Genuine Mormon Tolerance?
Traditionally, there has been a radical side to the LDS Church, that has fronted the notion that all truth was lost off of the earth due to a universal apostasy. This apostasy idea likewise states that only the Mormon Church has religious truth. Mormon founders have reported that they have been told directy from God that other religious beliefs are so deeply in error, that it they exist in a state of “abomination”.
Nevertheless, from the Newsroom of the official LDS web site: “Salt Lake Interfaith Roundtable Holds Concert on Temple Square”
http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom
SALT LAKE CITY 13 February 2007 More than 700 people representing many faiths gathered on the afternoon of 11 February 2007 in the Assembly Hall on Temple Square to attend the Salt Lake Interfaith Roundtable’s annual concert ...
This was a big deal with Utah Governor Jon M. Huntsman Jr. as a key speaker in an LDS hosted interfaith display of acceptance of all faiths.
The article lists a number of interfaith groups participated in this celebration of diversity. The various groups performing included:
--Methodists Bell Ringers
--Hindu Temple dancers
--Buddhists from near by Ogden
--Students from an Islamic Society
--A Baha’i Faith member to offer prayer
It was reported by one participant that , “There was peace and togetherness with all the faiths.”
But wait a minute, this is fundamentally out of character with the most basic claims of Mormonism!
In the sacred story of Mormonism’s beginnings, the Church reports an event, if true would be a major milestone event of human history. This account alleges that Almighty God appeared to a fourteen year old boy who was praying about what religion to join. In the account Joseph Smith learned directly from God, "for they were all wrong; ...an abomination in his sight" (Joseph Smith History 1:19).
( added 02/19/07) As Joseph Smith History states:
19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”
The big idea behind Mormonism is that the truth disappeared off of the earth in ancient times. In this fallen state all other religious peoples existed in darkness that was so bad that God calls it an abomination. Mormonism teaches that only the Mormon Church has the truth because Joseph Smith was commissioned by God and divine power to restore the one true religion back onto the planet.
As an LDS general Authority of the past verifies:
"Nothing less than a complete apostasy from the Christian religion would warrant the establishment of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" ( B.H. Roberts, Introduction to the History of the Church 1:XL).
The LDS Scripture of the 1800s teaches in Doctrine and Covenants (1:30) that the LDS church is, "the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth…"
The question therefore is--
Did God somehow change His mind, to now condone an interfaith celebration with those who commit abominations?
Could it be that Mormonism itself backslid into apostasy, becoming itself the very 'abomination' it first declared?
Or has Mormonism now traded in its basis for being founded, to become a champion for tolerance?
As an early LDS Founder once write:
"...all other churches are entirely destitute of all authority from God; and any person who receives Baptism or the Lord's supper from their hands highly offend God, for he looks upon them as the most corrupt of all people ...” (The Seer, pg. 255).
Other Mormon official Scripture teaches,
"Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth"
(Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 14:10).
Just 25 years ago Bruce McConkie, as one of the 12 highest ranking authorities in Mormonism identified Muslins and Buddhists, as well as other religious people as members of the devil’s church.
"What is the church of the devil in our day, and where is the seat of her power?
...It is all of the systems, both Christian and non-Christian, that perverted
the pure and perfect gospel......It is communism; it is Islam; it is Buddhism; it
is modern Christianity in all its parts"
(Millennial Messiah,1982, pp.54-55).
Nevertheless, the LDS invited a Baha’i Faith member to consummate this Mormon activity in prayer, sponsored Hindus to do their religious dances, and included Muslims, in this reported interfaith celebration.
What will we see next? Perhaps LDS Missionaries dressed in white robes passing out literature containing teachings of Hari Krishna?
posted by Anonymous @ 2:31 PM
88 comments
88 Comments:
Well said Steve!! Mormonism has turned to the world for support, and compramised it's doctrine in order to appease to the masses. We see the LDS church joining the ranks of post modern thinking and taking part in the ever growing emergent church. Jesus loved all people of all faiths because he ceated us and cares for us. However, Jesus does not support the idea of encouraging others to continue to walk in their sin and worship false gods.
In Him,
-Eric
Steve, what do we see next?
I will tell you.
I see so-called Christians promoting satanic human sacrifices. On Eric's website, "Theophilus" and "XLDS" both take a stand for capital punishment, which is nothing different from satanic human sacrifices.
Life is no longer holy and sanctified, but people who committed crimes can easily be gotten rid of by poison or electric chairs.
When Christians join with Satanists, I think there is nothing more shocking to come in the future.
Jesus taught us to love our neighbors and our enemies.
Christians like Theophilus (Calvary Chapel pastor Joe McCormick) and XLDS join in the "interfaith movement" between evangelicals and satanists to sacrifice blood to the allmighty Baal. This is what comes next.
You are against interfaith movement? Then why do you accept Eric Hoffman preaching satanic doctrines???
Danny Watson.
Wonderfully edited!
The only "abomination" was your 'Sandra Tanner-esque' editing of JS-H 1:18-19:
1. He was not praying to know which religion to join, but which "sect" of Christianity. He "was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong".
2. He was then told ..."all their creeds were an abomination in his sight".
The point of the Interfaith Roundtable, as quoted in the article, is to "facilitate interfaith respect, understanding appreciation through interfaith dialogue.”
Where are the concessions by the LDS Church of its religious positions, denying LDS historical perspectives, or not continuing to share the truth?
There are two wonderful proverbs your commentary reminds me of:
Prov 14:25 ¶ A true witness delivereth souls: but a deceitful witness speaketh lies.
Prov 6:16-19
16 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, 19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.
Apparently doing unto others the kindness and tolerance one would appreciate, even though we disagree with their philosophical views, is now evil. I can honestly say I have sinned against you Steve, because I expected so much more of a "man of god". It was wrong of me to pre-judge you.
Peace.
"My ears had heard of you but now my eyes have seen you." -Job 42:5
Eric, how is it possible to see God if, according to Calvary Chapel, he has no body of flesh and bone?
Pro-LDS
Pro-LDS,
According to Calvary chapel?? What kind of religious statement is this? Accordingf to the bible God the father is a spirit(See John 4:24). Job is describing the glory of God and finally coming to grips of understanding God's true glory and love. Do you "see" what I am saying?
In His name,
-Eric
There you go Bob. Picking apart any flaw you can find in order to tear down the entire message. This is typicla LDS tactics to defed the church. The Smith reference could have been left out of the post and the message would still have been the same. THe LDS church is not the same LDS church that Smith started.
Dear critics, thanks for reading my commentary.
From reading your comments, I got a pretty mild response to what I am really trying to communicate about the LDS Church.
Let me remediate …
The LDS organization of SLC Utah has two gospels, the preparatory gospel and the fullness gospel. (See McConkie, Mormon Doctrine page 333) The preparatory gospel is its public gospel. The preparatory gospel, is a generic Christian sounding message which leads people into LDS Organization membership. The preparatory gospel is related to Book of Mormon readings, which teaches that there is absolutely and only One God. When a person joins under the knowledge of the preparatory gospel at Baptism, they vow to "Endure to the End" in their faithfulness to the One God they believed in by reading the Book of Mormon. After a person joins the LDS church, under the conditions of the preparatory gospel they next come under the influence of the LDS priesthood. As an active LDS member under the influence of the Priesthood this same person is taught the fullness gospel The fullness gospel of Mormonism teaches that there are many gods. This is a serious situation, flip flopping from vowing to Endure to the End in Faith to One God, then switching to believing in Many Gods. So it appears that the preparatory gospel is just a front, for what the LDS really want to ultimately sell after it can control an individual under controlled conditions.
What I am suggesting is that the LDS may also be using “interfaith tolerance’ as just another front. After all, the LDS organization have a history of using preparatory fronts as a vehicle to eventually sell their ultimate internal message, after they can gain control over a persons life.
In a free society, when an organization uses such ‘bait and switch’ tactics, often people who have had experience with such an organization, go public to warn other people.
If washing machine salesmen used the same tactics consumer laws would put a stop to such a practice. When a ‘religion’ uses such methods it is up to ordinary people to speak-out.
It thus appears that the LDS ‘interfaith’ tolerance, and all its trappings is just another front, and is NOT Genuine Tolerance. It is just another arm of the Mormon ‘Preparatory Gospel’. A Bait and Switch tatic.
Steve R,
The problem with your argument is that the LDS church is not the only Christian church doing such interfaith events.
Take a look at the famous interfaith meetings at Taizé. The taizé community is an ecumenical men's monastic order located in France, founded in 1940 by Frere Roger.
It represents the Protestant and the Roman Catholic Churches, and its members are mainly from those two denominations.
Nevertheless, on a continuous basis, this group also holds interfaith meetings and meditates/prays with Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and other religious faiths.
On the other hand, the Catholic church has never left its position that it is the only true church and represents all believers ("catholic "= "general, for all").
If you were right, then the protestant church and the catholic church also are hideous and sell a different gospel to the outside than they teach on the inside.
Do you agree that under your assumptions, Catholics and Protestants are sectarian movements too?
Greets,
Peter
Peter-
Does this “Taizé” claim that it is the one and only true religion?
Does this “Taizé” claim on an inner level that all other religious movement are totally destitute of the power to save men?
Does this “Taizé” have persons join it organization under one promises set of conditions, then change those conditions after membership?
If any of these questions are “yes”, then you having a knowledge should warn others about this religious order.
Christians are mandated to warn others of such things.
As it is written:
Eze 3:18 When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.
Peter,
What you lack to understand is that in Christianity one church does not represent another. The Body of Christ is made of believers, not organizations of men who have established and exclusive right to God (See 1 Corinthians 12:12-20).
The bible explains that a relationship with Christ is given through him alone. If you notice in the article on the interfaith movement, a Methodist church participated in this movement. I consider their choice to do so highly unbiblical. Now, does that mean because they participated in this event that they speak for Christianity as a whole? No….not at all. But when the Mormon church does this, it does indeed represent the members because they hold their prophets and leaders to an authoritative position that is sanctioned by God Himself. We as Christians hold God’s word as written in the bible as the ultimate authority. So if the Bible says do not do this, then we can see it’s unbiblical.
Paul talks about this in 2 Corinthians 6:14-16. It states:
”Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you* are the temple of the living God.”
I Agree that we should love these people no matter what faith they are. But I disagree with fellowshipping with them and uniting our faiths. This, in a sense is a truce. I will not stand for that.
Grace and Peace...
-Eric
Does this “Taizé” claim that it is the one and only true religion?
Taizé is not an own religion. As I stated, the members of this order are mostly Catholic or protestant.
It is an interdenominational group.
Does this “Taizé” claim on an inner level that all other religious movement are totally destitute of the power to save men?
As far as I know, the Catholic church does claim to be authorized by God through Peter, whereas other churches don't have such a direct and continuous lineage.
Does this “Taizé” have persons join it organization under one promises set of conditions, then change those conditions after membership?
Both Catholics and Protestants perform infant baptism, that is, you join the organisation without any knowledge about it, considering that you are only a few weeks old.
Does this clear up the situation?
Peter
For my new friend Bob the anti-anti- I posted a clearification to JS-H "...abominations...". I did this because he complained at how I framed the quote.
Thanks to Bob-
Peter,
Do you see where Steve and I are coming from? What the LDS faith is involved in is unbiblical.
Peter wrote:
”As far as I know, the Catholic church does claim to be authorized by God through Peter, whereas other churches don't have such a direct and continuous lineage.”
Problem with this is Peter was never in Rome. Also take notice that Paul rebukes Peter to his face in Galatians. This would go in direct violation to the infallible status that the Roman Catholic church claims to have.
Peter wrote:
”Both Catholics and Protestants perform infant baptism, that is, you join the organization without any knowledge about it, considering that you are only a few weeks old.”
I don’t think we should baptize infants. Not that it’s this deep sin if we do. I just don’t think it’s necessary. I don’t think it’s a matter of salvation. Salvation is given through faith alone. Baptism is a recognition of obedience to Christ.
Does this clear things up for you?
In Him,
-Eric
Peter,
Thanks for your response-
In some Churches parents present their children to be baptized.
The parents know full well what the Church's beliefs are all about. The parents are the custodians of the child acting in their interest.
In Mormonism people often join and are intentently not give full information concerning what the LDS actually teaches. They are given the 'preparatory gospel' which teaches that there is only One God. Later after membership they are formally taught that there are many gods.
Also, Mormonism has hijacked records of dead people and baptized them without any permission from their families nor consent of the person being baptized (of course because they are dead).
For Example: The Issue of The Mormon Baptisms
of Jewish Holocaust Victims And Other Jewish Dead
http://www.jewishgen.org/InfoFiles/ldsagree.html
Also, Mormonism has hijacked records of dead people and baptized them without any permission from their families nor consent of the person being baptized (of course because they are dead).
Hello Steve,
again, Mormonism only repeats things which were already done in Christian history, and to a more violent degree. Read the following quote:
After Christianity became officially recognized under Constantine in the fourth century, theology was translated into government policy, and the Synagogue came under repressive measures. Under Emperor Justinian I (483-565) many laws protecting Jewish religious and civil rights were abolished and restrictions imposed.Later, in the seventh century, for political purposes the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius imposed forced baptism upon the Jews in order to ensure unity within his realm.This practice was to be repeated elsewhere with devastating results in following centuries.
Quote taken from http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/mine/guilt.htm
Mormons = Bad,
Christians = Good ?
I wouldn't agree based on this information...
Peter,
Historically many tyrants have attempted to use religion to build their man-made kingdoms.
Constantine was attempting to use Christianity not as and END but as a means to his man-made plans to build national unity.
Byzantine Emperor Heraclius was doing the same.
As your quote affirms;
"...in order to ensure unity within his realm.This practice was to be repeated elsewhere with devastating results in following centuries."
These are cases where powerful man have attempted to abuse religion to futher their human ambitions.
Peter,
Again, do you measure the biblical teachings of Christianity to be true only by what man has successfully carried out. Sets your sights higher, Peter. Look to Christ in all things.
Peter wrote:
”Mormons = Bad,
Christians = Good ?
I wouldn't agree based on this information... “
Let me give you my opinion…
Mormons=bad
Christians=bad
---------------------------------
Mormonism=bad
Christianity (God’s word)=Holy, perfect, righteous in all things, very good!
We are all bad people(Romans 3:11). Notice the banner of this blog. It states:
”Standing in the righteousness of Christ and not my own”
We stand in His glory and perfection and not look to our own merits for glory, but rather turn our lives over to Him and walk in his righteous and hold fast to His teachings. Amen?
So you stated what you don’t think...what is it that you do think? Is Mormonism Christianity?
God Bless,
-Eric
It's not that I blindly defend the Church. It is that these are just flat out distortions of a theologically insignificant, non-event.
By the way, the Catholics and the Anglicans are in discussions to merge their two Churchs back into the Catholic Church. I believe they do claim to be the one true Church. And they are willing to show "flexibility" on the doctrine of celibate priests, since the Anglicans are mostly married. Of course, since protestantism came out of Catholicism, the ecumenical movement between Catholics and Protestants is probably overlooked. Where would the Trinity be without Augustine, Athansius, Tertullian and Thomas Aquinas? These Catholics can rightly argue Evangelicals and Protestants in general have simply hijacked their doctrines.
But then again, what public face will you put on that?
