Regular audio starts at minute 4.
For a written synopsis of the thirteen reasons visit GodNeverSinned.com
Viewpoint on Mormonism Archives
Blogroll
- 365 Reasons
- Apologetics 315
- Ensign vs. The Bible
- Heart Issues for LDS
- Heart of the Matter
- I Love Mormons
- Keith Walker
- Latter-day Saint Woman
- Mark Cares
- Mormonism Investigated UK
- Mormonite Musings
- Mormons are Christians… aren't we?
- Musings on Mormonism
- Of First Importance
- Share the Son Ministries
- The Mormon Chapbook
- The Religious Researcher
- Utah Advance
Links
Subscribe
Join the Discussion
Check out our comment policy.Categories
Afterlife Authority and Doctrine Baptism for the Dead Bible Book of Mormon Brigham Young Christianity Coffee Beans D&C and Pearl of Great Price Early Christianity Early Mormonism Forgiveness Friendship, Interaction, and Evangelism General Conference God the Father Gospel Grace Great Apostasy Jesus Christ Joseph Smith King Follett Discourse LDS Church Marriage and Singlehood Misconceptions Mitt Romney Mormon Culture Mormon History Mormon Leaders Mormon Missionaries Mormon Scripture Mormon Temple Multimedia Nature of God Nature of Man Nauvoo Personal Stories Polygamy Priesthood Prophets Salvation Truth, Honesty, Prayer, and Inquiry Uncategorized Viewpoint on Mormonism Virgin birth Worthiness
FoF,
Are you ignoring my argument, or did you forget, or perhaps don’t have an answer?
I’ll say it again. On its face, your argument says absolutely nothing about sin. You say God had a power to raise himself up again, but without more, that power means nothing as it pertains to sin. One can still have power and sin. Satan has a lot of power and has sinned.
“The dozens of verses in our canon and countless statements from our leaders clearly stating that Christ overcame death for the rest of us apparently do not register in your brains. I think that, more than anything, this reveals something about you very clearly.”
Show us all of these verses in your canon and statements from your leaders. Grindael has done just that. It’s very clear who is right in this discussion. Please take some time and actually study this. I don’t mean to be rude but why should we accept your opinion over the teachings of your prophets? This is the problem I see with today’s Mormons. It’s no big deal to dismiss everything taught or revealed by leaders and prophets. Mormonism has become a free for all. Why follow prophets when it’s clear that you follow your own opinion?
Grindael,
Thanks for all the information. I always learn so much when you post.
MJP,
Name one being who was sinful yet had power “within himself” to lay down his life and take it up again. Joseph Smith said very clearly that the Father lived on an earth “just like Jesus Christ.” He stated that Jesus Christ did what He had seen the Father do. He said that Jesus worked out His kingdom the same way the Father had worked out His.
Those things cannot be said of any other being besides Christ. Sin does not fit into that equation. A sinful person requires a Savior and does not posses the power “within himself” to raise himself from the dead. An atonement is required to empower any sinful person to be raised from the dead. Having the power “within Himself” reflects the idea that God did not require an atonement from anybody else. And this is very different from the rest of us. We are helpless without a Savior. Yes- we will overcome death, but it is only through Christ’s atonement that we are impowered to do so, despite what grindael keeps saying over and over.
The other problem with grindael’s argument is that in attempting to equate Christ with us in His need to have external power to overcome death, he is of necessity increasing the degree or amount of “progress” Christ had to achieve in His resurrection. In other words, grindael is indirectly supporting the doctrine of God progressing, or Christ progressing. Get my drift? He can’t have it both ways.
Another thing to understand in all of this and in understanding what Joseph Smith meant in describing how “God became God” is the context of God supposedly progressing. Inherent in grindael’s desperate argument is the progress in Christ’s existence. I think it is obvious that Christ did indeed progress in some ways. Luke and Mark state that “Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.” This certainly is describing a process of sinless “progress.” And the Book of Mormon teaches that an experiential progress was necessary for Christ to fully be the Savior.
Alma 7:12-13 states, “And he will take upon him death, that he may loose the bands of death which bind his people; and he will take upon him their infirmities, that his bowels may be filled with mercy, according to the flesh, that he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people according to their infirmities. Now the Spirit knoweth all things; nevertheless the Son of God suffereth according to the flesh that he might take upon him the sins of his people, that he might blot out their transgressions according to the power of his deliverance; and now behold, this is the testimony which is in me.”
A person can know everything about the pathophysiology and physiology of back pain caused by sciatica, but experiencing that pain personally adds a completely different dimension in a person’s understanding of that disease process. And in this way, Christ’s experience increased His knowledge and ability to heal and save us.
This is what Joseph Smith was referring to in stating that God had to learn to be God. Before His earthly life, just like Jesus Christ, He was God. But it required an earthly life to obtain a body and gain this type of experience to be fully crowned God and King, “just like Jesus Christ.”
Ok someone help me out here. Im not taking any sides at this moment in time. Im just asking for a little clarification. Half of the stuff that is said on here confuses me to a point that is unreal sometimes.
