WASHINGTON – Republican Mike Huckabee personally apologized on Wednesday to presidential rival Mitt Romney for comments he made in a New York Times interview that seemed to criticize the Mormon faith.
-
(Photo: AP Images / Charlie Neibergall)Republican presidential hopefuls, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Republican Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, right, take part in the Des Moines Register Republican Presidential Debate in Johnston, Iowa, Wednesday, Dec.12, 2007.
Huckabee came up to Romney after the GOP debate in Johnson, Iowa, to reconcile.
“I said, I would never try, ever to try to somehow pick out some point of your faith and make it an issue, and I wouldn’t,” Huckabee said, according to CNN.
“I’ve stayed away from talking about Mitt Romney’s faith,” he added. “I told him face-to-face, I said I don’t think your being a Mormon ought to make you more or less qualified for being a president.”
The former Arkansas governor had been tight-lipped about Romney’s Mormon faith up until the comment which is to appear in Sunday’s New York Times.
In a preview of the article posted on the New York Times website, the former Arkansas governor was quoted as saying, “Don’t Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?”
According to the Huckabee campaign, the comment was taken out of context during an extensive interview. His campaign contends that given the full context, it was “clear” that he was unwilling to answer questions on Mormonism.
Senior advisor Dr. Charmaine Yoest added, “He wants to assure persons of all faith traditions of his firm commitment to religious tolerance and freedom of worship.
“Governor Huckabee believes that one of the great strengths of our nation lies in its diversity of thought, opinion.”
Huckabee himself also explained the question was not meant to be a jab at Mormonism.
“We were having a conversation over several hours, the conversation was about religion and he was trying to press me on my thoughts of Mitt Romney’s religion, and I said ‘I don’t want to go there,’” Huckabee said to CNN.
New York Times reporter Zev Chafets had asked Huckabee whether he thought Mormonism was a religion or a cult.
“I really didn’t know. Well, he was telling me things about the Mormon faith, because he frankly is well-schooled on comparative religions. As part of that conversation, I asked the question, because I had heard that, and I asked it, not to create something – I never thought it would make the story,” he explained.
Last week, Huckabee had refused to comment on Mormonism even during the height of curiosity and media frenzy ahead of Romney’s major speech on religion. When pressed for opinions, Huckabee responded that it wasn’t his place to “go off into evaluating” other candidates’ faiths, which he thinks is not the role of a president, according to The Associated Press.
The contrast between his determination to not criticize Mormonism versus the disparaging remark in the interview caused uproar.
“I think attacking someone’s religion is really going too far,” Romney countered on NBC’s “Today” show on Wednesday. “It’s just not the American way and I think people will reject that.”
After making the apology, Huckabee said Romney was “gracious” in the exchange. Romney’s campaign confirmed that the former Massachusetts governor accepted the apology.
Huckabee, a former Baptist pastor, recently took the lead from Romney in Iowa polls riding on the votes of evangelicals – who make up anywhere from 30-50 percent of caucus goers. The competition for Christian voters in conservative Iowa has put Huckabee and Romney in a head-to-head battle.
Hes, Let me know when you're ready to study the historical faith that was given to the apostles and prophets of old. I pray that one day soon God will reveal Himself to you and that you will know that there is a God worth worshipping.
“Judaism had two great incarnational symbols. Temple and Torah: Jesus seems to have believed it was his vocation to upstage the one and outflank the other. Judaism spoke of the presence of her God in her midst, in the pillar of cloud and fire, in the Presence (“Shekinah”) in the Temple. Jesus acted and spoke as if he thought he were a one-man counter-temple movement... The Shekinah glory turns out to have a human face.”
“The death of God’s son can only reveal God’s love (as in, e.g., Rom 5:6-10) if the son is the personal expression of God himself. It will hardly do to say “I love you so much that I’m going to send someone else.” There is an interesting distinction here between Mormonism’s polytheistic definition of The Trinity, whereby God became flesh and dwelt among us.
“Long before anyone talked about “nature” and “substance,” “person,” and “Trinity,” the early Christians had quietly but definitely discovered that they could say what they felt obliged to say about Jesus (and the Spirit) by telling the Jewish story of God, Israel and the world, in the Jewish language of Spirit, Word, Torah, Presence/Glory Wisdom, and now Messiah/Son.“
–NT Wright, Jesus and the Identity of God
“For the loyal Jew, from that day to this, the fundamental confession of faith is, ‘Hear O Israel: YHWH our God, YHWH is one.’” This was prayed three times a day and was the most basic Jewish conviction.
-N. T. Wright, Judas and the Gospel of Jesus p 116 (Deut. 6:4). He argues that the current understanding of Jesus must be connected with what is known to be true about him from the historical perspective of first-century Judaism and Christianity. In addition to his doctorate degrees from Merton College, Oxford University, he also has been awarded several honorary doctorate degrees,[1] most recently from Durham University in July 2007.
You asked about the nature of Christ and the immutability of God. There is a connection to our topic of deification that underlines both the nature of Christ and the Jewish understanding of God. I took a look at N.T. Wright’s work, Jesus and the Identity of God which examines the cultural context of His claim of being YHWH. For the historian it is imperative to understand the times and customs of any piece of literature that is to be taken seriously if one is to comprehend underlying meanings and terminology.
Pre-incarnation, Jesus did not have a natural body that was subject to our physical laws. We can only speculate what exactly He was like in relationship to our physical laws. We know that He was there at the beginning of time (presumably our time). He was in fact YHWH (John 1:1). By Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible (Col 1:16). Isaiah calls Him the everlasting Father (Isaiah 9:6).
A Christophany is a pre-incarnate appearance of Christ. In the book of Daniel, Christ appears in a vision to Daniel (7:13-14). He was never a pre-mortal spirit, the Bible never so much as even hints to the idea. His essential nature has never changed. Paul said, “By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed (manifested) in the flesh…” Just how YHWH was able to become a baby and grow as a normal boy into manhood is a mystery according to Paul. He grew up from an infant into a man. Obviously He did not start speaking and walking the day He was born. At some point Christ assumed the role and identity of the Messiah (Mark 14:62): the incarnation of YHWH (Ex.3:14; John 8:58). He acted with the authority of YHWH in such ways as forgiving sins, when the only designated authority for such actions was God (Luke 5:17-26). Jesus also claimed to be YHWH and permitted Himself to be worshiped, both before and after the resurrection (this is mentioned by LDS officials themselves). The point here is that YHWH was manifested in the flesh; it was Jesus fulfilling the messianic covenant prophesied of old. YHWH, Israel’s King came to deliver His people. He came unto His own and His own received Him not. Thence, it became the time of the Gentiles as prophesied, whereby “God commands all people to repent. For He has set a day when He will judge the world with justice by the man He chose long ago. And God has proven this to everyone by raising that man from the dead!” (ACTS 17:30-31) Interesting note, the term “proved” is used here. Evidence is a prerequisite to Christian faith. It may not require as much proof for one to believe compared to another, but it nevertheless is not omitted.
I thought I lost you Hes. I’m going to pass along my email info along to you, just in case we lose each other on here. Feel free to save it to your PC and email me whenever. It is seedplanter1@sbcglobal.net
Should I suppose that you are conceding that deification is not early church evidence of eternal progression? If I don't here any applicable information on the issue, I'm going to assume so.
Allow me to clarify what I said; Jesus’ death was the culmination of all of the prior temple rituals that God commanded Moses to perform. Indeed He did act as a one-man counter-temple movement. Jesus vehemently criticized the religious leaders of His day. He criticized their vain religious laws, their self-righteousness, their inability to know and discern who He is and what God was doing, He condemned their greed and self-ambition. He drove the money changers out. Jesus did not say, “Let this be a house of secret rituals,” but rather, “My house shall be called a house of prayer.” The only hope that Mormonism has of become acceptable to Christians is to strip away the cultural context of Scripture and change the definitions. Have you accepted my challenge to read the Book of Acts for temple passages? The early church devoted themselves to the Word, to prayer and to evangelism.
Examine this passage to see Jesus’ thoughts about centralized temple worship:
"Sir," the woman said, "I can see that you are a prophet. Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem."
Jesus declared, "Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."
The woman said, "I know that Messiah" (called Christ) "is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us."
Then Jesus declared, "I who speak to you am he." John 4:19-26
Jesus is the temple and we are the temple. When Jesus died, He ripped the veil in two.
At any rate, Mormon temple rituals have more in common with Masonry than Judaism.
Hesadanza,
You said the temple is the House of the Lord...
As is the church. Insomuch as a church is a building, so is a temple. It is nothing more. If you wish to give it more credit than that, what will happen if your temple burns down? Can you not hear from God until you build a new one? Can you not gather together and perform the same "ordinances of His gospel"? If not, then your god is truly impotent.
We meet together in our building to do what His Word says. We worship and praise Him together in unity. We are taught. We fellowship with Him and each other. If that building were to burn down, nothing would change. We still would meet together to worship and praise and learn. The Word of God says the where two or more are gathered together in His name, He is there in their midst. That is true church. Only those who are carnally minded cannot grasp that. The early Christians met in homes. Because they understood the concept of where the temple truly was. It's not brick and mortar.
Those of the Spirit will understand and their ears will hear. They will be free from bondage of religion and tradition. They will be free from the law
Going to church and worshiping Him there is different than going to the temple and performing ordinances of His gospel there. The temple is a special sacred place that is different than a church building (chapel). It is the House of the Lord.
Hes,
Duh! Of course He didn't do away with going to church and worshipping Him. Why would you think that?
Christ's death did not bring an end to temple worship. I have already shown numerous times throughout the New Testament where the early Christians worshiped in the temple.
Alright Hes, on to more dramatic things: There is a connection to the topic of deification that underlines both the nature of Christ and the cultural context of His claim of being YHWH. One of the most historically pivotal questions raised about Christ is why did the Jewish Sanhedrin sentenced Him to death? Obviously it was not because they believed in eternal progression. If the Jews thought that everyone was a god or had the potential to become gods in the sense that Mormons believe, then it would not have been strange or blasphemous for Jesus to claim to be a god. Of course, this is not what Christ claimed directly, but rather that He was YHWH in skin, God incarnate, Immanuel. He literally was the embodiment of the Shekinah glory. He was the temple of God. When He died the veil that separated man from God was rent in two, signifying the culmination of all of the temple ritualistic sacrifices were satisfied in one death.
The points are as follows:
1. Historic Judaism as YHWH’s revelation to Moses did not include the concept of eternal progression.
2. Christ claimed not merely to be a god, but YHWH Himself.
3. It incensed the court to condemn Him.
4. His death brought an end to the temple rituals.
5. His blood pays for our salvation.
N.T. Wright notes, “Judaism had two great incarnational symbols. Temple and Torah: Jesus seems to have believed it was his vocation to upstage the one and outflank the other. Judaism spoke of the presence of her God in her midst, in the pillar of cloud and fire, in the Presence (“Shekinah”) in the Temple. Jesus acted and spoke as if he thought he were a one-man counter-temple movement... The Shekinah glory turns out to have a human face.” “For the loyal Jew, from that day to this, the fundamental confession of faith is, ‘Hear O Israel: YHWH our God, YHWH is one.’” This was prayed three times a day and was the most basic Jewish conviction.” N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Identity of God and Judas and the Gospel of Jesus (Deut. 6:4).
The crucial Christian assertion, that God is One, sets an absolute limit on the meaning of theosis - it is not possible for any created being to become, ontologically, God, or even part of God (the henosis of Greek Neoplatonic philosophy).
That "God became God" is not only a pagan idea but it denies the very nature of God Himself, by rejecting His eternality as God (cf. Is. 43:10, LXX: "...So that you may know and believe Me and understand that I AM..." Notice "I AM" in the Greek LXX and not "I am He" as with 41:4. Jesus makes the same claim in John 8:24: "Unless you believe that I AM you will die in your sins"; cf. Gk.).
McGrath notes that it is "the Augustinian understanding of justification as both event and process, embracing the beginning, continuation, and perfection of the Christian life, and thereby subsuming regeneration under justification. More specifically, St. Augustine integrated theosis within his concept of justification, as Lampe explains: "Augustine makes much use of the idea of deification which he equates with sonship towards God. Justification implies deification, because by justifying men God makes them his sons; if we have been made sons of God (Jn. 1:12) we have also been made gods, not through a natural begetting but through the grace of adoption." In Augustine’s one words, "God wishes to make you a god, not by nature like him whom he begat, but by his gift and adoption. For as he through humanity became partaker of your mortality, so through exaltation he makes you partaker of his immortality" (serm. 166.4) [47]. And similarly: "It is clear that He (i.e. God) calls men gods through their being deified by His grace and not born of His substance. For He justifies, who is just of Himself and not of another; and He deifies, who is God of Himself and not by participation in another. Now He who justifies, Himself deifies, because by justifying He makes sons of God. For to them gave He power to become the sons of God. If we are made sons of God, we are also made gods; but this is by grace of adoption, and not by generation (Ennar. In Ps. 49, 2)’.
Theosis is not the same thing as Mormonism's eternal progression. Allow me to emphasize the following notation that I posted earlier: “Even if one were to say there is participation in the nature of God, this would not mean that a creature becomes God by nature, but that the nature of God is present in the being of the other entity, transforming it into a new mode of being.” Gregory of Nazianzus: Images and Reflections. Edited by JOSTEIN BØRTNES and TOMAS HÄGG, p. 270.
In other words, deification is not becoming like God in the Mormon sense. Since you posted theosis days ago, I have done my research on it. There is no continuity between the two. Not only is eternal progression not found in the early church fathers’ theosis, neither is it found in historic Judaism which I am prepared to argue at length as well.
Happy New Year!
Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. Isaiah 43:10
Protestant scholar Allister McGrath points out, that "A deliberate and systematic distinction is made between the concept of justification itself (understood as the extrinsic divine pronouncement of man’s new status) and the concept of sanctification or regeneration (understood as the intrinsic process by which God renews the justified sinner)." He goes on to explain that: "The significance of the Protestant distinction between iustificatio and regeneratio is that a fundamental discontinuity has been introduced into the western theological tradition where none had existed before…The Reformation understanding of the nature of justification – as opposed to its mode – must therefore be regarded as a genuine theological novum.
“There is… [a] reason why Gregory’s doctrine of deification should not be taken in this radical sense, namely that he admits the terminology of participation. A doctrine of participation would normally hold that when one thing participates in another, a difference between them is indicated. Participation takes place across a line of division. When things of different hypostasis or different ontological status stand in a relation of participation, one entry, because of its receptivity, receives certain characteristics from the other, but without achieving identity with that other in essence. Even if one were to say there is participation in the nature of God, this would not mean that a creature becomes God by nature, but that the nature of God is present in the being of the other entity, transforming it into a new mode of being.” Gregory of Nazianzus: Images and Reflections. Edited by JOSTEIN BØRTNES (Russian Literature at the University of Bergen, former University Lecturer in Comparative Literature at the University of Oslo, in Slavonic Studies at the University of Cambridge and Director of Studies at Sidney Sussex College. He is the author of 'Visions of Glory' (1988) and has published extensively in the fields of Early and Modern Russian Literature, Literary Theory and Greek Patristic Literature. At present, Jostein Børtnes is working on Mikhail Bakhtin, and on the Cappadocian fathers, in particular on Gregory of Nazianz.) and TOMAS HÄGG, p. 270.
Continued…
Now let’s see what your Mormon quotation looks like in its context: “But in the version of the Seventy it is written, Behold, ye die like men, and fall like one of the princes, in order to manifest the disobedience of men,--I mean of Adam and Eve,--and the fall of one of the princes, i.e., of him who was called the serpent, who fell with a great overthrow, because he deceived Eve. But as my discourse is not intended to touch on this point, but to prove to you that the Holy Ghost reproaches men because they were made like God, free from suffering and death, provided that they kept His commandments, and were deemed deserving of the name of His sons, and yet they, becoming like Adam and Eve, work out death for themselves; let the interpretation of the Psalm be held just as you wish, yet thereby it is demonstrated that all men are deemed worthy of becoming "gods," and of having power to become sons of the Highest; and shall be each by himself judged and condemned like Adam and Eve.” St. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho.
Theosis is obviously referring to salvation in this context.
Here is another quote from Justin Martyr that reveals the dichotomy of our corruptible nature apart from Christ, “For those things which exist after God, or shall at any time exist, these have the nature of decay, and are such as may be blotted out and cease to exist; for God alone is unbegotten and incorruptible, and therefore He is God, but all other things after Him are created and corruptible.” Dialogue with Trypho
St. Athanasius, whom you liberally quoted testifying to theosis, notes that "We are as God by imitation, not by nature;” and "Albeit we cannot become like God in essence, yet by progress in virtue imitate God." This is clearly not comparable to eternal progression.
All of us who are “born again” are kings and priests. This is no secret doctrine for the Mormon Temple elite. Martin Luther stood up against the hierarchy of the Roman Church that claimed special priesthood. Again, the apostles did not participate in temple rituals, unless you want to include praising God and preaching Christ to the people. Jesus revealed Himself as the temple. There was no longer a need for the temple at His death, thus the veil rent in two.
Quoting the patristic writings out of their context will get you nowhere with me. I have already done some of your homework for you, here we go again. Theosis does not in any way refer to eternal progression, unless Mormonism has changed its doctrine (again). By the way, thank you for reposting my list.
In St. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho (which I noticed was copied from the Mormon friendly web ring) states the following chapters that I thought were interesting:
CHAPTER V -- THE SOUL IS NOT IN ITS OWN NATURE IMMORTAL.
CHAPTER XIV -- RIGHTEOUSNESS IS NOT PLACED IN JEWISH RITES, BUT IN THE CONVERSION OF THE HEART GIVEN IN BAPTISM BY CHRIST.
CHAPTER XXVIII -- TRUE RIGHTEOUSNESS IS OBTAINED BY CHRIST.
CHAPTER XXIX -- CHRIST IS USELESS TO THOSE WHO OBSERVE THE LAW.
Not very supportive of Mormon doctrine.
Jewish thought, particularly in response to developing christology and its perceived threat to monotheism, was more reticent to speak of humans attaining divinity. Nevertheless, Jews shared some of the crucial biblical texts underlying deification. Talmudic Judaism tended to stress humanity´s obligation to imitate God´s holiness in consequence of being created in the divine image. Moses and other prophets were spoken of as sharing God´s glory and becoming "secondary gods" in relation to other mortals (Meeks, pp. 234–35). Philo described Moses´ glorification as "a prototype…of the ascent to heaven which every disciple hoped to be granted" (Meeks, p. 244).
Due to its incongruity with the doctrine of God in Western Christianity, deification fell out of favor as the preferred way of describing salvation. Catholic theology increasingly stressed the transcendence of God, who alone was self-existent and eternal. All other beings were created ex nihilo, "out of nothing," having only contingent being. This theological development culminated in Augustine. For him, God´s absolute oneness and otherness was so different from humanity´s created status and dependence on divine grace that salvation could not bridge the gap between the eternal Creator and the creatures contingent upon him. Ever since, talk of deification has been suspect or heretical in Western Christianity and has formed a major point of objection among traditional Christians to the teachings of Latter-day Saints on the subject.
From the second to eighth centuries, the standard Christian term for salvation was theopoiesis or theosis, literally, "being made God," or deification. Such language survived sporadically in the mystical tradition of the West and is still used in Eastern Orthodoxy. LDS doctrines on eternal progression and exaltation to godhood reflect a similar view of salvation.
In its classical form, particularly in the works of Athanasius (fourth-century bishop of Alexandria), deification was built upon the concept of the incarnation of Christ. The Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325) defined the Son as homoousios (of the same substance) with the Father, and thus fully God. By taking upon himself our flesh through birth, Jesus as God united the essence of humanity to the divine nature. Eventually Christ´s divinity overcame the limits of the flesh through resurrection and glorification, transforming and raising his body to the full level of godhood. As Athanasius summarized, "God was made man that we might be made God" (On the Incarnation of the Logos 54).
Although the doctrine has been dismissed by later scholars as a mere "physical theory of redemption" focused on the Resurrection, deification is more than a synonym for immortality. Church Fathers argued that deification not only restores the image of God that was lost in the Fall, but also enables mankind to transcend human nature so as to possess the attributes of God. "I may become God as far as he became man," declared Gregory of Nazianzus in the late fourth century (Orations 29.19). Descriptions of deification included physical incorruptibility, immunity from suffering, perfect virtue, purity, fullness of knowledge and joy, eternal progression, communion with God, inheritance of divine glory, and joint rulership with Christ in the kingdom of God in heaven forever.
The roots of the Christian doctrine of deification are primarily biblical. Beginning with the creation of humanity in the image of God (Gen. 1:26–27), the church fathers developed aspects of deification from such concepts as the command to moral perfection and holiness (e.g., Lev. 19:1–2; Matt. 5:48; 1 Jn. 3:2; 1 Cor. 11:1; 2 Pet. 1:3–7), adoption as heirs of God (Rom. 8:15–17; Gal. 4:4–7), unification with God in Christ (John 17:11–23), and partaking in Christ´s sufferings in order to be elevated with him in glory (e.g., Rom. 8:16–18; 2 Cor. 3:18; 4:16–18; Philip. 3:20–21; 2 Tim. 2:10–12). They also pointed to examples of humans described as "gods" in scripture (Ex. 4:16; 7:1; Ps. 82:6; John 10:34–36).
If divinization or deification is that we receive of God's divine nature, we in fact become divine as He is. We become deified. That is godhood.
continued...
