and so he tempted Eve with the desirable part, but lied concerning the negative parts so that she would fall.
Old Man
“David is talking about the covenant God made with Abraham & it has NOTHING WHASOEVER to do with tithing. Are you hoping by your policy of obfuscation to make me look as if I don’t know what I’m talking about?”
I don’t twist or obfuscate anything. I never once claimed this dealt directly with tithing. You made the claim that Abraham did not have a law, and I offered 1 Chronicles as proof that he did.
You made the claim “the fact is there was no law of any kind involved with Abraham.” You did not restrict this statement to tithing. It was rather given to include tithing, proving that, since no law was given, the law of tithing wasn’t.
I then provided a direct reference that states that Abraham received commands from God, and that the covenants made with Abraham were a law. This had nothing to do with tithing, but with your claim that no law was ever given to Abraham, which is a false claim you used to support your arguments concerning tithing.
“Once again…As you seem unable to understand what I’m saying…”
I understand what you are saying perfectly. I am merely disagreeing with it, and explaining why I am disagreeing with it. You can give all the quotes you want, but the real truth is that we do not have enough information in the account of Genesis to prove it either way using that book. You give a nice quote, but it proves nothing. All it does is give an interpretation of the account without any actual facts to back it up. It is assumed that this was a onetime event because it is the only event mentioned. That assumption is not proven correct. It is just as likely that this was the only time mentioned because it was part of a greater story regarding the actions of Abraham. His daily affairs and habits are not recorded, only the major events. You have no actual proof of anything. All you have is your opinion that you constantly try to ram down my throat as fact.
“You do move the discussion away from tithing”
No, I don’t. I am discussing tithing. I am not discussing the aspect of the Law of Moses that deal with tithing. That is a far narrower topic, and the one you keep trying to force the discussion into.
“Yes, what you’re talking about can be described thus but only if you happen to be a member of the LDS organization & refuse to accept the clear teaching of Scripture.”
It can be described as tithing because of what the term tithing means. It has nothing to do with understanding scripture. It has to do with understanding the English Language, which you seem to want to define as you see fit.
“Right, I will continue to do this, as I said at the beginning of this post the definitions I use are Biblical, I refuse for obvious reasons to accept LDS definitions unless of course they concur with Scripture.”
They are not Biblical, and they are not even in line with the English Language. You have created your own definitions, and then tried to claim them to be the definitions of the terms. You do this frequently, and it gets annoying.
To Others
One might also note that Paul, in his letter to the Hebrews, makes a direct comparison between the tithe paid to the priests under the Law of Moses, and that which Abraham paid to Melchezidek. See Hebrews 7: 1-10, especially verse six in which he writes “But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises.”
But Shem, What caused satan to fall? Did you read Ezekiel 28? It talks about the cause of Satan’s fall. He wanted to become a god, He wanted all the power and wisdom of God. God did not look favorably upon this and it caused Satan to become angry and violent. This was his pride. Pride comes before the fall.
I think the act of wanting to be like God is what made Satan fall. I think it was the same desire that caused man to fall in the garden. I think that’s why the same word is used to describe what happened to both.
I think the greatest lie we can ever be told is that we can become our own god. I think it means we rob God of his glory and deny our need for him. I’m not going to tell you what you believe, I don’t need to. This doctrine is pretty simple in it’s biblical contradiction. You say that I lack the faith to see the proof of it in the bible. I would argue that I have not been conditioned to see it. There is a difference. I hope that doesn’t offend you. I read the bible without any biases or input from others. I’ve never taken a bible study. Ive only read it for myself. When I read the D&C and learned about Mormon doctrine, it was after reading the Bible. I understood the Bible first. I was never conditioned to believe anything about either. I read them both for what they were and all I see are the blaring contradictions. The contradictions I saw and the convictions in my heart were not placed there by any “anti mormon” theology/books. My understanding of Mormon doctrine comes from me and my husband’s search for truth. He was a non practicing LDS and I was a brand new christian when we met and began to pursue marriage. I didn’t even know there were any major difference between the two until the day we met with our pastor and he told us he wouldn’t marry us. I learned that night why, I asked my husband what he believed as a Mormon. We discussed it, honestly, and my heart was breaking with every word he spoke because it was so different from what the bible teaches. I told him that we would come from a place of complete ignorance and study both faiths. We found only one to be true and it wasn’t Mormonism.
This doctrine of becoming a god is so anti biblical that it literally scares me. Baptism for the dead, in my mind is fairly harmless and simply done in vain. Believing that one may become literally like God is dangerous. I will pray that somehow this will sink in for you. It is, in my mind, the greatest evil of the LDS church.
Tithing, Temples, and Baptisms, are all false teachings but none of them are as offensive as the one where you may become a god.
