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.
Mike,
Think about how these leaders can keep people’s focus away from God and on to trivial matters. It’s always about control. If the followers can be controlled regarding things like drinking “hot drinks” think of what can be done on really major issues.
Knowing who God is, is where it’s at. A Mormon should go and get a good book on Christian history, written by a legitimate Christian historian, let’s say focused on the first four hundred years of the Church. Then they should read what the heretics proposed and how and why the Church Fathers rejected the heresy.
Who Jesus is, is fundamental to everything. Generally it comes down to his humanity and deity and His position within the Godhead. It all gets back to the meaning of Jesus’ death and resurrection and who He had to be in order for those things to have real meaning in regards to the salvation of mankind.
Aaron, this is a beautiful comparison. Thank you.
Good ol Clyde. Not knowing what his own church says about caffeine just a year and a half ago. When the church announced last year that caffeine and sodas have nothing to do with the word of wisdom, I literally had members tell me that this “shook their testimony”.
What a sad joke
What is interesting is caffeine isn’t very good for you and can be slightly addictive. You see I have been hitting the hard stuff. Yeth I have and I have had to becauthe I have been working the graveyard shift. It doeth not thuit me well because it makesssss me lisp and sluuuuurrr my words. I hope you don’t take this ath a sad joke I will try to write more when I am sober. The hard stuff is Coca cola.
This is simply not true. Caffeine, like all substances CAN BE bad for you, if you misuse it. Caffeine is actually a very good headache medicine, because it opens up constricted capillaries to the brain which relieves headaches. Of course, alcohol can be bad for you, as well as other food items. You can OD on aspirin, and some people are allergic to NSAID’s. The poppy is also misused by people, who get addicted to it when it is distilled as heroin, but then lots of people get relief from it in pill form and by injections like morphine, which is used to ease the pain of people with massive injuries or recovering from surgery. The key here, is knowledge. What knowledge did the Word of Wisdom impart to those in Joseph Smith’s day? Nothing more than what was already known by “Temperance Societies” of the day. Brigham Young said in 1868,
They are bad, says Brigham BECAUSE THEY ARE HOT. Ridiculous. Of course scalding hot drinks are going to injure you. But that has been known (through common sense no less) for as long as men have had the use of fire. But because Jo Smith said so, you have a “regulation” of stupidity that accomplishes little that common sense would if it were used in it’s place, as Paul in the Bible tells us. So those who adhere to Biblical Apostles, are denied the Temple because of this massive stupidity. George Q. Cannon said in the same year,
Hot soups? Give me a break. Here is the “inspiration of the Spirit” for you. Confusion and superstition. To Mormon “prophets” these food items were “evil”, and Mormon “prophets” should be called the ultimate “soup Nazi’s”. Here is Daniel H. Well saying so,
This is a direct contradiction of what the Apostle Paul says about food. Moderation. But in Mormonism it is “evil” and a “forbidden path”. This is simply a means to control people, to get them not to spend their money with the “Gentiles” so they could give it to the fat cats of the Mormon Hierarchy.
Yet here is Charles Nibley in 1923:
Can Mormon girls make good cold soup? That will surely win them the man of their dreams. The ignorance of Mormon “prophets” never ceases to amaze me. Follow them at your own peril, for they haven’t gotten any smarter in recent years, (they only hire better lawyers and ad people to make more money). Here is another Mormon idiot in 1930, who probably never read any Conference report in his life,
“Provision” had been made, because they could not get the people to stop eating hot soup. Priceless. Too bad Mormon “prophets” themselves had warned against “hot soup”, and that this guy was too stupid to realize it. But the “saints” still consumed hot soup anyway. That is how little they thought of these kinds of “revelations”. But they would believe and follow the racist ones. There is no accounting for intelligence when it comes to following leaders that go horribly wrong, is there? Take away the rights of the black man… ok, but don’t make me eat my soup cold!
Wow. How strange. Clyde, you have outdone yourself.
I am going to make corrections to the initial article, and then comment on some of the posts. Sorry this is late, I have been having some computer trouble.
• Our Father tells us we are here to learn and grow and become all that we can be.
• Our Father encourages us to use our free agency to bring about much righteousness, and is always there to guide us in our choices.
• Our Father is the God of this Earth, and has sent His family to live here.
• Our Father tells us to seek the truth in all things and from all reputable sources, denying no truth, no matter the source.
• Our Father has given us His law, and through the atonement of Jesus has made it possible for us to live that law.
• Our Father tell us that he has set up an organization for the governing of affairs on this earth and that we are to work within that organization, but should not be afraid to come to Him directly whenever we need help.
• Our Father tells us to pursue our full potential, and has given the guidelines by which we may achieve it.
• Our Father tells us to do all that we can to, to exercise our agency, and to rely on him for all the things we can’t do for ourselves.
• Our Father tells to seek out those who are lost or who have gone astray and to do all we can in love and meekness to help them come back to him.
• Our Father tells us that it is right to honor men for the great works that they do, but that we are to worship only him.
• Our Father tells us that as His children our greatest potential is to become like Him; and this was exemplified in the life of His Only Begotten who became mortal as we are, suffered through all things as we do, and achieved his greatest potential at the right hand of our Father.
Now, as to comments made:
There has been a lot of mention of tea, and people like Rick and Falcon, and even to some extent MJP and Spartacus, think they have proven a point in using this. They make such claims about me and other members as ” They as usual don’t care about truth” and “Appearances matter more than truth.” Of course, the fact that they are wrong doesn’t seem to mean much, only that they think they are right. So, I will illuminate the understanding just to settle the point. although I have no doubt that they will ignore it and simply bring it up at a later time as is their habit. (I make this last comment because I have posted this to Rick on a different thread before, and he basically ignored it then.)
Now, I went to LDS.org and did a simple search for Herbal Tea. I got the following results.
August Ensign, 1979 “I Have a Question” (http://www.lds.org/ensign/1979/08/i-have-a-question?lang=eng)
Now, the Ensign is an official publication of the church, and is considered as doctrinal as the scriptures. So, when it says in this article that ” Many drinks contain no significant levels of drugs and can be used as tasty warm drinks with some nutritive benefit.” we can conclude that some forms of herbal tea are not against the word of wisdom.
April Ensign, 1977 “The Do’s of the Word of Wisdom” (http://www.lds.org/ensign/1977/04/the-dos-in-the-word-of-wisdom)
Again, as it is in the ensign, we can trust it when it states ” Some people enjoy herbal teas, but even these should not replace more nutritious drinks in the diet.” Once again, this clearly shows that at least some herbal teas can be drunk by members of the church.
The Teachings of Heber J. Grant, “Being Loyal Citizens” (http://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-heber-j-grant/chapter-17?lang=eng&query=herbal+tea) “The measles don’t hurt much if you will take a little saffron [herbal] tea or something else to keep them on the surface.” showing that a president of the church used such herbal teas.
Here are three direct references from official publications of the church that are given for the teaching and learning of church doctrine that some Herbal Teas are just fine and can be drunk without breaking any of God’s commandments.
Clyde was wrong to make the issue about Caffeine, because it isn’t. It is about a whole host of chemicals that have serious and sometimes dangerous side effects, and which can be found in many types of tea. But, when the chemical make-up of a particular kind of tea has been tested and shown to carry no side effects, than it fine for our consumption and falls under the category of “Herbs to be used with prudence,” and not “hot drinks.”
Many people have also commented on the fact that Christ calls himself ‘I Am’ (which they equate with he claiming to be the Father) and in some verses claims divinity in his divine son-ship, and seem to claim that these verses prove that he and the Father are one and the same. We would say differently, and I will attempt to briefly explain why.
First, Christ declares himself to be “I Am” because he is. He is Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament, and is thus the one that declared to Moses “I Am hath sent you.” However, this is not a claim to be the Father, because the Father is not Jehovah and thus was never equated with the title “I Am.”
As to the rest, Christ is God, meaning that he carries with him the authority and rights of that title. He is not God the Father, but God the Son. God the Father is a separate being that also carried the authority and rights of the title God, as is God the Spirit. These three make up a single Presidency, and that Godhead is what is most commonly being referred to when the Bible says there is only one God. At other times it is referring to God the Father, as he is not only God, but he is the God of Christ as well, having authority over the Son.
I am out of time right now, but I will be willing to give verses that show this from the Bible later.
Rick
“You LDS don’t 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.”
First of all, Rick, I have undertaken on several occasions to explain things to you, you this claim here is simply a lie and you know it. Of course, since you tend to ignore everything I say, even when I give you references and quotes, I am not surprised your memory is a little selective concerning this. You love making this claim, and yet you also know it is false.
“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.”
Then, at least as far as I am concerned, they would all be lying. You full well that I have always been willing to answer honest questions about our doctrine. I will admit that I don’t answer demands or challenges for proof, but an honest question is always answered to the best of my ability.
Now, some of what you say is true of some of the LDS here, but not of all; and much of what you say is based on assumptions that you have no proof of and thus is merely idle and careless gossip on your part.
fifth
“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.”
Once again you prove you have no concept of our faith. We do not try to make God conform to our definitions. We assert that our definitions are what they are because God is what He is. We would agree that the concept of a Father is in how much they reflect God, we just extend this to the physical as well as the spiritual. My earthly father is my father for two reasons: I was born through him, and he has acted the part of a father. This is the ideal because it is also why our Heavenly Father is our Father; we were born through him, and he has acted the part of a Father.
“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.”
Again, you show a complete lack of understanding as to our doctrine, because we do not deny any one of these points. They are all very much a part of our doctrine, and unless you can grasp that you will never know what we believe.
The problem I have with your explanation is this: If they are three different persons and yet all full God than that in itself proves there are three Gods, and thus your method of explaining the first point is simply illogical.
Spartacus
I have to say I am a little disappointed as you are usually more civil in your comments.
You said “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.”
This does not reflect the true nature of the doctrine. It would be more accurate to say we are here to learn and progress through trials, not to prove to God we are worthy, but to prove to ourselves we are worthy. What can we do that God does not already know we will do? I do not say that he has already made his judgments, but that he has such an understanding of us that he can perfectly predict. No, the point is for us to know we are worthy, to be able to stand before God and know that whatever judgment he gives is just. I know the doctrine of this church very well, and I have never once felt that I have to earn God’s love or prove to him that I am worthy; but I have felt the desire to prove this, because in so doing I will know.
“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.”
In general I try not to critic the rest of the Christians here, but I have never once seen anyone on this sight critic LDS doctrine from any other worldview than their own (and sighting LDS quotes is not the same thing, because they interpret those quotes according to their worldview). They tell me our doctrine doesn’t make sense for no other reason than it contradicts their doctrine; they make no attempt to understand how we see scripture, preferring to simply accuse us of not reading, or purposely misusing it fit our own goals, and on no other basis than it is not how they interpret scripture; they constantly tell me that I don’t understand the nature of evidence and ignore 90% of everything I say. So, please, don’t try to claim that other here are so courteous when their own actions have proven them rude and arrogant countless times.