So the argument is that our Father lived as Jesus on a previous earth, died for the sins of that earth and raised himself up again by his own power. This is also the same way that Jesus on our earth lived a sinless life on this earth, died, and was raised again from the dead.
My problem is this. Jesus did not raise himself by his power or his fathers power. He was raised by the power of the Holy Spirit. The holy spirit is a person. He is a
distinct being all his own. The NT calls the Holy Spirit HE not it. So if this God
reincarnation thing is real than there would also have to be an explanation for the reincarnated being of the holy spirit. Seeing how all of the miracles that have ever been done in the new and old testament were only done by the holy spirit. Without the holy spirit there is no power, there is no resurrection, and there is
only an incomplete god.
LOL, I just read Aaron’s response with D&C 89 encouraging the drinking of beer. So I looked it up online and it really does say you should drink beer. Why have I not read the WofW before? That’s so ironic and funny. No hot chocolate but the beer is encouraged.
Just one more example of Mormon’s picking and choosing what is and isn’t doctrine.
Hey FoF,
I have read the King Follet Discourse backwards and forwards now and I am still not seeing your point.
If anything that piece of work has only proven the blasphemy of the LDS church and old Jo.
How does Jesus rising from the dead have anything to do with God once being man?
You have to stretch, contort, and refute basic biblical principles to make this work. It’s like taking ground beef and trying to pass it off as a dairy cow.
You aren’t making sense.
On top of that at the beginning of the discourse Jo says this ” I feel disposed to speak on the subject in general, and offer you my ideas “. Isn’t that the type of statement you’ve been using to say faulty doctrine is just your prophet’s “personal opinion”?
I wish you could really see clearly here for a moment. I’m going to be praying that your eyes might be open and that you could set aside all else and really look at what God has said about himself. Stop taking Jo’s word for it, stop taking our word for it, and go read HIS word all by yourself. In entirety. Put aside your BOM for a minute and focus on the Bible. If it really matches up, it f it’s really cohesive, come back here and prove it with some sound doctrine.
@CattyJane
My problem is this. Jesus did not raise himself by his power or his fathers power. He was raised by the power of the Holy Spirit.
All three were involved directly in the raising of Jesus Christ(From a biblical point of view). Here’s the evidence:
1. GOD: “God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it.” (Acts 2:24, 3:15, 4:10, 10:40; 13:30, 13:33, 17:31 ESV) (Romans 4:24, 6:4, ESV) These cross-references also talk about the Father raising Jesus from the dead.
2. JESUS: “Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” (John 2:19, 10:11,17-18, ESV) Jesus claims he himself will raise himself from the dead. Contrary to Rabbi Skovac’s claims, Jesus on multiple occasions claimed to voluntarily lay down his life: (John 10:15, 10:17, 15:13; Matthew 20:28, Mark 10:45). This was not later inserted, for if this were the case, then the entirety of the gospels would be suspect and it would no longer be the word of God.
3. HOLY SPIRIT: “If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.” (Romans 8:9-11, 14; 1 Corinthians 12:13, ESV)
If Jesus didn’t raise himself up, then he wasn’t God and also he was not able to fulfill what he promised/prophesied, and therefore he wasn’t a true prophet. But he did raise himself up.
Hope this helps.
FoF, I don’t follow you. I really think you misunderstand grindael. His argument really does seem to contradict yours, and it is very well backed up by quotes of your own leaders.
Immediately as to the power, you seem to suggest that it is that Christ was sinless that he had the power. And because none of us have the power, we need Christ.
But I get confused when looking at the LDS idea of progression. It exists, and is apparently widely accepted, but you seem to deny it. It makes perfect sense that Christ may have sinned but was able to progress to the point where he obtained that power. That actually jives much more with LDS doctrine than what you say. And like others, I think I’d believe the leaders more than some random guy on the internet.
And let me say this, too. What you say sounds more like traditional Christianity than it does Mormonism. We believe that we need a savior, but that the savior is and always has been God. We believe we are distinct in nature and can never be gods ourselves. Following our savior is not a step to our own godhood, but it is our only way to return to our creator. You say we need a savior because we all have sinned, but after that you get very murky and unclear with what it is that following your savior gets you. Is it an eternal life with the Jesus, the Father, The Holy Spirit? Do you progress to bigger and better things?
I am honestly confused as to what it is that you believe. And what I can gather contradicts what others in your faith have said.
(One last point, don’t bring up that other Christians believe X, Y, or Z, because that it irrelevant, and you use it only as a bludgeon to shut down our discussion. “Christians” who believe Christ may have sinned are simply wrong. If they were here, or I hear someone say that, I would correct them immediately.)
@CattyJane
The first line of my response to you is a quote from your previous post, even though it is in italics.
FofF
You don’t understand the trinity and you don’t understand the resurrection.
The Bible says the Jesus raised Himself. It also says that God raised him. It also says the Holy Spirit raised Him.(John 2:19, Rom. 10:9, 1 Pet. 1:21, Gal. 1:1; Eph. 1:17,20, Romans 8:11). From a Mormon perspective this would look like a contradiction but with proper understanding of the Trinity you would see that God is Jesus, The Holy Spirit, and The Father all in one. They don’t operate separately. Jesus was God in flesh. I found this blurb helpful: http://carm.org/jesus-raise-himself
You have to understand that Jesus was FULLY God when he came to earth. He was also FULLY human.