Though Latter-day Saints have often been ridiculed for believing that humans are gods in embryo, it was one of the most common teachings found in the early Christian church. Indeed, it is still a prominent doctrine of the Eastern Orthodox churches and is even acknowledged in passing in the current Roman Catholic catechism, of which paragraph 398 declares, “Created in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully ‘divinized’ by God in glory.” Paragraph 1265 says that “Baptism not only purifies from all sins, but also makes the neophyte ‘a new creature,’ an adopted son of God, who has become a ‘partaker of the divine nature,’ member of Christ and co-heir with him, and a temple of the Holy Spirit.” Paragraph 460 reads:
"The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”: “For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.” “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.” ‘The only‑begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.’”
In 1998, Jordan Vajda, O.P., a Roman Catholic priest, submitted his master’s thesis to the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, California. Entitled “‘Partakers of the Divine Nature’: A Comparative Analysis of Patristic and Mormon Doctrines of Divinization.” In his first chapter, Vajda writes, “Members of the LDS Church will discover unmistakable evidence that their fundamental belief about human salvation and potential is not unique nor a Mormon invention. Latin Catholics and Protestants will learn of a doctrine of salvation that, while relatively foreign to their ears, is nevertheless part of the heritage of the undivided Catholic Church of the first millennium. Members of Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches will discover on the American continent an amazing parallel to their own belief that salvation in Christ involves our becoming ‘partakers of the divine nature.’”
The concept that mortals are destined to become gods is called theosis or apotheosis in Greek (meaning divinization or deification) and was one of the most common teachings found in the earliest centuries of Christianity. Citing the words of Jesus in John 10, the second-century A.D. Christian philosopher Justin Martyr wrote, “let the interpretation of the Psalm be held just as you wish, yet thereby it is demonstrated that all men are deemed worthy of becoming ‘gods,’ and of having power to become sons of the Highest” (Dialogue With Trypho 124). Another second-century Christian theologian, Irenaeus, cited Psalm 82 and commented, “For we cast blame upon Him, because we have not been made gods from the beginning, but at first merely men, then at length gods” (Against Heresies 4.38:4).
Other early Christian Fathers who read Psalm 82 in the same manner include Tertullian (died ca. A.D. 160), Cyprian of Carthage (mid-2nd century A.D.), Clement of Alexandria (died A.D. 215), Novation (3rd century A.D.), Maximus the Confessor (ca. A.D. 580-662), Athanasius of Alexandria (A.D. 296-373), Cyril of Jerusalem (A.D. 315-386), Gregory Nazianzen (ca. A.D. 325-389), John Chrysostom (A.D. 347-407), Jerome (ca. A.D. 340-420), Augustine of Hippo (ca. A.D. 354-371), and the Persian Aphrahat of Syria (4th century A.D.).
Commenting on Peter’s message concerning the divine nature, an early ninth-century Syriac Church Father, John of Dara, wrote, “Human nature cannot imitate God or unite with him except by the divine gifts that it receives from him. Of all these, the most excellent is that of the priesthood, by which we participate in the divine nature.” It interesting that he tied theosis to priesthood, which finds agreement with LDS teachings that we can become kings and priests, queens and priestesses to God.
Hes: “I have given you my view, the LDS Church's view…”
Does this mean that you are not interested in studying the historical context of theosis for yourself? Sounds like a concession on the point? Theosis does not give warrant to the LDS’ eternal progression. To say otherwise would be dishonest. The historical Greek context is unique to us and can easily be misunderstood. The link that I posted gives the development of theosis by the Eastern Orthodox Church which is closer to the context than any of us westerners could ever hope to be. It is not honest to knowingly misuse a quote, twisting it out of context to the opposite meaning that it was originally intended.
St. Athanasius, whom you quoted testifying to theosis, notes that "We are as God by imitation, not by nature;” and "Albeit we cannot become like God in essence, yet by progress in virtue imitate God."
This is plain and simple for any rational person who genuinely wants to understand. There is a difference between becoming like God morally, in immortality, in ruling and reigning and becoming like God in essence, in power, in worship, in glory, in salvation over our own personal creation. If you want to believe these Mormon doctrines, that is your prerogative, but don’t twist the Scriptures and call it “Christian.”
Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. Isaiah 43:10
I have given you my view, the LDS Church's view, several scholars views, and the early Christian father's view on theosis. I'm not sure if there is much more we can say.
Satan desired to take away man's agency, and usurp God's glory for himself. Christ desired to do the will of the Father, and the glory would be to the Father. That was the difference.
Not to get off the tract of theosis, I did not suggest that Mormonism teaches Jesus and Satan are equals in the since of righteousness. It is an LDS doctrine that states that they both offered some sort of plan to the Mormon Father, is that not correct?
Do you have a response to the quotes on theosis? Perhaps you need more time to study?
Putting Jesus and Satan as equals is precisely what we will not do, but our critics will not spare any effort to make it so appear!
The restored gospel of Jesus Christ teaches that every one of us is a spirit son or daughter of God the Father, and that includes Christ and Satan, and you and me. But that is where their similarities end. The gulf that divides Christ from Satan could not be more wide! Christ was the first-born who followed the will of the Father, while Satan rebelled and was cast down from heaven. Christ will receive endless glory, while Satan will receive endless damnation. Christ is our Savior and Redeemer, the only One by which we may be saved. Satan is our common enemy, Lucifer, the adversary, the evil one, the father of all lies. They are no more spiritual brothers than you or I are with Hitler. Do you understand?
Yes, Jesus is the Son of the eternal Father in heaven, for He declared it so! And if a Son, a begotten Son, there was a time when He was actually made so!
"15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven" (Matt. 16:15-17).
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:16).
The interesting thing here is is that the very article that we are having this discussion is on the issue of Jesus and Satan being brothers according to Mormon doctrine. I understand that LDS teaches that everybody is born as brothers and sisters, but I think that Mormons are oblivious to the doctrinal implications of such an assertion. To put Jesus and Satan as equals reveals quite a theological quandary. It necessitates Jesus having been created, rather than eternal. Perhaps this is part of the reaction that you were having about “another Christ.” Mormonism is a mess!
St. Athanasius himself attested to the unity of the Cross and theosis: "The Word became flesh in order both to offer this sacrifice and that we, participating in His Spirit, might be deified"
I would say that Joseph immediately had a better understanding of the nature of God from the First Vision than many have had through entire lifetimes of theological study. For he actually saw them. Two individuals. Two men. Their glory above the brightness of the sun, so bright Joseph feared the trees might catch fire. Christ standing on the right hand side of the Father. The Father signaling to the Son as He introduced Him as His Beloved Son. Volumes could be written on what Joseph Smith understood about God just from this singular experience. Actually, there have been volumes written.
Yes, there are many similarities between Mormonism and Masonry, and there are only two options why that is so. One, Joseph pilfered them from the Masons to introduce them into Mormonism, although no one is sure exactly why he would want to do that. Or two, they both come from a much more ancient tradition and single all-embracing "pattern". As Hugh Nibley has noted, "There are, in fact, countless tribes, sects, societies, and orders from which he might have picked up this and that, had he known of their existence. The Near East in particular is littered with the archaeological and living survivals of practices and teachings which an observant Mormon may find suggestively familiar... Among the customs and religions of mankind there are countless parallels, many of them very instructive, to what the Mormons do" ("The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment", 2005, xxviii).
In Augustine’s one words, "God wishes to make you a god, not by nature like him whom he begat, but by his gift and adoption. For as he through humanity became partaker of your mortality, so through exaltation he makes you partaker of his immortality" (serm. 166.4).
Sterling Professor Emeritus of History at Yale University and recent convert to Orthodoxy, explains that: "All of this Christian language about a humanity made divine was a part of a total Cappadocian system in which the Classical religion of deified men and women and of anthropomorphic gods and goddesses was described as ‘the superstition of polytheism’ and as the error of those mere mortals who had ‘turned aside the honor of God to themselves.’ Therefore, the Cappadocians insisted that it was as essential for theosis as it was for the incarnation itself not to be viewed as analogous to Classical theories about the promotion of human beings to divine rank, and in that sense not to be defined by natural theology at all; on such errors they pronounced their ‘Anathema!’"
G.W.H. Lampe points out, "Augustine repeats more often, perhaps, than any of the Greek theologians, the theme of the ‘interchange of places.’ ‘The Word,’ he says, became what we are that we might attain what we are not. For we are not God; but we can see God with the mind and interior eye of the heart’… ‘God hates you as you are, in order to make you what you are not yet. You will be what he is;’ but Augustine hastens to add that this means that we shall be God’s image in the sense in which a man’s reflection in a mirror is his image inasmuch as it is like him, not in the sense in which a man’s son is his image inasmuch as he is actually what his father is ‘according to substance.’"
Gerald Bonner stresses that "the notion of deification is to be found in Augustine, not as something added to his system as an afterthought, but as an integral whole. In itself, the notion of deification is no more than what is implied by the New Testament term uiothesia – sonship by adoption – by grace, that is to say, and not by nature. It is, indeed, the consequence of human flesh being assumed by the divinity in the Incarnation: that flesh has been taken into heaven by the ascended Christ, and if men participate in Him through membership of the Church, the Body of Christ, they too may hope, after death, to enjoy the divinisation effected by His flesh-taking. So Augustine writes, in the last chapter of the last book of The City of God: ‘We ourselves shall become that seventh day [i.e. the eternal Sabbath], when we have been replenished and restored by His blessing and sanctification. There we shall have leisure to be still, and we shall see that He is God, whereas we wished to be that ourselves when we fell away from Him, after listening to the seducer saying: You will be like gods. Then we abandoned the true God, by whose creative help we should have become gods, but by participating in Him, not by deserting Him"
Isaiah 43:10
Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
I do not think that it is logical to say that Smith had foreknowledge of each revelation that he purportedly received. I do not suppose that the revelations were authentic as you do. Nevertheless, even you should be able to recognize that Smith did not necessarily have the same understanding of the nature of the Mormon god at the beginning as at the latter “revelations.” Several Mormon scholars agree. I can give you names if you desire. Far be it to argue the point, unless you have a concluding thought.
I do see an awful lot of Masonry involved in Mormonism. It is a fact that many early Mormons were Masons. I was more or less chiding you on the aspect of the Grand Architect, but the shoe fits nonetheless.
The LDS believe in an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient God. Is that a proper understanding?
Why do you believe the Masons worshipped a god? From what I understand, it was and is a fraternal brotherhood organization that allows its adherents to worship God however they please. It is not a religion. So I'm not sure how any kind of Masonic influence introduced any sort of conception of God into Mormonism. Joseph knew the nature of God from the very start with the First Vision, long before any masonry was involved.
We will not and can not ever become God the Father. He is and will always be our God. But He has promised us a crown, glory, honor, and dominion over His creations, even to sit down with Him and share His throne with Christ (Psalms 8; Rev. 3:21).
"I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High" (Ps. 82:6).
"And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together" (Romans 8:17).
The Eastern Orthodox Church is the oldest formal tradition that has maintained a riggid adherence to its traditions, including theosis. For further study you can investigate their doctrinal statement on the subject: "Likeness to God as Far as Possible": Deification Doctrine in Iamblichus and Three Eastern Christian Fathers, at:
http://www.theandros.com/iamblichus.html
The crucial Christian assertion, that God is One, sets an absolute limit on the meaning of theosis - it is not possible for any created being to become, ontologically, God, or even part of God (the henosis of Greek Neoplatonic philosophy).
That "God became God" is not only a pagan idea but it denies the very nature of God Himself, by rejecting His eternality as God (cf. Is. 43:10, LXX: "...So that you may know and believe Me and understand that I AM..." Notice "I AM" in the Greek LXX and not "I am He" as with 41:4. Jesus makes the same claim in John 8:24: "Unless you believe that I AM you will die in your sins"; cf. Gk.).
Just because an elder said something, it doesn’t make it true, not even by Mormon standards. I understand perfectly well that Mormons and Christians disagree on the nature of The Trinity. I haven’t made that big of a deal about it with you. I think it is more important to have a proper understanding of an omnipotent, omniscient God first. I am not one to condemn adherents to modalism - oneness theology, although I do not subscribe to it. I think that it was a philosophical reaction to the Scriptural complexity regarding The Trinity. Interestingly enough Joseph Smith seemed to subscribe to it at the beginning according to some Mormon scholars.
I do not intend to conceptualize two different Christs and Gods in a literal sense. There are two strikingly different claims about who God is. I find the Biblical record pointing toward the traditional Christian understanding and completely opposed to the Mormon “god.” In other words, the Mormon god is no more real than Allah. Ironically, there seems to be more in common between the two then most people realize. The early Masonic influence comes to mind as well and their fascination with Allah and all the other gods along with it. Perhaps the Grand Architect of the universe fits within Mormon theology better than the Judaic/Christian revelation. It doesn’t seem to stress creation ex nihilo, and it does include secret temple rituals to attain godhood.
“For the loyal Jew, from that day to this, the fundamental confession of faith is, ‘Hear O Israel: YHWH our God, YHWH is one.’” This was prayed three times a day and was the most basic Jewish conviction.” N. T. Wright, Judas and the Gospel of Jesus p 116 (Deut. 6:4).
I guess when we pass through the veil one of us will be pretty suprised then, jester.
In the original Greek it reads, "God is spirit" (John 4:24). The predicate without the article emphasizes the character and nature (Also see John 1:1). The Bible does not say that God has a spirit.
Yes Jester, I understand what you were trying to say.
well, hesadanza, i will tell you this. we do worship differentd gods. I worshipe the true God of all creation. Who has no beginning and has no end...who is spirit and not a glorified man, who's salvation is based on the work of the cross,not of works, who will have not other gods besides Him. You worship a god who had a beginning, was a man, who will tolerate other gods beside him.
seedplanter,
Have you figured out what I was getting across yet?
You never claimed we were polytheistic, and then you immediately did so. Hmmm.
Elder Holland said it well, "To acknowledge the scriptural evidence that otherwise perfectly united members of the Godhead are nevertheless separate and distinct beings is not to be guilty of polytheism; it is, rather, part of the great revelation Jesus came to deliver concerning the nature of divine beings."
When you say you worship one God and that we worship another, you immediately create the conception of two different Gods. When you say that you worship one Christ and that we worship another, you create the conception that there are two different Christs. There aren't two different Gods. There aren't two different Christs. There are different conceptions of these beings, but there is only ONE God, and ONE Christ (1 Cor. 8:6) - "But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." We all worship the same God.
We believe in and worship Almighty God, the Father of all, and His Son, our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. I don't know how that is compensating for inconsistencies. The apostles believed in the same three beings. These three beings are, in fact, three beings, three distinct and separate personages. They together form one Godhead.
I'm not sure why God having a father is so difficult to understand. Jesus Christ is a God, and it is pretty clear from the scriptures that He has a Father, for he refers to and prays to His Father all the way through.
But the only God with whom we are associated and concerned with is God the Father, His Son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. These three form the Godhead.
God has a Spirit, yes, but as I've shown before, that is not the end of His nature. It is one of His characteristics.
I suppose it would misrepresent the secret mysteries of Mormonism if I was to point out that they "knew" "God" and that He in fact "is Spirit" without having to examine the peculiar revelations given prior to A.D. 30 and purportedly given again to Smith by the angels.
"Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship; for salvation is of the Jews .... God is Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth" (John 4:22,24).
When you posted:
"They are singular and unique in the universe, the only beings with whom we have to do"
Was "beings" in the plural intended?
I had to flag myself since there are no editing options.
I never claimed you were polytheistic, although your doctrine of the Trinity and eternal progression is polytheistic. I however did not claim that Mormons worship other “gods.” I have not suggested that you even worship. I know you pray, but I don't know if it is possible to "worship" an exlated man. Be that as it may, I certainly have not said that you worship the “Father’s” “Father.” I merely pointed out the nature of such an exalted “god.”
When you quoted 1 Cor. 8:6 you gave the perfect example of Mormonism attempts to compensate for its inconsistencies. According to the following quotations by Smith, I would say that his re-interpretation would be like this: These are the only gods in whom we have to do; this does not however mean that there are no other gods. If I am wrong in this please explain this:
“I want to reason a little on this subject [that God himself has a father]. I learned it by translating the [Book of Abraham] papyrus that is now in my house. I learned a testimony concerning Abraham, and he reasoned concerning the God of heaven ... If Abraham reasoned thus — If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that He had a Father also.” Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 7 vols., 2nd ed. (Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1950), 6:473-479.
“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, namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power.” King Follet Discourse by Joseph Smith, General Conference, April 1844, History of the Church, vol. 6
seedplanter,
that is not an awful thing to say. its the truth. when a man of God first told me that same thing, i responded the same way you did. he merely told me to ask the Holy Spirit for wisdom in what he just said. so i went and prayed...and God showed me what it meant. i will ask the same of you. and if you'r still confused, i can explain it.
It's ironic that the critics of the LDS Church are so quick to label us as polytheists, when in the next breath they immediately begin creating supposed "other" gods and Christs that they think that we worship.
There is only ONE God the Father, ONE Jesus Christ, and ONE Holy Ghost. There may be multiple viewpoints of their nature. But there are not multiple beings that exist who hold these titles. They are singular and unique in the universe, the only beings with whom we have to do (1 Cor. 8:6).
I forgot to add another concluding thought.
The Christian God is worthy of worship because of who He is.
The Mormon god is worthy of worship on account of hid god deeming his righteous acts worthy of such an exaltation.
I think this not only speaks to the differences in their natures, but also the difference in theosis and eternal progression.
St. Athanasius of Alexandria wrote, “God became human so humans would become gods”.
St. Irenaeus explained this concept in Against Heresies, Book 5, in the Preface, "the Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who did, through His transcendent love, become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself."
St. Maximus the Confessor wrote, "A sure warrant for looking forward with hope to deification of human nature is provided by the incarnation of God, which makes man god to the same degree as God Himself became man." and "let us become the image of the one whole God, bearing nothing earthly in ourselves, so that we may consort with God and become gods, receiving from God our existence as gods."
I have shown that theosis is the deification of man, whereby he partakes of the divine nature by which he actually becomes like God in nature. This is a separate topic from eternal progression. They are not one in the same argument.
I have also shown that creation ex nihilo is not scriptural but was an invention of the neoplatonic philosophies of man some two hundred years after Christ.
Yes, the word "mysteries" as it is used in the scriptures often refers to ordinances in a temple ritual context. Morton Smith demonstrates at length that the word "mystery", as used by the first Christians, usually refers to ordinances. He notes that Judaism was an ancient "mystery religion" in which the rites of circumcision and passover were "mysteries," and that many early and orthodox Christian writers such as Clement of Alexandria "think of Jesus as a 'hierophant,' a teacher of mysteries." Smith adds, "This was the mystery of the kingdom - the mystery rite by which the kingdom was entered" (Morton Smith, The Secret Gospel (New York: Harper and Row, 1973)).
Jester, that's not a very productive thing to say during an honest intelligent dialogue. You should check out C.S. Lewis' The Great Divorce.
Im just glad that there wont be any LDS, Catholics, Protestants, SDA in heaven. It would sure be messy.
So far you have proven that early Christians believe in Theosis. I have demonstrated that this is not eternal progression as taught by Mormonism.
You have shown disdain toward creation ex nihilo, which I have demonstrated is Scriptural.
You have posted Scriptures regarding secrets, in which you admitted was not in the context of temple rituals. The way these secret temple rituals are used is little more than obvious a Masonic connection, rather than Judaic, along with the distinct symbols right on the Mormon temples. It is also no secret that the Smith family was steeped in Kabbalah.
I have yet to post my paper that I was researching for you on the humanity of Christ. I have some fine tuning to do on that.
I’m sure that I am overlooking some things. I’ll let you fill in the rest. I’m sure that you won’t exactly appreciate my afterthoughts.
You say that I twist Mormon doctrine, please show me precisely what. I do sometimes get a little carried away, but no more than yourself.
You quoted a reference that the disciples were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God. No wonder you are afraid of reading the Book of Acts to see if what I said is true. Jesus said, "Seek and you shall find."
"God has witnessed to me many times that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only true church of the Lord upon the earth today."
What an amazing consequence! God has witness to me many times the those who have made Him Lord of their lives are part of the only true church today. Wow! small world.
I'm sorry. You are wrong. I will not deny God. I will not deny the Holy Ghost. God has witnessed to me many times that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only true church of the Lord upon the earth today. The Adversary knows it full well too, that is why the barrage of criticism, and the army that seeks to destroy the church daily.
I have showed you over and over again how the doctrines of the restored gospel fit perfectly within what is written in the holy scriptures, and what was believed by the early Christians. That which is peddled by the anti-Mormon community is an ugly, twisted distortion of the restored gospel. However, you choose to interpret them in your own way, which will never bring us to a conclusion. The only way to know the truth is to pray and ask God what is true, and He will manifest it by His Holy Spirit.
I don't know of anything else that would bring me closer to Christ than being a member of His church, of which I am.
"And they worshipped him; and returned to Jerusalem with great joy: And were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God. Amen." (Luke 24:52-53).
Why is the Mormon faith so caught up in sex? I mean...multiple wives? Sex for all eternity? That's just twisted...
Hes, there is an enormous difference between ruling and reigning with Christ and becoming a “god” that is essentially “God” over another world of their making, to be worshipped, revered and served as they spend eternity satisfying their sexual desires and power trips. I know this is a very blatant way of expressing it, but it ultimately is true to the doctrine of eternal progression and exaltation. If you disagree and think this is what theosis meant, then please explain why Jesus rebuked John for wanting to call fire from heaven in judgment. Eternal progression is not consistent with the apostles and prophets. Their goal was simply to serve God, to know Him and to make Him known; to worship Him in spirit and in truth.
