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
Moroni 8:18 — Things Have Changed for Mormons
This entry was posted in Book of Mormon, God the Father, King Follett Discourse, Lorenzo Snow, Mormon Scripture and tagged King Follett Discourse, Lorenzo Snow couplet, Moroni 8:18, Nature of God. Bookmark the permalink.
142 Responses to Moroni 8:18 — Things Have Changed for Mormons
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
The original Mormon gospel with it’s message about God’s identity and what He
required for people to receive eternal life in heaven with Him and the fullest of blessings
there, lasted a few years but then Mormon leaders drifted into apostasy replacing
their church’s original doctrinal proclamation concerning these beliefs with new
innovations . After Joseph Smith’s death the church gradually drifted even farther off
course.
First,
What does Joseph Smith mean by saying that his King Follet revelation is “simple”? It’s not simple in that it its new and different from other revelations. That’s inherently complex. It’s not that God is simple. A god that is somehow coherently spoken of and actually was once just a man…somehow, and then somehow became more than a man, and then somehow traversed infinity in his being and attributes (although somehow infinity is just not infinite in mormonism) that is certainly not simple. Its Joseph really trying to claim that this god he its revealing is more simple and thus more (likely to be) realthan the Good if the Bible that has never changed in his foundational being and character, being infinitely holy and Good since forever and will be forever? So we have an unchanging (simple in this sense) infinite God (not simple in this sense as we can not fully comprehend such) versus a changing (inherently complex) finite human to “infinite” god (a rather impossible complexity, unless you make “infinite” not mean truly infinite-which isn’t helping the simplicity at all).
I hear LDS leadership past and present make this “simple” claim often. God is “simple”and understandable, the LDS gospel is “simple”, and the implication seems to be that LDS truth is simple compared to traditional Christianity. I’m not sorry, but it’s a lot easier to say always infinite God and saved completely back to Good by His action not ours if only we accept it than to say anything about Mormonism.
No doubt about it. Joseph Smith went apostate and with him “some” of his followers. There were those who would not follow him into apostasy. They held fast to the original “revelation”.
Yup, no doubt about it. These folks stuck to the original rather than opting for the crispy (with apologies to Col. Sanders).
“The Church of Christ grew rapidly as the gospel was spread and was accompanied by the power of the Holy Ghost and with miracles. Unfortunately the devil was also hard at work at this time, trying to destroy the Church from without and within. The tempter used the same lies, appeals to pride and temptations of power that had worked in the past and in short order there were ideas and doctrines introduced which were not a part of the Gospel of Christ. Some of these ideas and doctrines caused the Church a great deal of difficulty and divisions. Some members of the Church were confused because they knew the truth of the Gospel; but confused by the new doctrines introduced by ministers they trusted, that were not found in the Bible or Book of Mormon. These doctrines included the consolidation of power into the hands of one man as “Prophet” (not unlike the Pope) the offices of a High Priest and a First Presidency, the practice of baptism for the dead, the belief in a changeable God and the mysticism of Free Masonry. The name of the Church had even been changed to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”
For Mormons who want “real” Mormonism, here’s your group. If you don’t like this bunch you have a hundred others to choose from. And our Mormon posters say we don’t know what we’re talking about when it comes to Mormonism? Pick your group and your prophet and declare what you proclaim as the honest to goodness Mormon truth!
http://www.churchofchrist-tl.org/about.html
“Mormons are now in disarray and confusion…”
You give yourself way too much credit, Aaron. This is an issue which you and very few others seek to promote. If anything, there are probably very few people who spend more of their time convincing others that God may have been a sinner than you.
But even still, I cannot remember any member of the church with whom I associate expressing any “disarray or confusion” regarding this principle.
Methinks your perception is very skewed on this matter (and many others).
You have never really responded to my points about the King Follett Discourse which you always neglect to include in your analyses.
1. God the Father lived on an earth, “just like Jesus Christ.”
2. God the Father had power within Himself to lay down His life and take it up again during His earthly life.
3. Jesus Christ worked out His kingdom the same way the Father worked out His kingdom.
The change which resulted in the Father’s ultimate advancement to which you refer was no different than the resurrection of Christ and His triumph over sin and death.
Why don’t you even engage these portions of the KFD?
FoF,
Your famous on this blog for dodging questions, and just walking away from topics until something better pops up, Wow, your one to talk.
FOF,
If I remember right, I was right in the area where Joseph Smith gave his KFD on one of my Nauvoo wagon ride tours.
I didn’t feel anything!
Why don’t you expand on your three points with some references as to where JS got this information.
Anyway, I’d say Mormonism is in disarray when you consider all of the different sects and prophets and the fact that the four major sects don’t agree on much if anything.
Again, from the Church of Christ website:
“Some of these ideas and doctrines caused the Church a great deal of difficulty and divisions. Some members of the Church were confused because they knew the truth of the Gospel; but confused by the new doctrines introduced by ministers they trusted, that were not found in the Bible or Book of Mormon.”
My guess is that you don’t follow Mormonism as it was initially “revealed”. What you’ve chosen to believe and practice could very well be considered apostate within the family of Mormonism.
I think this blogger hits it about right.
“The King Follett Discourse provides mormons for much of their current understanding on the nature of god and man — god was once a man, man can become god. In fact,
The King Follett Discourse is more in line with current Mormon thinking, in regards to the nature of god, than the Book of Mormon, which frequently refers to god as a great spirit. It is interesting that a speech given by Joseph Smith at a funeral carries so much doctrinal weight, but other statements, such as his Indian/Lamanite theories are just opinion. Apologists dismiss the Zelph story becuase it contradicts their limited geography theory, but Joseph claimed to receive that information through a revelation.
Was the King Follett Discourse a revelation? It is interesting how the church cherry picks Joseph’s teachings and”revelations” to shape current doctrine. And with Gordo’s recent statements about God/man being just a couplet, perhaps the King Follett Discourse is on its way out.
My experience is that most church members and leaders have spoken of the King Follet Discourse as something nearly sacred. Certainly doctrinal.
But, hardly any of them have ever read it, or even know where to find a copy.”
falcon,
I’m not really sure of your point about not feeling anything in Nauvoo.
The three points I listed are from the King Follett Discourse- the discourse Aaron likes to quote so often in his argument that we believe God could have been a sinner once upon a time. But for some strange reason, Aaron never considers or includes these points from that discourse in his argument. I think he is selectively reading for material to make an argument against the church. I can come to no other conclusions.
And it isn’t necessary for me to explain or know where Joseph Smith “got his information.” I believe he was a prophet.
The church is in “disarray?” Funny. It is fair to say that from your perspective, the church has probably never not been in “disarray.” The church is doing fine.