Let me also make a few comments on your rather long, and generally inaccurate description of our understanding of Heavenly Father. I do not comment on all of it, as there is too much. I make only a few brief notes.
You said “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”
First, God never wanted us to be separated from him or to lose our memory, but he knew that if this did not happen our growth would be stunted by our lack of experience and our his continual overshadowing. You may have seen similar situations on earth when parents became so overly protective that the children become psychologically trapped at home and never reach their full potential. A truly loving parent never wants their children to experience suffering and pain, but they know that if they are not allowed to make their own choices and learn from their own mistakes that they will never meet their full potential.
“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” 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.”
How can an immortal being, who is not subject to death, sacrifice himself? Our Father is a resurrected and glorified being, and thus it is not possible for him to die anymore. For this reason Jesus volunteered to be the needed sacrifice, and through that he learned exactly what it was going to be like as the head of God’s children, for he was trained to, in a sense, take his Father’s place, just as the elder son of a family on earth has been traditionally trained to become the head of the family.
“Not the “father”, Yahweh, but the son, Jehovah. (Don’t worry about the confusion there.)”
Yahweh is Jehovah, and both are names for Christ. So your statement is a contradiction. Now, while the direct dealings with men were done by Christ, all knew about the Father, and Christ generally came speaking the words of the Father to the people. This is more clearly seen in modern scripture, but is still the case in the Old Testament. This is why we have such verses as ” Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.” (Isaiah 44: 6) in which both are clearly indicated.
“Thus the dead get to choose “god” after they learn there is something after death and it is definitely Mormonism, take it or leave it, but the living have to accept without ever seeing Jesus or knowing that there is life after death or that its Mormonism.”
Everyone gets only one chance, whether that comes in life or after death makes no difference. Those who were given the chance in this life, and rejected it, will not get another chance after death. Also, when we die, whether we know we are dead or not, we take with us our beliefs and desires. A person does not simply know the truth upon their death, which is why there are those in the Spirit world organized by Christ to preach to those who do not know and still do not understand the truth of the gospel.
“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.”
First, it was our choice, and we all came here willingly. Second he does not expect us to do anything that is not within our power to do.
In general you didn’t give a single sentence that was accurate to our doctrine, but these are the only points that I feel any need or desire to speak on as a sampling of this inaccuracy.
Shem said
I stand by what I said, You dont care about the truth. You claim evidence for what you believe, then when I ask for it, you tell me no I wont provide it and then claim me asking is nothing more than a cleaver word trap. How is asking you to back up what you said a word trap?
Then you claim the issue of tea is not Caffeine, and I agree, but you give a quote saying we can drink some forms of tea. Yet we can provide many quotes from your leaders that claim NO tea Period. Yet you find quotes that agree with you and call it good. The Bible also as we have show goes against the WoW and we have pointed out, The WoW did not start out as doctrine, it was simply a good idea, yet it goes from Good idea to doctrine and you again dont care.
I point out, LDS only focus on the hot drinks and booze issue and you guys ignore the eating meat in winter only and many other issues in the word of wisdom.
Then as I said before, You LDS harp on the trinity and claim it’s false, as with Adam God. But then when they are full blown topics, you ignore them, claim they really no big deal and not worthy of your time.
Then with the issue of Jesus saying I AM. Have you read what came After? The Jews wanted to Kill Jesus for saying that. Why? Because they felt He was claiming to be God. So no Shem it’s not just us that feel that way, The Jews did also.
Mormon “revelation” does deny this point. It teaches there is only “one God” for this earth. But that is not true either, because there are THREE for this earth. So this is just blather and an interpretation that borders on lunacy. (It is not a sound system, but is a intelletual slave driver in order to keep people in line, or in other words “brainwashing”.) There is nothing “logical” about Mormon “revelation”. Only if you are taught to look at it in a certain way that makes no logical sense at all, and that was invented after the fact to try and mitigate the damage of Jo’s teaching of polytheism. (It is not a sound system, but is a intelletual slave driver in order to keep people in line, or in other words “brainwashing”.) Even Brigham Young said that it didn’t matter what god you worship, because they are all the same species. This sort of ignorant statement by Shem is what Mormons have to put out there to live with themselves and still try and reconcile the absolute contradiction of this heretical theology with the Bible. It won’t work, and never has worked. (It is not a sound system, but is a intelletual slave driver in order to keep people in line, or in other words “brainwashing”.)
Shem, you said,
“Spartacus
I have to say I am a little disappointed as you are usually more civil in your comments.”
–I think you are referring to my comments to Clyde regarding his statements on tea. With the shouting and the questions I was attempting to get Clyde to engage by being more brisk and pointed. As I predicted, it failed. I knew I was taking a risk in civility, but nothing I said was false or even unfair. Which brings me to some dissappointment of my own.
Shem you included me in a criticism of Falcon and Rick. Although you tempered your inclusion of me by saying “to some extent” (and I did appreciate the “even”), it is with what you included me in that I have a problem. I didn’t bring up tea, nor did i “use” it for anything. I was just stating that clyde’s understanding was sorely uninformed. If I used tea at all it was to point out the seemingly typical and monotonous nature of Clyde latching on to it. See, Rick B was the one who first mentioned tea, but his point was not tea. This was just an example of how he has experienced some LDSs inability or unwillingness to discuss issues. This was in response to the topic that Clyde started – the performance of nonLDS here to discuss Mormonism. Instead of dealing with the topic he started himself – how well each group does at interacting with the other – Clyde completely contradicted the spirit of his first post and latched on to tea derailing what was otherwise a useful topic he started himself.
Shem, you included me when you said that we were saying about LDS, “They as usual don’t care about truth” and “Appearances matter more than truth.” I have never said nor even implied such a thing, ever. The closest I get to such is doubting the desire of individual LDS here on MC to actually discuss truth with us, not if they cared about truth “at all”, let alone that appearances are more important.
I must say though, Shem, that you did make such broad and unfair claims against us, including me, when you say, “Of course, the fact that they are wrong doesn’t seem to mean much, only that they think they are right.” Shem, how are these statements any different than the ones you accused me and others of and condemned? Do you really think that Alex or Clyde gave such a great response that Falcon and Rick and MJP were left with only, “No, you’re wrong, because we’re right!”? I certainly did not evoke such. To claim such against me is less than uncivil, its actually personal.
I was dealing with facts and statements in my risk to civility to Clyde. Shem, in these statements you attacked Falcon and Rick and MJP and me personally – neither dealing with our evidence or our understanding but demonizing our motives and insulting our intelligence. What are we to think of such accusations of incivility when they are followed by definitive incivility?
Shem analyzed he following statements of mine:
“Let me also make a few comments on your rather long, and generally inaccurate description of our understanding of Heavenly Father. I do not comment on all of it, as there is too much. I make only a few brief notes.
You said “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”
First, God never wanted us to be separated from him or to lose our memory, but he knew that if this did not happen our growth would be stunted by our lack of experience and our his continual overshadowing. You may have seen similar situations on earth when parents became so overly protective that the children become psychologically trapped at home and never reach their full potential. A truly loving parent never wants their children to experience suffering and pain, but they know that if they are not allowed to make their own choices and learn from their own mistakes that they will never meet their full potential.”
—-Shem—-
My point here was that one father didn’t want us to leave at all. I understand your reasoning here and agree with it, assuming LDS beliefs about the nature of God and humans and their relationship. So I could have gone back to these cosmological beliefs, but I would have lost focus on the comparisons of fatherhood.
LDS teaching is that God is just like us only different in progression and not the Ultimate of all that exists and that we are to strive to become what he is now. So it makes sense that we would have to leave him to progress and develop just as it makes sense with parents.
But for Christians we believe that God is the Ultimate and that we are fundamentally different than He is. This allows for us to grow and develop IN His presence and through His “shadow” as you put it, or His power. These are fundamental differences between LDS and Christian presuppositions, but its difficult to explain, let alone get it back to talking about fatherhoods. Think of this point of mine as having less to do with the moral rectitude of the LDS “father” compared to any parent and more to do with the necessary limitations imposed upon his fatherhood by his nature as taught in the LDS cosmology.
Shem continued quoting me,
“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” 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.”
How can an immortal being, who is not subject to death, sacrifice himself? Our Father is a resurrected and glorified being, and thus it is not possible for him to die anymore. For this reason Jesus volunteered to be the needed sacrifice, and through that he learned exactly what it was going to be like as the head of God’s children, for he was trained to, in a sense, take his Father’s place, just as the elder son of a family on earth has been traditionally trained to become the head of the family.
—–Shem,—–
I see the problem you point out here given the LDS teachings. Although the restriction on God’s ability to do something as simple as live in earthly flesh and experience death within that flesh seems troubling to me still. But you totally lose me when you start talking about Jesus “taking HIS father’s place”. I don’t see this in LDS eschatology at all. Yeah, it would be like the traditional human family but that doesn’t make it LDS teaching.
Shem continued:
“Not the “father”, Yahweh, but the son, Jehovah. (Don’t worry about the confusion there.)”
Yahweh is Jehovah, and both are names for Christ. So your statement is a contradiction.
—–Shem,—–
Ahhhh!, I totallly messed that up! I meant, “Not the “father”, Elohim, but the son, Jehovah. (Don’t worry…”.
My Bad! Thanks for catching my mistake.
Shem continues:
Now, while the direct dealings with men were done by Christ, all knew about the Father, and Christ generally came speaking the words of the Father to the people. This is more clearly seen in modern scripture, but is still the case in the Old Testament. This is why we have such verses as ” Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.” (Isaiah 44: 6) in which both are clearly indicated.
—–Shem,—–
Everything you say here supports my point. Assuming LDS teachings, Jesus does almost all the work in the Old Testament and New. Where’s Heavenly Father doing any “fathering” in all of this?
Also, I can’t say I know the nitty-gritty of biblical languages but I see three apparent problems in how you read this verse.
1 – it says “his” not “His”, usually any reference to God is capitalized, this would indicate that the “he” spoken of is Israel, which immediately preceded it.
2 – if this were referring to both the Father and the Son, given LDS teaching on their nature, it doesn’t seem to make sense to effectively say “Thus saith We; I am the first, and I am the last, and beside me there is no God.” Starting with God and Jesus and continuing with “I” seems problematic even with the LDS “godhead”.
3 – If we went with your reading it would still seem awkward because Jesus is not the Father’s redeemer.
Shem continues:
“Thus the dead get to choose “god” after they learn there is something after death and it is definitely Mormonism, take it or leave it, but the living have to accept without ever seeing Jesus or knowing that there is life after death or that its Mormonism.”
Everyone gets only one chance, whether that comes in life or after death makes no difference. Those who were given the chance in this life, and rejected it, will not get another chance after death. Also, when we die, whether we know we are dead or not, we take with us our beliefs and desires. A person does not simply know the truth upon their death, which is why there are those in the Spirit world organized by Christ to preach to those who do not know and still do not understand the truth of the gospel.