Shem,
Pay attention, and stop beating up Old Man. You are wrong, and need to get out of the Mormon Bubble and accept the TRUTH. You said,
First, what is the Torah? The FIVE books of the LAW. What are those books? The FIRST one is GENESIS. So, you are wrong right off the bat. Why? Because Paul says you are. Here is what Paul says,
Are you comprehending this? This is DIRECT EVIDENCE that you are wrong. This is what Old Man is talking about. UNTIL THE LAW… from Adam until Moses there was NO LAW. Therefore THERE WAS NO LAW OF TITHING. PERIOD. Especially not in the way that Mormons portray it. It just wasn’t there. Were there promises from God to his prophets? Yes. But there was NO LAW, therefore NO TITHING. Old Man is dead on correct, and you are floating off somewhere in your bubble.You said,
No, not that it was “a true principle”, the reason is that it was part of the LAW of Moses, and was done away with when the HIGHER LAW of LOVE was ushered in by CHRIST. And thank you for admitting that the Mormons don’t have faith enough to obey the higher spiritual laws given by their God. We all know that this is true, and that is why they have reverted back to the law of Moses and forced regulations. And the having all things in common was an AGREEMENT that the early saints entered into VOLUNTARILY. It was NOT a forced regulation, like the Mormons have.You said,
The threats by Mormon “prophets” which I have detailed in many posts on this blog. Mormon “prophets” by initiating again the law of tithing have placed a CURSE on their own people:
Paul made it clear that we are no longer under the law, but under GRACE:
By going back to the law of Moses, Mormons have let sin have dominion over them, which is evidenced by the fact that they use forced regulation to make their faithless members comply with their LAWS. They frustrate the GRACE of God:
Righteousness will NEVER come by forced regulations. It’s been almost 200 years and the faithless Mormons still can’t live their higher law of consecration, can they? Why? Because they have turned the Grace of Christ into the dead letter of the law, and they will NEVER be able to go back, because the whole Mormon Corporation is run on this one regulation. In the Mormon Bubble they continue to ignore the strong admonition of Jesus REAL apostles,
In other words, if you have love, you would be keeping God’s commandments (Love God and your neighbor) WITHOUT THE FORCED REGULATIONS WHICH ARE NOT NEEDED.
Mormons have added on Pseudapigraphal writings (which include their forced regulations) of those claiming to be “prophets” to their cannon. They ignore the express teachings of the Bible to follow them into error. Wake up out of your ignorance and pop that bubble. You said,
And then told OM this:
You did mention tithing in connection with Abraham, yet you then reversed yourself and said it wasn’t about tithing. REMEMBER, You did say:
Paul says they didn’t live under LAW. The Patriarchs received PROMISES for worshiping the TRUE GOD. The LAW was established to lead them to CHRIST, the very CHRIST promised to the patriarchs. THE LAW of sacrifice atoned for the sins of the people, yearly. This was not instituted until the time of MOSES. Until then, THERE WAS NO LAW. The Patriarchs lived by FAITH. They needed no LAW. They knew right from wrong because they conversed with God. Please read ROMANS because it answers all of this in clear, simple to understand terminology that does not exist in the Mormon Bubble.You said,
No it doesn’t. Those Patriarchs lived by FAITH, not LAW. They paid as they felt like it, as WE DO NOW under GRACE. You argue out of ignorance of what the Bible actually SAYS.You said,
Really? You claimed that Old Man said this:
That is NOT what Old Man is claiming. He said,
He also said,
You ignore what Old Man states over and over and then you put words in his mouth and then claim that you didn’t. Shem, you don’t understand tithing. You don’t understand the Bible. You interpret it though the lens of the Mormon Bubble. I’ve just PROVED by EVIDENCE that you are wrong. Please read this with some comprehension and STOP BEATING UP OLD MAN when it is YOU who don’t know what you are talking about. And I’ll leave you with your own quote…
… and answer it: Yes it is. I just did it.
Sigh.
THIS proves that Abraham lived under the law? Really? Do you ever read ANYTHING with COMPREHENSION?
The COVENANT is in BOLD (verse 18). It is not a set of LAWS, it was a PROMISE (which I spoke of above). They lived by FAITH that God would fulfill his oath. Again, they NEEDED NO LAWS. Only in the Mormon Bubble would one think so. You told Old Man:
You did cherry pick the verse because in your original comment you didn’t quote verse 18, which explains what EXACTLY the covenant was. You obviously know yourself very well Shem.
Brewed
I read Ezekial 28, and it doesn’t talk about Satan. It is talking about the king of Tyrus, or the City of Tyre. This city was a major sea port in the ancient world and for a time was allied with David and Solomon. The king was greatly blessed and for this reason his city is compared to the Garden of Eden. Yet, in his prosperity the King became prideful and began to set himself above God, and for this he stood condemned. Now, there is a parallel between this and Satan, and it is not about Satan.
Satan did fall, but not for wanting to be like God. He fell for wanting to replace God; for desiring the Father’s glory and authority to rule in Heaven. This pride caused his fall, and so now he seeks to drag all men down with him.
From what you say concerning this doctrine it seems to me that you do not understand it. I hope you take no offense, but I do not believe anyone can really approach any topic without previous bias influencing them. In this case I think your previous bias has caused you to assume that we believe we will somehow replace God, or believe that we will become equal to him in some way. This is not the doctrine, and anyone who seeks this is guilty of the same pride that caused Satan to fall. We do not seek to replace God, and he will always be greater than us, for he will always be our Father and our God. When we say we will become gods we are not using the term in reference to the Supreme Being, as we will never attain to this. We are using it in reference to the divine state, in which we will enjoy not only the presence of our Father, but also share in his knowledge and power; but not in his authority and glory. We will have a measure of glory, yes; but our glory will only serve to heighten his and make him even more glorious.
