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.
FOF,
You have been answered in very specific terms on every point you’ve asked to be addressed multiple times.
I spent an entire post going through the kenosis along with Biblical support regarding who Jesus is. See that’s the problem with TBMs such as yourself. We give you point by point answers and all you respond with is that we haven’t answered you. Do you want me to repeat the post in which I addressed your faulty notion of who Jesus is. This is real typical TBM flim flam. Do you want me to write you a book which in response you’ll say I haven’t answered your question?
As a human being Jesus grew and matured, but he was always God. He never stopped being God. What are you thinking? That Jesus was born and then grew and matured and then after His death on the cross he became a god? If Jesus wasn’t God when He died on the cross then his death wasn’t the atonement. That’s the point. Get it? Only God could make the perfect sacrifice for sin. A good man couldn’t do it.
Jesus’ maturation as a man doesn’t imply that he was going through some progression to become “a god”.
You wrote:
“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?”
And how do you know what Joseph Smith was referring to? Guess what? I don’t care what Smith taught or believed because he went through at least four revisions before he came up with his polytheistic view of gods and men becoming gods. There’s no Biblical support for Smith’s nonsense and all the scripture mining in the world won’t get you there.
We’ve been all over you regarding the Mormon god being a sinner. What, is he the only one of the pantheon of Mormon gods who didn’t sin. I told you that you’re a sinner and you plan on becoming a god. I don’t see you as any different than your claim of the Mormon heavenly father being sinless when you’re going through the same system.
FoF,
The trouble with your position is that there was no progression to be had for Christ to become God. He already was, 100%. That you think there was necessarily implies that he was not fully God all the time. Think of it as the president of the US. After an election, he is merely the president elect, and he becomes president only after he is sworn in. This is what you are saying: that Jesus was not fully god until the cross, and that before he was merely a god-elect. If that’s not what you are saying, what benefit does Christ get progressing in his mortal life? What happens that’s special if he was already 100% god coming into his earthly life? What more could be added to him if was already 100% god?
And there are additional problems, too. If Christ never sinned, how can you become like him? You have sinned, haven’t you? Since you have sinned, aren’t your prospects of becoming a god destroyed if we must live as Christ did? You have not lived as Christ did if you have sinned and he did not.
Your emphasis on the progression of Christ in his earthly life is intriguing. Its as if you have to have some sort of progression even though there is no importance to it. Or was there importance to it? If so, let us know exactly what that importance is.
FoF, I understand you wont debate what the Bible says, How can you stand up against the truth and expect to defeat it with false doctrine? The truth was written in the Bible over 1000’s of years, not given by a man over a few hundred years ago.
falcon, MJP- DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT I REALLY AM NOT INTERESTED IN DEBATING WHETHER YOU GUYS ARE WILLING TO PLACE THE LABEL OF “PROGRESS” ON ANY PORTION OF THE LIFE OF CHRIST. WE BELIEVE THAT THERE WAS SOMETHING OF GROWTH AND PROGRESS IN HIS LIFE. NEVER SIN, BUT PROGRESS OF A SORT.
MY POINT IS THAT THIS SORT OF PROGRESS IS WHAT JOSEPH SMITH WAS REFERRING TO WHEN HE SPOKE OF GOD’S PROGRESS. THAT IS MY POINT. AND THIS POINT IS AN IMPORTANT PART OF MY ARGUMENT REGARDING AARON’S SUPERFICIAL CLAIMS THAT OUR DOCTRINE ALLOWS FOR GOD TO HAVE BEEN A SINNER.
DO YOU GUYS UNDERSTAND THE POINT AND GOAL OF MY POSTS ON THIS TOPIC?
I REALLY DON’T CARE THAT YOU GUYS DISAGREE WITH OUR DOCTRINE. THE POINT IS- WHAT IS THAT DOCTRINE. AND IT IS THAT QUESTION I AM RESPONDING TO.
THANKS.
The caps don’t help. So much for being cordial, FoF. You don’t like us. You don’t like us at all. Fair enough. Just be honest and let it all out. As I have said, better discussions come out of such an attitude.
A progression in an earthly life has everything to do with Christ possibly sinning. If we are to take Snow at his word then it is indeed possible Christ was a sinner. Smith was not the only person to have taught about progression. Others, like Snow, say we can become gods, just as Christ is god. So, if that’s true, then it raises some huge questions about Christ’s sinless life.
As I presented above, if Christ did not sin and you must lead a life like Christ, then you are stuck and cannot become like him, since leading a Christ like life is the requirement.
You ignore this, and are trying to focus the issue onto something that we are not arguing. We understand what you say– but what you say does not jive with your prophets and it does not jive with scripture. You isolate the KFD and ignore all of the other references to your own progression. And frankly, if you wish to do that, fine. However, that does not negate all of the other ‘stuff’ out there on your own progression.
Think of it this way: if Smith said Christ had to somehow progress as a human to become a god, and Snow said that we all can become like Christ, I see no problem in logic. The addition that Christ was sinless puts a wrench in that logic. It is there because we are not sinless and therefore cannot become like him. That means either Christ was sinful, or Snow was wrong. No one is sinless– except for Christ. And that means that no one can become like him.
The problem is not our misunderstanding– it is yours. You fail to understand the connection to Christ’s possible sin in the idea of progression.
FoF,
You said, “The Book of Mormon is true and God’s word.” The Book of Mormon is false. You say that the Book of Mormon is true because of your subjective testimony rather than with any evidence. It is only true in your head. No evidence to the contrary will persuade you otherwise.
Why should we not assume that you are not applying the same introverted rationale with this topic as well?
Your whole epistemology is worthless, ergo so are your derived arguments from that worthless foundation.
So FOF,
You think if you yell real loud that will help us understand you better? Losing your temper and going off like that is just an indication that you’ve lost the argument, you know it.
So here’s what I suggest.
Why don’t you just bear your testimony and go back to the safe harbor of your Mormon ward where you and your fellows can discuss what you’re going to name the planets you plan on ruling when you progress to being a god?
MJP- projection? I don’t know how to focus you folks on what the topic is as I see it. You keep wanting to wander off and bicker over things we will never agree on.
Please show me where what I have presented contradicts our canon or the statements of our leaders as you insist. If you read the words of our leaders and our canon and still think we believe Christ may have been a sinner, I can’t help you.
The ironic thing is that the Barna group has actually conducted statistically valid surveys showing that a very significant percentage of non-LDS Christians, including evangelicals believe Christ sinned. So don’t go down that trail, my friend. You have absolutely no foundation upon which to stand.
The simple answer to your surprisingly naive question is the atonement. We can be Christlike and cleansed of sin because of the atonement of Christ. Period. Your line of reasoning is so twisted and mixed up, it is hardly worth the effort to try to correct you on our beliefs.
So- there is the challenge. Show me where I have contradicted the statements of our leaders or our canon. And enough of the claim that you know more about our beliefs than me. Few of you can even state clearly what our doctrine is one any given topic.
Mistakentestimony- you make a big assumption in your post. I have a great deal of evidence to support my faith based testimony of the Book of Mormon. There is mountains of linguistic, historical, geographic, and archaeological evidences to support the Book of Mormon. I have studied all the arguments for and against the Book of Mormon for decades. I have read the book itself over 80 times. I feel perfectly confident and secure in my faith and testimony in that book. It is astonishing how shallow and uninformed 99.9% of the arguments are against the book from the critics. Almost every single time they quote the book, they mix up the context or information within the text.
The truth is that you guys are standing on a position that is 2,000 years removed from any authority or revelation. And it is your enormous assumption that there is an actual connection between your faith and that which existed 2,000 years ago. It is wishful thinking combined with eyes 99% shut. Your foundation could not be less sure or sound.
FOF,
The only thing that Barna’s survey proves is that there are some pretty ignorant Christians out there. They don’t know their Christian theology and doctrine very well. They need to go back to confirmation or catechism class. Having gone to Catholic school, I knew my doctrine of God inside and out.