There comes a point in time when a man has to ask himself if the reason why he is experiencing so much counter wind is it because he might be going in the wrong direction. I know you have your testimony. I also have mine. So do many other religions, including Gnostics and Muslims. I must admit that you are not one to give up, but at the same time since when was stubbornness a Christian virtue? If I have misrepresented any Mormon doctrine, show me. It is not my intention to debate a non-existent doctrine. However, it is important to take our doctrines to their logical conclusions, if this is what you mean by being steeped in anti-Mormonism, if Mormonism cannot stand up on its own, then of necessity one must examine its foundations, without apology. If Mormonism was truly representing historic Christianity, I would become a Mormon and join the LDS. Unfortunately Joseph Smith neither represented God or historic Christianity. LDS rests on a three legged stool the way I see it: Smith, The BOM, and a spiritual or psychological experience. All three seem so obviously faulty that I cannot imagine anyone willing to spend their life following it, let alone reaping the consequences hereafter.
If you are willing to do systematic study of the temple in NT times, you will discover that the apostles did not go there to engage in any type of temple ritual. They went to preach Christ as the Messiah, the King of the Jews. You will also discover that Paul first went to his own people, the Jews and after he washed his hands of them, signifying that he had warned them of the judgment to come and that he was no longer accountable for them, from that point on, he never stepped into a synagogue again. He then went to preach to the gentiles. Read the Book of Acts for yourself or reread it if you have already.
"For where two or more of you gather in my Name, there am I in the midst."
That is where church is. Wherever we gather.
continued.....
and then it continues on to describe the holy city...and in verse 22 it says "And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it. And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof."
So whether you call it a "temple" or a "church"...God doesn't care. He's still there in the midst of His children. And He will do away with both in the end....
hesa...if seedplanter is anything like me..the only "anti-mormon" literature that has been steeped upon us is the only true Word of God (the Bible). Now, if you believe that the Bible is incorrect, then the argument is moot. If you believe the Bible is true, then you will understand the position that he and I come from.
But lets see what God says about the temple, since you don't realize that the true temple is us (even though seed has used scripture to prove it).
Revelations 21:1-3 says "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God."
I'm sorry seedplanter, but I disagree with you.
Yes, the Bible DOES say that there will be those that will rule and reign with Christ. Please see Revelations 3:21 - "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne." See also Rom. 8:17 and Gal. 4:7.
Unfortunately, you still largely misunderstand the restored gospel of Jesus Christ because of the anti-Mormon literature that has been steeped upon you, which is mostly false, exaggerated, misinformed, and ruthless in its attempt to destroy the work of God.
The temple is certainly a Christian concept. The Bible tells us that the early Christians and apostles worshipped in the temple daily. Again, I quote Frank Moore Cross, emeritus professor of Hebrew Bible at Harvard - "Someone who does not know much about temples or Mormons building temples should be directed to the Bible... I am both interested and delighted to see so much of ancient religious tradition, particularly Biblical tradition, taken up in to the religious structures and rituals of the Mormons."
And Krister Stendahl, former dean of Harvard Divinity school and emeritus Lutheran Bishop of Stockholm - "In antiquity, of course, a temple with its altars and big basins for lustrations, and the Jerusalem temple was a place where you went to carry out holy acts, sacrifices and the like. I feel that the Mormon experience of the temple has sort of restored that meaning to the word temple."
Christ's church has been restored today. Joseph Smith saw God the Father and Jesus Christ, and they did in reality speak to him. God has restored His church in these last days in preparation for the second coming of the Savior. I know these things are true, seedplanter.
If you want to address one topic at a time, I'll gladly respond.
Hes, please read my posts in chronological order before you respond. Before jumping the gun, make sure you understand what I am saying. I can clarify, upon request.
“Before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me” (Isaiah 43:10).
According to the Encyclopedia of Mormonism,
“Logically and naturally, the ultimate desire of a loving Supreme Being is to help his children enjoy all that he enjoys. For Latter-day Saints, the term ‘godhood’ denotes the attainment of such a state—one of having all divine attributes and doing as God does and being as God is” (2:553).
The OT temple was built as a dwelling place for God. Christ declared that His own body was the temple. Later Paul stated that we are the temple if the Holy Spirit dwells in us. The Mormon temple is not a Christian concept. The apostles only went to the synagogues and the temple to testify to the Jews. The Mormon maze is truly unique in its approach to Christian history; picking and choosing what it likes and what it doesn’t. It is a religious foundation of convenience. It cannot stand up on the false prophet Joseph Smith or it will come crashing down. So of necessity it has evolved into a quagmire of erroneous interpretations here and there, with endless changes of eternal laws to adapt to culture and the real world. Mormonism is a strange one indeed. Its attempts to extrapolate evidence where no evidence exists, it is a peculiar religion. Based on a psychologically induced testimony because it can not stand up to legitimate historical scrutiny, it has led untold thousands astray. Thus Joseph Smith and company, the obvious occultists that they were, continue to dupe unsuspecting people into thinking that they are truly “Christian,” and the only true Christians at that. I continue to pray for you my friend.
The Bible does say that there will be those who will rule and rein “with Christ.” As I noted prior, how this will work out, one can only speculate. It has nothing whatsoever to do with being “god” as put forth by Smith. It also states that we will exchange this corruptible nature with an incorruptible nature. This is not Mormon eternal progression. Perfection is not exaltation to godhood. Exemplifying the character of Christ has nothing to do with eternal progression. When a person is born from above an internal change takes place. The old is gone and we are a new creature in Christ. We are no longer a slave to the lusts of the flesh (as Joseph Smith obviously was) we become servants of the Most High. This is not something earned through temple rituals, when Jesus died on the cross the temple vail was rent from top to bottom. Jesus fulfilled the law with His atoning death. The temple was one of three central parts of Judaism and Jesus put a stop to it (note: they were nothing like Mormonism's neo-temple rituals) The apostle Paul declared:
"And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ." Col 2:13-17
My specific challenge was to sincerely pray and ask the great “I AM” if he is a mere exalted man or if He is The Eternal (Infinite) Transcendent (Supreme) Omnipotent (All Powerful) Creator God. My earlier challenge was to ask Him to reveal Himself to you, regardless of how it may conflict with Mormon doctrines. I believe that every person who sincerely seeks the Truth, will find Him. Naturally, an open and honest heart is imperative. This is not a substitute for searching God’s revelation, The Scriptures (as the Berean’s did daily). It is however a point where I believe God will meet a humble heart.
When I say God, I speak of the God who has revealed Himself through the Old Testament prophets and by His Son. If you have studied the Bible and Christianity at all, you should know that this is not a “space-filling invisible life-force spirit essence and vapor.” He is the only Being that ultimately transcends time and space. He does not follow another exalted god, because there is no other. He is the Alpha and the Omega. He does not follow the Ten Commandments or moral laws, because He is the epitome of Holiness personified, it flows from His nature. He is not subject to natural/physical laws, because He transcends them, he created them. He does not need to follow the golden rule, because love is rooted in His personality. He does not lie because He cannot lie. He has never had the need to study the laws of logic, because they come from Him. He did not need to attend secret temple rituals and attain perfection and enter Celestial Polygamy to become who He is. His character can be summed up when He introduced Himself to Moses, “I AM THAT I AM,” meaning He is the Self-existent One, without beginning or end. When Jesus was born in this world, He revealed to us what the invisible God was like. He was literally YHWH in skin. The Trinity is not a spirit essence. Yes, The Father is Spirit. Yes, The Trinity is three persons in one essence, rather than three different gods.
Theosis has nothing to do with the Mormon godhood and exaltation. You are not being completely honest here and that is disappointing. Eternal progression does presume that those counted worthy enough will become “god” over their universe, in the same way that you think “God” is (which cannot be considered the God of Abraham). As an exalted “god” Mormons will be worshipped and served as the supreme deity of their world. They will be numbered in the infinite progression from infinite past (albeit a logical fallacy). Obviously, they will continue to pay tribute to their “god” in humility of mind, in the exact same way that the Mormon “god” over this universe serves his “god.” So therefore, you can essentially “become ‘god.’” This is not theosis.
Yes, there is a difference in becoming "like God" and becoming "essentially God". We do not claim that becoming "like God" will replace Him. He is and will always be our God and Father, for eternity. But He has promised that those that follow Him, as His sons and daughters, will be crowned with glory, honor, dominion, and sit down with Him and Christ in His throne to participate in His eternal creations. That is godhood, and is what is meant by the doctrine of theosis and deification which was taught by Christ and His apostles, and the early Christian theologians. It has always been the ultimate goal of Christians to become like God, to receive Christ in our countenances, and to become perfected in Him. "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect" (Matt. 5:48).
He is not "merely" an exalted man, but an immortal, perfected, glorified, resurrected, omniscient, omnipotent, celestial, exalted Man. Yes, He is King of kings, and Lord of lords (1 Tim. 6:15; Rev. 17:14; Rev. 19:16). He is the Most High God. Yes, I have prayed to God the Father, my literal Father in heaven, to know if it is true, and He has answered my prayers.
He hears and answers, sees and reflects, touches and feels, loves and chastises, thinks and plans, moves and stands, organizes and sends. He is very literal, real, physical, visible, corporeal, and is a male. He loves us as a Father loves a Son, and as a father loves a son. He is our Father!
And He certainly is not the space-filling invisible life-force spirit essence and vapor that Christendom has made Him out to be, which is wholly incompatible with all that has been revealed in the holy scriptures and which was unknown to the early followers of Christ.
In response to Iranaeus:
1. Early church references to “theosis” and “theopoieses” can be traced throughout church history, right up to and including today’s Eastern Orthodox Church. Iranaeus, Clement, Hippolytus, Theophilus, Origen, Cyprian, Eusibius and Athanasius allude to this type of deification. The language was a product of Eastern thinking – grown out of Greek philosophical thoughts on human nature vs. immortality. It was used to express salvation unto eternal life; passing from mortality to immortality. Even Roman Catholics have quoted from them. It was not some flash-in-the-pan doctrine arguing for eternal progression. Daniel Peterson has actually pointed out the difference.
There is a difference in becoming “like God” and becoming “essentially God” as in eternal progression.
2. Even if LDS stretches theosis out of its cultural context, it nevertheless cannot be misconstrued so much as to include a theology of an exalted supreme deity. Furthermore, as you have criticized the early church leaders for having embraced creation ex nihilo, the fact that they did accept it reveals discontinuity with an exalted god. If God created everything out of nothing, then of necessity He is literally eternal and literally without beginning or end, immutable in His essence.
Have you honestly and sincerely prayed with all your heart to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to reveal the truth to you about whether He is merely an exalted man or if He is in fact the One and Only True Lord of the universe?
Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. No delusional person could have done the things he did.
It sounds like a cop out.
Jospeh Smith was delusional.
I cannot "prove" to you the gospel any more than I can "prove" to you that God exists. We could cite contradictory sources back and forth all day, but until one has faith and asks God if it is true, he will never know the truth. For the spirit alone testifies of truth. We must study it out in our mind and heart, and then ask God, in all sincerity and faith, and He has promised that He will answer those that petition Him.
Evidently the souces that we gave on creation disagree. Are you prepared to disprove my source material?
Saint Iraneus, whom you claim authoritative, also said:
"[T]he Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who did, through His transcendent love, become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself."
And:
"Do we cast blame on him [God] because we were not made gods from the beginning, but were at first created merely as men, and then later as gods? Although God has adopted this course out of his pure benevolence, that no one may charge him with discrimination or stinginess, he declares, "I have said, ye are gods; and all of you are sons of the Most High." ... For it was necessary at first that nature be exhibited, then after that what was mortal would be conquered and swallowed up in immortality."
And:
"While man gradually advances and mounts towards perfection; that is, he approaches the eternal. The eternal is perfect; and this is God. Man has first to come into being, then to progress, and by progressing come to manhood, and having reached manhood to increase, and thus increasing to persevere, and persevering to be glorified, and thus see his Lord."
And:
"How then will any be a god, if he has not first been made a man? How can any be perfect when he has only lately been made man? How immortal, if he has not in his mortal nature obeyed his maker? For one's duty is first to observe the discipline of man and thereafter to share in the glory of God."
Yet you would deny that the early Christian theologians, such as Iranaeus, taught the doctrine of theosis (deification).
One Protestant theologian said of Iranaeus:
"Participation in God was carried so far by Irenaeus as to amount to deification. 'We were not made gods in the beginning,' he says, 'but at first men, then at length gods.' This is not to be understood as mere rhetorical exaggeration on Irenaeus' part. He meant the statement to be taken literally." - Arthur C. McGiffert, A History of Christian Thought, Vol. 1—Early and Eastern: From Jesus to John of Damascus (New York: Scribner's Sons, 1932), 141.
"Creatio ex nihilo appeared suddenly in the latter half of the second century c.e. Not only did creatio ex nihilo lack precedent, it stood in firm opposition to all the philosophical schools of the Greco-Roman world. As we have seen, the doctrine was not forced upon the Christian community by their revealed tradition, either in Biblical texts or the Early Jewish interpretation of them. As we will also see it was not a position attested in the New Testament doctrine or even sub-apostolic writings. It was a position taken by the apologists of the late second century, Tatian and Theophilus, and developed by various ecclesiastical writers thereafter, by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen. Creatio ex nihilo represents an innovation in the interpretive traditions of revelation and cannot be explained merely as a continuation of tradition." - James N. Hubler, "Creatio ex Nihilo: Matter, Creation, and the Body in Classical and Christian Philosophy through Aquinas" (PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1995), 102
No, the prophets and apostles do not humble themselves in submission to others who claim divine anointing because it is clear that the anointing of the priesthood has been given to this church, through Joseph Smith, and only this church, the church which Christ Himself restored on the earth. Anyone may question it, study it out in his mind and heart, and ask God if it is true, and God will make it manifest to them. Christ Himself called this church the "only true and living church upon the face of the earth." It is His priesthood. He has not spread it about in chaotic form. He has one faith and one baptism, and it is found in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the name of which He gave Himself. Christ speaks today, and has revealed Himself anew.
Now that I have not only posted Scripture (as I have done in past posts), but I have also included well researched and documented (for each reference, go to the web sight that I posted first) text analysis. If need be I can also post extra Biblical sources that are in connection with the eraly church. Here's a good one by Irenaeus, on the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo. He also argued that the world was not coeternal with God:
"But the things established are distinct from Him who has established them, and what [things] have been made from Him who has made them. For He is Himself uncreated, both without beginning and end, and lacking nothing. He is Himself sufficient for this very thing, existence; but the things which have been made by Him have received a beginning... He indeed who made all things can alone, together with His Word, properly be termed God and Lord; but the things which have been made cannot have this term applied to them, neither should they justly assume that appellation which belongs to the Creator."
As you should know, Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John. You talk of apostolic succession and apostolic authority. I think he had an edge over Joseph Smith.
In conclusion of my first point that it is Scriptural:
The doctrine of creation out of nothing was not simply created ex nihilo by post-biblical theologians of the second century to counteract gnostic ideas. We have good reason to believe that the doctrine of creation out of nothing is rooted in biblical passages indicating that God is the ontological Originator of all that exists.
Secondly the scientific point
The scientific problems with an infinitely-oscillating universe (for which we have no basis in physics), alongside the prevailing Big Bang model, and the additional factor of the universe's winding down toward an eventual "heat death," point toward a contingent universe. It seems quite credible to believe that the very contingency of the world begs for a self-existent and non-contingent explanation. If the universe began to exist, and if we accept the intuitively obvious metaphysical principle that "whatever begins to exist must have a cause," we are pointed in the direction of the biblical God who created out of nothing.
A passage that deserves significant attention is Heb 11:3, which declares, "By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen [ ] was not made [ ] out of what was visible [ ]." This text declares that the visible universe "was not made out of equally visible [pre-existent] raw material; it was called into being by divine power." Jaroslav Pelikan states that this passage, along with Rom 4:17, "explicitly" teaches creation out of nothing. The word order of the phrase is common in Classical Greek and should be rendered "from things unseen." The philosophical sense of referred to sense experience. The physical worlds ( are described as being that which is seen ( ; this is in contrast with that which is invisible - namely, the word of God. Paul Ellingworth argues that the phrase , "the word of God," would "conflict" with any idea that the visible world was made out of materials in the invisible world. It is much more satisfactory to understand as referring to the visible world, and thus as synonymous with As C. F. D. Moule notes, "the reference seems to be to creation ex nihilo, the visible having come into being out of the invisible." Commentator William Lane remarks that, although Heb 11:3 does not state creatio ex nihilo in positive terms, but negatively, "it denies that the creative universe originated from primal material or anything observable." Lane goes on to assert that the writer's insistence that the universe was not brought into being from anything observable would seem to exclude any influence from Platonic or Philonic cosmology. It may, in fact, have been the writer's intention to correct a widespread tendency in hellenistic Judaism to read Gen 1 in the light of Plato's doctrine in the Timaeus. Heb 11:3 states something that is quite distinct from Classical Greek concepts of creation.
The brackets indicate where the original Hebrew text was used to indicate the translation. You can look at the original text at the web sight I posted first.
In addition, the notion of creatio ex nihilo is reinforced when Scripture declares the eternality and self-sufficiency of God in contrast to the finite created order (Ps 102:25–27; cp. Heb 1:10–12). The God "who called forth creation out of nothing has power also to reduce it to nothing again." Implicit throughout Isaiah 40–48 is the supreme sovereignty and utter uniqueness of Yahweh in creation, besides whom there was no other god - or anything else - when he created: "I am the first and the last" (44:6; cp. 48:12); "I, the LORD, am the maker of all things" (44:24); "I am the LORD, and there is none else" (45:18; cp. 46:9).
Moreover, the Bible assumes that God's word alone is what brings the universe about - not simply God's word acting upon previously existing matter. Psalm 33 declares that it was by "the word of the Lord [unfortunately this format does not allow Greek script]" and "the breath of his mouth" that "the heavens were made" (vv. 6, 9).
In contrast to ancient cosmogonies, Genesis posits an absolute beginning. Elohim was not limited by chaos when creating (as in the Babylonian cosmogony) but is sovereign over the elements. Genesis 1 stands as an independent assertion, claiming that God created the entire cosmos. In fact, the very structure of Gen 1:1 argues for creation out of nothing. Grammatically and contextually, a very good case can be made for seeing Gen 1:1 as referring to absolute creation. Consequently, Gen 1:1 should not be translated, "In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless wasteland ...," as the NAB does.
Lending further support to creatio ex nihilo in Scripture is that God (or Christ) is said to be the Creator or the ultimate Source of the totality of existing things. Although May leads one to believe that the biblical evidence for creation out of nothing is ambiguous, it is hard to deny the scope of biblical language: "from him ... are all things" (Rom 11:36); "through [Christ] are all things" (1 Cor 8:6); "God, who created all things" (Eph 3:9); "by him all things were created" (Col 1:16; cp. 20); "you created all things and because of your will they existed and were created" (Rev 4:11). The clear implication of Yahweh's title "the first and the last" (Isa 44:6) or "the Alpha and the Omega" (Rev 1:8) is that he is the ultimate originator and only eternal being. Proverbs 8:22–26 states that before the depths were brought forth (i.e., most likely the "deep" of Gen 1:2), Wisdom was creating with God. Nothing else besides the Creator existed - and this would preclude any pre-existent stuff. Referring to creation, John 1:3 unambiguously states that all things - that is, "the material world" - came into being through the Word. The implication is that all things (which would include pre-existent matter, if that were applicable to the creative process) exist through God's agent, who is the originator of everything. So when Scripture speaks of God's creation, there is an all-embracing nature to it. Despite their lack of precise formulation of a doctrine of creatio ex nihilo, the biblical writers have "a natural habit of speaking as comprehensively as possible about Yahweh's creative power."
I do not personally think that a peson must understand the complexity of creation out of nothing and that it determines one's eternal destiny. Nevertheless, since you have decided to venture into science and Scripture, then so be it. The following are excerpts from Paul Copan's "Is Creatio Ex Nihilo A Post-Biblical Invention?" I took the liberty of doing some more research for you. http://www.christianpost.com/article/20071213/30480_Huckabee_Apologizes_for_Mormon_Comment.htm
Walter Eichrodt expresses the implicit assumption that the OT makes regarding absolute creation: "The idea of the absolute beginning of the created world thus proves to be a logical expression of the total outlook of the priestly narrator." For example, Isa 40:21, which refers back to Gen 1:1 but utilizes the parallel expression "from the foundation of the earth," is "a clear reference to an absolute beginning" and not an "arbitrary judgment," according to Eichrodt. He considers the doctrine creatio ex nihilo as being "incontestable" - especially in light of the author's strict monotheism as well as his radical distinction between ancient cosmogonies, in which the gods emerged out of pre-existing matter, and his own. Eichrodt argues that "the ultimate aim of the [creation] narrative is the same as that of our formula of creation ex nihilo." Although this formula does not occur in the OT, the object of God's creative activity is "heaven and earth and all that is in them"; so God's creation cannot be restricted to "the stars and things on earth" but must include "the entire cosmos." Claus Westermann agrees: Gen 1:1 does not refer to "the beginning of something, but simply The Beginning. Everything began with God."