The LDS Church is transparent, in a doctrinal sense. There is no "higher" education to send bishops, Stake Presidents or local leaders to. The Church administrative handbooks deal strictly with issues of policy. A person can buy and read the handbook used for training missionaries, and literally everything taught up to the temple is included. You can also buy the Gospel Principles manual used in Sunday School, and there is literally no doctrine currently taught by the Church not included in there. Furthermore, the Gospel Doctrine classes use the scriptures as the primary source of doctrine. In other words, Steve R., your "prepartory Gospel" theory is simply all wet. Which specific "advanced" doctrines are not taught by the Church to new converts which get sprung on them after they join, and why did you fall back to this point when your article completely ignores it? It is just so much spinning because it is indefensible. Or maybe you want to give it a shot?
Let's quote Br. McConkie's opinion and see if there is a problem:
The Prepartory Gosple "is a gospel system administered by the lesser or Aaronic Priesthood. When the power to bestow the Holy Ghost is enjoyed, which power is reserved for holders of the Melchizedek Priesthood, then the fulness of the gospel is manifest. John the Baptist administered the preparatory gospel; Christ came with the fulness of the Melchizedek Priesthood and restored the fulness of the gospel. (John 1:26-27; Acts 19:1-6.)"
So the LDS Church, by virtue of having the Melchizedek priesthood to administer the Holy Ghost, delivers the fulness of the Gospel. Steve R., do we send only Aaronic Priesthood holders on missions? Because according to your reference, that would be the only way the "Prepatory" Gospel could be taught.
Spin, spin, spin.
This is why I ask for citations and quotations. Otherwise, just more of the same. Distort, duck and try to change topics fast so maybe the audience forgets what the original distortion was, and that maybe something will be left uncommented on, as if it lacked an answer.
Ick. But ick with love. Even those distorting truth need love. I should probably say, especially those distorting another person's faith needs love.
Bob
The LDS Church is transparent, in a doctrinal sense. There is no "higher" education to send bishops, Stake Presidents or local leaders to. The Church administrative handbooks deal strictly with issues of policy. A person can buy and read the handbook used for training missionaries, and literally everything taught up to the temple is included. You can also buy the Gospel Principles manual used in Sunday School, and there is literally no doctrine currently taught by the Church not included in there. Furthermore, the Gospel Doctrine classes use the scriptures as the primary source of doctrine.
My view on this is two-fold:
On the one hand, I have to agree to Steve R. in that the missionaries only teach a part of the whole doctrine taught by the LDS church.
I suppose this is mainly due to the fact that people are rapidly baptized into the Church.
If you listen to the CatholicMormon podcast, you will find that Sarah took two years to convert to Catholicism. This was, because she took the catholic doctines class, which takes about a year. And she took it twice.
Of course, you can teach a lot more thorough in a whole year than in six quick lessons.
So the question is:
Are people ready to be baptized after the lessons, or are they kept ignorant of many important doctrinal issues within the Mormon church, which they should know about before being baptized.
This is a discussion point I would leave both to Steve and Bob.
On the other hand, claiming that other churches always teach thoroughly before baptising is an illusion.
Think about all those mass-baptising events performed by modern-day churches.
All people have to do is do a hand-over prayer.
That's all.
No discussions about the Trinity, pre-trib vs. post-trib (which I actually have not the slightest idea about), or other doctrinal issues. No detailed knowledge about what in the old testament should be accepted and what is outdated.
Etc. pp. Many born-again Christians are baptized in a state as naive as Mormon converts are.
If you doubt me, take a newly baptized born-again evangelical, especially one baptized in a mass-baptism, and ask him about doctrinal details.
Ask him why the ten commandments are a major guidance for Christians, when they are part of the Law of Mose which fell away with Christ's crucification.
Ask them how Jesus can be one with God, yet, he doesn't know when the final judgement will be.
You will certainly come up with interesting quiz-questions which they all will fail.
This is because they are not taught the fullness of the gospel, but only a light born-again version.
Milk before meat, Steve.
All do it, the Mormons as well as many evangelicals.
This is because if you want high baptism rates, you need to get them baptised quicker, and so they need a shorter training.
Are all those evangelical not real christians?
Peter
Bob,
It is pretty simple-- Mormonism has two gospels--
As Mormon Doctrine Page 333 verifies:
“ Two true gospels are spoken of in the revelations and have been have been revealed to men as occasions have warranted: one is the fullness and the other is the preparatory gospel.
Mormonism divides information, spritural laws, and truth into its respective levels or spheres of salvation. This is outlined in the 88 section of the LDS scripture called the Doctrine and Covenants(D&C).
The Preparatory Gospel with the Aaronic Priesthood, is the redemption sphere of knowledge.
The Fullness Gospel of Mormonism is the Exhaltation Sphere of knowledge.
As Joseph Smith wrote of these segrations of knowledge and truth---
D&C 93: 30
“All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it…”
Again these spheres and respective levels of knowledge and truth are described in the 88th section of the D&C
In the Preparatory Gospel there is ONE GOD-- as the Book of Mormon teaches--
Alma 11
28 Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God? 29 And he answered, No.
The Fulness Gospel teaches a different sphere of knowledge.
For example-
D&C 132:20
Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods because they have all power, and the angels a subject unto them.”
Abraham 4:1
“…the Gods” organized and formed the heavens and the earth.…”
-----------
Bob I always appreciate your comments-
Peter wrote:
"If you doubt me, take a newly baptized born-again evangelical, especially one baptized in a mass-baptism, and ask him about doctrinal details."
Peter, you are talking to one right now. I was baptized in this way and did not know much about Christianity but the essentials.
-Nature of God
-Why Jesus died for me
-And the knowledge of me being indeed saved.
My love for God as taken me deep into the Word and sparked my interest for a deeper knowledge for Him.
God Bless,
-Eric
Bob wrote:
"By the way, the Catholics and the Anglicans are in discussions to merge their two Churchs back into the Catholic Church. I believe they do claim to be the one true Church."
What does this mean for me, Bob??
I wrote:
"If you doubt me, take a newly baptized born-again evangelical, especially one baptized in a mass-baptism, and ask him about doctrinal details."
Eric answered:
"Peter, you are talking to one right now. I was baptized in this way and did not know much about Christianity but the essentials.
-Nature of God
-Why Jesus died for me
-And the knowledge of me being indeed saved."
Thanks Eric for this honest answer.
So, should we condemn Christianity because you were taught a simplified milk-before-meat gospel?
I don't think so.
But why, Steve, do you condemn Mormonism for the very same thing?
Here is my general standpoint:
There are things which are wrong and bad in Mormonism.
BUT:
We shouldn't condemn Mormonism for things which are done equally in Christianity as well.
And this is what you, Steve, did in your post, and this is what you, Eric, often do on your blog/forum/podcast:
You don't condemn only their doctrine which is different from yours, but you condemn negative deeds done by Mormons, which can be found to the same extend in some Christian denominations.
I criticize you strongly for this, because it is biased and injust.
Either, both are blameworthy, if they do the same thing, or both should be uncriticized. But blaming Mormons for what Christians do as well is injust and not Christlike.
It is the endless lamentation about the mote in your brother's eye, while you continuously deny that there is a beam in your own (Mt 7:3).
Either you have to show your brother that there is a mote in his eye, but then you have to take out your own beam as well, or you have to leave them both in their position.
What you, Steve and Eric, currently do, is lamenting about the mote in the Mormon organization (e.g., the milk-gospel preached to new converts), while the very same beam is also in your eye (evangelical converts being baptized as naive as Mormon converts are).
If you were Christian, shouldn't you follow Christ's words in Mat 7?
Peter
>>>>Thanks Eric for this honest answer.
So, should we condemn Christianity because you were taught a simplified milk-before-meat gospel?
I don't think so.
But why, Steve, do you condemn Mormonism for the very same thing?>>>>>>
Dear Peter,
The Meat of the Gospel is explained in the Book of Hebrews.
This is where the full meaning of Christ’s mission is explained.
The Meat is about how Christ fulfilled the Nation of Israel, with its System of Laws and Temple symbols .
The Mormon fullness of the Gospel is completely different than the Biblical "Meat" of the Gospel.
Brigham Young explained this gospel—
.” Our religion is nothing more nor less than the true order of heaven—the system of laws by which the gods and the angels are governed. The Gospel of the Son of God that has been revealed is a plan or system of laws and ordinances, by strict obedience to which the people who inhabit this earth are assured that they may return again into the presence of the Father and the Son.”
LDS Sunday School Manual; The Gospel Defined: Lesson 235554, Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young
The Book of Hebrews claims something different—it says that by the Blood of Christ alone, we can enter God’s presence—symbolized by the Holiest Place Hebrews 10:19
The Mormon fullness gospel is a different gospel—a gospel we were warned about 2000 years ago by the Apostle Paul ---
NIV ©
Gal 1:9
"As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!"
When Mormons introduce the Preparatory Gospel, then later the Fulness Gospel of Mormonism, it is not like getting an advanced version of the Preparatory, but rather a different system.
One Gospel teaches there is Absolutely One God-- As the Book of Mormon does, and Prays in Sacrament Meeting "O' God the Eternal Father..."
The Fulness system teaches that there are many Gods.
The D&C preparatory Gospel is found in D&C Ch 20 where the passage insists that Only One Being is to be worshipped,-- But later a Mormon finds out "...these three are the only Gods we worship" (Mormon Doctrine, p.576-7)
Peter wrote:
"Milk before meat, Steve.
All do it, the Mormons as well as many evangelicals.
This is because if you want high baptism rates, you need to get them baptised quicker, and so they need a shorter training."
so tell me this, Peter...
I was baptized by a pastor at Santa Curs Bible Church in Santa Cruz CA. I was never given any official paper that declared I was now a "member." I then moved here to Utah and started attending Calvary Mtn View church. I have never been baptized because I was already baptized in my other church. The current pastor at Calvary Mtn View knows of my batism as an outward confession for Christ. He believes as I do that I have been baptized into Christ. Why would the pastor at Calvary not be concerned with my baptism at another church? Why would Santa Cruz bible not be concerned with never confirming "membership?"
Its a relationship not a religion.
Peter wrote:
"We shouldn't condemn Mormonism for things which are done equally in Christianity as well."
Peter, you are right here. We should not "condemn" Mormons for anything. But we should correct their high error of doctrine, just as my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ should correct me when I am wrong. Mormons want to be considered Christian. If that's the case, then we need to respond to their heretical teachings.
The difference here is that Mormons teach you something different than what you come to realize later as a member.
Let me give you an example...
A math class would start you with the basics...
2+2=4 3+3=6...so on and so on.
As you continued with your learning of the subject, your later lessons would be built on upon your root teachings. Understood?
you would not later learn that 2+2 actually equals 950.
This is what Steve is trying to explain in the "Prepatory Gospel."
You are told there is only one God and that you only worship one God and then come to find out that the godhead is actually three and many gods exist.
it's not the milk and meat that the Bible speaks of in Hebrews. What the Mormon missionaries are trying to do is sell you on some vague terminology that sounds the same as christian terminology.
Same words VERY DIFFERENT meaning. Mormons know it and sometimes Christians do not, and thats how they end up being baptized into the Mormon faith. They go in thinking it's not that different from traditional christian doctrine and once they find out....some leave and some stick around due to the strong social structure of reinforcement.
I hope I answered your questions.
In His grace...
-Eric
Matthew 4:4
Thanks for your responses, Steve and Eric.
I think the best person to respond now would be an LDS member.
So Bob, would you please explain to us why missionaries don't teach the plurality of Gods clearly, and why they don't teach that there are three gods in one Godhead, vs. the traditional trinity doctrine?
Thanks in advance for your explanation.
Peter
Steve R.,
The point of Br. McConkie's statement on page 333, as I quoted and you avoid, is that the "prepatory Gospel" is that Gospel preached by John the Baptist, when the gift of the Holy Ghost is not available. If the Melchizidek priesthood is available, then the Fullness of the Gospel is taught.
In DIRECT CONTRADICTION of your statements, the very passage you distort from Br. McConkie says this:
"Our revelations say that the Book of Mormon contains the fulness of the gospel. (D. & C. 20:9; 27:5; 42:12; 135:3.)"
But, what about the quote about the two Gospels? Where is that from? Why, from Steve R.'s mind, of course. It is not from the Church, it is just Steve R.'s distorted view of LDS doctrine.
"The Preparatory Gospel with the Aaronic Priesthood, is the redemption sphere of knowledge.
The Fullness Gospel of Mormonism is the Exhaltation Sphere of knowledge." No source, not LDS in its origin.
You have wrongly asserted on several occasions that the Book of Mormon teaches Trinitarian, or at least modalistic, monotheism. Again, Truth is much better than assertion:
"6 And when I had spoken these words, the Spirit cried with a loud voice, saying: Hosanna to the Lord, the most high God; for he is God over all the earth, yea, even above all. And blessed art thou, Nephi, because thou believest in the Son of the most high God; wherefore, thou shalt behold the things which thou hast desired." (1 Ne 11:6)
11 "...I spake unto him [the Spirit] as a man speaketh; for I beheld that he was in the form of a man; yet nevertheless, I knew that it was the Spirit of the Lord; and he spake unto me as a man speaketh with another." 1 Ne 11:11
There is no way, none, this can be a modalistic expression of God.
I hate to take this much space, but since so much error is being communicated here, let me provide the definition of Modalism, as provided at CARM:
"Modalism is probably the most common theological error concerning the nature of God. It is a denial of the Trinity which states that God is a single person who, throughout biblical history, has revealed Himself in three modes, or forms. Thus, God is a single person who first manifested himself in the mode of the Father in Old Testament times. At the incarnation, the mode was the Son. After Jesus' ascension, the mode is the Holy Spirit. These modes are consecutive and never simultaneous. In other words, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit never all exist at the same time, only one after another."
Since you contend the Book of Mormon teaches modalism and monotheism, these verses and definitions need to be explained by you. How can it be one God when God the Father, God the son and the Spirit of God are all present at the same time? Just math says there are 3 Gods there. How about all of the 3rd Nephi references? Lastly, 3 Nephi 28:10 explicitly teaches(that is, in English there can be no misunderstanding) that men can be exalted to godhood:
3 Ne 28:10 "And for this cause ye shall have fulness of joy; and ye shall sit down in the kingdom of my Father; yea, your joy shall be full, even as the Father hath given me fulness of joy; and ye shall be even as I am, and I am even as the Father; and the Father and I are one;"
This is exaltation, which fundamentally means multiple gods. The wording is also devastating to Trinitarian doctrine, since whatever oneness Jesus enjoys with the Father, we will enjoy with the two of them. Exaltation is synonymous with LDS salvation in the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom. This is identical to the doctrine taught in D&C 76 since Feb 1832, less than 2 years after the publication of the Book of Mormon:
D&C 76:58 "Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God--"
Since the BofM from 1 Nephi until Moroni teaches a plurality of Gods and the exaltation of men, I guess I am at a loss to explain Steve R.'s assertions. The missionaries teach this stuff. The Bible teaches this stuff. Most people, if they have actually read anything in the Bible, believe some form of this doctrine, which is why it is not hard to get people to accept. 3rd Nephi's language is very similar to John 17, and it is obvious to anyone not a died in the wool trinitarian that if we can be one with God as Jesus is one with God, there is no such thing as the Trinity. Which is why the Book of Mormon does not teach it.
Peace,
Thanks Bob for your statement.
I would like to pick up the BoM verse you mentioned and formulate it into a question:
3 Ne 28:10 "And for this cause ye shall have fulness of joy; and ye shall sit down in the kingdom of my Father; yea, your joy shall be full, even as the Father hath given me fulness of joy; and ye shall be even as I am, and I am even as the Father; and the Father and I are one;"
This verse repeats what the bible also teaches. Let's have a look at the following bible verses:
"1Jo 5:7: For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
Jhn 10:30 I and [my] Father are one.