LDS doctrine would certainly lead a member to believe that their Mormon HF is a sinner.
Let’s just look at your prophet Brigham Young and what he taught regarding Adam being God. Didn’t Adam sin? Yes he did. Isn’t the Mormon god Adam? Yes he is. So what did the Adam/God have to do. Well he had to impregnate one of his spirit daughters who was a virgin in order to produce a savior because of the sin he himself committed. Yea, it’s absolutely no fun at all having to consider all of the implications of Mormon doctrine when it comes to their god.
Or maybe the Mormon god is really Min, the Egyptian fertility god that Smith said was god in the wondrous work, the BoA. Was Min a sinner? I don’t know but I can certainly see where a fertility god would appeal to Smith.
You know FOF twist it and turn it and do what ever you have to do to placate yourself. There’s just too many plates that you have to keep spinning as one of our other posters has pointed out.
^ Now I know that you are a liar. I cannot get this grin off my face 🙂
I will enjoy watching your religion retreat to the morridor, because if the rest of Mormondom think like you then … well, you know what I am going to say.
FoF said,
“The truth is that you guys are standing on a position that is 2,000 years removed from any authority or revelation. And it is your enormous assumption that there is an actual connection between your faith and that which existed 2,000 years ago. It is wishful thinking combined with eyes 99% shut. Your foundation could not be less sure or sound.”
Good luck convincing any non-Mormon scholar of this. History is an exact science. Good luck convincing any non-Mormon scholar that the BoM is an actual history. Testimony is all you have mixed with lies. Your religion will be relegated to the trash bin of failed religions.
FOF said,
The truth is that you guys are standing on a position that is 2,000 years removed from any authority or revelation.
I say,
I’m sorry to inform you but true authority from Christ does not have an expiration date.
quote:
to the only God, our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen.
(Jude 1:24b-25)
end quote:
and in these last days true revelation is not to be found in some mere human claiming to be a divine mouthpiece but from Christ alone.
quote:
Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son.
(Hebrews 1:1-2a)
end quote:
I do truly pray that someday you will grow tried of chasing after counterfeit authority and revelation and come to accept the real thing
quote:
remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose,’
(Isaiah 46:9-10)
peace
FoF,
I already have shown where your leaders contradict each other and leave open the possibility of Christ sinning. And you open up the very possibility when you say that atonement is what makes it possible for you to become a god, too. Why couldn’t Christ have a god who atoned for his sin? Which therefore implies he might well have sinned.
I know you don’t like engaging in the topics we want to discuss. That’s not surprising. But do you think you can control the dialogue by switching to topics you find important and ignore that which we find important? Great way to win friends and influence people.
We are here to correct and inform those who might consider Mormonism. We are not here merely to exchange pleasantries and lightly discuss the particularities of our faiths. We are here to challenge. Part of that is for us to be challenged, too. But don’t make the mistake that we have to follow your terms.
faithoffathers
Your pseudonym begs the question-why do you place your faith in Joseph Smith? Based on your research I’m sure you have read and thought critically over the same primary source materials (and non-primary) that all of us have also examined, and yet we have split ways over the character of Joseph and his unfaithfulness to his wife and people. Do you believe there is no basis for the claims directed at Joseph and the way in which he presented the doctrines of polygamy to the Mormon people? How do you reconcile the same information? Faith is only as good as the object in which you place it. With all sincerity how do you process his infidelity? As I cannot.
Well I’m out the door early on my training gig today but I thought it was interesting that I had this sent to me today.
Watch it and see if you agree with this treatment of the Deity of Jesus.
FOF why don’t you take this apart from your Mormon theological point of view?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKU3ZcTc38s&list=TL5LI1w6JsS_4
Come again? There is this part of God called the Holy Spirit. (That is why we don’t need men to speak for us). Ah, yes this is much too simple for you FOF. But this is the “Comforter” that Jesus promised to send, which he also promised would always be with his followers? You know the one? That is one connection your “prophets” really don’t have because they can’t get their own stories straight, nor match any of their teachings with what that same Holy Spirit revealed 2000 years ago.
falcon-
You apparently want to have it both ways. You dismiss the statistically valid data from Barna regarding the 40+% of Christians who believe Christ sinned yet accept with no question Aaron’s statistically completely invalid and limited surveys of LDS who follow him in his manipulative trail suggesting God may have been a sinner.
Do you see a problem? Merely saying that those Christians in the Barna studies “don’t know their Christian theology and doctrine very well” doesn’t rid you of the problem. That is what I would say of the LDS who give in to Aaron’s manipulative and leading questions. But there are other factors- like Aaron’s manipulative and leading questions. You don’t have the same luxury in dismissing the Barna data.
Off to Adam-God and Min you go……..
fifthmonarchyman- none of those passages link you directly to the authority of Christ. You realize that it is the “fuzzy feelings” you are relying upon to link you to that authority from 2,000 years ago. And it is just that type of fuzziness that you guys reject in LDS testimonies. Another double standard.
MJP- you claimed to have shown how our leaders and canon have contradicted what I am arguing. Are you changing your claim now?
It is not that I am afraid of discussing what you guys want to discuss. My intent is to try to stay on topic. And this is something that you folks almost never do. Every thread will ultimately fall into Adam-God and polygamy. Can you point out an exception?
Palerider- you point out what I think is a very interesting point and one that I have alluded to previously. I am quite confident that I have spent at least as much time and energy, and significantly more than most here, with the primary sources and evidences as any of the critics. Yet we come to opposite conclusions. Why is this? If you also consider the fact that I have almost never been able to get even one critic to summarize or state our doctrine clearly and accurately, you are left with an important insight. How can we account for these two interesting phenomena?
Understand that it is not Joseph Smith that I place faith in. Can I say that you place your faith in Paul, or Peter, or Noah, or Malachi? I don’t think that is a fair assessment. I think it is very important to recognize the sentinel standards that we rely upon. First- the Book of Mormon. It is either what it claims to be, or it isn’t- there is no middle ground. And if it is true, believing in it is not placing faith in Joseph Smith. If it is what it claims to be, it is another divine Testament of Christ, and His voice is heard in its teachings and words. Make sense?
Joseph Smith’s polygamy was only “infidelity” if it was not commanded by God. Do you accept that? The appropriate question in the matter is, “was Joseph Smith commanded by God to practice polygamy.” The critics are not open to that question or an answer that contradicts their modern moral sensitivities.
Another factor in all of this is the reality of chronocentrism. Wikipedia defines this as ‘only seeing the value of one’s own age cohort.’ R.P. Nettelhorst says that “chronocentrism exists in those who imagine that their own time, their own era, is the norm against which all else must be judged—or worse, that the way things are now is how they have always been.” In short, chronocentrism is the arrogance of any given generation as they look down their noses at previous generations.
Consider that our world is flooded with the doctrines of sexual liberation and feminism. It is a naive soul who thinks he or she is unaffected by these influences. And I believe these modern doctrines are one of the central drives of critics of Joseph Smith and the restored gospel. I am not suggesting that no critical analysis is justified of the faith claims from Joseph and the church. But the staunch critics are most certainly influenced by this unrecognized reality called chronocentrism.
Anyway, it is oh so easy to cast judgement on people of previous times and project weaknesses or sins upon them based on our modern sensitivities. Whether it is Abraham, Moses, or Joseph Smith, each has been the target of self-righteous moderns.
To answer your question more directly- I know as surely as I know anything that the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be. This clears the way for many other standards of truth to be accepted. But beyond the spiritual witness, I have followed what I believe is every issue and controversy out as far as the data and logic will allow. And every single time, the restored gospel, Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham shine and are validated intellectually.
Grindael- you realize, don’t you, that you are now calling upon that source which you do not allow LDS to call upon? Inspiration, personal revelation, and the whispering of the Holy Spirit- you guys insist that these are not the right sources for individuals to rely upon in determining whether the Book of Mormon is true. Do you see a double standard?