Proverbs 17: 6
“Children’s children are the crown of old men; and the glory of children are their fathers.”
As I believe we are the literal children of deity, I believe this proverb applies to our eternal family as well as our earthly. The crown of Old Men or the glory of the Father is that his children have children. Our glory is that we are the children of our Father. We can have no glory if we are not his children and do not honor him as our Father.
I have seen no contradictions between the Bible and any other scripture. I have seen only contradictions in the way that people choose to interpret the Bible.
I am aware that Ezekiel 28 is talking about the king of TYRE, this is a parallel for Satan. http://www.goodseed.com/learning/article/isaiah-14-ezekiel-28/
This is great place to look to understand this further.
“The Father has promised us that through our faithfulness we shall be blessed with the fullness of his kingdom. In other words, we will have the privilege of becoming like him. To become like him we must have all the powers of godhood; thus a man and his wife when glorified will have spirit children who eventually will go on an earth like this one we are on and pass through the same kind of experiences, being subject to mortal conditions, and if faithful, then they also will receive the fullness of exaltation and partake of the same blessings. There is no end to this development; it will go on forever. We will become gods and have jurisdiction over worlds, and these worlds will be peopled by our own offspring.” (Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 2:48, quoted in Achieving a Celestial Marriage Student Manual, 132, 1976) ( My husband studied from this handbook because it belonged to his Mom from when she was in seminary)
“Exalted parents are to their children as our Eternal Parents are to us. Eternal increase, a continuation of the seeds forever and ever, eternal lives — these comprise the eternal family of those who gain eternal life. For them new earths are created, and thus the on-rolling purposes of the Gods of Heaven go forward from eternity to eternity.” (Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, The Millennial Messiah, 23, 1982)
It would appear that Mormon’s believe their heavenly father is a progressed being and that we, if we are righteous, will follow in his footsteps.
We know nothing of our heavenly father’s heavenly father. If he exists, it would appear that our mormon heavenly father replaced him and takes all of his father’s glory unto himself.
If Mormons one day become gods of their own planet with spirit children of their own that worship and adore them, Why would they worship said Mormon’s heavenly father (aka God)? Mormons don’t worship their heavenly father’s heavenly father. So why would you spirit children worship your heavenly father?
This is becoming God, this is taking God’s glory onto ones self.
and how does any of this jive with Isaiah 14?
“How you are fallen from heaven,
O Lucifer, son of the morning!
How you are cut down to the ground,
You who weakened the nations!
For you have said in your heart:
‘I will ascend into heaven,
I will exalt my throne above the stars of God;
I will also sit on the mount of the congregation
On the farthest sides of the north;
I will ascend above the heights of the clouds,
I will be like the Most High.’
What your saying you believe sounds very nice and somewhat christian like, except your throwing the word god around like it has no significance. It also sounds very watered down compared to the words of leaders like Young, J.F. Smith and McConkie.
Where is the official mormon doctrine on the subject anyways? And what is required to become righteous enough to be exalted?
Tithing? Temple work? Sealing to your spouse?
By the way, This would all mean that God would have a wife..Where is she ever mentioned? Why does she not get any of the glory when she had an obvious hand in creation?
This doctrine of becoming a god is exclusively mormon and coincidentally so are all the ways of achieving godhood. Yet, this is supposed to be the restored “christian” church? These are some of the “plain and precious truths” that have been lost?
Aside from the fact that the bible specifically says there are no other gods but God, the doctrine doesn’t make sense and seems to give man a much higher sense of purpose then he ought to have.
There is so much emphasis put on doing all that you can do and the purpose of it is to obtain Godhood.
Maybe some Mormons do it to please God but there is defiantly a carrot leading you to do things for the church.
Seems pretty convenient that works like tithing and fulfilling your church calling would have a part in your exaltation.
It also seems like a good way to manipulate women into marrying you for early church leaders involved in the polygamy camp. “If you marry me, you too shall be exalted to godhood”. Granted your only purpose in the afterlife, as a women, is to pop out spirit babies… Doesn’t sound much like the warm and fuzzy picture of a family standing hand in hand in the celestial kingdom I get when I hear LDS talk about forever families.
Reality? Wife’s pregnant, millions of spirit kids running around, husband’s a powerful and all knowing god adored and revered by his children. Wife gets no mention, no honor, no glory, just pregnant.
As a women, this doesn’t sound like a very pleasant way to spend eternity.. Not to mention, your husband could be sealed to other women and you would have to spend eternity in a plural marriage.
In fact while my mother in law was single and dating, she was seeing a widower. She didn’t want to marry him because he wanted to be sealed to both her and his former wife.I could see why men would like this doctrine. I can also see why so many LDS women are depressed and stressed about being the perfect wife and mother.
No wonder my BF in Utah always says she should get used to working hard because for her there is no rest, not even in the afterlife.
And you claim this is better than an afterlife spent worshiping and being complete in God?
Maybe it’s because your a Man? Maybe its because you don’t seem to grasp the wonder and beauty of an afterlife spent in the presence of God?
“Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.”
Isaiah 43:10
“‘I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me.” Isaiah 44:6
“Is there any God besides Me, Or is there any other Rock? I know of none.” Isaiah 44:8
“I am Yahweh, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God.” Isaiah 45:5
“Surely, God is with you, and there is none else, No other God.” Isaiah 45:14
“I am Yahweh, and there is none else.” Isaiah 45:18
“Is it not I, Yahweh? And there is no other God besides Me, A righteous God and a Savior; There is none except Me.” Isaiah 45:21
“I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me” Isaiah 46:9
“O Lord, there is none like You, nor is there any God besides You” 1 Chronicles 17:20
“there is no one like Yahweh our God.” Exodus 8:10
“since indeed God is one” Romans 3:30
“Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God” 1 Timothy 1:17
That’s 12 verses that say there is only one God.
And there are many more.
No contradiction you say?
Brewed
You speak in ignorance to the truth. You are as Job, one who darkeneth words without understanding.
I am not going to get into a huge debate over the details of eternity, as such is pointless. I do not have a full knowledge, and if I was to do so I would be as Job as well. I do not understand all things, nor do I pretend to. But I do know, and the doctrine of the church agrees with me, that I will never replace my Father.
“We know nothing of our heavenly father’s heavenly father. If he exists, it would appear that our mormon heavenly father replaced him and takes all of his father’s glory unto himself.”
I see no such thing. Our father has not replaced his. His father is our grandfather, and holds that honor, and still holds the glory of being the Father of our Father. Your reasoning makes no sense. When your children call your husband father do you say that he your husband has replaced his father? When we grow to adulthood and begin to raise our own families do we replace our parents? Of course not. They are still our parents, and our children honor them as their grandparents. Our children only serve to increase the glory our parents, as it states in Proverbs, or did you not understand this?
“What did Jesus do? Why; I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds come rolling into existence. My Father worked out his kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to my Father, so that he may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt him in glory. He will then take a higher exaltation, and I will take his place, and thereby become exalted myself. So that Jesus treads in the tracks of his Father, and inherits what God did before; and God is thus glorified and exalted in the salvation and exaltation of all his children.” (King Follett Discourse)
You may say that, in a sense, Christ will replace the Father, but in so doing will elevate the Father to a higher glory and exaltation, and thus we will never be equal to Him. None of the quotes that you have given in any way contradict this divine truth. When the children are exalted the Father increases in glory. When the children’s children are exalted the children increase, and thus the Father increases again, and so on, so that the children are never equal to their father in glory and honor.
Say what you want, but if you say anything other than this you will be wrong.
“That’s 12 verses that say there is only one God. And there are many more. No contradiction you say?”
That’s 12 verses that you misunderstand, and there are many more. There are no contradictions when the full truth is known.
Only with cults does the Bible not mean what the Bible says. There are no contradictions when these verses are viewed through the interpretation of false “prophet” Jo Smith. We all know this. Quoting heresy wont help here. And thanks for affirming that the Journal of Discourses contains doctrine. Thank you Shem, for quoting from it to make your point. We shall do the same and now there should be no more objections to anyone doing so. Therefore, we can now accept that Mormons worship Adam as their God since their “prophet” Brigham Young says so in the Journal of Discourses. Thanks again Shem, for affirming this for us. You also affirm that the Mormon “Father” was once a man and a sinner who “worked out his kingdom with fear and trembling”, and that the Book of Mormon is false because it says that God was God “from all eternity”. Thanks again Shem. Please note this, all of you lurkers.
How did I misunderstand whats being said? How could “I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me” be misunderstood? “there is no God besides Me” misunderstood?
12 times I’ve misunderstood what clearly says there is one God? No one can be like him?
By the way I a totally shocked that you quote the king follet discourse. When ever I’ve discussed the heresies found within it I’m told it’s not official church doctrine..
Everything you’ve said is strictly Mormon doctrine and completely based on the thoughts and ideas of Mormon prophets. Nothing about it is Christian, nothing about it is biblical.
If I’m ignorant, please enlighten me.
Shem said,
Mormon scripture proves that this is a complete lie. Read it for yourself, lurkers:
Jo said they will be GODS, because they have ALL power, and ALL THINGS ARE SUBJECT UNTO THEM. This is not just taking on the “divine nature”. That is what CHRISTIANS teach, NOT Mormons. If you have ALL POWER, then you have ALL POWER. That is what God has. Jo teaches exactly what Satan wanted. Jo taught “then shall they be above all”. What does above ALL mean? Above ALL. This is heresy pure and simple, brought to you straight out of the Mormon Bubble.
Shem
You said
“When we grow to adulthood and begin to raise our own families do we replace our parents? Of course not. They are still our parents, and our children honor them as their grandparents”
As far as I’m aware there is nothing in LDS theology that causes you to worship, honour or give glory to a ‘Heavenly Grandfather’ so rather than telling Brewed that she doesn’t understand it might be better if you understood that your analogy doesn’t fit & cannot be applied to that particular LDS doctrine.
“What did Jesus do? Why; I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds come rolling into existence. My Father worked out his kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to my Father, so that he may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt him in glory. He will then take a higher exaltation, and I will take his place, and thereby become exalted myself.”
