No Need to Pick a Fight

Ghostbuster,
Thanks for the lucidity and better understanding you provided. It was enlightening to hear the question, "Why get free then burden yourself with legalism?" If I understand you correctly, that would mean one still studies the scriptures, but does it for the love of "the word" rather than as a sort of measuring yardstick to see how one is doing. I agree with that idea--I think it would be the ideal. Under that premise, how many "genuine believers" are there?

Since you cited John 10:27-30, I'll assume that by being "saved" you would mean receiving "eternal life". I answer that John 3:16 and John 17:2-3 answer the question you poased as I would answer it. Belief in that sense becomes a state of action, a state of being that represents a change of heart and a change of life because of a change in the outlook of a person who is "saved".

My personal belief is that the gospel of Jesus Christ offers a pathway of "becoming sanctified" that is just as important as the initial step of being "saved", and I think Peter and Paul taught that quite clearly. I agree that that process should flow freely in a person's life, not by their feeling restricted but by their being "led by the Holy Spirit."

It sounds like you are being so led. 'Glad to hear it. One of my favorite scriptures is Hebrews 11:10 and 16. I think we need to be seeking, learning, growing, changing, becoming the person Christ wants us to become. That is a slightly different process for each person.

So glad to have heard your comments here.

Parker,

I have a brief moment to respond.

As I look at these passages in regard to "once saved always saved" I first had to chuckle a bit at myself. I have actually argued passionately for and against both the "always saved" (calvinist) and the "snooze and lose"(arminian) positions.

It is an interesting line to walk because both positions have some merit and can be backed up reasonably by scripture in my non-theological opinion.

The verses you supplied do imply that one must be diligent in assuring one's salvation, but, there are other verses that I think make a stronger case for security. The most powerful declaration is found in John 10:27-30.

Basically, I'm secure in my faith and with that security comes an incredible freedom. Through this freedom, I find myself closer to the guidelines of scripture naturally. I want to do those things. I feel sorry for those who think they have to do this or that all the time. Why get free then burden yourself with legalism? Tis a pity.

On another related note I think it is sometimes very difficult to distinguish genuine believers from those who aren't. I believe that is why we are told not to judge. One theory I'm beggining to give credence to is that a genuine believer CAN fall away, but that they ultimately will not. Falling away is quite different from backsliding.

I had a friend who I grew up with in various churches. I was 100% sure was a christian. Then he fell into all kinds of "stuff" in his late teens and early 20's. A couple years later I was at his house when he told me he had some news. That day he became a christian. I thought he was kidding but he assured me that he always had doubts and had never really believed or committed to Christ.

Parker, now a question for you because it is the key to my answer. I was talking about losing/keeping salvation. What is salvation? How do you think one actually gets "saved"?

I will look into the chapters in Isaiah at a later date.

apologies for any grammer/spelling mistakes. it's late...

Regards
GB

Hello there Parker. Yeah I would have to say that this is something beyond comprehension. To say there was a time before the "beginning" would kind of be a redundancy. What God was doing before creation is something that is incomprehendable to the human mind. He said that there was a beginning. The Bible says God is eternal. How do we comprehend such a thing? Got me? His ways and thoughts are higher than mine. For me to be able to say that I could even comprehend His nature or His abilities would mean one of two things. Either I am God, or God is no higher an authority than man. Neither are true, so I'm stuck with God is higher than man, I'm not God therefore why think I can comprehend all of His ways. Personally, the mystery of God is what compells me to love Him, knowing that one day He will no longer be a mystery anymore. I look forward to that day. The day I find out the mysteries of God is where I have hope. Taking away the mysteries of God would be to take away hope and most importantly, faith. This of course if my belief and subjective to your own. Take care and have a wonderful day Parker. As always thank you for your kind approach.

David,
Hello, my friend. One of my daughters woke me up in the wee hours of the morning (she couldn't sleep), so now I find that I can't go back to sleep, and figured I'd explore this aspect of your beliefs about God that has come up lately on the other thread. I certainly respect your beliefs, and have particularly enjoyed how you have expressed them in that it has helped me understand you and those with similar beliefs, much better.

So here's the question. Before the "beginning" where was God, and what was He doing? I'm not trying to box you in or counter you with this question, I have just wondered if there is an explanation that you have thought about and come to grips with.

By the way, I agree with you that God "created" the time dimension as a part of "organizing" this world, and that God doesn't live in that same time dimension. What is past, present, and future for us is continually before His eyes.

Now if this is one of those questions that is pretty much "unexplainable" because it is beyond our ability to understand, then that's OK, too. I have just wondered what your thoughts are on the subject, to understand you better.

Have a delightful and peaceful Sunday with your family.

James,

Concerning baptism, I think it is important. If someone professed Jesus Christ and claimed to have been saved but then refused to be baptized I would wonder if they really are a saved individual. But when I speak of salvation, I am talking about what justifies us to be able to be in the presence of our Lord one day. This being the profession of faith in Jesus which gives us the free gift of grace. I have to look at water baptism as a whole and take into account every situation possible. Think about it. What happens if someone truly repents and accepts this free gift of grace and professes the name of the Lord. Then he walks across the street to be baptized at a local church and gets hit by a bus then dies. I would say his faith has saved him. Do you really think God would send this man to hell because he didn't get baptized by water? Not my God. I do believe baptism is optional, but would highly doubt a believers faith if he refused baptism. It's like refusing communion. Why would you refuse communion if you believe in Christ? Wouldn't make sense and I believe that would qualify someone as not having a saving faith, wouldn't you think so?

Here's how I look at it in simple terms.

1. Repentance and belief in the death, burial and ressurrection of our Lord Jesus.

That right there saves us. NOW we can be baptized with water to show that we are Christians in a non-Christian society. A public proclamation of faith. Especially in the days of the early Apostles where there were so many paganistic belief systems it was important to have a public proclamation of faith to acknowledge what faith you have. It was a way to seperate yourself publically from the paganistic beliefs. I think it is still important today.

I must emphasize our differences in salvation again. Either your saved (go to heaven) or not (go to hell). Both are eternal. There is no in between. If water baptism is a requirement for salvation, what happens to that guy who repented and professed the belief in the gospel but did not yet get baptized and died? Heaven or Hell? I say heaven. He is saved by his faith alone in Jesus which provided him with grace.

Quick question James. This isn't confrontational either. Do you believe someone can repent on their deathbed and profess Jesus Christ with a true heartfelt repentance and profession of faith and be saved? I'm curious to what you think. Thanks.

Best to you.

Hi David

Thank you for your response. We agree on something! I am also disppointed with some clergy within Orthodox Christianity inclfuened by secularism and their wholesale acceptance of the homosexual movement. If anyone had told me 25 years ago, that Orthodox Christian churches would accept men and women as priests who act on homosexual urges and desires - I would would not believe it. Just imagine the state of affairs in 20-30 years.

I wanted to ask you a non-confrontational question. I am sincerelt interested in hearing your response on a topic.

In light of all of the doctrinal references to water baptism, Apostolic instructions, and the subsequent practice in the New Testament Church as a required Christian sacarment rite for hundreds of years, why do you believe that baptism is optional?

How does the idea of "faith alone" nullify the Jesus' command and the Apostolic dispensation to baptize believers?

Thanks,

James

P.S.
We both agree that the act of baptism doesn't save us.

Thank you both for your explanations. James we already went throught the water baptism thing so I won't go through that again, but I highly disagree on water baptism as a necessecity for salvation.

I have done some research lately and come to find out that the word "salvation" has a different meaning between you both and mine. I just want to clarify when I speak of being "saved" or "salvation" I'm talking about being able to go to heaven and saved from eternal seperation from God, which is hell. I think "salvation" in your terms means to recieve the highest level of "exaltation". Of course I don't believe in levels of exaltation, therefore it's either heaven or hell. No in betweens. You accept Christ and go to heaven or deny Him and go to hell. It's that simple on my understanding. I just thought I would clarify that since I discovered recently that the term "salvation" has a different meaning between us both. So if I speak about being "saved" that is the act of justification where as to we are forgiven of our sins and eventually upon death be in the presence of the Allmighty God. If your not saved then you go to hell, which is the absence of God and the absence of love.

James, as I've mentioned before quotes from any Orthodox Christians or non-Orthodox Christians have no effect on me. What convinces me of truth is God's Word alone. No man can convince me of any false truth less it be backed up with scripture with no contradictions. In other words if your going to convince me of falsehood within orthodox christianity, then your gonna have to do that Biblically. You may think you have already, but I assure you that you haven't come close, no offense meant. According to scripture there will be a time when men will not hold onto sound doctrine anymore and will begin an apostacy. You claim this happened already, I claim that it is beginning to happen. I truly believe we are in the last days and as I see the church (body of believers) agree more and more with society and the acceptance of sinful society within the church, I know this apostacy is beginning. For example: Recently I read how the lutheran church is allowing gay clergy. I have nothing personal against homosexuals, but when churches start to allow what is called evil in the Bible to become good, then the apostacy is beginning as is evident in today's society and today's church. So I expect to see today's church change it's ways and form to societal agreements. We are in a reletivistic society, and unfortunately the church is losing it's ground on the basis of relativism within the church as well. Does that mean I have to agree with what post-modern orthodox christians say these days? No way! I agree with what the Bible says. This apostacy is becoming more evident as we see more and more churches changing doctrine to form to a societal need. I will never agree to these changes no matter if Billy Graham came out professing that homosexuals can be clergy now. So if orthodox christian leaders want to change their works/faith doctrines, then they are no longer orthodox christians.

It's funny that they call it "cheap grace". Because according to the Bible grace isn't cheap at all. It's FREE! So whoever is putting a price on grace has fallen away from grace because it is a free gift that can only be taken freely, not earned. I do agree that those who profess the name of Jesus are now disciples of Jesus and therefore discipleship should begin. Why do you think I'm on here?

David:

I forgot to post this last statement.

Do a google search for "cheap grace" and look at how the Orthodox Church is having to back step a bit on their application of the doctrine of grace.

Here are some quotes from Orthodox Church believers:

Cheap grace is the deadly enemy of our Church. We are fighting today for costly grace.
Cheap grace means grace as a doctrine, a principle, a system. It means forgiveness of sins proclaimed as a general truth, the love of God taught as the Christian "conception" of God. 45

"Cheap grace means the justification of sin without the justification of the sinner. Grace alone does everything they say, and so everything can remain as it was before. "All for sin could not atone." Well, then, let the Christian live like the rest of the world, let him model himself on the world’s standards in every sphere of life, and not presumptuously aspire to live a different life under grace from his old life under sin. That was the heresy of the enthusiasts, the Anabaptists and their kind…. 46"

Christianity without discipleship is always Christianity without Christ. It remains an abstract idea, a myth which has a place for the Fatherhood of God, but omits Christ as the living Son. … There is trust in God, but no following of Christ. 64

This is one way to view the LDS doctrine on personal effort - becoming a disciple of Jesus Christ.

Best,

James

Hi David:

I don't have much time to respond today but wanted to put something in your hands that reflects the LDS position on grace and works.

It should be noted that LDS scriptures and Church doctrine is not at odds concerning grace and works. Here's an excerpt from LDS FAQ.

It's kind of long, but well worth the read:
(By Bruce Hafen) http://ldsfaq.byu.edu/emmain.asp?number=95

The short answer in the process is that the New Testament is very clear that in practical terms of what one does in life, does matter.

For example, the New Testament makes it clear that repentance and baptism by water and by the Holy Ghost is "required" not an option:

On the necessity for repentance and baptism by water and by the Holy Ghost:

“Why tarriest thou? [Ananias told Paul after Paul’s vision of the Savior on the road to Damascus] arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” (Acts 22:16.)

To those Ephesians who had been baptized “unto John’s baptism” but had not been given the gift of the Holy Ghost, Paul said:

“John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

“When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

“And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them.” (Acts 19:4–6; see also Acts 19:1–3; 1 Cor. 6:9–12.)

Another example is on the need for righteous activity following faith in Christ:

“Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

“For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.

“And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.” (Gal. 6:7–9.)

“[God] will render to every man according to his deeds:

“To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

“But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath.” (Rom. 2:6–8.)

In other words, grace does not and cannot come without personal accountability to God. There remains an inescapable responsibility of the covenant maker to "do the will of the Father" in resisting temptation, abandoning sin, striving to obey the Word of God in all things.

When we are constantly grateful for the gift of grace and we give glory to him, and exercise our own will in ackowledging his wisdom by personal effort (as puny as it may be), the Father is pleased and the power of godliness can be made manifest. This results in a blessed and happy state of those who love God.

Best,

James

David,
Thanks for such a good explanation. I pretty much agree with your definitions of justification and sanctification, and I'm OK with the explanation about faith and not needing to "earn" salvation. Perhaps you have misunderstood if you have thought the LDS think they need to "earn" salvation. You said:

"Sanctification is the process that the Holy Spirit works within you to change your heart. To refrain from sin and to do good works. We are justified by faith and therefore saved, THEN we are sanctified by the Holy Spirit. If I sell everything I have and feed the poor and help old ladies across the street then that is God working in me, not me working for myself to gain something."

I probably wouldn't use the word "saved" in the above statement as is, but would maybe say "therefore we have entered into the path that leads to salvation," "then we are sanctified by the Holy Spirit and as this happens what we do is a manifestation of God working in us because of the power of His love and His righteousness."

Nephi in the Book of Mormon said, "I will not trust in the arm of flesh, for I know that cursed is he that putteth his trust in the arm of flesh. Cursed is he that putteth his trust in man or maketh flesh his arm." So I would agree that we're not trying to "earn" salvation or exaltation. The process flows from following the Holy Spirit, and only if we have the Holy Spirit are we going to be sanctified. But you've talked about the heart being able to be deceived, and I agree with that in the context of needing to have "check points" to guide us in knowing if we really are following the Holy Spirit.

Those "check points" are basically answering the question, "what am I doing with my life--am I participating in the fruits of the Spirit?" But I agree it is not "me" doing works for the sake of "earning" salvation--it is the Spirit of God working in me that naturally fills my heart with love, charity, so that I would follow 1 Corinthians 13 as a natural consequence.

So what I am saying, David, is you're right. I agree with you. I actually quite like your definitions. Thanks for sharing them. Have a good day.

Parker,

I still haven't had an adequate chance to look deeper into those passages. It might be a few days.

I'll be back...

Hello there again Parker. Well, my family,huh? I'm half mexican and half white. My mother was born in canada, my dad in mexico. I'm the firstborn american in my family. I guess they decided to meet half way and make me. :)

I'm not sure why you think I think the NT is so complex. I think it's fairly simple. Of course besides Revelation which takes a great deal of study and cross-scripturing. Otherwise, I think the complete beauty and simpleness is what makes the NT so great. For example: the gospel is the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. That simple.Faith in that is what gives you eternal life. I think you are looking for a definition of "faith" from my perspective. I guess I can go into great detail if you'd like. So here goes.

Faith of course is the belief in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I believe faith is only as good as to Who you put it in. Some people believe Christ was not God, some believe He was Michael the Archangel. This isn't faith in the true Jesus. Therefore they worship a false Jesus. Now I believe as you believe that faith is "active". But, the difference being that the works produced by faith is not of our own but by the Holy Spirit working through us. These works in no way CONTRIBUTE to salvation but are a CAUSE of salvation. This brings me to James 2:26, "faith without works is dead". This verse is cited several times by many different belief systems. But to understand faith is to understand this passage as well. If faith in Jesus gives you the Holy Spirit, then by this faith that you have recieved the Holy Spirit will do works on behalf of God THROUGH us, not by us. If I preach the gospel to someone, I take no credit on my behalf but give all the glory to God who is so loving enough to be able to use me as His servant. I don't preach the gospel or feed the poor or whatever to think that I can earn my way to heaven because by my faith I am justified before the Lord.

I was wondering Parker if you know the difference between justification and sanctification. Quickly, justification is where we are declared righteous before God because of our faith in His Son. This saves us right there upon this declaration of faith and repentance. Sanctification is the process that the Holy Spirit works within you to change your heart. To refrain from sin and to do good works. We are justified by faith and therefore saved, THEN we are sanctified by the Holy Spirit. If I sell everything I have and feed the poor and help old ladies across the street then that is God working in me, not me working for myself to gain something. Isaiah 64:6 says all of our righteous works are filthy as rags. Why? Because they are OUR works, not Gods. Only when we are saved can we do good works pleasing to God because it really is God doing the work through us by way of the Holy Spirit.

I have a question for you Parker. Do you know why we should not do any good works to try to EARN salvation?

Hi, David,
I hope your family is doing well. I'd be interested to know about your ancestry, and what you know about them. Also your relatives.

I've wondered why in your mind the New Testament is a fairly complex writing, when the process of having faith (which is central and important, agreed, though I'm not sure how you define the word "faith") is according to you the only essential ingredient of the gospel since the time of Christ. How do you explain this discrepancy? (I just want to understand your point of view better.) Thanks.

James,

Sorry, must have missed your question. Of course scholars all have different opinions and if I agreed with every Biblical scholar out there, God knows what I would believe in. Personally, I don't believe in temples and I believe temples and temple ceremonies are not necessary. Of course you will disagree and I don't want to argue again, but I want to give you my belief. Reason being is that the temples in the OT were places where God dwelled and where the priests would make sacrifices and so on. We are in an age of a new covenant. Temple sacrifices are no longer necessary with the final sacrifice of Jesus. Now where do the temples go? We as a body of believers are the temples. God indwells all of us by faith in Jesus. Paul gives us a description of how we are to take care of our bodies and live a healthy life. He reminds us that our bodies are the TEMPLES where God indwells believers. We should keep our bodies in good health because God doesn't want to live in a dirty temple. Not only that but anywhere near a dirty heart. You might notice in the OT how the Israelites paid close attention to keeping the temples very clean. This is symbolic for the new covenant of our bodies being temples as well. Same thing with why they sacrificed a male lamb with no defect. Who was the male lamb with no defect in the NT? I'm sure you know. The OT is very symbolic of the coming of the new covenant by way of Jesus.

Concerning the fig leaves. Gen 3:21 says God made clothes of animal skins to cover them. This has a lot to do with the works/faith issue that divides us as well. Adam and Eve made their own coverings. Fig leaves of course, to cover their shame from sinning. God made them animal skins for coverings instead. Why? Because "our works are as filthy as rags". Isaiah 64:6. Also, to atone for sins you need a blood sacrifice. Obviously if God made them animal skins that required a blood sacrifice. So the works of Adam and Eve were not good enough to atone for their sins. Only by means of a blood sacrifice by God could cover that sin. This is consistent with the OT annual blood sacrifices and of course their had to be a final blood sacrifice by Jesus to atone for sins once and for all. From my perspective wearing either says two things. First, fig leaves represent that we can atone for our own sins by the works of our own hands, therefore rejecting the sacrifice Jesus made. Two, wearing animal skins also rejects the sacrifice Jesus made with an insinuation that we need more sacrifices to atone for sins.

What is unique and stands apart about the Christian faith over any other faith in the world is that salvation is simple. Faith. Just faith. Islam teaches to do good things, good things, good things and then hope you make it to Paradise with 72 virgins not knowing if your good deeds were good enough to pass by the bad ones. Buddhism and Hinduism teach good deeds as well but then you get re-incarnated to do it all over again if it's not enough. What is unique about the Christian faith is that we have faith alone. There is nothing I can do to earn salvation except to believe in my Lord Jesus. And by faith will those works come. This has a lot to do with that fig leaf. We can't do anything to cover up our sins or our shame. Only God can do that by believing in His Son who by a blood sacrifice was able to cover up our shame.

Have a great day James. I know this one was argumentative, but this is my belief and my faith. Take care.

James,

Sorry, must have missed your question. Of course scholars all have different opinions and if I agreed with every Biblical scholar out there, God knows what I would believe in. Personally, I don't believe in temples and I believe temples and temple ceremonies are not necessary. Of course you will disagree and I don't want to argue again, but I want to give you my belief. Reason being is that the temples in the OT were places where God dwelled and where the priests would make sacrifices and so on. We are in an age of a new covenant. Temple sacrifices are no longer necessary with the final sacrifice of Jesus. Now where do the temples go? We as a body of believers are the temples. God indwells all of us by faith in Jesus. Paul gives us a description of how we are to take care of our bodies and live a healthy life. He reminds us that our bodies are the TEMPLES where God indwells believers. We should keep our bodies in good health because God doesn't want to live in a dirty temple. Not only that but anywhere near a dirty heart. You might notice in the OT how the Israelites paid close attention to keeping the temples very clean. This is symbolic for the new covenant of our bodies being temples as well. Same thing with why they sacrificed a male lamb with no defect. Who was the male lamb with no defect in the NT? I'm sure you know. The OT is very symbolic of the coming of the new covenant by way of Jesus.

Concerning the fig leaves. Gen 3:21 says God made clothes of animal skins to cover them. This has a lot to do with the works/faith issue that divides us as well. Adam and Eve made their own coverings. Fig leaves of course, to cover their shame from sinning. God made them animal skins for coverings instead. Why? Because "our works are as filthy as rags". Isaiah 64:6. Also, to atone for sins you need a blood sacrifice. Obviously if God made them animal skins that required a blood sacrifice. So the works of Adam and Eve were not good enough to atone for their sins. Only by means of a blood sacrifice by God could cover that sin. This is consistent with the OT annual blood sacrifices and of course their had to be a final blood sacrifice by Jesus to atone for sins once and for all. From my perspective wearing either says two things. First, fig leaves represent that we can atone for our own sins by the works of our own hands, therefore rejecting the sacrifice Jesus made. Two, wearing animal skins also rejects the sacrifice Jesus made with an insinuation that we need more sacrifices to atone for sins.

What is unique and stands apart about the Christian faith over any other faith in the world is that salvation is simple. Faith. Just faith. Islam teaches to do good things, good things, good things and then hope you make it to Paradise with 72 virgins not knowing if your good deeds were good enough to pass by the bad ones. Buddhism and Hinduism teach good deeds as well but then you get re-incarnated to do it all over again if it's not enough. What is unique about the Christian faith is that we have faith alone. There is nothing I can do to earn salvation except to believe in my Lord Jesus. And by faith will those works come. This has a lot to do with that fig leaf. We can't do anything to cover up our sins or our shame. Only God can do that by believing in His Son who by a blood sacrifice was able to cover up our shame.

Have a great day James. I know this one was argumentative, but this is my belief and my faith. Take care.

James,

Sorry, must have missed your question. Of course scholars all have different opinions and if I agreed with every Biblical scholar out there, God knows what I would believe in. Personally, I don't believe in temples and I believe temples and temple ceremonies are not necessary. Of course you will disagree and I don't want to argue again, but I want to give you my belief. Reason being is that the temples in the OT were places where God dwelled and where the priests would make sacrifices and so on. We are in an age of a new covenant. Temple sacrifices are no longer necessary with the final sacrifice of Jesus. Now where do the temples go? We as a body of believers are the temples. God indwells all of us by faith in Jesus. Paul gives us a description of how we are to take care of our bodies and live a healthy life. He reminds us that our bodies are the TEMPLES where God indwells believers. We should keep our bodies in good health because God doesn't want to live in a dirty temple. Not only that but anywhere near a dirty heart. You might notice in the OT how the Israelites paid close attention to keeping the temples very clean. This is symbolic for the new covenant of our bodies being temples as well. Same thing with why they sacrificed a male lamb with no defect. Who was the male lamb with no defect in the NT? I'm sure you know. The OT is very symbolic of the coming of the new covenant by way of Jesus.

Concerning the fig leaves. Gen 3:21 says God made clothes of animal skins to cover them. This has a lot to do with the works/faith issue that divides us as well. Adam and Eve made their own coverings. Fig leaves of course, to cover their shame from sinning. God made them animal skins for coverings instead. Why? Because "our works are as filthy as rags". Isaiah 64:6. Also, to atone for sins you need a blood sacrifice. Obviously if God made them animal skins that required a blood sacrifice. So the works of Adam and Eve were not good enough to atone for their sins. Only by means of a blood sacrifice by God could cover that sin. This is consistent with the OT annual blood sacrifices and of course their had to be a final blood sacrifice by Jesus to atone for sins once and for all. From my perspective wearing either says two things. First, fig leaves represent that we can atone for our own sins by the works of our own hands, therefore rejecting the sacrifice Jesus made. Two, wearing animal skins also rejects the sacrifice Jesus made with an insinuation that we need more sacrifices to atone for sins.

What is unique and stands apart about the Christian faith over any other faith in the world is that salvation is simple. Faith. Just faith. Islam teaches to do good things, good things, good things and then hope you make it to Paradise with 72 virgins not knowing if your good deeds were good enough to pass by the bad ones. Buddhism and Hinduism teach good deeds as well but then you get re-incarnated to do it all over again if it's not enough. What is unique about the Christian faith is that we have faith alone. There is nothing I can do to earn salvation except to believe in my Lord Jesus. And by faith will those works come. This has a lot to do with that fig leaf. We can't do anything to cover up our sins or our shame. Only God can do that by believing in His Son who by a blood sacrifice was able to cover up our shame.

Have a great day James. I know this one was argumentative, but this is my belief and my faith. Take care.

HI David:

You mist read my question. I wanted to find out what you thought about the comments by religious scholars regarding the Biblical nature of the LDS Temple Endowment.

Any thoughts there?

Also, I was curious as to why you used the term "God rejected Adam and Eve's aprons"? Do you have a bible reference on that? Just curious why you would phrase it that way?

Thanks,

James

James,

Thanks for the explanation. I can't have a sure fire opinion on the matter since I have never attended an LDS endowment ceremony or a masonic ceremony. Of course at best I can speculate. The one thing I can comment about is the aprons that Adam and Eve wore. They are the fig leaves. Of course the fig leaves are something God rejected and replaced with animal skin. So wearing something God rejected to me is not understandable, but I will not try to argue this since my knowledge of the matter is limited. I know you say it's because of the knowledge of good and evil, but maybe I was wondering why you think God rejected those fig leaves and replaced them with animal skin? I'm actually quite curious as to why you wouldn't prefer to wear leather aprons instead since that is something God did not reject but instead replaced the fig leaves with?

Otherwise, concerning the freemasons, I'm fully aware of all the famous people in freemasonry. I'm aware that most presidents have been freemasons and many other prominent figures in american history as well. This of course is what makes them such a powerful group of individuals. But, it doesn't mean it's a good thing. There are several books from ex-masons that have full descriptions of what you learn as you progress along the masonic line of authority. I have heard a personal testimony from an ex-mason that was a Christian at the same time as being a mason. He left the masonic lodge when finding out about what the end result of masonry is. This of course is information that is limited to the new members and is only available by moving up in rank. The reason I express that Christians shouldn't be masons is because it is way more than just a fraternity of "brethren". Of course they won't tell you that upon early membership. But with progression and a build of trust, it becomes evident. I know there are many Christians that are masons right now. Well meaning Christians as well. I don't think they understand what masonry is all about. But as they get further along, they will. And just like this man I knew who was a mason, when he found out, he left, thank God. Unfortunately, it was a fearful experience for him and he truly feared for his life because of the knowledge gained by this "secret society".

I think I'll leave the freemasonry experience and knowledge up to you to find out. I do warn you to pay close attention to the symbolic rituals that take place at masonic lodges. I'm not saying at all that the LDS have the same meanings as these rituals. That is not for me to assume since I have never had the experience of witnessing any one of these events. Thanks for posting the information from the LDS perspective. Have a good day, James.

David:

The criticism of Masonry by Christian groups is not a secret. Its been further heightened by antimormon criticism of the LDS Temple endowment.

There is nothing subversive or "alarming" or "disturbing" within Freemasonry as I have read about it.

Some of the world's brightest and best "Christians" have been and are Freemasons.
From Astronauts, Doctors, Poets, Policmen, to Presidents including George Washington, James Monroe Theodore Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, & Gerald Ford - all Freemasons.

You said there is a "striking" similiarity between both rituals. LDS say there are some similiarities. However, the few simliarities are dwarfed by the differences in meaning and usage of the symbols.

You may want to read the Bible in regard to the 5 points you just mentioned.

1. Adam and Eve wore aprons.
2. Jesus told his disciplies to recognize him by the crucifixion marks in his hands (and feet).
3. In the Old & New Testament, God teaches that the process of salvation (receving the gospel into ones life and resurrection) is a life long process.
4. Masons did not originate their symbols - they are borrowed from antiquity.
5. Another word for "oath" is "covenant". When we make a covenant with God we pledge our "life" to him. Our promises to God are so serious that we would give up our lives rather than break them. We don't agree to be "killed" - we just acknowledge that breaking a promise to God is a serious sin.

(Notice the last sentance - I didn't say , that we would rather BE killed if we break them. Which is NOT a part of the LDS endowment ceremony which is how antimormons interpret this covenant. If you want to know about the biggest "blood oath" ever - it was the atonement and crucifixion of our Lord and Savior. He made an oath to be killed for our sins.)

The LDS endowment from beginning to end (ordinances and rituals) including baptisms, washings, annoitings, endowment and instruction, and sealings total around 4-5 hours. Your list represents around 2 minutes.

So...um....sure... there are some things that are similiar.

If you compare the rest of the endowment to the Bible and other scriptures you'll find that 98% comes from those sources.

For support on this, just reference what the two religious scholars have said about the LDS Temple experience.

By the way, I am curious to get your take on what those scholars had to say? Thoughts?

Best,

James

James,

Thanks for the information you posted. I read through it to get a feel of what is said about the link of mormonism and freemasonry. I think it is noted even by mormon apologists that there is a striking similiarity between both rituals. I read as noted that there are differences as well. Here's some similarities I found.

1. Both wear aprons
2. Both have a "secret" handshake?? I believe they both are to place the thumb over the index knuckle?? Is this true?? If in the Melchizedek priesthood, is it the "sign of the nail"?
3. Both do not teach the fullness of the ceremonies. It is a gradual process.
4. Both have SOME common masonic symbols.
5. This may not be the case anymore, but both used to make members swear a blood oath to secrecy. If anyone told the secrets of the temple they were to be killed. (I read that on the LDS website)

There does seem to be a striking commonality between the two. Of course according to mormon apologists the meanings are different. However, it was just something I noted today that I wanted to confirm. Just so you are aware, as a Christian, I would warn anyone from joining a masonic lodge. It's not quite what it seems. I do not know this from personal experience, but like I mentioned before I knew a man who was a higher upper in the masonic lodge and what he told me as you accrue more knowledge was quite disturbing. I'll just leave it at that.

Thank you for your information James. I don't intend to argue anymore, but this was a great deal of information for me that confirmed something I needed to know. Thanks.

David

David:

I am not a freemason but I do know some mormons who are freemasons. Many leaders in the early days of the LDS Church were freemasons and as mentioned Joseph Smith was a freemason for a time of the York rite I believe.

There are many articles on the web regarding freemasonry. I am not quite sure I could add anything to freemasonry.

But to make perhaps a crude analogy of the similiarity of symbolism between the LDS Temple endowment (a priesthood ordinance having to do with the covenant with Jesus Christ) and freemasonry is like saying there's great shared symbolism between the Tau cross and Christianity.

Apart from some (very little) shared outward ritualistic signs, they don't share any of the same meanings. The other similiarities are not relative to Masonry per se but other ceremonies found in the Bible and ancient Jewish and Christians esoteric rites.

The LDS endowment is rich in symbolism that would be found in the Old & New Testament, and other LDS scriptures.

To understand a part of that symbolism, there are some discussions you'll want to look at:

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_masons.shtml

Here are some interesting quotes from scholars on the LDS temple experience.

"In antiquity, . . . 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."
--Krister Stendahl, Dean of Divinity Emeritus, Harvard University, from an interview played in the LDS video, Between Heaven and Earth, 2002.

"I am both interested and delighted to see so much of ancient religious tradition, particularly Biblical tradition, taken up into the religious structures and rituals of the Mormons."
-- Frank Moore Cross, Professor of Ancient History, Harvard University, spoken in the LDS video, Between Heaven and Earth, 2002

Best,

James

Ghostbuster,
Once again we can learn from you, and I have learned from you through your last post: that sometimes the best answer is "let me think about this." I had hoped that you would do some deep thinking and reading/re-reading, and I realize that process will take time--perhaps days, weeks, maybe longer. I appreciate the depth of your analysis, and the peace with which you convey where you're coming from as well as allow for different points of view. I know that such peace comes from the depths of your soul, through this very process of thinking deeply. I also think the Savior taught us that. Again, thanks.

Thanks for the info James,

This is the article I read on the lds website.

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2005_Latter-day_Saints_and_Freemasonry.html

I was quite surprised to find this information about the lds church on it's own site. I have heard that certain masonic rituals were implemented along with lds temple rituals as well, but wasn't completely sure if that was the truth or not considering I never attended any temple rituals. So, I guess admittingly the LDS church says that freemasonry was part of the foundation of the lds church.

I actually saw pictures of the mormon temple once and noticed the "all seeing eye" and other masonic symbols as well. I'm curious James (and of course you don't have to answer this) but are you a freemason as well? And do you know what freemasons teach? I actually knew a man who was once a freemason and got up to the higher levels of this "fraternity". I was quite shocked to find out what he told me. There was even a book I read once about freemasonry written by a man who got to the highest level of masonic authority. Can't remember the name of the book, but I was hoping maybe we can discuss this issue further. If not, I understand. Like you said there are certain aspects of the temple ceremonies that you keep in secret. I know the Masons do the same thing. I respect your right to do so. I'm just wondering if you would consider talking to me on the subject of freemasonry?

Thanks James. Best to ya.

David

Hello again David:

The short answer is no, LDS do not consider (have never considered) Freemasonry to be a religion. It has always been a fraternity.

Early on Joseph Smith said that some elements of ancient priesthood ceremony had been preserved in Freemasonry. However, the meaning of the rituals had long since been corrupted.

Joseph Smith restored the ancient endowment ceremony and brought back all of the elements together to form a complete whole.

Here are some resources for you to start with if you’re interested in the topic.

http://ldsfaq.byu.edu/emmain.asp?number=86

http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Similarities_between_Masonic_and_Mormon_Temple_Ritual.html

Obviously the nature of the Temple is sacred to Mormons and we do not discuss some details. However, there are many things we can discuss.

Best,

James

I have a HUGE question I need to ask for any LDS member please. Do the LDS accept Freemasons and the rituals that freemasons perform? I ran into an interesting article earlier that Joseph Smith was a freemason in the Nauvoo Lodge and that many of the temple rituals are bases on freemasonry. Is this true?

Lovin' the parables. Who doesn't love a good parable now and then. It keeps the brain going and the spirit moving. I guess I have one as well. I heard this about 2 weeks ago.

There was once a very rich father and son who lived in a great big mansion. The son would walk to school every day and around the corner of his house stood a beggar. Every day the son would talk with the beggar before going to school. He would tell the beggare about his father's house and especially about a huge wonderful art gallery that his father had.

Every day the son would talk to the beggar and the beggar really liked this son. No one seemed to ever pay attention to this beggar except this son who was so kind and would go on and on about this great art gallery in his father's house.

Then one day the son stopped coming around. Come to find out the beggar overheard that this son had suddenly died. This really distraught the beggar. He felt bad for the father in that house who lost his son. So the beggar decided as a nice gesture to get some paper and crayons and make a portrait of the son. He drew it up and walked to the gate in front and asked the gatekeeper if he could give this drawing to the father in the mansion. The beggar told the gatekeeper that the son was so nice to him that he drew him a portrait and would hope that the father would take it as a token of appreciation for the son being so good to him. The beggar walked off. The gatekeeper looked at it and folded it up, put it in his pocket and thought, "That was nice, maybe I should give this to the owner of the mansion". The same day the owner of the mansion was leaving and the gatekeeper told him about this beggar who heard about this art gallery of his and thought maybe it would be nice that you have a portrait of his son as well. The owner looked at it, took it and left for the day.

A few years passed and the beggar always wondered what happened to that drawing of his. One day he heard that the father had suddenly passed away and that they were auctioning off all the art in his gallery. The beggar scrounged up enough money to buy himself a suit so he could fit in and attend this auction. He always wondered how magnificent this art gallery would look like as told by the son.

The day of the auction comes. All the who's who's were there and the beggar was able to slip in. Looking around the beggar sees all these art fanatics looking intently on all this art with special spectacles and examining these pieces of art with extreme caution. The auctioneer pounds his gavel as to the auction is starting to begin. The beggar sits in the back to watch the bidding begin.

The auctioneer first had an announcement. "The owner of this art gallery had a final request in his will before he died. He requested that this portrait of his son be auctioned off first."

After a bunch of grumbling from the crowd, they settled down and let this portrait be bidded on. The auctioneer asked for any starting bids. No one bid on this portrait. Finally, the beggar reaches into his pocket and grabs whatever change he has and places a bid on the portrait.

"Are there any other bids?" asked the auctioneer. No one answered. "Going once, going twice, sold" with a pound of the gavel. The beggar goes up to pay for the portrait and takes it and begins to walk off. The auctioneer has another announcement to make.

"The owner of this art gallery had one final request in his will."

Every one turned and paid attention as to what that could be.

"The owner wrote that whoever bid on the portrait of the son gets the WHOLE art gallery."

Have a great day

Parker,
I need to read those verses you sent me and give your post to me the time it deserves. Today, I must be brief though due to time constraints. I'm sure you know how that is with 8 children. Sorry about that. I noticed you just posted something else to me and I don't even have time to read it now.

Jim,
Thanks for the parable. It makes perfect logical sense.

I heard this one just the other day and dug it up online this morning… I like it better :)

One day, the son of a town judge was arrested for driving recklessly and put on trial for his crime. It so happened, the father was the court judge at his son's trial. Because the father was the judge, he had to uphold the law and find his son guilty. The punishment was a fine of $1000. Unfortunately, the son did not have the money to pay for the fine and had to be sent to jail. Before the son was to be jailed, his father took off his robe and wrote a cheque for $1000 to pay for his son's fine. As a result, the son was set free.

Ghostbuster,
I find that I still can't sleep, and I have thought about a set of verses that I hope you may consider deeply and thoughtfully. When Paul wrote the epistle to the Hebrews, he seems to be addressing members of the church. You and I love the entire epistle, but looking at Chapter 3:5, we find "But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end. Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will hear his voice, Harden not your hearts...) take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God... lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end;"

There are "if" clauses there, very clearly. The implication is clear that the saints need to do something in order to be "stedfast unto the end."

Reading on, we find in Hebrews 6 (note that verse 1 has a very slight but very important mistranslation that makes verse 2 make no sense) but in verse 4: "For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame." Another "if" clause--a very important one.

Then in verse 11, "And we desire that every one of you do shew the same diligence to the full assurance of hope unto the end: That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience (this refers back to chapter 11 and should be read and studied in conjunction with that) inherit the promises."

There is a call for diligence, for not being slothful, for being followers of the examples cited in Hebrews 11. Paul was not saying, "once saved, always saved." He was clearly teaching, "watch out, perservere, be diligent, don't fall away from the grace of Christ that you initially experienced by coming into the gospel covenant."

To do that--to not "fall away"--the believers have the opportunity for baptism, we all can have the gift of the Holy Ghost, we all can have the opportunity to daily repent and change and become more purified, and we all can have the tokens of remembrance of Christ--the sacrament of the Lord's supper. All these are to help us to "hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end."

What would be your thoughts on these passages, Ghostbuster? Perhaps we are closely aligned on these points. Have a good day!

Ghostbuster,
I noticed your last post, and thank you for adding to the discussion. (I also thank you for having had kind words earlier about my comments, but I gave it not much thought because I had earlier in the day watched the funeral of one of the most truly loving, truly benevolent in word and example, of any person I have ever had the privilege to know on the earth--a counselor in the First Presidency of our church, James E. Faust. He gave a recent talk on forgiveness that I think would be considered a true classic by anyone from any denomination who is seeking to teach on that subject.)

I'm sure as you study the New Testament epistles that you maintain a sort of double awareness--that the apostles were writing letters to members of the church, some of whom were Jewish converts and some of whom were Gentile converts. It shouldn't surprise us that they would emphasize different things as they wrote to different audiences. Yet, we all agree that the Bible was inspired by God to speak to all of us also. I personally think that it needs to be understood by the same spirit of revelation through which the words were inspired to be written down.

When I read David's beautiful explanation of how "doing what's right" will naturally flow from the heart of the person who has truly been "born again" and received the "free gift" you have noted, I thought to myself, "right on--that's exactly what I also believe!" There is a wonderful newness of heart, a change of heart, that becomes apparent in how that person now lives their life.

I love all the epistles, but especially the epistles of Peter. It is quite clear from the context that in 1 Peter 1 he is addressing primarily the Gentile converts--the "strangers scattered". He tells them that after they have "greatly rejoiced" and received the "lively hope ... to an inheritance incorruptible," then they should "be ye holy in all manner of conversation;" later he explands this theme when he says in 2:12 "Having your conversation (doesn't this word conversation in this context mean "how you go about your daily life"?) honest among the Gentiles: that ...they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation." In other words, they will see "your" good example and their hearts will be softened so that they can also glorify God by being "born again" when they are visited with the message of the gospel of salvation.

In 1 Peter 2:24, he continues the theme "that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed." ... 1 Peter 3:12 "For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous (whom Peter has described in the preceding verses by how they treat others), and his ears are open unto their prayers: but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil."

Now note especially verses 16 and 17, then 18 through 20, and also 22 (note that in heaven Jesus Christ is on the right hand of God): "that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers (and isn't that what some who profess Christ in our day do also, when they say not to bother thinking about having good deeds that manifest their change of heart?) ...that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ." ..."suffer for well doing..."

We then note that Christ "went and preached unto the spirits in prison..." who had died at the time of Noah. That word prison can remind a student of the Bible of what Jesus quoted from in Isaiah 61:1, "the Lord hath anointed me... to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;"

Ghostbuster, I would earnestly desire that you ask God in prayer what all these verses mean for you and for your ancestors who have passed on and live as spirits. If you read the early writings of Christians, you will come upon the belief that they had that there was going to be an opening of the doors of the spirit world through Christ by virtue of the "works" of the faithful saints in this world. Look for those kinds of writings. You will find them. All of these things make perfect sense when combined together, especially when accompanied by the spirit of revelation to get the spirit of understanding.

We believe 100% in the grace offered by Jesus Christ, even more abundantly (since it expands to billions of people) than those who ignore the proviso made clear that Jesus opens the door of the "prison" spoken of by Peter. We believe it applies not only to every living person, but to every ancestor of every person. This is why "every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ"--because they will be taught about why they should do so and will receive that free gift you noted, the gift of becoming "holy", without spot, as Christ is holy.

Peace and blessings to you and your loved ones.

James,

I don't think you read my post very well. I mentioned just evidence on Biblical reliability. I wasn't talking about the BOA or anything else. You mentioned I had another "bag of tricks". Nope. I was simply talking about evidence of Biblical reliability James. Nothing more. If there was undisputable evidence for Biblical reliability, wouldn't that enhance your faith? That was the question. Nothing to do with anything else. I'll just leave the Trinity debate alone. If you want to go on about it, feel free. It's a free country and you can say what you want. I figure there is no point anymore. So please feel free to express whatever you want. I thought that was past us, but I guess not.