The Book of Mormon “frequently refers to God as a great spirit?” Frequently? How well do you know the text of the Book of Mormon? The text refers to God as “the great spirit” once. And that is in the context of a missionary trying to explain God to a very apostate and corrupt people who knew nothing about God and had attributed all of creation to some great spirit.
Most members of the church don’t know what the King Follett discourse is. So I think it is unreasonable for you to state that “most members….” refer to the KFD as “sacred.”
RickB- I believe I have answered most of your questions. I cannot be held responsible for the fact that you did not see the answers. And you should recognize that the critics here outnumber the defenders by a big margin. It may be a little unreasonable to expect long, extended answers to every one of the critics questions when a person is allowed 6 posts her a day.
Thanks.
FoF said
Fof,
What is concerning here is that LDS church “has no official stance” on whether or not God ever sinned.
Even Satan knows that God has never sinned. It is absolutely fundamental. Yet your church can’t even form a stance on the issue? Why is that?
You might personally take a stance on the issue but your church refuses to. There is something very wrong with that.
Brewed,
I consider the scriptures and statements of our prophets to be the basis of our doctrine. And those are quite clear and consistent in declaring that God is perfect, everlasting to everlasting, etc. etc.
Does your church have an official statement on the molecular structure of moon rocks?
The church could not be more clear on the topic- read the Book of Mormon. Read the Doctrine and Covenants. Read the Pearl of Great Price. Read General Conference.
It is only the far-out fringe personalities who by nature are conspiracy theorists who make such claims.
Thanks.
First of all Jo Smith butchered the Hebrew to arrive at his conclusions. Second, he takes scriptures from the Bible and turns them into something that they did not say. Third, the King Follett Discourse is a hodgepodge of notes taken at the time, and so you must quote the notes, not what was reconstructed later. I’ve answered your questions, FOF on another thread, (quite thoroughly I might add) so you saying that they were not answered is simply more Bubble talk. Jo said in that discourse,
God never had power to create the spirit of man, God himself could not create himself. Intelligence is Eternal & it is self exhisting.
So “intelligence” came from somewhere, but Jo doesn’t know where? This is ridiculous. And God DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER to create the spirit of man? That is NOT the God of the Bible. This Mormon word play on Jesus words in John is just a diversion. What a mess the Mormon “God” is. Jesus never said this,
Jesus said as the father had power in himself even so hath the son power to do what the father did. Lay down his body. & take it up again-
The Bible says no such thing. It says, ” For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself.” This is speaking of Christ having the power to resurrect people. (As he did Lazarus). This has nothing to do with the Father living on some world in a past life as a “man”, for that is what Smith taught:
“God who sits in yonder heavens is a man like yourselves That God if you were to see him to day that holds the worlds you would see him like a man in form, like yourselves.”
Smith says that he is teaching from the Bible, but the Bible says no such thing. Christ is GOD INCARNATE. The Father was not a “man” that lived on a world, died and resurrected himself, then had Christ as a spirit baby so he could use him as some part of a “plan” that has been going on for eternity, where countless “Christs” die a horrible death to redeem the rest of the spirits that each “god” put on an earth from having sex with his exalted wives, the first of which is always called “Adam” and who are told to “sin” so they can “fall” and have their “Christ” die that horrible death to save that particular world, which happens over and over and over again eternally. The Mormon God is only God because he was the most intelligent of the intelligences that always somehow? existed. How then, did that “god” create a world, make himself a man and get the priesthood, etc? No Mormon CAN or EVER WILL answer this, because it is circular, ridiculous logic. And then, how did this first “intelligence” get a goddess wife to make the spirit babies for that first world? No answers from Mormon “prophets” on that either, because it is ludicrous. You see how ridiculous this is? THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT SMITH TAUGHT. The Bottom line is he said GOD DID NOT HAVE THE POWER TO CREATE THE SPIRIT OF MAN. That is NOT the God of the Bible. It is some pseudo “god” that Smith invented.
The Bible says none of this, and never did. This is Smith’s pseudepigrapha. His heretical Bible commentary, and there is nothing that can ever reconcile this with what the Bible says. EVER. I have already answered all of FOF’s ridiculous questions here. He, of course, did not rebut anything I said, but simply repeated over and over again his false dichotomy about Jo’s twisting of the scriptures, and then ignored all of my responses. This is typical of those who live in the bubble. Now, he comes back with the same ridiculous accusations against Aaron, like he was never answered. This is our BOM “expert” who can’t even quote the BOM correctly, and can’t answer anything about Mormon doctrine. In fact, FOF’s final comment on the thread I linked to was this,
As far as atonement for our spirit children. No idea. I do not pretend to understand such things.
That is the only intelligent thing he has ever said here, and it applies to everything he says because what Jo Smith taught is heretical and illogical and cannot be understood as coming from the Bible.
Falcon,
Our Book of Mormon “expert” is wrong again. Imagine that! Here is the proof,
This must be what FOF was referring to ^^^
And yes, he would be correct about that. What he fails to mention is this ↓↓↓↓
And AGAIN, (reference #2) ↓↓↓↓
FOF said (just to show you again how wrong he is, and how little he knows about the Book of Mormon),
Ummm, this is MORE THAN ONCE, genius. And it is the BOM “prophets” (more than one) that calls God the “Great Spirit”, agreeing that he is one. Once again, our Book of Mormon “expert”, is no expert at all, is he? This would be like asking a Mormon IS GOD A TRINITY of ONE GOD? And them answering YES, GOD IS A TRINITY OF ONE GOD. Ridiculous, and deceptive if the BOM teaches that The Father had a body (which it does not, and never did).
FOF,
So I guess you don’t know that you’re wrong regarding the “great spirit”, huh? I guess the simple way to put it is that you don’t know what you’re talking about, a claim you make all of the time against the Christians, many of whom are former Mormons.
What I meant about “not feeling anything” when the LDS tour guide was regaling the passengers regarding the KFD is that if what Joseph Smith had taught and preached, if it were true I should have felt something right? Isn’t that how your branch of the Mormon religion determines truth? It’s not up to me to work up a feeling if that indeed is how you think the test for truth works.
Actually I depend on the Bible for my truth and any prophetic utterances or word from the Lord has to be supported by Scripture.
When I asked you where Joseph Smith came up with his doctrine contained in the KFD you said because he’s a prophet. That’s not going to make it because the guy wasn’t a prophet. He was a false prophet and if you continue to follow him, you will be spiritually lost for eternity.
Isn’t it amazing how something as fundamental as “who is God?” stymies Mormonism? Smith should have known who God was from the beginning as it appears he had an inkling when he penned the BoM. Then he develops eight versions of his first vision story and pretty soon God the Father has a body of flesh and bones, there are countless gods in the universe all former men and if his followers follow Smith’s system, they will become gods.