If you truly believe that then you are dangerously close to mocking God & I would earnestly ask you to reconsider. Apart from the fact that there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in scripture to support any of the above, it is very close to blasphemy.
Brewed said
“That’s 12 verses that say there is only one God. And there are many more. No contradiction you say?”
You said this in reply
”That’s 12 verses that you misunderstand, and there are many more. There are no contradictions when the full truth is known.”
How can you possibly say that Brewed misunderstands the verses she quoted? Are you trying to say that they mean something other than the clear & obvious meaning? Are you claiming that Joseph Smith, a man whose doctrines concerning the hereafter were plagiarized from the heretical writings of Emanuel Swedenborg, is correct & that every Christian of the last 2000 years is wrong? Sorry Shem I’m afraid the only person misunderstanding those verses is your good self.
This constant theme of yours that we don’t understand is wearing a little thin so if you still wish to claim that Brewed is wrong in her understanding then please help us all to understand the ‘full truth’ by explaining what each of the 12 verses she quoted really mean.
Incidentally, If, in the Celestial Kingdom, a Heavenly Grandfather is not worthy of mention & doesn’t even reside there, are we to understand that one of the big ‘selling points’ of the LDS namely the concept of ‘eternal or forever families’ is not true? A man could be busy creating & populating his own world so where would his children, born in this world fit in & where would his parents be? Sorry but I find it too confusing & illogical to take any of it seriously.
I hope you weren’t too offended there Shem..
I was just having a discussion with an Atheist online. He asked me some really hard questions. To be honest, I didn’t want him to be right and I was so afraid I didn’t reply to his questions for a long time. I didn’t fully read what he was asking. But the questions kept nagging me. Funny how the holy spirit does that.. I finally got around to looking at what he was saying and did some research. Guess what. I had nothing to be afraid of. I also learned some amazing things about God in doing my research. It strengthened my understanding of him.
There is truth to be grasped. I just hope and pray you have the courage to seek it.
Brewed
I am not offended in the least bit. I have been preoccupied with moving my family into a new house, and so I have had no opportunity to respond to your questions and statements. I take that opportunity now. I have never been afraid to answer any question.
“By the way I a totally shocked that you quote the king follet discourse. When ever I’ve discussed the heresies found within it I’m told it’s not official church doctrine..”
I honestly can’t say whether it is official or not. It was printed in the Ensign, an official publication of the church, back in 1971, in its entirety. It is also quoted extensively in the Priesthood / Relief Society manual ‘Teaching of President of the Church: Joseph Smith.’ This would lead me to believe that it is official. But regardless of this, it was a sermon by Joseph Smith, the head of our dispensation, and he states that it was given under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. That is enough for me to accept it as truth.
“Everything you’ve said is strictly Mormon doctrine and completely based on the thoughts and ideas of Mormon prophets. Nothing about it is Christian, nothing about it is biblical.”
The funny thing is that I can find evidence of all of this in the Bible. I generally don’t list it in forums such as this, as I am usually ignored, ridiculed, and lectured on how I don’t know and understand the Bible.
Let me give you an example: John 5: 19 “Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.”
If the Son only does what He has seen the Father do, than logically the Father has lived in mortality at some point. I know that you and Old Man will pounce on this and tell me how much I don’t understand, but try to understand what I am saying first.
As to misunderstandings, let me illustrate.
You give Isaiah 4: 6, but you do not give it all. The entire verse states “Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.”
So, in this particular verse we have at least two specified individuals (Lord the King of Israel, being the Father; the Lord of Hosts, being the son) and they are identifying themselves as a single unit, which is God. Thus we have a clear statement of the Godhead; three individual beings that compose a ruling counsel, which counsel is God, or the supreme governing body of heaven and earth.
Then let us consider the New Testament verses of Romans 3: 30 and 1 Timothy 1: 17. To put them in perspective let us look first at 1 Timothy 2: 5 “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” So, these verses speak of the Father, in his unique roll as Head of the Gods, and thus the only God that we worship. There is only one God that will justify men, and that is the Father, the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God. Yet, it is also taught that Christ is God, and we have already seen that in Isaiah 44: 6. Again this shows clearly the nature of the Godhead, with the Father being the one supreme being, to whom even the Son and the Spirit are subject.
To keep this brief, let us look at all the other scriptures collectively, with the exception of Isaiah 43: 10. All these state that there is no other God beside him. Now, I find it very revealing that the word Beside most commonly is used in comparison. Thus these verses are not necessarily denying the existence of other divine beings, but are merely asserting God supremacy in regards to these other beings. Thus they still allow for many gods to exist, but only for one Supreme God.
Lastly, it must be understood that the Bible is written in regards to this Earth, and thus all the statements contained in it must be seen in this context. For this earth our Father is the Supreme being, and together with the Son and the Spirit comprise the ruling presidency of both heaven and Earth. Anything dealing with any other world is not included in this.
Old Man
I always intended to give an explanation, but I did not have the time when I last posted.
“As far as I’m aware there is nothing in LDS theology that causes you to worship, honour or give glory to a ‘Heavenly Grandfather’ so rather than telling Brewed that she doesn’t understand it might be better if you understood that your analogy doesn’t fit & cannot be applied to that particular LDS doctrine.”