He did not progress in this direction. He grew in wisdom and stature and favor with man and God because he was fully human. He had to grow. Nowhere does it say he had to grow into being God, He came that way. I don’t understand how this equals the Mormon definition of progression. Doesn’t mormon progression involve sin anyway? Isn’t that why Mormons see the fall as a good thing, so that we might be tested?
Isn’t Mormonism fun?
I mean it’s all just endless, mindless speculation.
Come up with a man to god theory and then just run with it. Twist it this way and that, speculate, ruminate but don’t do anything to illuminate. Just go with it. It’s a spiritual amusement park of moment to moment thrills and chills; roller coasters, tilt-a-whirl and concession stands.
The problem is that after a day at the LDS amusement park, the folks come home tired, exhausted and sick to their stomachs.
LOL. Now that is funny. See folks, here is Mormon logic at work again…. ignore the pages and pages of information that I’ve put out here and then lie and say that I didn’t. You notice the one not engaging is FOF, he only talks about doing so and has his creepy little short paragraphs of opinion. This is the tactics of those caught up in the cult mindset and it’s really sad.
They will fully “get” that you aren’t saying anything. And Aaron won’t be bothered with someone who has no credible argument which you do not, FOF. Why should he, when I’ve shown that you don’t know anything about your own doctrine?
You see, this is stupidity at work. He still believes his own lies that he says are my views. This is what the Mormons do. They make something up that they say the critics have said and then keep repeating it over and over again like they said it, even though it’s been shown that they haven’t said that at all. This is called lying folks. FOF is really bad at it. What my argument was, and is, is that Christ did not resurrect himself. He did not get power over death until he “overcame all”. Then he got the power. I’ve said this over and over again, but FOF can’t seem to catch on to it. I’ve quoted Mormon authorities, the scriptures and all of this has just gone right over his head because FOF lives in a make believe world that reality can’t penetrate. Instead he has to resort to lying. What is scary folks, is that they truly believe themselves. They latch on to a false idea and no matter what evidence you present, they will not hear it, because they have made up their minds that they aren’t going to give in to the truth. This is called Book of Mormon syndrome.
Of course Christ is resurrected so that is a lot of bunk. More lies from FOF that he can’t back up with any statement I’ve made. Notice he only puts his little one sentence “summary” up, without any evidence, the pages of evidence I’ve provided above that show that Christ overcame death AFTER he shed his blood. What no one is “swallowing”, is your lies FOF.
You see how this works folks? FOF Already admitted that “the power ultimately came from the Father,” but here he is using his same old argument that he himself destroyed! What is the definition of insanity folks? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting to get different results. This is the insanity of the Mormon Bubble.
But Mormon “prophets” DO teach that God progresses! Are you really a Mormon? You don’t know this?
.
More here, with contradictions by later “prophets” and “apostles”.
Grindael is still not seeing the fact that nothing he is posting contradicts my argument.
I have explained that yes, in a sense, The Father and Son both have progressed. And I explained in what sense they have progressed. But neither has ever been a sinner.
I have explained also that Christ’s resurrection is different than our resurrection. Because of His divinity and sinless life, He had power to overcome death. Whether that power ultimately came from the Father and whether the Holy Ghost had a role is really beside the point. Our resurrection is different than Christ’s. We will someday have power to be raised up again. But it is through Christ’s atonement and triumph over death that will empower us to do such. With Christ, it was through the Father. With us, it is through Christ. Difference.
God the Father’s life on an earth was “just like Jesus Christ’s.” Nothing you have posted Grindael contradicts that. I recognize that you don’t see it, but that is the fact.
Brewed- I have clearly stated that Christ was God before His birth on this earth. He had a type of progression- “growing in wisdom and in stature with God and man.” That does not include in any way any sin.
There is another fallacy behind this argument from the critics, and that is the fallacy or straw man claim that we believe sin is necessary to learn and grow. I even heard a person on one of Aaron’s videos state this. But this is not true. Mortal life is necessary for certain types of knowledge and growth. And mortal life entails being in an environment where both evil and good exist. Overcoming temptation provides understanding. We don’t need to sin to learn. There is no statement in our canon that would suggest that sinning is necessary.
You will, of course, argue that we believe the fall was necessary with its attendent sin of partaking the fruit. But there were other options and other possibilities that would have occurred had Lucifer not enticed Adam and Eve. Don’t want to get into a completely differen topic. But the point is that we do not believe sin is necessary to progression. So saying that God progress does not mean He sinned.
MJP- see the comment above. Jesus was sinless according to our doctrine. Any sin would have made Him ineligible to be the Savior. It had to be a Lamb without blemish. I am not understanding why you think I am denying the idea of progress. Saying that God never sinned does not contradict the doctrine of eternal progression
And yes- Christ was God before His birth. And I don’t mean He was the Father. After this life, those who follow Christ will be joint heirs with Christ and will inherit all that God has, including His nature. But we will never, ever be equal to God or Christ.