I’d think you’d catch on after a while FOF. The guy you follow was clueless.
FOF,
I’d think you’d figure it out pretty soon. grindael is handing you your lunch on every and any topic we cover here. Are you so naive that you think you’re scoring any points at all in your vain attempts to play the role of Mormon apologist? The only thing I can figure is that your Mormon form of thinking has you in a frame of mind imagining the great defense of Mormonism you perceive yourself to be making.
Here’s the deal; grindael along with the other former Mormons thought along the same lines as you do now at one time. By studying Mormonism they came to the conclusion that the religion is totally false. When do you think you will reach that tipping point?
This is not a good place for you to be if you want to continue in the LDS sect that you are a member of. Your testimony can’t handle the truth unless of course you’re not reading what the Christians post here and you’re just writing some regurgitation from FAIR and FARMS.
Every former Mormon has a story of how they fought not giving up Mormonism.
I prayed for you during church service on Sunday. It’s just a matter of time before you close the loop.
FoF,
You are referencing the Book of Mormon as if it were true. You are giving the impression that you might believe that the BoM is an actual historical record of ancient inhabitants in the western hemisphere. You might need to reconsider how you are phrasing your statements because we all know (including yourself) that the BoM is non-scriptural fiction, and poorly written fiction at that.
FOF,
You need to understand that the former Mormons who post here, came to the conclusion that Mormonism is false not because:
1. Someone offended them.
2. They fell into serious sin.
3. They had weak testimonies.
4. They were reading @nti Mormon websites.
5. They were deceived by Satan.
In fact most of them will say they got all the information they needed to conclude that Mormonism was false from Mormon sources. The information is there if a person wants to dig a little.
Also, they read the Bible. The Bible doesn’t support Mormonism so a person has to either come up with some fantastic explanation for that or conclude that the Bible is correct and Mormonism is wrong.
If anyone is in Christ they are a new creature. All the old passes away. All things are new. Knowing Jesus personally for whom He really is, is a liberating experience. It sets us free from performance based religion. We serve God in the newness of the Spirit and not the oldness of the flesh. Because what the Law could not do, weak as it was in the flesh, God did by sending His Son to die for us, He condemned sin in the flesh. Being born again by God’s Spirit sets us free from the Law of sin and death. Anything I may have gained in religion, I willingly surrender to know Christ Jesus My Lord.
Fof, how can god be god from everlasting if he was not always god?
And don’t ignore my questions this time.
MJP
Well the reality is that if the Mormon god was god from all eternity then these Mormon men who hope to emulate him, are also gods right now. It’s really only a matter of degree. They are, after all, gods in embryo.
It’s the same system that all of the previous gods went through and that which the current god hopefuls are progressing (through).
Now as to whether or not the Mormon god existed eternally, there’s the escape clause of saying that matter has existed for eternity, the Mormon god is “matter” therefore he is eternal. This is a very sneaky religion and one that within the last generation or so has tried to come up with explanations that will allow them to say things that sound like they are “Christian” in their doctrine of God.
In reality, Joseph Smith enjoyed the concept of “progression”. That way he could make changes in his religion as he progressed in his thinking. That’s why God in the initial stages of Mormonism, sounds a lot like the God of Christianity. But Smith came up with all sorts of ideas, some that didn’t work out too well, but he could just jettison them and move on. Because he claimed the mantle of a prophet, his followers did and do even today, cut him an enormous amount of slack.
The above article hits the nail on the head when it concludes that Christianity today is closer to original Mormonism than current day (Mormonism). That’s because Smith wouldn’t have been able to attract many followers if he had “progressed” initially in his religious thoughts to where he ended up.
I can see where some people really enjoy the Joseph Smith story and buy into it with such vigor and enthusiasm. I mean I couldn’t because I have a healthy amount of skepticism and the Bible as my guide. I heed the words of Jesus regarding false prophets.
Is it any wonder that Brigham Young came up with the idea of “Adam-God”. That’s a real no-brainer when you consider he was tutored by Joseph Smith. It’s just progression in thinking. I think Smith would have rather liked the Adam-God doctrine. It’s pure Mormon prophet work.
If Young was in error, as the LDS church now claims, then he was no prophet. A true prophet doesn’t mess around and speculate especially when it comes to who God is. If a prophet doesn’t know who God is, what kind of a prophet is that and who would follow such a pretender?
This is not just a matter of a theologian throwing out some notion to serve as a think piece.
What Smith and Young taught was embraced by those who were really into them. Those who wouldn’t buy what they were selling, left the religion. In fact one ended up getting his printing press wrecked as a result and Smith, having sown the seeds of his own destruction, ended up getting killed.
I note that faithoffathers ignores – to be charitable, let’s say that he is simply somehow unaware – of the fact that Aaron has engaged (in the MRM page addressing this topic) with those portions of the KFD – or, to be more precise, with the conundrums created within Mormon theology by the ‘royal line of sinless saviors’ thesis that such a construal of the KFD would generate. As far as the KFD-interpretation issue goes, Aaron quotes BYU professor Rodney Turner who judges this understanding as “highly doubtful”, not to mention dismissal from Bruce R. McConkie. (In the other thread, faithoffathers dismissed Rodney Turner as just “completely wrong”, but offered no sustained exegesis to support this. But clearly, to say that Aaron avoids the issue of KFD interpretation is simply false.) Aaron also points out, with regard to the overall thesis, that (1) it simply moves the matter of concern back a stage or two, and that (2) it weakens a great deal of the reasoning that lies at the heart of the Mormon theology of progression, which – a la the Lorenzo Snow couplet – presents the biographical pattern of the Father as a hope for our imitation. Again, to be charitable, I’ll simply have to assume that faithoffathers was somehow unaware of these points when he spoke on the topic earlier.
And, at any rate, it does no good for faithoffathers to seemingly pretend that this is a non-issue within Mormon theology. As Aaron’s informal surveys have shown, the dynamics of Mormon theologizing as it is conveyed to the membership at many levels, are such that a majority of the membership are open to believing that the Father is a reformed sinner of nearly countless varieties. But this issue is of such pivotal importance that the Mormon Church has a theological obligation to protect its membership against such a fundamentally impious notion. And, if faithoffathers is correct in his interpretation of the KFD, then shame on the Mormon leadership for not employing that sermon to publicly teach against the Father-was-a-sinner notion! In that case, culpability rests even more firmly in the hands of the First Presidency, the Quorum of the Twelve, the Quorums of the Seventies, and so on.