My analogy fits perfectly, and only one who doesn’t understand the doctrine would think otherwise. Anyone who thinks that we will not have a knowledge of all the generations of Gods that came before us when we are ourselves exalted does not understand the scriptures, for they state that a day will come “in the which nothing shall be withheld, whether there be bone God or many gods, they shall be manifest.” (D&C 121: 28). Anyone who thinks that once we know the previous generations we will not give them honor does not know the doctrine.
This is another out of context teaching by Jo Smith. To understand what Jesus was really saying, read the whole episode IN CONTEXT. Smith’s out of context rendering is reading WAY MORE into the text than is there.
Jesus is speaking about the works of the Father. Not some mythical earth life that never took place.
Unfortunately you can only find this view within the Mormon Bubble. It is not found in the Bible, but in the blasphemous Book of Abraham & Book of Moses, both an invention (Pseudepigrapha, Greek, “falsely attributed”)of Jo Smith.
Shem
You said
“My analogy fits perfectly, and only one who doesn’t understand the doctrine would think otherwise. Anyone who thinks that we will not have a knowledge of all the generations of Gods that came before us when we are ourselves exalted does not understand the scriptures, for they state that a day will come “in the which nothing shall be withheld, whether there be bone God or many gods, they shall be manifest.” (D&C 121: 28). Anyone who thinks that once we know the previous generations we will not give them honor does not know the doctrine.”
I don’t want to get too involved with this but your analogy doesn’t fit because we are talking about the present time, not some indeterminate time in the future. Your analogy is only valid to those who hold the same beliefs as you. You further say that I don’t understand ‘the scriptures’ & by that I assume you’re referring to Mormon beliefs. Sorry Shem, no Christian would accept extra-biblical revelation as Scripture.
You said to me a while back that ‘you cannot prove a negative’ well, I’m throwing the ball back in your court & saying to you that you cannot use Mormon doctrine (D&C 121: 28) to prove Mormon doctrine. That, as I’m sure you’re aware, is circular reasoning. What you really need to do on a Christian site is present proof or some kind of evidence for your doctrines from ‘real Scripture’ namely the Bible.
There are several other points you raised, mainly to Brewed but as they have already been more than adequately dealt with by Grindael I won’t ‘pounce’ on you, not that I’m in the business of pouncing on anyone, I just respond to what’s said. I will however make a general comment concerning those things. I’m fascinated by the way that most LDS doctrine can be supported only by the use of one or all of the following methods. Faulty exegesis, the use of eisogesis or quoting from your own literature. I don’t believe in making things complicated when they’re actually quite simple so I’m much more inclined to use the principle of Occams razor.
Old Man
Sorry, but I am not going to allow you to control and regulate the discussion. To say that I can’t explain LDS doctrine by using LDS sources is absurd. To say that I can’t use one LDS doctrine to shed light on another is just as absurd. I have never engaged in circular reasoning, and the accusation is absurd.
You might as well tell a person that he is using circular reasoning when he uses algebra to explain calculus, as that is using math to explain math.
The simple fact is that I use truth to explain and teach truth, and that is the only way to teach or discuss anything. I am not here to convince you of anything. That is not within my power. I am here to expound and explain the true doctrines of the gospel as contained in the church that Christ has set up in these last days; that being the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. To do this I need only to know the doctrine, and then have the ability to explain it in an articulate way. Whether you accept that doctrine is inconsequential to my purpose.
“What you really need to do…is present proof or some kind of evidence for your doctrines from ‘real Scripture’ namely the Bible.”
I have yet to see anyone here restrict themselves solely to the Bible, so until you follow this practice don’t expect me to even consider doing so.
Shem,
I appreciate your effort to make me understand what you believe.
I just cannot see it. It appears that you are trying to wedge Mormonism into Christianity.
It’s a square peg in a round hole and requires that either one or both be altered to make it work.
I believe the Bible first. It is authority. Anything that tries to diminish or alter what it contains is in for a great deal of trouble.
I think you are sincere but very much blind to the truth. Harsh words, I know.
Lets dive into one of the verses you called me out on.
Isaiah 44:6
The word beside there is bilade. It means; apart from, except, without.
That means if our God did not exist there wouldn’t be ANY gods.
If I were to take your approach I would have to infer an awful lot that isn’t there and stretch the greek to make it a different meaning.
Shem
You said
“Sorry, but I am not going to allow you to control and regulate the discussion. To say that I can’t explain LDS doctrine by using LDS sources is absurd. To say that I can’t use one LDS doctrine to shed light on another is just as absurd. I have never engaged in circular reasoning, and the accusation is absurd..”
You weren’t explaining you were trying to prove something, however, I’m not going to be drawn into any more of your silly arguments it’s too much like arguing with a politician. Just explain to me how I am trying to control & regulate the discussion as you seem to say something along those lines almost every time I make a statement of any kind. I’ve lost count of the times you have done it & I stand by what I said.
“The simple fact is that I use truth to explain and teach truth, and that is the only way to teach or discuss anything.”