Another OT scholar, R. K. Harrison, asserts that while creatio ex nihilo was "too abstract for the [Hebrew] mind to entertain" and is not stated explicitly in Genesis 1, "it is certainly implicit in the narrative." The reader is meant to understand that "the worlds. were not fashioned from any pre-existing material, but out of nothing"; "prior" to God's creative activity, "there was thus no other kind of phenomenological existence."
Let me ask you one last thing before I sign off. Do LDS prophets, apostles and teachers humble themselves in submission to others who claim the divine annointing that Smith claims as did the apostles of Christ?
There seems to be an obvious contradiction.
Your peculiar response to my insights is truly telling. Mormonism has no more hope of being received by thoughtful Christians today than it did when Joseph Smith contrived his Book with Sidney Rigdon 120 years ago. I was encouraged to have open dialogue with you when I thought you were willing to discuss things logically and honestly. I guess that your religion doesn't leave that open to you.
RE: "In a preview of the article posted on the New York Times website, the former Arkansas governor was quoted as saying, “Don’t Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?”
It's a shame Huck was castigated and had to apologize for simply telling the truth!
You say that "Jesus and the apostles forthrightly warned against following the traditions of men" yet you seem to believe steadfastly in Neoplatonic creeds and interpolations that have absolutely no basis in scripture, such as the Trinity and creation ex nihilo which the early Christians clearly did not believe but which were developed by men several centuries after Christ.
Mormonism is certainly not steeped in the traditions of men. It is founded and built upon revelation from God, restored truth, and the chief cornerstone is Christ Himself who leads it today by living prophets and apostles. It is by His authority that we preach and perform ordinances in His name and on His behalf.
No, apostolic authority comes from holding the priesthood authority of God, which He confers upon those who He has chosen to do His work, by the laying on of hands. He ordains men to do His work on this earth. It doesn't come from doctrines, scriptures, traditions, creeds, or decrees.
Thus, apostolic authority comes from the doctrines of the apostles and whatever the traditions that are written therein.
Furthermore, The Church of Rome is not what the apostolic church was like. The Eastern Orthodox Church rightfully lays claim to the succession of James. The modern Catholic Church cannot so easily lay claim as Peter’s successor. For one clear example, the popery is the foundation of the Catholic Church. This is nowhere in Scripture. We have Paul as Peter’s subordinate according to this supposed apostolic succession actually rebuking Peter. Peter made himself accountable to Paul. James spoke of not “lording” over the flock of God. There were internal checks and balances among God’s people, with Scripture having president over tradition. This is not to be confused with oral traditions, such as apostolic creeds. The Old Testament was the standard used and whatever gospels and epistles any given church had. Keep in mind, it was the apostles who were starting these churches. They were the ones writing the gospels and the epistles.
Hes, Your Catholic friend is looking at this from a different presupposition than Jesus and the apostles did. The Catholic Church’s claim to be the one and only true church that is rooted on apostolic succession is based entirely on tradition. When Martin Luther nailed his Ninety Nine Thesis in Wittenberg’s door, his basis was Sola Scriptura. In other words, Scripture outweighs tradition any day of the week. Tradition does have its strengths and also its weaknesses. Jesus and the apostles forthrightly warned against following the traditions of men. Unfortunately the reason why Mormonism and Catholicism are wrong is because they are both steeped in the traditions of men. Both have traded in the supremacy of apostolic doctrine for traditions and fables that were invented by men. Thus your driving point should drive you to Calvary’s cross, where Jesus is the true foundation, rather than a mere building block.
I'll be back!
I don't have time to read all of the books you mentioned. I barely have enough time to read the Bible. Maybe you should read it and let it read you, it can change your life.
**************************MERRY CHRISTMAS**************************
Seedplanter:
You're posts are full of inacurate information about the history of the LDS church, go out and visit Deseret Book or go online to Deseretbook.com and you can look up titles such as "Truth Restored" (Gordon Hinckley) or "A Marvelous Work and a Wonder" (Legrand Richards) or a simple read for someone like you, "Our Search for Happiness" (Russel Ballard)....
I think what I mean is that if the Catholic church is wrong, then the protestant faith is correct because it did split off from the catholic to follow the Truth.
I think what he means is if the Catholic church is wrong, the Protestant tradition is wrong too since it split off of Catholicism to start with.
Yes, the only way to salvation if through faith on Jesus Christ, which will cause us to keep His commandments. For if we love Him, we will keep His commandments.
If the Catholic church is wrong, then the Protestants aren't. Because the Catholics believe that their church is the only true way to salvation. The Protestants believe that Jesus Christ is. So, there are, in actuality, three factions....not two. We do not lump ourselves with the Catholics. As your friend so pompously pointed out...we came out from them because of their heresy.
There's only one way to salvation...through faith, and the grace of Jesus Christ.
"Many years ago a learned man, a member of the Roman Catholic Church, came to Utah and spoke from the stand of the Salt Lake Tabernacle. I became well-acquainted with him, and we conversed freely and frankly. A great scholar, with perhaps a dozen languages at his tongue's end, he seemed to know all about theology, law, literature, science and philosophy. One day he said to me: "You Mormons are all ignoramuses. You don't even know the strength of your own position. It is so strong that there is only one other tenable in the whole Christian world, and that is the position of the Catholic Church. The issue is between Catholicism and Mormonism. If we are right, you are wrong; if you are right, we are wrong; and that's all there is to it. The Protestants haven't a leg to stand on. For, if we are wrong, they are wrong with us, since they were a part of us and went out from us; while if we are right, they are apostates whom we cut off long ago. If we have the apostolic succession from St. Peter, as we claim, there is no need of Joseph Smith and Mormonism; but if we have not that succession, then such a man as Joseph Smith was necessary, and Mormonism's attitude is the only consistent one. It is either the perpetuation of the gospel from ancient times, or the restoration of the gospel in latter days."
hesadanza...check out http://www.christianpost.com/article/20071218/30545_The_Pope?s_Anti-Political_Politics.htm
Talk to truthandjustice. He not only says that the Mormon church isn't the true Church, he claims that the Catholic church is the only true Church.
And Peter and John and James saw Jesus transfigure into a spirit.
God is a spirit.
"God is a spirit, and those who worship Him, must worship Him in spirit and in truth." John 4:24
God never changes.
"For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed." Joel 3:6
He has no beginning and no end.
"Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God." Psalms 90:2
"Jesus took with him Peter, James, and John, and after they had climbed a high mountain, something amazing happened. The face of Jesus "shone like the sun and his clothes became as white as the light." [1] This account of the transfiguration of Christ became a key text when patristic writers, and specifically the Greek Fathers of the Church, attempted to understand and explain the doctrine of theosis, or salvation as human divinization. [2] The transfiguration was interpreted as a revelation illustrating what happens when a human body is divinized, when it participates "in the divine nature." [3] In the words of St. Gregory Palamas (1296-1359), it was a revelation of "what we once were and what we are to be" when deified by Christ. [4] These gospel passages were also significant because they so handily encapsulated a number of issues central to the content and experience of theosis: the unearthly light which emanated from Christ's body, the vision of that light by human persons, the relationship between divinity and humanity, and, at the center of it all, the person of Christ himself."
"From the very beginnings of the Church the centrality of Christ has been recognized; he is the one who makes salvation -- human divinization -- a possibility. Two classic texts which come from the early centuries of the Church clearly demonstrate this belief. St. Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130-c. 202) -- who had known St. Polycarp, who had known the Apostles [5] -- wrote, "the Word of God, Jesus Christ our Lord, who because of his immeasurable love became what we are in order to make us what he is." [6] St. Athanasius of Alexandria (295-373) also explained that "God became man, so that we might be made gods." [7] Thus, at the root and core of the doctrine of theosis was not only a belief in the centrality of Christ but also the belief that he makes theosis possible precisely because he is both God and human." - Father Vajda
In "Partakers of the Divine Nature", Father Joseph Vajda, a Roman Catholic Dominican monk, notes that the writings of the early Church fathers clearly express a belief in the divine potential of human beings - that we can become "gods" through the grace of Christ and partake in the divine nature. In his introduction he states:
"The historic Christian doctrine of salvation -- theosis, i.e., human divinization -- for too long has been forgotten by too many Christians, despite the fact that this teaching is a part of that common inheritance -- first millennium Christianity -- that unites Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox Christians."
"Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God" (Acts 5:38-39).
Time will tell.
And God doesnt change.
God is a spirit, always has been, always will be. He has no beginning and no end. Never has, never will.
Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.
Christ was not the same when He was mortal as when He was a gloriously resurrected being. Or when he was a pre-mortal spirit, to when He became flesh. He changed significantly both times. He did increase in wisdom and stature. This wasn't just the "man" inside Him. And He did have power "given" to Him from the Father which He must not have had at some point (Matt. 28:18). All of that is progression. What is the same today, yesterday, and forever is His word and doctrine. He was and is God, but He does progress. He is immutable in His counsel and word, but not in His nature (Heb. 6:17). His nature changed from pre-mortal, to mortal, to a resurrected being. That is substantial change and progress.
If we are children of God, then we are heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, and heirs of a kingdom receive what their Father has (Rom. 8:17; Gal. 4:7; James 2:5; Heb. 12:9-10; John 16:15). We are His offspring, destined from the beginning to grow up to be like our Father, which Christ commanded us to do (Acts 17:29; Ps. 82:6; John 10:34; Matt. 5:48; Eph. 4:13). Indeed, we are promised crowns of glory, honour, and dominion over God's creations (Ps. 8:5-6; 2 Cor. 3:18; ). He promises us that those who are faithful will sit down in God's throne, with God and Christ (Rev. 3:21). This doctrine of theosis or deification was widely taught and believed in the early Christian church before it was lost through the Apostasy. Remnants of it are still left in some churches, including the Catholic church catechism.
There are different views that people take on scripture. But it wasn't meant to be so. Scripture is of not private interpretation (2 Pet. 1:20). That is why we need living prophets and apostles to receive it, to write it, to interpret it, and to reveal the will of God to the people.
"And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man" (Luke 2:52).
There is some discussion about this taking place among Greek theologians. N. T. Wright, whom I mentioned earlier, has at least one book that examines the nature of Christ as the Son of God verses the natural man Jesus Christ. He specifically takes a look at this verse. I believe that Wright does not dismiss His human nature. He takes great care in putting the pieces together in their historical context. If you do not know Wright, he is the Archbishop of Durham. I do not prescribe to all of his thoughts necessarily, but he does have the single most exhaustive analysis on the resurrection up to date. If you are genuinely interested in looking into his work, you can google his name, N. T. Wright. http://www.ntwrightpage.com/
The crown of life, is just that, it is the crown of life. Only a Mormon would read anything more into that context. Yes, we are partakers of the divine nature. It does not follow that we will be as God, in fact a God like He is. We are drafted in the vine by recieving the Son. We are adopted as the children of God. There are very clear distinctions in Scripture that the Mormon church has blurred. One pamphlet that I have is actually called, The Mormon Scripture Mess. There may be some things that are considered in-house debates. Those are Scriptural studies such as eschatology (the end times). The are many different views that people can take preferring one Scripture as a means of interpretation against another. I think it was the Apostle Peter who called this "rightly dividing the Word of Truth." There are certain Truths, I spell with a capital "T" because they are truths rooted in the very nature of God. They are Truths that have been passed down from prophet to apostle. One of these Truths is that God is immutable. There are different degrees that one may take, such as whether or not God actually changes His mind, but one of the factors that can never change is His divine nature, His omnipotence, etc. He was and is ever shall be the one and only True God.
God is the same today, yesterday, and forever. He never changes.
As you speak of Jesus...yes, the "man" side of him grew in wisdom. But the God side of Him was perfect and knowing in all things.
If God is immutable, does not change, and has always been who He is, how do you explain the following scripture?
"And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man" (Luke 2:52).
We believe that God has existed forever, but that existence is not barred from progression. Certainly Jesus progressed when He went from His mortal state to His glorious resurrected state.
Being partakers of the divine nature of God is thoroughly attested in the scriptures - "Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: That by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust" (2 Pet. 1:4). Partaking of the divine nature is clearly becoming like God, and developing in ourselves His attributes.
"Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him" (James 1:12). This crown that we are promised throughout the scriptures is very literal.
Here's the context of Isaiah 29,
9 Be stunned and amazed, blind yourselves and be sightless;
be drunk, but not from wine, stagger, but not from beer.
10 The LORD has brought over you a deep sleep:
He has sealed your eyes, the prophets;
he has covered your heads, the seers.
11 For you this whole vision is nothing but words sealed in a scroll.
And if you give the scroll to someone who can read, and say to him,
"Read this, please," he will answer, "I can't; it is sealed."
12 Or if you give the scroll to someone who cannot read, and say,
"Read this, please," he will answer, "I don't know how to read."
13 The Lord says: "These people come near to me with their mouth
and honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.
Their worship of me is made up only of rules taught by men.
So you think that this is referring to Joseph Smith? The heart far from God, with worship that is not according to God's will but according to what men have invented (v.13) and that his inability to read is part of God's punishment? It is a sign of God putting a deep sleep on the people regarding spiritual matters, so that regardless how knowledgeable they are, they would nevertheless be unable to read (comprehend) what the word of God means. Ironically it seems many prophets are standing in line to assume the rights of this prophecy. Mohammed and Joseph Smith what a combination. I wonder who will have the most wives in paradise, this is sure to be the sign which one was the true prophet.
The prophet Isaiah is a witness against Mormonism.
Good word Jester. I would only like to clarify that God didn't make up laws or create truth. Truth is who He is. The truth that we have comes from Him and who He is. It is a valid argument against this so-called law of eternal progression to bring up the point that God is immutable. He does not change. He has always been who He is. He is not a product of infinite temple rituals that regress through eternity. He is not subject to truth, because He is truth. Neither is He subject to the physical laws of the universe.
There is a big difference between ruling and reining with Christ and the supposition that God was once a man like us who became a god over his own universe and we can too. It totally contradicts the nature and the attributes of God as He has revealed Himself through natural revelation and special revelation (i.e. prophets, Abraham, Moses, etc.).
There is a special continuity that harmonizes what we can know about God in nature and what He has revealed to us through the prophets. Mormonism is internally incoherent. There is no correspondence between Mormonism and reason. It is a hodge-podge of whatever you think you can prophesy and get away with.
“Evidence allows us tell if a proposition is true or false, but reality (the way the world is) is what makes a proposition true or false.” –J.P. Moreland
Isaiah 29
"13 Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:
14 Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid.
15 Woe unto them that seek deep to hide their counsel from the LORD, and their works are in the dark, and they say, Who seeth us? and who knoweth us?
16 Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter’s clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding?
17 Is it not yet a very little while, and Lebanon shall be turned into a fruitful field, and the fruitful field shall be esteemed as a forest?
18 And in that day shall the deaf hear the words of the book, and the eyes of the blind shall see out of obscurity, and out of darkness.
19 The meek also shall increase their joy in the LORD, and the poor among men shall rejoice in the Holy One of Israel.
20 For the terrible one is brought to nought, and the scorner is consumed, and all that watch for iniquity are cut off:
21 That make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of nought.
22 Therefore thus saith the LORD, who redeemed Abraham, concerning the house of Jacob, Jacob shall not now be ashamed, neither shall his face now wax pale.
23 But when he seeth his children, the work of mine hands, in the midst of him, they shall sanctify my name, and sanctify the Holy One of Jacob, and shall fear the God of Israel.
24 They also that erred in spirit shall come to understanding, and they that murmured shall learn doctrine."
But what I do, that I will do, that I may cut off occasion from them which desire occasion; that wherein they glory, they may be found even as we.
"For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works."
2nd Corinthians 11:12-14
Yes, give me proof, proof, proof. What about faith, faith, faith? "But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it..." (Matt. 12:39; Matt. 16:4) "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (Heb. 11:1).
"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" (JS-H 1:19).
I could give you many Bible scriptures that testify of the prophet Joseph Smith, but you would still not believe. Unfortunately many have been so inculcated in the doctrines and inventions of men that they are blinded by the truth. They cannot see it for what it is, and must compare it to their false interpretations. However, the pure in heart shall see God. "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me" (John 10:27).
I know that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Lord's church on the earth today. The doctrines seem different or peculiar because it is the truth that has been lost for so long upon the earth that no one longer recognizes it. The doctrines of men have so saturated Christiandom that the LDS Church seems out of place. But the Lord's church has always been peculiar. Never has the truth been popular in the world. It has always been rejected, the prophets have been stoned, and the Saints have been killed. Christ Himself is the most sublime example of the truth being rejected, trampled upon, to the point where the people literally killed their God. If you are looking for a popular church, it most likely is not the true church of Jesus Christ.
Joseph Smith had the first vision in 1820, and God the Father and Jesus Christ literally appeared to the prophet as two glorious personages of flesh and bones, and they did in reality speak to him.
Malachi 3:6 says "For I am the LORD, I change not…” So if He was a man at one point, then He does change.
Mormonism is evil because it humanizes God, and deifies man. That's sick!
And one question I have...Milton Hunter said "if we accept the great law of eternal progression, we must accept the fact that there was a time when Deity was much less powerful than He is today. Then how did He become glorified and exalted and attain His present status of Godhead?....God undoubtedly took advantage of every opportunity to learn the laws of truth and as He became acquainted with each new verity He righteously obeyed it." Where did these laws originate? Were they "just there"? That is inane. God created the laws of truth. He is truth. John 14:6 says " Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." So, now we understand the God is truth. And does not change, so He has always been truth.
John 14:16-17..."And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you."
John 15:26, John 16:13,
Romans 1:25 says "Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen." The truth of God...so God did create truth.
I could go on, but we all see that Milton was incorrect.
Psalms 90:2 says "Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God." So we know that he is eternal. With no beginning and no end.
Psalms 103:17 and Psalms 106:48 confirm this.
Man, in the flesh, is finite. Man has a beginning and has an end.
The day of Joseph's great vision passed by with silence in the community in which Joseph lived. In fact, not even his family had the faintest idea that anything was different that anything profound had even happened. LDS leaders are not even sure about the year. I think if I seen these visions, it would have been known to everyone.
Please allow me to share my testimony with you. I was raised in church all of my life. I moved to Indianapolis and attended school. I became involved with a couple of churches. After the first semester of school I entered a dark night of the soul. I began to contemplate moving out on the street and giving my self over to my desires. God broke into my delusion. The Word of God penetrated my heart and mind for the first time. The Holy Spirit convicted me of my sin and rebellion against God. My sinfulness became exceedingly sinful and I could no longer justify myself in a shroud of self-righteousness. I turned in repentance and for the first time really put my faith in Christ. I began to hunger and thirst after the living God. In the spring of 1989 I was filled with the Holy Ghost and power while in my apartment alone, with God. That moment was a distinct turning point in my life. The Bible came alive to me; it was like I was living in the Book of Acts. I began to preach and testify wherever I went. My teacher had to settle down the class because it was practically turning into a Bible class. No logical explanation can be attributed to what happened to me. I have never been the same from that day on. Some people may consider me a “radical.” I have preached on street corners, wrote gospel tracts, taught Sunday school classes, went door to door witnessing, done outreaches in Chicago, at the Indy 500, etc, visited jails and prisons, helped homeless people, ran a sort of discipleship-half-way house out of my own home where I ministered to alcoholics, drug addicts and others, ministered to the sick, the elderly, and even widows and orphans. I have even helped pay people’s rent. None of this was for salvation; it was for the glorious gospel of God, that God demonstrated His love toward us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. I have been beat up, spit on, fired from jobs, laughed at, belittled, and falsely accused by brethren, threatened by the police and by thugs alike. I have stepped in between gang fights and spousal abuse. And now, I am witnessing to you and testifying to you of the saving gospel of Jesus Christ, making known to you the true and living God and father of my Lord Jesus Christ. LDS don’t even know when Smith received his vision or what even happened in his so called vision. I stand against Joseph Smith with both the Gospel of history and the word of my own testimony.
Spouting off BOM references just won't do. This is called circular reasoning. Give me some Biblical reasons why I should believe Joseph Smith is a true prophet.
2 Nephi 33
"10 And now, my beloved brethren, and also Jew, and all ye ends of the earth, hearken unto these words and believe in Christ; and if ye believe not in these words believe in Christ. And if ye shall believe in Christ ye will believe in these words, for they are the words of Christ, and he hath given them unto me; and they teach all men that they should do good.
11 And if they are not the words of Christ, judge ye—for Christ will show unto you, with power and great glory, that they are his words, at the last day; and you and I shall stand face to face before his bar; and ye shall know that I have been commanded of him to write these things, notwithstanding my weakness.
12 And I pray the Father in the name of Christ that many of us, if not all, may be saved in his kingdom at that great and last day.
13 And now, my beloved brethren, all those who are of the house of Israel, and all ye ends of the earth, I speak unto you as the voice of one crying from the dust: Farewell until that great day shall come.
14 And you that will not partake of the goodness of God, and respect the words of the Jews, and also my words, and the words which shall proceed forth out of the mouth of the Lamb of God, behold, I bid you an everlasting farewell, for these words shall condemn you at the last day.
15 For what I seal on earth, shall be brought against you at the judgment bar; for thus hath the Lord commanded me, and I must obey. Amen."
“And it came to pass that I did arm them with bows, and with arrows, with swords, and with cimeters, and with clubs, and with slings, and with all manner of weapons which we could invent, and I and my people did go forth against the Lamanites to battle.”
- Mosiah 9:16, Book of Mormon
No evidence of cimeters in Ancient America
“And now, because of the steadiness of the church they began to be exceedingly rich, having abundance of all things whatsoever they stood in need--an abundance of flocks and herds, and fatlings of every kind, and also abundance of grain, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious things, and abundance of silk and fine-twined linen, and all manner of good homely cloth.”