Johns
It serves the Mormon scheme to keep things as ill defined as possible. Better to have a free flow of speculation than to have to really consider what is being alluded to in the KFD and the Snow couplet. There’s just enough ambiguity in the Mormon god theology to let people wander about with their own blue sky imaginative dreams.
FOF and the others want to believe that Mormonism isn’t in disarray. But to them the type of thinking and thought processing that goes on in Mormonism is their “normal”. They have no real standard to compare what is being proclaimed. I don’t know how Brigham Young’s theology of god got vanquished along with the theology of plural marriage. But the FLDS didn’t jettison any of these things. They hold on to real Joseph Smith/Brigham Young Mormonism.
The other Mormon groups go back to the founding of Mormonism before all of the wild and wooly speculation phase of Smith/Young and various others. The book “Under the Banner of Heaven” gives a real good account of what these religious free thinkers brought about with their endless speculation and creative inventiveness.
Falcon & John,
The fact that the Mormon Hierarchy had two guys go to the Swedes and basically quote FAIR arguments verbatim says a lot. They have no intention of ever doing what you suggest John. They will leave it ambiguous just for the reasons that Falcon espouses, because it is in their best interest to do so. Gordon Hinckley is a classic example of this, teaching the Snow couplet in public a year before he does an interview where he lied and said “I don’t know that we teach it, don’t know much about it.” Nonsense, and deceptive. If a “prophet” will go to those lengths, there is hardly hope that the First Presidency will offer any insights on the KFD anytime soon. They will continue to ignore and deflect, which is Standard Operating Procedure and has been for a long time.
You know who I feel really bad for? The people who grow up in this faith. To learn that everything that you have been taught is nothing but a pagan lie must be very difficult to comprehend and then let go of. I have certain doctrine beliefs that I was raised in…not lds related…that I am having to let go of because they dont correspond with scripture. It has become very difficult for me to seperate truth from what ive learned as tradition and cultural teachings from my family. So at some point ive tried to step back…simply look at what the evidence is showing me and then ask myself if I believe this because the evidenve in scripture says to or do I believe because I was raised to believe this is true? I think this has helped to open my eyes to a lot of things that otherwise I may not have ever considered. I hope this helps.
MJP- The answer to your question is really within the text of the King Follett Discourse.
I think that Joseph is saying in essence that Christ “became fully God” at the time of the resurrection after overcoming death and sin and received a perfected body. Understand that we believe Jesus was God before this. But He was crowned fully after the atonement and resurrection- after He had overcome all things.
The same thing existed with the Father according to Joseph Smith. He was fully crowned and exalted upon His resurrection and overcoming sin and death in His sphere.
Claiming that God the Father is “everlasting to everlasting” is no different than making the same claim about Jesus. But Jesus did live on earth, had a mortal body, experienced pain, suffering, temptation, and ultimately death. Jesus did experience a progression of sorts- “growing in wisdom and stature” during His lifetime. But it is also perfectly consistent to say that He is “everlasting to everlasting.”
And this is what Joseph was saying. And this is why I can say what I have said about the Father being everlasting to everlasting, yet had an earth life, “just like Jesus Christ.”
Grindael- all of the instances of the reference of God as “the Great Spirit” occur in the missionary effort to King Laman and Lamoni. Repeating the same term over and over in the same conversation does not constitute its use “frequently” in the Book of Mormon as falcon claimed. It occurs just as I said- Ammon and Aaron were explaining to an apostate and degenerate group of people that the “Great Spirit” which they had attributed the creation to was in fact God who created everything. It was a matter of creating context for those who knew next to nothing about God. Please show us where this reference to God as the “Great Spirit” occurs outside of that instance in the Book of Mormon. It doesn’t.
Mistaken Testimony- Sorry you do not have a testimony of the Book of Mormon. The day will come when you will wish with all your soul that you had chosen to embrace the Book of Mormon. The “about-face” among its critics in that day will be sudden and painful.
Johnsepistle- Aaron chooses to ignore the important, context-providing statements from the KFD in making his argument. He selects one or two sentences that he thinks will paint the caricature he is after most effectively and ignores the others. Why is that?
Rodney Turner- yes- he has an opinion on the matter. He really doesn’t say either way. It is his opinion that nobody knows for sure. That is not exactly a great resource for an argument either way.
Bruce R. McConkie- there is no statement directly from him on the subject. The statement is from his son. And in that statement Elder McConkie says in essence that nothing was ever taught about this beyond the KFD- nothing specific. And I agree. It is said that Elder McConkie stated regarding the sinless Savior line theory- “what earthly good could come from such a teaching?” And I agree. None of these things builds faith in Christ. That is not a denial of that idea of the Father having been a Savior. It is clearly beyond our view and does not build faith.
Aaron uses these tidbits to try to shoot down what I am arguing. But it is a one-sided and very biased technique. Does he really think that Elder McConkie would agree with the idea that God had once been a sinner? If so, he knows nothing about Elder McConkie.
For each of the supposed “problems” Aaron sees in the sinless Savior idea, there is an equal problem for accepting his assumptions. If God really had an earthly experience “just like Jesus Christ,” does Aaron think the a sinless and perfect life as seen in Jesus was the first instance of perfectly mortal life? The aberration that such a life would be introduces just as much of an issue and unlikelihood as the alternative.
As all spirits are eternal according to the doctrine of Joseph Smith, how could Christ do “only that which He had seen the Father do” if the Father had been a sinner?
What about the deepest and most poignant type or symbol of the Father and Son we know of in the story of Abraham and Isaac? In our canon, Abraham was placed upon an alter himself in his younger years only to later be asked to offer his son, Isaac, as a sacrifice. In the setting the all the teachings from our canon and Joseph Smith, are we to dismiss this important and key story and type?
And it is extremely naive to place any weight on Aaron’s youtube surveys- no statistician or anybody who knows anything about surveys would accept any of the conclusions which Aaron is so quick to make based on these surveys. Aaron leads each person interviewed in a fairly manipulative way (in the standards employed for such surveys). And there is no statistical validity or structure to the interviews. There is no basis for extrapolating such a limited and manipulated survey onto a group of 14 million people.
In short, this is a manufactured controversy from which Aaron is making as much hay as possible. If anything, there is reason to believe that he is promoting the belief that God was once a sinner. He seems willing to facilitate the ignorance of some people to position his own argument against Latter-day Saints and their church.
I say again- I have been a member of the church for many decades and have lived in over a dozen different wards. I have never encountered one member who even mentioned this issue or expressed any concern over it. The argument from Aaron is intended to influence perception more than anything.
FOF,
I beg to differ regarding this being a manufactured issue.
Here’s the problem. Mormons won’t think through the implications of what they are saying. It’s all just a surface level walk about.
