Everyone has a heavenly father. Which one do you have? There are two.
One tells you who are here to be tested, the other tells you who are here to love and be loved.
One encourages you to eat of the forbidden fruit, the other encourages you to wait and trust.
One is the “god of this world,” the other gathers a family for himself by adoption through his Only Begotten.
One tells you to hide from your history, the other tells you to own up to it and trust God for healing and forgiveness.
One tells you to get a temple recommend, the other tells you that Jesus IS your temple recommend.
One tells you to go through “priesthood authority,” the other tells you to boldly approach the throne of grace.
One tells you to pursue godhood, the other tells you to pursue humility and enjoyment of God alone.
One tells you to try filling up your cup before you arrive, the other tells you to empty your cup so he can fill it to an overflow.
One tells you to revile the lost sheep (apostates), the other tells you to pursue and understand them with love.
One tells you to sing “Praise to the Man,” the other tells you to praise the Son of Man.
One says that men become Gods, the other says that God became a man — because he loves you.
Yes, everyone has a heavenly father. But there are two heavenly fathers.
Some of your ideas puzzle me. One tells you, you are here to be tested, the other tells you, you are here to love and be loved. Now isn’t the test how to love someone?
I see no understanding of how LDS see things. Nothing is ever explained here and no one seems to be able to tell it from an LDS point of view. If this is researched then it is lousy research.
One says that men become Gods, the other says that God became a man — because he loves you. One day I will be an heir of God and joint-heir of Christ. Is not this the same One you call God?
Clyde
“I see no understanding of how LDS see things.”
That’s hardly surprising is it? Is there any understanding among LDS apologists as to how Christians see things? It’s the same old Story Clyde; you get your beliefs from a fairy story somewhat akin to Alice in Wonderland (was Joseph related to Lewis Carroll in any way?) whereas Christians derive their Dogma & Doctrine from Gods word namely, the Bible. When you understand that you will understand why there can be no meeting of minds on these things. Putting it very simply, Christians & the LDS have almost nothing in common.
Everything Aaron has written about can be found in LDS literature under the heading of Doctrine. Unfortunately for Mormons NONE of that doctrine can be found in Scripture. By that I mean real scripture as found in Gods word. You may have heard about this book, it’s called the Bible, but it would appear that you have never read it or if you have then like all apologists, you haven’t understood it.
“One day I will be an heir of God and joint-heir of Christ. Is not this the same One you call God?”
No it isn’t, Unlike the Mormon god, the Christian God has always been, (Psalm 90:2) He didn’t become a god, He isn’t ‘evolving’ & He doesn’t change His mind every generation or so. The LDS understand ‘joint heirs of God’ (Romans 8:17) to mean that we can also become gods but it means nothing of the kind.
Read 1 Corinthians15: 42-49 & understand that as joint heirs we will be raised in the image of Christ, without sin & unable to sin.
Clyde said,
It’s funny you said this Clyde. You LDS dont and cannot understand your own doctrine, and since when do you guys explain your doctrine to us?
Many believers on here ask for evidence, or ask you LDS to explain things to us, and it never happens. So Clyde, for once You spoke truth about yourself and other LDS.
Whether the test is how to love, that is irrelevant. Our god does not test us to determine our worth to reach heaven. We are all worthy– once we accept Christ.
clyde,
First of all you have a duty and obligation to lead us to understanding your religion. You do a very poor job of it and rick has pointed out why. You members of the LDS religion don’t have an understanding of what the religion you belong to is. Part of that is because the LDS religion is a moving target. One of its basic principles is “progressive” revelation. That, by its very nature, gives you a religion that is constantly changing.
I don’t think we’ve ever had a member of the Community of Christ, the FLDS, or the Church of Christ or any of the other seventy some sects of Mormonism show up here and give their vision of Mormonism. Do you understand them?
Lastly, it isn’t that we don’t understand the LDS/Mormon religion that’s the problem for you. The problem for you is that we don’t “believe” it. You think that “understanding” and “believing” are the same thing.
BTW, according to Mormonism there are millions if not billions of heavenly fathers (not just two) in the universe. All of them were former men who, by following universal principles embodied in Mormonism, became gods.
God the Father, who is revealed in the Bible, isn’t even among the pantheon of Mormon gods.
Clyde,
Many of us that reply to LDS here knowing you guys will not or cannot answer questions.
It’s makes e wonder how you guys can honestly believe Mormonism when you cannot answer basic questions.
FoF said over and over, the evidence for the BoM is so over whelming, it’s amazing more people dont believe. Yet many here asked him to provide this evidence and all we got was excuses as to why he could not.
As I said before, just a few weeks to a month ago, some LDS stumbled upon this blog, saw my name, clicked on it, found my email address and wrote me privately Via email. I have kept all of his replies to me and will never delete them.
We wrote back and forth daily and many times a day. He saw my reply on this blog asking for prayer saying I was meeting with some Mormon Missionarys. He thought I was meeting with them to possibly convert. In our talks he told me, Mormons can drink some types of tea.