Wish you the best James. Take care.

I enjoyed Parker's most recent comments too.

David and Ghostbuster, since you mention parables, I hope you don't mind if I share a favorite of mine that shows the beauty of the Atonement and how we can be free from sin by abiding by the Mediators terms. This is from Boyd Packer; it is a little long but well worth the time to read it:

“There once was a man who wanted something very much. It seemed more important than anything else in his life. In order for him to have his desire, he incurred a great debt.

“He had been warned about going into that much debt, and particularly about his creditor. But it seemed so important for him to do what he wanted to and to have what he wanted right now. He was sure he could pay for it later.

“So he signed a contract. He would pay it off some time along the way. He didn’t worry too much about it, for the due date seemed such a long time away. He had what he wanted now, and that was what seemed important.

“The creditor was always somewhere in the back of his mind, and he made token payments now and again, thinking somehow that the day of reckoning really would never come.

“But as it always does, the day came, and the contract fell due. The debt had not been fully paid. His creditor appeared and demanded payment in full.

“Only then did he realize that his creditor not only had the power to repossess all that he owned, but the power to cast him into prison as well.

“ ‘I cannot pay you, for I have not the power to do so,’ he confessed.

“ ‘Then,’ said the creditor, ‘we will exercise the contract, take your possessions and you shall go to prison. You agreed to that. It was your choice. You signed the contract, and now it must be enforced.’

“ ‘Can you not extend the time or forgive the debt?’ the debtor begged. ‘Arrange some way for me to keep what I have and not go to prison. Surely you believe in mercy? Will you not show mercy?’

“The creditor replied, ‘Mercy is always so one-sided. It would serve only you. If I show mercy to you, it will leave me unpaid. It is justice I demand. Do you believe in justice?’

“ ‘I believed in justice when I signed the contract,’ the debtor said. ‘It was on my side then, for I thought it would protect me. I did not need mercy then, nor think I should need it ever. Justice, I thought, would serve both of us equally as well.’

“ ‘It is justice that demands that you pay the contract or suffer the penalty,’ the creditor replied. ‘That is the law. You have agreed to it and that is the way it must be. Mercy cannot rob justice.’

“There they were: One meting out justice, the other pleading for mercy. Neither could prevail except at the expense of the other.

“ ‘If you do not forgive the debt there will be no mercy,’ the debtor pleaded.

“ ‘If I do, there will be no justice,’ was the reply.

“Both laws, it seemed, could not be served. They are two eternal ideals that appear to contradict one another. Is there no way for justice to be fully served, and mercy also?

“There is a way! The law of justice can be fully satisfied and mercy can be fully extended—but it takes someone else. And so it happened this time.

“The debtor had a friend. He came to help. He knew the debtor well. He knew him to be shortsighted. He thought him foolish to have gotten himself into such a predicament. Nevertheless, he wanted to help because he loved him. He stepped between them, faced the creditor, and made this offer.

“ ‘I will pay the debt if you will free the debtor from his contract so that he may keep his possessions and not go to prison.’

“As the creditor was pondering the offer, the mediator added, ‘You demanded justice. Though he cannot pay you, I will do so. You will have been justly dealt with and can ask no more. It would not be just.’

“And so the creditor agreed.

“The mediator turned then to the debtor. ‘If I pay your debt, will you accept me as your creditor?’

“ ‘Oh yes, yes,’ cried the debtor. ‘You saved me from prison and show mercy to me.’

“ ‘Then,’ said the benefactor, ‘you will pay the debt to me and I will set the terms. It will not be easy, but it will be possible. I will provide a way. You need not go to prison.’

“And so it was that the creditor was paid in full. He had been justly dealt with. No contract had been broken.

“The debtor, in turn, had been extended mercy. Both laws stood fulfilled. Because there was a mediator, justice had claimed its full share, and mercy was satisfied” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1977, pp. 79–80; or Ensign, May 1977, pp. 54–55).

Our sins are our spiritual debts. Without Jesus Christ, who is our Savior and Mediator, we would all pay for our sins by suffering spiritual death. But because of him, if we will keep his terms, which are to repent and keep his commandments, we may return to live with our Heavenly Father.

Parker:

I enjoyed your post as well. I thought you completely addressed the issues with clarity.

David:

I found nothing in your last post that in any way responds to the fact that your trinity doctrine does not agree with:

* Ancient Jewish interpretation of Isaiah,
* Early Christian interpretation of Isaiah and the NT verses regarding the Godhead, and
* Biblical scholar interpretation for the last 200 years.

The strongest case against your doctrine is the Bible itself. It does not teach that God is a singular being of three co-equal persons in one ontological substance.

I rely 100% on the Bible for the evidence that I should reject your trinity doctrine as the "doctrines of men" (in this case Catholic Bishops in multiple councils).

You asked if some evidence came out against my faith, would I depart from it? Antimormons have been using this line against unsuspecting LDS for sometime. What's coming out of your bag of antimormon tricks next David?

Book of Abraham papyri? Archeology? DNA and the Book of Mormon?

Let me answer you with these verses:

1 Kings 19:11-12
And, behold, the LORD passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the LORD; [but] the LORD [was] not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; [but] the LORD [was] not in the earthquake:

And after the earthquake a fire; [but] the LORD [was] not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice.

I have a witness from the Holy Ghost that Jesus condescended into this world from his throne, and suffered and died for my sins, to make me acceptable before God's eyes and to bring me to Him. He did this because of His love for me (and you) that all might have forgiveness from sins and that we might live with Him and have eternal life - His life and to be able to overcome all things through Jesus Christ to sit with him in his throne as He sits with the Father in his Father's throne.

This same Holy Ghost has borne witness to me that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only "true" and living Church on the earth - meaning - within it can be found the sealing power given to Peter where the ordinances of the gospel can be received.

David, I wish you the best that Orthodox Christianity has to offer. Go and "live" it. Gather all of the righteous principles to yourself and live them. Do the will of the Father as best as you know how. Read the Bible. Study it and ponder its miraculous and wonderful message. Study the travels and travails of the Apostles.

Millions of faithful Latter-day Saints are doing a remarkable job at following the will of the Father too. Presently, you can't see this - and I am ok with that.

If you can't ever accept the fullness of the gospel then live every true principle i nthe Bible that you possibly can - exercise faith in Jesus, repent of your sins daily, call upon the name of the Lord daily and seek to do good by remembering the "fatherless and the widows in their afflication".

The Savior declared:

Matt 5: 17-19:

17 Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished.

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

David, we are not going to see eye to eye on the trinity. It's not going to happen. So why spend anymore time on our differences? As Latter-day Saints, we spend millions of dollars proesyting to Catholics, Protestants etc. to bring them the message of the restored gospel. We want them to receive all of the blessings of the gospel of Jesus Christ. If they don't want to join us, then we wish them well on their life's journey and hope that they will hold on to their limited view of Jesus and the gospel and do as much as the Father's will that they can. After that we seek to be friends - unified in causes that are important to us both such as electing a President who will hold up constrituional principles and family values. We can work together to feed the poor and help the down trodden.

That we may seek to teach and do those "commandments" that our Lord and Savior would have us do - that we do the will of the Father in loving God and loving one another is my hope and prayer for all of us.

Best,

James

GB,

Ahhhh...nothing like a good analogy. I love a parable or analogy. Thank you for that. I have a great parable I heard the other day with a similiar point that you made. I thought it was great. Maybe I'll share it later on. For now, thanks for the wonderful analogy.

God bless

Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.
- 1Peter 1:16

Interesting thought, it says "Be" holy. Not "become" holy. The only way one gets to Heavenly Father is to "be" and the only way one does that is to "come".

Lets say I purchased expensive tickets to a big football game. I offer one of the tickets to a good friend as a gift. But, my friend rebukes my offer and will not accept the ticket from me unless I agree to sell them to him for face value. I explain that the tickets have already been purchased and that there is no way I will take money for them. So my friend says that he will mow my grass, paint my house, babysit my kids and do all my laundry as payment for the ticket. I say "no" and again explain that I am offering a free ticket.

Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

Romans 3:22-26

Parker,

NOW THAT'S HOW TO WRITE A GOOD ARGUMENT!

If Jesus didn't say no one is good but God, then I would call you a good man Parker. But according to man's standards you are allright with me. You mentioned how a kingdom can't stand divided. (Here comes my obnoxious honesty again), but we are divided Parker. I hate to admit that, no matter how nice of people you all are, we are divided on some major doctrinal issues that cannot bring us together. When I say that you are decieved, I really really do not want you to take that personally. I truly believe this. As you may also believe that I have been decieved as well. I have never considered Mormonism because I have looked at enough evidence to say to myself that it is contradictory to the truth. Of course your going to disagree, but I want you to understand that I will never be a mormon or even consider it. I'm sorry for that and the fact that we are divided on religious dogma, but that is just how it is. I think at best we can wish each other the very best and hope for the best for each other in this life that God has blessed us with.

I must say Parker, I appreciate your gentle honesty on here. (There was one time you called us all "close-minded" and I could tell you got a little upset) but besides that you've been the nicest, gentlest responder on here. I thank you for that, and hope that I can become more gentle in my responses as well because I know at times my honesty kills a conversation. I think I need to learn to bring my honesty into a conversation with more compassion at times. I am sorry for not doing this enough. But I do respect you and what you have stood for on here as a gentle man with a great sense of humbleness. I appreciate that. Thank you Parker and have a great day.

Ghostbuster,
I could tell you have been a teacher. If you get the chance, we'd love to know more about the circumstances. Would that the world were full of such teachers!

David,
I for one would not say at all that you are "deceived by satan" as you put it. To clarify and make a major point of difference, those who knowingly, and with understanding, reject the fullness of the gospel (but live good lives and have great intentions) do so because they were "honorable men of the earth who were blinded by the craftiness of men." (D & C 76:75)
I have no idea if you are in that category, because (1)I don't know your heart, and (2)I don't think you've really even begun to consider Mormonism from your heart, just on the surface from your mind--but that's OK, because the timetable as I've said before isn't a hundred yard dash.

You cited how the Savior taught the Pharisees as a precedence for your approach. Let us consider the specifics from the Bible. Let's look at Matthew 23, Mark 7, and Luke 11. What does the Savior accuse them of?

"For ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer:" ..."ye ...have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith:" ..."ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward..."

"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... teaching for doctrines the commandments of men... ye hold the tradition of men... ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition." "That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man."

When the Savior spoke of false prophets, he said, "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits." (Matthew 7:15,16) That, David, was an absolute promise. Ye shall know them by their fruits. What are going to be their fruits? It will be how they treat the poor, the widows (compare Isaiah whom the Savior loved to quote). "Is not this the fast that I have chosen? to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free,... to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house?" (Isaiah 58:6,7)

David, you noted that baptism is an outward show of an inward commitment. Yes! Absolutely, yes! The commitment of following Christ is in how we treat people, even those not of our same faith.

The Savior didn't preach to the Parisees about the Trinity; neither did the Apostle Paul when he gave his great discourse to King Agrippa. That discourse is very insightful as to how to teach the gospel to non-believers. He first said, "I know thee to be expert..." (he gave positive feedback) Then he told his own conversion story (you did this once, which was great). Then he told of teaching the Jews and then the Gentiles "that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance." (Acts 26:20) Then he asks a question of King Agrippa (a great teaching method), and continues to treat him with respect and deference. He doesn't accuse him of worshipping a false God, and doesn't talk about a Trinitarian doctrine at all.

David, if you accuse me of not helping the poor, or of not bringing forth "fruits worthy of repentance" (Luke 3:8) then I will agree that you are using Biblical patterns of teaching even though I will also say you don't know what is in my heart and I will remind that what I have done in these respects was not "to be seen of men." But if you accuse us of being deceived by satan, I will say that so said the Pharisees of Christ, and His response was "If Satan also be divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand?" I will also say, since you said God has not changed His word, "Who shall ascend into the hill of the Lord? or who shall stand in his holy place? He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart; who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity, nor sworn deceitfully." That's what we should all be striving for, the best way that we know how, hopefully by following the Spirit of inspiration, the spirit of brotherly love and kindness and gentleness. I earnestly hope that it may be so for you, our friend.

James,

Your right. A harsh response is definately what I deserve. I guess I'll put it in my own terms. A harsh reality deserves a harsh response. Of course I will apologize for that being personally offensive to anyone. Do I believe what I posted? Yepper! I've been consistent on this thread the whole time in truly believing mormonism is deceptive. If it being deceptive, then it is from satan. This is what I believe wholeheartedly. I told Parker that my honesty is sometimes unappealing. I'm fully aware of that. But I don't regret being honest one bit. I have nothing personal against anyone here. I do have something personal against LDS teaching though and that is my point. So if I ever called anyone an idiot, stupid or any other unneccessary names, forgive me. I know I haven't. But I don't regret one bit on saying that mormonism is a satanic deception because I truly believe it decieves people away from the one true God. I just wish you would have the same honesty in saying that I've been decieved by satan since I believe in Orthodox Christianity. I'm sure you believe that too! I'm sure you've said that the Trinity doctrine is satanic. Actually you claimed that it is paganistic, therefore you ARE saying it's satanic. What's the difference then? I'm sure Jesus wasn't too hesitant on rooting out the evil Pharisees with His words. He didn't sit back and make sure no one's feelings were hurt. He got straight down to business and said it like it is. Why should I do any different?

But, with the Biblical reality response, I understand James. You want to continue to be as harsh with me as possible. That's fine. Feel free to do so. I'm not hurt one bit. I simply made a statement as to back the Bible's reliability and still can't understand why that can even be an issue. If taking the evidence wholly, the Bible is very reliable. I merely thought that Biblical reliability is in no way affecting mormon beliefs. I still am in awe today as to why mormons can't believe the evidence? There has to be some kind of conspiracy of some sort. Maybe instead of my pre-suppositions, I can have an explanation as to why Biblical reliability would have any effect on your faith. For example, say some overwhelming evidence came about that you could not even dispute it. Would that really change your faith? So to think I was bringing about another argument wasn't my intention. I would actually assume that Biblical reliability would enhance your faith. Guess not.

James,
OK, I didn't realize you were basing your replies to David off of some of his initial remarks which I never read (or don't remember reading). I would agree that the comments you sited serve little purpose other than to insight anger. Perhaps if David is reading this he would agree and apologize? Regardless, I thought the conversation had long since evolved from any initial fuse.

Parker,
You may indeed be the kindest person I've ever met on a public forum board. And yes, I've done some teaching.

Ghostbuster,
I want to thank you (hopefully before you go) for the example you have been able to set for many here, of how to disagree without being disagreeable, and of conveying respect for others with differences of belief. I suspect you have had roles as a teacher. If so, your students have benefitted greatly from learning from your example as well as from what you have taught them.

We all know the Christian gospel is supposed to change people from the inside out, to give them the "fruit of the Spirit"--"love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance." This will be manifest in how they treat everyone around them. It is what people are looking for in the world--a religion that is not so much emphasizing "dogma" but that is emphasizing a change from the heart that enables them to be their best selves (for they know it is in them, and just needs to be awakened and encouraged and fed). If you and Karen could use your influence to help those you interface with to follow your example in how you go about asking questions or explaining your beliefs without tearing other people down, (and perhaps you do--thanks if you do), it will be a wonderful contribution.

People can change. I've sensed a change during these few weeks from David's first post to his last one and several others. I hope he has also learned from you and Karen. I regard all three of you warmly, with the utmost respect. Thanks!

Hi GB:

I am not quite sure how to respond to your post but I will make an attempt.

First let's read the first post from David:

"I see a recurring pattern among the cults. The continuous claim to be the "one true church". If only you read your Bibles you might read about the one true church being the body of believers headed by Christ, not man. And if Mr. Otterson would just read Heb 1:1-3 you can see we do not need modern day revelation because we now have Jesus. Stop the deception Mr. Otterson and help true Christians bring those to the true Jesus. Not the Jesus from a god the father who has a wife and lives near a planet called kolob.

The claim to the "one true church" is a satanic deception that will lead the many into being controlled by fear from those that claim these things. Terrible thing it is. Terrible thing it is. "

Harsh?

I think David has received the responses that are most appropriate for him.

Best,

James

James,
I think you answered my question fully. I see no reason to ask any follow up questions. I appreciate your time, Thanks!

Now I must address something that has been irritating me. It seems that your last post to David was a little harsh, don't you think? He is debating from his perspective, you are debating from yours. I've found the banter between you both very interesting. It's been pretty civil considering the topic.

You know, I've chatted with some people on these boards who absolutely HATE me and everything I stand for. Such as what this guy posted in April...

"I look for the day when the last evangelical Christian is strangled in the entrails of the last Muslim."

That is my favorite one, but I could find about 500 more that would do the trick. You know, I've read some pretty angry things directed at Mormons too. I think there is a difference btw posts meant solely to incite anger and a debate.

So, when does a dialogue become "anti-Mormon"? I ask because I don't want to offend, but at the same time I won't pander. I may run across a discussion on topic someday that will probably be offensive to the average LDS member. Is a serious discussion about racial issues or polygamy or Adam-God or book of mormon archeology... off limits because it may be anti-Mormon? Is David "anti-Mormon" because he thinks you are dead wrong and wants to convince as many of your brethren who are following along in this thread to consider his points? And likewise, might David consider you "anti-Christian" for you’re some of your arguments?

"We rarely think people have good sense unless they agree with us."
-Francis de la Rochefoucauld

James, I'm not saying this to you because you’re not on my "side". I think in this case we should ALL be on the same side; the side of allowing each other to say what we think and feel while at the same time trying to respect other opinions without selling out what we believe. And if a dialogue leads to a fundamental paradigm shift in a person's belief system... is that OK?

Ahhh... who says talking "religion" is boring?

Regards to all... I do appreciate this chat. I was "done" with these boards before accidentaly stumbling upon this chat. I suppose I read one too many entries like the "guts" one posted above.

GB

Hi Ghostbuster:

If there’s something strange in my neighborhood, I am calling you. Oops.. I just dated myself big time. 

You asked me to respond to this point:

"I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book." (History of the Church, Vol. 4, page 461)

You asked: If so, would you agree with Smith's assessment that the BOM is the most correct book of any on earth?

No and Yes.

No. I do not agree that it is the most grammatically correct book on the earth.

However, yes, I certainly do agree with Joseph Smith as it relates to a relationship with God.

The correctness of the Book of Mormon refers to what Joseph Smith calls “precepts”.

I believe Joseph Smith was very careful to use the word “precept” when he described how the Book of Mormon would be the most correct of any other book. He connects “drawing near to God” by “abiding” it’s precepts above any book on earth.

If you’ve never looked up the word “precept” it’s very enlightening. Precepts are commands respecting to moral conduct usually. In this case they have everything to do with the Gospel of Jesus Christ; the ways in which we “come unto Jesus”.

In my own life, I can bear witness of this truth. The more I have read the Book of Mormon the closer I come to God. I react more humbly, more compassionately to others – I feel more love from the Savior and for my fellow men. I have read the Book of Mormon many times. My wife, my children all too have read it and also stand as witnesses of its positive and overwhelming influence for goodness, glory and praise of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Many times when Orthodox Christians hear that we believe there is another book that can draw someone “nearer” to God, they oftentimes misunderstand this for a reject of the Bible.

Other issues come into play such as our 8th article of faith that states:

“We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.”

We don’t we believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God, as far as it is translated correctly? The answer is we do. Or better yet, the answer is, we acknowledge both the power and inspiration of God and the fallibility of man in the process.

I also feel impressed to address reliability of the Bible. LDS believe that the Bible is reliable as the Word of God. However, we reject the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy. God is infallible. Man is quite fallible.

Here’s a statement from www.lds.org under the Gospel Topics section:

“Latter-day Saints revere the Bible. They study it and believe it to be the word of God. However, they do not believe the Bible, as it is currently available, is without error.

Joseph Smith commented, "I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 327).

The Latter-day Saints have a great reverence and love for the Bible. They study it and try to live its teachings. They treasure its witness of the life and mission of the Lord Jesus Christ. The Prophet Joseph Smith studied the Bible all his life, and he taught its precepts. He testified that a person who can "mark the power of Omnipotence, inscribed upon the heavens, can also see God's own handwriting in the sacred volume: and he who reads it oftenest will like it best, and he who is acquainted with it, will know the hand [of the Lord] wherever he can see it" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 56).

As the Bible was compiled, organized, translated, and transcribed, many errors entered the text. The existence of such errors becomes apparent when one considers the numerous and often conflicting translations of the Bible in existence today. Careful students of the Bible are often puzzled by apparent contradictions and omissions. Many people have also been curious about references by biblical prophets to books or scriptural passages that are not currently in the Bible. “

We know from early Christian writings today that the textual evidence makes an inerrant Bible text untenable.

Best,

James

Hi David:

I read your last post and "skimmed through" the ex-mo "testimony".

If you go to www.mormons.org, you can see live video testimonies of Catholics, Protestants, white, blacks, asians telling, in part, their conversion stories to the LDS faith. Further, about 250,000 people join the LDS faith each year. Should we count the ex-mos and the new-mormons and have a contest?

I really don't want to get into the details of this but I will tell you that quoting something like this because you failed to prove your doctrinal point is akin to bearing false witness.

What you were in essence saying is:
"Look I can't really prove that my trinity doctrine is true but look how bad LDS people are for destroying this man's life".

This type of behavior is very common among evangelical anti-mormon ministeries.

To clear up any misunderstanding on my part allow me to share my beliefs about other faiths.

First, I believe that Catholics, Protestants, some JWs, Seventh Day Adventist, et al make of some of the best people on the planet. I also acknowledge that there are many atheists that are fine human beings, too.

When someone leaves their faith, if they have loved their faith, and if their faith has loved them back, you're going to see conflict - this doesn't matter whether you're LDS, Catholic, Baptist, etc, there most likely will be some kind of suffering. You may see hurt feelings, false accusations (from both sides) and it's going to be messy.

The problem with your ex-mormon friend is that that he left the Church, but that he wanted to take people with him. HE wanted to destroy the faith of other members by trying to force them to believe the "INTERPRETATION" of antimormons regarding questions in the Church.

In this case, he was basing his entire departure from his new confirmed faith, because of the work of antimormon author Walter Martin (who I have already exposed as a fraud).

No doubt, you tried to follow the same approach that Martin did with Dave b quoting just the Isiaiah chapters?

No doubt that you learned this witnessing technique from the followers of Walter martin?

However, look at the real story here. Did Walter Martin ever admit that the ancient Jews never used those scriptures to prove or suggest that there God was a singular being in three co-equal persons?

Do you see the problem here? What about context?
What about biblical exegsis? Does the ancient explantion of these verses match Walter Martin's use of the chapters?

Bible scholars who have studied and exhausted biblical exegesis on these verses have demonstrated that there is no "trininty" formula or doctrine in the Isaiah chapters.

Why not? Because the verses have nothing to do with revealing the nature of God or gods in the universe. The context is idol worship.

To then try to ignore this context and force an interpretation of the Isaiah chapters in question is wresting the scriptures. (2 Peter 3:16).

So, the testimomny of the ex-mo that you quote as "valid" began with a lie. The lie is that to compare Isaiah 43 & 44 with a plurality of Gods or a plurality of persons does not agree with the exegesis of those verses.

Remember, in those days, no one knew that Martin had lied all the way about his credentials. Martin's whole persona was based on a lie and he was able to deceive many.

Then the EX-mo goes into the controversy over the Book of Abraham and Egyptian papyri, Biblical reliability (or rather inerrancy) and some of the false accusations against Joseph Smith.

Much of what antimormons quote today can be traced to Walter Martin's works. Many of the Christians don't know that they are actually repeating lies of Martin.

If you want to get into the DETAILS of the Egyptian papyri, or other claims made in McCament's letter, you can go here:

http://en.fairmormon.org/index.php/Search_for_the_Truth_DVD

David, you need to know something about me. I have spent nearly 20 years IMMERSED in antimormonism. I have read their books, pamphlets, etc. I have spoken to them, debated with them, gone to lunch with them. I know a lot about them. Some of them are fine people who are terribly misled. Some of them are the spawn of the devil (no joke). I don't say spawn of the devil lightly. I am not talking about someone who disagrees with me, I am talking about someone(s) who will lie and deceive just so they can appear to be right or sell a book or add congregants to their Church.

The LDS Church is very careful what it publishes. We acknowledge that all of the details surrounding Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, etc, are not known and that there are many questions - which we GLADLY engage in with reasonable and respectful people.

From the sources you quote and from the limited experience you have had with LDS, you completely have missed the mark. You really don't know much about our beliefs or about us as a people. Our struggles, our trials, our hopes, joys, fears and failures.

If you want to learn more about Mormonism then go to www.lds.org or www.mormons.org, or read the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants.
If you try to learn about us from antimormons or exmormons, you're still going to miss the mark and in the end, you'll start bearing false witness too - for which God will hold you accountable.

I am not saying that as a rebuke - I am just trying to help you know that you're in murky waters; you'll be tempted to try to put down Mormons as Mormons respond to your claims... your temptation will be to see out these sites and see how much damage you can cause for Mormons. In the end, you'll be left empty.

Instead, get copies of our magazines that we publish - go online to www.deseretbook.com and see what we publish and talk about. Go to www.lds.org and see what we talk about in regard to the power and salvation which is in Jesus Christ.

Your line of questioning so far has been a very light version of antimormonism.

Keep in mind, if you disagree with me, I don't believe that is antimormonism.

Let me give you an example. Take the Book of Abraham. Are you aware there there are many scholarly books that have been peer reviewed in defense of the Book of Abraham? These are very very robust defenses against the antimormon claims that make it appear that the death nail has been hammered into the "Pearl of Great Price".

This has been onging for 30-40 years David. Yet, look at what's happening. Every year there is more evidence that supports Joseph Smith and his claims. In the last 5, 10, 20 years, the discoveries have been remarkable.

Believe me, you're not going to get that from any antimormon site, or Evangelical group. (Of course you wouldn't)

So, when you peruse their sites looking for nuggets of information seeing how you can witness to LDS and get them to believe as you believe, you're not going to be ready. Oh sure, you'll find the LDS memeber who doens't know much about these things from time to time, but eventually that member will connect with a member who does, and in the end, you'll just be the fool for repeating what other antimormons say.

David, you really don't have questions about Mormonism - you seek to destroy it. Isn't that a fair assessment?

Best,

James

Ghostbuster and David,
Many thanks for your kind comments and particularly for well-wishes about my son's service. He is so enthusiastic and optimistic as to a potential good outcome from the U.S. soldiers being in Iraq (for which he volunteered when the opportunity came up); we honor and appreciate him, his leaders, and many others like them serving with honor, integrity and dedication to freedom. I am also grateful for his love of the scriptures, which he took with him for reading from time to time despite their busy schedule.

Thank you again, and sincere best wishes to you always.

Jim,

Thanks for the Benson post. What I still do not understand is why the assumption of a corrupted Bible. Benson mentions this. From what I've seen in argument and debate with LDS members on here is that they will quote Biblical passages, but then insist the Bible is tainted somehow through history as Benson mentioned. I want you to know that the Bible is very reliable. I'm still unsure why the claim still exists today in the LDS church of Biblical unreliability. I would think that it would help your faith out a lot more knowing the Bible is reliable. I would like to post a few articles on the subject if you wouldn't mind. I see in no way why admitting to Biblical reliability should change your faith at all. In fact if I were a mormon, I would love to testify to the reliability of the Bible. It just seems right, doesn't it? I truly believe you need to look at the evidence.

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/bib-docu.html

This one is more in depth and very informative.

http://www.clemson.edu/spurgeon/books/apology/Chapter4.html

From what I get from Benson's article is that the BOM is the foundation of the mormon faith. I understand this, but have a hard time understanding with overwhelming evidence of Biblical reliability why that can't be accepted. I see no reason for Biblical reliability to have any affect on any mormons faith, so why not search the evidence and have a faith based on a reliable source?

Makes sense doesn't it? Of course, this isn't for argumentitive sake, but just to state facts. I have no reason why showing you that the Bible is reliable would take you away from the LDS faith. So, I hope your not insinuating that I'm trying to bring about another debate. I just want you to trust in His Word, that's all

Take care.

Jim,
Thanks for the link to President Benson's article. It was an interesting read and Benson's three main points helped clarify an answer.

I was a little surprised by some of what he said. It seems like this is a pretty important topic.

“Do eternal consequences rest upon our response to this book? Yes, either to our blessing or our condemnation.

“Every Latter-day Saint should make the study of this book a lifetime pursuit. Otherwise he is placing his soul in jeopardy and neglecting that which could give spiritual and intellectual unity to his whole life. There is a difference between a convert who is built on the rock of Christ through the Book of Mormon and stays hold of that iron rod, and one who is not” (Ensign, May 1975, p. 65).

Regards
GB

Parker,

Thanks for your explanation. Personally, I seem to still have a problem with it. Nothing you can fix, but I do appreciate your apologetics on the subject. I do intend on reading the rest of the BOM one day. I'm 110% sure it won't change my faith one bit. But since I enjoy talking to you guys so much, hey, wouldn't it be best to read what you guys read. This is why I'm gonna study the Koran as well. It makes for better witnessing to know what the opposite faith believes in.

I saw that you have EIGHT kids? Dang, Parker. I know you haven't slept for many years now, huh? They truly are a blessing aren't they. I have two and I can barely handle them. Sure can't imagine eight. My wife and I are actually working on #3 soon. That's it for me though. I want to retire eventually! :) I too would like to thank you and your family for allowing your son to serve in Iraq. It's greatly appreciated.

Have a wonderful evening.

Parker, thanks for your insights. I wish to pass along my high regards for your son's service in the military. Thanks to him and those like him we are able to freely debate topics such this. It sounds like you have a wonderful family. I agree wholeheartedly with the list you gave. Those are great goals to strive for.

David,
Enron Field should be a lesson to all pro sports teams who try to sell their traditional stadium names to make a buck. hehehe

The passage you referred to disturbed me as well. At that point I actually stopped reading the book for a few days and did some research on the racial issues within the history of the LDS church. Perhaps we can have a longer conversation about this topic at a later date.

Regarding the Book of Mormon being the keystone of our religion, I firmly believe in this quote from President Benson: "Finally, the Book of Mormon is the keystone of testimony. Just as the arch crumbles if the keystone is removed, so does all the Church stand or fall with the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. The enemies of the Church understand this clearly. This is why they go to such great lengths to try to disprove the Book of Mormon, for if it can be discredited, the Prophet Joseph Smith goes with it. So does our claim to priesthood keys, and revelation, and the restored Church. But in like manner, if the Book of Mormon be true—and millions have now testified that they have the witness of the Spirit that it is indeed true—then one must accept the claims of the Restoration and all that accompanies it."

The full text can be found here: http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=56a6ef960417b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1

David,
Thanks so much for clarifying and explaining. Now I understand so much better why you reacted the way you did as you read those words--believe me, they are confusing to many of those who read the Book of Mormon, and I should not have made it seem like you hadn't read it well.

If you have one or are reading it online, go to 2 Nephi 1:17-18 where Lehi, the father of Nephi and of Laman, speaks to Laman and expresses the "fear" that "a cursing should come upon you for the space of many generations; and ye are visited by sword, and by famine, and are hated, and are led according to the will and captivity of the devil." Later, as recorded in 2 Nephi 4:7, Lehi speaks to Laman's chldren and prophesies that the Lord God "will be merciful unto you and unto your seed forever" and "will not suffer that ye shall perish," meaning two senses of perish--spiritually, and that a remnant of their posterity on the earth would be preserved.

When Nephi summarizes the situation in 2 Nephi 5, his use of the word "cursing" is remembering what his father had said, for it is very much in his mind because although his brothers have given him a lot of trouble, he knows and is glad that their posterity is going to be blessed in the latter days upon the earth.

David, they are being blessed. We don't have any idea specifically how the mixing of generations of inter-marriages among the indigenous peoples of the Americas intersperses the Lamanite ancestry among some of them, but from the Book of Mormon we can at least tell that those areas within Mexico and Central and South America where the people respond to the gospel message prophesied in the Book of Mormon in great numbers, some of them probably have some of this ancestry. Mexico and Brazil each have nearly a million members of the LDS Church now.

I want you to know that I consider it a great blessing in my life to have gotten to know many very loving, spiritually inclined people of Mexican origin when I served among many of them in Los Angeles as a missionary in 1974-75. I love the Spanish language, the Latin culture and people. Sweet, generous, good-hearted, amazing people. So when I say to you that the "cursing" described by Lehi and Nephi (of having lost the Spirit and being "visited by sword and famine") absolutely no longer applies, I hope you know I am 100% certain of this. They are a blessed and favored "people" as promised to the prophet Lehi. You will see them flourish even more significantly during our lifetimes--of that I am sure.
Blessings and joy to you and your sweet family. I'd love to meet you some day.

Parker,

I didn't mean to be offensive. This is what I remember reading

2 Nephi 5:21-24

21 And he had caused the acursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and bdelightsome, that they might not be centicing unto my people the Lord God did cause a dskin of eblackness to come upon them.
22 And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be aloathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.
23 And cursed shall be the seed of him that amixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done.
24 And because of their acursing which was upon them they did become an bidle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey.

What I get out of this is that black people are cursed forever. Hence, the seed of these people. And also those who "mixeth" with them. I'm not sure why your so upset, that's what it says. Since I'm no BOM scholar maybe you can shed some light on this subject for me. And since I admittingly said I haven't read the whole BOM maybe there is somewhere else that refutes this or quite possibly I'm not getting the whole story. But if you can please understand, by this passage I can easily assume that those with dark skin are cursed by the Lord. Again, Parker, I'm not trying to stir up any more arguments. I was just being honest with GB about when I read the BOM and what made me decide to stop. I know at times my honesty is quite unappealing, but I would rather speak the truth of what I think than soften it up with a lie.

I guess because I'm mexican this passage struck me on a personal level. Maybe that isn't how it was intended, but it sure seems to insinuate that because of dark skin my race is cursed. Sorry to stir up the pot again Parker. Just being honest buddy. Take care.

David,
I hope that if you do read the Book of Mormon, you'll read it more carefully next time. Nowhere does it say black people are cursed. It says a group of people in that particular place at the time the book was written down had rejected the guidance of the Holy Ghost, and were therefore cursed because of their unbelief. It explains that as the children of these people carried on the traditions of their fathers, they also rejected the guidance of the Holy Ghost and a belief in Christ and were therefore also "cursed" because of what they had lost. I would say, by the way (not to be derogatory, but to hopefully bring a reasonableness to some of your presentation), that when you have at times implied that any particular group of people may be "going to hell" that comment has been far more caustic than what the Book of Mormon says about the Lamanites.

Perhaps we should all "judge not, that (we) be not judged"--and I'm not judging you; please don't think that I am. I appreciated so much your Saturday comment that seemed to really come from your heart and described a process of inspiration from listening to Ravi's tape, that was less judgemental and allowed Christ to do His work in His way and let Him be the judge of everyone through knowing what is in their heart. Peace.

Ghostbuster,

Hi there. You know I just saw something you posted earlier. ENRON! That is hilarious! I just had to tell you that I forgot all about that and how funny that is. I think that tops all the stadium names ever available.

You also asked me if I ever read the BOM. I have read parts of it. I stopped at 2 Nephi chapter 5. I don't want to bring up another argument, but I couldn't bear with the black people are cursed thing. It kind of killed it for me right there. I eventually want to read the whole thing. I actually am more interested right now in reading the Koran. Of course not for conversion purposes, but for the same as reading the BOM, educational purposes. I've found the Koran to be somewhat disturbing as well. I'm starting to see how Muslims can become so extreme. It is pretty amazing how much they actually like Jesus though. Even though of course they don't think He's God or even died on the cross, they think of Him as a great prophet. I never knew that until recently. Anyway, thought I'd share that with you. Take care.

Ghostbuster,
Thanks for following up with very insightful questions. My answer to both is absolutely yes. I'll explain. As I would understand the term "most correct" I would think of synonyms--most "divinely true", most able to bring men and women to a correctness of being able to follow the light of Christ and the Holy Ghost in their lives to gain personal inspiration and revelation from God. Why most "divinely true"? Obviously, this would bring into some question the Bible, and Joseph Smith loved the Bible--his family read from the Bible probably every day. But because he experienced so much doctrinal discord among the preachers of his day, I'm sure he felt that a perfectly complete and pure book should not result in so much discord and disagreement. As he received divine inspiration, he knew there were ideas and passages that should have been in the Bible as the words were originally given by revelation to the prophets, but through the years had been left out or the meaning changed. He also knew that the Book of Mormon had not had this same impurification process; thus the Bible is a wonderful treasure, a miraculous book inspired by God--the Book of Mormon so testifies--but it lacked the completeness that was intended by the prophets who originally wrote the words down. That is the difference between the two.

The Book of Mormon is the keystone of the religion of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints because it is the foundation piece without which an individual's faith and "testimony" would not be secure, but would be (and will be) unstable. That testimony is the knowledge because of the witness of the Holy Ghost that revelation to prophets is part of the plan of God for all of His children, and that such revelation continues in our modern day just as Peter and John and Paul were able to receive revelation to guide and inspire the saints, the followers of Christ, in their day.

Consider important teachings of recent and current prophets of the LDS Church:
1) that families should gather together every day for family prayer, daily if possible to read from the Bible and the Book of Mormon, weekly to hold a family counsel and have family games.
2) that a husband should place his wife on a pedestal in giving her respect and honor, and treat her as an absolutely equal partner in their marriage.
3) that families should try to get out of debt, have limited credit card debt, and should store food and water for times of need.
4) that children should be encouraged in their education, and in treating all people with respect, love, kindness, and compassion.
5) that the sanctity of marriage should be upheld, and things that lead to abusive behaviors be avoided absolutely.

As a father of eight children, with a son in Iraq, I am so very grateful that my son has inspiration to guide him in knowing right from wrong and in staying safe as well as with a pure mind in such an environment. I am so grateful that my daughters, who are very becoming, have pure minds and high standards for dating relationships. These values have come through following the counsel of these prophets of our day, in our home, in the best way that we can despite busy schedules. For this how could I not be grateful? I have a daughter with a difficult breathing and eating abnormality. How could I not be grateful for the Book of Mormon that gives me understanding that this wonderful daughter has been such a blessing for our family, despite seeming like this is an "opposition" that has been difficult? In the real world we are part of, we need the underpinnings that allow us to see God's hand in our lives and the lives of our children in marvelous ways.

Again, thanks for asking these questions. The Book of Mormon, if a person lets it, speaks to the heart and the spirit, and helps us understand more clearly the process of inspiration and revelation that can guide each of our lives as God's children. It is a guiding keystone in that process.

I must also say that I got bogged down the first time I got into Second Nephi, so if you feel like you're getting bogged down, skip the Isaiah chapters (not that they're not great, just pretty deep) so you don't lose interest in the book. Mosiah has some great stories of faith, and Alma has some great father-son moments. I, of course, encourage everyone to read it more than once.

Ghostbuster, I have admired the way you present yourself in your posts, and very much appreciate it. Best to you.

Thanks Parker, I appreciate you jumping in with your thoughts. After reading the book 40 times you would definately have some insight into this question! I only read the book one time.

Do you think the Book of Mormon is the most correct book on the earth and the keystone of your religion?

Ghostbuster,
What a great question. I know it was directed to James, who has provided such great context for many doctrinal points. I think his answer will be just as insightful. You know the idea about "in the mouth of two or three witnesses" so I'll be one and hope there will be others.

I've read the Book of Mormon over 40 times, and gained new insights every time I read it. I also gain new insights every time I read the Bible, the D and C, and the Pearl of Great Price. For me, Joseph Smith's statement is important because he wasn't "tooting his own horn" for one thing. He would have recommended the Book of Commandments/Doctrine and Covenants if wanting to "toot his own horn." But he didn't.

Here are some major precepts in the Book of Mormon that will help a person draw nearer to God:
1) Understanding that God and Christ (however one views them) love all mankind, and this love "sheddeth itself abroad in the hearts of the children of men." Love and charity are profoundly taught in the Book of Mormon in a way that builds the spiritual resources to help a person want to feel that kind of love for others, and to act on it.
2) Understanding that there must be "opposition in all things" for our growth and progress as children of God. This teaching is a little bit more obscure in the Bible. Understanding how patience is so vital in this process.
3) Understanding that the atonement of Christ allows not only repentance and its cleansing effect for the soul, but also the uplifting to endure the pains, illnesses, and struggles of life through the strength He can and will and does provide.
4) The Book of Mormon shows by example how God is interested in families working together, and how important it is for fathers to assume their role as a guiding, sustaining influence in the lives of their children.

The Book of Mormon teaches these and many more concepts through sharing the experiences of an obscure but heart-warming people who knew of Christ and rejoiced in Him. As one reads this book, they can feel the testimony of those people, and their love and faith in the people of our day. They forsaw our day with rejoicing. We can also rejoice to be here experiencing it--a time when the spirit of the Lord will be poured out upon all peoples, when good will triumph over the evil influences in the world, and He will come "whose right it is to reign," even the Lord, Jesus Christ."

Hey James,

Thanks for taking the time to debate David. I've enjoyed your dialogue.

I had a quick question about at famous J. Smith quote. Maybe you could give me your own personal thoughts on it. Do you agree with this statement made by Joseph Smith?

"I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book." (History of the Church, Vol. 4, page 461)

Usually when I ask this question it's pretty hard to get an answer. It is kind of a "trap" question a mormon once told me. I got a good answer once that focused on the second half of the quote about how abiding by the books precepts can bring one closer to God.

Well, I'm generally curious and not trying to trap you or pick a fight. In fact, I probably won't respond to your post unless you post me a follow up question. So, have you read the BOM? If so, would you agree with Smith's assessment that the BOM is the most correct book of any on earth?

Regards

James,

Thank you for the discussion. I vowed to give you the last word. I pray in due time that you will come to the truth. If not, then that's God's will and your choice.

I'll leave with a few Bible quotations in hopes that one day you can trust in God's Word.

Psalm 119:9

9 How can a young man keep his way pure?
By living according to your word.

V 37

Turn my eyes away from worthless things;
preserve my life according to your word.

VV 41-42

41 May your unfailing love come to me, O LORD,
your salvation according to your promise;
42 then I will answer the one who taunts me,
for I TRUST IN YOUR WORD

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it?" (Jeremiah 17:9)

"He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool, but whoso walketh wisely, he shall be delivered." (Proverbs 28:26)

"Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding." (Proverbs 3:5)

"He feedeth on ashes; a deceived heart hath turned him aside, that he cannot deliver his soul, nor say, Is there not a lie in my right hand?" (Isaiah 44:20)

And for the final post, I read this testimony from an ex-mormon last night. It's very long, but very insightful. This poor man lost his whole family because of gaining truth. It reminds me of when Jesus spoke about those who love their wife, children, this world, do not love Him. I actually felt the compassion in his words and felt sorry that the LDS caused this to happen. But the end is magnificent. The Lord never fails.

http://www.utlm.org/testimony/davemctestimony.htm

Best of luck to you James.

"Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path"

David

Hi David:

I laughed out loud when you claimed “I am self-taught”. David, you have already admitted that you once belonged to Armstrongism and you quote sources such as Bible.org for your “explanations” on the Orthodox trinity. C’mon… you’re not really self taught – you’ve also been influenced by Orthodox Christianity.

It is a curious thing how you appeal to the Old Testament to defend the “Trinity” doctrine.

Are the Father, Son and Holy Ghost even mentioned in the Old Testament the way they are developed in the New?

Do you believe that perhaps the Old Testament verses you quoted have nothing to do with the nature of God (as a revealed doctrine)?

Did you forget that our context for our discussion was HOW God is one? You switched on me. You changed the discussion from what I asked you to show from the Bible back to the verse you quoted before.

Not only did I address these verses, but others have as well. Not a one of the verses and or any of the early Christian quotes addressed the “finer points” that cause the “Trinitarianism” to depart from the New Testament.

You failed to address “co-equal persons in one ontological substance”. This is the main issue.

But onto the Old Testament verses. You’re right about one thing… God is the ONLY God among all of the false idols (strange gods) that Israel was worshipping at the time.

Now, if Isaiah had been discussing the “nature” of God, I could see how using these verses to support the Trinity doctrine THAT DOES NOT EVEN EXIST UNTIL

Think about it David, if Jehovah was truly speaking of beings or persons like him, he’d have to amend this statement: because there is still God the Father and God the Son. God is not going to mislead his children and therefore is not speaking of the nature of God but speaking about loyalty to God in place of loyalty to idols.

Consider the passage in 43:10–11, where the Lord says
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, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no saviour.
The context is clear in verse 12, which is typically omitted from the quotation:
I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, that I am God. (Italics added.)
"Strange god" refers to a false god, an idol.
Likewise for 44:6, 8 — this passage is followed by extensive discussion of "graven images" (Isaiah 44:9-17)
The passages in Isaiah cannot be called upon to disprove LDS beliefs in separate Gods in the Godhead or theosis. The point of them is to encourage Israel to leave off their idols and worship Jehovah alone. Any other use of them distorts Isaiah's meaning and intent.
Further, if these verses were about the nature of God, Orthodox Jews could argue against Trinitarians that there is no such thing as a “three –person-ed” God. Because “no other” would also refer to the Son and the Holy Ghost.
Consisder what Cher-El L. Hagensick, a Jewish author says abour your usage of the Old Testament verses to try and promote the Trinity.
“In contrast, Judaism is strongly monotheistic with no hint of a trinity. The Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament) is filled with scriptures such as ‘before Me there was no God formed, Neither shall any be after Me’ (#Isa 43:10 qtd. in Isaiah), and ‘there is no other God...I am the Lord and there is none else’ (#Isa 45:14,18 qtd. in Isaiah). A Jewish commentary affirms that ‘[no] other gods exist, for to declare this would be blasphemous...’ (Chumash 458). Even though ‘Word,’ ‘Spirit,’ ‘Presence,’ and ‘Wisdom’ are used as personifications of God, Biblical scholars agree that the Trinity is neither mentioned nor intended by the authors of the Old Testament (Lonergan 130; Fortman xv; Burns 2).”
Now what David? Jews, who are the “true” monotheists would argue that your context of those scriptures is neither mentioned nor intended by Isaiah.
How? Because the context is regarding God being alone the Savior among the false gods and idols of Israel – it was not a comparison of God with other REAL beings like God in the Godhead or the universe.
Once again David, you’re not listening carefully. Trinity means “3”. There is the world “trinity” and then there is the Trinity doctrine as formulated by Catholic Councils of the 4th and 5th centuries.

Are you picking up on the difference there? LDS believe in the “trinity” of the Godhead but reject the Orthodox Trinity doctrine (3 co-equal persons in one ontological substance).

The Trinity doctrine is not biblical – you didn’t show a single verse that indirect or directly teaches that God is three co-equal persons in one ontological substance.

Are we clear on this point? Why don’t you just simply admit that it doesn’t exist? You can save a lot of time by just admitting to the facts, just like honest and reputable BIBLE SCHOLARS have already done: The Trinity Doctrine does NOT exist in the Bible. David, if it did, there would have been no need for the councils to exist at all.

David, would you like me to post another 5-10 quotes from Bible scholars of the LAST CENTURY who ALSO published these facts? If you look real close at the quotes I gave you, I included ALL of their citations as published in professional and reputable publications that are not in dispute. For centuries, Orthodox Christianity has been misleading its adherents to believe that the Trinity Doctrine is Biblical when all of the while it’s not biblical at all – it’s platonic mish mush. Sorry to break it to you David, but this has been around for some time. You’ve just been kept in the dark about it – talk about conspiracies! You’re in one of the most elaborate and extensive conspiracies ever to be created on the earth: the conspiracy to hide the true origins of the Trinity Doctrine. Remember, David, we’re talking about the finer points that cause a major shift in doctrine not just about the nature of God but in so many other areas of New Testament teachings.

I read carefully through the early Christian writings you quoted and not a single one supported your belief in the one God who is three co-equal persons in one ontological substance.

Remember, the word “trinity” refers to “3” and is different from the Trinity doctrine that was later formed and then reformulated in the 4th and 5th centuries.

Go back and re-read those quotes with the context above and you’ll be very hard pressed to see anything that resembles the “one God in three co-equal persons in one ontological substance”.

If you’re offering to let me have the last word – I think that is fitting. I do wish you the best of God’s blessings and hope and pray that you will continue to read the Bible every day and daily study its pages, and the teachings of Jesus Christ and his apostles. I pray that you will reject Orthodox Christianity and in time come to a knowledge of the truth.

Take care,

James

James,

Isa 43:10

"You are my witnesses," declares the LORD,
"and my servant whom I have chosen,
so that you may know and believe me
and understand that I am he.
Before me no god was formed,
nor will there be one after me.

Isa 44:6,8
I am the LORD, and there is no other;
apart from me there is no God.
I will strengthen you,
though you have not acknowledged me,

V
This is what the LORD says—
Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty:
I am the first and I am the last;
apart from me there is no God

Do not tremble, do not be afraid.
Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago?
You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me?
No, there is no other Rock; I know not one

V 21

Declare what is to be, present it—
let them take counsel together.
Who foretold this long ago,
who declared it from the distant past?
Was it not I, the LORD ?
And there is no God apart from me,
a righteous God and a Savior;
there is none but me

Isa 46:9

Remember the former things, those of long ago;
I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like me

1 Cor 8:5-6

5For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"), 6yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

Gal 4:8-9

8Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by NATURE are not gods. 9But now that you know God—or rather are known by God—how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again?

You mean to tell me that there is more than 1 God? And I'm supposed to believe that? God can't make it any clearer that He is the only God in the universe and the only God to ever exist. All others are false gods. But please, continue to ignore the facts. You may fool others, but you ain't foolin me.

you said,

Obviously we disagree on many points. David, I think it is fair to say that I have ABUNDANTLY shown that there is no verse in the Bible or teaching early Christianity that resembles the Trinity doctrine.

Really? Because I must have missed the Biblical backing for this claim. All I've seen so far is a bunch of quotes from historians and the such. So your telling me that the above verses don't indicate a monotheistic belief? I mean, do we speak the same language? I don't mean to be offensive James but this is the exact reason whey our dialogue will never go anywhere. The Bible says over and over that there is 1 God. Why do you think for some reason that you proved the Trinity wrong? Instead the only thing you've shown me is a bunch of quotations which may or may not be true, who knows, you probably got them off your fairlds or fairwiki sites, so I'm not sure if they are true. And then you showed me how Jesus broke God's hand. I sure hope they have an Orthopedic department in heaven. God needs a cast.

"Show me a mouse that can understand what a human is, and then I'll show you a human that can understand what God is."

Even if the Trinity were a false doctrine James, the LDS is way far worse. So, I guess I should believe that I'll be married in heaven even though Jesus says otherwise. I guess I should believe that I was with God some time in the past even though Paul says I wasn't. I should believe that Jesus was a created being, when He actually is the Creator. What your telling me to believe is in direct contradiction to scripture James. I'm sorry, but I'll never be a mormon. God forbid if the Jehovah's Witnesses are right and then we are all doomed, huh? Look the only way I can decide what is truth or false is by scripture. I think you assume that I was taught Orthodox Christianity. That's not the case. I'm self taught James. I read and studied it on my own. I used to be a believer in Oneness Theology. I started to look at all doctrines and the Trinity as a whole with all of scripture could not be denied.

Since you are big on historical quotes, here's some for you to ponder on.

Polycarp (70-155/160). Bishop of Smyrna. Disciple of John the Apostle.
"O Lord God almighty...I bless you and glorify you through the eternal and heavenly high priest Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, through whom be glory to you, with Him and the Holy Spirit, both now and forever" (n. 14, ed. Funk; PG 5.1040).

Justin Martyr (100?-165?). He was a Christian apologist and martyr.
"For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water" (First Apol., LXI).

Ignatius of Antioch (died 98/117). Bishop of Antioch. He wrote much in defense of Christianity.
"In Christ Jesus our Lord, by whom and with whom be glory and power to the Father with the Holy Spirit for ever" (n. 7; PG 5.988).
"We have also as a Physician the Lord our God Jesus the Christ the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin. For ‘the Word was made flesh.' Being incorporeal, He was in the body; being impassible, He was in a passable body; being immortal, He was in a mortal body; being life, He became subject to corruption, that He might free our souls from death and corruption, and heal them, and might restore them to health, when they were diseased with ungodliness and wicked lusts." (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The ante-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975 rpt., Vol. 1, p. 52, Ephesians 7.)

Irenaeus (115-190). As a boy he listened to Polycarp, the disciple of John. He became Bishop of Lyons.
"The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: ...one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father ‘to gather all things in one,' and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the INVISIBLE Father, ‘every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess; to him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all...'" (Against Heresies X.l)

Tertullian (160-215). African apologist and theologian. He wrote much in defense of Christianity.
"We define that there are two, the Father and the Son, and three with the Holy Spirit, and this number is made by the pattern of salvation...[which] brings about unity in trinity, interrelating the three, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are three, not in dignity, but in degree, not in substance but in form, not in power but in kind. They are of one substance and power, because there is one God from whom these degrees, forms and kinds devolve in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit." (Adv. Prax. 23; PL 2.156-7).

Origen (185-254). Alexandrian theologian. Defended Christianity and wrote much about Christianity.
"If anyone would say that the Word of God or the Wisdom of God had a beginning, let him beware lest he direct his impiety rather against the unbegotten Father, since he denies that he was always Father, and that he has always begotten the Word, and that he always had wisdom in all previous times or ages or whatever can be imagined in priority...There can be no more ancient title of almighty God than that of Father, and it is through the Son that he is Father" (De Princ. 1.2.; PG 11.132).
"For if [the Holy Spirit were not eternally as He is, and had received knowledge at some time and then became the Holy Spirit] this were the case, the Holy Spirit would never be reckoned in the unity of the Trinity, i.e., along with the unchangeable Father and His Son, unless He had always been the Holy Spirit." (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975 rpt., Vol. 4, p. 253, de Principiis, 1.111.4)
"Moreover, nothing in the Trinity can be called greater or less, since the fountain of divinity alone contains all things by His word and reason, and by the Spirit of His mouth sanctifies all things which are worthy of sanctification..." (Roberts and Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4, p. 255, de Principii., I. iii. 7).

HMMM...the Trinity wasn't a doctrine until the Council of Nicea? If you know anything about history you know that Christianity was outlawed until 325 a.d. under the reign of Constantine. Therefore to have actual councils or make anything official as far as doctrine goes would be quite difficult. And if you know anything about history you would know that the RCC martyred true Christians throughout history. The Inquisitions and the such were against those who were so-called "heretics" because they didn't recognize papal authority. The true church (body of believers) never ceased. They were always there. Never needing to be "restored." A look at Rev 17 with the "woman on the beast" you can study that and find that the RCC is that woman. "She is drunk with the blood of the martyrs". Historically speaking this is prophetical and accurate in that the RCC martyred thousands of Christians for not recognizing papal authority and for smuggling Bibles in since the RCC didn't allow people to read the Bible. I invite you to study Rev 17-18 because if you compare that to history you will see how the RCC is truly that woman on the beast. "City on seven hills". Rome. Vatican to be precise is built on seven hills. Drunk with the martyrs blood. Inquisitions and the witch trials. You might even want to do some research on Jan Hus and John Wycliffe. Both martyred by the RCC for preaching the truth. Since you have believed that the truth was lost sometime ago, these historical accounts prove you wrong.

To finish this I'll just say that I know we are in disagreement. I know you will write another long post to try to refute my post. It can go on and on. I'll let you have the final word James. Whatever you write, I'll just let it be. My only response will be thank you for the conversation and best to you. Sound fair?

You have a great evening.

God bless.

.

Hi David:

Uh ...thanks for the post.

Obviously we disagree on many points. David, I think it is fair to say that I have ABUNDANTLY shown that there is no verse in the Bible or teaching early Christianity that resembles the Trinity doctrine.

You seem to be skipping past the finer point on this one.

David, we both believe that the Bible teaches that there is God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, who is Lord and Redeemer, and the Holy Ghost. That is not in dispute.

However, it's in the finer points where the dispute arises.

The finer point is HOW they are ONE GOD or whether they are three spirits or whether they are three persons in ONE SPIRITUAL BEING.

The finer point is whether the Bible teaches that God is three co-equal persons of or in one ontological substance.

Do you understand? You see, the Bible teaches that there are three. We agree on that point. The Bible teaches that they are one. We agree on that point.

But it is HOW they are one is where we depart and where YOU depart from the Bible.

This is the point made by decades of research by reputable Orthodox Scholars - your "oneness" of the Trinity is not found in early Christianity and it is NOT found in the Bible.

LDS claim that it's not in the Bible nor in early Christianity because it's NOT true.

What LDS would like to see in the Orthodox Christian community is for them to come clean on this point.

I can tell you this, this issue is NOT going to go away. The more people, the media, Christian critics and othres learn about it, the more it's going to become a problem for Orthodox and especially Protestant Christianity.

The Roman Catholic Church has already admitted that the "Trinity" doctrine came later. That is was NOT apart of the Bible nor was it a teaching of early Christianity.

My question to any Christian would be -if the Bible is SO plain on the finer point of the Trinity, why was their a need for Catholic councils in the first place?

I can confidently say David that you cannot show any bible verses that teach the "Trinity" doctrine of three coequal persons in one ontological substance.

This is the point that matters because it is evidence that it cannot be found in the doctrine as revealed to man by God.

The trinity doctrine is an invention of men during the 300s to the 400s that followed the philosophy of the day - which was a rejection of the Father and the Son of the Bible who are anthropormorphic.

David, I look forward to the day when God will make me like him. I look forward to the day when Jesus Christ calls me up and asks me to sit with him in His throne just as HE sits with the Father in the Father's throne. The doctrine of God called "eternal progression" or "the deification of man is not a source of "adoration" for LDS.

David, we don't seek to be like God as a source of power - we seek to be like God because He teaches us to be like him. We are "planet" hungry. (By the way, the idea that men and women are catapulted to the same status of God and receive a planet right after this life is false. We do not believe it nor do we teach it.)

We believe that becoming like God will take perhaps a multitude of eternities - we don't know. It doesn't matter - what matters to us is that we will be made joint heirs with Christ with our families in tact and be able to enjoy the familial relationships (that God ordained forever) in eternity.

We look forward to sitting at the feet of the Savior in eternity and learn from him and enjoying his presence forever and ever. This is what "becoming gods" means to us.

So, when you choose to quote antimormon mischaracterizations of our doctrine or try to slander it, just know that you'll most likely be participating in something akin to "bearing false witness" or at the very least "bearing false representation".

We know that Protestants "abhor" the idea of men become gods. Why? Once again it interferes with the interpretation of the Trinity doctrine.

However, another evidence that the Trinity doctrine is NOT true is the early Christian doctrine that men can become gods.

Consider what they taught: (For the sources in the footnotes go to http://www.fairwiki.org/index.php/Deification_of_man#endnote_bkp1)

Irenaeus
Saint Irenaeus (AD 180), who may justly be called the first Biblical theologian among the ancient Christians, was a disciple of the great Polycarp, who was a direct disciple of John the Revelator.[3] Irenaeus is not a heretic or unorthodox in traditional Christian circles, yet he shares a belief in theosis:

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. [4]
Like the LDS, Irenaeus did not believe that this belief in any way displaced God, Christ, or the Holy Ghost:

there is none other called God by the Scriptures except the Father of all, and the Son, and those who possess the adoption....Since, therefore, this is sure and stedfast, that no other God or Lord was announced by the Spirit, except Him who, as God, rules over all, together with His Word, and those who receive the Spirit of adoption.[5]
Yet, Irenaeus—whom it is absurd to exclude from the ranks of orthodox Christians—believed in theosis in terms which agree with LDS thinking on the matter:

We were not made gods at our beginning, but first we were made men, then, in the end, gods.[6]
Also:

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.[7]
And:

Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, of his boundless love, became what we are that he might make us what he himself is.” [8]
And:

But of what gods [does he speak]? [Of those] to whom He says, "I have said, Ye are gods, and all sons of the Most High." To those, no doubt, who have received the grace of the "adoption, by which we cry, Abba Father."” [9]
And, Irenaeus considers the doctrine clearly Biblical, just as the LDS do:

For he who holds, without pride and boasting, the true glory (opinion) regarding created things and the Creator, who is the Almighty God of all, and who has granted existence to all; [such an one, ] continuing in His love and subjection, and giving of thanks, shall also receive from Him the greater glory of promotion, looking forward to the time when he shall become like Him who died for him, for He, too, "was made in the likeness of sinful flesh,"to condemn sin, and to cast it, as now a condemned thing, away beyond the flesh, but that He might call man forth into His own likeness, assigning him as [His own] imitator to God, and imposing on him His Father's law, in order that he may see God, and granting him power to receive the Father; [being] the Word of God who dwelt in man, and became the Son of man, that He might accustom man to receive God, and God to dwell in man, according to the good pleasure of the Father.[10]
Further quotes from Irenaeus available here.

Said one Protestant theologian of Irenaeus:

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.[11]
[edit]Clement of Alexandria
Clement (AD 150-215), an early Christianleader in Alexandria, also taught the doctrine of deification:

yea, I say, the Word of God became a man so that you might learn from a man how to become a god.[12]
And:

...if one knows himself, he will know God, and knowing God will become like God...His is beauty, true beauty, for it is God, and that man becomes god, since God wills it.[13]
Those who have been perfected are given their reward and their honors. They have done with their purification, they have done with the rest of their service, though it be a holy service, with the holy; now they become pure in heart, and because of their close intimacy with the Lord there awaits them a restoration to eternal contemplation; and they have received the title of "gods" since they are destined to be enthroned with the other "gods" who are ranked next below the savior.[14]
[edit]Justin Martyr
Justin the Martyr said in 150 A.D. that he wishes

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... in the beginning men were made like God, free from suffering and death, and that they are thus deemed worthy of becoming gods and of having power to become sons of the highest...[15]

Jerome
Jerome (A.D. 340-420) also described the deification of believers as an act of grace, which matches the LDS understanding precisely:

“I said 'you are gods, all of you sons of the most high.’" let Eunomius hear this, let Arius, who say that the son of God is son in the same way we are. That we are gods is not so by nature, but by grace. “but to as many as receive Him he gave power to becoming sons of God” I made man for that purpose, that from men they may become gods. We are called gods and sons!...[Christ said] "all of you sons of the Most High," it is not possible to be the son of the Most High, unless He Himself is the Most High. I said that all of you would be exalted as I am exalted.[19]
Jerome goes on to say that we should

give thanks to the God of gods. The prophet is referring to those gods of whom it is written: I said ‘you are gods’ and again ‘god arises in the divine assembly’ they who cease to be mere men, abandon the ways of vice an are become perfect, are gods and the sons of the most high...[20]

Remember, Jesus calls us gods.
Early Christian called us gods.
Once all of those who God grants to sit in his throne become gods, I suppose then the doctrine of the trinity will once and for all be proven false for you?

It's a reasonable question.

But no matter, I wish you the best of all of God's blessings.

Best,

James

James,

We've been through several things that you just went through. I guess I'll respond again. Where to begin....

"David, God gives us grace so that we can be saved by Faith. The miracle is when we allow God’s grace into our heart and allow him to change us so that we can exercise OBEDIENT faith.(Romans 16:26)."

Hey, we agree on something...nice!

"What did Stephen see?

Stephen, whose last words were, “Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God?” (Acts 7:56.)"

Ok, so let me get this straight. Your exogesis of this passage would be literal right? You claim that God the Father is flesh and bones. So why in the heck is Jesus standing ON God's hand. Doesn't that hurt? And wouldn't Stephen be wondering why Jesus is standing on God's hand? If I saw this literally I would think the Godhead are the Three Stooges. I think you get my point.

You brought up Rev 4:2. Let's look at the rest. Since you take so much literally, let's see what John saw.

At once I was in the Spirit, and there before me was a throne in heaven with someone sitting on it. 3And the one who sat there had the appearance of jasper and carnelian.

So God is made of jasper and carnelian??? Dang, I guess we're both wrong.

If Moses saw God and Jacob wrestled God. How is that possible since you cannot see God, or if you do you will die? Ex 33. Who do you think they saw James? The pre-incarnate Jesus? No one can see God the Father James. Joseph Smith didn't see Him either. It would have been more believable if he just said Jesus came to him. But he contradicted scripture. That's a no-no. Those who saw God Allmighty in the OT saw pre-incarnate Jesus. Jesus is the creator of all things. He can appear as pre-incarnate Jesus if He wants. He did.

"David, you cannot find another organization in the world that LIVES the New Testament like the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its people."

Your kidding right? I've heard so much boasting about what the LDS does as far as good works and the such. That's great keep doing them. James, you go ahead and work for that salvation buddy. I'm already saved. The law brings wrath. If you continue to think that your works can save you, then on judgement day God will weigh out the facts. "Ok this guy did a lot. But did he sin?" If you even sin once you are guilty of breaking all of the law and therefore condemned to hell. Would you rather have the case thrown out of court because you admit to God that you can do nothing to add to the Cross? Or would you like to be so arrogant in thinking you can keep all of God's laws and therefore taking you away from grace. Because "if it's by grace, then it's no longer by works." GB said it best. It's what's been done for you James. You don't have to do anything else. But by regeneration of the Holy Spirit, you will do good works. To please God. Not to hope for salvation. Salvation is already there to those with faith. Let's not get into the works/faith issue because that's another argument. But I promise you, there is nothing you can do to save yourself. It's already been done. Paul claims that to those who still feel the need to work for salvation fall away from grace. Can you keep all of the commandments without breaking one? Can you keep all the law? "If it is still by works, then Christ didn't need to die".

You brought up baptism and laying on of hands again. One word PENTECOST. Enough said.

Then you go into the history of the Trinity again. How does the history of a doctrine make it false. Prove it false Biblically. You can't it's impossible.

Then you go into about the LDS organization and how they are the only true church. WRONG again! The church James, is the body of believers. We've already been through that. I will never say there is a particular church organization with a certain name that holds the truth. You think God wouldn't know about that claim in the future of all these false religions? One easy way to solve that problem is to call the church the people who believe in the truth of Jesus. Now we know who's false and who isn't. You lay claim, JW's lay claim, Islam lays claim, and probably about 100 more lay to that claim. What makes your claim any better than theirs?

You said that baptism and laying on of hands is part of the gospel Paul preached. Funny because I posted a verse that said that Paul didn't come to baptize but to preach the gospel. And again, how come 3000 people at Pentecost were saved and added to the church that day upon simply hearing the word of God spoken through Peter. They recieved the Holy Spirit on hearing that word. Why can't we do the same today? Are these 3000 people better than us? And what's great is that AFTER they were saved, they were baptized with water. What do you know, a sever contradiction to your false gospel James. If you want to preach the right gospel, here it goes: The gospel that saves which all you need is faith for is; the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. And you claimed that repentance comes after. NO! How can you have faith in Jesus if you don't even know why you need Him? You must know that you are a sinner and need forgiveness to know why you need Jesus! How do you sell the product if you don't even know how it works or why you need it? When witnessing to people you need to witness through the Law of God so that those who don't understand Jesus will know why they need Him.

Anyway, it's best we get it going James. I think we both have learned that we will disagree forever on some major doctrinal issues. However, there is a major social issue that we can agree on that affects today's society. We both have moral absolutes. In a relativistic society, we both can lay claim to have the Law of God to know how to live pure lives. We can agree on that and for society these days, that's a plus.

I wish you the best James. We must part as friends and of course in disagreement. My final addition would be that (and I've said this before) when I go to heaven and meet Jesus; if He tells me that I'm gonna be a god with my own universe and the such, I'm gonna ask that He grant me the favor of sending me to the flames. I worship God now and forever. I don't want worship. For me to become a god would mean that all this worship that I give my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ here on earth is in vain. We were made for Him, He wasn't made for us. Quite the difference and quite a different outcome.

God bless you all. Have a wonderful day.

David,

It looks like you are still getting a healthy dosage of fairlds.org "research" from James. There is some pretty interesting stuff on there if you get a chance to check it out sometime.

Hey, they renamed Candlestick too didn't they? Candlestick was a great name for a football stadium. The worst stadium name ever was Enron Field. Remember when the Astros were stuck with that name a few years back right after the company folded?

Thanks James for that great post. You definitely have done your research!

Hi David:

I am so sorry to hear that you have been affected by Armstrongism and centuries of mind controlling dogma that won’t allow you to see past the errant traditions of Orthodox Christianity. You seem to be “ever learning but not coming to a knowledge of the truth”. I don’t say this to offend you but to hopefully arouse in you a sense of returning to pure and undefiled principles that can free you from so much doctrinal tyranny.

If you want to end our conversation, I am perfectly fine with that. This is the internet and so we can come and go, make a post here and there and not have to “enter and exit” on a scheduled basis. You’re not going to “lose” face if you don’t show up and defend a position – at least not with me since these are just blogs – they don’t count for much.

David, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the true Church of God on the earth. I am sorry to hear you belonged to a group that had no priesthood authority to deliver any “fruit” in your life. I am sorry to hear that you were taught to wrest the scriptures and go off on tangents that took you away from the plain and simple gospel of faith and repentance. The wonderful message of the Savior is that we can return to be with God (notice the word return). How do we do this? We must receive the gift of our Lord and Savior paid for with his life – the miraculous gift of Salvation. How is this done?

Jesus said that not everyone who says “Lord, Lord” would enter his kingdom. Words and belief alone cannot save a single soul. What did Peter declare to the people?

Acts 2
36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

David, God gives us grace so that we can be saved by Faith. The miracle is when we allow God’s grace into our heart and allow him to change us so that we can exercise OBEDIENT faith.(Romans 16:26).

Obedient to what? To God’s command that after we have received belief and humility we then repent of our sins, receive water baptism by immersion, and then receive the gift of the holy Ghost by the laying on of hands. Anything LESS THAN THIS, IS the “Another Gospel” preached by Paul.

Yes, I know what you’re going to shoot back with – we are saved by grace alone. You’ll try to show me where Paul teaches this “exclusive” doctrine. However, your explanation will not hold up to these questions (and the scriptures I presented above):

• Why did Paul write so often to Christian congregations admonishing them to abandon their sinful ways?
•
• Why did Paul have to tell believing Christians that those who committed various sins could not be saved in the kingdom of God? (1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Galatians 5:19-21; Ephesians 5:3-5.)
•
• Why did Paul teach that Christ is "the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe?” (1 Timothy 4:10.)
• Why did Paul say that "godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation?”( 2 Corinthians 7:10)
• Why did Paul tell the Philippians to "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling?” (Philippians 2:13)
• When discussing "the grace of God that bringeth salvation," why does Paul say that it teaches "that denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world?” (Titus 2:11-12)
• Why does the epistle to the Hebrews say that Jesus was "the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him? (Hebrews 5:9)
What did the early Christians believe? Did they believe in saved by grace alone?
First century Christian writer Clement wrote:

“For even He Himself declares, 'Whosoever shall confess Me before men, him will I confess before My Father' [Matthew 10:32] ... But, in what way shall we confess Him? By doing what He says, and not transgressing His commandments, and by honouring Him not with our lips only, but with all our heart, and all our mind...Let us, then, not only call Him Lord, for that will not save us. For He saith: 'Not every one that saith to Me, Lord, Lord, shall be saved, but he that worketh righteousness' [Matthew 7:21]. Wherefore, brethren, let us confess Him by our works”
(2 Clement 3-4, in Roberts and Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers, 7:518.)

I know that you don’t believe this David. I know that you reject this. I feel very sorry that your mind is blinded by false traditions that you can’t see the plain message AND PRACTICES of the New Testament Church. This is what matters to LDS. We uphold and respect the Bible above all other Christian Churches in the world - why? Because we believe in every good doctrine and every practice of the New Testament Church. We not only believe it. WE LIVE IT. David, you cannot find another organization in the world that LIVES the New Testament like the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its people.

You asked how many Gods I believed in. You know that LDS believe that God the Father, his Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are three separate beings. Therefore, you’ve got me, right? You can exclude me from Christianity because I am not a “monotheist” in the classic sense? More name calling? Right? Next comes the slur “polytheist”, something like that? It’s all quite silly. Orthodox Jews and Moslems call Trinitatarians, polytheists! Why? Because David, at the core of YOUR doctrine you are a polytheist; you just redefine “substance” to hide the truth.

Three persons means three beings.
Three separate manifestations means three beings.
Three distinct spiritual entities means 3 spirits.
Three spirits means that there are three that are called God.
These three Gods comprise the SINGULAR Godhead.
The SINGULAR Godhead is the greatest divine council in heaven.

Yes, David you caught me (you knew from the beginning) that I worship three Gods. Which Gods? All of the Gods or gods in the universe? No. Then Which Gods?

The Father, Son and the Holy Ghost. Yep…I worship them all as one – one what? One Godhead. In the Godhead there are three personages that are one.

The crux of our conversation is not that LDS worship a DIFFERENT Godhead. We believe in the Godhead of the Bible: the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. This issue isn’t the Three- the issue is HOW the three are one.

David, I submit that you and I reject all creeds in favor of the Bible to indicate how they are one. Will you give up the creeds for the Bible? This is what LDS encourage other Chrsitians to do. We reject the creeds and say, “Let’s let the Bible indicate how they are one”. Jesus himself, the Lord and Redeemer, the creator of Heaven and earth, the Word who was with God from the beginning declares HOW the Father and the Son are one:

John 17:20-23

Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, [art] in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

David, HERE is the mystery revealed. No creeds necessary. No centuries long debate necessary. Did you hear mention of “co-substantial” doctrines? I didn’t. In fact, you can’t find a single verse in the Bible that suggests that they are the same “being”. If you say that the Father and Son are the same being, then you are also claiming that we all will become God someday with them to make this verse fit with your doctrine.

David, when you see God the Father on this throne, what will it look like? The bible declares it plainly:

the prophet Ezekiel, who described his vision of God by saying he saw “high above all, upon the throne, a form in human likeness?” (Ezekiel 1:26, New English Bible.)

What did Stephen see?

Stephen, whose last words were, “Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God?” (Acts 7:56.)

What did John see?

John, who saw God sitting on the throne in heaven (Revelation 4:2). Who did John see SITTING?

Was God sitting David? How does God sit without a back and legs?

Moses was not allowed to see God’s face in one vision (God was angry at the Israelites at the time), but God said he would “cover thee with my hand while I pass by; and I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen” (Exodus 33:22–23).

Moses did see God previously, however: “the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend” (Exodus 33:11).

Jacob “wrestled a man” one night in the wilderness, and after this encounter “Jacob called the name of the place Peniel [Hebrew for “the face of God”]: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved” (Genesis 32:24–32).

“Some of these references may refer to visions of God the Son, but some of them, like Stephen’s and John’s, certainly refer to the person of the Father.

Edmond LaB. Cherbonnier of Trinity College (a non-Mormon scholar) summarizes this phenomenon as follows:

"In short, to use the forbidden word, the biblical God is clearly anthropomorphic (i.e. “in the form of man”)—not apologetically so, but proudly, even militantly.[1]
Christopher Stead (another non-Mormon scholar) of the Cambridge Divinity School agrees that
The Hebrews…pictured the God whom they worshipped as having a body and mind like our own, though transcending humanity in the splendour of his appearance, in his power, his wisdom, and the constancy of his care for his creatures."

The LDS doctrine of God’s embodiment rests primarily on eyewitness testimony. We believe God has a body in human form because everyone who has seen Him has described Him in this way. “

But perhaps you prefer the nature of God in these words?

“God is One, the single self-existent nature, the monadic, the real Being, the good: and all this variety of names points immediately to mind. God therefore is mind, a separate species, that is to say what is purely immaterial and unconnected with anything passible [i.e. changeable.”

Or

“God does not possess a head and limbs similar to those of humans…[He is] a spirit, a holy and inexpressible One”

You’re probably heaving a sigh of relief. Finally something that resembles your own belief about the nature of God? Right? Finally, James has come to see the light right? Sorry. Wrong. Compare those two statements to your creedal definition of God and you’ll finally come to the knowledge of its origins. The first description were the beliefs of Socrates and Plato. The Second was the Greek philosopher Empedocles.

“In order to argue successfully for the unconditionally and permanence of the ancient Trinitarian Creeds, it is necessary to make a distinction between doctrines, on the one hand, and on the terminology and conceptuality in which they were formulated on the other... Some of the crucial concepts employed by these creeds, such as "substance", "person", and "in two natures" are post-biblical novelties. If these particular notions are essential, the doctrines of these creeds are clearly conditional, dependent on the late Hellenistic milieu.”

Note that this author says that many of “the crucial concepts” are “post-biblical novelties”: that is, they are new ideas that arrived on the scene after the Bible was written. If the crucial concepts weren’t around until later, then the doctrine wasn’t around until later either. As the author notes, these ideas arose out of the “Hellenistic milieu”, that is: Greek philosophy.

LDS reject the creeds and declare the Godhead of the Bible. The Father Son and Holy Ghost are three separate personages, or beings that are all empowered within the Godhead.

As the Bible teaches there is one God, the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ – separate beings all can be called God, all posses the power of God, all are members of the Godhead and divine council of Gods. The Father sits in His throne with His Son at His right hand. They are one as Jesus Christ as declared they are one. They are not one in substance as the creeds teach. They are not merely “persons” but they are powerful separate beings who act as one – who have one will and one purpose. The Father sends forth His will, love, comforter, divine approval and testimony through the power of the Holy Spirit, not only a separate person, but a separate being that has the same will and oneness as the Father and the Son. These all comprise the Godhead (biblical term) . God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost.

LDS declare these three as the object of our
worship.

We believe in worshiping God the Father, in the name of our Lord, Savior and Redeemer, through the Holy Ghost. To us they are ONE GOD (not one being).

Look what our Lord and Savior promises those who overcome:

Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
________________________________________
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.

The message of the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ is for all men to come unto Christ and partake of all of the blessings of the Father.

This is my hope for you.

David, if you need to leave our conversation – I understand. Life is full of activities that we must attend to. We can certainly part as friends and just agree to disagree.

Best,
James

GB,

What's us man? Yeah Pac Bell forever. It just sounds better. I really wish all the parks would get rid of company names and stick to some sort of "cool" names. Like I sure wouldn't mind if Pac Bell was Mays Park. Or something of the likes. What made me really hate the corporate names is when you get a park called Petco Park. What?? Petco? I'm just waiting for Wal-Mart Field.

Yeah bro, I think the debate is getting old. What's the point anymore? It's just getting uglier and uglier. I guess it would be best to move on much sooner than later. Much sooner than later.

James, if your reading this then maybe we should just call it quits. You'll never convince me in a million years to be polytheistic, so therefore what else can you debate about. I obviously don't have enough evidence or argument to convince you otherwise.....so hey....let's move on. Maybe we can say our goodbyes peacefully.

Take care, have a great night.

God bless

David,

Pac Bell will always be Pac Bell. It just has a certain ring to it, don't you think?

So, are you getting tired of debating all the stuff from fairlds yet or what?

As for winning/losing debates it's pretty subjective, isn't it? I've won several debates in my own mind on various blogs but I've yet to get a trophy.

James,

If it has been done for you, there is nothing left to do. The offer still stands good buddy.

Regards,
GB

David,
By the way, 'hope you enjoyed the ball game and the home run hit. I think my point was the same as your point--that God and the things of God are only knowable by revelation through the Spirit. That is what is taught over and over in the Bible, including 1 Cor. chapters 1-3.
In fact, it becomes seemingly senseless to "debate" over the nature of God, because of the very thing we're talking about--knowledge by revelation. The two ways of approaching the subject are at odds with each other. That is what Paul taught repeatedly.

So we do the best we can to study the scriptures, then we pray and sometimes fast and we seek that spirit of revelation in our lives. I don't question as to whether you have done that. I think God would be generous enough to allow people with different traditions and backgrounds to approach Him in prayer in the ways that they have learned, and that He will generally answer in an iterative process of inspiration in a way that they can comprehend and that will be recognizable to them. He wants us to learn "line upon line, precept upon precept" and that is what this life is all about. So keep on keepin' on, and we will, too.

I agree that we don't comprehend the nature of divinity. We don't even know what faith is--the faith of a grain of mustard seed that moves mountains. But we can start to learn.
Best always.

Parker,

If God were comprehensible in all ways, then why the need for revelation? I believe that question alone answers the question regarding the mystery of God. It's not a poor excuse to not discuss the Trinity. It's the reality we are faced when humbling ourselves to admit that to know the divine nature of God, we would have to be divine.

One more question Parker. If Paul couldn't fathom the idea of God and His nature, what makes us think we could?

James,

Again. You continue to argue the Trinity by historical means and not biblical means. And again you bring up some historical garbage about the Trinity. And again that proves nothing on if it's false or if it's true.

For some reason you must think I'm new to this historical argument. You must remember I was once decieved by the very nature of the argument you propose. Armstrong had a heck of a way to convince anyone of the same decietful historical accounts. Of course I'm not decieved by that anymore, so I think you must assume that I have done my homework on the historocity of the Trinity doctrine. I've done the research and this is what I find. Many people debated it. Some accepted it, some did not. It took many many years to formulate this doctrine due to the fact that this doctrine compared to any is so complex and takes literally ALL of scripture to prove itself. There are no contradictions in scripture to this doctrine. This doctrine does not contradict scripture. Does anything is history prove this doctrine is false or true? No, it's only by biblical backing could you prove this doctrine false. You haven't done that. I expect that you won't and surely expect that you can't because truth never fails. I advise you to re-read that bible.org article and go through step by step on how the doctrine is formulated. There are no assumptions in the formulation of this doctrine. Just strict Biblical backing.

You can argue the historical garbage all day James. That is how I was initially decieved by Armstrong. I'm pretty sure I learned my lesson. So you can't try to convince me otherwise with the same sinister tactics that he used. You might want to try that on someone who hasn't been there. But it's not working on me. You still have yet to attack this doctrine biblically which suggests that I guess you have no argument.

And again and for the last time, I will point out the dramatic difference in our thinking and religion. You are polytheistic. I am monotheistic. There is 1 God. You say there are many. How can you begin to argue the Trinity if you could not convince me to be polytheistic first? Please James. Forget arguing the Trinity until you can convince me by scripture that polytheism is the way to go. We can go no further unless we begin on how many Gods there are in the entire universe.

So, here's the major question. HOW MANY GODS ARE THERE IN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE, JAMES?

My answer:

1

Now, could you please tell me your answer?

If you say more than 1, then the conversation concerning the Trinity is over for me. If you say 1 then you are lying about your beliefs because you believe in a goddess, and many gods and people becoming gods. So in all reality, this Trinity debate can come to a close on one major problem. Polytheism vs. Monotheism. Otherwise, I advise you to try to defeat the Trinity Biblically. I know that's impossible because no one has even come close to doing that. Every other doctrine concerning the nature of God has in some way been refuted by scripture. Oneness Theology, Unitarianism, Arianism, and of course the LDS Polytheism. The only one that stands alone in taking the whole of scripture and combining the entire Bible, New and Old Testament is the Trinity doctrine. When you accompany the Trinity doctrine with the Hypostatic Union (Jesus being God and man) then you come away with not one contradictory piece of scripture.

You said I lost this debate. You can think what you want. I want us both to win when it comes to eternal life. I don't expect you to understand the Trinity at all James. When I came to Christ I didn't either. It takes a lot of study to understand how it is formulated and how it really is the truth. I think the first step is to establish how many Gods there are. Without accepting the truth of that, then you cannot go any further. So, if you want to continue to debate this issue, convince me to become a polytheist first if you want to get any ground on me. Until then, no argument can stand.

If you want you can tell all your LDS buddies you beat up on David today ok? I don't have that sense of pride where I need to feel right. I want us both to be right so that the truth about God can established. We are divided right now. We may be forever. I don't know, but I hope not. You want to believe what you want James that's your decision. Like I posted before, I don't have that burden on my chest any longer. I can't change hearts, only the Holy Spirit can change hearts. I can give all the evidence and argument in the world to show you how illogical and contradicting the LDS faith is, but it's your choice to continue in what you've been taught or to really challenge your faith. Not my choice, not my problem. I do wish you the best. If you choose to continue in this debate over the Trinity, I'll only listen if you can convince me to be polytheistic. Otherwise, what's the point anymore? Because the Trinity according to you stands on one solid point. How many Gods are there?

Best to you James.

God bless

David,
I also read the article you cited. I had liked the way you put it a few days ago better. The article says basically that Orthodox Christianity has made the Trinitarian doctrine into an incomprehensible mystery understood only by God and so people should stop thinking of trying to "solve" the mystery. I agree that they should, if they are acting on their own without revelation as the article also quite clearly pointed out. I wish this scholar who "cited" the early Christians by inference would have cited the source for his inference. Maybe you could provide the relevant footnote from first century Christianity that proved they all agreed with and understood the Trinitarian doctrine?
Be that as it may, why trouble yourself trying to logic with a group of people when your logic at long last relies on the notion that God is incomprehensible? Have it your way, but you might reconsider where you want to spend your time. It has been interesting getting to know your theology better, so I for one thank you for that. Best regards.

Hi David:

The scholars I have quoted are discussing the formulation of the Trinity. You're just choosing to ignore their research.

That there is a Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in the Bible, we certainly agree.

However, it's the EXTRA-biblical dogma found in Trinitarianism that isn't found in early Christianity nor in the Bible.

Oh yes, you and others attempt and continue to quote a myriad of bible verses in what you think support your position. You do this because the Trinity doctrine is at present "popular".

The bible scholars I quoted have proven by research that the beliefs such as:

"3 Persons in one God"
"Co-equal"
"Co-substantial"

Were all additions to the doctrine of the Godhead.

Listen David, I know you can't stand to lose an argument - but it's already happened. It happened many decades ago as Bible scholars tried to verify and square Trinitarianism with early Christianity and with the Bible.