FOF, are you a sinner? I’d say yes you are. Do you have plans to become a god? I’d say yes you do. When you are ruling your planets and someone living there brings up the idea of their god having been a sinner when he was a man, what’s the answer? The answer is “yes” FOF because you are a sinner with a desire to become a god.
So is your god any different? There are millions and billions of gods who have gone through the same process as your god, so the SLC LDS tells us.
You don’t get Aaron’s point at all. Because to get the point starts the unraveling of the entire precepts of Joseph Smith’s blasphemous teaching.
BTW if I haven’t mentioned it, I prayed specifically for you on Sunday and had you in my thoughts as I was out pounding the pavement on my monster work out on my bike this morning. You are not far from my thoughts as I continue to believe what the Lord has shown me concerning you. You are very strong in your Mormon beliefs at this time, but this strength will dissipate as there is nothing there to sustain you in this spiritual battle in which you are engaged.
The Holy Spirit has drawn you here and those of us involved in this type of ministry have been equipped by the Spirit to bring the Word of the Gospel of Jesus Christ to those who are under a cloud of deception.
To be fully crowned, FoF, means something was missing before. So, Jesus was not eternally or fully god. Whatever response you may have to the missing gap portion, understand that the Bible tells us God has been God from the beginning– no holes or needing to be fully crowned later on.
See, progression means that things change, and that what is in existence now was not in existence before. Your position falls short, therefore, because Christ was not fully god if he had to progress. You also admit the same for the Father.
The real God does not progress. He is God now, just as He is now, and just as He has been from eternity into eternity. And He wants you to know Him. He’s there waiting with open arms. All you have to do is ask Him into your heart and you become His Child.
MJP-
So what do the Bible verses mean that say that Jesus “increased in wisdom and stature with God and man?”
Was there no “change” in that increase in wisdom and stature?
Why was Christ not offered on an alter when He was six months old? Was there “some progression” that was necessary before He could be offered as the infinite sacrifice?
Please try to avoid double standards.
Because Christ was both man and human. He had to be human for his sacrifice to matter. God had to come to earth as a man for his sacrifice to be complete. As a man, he grew, he suffered, he was tempted– just like all men grow, suffer, and are tempted. But God eternal He was from the beginning of ages.
This was part of God’s plan from the beginning. We are told long before Christ that a savior would come. Christ says that his purpose was set before long before. On the cross, he tells us it is finished.
FOF,
…….and appears the teachable moment.
It’s all explained in Philippians chapter 2:5-11. It’s called the “kenosis”. Jesus emptied Himself of His privilege as God and took on the form of a man. He’s always been God. Not “a god” or a created being. He is and always has been God. He didn’t stop being God when He was a man. Jesus is eternally God.
Once you grasp this, you will then know the Lord Jesus for who He is and not what Joseph Smith, Brigham Young et al taught about the nature of God.
You need to get the Mormonism out of your brain because it’s clogging your thinking processes and keeping you from knowing who God is. The Church taught from the beginning this doctrine. It didn’t pop-up at some council in the third or fourth century and it never disappeared from the earth. We have writings of the Church Fathers going back to the second century that express this doctrine. What it took time for was the Church to develop the vocabulary that expressed what she already knew.
FOF if you’d take the time and invest in a good solid study of early Church history thru the fourth century, you’d have the foundational knowledge you need that supports basic Biblical, orthodox Christianity. We have the paper trail. We know what the Church Fathers taught. We know what the heretics taught. We know what the traditions of the Church are. We also have God’s Word preserved, not tampered with or changed.
Your ignorance is keeping you from knowing the truth and in knowing the truth finding eternal life.
Falcon, thanks for adding the scripture. I anticipate the response to be to look to the language suggesting a separation between the Father and Christ in this passage. However, focusing on this separation leads one to miss the plethora of language suggesting Christ and God are one. Folks like FoF will focus on the separation, though, and minimize the oneness.
FoF, Lucifer is a created being, and an angel.
If lucifer is an angel, then that means Jesus was once an angel. Yet the Bible says otherwise.
God said, He never said to an angel, Today you are my son?
Also the angels are told to worship Him
God the Father would not allow angels to worship other angels, That was one reason for Lucifer getting kicked out of Heaven, he wanted to be placed above God and recive worship. He even told Jesus in the desert to worship Him, and Jesus rebuked him.
Then God the Father Calls Jesus God
The Bible also tells us, Jesus is the Image of the Invisable God
We cannot see God the Father, but we can see Jesus.
The Bible tells us BY JESUS all things were created, Not re-organized.
So Jesus is God.
This is so hilarious. Once again, we see denial, denial, denial. Even the greatest poet of the Mormon Church knew the implications of the KFD, and took up Brigham’s revelation on Adam with open arms, and wrote poems about it. This is what Eliza R. Snow wrote,
As anyone can see, Aaron’s perceptive conclusion as to where this doctrine logically leads one to, was echoed by Snow in the poem above. “Adam, your God, like you on earth had been subject to sorrow in a world of sin, through long gradation he arose to be clothed with the Godhead’s might and majesty.” The Mormon God was “like you on earth” and since every Adam is also a full fledged god, they sin just to start up the worlds they people with their “spirit offspring”. Joseph Smith’s “God was once a man like you”, means what it says, but not to some Mormons (unlike Eliza R. Snow) who totally understood the ramifications of it. She did not call him a “savior” in the poem, she likened his previous earth life to being a deacon, or a priest or a seer, callings like any normal regular Mormon.
And this scripture as used for a basis to say that Jesus did EVERYTHING exactly like the Father did on some past world is ludicrous.
Was Jesus father born to a Mary and Joseph? Was Jesus father born on a world in a town called Bethlehem and chose apostles with the exact same name that Jesus did? This would have to be the case if you want to use the false dichotomy that FOF espouses. He would have to do EVERYTHING “just like the Father” and so Jesus Father would have had to have done every single thing that Christ did because Jesus does NOTHING but what he sees the Father do. You see how silly this is? Life in the Mormon Bubble of denial always produces such silliness.
I have to get back to this because the Mormon god Min is revealed in the BoA. A short synopsis of this LDS “scripture”.
“LDS critics point out that, since the original Papyri have been examined by both LDS and non-LDS Egyptologists and both groups have indicated clearly that the scrolls are funerary texts that have nothing to do with Abraham or anything mentioned in the LDS scripture,[4] the Book of Abraham cannot have been translated from the scrolls as Joseph Smith claims and is therefore a false book of scripture. Also, since the translations of the facsimiles were taken from copies of the original papyri and each contains such blatant translation errors as listing drawings of women as men and canopic jars as idols, critics reject the claim made by apologists that the Book of Abraham was translated from scrolls that were lost. Even more blatant, is that Joseph identified specific characters on the facsimiles and gave their translations that Egyptologists say are completely in error.”