FoF,
No, not changing a thing. I am suggesting your leaders give differing messages and you don’t seem to see that. I was very clear in how they are different and the consequences of them. If you do not understand this, then I am not sure what to tell you.
If Christ progressed and had someone atone for his sins while he was progressing, then he still sinned. This is not a difficult concept.
You now accuse me, and us, of wanting to change the topic. The topic is that God never changed–per Moroni 8:18, your own source. Christ progressing is him changing. This is all very much related to the topic at hand.
Don’t like it? Not much I can do on that, either.
Oh, and FoF,
You said this, too: “The appropriate question in the matter is, “was Joseph Smith commanded by God to practice polygamy.” The critics are not open to that question or an answer that contradicts their modern moral sensitivities.”
Are you sure we are not open to the question or to the answer? Try us.
MJP- Our canon, doctrine, general conferences are literally filled with the very clear doctrine and belief that Christ was perfect, sinless, without blemish. You have absolutely no leg to stand on in suggesting there is anywhere in our theology that allows for Christ to have been a sinner. It is in no way up for debate. Such a suggestion shows how removed a person is from reality and intellectual integrity. Really.
There was a difference between Christ before His birth and Christ after His resurrection. That difference did not include any sin. There was a “change.” At the least, He gained a perfect, physical body in the process. So there was a change. Do you deny that? If you do not deny that, how can you insist that you fully believe God never changed? It seems to be contradictory, does it not?
And it is just that point that demonstrates the irrational insistence on the part of our critics to demand that God was a sinner in His earthly life according to our doctrine.
“You have absolutely no leg to stand on in suggesting there is anywhere in our theology that allows for Christ to have been a sinner.”
Let me ask you this: do you deny the statements I presented concerning how and why Christ might have sinned? If so, provide a detailed response on how my logic is flawed in your faith. Otherwise, you are merely ignoring what has been presented and arguing that we can gloss over the logic. In other words, don’t pay attention to the man behind the curtain.
I am not sure how to respond to your point about Christ changing and gaining a perfect body, therefore changing. We don’t believe that he gained a perfect body. He has always been perfect in every way, as he is God the Father, too. I know, the dual nature throws you off, because after all, there are all the verses saying there is a separation. Yadi yadi yadi.
But we see him, due to the numerous verses claiming there is only one God, and the numerous verses where Christ equates himself to God, as one with God the Father in every way. So, there was no change. Remember that this was part of God’s plan from the beginning. Everything in the OT points to Christ. So, nope, no change.
And that point demonstrates the rationality on how we can say that Christ was not a sinner. However, your point about him being a man just like us, with the possibility of a savior of his very own to cover his sins, leads us to conclude that he might have been a sinner.
Its simple, really. Even if you disagree, do you follow the logic here?
And do you know that God wants you to know Him? He loves you, and wants to spend eternity with you. All you have to do is believe in Him. Can you accept that simple message?
MJP- You keep insisting that God did not change with Christ’s birth, growth, His death, and His triumphant resurrection. You are, for some reason, refusing to acknowledge something. Pre-earth life- Christ had no physical body. Correct? Post-earth life- Christ has a physical body. Correct?
There was a change. Christ had no body before this life. He had a body after this life. That is a change. Do you disagree?
As far as Christ sinning: You might as well claim that none of our words mean anything. Nothing is real. Language and and words have no connection to reality. You are a blue leopard living on the top of Mount Everest. That has about as much connection to reality as your argument here.
Our canon and theology clearly state and insist that Christ was perfect before this life. He lived a sinless, blameless life on earth, and He atoned for the sins of the world through his miraculous atonement. Such an atonement required a perfect, sinless offering. Christ was that offering. Had Christ sinned, He would not be qualified to perform the atonement for sin and death. Your line of reasoning is simply hot air. It is not possible in our doctrine for Christ to have sinned.
If you want scriptural references from our canon or statements from our leaders that state this, let me know. The list of references will take up pages on this forum. But I suppose I could just refer you to the Book of Mormon. It seems you are unfamiliar with it as you persist in this line of reasoning.
If you cannot see that or accept that, there is no reason to continue. I might as well claim that the object of your worship is none other than Lucifer and that you are simply confused and misguided.
You stated, “However, your point about him being a man just like us, with the possibility of a savior of his very own to cover his sins, leads us to conclude that he might have been a sinner.”
Sorry, but I do not know where on God’s green earth you pulled this from. I am speechless. Please, oh please show me where I ever stated that Christ was “just like us” or suggested there was “the possibility of a savior of his very own to cover his sins.”
Do you remember when you claimed that you hated God and loved the devil? Should I start making things up like this about you? Seriously. Do not put words in my mouth or say that I ever made any such statement.
And yes- I believe that simple message that God loves me and wants me to live with Him for eternity. And that is why I am a member of His restored church.
FOF said,
none of those passages link you directly to the authority of Christ.
I say,
You originally said that we were 2,ooo years removed from authority and revelation. That was the context of my providing those passages.
Now instead of claiming 2,000 years distance you want to argue about the distance between me personally and the omnipresent Christ.
Do you even understand what it means for (God) Christ to be omnipresent? There can be no distance between me and his authority and revelation by definition.
You say,
You realize that it is the “fuzzy feelings” you are relying upon to link you to that authority from 2,000 years ago.
I say,
I do not in any way rely on fuzzy feelings I rely on the rock solid promise of an omnipresent and omnipotent Christ.
It’s all him none of me, even the faith that I exercise in him is a gift from him.
quote:
For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
(Romans 10:11-13)
end quote:
Truth be told often my fuzzy feelings would lead me not to rely on Christ’s rock solid promises
There is no double standard on my part at all.
Christ bestows his riches (including authority and revelation) on all who call on him completely regardless of feelings fuzzy or otherwise.
I pray that someday you will cease calling on JS or Thomas S. Monson for authority and revelation and begin to finally call on the only one who can provide these things.
peace
FOF said,
Understand that it is not Joseph Smith that I place faith in. Can I say that you place your faith in Paul, or Peter, or Noah, or Malachi?
I say,
Suppose there was something in writings from Paul or Peter that implied that implied that God was not who He has revealed himself to be I would not accept those writings. It is that simple I don’t put my faith in the Bible my faith is in Christ who has revealed God in it’s pages.
You say,
First- the Book of Mormon. It is either what it claims to be, or it isn’t- there is no middle ground.
I say,
I agree but the problem is that you place yourself in the position to make that judgement.
You say.
believing in it is not placing faith in Joseph Smith.
I say,
Sorry but that does not follow.
If there was no JS there would be no book of Mormon no one denys that. It is obvious undeniable fact of history.
The book of Mormon sprung fully formed with seemingly no connection at all to the actual facts of history. If JS never existed no one would ever even miss the things found in the BOM .
This is completely different than the way that we Christians believe the Bible.
If there was no John there would still be a Peter if there was no Peter there would still be a Paul. If there were no NT at all there would still be the writings of the Fathers. If there was no contemporary record of at all of Christ’s life there would still be an OT with all the prophecies concerning him. If there was no OT at all there would still the historical evidence of the temple and the sacrifices and the traditions of the Jewish nation that point to and typify his life and atonement
Get the point? See the difference
peace
FoF,
Yesterday at 5:39 pm you said this to me: “The simple answer to your surprisingly naive question is the atonement. We can be Christ like and cleansed of sin because of the atonement of Christ.”
Now, correct me if I am wrong, but was it not Snow who said: “As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become.” If god was as we are now and we can become like Christ because of his atonement, it is entirely reasonable to assume that Christ was saved by someone else’s atonement.
You don’t wish to address this line of argument. Great. You have lots of things saying Christ has always been perfect. But you’ve also got Snow. How do you reconcile these competing thoughts?