The first Trinitarians arrived on the world scene in about 300 AD. Before then, there were no Trinitarians. How do we know? Because no such description or definition of God as described by Trintarians exists.

The quotes above by reputable Orthodox Christian scholars have proven that the Trinity doctrine was an innovation of the 4th and 5th centuries. It was not revealed by God - it was debated and agreed upon by Bishops in council under the leadership of those hostile to any other views of the time.

By spiritual violence these men changed the doctrine of the Godhead into the "nonbiblical" trinity.

Are you aware that we have the recorded writings of the early Christians of the first three centuries?

David, what are you trying to pull here? You're trying to say that the New testament saints taught the Trinity doctrine? Is that your claim? I'll be nice to you and give you a way out of this one: perhaps you meant they were teaching a "watered down" version - or early version of the trinity?

David, guess what? The early Christians in the first three centuries did not believe that the Godhead consisted of one singular being in three persons. This doctrine DID NOT EXIST.

Whoever has told you this is lying. They are deceiving you in the worst way. Who knows, this may be the first time you've ever heard this. No wonder you can't read the New Testament correctly!

Here are the proven facts from Bible scholars:

The New Testament itself is far from any doctrine of the Trinity or of a triune God who is three co-equal Persons of One Nature.

The New Testament does not contain the developed doctrine of the Trinity.

There is in them [the Apostolic Fathers], of course, no trinitarian doctrine and no awareness of a trinitarian problem.

The Church had to wait for more than three hundred years for a final synthesis, for not until the Council of Constantinople [AD 381] was the formula of one God existing in three coequal Persons formally ratified.

By all means David, if you can provide any documented early Chrsitian writings that proves otherwise, there are many publishers that will be interested in your thesis to prove the bible scholars quoted above.

If you still persist in this lie that the New Testament saints taught and believed in the "Trinity" as you do, here's something to consider:

Father Charles Curran, a Roman Catholic priest, said,

"We [the Christians] went through the problem of appropriating the word in the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries with the great trinitarian and Christalogical councils where we finally came to the conclusion of three persons in God and two natures in Jesus. Many people at the time said, ‘Well, you can’t say that because those words aren’t in the scriptures.’ That’s right, they aren’t in the scriptures, they are borrowed from Greek philosophy, but they are the on-going account of the believing community to understand, appropriate and live the word of God in its own circumstances."

Charles Curran, "Creative Fidelity: Keeping the Religion a Living Tradition".

David: The words used to describe your God are not found in the scriptures. The doctrine of three persons in God and two natures in Jesus was not taught or believed by the New testament saints but was later created trinitarian councils of the 4th and 5th centuries as a result of a "final" conclusion - not revelation.

LDS are under no obligation to accept it as "biblical" truth no matter how you explain it or no matter how many verses you try to use to justify it. It's merely an invention of the Catholic councils.

What they wrote was not scripture and was not God's law. It is not binding on anyone who desires to follow God.

Furthermore, ALL doctrines that arose out of the new Trinity are also false because they are based on a false notion of God.

Best,

James

James,

Oh by the way. What is your description of the "Godhead doctrine" and what scriptural backing does it have?

James,

Call it what you want. Godhead, Trinity, Triunity, Triple God Guy, does it matter the word? The basis for the doctrine is that there is 1 God in all existence. This is where you heavily fail when tested with scripture. You continue to debate the "name" of this doctrine instead of debating how this doctrine was formulated. You continue to quote some scholars who either deny the Trinity or have some sort of historical point of view, but none with a Biblical point of view.

You made of list of what you think I think. Here it is.

I don't care what the early Chrsitians believed.
“I don't care how the first century Christians interpreted the Bible.”
“I don't care what changes were made to early Christianity.”
“I don't care if the Godhead was changed to the Trinity.”
“I can't handle contradictions between historic Christianity and what I believe."

"I don't care what the early Christians believed."

If it weren't for the early Christians, then how would I know what to believe? I'm talking of course about the Christians Church as spoken about in the Bible. Did you read about early Gnosticism in that article? There were several heretical churches formulating at the time. Many practicing false doctrine and decieving the masses. 1 Tim 3:16 says that ALL scripture is useful for doctrine. Doctrine was necessary at the time to counter the heretic claims of Gnosticism and other false churches that still had their polytheistic roots and tried to tie them with Christianity. Doctrine is still necessary today to counter the heretical claims of the LDS and Jehovah's Witnesses and so on so forth. Now, how do we know if these doctrines are truth. By turning to the truth which is God's Word!

“I can't handle contradictions between historic Christianity and what I believe."

Historic Christianity is not contradictory to what I believe. Just read the Bible and you'll know.

Doctrine is important James. If it weren't then anyone could believe what they wanted and place their faith in a false hope. When I look at LDS doctrine and compare that with the Bible, it is WAY off. To tell me you believe the same thing Christ does and the same thing the apostles believed is far from the truth. Just finding one false doctrine in your religion is enough for me to know it's false and should not be followed. For example: Marriage in heaven. Christ says there is no marriage in heaven. Do I believe you or Him? Of course Him. You have, believe and follow a false doctrine. I wonder what else you would follow that could be false. Many things James. Many gods. Pre-existence is shot down by one passage. 1 Cor 15. You mean to tell me that your church believes the same as the early apostles? I hardly think so. So your argument is as follows. History tainted Christianity and therefore the truth was lost only to be found by Joseph Smith. Jehovah's Witnesses say that. Armstrong said that. All the cults convince you of a conspiracy theory and that they are the only ones to hold the truth. I don't hold the truth James. The Bible does.

I think there was a defining moment in this post that showed everyone how far fetched the LDS claims can be. The Ezekial 37 passage claims that the BOM was prophecied. When looking at verse 22 and God says the "sticks are nations" and you say they are scrolls. C'mon. With that falsehood and out of context interpretation, what else has this false church taken out of context? You expect me or anyone else with any sense of logic or reason to commit my eternal being to that? James, I know what the Bible says. I know it to be truth. It is only contradictory to your beliefs. I have a foothold on my faith knowing that I believe in a God that cannot and would not contradict Himself. He is the truth. The embodiment of the truth. He cannot contradict Himself. Joseph Smith's account of seeing God the Father is contradictory to a divine being who cannot be contradicted. It is false. Once again. Who do I believe. You or the Bible?

You or the Bible, James? God's Word or your word, James. Which one??

Hi David:
What I hear you saying is this:
"I don't care what the early Chrsitians believed.
“I don't care how the first century Christians interpreted the Bible.”
“I don't care what changes were made to early Christianity.”
“I don't care if the Godhead was changed to the Trinity.”
“I can't handle contradictions between historic Christianity and what I believe."

This is a real problem David because you're still arguing that your interpretation of the Bible is true ORIGINAL Christianity. Do you preach Orthodox Christianity. Yes, according to Protestantism.

But your declarations don't not hold up to early Christian history. They do not hold up against scores of Bible scholars.

David: Are you thinking rationally here? Remember, BIBLE SCHOLARS have tested YOUR THEORIES on the origins about the Trinity and have found those theories to be false based on tests, research, and exhaustive study of early Christianity and the Bible itself.

I went to your reference and read the article. David, this article is an apologetic defense of the Orthodox Trinity. It quotes Bible verses and then regurgitates the Orthodox interpretation of them WITHOUT first determining the origin of the interpretation. The Trinity doctrine did not come first – the Bible did. I particularly took interest in “historical background”. In the text, the authors make false claims. Then it quotes Walter Martin! Do you know who Walter Martin is?

Walter Martin claims to have received a "Ph.D." from an accredited non-mail-order institution of higher learning. But what are the facts?

Walter Martin claimed, in the CRI newsletter, 2nd Qtr 1977, Vol 1, #2, pg. 3, to have received degrees from Stony Brook School, Alelphi University, New York University, Biblical Seminary, and California Western University (which later changed it’s name to "California Coast University").

Stony Brook School is a high school/college prep school, which does not issue college diplomas or degrees of any kind. Martin lied about receiving a degree from this institution, as is evidenced by a letter from that institution dated Sept 10, 1981, signed by James A. Adare, Director of Development.

Martin lied about receiving a degree from Adelphi University, when in truth he attended only 4 months as an undergrad, as is evidenced by a letter from Adelphi Univ. dated Dec 1, 1981, signed by Geraldine B. Cosgrove, Supv. Transcripts and Certification.

Martin finally earned a B.A. from Shelton College, an UNACCREDITED school. He used the then-existing practice of New York University to accept credits from unaccredited schools to transfer to NYU, and subsequently earned his M.A. there in 1956. NYU does NOT accept credits from any non-accredited schools now. NYU explained this rather odd policy, and reiterates the fact that Shelton College was non-accredited in a letter dated Jan 26, 1984, signed by Helen Harrod, Admin. Asst, Office of Graduate Studies.

As a curious side-note to his M.A., Martin lied under oath in a court deposition about doing a Master’s Thesis for his M.A. at NYU, claiming that it was completed in 1956. Martin later admitted on the BAM that he had not done a Master’s Thesis at all. NYU confirmed, in a letter dated Sept 22, 1982 that the course of study that Martin was involved in did not require a thesis.

Martin claims his third degree from "Biblical Seminary", now known as the "New York Theological Seminary". The truth is that he registered for some summer courses from this school within a month after receiving his M.A. from NYU. He lied about receiving a degree from this institution.

The most damning evidence of Martin’s fraud comes from his claim to having received a "Ph.D." in "Comparative Religion" from California Coast University in Santa Ana, CA.
Martin lied about receiving a degree from "Biblical Seminary", (now known as "New York Theological Seminary"), when in truth he bought a mail-order "Ph.D." from an unaccredited mail-order diploma mill. Even though Martin claims not to have received this "Ph.D" until 1977, he repeatedly, fraudulently, referred to himself as "Dr." Walter Martin on a number of documented occasions.

So, what of "California Coast University"??? The California Dept. of Education identifies it as an "unaccredited degree-granting.. correspondence school" in a letter dated Dec 3, 1981 and signed by R. D. Welty, Office of Private Postsecondary Education, State of California Department of Education.

Yet, Martin lies yet again about CCU’s status in the BAM broadcast of 2/16/85, wherein he states, "It isn’t a correspondence school at all, and it is accredited in the State of California".

And this is the “scholar” upon which you’re hanging your support for the Trinity?
David, the days when informed Evangelical Christian ministers try to hide the truth of the origins of the Trinity are over.

Perhaps more from non-LDS Christian Scholars regarding the non-biblical nature of the Orthodox Trinity will help you engage in a rational dialogue about the origins of the Trinity?

The question remains, does the Bible contain the necessary elements for Trinitarianism?

“In order to argue successfully for the unconditionally and permanence of the ancient Trinitarian Creeds, it is necessary to make a distinction between doctrines, on the one hand, and on the terminology and conceptuality in which they were formulated on the other... Some of the crucial concepts employed by these creeds, such as "substance", "person", and "in two natures" are post-biblical novelties. If these particular notions are essential, the doctrines of these creeds are clearly conditional, dependent on the late Hellenistic milieu.”
George A. Lindbeck, The Nature of Doctrine (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1984), 92.

Note that this author says that many of “the crucial concepts” are “post-biblical novelties”: that is, they are new ideas that arrived on the scene after the Bible was written. If the crucial concepts weren’t around until later, then the doctrine wasn’t around until later either. As the author notes, these ideas arose out of the “Hellenistic milieu”, that is: Greek philosophy.

“It is clearly impossible (if one accepts historical evidence as relevant at all) to escape the claim that the later formulations of dogma cannot be reached by a process of deductive logic from the original propositions and must contain an element of novelty...The emergence of the full trinitarian doctrine was not possible without significant modification of previously accepted ideas.”
Maurice Wiles, The Making of Christian Doctrine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967), 4, 144.

Said David Noel Freedman:
“So in many was the Bible remains true to its “primitive” past [by accepting the strongly anthropomorphic understanding of God/Yahweh] and is less compatible with philosophical notions of an abstract being, or ultimate reality or ground of being. Just as there is an important and unbridgeable distance between Yahweh and the gods of Canaan, or those of Mesopotamia or Egypt or Greece or Rome, so there is at least an equal or greater distance from an Aristotelian unmoved mover, or even a Platonic Idea or Ideal. The biblical God is always and uncompromisingly personal: he is above all a person, neither more nor less.” David Noel Freedman, “
When God Repents,” in Divine Commitment and Human Obligation: Selected Writings of David Noel Freedman, Volume One: History and

"The formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the 4th and 5th centuries is not to be found in the New Testament.”
P Achtemeier, editor, Harper's Bible Dictionary (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1985), 1099.

A Catholic encyclopedia notes that Trinitarianism doesn’t really appear until the last 25 years of the 4th century:

“Trinitarian discussion, Roman Catholic as well as others, presents a somewhat unsteady silhouette. Two things have happened. There is the recognition on the part of exegetes and Biblical theologians, including a constantly growing number of Roman Catholics, that one should not speak of Trinitarianism in the New Testament without serious qualification. There is also the closely parallel recognition on the part of historians of dogma and systematic theologians that when one does speak of an unqualified Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian origins to, say, the last quadrant of the 4th century.”
RL Richard, "Trinity, Holy", in New Catholic Encyclopedia, 15 vols. (New York:McGraw-Hill, 1967), 14:295

A Jesuit [Catholic] scholar says this:

“There is no formal doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament writers, if this means an explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. But the three are there, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and a triadic ground plan is there, and triadic formulas are there...The Biblical witness to God, as we have seen, did not contain any formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, any explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons.”
Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), 32,35.

The idea of “three” is present: but not as ‘three co-equal divine persons’ that are one being. An idea about the nature of God (or the Godhead) is present, but it is different from that which is taught as Trinitarianism.

Two authors even assert that the Apostle Paul, the four gospels, and Acts have no Trinitarian understanding:

“...there is no trinitarian doctrine in the Synoptics or Acts...nowhere do we find any trinitarian doctrine [in the New Testament] of three distinct subjects of divine life and activity in the same God head...These passages [i.e. the Pauline epistles] give no doctrine of the Trinity, but they show that Paul linked together Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They give no trinitarian formula...but they offer material for the later development of trinitarian doctrine...[Paul] has no formal Trinitarian doctrine and no clear-cut realization of a Trinitarian problem…in John there is no trinitarian formula.”
Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), 14,16, 22-23, 29.

And:

“This double series of texts manifests Paul's lack of clarity in his conception of the relation of the Spirit to the Son. Paul shares with the Old Testament a more fluid notion of personality than the later theological refinements of nature, substance, and person. His lack of clarity should be respected for what it is and be regarded only as the starting point of the later development.”
J Fitzmyer, Pauline Theology: A Brief Sketch (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey): Prentice-Hall, 1967), 42.

So, Paul doesn’t even ‘realize’ that there is a ‘Trinitarian problem’. Could this be because for Paul there was no such problem, because the doctrine was unknown to him? It was not an issue in his era, because it was not taught by Jesus or the Apostles, and no one felt the need to reconcile divine revelation with Greek philosophy.

One author asserts that the Trinity is correct, but readily admits that:
“The God whom we experience as triune is, in fact, triune. But we cannot read back into the New Testament, much less the Old Testament, the more sophisticated trinitarian theology and doctrine which slowly and often unevenly developed over the course of some fifteen centuries.”
Richard P. McBrian, Catholicism (Minneapolis: Winston Press, 1980), 347.

David, there is no biblical connection between the Trinity doctrine that was an innovation beginning in the 300s and formulated over a couple of centuries of time. These scholars have proven it over and over and over again.

LDS are on 100% solid ground from a scholarly point of view and a spiritual point of view.

David I encourage you to study real sources that produce real facts regarding the history of Orthodox Christianity.

The facts still remain. The Trinity doctrine and its origins are not biblical. However, the Godhead doctrine is biblical.

We believe in God the Eternal Father, in His Son Jesus Christ and in the Holy Ghost.

We don’t need the “Trinity” we already have the most Christian term to describe God, his Son and the Holy Ghost: Godhead.

Best,

James

Ghostbuster,

It's so funny you call it Pac Bell. Because everyone still does. That was the original name. Then it went to SBC and now AT&T. But we still call it Pac Bell. And as I always tell everyone, if you haven't tried the gilroy garlic fries you haven't lived yet. And then when you do try them, the next day you won't want to live anymore. In other words, they taste great, but the heartburn is killer. I'm sure paying for it today. I say on the seventh day God created garlic fries. On the eighth day He created Tums. :)

Parker,

Nice post and thank you. I urge any reader that is interested in Christ to just pick up the Bible and go for it. But don't just read it. Study it. It was the best decision I ever made.

James,

I was a little rushed this morning and didn't get to finish what I wanted to say or how to respond. My daughter is teething and she was crying a lot, so I had to rush through it.

you said,

Historically the source for the Trinity comes from creeds. This is not my opinion David. This is a result of painstaking research by Christian and Biblical scholars who have researched the origins of the doctrine.

Creeds and doctrines are two seperate things.

you said,

What needs to happen with this conversation is it must turn from your feelings to the facts. You must be honest with what happened historically and confront it head on. Earlier you said we must "test it" - we agree on this point. But I don't see you testing it. I hear you glossing over Christian history and skipping to the end and simply making a declaration of facts ignoring what's happened with this doctrine over the last 1700 years.

"What needs to happen with this conversation is it must turn from your feelings to the facts."

Ok so your telling me that you get a "feeling" about your truth. I tell you that Jer 17:9 says not to trust your own heart. I tell you to trust in God's Word because that is the ultimate "fact", and then you tell me that I'm going on fact by feeling? HMMM...I need to know why historical accounts make any difference on what is truth? Why does it matter who thought of the word "Trinity" and who argued over it or who accepted it or not. How does this do anything to make it not truth? You go about with history to decide your doctrines? So is it by a show of hands and a popularity contest in history that we should decide our doctrines? Or maybe the proper way is to take the WHOLE of scripture? You mention how things have happened with this doctrine over the past 1700 years. I'm not too sure what that is but the doctrine is based upon the Bible that hasn't changed over the last 1700 years. This doctrine is the same as to when it was concieved. The Bible hasn't changed, neither has the doctrine.

you said,

"The question is, who is right? How can we test whether Orthodox Christianity is correct?

There are two ways, a scholarly point of view and a spiritual one."

NO. Your completely wrong. There is only ONE way to test this doctrine. That is the Biblical test. The Bereans in Acts 17 did not take Paul's teaching right away. They tested it. How did they test it? By searching through SCRIPTURE to verify his teachings. They didn't pray to see if it was truth, or just take his word for it because it sounded good. They tested it by the Word of God. There is only ONE test. The Biblical test. All other tests fail by the fallibility of man.

you said,

"Now to the spiritual test. God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith in 1820 to settle this debate once and for all without question. The eyewitness account and subsequent revelations show that the Trinity doctrine was not a doctrine of God at all. One can know for themselves whether or not Joseph Smith is a prophet of God through reading the Book of Mormon and receiving a spiritual witness of the same through the power of the Holy Ghost. Here is the promise written around A.D. 421:"

NO. God the Father cannot be seen. 1 Tim 6. Therefore Joseph Smith was a liar. Christ is called the image of what??? "The INVISIBLE God". Joseph Smith could not have seen the Father. It's impossible. Exodus 33 says that if anyone were to see the Father He would die. Joseph Smith says He saw the Father, but he lived. And not only that he said he saw the Father and that contradicts scripture. And again, Jer 17:9 says the heart is decietful. How so? Because you are trusting your heart or "feelings" to find truth instead of searching by God's Word.

I ask you one question. If I am a person searching for the truth about God what do I do? Let's say I read the Bible on my own. I come to several passages indicating that God the Father cannot be seen. Here comes some LDS guys telling me that Joseph Smith saw God the Father. Who do I believe? Well, these LDS guys are really nice people so they must not be lying? It doesn't take a leap of logic to figure out that we are to find truth by the Word of God. And if the Bereans searched for truth in scripture instead of getting a great feeling about Paul, shouldn't we do the same?

Please James, read the article posted above on bible.org. I am no scholar or theologian. This article discussed ALL scripture to come to the conclusion on the Trinity. From the OT to the NT and it also explains your favorite aspect of it, the history. It goes into how it is determined that we call them "persons" and how they are defined co-equally and co-eternally. And most importantly how there is only 1 God. Our differences will never change on this subject. You see I believe in a monotheistic religion. You believe in a polytheistic religion. These are two seperate belief systems. We believe in two seperate Gods and two seperate Jesus'. We must make that a fact of life. My Jesus is not a created being by a God the Father who has a wife. My Jesus is not the literal brother of Lucifer. If we had a conversation and you said you knew a guy names Bob and I thought I knew the same guy. Then you go and describe him as bald with two kids. Well, the Bob I know has dark hair and is single with no kids. We know different Bobs. This is how different our Jesus' are. You love your Jesus, I love mine. Somehow I feel this conversation is gonna end by us saying, "well, see ya judgement day". I guess we'll have to see then who's Jesus is the right one huh?

Please just read that article on the Trinity and you decide. To describe and prove the Trinity takes so much of the whole of scripture that I don't have time all day to do so. I think this is the best one I found yet as to go about explaining it. ALL with scriptural backing.

Have a great day

God bless

James,

Your killing me with this historical account. You know Armstrongism did the same brainwashing scheme that the LDS do. They turn history around and call it some major conspiracy. And because of this conspiracy the truth was lost. And then you know what? POOF! Some money hungry chump is the only one who found the "real" truth and therefore you have what is known as a "cult". Jehovah's Witnesses do the same thing.

James, I could care less when the Trinity was discussed, who discussed it or even if it was called the Trinity yesterday. When you look at the whole of scripture and take everything in the OT and NT. The Trinity is purely Biblical. Like I said before, those who cannot accept it are those whose ignorance and arrogance are exposed because to know the mystery of the divine would be to know everything in the universe. So you make God out to be a man with flesh and bones so you can relate and understand. Don't the pagans do the same thing with their idols and statues?

I searched long and hard for an article that discussed the Trinity in it's fullness. I will post it at the bottom when I'm done. It goes into the FACT that there is only ONE God. And then goes into how they are three "persons" and what makes them three "persons". I advise you to read it. It goes into detail with all the scriptural references you need. It really is the most in depth article I could find. To dispute the Trinity is to dispute scripture. Is this why the LDS convince you the Bible is tainted as well? More conspiracy theories huh?

you said,

"However, the first principles and ordinances of the gospel of Jesus Christ are faith in Him, Repentance, Baptism by Immersion and the receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost."

This statement you made right here is the most self condemning statement anyone could make. See, the gospel is what saves James. I posted about this before. Paul makes an absolute statement that those who preach any other gospel will be "ETERNALLY CONDEMNED". You preach a false gospel. I'd be careful if I were you. You might want to rethink that gospel you have. I've also heard that some LDS who preach this gospel add laying on of hands as well, by some line of priesthood succession. That is extremely false as well.

I know you went into the priesthood thing. But I won't get into that until later. I can break down that argument in two paragraphs. I don't see the point because anytime I back up anything with scripture it's "just not interpreted right". So really arguing is becoming like two people who speak two different languages. But my language is better than yours and your is better than mine even though we refuse to understand each other.

Here's the Trinity article. It goes way in depth and is part of what I quoted on my long post.

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=215

I just read through the rest of it this morning. I'm not sure how anyone can dispute this. Good luck in trying.

If you want to get into the priesthood thing then I'm gonna ask you one question. Why was Jesus baptized? Do you know?

Have a great day.

God bless

Hi David: (Long post to match your last one)

I sincerely appreciate your response regarding my questions about the Trinity. I believe that you were expressing your sincere and heartfelt belief in it. That was not lost on me.

But your sincerity does not change the facts. The fact is you're not directly responding to my questions. You're trying to convince me of the Trinity doctrine based on your belief in it and not through direct statements made in the Bible, early Christian doctrine or even post-reformation doctrine.

Historically the source for the Trinity comes from creeds. This is not my opinion David. This is a result of painstaking research by Christian and Biblical scholars who have researched the origins of the doctrine.

What needs to happen with this conversation is it must turn from your feelings to the facts. You must be honest with what happened historically and confront it head on. Earlier you said we must "test it" - we agree on this point. But I don't see you testing it. I hear you glossing over Christian history and skipping to the end and simply making a declaration of facts ignoring what's happened with this doctrine over the last 1700 years.

David, it's almost as if your don't believe that Christian history has occurred. That the New Testament Church had been established in 1550 and that Christianity didn't exist until that point. Perhaps it's even earlier for you.

Consider that today, millions of Christians "interpret" the Bible differently and they all cannot be right. Christianity today has splintered into different sects and denominations and even recently the Roman Catholic Church (the source of most of your INTERPRETATION of the Bible) declared that Protestant churches are not correct and that they have departed from the truth. Who is right? The Catholic tradition or the Protestant tradition? Christians either chose one or the other or they declare that neither one are required to believe in Jesus Christ because we have the Bible.

However, the first principles and ordinances of the gospel of Jesus Christ are faith in Him, Repentance, Baptism by Immersion and the receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost.

The Covenant of Baptism can only be received and performed by one who has the authority and key to administer this ordinance. There is no such thing in the Bible or early Church as baptism by anyone who wants to baptize because they feel an "inner calling". They must be called by God as was Aaron, as the New Testament says, and have received authority from someone who has authority by the laying on of hands.

The Catholic claim is that this authority has descended down from Peter to the Bishops and ultimately the Pope of their Church.

Protestants first claimed that no such "line of priesthood" is required and ALL believers have priesthood. Therefore, everyone can baptize - and turned the New Testament priesthood law on its head. The New Testament declares that "no man takes this honor upon himself" but that he must be called of God as was Aaron - How? Called by one ALREADY in authority who can trace their line of authority back to the true source (Jesus Christ) and that such is made known in some fashion.

Then shortly after, the Protestant reformers were met with all kinds of Churches "popping up" everywhere and everyone was declaring themselves the source of priesthood, ordaining and baptizing at will, the Lutheran reformers decided that a "law" should be put into place that says no one can take upon himself this honor and that in 99% of the cases must be a member of the professional clergy and approved by the Church and the congregation.

The idea that ALL believers have priesthood was therefore, turned on it's head, and splinter groups, literally hundreds of thousands have been claiming authority under this initial doctrine that soon after changed to resemble the order of the Catholic Church.

Remember, these declarations were made by the Lutheran Church under the protection of the King of Germany. Now, go forward to today and ask, "From what line of authority do Evangelical Churches claim their authority to baptize and administer the gospel?"

They say that they have "Jesus Christ" the great high priest and that he made the final sacrifice for sin and that therefore there is no more sacrifice that can be made for sin (while this is true, it's not the point at all - the issue is authority to baptize, to administer in the ordinances and teach the gospel - not offering blood sacrifices - Why did believers come to the Apostles for baptism? Further, why didn’t' the Apostles teach that baptism was "optional")

Therefore since they believe in Him that somehow this belief in the last High Priest translates into them being "ordained as was Aaron" and receiving by the laying on of hands, the authority by one who has authority.

There is only one problem. There is not a single precedence for this in the Old or New Testament or in early Christianity.

This doctrine of "priesthood" was explained above has it's origin in the 1530s. From there its be used and reused to establish 1000s of break offs from the Catholic and Lutheran Churches. Further it removed the doctrine of spiritual hierarchy that was established by Jesus Christ himself when he first placed Apostles and Prophets at the head and ordained offices below who operated under the authority of those Apostles and Prophets. All of those who reject this order are not called of God even though they believe in Jesus Christ. Even while they are sincere in their belief, they have not obtained the kingdom. So it was in the Old Testament, so it was in the New Testament and so it is today. “And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.” Hebrews 5:4 (I’ll cover the historic accuracy of this point in a later post)

Even from a scholarly point of view, reading the Bible and then comparing that faith, church and doctrine, to the Catholic and Protestant traditions, we would have to be honest and say that these two traditions have departed from the order that Jesus Christ himself established. From the Church hierarchy down to the belief in the literal resurrection - they have departed from New Testament Christianity.

David, you want LDS and others to ignore all of this Christian history as you do and act as if nothing has occurred over the last 1900 years within traditional Christianity.

You want us all to turn to the Bible with you and read the Bible yet you interpret the Bible verses according to Orthodox Christian tradition. You see Orthodox Christian doctrine and interpretation in those verses. On the other hand, we do NOT see Orthodox Christian doctrine and interpretation in those verses.

The question is, who is right? How can we test whether Orthodox Christianity is correct?

There are two ways, a scholarly point of view and a spiritual one.

First, we have to go back in time and look at the origins of the doctrines and practices of Orthodox Christianity. The two most important areas would include the belief in the nature of God and Church hierarchy. Let’s just address the nature of God.

You say that the origins of the Trinity is the Bible. However, this is not true. Listen to what peer reviewed (their research is verified by their peers and also their critics):

First, allow me to introduce Dr. Emil Brunner. Emil Brunner was born near Zurich. He studied at both the universities of Zurich and Berlin, receiving his doctorate in theology from Zurich in 1913. Brunner insisted that Jesus was God incarnate and central to salvation. Brunner undoubtedly holds a place of prominence in Protestant theology in the 20th century and was one of the four or five system builders. Dr. Brunner is not an enemy of Orthodox Christianity. He is an Orthodox Christian scholar of the most upstanding type. He found:

“When we turn to the problem of the doctrine of the Trinity, we are confronted by a peculiarly contradictory situation. On the one hand, the history of Christian theology and of dogma teaches us to regard the dogma of the Trinity as the distinctive element in the Christian idea of God, that which distinguishes it from the idea of God in Judaism and in Islam, and indeed, in all forms of rational Theism. Judaism, Islam, and rational Theism are Unitarian. On the other hand, we must honestly admit that the doctrine of the Trinity did not form part of the early Christian-New Testament-message. Certainly, it cannot be denied that not only the word "Trinity", but even the explicit idea of the Trinity is absent from the apostolic witness of the faith. The doctrine of the Trinity itself, however, is not a Biblical Doctrine…” Emil Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of God (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1949), 205, 236.

David, I have been begging you to read about Christian history and study the origins of this doctrine and you have ignored this request. You have dismissed my claims that the Trinity is not a biblical doctrine. I don’t take offense at this as you were trying to defend your belief. But the claim that the Trinity (based on creeds) is not a New Testament or Biblical doctrine is not the concoction of LDS priesthood leaders. Instead it’s a truth derived from testing the origins through the most rigorous of research (“testing”) methods by the most reputable of religious scholars. As a result of testing by Orthodox Christian scholars, the tests conclude that the Trinity doctrine is not biblical.

Now to the spiritual test. God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith in 1820 to settle this debate once and for all without question. The eyewitness account and subsequent revelations show that the Trinity doctrine was not a doctrine of God at all. One can know for themselves whether or not Joseph Smith is a prophet of God through reading the Book of Mormon and receiving a spiritual witness of the same through the power of the Holy Ghost. Here is the promise written around A.D. 421:

Moroni 10:3-7
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.

Best,

James

To the general reader:
Since the subjects of control and of why Jesus would establish a church on the earth have been introduced lately, in case there has been misunderstanding I have thought it important to add an LDS perspective on these major questions. I hope others will also, since mine is only from my perspective.

I love what Joseph Smith presented to the saints about "unrighteous dominion" because I think it plays into much heartache in families and certainly in governments. Ultimately, if one looks at the idea of mind control, they are left with what I assume is Henry James' position--that any religion that speaks of punishments or rewards is trying to exert control in the minds of people, and therefore is bad for humanity. For example, a religion that teaches strongly a set of beliefs that if not followed will result in "going to hell" is exerting mind control, no question about it. I cringe when I read such comments--because I know that Christ has taught much differently than that. When He said, "Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters" he was presenting an invitation, not a threat.

The New Testament and the books of the Prophets in the Old Testament are based on invitations that invite promised blessings, not mind control out of fear--though a distinction is made between living by appearances and living by what is in the heart. I don't feel mind-controlled at all by the fact that blessings are promised when commandments are kept--why shouldn't there be a cause and effect relationship that can be perceived, especially by living and thus experiencing the blessings?

Yet, there is still the lingering doubt by what I will call the "Henry James" position, which would be "even perceived blessings are a sort of mind control". So what are we left with--experimentation, no trusting of anyone else's point of view, no belief in anyone but the Self? I view humanity as having learned some things over the years that have been shared for the good of others, because such is almost instinctive--we share insights, we try to persuade to a point of view that seems logical to us. I don't see the need to throw out all past learning just because it has come from someone else than the Self.

As to why Jesus established a church, I think a very good explanation was given by Paul to the Ephesians when he said, "And He gave some apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists, and some teachers, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ; 'til we all come to the unity of the faith, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ." The world hasn't gotten there yet (I don't know that it ever will), so I think it is safe to assume there is still the need for a church organization.

My plea to the general reader is, think for yourself but also trust that some knowledge that is fruitful and beneficial exists outside of your current knowledge base. Read, think, ponder, pray, extend the boundaries of your insights and allow others to do the same. Don't be pushed back by generalizations or threats of those who want to appeal to the hope that you will think you aren't capable of making an informed, intelligent decision without their biased help. Trust in your inner heart and the light of Christ will guide you to find blessings for a happier life and greater peace. Best always.

To the general reader:
Since the subjects of control and of why Jesus would establish a church on the earth have been introduced lately, in case there has been misunderstanding I have thought it important to add an LDS perspective on these major questions. I hope others will also, since mine is only from my perspective.

I love what Joseph Smith presented to the saints about "unrighteous dominion" because I think it plays into much heartache in families and certainly in governments. Ultimately, if one looks at the idea of mind control, they are left with what I assume is Henry James' position--that any religion that speaks of punishments or rewards is trying to exert control in the minds of people, and therefore is bad for humanity. For example, a religion that teaches strongly a set of beliefs that if not followed will result in "going to hell" is exerting mind control, no question about it. I cringe when I read such comments--because I know that Christ has taught much differently than that. When He said, "Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters" he was presenting an invitation, not a threat.

The New Testament and the books of the Prophets in the Old Testament are based on invitations that invite promised blessings, not mind control out of fear--though a distinction is made between living by appearances and living by what is in the heart. I don't feel mind-controlled at all by the fact that blessings are promised when commandments are kept--why shouldn't there be a cause and effect relationship that can be perceived, especially by living and thus experiencing the blessings?

Yet, there is still the lingering doubt by what I will call the "Henry James" position, which would be "even perceived blessings are a sort of mind control". So what are we left with--experimentation, no trusting of anyone else's point of view, no belief in anyone but the Self? I view humanity as having learned some things over the years that have been shared for the good of others, because such is almost instinctive--we share insights, we try to persuade to a point of view that seems logical to us. I don't see the need to throw out all past learning just because it has come from someone else than the Self.

As to why Jesus established a church, I think a very good explanation was given by Paul to the Ephesians when he said, "And He gave some apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists, and some teachers, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ; 'til we all come to the unity of the faith, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ." The world hasn't gotten there yet (I don't know that it ever will), so I think it is safe to assume there is still the need for a church organization.

My plea to the general reader is, think for yourself but also trust that some knowledge that is fruitful and beneficial exists outside of your current knowledge base. Read, think, ponder, pray, extend the boundaries of your insights and allow others to do the same. Don't be pushed back by generalizations or threats of those who want to appeal to the hope that you will think you aren't capable of making an informed, intelligent decision without their biased help. Trust in your inner heart and the light of Christ will guide you to find blessings for a happier life and greater peace. Best always.

Karen,
Great addition, thanks!

David,
Ohhhh, you missed it by one day. Hopefully Bonds will play tonight for you. I'm a Nats fan so it was nice to see us win last night while being part of history.

Hey, do they still serve those yummy gilroy garlic fries out there at Pac Bell?

Karen,

There's no better way to put it than how you just did. Thank you. It's funny because church can be used in two terms. The place we go for worship is one. And church as a descriptive word. We are the church. What's even better is that being on here talking to you all is the same thing as going to church. We're in fellowship right now as we express our gratitude of the love that God has for us.

Ghostbuster,

Yes, I am aware that the WWC has changed it's doctrinal issues. I thank God that I didn't have my family at the time of deception from these people. I was single and didn't even meet my wife yet. I think it would have been much harder if I brought my family into this line of thinking. I have heard that there are still branches of the WWC that still teach the same doctrinal errors as in the past but overall they have changed dramatically. As I mentioned before I ordered a bunch of CD's from the Ravi Zacharias website. One of them was a speech that he gave at the Mormon Tabernacle in Salt Lake. It was the first time an Evangelical Christian spoke there since 1899. It had to be one of the best speeches I've heard in a long time. Ravi brought along some of the leaders of the WCC to show how a group of religious leaders can change their ways. My mother called me the other day and told me that Ravi was on T.V. and they asked him about that speech. He said that it had such an impact on the members of the LDS that the LDS leadership asked that he never come back.

When I was studying the Bible under the Armstrong way of thinking I did feel controlled. It also made me a different person. I couldn't see it at the time, but I noticed a tremendous amount of anger against Orthodox Christianity. They actually are so convincing that the truth was lost sometime that it made me want to oppose Orthodox Christianity to the point that I was an angry person. I was mentally controlled. So much to the point that one day my mother called me and flat out told me I was a different person and she wasn't sure that I was the type of person that Christ wanted me to be. Of course the Armstrong theology told me that I would be rejected even by those I love for knowing the truth. So who do I believe?

That night I asked God to show me by His Word the truth. I just trusted Him and opened my Bible to whatever page came up.

Matt 16:18

18And I tell you that you are Peter,[a] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[b] will not overcome it.

The truth was never lost. If so Jesus lied. I know Jesus wouldn't lie. So therefore Armstrong is a liar. If the truth was lost, then the gates of Hades at some point in history DID overcome the church. That is extremely contradictory to this passage. That was the turning point and from then on as I studied on my own, I come to find out that everything I came to believe by His Word alone (not man's) was the same thing that millions of people on earth believed, without the intercession of some guy telling me what it says. I held on to that anger against Armstong for so long, but then realized I needed to turn that anger into works and to warn others that Satan is just as real as God. And deception can happen to anybody. In a way I thank God for this experience of blindness for awhile because it made me want to know Him more and study His Word more. And who knows. Maybe that is what He's calling me to do. I know I have a ways to go, but I think this site is a great beginning at practicing apologetics. We'll just have to see where God takes me from here?

Sorry to hear about your experience as well. I guess it goes to show that no matter what denomination, the potential for a controlling leadershipt is there. I'm glad you feel your freedom now. We're supposed to be slaves to Christ, not man. It's too bad that certain leadership can use it as a form of power instead of leadership. Good thing your out now. Good luck to you.

Off the subject really quick. I'm a huge S.F. Giants fan. If any of you like sports or keep up with sports then you know Barry Bonds hit the big one yesterday. I have tickets for today's game and have had them for awhile. My wife and I were so excited knowing that it was possible to witness history. Watching the game last night and seeing Barry hit it. Arrghh!! One day too early Barry!!! It's times like these that I question a loving God. Just kidding of course. I'm glad he hit it, but boy do I wish I could've been there.

Have a great day. I'll be at the park tonight. Beer and hot dogs. Just what my love handles need! Yummy.

God bless

Thank you HJ, Ghostbuster, David and Parker for all your kind words. HJ, as usual, you test my humility.

David and Ghostbuster, your last 2 posts are very interesting and very enlightening. I would add to the list: run from any religious organization/church that positions itself as somehow necessary for your salvation either through its ministers or its sacraments or its teachings or its "guidance". We know that salvation is through faith alone by grace alone through Christ alone. A church/religious organization can have an invaluable role in helping us learn about God and maturing in our faith. But a big line is crossed when you are made to believe that there is no salvation outside of it. No church is necessary for my salvation or to mediate for me. That is what Jesus did for me.

Hi David,

Your list is pretty interesting. I do notice a few similarities. I suppose that when you had invested your life, your family and your eternal hope in Armstrongism it must have been pretty difficult for you to suddenly change course. I can see why you are so passionate in your posts. I’m sure you are aware that after the death of Armstrong, the Worldwide Church of God under the leadership of Joseph Tkach, Sr. went through a major doctrinal overhaul is now considered as a mainline Christian denomination. Right? Were you in the WWC while the shift was taking place or were you already gone?

I think one point you left out of your list is “control”. Did you feel "controlled" at all?

A controlled person feels obligated to come to all meetings, services and events, a controlled person feels pressure to follow this or that rule, a controlled person has to appear to have his/her life perfectly in order all the time, a controlled person has to give money, time or resources to the church, a controlled person is tempered in criticizing anything within the church including those in authority or basic church doctrine because it could lead to one being ostracized…

I ran into this chilling effect in a little non-denominational Christian church once. The control was very subtle and mostly revolved around how everyone was always expected to be at any church related function. I hardly noticed it at first because I was happy and wanted to be there all the time. When I missed a service, game night or a potluck dinner people would say they missed us. I thought they genuinely did miss us. But they genuinely didn’t. As I observed, I became aware of the control in that and several other areas within the church. Some of it wasn't so subtle :) Eventually, it became pressing to overlook.

When we walked out of that church for the last time a year and a half after first visiting I was amazed by the overwhelming sense of freedom that I felt.

I hope to help other people out of similar situations so they can also experience similiar freedom.

HJ,

What's up budy? Much love to you too, my friend. I hope "the other world" is treating you well. :)

Ghostbuster,

Thanks for the compliment. You know, I did a Bible study with some friends about false teachings. I feel very involved as to almost as a calling to combat false teachings. As you may be aware as I pointed out earlier, I was once decieved into following a false teaching at one point in my life as well. I really thought it was truth. I really did. I would have fought to the death knowing that what I believed was true. I thank the Lord that He was able to reach me out of that cult and into the truth. Nothing hurt more knowing how badly someone is willing to lead you into a false doctrine which in turn can lead to eternal damnation. But nothing felt better than the day that I was finally brought to the truth, only by His Word. The more I hear and learn about the LDS or the likes of Jehovah Witnesses, the more I see the same pattern of deception. Here's what Armstongism taught me. Let me know if you can see a consistency among other cults.

1. Make you believe that the Bible is not trustworthy.
2. Make you believe they are the only true church on the planet.
3. Make you believe that your faith isn't good enough and you need to constantly be doing some form of work or you will be damned to hell.
4. Herbert Armstong claimed to be the "endtime Elijah" and the "RESTORER" to the truths that were lost to the one and only church.
5. Armstong claimed that the "lost ten tribes of Israel" went to Britain where the chosen people are at. (Sound familiar LDS?)
6. And of course, Armstrong held the claim to leader of the one and only true church and claimed to be a prophet.
7.He made a false prophecy about the return of Christ in 1975. (Sound familiar Jehovah's Witnesses?)

After coming to the truth, I turned to study how all these false teachings get you. It's the same pattern every time. Somehow they have to convince you that the truth was "lost" somewhere. And then they convince you that they have it and no one else does. And just in case you read your Bible and find out that they are lying to you, then they can find a way to convince you not to trust your Bible, but only the way they "interpret" it. Every single one of them do this. Not just LDS. Jehovah's Witnesses, Armstrongs, they all do it with this same pattern. This is why I'm so adamant about revealing the truth. I don't wish for anyone to be caught in the web of lies as to be decieved so far as to have your eternal life in jeopardy. It's as plain as day in the Bible. Just have to trust God's Word.