These verses of course would be interpreted trinitarian by people already holding this believe.
But the bible also states:
Jhn 17:11 :
And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we [are].
Jhn 17:21
That they all may be one; as thou, Father, [art] in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
Now we have a problem. We have exactly the same phrases and terminology, yet, trinitarian believers will interpret the first verses with:
"Don't you read it? They are one, which means they are part of the trinity?"
while they interpret the latter verses with:
"Oh, this is not meant literally, but in a metaphorical sense. It means that they are close to God, yadiyadiyada..."
Who decides which interpretation to apply to bible verses? Why can you apply different interpretations to terms using the same wording?
Who has the authority to decide which interpretation is right?
The Pope?
Chuck Smith?
People with a Ph.D. in theology?
Pastors?
Peter
Bob you are half correct-
And Bob after reading your statement, I really wonder if you actually believe Mormonism as it is actually taught, operated and administered in the real world.
I think you have your own private form of reformed Mormonism.
To clearify on what Mormonism actually is about and how it actually formally operates, we need to first focus on the LDS Church public Ward Meetings, and How a Bishop ( an office in the Aaronic Priesthood ) Presides.
And how the Sacrament meeting is administered by the Aaronic Priesthood, with priest ( Mormon Aaronic Priest ) blessing the sacrament, and other Aaronic Priesthood holder as Teachers passing the sacrament.
The Aaronic Priesthood holds the keys to Repentance, Baptism, and has the keys to presiding in public Sacrament meetings where the Baptismal covenant is renewed each week. The Aaronic Priesthood also holds the keys to preaching the gospel of repentance. These are the things investagators of Mormonsim are shown when trying to decide if they want to join the LDS Church or Not.
Aaronic Priesthood…"which holds the keys [governing or delegating authority] of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins" (D&C 13).
When a person investigates the LDS Church they are taught the Aaronic Preparatory level of Mormonism’s gospels. They are taught the ‘first principles of Faith, and Repentance. If they accept this Aaronic Priesthood level of teachings they are then afterward Baptized to become Members. After Baptism the Higher Priesthood kicks in the Higher Priesthood Gift of the Holy Ghost.
The Public teaching that the LDS Missionaries do is Aaronic Priesthood Level, This is mandated in LDS scripture.
D&C 19:21 “And I command you that you preach naught but repentance and show not these things unto the world until it is wisdom in me (22) For they cannot bear meat now, but milk they must receive wherefore, they must not know these things, lest they perish.”
Notice how Repentance ( a preparatory, Aaronic Priesthood level) is ALL that is to be taught. This passage indicates that “they cannot bear meat now, but milk they must receive wherefore, they must not know these things, lest they perish.”
This also holds true when an investigator attends LDS Ward Sacrament meetings.
The meetings are operated on the Aaronic Priesthood level. The investigator only gets exposed to the conditions laid out in D&C 19:21—Preparatory Gospel level.—After all as an unbaptized person they do not have the fullness Gift of the Holy Ghost.
In the Aaronic Priesthood level Sacrament Prayers, the Book of Mormon is quoted—
(Moroni Chapters 4&5) O’ God the Eternal Father…”
Such a prayer reflects monotheism that is the same as the Judeo-Christian orthodox concept. So the LDS investigator is being misinformed as to what LDS ultimately believe. The LDS are NOT informing the investigator that what sounds completely orthodox and like ONE GOD is being prayed unto-- is actually many gods. Also note that the Sacrement Prayer states that God is ETERNAL-- so if the investigator decides to join, based on God being ETERNAL later he/she will discover the great secret of Mormonism. That is that God is not Eternal after all—
As Joseph Smith taught
We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea,…Here, then, is eternal life--to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all gods have done before you“ … “…That is the great secret.”
What Joseph Smith calls defines as the great secret. Is an entirely different kind of God that the Book of Mormon teaches-- The Book of Mormon teaches doctrinal formulas about God that to people socialized in Christendom view as Monotheistic Statements-
Ether 2:8- And He had sworn in His wrath unto the brother of Jared, that whoso should possess this land of promise, from that time henceforth and forever, should serve Him, the true and only God, or they should be swept off when the fullness of His wrath should come upon them.
2 Nephi 31:21- And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen
Likewise as one opens the book of Mormon and reads from one of the Cover Pages, ‘The Testimony of Three Witnesses’ of the Book of Mormon.
“And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.”
This is but one secret that investigator are not to be taught before joining the LDS Church as again the D&C 19 mandates:
D&C 19:21 “And I command you that you preach naught but repentance and show not these things unto the world until it is wisdom in me (22) For they cannot bear meat now, but milk they must receive wherefore, they must not know these things, lest they perish.”
To conclude, Ward Meetings, which are the stable of LDS Sunday Church going, are Aaronic Priesthood Based, with an Aaronic Priesthood officer presiding (Bishop).
These meetings appear to be orthodox, with worship being Given to ONE ETERNAL God.
Afterward-- when a person becomes an LDS Member, they are taught something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT-- that God is NOT Eternal, and that there are Many Gods.
Peter,
We do have to debate the Trinity to figure out the LDS Bait and Switch.
This discussion all started related to LDS misrepresenting what they actually ultimately believe in public, to win public favor, and get converts to join when they really do not know what they are getting into.
It is simple—in effect people are exposed to the Preparatory Message of Mormonism—
The Preparatory message sound like the familiar orthodox message of the cultural idea of God—it sounds orthodox to them. All you have to do is look at the one main aspect of what most people believe about God--- Namely God as an ETERNAL Father
This Eternal Father that is prayed to in Sacrament Meeting Every week (“ ‘O God the Eternal Father…”—when the conditions of you joining the LDS Church are renewed—a confessed belief in Eternal God. You see you made a promise to the Eternal God to Endure to the End in Faithfulness when you joined the LDS under the Preparatory Gospel--- and you keep repeating this each week.
But in the Higher teachings, when you get ready to go to the Temple, you find out that God is NOT Eternal.
WAM/BAM!! your God just changed from ETERNAL to God once was a regular mortal man-- who lived on another earth-- who became a god-- just like all the other gods did before him.
If we look at the LDS official WWW, Site (Mormon.org) we can see under ‘Basic Beliefs”/ “Nature of God” that the LDS Preparatory Gospel appears very orthodox to those who are mildly familiar with Traditional Christianity. The site mentions ‘God’, says that there is ‘a God’.- ‘a Divine Being’—it does not straight-up declare “There are many gods or a heavenly counsel of gods”—It leads people on based on their cultural preconceptions of monotheism and God being ETERNAL ( as people in western culture understand ‘eternal’)
Steve,
First of all, you have not answered my question regarding the Trinity being defined as "one", when we as human believers are also "one" with god and Jesus. Are we part of the Trinity?
Second,
“There are many gods or a heavenly counsel of gods”is not only a Mormon belief.
The bible also teaches this:
"God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods." (Ps 82:1)
The words "mighty" and "gods" are the words "el" and "elohim" in hebrew, they generally refer to God or Gods.
One god being the head of a congregation of gods was also a common belief in Canaan, so some scholars conclude that Judaism was polytheistic in the beginning, but later became monotheistic, and the Jews only worshipped YHWH from a certain time period on.
It is also contradictory when the bible refers to God being superior to all other gods, when in reality there are no other gods.
If there was only one God, the bible would not declare him to be stronger than other (nonexisting) gods.
Of course, you can just reinterpret the word "el" to mean something very different, like "mighty men".
But then, maybe YHWH is not our god, but just "our mighty man".
Peter.
Peter, you asked some really larged scoped questions- maybe take them over to the posting Forum-
As to Psalms 82, The Mormon Apostle, James Talmage taught that the gods there were human judges.
(James Talmage, Jesus the Christ, page 501)
The Because God is a Spirit, He dwelled in Jesus, and was One with Him-
Col 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
We can become One with God and Christ by having the Holy Spirit dwell in us too-
1Co 6:17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.
Yet this does not mean that we have the 'fullness of the Godhead' in us.
BTW the term EL, Elohim and soforth
which translates to "god" can apply to most any judge,or superhuman being. So in a sense there are many Elohim. But there is one EL whose name is Jehovah.
In otherwords: Mono-Jehovahism
Well I know I am dealing with Trinitarians, because they use words and language to define things not found in scripture. (That is a small joke, lest anyone be too offended.)
Steve R.: I am as thoroughly orthodox as any Mormon can be. There is nothing "reformed" about my theology. I just happen to actually read, listen to and research LDS leaders statements, as well as LDS scriptures.
Which is why your whole "prepatory Gospel" thing is so amazing. Could you please point out from LDS scripture anything resembling this? I can't find it. Your citation of D&C 19:21 does not apply, unless Paul was likewise teaching a "prepatory" Gospel (1Cor 3:2; Heb 5:12, 14). The Lord's object of saying to preach only repentance was because in D&C 19:1-20 there is a lengthy and deep discussion of the meaning of various terms, as well as the nature of Christ's suffering while performing the atonement. It is "these things" they are told not to teach at first, but instead to stick to the basics, until the Lord saw fit to publish it to the world. We call that the D&C, or the Book of Commandments at the time.
Your parsing of the first four principles and ordinances of the Gospel is transparently self serving. You turn them into the First Three Principles and Ordinance plus One ordinance, as if this made a difference. You ignore the fact that the Bishop is also the Senior Melchizedek priesthood holder in the Ward, and presides not as "The Bishop", but as the High Priest (D&C 107:17 spells it out):
17 "But as a high priest of the Melchizedek Priesthood has authority to officiate in all the lesser offices, he may officiate in the office of bishop when no literal descendant of Aaron can be found, provided he is called and set apart and ordained unto this power by the hands of the Presidency of the Melchizedek Priesthood." D&C 107:17
Kind of destroys your theory, if I may be so bold. As it says earlier in D&C 107:8
"The Melchizedek Priesthood holds the right of presidency, and has power and authority over all the offices in the church in all ages of the world, to administer in spiritual things."
The fact the Aaronic priesthood blesses and passes the Sacrament, and has a right to perform water baptisms, still ignores the fact the Church does not send out Aaronic priesthood holders to serve missions. Every new convert, either within minutes or within a few days is confirmed a member, and has hands laid on their head to receive the Holy Spirit.
So, again I ask, where do we find anything actually resembling this doctrine of a "prepartory Gospel" taught and administered in the LDS Church. I serve in a bishopric. The Bishop presides over both spiritual and temporal affairs, but the spiritual issues are administered under the presiding keys of the Melchizedek priesthood.
Finally, your issue of "how god became god" is proven right out of the same talk. What Joseph Smith meant (I say this because it is what he actually taught) is that while people believe God the Father never had a life on a planet, he in fact did. But he was a divine being at that time, just like Jesus Christ was. He states that explicitly. He never says, anywhere, that there was a time when God was non-divine. God was a man, according to the teachings in the King Follett Discourse, but he was god as to his nature even while he was a man, just as Jesus was god as to his nature even while a human on this Earth. He says so, explicitly:
"The Scriptures inform us that Jesus said, As the Father hath power in Himself, even so hath the Son power-to do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious-in a manner to lay down His body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father did, and take it up again." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, page 346.)
There is never a time in the teachings of Joseph Smith, or, more importantly, in the scriptures of the Latter-day Saints, when God was not God. The Bible does not speak to issues preceding the organization of the world. It simply states God has been God from Everlasting to Everlasting. What made God? Evangelicals say "he always existed". What did he do before the organization of this universe and this world? Evangelicals cannot say, because it is not in the Bible. In LDS teachings, the Father and Jesus both have been and will be Gods from everlasting to everlasting (D&C 20:17).
The speculative teaching that God or Jesus worked their way into their positions is purely speculation. Abraham 3:24, which is the furtherest look back into the eternities in LDS writings, simply says of Jesus "and there stood one among them that was like unto God". I find anti-Mormons more comfortable continually misquoting LDS doctrine than correcting their mis-statements. The LDS Church simply does not teach that there was a time when God was not God. I wish anti's would read LDS writings as carefully as they do false teachings about the LDS.
I follow the living prophets and the scriptures. I am very aware of past leaders teachings. And I am very aware that none (as in NONE) ever codified the speculation that there was a time when Jesus and the Father were not Gods.
Talmage taught the gods of Psalm 82 were human judges because that was the scholarly opinion of the day.
We now KNOW they were considered gods in OT times. It is also the main issue at stake in John 10:34-35.
Archaeology has proven the context was gods in a divine council.
See the academically acclaimed work by Mark Smith "The Origins of Biblical Monotheism" for a recent review on the topic. Or pick up any of the major commentaries on the subject which include the best recent archaeological works on the subject.
2 Peter 1:4 was quoted by all of the early Christians on the subject of exaltation: We can become joint heirs/ general partners with God.
Peace
Peter,
I will explain the trinity for you the best that I can. So to start, please read this passage:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” –John 1:1
According to this verse, Who is the Word?
The truth of biblical language must be vigorously protected with non-biblical language.
Athanasius’ experience was critically illuminating to something I have come to see over the years, especially in liberally minded baptistic and pietistic traditions, namely, that the slogan, “the Bible is our only creed” is often used as a cloak to conceal the fact that Bible language is used to affirm falsehood. This is what Athanasius encountered so insidiously at the Council of Nicaea. The Arians affirmed biblical sentences. Listen to this description of the proceedings:
The Alexandrians . . . confronted the Arians with the traditional Scriptural phrases which appeared to leave no doubt as to the eternal Godhead of the Son. But to their surprise they were met with perfect acquiescence. Only as each test was propounded, it was observed that the suspected party whispered and gesticulated to one another, evidently hinting that each could be safely accepted, since it admitted of evasion. If their assent was asked to the formula “like to the Father in all things,” it was given with the reservation that man as such is “the image and glory of God.” The “power of God” elicited the whispered explanation that the host of Israel was spoken of as dunamis kuriou, and that even the locust and caterpillar are called the “power of God.” The “eternity” of the Son was countered by the text, “We that live are alway (2 Corinthians 4:11)!” The fathers were baffled, and the test of homoosion, with which the minority had been ready from the first, was being forced (p. 172) upon the majority by the evasions of the Arians.
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Biographies/1532_Contending_for_Our_All/
Bob,
Mark Smith's book review:
http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/ReligionTheology/BiblicalStudies/OldTestamentHebrewBible/?view=usa&ci=9780195167689
"Brilliant, well-documented, well-organized, and very discomforting. Biblical scholars now recognize that in the pre-exilic era Asherah worship, infant sacrifice, solar veneration, and other religious practices attacked by biblical authors represented normal Israelite worship, while monotheism was a late development in the Babylonian Exile and subsequent years. Smith and others led the charge in this new scholarly perception of Israelite religion."
Bob does this kind of worship sound LDS to you? Is this why a sunstone is on the LDS Temple? Sun Worship? infant sacrifice?
And Bob according to Mark Smith, Lehi would have to had been a polythesist because Lehi left Jerusalem BEFORE the Exile--yet if belief in ONE GOD developed among the Jews after their return from Babylon-- then how come Nephites did not express a belief in Many god in the Book of Mormon?
You argument based on Scholars like Mark Smith disproves the Book of Mormon! it is self-defeating for you to use it as a case for Mormon beliefs when indeed it defeats core LDS claims.
Steve R.