—–Shem,—–
Again, nothing you said here changes my comment.
I have to say that this critique of yours seems to reveal something significant in your perspective. Given that your input doesn’t affect the point nor even the manner of writing of my comment it seems you automatically assumed my statement came from a place of ignorance on basic LDS teaching instead of considering that I knew everything you “informed” me of and might still mean exactly what I said. I could have been more explicit by saying that the missionaries bring the LDS gospel to the spirits in prison. But I didn’t have to. I’ll assume you just got stuck in “education” mode. But what if you didn’t? What if you have a tendency to not even try to see our point of view and instead automatically assume ignorance or, as we will see later, evil?
The issue was equality of situation between those who decide in life and those that decide in death, not the logistics of that situation. In the situation of the living they don’t even know there is an afterlife in anywhere near the same way as the dead do. The living don’t have any clue that Mormonism is true among all the religions of the world compared to a dead person being visited with the truth of the afterlife (from dead missionaries). So the point stands, what kind of “father” attempts to treat all his children fairly and necessarily fails so? I don’t mean any disrespect, it just seems so obviously unfair and thus a failure to succeed in justice.
Shem continues:
“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.”
First, it was our choice, and we all came here willingly. Second he does not expect us to do anything that is not within our power to do.
—–So Shem,—–
You are saying that you DO believe, as the LDS authorities teach and have taught for over a century, that humans can actually stop sinning in this life? You didn’t challenge that part of the statement. You just effectively said that it was possible.
Shem concluded:
In general you didn’t give a single sentence that was accurate to our doctrine, but these are the only points that I feel any need or desire to speak on as a sampling of this inaccuracy.
—–Again, Shem,—–
Given that my comment on living vs. dead fair treatment still stands as is, your conclusion of “a single sentence” is mistaken. Also since your issue with the first quote you critiqued comes down to “wants” not fitting your semantic preferences, I don’t think it quite qualifies as inaccurate to your doctrine. You might forgive me for the inaccuracy involving God’s ability to die for us; as a Christian I am not used to denying God the ability to do something that seems not to be a logical fallacy. Also, your critique of my statements about Jesus coming to atone instead of the father only had to do with the rhetorical question. So at least the two sentences after it were accurate.
Perhaps that is why you said, “In general,…not a single sentence…”. It’s kind of a contradiction in terms “general” and ” not a single” in the same sentence… Why did you even try such a reach at contention?
Because of limited time I am only going to answer a few of these and it may take a while. But here’s to number 1 –
The Bible states in a number of passages that this life is a trial of our faith. Yes Heavenly Father loves us, but we still need to show our faith in Him and the only way to do that is to have trials (ie being tempted by Satan).
Acts 14:22 Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God.
1 Cor 3: 13 Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is.
Heb 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,
James 1:2-4 My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations; Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience. But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing.
James 1:12 Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him.
1 Peter 1:7 That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:
1 Peter 4:12 Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you:
All of Job was a trial of his faith in God. It makes that very clear when Satan states that Job is only faithful because he has not suffered, so he asks God to allow him to make Job suffer.
But this first point is incorrect about the LDS church, which intimates that we do not teach that Heavenly Father loves us – we teach that Heavenly Father loves each and every one of us absolutely which is why He sent Jesus to perform the Atonement.
Ralph and other LDS here,
Again the point of the first comparison is more complex than it seems on the surface. Yes, both fathers love and in some way both fathers “test” or judge our works, but that does not mean that both fathers are the same in these regards.
That this life will test us, or even that God will test our faith, does not mean that God sent us here to be tested. God the Father of Christianity initially created us as we were to be – with Him in pure communion – “loving and being loved”. There was no test involved. There was freedom/agency and so there was a way for humans to leave that communion – tree of knowledge of good and evil. But the purpose of putting us on Earth (or, in the Christian view, creating us on Earth) was not primarily or secondarily or tertiarily to test us.
This is in distinct contrast with the LDS Heavenly Father who specifically sent us here to, as I have discussed earlier with another, to allow us to grow and develop, but also to test us. Authoritative LDS teachings in print and speech constantly speak of this time being a time of testing to see what we will do, who we will choose, if we will grow, and if we are truly worthy of returning to Heavenly Father and receiving all His blessings of continued growth.
At the risk of opening a wasp’s nest, as I have already hinted above, my understanding of Christianity and the Bible is that the Fall was not planned – of course known by the Omniscient God, but not planned/instigated by God. God was willing to create creation “good” (Genesis) knowing that it would go bad – the Fall. This is not God “programming” the Fall as he does in LDS theology, by creating an irreconcilable conflict of commandments – “multiply (despite My not giving you a way to do this)” vs. “don’t eat the thing (that is the only way to multiply)”.
Risking more on this subtopic:
LDS thought seems to disdain the Christian perspective on this – claiming that if the Fall was not God’s plan/God’s doing, then God is not really powerful – His plan was spoiled by humans. I find this reasoning ironic considering how much power LDS give to humans to circumvent God’s plans and purposes. The simplest example is God claiming that the resistance of his enemies to his followers is reason to give up his command/plans (DnC). Talk about denying the power of God!
But despite all of that, Christians do not lessen the power of God by claiming that Eden was the goal and the Atonement was the “additional” part of the plan because God knew that humans would rebel – the Fall. That alone simply states that God was powerful enough to create a plan that REALLY included human agency. Unlike the LDS God who ends up being the fall guy for the Fall because he intentionally set it up with conflicting commands. Note: God is the fall guy because humans aren’t made guilty by this “choice” because it wasn’t free, because God made it impossible to not fall – thus God created the Fall, not humans. No agency – peculiar for LDS theological consistency. And God’s “guilty”, not humans. I know LDS don’t think that God did anything wrong by giving conflicting commandments (even though that is a derivative of lying), and that the Fall and all its resulting evil (natural, if not human) was God’s explicitly sought out plan all along. But that still puts the responsibility for the Fall and all it entails (positive and negative) on God, not humans at all.
So, after all that nest swatting, I will repeat: Christians take God the Father’s word for it when He said that creation of humans and Earth were “good”. And Christians do not believe a righteous God would create impossible commandments (anyone remember that LDS claim that, “the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them.”-1Nephi3:7?). Christians also believe in true human agency – so the Fall was our fault, not God’s trick to get the ball rolling. God allowed the Fall because He wants not only true human agency but true love to be possible from humans and He provided the Lamb of God because He Is Good and it Glorifies His Goodness. There’s no test here – just God’s goal to love and be loved with humans – and His omniscient, omnipotent Holiness and Goodness taking care of our agencied freewill rebellion.
Let the wasps go forth!
Rick
“You claim evidence for what you believe, then when I ask for it, you tell me no I won’t provide it”
Yes, three quotes is a refusal to provide evidence.
You know full well that I provide evidence on most every issue, and do so to the best of my ability. The only times I have refused to engage you is when you have offered challenges, because there is no point it, and you know it. You want to discuss the doctrine, I will give you all the evidence I have at my disposal. You want to challenge my faith, I will not oblige.
“Yet we can provide many quotes from your leaders that claim NO tea Period.”
Then please provide one or two rather than just claiming that you can. The original point of your whole argument was that we can’t or won’t provide evidence, and you used this as an example. I have proven you wrong on both accounts where this is concerned, but you can’t seem to accept that.
This thread is not about the word of wisdom, and it was you that brought up the question of tea. Thus your accusation that we ignore the rest of the Word of Wisdom is another groundless claim that you have made. We don’t ignore anything, we simply address those points that other bring up.
(and just note, it is always winter in my Refrigerator).
Spartacus
“Shem you included me in a criticism of Falcon and Rick. Although you tempered your inclusion of me by saying “to some extent” (and I did appreciate the “even”), it is with what you included me in that I have a problem. I didn’t bring up tea, nor did i “use” it for anything.”
I apologize for any insult I may have caused. My inclusion of you was in reference to one post in which you expressed your intention of giving quotes to prove Clyde wrong. It was merely to say that you have given your voice to the side of Rick and Falcon and, in doing so, agreed that they had made a point with their statements. I did not mean to include you in any other way, and I am sorry for doing so.
I have always thought that you are the most civil and even-minded poster on these threads, much more so than me, and I have appreciated that. I am not always as civil as I should be, and in my irritation at Rick and Falcon I seem to have said things I should not have.
Speaking of the Analysis:
“My point here was that one father didn’t want us to leave at all.”
I get this point, but my point is that neither of them wanted us to leave at one, but one was willing to let us so that we could grow. I don’t think this detracts from the comparison at all.
“not the Ultimate of all that exists”
I think there is some confusion as to this point. God is the ultimate of all that exists, as everything depends on him. There is nothing greater than God, and this makes him the ultimate.
“Although the restriction on God’s ability to do something as simple as live in earthly flesh and experience death within that flesh seems troubling to me still.”
The restriction on God’s ability to do something as simple as make his children like him seems troubling to me when I consider your doctrine.
“But you totally lose me when you start talking about Jesus “taking HIS father’s place”. I don’t see this in LDS eschatology at all.”
Read the King Follett Discourse.
“What did Jesus do? Why, I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds came rolling into existence. My Father worked out His kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to My Father, so that He may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt Him in glory. He will then take a higher exaltation, and I will take His place, and thereby become exalted myself.”
(http://www.lds.org/ensign/1971/04/the-king-follett-sermon)
“Where’s Heavenly Father doing any “fathering” in all of this?
It is in His personal communication with us, not in the grand designs of establishing kingdoms and churches. It is in the fact that we pray to Him, and it is through Him that the spirit speaks and testifies to us. It may be more like a father writing letters to his children while they are away to college, but it is still personal and it is still a loving father that does it.
Points on scriptures:
1 – Whether it is God’s redeemer or Israel’s redeemer, there are still two distinct beings being referenced.
2 – The Godhead is the ‘One God’ that the verse speaks of. It is not speaking of a being, but of an entity, or presidency that rules in heaven, consisting of three being, but being one unit of governance.
3 – Jesus does not redeem the Father, but he is the one chosen by the Father to redeem all the world. When the plan was set God needed a redeemer for his children, and Christ was chosen. Thus he is God’s redeemer.
“In the situation of the living they don’t even know there is an afterlife in anywhere near the same way as the dead do. The living don’t have any clue that Mormonism is true among all the religions of the world compared to a dead person being visited with the truth of the afterlife (from dead missionaries).”
And this is where you are wrong. We don’t know if those in prison actually know they are dead or not, because the veil is still over their minds. They have the same desires and feelings as they did in life, and so, while the missionaries from Paradise are there, there are just as likely Baptists and Catholics, and Jehovah’s Witnesses, and all the other groups there still teaching their doctrine. We don’t know. If anything it is suggested that it is more difficult after death to accept the truth, but again, it just isn’t known.