- Alma 1:29, Book of Mormon
No evidence of silk in Mesoamerica
“And they said unto him: Behold, he is feeding thy horses. Now the king had commanded his servants, previous to the time of the watering of their flocks, that they should prepare his horses and chariots, and conduct him forth to the land of Nephi; for there had been a great feast appointed at the land of Nephi, by the father of Lamoni, who was king over all the land.”
- Alma 18:9, Book of Mormon
No evidence of wheeled vehicles in Book of Mormon times
“And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance.”
- 2 Nephi 1:8, Book of Mormon
The continent has been inhabited for 30,000 years – millions of inhabitants
-A few BOM discrepancies.
The BOM stands or falls on the person of Joseph Smith. You can quote all of the BOM and it won't prove the validity of Smith's testimony. Smith has been found to be corrupt time and time again. He taught another gospel, other gods and was full of vanity and pride. His death is a testimony of the divisive and damnable nature of the heresies that he postulated. The BOM itself testifies against him. If Mormonism is internally self-refuting, it is a house of cards.
And there he goes, quoting a false document. Like I'm supposed to take it seriously....
D&C 1
"29 And after having received the record of the Nephites, yea, even my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., might have power to translate through the mercy of God, by the power of God, the Book of Mormon.
30 And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually—
31 For I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance;
32 Nevertheless, he that repents and does the commandments of the Lord shall be forgiven;
33 And he that repents not, from him shall be taken even the light which he has received; for my Spirit shall not always strive with man, saith the Lord of Hosts.
34 And again, verily I say unto you, O inhabitants of the earth: I the Lord am willing to make these things known unto all flesh;
35 For I am no respecter of persons, and will that all men shall know that the day speedily cometh; the hour is not yet, but is nigh at hand, when peace shall be taken from the earth, and the devil shall have power over his own dominion.
36 And also the Lord shall have power over his saints, and shall reign in their midst, and shall come down in judgment upon Idumea, or the world.
37 Search these commandments, for they are true and faithful, and the prophecies and promises which are in them shall all be fulfilled.
38 What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.
39 For behold, and lo, the Lord is God, and the Spirit beareth record, and the record is true, and the truth abideth forever and ever. Amen."
D&C 1
"17 Wherefore, I the Lord, knowing the calamity which should come upon the inhabitants of the earth, called upon my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and spake unto him from heaven, and gave him commandments;
18 And also gave commandments to others, that they should proclaim these things unto the world; and all this that it might be fulfilled, which was written by the prophets—
19 The weak things of the world shall come forth and break down the mighty and strong ones, that man should not counsel his fellow man, neither trust in the arm of flesh—
20 But that every man might speak in the name of God the Lord, even the Savior of the world;
21 That faith also might increase in the earth;
22 That mine everlasting covenant might be established;
23 That the fulness of my gospel might be proclaimed by the weak and the simple unto the ends of the world, and before kings and rulers."
Mark 7:6-9
"6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition."
I think that pretty much covers Joseph Smith and his "angels"...
angelic vistitation...hmmmm....
"And I will keep on doing what I am doing in order to cut the ground from under those who want an opportunity to be considered equal with us in the things they boast about. For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve." 2nd Corinthians 11:12-15.
No. Joseph Smith was and is a true prophet of God. And some day you will come to know that.
Yes, the priesthood was restored to the earth by angelic visitations. Angelic ministration should not be so foreign to anyone who reads the Bible. Zacharias spoke with an angel (Luke 1). As did Mary (Luke 1).
Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pg. 363 quote Joseph Smith as follows; “I shall leave my brethren to enlarge on this subject; it is my duty to teach the doctrine. I would teach it more fully—the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. God is not willing to let me gratify you; but I must teach the Elders, and they should teach you. God made Aaron to be the mouthpiece for the children of Israel, and He will make me be god to you in His stead, and the Elders to be mouth for me; and if you don't like it, you must lump it.”
Joseph Smith is a false prophet!!!
"the Bible is full of it."
-Joseph Smith, Meeting in the Grove, east of the Temple, June 16, 1844
History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 473-479.
I'm still waiting your reply on a number of issues that were brought up earlier. I answered all of your questions.
I wouldn't trust Joseph Smith's testimony with a ten foot pole, let alone my daughter.
"Joseph Smith received the authority of the Aaronic Priesthood under the hands of John the Baptist. He received the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood under the hands of Peter, James, and John. These four angelic messengers descended from heaven, and by the laying on of hands, ordained Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery to these orders of the priesthood."
-Hes
If you send me your bank account number, I'll transfer some money into your account. Come on, do you really believe this convoluted story? It is so out of character with the whole Biblical account that it seems preposterous on this alone, without even knowing about the deceitfulness of Joseph Smith. Do you have any idea how many atheists and skeptics have become believers in the Bible after weighing in on the historical accuracies in the Bible?
"The first myth we need to eliminate is that Book of Mormon archaeology exists."
-Dee Green, LDS Anthropologist
http://www.irr.org/mit/natgeo.html
http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/smithsonianletter.htm
"I do not support the books written on this subject including The Messiah in Ancient American, or any other. I believe that the authors are making cases out of too little evidence and do not adequately address the problems that archaeology and the Book of Mormon present. I would feel terribly embarrassed if anyone sent a copy of any book written on the subject to the National Museum of Natural History - Smithsonian Institution, or other authority, making claims that cannot as yet be substantiated.… there are very severe problems in this field in trying to make correlations with the scriptures. Speculation, such as practiced so far by Mormon authors has not given church members credibility." (Letter by Professor Ray T. Matheny, dated Dec. 17, 1987)
Name one article that has been written in a major peer reviewed publication that suppports archeological artifacts in the BOM.
Joseph Smith received the authority of the Aaronic Priesthood under the hands of John the Baptist. He received the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood under the hands of Peter, James, and John. These four angelic messengers descended from heaven, and by the laying on of hands, ordained Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery to these orders of the priesthood.
And, yes, there is plenty of evidence that supports the historical, linguistic, archaeological, cultural, and theological origins of the Book of Mormon. You have just chosen to not listen to it.
Just because he wrote a novel while still in his 20's, or had the ability to invent new names, does not necessarily make one a prophet of God.
Tolkien began writing when he was only 24 years old. He invented entire cultures and civilizations right down to the cultural oddities. He even developed languages for them.
My brother-in-law had quite the imagination. He wrote stories and made his own games. He never did well in school and was thought of as being a bit odd. He was also thought to have the mentality of a thirteen year old, while he was actually seventeen.
For the sake of argument even if the BOM was an authentic book in the since that it was not written by Smith, it does not prove that it is inspired or divine in origin. There are numerous inconsistencies, grammatical errors and other such problems contained in it. Mormon doctrine itself often conflicts with various passages. Thus the BOM proves to be nothing of particular value. There is not one thread of evidence supporting the historical validity of the BOM or its origination.
Hes, where did Joseph Smith get his supposed authority?
I recieved my calling by the laying on of hands of a number of prophets. But my authority does not come from them. They do not have the power to give authority. Only God does. They are merely vessels by which God spoke.
Prophet, how did you receive your authority?
hesadanza..
"Prophets and apostles are also called as they have been since Adam, by the laying on of hands by those in authority. Those that are not called in that way are false prophets. "
I'm glad we agree.
Prophets and apostles are also called as they have been since Adam, by the laying on of hands by those in authority. Those that are not called in that way are false prophets.
Prophet, what happens if you recieve a "revelation" that is different from the doctrine of the apostles and prophets? I do not mean to come across cenacle. Just an honest question. Would it supercede their revelation? It might do Hes some good if he were to understand the authority of the Biblical cannon.
hesadanza,
You said "Christ leads and guides it through living prophets and apostles. God speaks today through revelation to His chosen servants, just has He has done since Adam."
That is so true! God does speak through revelations to His chosen servants. He does that to me quite often, and there are countless other prophets and apostles (as well and preacher, teacher, and evangelists) who God speaks to...in our church and many other churches. He reveals Himself to me and leads me into all truth. And each one of these revelations is confirmed through the Bible. It's amazing how God is speaking in His Church thoughout the world to prepare us for His return. He is preparing His Bride. Amen!
God never rejects those who are seeking Him.
"Seek and ye shall find."
-Jesus
Defiinition of heresy: a self-willed opinion, that which is substituted for truth.
15 For they have strayed from mine ordinances, and have broken mine everlasting covenant; D&C
SP-Is this speaking of eternal sex or just polygamy? Mormons don’t practice polygamy today. You are doomed and damned by your own testimony. Come out from among them and be ye separate saith the Lord. Morminism is inconsistant inside and out.
16 They seek not the Lord to establish his righteousness, but every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, D&C
SP-Sounds like Joseph Smith. This is not intended to be taken as a joke. “As obedient children, do not be conformed to the former lusts which were yours in your ignorance, but like the Holy One who called you… because it is written, ‘YOU SHALL BE HOLY, FOR I AM HOLY.’” 1 Peter 1:14-16.
Again, I challenge you to pray and ask the LORD to reveal Himself to you and to show you if you were wrong about HIM, His character and His nature. I firmly believe that if you will do this with a believing heart, willing to recieve whatever the answer may come that He will reveal Himself to you.
Hes, I hope you read my references. You have been challenging eternal celibacy and/or gender neutrality. I posted the whole verse in its context. Hope you read it!
D&C 1 -
" 1 Hearken, O ye people of my church, saith the voice of him who dwells on high, and whose eyes are upon all men; yea, verily I say: Hearken ye people from afar; and ye that are upon the islands of the sea, listen together.
2 For verily the voice of the Lord is unto all men, and there is none to escape; and there is no eye that shall not see, neither ear that shall not hear, neither heart that shall not be penetrated.
3 And the rebellious shall be pierced with much sorrow; for their iniquities shall be spoken upon the housetops, and their secret acts shall be revealed.
4 And the voice of warning shall be unto all people, by the mouths of my disciples, whom I have chosen in these last days.
5 And they shall go forth and none shall stay them, for I the Lord have commanded them.
6 Behold, this is mine authority, and the authority of my servants, and my preface unto the book of my commandments, which I have given them to publish unto you, O inhabitants of the earth.
7 Wherefore, fear and tremble, O ye people, for what I the Lord have decreed in them shall be fulfilled.
8 And verily I say unto you, that they who go forth, bearing these tidings unto the inhabitants of the earth, to them is power given to seal both on earth and in heaven, the unbelieving and rebellious;
9 Yea, verily, to seal them up unto the day when the wrath of God shall be poured out upon the wicked without measure—
10 Unto the day when the Lord shall come to recompense unto every man according to his work, and measure to every man according to the measure which he has measured to his fellow man.
11 Wherefore the voice of the Lord is unto the ends of the earth, that all that will hear may hear:
12 Prepare ye, prepare ye for that which is to come, for the Lord is nigh;
13 And the anger of the Lord is kindled, and his sword is bathed in heaven, and it shall fall upon the inhabitants of the earth.
14 And the arm of the Lord shall be revealed; and the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people;
15 For they have strayed from mine ordinances, and have broken mine everlasting covenant;
16 They seek not the Lord to establish his righteousness, but every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol, which waxeth old and shall perish in Babylon, even Babylon the great, which shall fall."
You can twist and distort my words all you want. The Jews at the time of Christ did the same to Him. I know that Christ's church has been restored today. Christ leads and guides it through living prophets and apostles. God speaks today through revelation to His chosen servants, just has He has done since Adam. The priesthood has been restored. Temples are on earth once more. We are in the last days, and Christ is preparing His people for His return. I know this.
A recent study was done that shows how people of faith are happier. Why is it that Utah has the highest depression? Maybe it is because the Mormon god is not God. This is realy troubling to me. You Mormons need to know the real God. To believe in a god that is an exalted man just doesn't help a sense of comfort and security. It also lacks the awe of worshipping the Almighty God that is everlasting from all eternity, that is not subject to natural laws and the physical dimensions of our universe. A God who is omnipresent, omnipotant and who doesn't waver.
Again, what does Mormonism have in common with Christianity? This is outrageous!
"Suppose you found your brother in bed with your wife, an put a javelin through both of them, you would be justified, and they would atone for their sins, and be received into the kingdom of God. I would at once do so in such a case; and under such circumstances, I have no wife whom I love so well that I would not put a javelin through her heart, and I would do it with clean hands."
- Brigham Young
I want to make you a challenge Hes, to pray in sincerity with your whole heart that if God has more revelation for you than that which you recieved from Joseph Smith and the LDS, for Him to show you and reveal it to you. I believe that if you ask God Almighty with your whole heart, with faith and sincerity that God will answer.
Hes, I hope that one day you will come to know the one true living God. The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Then you will be able to stand with Paul and say, I count all things but rubish for the excellency of the knowledge of Jesus Christ. "This is eternal life, to know Him."
Its not secret rituals, its HIM my friend.
Hes: “The only way to know God is to know His nature, that He is an exalted man, who can love me the way any father loves a son. I don't pray to openness or invisible substances. I don't pray to a spirit that fills the universe. I don't pray to something that is not real and physical. I pray to my Father, my literal Father in heaven.”
SP:
"God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth" John 4:24. The predicate without the article emphasizes the character and nature (John 1:1). As you have said yourself, you do not pray to a God who is spirit, therefore you pray to a false god. “He [Jesus] is the image of the invisible God” (Colossians 1:15).
Hes: “There is no marriage in heaven. You're right, in a way.”
SP: I did not say this, Jesus did. Yes I think He was right. See reference below.
Hes: “All eternal marriage contracts must be sealed before the resurrection before anyone enters a kingdom of glory. There will be no marriages entered into after that point. Those that are sealed by the priesthood, and if they remain faithful, they will continue to be sealed in heaven. For whatsoever is bound on earth is bound in heaven, according to the priesthood, as we are taught in scripture.”
SP: Your argument is based on Joseph Smith, not Scripture. It is an adhoc theory, without merit. The last point is not referring to marriage but rather forgiveness. Don’t make me have to post the whole Bible to get you to read it in context.
“The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him, Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother: Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh. And last of all the woman died also. Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her. Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.” Matt 22:23-30 KJV.
And, on the other issue....
I am saved, going to live eternally with the one true God in heaven, He uses me, speaks to me, reveals to me, protects me, answers me, listens to me, and calls me. I am His child, and I will recieve my eternal reward in heaven for the works I do here on earth. He has called me to a deepeer relationship with Him, and in my obedience, He shares more of His will for my life. He uses me to heal, set the prisoner free, deliver the oppressed, restore the righteous, destroy the kingdom of darkness, and reach the lost with the good news of His love and mercy. His Spirit guides me into all truth.
All this without being part of this "true church" that you speak of. My place in heaven is assured and reserved. Without the help of Joseph Smith or his "revelations". I will wear a robe of white, as promised by God....without your permission, nor the permission of the LDS. Because He has told me that I would.
All that....and without the LDS.
Adam and Eve were created eternal SPIRITUALLY. If you actually read the Bible it says in Genesis:
"The LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for IN THE DAY YOU EAT FROM IT YOU WILL SURELY DIE." (capitals added)
The day they ate it, they did die...spiritually. Because they apparently didnt die physically. That is the whole reason for Jesus to come and give us eternal SPIRITUAL life. To say that they were physically immortal is presumtuous at best. That can not be proven.
God did not create them to be sinful, He created them with free will to choose good or evil. They chose evil.
Satan was an angel who tried to exalt himself above God. So, God doesn't create evil, but His "son" Satan was evil...hmmmm....i see the logic in that. He didn't "create" evil...He just begat evil. You can see the conundrum in that.
Prophet,
Christ established one church, with one faith, one baptism, and one Lord. The "body of Christ" exists only in that we worship Jesus Christ as the Savior and Redeemer of the world. But to consider the "body of Christ" as the church that Christ established is ludicrous. Christ did not establish confusion of doctrines and practices, which is exactly what exists between the different Christian denominations.
Adam and Eve were eternal beings before they transgressed and became fallen, which also made them mortal, for from that day God promised that they "should surely die." So before that act, they were eternal and immortal physical flesh and bones man and woman. Again, flesh is NOT intrinsically sinful. To say that is to say that God created sinful bodies for Adam and Eve even before they fell, and that Christ resurrected a sinful fleshy physical body on the third day. Why would He do that? No. There is nothing sinful in flesh alone.
If Lucifer is not a fallen, rebellious spirit child of God, then where did he come from? If God created everything, then according to your viewpiont that would mean that God created an evil angel, Satan. God does not create evil. Lucifer was a choice spirit son of God, a "son of the morning" as Isaiah says, but he rebelled against the Father by his own free agency, and became Satan, the father of all lies.
God has a spirit, yes. But He also has a physical body. Just as we worship Him in spirit, and we have physical bodies.
Also, the scripture from Numbers 23:19 that you keep quoting is being taken out of context: "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?"
It is pretty clear here that the Biblical author is making a point that God is not LIKE natural mortal man who lies. Man lies and does not fulfill his promises. But God does not lie. Every word of God's shall be fulfilled. In that aspect, God is not a sinful man like us. He is not imperfect like man that way. God is perfect. This scripture is not talking about the nature of His being. It is only comparing God's perfect nature to man's sinful nature. God is a perfect, exalted, immortal, and glorified man, a far cry from what a sinful, lying, man is.
seedplanter - Yes, I pray on my knees often and express my unending gratitude to God for the multitudinous blessings He gives me in my life. But you cannot come to know God if you do not know who He is. The only way to know God is to know His nature, that He is an exalted man, who can love me the way any father loves a son. I don't pray to openness or invisible substances. I don't pray to a spirit that fills the universe. I don't pray to something that is not real and physical. I pray to my Father, my literal Father in heaven.
seedplanter - the Holy Ghost can be a man and not have a physical body. He has a spiritual body, but it is still male. He is the male gender with all the male procreative organs. He just does not have a physical body yet. The spiritual body is exactly like the physical body, it is just not physical. It is spirit matter.
No. The Bible is NOT clear the Father is a spirit. In fact, quite the opposite is true.
There is no marriage in heaven. You're right, in a way. All eternal marriage contracts must be sealed before the resurrection before anyone enters a kingdom of glory. There will be no marriages entered into after that point. Those that are sealed by the priesthood, and if they remain faithful, they will continue to be sealed in heaven. For whatsoever is bound on earth is bound in heaven, according to the priesthood, as we are taught in scripture.
At the beginning of this article it says
"Republican Mike Huckabee personally apologized on Wednesday to presidential rival Mitt Romney for comments he made in a New York Times interview that seemed to criticize the Mormon faith."
Wuss!
hesadanza,,
The Holy Spirit testifies to me that I am part of the true Church, the Body of Christ. And to speak otherwise is false prophecy.
Also, the scripture from Genesis 1 that you keep quoting has been taken out of context. "God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." It is pretty clear here that the point is that God created man as a spirit, just as He is. Adam and Eve were never eternal beings.
Your god is flesh. He is sinful.
"For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death." Romans 7:5
"For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not." Romans 7:18
"O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin." Romans 7:24-25
But regardless of your argument against Numbers 23:19, it still does not negate John 4:24.
Nor does it negate I Corinthians 15:50
we also know the Bible clearly teaches Satan was an angel before he rebelled against God -- NOT a "brother" of Jesus. May God have mercy on Mormons and open their eyes to the truth while there is still time.
It is written, "God is not a man" that he should lie. Jesus said, "God is a SPIRIT. They that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth." Smith and Young so distorted the scriptures, and added their own, it's obvious the god of the Mormons is not the God we see in the Bible. Sad, but true.
Tonight when I was driving home from work, I was listening to a Christmas Hymn and great emotion began to fill my heart. Hes, can I ask you if you ever get down on your knees at your church, just because God is holy and worthy to be praised? Do you ever enjoy sweet communion with Christ when it is just you and Him alone together? Do you ever go to your private room and get on your face and lay prostrate before God? Does your heart cry out with David, As the deer panteth for the water brook, so my soul longeth after Thee? Do you yearn in your heart to know God in a deeper and more intimate way? Is the longing of your heart just to please God, no matter what? Is your idea of heaven just to sit at the Master’s feet, forgetting about everything else? Do you ask God to reveal more of Himself to you that you may know Him better? Does your heart fill with emotion when you think of Christ’s sacrifice? Has your heart ever swelled so much as you basked in the presence of God that you wondered if your heart would burst? Hes, if you knew God the way I know God, you could never think of Him as a mere man. Paul said, I choose to know nothing, save Jesus Christ and Him crucified. Do you think that Paul was interested in some secret temple rituals? He said, “I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ… That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death.” Hes, my friend, I know that you had an experience with God. God is not through with you yet. I pray that God will so get a hold of you that nothing would ever stand between you and Him. That you would say with Paul, I count everything else as rubbish, just to know Him.
God is not one of us, you are right. He is a glorified, resurrected, immortal, perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, and exalted man. That is a far cry from what we are as mortal men.
_________________________________________________________________
That is far cry from who my God is! God is immutable! There is none like Him! (I'm not taliking about DNA or fingerprints).
If Christ was resurrected with a glorified physical body, then does He still have that physical body today? And if yes, then how can you say that God is only a spirit?
Answer: Because the Bible is clear that the Father is a spirit (References where given).
God created man as "male and female". That is specifically NOT gender neutral. Our gender is eternal. Christ did not resurrect gender neutral. He is still a man.
Answer: Eternal or not, Jesus was clear about there being no marriage in heaven.