I wish that were true but unfortunately it’s not. How many times have you twisted what I’ve said when I’ve proved you wrong in order to make your argument appear more persuasive? How many times have you attempted to make yourself appear the ‘good guy’ with the use of false accusations directed at me? Please don’t insult me by claiming that you speak only the truth when you know you are being dishonest simply by claiming to do so.
I said
“What you really need to do…is present proof or some kind of evidence for your doctrines from ‘real Scripture’ namely the Bible.”
You replied thus
“I have yet to see anyone here restrict themselves solely to the Bible, so until you follow this practice don’t expect me to even consider doing so.”
The Bible is my ONLY source of doctrinal truth & as far as I’m aware the same applies to every other Christian in here. It is all any Christian would use to make a point concerning doctrine. If you can show me where I, or any Christian, use other sources for doctrine then please do so. If you can’t do that then do the decent thing & accept that you have made another false accusation not just about me but also about every other Christian in here. When you have done that then I’ll expect you to do what you implied in the above statement, use the Bible to prove the truth of LDS doctrine.
Old Man
By trying to dictate what sources and what arguments I am allowed to use you are trying to control and regulate the discussion. When you tell me I can’t use the Doctrine and Covenants to explain the doctrine of my church you are attempting to exclude relevant sources that you personally don’t want yo use.
In the past you have tried to control and regulate the discussion by insisting on using your definition of words, and throwing around false accusations when I refused to accept them.
In every discussion I have engaged in with you you have tried to assert your control in one way or another.
“The Bible is my ONLY source of doctrinal truth & as far as I’m aware the same applies to every other Christian in here.”
The why does everyone feel the need to quote other sources to support what they believe the Bible says. You have, on more than one occasion, given quotes from other scholars for this very reason (usually with the introduction of ‘I’ll let someone smarter than me explain it). So, if you are going to site any source other than the bible in an effort to explain what you believe the Bible means than I will do the same, regardless of whether or not you accept the source or not.
Brewed
“The word beside there is bilade. It means; apart from, except, without. That means if our God did not exist there wouldn’t be ANY gods.”
But since he does exist this leave it open for there to be other gods, just ones that are in some way attached to him. Thus, again, this is more in support of what I have said.
However, in my searches I have not seen this to be the meaning of the word. Rather I have seen exactly what I have stated before. As an adverb it means near, close to, or equal to, and in every dictionary I have seen this is the meaning of the Hebrew word used.
“Anything that tries to diminish or alter what it contains is in for a great deal of trouble.”
I agree that anyone trying to alter or diminish this record is in a great deal of trouble. I would, however, make a distinction between altering the Bible and simply interpreting it differently.
Shem
“By trying to dictate what sources and what arguments I am allowed to use you are trying to control and regulate the discussion. When you tell me I can’t use the Doctrine and Covenants to explain the doctrine of my church you are attempting to exclude relevant sources that you personally don’t want yo use.”
I have never tried to dictate your sources or your arguments all I have said is that Mormon sources are not acceptable to Christians & it should be pretty obvious why that is so. You were not trying to explain the doctrine of your church; you were trying to prove a non biblical doctrine by quoting from a non Biblical source. If you interpret that as trying to control the discussion then you are in the wrong place. This is a Christian site.
“In the past you have tried to control and regulate the discussion by insisting on using your definition of words, and throwing around false accusations when I refused to accept them. In every discussion I have engaged in with you you have tried to assert your control in one way or another..”
Anyone who has followed our discussions, especially the moderators, will know that this is simply not true & I will say no more about it.
“The why does everyone feel the need to quote other sources to support what they believe the Bible says. You have, on more than one occasion, given quotes from other scholars for this very reason (usually with the introduction of ‘I’ll let someone smarter than me explain it).
I’ll repeat what I said before, in matters of doctrine I use only Biblical sources, the quotes you refer to are from Christians who are using the Bible as their source of doctrine & the reason I quote from them is simply as I said, they express themselves far better than I. No matter what you may try to imply it is still Biblical doctrine. Incidentally, if memory serves me correctly I have used the expression ‘I’ll let someone smarter than me explain it’ on just one occasion.
“So, if you are going to site any source other than the bible in an effort to explain what you believe the Bible means than I will do the same, regardless of whether or not you accept the source or not.”
As I said, I have NOT used any source other than the Bible. The only source I have used are Christian sites that obviously use the Bible as their source so, even by using those sites I am still using the Bible. Your accusation is entirely unfounded & is simply another attempt to twist the things I say to suit your own agenda, which in this case is to avoid having to use the Bible yourself. Interesting that you should accuse me of making false accusations & in the very next breath do it yourself.
Well Shem,
Your interpretation is dead wrong.
Your reading into it and putting something there that isn’t.
I have never heard “none beside me” used to say that there are in fact “others beside me”…
Every other judeo christian religion will affirm that there is ONE God.
There are not lesser gods, there are not greater gods, there are simply NO OTHER GOD’s. NONE BESIDE HIM.
Mormonism refutes that based on the claims of JS, not by what the Bible teaches.
Again, your shoving a square peg into a round hole.
If I told you I was sitting in a room and there were none besides me, would that not mean I was alone in the room?