Don’t think of the spirit world as just a pile of dead people standing around waiting for something to happen. That is simply not the case, and from everything we do know it would be more reasonable to view it just as we do this world, though not physical and without any amount of God’s spirit present. People are still socializing, still teaching what they believed in mortality. Atheists will still be atheists, Hindus will be Hindus, and so on.
” You didn’t challenge that part of the statement.”
While I did not challenge that particular statement, I did state that I was not commenting on everything you said. I believe that the requirements that God has set forth for our exaltation are attainable in this life. That does not require absolute perfection.
However, I do believe a mortal perfection is possible; this means that it is possible to live our lives so that we are always in harmony with God. This does not mean we will not still have some weaknesses, but that our mind and will are so in line with God that these weaknesses become so minor that through the Atonement of Christ God is willing to forgive them.
Both Noah and Job are described as being perfect, and this is what was meant. In the Book of Mormon Nephi is told “And now, because thou hast done this with such unwearyingness, behold, I will bless thee forever; and I will make thee mighty in word and in deed, in faith and in works; yea, even that all things shall be done unto thee according to thy word, for thou shalt not ask that which is contrary to my will.” (Helaman 10: 5) These are all examples of people who achieved this mortal perfection.
However, there are many who do not attain this in life, but who will still be exalted; they will just be at a kind of disadvantage at the beginning, as they will have to learn more late.
As to my final comments, you are right in what you say and I again apologize. I was still a bit annoyed with Rick and Falcon and unfairly critiqued your words because of it. For that I am sorry. I think what you actually shows a greater understanding than I give you credit for, though the way you say it makes it appear that you don’t.
Shem said
I did not challenge your faith, I asked you to back up what you said.
Shem said
Shem,
I was not and am not looking to debate the word of wisdom, I was just trying to make a point. I will say though, I mentioned following some of it vs all of it since lds seem to pick and choose what parts to obey. Lds always focus on what we can or cannot drink while ignoring the rest. Also for you to get around to obeying only the parts you want by saying, it’s always winter in my refrigerator is like me saying, underneath my clothes, I’m naked. Thats just dumb. Also it’s typical of mormons to believe and obey only what they want, you guys do that with your prophets. If you agree with them, then they heard from God and spoke for him, if you don’t agree, then they were only giving their opinion.
Rick
You really are clueless, aren’t you
“Your Word of Wisdom does not say tea, you define it as tea, and it was proven and shown that many other things were added as hot drinks by YOUR LEADERS, Such as soup. Then it was provided as a quote by your leader saying NO TEA.”
You say this was provided, but it was never provided to me, so if you gave it before than why not now? Show me where soup was added, or where all tea was included. Don’t claim you proved it to someone else that I have no way of verifying, but prove it to me.
“I did not challenge your faith”
Not on this thread, but you have. When you tell me to prove my faith based on your faith that is a challenge, and I will not engage in it. You know what I am talking about.
“You did not prove me wrong, all you did was give me your opinion, what a joke.”
Yes, the Ensign and Heber J. Grant are all just reiterating my opinion. I didn’t know I was so popular.
I gave two quotes from the Ensign, which is a publication that is overseen by the Prophet and nothing is printed in it without his approval. The Ensign declares the doctrine of the church, not the opinions of individuals. I don’t care who wrote a specific article, it carries with it the official approval of the President of the church and that is all that matters. Then I also gave a quote from Heber J. Grant, who was the President, so don’t tell me this is just my opinion, as that just makes you the joke.
“and by leaders I mean Prophet, since he is according to LDS, The ONLY MAN who can speak for God.”
I will quote the leaders, meaning any of the general authorities as they speak in that capacity, or any publication that is approved by the First Presidency for instruction in doctrine. That is proof to anyone who is honest.
And I notice that you don’t mind non-LDS quoting from other sources to prove a point, so you have also once again shown that you constantly use a double standard.
“I mentioned following some of it vs all of it since lds seem to pick and choose what parts to obey.”
You are so caught up in the letter of the law that you fail to understand its spirit. Maybe you should actually try to understand the principle behind the Word of Wisdom before you start judging those who practice it.
Start here http://www.lds.org/general-conference/1996/04/the-word-of-wisdom-the-principle-and-the-promises?lang=eng&query=word+of+wisdom
Shem, Go back in THIS THREAD and re read what Grindael Posted, it mentions the soup and WoW issue.
Shem said
Give me a break, again Shem you really have no clue and dont care. Lets see, First the WoW was nothing more than a good idea to follow and if you do no, well it’s no big deal. Then it changed to a revelation that we must follow.
In all my years of talking to Mormons, I have been told, the D and C in the WoW says Hot drinks, yet LDS define Hot drinks as Coffee and Tea, they do not define Hot drinks as Hot Chocolate, Hot Soup, Hot milk or broth or any other Hot drink, just coffee and tea.
Now you try and tell me, I am getting to into the law and I need to see the spirit of it. Well I did not say this, Your leaders said this.
President Joseph Fielding Smith said
(Doctrines of Salvation 2:16).
I am guessing to can quote the ensign and claim that is “Doctrine” But your leader and president spoke, it was His mere opinion? He claims I will miss out the the highest heaven if I drink coffee or tea, in the issue of tea, he does not say, Some teas are ok, he does not define what types of tea, he just says tea. Yet according to you we can disobey the rest of the WoW since we only need to follow the spirit of it and not the law of it.
Read this and tell me you dont need to fully obey the WoW?
Your Apostle said, not me, You LDS who do not obey the WoW are living in hypocrisy.
I am willing to bet, everything I gave in quotes from your Leaders, you will claim it was their opinion, or it was not official. So here is your prophet and what he said.
Notice it says “Obedience to the Word of Wisdom.” Yet Many LDS members do not follow this. Also we read in Gospel Principles pg 125: WE MUST KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS OF GOD. To make our repentance complete we must keep the commandments of the Lord (see D and C 1:32). we are not fully repentant if we do not pay tithes or keep the sabbath day holy or obey the word of wisdom. we are not repentant if we don’t sustain the authorities of the church and don’t love the lord and our fellow man. Yet again many LDS do not meet this requirement.
Here is an intersting little problem I find. We read in the Teachings of the PJS.
LDS President Joseph Fielding Smith said that a member could not hold a church office unless he abided by the Word of Wisdom. Smith writes this in Essentials in Church History:
Shem, Something tells me you either did not read everything I wrote and posted, or you wont care what your prophets said and taught and you will find a way to say, it no longer matters, we can follow the parts of the WoW we want. It’s what I expect and I am waiting for that type of reply.
Rick
I stand by what I said. I know the doctrine, and nothing you post is new to me.
What is meant by Tea? If I crush some cinnamon and put it in hot water does that count as tea or a hot drink? No, and to say it does is simply ludicrous.
Brigham Young called attention to the fact that Hot Drinks meant Tea and Coffee because those were the drink that people drank hot at the time. This is the reason for that wording. The tea of the time was made from the Tea leaf, and thus the tea that is being mentioned are those made from this leaf. So, when Joseph Smith spoke of the literal reading he was speaking of the meaning those words would have had at the time that he spoke them, which is the same meaning we give to them today, but in words that carry that meaning in our society.
Other herbal drinks that later become commonly used and were not made from this leaf were not included, as is seen in Heber J. Grant’s reference to using Saffron tea to treat the measles. We may call them tea but they are not of the same class as the tea of the 1800’s.
The principle of the Word of Wisdom is to live and eat healthily. If we are doing that we are in obedience to that command.
Meat was commanded to be used sparingly because of the difficulty in preserving it, and thus the dangers of disease that come with its consumption. These dangers could be minimized in winter when the meat was able to be frozen outside; and could be ignored when other forms of food were scarce, as in times of famine. In the modern day we are able to preserve the meat for great lengths of time through refrigeration, and thus that invention fulfills the same purpose as was naturally fulfilled in the winter.
Have you looked at the link I provided? It explains it all very nicely.
I am continually amazed at the mental work that must be done to change meanings…
MJP, At least Shem Proves the Bible true, when it says, People love darkness rather than light.
It takes more than mental work to sit here and tell people they cannot drink Hot drinks, then define that as tea and coffee, then when you ask mormon over the years they claim we cannot drink tea and then they decide to define tea as something from years ago but no now. I really feel sorry for Shem, but once he hears Jesus say, I never knew you, he really has no one but himself to blame.
He’s proving something. I can’t help but imagine Lazarus and the rich man, with the rich man calling to Lazarus to come down and get him. Lazarus cannot, though.
Once he makes his decision and dies, then there is nothing left for anyone to do.
But of course Shem says that Brigham Young only gave his opinion about things, so using him as a reference point is totally laughable. Did Brigham amend the “revelation” as Jo did over and over again? Nope. And Young also said it meant ALL HOT DRINKS, which I quoted waaaay back at the top of the thread that you must have somehow missed.
You see what you want to see and ignore what is in black and white. This is typical of those trapped in the bubble of denial and the prison of opinion. So really, if you take Young at his word, you can drink tea and coffee if it’s WARM, not HOT. But this is about a ludicrous as you can get, but that is what Mormon “prophets” do, make totally stupid, inane and illogical statements that no one in their right mind would take seriously except those that are brainwashed by the Corporation.
IT’S ABOUT TEMPERATURE, STUPID… TEMPERATURE, as Forrest Gump might say…
ROFL.
MJP
What meaning have I changed? Explain that to me, because I have changed no meaning. I have merely explained the original meaning in modern terms.
The real point is that you and Rick and others here can’t stand to be wrong, and when it is proved you are wrong you have to come up with ways to explain it away, and that generally means accusing those who are right of twisting meaning or ignoring things.
You can focus on the letter of the law all you want, but that just makes you a Pharisee.
“You can focus on the letter of the law all you want, but that just makes you a Pharisee.”
What a strange thing for a Mormon to say. !f MJP is following the letter of the Law then why aren’t you happy about it? You’re always telling people that they should live, not by Grace but by Gods laws & ordinances. Surely if anyone should be likened to a Pharisee it is those who choose to live by the law, i.e. Mormons.
Good one, Shem. Call us Pharisees. Original.
Do you even know what we stand for and why? Do you know what the Pharisees stood for and why?