This is an exact quote from him, minus His name.
So this LDS member claims we can drink tea, Yet your leaders claim we cannot.
Then he said to me
So after he told me LDS can drink some types of tea, I gave him many quotes from LDS prophets, presidents, LDS sources and showed him that your leaders and scripture simply say, we cannot drink tea, they do not and never have made a distinction between types of tea.
Then after pointing that out, I said, Your not a leader who speaks for God, your not a prophet, president, or any type of official in the church, so all your giving me is your opinion.
So give me a quote or two from official sources that support your view, and if not then why should I trust you?
Guess what Clyde, This LDS never wrote me back after that, and the reason why is, He could not give me official sources backing up what he said. Like all LDS he believes what he wants, and teaches things not taught by your leaders. So you are no different, we ask for evidence and sources and you like Shem, FoF, and all other LDS, seem to disappear until the topic moves down and you guys think we will forget.
Maybe others forget, or let it go, But I dont, you guys are leading people to eternal destruction and I have to let you know this, if you reject it, thats on you. But I will at least point out this stuff to the lurkers who need to know and will not get the truth from you guys.
What a sad scenario we see with good decent people being detoured from the clear truth of the
one God of the Bible , into following latter days prophets who teach heavenly father Gods,
grandfather Gods , and heavenly Mother Goddesses , and that sinful man can become a God
and people planets/worlds with his progeny and rule over them as heavenly Father Gods.
God help the Mormon people to dismiss their prophets and the strange doctrines which they
have taught —Heb. 13:9 — and return to anchoring their beliefs in the Bible .
Following latter days prophets who package their own ideas as ” restored truth ” is very
dangerous spiritually . Mormons can experience freedom from their prophets , and exchange
them for the authentic ones in the Bible . Jesus will help those who take a step to make this choice.
I find this post amusing considering the fact that evangelicals do not believe that God the Father is actually a “father” (as defined by any dictionary) nor do evangelicals believe the God the Son (Jesus) is actually a “son” (as defined by any dictionary). The concept of the fatherhood of God the Father or of sonship of God the on (Jesus) is completely lost in the thoroughly non-Biblical Trinitarianism of the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds. What Evangelicals are left with in their three-in-one god without body, parts, or passion is a completely abstract, man-made concoction devoid of Biblical truth, clarity, or consistency in other words a mass of confusion. When confronted with the ill-logical and inconsistent nature if their three-in-one god evangelicals retreat and say “it is all a mystery of god”. No wonder Christ calls such creeds “an abomination”.
In contrast the LDS theological approach wherein God the Father (Heavenly Father) and God the Son (Jesus) are indeed Father and Son is clear, consistent, and compatible with the Bible.
alex said,
I find this post amusing considering the fact that evangelicals do not believe that God the Father is actually a “father” (as defined by any dictionary) nor do evangelicals believe the God the Son (Jesus) is actually a “son” (as defined by any dictionary).
I say,
This comment is very telling.
For the Christian the concepts of Father and Son are defined by God. Earthly men are “fathers” and “sons” only so much as they reflect the image of God.
The Mormon on the other hand starts with human definitions and then tries to make God conform to his earthly expectations of what a father or son should be.
That is the difference between a faith based on God’s revelation and one based on man’s speculations.
peace
Alex
The term Trinity is just short hand for three simple Biblical truths. Nothing complex or difficult to understand
1) There is only one God
2) The Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit are each fully God
3) The Father, The Son and the holy Spirit each different persons
To deny the Trinity is to deny one of those simple basic truths of the Bible.
Which one do you deny? I’d be happy to bury you with Scripture demonstrating the truth of which ever one you are having trouble with
peace
Actually, Alex, I see the very definition of the Father and the Son in God and in Jesus. As our creator, he is most certainly a father. A Jesus was fully man as much as He was fully God, He is also most certainly a son.
There is no inconsistency here. Think about it and pray about it.
Alex
“In contrast the LDS theological approach wherein God the Father (Heavenly Father) and God the Son (Jesus) are indeed Father and Son is clear, consistent, and compatible with the Bible.”
Well Alex, I’m thinking that you’re indulging in the well-known Mormon practice of sanitising doctrine & sprinkling it with a little deception for added flavour.
All we have there is the modified version put out for public consumption to ensnare the unwary. Why not give us the full LDS version? I’m sure you know it, a Mormon god with two primary sons, Jesus & Satan (You may possibly know the latter as the non-existent entity called Lucifer) & countless billions of lesser sons.
As you say all of that is ‘clear consistent & compatible with the Bible’ I’m sure you will be only too happy to show us exactly where in the Bible we are told this.
@FM Man,
Is Jesus the Son of God?
If yes how so?
Given that apostate trinitariansim insists that there is but one god then that must logically follow that Jesus Christ begat Himself. An absurd proposition.