If I cared about someone's opinion who did not believe in God as revealed in the LDS Church, then I don't need Mark Smith to dissuade me; I can listen to you or Eric.
But here is the rub. I own and have read Dr. Smith's book, cover to cover. What he teaches is that the Israelites started descending into an apostasy (my word, not his) because they gradually changed the earliest texts to conform to the royal court's cult of exclusive monotheism. It increased in its expression until it prohibited the existence of all other gods, and found that expression in changes to the earlier texts of the Hebrew Bible, as well as an almost radical Deutero-Isaiah.
Furthermore, the polytheism which existed among the Hebrews allowed for other gods to actually exist, it did not require their worship. So in that sense, Lehi was a polytheist. Certainly, as I demonstrated from 1 Nephi and 3 Nephi, as well as John 10, the very title "son of god" was understood to mean there was more than one real god. That is why the Jews wanted to kill Jesus in John 10.
My favorite Dead Sea Scroll discovery is from Deuteronomy 32:8-9. The Jews had changed the Masoretic Text to try to make the text mean the world was divided among the sons of Adam. That is how the King James Bible reads.
The original text says it was divided among the gods, with Jehovah getting Israel from the Most High as his portion. This is supported by the Greek Septuagint. Here is the reading from the NRSV:
Deuteronomy 32:8
"When the Most High apportioned the nations, when he divided humankind, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the gods; 9 the Lord's own portion was his people, Jacob his allotted share."
Maybe the NRSV is too radical for you. Grab "The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible", it will explain it. But the fact is the world is coming to realize that what Joseph Smith taught 180 years ago is very close to what the Hebrews and early Christians believed. Finding history means it will probably never be a perfect overlay, but it doesn't need to be to demonstrate truth.
Last month's issue of Biblical Archaeology Review had an article about "Did God Have a Wife", by Bill Dever. "Yes", was the answer, according to archaeology. This month the untrained Evangelical who reviewed the article was taken to the woodshed by most readers and Dever for his blind, and untrained, response, having its source in the knee jerk realization that if Dever is correct, Trinitarianism is highly threatened.
I think Mormons are the only people in the world that are not threatened by the discovery, from a theological standpoint. Or maybe you can explain to me how Elohim having a wife fits perfectly well with your brand of Trinitarian monotheism?
Thanks for finding that professor from Loyola's review. You actually picked my favorite line out of it. The book is even better.
Peace,
Bob
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” –John 1:1
According to this verse, Who is the Word?
The Word, greek "ho logos", can have different meanings, among which word (capitalized only in the english translation!) is only one.
In the passage, I think it means God's plan of salvation for humankind. It was the thought, the ratio of saving human beings after Adam's fall. This idea was with God in the beginning, and as it was in his mind from all times on, John refers to it as "The idea was god(ly)."
So the question is not "Who was the Word?" but "What was the idea?"
Peter
Peter,
With the interpretation in mind that you think it means...
How do you apply that to John 1:14?
Eric,
While the thought was with God from eternety on, with Jesus, he put this plan of salvation into practice.
Jesus is the flesh (human body) that incorporates God's plan, god's thought, God's ratio("logos").
"Kai ho logos sarx egeneto."
"And his plan became flesh."
Jesus, as a human being, was the flesh("sarx") which personified God's plan ("logos").
Peter
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bob,
I appreciate your notes on Hebrew Polytheism.
It is significant that you mention you believe Lehi was polytheistic.
Also you mention other Book of Mormon books as having polytheistic teachings.
In view of this, please explain how the following Book of Mormon teachings that appear monotheistic to many, but as you suggest are really polytheistic.
Alma 11
28 Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God? 29 And he answered, No.
Alma 11:38 Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father? 39 And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth, and all things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last;
Mosiah Chapter 15 “…(God)himself shall come down...because he dwell in the flesh shall be called the Son of God...and they are one God the very Eternal Father of Heaven and Earth.”
Sometimes the Internet does not work like it should. I submitted a response on Alma 11 yesterday, but it seems to have been lost.
Alma 11 contains the comments of Zeezrom, discussing things with Amulek. Verse 35 shows they correctly understand there is more than one God, if Christ is the son of God:
"for he said there is but one God; yet he saith that the Son of God shall come"
So Zeezrom realized that the designation of Christ as the Son of God meant there were at least two Gods. Amulek amplifies on this by never calling Jesus "God the Father". Instead, he notes Jesus, in his pre-Earth life role as the creator of heavens and Earth, is therefore the "very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth, and all things which in them are". He ends the chapter by reviewing the 3 Gods who make up the Godhead, as we "shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God..."
The fact they are taught to be distinct gods in verse 35, yet one God in their functions, as in verse 44, is no more of an issue than John 17:21-23 or any other verse describing how God and Christ are one, and yet separate.
Mosiah 15 is slightly different. Here Abinidi is talking about the various roles of Jesus Christ, but he also mentions his separateness from God. The critical line most often misunderstood has to do with verses 2-3:
2 "And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son-- 3 The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God..."
Verse 3, cannot be explained as modalism. He is the Father of Heaven and Earth because he was conceived by the power of God. So the Father aspect of Jesus is related to the conception of that role by God. While this may be difficult to understand, and most casual readers are either confused or just miss the meaning, the phrase is actually quite clear explaining that God conceived Jesus in his role as Father of heaven and Earth. Jesus is the son because of submitting his own physical will to the Father who was conceived by God. His role as Father was as a Spirit, without a carnal will. So Jesus submits his human will to the spiritual will he had as the father of heaven and Earth. But that being, the Father of heaven and Earth, was conceived of by God.
Jesus was God, the Father of Heaven and Earth. He was not God the eternal Father. All of Mosiah 15, read in this light, becomes extremely easy, and very Mormon, to understand. The usual issue here is an attempt to prove modalism or Trinitarianism here, which verse 3 makes such an explanation impossible to sustain. There are at least two Gods being discussed here, and the pre-Earth and Post-Earth roles of Christ, the very God of Heaven and Earth, is what is being discussed in this chapter.
Peace,
Bob
So Bob,
From the logic of your last comment--
In Sacrament Meetings when the prayer is said "O' God the Eternal Father..." (from Moroni Ch 4&5 of the Book of Mormon) is the 'Eternal Father' of this prayer
Jehovah, or is it Elohim ?
My question is still unanswered:
When God and Jesus are said to be "one", that means something to the extent of the Trinity,
but the bible also said that we as believers are one with God and Jesus, but that, according to your theory, does not make us a Quaternity.
Why is that? Why can the same words ("being one") have different meanings, though they are used the same.
To be honest, I am sceptical whether this is not only your interpretation, something the people in early centuries have made up but which makes no logical sense at all.
As I pointed out, my interpretation makes much more sense:
The word is God's plan of Salvation. When Jesus was born, this plan was executed.
On the other hand, the trinitarian interpretation would say that Jesus is a Word.
So which word is he?
Is he the word "Jesus", or "Yehoshua"? Is he the word "Immanuel", or is he the word "Calvary" ? Is he the word "bible" or the word "internet"?
It makes absolutely no sense that a person can be a word.
The problem is that you are so lost in the interpretations given by your pastors, that you can only read these verses with the interpretation taught to you. You don't see that they actually can have another meaning, because, as soon as you read them, you remember the interpretation taught to you and habitually think in these terms.
Well, still awaiting an answer.
Peter
Peter wrote:
"The problem is that you are so lost in the interpretations given by your pastors, that you can only read these verses with the interpretation taught to you. You don't see that they actually can have another meaning, because, as soon as you read them, you remember the interpretation taught to you and habitually think in these terms."
Peter are you specualting here or this what you believe?
I think before we move on we need to establish some ground work.
What is it that you believe? Do you believe in God? Let's move from here. Because if you do not believe in God then why are we discussing the accuracy of the bible?
in His name,
-Eric
Eric, why are you never answering questions but always try to avoid the topic by askind questions yourself?
I asked you about the contradicting passages where believers and God are said to be "one", which contradicts your believe that when Jesus is mentioned to be one with God, this refers to the Trinity.
You started, without answering my question, with John 1:1.
I answered your question, but you did not answer mine.
Now, you again back away and ask other question.
I am convinced that you will continue infinetely to ask me counter questions in order to avoid answering questions yourself.
But I won't play that game with you, Eric.
Answer my questions, or admit that you can't or don't want to answer questions.
Peter.
Peter wrote:
"Answer my questions, or admit that you can't or don't want to answer questions."
I cannot or "dont want to go on" until you answer that very SIMPLE question. What you have asked me is detailed and requires some extensive explaining. You on the other have a simple one.
Do you believe in God or not??
I guess you will be bowing out at this point. Blame it on me though, it's fine.
God bless you...
-Eric
Sorry Steve R., I have been out of town. But to answer your question: Is is Elohim or Jehova to whom the sacrament prayers are said:
It is to God, the Eternal Father, the God of Jesus Christ and the Father of Spirits. For someone reading the OT, it could be either one. For someone attending the Temple, it is Elohim. For someone reading the Greek New Testament, it is neither, since the words are never used in Greek. The same is true of D&C 20 and Moroni where the prayers are given in English.
Jesus makes it very clear in John 1:18 that He (Jesus) has declared God, or introduced him. In the OT, Jesus, as Jehovah, spoke as God the Father many times, but we know from John 1:18 that was because he was acting as God the Father's agent. One of the traps I find set out often is failing to recognize how context matters. Mormons don't say sacrament prayers to Elohim or Jehovah. The revealed, hallowed name which Christ gave us was "Father" (Matt 6:9). Going beyond that is, in terms of the sacrament prayers, just speculation.
Peace and out.
Eric,
I do believe in God.
But I am suspicious of man's images of God, idols which he created and calls His God.
Eric, do you believe in God, or do you believe in your concept of God?
As you reverted from our discussion of the bible, I suspect that you start with your personal beliefs, from which you interpret the bible.
Is that a correct rendering of your faith?
Peter,
Could you elaborate on your view of God? Do you believe in Jesus Christ? Please define your view of God. I am trying to build upon what you and I believe in order to further dialogue. What I would really like is if you were to call me. I ask this of just about every person that comes here that gives the same idea of God that you do. But few to none actually make that call.
Bob, you have made valuable comments to this discussion-- although I disagree with certain critical aspects of what you have written-- in the long run what you have communicated will be of value to others.
As you have explained the perception of the actual identity of the God called “Father” of the Sacrament Prayer will change, dependant on the level of the participant’s knowledge given to them within Mormonism. The LDS person’s perception is libel to change from Monotheism into Polytheism after attending the non-Public LDS Temple ceremonies.
Even though you mention is can be a matter of speculation as to which specific God among plural gods this “Father” may be, a critical issue has erupted.
This issue is that an investigator will likely view this prayer all about One Being, the Father, the Son and The Holy Ghost ( as described in the Book of Mormon as “One God”). After being through the LDS Temple however, the One Being shifts into Three Beings.
From what you have described in previous posts above, Mormonism actually has Two different and distinct beings that are given the title “ Father” in Mormon scripture. In other words Mormonism has TWO FATHERS-- the Son is the very Eternal Father of Heaven and Earth, and there is Heavenly Father who created spirits.
This is odd, because it is written in scripture that we have but ONE FATHER who is God-
Mal 2:10 Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?
Joh 8:41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.
Eph 4:6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
It is just reasoning to believe that we have only one Father—as it is written-
Joh 3:12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?
What this amounts to is that the Mormon Church has one set of ideas it presents that comprise an exoteric public teaching about One God. This exoteric teaching is presented to the public and the membership who have not been to the Temple. Secondly, there is an esoteric set of teachings given to an inner-circle of Temple members by which the One God of the Sacrament prayer is reinterpreted in terms of polytheism.
This two tiered message practice of Mormonism of having esoteric and exoteric messages, with different messages designed for different groups of people is the point of discussion under this topic so named “Genuine Mormon Tolerance”.
It would seem that the Mormon Interfaith Celebration is actually only a superficial outer exoteric expression of tolerance, while the inner circle of exoteric teaching inside Mormonism nevertheless secretly considers their guests as nevertheless being part of the devil’s church, the great abomination.
It appears in the New Testament that the authoritive representatives of Christ, disapproved of esoteric hidden teachings. Jesus Himself taught that the true gospel of Christ was to be presented upfront, straightforward and in public.
Matt 10:26 Fear them not therefore: for there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known.
27 What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops.
2 Cor 4: 2 But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.
3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
Ro 15:19 Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.
Luke 11:10 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
11 If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?
12 Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?
13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?
With Mormonism, we see the claim that Jesus is the Lord of the LDS Church and that a Person should pray to the One God in the Book of Mormon—and afterwards this person receives a verification that the content (including BoM monotheism) is true.
Then later the same person prays and is lead to the knowledge that there are many gods. How can this make sense?
Such a pattern for finding truth runs counter to everything (the Biblical and Book of Mormon) Jesus and the Apostles taught about receiving truth and knowledge from God.
Steve R.
I think you misunderstood me about the Titles issue. My point was absolutely not that someone gains a different understanding of who the person prayed to is once they go to the temple. The Temple simply applies names which are only worthwhile in the Temple: Elohim and Jehovah. These names are NOT consistent within scripture, any more than the English word Lord is accurately assigned only to Jesus, Jehovah, the Father or Elohim. Or to men. The English translations of the New and Old Testament apply the word 'lord' to all of these people.
Where this really seems to get interesting is your lack of understanding of New Testament hidden knowledge. The Greek word for mystery, musterion, has as its core meaning "something revealed to those initiated." Paul uses the word 20 times, always of some information he has received, and may or may not have fully shared in his writings. He specifically tells Timothy that deacons must hold the "mystery of faith", and that "without controversy great is the mystery of godliness". These are not unknowable things, they are doctrines which are unknown to the world at large, but taught to those who have been initiated to the faith by baptism or other rites (laying on of hands, advanced doctrinal teachings, etc.).
Your point of there being two fathers is rather off the mark for two reasons:
1. It was Jesus in Malachi being called the Father, since he had not yet revealed the Father, as stated in John 1:18. Your quotations of the apostate Jews is little more than creating a sound bite. They did not know who the Father, the Son or the Messiah were.
2. Isaiah 9:6 specifically calls Jesus, the Everlasting Father (makes me want to turn on Handel), as well as the mighty god. But those titles are not seen as replacing God the Father, but as the coming king of Israel's ideal nature. See the NetBible's comment #18 at http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Isa&chapter=9#n30.
A very conservative source. Isaiah 63:16 makes it clear that there is a separate Father from Isa 9:6. So was Isaiah an apostate? No. The instances of Christ being called "the Father" are pre-1st coming, both in the Bible as well as the Book of Mormon. In other words, Christ was still acting in his role as Jehovah, or the God of the old testament, and he had not made clear the relationship Jesus describes in John 1:18 or Matt 6:5.
I have the book given to missionaries to teach the Gospel to converts. It is called "Preach My Gospel". It in fact directs the missionaries to explain the separateness of God and Christ, and to specifically read D&C 76:58 "Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God--"
I don't see how it could be any clearer what the Mormons mean. We literally draw pictures (the First Vision), and explain that God and Christ are separate and distinct beings. We explain that the point of Earth life is to gain bodies and have experiences, and spend eternity in celestial marriage, just like we saw God do in the pre-existence.
Steve R., it is simply ridiculous to say Mormons don't teach this up front. We don't teach every detail of every doctrine, no one could in any faith, but there is nothing deceptive when you tell investigators the point of our life is to come to Christ, be sealed in the temple to create eternal families, and to become like God. The Church does not want people to join who are confused or doubting on these points, as they will lack resolve to endure to the end.