Oh, and what meanings have you changed? I suggest you think about that…
I am simply astounded by this quote from the Shemster:
Nothing was printed in the Journal of Discourses without Brigham Young’s approval either, but this isn’t good enough for the Shemster. This came about because of this quote from our Bubblicious friend,
The Journal of Discourses was also an “official publication of the Church”. But Shem will not acknowledge that. As was the Times and Seasons, the Millennial Star, the Evening and Morning Star, the Improvement Era and many, many more. His hypocrisy is staggering. Hmmm. Here is what Thomas Monson said in 2010:
Does Monson qualify his statement with, “only certain kinds of tea”? Nope. So we are to believe what is written in the Ensign over what Tom Monson said and had published? This is the logic of Shem at work. So why is coffee bad if it is the ingredients in tea, those harmful toxins that Shem made up, that will hurt people? Coffee is simply ground coffee beans. You can buy them whole and grind them yourself. There would be no additives in that, but it contains caffeine naturally. So why is coffee and tea included in the list of things that “destroy your physical, mental, and spiritual well-being?” Why is ANY form of alcohol, which has many beneficial uses proven by scientific studies labeled as something harmful to your spirit and your body? Was it harmful to Jesus and his apostles who drank it and recommended that it only not be used in excess? And about that caffeine, here is something more on that:
But caffeine is NOT harmful to the body unless it is abused, like every other drug, prescribed or not. And since Shem says that the Church publications like the New Era and Ensign are doctrine, he must not have seen these items of doctrine,
In 1975, Bishop H. Burke Peterson of the presiding Bishopric stated in the New Era:
“We know that cola drinks contain the drug caffeine. We know caffeine is not wholesome nor prudent for the use of our bodies. It is only sound judgment to conclude that cola drinks and any others that contain caffeine or other harmful ingredients should not be used.”
In 1980 in the Ensign, Elder Sterling W. Sill stated:
On the Larry King Live show in 1998, the following conversation took place in answer to a caller’s question regarding the Word of Wisdom:
Here is more Church DOCTRINE from the Ensign. Just months after the 1972 Priesthood Bulletin was issued, Lenny and Naomi Hesterman submitted the following letter to the Ensign:
Here is the same guy that Shem quoted, about herbal tea, from another official Church magazine and therefore Doctrine,
But that is not what more modern studies have concluded:
So, everything in moderation, says the Dr. quoting the Bible. Shem says that meat is not prohibited by the Word of Wisdom, yet it is, and beer is ok’d by it, which is in direct contradiction to the “doctrine” quoted above,
Beer is a mild drink made from barley. Of course, this had been regulated out of the Mormon Church and they do not follow the command about meat at all. The advice though, given by the Dr. about Caffeine above (that it should be used in moderation), is real God given advice that has been proven right time and time again. So why do Mormon leaders continue to decry coffee and tea? Control. They do not trust their members to be moderate, just as they don’t trust their members to live the law of consecration and so force them to pay tithing. Forced regulations are what destroy the spirit, and grieve the Holy Spirit of God. Shem has this all wrong, from start to finish.
Shem replied to the following statements in quotes as follows:
“My point here was that one father didn’t want us to leave at all.” I get this point, but my point is that neither of them wanted us to leave at one, but one was willing to let us so that we could grow. I don’t think this detracts from the comparison at all.
——Shem——
I’m not understanding you here at “wanted us to leave AT ONE” and thus on for the rest.
——————————————
Shem said:
“not the Ultimate of all that exists” I think there is some confusion as to this point. God is the ultimate of all that exists, as everything depends on him. There is nothing greater than God, and this makes him the ultimate.
——Shem,——
I find any LDS claim to HFs ultimacy confusing given all the limitations and dependence given to “God” by their doctrine and teachings.
I’m not quite sure of the distinction you are making here Shem. Perhaps you could expand on your view of your Heavenly Father as Ultimate. You said that nothing is greater. I can see an LDS saying such and meaning there are a bunch of gods equal but not greater than our HF. But I would have serious doubts of the accuracy of such view given LDS leadership teachings. But even with that limited definition of ultimate, I cannot see how you can claim nothing is greater than HF. The supersystem of “eternal principles” that works on “eternal matter” to the eventual fruit of gods, including making HF a spirit, then a human, then a god, is obviously precedent, independent and bigger and more powerful than HF. Thus this superuniverse or supersystem of principles is more ultimate than HF and all other gods it has produced. Given that HF used to be not a god of any sort, it is difficult to understand how “everything depends on him”, unless you are referring to a subset “everything”.
———————————————-
Shem said:
“Although the restriction on God’s ability to do something as simple as live in earthly flesh and experience death within that flesh seems troubling to me still.” The restriction on God’s ability to do something as simple as make his children like him seems troubling to me when I consider your doctrine.
——Shem——
Your understanding of Christianity shows its significant limitations when you say this. It’s Christians that believe that God makes us “like” Him – thus “image” of God brought to perfection (read “complete”). It is LDS that speak of “like” but really mean “just like him in every divine attribute just behind in development” – thus “Gods in embryo”.
Also, Shem, I was referring to how this LDS belief limits God on a not-logicallly-impossible task. At best, LDS can “glorify” HF by glorfying his body by claiming the impossibility of reembodiment. Because Christians believe that God is truly unique, Most High, and Ultimate it becomes logically impossible for Him to have an equal,in anything at all. Thus, at best, Christians glorify God with this “limitation” not because His body is glorified but because God’s very nature is ultimately and uniquely Glorious. Thus we may only ever be like Him, not in any sense just like Him at any point in His existence as LDS teach.
——————————————
Shem said:
“But you totally lose me when you start talking about Jesus “taking HIS father’s place”. I don’t see this in LDS eschatology at all.” Read the King Follett Discourse. “What did Jesus do? Why, I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds came rolling into existence. My Father worked out His kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to My Father, so that He may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt Him in glory. He will then take a higher exaltation, and I will take His place, and thereby become exalted myself.” (http://www.lds.org/ensign/1971/04/the-king-follett-sermon )
——Shem——
Thanks for explaining your statement about Jesus taking HFs place. I see that it is just a result of the LDS doctrine of eternal progression. This means that, if we are worthy, we too will eventually take HFs place on our progression.
I initially found this idea of Jesus taking God’s place abhorrent, something new I didn’t know about. But now I see it’s just progression and offends my Christian view of God’s unequalable, unreplaceable uniqueness not anew, but not any less either.
———————————————
Shem said:
“Where’s Heavenly Father doing any “fathering” in all of this? It is in His personal communication with us, not in the grand designs of establishing kingdoms and churches. It is in the fact that we pray to Him, and it is through Him that the spirit speaks and testifies to us. It may be more like a father writing letters to his children while they are away to college, but it is still personal and it is still a loving father that does it.
——Shem——
We would have to look at who speaks the most in the letters known as the OT – Elohim or Yahweh. I’m aware of LDS teaching that Jesus does what he has seen his father do etc. But that is the issue, Jesus seems to do just about everything, all of the “fatherly” stuff, and I don’t see how Elohim’s authorization for him to do so makes much of a difference. Would we give so much credit to a biological father who authorized an adoptive dad to father his children and sent “letters”, even if he trained the adoptive dad himself?
——————————————-
Shem said:
Points on scriptures: 1 – Whether it is God’s redeemer or Israel’s redeemer, there are still two distinct beings being referenced. 2 – The Godhead is the ‘One God’ that the verse speaks of. It is not speaking of a being, but of an entity, or presidency that rules in heaven, consisting of three being, but being one unit of governance. 3 – Jesus does not redeem the Father, but he is the one chosen by the Father to redeem all the world. When the plan was set God needed a redeemer for his children, and Christ was chosen. Thus he is God’s redeemer.
——Shem——
1 – There are not two distinct beings referenced. What you see as two labels and separate beings, “LORD the King of Israel” and “LORD of hosts”, are both Yahweh, or according to LDS teaching – Jesus. The word translated in both as “LORD” is in Hebrew the tetragrammaton “YHWH” which has been guessed to stand for the phonetic “Yahweh”. I would think you know this already, but your statements seem to negate that possibility. If you don’t, Look it up. It’s one of those basic things any student of God’s Testimonies should know.
2) your point here is only reading in LDS beliefs much like all the missing phrases of “of this planet” and “godhead” that must be the “plain and precious things” LDS refer to as being lost from the scriptures… but conspicuously absent from the JST, as well, I believe.
3)this would be the obvious reading except for 1) above
—————————————–
Shem said:
“In the situation of the living they don’t even know there is an afterlife in anywhere near the same way as the dead do. The living don’t have any clue that Mormonism is true among all the religions of the world compared to a dead person being visited with the truth of the afterlife (from dead missionaries).”
And this is where you are wrong. We don’t know if those in prison actually know they are dead or not, because the veil is still over their minds. They have the same desires and feelings as they did in life, and so, while the missionaries from Paradise are there, there are just as likely Baptists and Catholics, and Jehovah’s Witnesses, and all the other groups there still teaching their doctrine. We don’t know. If anything it is suggested that it is more difficult after death to accept the truth, but again, it just isn’t known. Don’t think of the spirit world as just a pile of dead people standing around waiting for something to happen. That is simply not the case, and from everything we do know it would be more reasonable to view it just as we do this world, though not physical and without any amount of God’s spirit present. People are still socializing, still teaching what they believed in mortality. Atheists will still be atheists, Hindus will be Hindus, and so on.
——Shem——
If you could give me an authoritative source for this view, I would appreciate it. This would help the otherwise obvious injustice of the scenario I described.
Some issues – you said they still have the veil, but that veil was of God and the 1st Estate not their death. For your scenario to work, a second veil would have to be applied for them to forget their death. What about the absence of their living friends and family and the presence of people and family and friends they know are dead?
Also I would think they would notice the absence of “any amount of God’s spirit”. Also how would missionary efforts be legit without God’s spirit involved? And if God’s spirit is only available with the missionaries doesn’t that give an unfairly perceptible contrast for these investigators vs. living ones?
——————————————–
Shem said:
” You didn’t challenge that part of the statement.” While I did not challenge that particular statement, I did state that I was not commenting on everything you said. I believe that the requirements that God has set forth for our exaltation are attainable in this life. That does not require absolute perfection. However, I do believe a mortal perfection is possible; this means that it is possible to live our lives so that we are always in harmony with God. This does not mean we will not still have some weaknesses, but that our mind and will are so in line with God that these weaknesses become so minor that through the Atonement of Christ God is willing to forgive them. Both Noah and Job are described as being perfect, and this is what was meant. In the Book of Mormon Nephi is told “And now, because thou hast done this with such unwearyingness, behold, I will bless thee forever; and I will make thee mighty in word and in deed, in faith and in works; yea, even that all things shall be done unto thee according to thy word, for thou shalt not ask that which is contrary to my will.” (Helaman 10: 5) These are all examples of people who achieved this mortal perfection. However, there are many who do not attain this in life, but who will still be exalted; they will just be at a kind of disadvantage at the beginning, as they will have to learn more late.
——Shem——
Issues with what you said line by line:
1)the “requirements that God has set” are the same requirements and more that the Israelites continuously failed to do in the OT. This is a point I think must be brought up to LDS. The leadership claims that the debt we owe Jesus is more acheivable than the one we owed HF – I can’t remember who did this “parable” but its in at least one manual and Ensign, I think. But if you look at the details the commandments are the same! And there can’t be much help from the spirit if it leaves every time you sin.
2) LDS leadership sure don’t seem to explain the parameters of this “lack of perfection” consistently, if at all. In its absence there seems to be a whole lot of absolute perfection being talked about.
3) Shem there’s a lot unclear about “always in harmony with God” and “some weaknesses” and the other contradictory synonymous phrases for these you also use.