If I said “Is there anyone besides me in this room? I know of none” that means I am alone. There is no one else in the room.
be·sides
/biˈsīdz/
Preposition
In addition to; apart from: “I have no other family besides my parents”.
Adverb
In addition; as well: “I’m capable of doing the work, and a lot more besides”.
Synonyms
preposition. except – save – but – beyond – beside – barring
adverb. moreover – furthermore – also – further – too – again
Brewed,
You are beating a dead horse with Shem. Mormons live in a bubble just like their gods do. So, a god can be in a bubble right next to another god in a bubble, but to them, there is only the bubble that they are in, and all the other bubbles don’t exist and they never talk about them. In the past, they were simply told there were no other bubbles with gods in them. It is only the great Jo Smith who was able to break through all of this and have his god tell him about the other gods, because somehow, all of this was covered up by Moses and the Israelites. But the current leadership won’t acknowledge the other gods in the other bubbles, and still claim, in the face of the reality of Jo’s “revelations” that there is only one god. This makes absolutely no sense to rational thinking people, but to those in the bubble of Mormonism, it is perfect logic.
Brewed
“If I told you I was sitting in a room and there were none besides me, would that not mean I was alone in the room?”
“If I said “Is there anyone besides me in this room? I know of none” that means I am alone. There is no one else in the room.”
Notice that in both of these statements you do not use the same word that is used in the Bible. You are saying ‘besides,’ a term that always carries the meaning of in addition to. This is shown int he definition you give.
be·sides
adverb
1. moreover; furthermore; also: Besides, I promised her we would come.
2. in addition: There are three elm trees and two maples besides.
3. otherwise; else: They had a roof over their heads but not much besides.
preposition
4. over and above; in addition to: Besides a mother he has a sister to support.
5. other than; except: There’s no one here besides Bill and me.
However, the word used in the Bible is ‘Beside,’ which is different than ‘besides.’
be·side
preposition
1. by or at the side of; near: Sit down beside me.
2. compared with: Beside him other writers seem amateurish.
3. apart from; not connected with: beside the point; beside the question.
4. besides ( defs 4, 5 ) .
adverb
5. along the side of something: The family rode in the carriage, and the dog ran along beside.
6. besides ( def 2 ) .
(definitions from http://dictionary.reference.com/)
Notice here that the first three definitions do not speak to exclusivity, but to equality. A very different matter. Now, it is true that ‘beside’ can be used in the same way as ‘besides’ it is not common. So, to go back to your two statements, altering them to use the word in the Bible, we would have this:
If I told you I was sitting in a room and there were none beside me, that would mean I was not next to anyone, but not that no one else was present.
“Is there anyone besides me in this room? I know of none” that means that no one is within close proximity to me in the room, though, again, it does not negate the possibility of others being present.
I understand that most everyone else sees the meaning that you accept in these verses. However, the number of people excepting it does not make it the only, nor the correct meaning of the passage.
Shem, the verses say besides.
Go read em again.
Even if they said Beside, it wouldn’t matter. Why would God say that there are no other God’s beside him to indicate that there were intact other gods. WHy wouldn’t he just tell us “There are other gods but I am the greatest!”.
The God I know doesn’t play games with our hearts and minds. He makes himself and his truth known clearly for our feeble minds.
The Mormon God might enjoy applying the added pressure of forcing us to infer a deeper meaning where there is none. He might enjoy making the Mormon church super secret, elite, and selective. Like limited access to a secret club, this gives Mormons a sense of importance. Most Mormons I know enjoy the act of jumping through church hoops. It makes them feel secure, that what they do has some sort of bearing on how much God will love them. They love working towards exaltation. Maybe thats a little bit of pride? I don’t know, I wish I could understand it.
You can keep you Mormon exalted man god, who’s just one of many. I’ll take my all powerful all knowing never changing God.
Brewed
Isaiah 44: 6, 8
“…and beside me there is no God…Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.”
Isaiah 45: 5, 14, 18, 21
“…there is no God beside me…
…and there is no God else beside me…there is none beside me.”
1 Chronicles 17:20
“…neither is there any God beside thee…”
Seven of the twelve verse you quote use the word beside, and not besides; at least in the KJV. I don’t know about other versions, as I don’t use them. However, I have looked into the Hebrew text and all the translations I can find translate it according to the King James, and so I feel comfortable with this.
“The Mormon God might enjoy applying the added pressure of forcing us to infer a deeper meaning where there is none.”
This is a hollow accusation, considering that God has revealed himself plainly in this day, including the plurality of divine beings that exist. He never forces us to infer deep meaning, but reveals such freely.
“It makes them feel secure, that what they do has some sort of bearing on how much God will love them.”
This statement would be correct if you change the word love to accept. These are the things God has commanded for us to be accepted of him. Regardless of this acceptance he loves all his children and weeps when one refuses to see the truth.
“He makes himself and his truth known clearly for our feeble minds.”
Of course he does, and to those who already know the truth about the nature of God this is clear; as it would have been for many of the Jews at the time of Isaiah, before the doctrine was corrupted.
“I’ll take my all powerful all knowing never changing God.”
Well, I have an all powerful, all knowing, and never changing God as well, so I will also take the additional knowledge that he has revealed about himself gladly.