Its not by dismissing Snow, since he was a president/prophet of your church.
So, I am from Missouri originally, prove that Christ was perfect and how Snow’s couplet along with your statement about the atonement making it possible for you to be like Christ do not contradict each other. Remember that you believe Christ progressed. He had to progress from something, then.
On the matter of change– if it was God’s plan to come to earth as a human all along and he did that, I am not sure I would call that change. Strictly speaking, there was a change of form, but Christ was no more or less God when he was on earth. At best, you have a very superficial victory in Christ changing form. Good for you. But he did not change his essence, his mission, his power, or his title in any way when he cam here. He did not change.
Ah, but do you accept that God simply needs your heart? You did not say you accept this. Do you? Really, it is all you need.
As far as I know, FOF is correct. Amasa Lyman tried to teach that Christ was “just a good man”, and was denounced by Brigham Young and the rest of the “apostles” for doing so. (Still, they took their sweet time to do it, and Lyman made fools out of them all in the process). But they still at a later time “restored” all of his “blessings”, (priesthood, apostleship, wives, etc. after he died, so go figure), so obviously they really didn’t care that he did. They assumed he repented in the Spirit World. Like I said, there is something seriously wrong with Mormonism.
In Modern Mormonism this change is irrelevant since Christ had already attained Godhood in the preexistence. One could say that the cards were stacked in his favor when he came to earth. Now the teachings about Christ in the early church were different. Here is Brigham Young,
And Mormons say they are not polytheists. What a crock.
faithoffathers
Thanks for the reply to my questions. I do disagree on your points and I will try to address each one.
FOF-I am quite confident that I have spent at least as much time and energy, and significantly more than most here, with the primary sources and evidences as any of the critics. Yet we come to opposite conclusions. Why is this?
PR-I believe we come to opposite conclusions because you are displaying faith in the narrative Joseph developed throughout his life. Without this faith you would not be capable of placing trust in that his stories were indeed true.
FOF-If you also consider the fact that I have almost never been able to get even one critic to summarize or state our doctrine clearly and accurately, you are left with an important insight. How can we account for these two interesting phenomena?
PR-I disagree, and do not consider it a fact. The other posters have shown countless examples, with citations, that expose many aspects of LDS Church history and the lives of its members. We may disagree on the interpretation of that history but I think it’s unfair to frame the opposition to your viewpoint as unclear or inaccurate.
FOF-Understand that it is not Joseph Smith that I place faith in. Can I say that you place your faith in Paul, or Peter, or Noah, or Malachi? I don’t think that is a fair assessment.
PR-I disagree. You have no choice but to place your faith in Joseph’s claims (or the claims of the prophets in the BoM), for how else could you believe them, separated by more than a century. In like manner I have to place faith in the fact that Peter was visited by the resurrected Christ in order to believe that the event took place. Faith is implicit because we were not there, thus the need for a record of the events. I think it is a fair assessment to judge the subject matter by the degree of faith we place in the men who recorded the events.
FOF-First- the Book of Mormon. It is either what it claims to be, or it isn’t- there is no middle ground. And if it is true, believing in it is not placing faith in Joseph Smith. If it is what it claims to be, it is another divine Testament of Christ, and His voice is heard in its teachings and words. Make sense?
PR-I believe that the BoM is a manufactured fraud. I understand that you believe it’s true and the veracity of the book would be independent of faith in Joseph following your line of reasoning and that makes sense. But, the veracity of the book is not independent of Joseph because it is his claim and his character is suspect so I reject the premise from which you are working from.
FOF-Joseph Smith’s polygamy was only “infidelity” if it was not commanded by God. Do you accept that? The appropriate question in the matter is, “was Joseph Smith commanded by God to practice polygamy.”
PR- I do not accept that. Chronocentrism is not the issue here. For example it would not be acceptable for Joseph to marry women already married to other men in any age, which is defined as adultery-forbidden by God, not based on my aversion to supposed cultural derivations different from my own. The fact is Joseph covertly married women, girls he had adopted and his own leadership’s daughters behind his wife’s back and living in their own home while actively preaching against the practice; Eliza R Snow wrote that Joseph was, “my beloved husband, the choice of my heart and the crown of my life.” Did Emma know this? If the doctrine of celestial marriage had been from God why did he not just present it openly in the light of day like the other doctrines he introduced to the saints? Why do you accept him working in the dark regarding this matter? Questioning these motives does not make one a self-righteous modern it is measuring Joseph’s behavior against God’s revealed truth vis a vis the moral obligations to our wives, families and communities.
FOF,
The problem that you and your TBM compatriots are faced with is that you own, yes own, all of the statements that your prophets and apostles have made regarding the nature of God.
You’d like to make your religion something else so you attempt to recast all of these pronouncements that are just plain amateur nonsense.
Joseph Smith changed his mind at least four times regarding who he said God is. His final and most hideous attempt is contained in the BoA and also the KFD.
The BoA has been proven to be a figment of Smith’s own imagination and demonstrates clearly that he had absolutely no idea what the papyri he was using was really saying.
And yes FOF, it is there that he declared that the Mormon god of this world was indeed the Egyptian fertility god Min depicted on a throne with an erection.
You own that buddy. That’s your god.
But no, wait! Brigham Young said that the Mormon god was really Adam; and Eve was one of that god’s wives. In addition to that, this god, it must have been Min, had actual physical sex with the Virgin Mary causing her to conceive Jesus.
You own that too FOF.
Finally, the Mormon god, we are told was one of millions perhaps billions of gods all of whom were once men on some planet some where, where they had to progress to become gods. Mormon men, on our planet, hold on to that same hope. What do we know about these would be god hopefuls? They are all sinners. They are sinners who hope to become gods. But guess what, again? The Mormon god of this planet, who was a man, he didn’t sin. Well that’s quite a trick.
No FOF, I won’t let up on this because this is what Mormonism is. You can try all day to make it into something else but this is it.
Is it any wonder that Mormons learning these things bail out on Mormonism as fast as they can?
MJP-
You said, “Now, correct me if I am wrong, but was it not Snow who said: “As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become.” If god was as we are now and we can become like Christ because of his atonement, it is entirely reasonable to assume that Christ was saved by someone else’s atonement.”
You are wrong. And you know you are. Either that, or you have no clue about our doctrine. Why don’t you read the Book of Mormon and get back to me.
Palerider- I discovered the Book of Mormon on my own before I knew anything about Joseph Smith. I read the Book of Mormon in as much isolation as I can imagine is possible. In other words, I had very, very, little outside influence or additional information- just the book. I read it 8 times in 6 months without telling another soul. And my life before and after could not be more different- night and day. I have read it over 80 times and have read all the arguments against it as well as those for it. I don’t claim to be the smartest man in the world, but I am certainly not naive when it comes to what the Book of Mormon is and what it isn’t.
I developed my testimony of Joseph Smith’s call as prophet as an extension or result of the Book of Mormon, not the other way around.
We bicker back and forth about history and evidences. But I cannot get one critic to explain or summarize accurately and fairly the most basic of our doctrines. Like faith- no critic here will represent our doctrine on this correctly. Many years ago, I talked with one evangelical critic who summarized or repeated back to me what we believe about faith, works, grace, etc. That has been a long time ago. I have tried to provide long and detailed explanations here and provide analogies and metaphors on this topic. No critic will claim anything but that we believe we save ourselves and work our way to heaven. We will have to agree to disagree on this. I cannot get a critic to restate our doctrine correctly.
Polygamy- The point about chronocentrism was a side thought and one of many factors. But I repeat the point that the most important question is – “did God command Joseph to practice polygamy.” Too many people insist on their own terms in many ways with God. And this is a great example. And this is where Abraham showed his great faith. He was willing to follow God despite the fact that what God was asking (slay Isaac) went against every possible ethic, moral, precedent that Abraham had experience with. God asked Abraham to do what the devilish heathens were doing and with which Abraham was all too familiar. And that was God’s point- how far would Abraham go in trusting Him.