4) If you are addressing what I said then by “weaknesses” you must mean sins. But then there are no “minor ” sins. LDS scripture rightly states that God can not allow sin in the slightest. This is something I see LDS do all the time – they think they take sin so seriously, or at least righteousness, but if you fail in understanding and respecting one you cant succeed in properly viewing the other. Many LDS seem to think Christians don’t take sin or righteousness seriously, but we take it more seriously than LDS. That’s why we don’t talk about any sin being “minor” enough to forgive through the atonement. That’s why we take issue with LDS focusing on the “big” (outward) sins to the neglect of inward “small” or “minor” ones. And that’s why we know our efforts amount to nothing and should not even be mentioned and that our salvation and fullnforgiveness and return to the Father is solely the domain and work of Jesus. And why we believe Jesus had to be True God in order to atone. So many teachings and statements and actions of LDS constantly show a lack of seriousness, and sincerity?, about sin…. or “weaknesses”. Given this inconsistency and your very words here, Shem, what are Christians supposed to think about LDS denunciations of “cheap grace”?
5) 4 kind of covers everything else so I’ll just say Kimball and other LDS of authority would have much to contest about the view you espouse here. Either that or they were horrible writers and teachers because they seemed to make it pretty clear regarding exaltation.
——————————————-
Shem said:
As to my final comments, you are right in what you say and I again apologize. I was still a bit annoyed with Rick and Falcon and unfairly critiqued your words because of it. For that I am sorry. I think what you actually shows a greater understanding than I give you credit for, though the way you say it makes it appear that you don’t.
——Shem——
I appreciate and accept your apology and forgive you. I certainly understand getting carried away with annoyance
Everyone,
Sorry for the long comment/reply there. But I think everyone has moved on from this topic thread anyway. Hopefully Shem takes a look.
And to all the readers out there,
May the true, actually existing God bless you with knowledge in actual truth and faith in the actual God that Is.
Spartacus
“I’m not understanding you here at “wanted us to leave AT ONE” and thus on for the rest.”
That should have been “wanted us to leave at all.” It was a typing error.
“I find any LDS claim to HFs ultimacy confusing given all the limitations and dependence given to “God” by their doctrine and teachings.”
Could you explain? Also keep in mind that the Ultimate only means that there is nothing greater; it does not mean there are no logical limitations. There is no being in existence greater than our Heavenly Father, and thus he is the Ultimate of all existence.
“I can see an LDS saying such and meaning there are a bunch of gods equal but not greater than our HF.”
While I will concede that others exist who have equal power and knowledge, and maybe even glory, none will ever have equal authority with our Heavenly Father; at least as far as we are concerned. Therefore, to our existence there is nothing greater, and thus God is the Ultimate.
“The supersystem of “eternal principles” that works on “eternal matter” to the eventual fruit of gods, including making HF a spirit, then a human, then a god, is obviously precedent, independent and bigger and more powerful than HF. Thus this superuniverse or supersystem of principles is more ultimate than HF and all other gods it has produced.”
A principle can have no power in itself; the power comes in how it is used. Just as the true power of a gun is only in the one using it; a gun sitting on a table has no power. In the hands of the inexperienced it gives them limited power. However, when one who understands its workings and is able to operate it properly it gives that person a great power. Eternal principles are the same way. Unless there is one using the principle, than the principle is meaningless; but to the one who understands the principle they can use it to acquire great power, and the greater the understanding the greater the power acquired. God is the Ultimate because he has a perfect understanding and thus has acquired the ultimate power that these principles can confer.
“It’s Christians that believe that God makes us “like” Him – thus “image” of God brought to perfection (read “complete”). It is LDS that speak of “like” but really mean “just like him in every divine attribute just behind in development” – thus “Gods in embryo”.”
I understand this difference, but that doesn’t change anything I said. I read the word complete as well, and to be complete means to attain to our greatest potential, which would be the potential of our parentage, and thus all the divine attributes.
“Also, Shem, I was referring to how this LDS belief limits God on a not-logically-impossible task.”
On this whole paragraph you are falling into the same old error of trying to logically explain our doctrine according to yours, and I was merely pointing this out. You find that God not being able to be flesh to be problematic because in your doctrine this is not illogical. If I were to apply this same type of reasoning than the limitation I pointed out in your doctrine is problematic because in my doctrine it is not illogical.
According to our doctrine it is illogically impossible for a resurrected being to become mortal again, just as in your doctrine it is logically impossible for God to make men divine as he is. The problem only arises when we attempt to explain each other’s doctrine using the logic of our own.
“This means that, if we are worthy, we too will eventually take HFs place on our progression.”
Actually, no that is not what it means. Christ takes his Father’s place because he is the Eldest and that is his birthright. We will never take Heavenly Father’s place, and anyone who claims otherwise is committing the same blasphemy that Satan was condemned for. Our Father acted as the head of a counsel of gods, not as a lone figure. Christ will take his place, being also the head of a counsel of gods, and we will all be on that counsel.
“We would have to look at who speaks the most in the letters known as the OT – Elohim or Yahweh.”
You do not understand this. The Old Testament is a record of the grand designs, not of the personalized relationship we have with the Father. Many figures play into the great deeds of establishing peoples and churches and building or destroying nations. I am talking about the common person who kneels in prayer every day. When they receive an answer that is the Father speaking to them. Those times when visions and prophecies are given, and the law and doctrine of the gospel is once again revealed to men, those are not the private letters from the Father. Those are the public notices that he issues to all people.
I have always felt the love of my Heavenly Father, and that is because He is always watching and he always sends his love.
1 – I know the same basic title is used, for it can be used as the name of Christ or as a title equivalent to lord. In this verse both the Father and the Son are being called Lord, and thus both are being referred to by that title. It is the grammar of the sentence that makes it two distinct beings be referenced, not the words. (Remember that while the Father is Elohim, that word is also used simply as the plural of El and not in reference to the Father, as it is in this verse).
2 – This is simply an explanation of how two distinct beings are, in fact, one God.
“If you could give me an authoritative source for this view, I would appreciate it. This would help the otherwise obvious injustice of the scenario I described.”
Alma 34: 34 “Ye cannot say, when ye are brought to that awful crisis, that I will repent, that I will return to my God. Nay, ye cannot say this; for that same spirit which doth possess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world.”
Also read D&C 138.
Also read this lesson from the book Gospel Principles http://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-41-the-postmortal-spirit-world?lang=eng
As I said, we don’t know the exact condition of those who have dead, and they may know they are dead, but they may not. Whether they do or not will not have a great effect on them, as they will still have the same attitudes and spirit that they did in life, and there will still be good and evil there to tempt them.
“For your scenario to work, a second veil would have to be applied for them to forget their death.”
What I said is we don’t actually have enough information given to us to come to any definite conclusions as to the exact circumstances they find themselves in, but that what we do know would suggest that it will be no easier after death to accept the truth, and may actually be harder.
“The “requirements that God has set” are the same requirements and more that the Israelites continuously failed to do in the OT…And there can’t be much help from the spirit if it leaves every time you sin.”
Actually, they are not exactly the same, as the Law of Moses was adapted to a lower spiritual capacity. However, the Israelites as a nation failed to live these requirements, but that does not mean that many of them were not faithful and gained exaltation. Think of all the prophets. Also remember that when Elijah complained that he was the only one left God showed him thousands of the Israelites who had remained faithful. People fail continuously, but people also succeed continuously.
As to the spirit leaving from sin, this is a much more complex issue. The Holy Ghost withdraws due to sin, but the Spirit of God, or the Light of Christ, does not withdraw until the people have fallen sufficiently.
“LDS leadership sure don’t seem to explain the parameters of this “lack of perfection” consistently, if at all. In its absence there seems to be a whole lot of absolute perfection being talked about.”
One just has to listen to all that they teach and it becomes perfectly clear. You know, Joseph Smith was told something like 15 times that his sins were forgiven him. We also know that when one is baptized their sins are washed away and they are made perfect. If we worthily partake of the sacrament each Sunday than we start each week completely sin free. Perfection is, technically required, but God has placed many provisions that allow us to progress towards that perfection, and as long as we continue to progress God has promised that that progression will continue in the next life.
“Shem there’s a lot unclear about “always in harmony with God” and “some weaknesses” and the other contradictory synonymous phrases for these you also use.”
To be always in Harmony with God is to never desire or consciously choose an action that would violate His law and His will. However, that does not mean that we will not make mistakes in judgment or let a careless word slip out in the heat of the moment.
J. Golden Kimball is a great example. He had the habit of cursing, for which he was frequently chided. There are two great stories I know of him. When he was asked why he was still an apostle he replied, “They can’t excommunicate me, I repent too damn fast.” Then, for a radio broadcast Heber J. Grant wrote out a speech and told him to read it word for word, and thus avoid any cursing. But, when he found President Grant’s handwriting to hard to read he exclaimed “To hell with it Heber, I can’t read this damn thing.” He was a man whose life and will was in harmony with God, but he still had a weakness in his speech that he struggled with all his life; but that weakness will not prevent his exaltation.
“This is something I see LDS do all the time – they think they take sin so seriously, or at least righteousness, but if you fail in understanding and respecting one you can’t succeed in properly viewing the other.”
This just shows how much you don’t understand our doctrine. We repent and strive to separate ourselves from all sin. If we seek to excuse any sin we will fall short and loose our exaltation. Those weaknesses I am talking about are not things that these people ignore, but are things they struggle with and don’t concur in this life. They are not people who say “well, this little thing won’t matter.” They are the people who constantly pray and say “I know that I am still failing in this area, and I ask for your forgiveness that I may eventually, whether in this life or the next, attain to the state of perfection that you have attained.”
We don’t ignore any sin, and it has been my experience that it is the small sins that receive the most attention from our leaders.
Old Man
“If MJP is following the letter of the Law then why aren’t you happy about it?”
Because that is not the point, and that has never been the point, and you know it.
“You’re always telling people that they should live, not by Grace but by Gods laws & ordinances.”
Once again you prove you have no understanding. Let me correct your statement. You should live the Law by the Grace of God. No one lives by the law, they either live the law or they don’t. It is by the Grace of God that we are able to live the law.
MJP
“Do you even know what we stand for and why? Do you know what the Pharisees stood for and why?”
I know exactly what the Pharisees stood for, and what you stand for. I don’t really care about being original, but the term is very appropriate. You may not advocate that you live by the letter of the law, but you do seem to get upset that we don’t do so, which, in the context of this topic, puts you right in line with the Pharisees.
“Oh, and what meanings have you changed? I suggest you think about that…”
I have, and I still see no changing of meaning, only a changing of wording. The Word of Wisdom declares that all herbs are for the benefit of man. Thus an herbal drink, whether it is labeled tea or not, can be for the benefit of man, and thus not against the word of wisdom. Not all drinks that we call tea were called tea in the 1800’s, and thus we need to understand what was meant by those word then, not now.