This really seems like a simple rehashing of the last thread, and so I wasn’t going to comment, but I think few notes are in order.
From the Declaration: The Living Christ we read “Though sinless, He was baptized to fulfill all righteousness.”
The doctrine of the LDS church, which is what is being discussed here, clearly teaches that Christ never sinned while in mortal life. Thus any argument that says that the Father may have sinned because there was a chance that Christ sinned is false, as it ignored essential doctrine.
So, when it is said that the Father lived a life like Christ’s this carries with it the assumption that the Father was also sinless, just as Christ was.
Catty
The Father raised Christ from the dead, in the fact that nothing happens on this earth without his approval. He raised him up in that he gave Christ the power over death, and in that it was through his command that Christ was to do this. (see John 10: 17-18)
However, the actually power was in Christ, as he states in John 10: 17-18. His was the will and power that actually performed the action, though he did it because the Father commanded and gave him the power to do so.
I know of no verse in any scripture that says the spirit raised Christ from the dead. It is said that the Faithful will have the same spirit that Christ had, but not that it was this spirit that raised him.
No it’s not “the fact”. And your little denial here proves nothing. You don’t rebut anything, just come up with one paragraph “opinions” with no evidence. All the evidence I have ALREADY PRESENTED IN DETAIL proves you wrong. So FOF, this is your LAST comment on this thread about this topic. You are done with it. Move on.
FoF,
Then, where/when did Christ get the power to be sinless?
If you believe in progression, did the Father and Christ bypass that progression? Or were they perfect from the beginning? If they were perfect from the beginning, does that negate our possibility of becoming perfect? If that’s true, then we cannot become gods, can we? Or if we can, what are the parameters for becoming a god?
Are you beginning to sense that there are real problem with your position? It is a middle of the road position that seems designed to fit in more with traditional Christianity without denying the faith of your fathers. It doesn’t work.
Shem,
Ok so im sitting here really trying to wrap my mind around this previous god on another world theory and this thought comes to mind. If our Father god was a jesus on a previous earth, who was the spirit child of a father god who was a jesus on a previous earth etc…than wouldnt that mean that our jesus is no longer on our earth but presently being the father god of another earth? Am I understanding this loop correctly or am I misunderstanding something? This is super weird to me. If im right in understanding this little god progression loop than how does that fit into the scripture of Jesus sat at the right hand of the father after he was resurrected? Did he sit down and then get up and leave? I dont get it….
@CattyJane
Sitting at the right hand of the father is symbol of possessing the highest power, or a person being the most approved, having the highest position or a symbol of divinity. It is not a geospatial reference.
If sitting at the right hand of God was a geospatial reference, consider:
1. Adonay(Jesus) sits at Yahweh(God the Father’s) right hand:
“The Lord (Yahweh/Jehovah) says to my Lord(Adonay): ‘Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.'” (Psalm 110:1, ESV)
Yahweh’s right hand must be big enough to accommodate Adonay. Or it could mean that it is the position of the highest importance – this latter postulation makes a lot better sense. In the Hebrew, it’s clear that Adonay sits at God’s right. “Sitting at the right” is a Hebrew idiom or phrase that means of the highest importance, a person having the highest position or divinity.
2. How can God hold the Psalmist’s right hand when Jesus is sitting on it? To understand it as the Jewish people did makes a lot more sense.
“Nevertheless, I am continually with you; you hold my right hand.” (Psalm 73:23, ESV) Can God hold your right hand if he’s in heaven (according to LDS understanding?). Certainly not if Jesus is sitting on it.
“My soul clings to you; your right hand upholds me.” (Psalm 63:8. ESV)
It certainly makes more sense that it is a position of most importance, or a reference to a person of most importance. It’s also an allusion or symbol to/of God’s divinity.
3. Jesus as God is omnipresent, he can be God (the position of most importance) and appear to Paul in his conversion at the same exact moment.
Hope this helps.
cattyjane,
You’ve got it! This is the Mormon multiple god progression theory. There used to be this twisted funny song from my youth called “I’m my own grandpa”. It would fit perfectly here.
Hay, I found it. I’m soooooo proud of myself. You’ll enjoy this by Ray Stevens.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYlJH81dSiw
@FaithofFathers
“I have explained that yes, in a sense, The Father and Son both have progressed. And I explained in what sense they have progressed. But neither has ever been a sinner.”
(Psalm 90:2, ESV) “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever you had formed the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God.”
(Malachi 3:6a, ESV) “For I the LORD do not change;”
It doesn’t really talk about God progressing to being God, since that would mean Psalm 90:2 stating from everlasting to everlasting you became God.” It simply talks about the divinity of God being an everlasting attribute. God was always God and always will be. Can you find progression (God the Father) in any portion of Biblical Scripture?
RJ,
You’re forgetting one critical fact. In Mormonism anything goes. It doesn’t matter what the Bible says, what the BoM says, what the D&C says or what any prophet has said at any given time.
This is because everything is in progression. That’s why Mormonism needs to be constantly updated. That’s the cool feature for Mormons; continuous revelation. Truth, in Mormonism is a moving target.