The essence of trinitarianism as espoused in the Nicene and Athanasian creeds denies that Jesus Christ is the Son of God the Father.
Volumes of absolute gibberish have been written trying to prove the unprovable: namely the three-in-one god.
What a mass of confusion.
The Bible is explicitly clear on this matter. Jesus Christ is the Son of God. God the Father attests to the Sonship of His Son on two occasions: at the Baptism of Christ by John the Baptist; and on the Mount of Transfiguration.
Christ repeatedly refers to God the Father (Heavenly Father) as His Father. There is simply no notion or hint that the relationship between Jesus Christ and God the Father is anything but a Son and His Father. Therefore, unless one completely ignores what is written in the four Gospels and the rest of the New Testament one cannot arrive at the trinitarian formulation.
There is no salvific value in trinitarianism – indeed as Christ states clearly: such creeds are an abomination.
Yet… Christ directly claims to be God on multiple occasions. Do you wish to go through these?
Alex,
Can you say Troll?
Again, you dodge the major topics and dont really give any evidence for what you believe, and pop in and do drive by posts, and then act as if you know what your talking about. Because that is typical Mormon behavior, Why should we trust you?
MJP writes: “I see the very definition of the Father and the Son in God and in Jesus”
What definition are you referring to? Just as I thought, there is no such definition. Are you suggesting that God is a three-personalty, mutually contradictory schizophrenic?
Many evangelicals are now espousing that “Jesus is God – Period” and that Jesus Christ is a manifestation of God the Father.”
Such uninformed and misguided notions are nothing but the old heresy of modalism (look it up).
No matter how you slice it – the Nicene and Athansian creeds are complete self-contradictory gibberish concocted out the abstract notions of Hellenist philosophy.
I mean that the father begets a child. I clearly see this in scripture, and I also see that Christ is every bit God as God the Father. Do you think he claimed to be “I am” for just any reason?
@MJP
Christ claims to be the Son of God. God the Father attests that Jesus is His Son. Christ never claims to be God the Father. Two different individuals – not one schizophrenic three-in-one god.
@Rick,
As you simply make juvenile insults and are incapable of adding anything intelligent to the thread I will choose to ignore you.
alex you said,
Is Jesus the Son of God?
I say
yes.
you say,
If so how.
I say,
Now you are attempting to move past the Trinity to another doctrine (the generation of the Son).
One doctrine at a time please
I’d be happy to discuss the eternal relations of the Trinity with you once we can agree on the more basic simple doctrine of the the Trinity itself. Do you agree with the three truths I posted?
you say,
The essence of trinitarianism as espoused in the Nicene and Athanasian creeds denies that Jesus Christ is the Son of God the Father.
I say,
How so?? I don’t understand??? Which of the three simple undeniable Biblical truths I mentioned denies that Jesus is the Son of God?
Please be explicit and don’t rely on double talk or Philosophical mumbo jumbo.
I’m not sure but if I had to guess I’d say that you problem here is that you have a preconceived nonbibical understanding of what it takes to be a son.
Remember God defines what a Son is not man made philosophical speculation.
you say,
Given that apostate trinitariansim insists that there is but one god then
I say,
It’s the Bible that insists that there is but one God. Would you like me to quote you a verse or 10 to prove this truth?
you say,
that must logically follow that Jesus Christ begat Himself. An absurd proposition.
I say,
That would only be the case is the Father and the Son were the same person. That is not the Trinity that is the heresy of modelism. You are attacking a straw man which I already disproved in statement number 3.
you say,
Volumes of absolute gibberish have been written trying to prove the unprovable: namely the three-in-one god.
I say,
I have laid out the whole case for the doctrine of the Trinity in 3 simple statements (28 words) you have already written much more gibberish trying to deny the Trinity than it took me to prove it.
peace
Please Alex,
If we did a poll asking Christians how many times they ask questions and they get ignored By LDS, I know besides me, Falcon, old man, MJP and others would all say they are ignored.
And no Alex, It is not a matter of, Christians out number LDS, it is a matter of LDS running away.
Then if we took a poll asking, Christians, How often do LDS avoid the tough questions and come back once in a while for small topics like this, again, the vast majority would say, It happens often. So dont make excuses as to why you will ignore me, Just come with real answers and we will talk.
Alex said
Then explain Why Jesus said, I AM.
rick,
You hit the nail on the head.
Alex is indeed a troll. Just a couple of wild shots in the dark and then run away.
Notice he provides no Biblical evidence for the Mormon doctrine that there are millions if not billions of gods, all who were former men who now live in polygamous bliss with their multiple goddess wives, giving spirit birth to these minions who will eventually populate their many planets.
Total Smith nonsense.
Alex
“Christ repeatedly refers to God the Father (Heavenly Father) as His Father. There is simply no notion or hint that the relationship between Jesus Christ and God the Father is anything but a Son and His Father. Therefore, unless one completely ignores what is written in the four Gospels and the rest of the New Testament one cannot arrive at the trinitarian formulation.”