Moroni 10:3-5 makes it clear they should pray to God, the Eternal Father in the Name of Jesus Christ, and by the power of the Holy Spirit they can come to all truth. If they have been reading the assigned materials, taking the discussions and sincerely searching, there will be no confusion. I am a convert. You were a convert. There was no confusion in what was taught. President Hinckley has publicly stated we do not worship the Jesus of traditional Christianity. The traditional trinitarian Jesus is unscriptural and false. I have pointed out multiple instances in the Book of Mormon where I believe it would require a person of no comprehension at all to miss the fact that Christ is separate from God, and men can become like Jesus and God. It simply does not get any clearer in the English language. If you still doubt that, call the missionaries, and ask them to teach you on the subject. If you sincerly want to be report what the LDS teach, then find out. But I have first hand knowledge and documents which show that what you say Mormons are trying to "get past" their converts is just not so.
Tell you what. If you think you have this correct, and I am up in the night, let's do this as a recorded interview. Gather all your documentation, and I will have mine. I will put the interview unedited on my web page, you can do the same, or Eric can do that. It is time to put up the proof. You keep trying to offer some scriptures, then interpret them as if it was the LDS approach. It is not. I am still looking for you to respond to my original points about where in the article you cited it speaks of the LDS Church making any doctrinal concessions? Eric baselessly asserts the same thing. I read the article, and I researched the organization. Your assertion is untenable, and I think the whole approach of pretending the LDS have a separate dogma for temple goers vs. public image needs to be proven by more than weak rhetoric. Are you available this weekend?
Bob
Bob wrote:
"The Temple simply applies names which are only worthwhile in the Temple: Elohim and Jehovah."
LDS First Presidency of 1916 wrote:
"Jesus Christ is not the Father of the spirits who have taken or yet shall take bodies upon this earth, for He is one of them. He is The Son, as they are sons or daughters of Elohim. So far as the stages of eternal progression and attainment have been made known through divine revelation, we are to understand that only resurrected and glorified beings can become parents of spirit offspring. Only such exalted souls have reached maturity in the appointed course of eternal life; and the spirits born to them in the eternal worlds will pass in due sequence through the several stages or estates by which the glorified parents have attained exaltation."
Bob does not agree with LDS leaders!!
Bob,
Several times when I have quoted the Old Testament Prophets you have indicated that the quote was not valid because it was a quote from "apostate Jews". Your position on the OT being uterly apostate is one that disagrees with the official LDS view of the Bible. So Why are you LDS?
Bob,
It is not so complex as you seem to wish to make it-
In the LDS Sacrament Meeting God is 'O God the ETERNAL Father--
In the Temple Preparation Guide-- the King Follet Sermon is expounded and elaborated about what it calls "the Great Secret"-- that God is really not Eternal.
So Sacrament Meeting has and Eternal God-- but the Temple has a Non-Eternal God.
This is really simple-- the Sacrament meeting is a public meeting-- but the meetings in the Temple are non-public, and Temple preparation classes are only for people who are already LDS Church Members. So after you become a mormon you learn the 'Great Secret'.
BTW Bob--
Your Isaiah 9:6 Everlasting Father argument, is weak because the Book of Mormon Alma 11 expression of the 'Son of God' says that Christ is ------------
"the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth, and all things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last..."
Your Isaiah commentary is oriented to Everlasting Father being a Father- king of a nation. As the scholar you referred comments:-
'... for the “Son” is the messianic king and is distinct in his person from God the “Father.”) Rather, in its original context the title pictures the king as the protector of his people'
On top of all of this, your own expressed beliefs about Old Testament Prophets being apostates, the specific meaning of Isaiah 9:6 are in conflict with what LDS inspired leader officially teach as doctrine--see:
http://www.schoolofabraham.com/
fatherandson.htm
Bob, you often mention others being 'apostate' -- but in Mormonism for any member to oppose the official teachings of Mormonism would make that LDS person 'apostate'. So how long are you going to remain LDS?
Steve R
I will do this in small chunks.
Apostate Jews: I used the phrase once, and it was of the quote from John 8:41 where the Jews, who would later kill Jesus (that made them apostate in my view) reply they have one father, even god. Do you dispute these Jews are apostate? I have discussed the corruption and revision of the OT, which is acknowledged by most scholars as redacted and edited by Ezra sometime around 500-400 BC. I do call trinitarians apostate Christians, since they have a concept of god rendered from "rational construction" built on the Bible, not soley in the Bible. I can support my view exclusively and extensively from the Bible. There is literally not a single verse in the Bible which can be used as a proof-text conclusively supporting the Trinity.
Moving on.
Steve R,
Why ask about the eternal nature of God, if you are not going to respond to the refutation of your opinion I previously provided out of the King Follett Discourse? Let me repost it, and ask you to reply:
Finally, your issue of "how god became god" is proven right out of the same talk. What Joseph Smith meant (I say this because it is what he actually taught) is that while people believe God the Father never had a life on a planet, he in fact did. But he was a divine being at that time, just like Jesus Christ was. He states that explicitly. He never says, anywhere, that there was a time when God was non-divine. God was a man, according to the teachings in the King Follett Discourse, but he was god as to his nature even while he was a man, just as Jesus was god as to his nature even while a human on this Earth. He says so, explicitly:
"The Scriptures inform us that Jesus said, As the Father hath power in Himself, even so hath the Son power-to do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious-in a manner to lay down His body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father did, and take it up again." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, page 346.)
I concluded this section by noting:
"There is never a time in the teachings of Joseph Smith, or, more importantly, in the scriptures of the Latter-day Saints, when God was not God."
With all due respect, I am quoting LDS sources completely, in context. You cite one statement by Joseph, and then interpret it outside of the context of the speech it was given in. Please respond to my statement out of the King Follett discourse, our at least admit you are not accurately quoting the nature of Joseph's speech.
Peace,
Bob
Steve R.,
Last comment on your recent post:
My wife and I teach the Temple Preparation class in our ward, and have done so for the past 5 years, teaching the entire course of lessons 4-6 times per year. I have the manuals, so I am wondering where does it teach God is non-eternal?
A page number will suffice.
I will then post the text in full.
I am most curious about this item, so please respond quickly so I can post the quote that a non-eternal, non-divine God the Father lived and died on a planet, and did not have any godly abilities, such as to resurrect himself.
This is one which may rock my testimony, since it would be completely new doctrine that I, as a temple going Mormon, must have missed.
Thanks,
Bob
Steve R. said:
It appears in the New Testament that the authoritive representatives of Christ, disapproved of esoteric hidden teachings. Jesus Himself taught that the true gospel of Christ was to be presented upfront, straightforward and in public.
Sorry Steve, but I have to disagree with you. The bible has documented that Jesus did divide his teaching into an exoteric and an esoteric part. Take a look at Luke 8:
Luke 8:10:
And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.
How can you explain this distinction, when Jesus wanted everyone to understand everything?
Jesus DID distinguish esoteric and exoteric teachings.
Probably, he explained all similes to his disciples, but not all are explained in the bible, but only a few.
Steve, read the bible in its totality before making bold claims which cannot stand a thorough examination.
Werner.
Werner,
Jesus did want everyone to understand his words. But protected his teachings from the dishonest critics. This is echoed by the scripture in Isaiah 6:9-10 which states:
Then I said, "Here am I! Send me."
And He said, "Go, and tell this people: Keep on hearing, but do not understand; Keep on seeing, but do not perceive.'
Make the heart of this people dull, And their ears heavy, And shut their eyes; Lest they see with their eyes, And hear with their ears, And understand with their heart, And return and be healed."
The parables were to speak to the honest seeker and be unknown to the critic who would trample the word of God.
It's different in Mormonism. The gospel is prepared to sell you and then let you know the contridicting truths after you have established an emotional tie to the LDS belief system.
Agreed?
God Bless...
-Eric
The parables were to speak to the honest seeker and be unknown to the critic who would trample the word of God.
No, I would disagree to that.
The point is that Jesus explains his parables to his disciples, while he does not explain them to the public.
His disciples can understand his parables because of his explanation.
The distinction between honest seeker and dishonest critics is not biblical but coined by evangelicals like you.
On the contrary, a distinction has to be drawn between the exoteric teaching (parables not intelligible to the public) and esoteric teaching (explained parables, intelligible only to an elite few).
If the disciples were honest seekers, they would not need Jesus' explanation. The explanation in the bible is also available to any dishonest critic, because the bible can be bought anywhere :-).
Your argument is invalid.
But at Jesus' time, the parables were only intelligible to his disciples, because he explained to them the deep meaning behind the parables.
He was teaching secret doctrines, and he was hiding these doctrines from the public.
Jesus also on several occations commanded his disciples not to tell anyone that he is the Messiah.
This also contradicts your claim of an open teaching.
Werner,
Before we move on...which are you? skeptic or critic? Seeing that your IP address amtches other commenters here, would incline me to think you are a critic and a dishonest one at that.
Care to clarify where you stand in the whole theological arena?
Seeing that your IP address amtches other commenters here, would incline me to think you are a critic and a dishonest one at that.
Eric, now you start annoying me.
You should be grateful that I post here.
Your blog lacks any success. I think I am one of the few people besides Melissa, Brian or Bob the Anti-Anti who post here at all.
If I had not posted under several different names and theological positions, your blog and your forum would have been entirely blank.
My posts often aroused a lot of controversy on your side as well as your friends' and foes' side.
So now you blame me for all my diligent work of reading your theologically substandard posts and trying to answer in the position of my faked identities, be it that of Scientist, Dharma12, Jane Winsley (she was my favourite), or other rather pale characters to pep up your forum and blog.
All my diligent work is torn down by a simple "critic, and a dishonest at that"?
Eric, have you ever heard about gratitude?
You probably thank God for every meal he has not cooked, for your wife has.
But for my ardent work to fill your empty and boring blog/forum with some discussions, you only find mean words.
If I had your father's address, I would complain about you, for you seem to have gotten no education in manners. But maybe that's how evangelical fanatics and bible-nazis are.
You will never bring it to the standard of a John Dehlin or a Samuel the Utahnite. You don't have the quality of doing a thorough research, you only copy from other people's blogs, your theological opinion is based on maybe a year of bible-thumping, but nothing more.
You don't know church-history, you don't know world history, you have studied none of the background necessary to know the necessary background to take a substantial stand. That is why most guests at your podcasts embarass you, be it the humble LDS member at the current podcast, be it the two atheists ("You always revert to science, but the bible..." Lol, what an eloquent apologist!)
Eric,
if you don't improve the quality of your blog, podcast and forum, you depend on people like me in order to get any postings at all.
For people really interested in the topic will go to high quality websites like www.mormonstories.org (rather neutral) or mormontruth.blogspot.com (anti-mormon) if they want to learn about the LDS church.
Even Joe McCormick "has no time" to spend on your website!!! Because he thinks it is not worth the effort.
Anyway, maybe it is time for you to apologize for your rudeness.
Werner / Jane / Dharma / Scientist / Peter / Danny / HohlesBroetchen..
Bob,
I continually appreciate your commentaries-- however as the list of comments get longer-- it is eazy to forget or overlook what has been previously written--
As I stated in previous comments
(above in this string of comments) about the concept about God being "Eternal" in the minds of people in western culture at large--
I a number of comments ago-- up this page I wrote...---
"God being ETERNAL (as people in western culture understand ‘eternal’)" "
As you are aware, different sub-cultures place different meanings on the same terms.
Joseph Smith in the King Follett Sermon indicates that people (in his congregation, who came from the Christian Traditions/culture) have supposed that God was God from all Eternity...
This is all about how people think about what is Eternal about the nature of God. Joseph is saying this because he is about to introduce a new idea about God's Eternal Nature. After he introduces this radically new idea Joseph calls it a Great Secret.
All in all this means that Joseph claims he has taught something significantly different about God's eternal nature than what people have thought.
In Christian thought, at the instant of the beginning of existence of time, the existence space and existence of matter-- God was fully God, willing and able to create the universe. His Word, and full powers were in existence. This idea of an eternal God is different than the idea of temporal creatures having to progress, grow and develop into maturity to be up, ready and able to perform.
John First Chapter tells us that at the instant time started the Word was already on the scene creating the universe. This is a different notion than having a developing, progressing being, which would require eons of time to develop into full force to act as God.
Since the Stone Age, people have understood that there were direct connections between matter, mass, time, rates of speed, forces of impact, and its effect on natural things. They threw spears, rocks and other hunting weapons at prey-- and noticed that he faster the object traveled in time the greater the force of impact-- this grew into physics, and even the law of relativity.
It has been known that without the existence of time, matter and space cannot not exist either. So before time existed, neither could matter, and physical laws cannot manifest themselves. Even ancient peoples apprehended this idea.
Yet John Chapter One says that the Word of God was there on the scene fully able to work and create at the instant time began. This sets the stage for what people suppose about
God's Eternal Nature.
All peoples who experience living life, and seeing temporal things pass way, into corruption, knows only things, which have an origin and nature from the eternal, last forever.
This is all related to the Biblical Expressions of the Eternal nature of the Word Of God--
I Peter 1: 23 " Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
24 For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you. "
The Mormon idea of Eternity and Eternal nature of Godly things is far different-- and attempts to replace the Eternal nature of God and the Word, with an Eternal Principle called "the Priesthood".
In Mormonism God is not truly eternal but it appears that the concept of the Priesthood is without beginning and without end-that the gods are gods because of the priesthood (Mormon Doctrine [MD]) PG 169.
(Achieving a Celestial Marriage, 1976, page 129-132)
In Mormonism God the Father had a Father (MD pg 322) Thus God had a beginning-- but progressed into godhood over time, by exercising Eternal Priesthood.
In Mormonism Matter existed before God was God, and Matter is without beginning and with out end- Matter is Eternal. (MD 169)
It is impossible in traditional thought that includes the idea of 'the Eternal' for any kind of matter to exist before, God was God -- this is actually how mankind now understands the universe according to rational thought, science, and demonstrable processes: If there is no time, matter, and space cannot exist-- they are all interdependent.
Yet we see New Testament writers proclaim that the instant time came into existence. Yet at the instant time started, God was able to create temporal things.
Then comes Mormonism---
Mormonism's D&C section 88, and 93 describes encapsulated, independent eternities, each with different physical laws( Kolob in BoA with different rates of time), and rules for knowledge.
Mormonism essentially teaches that God is only eternal within an encapsulated Sphere of Existence, among other Spheres of independent segregated eternities—each with other ruling Gods. In Mormonism Physical Matter, and the Priesthood are underpinning foundations, which are even more fundamental than Spheres that contain gods and our God.
When a person opens and deeply reads the D&C and PoGP they can view some very radical teachings-- that depart from how thinkers in Christendom have viewed God,the Cosmos and the Nature of Mankind-- In these writing of Joseph Smith we can clearly see what sets Mormon Eternal Progression apart from Biblical Christianity-- the LDS system of thought has attempted to radically changethe 'the Eternal God' into a Non-Eternal God.
As Joseph Smith Declared, this is different from what people have supposed, and is a Great Secret.
This idea is NOT taught to potential LDS converts as a pre-condition to LDS Membership.