That’s why what FOF or Shem may say about their HF or Mormon Jesus is such a hoot. It’s whatever anyone wants it to be at any given time because not even these so called prophets who are supposedly hearing from the Mormon god have it nailed down.
Look at our current topic. Every god in the Mormon pantheon of gods was a sinful man with the exception of the Mormon HF and Jesus of this planet. I still don’t know how they managed to get a pass but it hardly seems fair. Now the Mormon holy ghost really got a break because he became a god without even having a body or a wife for that matter.
On top of that there’s a Mormon holy spirit who is likened to electricity.
So declare yourself a prophet and have at it. Anything can work and change and nothing can ever be nailed down.
It might be useful at this time to be reminded of how Joseph Smith tried to use the N. T.
scriptures in John to convince his flock of a new doctrine about God which he had come
up with . We can lose sight of the fact that when Mormons like Fof F talk about God the Father
living and dying and being resurrected on another earth that this doctrine comes from a Mormon
apostle , not Jesus’ apostles . Joseph basically put words in Jesus’ mouth to make his new heresy
more convincing . Using Jn 5:26 , Joseph states : ” The Scriptures inform us that Jesus said
‘ As the Father hath power in Himself , even so hath the Son power’ ” . But then Joseph says :
” to do what ? Why , what the Father did . The answer is obvious —in a manner to lay down His
body and take it up again . Jesus , what are you going to do ? To lay down my life as my Father
did , and take it up again . Do we believe it ? If you do not believe it , you do not believe the
Bible. ”
Notice how Smith put words in Jesus mouth with his commentary ? Jesus NEVER said that
He was laying down His life just like His Father did before Him ( on another earth) .
Jesus’ apostles never taught such a thing , ( and the Book of Mormon does’nt either ). This is a
great example for those reading this thread to see how this whole belief about God the Father
supposedly living as a man and dying and rising from the dead on some other planet started ,
this is why we are to take Jesus’ warning about false prophets /apostles who will come in the
latter days seriously . This whole issue underscores the importance of anchoring our beliefs
in what Jesus’ apostle taught about Him , and His gospel of salvation , and not be detoured
into false doctrine by men today claiming to be His apostles and supervised by Him to teach .
It is also noteworthy to remind people that another scripture used by Smith , and Mormons ,
to prove his new view of God the Father , is Jn 5:19 . Again the scriptural context is ignored and
this verse like vr 26 is conveniently manipulated to sell his new doctrine . This verse was also
used by Mormons years later to prove that Jesus was a polygamist !! It was said that Jesus’
Father was a polygamist , and since Jesus did only what He saw His Father do then wallah —-
Jesus must have been a polygamist also ! This was a very convenient way used to rationalize
the newly revealed ( publicly ) doctrine of polygamy after Smith’s death .
Bottom line for lurkers : look to those apostles who Jesus directed to teach the truths about
Him and the Father , these can be found in the Bible . Despite their attempt to mimic the claims
of Jesus’ apostles , Mormon leaders have introduced their own ideas about God and then
packaged them as ” gospel truths ” .
The above statements by Joseph Smith are in his King Follett Discourse .
One thing to note all of you lurkers. In Mormonism, Jesus is a separate being from the Father. That means that he is only a “spirit child” exactly like we are, except that he is a bit more “advanced”. That is why in Mormonism, Jesus could not have had “power in himself” to raise himself up, he would have needed the “Priesthood”. Brigham Young understood this, so he stated that since Jesus did not have the keys to the resurrection (which he could not obtain until after he was resurrected) that the Father sent an angel with the authority (keys) to resurrect Christ.
Because of this, Christ (in Mormonism) could not have had “power in himself” like he states in John 10:17-18, borne out by all of the Mormon “authorities” I quoted above. This can only be true if God is a Trinity, and Jesus is the Incarnate Word of God. Hence,
Romans 8:11 is how all true CHRISTIANS have the power of the resurrection inside of us.
Ok so now that it has been determined that there is a scripture speaking about the holy spirit raising Jesus from the dead can I get the answer to my question about how the holy spirit fits into this God progression thing? The holy spirit is a pretty important aspect, I think, in the Godhead. If this whole progression thing is going to work out it seems like there should be a holy spirit identity on each of these preexisting worlds. At the present time I am going to assume the NT is accurate and true and explain what I mean and this time I will include my scriptures.
First, the holy spirit is a person. In scripture the spirit is referred to as He and Himself John 14:26 and Romans 8:16 & 26. This means that he cant be some poltergeist mist that hovers around the son and the Father. There is even scripture the proves he is separate from the Father so there is no way he could have “progressed” with him to enter into this world 1 Cor. 2:11. Scripture also talks about the crime of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. It states that we can speak against the son but not the holy spirit….almost as if the spirit is higher ranking than the son. Matt. 12:31 & 32 It even says we won’t be forgiven in the age to come. If the holy spirit is this high ranking, and this important, how did he progress to this level of Godhood?
Falcon,
By the way I watched the video. It was hilarious! I shared it with my coworkers.
What a sad deal, to be a Mormon.
To not know God. What a pity.