Be truthful here- if there had been no polygamy, none of the controversial issues with Joseph Smith and early church history- would you honestly consider the Book of Mormon?
I believe God grew tired of tradition being the pillar of His followers. “We have 2,000 years of history and tradition…………” I think He would spew that out of His mouth in a second. It is no different than the Pharisees- “we have Abraham to our name……”
God wants followers who will jump off a cliff if He commands them to. Because that requires real, saving faith and trust. The easy path is rarely the right path.
If we accept what our church’s religious critics argue, the following is not far off:
1. The Bible is true as demonstrated by archaeology, documentary history, manuscript evidence, etc.
2. The Bible testifies of Christ as the Savior and Redeemer of the world.
3. A person must accept Christ as Savior to be saved for eternity. By accept, I mean give up trying to be good or follow the commandments as a means of anything. Just give everything into His hands. Once you really believe He really is your Savior, you are saved for eternity.
So, what this means altogether is that if a person becomes familiar enough with archaeology, history, and the sciences and reviews the evidences relating to the Bible, he or she will be convinced of the truthfulness of the Bible and hence, the divinity of Christ as Savior. And as a result, he or she will believe He is the Savior, and will therefore be saved for eternity.
Do you see a problem? I think God has no interest in such religion. None.
Joseph Smith’s story is the classic story of the young, naive farm boy against the doctors of theology. The conflict is so classic.
Too bad it never happened. There is absolutely no evidence that it did. None. And what evidence there is, like when the Smith’s moved to Manchester, prove that Jo lied.
That is because your version of Mormon Doctrine is not what your Church/”Authorized Servants” teach.
falcon-
I heard Matt Slick say on the radio yesterday that evangelism is painting. And as preachers, “we are all painters.”
Well- the painters who spend their time “ministering” to LDS and criticizing the church are working on a masterpiece caricature.
You can “paint” it as you like, but I accept all of our history, all of the leaders- past and present, all of our bruises and mistakes- all of it. I see in all of it something that is divine, beautiful, majestic, and that will outlast and outgrow every one of the church’s resentful critics and naysayers. I can make sense of it. Anybody who can reason, empathize, imagine, think, and trust can see it. It is the source of everything good in my life.
Yes, we have the Mormon Bubble, we have the Mormon shelf upon which all the conflicts in history and doctrine are placed and not examined, and now we see an example of Mormon reality.
Mormon reality is a real fantasy land of hopes, dreams, and aspirations that are made possible by Mormon fiction.
See the latest LDS film, “Joseph Smith Battles the Doctors of Theology”. The naive farm boy who only wants to serve God is put upon by the relentless enemies of the restored gospel. Despite being saddled with a low IQ, this ignorant farm boy under the direction of the Mormon god, defends the doctrine of the Magic Rock. He is protected by all of the slings and arrows aimed at him by these dastardly villainous theologians by his magic underwear that are so sacred and pure that they never need to be washed less they lose their potent secret powers.
Armed with secret handshakes and passwords, Smith and his trusty band of merry treasure hunters, see visions of spirits through the use of second sight vision, that provide a mystical experience of the restored priesthood.
Spend the extra three bucks for the magic glasses and see this epic in 3D! Without the magic glasses you’ll see Smith as he really is. A hodge podge of distorted images.
But living in a bubble requires naivete, doesn’t it. If you need to tell yourself that I don’t know anything or that I am unaware of our history or that I have not examined any evidence, have at it. Or if you need to tell yourself that I willingly give in to stupidity and evil, I suppose that might work for you as well.
But if I remember right you haven’t even read the Book of Mormon all the way through once, have you?
So give me a break with the condescending accusation of ignorance and naivete.
Now on with your sarcasm and ridicule. I still can’t believe there are people who spend their time doing what you guys do.
Living in a bubble requires naivete? Hardly, FOF, because you are the perfect example of that. You are anything but naive. Peter described those that live in the bubble of denial quite well when he said,
Your problem is you read the Book of Mormon and became enamored of it. But then it led you to Mormon “prophets”, and the author of the Book, Jo Smith, who lied about everything concerning it. The lies he told are staggering. Not one early story about the Book of Mormon matches up. Not one. Pieces do, (which don’t support any of Jo’s versions) because most of what Jo wrote later (in 1832 and 1839) is pure fiction. He could not have moved to Manchester in 1820 because they did not article for the land until JULY of 1820 when the person who was authorized to sell it got power of attorney. It was a YEAR after this that Lucy Smith wrote that they built their cabin! That would be 1821. Two years from that date would be 1823, the year that Lucy and William Smith both wrote that Jo had his “first vision” which was of the MESSENGER. It was a year later the Smith family joined the Presbyterian Church after the revivals in 1823-24 and the death of Alvin. Lucy is perfectly clear about that in her history. These are all provable facts. Jo then lies in his 1832 account and says that Martin Harris had a vision where the Lord appeared to him to tell him about the plates and Jo. But that is another lie, because Harris wrote that he first learned about the plates from his brother Preserved Harris in 1827! Lucy wrote that Jo told her to seek out Harris. So both Lucy and Harris agree and prove it was Jo who was the liar. Again. Then there is the Urim and Thummim snafu. Jo never called his peep stone a Urim and Thummim until 1832. He made up the “spectacles” which no one ever saw. He showed the eight witnesses the characters, and they were persuaded they were plates that were covered in cloth. Harris revealed that in 1838. Jo lied again. Everything about the Book of Mormon is a lie.
You can’t be ignorant and naive because you have been appraised of all the facts. You just won’t believe them.
Falcon,
Some may be helped with the Book of Abraham by this article by Mormon Edward Ashment… called Reducing Dissonance:The Book of Abraham as a Case Study
But then again, maybe not.
faithoffathers
Though you did no address my questions I still appreciate your reply.
FOF-Be truthful here- if there had been no polygamy, none of the controversial issues with Joseph Smith and early church history- would you honestly consider the Book of Mormon?
PR-I have read and studied the BoM and the other works of the LDS canon with real intent countless times throughout my life. I faithfully served in numerous leadership positions in the church and during my mission, and was married in the temple. I have prayed over the truthfulness of the book and I have never received an answer regarding the BoM. I honestly considered the BoM and I found that it is not a true history but an amalgam of biblical borrowings, a 19th century cultural milieu and the fantasy of a brilliant, yet mentally troubled individual. Like others I shelved my concerns for decades until I could no longer ignore the core root of the problem, the arm of flesh. God finished his work on the cross. I trust Him and there is a lifetime of study found within His word. The problem for Joseph and others of the restoration movement is that they did not understand the word already given to them, so they claimed it was corrupted and no longer contained the plain and simple truths of the ancient church. Wouldn’t the BoM contain those plain and simple truths, whatever they may be, since it contains the fullness of the gospel?
Fof F said to Falcon, ” 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 where upon He was exalted .”
Jesus did have a sort of progression on the earth . He was God but then He became man
to suffer and die for us. . The Bible is clear on this . But what the Bible does not teach is
what Mormon leaders have disclosed about Jesus before He came to earth . The Bible
reveals that Jesus is Jehovah , the Lord God Almighty ,Creator of heaven and earth ,
the great I Am who ministered to Abraham , Moses Isaiah and the O.T. prophets . He
has always been this unique Being , He never became God —-Psalms 90:2 .
Now Fof F said that he believes that Jesus was always God . But Mormon leaders have
taught that Jesus was not always God : In heaven before He came to earth and was
born as Jesus , the Mormon Jehovah started out as a spirit baby born to a male God
and His Goddess wives(s) . He was the first of millions of such spirits fathered by this
God . This oldest spirit son underwent development in a schooling system by which
he and his brothers and sisters and half brothers and sisters were reared to maturity
and this took some time as much education was necessary for them to acquire needed
knowledge and live worthy of advancing rightly . Within this system of education some, like the oldest son , became intellectually superior to the rest and he was even tested by His Father. Finally the oldest son graduated to become a God, Jehovah God , and
now strong enough to help create this earth and proceed to do things like part the Red
sea and rescue three youths from a firery furnace , and now he was smart enough to
give stars each a name —Psalms 147:4 . This is the Jesus of Mormonism , but not the
Jesus of the Bible. Did Jesus ” progress ” ? Yes . But not to become the Lord God
Almighty .