You have very little understanding of Scripture & much like Clyde I doubt if you have ever done anything more than skim through a few pages of the Bible looking for verses to back up heretical Mormon doctrine.
Have you ever read John 8:58-59 ? Do you even understand why the Jews wanted to crucify Jesus? You obviously don’t but they most certainly did. Read John 10:30-33 did you see what it said in verse 33? Jesus was claiming to BE GOD. There is a world of difference between the Mormon idea of Jesus being gods literal born of the flesh son, & the scriptural meaning of Son of God. The Jews knew the difference, Christians know the difference, but Mormons just don’t get it, they live in spiritual darkness. Your response to everyone here shows a complete lack of understanding & carries no weight at all.
Finally, you have failed to respond in any way at all to what I said in my previous post so in case you somehow overlooked I’ll repeat it in part.
“All we have there is the modified version put out for public consumption to ensnare the unwary. Why not give us the full LDS version? I’m sure you know it, a Mormon god with two primary sons, Jesus & Satan (You may possibly know the latter as the non-existent entity called Lucifer) & countless billions of lesser sons.
As you say all of that is ‘clear consistent & compatible with the Bible’ I’m sure you will be only too happy to show us exactly where in the Bible we are told this.”
If you cannot do this then it might be better if you say nothing at all about anything.
Alex,
If RickB & Falcon are correct that you are a troll & from much of what you say I think they may well be right, then perhaps it’s time you realised that you are doing your church far more harm than good. You may think you are getting to everyone here but you would be totally wrong.
I for one am content to see you ‘sticking your oar in’ as we say over here, because the people we want to reach are those Mormons who are having doubts, the ones who know that LDS doctrine has real problems & in spite of looking, cannot find satisfactory answers within the LDS.
You my friend are showing them that their doubts are well founded.
I started rereading Muows Talking With Mormons and it has a part where his LDS scholar dialogue partners were claiming that the “abomination” of the creeds was not their content but their limitation from future revelation and their apparent superceding of scripture.
Thanks Alex for reminding us what LDS really believe – the very content is abominable to LDS and their god.
Alex says at 2:20
“I find this post amusing considering the fact that evangelicals do not believe that God the Father is actually a “father” (as defined by any dictionary) nor do evangelicals believe the God the Son (Jesus) is actually a “son” (as defined by any dictionary).”
Authority.
Alex falls off the rails immediately at the issue of authority. This is clear from the first sentence.
This is telling (could even be a sign of trollership).
For Alex, authority is found in the dictionary, yep, “any dictionary” apparently. The BoM also by inference is also subservient to the dictionary. Then after appealing to the dictionary he wants to talk about the trinity.
He speculates I guess that “evangelicals” also look to a dictionary for doctrinal guidance. Just amazing! Perhaps the dictionary (any dictionary) should be added to the standard works.
In a sense though I do sympathize with Alex here, I mean, read this, “For God sent not his Son into the world. . . .” We can pause here and consider the word “Son”, but to look to the dictionary for help with these few words from John 3:17 is unwise as to being ridiculous. With 66 books, written by 40 authors there is an abundance of inspired material to work with.
According to Alex, evangelicals are off track per the dictionary. Amazing.
Virtually every known heresy attacks the authority of Scripture. Alex and the LDS tribes famously do this.
Peace
Does anyone remember when Andy Watson did his excellent three part series here on the Doctrine of the Trinity?
I would suggest that we link to that. It’s really a worthless proposition to attempt a discussion with someone who doesn’t have even the basic knowledge of the doctrine of God and the early history of the Christian faith.
It’s simply a case of these Mormon folks repeating verbatim the nonsense put out by the LDS church.
OK here we go. If you Mormons want to get an understanding of this Doctrine, I’d suggest you read Andy’s four part series. Then again you’d actually have to put in some effort learning something that won’t coincide with the surface level pablum of the LDS spin machine.
Author Archives: Andy Watson
The Trinity: Mormonism’s Rejection of God’s Highest Revelation (Part 4 of 4)
Posted on December 6, 2012 by Andy Watson
In this last article we will examine one of the heretical distortions of the doctrine of the Trinity as embraced by Mormonism. As was noted earlier, Mormonism doesn’t look favorably on the ecumenical councils that took place long ago in … Continue reading →
Tagged Marcionism, Mormon Godhead, Polytheism, Trinity, tritheism | 99 Comments
The Trinity: Mormonism’s Rejection of God’s Highest Revelation (Part 3 of 4)
Posted on December 3, 2012 by Andy Watson
In Part 3 of this series we want to continue the examination of the early church teaching in what later became known as the Trinity. It is paramount that Christians trace their theology and doctrine coming from the Bible as … Continue reading →
Tagged Trinity | 13 Comments
The Trinity: Mormonism’s Rejection of God’s Highest Revelation (Part 2 of 4)
Posted on November 29, 2012 by Andy Watson
In Part 1 of this series we briefly examined what the doctrine of the Trinity is by definition and specific distinctions, which also included Mormonism’s rejection of the doctrine. The primary reasons why the Mormons reject this Christian teaching was … Continue reading →
Tagged Trinity | 54 Comments
The Trinity: Mormonism’s Rejection of God’s Highest Revelation (Part 1 of 4)
Posted on November 26, 2012 by Andy Watson
[The following is the first in a 4-part series on the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, offered by Mormon Coffee guest contributor Andy Watson. All parts of the series will be posted in succession, following our regular schedule of new … Continue reading →
Tagged Mormon Godhead, Trinity | 92 Comments
Clyde and Alex:
Alex, what Clyde said has been perfectly personified by you from the other perspective. So, Clyde, are you going to call out Alex for the very thing you were criticizing us?