I happen to be pitch hitting for a pastor on Sunday and he sent me the bulletin. Guess what this particular denomination has as its theme for this (Sunday). Well it’s “Trinity Sunday”.
I don’t know really what direction I will go here but I think I’ll take an apologetic approach emphasizing how the Christian faith defends the Person and work of Jesus and how the doctrine of the nature of God, within Christianity, differs from sects such as the Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons.
It’s always a shock for some listeners to hear what Mormons believe about God in contrast to what Christianity believes. I use these opportunities to “cult proof” the listeners so when they encounter that knock at the door, they know what’s lurking behind those sincere smiles.
MJP,
Both the Father and Son have always been perfect. But it was not some special power that enabled them to be perfect. Jesus was tempted more than any other being on earth. He was sinless because of His pure determination to obey the Father. He didn’t get a “special deal” or additional power to withstand temptation. It was perfect use of His agency. In other words, Jesus succeeded perfectly in the same conditions we all fail in. If anything, He had it harder than us in being tempted more than any of us. And still He was perfect.
We have the opportunity to become perfect only because of the Love of God and the atonement of Christ. It is only through their mercy that we are given the change to be “joint heirs with Christ.” We don’t deserve it. But they are so great and so merciful that they have made this possible for us.
And no- none of this creates problems for me and my belief. Everything fits perfectly, actually.
@CattyJane
There is even scripture the proves he is separate from the Father so there is no way he could have “progressed” with him to enter into this world 1 Cor. 2:11
Let’s read this verse in its context:
“these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. “(2 Cor. 2:10-12, ESV)
1. The concept Paul is making clear is that no one understands ‘his’ thoughts except by his/her spirit. He is not excluding God from understanding man’s thoughts, but using a parallel to show that it is through the Spirit of God that we can understand spiritual matters.
2. Therefore God’s spirit understands his thoughts because he(the Spirit) belongs to him(God) and ‘comes’ from Him(God).(v.12)
3. We can then conclude that God’s spirit in inseparable from who God is. One God, but a different person from the Father. Inseparable from the attribute of omniscience but still one God.
4. God chooses to reveal things through His spirit. We can understand what God has given us, by the Spirit of God.
5. Paul, when talking to believers, mentions that believers have received not the “companionship” of the Spirit, but the Spirit:
“Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God.” (2 Cor. 2:12, ESV)
Hope this helps.
Sorry guys, I realize on my post before my post to Falcon I didn’t specify that I was asking Shem the question.
@faithoffathers
Both the Father and Son have always been perfect.
Can you reconcile this quote with Marion Romney’s statement:
Man is a soul, that is, a dual being, a spirit person clothed in a tangible body of flesh and bones. God is a perfected, saved soul enjoying eternal life.
What exactly was God saved from then, if he was always perfect? Please explain.
RikkiJ,
There is a direct statement about Jesus being the Son of the Father in the Psalms: “…He said to me, ‘You [Jesus] are my son, today I [Father] have begotten you.” (Psalm 2:7)
The Father spoke to Jesus, in His pre-human existence, concerning the creation of Adam and Eve: “Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness ….'” (Genesis 1:26)
There were plans, from the beginning, to make Jesus a human as shown in Deuteronomy: “…he [Father] will raise up for you a Prophet [Jesus] like me [Moses], an Israeli, a man to whom you must listen and whom you must obey.” (Deuteronomy 18:15, TLB; see also Acts 3:22)
During His ministry on Earth, Jesus stated that He taught not His own wisdom, but that of His Father: “For I have not spoken on my own authority; the Father who sent me has himself given me commandment what to say and what to speak.” (John 12:49)
@CattyJane
There is a direct statement about Jesus being the Son of the Father in the Psalms: “…He said to me, ‘You [Jesus] are my son, today I [Father] have begotten you.” (Psalm 2:7)
The issue with this verse is that Jehovah/Yahweh tells his Son today I have begotten you. But there’s a predisposition that he already exists “You are”. No man has that claim, ever.
What is troubling is that the LDS Church believes that Jesus is Jehovah/Yahweh. So Psalm 2:7 should read this way according to the LDS: “You [Unknown] are my son, today I [Jesus] have begotten you.” (Psalm 2:7, ESV)
Who then is Jesus’ son in that verse? Instead of the Father acknowledging the Son, here if we insert Jehovah/Yahweh where it should read Jesus, the result is something that simply makes no sense. We now have Jesus’ son, and no reference to the Father.
@CattyJane
I’ve substituted in bold, the word [Jesus], where Jehovah/Yahweh appears in the Hebrew text.
RikkiJ,
I commented through email about the trinity. I don’t really understand what you are saying here. Can you explain it a little more? Are you saying because in the LDS church the Father was Jesus on the past earth? I am confused or maybe just tired because its almost midnight here.
@CattyJane
The LDS Church attributes Jesus to being Jehovah in the OT. There are troubles with this verse, when you use that paradigm. Jesus then becomes the one who has a son, not the Father. Thereafter, the son of Jesus sits at his right hand. However, if you use the Jehovah/Yahweh in a ‘God the Father paradigm’, the verse from the Psalm works perfectly.
Hope this helps.