I believe FOF confessed really being into the BoA as an actual “scripture”. I’ve pointed out how other sects of Mormonism totally reject it. Let’s face it. They figured it out. The LDS church has to double down on the claims that the BoA is an inspired work because if they don’t, the erosion of the Mormon faith begins full bore.
…..and more…..
“Of particular note is Fig 7 (bottom right shown upside down). Joseph said it represents God sitting upon his throne. Egyptologists say that this is the god “Min.” Min is an “ithyphallic god,” that is, a sexually aroused male deity. His erect penis is clearly shown. It’s interesting to note that in some earlier editions of the BOA the church erased the penis so it wouldn’t look pornographic. It has since been restored in our current versions. But isn’t it somewhat disturbing that Joseph would say that this pagan god with his exposed penis is our Heavenly Father?”
“Note, even LDS apologists admit that this figure, with the erect penis, is the god Min. (page 11, last paragraph of the above link). “7. A seated ithyphallic god with a hawk’s tail, holding aloft a flail. This is a form of Min”
“One of the many pagan gods pictured in this hypocephalus is shown above as it appears in the current edition of the LDS Scriptures. Egyptologists tell us that this is the god “Min.” Min is an “ithyphallic god,” that is, a sexually aroused male deity, as the picture clearly indicates. Min is the god of the procreative forces of nature. Joseph Smith told us that the Egyptian god Min was in point of fact the one true God.”
Now wouldn’t you think that this would be enough to turn-off the average Mormon and get them to question Smith’s claims of being a prophet. For some it does but for others it’s just another opportunity to prop up this joke and try to rescue their faith in what is obviously an amateur trying to start a religion.
http://www.mormonthink.com/book-of-abraham-issues.htm
So why do Mormons go on believing that Joseph Smith was a prophet? He obviously was a poser and the evidence is over whelming that he was a great self-promoter with nothing but the ability to convince some people of his prophetic prowess. The BoA is suppose to be the revelatory work that explains who the Mormon god is. Do people get so much equity in the Mormon system that they have to rescue it by any means possible? Anyone knowing this information and continuing to believe in Smith is a fool.
Here’s a good final summary:
We believe that Joseph Smith was utterly ignorant of what was represented in the Egyptian papyri that lay before him. Incapable of translating the figures, he made things up as he went along, claiming God’s direction and inspiration as his guide. In the process he demonstrated his own inability as a “prophet, seer and revelator,” for he grossly misidentified each of the items not only in this Facsimile, but in the other two as well.
Joseph Smith’s defenders today seek to find any connection whatsoever between LDS belief and Egyptian religion, even to the point of seeing in the sexually aroused Min a picture of God upon His throne. But to grasp at this straw is to ignore the Biblical testimony to the one true God. Isaiah saw God upon His throne in Isaiah 6:1-10, but instead of an incestuous god, surrounded by lewd dancing girls, the angels surrounded His throne and cried, “Holy, holy, holy.” God describes the gods of Egypt as “idols” that tremble before him (Isaiah 9:1); these false gods will literally be captured by God in His wrath (Jeremiah 43:12). God reveals the worship of these gods to be an abomination that brings His wrath (Jeremiah 44:8), and mentions one Egyptian god by name in speaking of the punishment he will bring against Egypt (Jeremiah 46:25). Those who worship such gods are “defiled” in God’s sight (Ezekiel 20:7-8). The Bible has nothing but contempt for the gods of Egypt, which would include the abominable figure of Min, identified by Joseph Smith as his God.
We will gladly admit that there is a similarity between the pagan god Min and the Mormon doctrine of God developed in the later years of Joseph Smith’s life. What is equally clear is that the God of the Bible is not similar to either Min, nor the LDS God. As God Himself said:
“To whom will you compare me?”
Isaiah 40:25
FoF,
You said, “Sorry you do not have a testimony of the Book of Mormon. The day will come when you will wish with all your soul that you had chosen to embrace the Book of Mormon. The “about-face” among its critics in that day will be sudden and painful.”
So you are admitting that the Book of Mormon is true not because it is true with regards to reality but because it is true in your head. Got it. The only problem I see now is that that renders anything you have said here as highly skeptical as your judgment of reality is seriously clouded by your introverted rationale. Mormon Bubble Syndrome (MBS) in action here. I will start working on that testimony asap.
Also, you are making the Terrestrial Kingdom sound like Outer Darkness, by the way. Mighty fiery and brimstone-ish of you if you ask me. See, Mormons are like Christians after all!
FOF,
………..a testimony of the BoM? Well which version would that be? Would it be the original version or one of the subsequent versions with all of the changes?
And what exactly would you say is contained in the BoM that someone should have a testimony of? As I see it, most, if not all of your belief system isn’t based on the BoM but some other source.
Let me tell you what I have a testimony of. Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah, He who redeems all those who receive Him through faith. Now this Jesus that I have a testimony of is the eternal God-Man.
So you think having a testimony of the BoM is going to save you before the judgement seat of Christ?
How foolish are you man? You are going to put your faith for eternal life in the BoM?
Again, we’re giving you free reign and a great opportunity to testify here. Tell us what is revealed in the BoM that is going to save you and lead to your becoming a god and someday ruling your own planets?
You know I’m sitting here stunned that someone would put their faith in the BoM to save them. First of all the BoM isn’t even a factually true book. Second of all, despite protestations from our Mormon posters, the tome has been changed and the changes do effect doctrine particularly the doctrine of God.
Look lurkers please put your faith in the Lord Jesus Christ for your salvation. The BoM, the LDS church, or any other religious organization isn’t going to save you.
There is one true Church and it is the Mystical Body of Christ made up of all those who have placed their faith in Jesus for their salvation.
I know this to be true because the Spirit of God has testified to me regarding who Jesus is and what it is He has done for all those who come to know Him as their Lord and Savior. Waiting to receive the Lord is not a good plan. Do it now!
Well since FOF is putting his trust in the BoM for his salvation and since we are discussing the ever changing view of God (in the BoM) let’s consider the following:
Original 1830 Text (1 Nephi 3, p. 25):
“And he said unto me, Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh.”
Current, Altered Text (1 Nephi 11:18):
“And he said unto me, Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God.”
Original 1830 Text (1 Nephi 3, p. 25):
“And the angel said unto me, behold the Lamb of God, even the Eternal Father!”
Current, Altered Text (1 Nephi 11:21):
“And the angel said unto me, behold the Lamb of God, even the Son of the Eternal Father!”
Original 1830 Text (1 Nephi 3, p. 26):
“And I looked and beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea, the Everlasting God, was judged of the world.”