Clyde originally said:
Some of your ideas puzzle me. One tells you, you are here to be tested, the other tells you, you are here to love and be loved. Now isn’t the test how to love someone? I see no understanding of how LDS see things. Nothing is ever explained here and no one seems to be able to tell it from an LDS point of view. If this is researched then it is lousy research. One says that men become Gods, the other says that God became a man —because he loves you. One day I will be an heir of God and joint-heir of Christ. Is not this the same One you call God?
My responses:
1) Yes, Clyde, I can see the LDS belief being summed up as a test of whether we will love and learn to love. But Aaron is obviously trying to consider the differences. LDS leaders and some members like to talk like they are the only ones who have answers to the Big Questions of Life. Some LDS try to challenge Christians by asking, “Then why are we here?” as if they expect that to stump us. Aaron might have written this differently, but I believe he means that the LDS answer is that we are here to be tested, to show our worthiness or lack thereof. This is true no matter what the test is. The Bible records that we were made to love, glorify, and enjoy God together. There is no test. There has to be justice but that is not a test.
2) LDS come on here and constantly show their lack of understanding of Christianity and nearly never offer any proof of research of any kind. I can honestly say that I can only recall two maybe three LDS quote and discuss a Bible passage in context! And my memory and desire to see this happen are such that error is negligible. And while I am not omnipresent, I think this is still significant in my rather dedicated 4 plus years with Mormonism. MRM especially but also Christians here have learned or at least confirmed their understanding of Mormonism from LDS texts and leaders AND in context! This is the principle methodology of MRM and to varying degrees every non-Mormon here. LDS don’t challenge Christian belief from Christian worldview but from their own. At least Christians do make an attempt to understand and critique Mormonism based on Mormonism. Never seen that from any LDS or LDS organization.
MODERATORS! – we could really use a post on all the ways that LDS misrepresent, misunderstand, etc. Christianity and the Bible and the Gospel! Basically how they are guilty of nearly all their own general criticisms of us and Mormonism but toward Christianity. That would be awesome; thanks for your consideration!
3) Clyde you fall on your own sword with your last three sentences. Besides the fact that it is unclear what you are saying, you do seem to show no understanding, nor an attempt to understand the Christian perspective, and thus little to no research.
And, Clyde, your very absence from the discussion will confirm my criticism here and refute your point and smack of hypocrisy if it continues. I now its still the same day. But will you return? Will you meet your own criteria for proper interaction?
All I have to say is – beautifully said! I was truly moved by your words, Aaron. The gospel is astonishing and I am in awe. Having recently come out of mormonism, I wanted to jump up and scream – “Can I get an AMEN?” – to the quote, “One tells you to sing “Praise to the Man- the other tells you to sing praise to the Son of Man.” My husband used to always sing the words like this: “Praise to the Man who’s confused with Jehovah-” I can’t explain how freeing it is to know that Jesus is enough!! What is there to argue about – seriously.
Too bad that is exactly what Jo taught for years, and they even praised the doctrine of the Trinity in the Evening and Morning Star! Of course, Alex will have nothing to say about this… which I find truly intelligent on his part because he already looks so bad from not being able to answer any simple questions about Mormonism that this is his wisest course of action: hit and run, run, run.
Oh, and if any would question whether Phelps knew what “doctrine” was in the church, or had authority to preach it in the Star, here is the proof. In 1833, Joseph wrote to Phelps,
Amen, merrick. I don’t think we’ve met. With my limited access, I’m not as active here as I used to be or would like to be. It sounds like you have an interesting story to tell if you were a member with a husband singing Praise to the Man like that! If you are new or just new to me, Welcome!
Here’s the deal.
Mormons with limited knowledge and intellectual gravitas do the “hit and run” routine basically babbling the same old tired LDS lines and never going very deep.
Someone who really had some curiosity and the ability to pose probing questions and then go and seek the answers aren’t satisfied with canned surface level mantras.