FoF,
You said, “And no- none of this creates problems for me and my belief.” Apparently, you differ from a lot of your leaders and your members.
That’s fine, but it still poses a problem when one looks at the idea of progression. If the two were able to withstand all temptation and you are not, well, you’re in trouble in the afterlife.
Or, it can be reconciled using theology that closely resembles traditional Christianity– just getting to heaven is all the glory we need. Being with God provides all the comfort, and beyond, that we will ever need.
Which is it?
Oh, and FoF, does that mean that Jesus developed the power on his own? Or was he given it from someone else? If he was given it, where did it come from, and where did it come from before that?
So many questions here… I still don’t think you get the problems with your logic.
FOF is using a form of the old Mormon brag that:
“I knew all of that a long time ago and it doesn’t effect my testimony one bit.”
The idea of course is that the Mormon is well informed and has been for long, long time. The information isn’t all that dramatic or new and (the Mormon) is so rock solid in the Mormon program of personal revelation, that he cannot be shaken.
This allows him to be at the top of the local ward heap in terms of dedication, garnering a great deal of status. The guy can get up at the fast and testimony meeting and with a great deal of emotion expressed in a shaky voice, make the old ladies cry.
The former Mormons who post here know the price that is paid for coming to the truth and putting their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
RickiJ,
Sure- they are reconciled easily when you look at how President Romney defined “saved”: “Saved as here used means resurrected and returned as a sanctified, celestialized, immortal soul to the presence and society of God, there to pursue an endless course of eternal progress.”
Somebody who is saved is a Celestial , immortal soul, who is spotless and resurrected. And both the Father and the Son are all those things.
MJP- when a person understands the doctrine, there are no contradictions or problems with the idea. There is not an issue with the idea of progression and God and Jesus always being perfect. Obtaining a physical body is a form of “progression.” Experiencing personally all that is associated with an earthly life is a form of “progression.” And no, sin is not necessary to learn in the environment where both good and evil are present.
falcon- interesting conjecture and placement of thoughts in my brain and words in my mouth. But no. You don’t have it right. My point is that there are no contradictions in this doctrine. The problem arises when a person is not precise in their thinking or sloppy in defining the doctrine. An example is when one person in Aaron’s video claims that sin is necessary for learning. That is totally false. And it is not a complex principle that sin is not necessary for progress or learning. The Book of Mormon teaches this pretty clearly. So a person doesn’t have to be a genius or expert to understand this stuff. Nice ad hom though.
You still have not addressed the idea of progression and compared it to Christ and the Father as applied to you. It seems that you will not become a god, if I understand you correctly, unless you have not sinned.
And I am not surprised to hear you say something like, “When you understand the doctrine, it makes perfect sense.” Well, of course that would be true. If you believe it, you brush aside the inconsistencies. The human mind is capable of all sorts of rationalizations, don’t you agree?
But that does not mean that every rationalization is correct. And that is what we are discussing here. If all you can do is avoid the topic, say, “well, it makes sense to me”, then I am afraid you have little go on.
Catty
I did not see any verse that states the spirit resurrected Christ. Could you re-post it.
As to all your questions, they are good, but I am hesitant to answer them in this forum. This conversation has veered off into the mysteries of the kingdom, and these mysteries are not for every. I do not mean you, but those here who are hostile towards the truth and the church.
I will admit that we know the least about the Holy Ghost out of all the Godhead. We know that his mission is to both testify of all truth and to guide the faithful. Because of this unique mission his testimony is utterly binding, which is why blaspheming that testimony is so great a sin.
To say anymore at this time I think would be unwise. I would ask that you email me at [email protected] if you are still confused. I do not want to get into these things at the present time with the present company.
As to Psalms 2: 7, Christ is frequently the one speaking, though he is delivering the words of the Father. Thus, taking into account the artistic license used when writing poetry (which is what a psalm is) Christ, speaking as though he was his Father, is making this statement and prophecy. This poses no difficulty with the teaching that Christ is Jehovah.
Now, as to the general discussion on progression and sin, I think that in order to sort it all out we would have to refer to a few other doctrines that I am not in the mood to get into at this time. I think FoF is basically correct in saying that the Father and the Son have always been perfect, and that they have progressed. More can be said, but what good would it do? I will add only this; Christ got his power to be perfect from his father; just as he got it from his father, and so on.
@faithoffathers
“Sure- they are reconciled easily when you look at how President Romney defined “saved”: “Saved as here used means resurrected and returned as a sanctified, celestialized, immortal soul to the presence and society of God, there to pursue an endless course of eternal progress.”
I didn’t ask for a definition of being saved. I asked What exactly was God saved from then.
What was God saved from? Please explain.
As to Psalms 2: 7, Christ is frequently the one speaking, though he is delivering the words of the Father. Thus, taking into account the artistic license used when writing poetry (which is what a psalm is) Christ, speaking as though he was his Father, is making this statement and prophecy. This poses no difficulty with the teaching that Christ is Jehovah.