Shem
I said
“You’re always telling people that they should live, not by Grace but by Gods laws & ordinances.”
Your reply to me was
“Once again you prove you have no understanding. Let me correct your statement. You should live the Law by the Grace of God. No one lives by the law, they either live the law or they don’t. It is by the Grace of God that we are able to live the law.”
I understand far more than you imagine & my statement needs no correcting. You are just playing with words. If a man chooses to live the law then he lives under the law. If he lives under the law then he lives by the law, there is absolutely no difference. Adding nonsensical assertions such as “It is by the Grace of God that we are able to live the law.” is simply an attempt to make LDS doctrine appear to be more Christian. Gods Grace has nothing to do with the law.
Paul contrasts living BY THE LAW (Mormonism) with living by faith (Grace)
Galatians 3:11
Now it is evident that no one is justified before God BY THE LAW, for “The righteous shall live by faith.”
Galatians 3:21
“Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be BY THE LAW.”
Finally, this verse fits Mormonism perfectly
Galatians 5:4
“You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified BY THE LAW; you have fallen away from grace.”
Shem, you don’t know what we stand for. You’ve admitted to me a very real lack of curiosity of the topic.
Think.
And tea is an herb. End of story. The “Word of Wisdom” is so contradictory that only those trapped in a bubble of denial would take it seriously. And since it doesn’t say “tea” or the tea they were drinking, (it says “hot drinks” actually) tea was arbitrarily added because the “Genitles” were making too much money selling it to Mormons in Brigham’s day. Hence all Mormons since then have been abstaining from something that is ok’d by the original “revelation”. This is just wack. Simply wack.
Shem,
First, you said, “There is no being in existence greater than our HF, and thus he is the ultimate of all existence.” Then, you say,”at least as far as we are concerned. Therefore, to our existence there is nothing greater, and thus God is the Ultimate.” These statements are not compatible. One statement is talking about “all existence”, the other about “all our existence”. So what you are describing is not “the” capital U “Ultimate” but just “our ultimate”.
An example from what I learned of French. In the French language if you want to ask for “the water” to be passed down the dinner table to you, you do not say “the water” in french “l’eau”, but you say “some water” in French “de l’eau”. To say “l’eau” or “the water” is to refer to “water” … all water everywhere. So you only ask for some water, de l’eau.
In a similar way, if you want people to understand that HF is only OUR Ultimate, you should not say “all existence” or even capital-U “Ultimate” because you are not really speaking of all of water or all of existence but just our existence, some of existence, some of the water.
Just as a reminder, Shem, you said you could not understand how our God could not do something as “simple” as make us “like” Him. I told you how Christians do believe God is making us “like” Him not “just like Him in every divine respect” as is what LDS mean by “like”. So the “like” part of your point comes from an imprecision in LDS communication, and I corrected your implication that Christians don’t believe God can make us “like” Him.
But, given the Christian view of Ultimacy, it is a logical impossibility to have two true Ultimates- neither is ultimate over the other and thus neither really Ultimate and the two ultimates form a system in which they are encompassed and thus not ultimate over that system itself. This is not a logical impossibility according to our doctrine as you said but according to the general definition of ultimacy and the rules of logic. By this, which God attests to consistently in His testimonies, we know that God cannot do an impossible thing like make “another ultimate”.
From logic, LDS have to change the definition of God and ultimate to something that is not ultimate over all but just part, as concerns us, in order for there to be others just like him or at the same level. God is no longer the originator of all existence and its principles but a creature of it, however much he has mastered them and thus been conferred with power, as you said.
You said that the glorified embodied HF cannot logically be embodied again in an unglorified body according to LDS doctrine. But there doesn’t seem to be a logical contradiction, as there is with “two Ultimates”. Why should a glorified body necessarily not be able to “squeeze” into a mortal body? An Ultimate is necessarily no longer the Ultimate if it has an equally “ultimate” neighbor. But a body, assumedly powerful, could “fit” itself into another body.
So I remain somewhat baffled why LDS would deny HF the power to do something that was logically possible and thus excuse him from not directly saving his children. Hopefully, Shem, you can see how a truly Ultimate ultimate is logically bound to being without equal and thus understand why Christians believe it takes nothing away from God to believe that He cannot make us “just like Him” in the LDS sense.
Instead we rejoice that God is making us like Him as He sanctifies us. But even more, we get as close to “just like Him” when we are “in Him” and He is “in us”. When God lives in and through us through his Spirit we have THE Divine Life and in Him have access to participate directly and intimately with God’s omniscience and omnipotence and I believe even His omnipresence in a way. We remain finite and small but filled and surrounded and empowered by the Ultimate. This intimacy and new life will come to full fruition after this life and is what is referred to as “deification” in the Orthodox tradition. It is the pure and direct experience and interaction with the Divine Life, God Himself.
God is AWESOME! The Ultimate, the infinitely powerful and creative Origin of Everything!
And He actually CARES about us at all?!
But not just that! He LOVES us in an incredible/VERY HARD to believe and infinite way such that He came down to little tiny rebellious evil us to DIE for us. And NOT just to give us a do over but to GIVE us Holiness and Righteousness- the ONLY Perfect Holiness and Righteousness – His OWN!
HALLELUJAH!!!
Old Man
I know you hate to think that we actually have beliefs that are very much in common with you, but that doesn’t change the fact. What I said was not to twist things to give a different appearance, but to describe the facts of our doctrine.
To be fair, yes you could describe a person as living by the law. This would indicate that that person is relying on the law as the means for their salvation. This is a false security.
To live by Grace is to rely on the Grace of of God for our salvation, in that it is through that grace that we are made able to live the law. This is what we believe. Grace is the power of God that enables us to be obedient.
MJP
“You’ve admitted to me a very real lack of curiosity of the topic.”
Lack of curiosity does not prove a lack of understanding. So why don’t you think.
No, Shem. What does curiosity lead to? It leads to learning. Learning leads to understanding. Your curiosity is that concerning the differences amongst Christians, not unity. The unity is where the meat of Christianity is to be found. You’ve shown very little understanding of what the unity actually is about. You can rehash that its all about Jesus, but the truth of the matter is that this simple idea is very, very profound. It thus follows that being able to rehash basic Christian doctrine does not mean there is understanding.
Therefore, your lack of curiosity does indeed show a lack of understanding and a closed mind.
I sent you a message about a month ago now wherein I stressed hard the importance of the unity within Christianity and how your use of the differences within Christianity is nothing but a distraction. Its true: your focus on why Christians might believe differently on something like end times, election, or purgatory is out of a spirit that seeks to divide us and lift you up. Your focus is not from a spirit to determine truth.
The idea of it being a distraction is true even when you think your own position is correct. I could go through all the sects of Mormonism and look at differences and not hit what unites them. I could also go through all the sects of Islam, Judaism, and any other faith and do, and not do, the same. True understanding comes from looking at what makes something tick. You miss that when it comes to Christianity.
I’ve seen nothing to suggest you have studied Christianity except to look at the differences. You’ve told me you like to talk to us and take note of our differences. This is not talking to us to see what makes us tick. I have no reason to believe your own, self serving by definition, word about the matter. This is not to suggest I am calling you a liar, but I am suggesting it is natural to self-preserve.
I have called you arrogant. I believe that to still be true, but this arrogance is different. Its more of a not-realizing-it sort of way. I believe you think are honest, down to earth, etc. but deeper within you do not feel the need believe us-who-dare-criticize-your-church. I won’t pretend to pinpoint the source of that feeling, but I believe it is there.
I could be wrong, of course, but I need evidence to suggest I am wrong. Mindlessly accepting your word for it is not evidence. You need to be able to demonstrate a coherent argument for both why I am wrong and for how you understand my faith to demonstrate your openness and understanding of Christianity.
Your curiosity on peripherals and avoidance of the most important aspect of Christianity indicates a closed mind. It also indicates a lack of understanding. If you are not curious about it, why would you learn about it openly? The answer is you wouldn’t. No one would– its natural. Ability to state the words is not evidence of understanding, too. We can all memorize anything, and its quite easy to memorize the basic message of the Gospel: God, the one triune God, saves. Knowing its full meaning is something entirely different.
You need to think about these things. I can’t do that for you. And as I have said: don’t just take my word for any of this, especially my take on God’s word. He wants you to be more than just a god in the next life. He wants you to be a part of Him. He wants you in Him. He wants a real and personal relationship with you.
Shem
“To live by Grace is to rely on the Grace of God for our salvation, in that it is through that grace that we are made able to live the law. This is what we believe. Grace is the power of God that enables us to be obedient.”
With respect, no matter how much spin the LDS choose to put on it Mormonism is about living by the Law. You cannot say you rely on the Grace of God for salvation & at the same time say that Gods Grace enables you to live by the law. Christians do NOT look to Gods Grace to enable them to live by the law because Christ has already fulfilled the law. He accomplished what the Law required & by His death paid the full penalty of the law, FOR US.
As we come to Christ in repentance & acceptance of what He did for us we can be secure in the certainty of salvation.
Galatians 3:23-25
“Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be JUSTIFIED by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.”
Romans 3:22-24
“This RIGHTEOUSNESS from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are JUSTIFIED FREELY BY HIS GRACE through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
Where is the law? Where are we told that Gods Grace enables us to live by the law? It can’t be made any clearer. Through our faith in Christ His righteousness is imputed to us & we are justified by Gods Grace working through our faith.
We have been judged & the verdict is clear, NOT GUILTY.
Shem, If you read the OT and read about the ark, you will notice two things. One, the ark contains the law, and two, the ark is covered with the mercy seat. If you really want to look into the law, you must remove mercy. If you remove the mercy and look into the law, you will die.
Just imagine the ending of the movie, raiders of the lost ark. Yes the movie was fiction, and I’m not saying demons will fly out and melt off your face, but you will die if you remove mercy and look into the law. We need mercy and in Gods mercy we find grace. With out Gods grace, the law will kill us.
If this were true, then there would have been no need to “fulfill the law”, which Christ did. The Pharisees believed that their additional laws were providing them with a extra fence around the Law of Moses. (Like Mormon “regulations” providing a fence around Jesus GRACE). They sincerely believed that they could construct a hedge of protection around themselves by living according to a specific lifestyle, based on laws governing every aspect of their life. (Again, Mormons do the exact same thing). But the Pharisees were “authorized” to make those additional regulations, (while Mormons are not) else why would Jesus say,
Huh? Do everything they tell you, but do not do what they do? Their attitudes, affections and motivations (along with their petty “regulations” that Jesus delighted in breaking) were what diverged significantly from the heart of Jesus’ Father – and the thing that made Jesus so angry at the Pharisees. They relied in strict “regulations” to bring the closer to God and because of that could not see the forest for the trees. They had the authority to add to the law, but THEY DID NOT KNOW GOD, all they knew was how to keep petty regulations and commandments that made them look good on the outside, but destroyed the spirit on the inside.