You know, Ghostbuster, the best way I witnessed to Jehovah Witnesses. This seems to work every time. If it doesn't convert them, at least it makes them question their beliefs. Jehovahs Witnesses believe in the inerrancy of the Bible (of course if it is translated correctly) but they do not believe in contradictions in the Bible. Of course they deny the deity of Christ and think that Jesus was Michael the Archangel. I ask them every time when they come to my door (at least 3 times a month), do you have the same God as the apostles? Of course they say yes. I tell them to turn to John 20:28. Thomas calls Jesus his God. I'm not too sure if they ever were converted, but I know that after that, the conversation just stops.

Anyway, enough babbling. Just thought I would share with you my experiences. Have a great day

God bless

I do not know much about gods; but I think that the river
Is a strong brown god—sullen, untamed and intractable,
Patient to some degree, at first recognised as a frontier;
Useful, untrustworthy, as a conveyor of commerce;
Then only a problem confronting the builder of bridges.
The problem once solved, the brown god is almost forgotten
By the dwellers in cities—ever, however, implacable.
Keeping his seasons and rages, destroyer, reminder
Of what men choose to forget. Unhonoured, unpropitiated
By worshippers of the machine, but waiting, watching and waiting.

beautiful words Parker - well done!

To the general reader who is seeking a stronger belief in Jesus Christ:

I appreciate David's well-expressed description of the Trinity, and add my heartfelt felicidades to Karen for the success of her presentation; I don't seek to distract from any of that. I just want to add a perspective that may have been short-changed for a general reader, which I think is important regardless of the specific denominational definitions:

1) Jesus lives as the resurrected Son of God who overcame death and the grave, and makes it absolutely sure that every person who has ever lived will also be resurrected. This is a free gift to all.
2) Jesus entered into all of our pain, our heartache, our sufferings, our illnesses, our weaknesses of the flesh, our anguish from troubled relationships or from having been harmed or badly treated by others. He is anxious and willing to help us carry the load, to lift the burden of these sufferings as we seek His help, seek His peace, and seek solace and comfort through finding ways to be forgiving of others, loving, generous, full of gratitude, willing to see the world as a place with so many wonderful people who are willing to help. He has done this for so very many who attest to this. He can and will do this for you. Please know this in your heart. He knows and loves you personally.

Karen,
Congratulations on your successful presentation.

David,
I really wish I could have you guest speak at an informal class I sometimes attend where the similarities and differences btw mormonism and christianity were recently discussed.

Also, in a previous post you were asked if you have ever read the BOM. Have you read it? If not, I suggest that you read it, especially since you enjoy dialogue with those of the LDS faith.

Regards

Karen
I am so pleased, though not surprised, that your presentation went well.

You are such a clear, cogent, powerful communicator in writing that it makes sense you would be when speaking as well.

Love to you and David from the other world.

Henry

Karen,

It's so good to see you back. I did pray for you and I'm glad everything went well and you had a safe trip. I thought about you and how difficult it is to speak in front of so many people. I then thought about Moses and how a simple man who had speech problems could convince a Pharaoh to let his people go. What wonderful things we can do with the power of trusting in God, huh? Again, glad to see you back Karen and thanks for the compliment. Have a wonderful day.

David: you last post on (trying) to explain the trinity is excellent. You did a great job on a very tough subject.

Also, to you and Parker and others who prayed for me re: my big presentation last week, thank you for your prayers and good wishes. Though I have done quite a bit of public speaking, this was my first presentation at a national meeting and I am happy to report that it went very well. I was nervous until I started speaking, then I felt calm and enjoyed myself. The feedback has been great and I am deeply grateful. Thank you all.

Good morning James, (WARNING, VERY LONG POST AHEAD)

Great questions. I did a lot of thinking last night and just wanted to say a couple of things. I think I do agree with you on how a lot of Christians just accept the doctrine of the Trinity because it is labeled as Christian. I wish that were not the case. We are supposed to "test everything". Not enough Christians do that. When I think about the nature of God, it is extremely difficult to explain. To say that we can fully explain an Almighty, omnipresent, omniscient being is to be arrogant in saying we can KNOW everything. The Trinity is beyond logic. And rightfully so! Isn't it logical that the Creator of logic would be beyond logic? I think a wonderful passage that shows us the finite minds we possess can help us determine that we are NOT supposed to be able to come to logical terms on defining God because God is greater in wisdom, thinking and of course naturally in a spiritual sense greater than the mind could ever comprehend. In other words, how can our finite minds even begin to comprehend an infinite God?

“For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts” (Isaiah 55:8-9).

I'm gonna quote this from bible.org because I think it's important.

"It follows from all this that we cannot and should not expect to understand the Bible exhaustively. If we could, the Bible would not be divine but limited to human intelligence. A very important idea comes out of this, something over which many non-Christians and even Christians stumble: Since the Bible is an infinite revelation, it often brings the reader beyond the limit of his intelligence.

As simple as the Bible is in its message of sin and of free salvation in Christ, an incredible subtlety and profundity underlies all its doctrines. Even a child can receive Christ as his Savior, thereby appropriating the free gift of eternal life. Yet no philosopher has more than scratched the surface regarding the things that happened at the Cross. The Bible forces any reader to crash into the ceiling of his own comprehension, beyond which he cannot go until he sees the Lord face-to-face".

The Apostle Paul wrote: “For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I shall know fully just as I also have been fully known” (1 Cor. 13:12).

Paul knows that the limit of our comprehension cannot fully grasp the nature of God. Only when we meet Him face-to-face can we know. So, when explaining the Trinity using human terms we will never grasp the full explanation of God because He is a God that has limited our comprehension of Him.

Does this mean a doctrine cannot be true simply because it defies our human imagination or ability to comprehend it? The answer is, of course not. It would be nothing short of human arrogance to say it was. The truth is, we must recognize our need to simply trust in God’s special revelation to us, the Bible, and submit our minds to that teaching which is truly expressed in its pages. This does not mean we do not test the Scripture to make sure these things are truly taught, but once we are convinced that that is what the Bible says, we must lay hold of it by faith and wait on the eternal future for complete understanding. The Trinity is Biblically sound, but mentally uncomprehendable. I think like I pointed out earlier how the Apostle Paul rebuked those who try to make God out to be a body of corruption. This goes hand in hand with the converstion at hand. Paul is telling us that we cannot fathom what God really is. Our knowledge is limited by the capacity of human intelligence. How come we think we can understand Him fully and why do we think we in our arrogant state of mind can make God out to be something He is not to fulfill our incomprehendable minds?

You asked several questions which I already know that you know the answers to. A couple stand out that I feel are important in understanding the Trinity.

You asked if all are co-equal. Yes they are. Jesus says the Father is greater than Me. Do you know what the Hypostatic Union is? It simply is a doctrine that states that incarnate Jesus was (and still is) God and man at the same time. Hence, "the word became flesh". Also, as written "He was made for a little while lower than the angels". When Jesus says the Father is greater than Him, it is because He is in the flesh at the time and also because He is on earth and not on His Heavenly throne. It is merely positional that Jesus is less than the Father.

I know you believe that Jesus was a created being, but the Bible calles Him the Creator.

15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

16 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:

17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. (Col 1:15-17)

The Holy Spirit is Creator as well.

Job 33:4

4 The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life.

I know you believe that Jesus was a created being. But how can a created being be the Creator of all? This is consistent with the Trinity. All three are Creators which means that none of them have been created. They are all eternal, co-equal persons. When I say persons, this is the best description I can give even though persons does sound like seperate individuals, divinely they really are not. What makes them seperate is their works (for example Jesus saves, the Holy Spirit sanctifies and seals) but it is the ONE God that works in those different forms that makes it possible.

you asked,

You stated that the Trinity is 3 distinct persons in one God. What is the difference between the person of the Father and the person of the Holy Ghost? Are they the same person? What makes them different persons?

Like I explained before the difference is their works and their wills. Jesus prays to the Father and asked that His will be done, not Jesus'. Why? Because Jesus is flesh as well. He is limited by His flesh and therefore only the divine will be done. If indeed the Hypostatic Union is truth, which it is, then how do you suppose the gospels explain this? They must attribute the human side of Jesus along with the divine, right? So, we get both sides explained. Jesus says He and the Father are ONE. He says the Father is greater than I. If they are ONE than how is the Father greater than Jesus? Because they ARE ONE, but the Father is greater in a sense that Jesus is flesh, but they still are ONE!

I didn't accept the Trinity right away, James. I did test it. I gave it the scriptural test. What I come to find out is that God is incomprehendable. He even tells us that in scripture. I believe Him! It was only when I could acknowledge that me being human and limited in my knowledge and understanding of spiritual things could I accept it as fact as it really is fact. Where we differ dramatically is the question of how many God are there in the universe? You say many, I say one. I've brought up the Isaiah verses several times. I heard the counter argument to them. Like I said, I'm set on the definitive meaning that God is ONE and there are no other gods or goddesses, or anyone becoming gods. The explanations I got for the Isaiah verses are not really explanationS at all. God says He is ONE. That is an absolute statement. It doesn't mean that there are more, or that there are a council of gods. God says He knows no other gods. If indeed there is a council of gods, theN why doesn't He know them? This question alone is what seperates us completely. You could never get an understanding of God unless you can truly recognize that there is only ONE God. And when you finally recognize that there is only ONE God, that is when you must recognize that we are not Him. We in our lowly state of humanity cannot FULLY know God. Paul could not FULLY know God as he expressed in 1 Cor 13:12 until he recognized that you can't until you see Him face-to-face after this life. We as God believers must be humble enough to face the fact that to define God by nature in human terms is not feasable. We did not create God, He created us. How can the created really understand the Creator fully?

I know this is a long post, I'm sorry. But debating the Trinity stops at one simple problem. How many Gods are there in the entire universe? If we cannot agree on that simple question, then the rest won't make much sense to you. But one final question I ask you. Are you humble enough to admit that you cannot know God fully? Why make the Father a being with flesh and bones? So you can understand better? Is this not arrogance? Wouldn't you agree that this is the problem with religions that make idols out of wood or stone or whatever? Because the TRUE God cannot be defined and the arrogance of the human mind in needing to fully be able to explain God in full human terms cannot be met?

I'll leave you with this until you respond. I don't want to be able to explain God's nature by human terms because that would force faith to turn to knowledge. I have faith in ONE God. If I had complete divine knowledge like God has, then where's faith? Isn't it by faith that we recieve grace? Aren't we justified by faith? We NEED faith. Faith is essential. To take away faith and replace it with knowledge, then that would take us out of the gift of grace.

Have a wonderful day James,

God bless

Thanks for the reply. Perhaps we can find understanding of one anothers beliefs if we have a frame of reference.

Could you please describe & define the nature of God in these terms as best you can:

God the Father (personality?, spirit?, flesh bone? Greater than the son?)

God the Son (personality?, spirit?, flesh bone? coequal to the Father?)

God the Holy Spirit (personality?, spirit?, flesh bone? coequal to the Father?)

Do you believe these three to be manifestations of the same spiritual being? (One singular spirit or three separate spiritual entities?) Or are these persons separate and independant spiritual entities?

What makes these three persons distinct?

When you are brought before the throne of God, how many persons will you see there?

Have you read the Anthanasian creed?

Have your persons of the trinity always existed?
Did God the Father exist as a separate person from the Son and the Holy Ghost before the world was made?

In your Trinity, did the person of the Son always exist even before he was begotten through Mary? If so, what did he exist as before Mary was born? Was Jesus, "God the Son" before the creation of the world, and is so, how was he the person of the Son since he wasn't born yet?

You stated that the Trinity is 3 distinct persons in one God. What is the difference between the person of the Father and the person of the Holy Ghost? Are they the same person? What makes them different persons?

Oh James, by the way I have a serious question that I never raised before. You claim to have a confirmation of the truth of the LDS faith by means of the Holy Spirit. How so? How was this confirmed? Did the Holy Spirit come to you and say "Hi, I'm the Holy Spirit, you have the truth?" Or was it the "burning in the bosom" feeling? How do you know it was the Holy Spirit?

Ok James you devil you....I mean that nicely, not literally :)

I guess I just can't stay away from a good debate. It's so hard. I'll stay away from the archaeological, BOM, BOA, argument. Sound good. Let's get Biblical!

you said,

David, one of your “laws” of the trinity is that God is not divisible. But then you try to argue that your God is divisible into three persons. We can all see and understand that this is what your claim that the Trinity is (a doctrine not found in the Bible – this is what you THINK God is – do you understand that point?)

When did I ever say God was not "divisible"? Is time divisible but still time?

you said,

On one hand your God is one but on the other hand he is three. Your trinity states that your God’s SUBSTANCE cannot be divided. Okay. You don’t like the terms Gods. I understand why it drives your crazy. Let’s use another term. Let’s use the term “spirit”. Is God one spirit or three spirits? How about that?

No, on both hands He is ONE. Again God is ONE being in the form of three persons. Not three Gods that make ONE God. You have it backwards.

you said,

Jesus said “Father, into your hands I commend MY spirit”. If God the Father and God the Son, who are distinct persons, are the same spirit, then how can Jesus commend his spirit to the Father’s spirit, if they are already one spirit?

Ok, let's use logic for this one. You claim that you recieved confirmation of the truth by the Holy Spirit (Holy Ghost, same thing). Does that mean that you are the only one who has recieved that confirmation? I'm sure you will agree that the Holy Spirit indwells believers. Well, can the Holy Spirit indwell a believer in Texas and Japan at the same time? Or do they have to share? Now apply that logic to what you just said above.

you said,

When Jesus crys out “My God, My God, why has thou forsaken me?” how could the Father, who you say is God, forsake himself, if the Father and the Son are the same spirit? Did the Father forsake Jesus’ body or his spirit?

First of all Jesus is quoting Psalm 22:1. You should take a look at verses 11-18. Jesus is telling the crowd that He is fulfilling prophecy. You will be able to tell that by reading the passages indicated. Jesus does something similiar to this when speaking to the Pharisees and Saduccees when he said to them "ye are gods" (Psalm 82:6)because He knew that those high priests knew the following verse "but you shall die like mere men". Then they wanted to stone him of course. He did the same thing by saying those words. But I do believe there is another meaning as well as to Him quoting Psalm 22:1. Jesus became the sin of the world. I forgot the verse in Habbukuk but it says God cannot look upon evil. Jesus became sin to die for us all. The Father very well could have turned His back for the moment because He could not look at His Son. And since Jesus became sin in His perfect self, I'm sure that pain exceeded the physical that He experienced.

I'm assuming your using "spirit" in place of "God" when asking how the Father being God can forsake Himself? Again, you still do not understand the Trinity. The Father and Son are not the same person. You are confused with Oneness Theology. Are you sure you studied the Trinity for 25 years? No offense, but you can't seem to seperate the persons of God. God is omnipresent. He can be anywhere and everywhere at the same time. Remember that.

If the Father and the Son are the same spirit, then you’d have to admit that the Father once had a body of flesh and blood in the person of the Son. Right?

They are not the same person. Jesus had and still has a body of flesh. Do you know why He has a body of flesh still? I'll give you a hint. It has to do with the priesthood. The Father never had a body of flesh. He is unseen just like the Holy Spirit (Ghost). Jesus makes it very clear that spirit is not the same as flesh and bones. Again i'll post this.

John 4:24, "God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”

Luke 24:39, " “See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.”

Jesus says He is the way, the TRUTH, and the life. Not "except in", or "only if". Jesus is the TRUTH. He is absolute. There is no such thing as relative truth. Jesus makes this clear. Everything He says is absolute TRUTH and cannot be argued because He is TRUTH. He is the embodiment of truth. So when He says that spirit is not flesh and bones, I believe Him. If God the Father is spirit, then He is not flesh and bones. This coming from the One who embodies absolute truth.

you asked,

Once again David, I will ask whether your God is three spirits, three bodies of flesh and bone, or three personalities? But please, by all means.. please clarify how many spirits are in your ONE GOD (singular).

I ask again. How many Holy Spirits are there? I'm sure we both can agree on ONE Holy Spirit, correct? How then can the Holy Spirit being ONE be indwelt in millions of believers at the same time. Again apply that logic to the three persons of God and you not only have something beyond our comprehension (which is exactly what God is, beyond our comprehension) but something that makes sense. An omnipresent, omniscient being. Notice I said being, not being(s). If this being can be anywhere at any time at the same time, then whey can't He be One being in the form of just three persons? If you claim that all Three are seperate Gods, then you take away the omniprecence of God which is what enables us to have a personal relationship with God.

We try to find unity in our lives with everything. We are fathers, sons, workers. In a diverse world we struggle to find unity in diversity. Not the other way around. Claiming that all three are Gods is the need for diversity to make unity. We go to college or a university. University simply means that, unity in diversity. We get married and become "one flesh". That is unity in diversity. We long as humans to have some kind of unity in a such a diverse world. No where in the world can you find such unity in diversity than within the unity and diversity of the Trinity. If the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are three different Gods, then we should be looking for diversity to find unity. That doesn't make much sense there does it? Diversity in unity? Are we to exclude those who do not look like us in skin color or have the same beliefs so that we can have unity? This is what three different Gods would suggest to me. That since the "Gods" are diverse they must be right. We must be diverse as well. Diversity only unites those who are willing to participate. Unity in diversity unites all. The unity in diversity that the Trinue God brings is what example we should lead by in life, othewise we continue to search for diversity which never brings unity. That's my moral speech for the day and how the Trinity brings unity and all others bring diversity. God intends unity, not diversity. You know this and I know this. How can we strive for unity if our own God or Gods cannot be united?

I'm done for now. Thank you and have a blessed day.

God bless

Ok James you devil you....I mean that nicely, not literally :)

I guess I just can't stay away from a good debate. It's so hard. I'll stay away from the archaeological, BOM, BOA, argument. Sound good. Let's get Biblical!

you said,

David, one of your “laws” of the trinity is that God is not divisible. But then you try to argue that your God is divisible into three persons. We can all see and understand that this is what your claim that the Trinity is (a doctrine not found in the Bible – this is what you THINK God is – do you understand that point?)

When did I ever say God was not "divisible"? Is time divisible but still time?

you said,

On one hand your God is one but on the other hand he is three. Your trinity states that your God’s SUBSTANCE cannot be divided. Okay. You don’t like the terms Gods. I understand why it drives your crazy. Let’s use another term. Let’s use the term “spirit”. Is God one spirit or three spirits? How about that?

No, on both hands He is ONE. Again God is ONE being in the form of three persons. Not three Gods that make ONE God. You have it backwards.

you said,

Jesus said “Father, into your hands I commend MY spirit”. If God the Father and God the Son, who are distinct persons, are the same spirit, then how can Jesus commend his spirit to the Father’s spirit, if they are already one spirit?

Ok, let's use logic for this one. You claim that you recieved confirmation of the truth by the Holy Spirit (Holy Ghost, same thing). Does that mean that you are the only one who has recieved that confirmation? I'm sure you will agree that the Holy Spirit indwells believers. Well, can the Holy Spirit indwell a believer in Texas and Japan at the same time? Or do they have to share? Now apply that logic to what you just said above.

you said,

When Jesus crys out “My God, My God, why has thou forsaken me?” how could the Father, who you say is God, forsake himself, if the Father and the Son are the same spirit? Did the Father forsake Jesus’ body or his spirit?

First of all Jesus is quoting Psalm 22:1. You should take a look at verses 11-18. Jesus is telling the crowd that He is fulfilling prophecy. You will be able to tell that by reading the passages indicated. Jesus does something similiar to this when speaking to the Pharisees and Saduccees when he said to them "ye are gods" (Psalm 82:6)because He knew that those high priests knew the following verse "but you shall die like mere men". Then they wanted to stone him of course. He did the same thing by saying those words. But I do believe there is another meaning as well as to Him quoting Psalm 22:1. Jesus became the sin of the world. I forgot the verse in Habbukuk but it says God cannot look upon evil. Jesus became sin to die for us all. The Father very well could have turned His back for the moment because He could not look at His Son. And since Jesus became sin in His perfect self, I'm sure that pain exceeded the physical that He experienced.

I'm assuming your using "spirit" in place of "God" when asking how the Father being God can forsake Himself? Again, you still do not understand the Trinity. The Father and Son are not the same person. You are confused with Oneness Theology. Are you sure you studied the Trinity for 25 years? No offense, but you can't seem to seperate the persons of God. God is omnipresent. He can be anywhere and everywhere at the same time. Remember that.

If the Father and the Son are the same spirit, then you’d have to admit that the Father once had a body of flesh and blood in the person of the Son. Right?

They are not the same person. Jesus had and still has a body of flesh. Do you know why He has a body of flesh still? I'll give you a hint. It has to do with the priesthood. The Father never had a body of flesh. He is unseen just like the Holy Spirit (Ghost). Jesus makes it very clear that spirit is not the same as flesh and bones. Again i'll post this.

John 4:24, "God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”

Luke 24:39, " “See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.”

Jesus says He is the way, the TRUTH, and the life. Not "except in", or "only if". Jesus is the TRUTH. He is absolute. There is no such thing as relative truth. Jesus makes this clear. Everything He says is absolute TRUTH and cannot be argued because He is TRUTH. He is the embodiment of truth. So when He says that spirit is not flesh and bones, I believe Him. If God the Father is spirit, then He is not flesh and bones. This coming from the One who embodies absolute truth.

you asked,

Once again David, I will ask whether your God is three spirits, three bodies of flesh and bone, or three personalities? But please, by all means.. please clarify how many spirits are in your ONE GOD (singular).

I ask again. How many Holy Spirits are there? I'm sure we both can agree on ONE Holy Spirit, correct? How then can the Holy Spirit being ONE be indwelt in millions of believers at the same time. Again apply that logic to the three persons of God and you not only have something beyond our comprehension (which is exactly what God is, beyond our comprehension) but something that makes sense. An omnipresent, omniscient being. Notice I said being, not being(s). If this being can be anywhere at any time at the same time, then whey can't He be One being in the form of just three persons? If you claim that all Three are seperate Gods, then you take away the omniprecence of God which is what enables us to have a personal relationship with God.

We try to find unity in our lives with everything. We are fathers, sons, workers. In a diverse world we struggle to find unity in diversity. Not the other way around. Claiming that all three are Gods is the need for diversity to make unity. We go to college or a university. University simply means that, unity in diversity. We get married and become "one flesh". That is unity in diversity. We long as humans to have some kind of unity in a such a diverse world. No where in the world can you find such unity in diversity than within the unity and diversity of the Trinity. If the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are three different Gods, then we should be looking for diversity to find unity. That doesn't make much sense there does it? Diversity in unity? Are we to exclude those who do not look like us in skin color or have the same beliefs so that we can have unity? This is what three different Gods would suggest to me. That since the "Gods" are diverse they must be right. We must be diverse as well. Diversity only unites those who are willing to participate. Unity in diversity unites all. The unity in diversity that the Trinue God brings is what example we should lead by in life, othewise we continue to search for diversity which never brings unity. That's my moral speech for the day and how the Trinity brings unity and all others bring diversity. God intends unity, not diversity. You know this and I know this. How can we strive for unity if our own God or Gods cannot be united?

I'm done for now. Thank you and have a blessed day.

God bless

Hi David:

You may be away for good but I know you won’t be able to at least come back and read my response.

I am curious, why would you think that I haven’t studied the Trinity, or any other of your criticisms against Mormonism? The truth be told David I have been studying the “trinity” and Catholic and Protestant interpretation of it for 25 years.

I think what bothers you most about my questions they cast serious doubt on the logic, consistency and connection with the doctrines of the Bible and you don’t know how to respond. You want “me” to “obey” trinity “laws” that are not enumerated in the Bible? David, that is just plain silly.

You said:

“God (singular) manifests Himself in three distinct persons”. (By the way I have meditated and thought about your trinity doctrine – I found that it is 95% inconsistent with the Bible – Old and New Testament revelations about God – but I digress)

David, one of your “laws” of the trinity is that God is not divisible. But then you try to argue that your God is divisible into three persons. We can all see and understand that this is what your claim that the Trinity is (a doctrine not found in the Bible – this is what you THINK God is – do you understand that point?)

On one hand your God is one but on the other hand he is three. Your trinity states that your God’s SUBSTANCE cannot be divided. Okay. You don’t like the terms Gods. I understand why it drives your crazy. Let’s use another term. Let’s use the term “spirit”. Is God one spirit or three spirits? How about that?

Jesus said “Father, into your hands I commend MY spirit”. If God the Father and God the Son, who are distinct persons, are the same spirit, then how can Jesus commend his spirit to the Father’s spirit, if they are already one spirit?

When Jesus crys out “My God, My God, why has thou forsaken me?” how could the Father, who you say is God, forsake himself, if the Father and the Son are the same spirit? Did the Father forsake Jesus’ body or his spirit?

If the Father and the Son are the same spirit, then you’d have to admit that the Father once had a body of flesh and blood in the person of the Son. Right?

Once again David, I will ask whether your God is three spirits, three bodies of flesh and bone, or three personalities? But please, by all means.. please clarify how many spirits are in your ONE GOD (singular).

David, these questions MUST BE EXPLAINED if your trinity doctrine is to be consistent with God’s word in the Bible.

About the true Church – there is only one Church on the earth that holds the priesthood keys given to Peter – that power is the priesthood power to bind on earth and in heaven. There is no other Church on the earth that 1) claims access to it and 2) regularly exercises it – the one true Church is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is not enough to claim to have “priesthood” it is quite another to actually EXERCISE it through the covenant making process which the LDS Church alone exercises. The numbers of revelations does not make a prophet – exercising priesthood keys does. Such as with Peter – a prophet and leader of the New testament Church who did not constantly receive new revelations but was the priesthood leader ordained and set apart to exercise priesthood keys, rights, privileges and ordinances and lead the Church and keep the doctrine pure.

By the way, I first looked into the Book of Abraham controversy in 1990 and it sounds like you’ve been reading antimormon literature on the topic. David, if the Book of Abraham is a fraud, then why do we find corroboration between details revealed in the Book of Abraham and recent ancient documents found about Abraham? I mean, if Joseph Smith just made it all up, then why do we find corroboration with other ancient texts -details not known in Joseph Smith’s day. These evidences have to do with the traditions of Abraham. Do you have a logical explanation? I am all ears. Did he just get lucky?

The Book of Mormon plagiarized? David, you’re reading old anti-mormon material. The Book of Mormon stands on its own as an ancient work more so today than at any time in history. Word print studies show that the Book of Mormon has multiple authors as indicated by the multiple prophets who wrote it. Further, many other analyses have been conducted on the text of the Book of Mormon including Stylometry (word print studies) to determine authoriship of various texts. In 1987, an analysis was completed which verfied earlier studies that show it is STATISTICALLLY improbable that Joseph Smith or any other purported modern authors (including Smith, Cowdery, & Spaulding). In the study, the oldest Book of Mormon manuscripts were used.

There are other evidences too – other linguistic studies, archeology, history, etc. However, would you listen?

On the Book of Mormon, let’s ask a real question. David, have you read it? Have you read about the 1000s of verses in that testify of Jesus Christ and plainly teach his gospel of faith in Jesus Christ, sincere repentance, baptism by immersion for the remission of sins, and the receiving of the gift of the holy ghost? Millions have and have received a witness through the power of the Holy Ghost that it IS true. I am one of them. My children are some of them. I know by the power of the Holy Ghost that it is true – a direct revelation from God, who is merciful unto all those who humble themselves and come unto him.

I wish that you could know this wonderful truth. Will you humble yourself to “know” through the power of the Holy Ghost that it is true?

Best,

James

David,
I don't really want to be the last one "holding the baton" here, but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt by realizing that this very last post was from a person who had been put on the defensive, whereas your Saturday posts were something refreshing and enlightening to remember you by. I am going to choose to remember you by those. Thanks for those comments, and thanks for sharing Ravi's thoughts that really made a lot of sense.
Best to you and your family.

James,

I knew I couldn't stay away! I just need to clarify something with you. I agree about the bodily resurrection of Jesus. I don't know where you were going with that.

You have no understanding of the Trinity. It seems that all arguments opposed to the Trinity show that you either have a hard time recognizing that they are three distinct personages or have a hard time recognizes that they are not three seperate Gods. Whenever you propose an argument it seems to conflict with one of those two. When I spoke of God not being seen, I'm speaking of God the Father. That personage of God that cannot be seen.

Your arguments opposing the Trinity break two laws of the Trinity which show to me conclusively that you cannot get a grip of understanding to Him. Either you argue that all three are seperate Gods or that they are all the same person. This is the main point. GOD (singular) manifests Himself in three distinct personages. Think about that. God manifests Himself in three distinct personages. You would need to meditate on that to get a clear understanding.

Finally, I'm done. I don't expect you to understand the Trinity. Pre-suppositions do not allow for understanding sometimes. You claim the LDS is the only true Christian church on earth. Sorry to break it to you James, but the LDS is not even Christian. I may be brutally honest about it, but I'm being honest. Trust me I've been there. I believed in Armstrongism. They held the same mind control schemes that the LDS have. They make you believe that somehow the Bible was tainted. They make you believe that the true gospel was lost. Just like the LDS they have a leader who seems to have a "revelation" once in awhile. A leader who is "appointed" by God. The claim to the only "true church" on the planet. All lies, all lies. I thank God the truth was revealed to me. The only difference is that I was willing to accept it regardless of how much I believed in the previous lie. Now it's your turn.

I'm gone for good. You needed to know most importantly that those who believe in the Trinity acknowledge the bodily resurrection of Christ. This no way opposes the Trinity. It's your understanding that opposes it. I wish you the best of luck. I pray that you will one day look away from the LDS faith and examine the evidence. Examine the book of Abraham. The Egyptian funeral book I should say. Examine the plagarized book of mormon from other excerpts that Joseph Smith stole. Examine your "secret" temple worship that resembles the Masonic rituals that Joseph Smith once studied himself. Examine the opposing archaeological evidence. When all the evidence wheighs out, you will know it to be false. You will feel betrayed. Your "feelings" will seem to betray you as well. But then is when you can know truth. And the truth will set you free, my friend. It did for me when I finally let go of that cult, Armstrongism. I wish you the best of luck. Take care James. Much love to you and your family.

God bless

Hi David:

I don’t have time to go through point by point on your posts but I’ll try to clear up some confusion in your mind regarding my own.

First, the term “no one hath seen” and when I had said that on one had seen him up until that time. I should have clarified that I was actually speaking about your position and NOT mine. You don’t believe that Moses or anyone has actually seen God either before or since that time.

I was pointing out that if you tried to use this verse against Joseph Smith, it would be moot since it said “hath”. I was just having a little fun with it.

I think your main confusion over the doctrine of the Godhead may be related to a limited view of what the nature of God is revealed to be in the bible and in the doctrines of the LDS Church.

First, we believe that God the Father, his Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are all eternal spirits. So when you present to me that God is spirit (doesn’t say God is a spirit) this agrees with LDS theology and the anthropomorphic doctrine of the Godhead.

Spirits are all the same. They have bodies including a face, a mouth, hands, legs, etc. God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ also have “physical” bodies of flesh and bone (as opposed to flesh and blood). How do we know?

Since Jesus’ spirit never died on the cross and he remained “alive” then what died? His physical tangible body. What was resurrected? His physical tangible body of flesh and bone. How do we know it was physical and tangible? Because he allowed eyewitnesses to touch him and feel “mano-a-mano” or hand-to-hand that he was LITERALLY resurrected – that his PHYSICAL body had been raised from the dead. And so it was with others who were ALSO resurrected at the time of Jesus’ resurrection. The graves were opened and the spirits of children of God, re-entered their bodies, but this time, their physical bodies were perfect – these bodies were restored to them and they are incorruptible – they cannot be destroyed.

So it was with Jesus Christ who was the FIRST to rise – remember the empty tomb? Why was it empty? Because Jesus’ physical body had been raised up, changed, perfected, and made glorious.

David, what I am describing to you is the MIRACLE and gift of God called the resurrection. It’s all literal – it’s physical.

So when Jesus appeared to his apostles, when Thomas had NOT been there, and then when Thomas arrived. Jesus discerned his thoughts and knew that although Thomas could behold Jesus with his eyes, he thought he was seeing an “aberration”.

Luke 24:
36 ¶ And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.
38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?
39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.
41 And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?
42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.

David, I think what you’re trying to argue here is that Jesus is either saying that he is NOT flesh and merely spirit or that he is ONLY flesh and NOT spirit? Something like that?

What LDS are preaching and declaring is that Jesus Christ is spirit AND glorified flesh &bone after his resurrection. This is the meaning of the resurrection. Resurrected persons are not just flesh shells – we ourselves are spirits inside human bodies of flesh and blood. The resurrection is the reuniting of the spirit with the perfected tangible and literal flesh and bone.

In the verses above, when it says that the Apostles feared that they had seen a spirit, spirit in this verse refers to a an “aberration”. When Jesus clears up the matter, He’s not referring to his spiritual essence himself – but speaking to their fears. When the Apostles suppose that they see a “spirit” – they themselves are not claiming to see something “tangible” – they think they are seeing something that is in our terms a “ghost” – a false representation of something that is real. They were confused – they didn’t understand.

No David, think about the reality of seeing “spirits”. The only way to see those who dwell on the other side of the veil, is through the power of God – a vision, or a special visitation so that our natural eyes can see a “spirit” that is NOT flesh and bone.

In this case, Jesus is all three – he is spirit, flesh and bone and requests that the Apostles come to him and TOUCH him so that their flesh (hands) can touch his flesh and see that he is physical.

This is why Jesus asks them to come forward, and HANDLE him to test that he is TANGIBLE and he specifically directs them to his hands and feet. Why? Because his hands and feet would bear the marks of the crucifixion and would convince his apostles that is was the RISEN Jesus. That is was truly him.

Resurrection is not a metaphor which I think you are arguing (you may not even be aware that you’re trying to make this point).

LDS declare and believe that Jesus Christ is LLITERALLY resurrected from the “grave” or that his physical body has been raised from the dead and that His eternal spirit dwells in a body of perfected, incorruptible flesh and bone – and will forever remain in that state.

This is the hope that Jesus Christ offers us all that when we die, WE TOO with our spirits, will be reunited with our bodies in their perfected incorruptible flesh and bone form.

I know that Orthodox Christians really don’t accept the reality of what I have just described. Why? Because it radically conflicts with the Trinity doctrine. If the person of the Son is God and God the Son has a body of flesh and bone, how does this same God of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost therefore, AVOID having a body of flesh and bone? Because if the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are the same God, the same ontological substance – all coequal, all co-substantial – then the Father and the Holy Ghost ALSO have a body of flesh and bone – they cannot HELP having a body of flesh and bone because in the Trinity you cannot separate the “substance” of God.

After all of this discussion it should be clear that only the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only Christian Church that teaches the LITERAL and CONTINUAL resurrection of Jesus Christ and all mankind.

Best,

James

I can't believe I left out part of my story. RRRRRRR......

Ok when I got back from the store my wife made breakfast and as I was eating on the breakfast counter she showed me this coupon for carpet cleaning. She wants to get our carpets cleaned, and this seemed to be a good offer. I looked at the coupon and in the bottom right corner was the Christian fish and right below that it said "Tit 2:11". I wasn't sure what that verse was so I checked it out wondering if God was still speaking to me after the message I recieved from the CD.

11For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men.

WOW. Just to confirm what I already heard. God reveals Himself to everyone. I wish I included this in my previous post, but I forgot to mention it. Oh well, Take care. And God bless

Hello all,

I want to make this my final post and my final farewell to you all. I have appreciated all your time and your efforts. I do thank you greatly for expressing your beliefs. I want you to know that I have try to use this post as a place of witnessing because the Lord knows that no matter how it may occur or when or why or by whom, He will reveal Himself to others. I don't find it coincidental that we all have come here to discuss our thoughts. The Lord brought us all together to bring out truth.

First before I finish my thought I would like to respond to the Isaiah verses posted by Anon. I appreciate your thoughts and opinions. When I look at scripture and see how God defines Himself, He is very clear. If we take out all the pre-suppositions whether it be One God or many, how could God describe Himself. Now, if God wanted to say that He is the only God in existence and there are no other gods, how would He go about saying this? I know no other? There are no other gods but Me? No other gods have been formed or will be formed? I the Lord God am One? God has used every descriptive language possible to define Himself as the only God in the universe and that He is one and all the rest are false. I cannot deny how God has described Himself. It would have been just simple enough to say He is the only God, but He insisted that He describe Himself as ONE by many other means. By all descriptive purposes possible, He said He is ONE. The Lord Jesus says the greatest commandment is Mark 12:29 The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.[e] 30Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength."

Jesus made the greatest commandment to love the Lord God with all your heart. He made it a point at first to include that the Lord is "one". The greatest commandment to follow out of all laws is to love the Lord God, and this is so important that Jesus says that the Lord God is ONE. For me, I love God with all my heart and I worship the one and only God and acknowledge that there is only one God. We can disagree, but I just wanted to make my point. Thank you.

To finish this I wanted to share with you what God was saying to me this morning. First, I want you to know that you all have been on my mind and in my prayers continuously and I have felt the burden of wanting to change your hearts. I have continued to feel that burden until this morning. I have mentioned his name before and I will again. Ravi Zacharias. I ordered some CD's from his website the other day and just happened to put one in this morning on my way to the store. I knew I couldn't listen to the whole thing but I thought I would begin with it. It's a question and answer CD from a Baptist church that had questions for Dr. Zacharias. The very first question was from a woman who was trying to witness to a relative who had become an atheist. This woman was crying so much because she knows the consequences if one does not accept Christ. She felt the same burden on herself that I have felt for you. She wanted to change his heart. Dr. Zacharias responded as gently and honestly as anyone could. He said that it is not by any man that can change the heart of another. If that were true then another could have the power to change it right back. Only the Holy Spirit can change hearts. No matter the evidence or argument, it is up to the individual to allow the Holy Spirit to show them the truth. And it is by God's Word that the truth will be revealed...... The burden is lifted off my chest. I leave it up to you and the power of the Holy Spirit to know truth. You claim to know it already, and I claim to know it as well. We have different truths so they both can't be right. Either one is and the other isn't, or they are both wrong. That is for you to decide and for me to step away. It is not by chance that you are here on this site. For me neither it is by chance but, we were somehow guided here to discuss our beliefs. I've given all the evidence and argument that I can give. It is now up to the individual to accept that or not. My only advice after hearing the testimony of all the indivuduals on here is to please trust God's Word. I've heard the continual argument that the Bible is not trustworthy. If the Bible is not trustworthy, then how can we trust our faiths?

I'll end with an uplifing story I heard this morning about how God really does reveal Himself to everyone, no matter where you are and no matter the circumstances.

Two missionaries were in Iran spreading the gospel. A husband and wife. They were driving through a hostile city in Iran when they stopped at a store to get some water. Standing in front of the store was a man with gun strapped over his shoulder, waiting. For what? Just waiting. The husband and wife sit in the car before entering the store and the wife tells the husband to give that man a Bible. She reaches in a backpack and pulls out a Bible translated in farsi. The husband says no. The wife insists. Finally the husband takes it and puts it in his pocket and goes into the store. The man with the gun follows. The husband comes out with the waters and walks to the car and enters it. The man with the gun walks out behind him and waits again, in front of the store. They drive off. The wife said to the husband "you did not give him that Bible did you?" The husband replies, "no I don't think it was the right time". The wife says that it was the right time and he should've given him the Bible. The husband and wife argue and the husband finally says "do you want me to die today?" The wife starts to pray out loud. "Lord if that man goes to hell, let his blood be on my husbands head and not mine, because I listened to you and he didn't". Furious the husband says, FINE. I'll go back and give it to him. They turn around. The husband gets out of the car, approaches the man with the gun. He pulls out the Bible and gives it to him. The man stares at it. He opens it up to the first page and looks intently. The man started to cry....deeply. The man told the husband "I am not from this town but a town about three miles away. An angel came to me last night and told me to come here to this very spot and that I would recieve the Book of Life". The husband astonished, goes back to his car and the man with gun walks off.

The Lord will reveal Himself in the most subtle and seemingly impossible ways to everyone, so that no man has an excuse on judgement day. I hope that He will reveal His true self to you. Maybe He has, and maybe you haven't accepted it. Maybe you have, but denied it. I don't know and that's not for me to judge. I will keep you all in my prayers and thoughts. I have appreciated this conversation and I wish you all the best of luck in your lives. May you all be blessed greatly. This is definately my final post. Maybe I'll catch up with you all another time. Thank you very much.

God bless

Anon,

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Finally someone addressed those verses. I thank you so much for that. I'm a little short on time right now, but I do want to respond later on. My response probably will be quite long, so that's why I prefer to come around a little later when I have more time. For now, I appreciate your time on explaining to me how the LDS use those verses.

The Lord really spoke to me this morning and later on I would like to share with you on what He told me. It's truly amazing how God works. You may not be able to hear His voice, but He finds ways to speak to you through other means. This morning He just wouldn't stop talking. I love it.

I'll be back later. For now, have a wonderful day

God bless

David,

Once again, James replied to your questions earlier regarding similar scriptures, but if you want a more detailed explanation on Isaiah 43:10, you can peruse through this dialogue that occurred a while back:

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=310

However, to make it simpler for you, I've taken an entire excerpt out so you don't have to read the whole document (it is rather large). Here is the gist of the passages you referred to. (Some sentences may not be relevant as it was taken from a previous discussion regarding other topics as well):

----------------------------------------------------begin-quoted-text---------------------------------------------------------------------
And that brings us around to the Isaiah passages which form the backbone of your argument for "absolute monotheism." My brother's sources (and he quoted a lot of them, mostly non-LDS) showed that biblical Judaism was henotheistic or monarchistic; rather than believing that God was utterly unique and alone, they pictured him as the ruler of a myriad of other similar beings. The meetings of the sons of God in Job 1:6 and Job 2:1 are "representative," to use your word, of this picture. So when we look at what Isaiah reports, how is it different?

You quoted Isaiah 43:10 as follows (p. 57):

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.

There are three rather glaring things about this passage. First that the Lord is talking about Gods being "formed." Idols, which are false gods, are "formed," or made by hand. The Lord is clearly saying that no God is ever "formed," either before him or after him, and yet, idols get formed all the time. Clearly idols, being formed, are not Gods.

Second, and following from this, we can understand that when the Lord speaks of Gods, he does not mean idols; for these are not Gods. If we find other instances in which the Lord speaks of Gods but does not clearly signal that they are false gods, or idols, then he is probably talking about something else.

Third, we have to get a handle on what is meant by "before me" and "after me." One point on which you and I agree is that the Lord has always existed and always will. Thus nothing happened before him, because he always was, and nothing will happen after him, because there is no after with regard to him. Thus if there were to be other Gods, this passage tells us that they would neither be his predecessors nor his successors; they would have to be his "contemporaries."

This, therefore most assuredly does not cancel out eternal progression, since, come the day that you enter into your exaltation, the Lord will still be there—he will not come to an end so that you can come "after" him. On this, more later.