A good counterfeit 50 dollar bill will have the right picture on it — U.S. Grant . But that
is insufficient to determine if it’s authentic. In like manner Mormons say Jesus is
Jehovah which is correct , but then upon closer examination we find earmarks of a
counterfeit since their teachings about Jehovah are foreign to the real Jehovah God
as revealed in the Bible. Only the true Jesus has the ability to save those who come to
Him and ask for forgiveness , but being wrong about His identity can result in a
person placing themselves in a position to lose out on salvation . The Mormon
people need to know this difference exists between the Jesus revealed by their leaders
and the Jesus revealed in the Bible because truth matters . Paul knew this . 2 Cor. 11:4
Today his warning are as important as ever . Why? answer : Mk 13:22-23 .
FOF said,
So, what this means altogether is that if a person becomes familiar enough with archaeology, history, and the sciences and reviews the evidences relating to the Bible, he or she will be convinced of the truthfulness of the Bible
I say,
Unlike the BOM the Bible is historically verifiable because it’s events actually happened but with out the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit it will not be believed. That is because natural man hates God’s truth. He will believe that the Bible is not true or incomplete or corrupted or what ever it takes to allow him to continue to believe a lie. That is what rebels do whether they call themselves atheists or Mormons.
you say,
and hence, the divinity of Christ as Savior. And as a result, he or she will believe He is the Savior, and will therefore be saved for eternity.
Do you see a problem? I think God has no interest in such religion. None.
I say,
Of course that is what you think. You fancy that God is just like you.
The natural man will always bristle against the good news that God himself has provided salvation as a free gift. He will always try and find something of his own that he can boast in. In your case apparently you want to boast in your amazing blind faith. You want God to reward you believing in something sans evidence .
Ive got news for you
God will not share his glory with you or anyone else
quote:
For my own sake, for my own sake, I do it, for how should my name be profaned? My glory I will not give to another.
(Isaiah 48:11)
end quote:
peace
FOF,
You wrote:
“Now on with your sarcasm and ridicule. I still can’t believe there are people who spend their time doing what you guys do.”
You deserve to be ridiculed……….often and severely.
Anyone who seeks to displace God with a god of their own choosing while endorsing and holding up for admiration false prophets, should be held up for disdain at every turn. Check the OT and how the Prophet of God dealt with the false prophets of Baal.
I can’t believe you show-up here spending the time doing what you do. You remind me of an addict that can’t kick his drug of choice. Addicts have this denial characteristic and manner of rationalizing their behavior which you demonstrate every time you post.
And so we’re back to this idea that unless a person has read the BoM, he can’t comment on Mormonism. So do you believe what all of the Christian posters here say; that were former Mormons, had a testimony of the BoM, Joseph Smith, the LDS church and the current LDS prophet and found it all to be a scam? I don’t think so! So don’t give me your lame charge about reading the BoM. I’ve taken you apart thoroughly regarding that and it’s your only argument at this point.
If you believed in the original BoM you wouldn’t be worshiping the Egyptian fertility god Min which Smith revealed to you in his fairytale BoA and which you think is a real work of scripture.
You’ve read the BoM and look where it’s gotten you. You’re spiritually lost and up to your eye balls in a pseudo-Free Masonry cult.
FOF,
…….and there we have the testimony of Palerider. Are you going to accept his testimony? He’s everything you’re looking for regarding credibility, right?
Here’s what he wrote in part:
“I have read and studied the BoM and the other works of the LDS canon with real intent countless times throughout my life. I faithfully served in numerous leadership positions in the church and during my mission, and was married in the temple. I have prayed over the truthfulness of the book and I have never received an answer regarding the BoM. I honestly considered the BoM and I found that it is not a true history but an amalgam of biblical borrowings, a 19th century cultural milieu and the fantasy of a brilliant, yet mentally troubled individual. Like others I shelved my concerns for decades until I could no longer ignore the core root of the problem, the arm of flesh.”
So there you have it FOF. He’s everything you’re looking for in someone who will have credibility with you in rejecting the BoM, right?
Do you accept his testimony or do he and I end up in the same category in your Mormon apologetic game i.e. doesn’t count because he rejects the BoM and with it the false prophet that produced it?
See FOF it’s a never ending game with you because you are diluted and unable to accept any information that doesn’t support your dilution.
I suggest you take seriously those who have been where you’ve been and found Mormonism and the prophets of the cult totally false.
You need to find the true and living God and extricate yourself from the spiritual trap you are in.
FoF,
So, you say I am wrong. Good for you. Prove it. Apparently other LDS at least understand my logic as they do concede the possibility for Christ to have sinned. And if they do that then why are they not taught how he didn’t as clearly and definitively as you suggest?
If all you can do is tell me to read the BoM, I am not sure you really have much. And without more, it is very reasonable to suggest the possibility of Christ’s sinning within the context of your faith. Christ was man, just like us, at one point, right? There’s a problem there, and only someone willingly looking away will not see the problem. Do the honest thing and address this contradiction head on and not pass the question to someone else.
Now, what about accepting that the God who loves you only needs your faith? Can you accept that?
Palerider,
I respect your effort to study and read the Book of Mormon and your tone here. My experience has simply been very different from yours. I see a mountain of evidence for the Book of Mormon that in no way can be explained by any of the theories about its fraudulent creation. It is very clearly an ancient text. I am convinced the text itself is its greatest evidence, although there are other types of evidence that strongly supports its historicity. I feel that I have more than I could ask for or want in the way of evidences for the book. Most of those evidences are not even spoken of in forums like this or other “anti-BOM” literature. And I think that is probably very appropriate.
I have also followed all the critical arguments out as far as they will possibly go- and they all fall apart eventually.
You mention the “arm of flesh.” From my perspective as I briefly explained above, it is this very reason people reject the book- they rely upon the “arm of flesh.” I suppose we simply see this very differently.
Everything in the gospel and God’s plan is centered and focused upon the atonement of Christ. But I certainly would not say that “God’s work was completed on the cross.” Do you not think that God is “at work” in the world today? The atonement is certainly complete and sure. But there is much work and effort to fully complete “God’s work.”
The Book of Mormon certainly does contain many of the “plain and precious” truths that have been lost. But nowhere does it claim to contain every truth or doctrine. It is the central piece of the restoration and is the means by which God convinces individuals that the restoration is true. And I appreciate so much the linear type of “experiment” God has provided in it for people to determine that this is God’s work.
Again- thanks for the tone and response.
MikeR- I always find it interesting that the critics somehow have the authority and power to extrapolate so extensively from our doctrine as you do above. You seem to understand all the details of the pre-earth life. That is amazing considering the fact that we insist that so little is understood about that realm. We believe that there is some element of each of us that has existed forever. We know that in some way, God is literally our Father. Beyond that, we know very little. But good for you and your understanding!
You are caught in the pseudo-intellectual trap. Your first priority is intellectual. Christ’s taught first following Him in behavior and action. There is a big difference my friend.
fifthmonarchyman- so you are now arguing that it requires the Spirit of God, or as you put it- the “regenerating power of the Holy Spirit” to know that the Bible is true. Good for you- seriously. I agree that it is the Holy Spirit by which a person knows that the Bible is God’s word. Archaeology and other types of evidences will never produce saving faith. But following the Spirit will.
But that places you in the position of employing double standards in evaluating the Bible and Book of Mormon.