I remember CattyJane came here a few months back having gone inactive in the LDS church and was teetering on the verge of going back. Something kept her here asking questions and meeting with a couple of the regular contributors via e mail. She was honest in her quest to find the answers specifically to who God is and what is the Doctrine of the Trinity. She found out and came to Christ in faith.
It’s amazing what Mormons will find if they get a little independence and start pursuing information that leads to an understanding of what many have foolishly rejected.
The Doctrine of the Trinity is not Modalism. (look it up genius). But Jo taught Modalism in his early years. Read the Lectures on Faith (esp. V) that Jo wrote. It’s all there. So thank you VERY MUCH ALEX, you have assured us that Jo taught heresy. You are certainly full of surprises these days.
Alex,
You have a lot to say about the confusing nature of the Trinity in Christianity. You also made a particular point about the meaningfulness of “father”in Christianity. But, Alex, have you really considered the “fatherhood” of the LDS Heavenly Father?
He is our “literal” father in that he begot our spirits with Heavenly Mother(s), but they couldn’t do that with just their spirits. They had to have physical bodies in order to have spirit offspring?
But that was not the beginning of our existence. We have always existed as “intelligences”and somehow got embodied in the spirit “bodies”created by our “literal” parents?
So we have always existed but HF is our “father” because he gave us a spirit body and raised us in the first estate. What that raising was like is a mystery because HF can only be in one place at one time and there were billions and maybe trillions or much much more of us to be “fathered”somehow.
But then our “father”wants us to progress, so he wants us to leave his presence, forget him and be tested and given the opportunity to grow and prove ourselves “worthy” not only for individual blessings but to even get to live with him again? To even see him ever again after the judgment? To see our Heavenly Mother ever again?
So we go and we sin and need a savior. Does our “father”come to save his “children”? No, our literal “brother” Jesus is sent by our “father”.
Our “father” sends his “literal son” (also eternal intelligence owing its existence in no way to this”father”except the spirit body provided and the upbringing in the first estate) to suffer dishonor, pain, hunger, torture, cruelty, hatred, and execution for his progression and/or our salvation (depending on the Mormon you are speaking to), instead of himself.
Before sending the son, did this “father” interact with his children? Only a few. Who brought up, liberated and cultivated the Jews, the chosen and literal children of this father? Not the “father”, Yahweh, but the son, Jehovah. (Don’t worry about the confusion there.)
What gospel does this “father”provide through his “son”? Eternal existence after death and a level of existence eternally separated from the “father” – unless you…Continually obey all commandments all the time and repent when you fail. But repenting requires stopping the sin of commision and omission. So our father’s solution for our sins is to stop them And not start again so we can keep all the commandments all the time.
This father cares for all his”children”and wants to be fair. So as not to unfairly favor the children who live after Jesus, this father will give a chance to the pre-savior dead to accept the savior. Thus the dead get to choose “god”after they learn there is something after death and it is definitely mormonism, take it our leave it, but the living have to accept without ever seeing Jesus or knowing that there is life after death or that its mormonism.
This “father” will then judge us, whether we ever repented – stopped sinning – in order to be baptized and endured to the end – continually kept all of his commandments while taking on other covenants that also include keeping all of the commandments all the time. If we didn’t succeed but tried really hard or not so, then our “father” will eternally shun us.
So this “father” forced? Us to leave his presence and gave us a way back to him through his son but only if we do what we can’t – stop sinning and live celestial law.
Then there’s the families that are told by this “father”that they can be families forever, but only if not only one but all of you stop sinning and obey all the time…
Oh, and this “father” wants us to worship him.
Oh, and maybe to be mentioned but nothing more of his existence to our own spirit children… If there is any of us in the Celestial Kingdom, let alone good enough to progress to godhood and eternal increase…
How many of us did our “father” indirectly save back to him?
Alex, you like dictionary definitions. How is anything the “father”of eternal intelligences? How are eternal intelligences the “sons” and “daughters”of anything? How fatherly is it to eternally shun children that just couldn’t ever really repent – stop sinning?
Alex,
It’s the theological woodshed for you as grindael so aptly pointed out. If you don’t know what modalism is you don’t even have the basic foundational knowledge to participate in this discussion. No wonder you don’t have a clue what the Doctrine of the Trinity.
Alex and Clyde:
“15 If it is disagreeable in your sight to serve the Lord, choose for yourselves today whom you will serve: whether the gods which your fathers served which were beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living; but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.””
Joshua 24:15.
If you disagree with us, fair enough. Worship your god that will lead you to death. I will serve the Lord. My family will serve the Lord. I pray you come to serve Him, too.
Alex,
I said you do drive by posts and really have nothing to say, And it seems I am correct, a few after me said pretty much the same thing and as usual you have given no reason for us to believe otherwise.
So as your usual style, You will be back in a few months, act as if nothing ever happened and claim we dont have a clue. So I will cut and past you last reply with a time stamp, when you come back to troll this site in a few months, I will post you last reply as evidence proving you do that, people can look at your last time stamped reply and search to see if you really do come every few months and do your drive by’s.