This D&C 88&93 and King Follett teaching about God and Eternity is a radical departure from what we read about Eternity, Infinity and God in the Book of Mormon-- example Alma 34: 9-10, 14, 16, 33-34
And-- Bob your assertion that God was always God, even when he lived on an earth does not hold to the LDS Achieving a Celestial Marriage Manual 1976, page 129-- which says-
"The progression of our Father in Heaven to godhood and exaltation was strictly in accordance with eternal principles..." " (cites D&C 88)
And of course, the King Follett sermon says that we have to learn to be gods like ALL the gods did. Which I take it to mean that Heavenly Father had to be a non-divine man living on a planet before being allowed to be a Heavenly Father (like all gods did) –
this means that God had to live a non-god earth life before being able to be a savior—in other words God would have to live a couple of earth-lives before qualifying to be ‘a god’ or a savior-god.
First he would have to live out a mortal life like us--- afterwards he would advance into a god-state-- then in his god-state could then qualify to go back to an earth to be a savior-god.
And of course this is the way the Heavenly Mother(s) had to do it too-- (like ALL the other gods had too)-- who is in Mormonism also a God. I do not think Mormonism teaches that Heavenly Mother(s) had to die on a cross to become a God-- do they?
Hey Steve,
which denomination do you belong to?
Steve R.,
I appreciate all of your speculative conclusions about LDS theology. Let's see if I can sort through a few of your theories from LDS fact:
1. I note you try to have it both ways on the "beginning" of God. Joseph Smith explicitly teaches that God was a god on whatever planet he lived on, prior to Earth's creation. You misread the issue on God's progression to exaltation. It does not say that he was not a god; it says he progressed to his position according to Eternal Laws. Which ones? Joseph Smith, in the King Follett discourse, says the same as Jesus. Joseph Smith taught that Jesus was eternally god, as in there was never a time he did not have the power of godhood. He was god before he came to Earth. He was god before there was an Earth. At most, the great secret you keep referring to means God lived on a planet. It does nothing to diminish his eternal state as a divine being.
There is apparently a set of Laws which God conformed to which made him God of our existence. He kept those laws, but we don't know more than that. Your statements are purely, and I emphasize, purely speculative. I keep asking you for statements to support your opinions which carry some weight of authority. You still produce nothing explicit or even implicit. A discussion in a marriage class manual explaining all beings are subject to eternal laws is hardly a theological position. If it was as you say, it would be clearly and explicitly taught, instead of simply the result of an inferred conclusion based on a series of similarly unscriptural and unathoritative assumptions on your part. You have produced nothing which says the cannonized LDS teachings are as you say they are.
2. Priesthood is the delegated authority of God. It is an eternal principle. But you again over reach, by saying priesthood is eternal, not god. Provide a scripture, or in this case, even a quote. If this were the doctrine of the priesthood, which has been extensively written on and speculated about, there should be literally hundreds of such statements explaining the superiority of the Priesthood to God. None exist.
3. I never 'asserted' "God has always been God". I quoted from Joseph Smith and the LDS scriptures. I still don't see you finding any support for your position in LDS writings. It is not an assertion to express the actual position of the Church by stating that position.
At the end of the day, that is really the problem here. You are drawing conclusions and speaking on topics which are not revealed in clarity. You conclude, because it seems reasonable to you, that Mormons believe in this or that way. When confronted with a person like myself who is thoroughly steeped in LDS doctrine, history and writing, we see you retreat from alledged specifics to generalities followed by your conclusions. I am still waiting for the quote you said you had from the LDS Temple preparation class which said god was not eternally god. Where is it? I can only get to the point if I ignore cannonized LDS teachings on the subject and the King Follett discourse. But if I do that, then I can conclude what you say, but that would not be Mormonism. It is something else. It is your extrapolated conclusion of Mormonism, not the actual teachings of the Church.
The D&C says there is but one person on the Earth at any time authorized to reveal new doctrine. It is not Steve R. It is the LDS president. So citing a little from Br. Bruce R. McConkie, and a littel from an old manual, and a few verses from everywhere except where the topic is being addressed has no validity.
Your citation of John 1:1, for example, if you were even handed about things would force you to conclude Jesus and God are separate and distinct beings. That you refuse to apply the same scholarly standards to your interpretation of that verse, or Acts 7:55-56 or dozens of others, as you try to force on the LDS readings shows there is something other than dispassionate scholarship at work in your motivation.
Why do you choose the most favorable, and unlikely readings of these verses to support your trinitarian dogma, and yet take the least probable and forced interpretations of LDS authors to create your view of Mormon doctrine? The approach lacks fidelity.
I have said it before: If I belonged to the Church you say the LDS Church is, I would leave. But your presentation is not accurate or based on the foundational teachings of the Church. In short, it is a caricature and amalgam lacking both authority or historicity. I cannot prove the negative, i.e., this is 'not' what we teach. The Church only occassionally makes such statements. I can prove, and have, what we do teach, and I don't require someone to reach conclusions based on unsupported reasoning. LDS Doctrine is Bible doctrine. I have offered many scriptures and non-LDS scholars in support of the LDS position. I have responded to just about every comment and assertion you have made. I am still waiting for you to produce a "gun", let alone a "smoking gun" to support your position. I proved, explicitly, that the ward Bishop presides because he is a high priest, for example, directly from the D&C to refute your "two Gospels" position. You have no response from scripture because your position is unsupportable, yet even there you do not acknowledge you got it wrong. I just want people to understand they should probably ask a Mormon what Mormons believe, and avoid asking people whose personal theology holds them outside the Church. I have never lied in any of my public writings, and I have never lied in person or otherwise. I don't think you lie, I just think you don't understand it because of personal prejudice. That's OK, but please don't keep reading your prejudices into statements or doctrines which don't go where you say they do. It is not a matter of private interpretation.
Peace.
I want everyone here to read the comment posted by "Werner / Jane / Dharma / Scientist / Peter / Danny / HohlesBroetchen.."
This is the example of a dishonest critic. This person was caught with false ID's and has been posting his comments here for almost a year.
Let it be none, people... that the word of God does not return void. Anyone who is secure enough in their beliefs would never behave in this manner.
POSTER, I CHALLENGE YOU!
You will never have the guts to actually openly challenge me on a podcast or IN PERSON!!
You are dishonest and completely insecure and need to DEAL WITH IT!!
My patients for you has come to an end!
Bob,
From your communication skills I think you are a very intelligent and smart person—with a high level of devotion. There is no doubt in my mind that you are a competent person professionally, and a good presenter in your Temple Prep class—no doubt well respected in the Ward to which you attend.
The difference in my interpretation and yours Bob, as I in earlier posts indicated above. I You see I am drawing from official LDS Sunday School class printed materials from the Temple Preparation curriculum , Often educational materials are written to facilitate learners gain an overall picture big and general ideas, and help people draw the lines between the dots.
In the Sunday School Manual, Joseph Smith’s King Follett Sermon is quoted where Joseph refutes the idea that God has been God from All Eternity.
The Manual says he, the Father progressed to godhood.
It also says that he was once a man like us.
This ‘like us’ aspect in the manual is significant to Mormonism. This manual explicitly makes the ‘like us’ connection between gods and man with the term ‘Gods in Embryo’.
So in Mormon terms all mankind on this earth are ‘gods’ in the developmental stage of an embryo.
To verify this “like us” idea within the LDS official teaching curriculum we can see that in other LDS curriculum that Mormon doctrine emphasizes how Jesus on earth can be viewed as an ordinary human being—‘like us’.
Joseph Smith in the King Follett Sermon does say that being that became the Father God like Christ lived on another earth. To shed light on this Mormon Idea we can examine other LDS Sunday School curriculum that consistently teaches that Jesus was not yet fully God while on the earth, and was still in the process of His own Eternal Progression. So Jesus also was a “God in Embryo” just like us who are ‘Gods in Embryo”.
All reading here can access and read from this on-line LDS Gospel Doctrine Class that :http://beardall2000.com/nt/nt04.html
“The Savior had a great mission but He, just like us, came to earth to continue his eternal progression.”
__________________________________________________________________
o Elder Bruce R. McConkie: "When man is communing with his Maker, he is not subject to temptation; when angels are ministering to him and he is under the spell of their angelic influence, he is not subject to temptation; when the Holy Spirit rests mightily upon him and the visions of eternity are open to his view, he is not subject to temptation.... As the period of edification and spiritual enlightenment drew to its close, as the visions and spiritual experiences ceased...and as Jesus prepared to go back into the normal mortal way of life, with angels no longer at his side and his eyes not open to the unending visions of eternity, then the devil came to entice, to trap, to tempt." (Mortal Messiah, p410)
o Some theologians speculate as to whether the Lord was capable of being tempted and then able to commit sin. WHAT DO YOU THINK?
The Savior had a great mission but He, just like us, came to earth to continue his eternal progression.
Free agency is inherent in that plan.
Lehi states that there must be "opposition in all things" (2 Nephi 2:11).
Satan tempted the Lord because he was in a weakened mortal body subject to temptation like all of us.
__________________________________________________________
In Mormonism, we are believed to be literal children of a Literal Divine Parents. In this way the distinction between gods and ordinary men is only a matter of development. So in this sense the Father would have been a god, that is a god in embryo while on another earth, but then so are the rest of us, the entire human race.
So the bottom line is simple—Mormon teaches that God was just like all other ordinary men when he lived on an earth. Afterall, in Mormonism all ordinary men are ‘Gods in Embryo’ in a state of development below the office of ‘godhood’-- and this is exactly the state of development the Heavely Father of Mormonism is claimed to be in--'just like us" in Embryo.
This is significant to this string of posts because we are supposed to be discussing how Mormonism introduces a radically different set of beliefs to people generally only after they have joined the LDS organization. The Preparatory Gospel DOES NOT include these teachings--. The Preparatory Gospel in the Book of Mormon teaches that there is absolutely One Eternal God. ( Eternal meaning with out beginning and without end).
Steve R said...
Hello Louis-
Louis said...
Hey Steve,
which denomination do you belong to?
Well Louis, I am not a denominationalist, but rather simply a Biblical Christian.
For example this weekend I went into the Colorado State Prison facility, in (Sterling Colorado) system to witness to encourage inmates that have been converted to Christianity by the Holy Spirit. I joined their in a united effort with Catholics, Baptists, Episcopals and others in non-denominationalist efforts to fellowship and encourage these men. All of these even those who represent denominations believe the same core beliefs-
What we have been discussing here in this string is the idea that when a person first contacts the Mormon Church they are taught from the Book of Mormon that there is One Eternal God who is Eternal from Eternity to Eternity.
Such as from the Book of Mormon book of Moroni-
7: 22 For behold, God knowing all things, being from everlasting to everlasting, …
8: 18 “For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity. “
From this same book of Moroni comes the Mormon weekly Sacrament prayer that Mormons pray in Public Sacrament Meeting--
Moroni 4: 3
O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and asanctify this bread to the souls of all those who partake of it; that they may eat in remembrance of the body of thy Son, and witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son, and always remember him, and keep his commandments which he hath given them, that they may always have his Spirit to be with them. Amen.
But After you join the Mormon you get taught that God is really not Eternal like you were first taught when you decided to Join the LDS Church. God is shifted into a non-eternal being.
Joseph Smith’s King Follett Sermon, used in LDS Temple Preparation Class Manuals
We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see.
Steve R,
I hate to keep beating a dead horse, but you are not dealing with the passage in the King Follett discourse where Joseph Smith taught that God lived on a planet like us, but lived as Jesus Christ did on this Earth, with the ability to resurrect himself.
Jesus lived "like us". On this planet. God lived "like us", on a planet, just as Jesus Christ did. Since Jesus had to be a god to resurrect himself, God had to be a god to resurrect himself. So god was always a god, even living on a planet "like us".
Please respond to this specific section in the King Follett discourse:
"The Scriptures inform us that Jesus said, As the Father hath power in Himself, even so hath the Son power-to do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious-in a manner to lay down His body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father did, and take it up again." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, page 346.)
Unless and until you have an explanation for why this means God was mortal and incapable of raising himself "like us", then your statements are only so much sophistry based purely on your unfounded opinion. So please stay on this topic, and this quotation from King Follett. Your argument collapses in the face of your continued non-response to this quote. Then we can maybe get you to respond to the specific verses and quotations from LDS leaders I have posted contradicting your opinions of the Book of Mormon teaching a modalistic God, and two views of God's nature. From a debate standpoint, failing to respond to specific authoritative sources with sources instead of posturing usually means you are trying to save face while conceding the point. Let's get a response to this point, then let's get you to respond to the other two.
Peace,
Bob
Bob,
Who do you think Raised Jesus Christ from the Dead?
Rom 8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
Acts 2:32
This Jesus hath God raised up....
Acts 4:10
Jesus Christ ... whom God raised from the dead....
Acts 13:30
But God raised him from the dead.
Galatians 1:1
Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)
Colossians 2:12
Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
1 Thessalonians 1:10
... his Son ... whom he raised from the dead.
Steve R.,
Jesus was god while one this Earth, correct?
Joseph said God the Father, when he was on an Earth "like us", did exactly what Jesus did on this Earth, namely come as God, raise himself from the dead.
Your distraction of what role the Father played in raising the son is off the mark. We don't know what exactly the interaction of the Father and Son were in the resurrection. While your abbreviated list is persuasive in stating God or the Father raised Jesus, it requires one to ignore Jesus' direct comments on how the resurrection was to be done. Christ said he had the power to raise himself, because the father commanded it (John 10:18). He also said he was the resurrection and the life (John 11:25), and that Jesus would raise up his body after 3 days (John 2:19).
Look, either deal with the passage in the King Follett discourse directly, or admit you have made a mistake in your interpretation of LDS doctrine on this point. There is no shame in admitting an error, and the evidence just makes you look like you have a personal issue here, rather than a factual one. Admit you are wrong, and let's move on to the other issues you find controversial. According to the D&C, LDS prophets, the King Follett discourse and the Book of Mormon, God and Jesus have both always been God.
Peace,
Bob
Bob you write: ”…the King Follett discourse and the Book of Mormon, God and Jesus have both always been God.”
This is not so Bob just look at
The King Follett Discourse which says
“..for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea,…”
Bob open you eyes! This statement is saying that God has not always been God!
Anyhow Bob,
From my view point, you are choosing not to integrate the bulk of what the LDS curriculum materials teach about Christ on earth, and thus you are asserting your own brand of Mormonism.
However, I must give you credit for and interesting discussion. You are certainly a devote and cleaver contender of religious ideas--
As I have shown you above, LDS Sunday school materials portray Jesus on earth continuing toward His godhood. These materials claim that Jesus while on earth was still in the process of 'eternal progression'. Therefore Jesus in LDS explanations Jesus was not yet “god”. Other LDS materials claim that gaining a body and living out a mortal life is necessary to become ”a god”.
The Sunday school manual for temple preparation that I have claims that the LDS Heavenly Father had to progress to godhood and exaltation to become God.
Everything in LDS Eternal Progression descriptions, say that men have to gain bodies in order to to first gain the celestial, be exhaulted,and assend to godhood.
If Jesus was God before he came to earth, then Lucifer was too because Mormon Doctrine points out that Lucifer was also a candidate to be savior. Though Lucifer is called 'a god'-- this is entirely different than saying Jesus is God.
According to these materials, even if Jesus was doing everything literally that He saw the Father do, in Mormonism Jesus was not yet qualified to hold the office of ‘godhood’—afterall, the LDS Sunday school materials claim Jesus was still in the process of ‘eternal progression’.
And on top of all of this the King Follett says uses the 'like us' phrase to identify God, Jesus and all others who became gods.
Although Bob you give an interesting argument, who should be given more weight--- you assertions, or the LDS Apostle, Prophets, and Official LDS Curriculum.