Unfortunately there is no scripture that says that Christ is speaking as God. This is purely conjecture. In fact, the Apostle Paul and Peter clearly make a declaration – that God is the one speaking here:
1. The writer of the Hebrews (Paul according to the LDS) comments on both Psalm 2, and Psalm 110 that Yahweh is the father by reason of appointment:
“So also Christ did not exalt himself to be made a high priest, but was appointed by him who said to him,
“You are my Son,
today I have begotten you”;
as he says also in another place,
“You are a priest forever,
after the order of Melchizedek.” (Hebrews 5:5-6, ESV)
It is clear that the Father is the one speaking to Christ, and Shematwater has to contradict Paul(along with the entirety of those who comment on Jesus being at the right hand of the father) to in order to make his point valid.
2. The writer of Psalms makes it explicit:
“I will proclaim the LORD’s decree: He said to me, “You are my son; today I have become your father.” (Psalms 2:7, ESV)
It doesn’t not say, I speak on the Father’s behalf. It simply states that the LORD(Jehovah/Yahweh) is the declarer.
Thereafter, we can simply compare and make notes. Who is Jehovah or Yahweh?
3. Yahweh/Jehovah is eternally God:
“For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God, who is not partial and takes no bribe.” (Deuteronomy 10:17, ESV)
4. Yahweh/Jehovah is responsible for creating all the heavens:
“Thus says God, the LORD, who created the heavens and stretched them out” (Isaiah 42:5a)
Artistic license doesn’t explain the plain fact the Paul(or the writer or Hebrews) understands the one speaking as the one who appointed Jesus Christ:
5. An introduction to Hebrews further explains it is only the Father speaking to Christ:
“For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you”? Or again, “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son”?
and
“But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.” (Hebrews 1:5,8a, ESV)
There is no issue with Jesus or Christ being the spokesperson for the Father. However, it is clear it is the father who is declaring to the Son.
I should say – there is no issue with Jesus or Christ being the spokesperson for the Father(He did so on earth). However, in Psalm 2:7, Psalm 110:1, the declarer as made clear by the writer of the Hebrews is God the Father.
Rikkij said,
Shematwater has to contradict Paul(along with the entirety of those who comment on Jesus being at the right hand of the father) to in order to make his point valid.
I say,
I get’s worse. In another thread Shem was arguing that the apostasy could happen because Jesus had not “yet” taken his place at the right hand of the Father.
This anti-bibical misconception probably explains the whole Mormon marry-go-round system of priesthood duties and works righteousness in one fell swoop.
quote:
And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.
(Hebrews 10:11-14)
end quote:
peace
RikkiJ,
Marion G. Romney explains his specific definition of “saved” in his talk. He narrows that definition down to a Celestial being who is perfect, sinless, immortal, and exalted, etc.
It is a more narrow definition that what we would normally assume.
God the Father wasn’t saved from sin like the rest of us. Being exalted with an immortal body is considered “saved” from mortal death. In this sense, Christ was also a “saved” being since He overcame death.
“Saved” in Romney’s talk is simply describing the fact that a person had passed through mortality on an earth like this and exists in a celestial state of perfection.
FOF said,
God the Father wasn’t saved from sin like the rest of us. Being exalted with an immortal body is considered “saved” from mortal death. In this sense, Christ was also a “saved” being since He overcame death.
I say,
first question.
can we achieve god hood since we are different than the Father and the Son?
second question
If you say yes how can you possibly know that given the fact the “gods” we know of are fundamentally different than the us and saved in a different sense.
third question
If we can achieve god hood despite the handicap of being sinful can we perform atonement for our spirit children when the time comes for us to do so or our progeny doomed to not progress?
peace
falcon’s questions:
1- Yes. We can “achieve godhood” as joint heirs with Christ. But we will never be on the order of God and Jesus. Hence the passages in our canon which speak of our singing praises to them forever.
2- Yes. We are different than them in some fundamental ways. But because of their power, intelligence, love, and mercy, they have provided a way for us to partake of the divine nature.
3. As far as atonement for our spirit children. No idea. I do not pretend to understand such things.
peace back at ya!
FOF said,
As far as atonement for our spirit children. No idea. I do not pretend to understand such things
I say,
interesting. You don’t pretend to know whether a sinful “god” could provide payment for the sins of his creatures?
wow
You really don’t know whether or not a sinner could provide a sacrifice for someone else’s sins ?
Do you believe that it was necessary that Christ be sinless in order for him to pay for your sins or was his sinlessness possibly irrelevant to his sacrifice?
If the father had sinned would it perhaps be just for him to demand perfect righteousness from his creatures?
do you really not know these things?
you say,
Yes. We are different than them in some fundamental ways. But because of their power, intelligence, love, and mercy, they have provided a way for us to partake of the divine nature
I say,
Is their “power, intelligence, love, and mercy” contingent on their sinlesness?
IOW When you progress will your sinfulness limit your ability to provide these things to your spirit children?
This eternal progression stuff sure is complex. And Mormons say the doctrine of the Trinity is obtuse.
you say,
peace back at ya!
I say,
wow I never expected such a clear and direct fulfillment of Christ’s promise.
quote:
Whatever house you enter, first say, ‘Peace be to this house!’ And if a son of peace is there, your peace will rest upon him. But if not, it will return to you.
(Luke 10:5-6)
end quote:
😉