On page 57 you also quoted Isaiah 44:6–8 thus:

Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. And who, as I, shall call, and shall declare it, and set it in order for me, since I appointed the ancient people? and the things that are coming, and shall come, let them show unto them. Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.

The key word in all this is beside, but this is used to translate a Hebrew word that could just as well be rendered "apart from" or "away from" or even "not associated with" or "in preference to." So while the passage in English looks pretty uncompromisingly monotheistic, it would be hard to make the same argument from "don't have any God in preference to me." This looks a whole lot more "monarchistic," as my brother would put it. Baal, Molech, and Astoreth are not gods because they are apart from the Lord and their worshipers preferred them ahead of Yahweh.

But again, the real thrust of this passage is to emphasize, not the Lord's unique aloneness, but his unique covenant relationship with Israel. And in fact there is an element here that makes "strict monotheism" impossible to maintain, since the Lord refers to himself in verse 6 as "the first, and . . . the last." This crossreferences nicely to no less than four places in Revelation (see Revelation 1:8, 11; 21:6; 22:13) that make it abundantly clear that Jesus is the "first and the last" in these passages. These passages, taken together, are strong support for the LDS view that Jesus is Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament, in which case he can't possibly be excluding the Father in what he is saying. This, after all, is a personal title that he is using. But even if you take the sectarian view that Jehovah is the Father, you would have to agree that he can't be excluding Jesus.

And when Isaiah quotes God as saying, "Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any," does that mean that Jesus does not know his Father? Or that the Father does not know Jesus? I rather think that they do know each other.

I know that you argued this point yourself, trying to say that the Father and the Son are not separate beings. This, if I may say so, is another example of forcing a verse to conform to your presuppositions; for if John 17 means anything at all, it means that Jesus is not his Father—and that his followers can or should have the same kind of unity that Jesus and his Father enjoy. Thus whatever Jesus meant when he said that he and his Father are "one" is something that can also apply to all Christians. So I ask you: if you got all the Christians in the world in one place and excluded everybody else, how would the total number of "beings" present compare with the total number of Christians? I daresay they would be equal. All Christians are separate beings, but united, they are one—thus it is with the Father and the Son.

From the New Testament we learn that Jesus is fully divine. I'm sure I don't need to quote passages to prove that. And he always either addresses his Father in the second person (in prayer) or refers to him in the third person (in conversations with others). He makes no confusion in person or number in his discourses. But in the Old Testament, Jehovah is calling himself "I"—first person, singular—and insisting that he is in some way unique. Shall we conclude a contradiction? Do we insist that Jesus isn't really God in order to preserve the "strict monotheism" that you see in this passage? Or do we accept that Jesus and the Father are truly both divine beings and that Jehovah (whichever one he be) is saying something that does not exclude the other members of the Godhead? I vote for the latter. Apart from anything else, it seems more—Christian, for want of a better word.

You also gave the following quotations (p. 58), which I here reproduce in full:

I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me: That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the Lord, and there is none else. (Isaiah 45:5–6)

For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the Lord; and there is none else. (Isaiah 45:18)

And there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else. (Isaiah 45:21–22)

Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure. (Isaiah 46:9–10)

I especially like the quotation from Isaiah 45:21, wherein the Lord calls himself a "Saviour." And when in Isaiah 43:11 he insists that he is the only Savior, then according to your reasoning, that means that the Savior, "Christ the Lord," announced to the shepherds in the field near Bethlehem can be only one person.

But that is aside from the subject at hand: is Jehovah alone in the heavens or not? It is possible to read these Isaiah passages in isolation, and draw that conclusion, but the only trinitarian doctrine that could survive this interpretation is modalism—and you made it clear that you don't believe that.

If we read these chapters in their entirety, it is clear that the Lord is contrasting himself to idols—the false gods that men foolishly worship. I like your phrase, "the trial of the false gods." The Lord is not rejecting true Gods, if such there be, that nobody on earth worships because they are out of our reckoning. Isaiah 46, for instance, starts off by talking about Bel and Nebo—burdens to their worshipers. Isaiah 44 describes men cutting down trees and making a barbecue with part of the wood and an idol with the other part. But nowhere in all of this does Jehovah say, "I have no divine Father" or "I have no divine son," which lets both of us off the hook; what he says is something like "there is no God to be preferred to me." Bel and Nebo are not Gods, they are just earthbound, useless man-made objects that never enter into the Lord's presence.

Karen,
If you happen to come back to this discussion, I just wanted to briefly answer your implied question. If you think of the major tests of faith of Abraham and Sarah, I question whether anyone could think those tests of faith would have been logical to them. Have a baby at age 90? Be asked to sacrifice him later? Do you think Abraham and Sarah had to exercise faith, to believe they weren't being deceived? I think so. I think Abraham had learned how to understand the principles of faith and revelation, so he did not question when asked to do something way beyond reason and logic. I also think Sarah had to have faith before she conceived Isaac. God tested Abraham's faith by commanding him to do something and then later, when he knew Abraham was going to completely obey, withdrew the command.

Knowledge of divine truths is aided by studying the Bible under the inpiration of the Holy Ghost, but the primary undeniable source is revelation. This the Bible clearly teaches again and again. Nevertheless, those who choose to live by Bible teachings are doing a good and proper thing, and though they also have trials of their faith, I think they limit themselves as to how much growth in spiritual understanding they will achieve on their own.

I hope I've answered your implied question, and that your presentation went very well.
Karen and David, I appreciate your good and well-intentioned hearts, and the spirit of friendship you convey. I hope that you may explore the process of revelation in your own lives, to be guided in your families. I am so grateful for the insight and inspiration I receive from time to time when I seek it for the benefit of my children. Again, adieu.

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

Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.

I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:

And I'm supposed to agree with you and that there are many gods? Or that we can become gods?

I don't expect a reply, because I can't seem to get one on these verses anyway. I can understand why you avoid them.

Anon,

We're not literal childeren of God.

Just wanted to point that out really quick.

No, no one has addressed 1 Cor 15.

Jesus' resurrected body was exactly that. A resurrected body. Quite different from God the Father who is an unseen Spirit.

By the way, your wrong about your biblical history. The Bible does not contradict itself. It contradicts your beliefs and maybe that's why you have to hold on to the lie that it is contradictory. Or is it because the BOM was changed over 4000 times and has many contradiction that the only way to justify it is by bringing down the true Word of God? Hmmm.. Please do some more research on the Bible. You will see that the only scripture that was added was by the catholic church post-reformation which is called the Apocrypha. Here's what I do not understand. How can you justify your faith in something that you cannot trust? How do you have faith in a book or set of writings that contradict themselves or your beliefs. That is not truth. Truth is non-contradictory. My faith is based on the inerrant Word of God. How else can we know Him and trust Him if His Word is wrong?

You say that the Trinity was a pagan belief, huh? Well, where do you think your polytheistic views come from? Roman society had many gods, just as you do. The Trinity is ONE God. You believe in many. How many paganistic cultures have we heard of that believe in many gods? Most of them!!

Anon,

I never said you are for sure going to hell. I am worried for you though. This is being Christ-like. This is being Christian. I worry for anyone who believes in a god that lives on another planet who has a wife. Or a Jesus who was created by this father by a goddess wife who is the brother of lucifer. This is the wrong Jesus. This Jesus never existed. You have faith in a non-existant Jesus. This kind of faith does not save you. Please trust God's Word. I see you continue to not do that, but trust in man for your so-called "interpretation". When Jesus says God is spirit and that spirit is not flesh and bones, why don't you listen? If Jesus says that there is no marriage in heaven, why do you insist there is? If the Lord God says He is One and knows no other God, why do you believe in many? And most importantly, if God the Father cannot be seen, why believe Joseph Smith saw Him?

God gave you logic and reason. These are traits that He created for us to use. Logically when the Bible says that God is One and there are no other gods, then my reason tells me that that is the truth. So why should I believe you? What is more logical, believing in the book that presented us with Jesus and the knowledge of how to know Him, or you? I trust in God's Word because I trust in Him. I trust that He allowed the trasmission of His Word to remain pure and non-contradictory. You mentioned how the Bible was written by fallible men. Yes it was, BUT, it was written through fallible men by God. How do we know? King David was a fallible man, so how do I know his writings were divinely inspired? He knew Jesus was going to be crucified 400 years before the invention of crucifixtion. He knew Jesus would be pierced in His side 1000 years before it happened. Prophecy. That is how I know the Bible is inspired by God through man.

I want you to be saved. I want HJ to be saved too. It is your choice. Accept God's Word and the TRUE Jesus. I've tried my best to show you that you have been misled. I'm still appalled at the fact you can believe what you believe. I read certain passages about those who preach another gospel and that they will be "eternally condemned". I don't want this for you or anyone. This is why I beg, I plead that you open your heart to the truth. There will be a judgement day one day for all of us. Are you sure that your not that one that God will say "I never knew you"? Matt 25:12.

Please think about it.

David,

You said:

"Indeed, the Bible is the Word of God. To claim that there are contradictions is to claim a false and lying god. God does not contradict Himself. That is not in His perfect nature. This is why it is so important to take the WHOLE of scripture in applying meaning and doctrine. 1 Tim 3:16."

David, when will you see that as much as you claim the LDS to have pre-suppositions, you too have one. You insist that the bible is 100% correct, that it is directly the word of God and that it does not contradict itself. This, my friend, is also a presuppostion. I really think you need to do a little more research and find out about things that have been added and changed in the bible. The bible is NOT written with the HAND of God or directly by God. It was written by humans. HUMANS ARE IMPERFECT. You keep injecting that the Bible cannot contradict itself and it says so. The bible was not written as one solid book. The bible is a compilation of many works written by different people over different periods of time. Many people who came across these transcripts, decided that it should be included into scripture. In fact, you should already know that there are differing bibles. Some Christian sects have added and removed books in the bible that the KJV does not contain. Why is that? How, can you determine what book should be accepted and which one is rejected, if you have no pre-suppostions as you claim you do not have?

There are also MANY books that were referenced in the bible which we have NO account of today. Where are all these books? If you pick up a good historical book on Christianity, you will find that many rulers changed words in the bible in the early centuries because they were afraid that many people would believe in multiple diety and confuse that with Greek mythology. Entire sentences were completely changed because of this. In fact, the doctrine of the Trinity was actually a Pagan belief - and you can check that out if you like.

you also said:

"So to answer your last question in short. Could I explain what God as a Spirit would look like. Yes, Gen 1:26. In "our" image. IMAGE. Ex 33 says God has a face, does it describe it? No, but we know He has a face of some sort. But it is spiritual, not earthly, incorruptable, not corruptable, spirit, not flesh. 1 Cor 15. Read that. It also explains that earthly comes first, then spiritual which contradicts the doctrine of pre-existence."

David, I think you are confusing two things. There is an incorruptable body and a corruptable body. Our bodies are corruptable. When we are resurrected, our bodies become incorruptable. Hence Jesus' incorruptable, but tangible body of flesh and bones. Did not the apostles and many witnesses put their fingers in his wounds? And I think to support Jim's argument, you say that a spirit is not a body. Yes, but do not our spirits live in our corruptable bodies? And won't our spirits live in our incorruptable bodies once we are resurrected?

Also, why do you continue to return to 1 Cor 15 again and again after it has been explained over and over. I feel like you are not listening and I can tell you many people will begin to stop communicating with you if you do not at least observe other's beliefs, especially when they have been explained.

For someone who claims that they have no knowledge of God's being, you seem to argue as though you do. Just think with me for a second here. Wouldn't you, as a father figure to your children, want to love and raise your children to be the same, if not better than you? Isn't that love? So why would you not assume that God, the Supreme Being, the epitome of love, would not want the same for us, His children? I am in no way saying that we can become better than our Father in Heaven, but certainly I can think that if He is our Father, He would want to show us everything, give us everything and teach us everything that He has, wouldn't you? If you believe in the bible so much, then you should not have a hard time understanding that this structure has been with us since the beginning of time (as Christians define it) through Adam and Eve.

Last, I would appreciate it if you did not tell people here that they are going to go to hell because they do not believe like you do. How is that Christlike and full of love, if that is what you profess to have? I am apalled that Henry James doesn't speak up right now. I remember a while ago when RTC blogged here, everyone was on her case about how bold she was. But she never proclaimed that people were going to hell. What do you think of Henry James - do you think he's going to go to hell also?

I would ask you for the last time to refrain from comments such as these. I guarantee you that you will get no where with them.

Romans 1:21-23

21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their IMAGINATIONS, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23And changed the glory of the UNCORRUPTIBLE God into an image made like to the CORRUPTIBLE man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

Please read the whole of Romans 1. Then read 1 Cor 15. Incorruptible is a spiritual being, corruptible is an earthly fleshly being. They are not the same. Paul says that those who have changed the nature of God to their IMAGINATIONS, making God out to be a man with flesh and bones is wrong. They do not know the true God. You do not know the true God because you have done exactly what Paul was saying. Unless you come to knowing the true God you cannot recieve salvation. This is not a "non-essential". You will go to hell according to the Bible. I don't want that. You need to see the truth. I feel urgent about this! I don't want you to experience the second death. I just wish you could trust God's Word! But unless you continue to close your hearts to what God says you will not be able to see truth. Truth is absolute. The truth is there is only ONE God.

I continue to pray for you all. But you all continue to deny His word. I'll continue to pray.

God bless

Jim,

One more thing.

Where in the heck do any of those verses you posted show that God has a body of "tangible flesh and bones"? Where does it say literally that God has a body of flesh and bones. I'll send you a $1000 check if you can show me that one.

Jim,

I'm so glad you posted those verses. It saves me the trouble.

No I cannot describe what a spirit looks like. Obviously the mild description we get from the Bible is that God the Father is a spirit with an "image". Does this mean flesh and bones or not? Jesus says Spirit is not the same as flesh and bones. Paul confirms in 1 Cor 15 that earthly and spiritual flesh are different. Can they both have "images"? Certainly. The word image does not conclude that the personage with an image has flesh and bones. Why cannot spiritual beings have an image as well? Just because we cannot see them does not mean that they do not have an image in our likeness. Likeness does not mean flesh and bones, but exactly what it says "LIKENESS".

Yes, the OT folks saw God. But Ex 33, John 6 and 1 Tim 6 says that God cannot be seen. Is this a contradiction. NO WAY!. This again is where the Trinity is affirmed. If the Father can not be seen, but the OT patriarchs saw God and Jesus is God as well, then who do you think they saw? The pre-incarnate Son! The second personage of the Godhead! The Bible is non-contradictory my friends. It is our understandings that sometimes can make it seem that way. Also, having pre-suppositions gets in the way of knowing truth. When I researched the Trinity doctrine, at first I could not accept it. I couldn't fathom how One God could be three people. It seems impossible. But nothing is impossible for God Almighty creator of all. He defies all laws of physics. When I researched the Trinity and took the Bible as a whole, the Trinity explains everything without breaking the laws of non-contradiction.

Indeed, the Bible is the Word of God. To claim that there are contradictions is to claim a false and lying god. God does not contradict Himself. That is not in His perfect nature. This is why it is so important to take the WHOLE of scripture in applying meaning and doctrine. 1 Tim 3:16.

So to answer your last question in short. Could I explain what God as a Spirit would look like. Yes, Gen 1:26. In "our" image. IMAGE. Ex 33 says God has a face, does it describe it? No, but we know He has a face of some sort. But it is spiritual, not earthly, incorruptable, not corruptable, spirit, not flesh. 1 Cor 15. Read that. It also explains that earthly comes first, then spiritual which contradicts the doctrine of pre-existence.

Have a great day,

God bless

David,
I believe you are partly correct- God the Father is spirit, clothed in a perfect, glorified body.

Here are references that in the Bible that point to God having a tangible body of flesh and bones:

Gen. 1: 27 God created man in his own image.
Gen. 5: 1 God created man, in the likeness of God made he him.
Gen. 9: 6 in the image of God made he man.
Gen. 32: 30 I have seen God face to face.
Ex. 24: 10 they saw the God of Israel, there was under his feet.
Ex. 31: 18 (Deut. 9: 10) written with the finger of God.
Ex. 33: 11 Lord spake unto Moses face to face.
Ex. 33: 23 thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not.
Num. 12: 8 With him will I speak mouth to mouth.
Matt. 3: 17 a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son.
Matt. 17: 5 a voice out of the cloud

For me, the most compelling scripture is that God created us in His image.

Can you describe what God as a spirit would look like?

The true nature of God the Father is spirit, not flesh and bones Jim. Not because I said so, but because the Bible does, plain and clear. That my friend is the simple truth.

James,
I, too, appreciate the very thorough explanation you provided of the true nature of God the Father and His son Jesus Christ. It is beautiful to have clear, simple truth. Thank you for contributing here.

James,

Very well thought out explanation. I appreciate your time. Let me begin with mine.

First, your argument is based on some pre-suppositions. I'll quote the D & C

D&C 130: 22
22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.

John 4:24, "God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”

Luke 24:39, " “See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.”

I guess I should back up scripture with scripture regarding if anyone has seen the Father. First I will address John 1: 18
18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him

Yes, this means exactly as you say. That God has not been seen in the past. So is it possible to see Him in the future so as Joseph Smith claimed?

1 Tim 6:16-17

16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.17 Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy;

How about (Exodus 33:20) – “But He [God] said, "You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live !"

"Whom no man hath seen, nor CAN see". "For no man can see me and live". Who do I believe? Joseph Smith says he saw the Father and that He has flesh and bones. Jesus says He is spirit and that spirit does not have flesh and bones. I can't think of the verse on hand, but I do recall Paul rebuking those who have made God as a body that is corruptable (meaning flesh), when He is spirit. I'll try to find that one later.

Concerning the Trinity,

You bring up historical arguments. You also bring up the pre-supposition that we need apostolic leadership to decide what is doctrine. These are irrelevant. What we are searching for right now is truth. Does it matter who argued over what in history? Does it matter when the Trinity was actually called the "Trinity"? No. What matters is truth.

First I'd like to point out in your argument that you made a severe contradiction to yourself. You claimed that no one has seen the Father in the past using John 6 as a starting point in time, but later claiming that He was seen in the OT by the patriarchs. According to the laws of logic this one fails the law of non-contradiction severely.

But back to the Trinity. It is neither relevant or important that some people in history debated this issue. We are debating it right now, so does that mean it's false because WE are debating it? No, let's find truth.

I will show you how simple it is to arrive to the doctrine of the Trinity using scipture.

The first step is to establish how many Gods exist: one! Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8; 45:5,14,18,21,22; 46:9; 47:8; John 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:5-6; Gal. 4:8-9

I don't think I need scriptural backing to prove to you that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are God, or as you call them Gods. The Trinity doctrine affirms that each member of the Godhead is a person. Not seperate gods, but personages. The three persons make the ONE God. Being that they are persons, they must have an image of some sort. We are made in "Their" image. But scripture says that the Father can't be seen so how do we know he has an image. Because Gen 1:26 says "our". We can't see spirit. We can't or no one can see the Father or the Holy Spirit. How can we conclude that they have images in the form of us. We cannot know because no one has seen them. We know because God says "our image". So we know by faith, not by scientific proof or witnessing proof but by simple old faith. What's wrong with that?

You have broght historical arguments against the Trinity, not scriptural. There is no possibility of bringing a scriptural argument against the Trinity because it covers ALL of scipture therefore your not left with breaking the non-contradiction laws that the LDS have done so many time.

You claim that through revelation Joseph Smith's claim covers scripture. No it doesn't. It highly and easily contradicts scripture. The Father does not have flesh and bones and cannot be seen according to scripture. Not just by John 6, but by Exodus 33 and also 1 Tim 6. And I will be back later after I find that passage where Paul rebukes those who created a God with a body that is corruptable.

So, in conclusion, you need to fix the error of contradicting yourself claiming that the Father could not be seen until Jesus said so, but then claim He was in the OT. Also, I would like to hear some scriptural arguments against the Trinity, not historical.

Again, how do you address the Isaiah verses and still address the fact that you believe in many gods? This again is contradictory to your beliefs, but not contradictory to the Trinity.

Thanks for the discussion James.
Have a great day my friend.

God bless

James,

If you're still there, could you email me at blogusanonymus@gmail.com. I have a few questions I'd like to take offline, if that's ok with you?

James,

Wow! That is amazing stuff you wrote. I am VERY impressed! I was able to follow that very easily. It not only makes a lot of sense but flows smoothly. I have to admit, I do appreciate David's comments, but was struggling quite a bit to follow David's interpretation and just couldn't put it together.

I also agree with your Christian History comments. I've read historical books (written by non-lds historians) where they actually show changed verses in the new testament from what they originally were, to what they are now; and these weren't simple small changes.

But your connections and descriptions given above about God the Father and Jesus Christ couldn't be any more clearer than what you have presented already. You ought to write/publish a book on this so many others can be enlightened as well.

Great work here and hope to see you post more again!

oops. Sorry for the double post!

Hi David:
I left this discussion some time ago but returned today to see the progress or lack thereof. I am glad to see everyone is being kind and respectful. When everyone declares the gospel with the sound of rejoicing it is a pleasant experience.
Before I get into the details of doctrine I would like to discuss my feelings of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and how I love him and how words cannot express the love that I feel from him; for his mercy, his longsuffering, his forgiveness, and his grace and his patience with me – finding myself in a carnal state and lower than the dust. I don’t say these things as false humility – instead I choose to raise up Christ and show his generosity and willingness to save mankind. There isn’t a day that goes by that I don’t acknowledge the wisdom and magnificence of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
I have read through the last few posts. I recall from our conversations in the past that I wanted to tell you something that I think might help you: study Christian history and the history of Christian doctrine.
While these conversations can be interesting, what oftentimes can happen is that, if we haven't studied Christian history, we can begin to believe that we propose explanations of doctrine that have never been heard before. Worse, that have never been "tested or tried" before. The Trinity doctrine is NOT such a doctrine – it has been debated, argued, written, rewritten and debated and written over and over for the last 1500 years.
I know that you accept and believe that the Trinity is a “biblical” doctrine. Mostly because of the “these three are one” or “No God beside me” scriptures. But the Bible is not the source of the Trinity doctrine. I know that you’re probably saying that this cannot be, but I am afraid it is true. I am not stating this from our personal points of view of scriptures we read in the Bible such as those I mention above. I am speaking from a historical Christian view.
The 3 persons in one God (ontological substance to be exact) is not a Biblical doctrine. I quoted Bible scholars (not LDS) who have proven this theses and it has been peer reviewed and found to be a fact of Christian history.
The Bible came first, and then a raw Trinity doctrine followed by a few hundred years. Then about a hundred years later, it was changed and formulated once again, not with Biblical language or words and phrases from the Bible, but instead concepts borrowed from the Greek philosophy of the day. In replaced the New Testament term “Godhead” with a NEW term called “Trinity”. It removed subordination within the Godhead and replaced it with the terms “coequal”, “cosubstantial” in favor of a new philosophy of the day.
None of these attempts, to formulate the meaning of the nature of God, were directed or overseen by Apostles or prophets, who the New Testament specifically declares as the sole authority in such matters.
These Catholic councils that met at various times and that were created nearly 300 years AFTER the death of the Apostles, did not declare “revelation” but instead “settled disputes”.
Now, if the Bible was completely silent and the scriptures such as “the Father and I are one” or “there is no God beside me” were the only ones to define God’s nature, or if the Apostles or even Christian Bishops has taught the “trinity” doctrine within the first 150 years of the Apostles, I could understand why one would want to persist with this doctrine. But here are the facts:
1. The Apostles didn’t teach the Trinity doctrine as has been confirmed by non-LDS Bible scholars.
2. The early Christians, within 150 years of the Apostles, did NOT teach the Trinity doctrine.
3. The mere existence of the councils in 325 AD and 400 AD were evidence of the fact that “false doctrine” had crept into the Church and further evidence that there was no Apostolic authority to settle the matter.
4. Hundreds of years of debate (not among Christian church members but among the TOP leaders themselves) also continued to be evidence that the Orthodox Christian church was incapable of receiving direct revelation from God to settle the doctrinal dispute. This dispute was not small matter – it is the doctrine regarding the nature of God – the most important and first doctrine of God.
Now you might want to say, “I am going to ignore all of that and just read the Bible and find out for myself”. Great! We applaud you. But something has gone wrong. You’re still quoting the language and doctrines of the former Church councils and their “non-biblical” terms regarding the nature of God.
You subordinate the terms “we”, “our”, “us” and declare that they are metaphorical. For no biblical reason at all, you define “image” as something that doesn’t mean “image”. You want to argue that “likeness” really doesn’t mean likeness at all.
Why? Because if you allow these words to just stand on their own, the trinity doctrine literally crumbles before your eyes, and you’re left with a true anthropomorphic doctrine of the nature of God which the Bible declares in many instances.
In your latest post, you argue that no one has seen the Father. I’ll quote your proof:
John 1: 18
18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
If I had a dollar for every Orthodox Christian that presented me with this verse… I’d be much richer today.  By the sound of this scripture, the matter is settled, right?. No man has seen God at any time. Period. End of story. No one has seen God. “Wait,… Joseph Smith claimed to have seen God. Oh… sorry Joseph, you’re just plain flat wrong. Don’t you see Joseph , it says right here in John (that was written in the first century AD), no man hath seen God at any time.” “Joseph, what you saw was something else… a devil perhaps….because this verse right here, (did I mention that it was written in the first century AD), says no man has seen God at ANY time.

Forgive me for belaboring this point, but it’s all quite silly. The scripture says no man hath (past tense until that time) seen God at anytime. “Joseph, when did you claim to see God? 1820? Wow, that was 1720 years after that scripture was written… hmmmm.” “Wait! There’s another problem. Jesus is God. If no man has seen God, then no one has seen Jesus? What? This doesn’t make any sense.”

Of course, I digress here… just having a little fun… but although these are good points above – it’s not the main point.

What I am getting at here is related NOT to Joseph Smith (although his testimony clears up the trinity controversy in an instant), instead I am going to turn to OTHER New Testament verses to get an idea on what this verse means. Why? Because we have several “EYEWITNESSES” who saw God in the Old Testament. Who were the first? Adam and Eve. They both saw God. How do we know? Because they hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob also saw God. God appeared unto them (three different occasions) Exodus 6:2-3. God also appeared to Moses. Look at Num 12:6-8. God himself declares that He does not appear to Moses in his mind, but that Moses beholds his very “FORM”. In these verses God says that I will speak with Moses “man to man” or “eye to eye” and in those times it was “mouth to mouth” but the meaning remains the same – it was a personal and intimate LITERAL appearance of God to man when man SAW God and beheld God’s form.

Let’s take a look at the next New Testament scripture that is connected with this Old Testament scripture.
John 5: 37
37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.
This confirms that 1) God has a literal voice and 2) has a literal shape. What does the shape look like? We are made in the IMAGE of God – his shape is the shape of a body of flesh and bone, arms, hands, feet, head, face, mouth, etc. Who is “ye”? Ye are the people who he is talking to. Therefore no one in THAT congregation had ever seen the Father – not that he cannot be seen.
John 6: 46
46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.
Finally! The context for the last two New Testament verses – it’s not that one cannot see the Father, but he must be OF GOD. If you are qualified YOU CAN SEE THE FATHER. And if you see him, what will he look like? What will his shape be like?
John 14: 7, 9
7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
This simple statement by Christ in John 14:9 was surely not meant to tell us that Christ is the same person or being as the Father, for Christ prayed to the Father, sought to do not His own will but the Father's, said that His Father was greater than He (John 14:28), ascended after His Resurrection to return to His Father, called His Father His God (John 20:17), and was later seen standing at the right hand of the Father (Acts 7:55,56). No, what Christ surely meant was the same concept that Paul conveys in Hebrews 1:3 when he states that Jesus is "the express image of his [the Father's] person." In other words, Christ is in the image of the Father and looks like Him, enough so that to see the Son is to see the Father, just as He is so one in mind and purpose with the Father that to know the Son is to know the Father (John 14:7).

Adam's son, Seth, was said to be in the likeness and image of his father, Adam (Gen. 5:1-3), using the same words from Gen. 1:26,27 that tell us that we are physically created in the image and likeness of God, an unmistakable reference to the physical image. If the son of the first man, Adam, looked like his father, it should not strain our faith to know that the Son of the Ultimate Man and Father should look just like His Parent.

Christ was born with a physical body and was resurrected with that body, so real and tangible and in the same image as us that He could not only be recognized but handled and felt (Luke 24:36-43).

All of the scriptures dismiss the belief in the trinity doctrine as taught by Church councils.

The only revelation that agrees with all of these scriptures is the revelation received by Joseph Smith from God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ in a grove of trees in 1820.

D&C 130: 22
22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.

Best,

James

Hi David:

I left this discussion some time ago but returned today to see the progress or lack thereof. I am glad to see everyone is being kind and respectful. When everyone declares the gospel with the sound of rejoicing it is a pleasant experience.

Before I get into the details of doctrine I would like to discuss my feelings of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and how I love him and how words cannot express the love that I feel from him; for his mercy, his longsuffering, his forgiveness, and his grace and his patience with me – finding myself in a carnal state and lower than the dust. I don’t say these things as false humility – instead I choose to raise up Christ and show his generosity and willingness to save mankind. There isn’t a day that goes by that I don’t acknowledge the wisdom and magnificence of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

I have read through the last few posts. I recall from our conversations in the past that I wanted to tell you something that I think might help you: study Christian history and the history of Christian doctrine.

While these conversations can be interesting, what oftentimes can happen is that, if we haven't studied Christian history, we can begin to believe that we propose explanations of doctrine that have never been heard before. Worse, that have never been "tested or tried" before. The Trinity doctrine is NOT such a doctrine – it has been debated, argued, written, rewritten and debated and written over and over for the last 1500 years.

I know that you accept and believe that the Trinity is a “biblical” doctrine. Mostly because of the “these three are one” or “No God beside me” scriptures. But the Bible is not the source of the Trinity doctrine. I know that you’re probably saying that this cannot be, but I am afraid it is true. I am not stating this from our personal points of view of scriptures we read in the Bible such as those I mention above. I am speaking from a historical Christian view.

The 3 persons in one God (ontological substance to be exact) is not a Biblical doctrine. I quoted Bible scholars (not LDS) who have proven this theses and it has been peer reviewed and found to be a fact of Christian history.

The Bible came first, and then a raw Trinity doctrine followed by a few hundred years. Then about a hundred years later, it was changed and formulated once again, not with Biblical language or words and phrases from the Bible, but instead concepts borrowed from the Greek philosophy of the day. In replaced the New Testament term “Godhead” with a NEW term called “Trinity”. It removed subordination within the Godhead and replaced it with the terms “coequal”, “cosubstantial” in favor of a new philosophy of the day.

None of these attempts, to formulate the meaning of the nature of God, were directed or overseen by Apostles or prophets, who the New Testament specifically declares as the sole authority in such matters.
These Catholic councils that met at various times and that were created nearly 300 years AFTER the death of the Apostles, did not declare “revelation” but instead “settled disputes”.

Now, if the Bible was completely silent and the scriptures such as “the Father and I are one” or “there is no God beside me” were the only ones to define God’s nature, or if the Apostles or even Christian Bishops has taught the “trinity” doctrine within the first 150 years of the Apostles, I could understand why one would want to persist with this doctrine. But here are the facts:

1. The Apostles didn’t teach the Trinity doctrine as has been confirmed by non-LDS Bible scholars.
2. The early Christians, within 150 years of the Apostles, did NOT teach the Trinity doctrine.
3. The mere existence of the councils in 325 AD and 400 AD were evidence of the fact that “false doctrine” had crept into the Church and further evidence that there was no Apostolic authority to settle the matter.
4. Hundreds of years of debate (not among Christian church members but among the TOP leaders themselves) also continued to be evidence that the Orthodox Christian church was incapable of receiving direct revelation from God to settle the doctrinal dispute. This dispute was not small matter – it is the doctrine regarding the nature of God – the most important and first doctrine of God.

Now you might want to say, “I am going to ignore all of that and just read the Bible and find out for myself”. Great! We applaud you. But something has gone wrong. You’re still quoting the language and doctrines of the former Church councils and their “non-biblical” terms regarding the nature of God.

You subordinate the terms “we”, “our”, “us” and declare that they are metaphorical. For no biblical reason at all, you define “image” as something that doesn’t mean “image”. You want to argue that “likeness” really doesn’t mean likeness at all.

Why? Because if you allow these words to just stand on their own, the trinity doctrine literally crumbles before your eyes, and you’re left with a true anthropomorphic doctrine of the nature of God which the Bible declares in many instances.

In your latest post, you argue that no one has seen the Father. I’ll quote your proof:
John 1: 18
18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

If I had a dollar for every Orthodox Christian that presented me with this verse… I’d be much richer today.  By the sound of this scripture, the matter is settled, right?. No man has seen God at any time. Period. End of story. No one has seen God. “Wait,… Joseph Smith claimed to have seen God. Oh… sorry Joseph, you’re just plain flat wrong. Don’t you see Joseph , it says right here in John (that was written in the first century AD), no man hath seen God at any time.” “Joseph, what you saw was something else… a devil perhaps….because this verse right here, (did I mention that it was written in the first century AD), says no man has seen God at ANY time.

Forgive me for belaboring this point, but it’s all quite silly. The scripture says no man hath (past tense until that time) seen God at anytime. “Joseph, when did you claim to see God? 1820? Wow, that was 1720 years after that scripture was written… hmmmm.” “Wait! There’s another problem. Jesus is God. If no man has seen God, then no one has seen Jesus? What? This doesn’t make any sense.”

Of course, I digress here… just having a little fun… but although these are good points above – it’s not the main point.

What I am getting at here is related NOT to Joseph Smith (although his testimony clears up the trinity controversy in an instant), instead I am going to turn to OTHER New Testament verses to get an idea on what this verse means. Why? Because we have several “EYEWITNESSES” who saw God in the Old Testament. Who were the first? Adam and Eve. They both saw God. How do we know? Because they hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob also saw God. God appeared unto them (three different occasions) Exodus 6:2-3. God also appeared to Moses. Look at Num 12:6-8. God himself declares that He does not appear to Moses in his mind, but that Moses beholds his very “FORM”. In these verses God says that I will speak with Moses “man to man” or “eye to eye” and in those times it was “mouth to mouth” but the meaning remains the same – it was a personal and intimate LITERAL appearance of God to man when man SAW God and beheld God’s form.

Let’s take a look at the next New Testament scripture that is connected with this Old Testament scripture.
John 5: 37
37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.

This confirms that 1) God has a literal voice and 2) has a literal shape. What does the shape look like? We are made in the IMAGE of God – his shape is the shape of a body of flesh and bone, arms, hands, feet, head, face, mouth, etc. Who is “ye”? Ye are the people who he is talking to. Therefore no one in THAT congregation had ever seen the Father – not that he cannot be seen.

John 6: 46
46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.

Finally! The context for the last two New Testament verses – it’s not that one cannot see the Father, but he must be OF GOD. If you are qualified YOU CAN SEE THE FATHER. And if you see him, what will he look like? What will his shape be like?

John 14: 7, 9
7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

This simple statement by Christ in John 14:9 was surely not meant to tell us that Christ is the same person or being as the Father, for Christ prayed to the Father, sought to do not His own will but the Father's, said that His Father was greater than He (John 14:28), ascended after His Resurrection to return to His Father, called His Father His God (John 20:17), and was later seen standing at the right hand of the Father (Acts 7:55,56). No, what Christ surely meant was the same concept that Paul conveys in Hebrews 1:3 when he states that Jesus is "the express image of his [the Father's] person." In other words, Christ is in the image of the Father and looks like Him, enough so that to see the Son is to see the Father, just as He is so one in mind and purpose with the Father that to know the Son is to know the Father (John 14:7).

Adam's son, Seth, was said to be in the likeness and image of his father, Adam (Gen. 5:1-3), using the same words from Gen. 1:26,27 that tell us that we are physically created in the image and likeness of God, an unmistakable reference to the physical image. If the son of the first man, Adam, looked like his father, it should not strain our faith to know that the Son of the Ultimate Man and Father should look just like His Parent.

Christ was born with a physical body and was resurrected with that body, so real and tangible and in the same image as us that He could not only be recognized but handled and felt (Luke 24:36-43).

All of the scriptures dismiss the belief in the trinity doctrine as taught by Church councils.

The only revelation that agrees with all of these scriptures is the revelation received by Joseph Smith from God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ in a grove of trees in 1820.

D&C 130: 22
22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.

Best,

James

David,

The superman analogy was actually better than an explanation I gave on here once when I tried to explain the trinity as three "entities" along with some other gibberish. I felt compelled to come back a few minutes later for damage control. Since then I've engaged more in philosophy than theology when I occasionally comment on these boards. You live, you learn.

One more thing, I can't in all honesty give myself much credit for that line. That one really came to me if you know what I mean. I reckon it was for someone somewhere who has been following this thread.

HJ,
If you are still following this, thanks for the Fire & Ice poem. That one is a classic!

Thanks Ghostbuster. I appreciate that. I think the subject of God's nature or Jesus' pre-incarnate nature are hard to fathom. I guess no one can find a real explanation for that. But I do thank you for your compliment. I must say however that my Superman explanation was the worst and I just felt the need for an analogy. Should have thought harder. :) No matter all the explanations on here I must say that there was a particular one-liner that caught my attention more than anything and held so much truth in such little words. It's what you said.

"It's not about what you do, but what has been done for you".

That line continuously reminds me of how Christ's blood is sufficient enough. Thanks for that.

Anon,

Sorry I couldn't give a better explanation on that. I really don't see how anyone can describe something spiritual since we are of the earthly. It kind of reminds me of when Jesus was talking to Nicodemus and told him (John 3:12) 12I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? It would seem that spiritual or heavenly things are out of our realm to explain for some. But thanks for the conversation. Thank you all. It seems that this conversation has dwindled down a bit so I guess this is goodbye until next time. Take care all. Much love to you and your families

God bless

David,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. While I disagree with your beliefs and have my reasons for doing so, I do appreciate the time you've given to answer them. I am not going to delve further in this discussion now because I am lacking the necessary time, but hope we can pick up again another day. There is a reason for my asking these questions.

David,

I think you are doing a great job explaining the nature of God, the doctrine of the trinity and the importance of baptism. I am learning quite a bit from your answers. The superman analogy was a stretch as you know, but it was funny. I especially liked your last response when you admitted you can't give a definitive answer to every single question about the nature of God.

Some characteristics of God are not revealed to us. For instance, save for the scars, we have no other defining characteristics of how Jesus physically looked. His height, weight, build, hair color and style, favorite shirt... are not mentioned in his biographies.

Regards
GB

Anon,

Like I said before, the Trinity is three persons but One God. In 'our' image signifies that the three persons of God are actually persons. I've never seen any three of those persons so I cannot say for sure of what nature they are. I cannot tell you for sure that spiritual nature has a likeness of man or not. The Bible says the Father cannot be seen. Seen by whom? Us humans. So, therefore he can have an 'image' without being seen. I'm sure God can see Himself, right? Since Himself consists of three persons, then it is "our image". I can see what you are trying to set up here, Anon. The hard part for you is understanding how three persons can be one. This of course is because how can us humans think of three equalling one. This is spiritual, not earthly. When God says "let us make man in our image", He is referring to Himself.

So, I'm not too sure where this is going. I can't give you a definitive answer on this. God describes Himself in a plural sense. The Trinity affirms that all three are PERSONS, meaning they must have an image of some sort, not necessarily an image that can be seen by us. I'm not describing God as a "blob" of some sort as you say. But I wonder how anyone could describe a spiritual being that can't be seen. Could you? I just know that He (all three persons of He) created us humans in His (or their) image. Just image. Who knows what that exactly entails. We can't say that God has a mole on His left cheek or size 12 shoes. We just know we are made in His IMAGE, maybe something like looking in the mirror in the dark and seeing just the outline.

I think the best Biblical aspect I can give is in 1 Corinthians 15 where Paul talks about the difference in earthly bodies and spiritual bodies. I advise you to study that.

David,

Ok, so if God doesn't have any form, then who is He referring to when he says "let us make man in 'our' image?" Who is the other person?

Jim,

Thanks for your analysis. As I've said before, I do think baptism is important. What I am talking about is justification. I guess we should look by example.

If a man repented with all his heart and professed Jesus with his mouth is he saved? Well, what happens if he does this then walks across the street to a local church to be baptized, but then gets hit by a car and dies? If he goes to heaven then baptism isn't necessary for salvation. If he goes to hell then doesn't that contradict scripture that grace by faith alone justifies you and saves you? Eph 2:8-9, Tit 3:5?

Now, according to Acts 8, your right. The Holy Spirit wasn't given to them until after baptism and after the laying on of hands. The whole context has a message though. It seems to focus on Simon the Sorcerer. He too claimed to believe in Christ as well, and was baptized, but of course had not yet recieved the Holy Spirit. Then after the laying on of hands by the apostles those who professed Christ recieved the Holy Spirit. (A note to point out too is that the Holy Spirit did come BEFORE baptism without the laying on of hands in Acts 10). So, Simon offers the apostles money to give him this gift. Of course they rebuke this offer and say he is still in his sin. Why is he still in his sin if he professed the Lord Jesus and was baptized? Because he did not have true faith and repentance. I believe the Holy Spirit did not indwell these people for a reason of course until the apostles bestowed Him upon them. To make a point. You cannot just proclaim Christ and still live in your sins. He obviously was not convicted by the Holy Spirit or he would not have offered the money. Simon claimed to have faith and was baptized with water. But he chose to still live in his sins. This is not a true faith that leads to righteousness. The moral of this story is that baptism does not save. True faith does. The Holy Spirit was held back until the apostles could come to bestow it on those who had true faith. Simon was not one of those even though he professed Christ and was baptized.

So in Acts 10 many people recieved the Holy Spirit before baptism with no laying on of hands. Acts 2 says some did after baptism.(Baptism could mean baptism of the Spirit in this instance and is confirmed by the following 'and ye shall recieve the Holy Spirit'). I believe Acts 8 was a different story to make a point. So we know that those with faith can recieve the Holy Spirit before or after. This of course should be left up to God. But to proclaim that you MUST be baptized to recieve the Holy Spirit is contradictory to Acts 10. No one knows the hearts of men except God. So if one's faith can save, then it's up to God to decide that whether it be on proclamation of faith or after baptism who knows? Maybe that person never experienced true faith until they were baptized with water. I really don't know. But baptism is not a requirement for salvation along with laying on of hands according to Acts 10 and according the the fact that adding works to faith cannot save anyone.

One question for you. Do you know why Jesus was baptized? You seem to indicate that He needed to be saved. How can someone who provides salvation need to be saved? So, I ask, do you understand why Jesus had to be baptized?

Anon,

This is where the Trinity comes in. God the Father (First person of the Trinity) cannot be seen. The Son (second person) can. God manifests Himself in three persons. The Father who is spirit and can't be seen and the Son (who pre-incarnate could be seen). I couldn't describe the exact nature of the Son (pre-incarnate) but John 1 says the "Word BECAME flesh". Therefore He never was flesh until becoming flesh on earth. I believe God manifested Himself in the form of the Son to appear to those in the OT. Whether that be some spiritual being or not doesn't matter too much. I know He appeared as a form recognizable by man but not unseen like the Father. I guess for a terrible analogy I can say let's assume Superman can't be seen but Clark Kent can. Same being but different person. So when I say God has no hand, I'm referring to God the Father or first person of the Trinity who can't be seen. The Son is God as well, but a different form or person of God. The person of God that can be seen. The other two cannot.