The problem I see in your reasoning is that other LDS materials that have authority do not allow you nor I to arrive at your conclusion within the King Follett Discourse.
You query of me if Jesus was “god” when he was on the earth—This is nebulas question. The Mormon concept of god is not the same as the Bible’s. Mormon doctrine defines ‘a god” in that “Every Man who reigns in celestial glory is a god in his own domain…”--- Mormon Doctrine page 322 (Teachings 374) The Bible does not say this anywhere. Of course the Bible does not use the word "eternal Progression" either--
Still, I do not think that even under the LDS definition of ‘a god’ would apply to Jesus under LDS described conditions of Jesus’ earthly ministry. Certainly your assertion about the King Follett Sermon and Jesus’ resurrection powers do not fit the LDS definition of what makes a man into ‘a god’.
Under the Biblical ideas that are expressed in the trinity, of course Jesus is God—
So Bob, you can complain about the 'trinity' not being found in the Bible-- but where is this term
'eternal progression', or the idea that all men who are celestial are
'gods'?
But on the otherhand--- the King Follett sermon is one that is designed to refute what others have “supposed’ about God.
As far as raising from the dead is concerned, even the Apostle Paul facilitated that act in the Book of Acts.
Acts 20: 9 And there sat in a window a certain young man named Eutychus, being fallen into a deep sleep: and as Paul was long preaching, he sunk down with sleep, and fell down from the third loft, and was taken up dead.
10 And Paul went down, and fell on him, and embracing him said, Trouble not yourselves; for his life is in him.
11 When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed.
12And they brought the young man alive, and were not a little comforted.
Your argument that Jesus had to have been God because Joseph Smith claimed he had to be in order to raise Himself from the Dead is not a critical attribute to Jesus’ LDS godhood. This reminds me of the Jehovah Witness argument that says that God must have been dead, so who was running the universe just after Jesus died on the cross.—Therefore Jesus could not have been God (JWs claim).
The Bible indicates that God’s Spirit raised Jesus from the Dead. And that the Father did it and Jesus indicates that He was going to do it. This is a strong indicator that Jesus and the Father and the Spirit of God are all the One Lord Jehovah. These passages do not say that each simply had a role in doing so. Each is identified directly. The New Testament says that Christians are united by One Spirit, that there is One Faith and One Spirit, this same One Spirit called the Spirit of Christ, the Holy Ghost, and the Spirit of God. Divine Investiture cannot completely explain such unity, but the Trinity indicates to this kind of unity.
Even when you only admit that the Spirit and the Father had ‘a role’ in Jesus raising from the dead, you destroyed the vitality of your own argument. This is because the strength of you argument could only be compelling if Jesus can be proved to have such power completely independent within Himself to do so.
Otherwise Bob you will have to come up with another LDS defination for what specifically separates the difference between 'a man'- 'like us ' -and 'God'.
Overall-- "Like us" has already been defined by President Lorenzo Snow. As man is God once was...
Cheers to you Bob-- you are one determined dude!
Steve R.,
Look at what you say:
"Bob open you eyes! This statement is saying that God has not always been God!"
But what you are actually saying is: "Don't read his whole talk, read the one sentence, then decide what he means!"
It's like reading the first line of the Gettysburg Address, and then telling people the speech was actually just a civics lesson.
That is exactly what you are asking me and the readers to do. I note you STILL do not deal with the quote, from the same talk, which directly refutes you statement.
Come on Steve R., deal with things in context, and specifically this statement.
Let's check something before we move on:
"Even when you only admit that the Spirit and the Father had ‘a role’ in Jesus raising from the dead, you destroyed the vitality of your own argument. This is because the strength of you argument could only be compelling if Jesus can be proved to have such power completely independent within Himself to do so."
Well Steve R., we have exactly this statement in John 10:18:
"I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my father."
So, if your last message meant what it said, the fact this statement exists proves the validity of my argument. Oh that life was this simple.
The Lorenzo Snow couplet is still accurate to a degree, even if it can be subjected to false doctrinal twists. Jesus lived "like us" on this planet. He is now god in heaven. We have that potential. I am not going to bite at this time on the bait for the eternal progression of man. Since the Bible, the Book of Mormon and the D&C all teach the doctrine, let's get to that later.
Just take a moment to explain to me again why I should not read the entirety of the King Follett discourse to understand the context of Joseph? You have yet to produce a single statement saying god was once not god; or that god is not eternally god; or that the context of the King Follett discourse is different than the way I quoted it. Joseph Smith is discussing how God came to be God of this Universe. He specifically notes that were we to take back the veil, we would see he is an exalted man. He lived on a planet. And then he explains he was God even on that planet, just as Jesus was on ours. This was at a "time" before this universe even existed, so the idea of him forever sitting in yonder heavens, and not having a mortal sojourn somewhere is false. That is how he came to be God, as in how he came to be our God. Reasoning and logic is fine, but it must be based in factual analysis. Steve R, you can't keep avoiding the statement of Joseph explaining when god was like us he was still god, and expect anyone to take your analysis seriously (other than rabid anti-Mormons who care more for the position than the truth of the argument).
As for Jesus being god while on Earth: The Trinitarian Jesus was certainly god while on Earth. Mormons believe Jesus was also god, as they understand him, while on the Earth. So whatever the term "god" means to you, was Jesus that while on Earth? Whatever the term means to me, yes, he was god while on Earth.
Some differences between God and mortal, non-divine men: He faced no Judgement, he knew all things, he had all power, he had the ability to die and in and of himself come back to life, never to be able to die again; he brought to pass the resurrection of other beings. He had the power to work an infinite atonement.
None of those characteristics can be applied to any other person who has ever lived on the Earth, only Jesus. And that was the life the Father led while on a planet.
You just keep ducking the issue.
Did Joseph Smith teach that God lived on a planet with the same Godly characteristics we believe Jesus possessed while on this Earth?
Yes, he did.
The only way to contend he did not is to not read the talk he gave in its entirety. I find that extremely disingenuous, especially since you still, still, still, still refuse to comment on the direct passage I keep asking you to speak about. Lorenzo Snow's comment follows from this speech, as does every other LDS person who has taught or speculated on the subject. If the context was that God has always been God, even while living on a planet in his ancient past, then your teachings are demonstrable wrong.
Lastly, I must say that I think you cheapen the quality of this discourse by throwing in the raising of the dead by mortals such as Paul, Elijah, Moses or others. They specifically are not raising them to immortality, and they do not do it by their own power. They are essentially performing a healing. It's as if you see you are losing the argument, and you are throwing up anything to try to divert from the point. Speak directly to the source of the teachings you claim LDS people believe.
Did Joseph Smith teach:
"The Scriptures inform us that Jesus said, As the Father hath power in Himself, even so hath the Son power-to do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious-in a manner to lay down His body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father did, and take it up again." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, page 346.)
All teachings on the subject of God once being a man originate with the talk which includes this passage. Did Joseph teach this or not? If so, just admit it destroys your argument, and move on. Otherwise, you are asking everyone to accept you interpretation of later statements without the context of how these early statements were made or understood. I will be happy to move on once you actually deal with the above statement. But you and I both know that the statement devastates your argument, which is why you just keep avoiding dealing with it.
I don't mean to be obstinate, it's just words mean something, and it usually means a lot when people avoid addressing such clear statements.
Peace,
Steve R.,
Still not responding to the comments by Joseph Smith in the King Follett discourse.
Notice too, the Mormonwiki.com quote does not say God was once non-divine. In fact, it notes God is perfect, men are not. It does not comment on God's life before Earth's existence. It is not the logical conclusion that because one is divine and a member of the race of mankind, he was once non-divine. That would then logically apply to Jesus.
Some light here, finally, in the Abinadi comments. Steve R. says the Book of Mormon teaches that God is the same eternal God of the Bible. Cool.
Abinadi says the son is also the father because his spirit "was conceived by God". That is exactly correct. Thus Jesus is the father and the son. The father because of the spirit, the son because of the flesh. I wrote this explanation more than a week ago, and it is good that Steve R. accepts it. Funny, I don't know any denomination besides the LDS who believe God conceived the spirit of Jesus Christ, but it is good to have you back on board over this point of doctrine, anyway. Because it would be impossible for the Father to be conceived by himself. That is what a father does, in the creation of a son.
Steve R. draws the George Bush analogy. But it is a poorly drawn type. If you did not know who the President was, and who the commander-in-chief was, and someone said "they are one person", it actually makes perfect sense. What's more, there would be no doubt there are multiple persons present if you said "George Bush was made President by Bill Clinton." That is exactly the type of statement found in Mosiah 15. God conceives the Father. That is an absurdity unless the Father and God are separate beings.
It is LDS doctrine the God of the Old Testament was Jesus, in his role as Jehovah. Mosiah 15 is during the pre-incarnation period. Ergo, the father in the Old Testament was, generally speaking, Jesus. It is again disingenuous to think this is a difficult concept when compared, say, to the doctrine of the Trinity.
3 Nephi 28:10-- We will be as Jesus, and he is as his father, and his father and Jesus are one.
This is not a statement of both eternal progression and a multiplicity of gods in the Book of Mormon because...?
Steve R.'s statements melt when confronted by the written history he says they were built upon. They are not. Thus he throws up objection after objection to dealing with Joseph's direct statements, to the direct statements of the Book of Mormon, or the statements found in the Doctrine and Covenants. And so it goes.
Peace
Steve R. wrote:
"In order to say the Jesus described in the King Follett sermon is ‘God’ one has to refute the Book of Mormon (and the Bible) foundational concept of God. In this redefinition of what is ‘a god’, we see that gods and men are of the same race—but only at different levels of eternal development. In this way Jesus and the Father are just ‘like we’ having lived on another earth, as gods. After all in redefining what is ‘a god’, also what is ‘a man’ – ‘like us’ has also been refuted.
(Unless words such as 'Like us' have some higher meanings)"
I guess I have not learned how to resurrect myself from the dead yet. I am pretty sure I am not omniscient, and other than my expanding waist, I am not omnipresent. I am not even omnipotent at my own house. It is not said of me in scripture at the council in heaven "there stood one among them that was like unto god" (Abraham 3:24).
The Bible says we are the offspring of God (Acts 17:29), which in Greek actually uses the word "genos". You know the word which means "ancestral stock, descendant". Of course, Paul and Luke could be heretics. You know, the same word used by Jesus in Rev. 22:16 to let us know he is the offspring of David. I am sure he does not really mean it. (OK, now I am being sarcastic). Apologies. But Mormons don't believe Jesus was non-divine while on this Earth, which is the key to this conversation. Whatever degree of divinity Jesus enjoyed while living on this planet, God enjoyed on his previous planet. Contrary to Steve R.'s statement that we must "redefine" what a god is, the statements and doctrine speak for themselves. He must create a difference here because he clearly has mis-stated what Mormons believe or teach. God is today the same as he was on whatever planet he may have lived on, except he now has a resurrected body, and in the definition given by Joseph Smith, has progressed in glory because of the exaltation of his children. But he is as much God today as he was before the creation of the world while living on another planet. Mormons do not believe Jesus has a different "godhood" today than before his birth, other than he now has a physical body. That is LDS doctrine (D&C 19:18; D&C 110:2-4). So, if words mean anything, Jesus did his time on Earth just like his father did before.
Let's do the scales thing: Explicit statements vs. oblique conclusions. I know where I stand.
So, let's try to make this simple:
Do Mormons think Jesus was divine while on this planet? Yes or No?
Do Mormons think men, other than Jesus, are divine and capable of resurrecting themselves while on this Earth? Yes or No?
If the first question is yes, and the second is no, then God, while living on a planet before the creation of this world, was himself divine as we think of Christ as divine.
For those in 1st year logic, if Jesus was unique and divine, and always has been even while on this Earth, then God the Father was also divine while he lived on a planet, according to the statement of Joseph Smith. It further concludes that there is no time in the existence of God when we have any indication he was not god. All we have to the contrary are misapplied statements about human eternal progression, and those statments NEVER about God's early existence.
Peace
Bob, I am sorry that you view me as distracting to the direction that you want this discussion to go--
The Jesus in the Bible (and The Book of Mormon) is a Jesus that existed back from all Eternity and forward into to All Eternity being God in a state of godhood. (Moroni Chapters 7&8, Psalm 90:2) This idea was accepted among followers of Joseph Smith, until he ‘refuted this idea’—as seen in the King Follett Discourse.
If God was God from all eternity, they He could not have become God in some point in time.
In Biblical Teachings Jesus was always God, and did not progress into godhood.
This is the way that God is described in the Book of Mormon too. (Though Mature Mormons seem to disagree--because they have been endowed within Mormonism with some higher means of esoteric discernment-- and see radically different meaning in the same everyday words-
However, I am concerned with how the general public interprets the BoM message exoterically-and join the Mormons to have their God and Universe inverted into another gospel-Gal 1:9)
The term “eternal progression” in a strict sense is an oxymoron. Things can progress over time, but not in eternally. (But again-- Endowed Mormons consider 'eternity' and 'eternal' things to be something different than those who are exoteric neophytes to Mormonism.)
In Mormon Eternal Progression the nature of Man, God, the Universe and Eternity, is described in radically different terms than the way the Bible (and the Book of Mormon) describe the foundational ideas of “God”, Mankind’s situation, and the nature of and origin of the Universe. The Mormon fullness of the gospel with its ‘eternal progression’ cannot be sorted out, that is make any sense, within the Biblical (or Book of Mormon) world view (paradigm). (That is to the exoteric guy who is not an esoterically Endowed Matured Mormon.)
It would seem that when discussing the terms for LDS eternal progression, gods, the universe, all their origins and destinies—including humanity, that Mormonism still has not figured out what it is supposed to consistently teach it to both audiences (exoteric vs. esoteric-- public vs. private)
Bob esoterically insists that the Book of Mormon is polytheistic. Mormon apologists claim that when Alma calls the Son the ‘very Eternal Father’ that they are titles for the same person in different roles.
Yet when the same formula is explained elsewhere in the Book of Mormon, it is clear that one person serving different roles (the Son of God) is not being discussed but rather two distinct persons—thus the Book of Mormon is speaking of the Father and the Son as being separate persons— NOT One Person taking on different titles due to taking on alternating roles between being a father and being a son.
Mosiah 15:
1 AND now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. 2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son— The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son— 4 And THEY ARE one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.
If we were to talk about George W. Bush as becoming The High Military Commander and also taking the role of Chief Legislator, we would not say that THEY are one President. Rather that He is One President. However we could say that Bush and Cheney are one Presidency composed of two persons--- And THEY ARE one Presidency…
This is of course because “they are’ a plural pronoun applied not to roles but to persons. And ‘are’ a plural verb form.
(Of course for all I know the CIA in Area 51 secretly know that Cheney and Bush are actually one guy with different masks-- who knows maybe Mrs. Bush is the same guy too- in different roles-- with a very very close shave of course---??)
For me anyhow-- is too far fetched to say that the Book of Mormon is polytheistic. Also it is not negotiable to say that the Eternal Father and Son of God in the book of Mormon are just different role titles for the same one divine person (Christ).
(But again I am digesting these words from the perspective of a guy on the streets, NOT an Endowed Mormon who pours higher knowledge- divine formulated esoteric meaning into common everyday words, terms and phrases)
The Book of Mormon is claimed to clarify Christian teachings that are ‘plain and precious’. If this were ever true, Eternal Progression in Mormonism has clouded them beyond recognition from the view of the LDS Fullness of the Gospel. (At least from my exoteric view point.)