Just because God might live in a different dimension does not mean He is invisible or without a physical body.
That is true about Jesus. The Father is a spirit. “Father” expresses benevolence.
I know of no person that is gender neutral. Latter-day revelation teaches that the Holy Ghost is a man.
___________________________________________
How can you believe that The Holy Spirit is a male if He does not have a body with sexual organs?
seedplanter - I cannot agree with those who say they have had a witness of the Spirit that their faith is the true one, and that the LDS Church isn't true. Either their witness is false, misinterpreted, or the Spirit is witnessing of the truth of some aspect of their faith, but it is not the full truth. We tell one and all, come, and bring all the truth you have and we will add to it. But I cannot deny the witnesses I have received.
"One God in three distinct persons?" Well, that is what the LDS believe. How is your view different? We believe that there are three distinct persons that form one Godhead.
If Christ was resurrected with a glorified physical body, then does He still have that physical body today? And if yes, then how can you say that God is only a spirit?
God created man as "male and female". That is specifically NOT gender neutral. Our gender is eternal. Christ did not resurrect gender neutral. He is still a man.
Just because God might live in a different dimension does not mean He is invisible or without a physical body.
No, the fruit that Adam and Eve ate was not sex. We don't teach that. They transgressed a law of God. Since God commanded Adam and Eve to multiply and replenish the earth, having sex would not have been a transgression of God's law, it would have been obedience to it. No, they broke a law of God. Whether the forbidden fruit was literal or figurative, we don't know.
God is not one of us, you are right. He is a glorified, resurrected, immortal, perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, and exalted man. That is a far cry from what we are as mortal men.
What is the difference between a person and a man? I know of no person that is gender neutral. Latter-day revelation teaches that the Holy Ghost is a man.
You didn't really answer my question. There are people of different faiths that have experiences that are similar to yours. How do you know which one is right? To use the BOM is circular reasoning, because it points to your experience. The other person has there experience. And around it goes.
Also, the scripture from Numbers 23:19 that you keep quoting is being taken out of context: "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?"
It is pretty clear here that the Biblical author is making a point that God is not like man who naturally lies. Man lies and does not fulfill his promises. But God does not lie. Every word of God's shall be fulfilled. In that aspect, God is not a sinful man like us. He is not imperfect like man that way. God is perfect. This scripture is not talking about the nature of His being. It is only comparing God's perfect nature to man's sinful nature. God is a perfect, exalted, immortal, and glorified man, a far cry from what a sinful, lying, man is.
I cannot agree with those that say they have received a witness that Mormonism is false, because I have received a witness that it is true. I must disagree with them. I believe they are mistaken. I cannot deny the witnesses I have received of God, many times, and of the multitudes of experiences that I have had that profess the truthfulness of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. I have felt the Spirit witness of the truth too many times to count. I know that Christ's true church has been restored today.
Did Jesus vanish to become invisible?
I answered that one above. We live in a multiple dimensional universe. Scientists have discovered at least ten. It is reasonable to assume that since spirits live in a different dimension, then why not God. The Bible plainly teaches that God is omnipresent. Jesus’ body was able to transcend natural laws in either case, whether He went into outer space or if He entered a different dimension. We know that He is sitting at the right hand of the Father (this is probably referring to authority. He also went to prepare a place to take believers.
Is Jesus now not a man, but a spirit force that fills the universe?
No!
When He returns at His Second Coming, will He return as a resurrected and glorified man, or as an invisible spirit that no one can see, touch, or hear?
We will see Him. Again, this will be the same glorified body.
Are you telling me that God created man without procreative organs, and that they suddenly appeared after the Fall?
Absolutely not!
Do you not remember that God commanded Adam and Eve to "multiply and replenish the earth" before the Fall?
Yes! Doesn’t Mormon doctrine say that the fruit that they ate was sex?
If God created man with personal, creative, moral and intelligent attributes in His image, then wouldn't God also possess those attributes? I know of nothing that can possess personal, creative, moral and intelligent attributes than a human being, a person.
Yes! Just because God shared some of His attributes with us, does not mean that He is one of us.
The LDS church teaches that the Holy Ghost is a man with a spirit body.
Sorry, He is a person, not a man. There is a difference.
How can you say that God is not a man and is just a spirit?
I gave multiple references earlier. The Scriptures are clear, “God is not a man.”
God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost all one being?
Not exactly, one God in three distinct persons.
Did Christ subsequently lose His physical body to become only a spirit?
Pre-incarnation, Jesus likely had a spiritual body. He did appear several times in the O.T. as a man, possibly in the burning bush. He created the world according to Colossians 1:16 & 17, “For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.” This also alludes to creation ex nihilo.
Post-resurrection, His body was not destroyed as the J.W.s presume. It was changed and resurrected, literally. He did not merely rise spiritually. The disciples saw Him ascend into the heavens. It is doubtful that he went into outer space although I suppose He could have. It is more likely He entered a different dimension. Jesus ate and allowed Himself to be handled by Thomas. He was able to move through walls according to John 20:19. Also, some people recognized Him and others did not. Whether this was human err, an intentional disguise or a different appearance, Scripture doesn’t say.
Did Jesus become gender neutral after He resurrected?
In the sense of the absence of male organs, I believe so. 1 John 3:2-3 says, “We shall be like Him.” It follows logically that if we will not be married or given in marriage, and we shall be like Him and like the angels that this infers gender neutrality. There are some Bible believing Christians that debate angel’s sexual identity.
seedplanter - no, there is only one God, one faith, one baptism, one truth, one true church. We are told that in the scriptures. Here is how I responded to Chris333 with the same question.
Let me first say that there is much good that many religions of the world do. They help people have faith in God. They teach people to do good to all man, and to love their neighbor. They preach the basic tenets of Christ's gospel, and to believe in Him. There is some truth in every religion in the world. The Spirit will testify of the truth and good of every one of these religions. We believe that anything that is good comes from God, and there is much good that many religions of the world are involved in. The humanitarian efforts alone of many organizations are doing what Christ would do in helping their fellow man.
However, there is a difference between some truth, and all truth. All truth exists only in the one church that Christ established when He was on the earth in the flesh. He established one doctrine, one baptism, and one faith. He has promised us that if we ask Him, He will manifest the truth to us. He wants us to be members of His church, and to partake of the blessings He has prepared for those that follow Him.
"3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.
4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.
6 And whatsoever thing is good is just and true; wherefore, nothing that is good denieth the Christ, but acknowledgeth that he is.
7 And ye may know that he is, by the power of the Holy Ghost; wherefore I would exhort you that ye deny not the power of God; for he worketh by power, according to the faith of the children of men, the same today and tomorrow, and forever" (Moroni 10:3-7).
I have followed this promise. I have read the Book of Mormon. Studied it carefully. And prayed many times to know if it was true, having faith in Christ, and real intent. And the Spirit has witnessed to me that it is true. And if the Book of Mormon is true, then Joseph Smith must have been a prophet. And if Joseph Smith was a prophet, then the church which he restored today must be the true church of Jesus Christ on the earth.
Prophet, are you a Jehovah's Witness? They believe that Jesus was only raised from the dead spiritually. This definitly is not orthodox teaching.
Hes, I was working on a reply to your pop quiz, but I must ask you how you respond to other people who have an "inner testimony" that their religion is right or that Mormonism is wrong? Are there two gods or two gods or two truths? What makes one experience supercede another?
Also, the scripture from Numbers 23:19 that you keep quoting is being taken out of context: "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?"
It is pretty clear here that the Biblical author is making a point that God is not like man who naturally lies. Man lies and does not fulfill his promises. But God does not lie. Every word of God's shall be fulfilled. In that aspect, God is not a sinful man like us. He is not imperfect like man that way. God is perfect. This scripture is not talking about the nature of His being. It is only comparing God's perfect nature to man's sinful one. God is a perfect, exalted, immortal, and glorified man, a far cry from what a sinful, lying, man is.
What makes you think that flesh is sinful? God created Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden in the flesh! They were very much physically flesh and bones before they ever transgressed and fell. There is nothing intrinsically sinful about flesh. God did not create sinful bodies for Adam and Eve. They were perfect bodies. It is Adam and Eve, of their own agency, who transgressed and fell and caused man to become naturally carnal, but that is not because of their flesh, it is because of their fallen state. Again, God did NOT create evil bodies for Adam and Eve. If God thought that flesh was sinful, then why did Christ resurrect His flesh and bones physical body? Why would He do that? (Luke 24:39)
I know that the LDS Church is the true church of Jesus Christ because the Holy Spirit has witnessed to me that it is true. I will not deny God.
"If you say God is a spirit, and we are a spirit, then there is nothing in that scripture that disqualifies God from having a body, because we do too."
If we are flesh, and God is flesh, and we are sinful, then God is sinful. Sorry, let me rephrase that. If you are flesh, and your god is flesh, and you are sinful, then your god is sinful.
My God, Y'weh, the creator of the heavens and earth, who is all powerful, eternal, has no beginning and no end, who sent His only Son Jesus Christ as a sacrifice for my sin, is a spirit.
But let me repeat...
"God is a spirit, and those who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth."
"God is not a man, that He should lie."
Against the truth of God all else are lies. Especially ones perpetuated by a false prophet.
And as far as your claim to fame of being the almighty true church. So, you haven't been to my church....or thousands of other churches who are doing exactly what you're church is doing. So, I haven't figured out where you've got a leg to stand on in that argument.
Prophet,
You don't understand what I am saying. If you say God is a spirit, and we are a spirit, then there is nothing in that scripture that disqualifies God from having a body, because we do too.
You are wrong, Prophet. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is God's true church upon the face of this earth, and it is the only church that has God's authority of the priesthood to teach the true gospel of Jesus Christ and perform the ordinances of salvation and exaltation. I have found no other church which teaches the gospel with more love, redemption, grace, and spirituality than the LDS Church. Why? Because it is the church of Jesus Christ. He leads it. He is at the head. And He leads it today through living prophets and apostles.
Only a carnal person cannot distinguish between spirit and body. only a carnal person would think that you would have to "leave your body" to worship God. Is spiritual maturity not taught among the LDS?
No, your spirit doesn't have to leave your body...any more than you'd have to leave your car if you wanted to talk to someone. I don't mean to sound demeaning, but that's kindergarten level common sense, spiritually speaking.
God is a spirit. And so are we.
I see more and more clearly how carnal and "work-oriented" the LDS really is. There is no spirituality. There is no grace. No true redemption. No true worship of God. It's all about works, law, bondage.
It's about de-deifying (if that's even a word) God. Bringing God down and raising man to be equal with God...even above Him.
That is a fire I don't want to be playing with...it's a fire from hell.
I say that because the scripture says "God is a Spirit, and those who worship Him, must worship Him in spirit and in truth."
Does that mean that I have to leave my body in order to "worship Him in spirit and in truth"? Obviously not. And God is not just a spirit either. He has a body and a spirit.
hesadanza
"If we are a spirit (with a body), then can God be a spirit too (with a body)?"
If we are sinners, then can God be a sinner too? What you are saying is because WE are this way that God must be too. You have made God in our image. God is a spirit...and He had a body for 33 years as Jesus. And we are a spirit...and we will have a physical body until it dies.
"God is a spirit, and those who worship Him, must worship Him isn spirit and in truth"
"God is not a man that He should lie."
Prophet,
Spirit, Love, Light, Fire, Still Small Voice... these are all manifestations of certain qualities of God, but they are not His all-encompassing nature. That are not what God is; they are only a small part of what God is and does.
If we are a spirit (with a body), then can God be a spirit too (with a body)?
If what you are saying is right in John 6:46, then how did Moses and Jacob speak with the Lord face to face?
God is in Jesus, and Jesus is in God because they are one in mission. They have the same purpose. They have the same goals. They do the same things. They have the same love, grace, redemption. But they are not the same being. God the Father is a different being from God the Son. This should be self-evident from the scriptures every time that Christ spoke with His Father in heaven. He was NOT speaking with Himself.
God and Jesus are not just spirits. That Jesus has a physical body should be clear from the fact that He resurrected his body. The tomb was empty. If he had wanted to remain a spirit, he would not have resurrected. He would have just gone to heaven. When Christ joined together His spirit and His body, it was forever!
I am 100% sure of who God is. "God is a spirit, and those who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and int Truth." And I am 100% sure of who God isnt. "God is not a man that He should lie."
I John 3:2 says "Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears,we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is." that's correct. He is a spirit, we are a spirit.
John 6:46 says "No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father." Now you are confusing. You said that God is a man, because people have seen Him, but this scripture says that no one has seen the Father, except the one (JC) who is from God.
John 14:9 says "Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?" But read the next verse:
"Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work." If God is physical, and Jesus is physical, how can God be in Jesus and Jesus be in God? Two physical objects cannont occupy the same space. Once again...God is a spirit. Jesus is a spirit. The Jesus who walked this earth was encapsulated in a physical body. When Jesus said when you have seen me, you have seen the Father...He was talking about God's personality. i.e. Love, grace, forgiveness, truth, justice, etc, etc.
And yes, Jesus lives today. Whether you want to call it a glorified body or in spirit.
I Corintians 15:50 says "Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable."
Prophet,
I can see that you are a little confused as to the nature of God. How can we "know" Him if we do not know what He is? (John 17:3)
I know that Jesus Christ is a resurrected, immortal, perfected man with a physical body. He is not a spirit, and when He comes, we shall see Him as He is, our Savior and Redeemer in the flesh (1 Jn. 3:2; Moroni 7:48; D&C 130:1). And the Father is a resurrected, immortal, perfected man with a physical body, just as the Son (John 6:46, 14:9).
Christ vanquished death through His resurrection. What is death? The separation of the spirit from the body. What is resurrection? The reuniting in glory of the spirit with the body, never to be separated again. Christ did not die again. He lives today!
Moses and Jacob said that they spoke with God, face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. How could they do that unless God had a face? (Exodus 33:11; Deut. 5:4; Deut. 34:10; Genesis 32:30).
Yes, Jesus is now a spirit. He was only flesh when he was upon this earth. He became flesh so that he could be tempted in every way we were. Now, He has gone to the Father in heaven (a spiritual place) to intercede for us. Actually, God is a fire. He appeared to Moses as a burning bush, so He must be a fire. Wait, no...he's a small voice. That's how he appeared to Elijah. No, He's a pillar of smoke and a pillar of fire, thats what He was the the children of Israel in the wilderness. Actually, He's a light....that's how He appeared to Saul (Paul) in the book of Acts.
God is a spirit and He can manifest Himself however He wants. "God is a spirit, and those who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth." We are spirits too. We live in a physical body that will someday cease to exist. Our bodies (not our spirits) were created with procreative parts and functions in order to procreate while it exists here on earth. "Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven." Matthew 22:29-30. Jesus Himself said that. So, it is very evident that procreation, even marriage, will not exist after death or the resurrection. There is no need for it.
You cannot argue those two scriptures away. You can deny them, but you will be speaking lies. The Bible also says that God is not a man that He should not lie.
"...male and female created he them" (Gen. 1:27).
seedplanter - If the resurrection of Christ was a physical resurrection of His body to an incorruptible glorified body, than how can you say that God is not a man and is just a spirit? Especially since you believe in the trinitarian view which makes God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost all one being? Did Christ subsequently lose His physical body to become only a spirit? Did Jesus become gender neutral after He resurrected? Did Jesus vanish to become invisible? Is Jesus now not a man, but a spirit force that fills the universe? When He returns at His Second Coming, will He return as a resurrected and glorified man, or as an invisible spirit that no one can see, touch, or hear?
Are you telling me that God created man without procreative organs, and that they suddenly appeared after the Fall? Do you not remember that God commanded Adam and Eve to "multiply and replenish the earth" before the Fall? They certainly had specific genders and procreative organs before the Fall, or God lied when He told them to "multiply and replenish the earth".
If God created man with personal, creative, moral and intelligent attributes in His image, then wouldn't God also possess those attributes? I know of nothing that can possess personal, creative, moral and intelligent attributes than a human being, a person.
The LDS church teaches that the Holy Ghost is a man with a spirit body. He does not have a physical body, yet (D&C 130:22).
Did I forget to mention that Jesus had disciples. His disciples had disciples. We have written testimonies that connect with the eye witness testimonies of Christ. There is no thousand year gap. This is first, second and third generation documentation. We even have the Eastern Orthodox Church (probably founded by James) around today as a reminder of early church customs. The Mormon Church's documentation is shrouded in myths and legends. It is built upon the testimony of one man thousands of years after the fact. He was guilty of speaking presumptiously for god, which was no god at all, for it was a god that he imagined himself to become. It was a god of sexual pleasure, a god that promises eternal sexual pleasure, with Joseph Smith at the gate deciding who will enter therein.
Hez, What is the Mormon Church's official standing on whether or not The Holy Spirit has a body?
Incidentally a big difference between our dead guys and your dead guy, is that your dead guy has no Biblical (O.T.) foundation that he worked on. He also claimes supremacy and exclusivety over all of the prophets and apostles.
Prophet,
Do you realize that the entire Bible was written by mortal, dead men?
seedplanter,
Very true. Some theologians believe that when God created "man" that he was gender neutral...and that he possesed the emotional and psychological attributes of both male and female. And that when God created woman from Adam's rib he removed those qualities to place in Eve. And that is why marriage between a man and woman is so sacred, because it is the reuniting of the original design into the image that God had orignally created.
I'm not sure if I subscribe to that opnion, but it sure sounds interesting.
Prophet makes a good point here, “God is Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." John 4:24. It is a mistake to think that the resurrection of Christ was a spirit body. Christ’s body was raised from the dead physically, his body was changed to an incorruptible glorified one. Also quoted, Matthew 22:30, Jesus said… “For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.” Jesus does not make any exceptions here. The context makes the meaning plain.
"Let us make MAN in our image, after our likeness... So God created MAN in his own image, in the image of God created he HIM; male and female created he them" (Gen. 1:26-27). The idea of God’s image is not so much physical nature as it is a being with personal, creative, moral and intelligent attributes. Notice they were both called “man.” Man is used here (and elsewhere) in a generic sense for both male and female. The masculine identity can refer to different things. This is a clear case in point where it is used to identify males and females. In other words it can be gender neutral. When used it does not necessitate a male sex organ. The Holy Spirit is often referred to with the “He” pronoun. Hez, isn’t it true that the Mormon doctrine teaches that the Holy Spirit has a physical body as well as the Father?
At any rate, Scripture could not be plainer, God is not a man. God is immutable (unchanging). “He [Jesus] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation” (Colossians 1:15). This distinction clarifies that the Father is invisible and expresses continuity with John 4:24, “God is Spirit.” The predicate without the article emphasizes the character and nature (John 1:1). Numbers 23:19 plainly says, "God is not a man…”
So far, all you've given was a man's (joseph's) cult interpretation of God. I've given you scripture. Do you follow God? Or do you follow a mortal, dead man?
God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." John 4:24.
Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven." Matthew 22:29-30
Angels can be:
Pre-mortal spiritual beings
Post-mortal spiritual beings
Translated beings
Resurrected beings
Having a physical body has nothing to do with being an angel or not. An angel can have a physical body. An "angel" only means that the a person is not mortal.
God created us in His image. What is His image? A spirit.
"God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." John 4:24.
Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven." Matthew 22:29-30
....but are as the angels of God in heaven....spiritual beings....and yet you refuse to acknowlege the Word of God in exchange for the lies of a man.
We were created to look the same. We all have eyes, ears, nose, mouth, head, hair, arms, legs, feet hands, abdomen, knees, neck, fingers, toes, etc. That is the image that God created us in because it is His image.
As we have said before, "Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."
You do not understand the resurrection. Yes, we are spirits kept in a physical body. The physical body will die. But Christ was resurrected!! He joined His spirit back to His physical body, never to be separated again, and in doing so he broke the bands of death for ALL humankind (1 Cor. 15:51-57). Thus, not one person who has lived on this earth will be a spirit for eternity, but all will resurrect, joining the physical body back to the spirit body. That is the definition of the resurrection. And thus is the gift of Christ's resurrection to all who have lived on earth. Some will be resurrected to eternal life, and others will be resurrected to damnation (John 5:29; Mosiah 16:11; 3 Nephi 26:5).
And as Jesus taught, if we are not sealed together by the authority of God's priesthood, which binds in heaven that which is bound on earth, BEFORE the resurrection comes, then, yes, we will be single angels in heaven. The sealing ordinance must be conducted either now or during the millenium on earth for it to be binding in heaven, BEFORE the resurrection. For the Bible clearly teaches that men and women are not complete before God without each other (1 Cor. 11:11). God did not create man and woman with procreative organs and proclivities to only be used during our time on earth. If we are faithful to God, and participate in the ordinances of the priesthood in the temples of God, then we can remain in the marriage and family relationship for eternity.
"Let us make man in our image, after our likeness... So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them" (Gen. 1:26-27).
Amen. We are spirits as well, kept in a physical body. This physical body will someday pass away, but we (spirit) will remain for eternity. "God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." John 4:24....we didn't come up with that either.
We will not have sex in eternity. There will be no need for it. "Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven." Matthew 22:29-30
If we were created physically in His image, who do we all not look the same? If we don't look the same, then we were not created in His image. We are spirits. Our fleshly bodies will die someday (if Jesus tarries). "Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption." I Corinthians 15:50.
Also, why would God create man and woman with procreative organs if He did not intend for them to be used for the rest of eternity? Yes, even Adam and Eve had procreative organs before the Fall. Or were they meant only to be used for our extremely short stay here on earth?