Hi David,

I ask because I wonder what you believe to be a Spirit. You mentioned that God does not have a body. So I'm confused to know what you describe Him to be? You seem to describe Him to be some sort of a "blob" form of a ghost of some sort? You said that he has no hands, but I don't get what you think He is. If you believe God has no body then wouldn't you (in your belief) describe Him to be the same that Jesus was prior to Jesus receiving a body; a Spirit?

David,
To simplify, I'll quote from our Bible dictionary: "The Holy Ghost is manifested to men on the earth both as the power of the Holy Ghost and as the gift of the Holy Ghost. The power can come upon one before baptism, and is the convincing witness that the gospel is true. It gives one a testimony of Jesus Christ and of his work and the work of his servants upon the earth. The gift can come only after proper and authorized baptism, and is conferred by the laying on of hands...."

Think about the example of Jesus- he was baptized, THEN the Holy Ghost descended upon him.

In Acts 2:37-38 we read, "Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

In Acts chapter 8, Phillip had baptized with water (v. 12), but note verses 14-17: "14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost."

The baptism by water alone was insufficient. The apostles, with authority to confer the GIFT of the Holy Ghost, needed to come to perform this ordinance by the laying on of hands, and this came AFTER baptism by water.

If you read, I believe you will see a pattern of: people hearing the word of God, feeling "pricked in their hearts" or some other confirming witness from the power of the Holy Ghost, desiring to repent and follow Christ through baptism, and then receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, which will then remain with the disciple of Christ as long as he/she is worthy and striving to keep the commandments.

Again from the Bible dictionary: "The gift of the Holy Ghost is the right to have, whenever one is worthy, the companionship of the Holy Ghost. More powerful than that which is available before baptism, it acts as a cleansing agent to purify a person and sanctify him from all sin. Thus it is often spoken of as “fire” (Matt. 3: 11). The manifestation on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2) was the gift of the Holy Ghost that came upon the Twelve, without which they were not ready for their ministries to the world."

Ghostbuster
Thanks for the poem. Nice choice. I have many Frost Poems by Heart. A couple of quotes for you:

"Earth's the right place for love. I don't know where it's likely to go better." (from Birches).

Fire and Ice

Some say the world
will end in Fire.
Some say Ice.
From what I've tasted of Desire,
I tend to side with those
Who Favor Fire.
But if we had to perish twice
I think I know enough of Hate
To say that for destruction Ice
Is also great
And Will Suffice.

Jim,

You are right. Believe it or not I am in 100% in agreement with your reasoning. Grace is not logical. And it certainly isn't fair.

Grace is the point at which "religion" becomes relationship. We can't do enough to work our way to the God who is described in the bible. God bridged the gap for us. The "essential" thing one has to do is to walk over the bridge.

"For My yoke is easy and My burden is light."

Now here is a short poem for our resident literary scholar Henry James:

"I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference."
- Frost

Regards

Parker,

Thanks for yours as well. And Karen of course you have my prayers tonight. I'm gonna write that one down so I don't forget.

Anon,

Concerning Jesus' pre-incarnate body. What are you looking for in specific? I don't believe the Bible is very specific on this subject. At least as far as I know. What I do know is that the Father aspect of God cannot be seen. It was the Son (pre-incarnate) that was seen by the patriarchs. I would assume that His body was somewhat like the post-resurrection body. A glorified un-corruptible body, not necessarily a body of flesh and bones though. This of course is based on assumption alone but by somewhat of an examination of scripture. I know Jesus has a body now because of the bodily resurrection, but pre-incarnate I would assume it it more of a spiritual body that He could allow whomever He wanted to see Him. I don't really know what else I can say on this subject. I find this to be non-essential as well. I'm sure I could be wrong on this, but I'm curious why it would matter?

Have a great evening.

God bless

David,
I really appreciate the point of view and insight you have expressed in your last post. I again want to apologize for sometimes reacting negatively to some of your commentary. I have felt badly about having done so.

Karen,
I imagine several of us are praying that your presentation goes well, as I'm sure it will.

Adieu, folks. Thanks for sharing your perspectives.

Ghostbuster,

you said,

It's not about what you do Jay. It's about what has been done for you

By far the best line yet. Thanks and I love it.

Jim,

you said,

About baptism, yes, there are two parts- baptism by water and baptism by Spirit, which is another name for receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, which we believe is performed by the laying on of hands by one holding the authority of the priesthood. The two baptisms go together, and in fact baptism by water is a pre-requisite for baptism of the Spirit.

If this was non-essential, why did Jesus send his apostles to teach and to baptize?

I would like your scriptureal basis for this? How is water baptism a pre-requisite for baptism of the Spirit? Let's look at scripture for truth shall we?

Acts 10:44-46 says, "While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. Then Peter said, ‘Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.' So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days" (NIV)

So people recieved the Holy Spirit by just hearing the words Peter said without laying on of hands and water baptism? Doesn't this contradict what you just said? Every instance in the Bible people are baptized AFTER they are saved. Baptism is a covenant. An outward expression of in inward change. It's a public declaration of faith in Jesus. It's a covenant just like circumcision in the OT. Trust me I believe water baptism is important, just like taking communion. Is it necessary for salvation? NO. If it were then it contradicts the Bible. Eph 2:8-9, Titus 3:5. Rom 5:1.

You asked GB if we can just continue to lie and party it up since we are forgiven anyway. Paul mentions this type of argument as well. He said "should we continue to sin so that grace may increase". Of course not! You must realize that faith PRODUCES works. Upon faith we are regenerated by the Holy Spirit. This regeneration causes us to do good. To TRY to refrain from sin. To feel the conviction of our sins. You asked why do we need commandments then? I ask you then, have you kept all the commandments without breaking even one in your life? Can you live the rest of your life without breaking any commandment? I know I can't. It's impossible. I can try, but my sinful nature as a man causes me to sin once in awhile. But now I recognize that sin and know when I do it. The Holy Spirit convicts me of my sins.

So please just answer me one question? Can you live without breaking even one commandment?

Jim
further clarification: i actually said, quote, "Do you think God is unable to tell the good people from the bad people unless they are carrying a certificate of baptism?????"

So you see, I did assume your God would take account of people's behavior.

Also, in the post I just made, I meant to say that a just God would reward an equally Good Buddhist or Atheist *or Mormon* equally, whether or not they had been baptized.

Jim
You are right, I did not say a God would reward her children regardless of the kind of life they had led.

I in fact said that if a Buddhist and an Atheist had all led equally good lives, a just God would reward them equally, whether or not they had been baptized.
To say, as Mormons do, that a Mormon of mediocre character who has been baptized would have greater capacity for eternal progression than Gandhi, assuming Gandhi does not choose to be baptized in the afterlife, is patently absurd even within the mormon system.

By the way, God is actually a Woman. So you should say "HER truths."

HJ:
Regarding your last post, on the other hand, what kind of God would whimsically and arbitrarily reward his children without regard to the type of life that was led? This is intentionally an exaggeration of your comment, and I realize that this isn't what you would say.

Instead, God is a God of order, and a God of justice. Yes, he does love all of His children, and I believe that we will all have an equal opportunity to learn and to accept His truths. It is our choices that make our character and reveal our true selves, so as I have said in a previous post, it is almost as though we become our own judge as we choose whether we seek truth, love, etc.

As Parker has mentioned, life is not a sprint nor a contest to see whom reaches the finish line first. Our mortal lives are just one small part of our eternal progression.

Jim
You must believe that Mohammed made up the commandments in the Koran, rather than getting them from God.
You must believe the same about the Hindus who worship Vishnu.

I believe that Joseph Smith and Moses made up the commandments that they claim came from God.

99% of the societies in the history of the world have followed the moral precepts in the 10 commandments, whether or not they believed in a God, or in 5,000 Gods.

Do you think God is unable to tell the good people from the bad people unless they are carrying a certificate of baptism?????

Ghostbuster

I agree with your parable of Jesus's thief, tho I fear people are going to argue about what Jesus meant by "paradise."

I take a broader view. If there is a God, I can't imagine that he will deny any good people the same rewards as other good people.

Most of the world's population do not believe in Jesus and will never be baptized. Do we truly believe that good Buddhists, Muslims, Atheists, Hindus, Confucians, will be less exalted than Christians in the afterlife??? What kind of God would have such a system of rewards?

Ghostbuster,
So, from the logic of your last post, we can just do whatever we want, party it up, have fun, lie, cheat, steal, etc., and since Jesus suffered for our sins, it will all be washed away without any effort on our part? Why even have commandments if that is the case?

Jay said referring to baptism: "If this was non-essential, why did Jesus send his apostles to teach and to baptize?"

Jay,

Could the thief on the cross get baptized? Did he have time to make amends for his sins? Did he have time to get his life in order? Could he even help alleviate the pain of the bleeding man next to him? No, the thief was totally helpless in his condition.

So what is essential?

It's not about what you do Jay. It's about what has been done for you.

Regards

HJ,

Thank you for the in-depth response. You more than answered my questions. The historical link between your family and Joseph Smith certainly is unique as are your perspectives and insights in this debate.

Regards

David,

About baptism, yes, there are two parts- baptism by water and baptism by Spirit, which is another name for receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, which we believe is performed by the laying on of hands by one holding the authority of the priesthood. The two baptisms go together, and in fact baptism by water is a pre-requisite for baptism of the Spirit.

If this was non-essential, why did Jesus send his apostles to teach and to baptize?

Oh by the way Anon,

sorry I know it seems I'm avoiding you, but I'll try my very best to get back to you today. If not, I'll have a little more time tomorrow. But, I'm curious really quick. Does it matter what my opinion or "interpretation" may be? It is going to affect you any? Just curious if it's worth even discussing? And why don't you give me your opinion first since I can't get into it right now?

Gotta be quick. Kinda busy.

Here's a hint Jim.

John 1:32-34

32Then John gave this testimony: "I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him. 33I would not have known him, except that the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, 'The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is HE WHO WILL BAPTIZE WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT.' 34I have seen and I testify that this is the Son of God."

Jesus will baptize with the Holy Spirit. This is the baptism that saves, not by water. Baptism has two meanings. I do find baptism important, but it is an added work to faith. It is by faith alone that we are saved apart from works. I know you disagree, but oh well. You have your pre-suppositions from the Mormon church so I don't expect you to understand. And by the way, there is no longer a need for a priesthood. You might want to research the reason why the curtain tore in half when Jesus died on the cross. Gotta run.

Have a great day

God bless

I find it odd that David indicates that baptism is a "non-essential" difference between Christian denominations. To me, baptism is an essential ordinance of Christ's gospel.

I had a very interesting experience on my mission in Spain. Obviously, nearly everyone there is Catholic, at least by tradition. I met a man that felt he had just as much authority as the Catholic church, so this man baptized his own children himself instead of the traditional Catholic way. While I admire his initiative and faith, we do believe that Jesus taught baptism by immersion by one holding the priesthood- the authority to perform these ordinances. Jesus himself was baptized by immersion by one holding the priesthood, and I believe that he expects the same of us. Does not the Bible teach that there is "One Lord, one faith, one baptism"? See Ephesians 4:5.

I also find it strange that David continues to say that LDS have no biblical basis for doctrines such as pre-existence and God (the father), Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost as three separate and distinct beings. There have been many posts containing biblical references for our support of these doctrines, yet David seems to ignore those and instead focuses on his own verses. It would be nice to just say that we agree to disagree than to continue insisting that his is the only interpretation and claiming that our view is anti-biblical when we have given biblical support ad naseum.

Finally, about President Hinckley, I believe he intended to convey that the question being asked was not a critical doctrine. It is unfortunate that we have to try to defend every last word ever uttered by any prophet, but I guess that's how it goes. I would prefer to concentrate on more fundamental beliefs....

Ghostbuster

I was a church-going Mormon until I was 19, the son of two Utah Mormons who had moved to Massachusetts. My father's great grandfather was in jail with Joseph Smith when the Prophet was martyred. So I am dyed in the Blood of the Lamb.

As the only Mormon family in our town, I was aware that I had to keep myself free of the corrupting influences of the Gentiles in order to stay on the right path. I believed Mormon doctrine, but was always more drawn to the moral precepts of life on earth than to the promises of Celestial Glory and my progression to be a God myself. I guess i thought i was already a God (joke).

Though I accepted the afterlife stuff cuz that's what i had been taught, I never had a burning conviction of it. Tho that didn't stop me from telling my catholic friend bobby in 6th grade that he was going to hell and i was going to heaven. (I know, I know, truth is he was going to the terrestrial kingdom, but i was in 6th grade).

When the time came to decide about going on a mission, i had to ask myself, could i honestly "sell the product?" Could i tell people that they had to join the Mormon Church in order to achieve the highest degree of glory in heaven and be one of those humans who were destined to become Gods themselves. (as man is God once was, and as God is man may become, we were taught).

I looked at my Jewish friend who was much more Godlike than even I was, and I said to myself: "does it make sense that I, and joe schmoo from Idaho, are going to become Gods cuz we were baptized in the mormon church, but my Jewish Friend and Mahatma Gandhi couldn't become Gods cuz they weren't? Even tho they had much stronger Godlike qualities than Joe Schmoo?"

No, I couldn't believe in a God who had a plan like that. And I certainly couldn't tell my Jewish Friend he had to become a Mormon in order to be a God like me.

So I didn't. And at that point, it didn't work for me to remain a member of a church that taught me things that i couldn't believe.

My family respected me and my decision. I was lucky. I was also a boy. My older sister had many more fights with my parents about her leaving. She was a girl.

Ahhh... the nerve racking jitters before a big presentation. I know what you're going through Karen ;) Good luck to you and I'll definitely keep you in my prayers!
.
.
.
David - have you given any thought to my question yet? I saw you were online last night and responded to other questions. I don't know if you overlooked my question. I'm curious to know your thoughts.

Thanks!

Parker: thank you for taking the time to respond in detail to my questions and comments. I apologize that I will not be able to do the same. I am traveling today for work and will be gone for the rest of the week with limited internet time.

I agree with you that our faith and trust in the Lord are put to the test every day. But again, I do not think that God would on purpose confuse us to test us. There are enough tests in every day life.

You are right in that I find in the non denominational local church the type of worship, structure and support that greatly enriches my life. Because I have seen so much confusion once people of various denominations add to the Bible things that are not there (such as the concept of Mary being born without sin which is not biblical) that I feel it is safest to stick to the Bible. As a book inspired by God though written by man, I believe that it gives us all we need to understand God's purpose in our lives and His immense love for us and desire for fellowship with us.

I have greatly enjoyed the exchanges with everybody. HJ, I'll be interested in your response to GB's last question.

Have a great week everybody. I have a big presentation to give on friday. If you're a believer please say a prayer for me and if not, wish me luck and steady nerves!

Karen

Jim, You Stretch the Truth Beyond the Breaking Point

when you write "there is no conclusive proof (nor should we expect such) that the Book of Mormon is true scripture, written anciently and translated by a prophet called of God, yet there are significant findings that support the archaelogical veracity of the Book of Mormon. Millions, including myself, have put the Book of Mormon to test and can testify of its truthfulness based on the confirming witness of the Holy Ghost."

Righto!!! There is NO proof at all that the BoM has ANY basis in historical fact. And most non mormons find it literally "incredible" that the purported history of a major civilization in the Americas left no verifiable archeological trace. The "recent" support is only accepted by Mormons. And the BoM is riddled with biological and geological errors.

You have read it and think its true. I have read it and think it is a third rate plagiarism of the Bible and other religious writings. Which of us has more note as a literary critic?

"True for you" is very different than "True."

Love
Henry

Hello Parker
re your post of 1152 pm

You may have "logic that makes sense to (you)", but that doesn't make it Logic, just as believing 1+1=3 doesn't make 1+1=3.

And believe me, your argument was fallacious at its base. Check an independent source if you have doubts. And please feel free to correct me on any logic errors i might make. William certainly does.

I am happy you prayed for the end of the Black priesthood ban. Your prayers and its eventuation had virtually no causal relation, but I applaud your sentiment. Though even if you had never known any blacks on your mission, it was the right position to take.

BTW, since you tire of triteness, a word of warning. your phrase "I met so many wonderful blacks on my mission" sounds perilously close to the cliche "some of my best friends are (black/gay/transsexual/whatever). Use of this cliche is generally not considered to put the user in a flattering light.

I am not sure how I am "speaking for Dawkins." I noted that he thinks belief in God is a Delusion. He feels it strongly enough to title his book "The God Delusion." So my "interpreting" that he doesn't really believe in God and was being rhetorical in his use of that hypothetical was not a brilliant or difficult interpretation on my part. I have made plenty of briiliant interpretations, but this wasn't one of them.

Peace
henry

HJ,

I have a few questions for you...

What were your main reasons for leaving the LDS church at the time of your departure?

Did you wholeheartedly believe Mormon theology at one time?

What did your family/friends think of your decision to leave the church?

Regards
GB

Karen,
I don't feel like I gave you a very complete answer to some of your questions. As to reading the Book of Mormon and feeling like it was a strange book, I would expect that to be the case 100% of the time from a scholar. Why? Because they are trained to be skeptical, so skepticism would preclude any easy "this sounds true" sort of reaction. I guarantee that if you were to re-read the first five books of the Bible, then read Hosea, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hebrews 11 and the Book of Revelation twice each, then read the Book of Mormon five times (why that many? because it's about as deep as Isaiah and a scholar would have to overcome the skepticism that has been embedded into their thinking process), then you will begin to feel "this Book of Mormon could be the words of prophets of the same God of the Bible".

Secondly, this life is a test of faith on different levels. If you believe Abraham was asked to sacrifice Isaac as a trial of his faith, you might acknowledge that God has not asked you to do something like that. That's an example of what I am talking about. It makes sense to me that Joseph Smith didn't make up the idea that the early saints were being asked by God to live plural marriage as a trial of their faith. Why would JS introduce such a practice, knowing it would bring intense dislike among the people he loved and intense ridicule from the outside world? In the early 1900's, it was time for a new trial of faith for the "faithful saints". Will I follow the living prophet when he says, "Plural marriage is no longer required, and should no longer be entered into"? Also in the early 1900's, tithing and the Word of Wisdom receive greater emphasis and become "trials of faith" for the saints. Today the saints have plenty of trials of faith to choose from: the Book of Mormon is ridiculed now more than ever, the source of the Book of Abraham has become a source of trial of faith for some people, the fulfilling of ancient promises for the blacks and trying to understand that whole dichotomy is a trial of faith for some people--one can take their pick from among those, or there are plenty of doses of faith trials through the media and the ridicule of the scholarly world.

But those trials of faith are, like the test Abraham had with his son, not given to Protestants or Catholics or other faith groups, though their faith is also being tested: "Will I believe the Bible?" "Do the ten commandments have relevancy for me and my family?" etc. I think God respects the trials of faith you have had and continue to have, and honors you for your belief and trust in Him. As far as I am concerned, it is to be expected that people who follow the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob will confront trials of faith throughout their lives, be "tried in the furnace of affliction" and be able to say as John the Beloved foresaw, "I have overcome by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ."

HJ and Karen,
HJ, I apologize for my last hastily written post that didn't acknowledge the following: you have great love for mankind and all living things, I feel that from you; you have a keen intellect and good logic that works for you; you expressed a spiritual dimension that I found refreshing; and I assume you have had experiences that have led to the entirety of your belief system. I respect you for all of that, especially the love you convey. Having faith in revelation and divine power is not for everyone, and I don't think for a minute that it means a person without these dimensions in their life is less of a person. I think, though, that they have made a concious choice during their life to arrive at that conclusion. Choices during life can change, people can change, perspectives can change (I hope they do for all of us.) Sorry to have been disrespectful of you by that hasty comment.

Karen,
You have a great sense of peace about you that comes across in your writing. I have met so many wonderful people who have attended the kinds of small denominations you have talked about. I don't think for a minute that they will have any less of an opportunity in the hereafter than I will have to learn about the kind of faith I talked about earlier, and decide whether it is what they want. I don't think everyone would want that--too much commitment, too much patience required watching children make mistakes among each other yet loving them all.

I of course won't speak in any sense trying to interpret what President Hinckley said in that brief comment, but did you want him to give a two hour talk? Sometimes the media (in fact usually) needs quick answers, which of course leads to people jumping to conclusions.

I don't think we got enough doctrinal teaching from Joseph Smith to understand the statement about "God was once a man like us" (he was killed soon thereafter), but we have plenty else to think about and grow into. I love the following words written in the Liberty Jail to the men and women of the church:
"Let thy bowels also be full of charity toward all men,... and let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly; then shall thy confidence wax strong in the presence of God; and the doctrine of the priesthood shall distil upon thy soul as the dews from heaven. The Holy Ghost shall be thy constant companion, and thy scepter an unchanging scepter of righteousness and truth; and thy dominion shall be an everlasting dominion, and without compulsory means it shall flow unto thee forever and ever." These blessings are available to all. They involve a long process, trials of faith, lots of repentance and forgiveness and trust in a loving God whose help is ever promised.

(the previous post by "Evidence" was me....)

David,

There is a lot to read at this site, but if you go to this link, the second question deals specifically with non-LDS scholars and the Book of Mormon:

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_BMEvidence.shtml#arch

Also, articles by LDS authors often reference non-LDS sources. It seems to me that asking for non-LDS sources for archaelogical evidence of the Book of Mormon is akin to asking an atheist to provide support for their position from only theists.

Finally, as has been mentioned, there is no conclusive proof (nor should we expect such) that the Book of Mormon is true scripture, written anciently and translated by a prophet called of God, yet there are significant findings that support the archaelogical veracity of the Book of Mormon. Millions, including myself, have put the Book of Mormon to test and can testify of its truthfulness based on the confirming witness of the Holy Ghost.

Henry James: very well said as usual.

Ghostbuster: totally agree with you.

Sidebar: There are many christian denominations but the majority hold to the same essentials of the faith. I think that this is what David is trying to say. I am at this point most comfortable in a local Bible-believing non denominational church but I can attend many other churches and feel at ease with the doctrine being taught ie methodist, anglican, baptist, AME, presbyterian etc. The theological differences between these denominations tend to center on what St Augustine would call non-essentials of the faith. I prefer the small non denominational church because I am weary of large religious institutions and I believe that the small local church best approaches the biblical chuch at the time of the Apostles. But if I could not go to one, I could go somewhere else and still feel in union with what is taught.

Aside from that, I have a really hard time with a God that changes His mind and reverses Himself on major commandements and doctrinal point.

I am curious to hear what is the LDS response to Henry's post about the interview with Hickley. This is the kind of stuff that non mormons find absolutely preposterous: the Living Prophet is not quite sure what the church teaches? More likely, he fudges so as to perpetuate the notion that the LDS church is not so different from mainstream christianity. I mean, if the LDS church truly believes that God once was a mortal man with a physical body, that he lives on the planet Kolob, and if they believe that this is direct revelation from God, why the equivocation? Isn't Hinckley's approach deceitful?
I would say the same thing about a pastor that fudges the answer on the virgin birth or the resurrection so as not to seem ridiculous to a secular audience. As Phaedrus said before: let the sun shine on the whole doctrine and let people make up their own mind.

Sidebar,

Good question. What are the differences in theology that seperate Christian sects? First of all, Orthodox (or Protestant) theology teaches ONE God, being the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. They teach justification by faith alone and not works, the deity of Christ, and the gospel being the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ which by faith alone will give you grace. These are essentials to Christianity. Many different Christian "sects" teach the same thing with only non-essentials such as if baptism should be by immersion or not, or the different types of worship. I can think of many so-called "Christian" churches that teach a false doctrine. Jehovah's Witnesses, 7th day adventists, Oneness Pentacostal, and of course my favorite....MORMONISM. So you say that there are many different sects of Christianity that do not recognize the Trinity. I'd like to know which ones. Every non-denominational church I have ever attended teaches it. Every Baptist church I ever attended teaches it. Even Lutheran and Catholic churches teach it. The only reason why I said somewhat close doctrine is because of the non-essentials. The Baptism thing, when to take communion (once a week, once a month,etc.), different musical tastes seperate churches as well, but the doctrines remain the same.

I do think you are way too caught up in the word "Trinity". Trinity is just a descriptive word of Biblical truth. Taking the whole of scripture and creating doctrine is ok. 2 Tim 3:16. If the Bible says that there is ONE God and the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God, then you have the Trinity. Isn't it much nicer to say Trinity instead of saying all that? You believe in many gods. This is anti-Biblical. That's how I know the LDS is false because it doesn't match up to scripture. If the Bible tells me there is ONE God and you tell me NO, there are many, who do I believe? Take a guess.

you said,

(oh and I'm also wondering by whose authority you are going by since you deny the LDS to believe in the convincing power of the Holy Ghost and say that it is Satan who is deceiving the LDS. Well, if it's Satan who is deceiving through those "feelings" then why should anyone believe that YOUR assumption is correct?)

Because I don't claim to have "feelings". I confirm beliefs by scripture. Read Jer 17:9. The heart is decietful. If I went on "feelings" I could be misled. I find the truth in God's Word. I still don't understand what "feelings" have anything to do with knowing truth?? I've never said I have a "feeling" that the Bible should be "interpreted" a certain way. I've backed up scripture with scripture to prove my points. I would never expect anyone to believe me if I just told them I had a "feeling". No one should believe me based on feelings. That's how people are misled.

you said,

You have to admit David, your beliefs ARE your interpretation (or an assumption) since you did not get word directly from God or Jesus that your interpretation is in fact the right one. You can state that one needs to read the bible "as a whole", but again, that is YOUR belief. To deny this would be illogical.

If they are my only beliefs, why do millions of other people on this planet believe the same exact thing I do? And yes I did get the word directly from God. It's called the Bible. Let me ask you why you should not take the Bible as a whole? Wouldn't it be illogical to take the parts you want and leave out the rest? When Joseph Smith claimed many gods, did he leave out all those Isaiah verses? Did he leave out the first commandment? Ex 20:3?? So what is illogical on my part that we should take the whole Bible in regards to creating doctrine. It's kind of like your pre-existence doctrine. You take a bunch of verses out of context and then oops...we'll just leave out 1 Cor 15:46-47?? This is why the Trinity doctrine is Biblically correct. You cannot find a contradiction to it. Plain and simple.

Concerning all those historians views of the Trinity, I could care less. I could care less if they don't even want to call it the Trinity. As long as someone doesn't believe in multiple gods and recognize that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit make the ONE God, then that's fine. The Trinity is biblically accurate. It's just a name to simplify it. So many people use excuses like "the word 'Trinity' isn't even in the Bible". Of course not. It's doctrine. Where is the word "pre-existence"?

HJ,
You have a perfect right to your beliefs and the logic that supports them. I have logic that makes sense to me, experience that I can't deny because I've experienced it, a communication from the heavens in a purer form than written communication that I am familiar with, and I feel love for people even though I sometimes tire of triteness. I stood up and gave a talk in a sacrament meeting in January 1976 right after my mission, and said "I look forward to the day when the blacks will receive all of the blessings of the restored gospel, and hope it will be soon, for I met so many wonderful blacks during my mission." Two and a half years later, what the Spirit had impressed upon my heart as something to expect to happen, came into fruition as the announcement came from Salt Lake City.

As for Dawkins, I think he said what he said because he thought the very words that he wrote. I don't see why you now have to speak for him. Can't he speak for himself? (you have to interpret for him?)

a: Mormon Prophets get revelation from God on Matters of Church Doctrine.
b. Mormon prophets reverse those revelations from time to time.
c. therefore, God must have make a mistake in making the revelation in case a,unless God is not infallible, immutable, and omniscient.

...and if "God" is not infallible, immutable and omniscient then that "God" is a different "God" than the one who is described in the bible.

David:

Reading through your many posts, your logic seems broken and does not appear to be sound. You state that all Christian churches are the one true church (combined), but then say God is not changing. Well if God isn't changing, why would he want so many different interpretations of his doctrine? For aren't there multiple christian sects in the world today because of different beliefs that exist? Where did God or Jesus say that multiple interpretations of His word were ok? I think you will agree (and have agreed) that there should really be one correct interpretation.

Then you said that LDS are too different from the other christian religions but that the other christian religions are just somewhat different; and that's ok. (Reference your post saying "I believe unity comes to all believers who have the same or close enough doctrinal beliefs") Then you say that your interpretation of the gospels are right but much of your interpretations do indeed differ from an enormous amount of Christian sects. (oh and I'm also wondering by whose authority you are going by since you deny the LDS to believe in the convincing power of the Holy Ghost and say that it is Satan who is deceiving the LDS. Well, if it's Satan who is deceiving through those "feelings" then why should anyone believe that YOUR assumption is correct?)

You have to admit David, your beliefs ARE your interpretation (or an assumption) since you did not get word directly from God or Jesus that your interpretation is in fact the right one. You can state that one needs to read the bible "as a whole", but again, that is YOUR belief. To deny this would be illogical.

So, I'm wondering, how can ALL these churches preach different doctrines and be right, all at the same time?

You said "I guess the best way to describe why we could not be united in the gospel is for example; let's say you and I go door to door and try to preach the gospel, I'm sure we would end up arguing over who's right, right in front of the person. I guess that's not the unity that Jesus had in mind."

So with that in mind, you believe in the trinity, which is not practiced or believed by many other christians (not just Mormons). So who do you believe is the "true" church if they so disagree with your interpreted version of the gospel?

In case you'd like to know, I came across these previously published references that I would like to share with you. I remember a few posts ago you asked someone to show non-mormon references, so I have already skipped that step and am listing them here:

"...no doctrine of the Trinity in the Nicene sense is present in the New Testament ... there is no doctrine of the Trinity in the strict sense in the Apostolic Fathers ... to judge the Apologists by post-Nicene theology would be grossly unfair. Isolated passages could be cited to support the notion that the Apologists taught subordination within the deity"
- William G. Rusch, Lutheran Scholar ("The Trinitarian Controversy. Sources of Early Christian Thought", Fortress Press, 1980, 2,3,6)

"... it is absurd to imagine (as some fundamentalists seem to do) that Christians today, armed with no knowledge of Christian history but only with their Bibles, could arrive at orthodox theories of, say, the Incarnation or the Trinity ... tradition helps us to grasp - as we see preeminently with the doctrine of the Trinity - that a doctrine or idea can be deemed normative for Christians despite the absence of any clear proof texts specifically teaching it"
- Stephen T. Davis, Conservative Protestant Philosopher, Professor of Philosophy and Religion, Claremont McKenna College, "Philosophy and Theological Discourse, St. Martin's Press, 1997, 47-68

"...we must honestly admit that the doctrine of the Trinity did not form part of the early Christian-New Testament-message ... Certainly, it cannot be denied that not only the word 'Trinity', but even the explicit idea of the Trinity is absent from the apostolic witness to the faith ... [the idea of the trinity is] 'theological tradition'"
- Emil Brunner, "The Christian Doctrine of God. Dogmatics", volume 1

"... thus the New Testament itself is far from any doctrine of the Trinity or of a triune God who is three co-equal Persons of One Nature"
- William J Hill, "The Three-Personed God", Washington, D.C., The Catholic University of American Press (1982, 27)

"...In the New Testament, the doctrine of the Trinity is not yet spelled out as church councils would later define it. Trinitarian language and awareness emerged gradually and spontaneously, as early believers sought to articulate the divine glory they beheld in Jesus, and to describe and claim the life-transforming presence and power of God that they experienced through the Holy Spirit"
- Philip W. Butin, Pastor of Albuquerque New Mexico Presbyterian Church (Ph.D from Duke Divinity School), "The Trinity", Louisville, Kentucky, Geneva Press, 2001, 13)

"... the Trinity is not mentioned in the New Testament. Nor has this foundation dogma of the Church's faith ever been expressed in a single, final formula accepted as formally unalterable by the whole Church. The Apostles' Creed makes no mention of it whatever"
- R.P.C. Hanson, Anglican Scholar, "The Attractiveness of God. Essays in Christian Doctrine, John Knox Press, 1973, 47-48)

"... there is no single passage in Scripture which sets forth the doctrine of the Trinity in formal, creedal statement."
- Loraine Boettner, Evangelical, "The Trinity", Evangelical Quarterly 10 (1938), 321-351, 55-92)

"...[In the Gospel of John] all these relationships between Father and Son are described in function of the Son's dealings with men. It would be the work of later theologians to take this gospel material pertaining to the mission of the Son 'ad extra' and draw from it a theology of the inner life of the Trinity."
- Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John I-XII, Garden City, Ny, Doubleday, 1966, 407)

"... there is still no doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament, But there is evidence of a slow development of understanding that Jesus Christ, the Father and the Spirit are equally God. Indications of the understanding appear here and there in 'triadic formulas.' These cannot be lumped together to provide comprehensive proof of revelation of the Trinity"
- Leonardo Boff, Franciscan Priest and Professor of Theology, "Trinity and Society", Orbis Books, 1988, 35)

"... exegetes and theologians are likewise agreed that the New Testament does not contain an explicit doctrine of the Trinity. The New Testament does not contain the technical language of later Trinitarian doctrine ... that the doctrine of the Trinity did not emerge until the fourth century"
- Catherine LaCugna, Catholic Scholar, "The Trinitarian Mystery of God," Systematic Theology. Roman Catholic Perspectives, Volume I, Augsburg Press, 1991, 151-192)

and so on and so on... there are tons more. I want to be clear. I am not listing all these references to refute your belief in the trinity, that is your belief if you so choose. Rather, I am listing a vast number of different Christian sects that believe differently than you do regarding the trinity. With such a drastic difference in belief, how can you not "get into an argument preaching God's word door to door" if you believe so differently from all these other religions as well?

Jay
sorry to keep you from the family. thanks for all your thoughts.

btw, i am a 5th generation mormon. i have read the bom and know church doctrine inside out.

you write:
"When prophets of any age declare official doctrine, they speak for God, so to say that what was declared before was wrong would be to say that God was wrong. Of course they’re not going to say that."

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Correlating syllogism:

a: Mormon Prophets get revelation from God on Matters of Church Doctrine.
b. Mormon prophets reverse those revelations from time to time.
c. therefore, God must have make a mistake in making the revelation in case a,unless God is not infallible, immutable, and omniscient.

To a logical person who is not a mormon, such as Karen, the reversals on polygamy and black priesthood are very damaging to a claim to be a church guided by continuing revelation from god.

Parker
Good to see you defending the faith and lashing out at its opponents.

Regarding God once being a man, here is Hinckley’s hedge in his Time Magazine interview.

Q: ... about that, God the Father was once a man as we were. This is something that Christian writers are always addressing. Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?

A: I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it. I haven’t heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don’t know. I don’t know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don’t know a lot about it and I don’t know that others know a lot about

HJ again: Hinckley says “I don’t know that we teach it.” Wow. I was taught it all the time growing up as a Mormon, probably in general conference talks by Hinckley himself.

I am Pretty Sure JD said Mormons don’t believe God is infallible. The quote Betty gave you characterizes Mormon belief that way. Let’s go to the sources and clarify that.

Parker: you don’t understand Dawkins at all. Dawkins thinks belief in God is a delusion. So when Dawkins says “if there is a God..” it is equivalent to me saying “if there is a Santa Claus…”

Who is saying that a God would FORCE anyone to believe in him? A total Straw Man. We are saying that a God would not strew evidence contradicting his supposed existence and deeds. Your “reasoning” in saying “why would God short-circuit that process by allowing archeological evidence to step in and lessen the need for faith?” is bizarre. Again: we are not talking about NO Evidence. We are talking about contradictory evidence. Non Mormon Christians llike Karen and David and 4 billion others think it is crazy to think God would plant evidence contradicting the Book of Abraham in order to help us develop our faith.

Parker: your logic is equally bizarre when you say “Henry has amply demonstrated that just because some archeology supports the Bible, it has not been proven for him so the logic I've expressed (as best I can) still holds.”

It gives me a headache to need to explain this to you, but here goes.

Archeological Evidence that places cited in the Bible actually existed have NO RELATION to the question of whether God exists or not. The evidence merely shows that some of the writers of the Bible were acquainted with real places in the middle east.

Archeological Evidence that Joseph Smith was fraudulent when he represented a funerary document as Written by Abraham is further evidence of Joseph Smith’s already extensively documented history of deception and unreliability.

HJ: I agree with you that the RC church is a major example of the problems with a very authoritative church that claims to be the One True Church.
I often wonder how the RC church can ever claim papal infaillibility or that the pope is God's representative on earth when it has in its history pope Borgia (and his many illegitimate children including Cesar the rapist and muderer and Lucrece the poisoner).
I was reading to my son last night the passage where Jesus washes the feet of the disciples to show us that He came to serve us, that we are all to humble ourselves and serve each other. Somehow, I have a hard time seeing that represented in the splendor of the Vatican and all the people kissing the hands of the Pope, cardinals etc.

Parker: I read your post carefully and I am afraid that I am still not conviced. You make faith sound like magic that people want to access for their own benefit, therefore God does not provide evidence or actually muddies the evidence to separate the true believer from the fake believer who wants to access "the force" without committing himself truly to God. I am sorry but this really does not make sense to me and I will tell you why: God became flesh, suffered and died to reveal His truth and His love to us. But then he tries to confuse us in order to test our faith?

Also, I totally agree with you that archeological evidence for the Bible does not prove the existence of God or the Virgin birth or the resurrection. But it does prove the historicity of many parts of the Bible. If the Bible talks about a place called Babylon and we find remnants of Babylon, then we know that Babylon was not made up. The Bible talks of the jews and we know that they did exist. We know that the temple existed and so on and so forth.

Finally, I am afraid that you are making assumptions about me. When I first came to the US, I knew nothing about the mormons or the LDS church. I thought it was just another protestant denomination. Then one day, while staying in a Marriott hotel, I found a BOM next to the Gideon Bible in the drawer and I started to read it. The book cover said to take it if I wanted so I took it home and continued to read it. Again, I had no preconceived notions because I knew nothing about it. I read with an open mind and I am sorry to say, found the whole book ludicrous. Frankly, I was astonished that anybody could actually believe in the BOM and its stories. So I am sorry to disappoint you but it is possible to read the BOM with an open mind and still totally disbelieve it.

David has used this quote from Ravi Zacharias many times and I will also make it my own: What I believe in my heart has to make sense in my head. What I read in the BOM does not make any sense in my head because I also have studied history a lot, as well as logic and critical thinking. In the BIble, I find a narrative that makes sense and many historical facts that can be verified. In the BOM, I find neither.

Regarding polygamy. It is understood among orthodox christians that God allowed it for a time but never explicitely condoned it or recommended it. We see many tales in the BIble of all the bad things that happen when men practice polygamy. And what do you make of the letter to Timothy in which Paul says that a church leader/pastor/deacon has to be the husband of one wife? How did Joseph Smith explain his contradiction of this very clear, unambiguous command?

Re: church structure and authority, I too, like David, attend a non denominational church because I find it to be the closest to biblical christiany: a small local body of believers, getting together to worship and praise God, to teach each other and support each other, without anybody being elevated and exhalted above the others. Local control of the resource, pastors accountable to the flock etc...

Wow... I've got lots of catching up to do here... lots of new posts...

Hello again David,

If you're still there, I'd like to know what your thoughts were on my question to you earlier. I've posted it again here:

"Do you believe Jesus had a physical body before he was born of the flesh? Or do you believe Jesus was a spirit (prior to his birth with Mary) as you define spirit, (being some sort of "airy" substance) of no bodily form, just like God?"

I saw Karen's response and HJ's (thanks for your input BTW, I appreciated your comments) but didn't see yours. Can I assume that you are thinking in the same line of HJ and Karen?

Jay and Parker - I very much enjoy reading your comments as they are very thought provoking and insightful. Thank you for them and hope to see many more.

By the way, I also very much appreciate the comment of "Evidence", and David, finger-pointing may make you feel better but will never get you an inch closer to finding truth. Glad you feel better, though. 'Shame to have your apple cart upset by learning something new.

Karen,
I have never wanted to "convert" anyone by helping to correct false misconceptions and at least provide a refutation of the sort of mind-blanking finger-pointing that goes on sometimes on these threads. I appreciate Jay's above comments. Since you asked me to go ahead anyway, I will respect your request.

First, Betty quoted part of Joseph Smith's King Follett Sermon (King Follett is the name of a person who had died, not a "king"). I don't know where she got the idea that LDS belief is that God is not omnipotent, because JS taught that He is just that in the Lectures on Faith.

Henry asserted that David's belief in God is more consistent with the Bible than mine. Yet Henry also has cited Dawkins as an authoritative writer. Dawkins said in the book previously cited by Henry that if there is a God in the universe, he became what he is by a sort of "evolutionary" process. Not a bad assumption. Darwin's writing has the same implication if you extend his rationale.

Question: Is God happy? How happy is He (or She)? Is there some other being in the universe happier than He or She?

Does God feel comparative, such that He/She has to be the happiest of any being? If He/She lets someone else become as happy as He/She is, has there been some net loss on His part (non-gender adjective to be understood from now on--sorry, Betty and Henry)?

If we are God's children, wouldn't He/She want us to be just as happy as He is, if it is at all possible?

It makes sense to me that God who is all-loving would want His children to be as happy as they can possibly be, and that being omnipotent He can make that possible. It also makes sense to me that He complies with truths in the universe that have always existed--in other words, He didn't make them up and say, "These are the truths that are going to govern the universe." So by saying He can make it possible for His children to be as happy as they can possible be, He will at the same time comply with truths--otherwise, knowing that that is the very basis of His power, He wouldn't do the thing that doesn't at the same time comply with truth.

Agency is an eternal governing truth. Why would God force anyone to believe in Him? Wouldn't happen--out of the question.

Why does God want His/Her children to have faith in order to believe in Him and to learn about the truths of the universe? Because faith is not just belief, but is an actual working power, as the Savior clearly taught when he spoke about moving a mountain through the faith of a "grain of mustard seed." Paul also taught this in the Epistle to the Hebrews. There is absolutely no way to exercise this power unrighteously for unrighteous or selfish purposes (it cannot be immitated), so the only spirits in the universe who will have access to this power will be those who have perfect faith, whose word is obeyed because of their degree of love for others, love for truth, love for the principle of agency, love for God and love for Jesus Christ.

So how does one come by this kind of faith? Well, that is what mortality is all about--a test of what we will do with our agency, how much we will learn to love others, love truth, love God and love Christ.

Now, again, why would God supply enough archeological evidence for skeptics to believe in Him, if that would let "imposters" try to pretend to comply with all of the laws of the gospel just to access that same power of "faith" that governs the universe? It is totally logical to me that He would do just the opposite--in fact, that He knowing from the pre-mortal life the qualities of all His spirit children, would arrange to have a Darwin born into the nineteenth century to further allow agency and doubt to occur to separate out any would-be imposters. And knowing that the kind of faith I am talking about is something that must be learned in a slow-growth, step-by-step process, why would God short-circuit that process by allowing archeological evidence to step in and lessen the need for faith?