Now you might get mad at me for doing this, But you LDS are so dishonest it’s not funny, you claim to have all the answers, and yet, supply none. I cannot sit here and let you deceive people on purpose, Either engage us in honest debate and provide answers or dont come back.
Rick
Do you know how digitalis was found?
A long time ago a Doctor had a patient with an irregular heart beat. She came back in for a check up and the doctor found the heart beating strong and steady. The doctor asked her what she was doing differently. She said a friend had fixed her up some tea for her. The doctor found that the ‘Tea’ was made from the foxglove plant-a good source of digitalis.
You seem to make no distinction between the drink and the leaf. The lds member was trying to tell you the difference. You can quote Lds sources about tea all you want but I will see it as caffienated beverages and you can see it as just tea.
What you used was a poor example of what seemed to me as you knowing more about my doctrine than I do.
Clyde – you can see it as caffeinated beverages if you so choose but that is not what the LDS “Leaders” say. They say nothing about this being an issue of caffeine – that is your interpretation. You must have had a burning in your bosom on that one to let you know that that is what The Lord meant by “hot drinks”. Interesting that in your last sentence you said “my doctrine” because what you are trying to pass off for the LDS church doctrine here is just your opinion. So why is your interpretation better than someone elses that feels that all teas are to be avoided? I know that my mom is positive that all forms of tea are to be avoided and is just as confident in her interpretation as you are in yours. According to the Handbook of Instruction I think her personal revelation is more correct than yours – don’t you think that you should avoid all tea just to be on the safe side in case your personal revelation was a little off – you wouldn’t want a single cup of tea to keep you out of the celestial heaven.
President Joseph Fielding Smith said “SALVATION AND A CUP OF TEA. You cannot neglect little things. ‘Oh, a cup of tea is such a little thing. It is so little; surely it doesn’t amount to much; surely the Lord will forgive me if I drink a cup of tea. Yes, he will forgive you, because he is going to forgive every man who repents; but, my brethren, if you drink coffee or tea, or take tobacco, are you letting a cup of tea or a little tobacco stand in the road and bar you from the celestial kingdom of God, where you might otherwise have received a fulness of glory?” (Doctrines of Salvation 2:16).
Right from the Handbook 21.3.11
Word of Wisdom
The only official interpretation of “hot drinks” (D&C 89:9) in the Word of Wisdom is the statement made by early Church leaders that the term “hot drinks” means tea and coffee.
So yes I left the Mormon church to be adopted as a Daughter of a Heavenly Father who loved me enough to send His son to take my sins and my punishment, who has covered me in His righteousness – that I do not deserve. I have laid my “doing” at the foot of the cross and I trust Christ completely for salvation. I will sing His praises all the days of my life. I pray that one day you will also be able to just accept the gift that Christ offers you without feeling like you have to add your own works to His.
Clyde,
Why is it you and other LDS on this blog can give us your opinion about what your Church teaches, and you expect us to believe it as if it is Doctrine?
Yet when we quote your former leaders talking about Adam God, Blood atonement, Blacks and the priesthood, and many other topics, you guys claim they were giving their opinion and we cannot trust or us them?
That is a double standard and very hypocritical. Unless You can show me from the Bible, or any standard work that “Hot drinks” Is an issue with caffeine, Then I stand by what I said. You guys cannot, therefore you must start defining Hot drinks as caffeine issues. That is not what your scripture teaches and says, that is not what your leaders originally said. So stop deceiving people and leading them to eternal damnation under the guise of following a prophet who is really a false prophet.
Why do Mormon apologists go to such lengths to defend some of their more ridiculous beliefs? Why can’t they accept that their false prophet was merely expressing as ‘doctrine’ the beliefs of the period in which he lived? In the early 19th Century it was a widely held belief that ALL hot drinks, not just tea & coffee, were harmful. Smith simply adopted the idea, called it a revelation & pronounced it to be doctrine. It’s simply incredible that people who would question the non-religious aspects of their lives can be so gullible as to accept such nonsense. Smith must have been laughing his socks off.
Exactly the same principle applies to Smiths so-called civil war prophecy; He wasn’t prophesying at all, he was merely repeating the commonly held belief that the country was heading towards civil war. I can only assume that the reporters of the time were also prophets as these things could be read in most of the newspapers of that period.
Why can’t all you apologists out there see Smith for what he really was? Why are you unable to apply a little common sense to your beliefs? Are you so blinded by the god of this world that logic & reality play no part in your thinking processes? God didn’t bless you with a mind so that a con man posing as a prophet could lead you by the nose.
If the real issue is caffeine, then the lds god is a stupid moron I would not want to serve. Do your own research, caffine is found in many things you eat and drink, and you don’t even know it. So your sending yourself to hell for breaking a command and don’t realise it.
Also why do lds only obey the drinks and booze issue of the word or wisdom and ignore the rest? Again, it’s hypocritical of you.