The LDS Church declares that "All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose... The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife. We declare the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed. We affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in God’s eternal plan."
Also, it was actually God that said that He created US in HIS image:
"Let us make man in our image, after our likeness... So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them" (Gen. 1:26-27).
We didn't come up with that.
So is Christ still resurrected with a glorified physical body, or did he lose it somehow?
sorry...that wasn't supposed to be an open ended question. The reason why Jesus had a physical body was so that He could experience all that we do...temptations, pain, sorrow, loneliness. When He rose from the dead, he had a glorified body. Otherwise, he would not have had the holes in his hands yet, nor the hole in His side. He would have bled to death. Yes, common sense isn't perfect...but you've removed all traces of it from your life.
The Word of God says explicitly "God is Spirit...and those who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth." It doesn't say "God is flesh".
I am discovering how wretched this cult really is. To speak things that are completely contrary to the Word of God and then claim to be His children.
Prophet - so you doubt the physical resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ as did Thomas?
It's just another attempt to bring God down to our level. To create Him in our image. And judgement for those who do will be severe.
If Jesus rose from the dead with a physical body...how did he walk through walls? how did he just disappear on the road to Amaeus(?) when he appeared to the two disciples and walked and ate with them...and then suddenly disappeared?
seedplanter - and so goes the Neoplatonic theory of God that was created in the third and fourth centuries after Christ, but it was not taught by Christ, believed by His followers, and is not to be found in the scriptures.
God is an exalted man, which should be self-evident from the scriptures. Would you deny that Jesus Christ, the Son, is a man? He was physical wasn't He? He had sexual organs and sexual adrenaline, did He not? His physical body was actually nailed to the cross. He resurrected with a physical, tangible, body of flesh and bones (Luke 24:39). Thomas didn't believe it either until he felt Him with his own hands (Thomas 20:24-29). Christ even proved the point by eating fish and honeycomb before them (Luke 24:41-43). He was and is literally physical. Christ did not subsequently lose His physical body! It only makes sense that if Christ thought His physical body was of such tantamount importance as to resurrect it from the tomb, then it only makes sense that the Father would also have a body likewise, for the Father is greater than the Son (John 14:28).
The Adam-God theory is not a doctrine of the LDS Church. It never was: http://en.fairmormon.org/Adam-God
I would like to ask what the official Mormon stand is regarding the Adam-God theory.
Hesadanza, It would do you good to read The Trinity: Evidence and Issues by Dr Robert Morey.
Meanwhile it is needless to say that this idea of God having literal physical sexual union with Mary is not only completely out of step with the Bible regarding the virgin birth, but it is also another example of how Mormon theology is inconsistent with that of Judaism and Christianity. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ does not have sex organs. He does not have sexual adrenaline. God is called a “He” not because He is a male.
Ironically, Mormonism has much in common with Islam in regards to the Father – Son relationship. Muslims think that for God to have a son, it would necessitate a sexual relationship. Of course Islam also promises many virgins to their faithful and Mormonism promises many wives.
One more thing, it makes little difference if creation ex nihilo was originally postulated by paganism, if it is verifiable. Nowhere does the Bible imply that it is not true. There are a few places that may insinuate it. Leading Christian apologists that debate on university campuses use this principle to refute atheism, including William Lane Craig. Incidentally he also refutes Mormonism’s infinite regression of gods.
Creation ex nihilo was fabricated thousands of years ago when it said in Genesis "In the beginnng, God created the heavens and the earth." That's where it all began. Apparently, you think the Bible is inaccurate.
My God, Y'weh, created all of the universe and everything. He is all powerful. There is nothing He can't do. He sent His ONLY Son to die for us to bring us salvation. It doesn't come from a church. He is the God of the BIble. His Word is true. There is none beside nor above it. You put God in a box...placing yourself above Him. You tell Him what He can and can't do. You have created Him in your image, and put people into bondage.
Creation ex nihilo is a false doctrine because it was fabricated by a Gnostic in the second century after Christ. It is not what Christ and the early Christians taught and believed. Mormons choose to believe Christ, which is much closer to the truth than a second century Gnostic.
hesadanze..
you said "We do not believe in creation ex nihilo. It is false doctrine." It's not any more false doctrine than Mormonism...
(continued)
Non-LDS author Edwin Hatch noted the influence of some Greek philosophical ideas in the change to creatio ex nihilo:
"With Basilides [a second century Gnostic philosopher], the conception of matter was raised to a higher plane. The distinction of subject and object was preserved, so that the action of the Transcendent God was still that of creation and not of evolution; but it was "out of that which was not" that He made things to be . . . . The basis of the theory was Platonic, though some of the terms were borrowed from both Aristotle and the Stoics. It became itself the basis for the theory which ultimately prevailed in the Church. The transition appears in Tatian [ca. 170 A.D.]."
James N. Hubler, a non-LDS scholar, made the following conclusion:
"Creatio ex nihilo appeared suddenly in the latter half of the second century c.e. Not only did creatio ex nihilo lack precedent, it stood in firm opposition to all the philosophical schools of the Greco-Roman world. As we have seen, the doctrine was not forced upon the Christian community by their revealed tradition, either in Biblical texts or the Early Jewish interpretation of them. As we will also see it was not a position attested in the New Testament doctrine or even sub-apostolic writings. It was a position taken by the apologists of the late second century, Tatian and Theophilus, and developed by various ecclesiastical writers thereafter, by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen. Creatio ex nihilo represents an innovation in the interpretive traditions of revelation and cannot be explained merely as a continuation of tradition."
Creatio ex nihilo is not taught in the Old or New Testaments, or by the early Christian Fathers, unless one assumes it. The doctrine was a novel idea that altered the beliefs and doctrines of the Jews and early Christians.
Critics are welcome to embrace an unBiblical doctrine if they wish; they should not, however, disparage the LDS, who cling to the Biblical view as reinforced and reaffirmed by modern prophets.
If we open the history books we will see that the concept of creatio ex nihilo "began to be adumbrated in Christian circles shortly before Galen's time. The first Christian thinker to articulate the rudiments of a doctrine of creatio ex nihilo was the Gnostic theologian Basilides, who flourished in the second quarter of the second century."
Thus, the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo was first advanced by a Gnostic (a heretical branch of Christianity), and did not appear until more than a century after the birth of Christ!
The idea of God using pre-existing material in creation was accepted by at least some of the early Church Fathers, suggesting that beliefs about the mechanism of creation altered over time, as Greek philosophical ideas intruded on Christian doctrine. Justin Martyr (A.D. 110—165) said:
"And we have been taught that He in the beginning did of His goodness, for man's sake, create all things out of unformed matter..."
Justin continues elsewhere with such examples as:
* “by the word of God the whole world was made out of the substance spoken of before by Moses.”
* [the earth,] “which God made according to the pre-existent form.”
* “And His Son, who alone is properly called Son, the Word who also was with Him and was begotten before the works, when at first He created and arranged all things by Him, is called Christ, in reference to His being anointed and God's ordering all thing; through Him...”
Clement said in his "Hymn to the Paedagogus":
"Out of a confused heap who didst create This ordered sphere, and from the shapeless mass Of matter didst the universe adorn . . . ."
Profit.. I agree with you 100%!
We do not believe in creation ex nihilo. It is false doctrine.
God spoke into existence the very earth you walk on. He didn't create it from something that already existed. He spoke and it became.
hesadanza,
The universe is not eternal. It had a beginning, and it has an end. "Heaven(universe) and earth will pass away, but my Word will never pass away."
Here's a good post:
http://mormanity.blogspot.com/2007/12/how-can-anyone-be-so-stupid.html
seedplanter - who said that it is impossible to traverse an infinite distance? It certainly wasn't God. (Moses 7:36)
We don't agree that the universe had a beginning. It is eternal. Why would today never take place if it was eternal?
No. The elements are eternal, and God used them to form the worlds He created. It was an organization.
seedplanter - this is where we believe differently. We believe that Christ is in literal fact the Son of the living God, just as Christ Himself declared! You believe that it was a miraculous event and that Christ somehow does not have a father. We disagree! He has a Father, and it is God!
Purell,
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes, though it is not official doctrine.
Yes, if husband & wife are faithful.
Because God seals eternally.
Yes, Jesus has followed in the footsteps of His Father, and will inherit a kingdom.
Your reasoning breaks down when you said that Christ is now "spiritually procreating over his kingdom". I have never heard that ever taught in the LDS Church. He is not spiritually procreating. He may at some future point, but we do NOT teach that He is "spiritually procreating over his kingdom" now. He is concerned with our salvation and exaltation at this point, and that is His primary concern right now.
Yes, the doctrine of eternal progression necessitates progression, which is not a distortion of Biblical truth, friend.
Creation Ex Nihilo
A key aspect of the First Cause argument is the premise that it is impossible to traverse an infinite distance. Since this is true, the universe must have had a beginning, for if the universe had in fact an infinite existence, today would never take place!
...(A) potential infinite is always finite. A potential infinite can increase forever and it will never become an actual infinite. Adding one more member to a finite set, no matter how often this is done, will simply result in a larger finite set.
J. P. Moreland
For a discussion of this philosophical aspects of the issue, see William Lane Craig, "God, Time, and Eternity," Religious Studies 14 (1978): 497-503, and Thomas D. Senor, "Divine Temporality and Creation Ex Nihilo," Faith and Philosophy 10 (January 1993): 86-92.)
2 Maccabees 7:28 I beseech thee, my son, look upon the heaven and the earth, and all that is therein, and consider that God made them of things that were not; and so was mankind made likewise.
One may perhaps argue justly that there is nothing in the Bible that indicates a belief in creation ex nihilo, but one will assuredly not find the teaching that matter is eternal. Where the Bible is silent or ambiguous, there is no fault in applying universal principles and logic, and these principles -- which are not merely the province of Hellenism -- lead to the conclusion of ex nihilo creation. An Examination of Creation Ex Nihilo James Patrick Holding
“Luke 1:35 states, "And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and THE POWER OF THE HIGHEST shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God" (emphasis added).
“Tell me, who is the Highest?” -Hez
_____________________________________________________________
It would seem the Highest is referring to the Father. It still does not follow that He had sexual relations with Mary. Nor does it suggest that Mary ever saw the Father or that He had physical any contact with her. Often times it is the case that someone that is in authority delegates certain responsibilities to others and remains responsible for the actions (i.e. Kings invade other countries without ever having gone there).
"Christ was Begotten by an immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers" (Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 1966, pg.547).
This is a clear cut case of pagan origin, not Christian.
Has not Mr. Snow said...As man is...god once was...as god is...man shall become...hmm? Did Jesus achieve exaltation? Isn't that the goal of many in church of LDS? Do you not believe that Jesus was married to at least one wife? Is not the family and the temple marriage eternal? And for what reason? Forgive my illogical conclusion that Jesus too would follow in the footsteps of Elohim and progress as he has, to inherit a kingdom unto himself like his Father and Elohim's father before him. Where does my reasoning break down. Does not the doctrine of eternal progression necessitate a...um...progression? A distortion of Biblical Truth indeed, that needs no aid from me, friend.
"...the elements are eternal..." (D&C 93:33).
And so are the effects and corruption resulting from the Great Apostasy. Thanks for pointing out the differences with the restored gospel, purell.
Let me just make a few things clear.
Jesus Christ, the Son, is not "spiritually procreating over his kingdom." I'm not sure where you got that.
Those that have had the chance to accept the gospel of Jesus Christ in this mortal life will NOT have the opportunity to accept it and the accompanying blessings in the next, even if they have their vicarious ordinances performed for them. They WILL perish. God will not give second chances!
Eternal life is not a "pick from 3", as you say. Elder McConkie wrote, "As used in the scriptures, eternal life is the name given to the kind of life that our Eternal Father lives." That kind of life is only available to those that receive exaltation in the highest degree of the celestial kingdom. Those that enter the terrestrial and telestial kingdoms will NOT live an "eternal" life because it will NOT be the kind of life that our Eternal Father lives. They will be single, solitary, angels in heaven.
Unfortunately, you still distort our teachings.
I testify to you that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is Christ's true church restored today. It is lead by Him. He has called prophets and apostles today to whom He gives revelation to guide His saints. And He is doing a marvelous work and a wonder in preparation for His second coming.
Every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ, and you will come to know some day that Christ has restored His church to the earth, and that you were kicking against the pricks. The Jews at the time of Christ called Him a liar, deceiver, adulterer, heretic, etc., and it still continues today.
"We do not believe in creation ex nihilo, out of nothing."
____________________________________________
Are you saying that you believe matter is eternal and without beginning?
LDS theology collapses on itself from every angle of logic--theogically, historically, geographically, socially, and pragmatically. They do in fact believe that "For God so loved the world that He gave His Only Begotten Son, that whosever believe in Him sahll not persish but have eternal life". Unfortunately, they have redifined every major tenet in that statement.
God- A created man who was Exalted, yet continuing to eternally progress like the "gods" before him.
World- not the the ex-nihilo creation
Only Begotten- A created spirit child, first fleshly son to an immortal father and mortal woman
Son- A spirit man- accepting his mission to save earth- gaining exaltation- now eternally progressing and spiritually pro-creating over his kingdom where he postitionally shares the title of "god", but is logically behind father God in the eternal progressive curve.
Believes- Being justified by obeying the commands of God as outlined by LDS in order to be worthy to respond/recieve salvation
Perish- You always have a chance if someone is willing to be baptized in your name after you are dead (how does that fit will living obedient lives worth to recieve...hmm...)
Eternal Life- Pick from 3. There are three kingdoms-celestial, terrestrial, and telestial. They range from a New heaven/earth to Eternal progression where you too can be god.
Wrong God. Wrong Jesus. Wrong Faith. Wrong Plan of Salvation. Wrong Period. Mormonism is a mega-distortion of every major theological precept handed to us by God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Like all deceptive lies, it collapse on itself with each succeeding liar proclaiming to have more revelatory light. It's "authoratative" writings crumble every time a new prophet opens their mouth in hopes to revise the Joseph Smith they have become ashamed of.
With respect to Hesadanza. Get out this apostasy while God has granted you a sharp mind and breath in your lungs. Pray and seek the True and Living God again for authentic burning in your bosom and let Jesus Christ alone be sufficient for your salvation. Peace to you, friend.
We believe that even miracles have a scientific explanation. God works by the principles and laws of the universe. We do not believe in creation ex nihilo, out of nothing.
Luke 1:35 states, "And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and THE POWER OF THE HIGHEST shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God" (emphasis added).
A couple verses earlier in v32 he states, "He shall be great, and shall be called THE SON OF THE HIGHEST: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David" (emphasis added).
Tell me, who is the Highest? Who are they referring to? Is the Holy Ghost the Highest? No. The Holy Ghost is the third member of the Godhead, not the first. God the Father is the Highest, or most High (Ps. 82:6). He is the first, Highest, and foremost member of the Godhead. Christ is the Son of the living God (Matt. 16:16; John 6:69)!! He is NOT the Son of the Holy Ghost!
Nephi too testified of the same in 1 Nephi 11:
"14 And it came to pass that I saw the heavens open; and an angel came down and stood before me; and he said unto me: Nephi, what beholdest thou?
15 And I said unto him: A virgin, most beautiful and fair above all other virgins.
16 And he said unto me: Knowest thou the condescension of God?
17 And I said unto him: I know that he loveth his children; nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things.
18 And he said unto me: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh.
19 And it came to pass that I beheld that she was carried away in the Spirit; and after she had been carried away in the Spirit for the space of a time the angel spake unto me, saying: Look!
20 And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms.
21 And the angel said unto me: Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even THE SON OF THE ETERNAL FATHER! Knowest thou the meaning of the tree which thy father saw?
22 And I answered him, saying: Yea, it is the love of God, which sheddeth itself abroad in the hearts of the children of men; wherefore, it is the most desirable above all things.
23 And he spake unto me, saying: Yea, and the most joyous to the soul.
24 And after he had said these words, he said unto me: Look! And I looked, and I beheld the Son of God going forth among the children of men; and I saw many fall down at his feet and worship him" (emphasis added).
There was only one God-man. His name is Jesus. He did not become God, He is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.
God is not an exalted man who desended from a long line of gods, having sexual intercourse with a herum of wives. He is eternal. He is immutable. His nature is unchangable.
“You know, Mary being impregnated by the Holy Ghost sounds much more strange than actually having a tangible, flesh and bones, Father. Typically, tangible and flesh and bones fathers is the way we are accustomed to understanding physical procreation. So, tell me this, how does a spirit, who does not have flesh and bones (Luke 24:39), impregnate a woman?” – Hesadanza
____________________________________________________
Then you do not deny it?
You seem to pick and choose what you want to accept by faith and what you want to understand in a scientific naturalist framework. It is called a miracle. John said the Word was made flesh. I was listening to a lecture yesterday by N.T. Wright. Have you heard of him? He is a gentleman and a scholar. Interestingly he brought up the point that during the writing of John, people would have understood that words did not always connotate verbal language, but it also was used to imply an action of the will. It makes little difference to me which way it was intended to be used.
It is very clear here that this was a miraculous pregnancy. The angel said that she would conceive a child of the Holy Ghost. The Word of God became flesh. It is unmistakable that she was a virgin. Hindu and Zoroastrian accounts of virgin births involve male seed. In The First Apology of Justin (Martyr) of the second century it says “Bacchus, son of Jupiter, was begotten by Jupiter's intercourse with Semele…” The apostles said nothing of the such regading Christ. I maintain that Mormonism has more in common with paganism than Christianity on this peculiar doctrine.
"Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord" (1 Cor. 11:11).
"And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder" (Mark 10:9).
If God has joined it together, then it is eternal, is it not? They are "no more twain"! It is man who destroys marriage, and says "until death do you part". God keeps it eternal through the sealing ordinances of the House of the Lord.
God is an exalted, glorified, perfected, resurrected, and immortal man. He is a far cry from what we are as imperfect, mortal, carnal, sinful people. God created man, "in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them" (Gen. 1:27). We are in His image. He has a body just like us. He has eyes, and hair, and hands, and legs. He is our Father. He is not some unseeable, unknowable, uncomprehensible, force out there in the universe. Paul warned against that interpretation (Acts 17:22-34).
seedplanter -
Christ is God's only begotten Son "in the flesh." But God IS the father of all spirits, even yours and mine (Eph 4:6; Rom. 8:16; Acts 17:28-29).
You know, Mary being impregnated by the Holy Ghost sounds much more strange than actually having a tangible, flesh and bones, Father. Typically, tangible and flesh and bones fathers is the way we are accustomed to understanding physical procreation. So, tell me this, how does a spirit, who does not have flesh and bones (Luke 24:39), impregnate a woman?
purell -
The "only begotten" refers to Christ being God's only begotten son IN THE FLESH (physical child, as you say). There are countless scriptures that tell us that we are the offspring of God, that He is the Father of all our spirits. A spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have (Luke 24:39). We are talking about two different things - a physical child, and spirit children. God can have only one begotten son in the flesh, and still have innumerable spirit children.
Purell -
It is not contradictory. It is what God has established for the accomplishment of His work on earth. The Father works through the Son. That is why it is only in and through the Son that we can return to the Father (John 14:6; John 16:15).
Hesadanza,
"By the way, nothing is more confusing to me than the Nicene Creed, which the majority of Christianity holds as an authoritative document. To me, it doesn't make sense at all".
That's because this makes sense to you, but doesn't make sense to me:
"Jesus didn't quote from the Book of Mormon in the Old World because they wouldn't have known where He was quoting from. When He visited the people in the Americas after His resurrection, He did quote from the scriptures of the prophets from the New World"
Like I said this is closer to Gnosticism than Christianity.
Eternal polygamy is more instep with Islam, than the Bible.
Matthew 22:30, “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.
Scripture plainly states that God is not a man and yet Joseph Smith tried to reduce His majesty to that of a mere exalted man, because he faithfully served his god, prior to this world and the secret temple rituals. In keeping with the doctrine that God the Father has a body of flesh and bones, and that "Jesus Christ is the Son of God in the most literal sense" (The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, pg.7), some Mormon leaders have taught that Jesus was conceived by a natural, physical intercourse between Mary and the Father. Today the Mormon church takes no official position on the matter, deeming it unimportant.
Maybe one day a 'prophet' will step up and proclaim that the doctrine is just plain wrong. Meanwhille as LDS officials continue to propogate this false gospel of Smith and profess to be Christian it will be to their own destruction.
2 Peter 2:1 "But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. 2 Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned; 3 and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.
"...They are stains and blemishes, reveling in their deceptions, as they carouse with you, 14 having eyes full of adultery that never cease from sin, enticing unstable souls, having a heart trained in greed, accursed children; 15 forsaking the right way, they have gone astray, having followed the way of Balaam, the son of Beor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness..."
seedplanter-
I think that "Only Begotten" refers to Jesus as the only physical child of a exalted immortal God (Elohim) and a mortal woman (Mary). So then this would exclude any "spirit children" born in the "pre-mortal realm" to Elohim and his wife. Orthodox Christianity would contend that Jesus Christ was the only begotten Son- that is there is no other that can be called his child outside of adoption through faith in Jesus Christ.
Is that right Hesadanza?
There may be multitudes of ancient documents that assert many differing views. It does not however make them all equal in authority and authenticity. Not only does the law of eternal progression fly in the face of logic (infinite regression of godhood - and that without original cause), but it is completely inconsistent with Judaism and Christianity.