Current, Altered Text (1 Nephi 11:32):
“And I looked and beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea, the Son of the Everlasting God, was judged of the world.”
Original 1830 Text (1 Nephi 3, p. 32):
“These last records … shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father and the Savior of the world.”
Current, Altered Text (1 Nephi 13:40)
“These last records … shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father and the Savior of the world.”
These are no small changes in grammar nor are they changes that a printer would make. Wouldn’t you think that if the BoM was a factual book given by revelation by God that it wouldn’t need to be corrected?
This summary provides a good picture of what Joseph Smith was up to and why he was a false prophet and why the LDS church is not the “one true church”.
“Did you notice something common to all these alterations? They represent a change in theology! All these passages, in their first versions, describe a monotheistic God. While Joseph initially held the historic Christian belief that there is only one God, he departed from orthodoxy by denying that there is a clear distinction between the Persons within the Trinity. A number of passages in the Book of Mormon present Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ as the same Person. Theologians call this ‘modalism’, because Father and Son are understood, not as distinct persons, but merely as different modes in which the one God has manifested Himself at different times. But importantly, later versions of the Book of Mormon were then altered to accommodate Joseph’s later-developing polytheism. Clearly Joseph held an evolving notion of the nature of God. It is quite clear that in his earliest writings, he is a monotheist, but at time passes, he abandons his monotheism for a distinct Mormon brand of polytheism.”
To contend without any doubt what-so-ever that Joseph Smith was a prophet and the religion he created is the “one true church” a “restoration of original Christianity that vanished from the earth after the death of the apostles” is to subscribe to a pure fantasy and a deliberate ignoring of the facts. Joseph Smith “evolved” in his view of the nature of God from being pretty down the line with the Christian doctrine to eventually going totally nutso.
Anyone who ignores the obvious is obviously living under a spiritual delusion which causes them to suspend all logic.
I think this pretty much summarizes Smith’s march into polytheism:
It can be said that there are four major stages in the development of Joseph Smith’s doctrine of Deity. The earliest stage is represented by the Book of Mormon (1830), the Book of Moses (1830-31), and the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible (1833). Many passages from these early works of Joseph Smith reveal his belief in monotheism.
n 1834-35, during the Kirtland, Ohio period, Joseph Smith made a major departure from the Book of Mormon emphasis that the Father and Son are the same person. While still apparently maintaining that there is only one God (monotheism), he began to teach that there are two persons within the Godhead — the Father and the Son. Theologians call this “binitarianism.” This second stage in Joseph’s teaching regarding Deity is found in the Doctrine and Covenants “Lectures on Faith”:
The Book of Abraham, first published in 1842, represents the fourth and final stage of Joseph Smith’s developing doctrine of Deity. Here, for the first time, Joseph spells out in no uncertain terms the doctrine of the plurality of Gods.
We are asked to believe that after revealing the doctrine of the plurality of Gods in Abraham’s time (2,000 B.C.), God later sent prophets beginning with Moses (1400/1300 B.C.) and through the end of the Book of Mormon period (A.D. 400) who taught monotheism, only to have Joseph Smith revert back to teaching the plurality of Gods in the nineteenth century. Can such inconsistency and confusion be attributed to the true and living God? Or does this inconsistency and confusion tell us something about the validity of the Book of Mormon, Book of Moses, and the Book of Abraham?
http://pleaseconvinceme.com/2012/did-joseph-smiths-doctrine-of-god-change/
falcon,
That does nothing to change the argument. I maintain that Christ was always God and divine. But He did have a sort of progression while on the earth, ultimately leading to His triumphant resurrection whereupon He was crowned.
This is the very type of progression which I believe Joseph Smith was talking about.
But you guys will ignore this completely.
RickB- understand that we believe there is a part of all of us that is not created and a part that is created. Please show me the support that Lucifer was created. You guys don’t really believe Christ was God’s Son. It is hard to take you seriously here. Christ is the only Begotten of the Father. None of us are “begotten of the Father” in the same way Christ was. You are conflating many things. Your line or reasoning and use of the scriptures is very common, but very superficial and unsatisfactory.
Really not interested in a long debate about the trinity, etc. John 17 settles it. But I recognize you will dismiss the clarity and plainness of that chapter to justify your beliefs.
falcon (again)-
Do yourself a favor and familiarize yourself with the scholarship available on the BOA and the papyri from LDS sources. It is quite clear you nothing about it. You need to look into the subject of appropriation of Egyptian motifs and iconography by Hebrews to represent their stories and traditions. You don’t even know what our argument is.
And no, I do not believe the Book of Mormon will “save” me. Not sure where you got that. Christ is the Savior, and His sheep hear His voice and follow. And His voice is heard in the Book of Mormon.
And as far as the changes in the Book of Mormon text, I encourage you to think a little bit. Joseph Smith edited the text between the 1830 edition and the 1837 edition to clarify the doctrine as the book came about in a trinitarian culture. If the book is what it claims to be, the passages you quote were initially written somewhere around 580 B.C. by an Israelite of the tribe of Joseph. You just might consider what the perspective would have been in the mind of an Israelite form that period of time. Because it matters. But I suspect you will think no more about it. The matter is settled in your mind. And that is fine.
Royal Skousen has documented every change made to the text since the 1830 edition as well as the extant manuscripts (scribes and printers). You have quoted what are almost the only changes that effect doctrine. Congrats.
mistakentestimony- you said, “So you are admitting that the Book of Mormon is true not because it is true with regards to reality but because it is true in your head.”
To be honest, I don’t know what you are talking about here or what your line of reasoning, if there is one, is based upon. Sorry. The Book of Mormon is true and God’s word. Your opinion changes nothing.
Hummm… FoF mentions that you have quoted what are almost the only changes that effect doctrine. Congrats. ….. Well, isn’t that the point of this post …. that the um Mormon doctrine of god CHANGED.
FOF,
You wrote:
“That does nothing to change the argument. I maintain that Christ was always God and divine. But He did have a sort of progression while on the earth, ultimately leading to His triumphant resurrection whereupon He was crowned.
This is the very type of progression which I believe Joseph Smith was talking about.
But you guys will ignore this completely.”
And I maintain that Peter Pan is real and that Never Never Land is a real place where he lives and because I maintain this and believe it, it’s all true. And besides it makes me feel good when I think about it.
Yes, my poor diluted friend, Joseph Smith was clueless and you’re following a fairy tale that you so desperately want to believe.
……and you also wrote:
“Do yourself a favor and familiarize yourself with the scholarship available on the BOA and the papyri from LDS sources. It is quite clear you nothing about it. You need to look into the subject of appropriation of Egyptian motifs and iconography by Hebrews to represent their stories and traditions. You don’t even know what our argument is.”