You refer to my “amazingly blind faith.” So again, you are claiming I am naive and unaware of the text and evidences of the Book of Mormon?
falcon- you suggested I was naive for believing in the Book of Mormon and the restoration. I pointed out the hypocrisy in your statement as you have never read the book entirely. Now you jump ship. Your position on the BOM is extremely superficial.
I have personally walked beside folks as they leave the church. I am very familiar with what happens and how it happens. So I understand, to some degree, the former members here and why they are where they are. I have been on both sides. You have not. You have no ground to stand on in this argument. And yes- I disagree with the former members here completely.
“Look where [the Book of Mormon] has gotten [me]. Yes, indeed. The gospel of Christ is a very practical gospel. It changes the world by changing people from within. And my life before and after reading the Book of Mormon could not be more different. Night and day for the better. “On earth as in heaven.”
As I said before, it is very clear in your posts that you desire for me and others to take the word of other people, former members and never members. So who is the one promoting “blind faith?”
MJP- you keep going on this Jesus sinned thing. Please provide one statement from informed LDS that Jesus could have sinned. You can’t.
But I can appeal to statistically valid surveys showing over 40% of Christians, including evangelicals, who believe that Jesus sinned. Do you see a little hypocrisy?
Christ didn’t teach people to be stupid either, which FOF is advocating here under the shoddy veneer of intellectualism. This is a common straw man tactic of those whose teachings won’t stand up to Biblical scrutiny. Believe our “prophets” interpretation of what Jesus said, not what Jesus ACTUALLY said. This is simply ludicrous and nobody buys it. If it floats and quacks, it’s a duck. But not to those that have duped themselves into placing their trust in men because they feel they are a better person before they joined the organization. It is a false criteria to judge teachings by, but that is what FOF is advocating here. Jesus said this is unacceptable. FOF says he has “followed” the “critical arguments” but has no answers for them, other than he’s “convinced” the BOM is “ancient’. Wow, now that’s reassuring from a guy that I’ve shown (more than once) doesn’t even know what it says. Sad, really sad.
Yes. (Not naive, just wrong) You’ve misquoted it more than once. I’ve proved it.
I doubt that. Your comments show that you have not, and are fooling yourself. And your “leaders” are members. It is their words you won’t believe, not “former members” who only quote them. This is typical of cognitive dissonance syndrome. David Koresh and Warren Jeffs had all kinds of “revelations” that people said made them better people. You can see where that got them.
Yeah, you’re right, I am keeping to it. I outlined the logic quite clearly above, and all you’ve done is tell me I am wrong. Good on ya! Here’s someone from FAIR leaving open the possibility. I know, its not official, but it has weight, don’t you agree about FAIR having theological weight? And we must assume someone who works at FAIR must be informed, right?
“Before he received his exaltation, he lived on a world and it’s possible [that God sinned]. But he also could have been a savior on his world as Jesus is a savior on this world. And therefore he could have lived a sinless life, and therefore not have. So we don’t have his records. We don’t have information about his life. So we don’t know… There’s no doctrine statement by the Church about his life.” — Craig Ray, Foundation for Apologetics and Information Research
Now, I’ll ask you again: prove that I am wrong. I’ve made an argument here. You have not.
As to the 40% of Christians who think Jesus may have sinned: they are wrong. Plain and simple. I don’t know the details of the study to comment, but I have no problem telling them they are wrong– just as I am telling you that you are wrong.
But more so, going to a numbers game is hardly a way to win an argument. Its a distraction. It does nothing to prove the question at hand. Millions of people can indeed be wrong. Then, are you willing to admit that numbers don’t mean a thing when it comes to truth, and are you willing to call out members of your own church who concede the possibility of Christ sinning as wrong?
And since you have not accepted my assertion that all that is needed is belief to come to God, I am going to assume you are avoiding that issue. I do not mean to go down a rabbit trail with you, but rather to simply get you to take a position on it. I am not hiding any cards here. Yes, you believe God wants you and he wants you to come to Him, but can you accept the truth that all he wants is your belief?
So FOF,
I’m a former Catholic. Guess what? I haven’t forgotten my Catholicism. The knowledge and experience didn’t go away when I left the Church. It’s still there. I can still recite parts of the Mass when it was said in Latin. How about some questions from the very beginning levels of my Catechism. “Who made you?” “God made me.” “Why did God make you?” “God made me to know, love and serve Him in this world and the next.”
Do you want me to go on?
So you implications that the only way someone can “know” about Mormonism is to be a Mormon is stunning in it’s ignorance and stupidity.
I would never say that someone can learn and know about Christianity unless they read the NT. In fact someone could become a believer in Jesus without ever reading the NT. I know, I’m one. I never read it until I got saved. Well how in the world is that possible?
I’ve got a stack of Christian History magazines here well over a foot high. I have a good solid Christian theology book and a couple of books with charts and graphs of Christian history and Church doctrine along with the musings of the heretics.
If a person absorbed the information in these works, they’d know a ton about Christianity without ever reading the NT. And guess what? They’d know it even if they didn’t believe it.
So which leads me to wonder about what Mormonism does to a person’s ability to think logically and process information critically.
grindael has forgotten more about Mormonism than you know FOF but according to you he’s not a reliable source of information because he doesn’t believe Mormonism, right.
And there we have it. In the world of FOF “know” actually means “believe”. Unless a person has read Mein Kampf and is a Nazi, they can’t know anything about Hitler and the movement he founded.
MJP- you seem to be conflating two arguments- that Christ could have been a sinner and that God the Father could have been a sinner. Which one are you talking about?
Our canon could not be clearer on Jesus’ sinless life. You have no room there. I can just as well claim that you believe monkeys rule over God in heaven. But I have no interest in such a thing. I am not sure why you keep claiming our doctrine allows for Jesus to have been a sinner.
The point about the Barna survey is that you guys consistently claim that we allow for the possibility for God the Father to have been a sinner. You offer extremely flawed and biased video surveys with absolutely no statistical validity as your “proof.” Yet you ignore the statistically valid surveys showing your own religious community believes Jesus was a sinner (over 40%). The survey is something I bring up to show your hypocrisy here.
The basis for our doctrine of God having had an earthly life is the King Follett discourse. No other statements from church leaders provide as much information on the topic. Yet that discourse provides statements that make it fairly clear that God the Father’s earthly life was “just like Jesus Christ.” In other words, that the Father lived a perfectly sinless life, “just like Jesus Christ,” and was both God before and after His mortal experience.
You are spinning your wheels. The cumulative body of statements from our leaders supports my position. And our canon does as well. But you guys feel you can get some traction in making us look bad (again, hypocrisy alert). So you keep saying the same thing over and over.
I can claim just as you can that there are folks in my religion who do not see all the information relevant to the question at hand. How does that feel? If it works for you, why does it not for me?
As far as “belief in God,” I would agree. But I understand the fact that action and obedience is inherent in belief. Otherwise, there is no real belief. I can say I believe my physician who tells me to quit smoking or exercise or stay away from booze. But if I do not follow his recommendation, my claim to belief is worthless. (Christ did in fact refer to Himself as the great physician- so it is relevant).
falcon- it is apparent that your exposure as having never read the Book of Mormon bothers you. But you are trying to place words in my mouth in insisting I have claimed that a person cannot know about mormonism without being a member. Please show me where and when I said such a thing.
Grindael can’t even explain our basic views about the atonement. Volumes of words does not guarantee understanding or knowledge.
My point is that people who haven’t even read a book or work but who go onto public forums and claim to understand more about a given topic or book than those who have studied it and read it countless times over decades are no different than a person who has never read Shakespeare going into a public forum and bickering with a Shakespeare expert about the works of Shakespeare. It is naive and hypocritical for such a person to point the finger at the more informed one and claim he or she is “living in a bubble” or doesn’t know what they are talking about. I am truly embarrassed for you, to tell you the truth.
So what do we know about the Mormon god.