According to Hesadanza, the only basis to know whether or not Mormonism is true, is by praying for wisdom. I have been praying for wisdom ever since I learned how to pray. The wisdom that God has shown me is that Mormonism is a false religion organized by the father of lies. Over the years it has grown into a more and more complex machine, closer to Gnosticism than Christianity. Yet it continues to enlarge its mouth to all who will enter, as if it were the very gates of hell itself. Interestingly in the Chinese translation it is the equivalent of just that.
I recently learned that secret temple rites were held to baptize Hitler. Good grief! Enough of the shenanigans! Joseph Smith, intelligent he may have been, was not intelligent enough to escape the fires of damnation.
"He (Joseph Smith) is the man through whom God has spoken... yet I would not like to call him a savior, though in a certain capacity he was a god to us, and is to the nations of the earth, and will continue to be." - Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 8:321
"As you have pointed out, the ONLY similarity that Christ and Lucifer have is that they had the same Father..." - Hesadanza
That's funny, I wonder what ever happened to John 3:16, For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Notice, it was His only begotten Son. But Oh, I forgot, Mormon theology states that God was once a man just like we are and thus had many wives (including Mary according to Orson Pratt, The Seer).
"Christ was Begotten by an immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers" (Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 1966, pg.547).
"Elohim is literally the Father of the spirit of Jesus Christ and also of the body in which Jesus Christ performed His mission in the flesh ..." (First Presidency and Council of the Twelve, 1916, God the Father, compiled by Gordon Allred, pg.150).
For Latter-day Saints, the paternity of Jesus is not obscure. He was the literal, biological son of an immortal, tangible Father and Mary, a mortal woman (see Virgin Birth). Jesus is the only person born who deserves the title "the Only Begotten Son of God" (John 3:16; Benson, p. 3; see Jesus Christ: Only Begotten in the Flesh). He was not the son of the Holy Ghost; it was only through the Holy Ghost that the power of the Highest overshadowed Mary (Luke 1:35; 1 Ne. 11:19). (Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol.2, Jesus Christ, Fatherhood And Sonship)
And you call yourself Christian. Neo-pagan is more like it.
No apologies necessary. It's just much nicer to speak to a person rather than reading someone else's thoughts. For me, the FAQ lost it's eloquence in it's loose explanation. The idea that Jesus Christ is called the very Eternal Father, called the Father for His role in creation, known as the Father for the redemption and rebirth of mankind, has the authority and attriubutes of the Father and yet he is a distinct, independent and yet, behind the Father on the Eternal Progressive curve. That is not equal in authority, power, knowlege, spiritual lifespan. It is confusing to me, because Mormonism is making contradictory claims. In one instance the Eternal Heavenly Father cannot be Jesus because He is exalted Elohim who was before Jesus-Jehovah and will continue to change or progress in in Godhood in front of a Jesus. On the other hand you have Jesus-Jehovah, the obedient-spirit-child-turned-redeemer, who is called the Eternal Father, with all of His attributes, authority, knowledge and power, moving into exaltation, yet disctinctively behind Elohim in the exaltation curve.
Purell -
I chose to post what the LDSFAQ stated because I thought that I could not write the LDS stance more eloquently or concisely than how it was already written there. I'm sorry I didn't share my personal thoughts.
Yes, Jesus Christ can be referred to very literally as the Father without confusing the doctrine of the Godhead of three distinct beings. Christ, in many instances, acts and talks for and in behalf of the Father, as if He was the Father. That is not to mean that He is the Father. The Father works through the Son. Christ is our Advocate with the Father.
God is not the Author of confusion. God is order. It is the adversary that is the author of confusion. Two beings that are very different.
By the way, nothing is more confusing to me than the Nicene Creed, which the majority of Christianity holds as an authoritative document. To me, it doesn't make sense at all.
The absence of originality in the consecutive posts was disapointing. The link seemed to be alot of diatribe to explain away what Alma clearly communicates. Not that Jesus is sometimes called, referred, fulfills, metaphorically symbolizes--but that Jesus Christ, Son of God is the Eternal Father of heaven and earth. I have read much of what you posted at other times, but I was interested in your personal thoughts as I know that this question must not strike you as new. This is a real downside to progressive revelation--or greater light-- theology gets a short memory and seems to change with each passing generation. It certainly paints God as an Author of confusion.
(continued)
Other explanations are likewise possible. All persons have multiple roles in life. A man can be a father, son, and brother; a woman can be a mother, daughter, and sister. These titles describe roles or functions at a given time, as well as relationships to others. For Latter-day Saints, this is so with the Christ. He has many names and titles. He ministers as both the Father and the Son. After explaining that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob would come to earth, take a body, and minister as both Father and Son, Abinadi summarized: "And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and earth" (Mosiah 15:4; see also Mosiah 7:26–27; D&C 93:14). The Father and the Son, the Spirit and the flesh, the God and the man—these titles, roles, and attributes are blended wondrously in one being, Jesus Christ, in whom "dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" (Col. 2:9).
(continued)
Furthermore, Jesus is called Father because of the authority God gave him to act for the Father. He explained in Jerusalem: "I can of mine own self do nothing…I am come in my Father´s name" (John 5:30, 43). An LDS leader has clarified this: "All revelation since the fall has come through Jesus Christ, who is the Jehovah of the Old Testament…. The Father has never dealt with man directly and personally since the fall, and he has never appeared except to introduce and bear record of the Son" (DS 1:27). Latter-day Saints understand this to mean that, except when introducing the Son, God always acts and speaks to mankind through Jesus Christ. Accordingly, the Father has placed his name upon the Son, authorized and empowered him to speak even in the first person for him, as though he were the Father. An example of this is when the Lord Jehovah (who would later come to earth as Jesus of Nazareth) spoke to Moses: "Moses, my son; …thou art in the similitude of mine Only Begotten; and mine Only Begotten is and shall be the Savior" (Moses 1:6). Sometimes the Savior has spoken both as the Father (Elohim) and as the Son (Jesus) in the same revelation (e.g., D&C 29:1 and 42; 49:5 and 28).
In addition, Christ is Father in that he literally inherited attributes and powers from his Father (Elohim). From Mary, his mother, Jesus inherited mortality, the capacity to die. From God, his Father, Jesus inherited immortality, the capacity to live forever: "As the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself" (John 5:26; cf. Hel. 5:11). Christ is "the Father because he was conceived by the power of God" (Mosiah 15:3). "This is a matter of his Eternal Parent investing him with power from on high so that he becomes the Father because he exercises the power of that Eternal Being" (McConkie, p. 371).
Christ is also Father in that he spiritually received all that the Father has. "I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one-the Father because he gave me of his fulness, and the Son because I was in the world" (D&C 93:3–4).
From LDS FAQ - (http://ldsfaq.byu.edu/emmain.asp?number=105)
Latter-day Saint scriptures refer to Jesus Christ as both the Father and the Son. Most notably in the Book of Mormon, Christ introduced himself to the brother of Jared saying, "I am the Father and the Son" (Ether 3:14); Nephi 1 referred to the Lamb of God as "the Eternal Father" (1 Ne. 11:21, 1830 ed.), and the prophet Abinadi said that the Messiah would be "the Father…and the Son" (Mosiah 15:3). Such usage has been explained in several ways consistent with the fundamental LDS understanding of the Godhead as three distinct beings.
There is no lack of clarity about Christ´s sonship. Jesus is the Son of God in at least three ways...
...Jesus Christ is also known by the title of Father. The meaning of scriptures using this nomenclature is not always immediately clear, primarily owing to the fact that Christ and his Father are virtually inseparable in purpose, testimony, glory, and power. In most cases, however, the scriptural usage can be explained in several ways:
Christ is sometimes called Father because of his role as Creator from the beginning (see Creation). Before his mortal birth, and acting under the direction of the Father, Jesus was Jehovah, the Lord Omnipotent, through whom God created worlds without number (Moses 1:33; 7:30; John 1:1–3; Heb. 1:2). Because of his creative role, Christ-Jehovah is called "the Father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning" in the Book of Mormon (Mosiah 3:8; see also 2 Ne. 25:16; Alma 11:39; 3 Ne. 9:15). Jesus´ role as Creator is similarly attested in the Bible (e.g., John 1:3; Eph. 3:9; Col. 1:16) and the Doctrine and Covenants (e.g., D&C 38:1–3; 45:1; 76:24; 93:9).
Jesus Christ is also known as Father through the spiritual rebirth of mankind (see Born of God). As the foreordained Redeemer, he became the "author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him" (Heb. 5:9). He is the Savior. No person will come unto the Father except through him and by his name (John 14:6; Acts 4:12; Mosiah 3:17). Those who accept the gospel of Jesus Christ and receive its saving covenantal ordinances, living worthy of its sanctifying and enlightening powers, are "born again" unto Christ and become known as the children of Christ, "his sons and daughters," his "seed" Mosiah 5:5–8; 15:10–13; 27:25–26; Alma 5:14). Christ thus becomes the Father of their salvation, the Father of life in the Spirit, the Father of the new birth. In a related sense, he is also the Father of all mankind in that the resurrection of the entire human family comes through him (Sperry, p. 35).
Your viewpoint is well stated. In fairness, our presuppositions on pre-mortality, the Eternal God, and the definitions of “unchangeable and eternal” are very divergent. But still, you have given me much to consider and certainly helped me understand your theological perspective. Thank you. One last question…How do LDS reconcile that Jesus is a “distinct and independent” from the Father when the Book of Mormon clearly identifies Jesus, the Son of God as the very (specifically) Eternal Father?
A familiar text to you I am sure—Alma 11:21-40. The context is Zeezrom trying to “destroy that which was good”—that is the faith and testimony of Amulek. Amulek proclaims that what is about to be said is from the “Spirit of the Lord”. Amulek establishes that there is in fact One God and not more. Then in Alma 11:38 Zeezrom asks this question:
“38 Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is this Son of God the very Eternal Father? 39 And Ameluk said unto him: Yea, he is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth, and all things which are in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last.”
This Q&A goes beyond Jesus being identified as God- “distinct personages, but one in purpose, power, authority, deed, action, thought, redemption, grace, love, etc.” It labels the Father and Son as specifically the save personage.
Even more, Mosiah 15:2-4 says,
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 Father and the Son—3 the Father because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and the Son—4 And yea are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of Heaven and earth.
It’s interesting that the Son of God is clearly defined as the Father wrapped in flesh—that Jesus Christ was the embodiment of the Father and Son—inseparable and indistinguishable, other than by flesh. It would seem that the Book of Mormon flatly denies that God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit only tied through power, purpose, deed and authority…so, How do LDS reconcile that Jesus is a “distinct and independent” from the Father when the Book of Mormon clearly identifies Jesus, the Son of God as the very (specifically) Eternal Father? p.s. you last post stirred more question for me, a seeker, but I will not bother you anymore with my questions. peace
This is a good blog post:
http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2007/12/they-aint-heavy-theyre-my-brethren/
I particularly like this part - "The notion that Jesus and Satan are brothers is true in the same sense that Adolf Hitler, Mother Teresa, Paris Hilton, Charles Dickens, Attila the Hun, and I are siblings. It is an attempt to reduce our notion of the pre-mortal existence to its ridiculous extreme. However, it is, I believe, a better solution to the problem of evil that then assumption that a loving God doesn’t actually love some of his children, so he created a means of temptation so that they would not have to be saved. What is the saving grace of a God who is so stingy with the salvation offered? Where is the truth in a God who creates the Father of Lies?"
SummaTheologica-
Apologies for sounding rude, certainly not my intention. Some of the questions are very good questions that I grapple with as well. Some are flat and really do find suitable answers by taking into account perspectives, genres, hyperbole and other literary tools that the OT & NT writers used in scribing the the texts. So thanks for the response and I agree that there is beauty in the freedom of religion--to express thoughts and ideas in a way that sharpens all parties. Take care.
Purell - the statements of the "basic differences between Mormonism and traditional Christianity" are correct.
We believe that God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are three distinct personages, but one in purpose, power, authority, deed, action, thought, redemption, grace, love, etc. They form one Godhead.
Purell -
I appreciate the courteous discourse also. If more people would calmly discuss things, we could get a lot more done.
Jesus is co-equal and co-eternal with God the Father. The Father has given Him that, as His first-born Son, similarly to how the first-born son in Biblical times would receive the inheritance of his mortal father if he was faithful. God the Father has given all things to the Son (John 6:37; John 16:15). Therefore the Father and the Son are now equal in power, principle, authority, deed, thought, action, etc. The only thing that the Father has in superiority over the Son is that He is still His Father. That will never change.
The Bible teaches that God is from "everlasting to everlasting," and you would probably say that means that God has not progressed, that He has always been exactly the same for eternity, both forward and back.
When we read about the unchangeable God, we are clearly not talking about His physical state. First of all, when the Bible says that "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever", do you really believe that it is literal in every sense? What about before Christ obtained His mortal body? Was He the same then as after He obtained His mortal body? What about after His resurrection? Was He the same then as when He was before when He was mortal? No. He wasn't. His physical nature changed significantly both times, although His soul still existed the same. Indeed, the Bible admits that Jesus "increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man" (Luke 2:52). That is certainly progression. After Christ's resurrection he exclaimed, "all power is given unto Me in heaven and earth" (Matt. 28:18). If the power had been "given" Him, there must have been a point in time when He did not have those particular powers.
Often, when the scriptures tell us that "God is unchangeable," it is often meant to show that His doctrines or sayings are unchangeable. He cannot tell us His gospel is correct, and then change it later. His words are set in stone.
So the scriptures actually tell us that one can be eternal, unchanging, the same yesterday, today, and forever, and still go through significant physical changes, as did Christ. As LDS, we believe that ALL have existed, at least in some form, for eternity (as intelligences). In that sense, there is a part of each of us that is eternal, that has existed for eternity backwards, and we will all exist for eternity forwards. But there will always be progression.
Purrell
I could say the same thing for you. And unfortunatly for you all of those quotes and facts that I recorded are from research I have conduted for the last 3 years on this topic. I probably read more than most so I would assume I am ok on that, as far as me just taking the Bible's word for it, I don't just like I wouldn't ever take the Book of Mormon's word for it or any other book. I believe what I darn well want to when I want to. That is the beauty of religion, it is what we believe and to tell somone what they believe or how they should believe is impossible.
Hesadanza-
Thanks for the link- Huckabee is playing political possum with his statement. He certainly knows more than he is letting. As I read the article, it stated:
"One of the most basic differences between Mormonism and traditional Christianity is the conception of God. Mormons believe that God has a body of flesh and bone, in human form, and that Jesus does, too. They believe that God’s body “is immortal, perfected, and has a glory beyond description,” as the church says on its Web site. They teach that God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are independent beings, and taken together they form the Godhead."
Are those correct statements? Particulary the last sentence quoted. Is Jesus Christ a being independent fromt the Eternal Heavenly Father?
The LDS Church is not alone in teaching that all are sons and daughters of God the Father, including Lucifer.
Catholic writer Giovanni Papini quotes Lactantius, a Third Century Christian writer, from his apologetic work, Divinac Institutines 11.9:
"Before creating the world, God produced a spirit like himself replete with the virtues of the Father. Later He made another, in whom the mark of divine origin was erased, because this one was besmirched by the poison of jealousy and turned therefore from good to evil. He was jealous of his older brother who, remaining united with the Father, insured his affection unto himself. This being who from good became bad is called devil by the Greeks."
Papini concludes that, "According to Lactantius, Lucifer would have been nothing less than the brother of the logos, of the word, ie. of the second person of the trinity" (Giovanni Papini, The Devil, p. 81).
Hesadanza-
Again, thanks for the thought provoking discourse. I appreciate you giving some clarity to prominence and importance to the doctrine about brotherhood of Jesus and Lucifer. I understand and agree with your Savior/Adversary distinction, as mentioned in my previous post, but will have to disagree on the logical outflow that cutting Jesus and Lucifer from the same cloth does not demote Jesus. I have difficulty following the logic that Jesus is co-equal with God the Father and the Eternal God, if he is also a spirit born creation of God—first, second or third makes no difference—the notion He is born in a pre-mortal realm or created automatically disqualifies Him from being the Eternal God.
I want to lean on you 26 years of study as a LDS student here. How can Jesus Christ be co-equal and co-eternal with God the Father if he was created/born after Elohim experienced Exaltation? Doesn’t the birth of a pre-mortal spirit Jesus put him in a pre-mortal time and space, excluding Him from Eternal (no beginning, no end) God claims?
Does that not also relegate him to the same created, non-eternal status of Lucifer, barring the birth order and obedience factors? This is why the brotherhood is a point of discussion. Many outside of the LDS camp cannot reconcile an Eternal-yet created- Jesus. The "guilty by association" link to Lucifer is agreeably not the main issue, outside of the rabbit trails it creates about the Eternal Diety of Jesus Christ. I appreciate you putting up with my questions.
Here is a good article, although I still don't believe that Huckabee is ignorant about Mormonism:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/14/us/politics/14mormon.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin
Purell-
You're welcome. I like genuine, respectful dialogue.
We don't often make it a focus that Christ and Lucifer are brothers because it is beside the point, not what is important, and when anti-Mormons use it they often leave out the most important parts of what we believe about these two persons, which is what vilifies us because it leaves the uninformed with misconceptions of the LDS Church. Christ and Lucifer are complete opposites! Their brotherhood is not the focus of any of our lessons or manuals and it is not taught regularly because that is the ONLY aspect of their persons that is the same. Period. I know; I've been LDS for 26 years. That is not misinformation or inaccuracy. We teach it, sure. But we choose to focus MUCH more instead on how they are DIFFERENT, on the saving and redeeming power of the Savior, and that the adversary seeks to destroy our faith and ruin our eternal lives and send us to hell to be miserable like himself. We choose to focus on Him whom we must follow to gain eternal life, which is in Christ, and Christ alone.
As you have pointed out, the ONLY similarity that Christ and Lucifer have is that they had the same Father (same spiritual DNA), the Father of all, our Heavenly Father (Eph. 4:6). Doing so does NOT demote Christ, for He already has told us numerous times that He is a Son of God and that His Father is in heaven (John 10:33-38; Matt. 6:9). Yes, Christ is in literal fact a spirit Son of God, and is also the only begotten Son of God in the flesh. That does not demote Him to one that was not the "Word" that was made flesh. He can still be the "Word", even as a spirit Son of the Father. It also does not demote Him to one that is not Eternal and co-equal with the Father. Even as the Son, He can have equality with the Father (Philip 2:6). The Jews sought to kill Him even more since He said that God was His Father, which to them meant that Christ was equal with God, not subordinate to Him (John 5:18).
Summa Theologica-
Great questions. I would encourage you to abandon the copy/paste feature on your computer, pick up a book, do some research, open your mind, and discover that there are some pretty logical answer to most of your questions- enjoy the journey!
Elbeau, you asked about Mitt Wrongley and the gay Scout Masters.
Associated Press, Jan. 11, 2007: “Romney was asked if he ever publicly opposed the Boy Scouts' exclusion of gay members while he served on its executive board. ‘I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation,’ Romney replied.”
Sioux City Journal, July 23, 2007: “The campaign for Republican presidential candidate Sam Brownback is criticizing rival Mitt Romney, saying he supported the idea of allowing gay men to serve as Boy Scout leaders. ...The Brownback campaign pointed to Romney’s answer during a debate in 1994 when he ran for the U.S. Senate. ...The Romney campaign pushed back at the allegations, saying Romney is a supporter of the Boy Scouts and believes local councils should decide their scouting policies.”
Is this double talk? Maybe this will help,
Office of the Governor, May 4, 2005: "Governor Mitt Romney today nominated Stephen S. Abany of Boston for the position of Associate Justice of the Wrentham District Court. …(Abany) has served on the Board of Directors of the Massachusetts Lesbian and Gay Bar Association."
Romney letter to Log Cabin Republicans, Oct. 6, 1994: “I am convinced that (Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell) is the first of a number of steps that will ultimately lead to gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly in our nation’s military. That goal will only be reached when preventing discrimination against gays and lesbians is a mainstream concern, which is a goal we share.”
http://michaelwestfall.tripod.com/id112.html
Hesadanza-
Thanks for your insightful response. I was hoping you could clarify a couple of thoughts you put out there. In regards to the brotherhood of Jesus and Lucifer, you stated, “We don't talk about it on Sundays, we don't teach it regularly, it is not written extensively in our church manuals, and we don't focus on it, because it is NOT what is important.” I found that the LDS website (which is a great resource) lists it under Lessons/Sunday School/Gospel Principles. When I found it listed under chapter 3 in the Gospel Principles: Jesus Christ, Our Chosen Leader and Savior, it was clear that it’s a fundamental, foundational, doctrinal principle that was being provided (perhaps with some expectations) for Sundays (hence, Sunday School lessons) and taught with regularity. Also, it has been written about extensively in your online church “manual” Gospel Principles which gives it very prominent focus. To say that it is not important would be inaccurate and misinforming. It’s to others as well. But its importance stems, not from the assertion that it makes Jesus and Lucifer equal (we both agree that one is Savior and the other is the adversary), but from giving both of them the same spiritual DNA in their spiritual origins. By doing so in LDS theology, the pre-incarnate Christ is demoted to 1) a created spirit child distinguished from Lucifer, only by birth order and obedience, 2) a created spirit child that is not the “Word with God” and the “Word that God”, the “Word that became flesh and dwelt among us”, 3) a created spirit child that is not the Eternal God (title page BOM) co-equal with the Father. This isn’t anti-Mormon vilification, I think it’s just great discourse, thanks and I look forward to your comments.