This was the “mystery” that God revealed to his chosen people. You can live by the spirit of the law, and My Grace is sufficient to save you from the flesh because you cannot live the law perfectly. ONLY JESUS COULD, because he was GOD. As Paul wrote,
Do Mormons understand this? Not in the least, otherwise they would throw out every one of their forced regulations. Regulations grieve the Spirit of God. YOU CANNOT SERVE TWO MASTERS. YOU CANNOT SERVE CHRIST AND THE LAW. Paul again,
What false doctrines were they teaching? Circumcision, depending on the law for every little thing, endless genealogies and other speculative “regulations” that would only be given and apply to WICKED PEOPLE who do not know or understand how to live by the Spirit of God. Tithing is such a regulation. So is the so called “Word of Wisdom”. Given to those who are incapable of living the higher law of love. Given to the weak, the murderers, the sexually immoral, lawbreakers and rebels. This is who Jo Smith was and thought his followers so weak and wicked that he forced them to live by regulations as modern Mormon “prophets” still do.
To live by Grace is to live by love, accepting that we cannot be perfect without it. Shem (again) has it exactly backwards. God does not give us Grace to help us live regulations. Those who live by the law die by the law. God would never give His Grace to put us into that trap. Mormonism (because of regulations) puts a veil over the faces of it’s adherents so that they cannot see Christ (2 Corinthians 3:3-18) Paul again explains this,
Why would God give his Grace to send us back to that? Answer: he did not. He redeemed us from the law by becoming a curse for us, by taking upon Himself our sins, because,
Mormonism is all “written code”. One regulation after another. Given to wicked people who do not (or will not) understand the LAW in relation to GRACE. If Paul could live the law by way of the Spirit (as Shem attests we all can do easily) then why did Paul say,
According to Shem, Paul should have simply said, “you all can live the law because Grace gives you the means to do so”. But Paul does not say this. HE CONDEMNS THE LAW AS A MEANS TO BRING US TO CHRIST, because it simply cannot do this. No regulation can, they only bring wrath, darkened minds, and sin. He says it is impossible for us to live the law in our mortal bodies. PERIOD. And so Paul finishes with,
But Mormons, who are commanded to live by regulations, do condemn themselves because they deny the working of the Spirit by forcing people to live by those regulations. They CANNOT please God. If you live by the flesh (law and regulation) you will die, but if you live by the Spirit (doing everything with love in righteousness) you will live because of God’s GRACE, which saves us from the sin of the mortal body, which cannot be regulated out.
Once again, a long post about regulation and GRACE. I have little hope that this will get through to the truth dodgers still willfully hiding inside the Mormon Bubble of Denial.
MJP
“Therefore, your lack of curiosity does indeed show a lack of understanding and a closed mind.”
You need a better grasp of language. I will amend my last statement to make it clear: a current lack of curiosity does not prove a current lack of understanding. I have been curios in the past and have made an effort to understand. However, my curiosity has waned, and so I do not actively study it anymore. I have an understanding, and you have no real proof that I don’t as I have never offered an explanation. Thus you take the fact that I haven’t offered such as proof that I can’t, which is a logical fallacy.
“your focus on why Christians might believe differently on something like end times, election, or purgatory is out of a spirit that seeks to divide us and lift you up.”
Again you arrogantly judge my intentions when you have no clue what they are. I focus on those things because they are the things that I am interested in, not out of some attempt to divide you. Please note that I have never mentioned them in an open discussion, and it is for this reason. I asked in a private e-mail because I am genuinely curious. The peripherals, as you call them, is where my interest lies on all subjects, including my own faith. These are the things I want to learn, so try to understand my intensions before you start judging me.
“I believe you think are honest, down to earth, etc. but deeper within you do not feel the need believe us-who-dare-criticize-your-church.”
I don’t really feel the need to believe anyone, and that includes the members of the LDS church as well as the leaders. The only exception is the need to believe God. I would love to learn what you believe on many topics, but I feel no need to espouse your beliefs, and you have given me no reason to feel any differently. I make no attempt to hide this, and this is not arrogance. It is just an approach to new information.
“You need to be able to demonstrate a coherent argument for both why I am wrong”
Only if I am trying to prove you wrong, which I am not, and I have never tried in all my time on these forums, except where your understanding of our doctrine is concerned.
“He wants you to be more than just a god in the next life…He wants a real and personal relationship with you.”
The most personal relationship one can have with another is in sharing their life, their existence. It is not just being a god, but it is knowing what it is like to exist as the Father exists and sharing in his life, and through that I will have a greater and deeper relationship than I could ever hope to have in any other way.
Old Man
You really can’t stand it that we might actually have something even slightly in common, can you?
“You cannot say you rely on the Grace of God for salvation & at the same time say that Gods Grace enables you to live by the law.”
It is a good thing that I never said this, isn’t it. I know you like to put your own spin on things, but try to get it right.
To live by the law is to rely on the law for salvation. We do not do this, and no matter how frequently to claim we do it still does not make you right.
To live by Grace is to rely on Grace for salvation, and this is exactly what we do. We rely on the Grace of Christ to give us the ability to obey his commandments, as he has promised. Without the Grace of God salvation would be impossible for two reasons: First and formost, it wouldn’t even be offered, and secondly, once it is offered it is only attainable through the power of Grace. Get this right for once.
Rick
The Law in the Arc of the Covenant is the Law of Moses, and that never had any power to save anyone. This is the Law that Paul is speaking of in Galatians, as well as Romans 3: 22-24.
It is, however, not the law that we speak about when we speak of the law of the gospel or the law that we must obey. That law is referred to by Paul as the “Law of Faith” which does away with boasting (Romans 3: 27) and is the law that was given to Abraham by Covenant, and then confirmed again with Isaac and Jacob (1 Chronicles 16: 15-19). Paul tells us that the Law of Moses, which was done away with in Christ, was added to this Law by Covenant 430 years after Abraham (Galatians 3: 17), and that that which was added cannot make the original covenant to no effect.
Shem, You go right ahead and live by the law, but as a result you will die by the law and be accursed forever and tossed into the lake the burns forever. The Bible is clear, you live by the law, you will be under the curse. You seriously need to reject your false prophet and his father who lied, and follow the real Jesus that can and does save.
Spartacus
“These statements are not compatible. One statement is talking about “all existence”, the other about “all our existence”. So what you are describing is not “the” capital U “Ultimate” but just “our ultimate”.”
Actually they are compatible. Let us put them together and you will see: In all existence there exists nothing with greater authority over us, and thus as we relate to everything in existence God is the Ultimate.
See, every single thing that ever existed is included in both statements, but it is done so in a relationship to us. Just consider, there is no person on this earth that has greater authority over me than my father, and thus he is the ultimate authority over me. In like manner no one has greater authoirty over my children than I do, and so I am the ultimate authority over my children. Me and my father have attained a like authority, but over different people, and thus we are both the ultimate authority. (just because my father has authority over me, it does not mean he has authority over my children)
Now, just speaking of what it means to be ultimate, I have to disagree. The very definition of the word means that nothing is greater, not that nothing is equal, which is what you are claiming. Thus it is you that has to alter the meaning of the word to make it fit your doctrine, not me.
From dictionary.com
1. last; furthest or farthest; ending a process or series – This is how we describe God.
2. maximum; decisive; conclusive – again, this fits with our belief in God.
3. highest; not subsidiary – also descriptive
4. basic; fundamental; representing a limit beyond which further progress, as in investigation or analysis, is impossible – progression beyond what God is is impossible.
5. final; total – also fits
6. not to be improved upon or surpassed; greatest; unsurpassed – perfect description of God.
Notice that in none of these does it say it cannot be reached or equaled, only that it cannot be passed.
As to your points on logic,
“God is no longer the originator of all existence and its principles but a creature of it, however much he has mastered them and thus been conferred with power, as you said.”
The idea that there is an originator of existence is, in itself, illogical. If God created the principles on which existence relies than on what principles does God exist? On what principles did he create existence out of? There logically must be a principle of action by which God acts, but if he created all principles of existence than he acted without any principle of action in doing so, which is impossible.
In other words, I don’t move my arm simply because I choose to, but because the principles of the muscular, nervous, and skeletal systems allow me to do so. Also, the principle of opposition, as the choice to move my arm must have its opposite, or the choice to keep my arm still.
God, when he created existence, must have had a principle of action that allowed him to do so. He must have had the choice to create or not to create. If that choice came from him as well, than by what principle did he give himself that choice.
No matter how you slice it, there is no logical way for God to exist without there being some principles of existence on which his existence is based; and there is no logical way for God to create anything uless there is some principle of action that allows him to act. These are logical necessities, and this is what we believe in. God is the ultimate, not because he somehow defied all logic in his very existence, but because he chose the course of action that eventually led him to the pinicle of knowledge and power that is possible for any being to logically have.
Shem
“It is a good thing that I never said this, isn’t it. I know you like to put your own spin on things, but try to get it right.
To live by the law is to rely on the law for salvation. We do not do this, and no matter how frequently to claim we do it still does not make you right.”
Try to get it right? It is you who time after time puts a spin on the clear teaching of Scripture. If I had a pound for every time you have told us that salvation comes through obeying the laws & ordinances of the LDS Corporation I would be a wealthy man. You are contradicting yourself; you do follow the Mosaic Law, or at least those parts the LDS decide you should follow. For example, you say we have to obey the law of tithing but of course it has to be the LDS version of tithing not the Biblical one & now, to cap it all, you’re trying to tell me that you don’t live by the law in an attempt to put me in the wrong.
You said
“To live by Grace is to rely on Grace for salvation, and this is exactly what we do. We rely on the Grace of Christ to give us the ability to obey his commandments….”
Again you’re contradicting yourself, you aren’t relying on Grace for salvation if Grace simply enables YOU to live the law, any law & that includes the laws & ordinances of the LDS Corporation. Can’t you see the pride in that statement? It’s all about YOU. Yes you do say that Christ gives you the ability to do certain things but your salvation is still dependant on what YOU can do. Why can’t you see that?
The Christian lives by faith, the Christian follows Christ far more closely than any member of the LDS can possibly do. Read 2 Corinthians 5:17 to understand why this is so. We don’t need laws & ordinances to know what Christ requires. No matter how much I read the Bible I cannot seem to find them anywhere & that’s why, unlike you, I don’t tithe, I don’t baptise for the dead. I don’t perform meaningless rituals in a Temple in a futile attempt to be worthy because I don’t need to. I know I am worthy because Christ’s blood has made me so.
“Get this right for once”
Such humility, presumably that little effort of yours means that I always get things wrong while you always get them right. Shem, you are truly a comedian.
“God is the ultimate, not because he somehow defied all logic in his very existence, but because he chose the course of action that eventually led him to the pinicle of knowledge and power that is possible for any being to logically have.”
So, God is dependent upon some other source of knowledge and power? He’s not ultimate in his very being, but because he subscribed to some other rules?
Am I understanding you right, Shem? If so, it seems we should be focused on those principles rather than on God.