In order to say the Jesus described in the King Follett sermon is ‘God’ one has to refute the Book of Mormon (and the Bible) foundational concept of God. In this redefinition of what is ‘a god’, we see that gods and men are of the same race—but only at different levels of eternal development. In this way Jesus and the Father are just ‘like we’ having lived on another earth, as gods. After all in redefining what is ‘a god’, also what is ‘a man’ – ‘like us’ has also been refuted.
(Unless words such as 'Like us' have some higher meanings)
As we see on mormonwiki
“Some critics complain that believing God was once mortal means that Mormon theology teaches that "God has not always been God," but such is not true. Why? Because Mormons inherently believe that God and man are of the same race and of the same nature. God may be perfect and man imperfect, but they are of the same race nonetheless. Thus, God has always been God; His nature and His essential being have not ever changed. “http://www.mormonwiki.com/mormonism/Heavenly_Father
From the view of LDS Eternal Progression, God was always god only because all mortal men are gods too—that is Gods in embryo.
This is insidious because when Mormons communicate this exoterically to the general public it creates a bait and switch advertisement. This is of course because the prerequisite for joining the Mormon Church is the reading the Book of Mormon that teaches there is only One God, who has been and always will be Eternally God- (my exoterically digested rendering- to which no doubt Bob has an esoteric disagreement).
Yet Bob writes he finds me ” extremely disingenuous”- which may esoterically mean something else than what I exoterically think it does--- what ever that is…
Bob,
To say "they are one person" is not correct grammer. One could say 'He is one person'. Do you have a correct example from literature stating such usage?
Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young (published by the church as an official lesson manual 1997 [text “approved 10/95”], p. 29):
President Brigham Young taught ... that God the Father was once a man on another planet who 'passed the ordeals we are now passing through...'
Smith, Teachings pp 346-48, Indicated that Priesthood Principles required for all beings to progress, one step at a time.
Through out LDS Eternal Progression teachings that associate God's progress to godhood, the pattern of Faith, Repentance, and Ordainances are required even for God to have become God. These are the first principles of the Gospel.
If Repentance was required of the LDS God to become god, to progress under Gospel Law, then He once was not perfect-- if not perfect, then he was once imperfect. It also appears that the LDS God had to progress 'grace to grace'-- this also indicated that the LDS God was once not perfect, having to rely on grace.
Joseph Smith said that ALL the gods had to go through the same process as regular folks.
Bob you ask
"Do Mormons think men, other than Jesus, are divine and capable of resurrecting themselves while on this Earth? Yes or No?"
Actually Bob I think that there is only One God, and Jehovah resurrected Jesus.
Bob you mention
"...there is no time in the existence of God when we have any indication he was not god.
Once again Bob the LDS curriculum materials say that the LDS God progressed to godhood.
Steve R.,
In LDS theology, did Jesus need to repent?
If not, neither did the Father.
President Brigham Young taught ... that God the Father was once a man on another planet who 'passed the ordeals we are now passing through...'
The new testament taught:
Heb 4:15 "For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin."
And the difference is...?
I know, you are going to say the Trinity prohibits you from actually thinking about LDS theology as if it might remotely be true. Good strategy for not actually dealing with an issue you raise. If we discuss the Trinity, then you throw out as an objection alleged false constructs about LDS theology. If we discuss LDS history and theology, you fall back on your ideas about the Trinity. We have a word for that:
Circular reasoning.
Bob,
Steve's arguments are naturally circular. This is because the Trinity in itself is circular reasoning.
Bob, how can one be one's own father?
Nobody can be one's own father.
However, in trinitarian Christianity, God is his own father.
Jesus is God. God the Father is God. God is God's father.
You see.
There needs be circular reasoning when you start from the doctrine of the Trinity.
Good luck in your dialogue.
Denver.
Bob
The main problem I see with your thinking is that you are indicating that Jesus was Fully God while conducted His earthly ministry, you say this is evident in the King Follett Sermon. Yet, LDS curriculum is saying that Jesus on earth in his physical earthly body was still in the process of Eternal Progression. The two ideas are not consistent with each other and neither is consistent with the Bible.
In the LDS Plan of Salvation, we must first gain a body,live out our free agency, make choices, die, be resurrected, assigned to the celestial kingdom to then become a god.
Under the rules of the LDS Gospel, eternal laws and principles and the LDS priesthood, everything must follow the right order.
Mormon Doctrine page 411
“Every man ordained to any degree of the priesthood has authority delegated to him.”
“…this authority shall be done at the proper time and place, in the proper way and after the proper order. The power of directing these labors constitutes the keys of the priesthood.”
Mormon scripture is explicit in saying that in order to gain any blessings we must conform to eternal laws. The LDS scriptures also say that that God also is bound by these laws (D&C sections 121 and 130). Likewise, the LDS curriculum teachings also claim that God the Father and Jesus had to strictly conform to these same eternal laws in order to progress into godhood.
Yet, according to you Bob-- then how could Jesus be fully God during his earthly ministry under these LDS rules, since he had not yet gained a body,chose right from wrong, been resurrected, judged and assigned to the celestial kingdom with a glorified body- all in the right order of the Eternal Priesthood and other eternal principles?
Bob, are you saying that Jesus and the Father are exceptions to the rules of Eternal Progression? If they are a deviation to the rules, then how can they be ‘Like Us” and have undergone the same ordeals?
Under the LDS idea when Jesus was tempted, it was part of his mortal testing for His Eternal Progression. In order for Jesus to grow in His eternal progression, he had to make choices between right and wrong. How can this be so if Jesus was already God?
Jesus was tempted in all things, but was the temptation part of his Eternal Progression?- that is did his godhood depend on it ? It does not seem so because as it is written Col 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. What you claim does not make sence within the Bible--
And does not make sence according to what we see in LDS curriculum either---
So how could the Mormon Jesus have already been a god while on this world- having not yet gained a ressurrected body before hand?—since all gods have to strictly obey the same eternal laws--?
Are you saying that Jesus was a reincarnation of a celestial god who previously lived in a celestial heaven with a glorified physical body?
Is this why Mormons claiming that God has a physical body point to Jehovah God in the Old Testament physical appearances? Mormonism now teaches that Jehovah of the Old Testament is Jesus--and at the same time argue that Theophonies of God of The Old Testament proved God has a physical body.
So Bob are you preaching reincarnation?
--
Mormonism teaches a concept with Eternal Progression called called 'One Eternal Round' ( Mormon Doctrine 545)---It reinforces the idea that All the gods had to go through the identical process toward godhood-- Did you then just complement me is some esoteric way by saying that I was involved in 'Circular Reasoning'--?
Steve R.,
Still not answering about the state of God the Father on a planet as compared to Jesus Christ. Simple question:
Was Jesus God/ a god or divine while on Earth?
If so, so was God the Father. Please, for the 14th time, can you answer a direct question about a topic you started?
Peace,
(PS, This is actually getting quite fun. I am fascinated at each new way of prevaricating you come up with. Look, everyone already knows the answer. I have posted the quotes. It just continues to make you look very insincere in your interactions. Keep up the good work.)
Bob,
I have answered you a number of times on this very question-and I have asked you for information to better frame you question.
This information is needed because not every culture defines "god" in the same way. I noted a definition from Mormon Doctrine on "god"- but you did not indicate one way or another you agreement.
On top of all of this, I informed you that in the Bible, because of the Trinity, I view Jesus as God--
But you seem to want me to agree to your definition of 'god' before you even tell me how you define the word.
Here are some repeats of what I wrote to you earlier-
...in Mormonism Jesus was not yet qualified to hold the office of ‘godhood’—afterall, the LDS Sunday school materials claim Jesus was still in the process of ‘eternal progression’.
And on top of all of this the King Follett says uses the 'like us' phrase to identify God, Jesus and all others who became gods.
You query of me if Jesus was “god” when he was on the earth—This is nebulas question. The Mormon concept of god is not the same as the Bible’s. Mormon doctrine defines ‘a god” in that “Every Man who reigns in celestial glory is a god in his own domain…”--- Mormon Doctrine page 322 (Teachings 374) The Bible does not say this anywhere. Of course the Bible does not use the word "eternal Progression" either--
Still, I do not think that even under the LDS definition of ‘a god’ would apply to Jesus under LDS described conditions of Jesus’ earthly ministry.
Under the Biblical ideas that are expressed in the trinity, of course Jesus is God—
And of course Bob I asked you to define what you meant by 'god'- to -provide a definition.
As I asked you before--
"... are you preaching reincarnation?"
As the LDS Apostles and Prophets have taught--
Apostle Orson Pratt: Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, page 345:
"If we should take a million of worlds like this and number their particles, we should find that there are more gods than there are particles of matter in those worlds."
Prophet Brigham Young: Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, page 333:
"How many Gods there are, I do not know. But there never was a time when there were not Gods..."
Member of the First Presidency Heber C. Kimball: Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, page 19:
"...then we shall go back to our Father and God, who is connected with one who is still farther back; and this Father is connected with one still further back, and on and on; ..."
Apostle Orson Pratt: The Seer, page 23:
..The Gods who dwell in Heaven... have been redeemed from the grave in a world which existed before the foundations of this earth were laid. They and the Heavenly body which they now inhabit were once in a fallen state....they were exalted also, from fallen men to Celestial Gods, to inhabit their Heaven forever and ever."
If all these billions and billions Gods have had to first gain a body, live on an earth, die, and have to be redeemed from the grave before becoming a god-- How could Jesus have been God before even dying and being redeemed?
I guess you are teaching multiple lives and reincarnations-
Steve R.
You know as well as I do "The Seer" by Orson Pratt is no more representative of LDS doctrine than the Koran is for your flavor of Christianity. It was formally and forcefully and officially condemned by the LDS Church, including by it's author, Orson Pratt. To use it to prove one of your points is beyond the pale.
Since the Book of Abraham, the Book of Mormon and the D&C all teach Jesus was a god from the beginning, I am hard pressed to find non-canonical expressions, which don't say that Jesus was once not a god, provide any support for your position.
I gave you a definition of divine attributes previously.
"Some differences between God and mortal, non-divine men: He faced no Judgement, he knew all things, he had all power, he had the ability to die and in and of himself come back to life, never to be able to die again; he brought to pass the resurrection of other beings. He had the power to work an infinite atonement."
The ability to work an atonement is not something we will ever need to do after our own resurrection, which means there is something different about the nature of how Christ and the Father are divine compared to the rest of us. But they did have "fallen bodies", or else they could not actually die.
We are not defining god by your trinitarian standard, the hindu standard or the moslem standard. We are defining the debate according to LDS beliefs. Did Joseph Smith teach that the Father's life while living on a planet paralleled the life of Jesus Christ on this planet? In LDS thinking, was Jesus a god while on this planet? Or in LDS beliefs, did Jesus commit sins and need to repent?
Your continued prevarication on this point is beyond silly. We have never been discussing whether Mormons believe like Trinitarians or moslems or any other religious system. I cannot say it any clearer than I have: In the King Follett discourse, does Joseph Smith teach the Father lived on a planet, resurrecting himself from the dead, as Jesus did on this planet?
No external context or definitions need to be considered, but if you want to add: "Within the context of LDS beliefs about God, does Joseph Smith teach explicitly in the King Follett discourse that Jesus performed the resurrection on this planet exactly as he saw the Father do it on a planet previously?"
Simple questions, and they require no external belief system to answer. It does not matter if one is a Trinitarian or a Hindu, or even a Mormon. The question is a closed system of premises and texts. I will even print this off and run it by a group of 12 year olds, just to see if they find it confusing, if you think it is too complicated or nebulous. Remember, the text you are being asked to respond to is:
"The Scriptures inform us that Jesus said, As the Father hath power in Himself, even so hath the Son power-to do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious-in a manner to lay down His body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father did, and take it up again." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, page 346.)
No man "like me" can resurrect themself. The one man who could was, according to LDS beliefs, a god. The "god" part is not known to be a quality of any man. No other man was ever born with this ability. Your redefinition argument is not relevant here, since we are talking about what Jesus did here is what the Father did there. Please, for the love of Pete, actually answer the question.
Peace.
Bob-
The Theme of this Blob post and string of comments, should be somehow related to the idea that Mormons teach in the Preparatory Gospel a Traditional sounding God, which is shifted into the God of LDS Eternal Progression.
The God of the Preparatory Gospel is ONE GOD, ( Alma 11) who is from everlasting to everlasting. This idea about God is consistent with the Trinity.
( Moroni 7: 22 and 8: 18). This idea that God is God from ALL Eternity is refuted by Joseph Smith in the King Follett sermon.
So Bob when you say
“We have never been discussing whether Mormons believe like Trinitarians or moslems or any other religious system.”
This is not the case and this comparison has been clarified several times and again up the string of comments—For example the response I made to Louis-- In my comments there the intent of making these comparisons is plain.
A large part of the discussion has been how Mormonism shifts from ideas about God that is consistent with the traditional ideas of the Trinity- as seen in the Book of Mormon,( and the Bible) into a completely different idea about God. After all, Joseph Smith says he is refuting the idea that God was God from All Eternity, as his audience had believed. This refuting is all about comparing one idea of God (consistent with the Trinity) with another idea that God was once a mortal man- "like us". Joseph Smith then goes on in his discourse describing many gods, and generations of gods.
The string of comments for this Blob entery is to be all about Mormonism having exoteric, public messages, that are radically transformed inside Mormonism.
This calls into question the ultimate intent of Mormon Public Relations gestures in current events of the media.
Apparently Bob, you have become disassociated with what the theme of the Blog comments have been all about.
What follows is the idea that Mormonism teaches an idea about God in its preparatory gospel, that gets shifted into something different with its fullness gospel.
Anyway when you ask me ‘Was Jesus God’ in the King Follett Sermon scenario of Jesus being ‘Like Us’---I cannot answer in a meaningful way unless you agree or disagree on the definition of what is “a god” according to the one give in LDS Apostle Bruce McConkie’s Encyclopedia ‘Mormon Doctrine’.
The meaning of my agreement or disagreement of "is Jesus God" all depends on the meaning of the word (or term or title) assigned to 'god'. And as we can see from the get-go Joseph Smith was in the process of changing the meaning of the word.
Or perhaps, Bob you would like to provide your own definition of ‘God’ or what qualified a being as fully God.
As I told you a couple of times, I consider Jesus to have been fully God, within the ideas consistent with the Trinity of the Bible.
How ever I am skeptical to the idea that Jesus was fully God as the Jesus of Mormonism is described in Mormon curriculum as still undergoing ‘eternal progression’-- and being "like us" as stated in the Follett discourse- in His earthly mission.
Raising one’s self from the dead, is indeed a super-human act, but is only part of the qualification from my perspective because the Bible also informs us that the Trinity was fully at work in Jesus’ resurrection, not just Jesus alone.
Because Jesus is Jehovah, and because the Father is also Jehovah, I view Jesus as God.
In my view this connection between Jesus and Jehovah, the Father, and Jehovah is what identifies Jesus as being God in the Bible. I also believe that there is only One God.
So Bob, why do you view Jesus as God?
The creeds being an 'abomination' does not diminish the standing of anyone who believes them. Joseph Smith,if you look at the histories on sites other than those whose purpose is to discredit him using whatever manner possible, had tremendous respect for the right of others to worship how where and what they may.
Inviting someone of a different faith or tradition into your home in no way symbolizes that you believe what they do. I'm surprised you didn't (or don't want to) understand that.
Post a Comment
<< Home