First of all we know that he was a mere man who by faithfulness to the LDS system became a god just like millions and billions of other men made gods out in the universe.
We know that our Mormon posters want to deny that this man who was transformed into god by following the LDS godmaking system, didn’t sin. That was quite a feat I’d say for a man to accomplish. Unfortunately it appears that he’s the only one who’s pulled this off because all of these LDS men slaving away in the system right now and those in the past, sinned. Even Joseph Smith, the Grand Poh Bah of Mormonism sinned. So did Brigham Young and the other Mormon prophets. I still think the Mormon god of this world sinned. But then he doesn’t exist any way so it’s a moot point.
We know that even though our LDS friends want to deny it, Joseph Smith identified the Egyptian fertility god Min, sitting on his throne exposing himself, as the Mormon god. It takes a whole lot of spinning to get out of this one. Now what our SLC LDS friends could do is what the Community of Christ and the Church of Christ Mormon sects have done and deny that the BoA is scripture. But then they don’t recognize the LDS god anyway, so there you go!
………and we know that the Grand Prophet Brigham Young said that the Mormon god was really Adam. A total dunce this Brigham Young. Even the LDS church in SLC that he founded and led think his doctrine is false doctrine. However the FLDS do not. They are true blue BY Mormons. I wonder if the LDS church is regretting having named their main university after this guy they subtlety admit was a false prophet?
I must say I do get a certain amount of perverse pleasure out of watching out LDS posters come up with these fantastic explanations why we are all wrong about all of this. In the process they get to create their own form of Mormonism that keeps them in their comfort level.
BTW, who’s buried in Joseph Smith’s grave?
OH, OH……..I’ve been thinking about doing this for sometime and a couple of years Sharon and I discussed it. That is, I’d do a short intro article on the BoM and then I’d read it providing my commentary as I went along. You all could then comment on my commentary.
Now what do you think? Would that then qualify, validate and give me credibility with FOF and the other TBMs?
Of, FoF,
More of the same… More of the same. You’ve done nothing to prove me wrong. Absolutely nothing. All you have done is repeat the same mantra over and over again: you’re doctrine leave no room for Jesus to have been a sinner. But I have given you reasons why your doctrine does in fact leave room for a sinner– not least that if he was never a sinner, you can NEVER be like him because you ARE a sinner. (Caps for emphasis.)
The numbers/hypocrisy game won’t get you far. I can’t speak for those people, and they are mistaken. Do you feel your adherents who make the claim Jesus might have sinned are mistaken? You never answered that.
As to the belief, you therefore do not think belief alone is all he wants. One can listen to a physician, follow recommendations, and not believe the treatment is going to work. So you do not have to believe your physician to get well. Which means that you can work to be saved and made well without belief.
Why do I harp on that Christ could have sinned? I harp on this because the logic is so clear and so obvious. Once we had a discussion on sticking points concerning faith. Remember you saying the Trinity was a bar to belief for many people? The logic I bring forth is one of those sticking points in your faith that keeps me from taking it seriously as a source of truth. You’ve done nothing to attack the logic, only repeating that the great body of your works suggest he did not. Great, but that does not address the logic I have provided. People saying something over and over means nothing.
I just have to comment on this, because it shows a level of duplicity that seldom graces this forum. Here is what Jesus said, just to show how FOF misconstrues what PR meant,
What was the “work” that Jesus completed? He gave people the knowledge of God and how to attain eternal life, and then took upon Himself the sins of the world ON THE CROSS OF CALVARY. How do we gain eternal life? By believing on his name.
FOF denies the Bible when he says that God’s work was not completed on the cross. As Paul rightly taught,
What more can anyone do? Nothing. There is no “work” that can take the place of faith in Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit changes the natural man as we take upon ourselves the divine nature of God, and then our actions reflect that divine nature. There never was a need for Jo Smith and the “restoration” simply because Jesus did everything we need to be saved. The testimony of his life is right there in the New Testament. You see how FOF will not address this, how he can’t address this simple thing that PaleRider said.
FOF simply denies Christ in favor of Jo and the Mormon “prophets” who taught him that the work of Christ was not completed on the cross. God is “at work” in the world today through the Holy Spirit in the lives of those who what? Believe in Jesus Christ and his finished work, which has given eternal life to those who what? Believe in Him. How? By the Grace of Jesus Christ.
Mormons simply won’t accept this one simple thing. They have to present an argument that Jesus didn’t finish his work so that Jo Smith could be justified in his “restoration” of heresy. Jo simply wrote up some pseudepigrapha about Jesus, gave it a King James “flavor” and made Jesus say and do things he never did to justify Jo’s hatred and distrust of what the Bible teaches, which he learned from his occult oriented father. He then used the BOM to dupe people into believing his other “revelations” that took them further and further from Christ, and into polytheism and the occult. How arrogant he was, even writing about himself in his pseudo history! He even had to change the Bible and write himself into the Book of Genesis!
Of course, the Mormon Church today can’t reconcile Jo’s occultism, and so all of that is downplayed, obscured and KEPT SECRET by Modern Mormons who focus on the Book of Mormon (which teaches that God is a Spirit) and believe what they “feel” makes them “good people”, from doing “good works”. They force their followers to obey petty and meaningless “regulations” to control them. To them, the Bible is simply unreliable, and they worship instead the Book of Mormon, which denies that Christ finished his work for us, and that Jesus is powerless to save us unless we obey the regulations of the Mormon Corporation that gives them all a lavish lifestyle while the poor are treated like dirt. As Peter said,
The Book of Mormon is nowhere to be found in this equation. It is non-relevant, a pseudo history that has no basis in reality. Interesting that Mormons will ignore the false prophecies of Jo and call claims of fraud “theories” when the facts are plain before us. Here is one of Jo’s whoppers, written down by his trusty partner in polygamous crime, William Clayton:
The Book of Mormon also echoes this. It has proven itself false (by Mormon “apostle” Parley P. Pratt in 1838) who also said that it prpophesied the destruction of the U.S. before 1888, and said if that didn’t come true it was false. Well, we all know the truth now. The BOM is intricately linked with Jo’s false prophecy. It cannot stand alone. That is the fallacy of FOF’s belief in it.
I can’t explain YOUR PERSONAL VIEWS FOF, you are right there. But your PERSONAL VIEWS are not what Mormonism teaches, as I’ve proved over and over again. Of course you can’t refute those volumes of quotes. You are simply pathetic in your denials from the bubble. This is all FOF has. Denials. Sad, folks. Truly sad.
More of the same… More of the same. You’ve done nothing to prove me wrong. Absolutely nothing. All you have done is repeat the same mantra over and over again
Grindael- you are quoting the passage of scripture I sometimes use when critics make this argument- that our salvation was completed on the cross.
But please note the context of the passage- Jesus says AT THE LAST SUPPER- “I have completed the work Thou gavest Me to do.”
So I suppose, using your line of logic, the work of Christ was completed at the time of the last supper?
Aww. This argument is exposed for what it really is. False.
Why does Paul instruct the saints to “work out your salvation in fear and trembling?” I thought the “work of salvation” was done? By the way, the atonement of Christ was completed at the resurrection. Please don’t put words in my mouth.
And this goes along with the argument leveled by critics so often about prophets- you say Christ ended the need of prophets. But why are there prophets in the New Testament after Christ? Do you need references?
“And in these days came prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch. And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit that there should be great dearth throughout all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar.” Acts 11:27-28
“Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.” Act 13:1
“And Judas and Silas, being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them.” Acts 15:32
“And as we tarried there many days, there came down from Judaea a certain prophet, named Agabus.” Acts 21:10
But in the end, I suppose you are insisting that the work of God no longer occurs in the world? That is what you are arguing.
MJP- I ask again- please provide support for your claim that there are any members of the church who believe Christ was a sinner. You have not provided any support for that claim. I feel no obligation to continue with any discussion about Christ sinning. You are out on your own there.