Tea… Not a hugely interesting topic for me, but I do find this article interesting given the discussion at hand. Just last year the LDS church was saying its not caffeine, but hot drinks, including coffee and tea.
See this SL Tribune article: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/54797595-78/church-drinks-caffeine-lds.html.csp
Clyde,
In case you refuse to read it…
THE CHURCH SAID PROHIBITION ON TEA AND COFFEE IS NOT BASED ON CAFFEINE!!!
Sorry for the shouting. I just noticed that Clyde started this thread with a topic and replied to no one’s response – disingenuous? Kinda contradicts your whole comment’s point.
Then his first comment since is about tea – stereotypical? And how non-mormons just inexplicably can’t “get it” – monotonous.
And… Then we give proof that he’s “not up to speed”with his own leadership and religion – maybe should have
stuck with his first comment topic.
So i shouted to try to keep/get his attention. Probably won’t work. I wonder what his next comment will be about…
Thanks MJP for posting that link. I knew about those statements by the LDS church, as i am sure others here were, but you saved me the time of looking it up and posting it myself. Thanks for overcoming your (Very understandable) disinterest in the tea topic to post that for us.
What’s funny is, the newspaper did not first ask, Alex, clyde, shem or any mormon here for their opinion before writing that article.
Now where is clyde, shem Alex and other lds explaining why they are right and the evidence for caffeine?
They as usual don’t care about truth, that’s why we don’t see them coming and explaining these issues.
Well I hate to get nasty……………..I’ve really been good on this blog for a long time, I must be losing my edge, but Mormons are on their way to hell and they want to argue about “caffeine”?
This is so typical of “religious” folks who follow some man made Law but who have no idea who God is? What’s the topic of the article being discussed here? And Mormons want to get into caffeine?
I was sitting in my car this morning waiting for this gun shop to open (whole other topic) and I turned on the Catholic Channel on my Sirius XM satellite radio and what’s the topic? Here’s a synopsis:
“In the Gospel reading today from Luke 11, Jesus continues to pronounce woes on the scholars of the law. These are some pretty scathing remarks. “Woe to you, scholars of the law! You have taken away the key of knowledge. You yourselves did not enter and you stopped those trying to enter.”
“Today’s first reading from Romans 3 contains passages that have been somewhat controversial among believers. One in particular has to do with justification. St. Paul writes, “For we consider that a person is justified by faith apart from works of the law.” Some Christians take that to mean that the moment one professes faith in Christ Jesus he is justified, or made right in the sight of God, and that his eternal salvation is secured forever; from then on his works have no bearing. But what were these “works of the law?” St. Paul is referring to the 600+ Levitical laws that Jews were required to follow, many of them having to do with ritual cleansing and other exterior actions. St. Paul was making the point that these exterior actions were worthless apart from faith in Christ Jesus. Without faith in Christ Jesus, no amount of “works of the law” mattered.”
“We are called to good works. The Scriptures are very clear on that. But it is not these good works that will get us into heaven. It is our faith in Christ Jesus. St. James says that “faith without works is dead.” So we think of faith and works not as being mutually exclusive. It is not an either/or proposition. It is both/and. We accept the gift of faith, which leads us to good works in joy and gratitude for the victory won for us by Christ Jesus.”
“Father, we know that we can never work our way into heaven. We thank you for the sacrifice of Christ Jesus, and put all our faith in Him. May that faith show through our good works each day. Amen.”
So that’s the Catholic position however I think the point is well taken. Jesus was making it very clear that people can follow all of these dictates and be totally lost. Mormons are lost because they have created a system or “works” and they don’t even know who God is. To them, God is just one of a multitude of gods who were all previously men and by working their way through a religious system, became gods.
What fools!
Yea, let’s discuss caffeine.
When there is such plain and direct evidence these guys are wrong, it deserves to be noted, even on a topic as dry as tea.
Rick says they don’t care about truth. I would agree. Truth is a secondary matter to appearances. Appearances matter more than truth.
I, personally, would appreciate them more if they held up truth more than appearances. I would still disagree, but I would also certainly respect them more for upholding what they perceive as truth rather than equivocating on it.
Falcon, I too get somewhat frustrated at how the topic can rapidly change on this blog , but I
have resolved to not to let it bother me too much anymore . It’s difficult to manage the
conversation on a blog like this considering who can participate , etc .
What I would like to mention though is something I learned from my wife ( former member of
a large modern day prophet led organization , God’s sole channel of truth to mankind etc)
many years ago she reminded me that in organizations like this there is really no such thing as
minor issues , practically everything the prophet introduces is of major importance—
salvation is at stake to reject this counsel . To us caffeine is a small matter but Mormon leaders
have elevated it to a level that it plays a serious part in the life of Mormons .
Mormons need to hear the truth about this ( and other parts of the so called “restored gospel” )
being the “precepts of men ” , so as not to be yoked to a latter days false prophet .
Anyway , that’s my thoughts .