Yea, that oxymoron “Mormon scholarship”. FOF, really? Come on. You need to get a major grip. Have you studied the scholarship that was done on “Peter Pan” and “Alice In Wonderland” to prove that it’s all true?
Finally, you wrote:
“The Book of Mormon is true and God’s word. Your opinion changes nothing.”
To which I say, the BoM is false and your opinion changes nothing.
You’ve been given enough evidence that the BoM, BoA and the LDS religion are all false. There’s enough been presented here to paper the entire inside of the LDS temple in SLC.
You’ll get it eventually. Do you know why? Because I continue to pray for you earnestly and God has promised that our prayers will not return to us void.
falcon,
So you ignore my point and Biblical support for Christ’s progression and jump to your global talking points about Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, and the Book of Abraham. This is what happens almost every single time I engage a critic. They will always fall back on polygamy or Joseph’s face in the hat or Mountain Meadows or whatever they feel is their trump card to get them out of a bind. All the while, they ignore what is immediately in front of them.
The reliance upon the categorical dismissal of “mormon scholarship” will only get you so far. In the end, though, you are left with a very uninformed, very biased and one-sided analysis that is superficial. Does it not bother you that you really don’t even know what the argument from LDS is on the Book of Abraham?
FoF,
Ignoring my comments again? This time concerning the dual nature of Christ as God and Man. If I recall, didn’t you challenge me on avoiding double standards?
And for the record, you asked specific questions to which you got specific answers.
MJP-
No. Not ignoring. I just see no challenge to my assertions. Your response is that Christ was both man and God. So you are saying that this somehow negates any “progress” Christ had to make before Hist atoning sacrifice?
Your point does not change the fact that Christ had a type of progress during His mortal life and that the final crowning and exaltation of Christ took place at His resurrection.
And His life was patterned after the Fathers. And it was this type of “progress” that Joseph Smith referred to in saying that “God was not always God.” That is the only way to make sense of all the of statements from him on God.
Fof, so you choose to ignore the statement I made. Good on ya.
Christ has always been God. 100% fully God. Nothing he did here on earth changed that. There was no final crowning.
And your statement on the only way to make sense of Smith’s idea of progress is to put Jesus’s earthly life in that mantle is true– it is the only way to make sense of Smith’s idea of progress. The trouble is, there was no progress. Since Christ did not need a crowning achievement in order to become fully God, progress simply did not exist.
You miss the point of my earlier comment. You choose to look at his earthly life and ignore that he was always 100% fully God. Because he was always 100% fully God, no progression is possible.
As a man he had to progress in the sense that he had to mature and endure everything we do, but that is a far cry from what it is you assert.
So, yes, I am saying that since he was always 100% God that negates any progress had to make.
FOF,
I am positive that Flacon can and will respond but I wanted to chime in here because I think you are missing some big stuff.
“So you ignore my point and Biblical support for Christ’s progression and jump to your global talking points about Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, and the Book of Abraham. This is what happens almost every single time I engage a critic. They will always fall back on polygamy or Joseph’s face in the hat or Mountain Meadows or whatever they feel is their trump card to get them out of a bind. All the while, they ignore what is immediately in front of them.”
There is absolutely no biblical proof of Christ’s progression in the way that mormons use the word. The bible says he grew in stature, wisdom, and favor. This is because while Christ was FULLY God, he was also FULLY human. The bible makes it clear that christ was always fully God. I don’t have to argue with you about that, it’s already all over the NT. So is the fact that Christ was fully human. Take the whole account within the NT as a picture of who Chirst is.
The reason we go back to JS and his character is because your assumptions about who God is and who Christ was all go back to JS. The LDS teachings on eternal progression started with the KFD, right? So if you are basing your theology on this “prophet”, obey God’s command to test the prophet. Your prophet fails the test of a prophet over and over, thus nullifying his teachings about God, Eternal Progression, and Christ. Especially because those teaching completely contradict what God has already told us.
Would you follow orders from a Doctor who got his degree from a diploma mill? Would you ride a bus driven by someone without a driver’s license? For such a huge message to be taken seriously the message deliverer should be verified. J.S. was no prophet so when he tries to rewrite the Bible and teach us things in opposition to the Bible why would I believe him?
Also you said the Church has an official stance on whether or not God was ever a sinner? Why than have I never had a discussion with a single LDS missionary that didn’t end with “The church doesn’t have an official stance on wether or not God was ever a man”.The doctrine is messy. The LDS can’t take a stand on the issue because it’s a cluster. You have the Bible clearly saying one thing and the LDS prophets saying another and the church cant choose so it brush’s the issue under the rug, saying that it doesn’t matter.
True believers know that it matters. God was clearly never a man who earned his Godhood. God has always been God, it wasn’t until the birth of Christ that God was at all human.
FoF said
Show me from the Bible where it says, only part of us was created, and part of us was, it simply is not in the Bible.
The Bible as I pointed out already says,
As I said before, The Bible tells us that we cannot see God the father, But we can see Jesus, so God the Father took on human flesh and came in the man, Christ Jesus. Now it also says, ALL THINGS WERE CREATED BY JESUS. What does (ALL) mean? All, means all.
So that means Lucifer was created, and it means we were fully created, not part created and part what ever was lying around or all ready existed as you feel.
Then the Bible says
This talks about Lucifer being created, But I know you will say as Shem did, It does not mention Lucifer by name. So then read the Bible as a whole and use that brain God gave you. Who was created? It clearly states an angel was created, it states he was in the Garden, and we know Lucifer was in the garden, It states he was perfect, until iniquity was found in him. We know also from the Bible that, that was lucifer. So yes lucifer was created, But I know for a fact you will toture the scriptrue to make them say anything other than what it says, since if you agree with it, that means your believe is false since Jesus and lucifer are not brothers. Jesus cannot be God, and also be a brother to a created angel, and be equel and the same.
MJP- you need to get over this idea of me ignoring you. I respond to you as much as anybody else.
We simply disagree. Christ was always God. I agree. But He did have a type of progress in His mortal life and as He was crowned at the resurrection. I get that you disagree in some way. Great.
My point is that when Joseph Smith refers to God becoming God, he is referring to this process that Christ went through. There is no room for the possibility that God ever sinned like Aaron loves to argue. Christ never sinned. God the Father never sinned. Get it?
RickB- We disagree. And this is fine. The point is about what is really LDS doctrine, not your opinion about why that doctrine is false. Our theology is consistent. And any reference to God “progressing” during His mortal life is limited to the manner that Jesus “progressed.” That is the point folks. We will never agree on the other stuff. So please stop trying to go down the rabbit hole of convincing me our doctrine is incorrect.