By the way, Henry has amply demonstrated that just because some archeology supports the Bible, it has not been proven for him so the logic I've expressed (as best I can) still holds.

I suppose that is enough explaining for now. I realize that it leaves you exactly where you began--relying on your own faith and agency to choose what you will love and live by. There is no threat implied, no "you better believe this or you won't be rewarded". This is a voluntary process, and an extremely slow and patient one. Enjoy.

Karen,

A few quick thoughts for you: Polygamy is biblical (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob had multiple wives), though it seems that it was only selectively practiced throughout history (under God’s law, I mean; it’s still practiced in many parts of the world, and I don’t believe that God condones it at this time). (See Jacob 2 for more thoughts on the subject.) From what I’ve heard, I don’t think it’s ever easy to do. Also, in the bible there are groups of people who have not been allowed to hold the priesthood, thus, such a setting is not unprecedented. I’m sure it was very challenging for African and African-American people before the revelation of 1978; their faith, however, was eventually rewarded.
I don’t intend to convince you of anything, and you needn’t feel compelled to respond. This is just food for thought. People generally don’t consider these things when discussing the topics.

(Incidentally, though it is possible to unjustly discriminate according to either, I don’t consider differences in skin color to be parallel to differences in gender. I REALLY don’t have time to get into that topic, though.)

Speaking of admitting mistakes, the leaders of the Church by no means consider their members to be perfect. For a great example see “The Need for Greater Kindness” by President Gordon B. Hinckley (http://lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-602-20,00.html), where he reprimands certain of the members of the church quite severely. I remember being thrilled while hearing the prophet speak on this particular occasion.

As far as “the Church” making mistakes, you must be referring to the leaders themselves. They are also imperfect, but they have been called of God to specific responsibilities. In their callings they speak for God as prophets did anciently. When prophets of any age declare official doctrine, they speak for God, so to say that what was declared before was wrong would be to say that God was wrong. Of course they’re not going to say that. There are plenty of people who disagree with what modern prophets have declared, but that’s also common throughout history. People even dismissed the words of the Son of God when they lacked understanding.

Archeological evidence is nice, and more is appearing from various sources to support the Book of Mormon, but I don’t rely on it. For me, it’s just a bonus when it’s there.

Several times you’ve stated something along the lines of “Believing that one’s church is the only true church leads to X.” The result you give is never something I’ve experienced on a large scale, but rather only from a few particular people. I interact frequently with both people who are members of the Church and people who are not, and I pay attention to Church authorities. I pay attention, and I don’t see the bad things you speak of. Be aware that there are many others who don’t experience the negative things you’ve seen.

Also be aware that among the churches (perhaps not all) which don’t claim to be the one true church, the many horrible things that you and others have mentioned do occur. Things such as control by fear, financial greed, and generally poor treatment of people of other religions is not unheard of and not uncommon in many, many religions. Perhaps it occurs less among non-denominational people like David. There are no statistics, but I think these bad things occur less frequently in other churches as a whole than in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I’ve personally heard many stories from people who have had bad experiences in other churches, but I recognize that those cases don’t necessarily and absolutely reflect what those churches are. When I hear stories of those who have had bad experiences among members of Christ’s Church I am saddened (it ought not to be that way among those who have promised to follow Christ!), but it also does not make the Church itself different.

David,

Thanks for responding. I appreciate a sincere answer.

“I believe unity comes to all believers who have the same or close enough doctrinal beliefs.” If you can judge that, you’re wiser than I am. Even in a given religion, beliefs can be greatly varied.

“If I believe the LDS has a different gospel.” I assume that you mean the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Me, I believe that the Church has the original Gospel, restored to earth just as true as it was before.

“I know there is unity in modern orthodox Christianity and unity in the LDS church.” I disagree. I see only limited unity among various protestant churches, and also only limited unity in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It’s clear to me that Church members have not completely achieved Zion in our day, though I believe we are making progress as people listen to God’s word and learn.

Karen and David (and Henry and everyone else),
Whether it be the words of modern prophets or the Book of Mormon, I don’t feel that you can adequately remark on them without knowing them. They are certainly available to you, particularly since you have access to the internet (www.lds.org-->Gospel Library). I recommend that you take some time to read of listen if you have it. HOWEVER, I do not recommend that you do so looking for faults. Anybody can find (what they believe are) faults in anything, including the Bible. Only read the Book of Mormon if you can do so with the belief that it possibly could be the word of God.

I would suggest that if you do explore the Book of Mormon or the words of modern prophets, you will find something pleasing to you, something that rings true to your soul. I have done so and find these things to be the word of God.

Aargh. People keep posting messages and I have no more time. (No time to eat dinner even before going to work.)

Meanwhile, my wife has been frequently requesting that I spend more time with her and my daughter (I think a lot and take quite a bit of time when I write), so if you don’t hear from me any time soon, thanks for expressing your beliefs and listening to mine.

Thanks Betty. Nice post and very accurate as far as I can tell.

HJ,

I do think that the most important thing is the nature of God. He was never a man. This goes way past logic here. How could he be a man, then become a god, eternally? The Bible says God is eternal. If God is eternal and infinite how could He be created by another god and so on so forth. This is logical fallacy. You can't create something that is eternal or how can something that never had a beginning be made by another being that never had a beginning as well? Hmmm...

Evidence,

Could you please supply some archaeological evidence from a non-LDS source? Thanks

My Mormon Friends

Betty's quote underlines HOW important David's argument about the nature of God is. And whether the Mormon version is inddeed consistent with the Bible.

It seems to me that David is much more right in his biblical reading than the Mormons are. Brother William agrees with me.

Mormons fundamentally alter the Christian/biblical conception of God, as David says.

As you know, i don't believe in God at all, so I don't have a dog in this fight. If I were dyslexic, I would say I don't have a god in this fight.

The Mormon God - Is IT Perfect? No
(this is from a Non-Mormon web site, but it looks accurate to me: Mormons here: correct us if it's wrong)

Although there is certainly disagreement among Mormon scholars concerning some precise points of doctrine, it is safe to say the LDS church currently teaches that God is, in effect, (1) a contingent being, who was at one time not God (not necessary and not eternally God); (2) limited in knowledge (not truly omniscient), power (not omnipotent), and being (not omnipresent or immutable); (3) one of many gods; (4) a corporeal (bodily) being, who physically dwells at a particular spatiotemporal location and is therefore not omnipresent like the biblical God (respecting His intrinsic divine nature--we are not considering the Incarnation of the Son of God here); and (5) a being who is subject to the laws and principles of a universe He did not create.

The Mormon concept of God can best be grasped by understanding the overall Mormon world view and how the deity fits into it. Mormonism teaches that God the Father is a resurrected,"exalted" human being named Elohim who was at one time not God. Rather, he was once a mortal man on another planet who, through obedience to the precepts of his God, eventually attained exaltation, or godhood, himself through "eternal progression." The Mormon God, located in time and space, has a body of flesh and bone and thus is neither spirit nor omnipresent. Joseph Smith, founder and chief prophet of Mormonism, asserts:

God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!... I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute this idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see.... It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God, and to know that we may converse with Him as one man converses with another, and that He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did; and I will show it from the Bible . . . 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 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.4

Karen

It seems to me that your illustration of problems with the One True Church Claim in Mormonism are theologically interesting, if nothing else (and they are MUCH else IMO).

The same issue applies to the Catholic Church. The Popoe did not declare himself infallible until the 1860s, so I guess that leaves earlier Popes with room for error. And I don't think that the Popes ever claimed to be prophets receiving continuing revelation from God. If I am right, than the Catholic Problem of withdrawing doctrines, as the Mormons did with Blacks and with Polygamy, is less fraught with theological complications.

If God is perfect, presumably She doesn't make mistakes. Some Mormon posters here (JD I believe) have said that Mormons *don't* believe that God is Perfect. Which would seem to me to create more problems than it solves, theologically speaking.

Love, Peace, and Honor
Henry

For most if not all LDS, the spiritual witness obtained through the Holy Ghost from reading the Book of Mormon, pondering its teachings, and praying is sufficient "evidence" of its truthfulness. Others might say that Satan can deceive our hearts, and although he can deceive and immitate, he cannot match the peace and comfort of the Holy Ghost testifying of truth.

But, that is not to say that there is no archaelogical evidence. I cannot claim to have read all of this, but here are links to numerous articles containing archaelogical support for the Book of Mormon: http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai024.html

Will this answer any and every potential archaelogical issue that could arise? No, but significant support is there. If the existence of God could be scientifically proven, there would not be much room for faith.

Jay,

I'm sorry, but I noticed after I posted that you re-posted your earlier one. I think I passed up on an important question. You asked how us believers can be one as well. I gave my explanation of how we are one with God through the Holy Spirit, but I'll answer the other as well.

How do believers become one? Great question and I think that involved a lot of detail. Of course like you and me we are not one in the same faith. So, I guess our unity by faith is not really unity at all. No matter how harsh that sounds, it seems to be reality. I believe in the one true church as the body of believers, not an organization just as Karen said. I believe unity comes to all believers who have the same or close enough doctrinal beliefs. I believe that there are believers all around the world who belong to different named churches with the same beliefs as I. That to me is unity. The Bible warns us of false prophets, false doctrines and the such, therefore I guess we cannot be united with those who assume a different doctrine or gospel than the one preached in the Bible. So, I think God warns us not to unite with those that preach a different gospel. If I believe the LDS has a different gospel, just like many believe as well, then I guess we cannot unite. Kinda sucks because you guys are allright in my book, but who am I to judge? I'm just heeding the warnings in the Bible. I guess the best way to describe why we could not be united in the gospel is for example; let's say you and I go door to door and try to preach the gospel, I'm sure we would end up arguing over who's right, right in front of the person. I guess that's not the unity that Jesus had in mind. I guess that's the best way I can describe it. I know there is unity in modern orthodox Christianity and unity in the LDS church, but they are not united together. I wish we could be, but the doctrinal differences are way too far off. I can't speak for the LDS but I can guarantee that Orthodox Christianity will never say we can become gods or believe in many gods. That is quite possibly the hugest doctrinal difference that will always keep us seperate. Otherwise, I can see us uniting in the better good of humanity such as feeding the poor, or some kind of humane acts, otherwise Biblically speaking I think we are seperate with two seperate faiths. I guess I could ask you. Would you unite with Jehovah's Witnesses? I couldn't because of their beliefs. But could the LDS? You both have very different doctrines from one another, so I'm wondering how that would work?

Parker: I am not sure what I have just said to offend you so much? That was not my intent. I am not sure why you accuse me of having a closed mind. Why is my mind closed if I do not believe in the concept of the One True Church but accept the concept of a church of believers all possessing the truth of God through the work of the Holy Spirit? Isn't that more open minded than believing that only the church that you attend is the One True Church?

I was really looking forward to reading your additional explanations about the subject of archeological evidence and how you think it silly that we look for such evidence. I am really being honest here because you said you would have more to say.

The only truth that I claim to possess is the one given to us by Jesus and that is available to all for free and without intermediaries.

Again, I have no idea why my last post offended you so much and why it makes you judge me as closed minded. If you cannot withstand a challenge to the teachings of your church, so be it, you are right to stop participating now. I am challenged regularly by non-believers or believers in different religions. I can take it. People ridicule my faith on these threads and wonder how I can believe such nonsense as the virgin birth or the resurrection. They do not offend me.

If the only point of conversing here is to convert each other, then I would agree that you are wasting your time on me. But if you are interested in sharpening your apologetics skills, then this is a good place to be.

Karen,
'Read your last post. Hey, you're well enough off with what you believe and know to be true for you. No need for me to present a different point of view. Our thought processes are virtually worlds away from each other. You and David and Henry will be just fine without my cluttering up your minds with topics of faith and agency and the other-worldy purposes of this life. I will refrain from talking to closed minds. Best to all of you.

Thanks Karen. I appreciate it a lot. By the way, I recently found out that the Worldwide Church of God or Armstrongism, has changed their doctrines significantly. They now recognize the Trinity, justification by faith alone and no longer call themselves the one true church. I know there are still sects of these churches that still follow the original teachings of Herbert A. Armstrong, but the majority has changed to finally knowing the truth. I fell into their trap before they began to change. In a way I'm glad I did, because it gave me the motivation to learn apologetics and TRY to persuade people to the truth. It's kind of like a mom who lost their kid to drunk driving and them becoming an advocate for M.A.D.D. If it weren't for that experience, then I'm sure I wouldn't spend as much time on here.

Parker,

I did read the whole of the post about the Isaiah verses. I got this type of a response. "God wasn't talking about His nature in those verses". Huh?? This is why I tried to continue with that, but no response later. I guess it doesn't matter. Concerning the "Jesus standing on the right hand of God". If taken literally it means that Jesus was standing on God's literal right hand. Why would He do that? I'm sure everyone's heard of the phrase "my right hand man". Does that mean that that person becomes someone's actual right hand? Of course not. It means a position of authority. Just like in that verse. Otherwise if you take it literally then Jesus broke one of God the Father's metacarpals. Ouch!

Look, Parker, we're gonna disagree. Fine. But I just don't see how the Bible can claim without a doubt that there is ONE (singular) God in so many passages that we should assume that there are many? I really have no understanding why God would say that apart from Him there is no God. Or that He knows no God before Him or after Him. If He did know any other gods (especially a council of gods) why doesn't He know them? But then again, why argue that. I just want you to know why I don't believe in several gods. Isn't it reasonable to take the Isaiah passages as meaning exactly that? Then knowing that that is the case (One God) and calling the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit One God? Actually God manifesting Himself in the form of three persons. This makes sense to me and leaves no contradictions at all. This is what I believe and have faith in. There is nothing that will change that because I find no contradictions in the matter. You go ahead and believe what you want Parker. Like I said it's getting pointless.

Jay,

I just found that passage your talking about. I looked through every one of them until I found it. Of course I know what you assume with that passage and I disagree.....of course....again....but I look at it this way to explain that:

I believe in the Trinity. One God. If we are in Christ and become one, then we are a part of Christ's body. The body of believers which is also known as the church. You asked how we become One with God? Because upon profession of faith we recieve the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the third person of the Trinity which makes the One God. If you have the Holy Spirit, then you are in Christ as well because they are the same thing. The same ONE God. Our bodies are called temples for God to dwell in. The Bible says that the Holy Spirit is God and that the Holy Spirit indwells with believers in Him. So if the Holy Spirit is God, then we are one with the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, because they too are ONE. Kind of like marriage. "We become ONE flesh", but we are two different people. The man, who is the authority in the marriage, and the woman (who for me really is the authority....love that woman though :) But the passage does not indicate that we are gods or will be gods. Revelation describes the body of believers as the "bride" and Christ as the "bridegroom" or "groom". Two different things. Christ with authority and us believers under Him but becoming one just like the marriage between a man and a woman. But of course us never equalling God or becoming gods. There is only ONE God (for me of course) therefore God will be my God and I will be his bride. We will be one like in marriage but two seperate roles, Him with authority and me under Him. So when Christ says that he will be in us, does that mean that the bodily resurrection of flesh that is Christ right now will be in us? Literally, I don't think so. When He says Christ will be in us believers, He is referring to the Holy Spirit because even Christ knows that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are ONE. So if the Spirit is the same as Jesus, then yep, Christ will indwell in us.

Of course that's how I see it. You may not. But I do believe that belief in the Trinity helps me to understand the whole of things. Maybe you see it different. You can give me your interpretation if you'd like as well. I promise I'll listen and I'm sure I'll disagree, but I guess that's what we decided to do, huh?

Oh by the way I do know what the Johannine Comma is. It's funny because if there were any evidence for it to be a true part of scripture then I think it holds a good case for the Trinity doctrine. But it doesn't seem to have the historical backing to be a part of scripture. There is external and internal evidence that suggest that it was added much later on in history at about 1200 a.d. So, even though I would love for that to be in there for the fact that it shows a great deal of significance for the doctrine of the Trinity, it really shouldn't be. But of course that's just my opinion and I haven't researched that too well, so maybe I'm wrong.

Have a great day

God bless

To f/up on my 3:01 post... Exhibit B could be the polygamy teaching of the LDS church. First it is taught as a great thing, ordained by God, revealed to the prophet restoring the fallen church. It is a very important church doctrine that man are encouraged to practice. Then Utah wants to join the Union. If you are the One True Church that has the truth straight from God, how do you admit to a mistake? YOu don't. You come up with all sorts of elaborate explanations as to why this is no longer a teaching of God.
Same can be said for the LDS church's teaching about blacks. And more credibility is lost with each retraction.

If on the other hand, you are a local body of believers that is self governed and you do not claim to have the whole truth or to be the only one to have the truth, it is much easier to admit your mistakes. Let's say that some of your practices change with the times ie you may have not allowed female priests but now you do, you don't have to go back and figure out why God reversed himself. You can just say: we did not ordain women priest before but now we do. If you did not allow interracial unions but now you do, you can confess your past sin of racism and move one. But you can only do this if you do not insist that every practice in your church is "the one true practice directly ordained by God".

David,

Apology accepted. I’ll take your word that you have good intentions. Please just remember, as I said before, to use extreme caution when stating others’ beliefs, because it’s too easy to be inaccurate or altogether wrong. (For that matter, people are often wrong about their own church's doctrine, but at least they're only misrepresenting their own religion.)

I am still curious about my earlier question. It is exactly your interpretation that I’m interested in. I already have my own interpretation, and I’ll have you know that it comes from my own studies of the Bible and not from the Church (though it is in line with Church doctrine). I’ll grant that this blog is long, so if you can’t find my earlier message I’ll re-post it. The whole thing was written to you, but they’re old topics (from six days ago), so if my remarks are of interest to you, fine, and if not, whatever. Some of my thoughts are not as well expressed as I would like.

My question for you is right in the middle, concerning John 17:20-22.

Here is my earlier message, posted again (and I’ll consider the first lines to be applicable again):

JAY:

David, first, I truly appreciate your very respectful tone in these recent posts. We can of course teach and learn from each other only if we show mutual respect.

In an early post, you said, "The claim to the "one true church" is a satanic deception that will lead the many into being controlled by fear from those that claim these things." I can't think of any member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that I know of who has been controlled by fear. Controlling other people by any kind of force, though a few make such mistakes, is absolutely contrary to God's will and to the doctrine of His church.

There's been a lot of discussion of Belief A vs. Belief B or Interpretation X vs. Interpretation Y, and I fully realize that arguing generally only strengthens the other's resolve, so I don't want to do that. Also, with so many beliefs in common it's a shame to get upset over the others. Share your thoughts on a few things, if you will:

References to God come in both singular and plural form in scripture. But even when considering normally clear words, there is more than a single meaning. The word "god" itself, does it forcibly indicate a single entity? Consider a sports team (maybe not the best example), like the Jazz, where a single word applies to a group. To answer your question, "Is Jesus God or 'a' god", I would say both. He is part of the Godhead, and His nature is such that He is a god.

The word "one" is interesting. So many groups of people seek unity, unity of purpose, unity of belief, etc. I don't believe you've responded to this next scripture, and I'd really like to hear your thoughts on it. John 17:20-22 (KJV) reads, 20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; 21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: 23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
Christ prayed for believers to be one in the same way that he and the Father are one. To me, this is clear, but how do you say we are to achieve this unity, and thus be one like the Father and the Son are one?

(By the way, are you familiar with the Johannine Comma?)

Earlier, you asked, "Didn't Paul visit different churches?" Where I live, two people who have just met and discovered that they are members of the same church might ask, "What church do you go to?", referring to the building or ward (parish). There are a lot of meetinghouses of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the town where I live, sometimes right next to each other. Our church leaders often visit different churches in the area. These "churches" are part of the same "church", and the same organizational structure under the same leadership.

"And what does the fig leaf represent?" This is the sort of topic I talk about with my wife when we're in the temple, and not really anywhere else. What I'd like to express is that there are a lot of bits of temple knowledge that come very gradually, and there is certainly much that I don't know yet.

"I'm getting the understanding of what you believe, but of course I cannot understand the why." I can tell you why I believe it. I believe because God has shown me the truth of it throughout my life, in ways subtle and in ways obvious, when I have searched and even sometimes when I haven’t, in ways that are undeniable, and certainly in ways that could only have come from Him. I can’t point to any one incident, but rather a great many. Perhaps, if you’d like, I’ll take more space later to elaborate on that.

POSTED JULY 24, 2007 3:03 AM

HJ: Thanks for the back up. I like the way you put it. I also agree about your point re: the incarnation. If Jesus already had a physical body, why did He have to be born (again) of Mary on earth? The whole point of the Incarnation is that God, who is Spirit, came to us in a physical form.

I'll await Parker's additional explanations when he has a chance to give them.

David: thank you for sharing your experience about Armonstrongism. Had read about it a long time ago. Is it still going strong? I also want to command you for all the time and effort spent here. I think that you have always been very open about your beliefs and intentions yet have dealt with all with great respect. As HJ said: there is a lot to respect in someone who puts out his unvarnished views even if they are bound to offend (as Jesus tells us they would).

If anyone doubts the negative impact of highly authoritative, organized churches that claim to be the One True Church, they should go back and read Anonymous' post earlier on. I believe that the "Church" is true as in the Church composed of all believers in Jesus, whichever way they may choose to worship. I do not believe that one particular church organization can ever claim to be the one true church. The One True Church is the Church of all believers that have received Jesus as their savior and received the Holy Spirit straight from God upon receiving His Son.

The minute any church claims to be the One True Church, the cover ups begin because it can no longer owe up to mistakes, abuse or problems. Saving face and safeguarding the institution take over as the main priority. Exhibit A: the priest abuse in the catholic church.

David,
I did respond to your quotes from Isaiah and elsewhere about "one God". That was one of Jay's points--read the whole of the responses. But as you said, it becomes circular when it is one interpretation as compared with another interpretation. Your explanation about Steven seeing two personages was rather strange (since other Biblical passages speak of "on the right hand"), but shows how anyone may use their own logic to justify any interpretation they would like to hang their hat on.

Karen,
Even though Henry has supported your train of thought which sometimes would lead someone to think to themselves, "I've heard from an expert, I can stop thinking now and just go with their logic"--I think you can think for yourself ably and well. I hope you'll read what I'll write later on, just so you know more about where I was coming from with those statements.

Parker, Anon, and especially Jay,

I've repeatedly said before that I am sorry, because I know that challenging one's faith can lead to the misconception that I'm personally challenging you. I can see how you would be offended by my words at times. My intentions are not to be offensive, but to be aggresive in bringing out the truth. Sometimes it may come off that way, but I would never mean it that way. Once again, forgive me and I'm sorry for seeming offensive. I do know that by reading my other posts I have never had a direct insult or bringing down of one's character. I try not to go that route. If I've ever made that mistake, forgive me. I find you all to be very respectable, intelligent people. I've never thought once that you were not. If you'll just understand my purpose here then you might see why the aggresive motivation. I'll explain why.

I told you about how in the past I was decieved by a false doctrine known as Armstrongism. I really believed it at one point. I think God used me to believe that for the moment to set up a purpose for me later on. Once I came to find that it was false and I was being misled, I was so angry with these people. How could you mislead someone that could forever jeoperdize someone's eternal being? Once I read the Bible for myself and found out the truth, I knew I didn't want anyone to take the same route as I did. It hurt knowing that you can be so easily decieved. Satan has a big bag of tricks and they worked on me at that time. I believe God closed my heart for the time being so that later on He could use me to warn others. This is my reason for being so interested in apologetics. I would never wish for anyone to go through what I did in believing a false teaching. I know God uses us in different ways. Some to teach, some to preach, some to simply help clean up the church after service. I feel my experience with Armstrongism has led God to use me in a way to help others out of a misleading teaching. This is why I spend countless hours here trying to reach you. I know you don't think you are decieved. I didn't either. You may feel like you never were or are decieved, but I'm trying to do what God wants me to do and has called me to do. I believe that this is His purpose for me. To reach out to whoever, whether it be here on the internet or on the street somewhere. You may not agree with me and that's fine. I say that I love you all and you don't believe me. That's ok. I can find plenty of other things to do with my time than spend hours of studying and typing on here. But instead I've chosen to be on here constantly. So, I guess I've overstayed my welcome. I best get on then.

Jay,

I tried the control F thing. I couldn't get anything to pop up. Sorry. I guess there is no point anyway, because no matter what I say, (it's just MY interpretation). So why continue the continuous circle, huh? And by the way you said I never addressed that passage (whatever it was) but I never got a real response or closure on the Isaiah passages as well. I guess we can leave them to be.

Karen,

Thanks for that response. I agree totally with you about archaeological evidence. I can't see why the Bible is so sufficient with archaeological proof, historical proof and the such, but with the BOM (supposedly) being from the same God has no such proof. Of course these things don't prove God as you say, but they do give incentive to trust in His Word. Of course believing in God is on faith, but I'm glad He's given us some evidence to trust in the Bible.

Take care all. Have a great day.

God bless

Karen and Parker

I must agree with Karen on this one.

The idea that a God would

1. Tell us to believe the Book of Abraham (or anything else)
and then
2. Expect us to believe it in the face of multitudinous contradictory evidence,
making the belief fly in the face of all reason

is completely fantastical to me, and I believe it would also be to St Augustine, let alone my brother William.

It strains morality enought to say that God expects us to believe things WITHOUT evidence.

To say there is a God who expects us to believe despite loads of contradictory evidence is bizarre.

Karen,
I want you to know that I have read your thoughtful and absolutely reasonable question and respect your thinking. It will take more time to answer than I have right now, but I'll answer tonight. I, too, have greatly enjoyed Phaedrus' logic and insights, as also Henry's. I don't look at these things as "my way or the highway."
'Hope you folks read Stan's life glimpse from the other day, a few posts above. Now there's a dose of reality for us!
Thanks for asking.

Parker, I am dumbfounded by your response to Anonymous above re: archeological evidence. I have actually had to re-read your post because I cannot believe that someone as intelligent as you would resort to such an argument to defend their faith and church.

You say:"I am surprised when people expect to archeologically "prove" or find evidence about the Book of Mormon or the Book of Abraham. If God is smarter than man, why would He allow the archeology to demonstrate that Joseph Smith was telling the truth about "translating" through seership "by the gift and power of God"? I reflect that if I were a divine being who wanted my joint-heirs to learn how to have influence in the universe by exercising pure and perfect faith, I wouldn't confuse them by planting archeological evidence (sort of as a fall-back position) unless it were still so hidden and uncertifiable that it still required the faith of the "students" to believe it. It is as if people are saying, "I can outwit God--I'm going to prove or disprove He exists." Seems silly to me.

Phaedrus, my logical friend, where are you to help me respond to this?

I do not believe that God plays with me and tries to confuse me by dissociating reason and faith. I do not believe that God giving us evidence for His existence and the truth of His word diminishes the need for faith and trust. On the contrary! God created us as logical beings with five senses and He wants us to use them!

The BOM is not just a religious book, it also pretends to be a historical account! How can archeological evidence in any way diminish rather then enhance its standing? Does the fact that many Biblical accounts are supported by the archeological evidence in any way dimish the Bible? Or was God not playing games with us at that time? If God used Joseph Smith to restore the fallen church, it boggles the mind to think that he would not want there to be some evidence that others can see and attest to the truthfullness of the new "prophet". The miracles of Jesus were witnessed by hundreds and thousands that could attest to them. Did that somehow diminish them? Does the fact that the tomb of the high priest Caiphas was found in Jerusalem some years ago dimish my need for faith? NO! It does not prove that Jesus was the Son of God but it does prove that such a person as was described in the Bible does exist and lends support to the historicity of the Bible if not for its religious claims.

Finally, I do not expect archeological evidence to prove the existence of God. But I expect the archological evidence to exist.

Parker, maybe if you examined the truth of what anonymous was saying, this would cause yout to doubt and search more on your own, like he did. But again, you come across as too intelligent to be satisfied with such illogical, trite answers as you provided.

Jay

A well-expressed, firm, humane, properly self-assertive epistle to David. You managed to both be polite, frank, and clearly-boundaried.

With my literary critic's hat on, I would opine that David has the kind of frankness about his beliefs that doesn't mince words or worry too much about his correspondent's sensibilities if David believes he is speaking the truth.

I can certainly see how you as a believing mormon could be offended by it. I would probably be too if I were in your position.

There is a virtue of stating plainly what one believes without undue fear of offending others.

I also believe that some belief systems are so befuddled and outrageous that they do not deserve respect, though the human beings certainly deserve love and respect as human beings.

Anyway, my main point is to applaud your post, while at the same time reiterating my appreciation for David's inputs here.

HJ

Anonymous

Isn't a big reason that Jesus was Born was so
He could Get a Body.??

The INcarnation?

It would be strange if he had one body in the pre existence, and chucked it to get another when he was Born of Mary.

David, I’ll be honest and straightforward with you. After reading your messages here, I don’t believe that you love us and want to help us.

Despite the fact that I no longer feel that you are being sincere, I will give you the benefit of the doubt. We all make mistakes, and perhaps you aren’t aware of your disrespect. If you’d like to show that you are motivated by love, try doing the following:

1. Actually listen to us (read our messages) and respond to direct questions. When you responded to my thoughts, I never felt as if you read more than about a tenth of what I wrote. I asked you a specific question and you claimed to not see it. I gave very clear instructions on how to find my thought and question and you ignored them. (I’ll provide them again below.) For another example, in Anonymous’ last message he makes a specific point about Stephen seeing God and says he’d like your thoughts. You respond like a classic politician by changing the subject. Without even mentioning the biblical passage or Stephen, you turn to insulting Joseph Smith.
As near as I can tell, you simply don’t have answers (which is okay) and you’re not willing to say you don’t know (which, though common, isn’t helpful).

2. Don’t insult us. You have done so repeatedly, either directly (“LDS does the same thing. They use God's words to deceive you.” “Your [sic] trying way too hard to either convince yourself of the lie that you have been taught”) or indirectly by implying falsely that we have certain beliefs or behaviors that either are bad or which you make sound bad. Examples: “I disagree with Mormons that we can simply pray about it and know it.” (That’s not what we believe—see another of my messages above.) “Mormons don't believe in hell.” (We do.) “I think that's a good question for Mormons, since you don't trust the Bible.” (We love the Bible and study it all the time.)
I have felt very little respect from you when you purport to tell me what I believe. Personally, I try to be extremely cautious when speaking of others’ beliefs, and I’d appreciate it if you wouldn’t make false statements about mine.

3. While it’s highly appropriate both to declare one’s beliefs and to inquire about another’s, don’t ask questions or encourage discussion from us just so that you can tell us that we’re wrong. (If this wasn’t your intent, so be it; it sure seems like it, though.) The truth shines brightly enough by itself. I know that when speaking with those who honestly seek truth, I have no need to attack their faith but I simply share my own.

I hope these thoughts are helpful. At least you know how your words are received.

I’ll probably check this blog again. I don’t expect to write anything more, though if you or anyone else has any honest questions I’ll answer in whatever way I can. Should you disagree and desire to correct me, know that I refuse to get into a fruitless argument (which happens all too frequently among people who interpret scripture differently).

Again, should you actually have a desire to respond to my previous question, you can either look back through the previous messages, specifically for the one I posted at 3:03 AM on July 24, or you can do the following easily find it:
(from another of my previous messages to you)
‘Also, the scriptural passage I wanted your thoughts on is in an earlier post. Use “Find” (Ctrl-F) and look for the word Johannine. The passage is right above that word.’

David,

Do you believe Jesus had a physical body before he was born of the flesh? Or do you believe Jesus was a spirit (prior to his birth with Mary) as you define spirit, (being some sort of "airy" substance) of no bodily form, just like God?

Parker,

Sounds good. I can't think of any other commandment greater than loving one another. This by far is the greatest and most powerful command that Jesus told us to do. Paul describes it as the fulfillment of all the law. How can that be any greater to live by? Let's do that.

There are many ways to show the love that Christ gave us to give to others. I know you don't see the love I have for each of you here on this thread, but I really do love you all. I don't get frustrated with you all, I get frustrated because I want you to be saved. I heed to the warnings in the Bible about false doctrines, false prophets, etc. And most importantly about those who preach a false gospel and how they are "eternally condemned". This scares me for you, which to me shows that I truly do love you all.

I've been trying for quite awhile on here to show some kind of Biblical truth to the LDS members. There are several non-essentials that anyone can argue about, but there are many that you NEED to recognize. I do feel like I'm living the greatest commandment by preaching to you all what I know to be the truth in the Bible. To me this is love. What greater love can a man do to try his hardest to preach the truth so that you may recieve eternal life from the true Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To me, this is living in love. Whether I preach truth to non-believers or those who believe in false doctrines. I promise you, I'm not an LDS hater. I try to reach out to Jehovah's Witnesses as well. They just stay away from public threads such as these or I would be all over them too.

So, to sum it up best. I TRY my hardest to live the greatest commandment which is to love. And secondly I try to live by the other commandment which is the Great Commission, which is to make disciples for Jesus. This is why I'm on here. I have a family, kids, a job and plenty of yard to work to keep me busy, but the Holy Spirit brings me back here to try my hardest to convince you of truth. To me (maybe not you) that's living the greatest commandment, which is to love everyone. I could say that I'm wasting my time and should spend more time with my family or in the yard, etc..but I feeled compelled and honored to try my hardest for God to bring you to Him. If that ain't love, I don't know what is? But maybe your right Parker. Maybe it's time to move on. I still have much studying to do. Apologetics is what I'm aiming for right now. I love the field of apologetics and I think that's where God is bringing me in to do. Take care ya'll! Much love to you all.

God bless

David,
This is going to be heart to heart. If you will, don't use your Bible or the computer to look anything up--just write back from your heart and your life actions. Tell me what teachings you love and live by that are taught in the Bible. (I won't need the scripture references.) Then I'll answer your last question, on the same basis. Or, I'm OK with us just parting as friends having "agreed to disagree."

please show me how i'm rejecting 98% of biblical teachings?

David,
I want you to know that I feel saved by Him who is the Promised Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ, the Redeemer and the Life and Light of the world. I am grateful to Him with all of my heart for His loving mercy and atoning grace. Just because I happen to reject your narrow interpretations of Biblical passages, does not in any way mean I have rejected Christ, especially since the very passages you quote have right alongside them verses that remind all of us that to know Christ, we must have revelation.

Perhaps Christ is more loving than you give Him credit for. Think about it. Perhaps He wants us to trust our hearts, if we are amenable by being humble to receiving inspiration and revelation, more than you give Him credit for. Perhaps He trusts us more than you give Him credit for. I think He does. But you have every right to your views, so please don't be offended that I don't agree with you. As I read your comments, you reject 98% of Biblical teachings and accept the 2% that feels good to you. That's OK, but we're always going to be miles apart. Peace, bro.

Anon,

I can see you are desperately trying to convince yourself that Joseph Smith really did see God the Father. I guarantee he didn't. The Bible says God the Father is not a man with flesh and bones but spirit. He can't be seen nor can ever be seen. It's in there! You brought up the following "standing on the right hand of God". God is a spirit. He doesn't have hands. What does this mean? A position of authority. Jesus standing on the right hand of God is clearly meant as a position of authority in heaven. This is a phrase used always as a position of authority. I mean how can Jesus stand "ON" the right hand of God? Wouldn't that hurt? Isn't God a spirit like the Bible says? No, because the LDS told you different, right? They say he's a man that became a God. That's false. God the Father is an eternal spirit. Let me know if you want the biblical backing for that.

Anyway, what Stephen saw was the glory of God. Something illuminating I'm assuming. He saw Jesus standing there in His position of authority, which Jesus clearly said He has. The verse states that Jesus was standing "ON" the right hand of God. Why would he do that? Were they wrestling? NO, it's metaphoric for a position of authority.

Anon. Your trying way too hard to either convince yourself of the lie that you have been taught or to try to catch me with an "I don't know, I guess there really is something to mormonism" type answer. I think what it all boils down to is this. Did Joseph Smith see the Father or not. The Bible says that the Father can't be seen. There is no passage in the Bible indicating that the Father was ever seen or can be seen. Therefore who do I believe? Joseph Smith or God? Hmmmm....I think I'll go with God. Joseph Smith was a liar and a fraud. The Bible proves that. I don't think you will ever convince yourself that, but it's 110% fact.

Now, you don't have to believe me and I'm sure you won't but God the Father is not a man with a goddess wife who lives on another planet who became a god who then created Jesus who is a brother to lucifer. This is not biblical but cultish. I advise you look at the evidence.

So, please keep bringing on the verses that need explanation. I can only hope that if I tell you the truth you might accept it one day. So, anything else please let me know. I continue to pray hard for you and Parker becuase you do need to be saved. Parker, why did Jesus die if we didn't need saving? You keep bringing up the saving souls bid. We all need salvation. I have it and I want you to have it as well. Please just tell me why Christ died? If we all didn't need saving then why would He have to die? Jesus said that those that have Him will have REST. So, no your not gonna be a god that will work and make other spirit babies as well. This is false.

I really wish you could all know the truth. I pray for that one day. Maybe it will come to you, maybe it won't. But I'll be praying. I'm just afraid it may be too late since you all have spent so many years being indoctrinated with that falseness. I just hope that one day you can come out of it. I'm happy for anonymous who posted the "Why I left the Mormon Church". After 22 years of that, they finally got out. God bless them. So I know that you all still have a chance as well. I hope you listen to God's Word.

God bless.

Stan,
What an incredible, fascinating life story! It was amazing to read about--I'm sure it's amazing to you to have lived such a life. We can all learn from you. I hope you can share it to a wider audience.
Much admiration, Parker

Hi David,

I agree with Parker. I believe differently. I believe that verse is very straightforward especially at the end when after he says he saw the glory of God he says directly:

"...and Jesus standing at the right hand of God". (Not the glory of God) How would he know Jesus was standing at the right hand of God if he didn't see God? Also, in the next verse it states again (verbatim):

"And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God."

To me, that is pretty direct, (no glory reference there) but I am not going to debate that with you. That wasn't my point, I just wanted to get your thoughts. I do appreciate your taking time to give us your interpretation of that verse.

Thanks and have a great weekend with your family!

I had a very unorthodox upbringing.
TBM Grandparents. Dad was raised Mormon, but was never active as an adult. (I'd always just assumed he was Atheist. But since we never really had a religious discussion I didn't know anything for sure.) Mom was a nevermo artist/teacher/feminist, but pretty spiritual in a humanist, very secular sort of way.

I basically had very little organized religious upbringing, other than the fact that my TBM grandparents saw to it that I was baptized at 8, along with all their grandkids. No explanation, no consent, just dunk, wham-bam-thank-you-mam. It was really pretty meaningless to me.

I was however very influenced by Alex Haley and Roots and was deeply influenced by the book of rememberance my Grandmother had assembled about the whole history and geneology of my family. I was intrigued by my roots. I grew up fascinated with the complex lives of those people who were my heros, my fathers, mothers, brothers and sisters.

I was an artist like my mother and took a real interest in the Arts, humanities, culture, anthropology, philosphy and psychology. I was a pretty precocious kid in high school. I signed myself up for night classes in art at University of Washington at age 16.
I became good friends with a teacher of mine who was a sculptor and a Jungian analyst and very spiritual.

He became my spiritual guide and mentor.

I grew deeply interested in Carl Jung, and through Jung, myth, dreams and how we are all connected through the collective subconscious.

I turned 18 and was accepted into an elite Art Institute and found myself surrounded by very talented artists who were much older and wiser than me. They were fascinating. Everyone of them had wonderful stories to tell about their world travels and all the great books they had read and experiences they'd had.

By contrast, I had nothing to say. I was just a white kid from suburbia who grew up with a cynical Boeing engineer for a father and a frustrated artist for a mom.

I took a history class from a genius of a history professor who made me realize that I really knew nothing about the world about which there was so much to learn. I was at a major crossroads in my life. Here I was studying to become an artist and I had nothing to say. My life was a giant void. I felt like a fraud. I had no roots. I had no clue what my purpose was or what my place was in society. I didn't know if I wanted to be an artist. I didn't even know what purpose artists served in society.

So I decided I really needed to go find out about the world before I decided what place I would take in it. I dropped out of college and travelled around the entire US, Europe and Africa for 9 months, in search of my roots. I went to the places where my forefathers had come from. Walked the streets they walked. Worshipped in the churches they worshipped in. Marched in the candlelight processions they marched in. Listened to the gregorian chants echo off of the same cathedral rock arched ceilings they had helped build.

Where ever I went in the world, I was drawn to holy places. From Mega christian churches in Texas with 8 cameras and a guy in a polyester yellow suit named "Brother Bob" and his bleach blonde buffont hairdooed wife begging for money to the TV cameras, to Mountain tops. The Rothko Temple in Houston to Cathedrals in Europe. From Stonehenge to Tibetan Budhist temples in the French Alps and Mosques in Africa. It was clear to me that religion was the center of culture and had a major impact on the people and communities that practiced the religion. Whereever I went in the world there was a different religion that suited the people who lived there and connected them in their own way to the cosmos, universe, God, Tao, whatever name you gave it, it was all the same to me. People just had different ways of expressing their respect to the same God.

I'd had some very spiritual experiences in Europe. Since my family had joined the Mormon church in England I decided to go visit the Mormon church there where the Mormon side of my family had come from. The people were lovely. To be honest, that was the first time I'd ever felt the spirit in my life the way I did that day. As I listened to these girls sing in that masonry chappel, I could have sworn there were angels accompanying them they were so beautiful. I was very influenced by a particular Mormon family there who took me in and treated me like a son. I will never be able to repay their graciousness, kindness and hospitality. I was very touched by them and decided that was one thing I wanted in my life was a loving family, united and supportive in every aspect of each others lives.

I eventually wound up in North Africa and became fascinated by the culture and the religion. They were the most devoted people I'd ever met. Even the men digging ditches stopped digging ditches when the Imam called for prayer.

Allaaaah Akbar. Alllaaaah Akbar. Achado ana La. Illah ha Illah. Achado wanna Mohamed. Allah Akbar. Allah Akbar. Allah Akbar.

Whenever I hear that call, I am trasported back to an oasis I grew to love in North Africa. Where date palm trees sway in the Saharan breeze, as women wash their clothes in the sweet stream where I first learned the ritual Muslim washing. Great frogs live peacefully in the watery gardens around the mosque. Where sparrows turn into bats as twilight falls. And the Imam calls out for the people to come to the mosque for the final prayer of the day.

The ditch diggers would roll out their mats and face mecca and pray right there next to their ditch, next to the business men who were also prostrate in the same position. They were equals before God. I had never known anyone so devoted to their religion.

I made fast friends in Morocco who taught me daily, everything about Islam. I learned the prayers in Arabic, they taught me their beautiful ritual washing, TaWadat, required before entering a Mosque. When I had learned everything I needed to learn I went to the inner sanctum when the Imam called me to prayer and washed alongside the other worshippers.

At first I could tell that he was skeptical of this Western interloper. He asked me in Arabic if I had performed TaWadat. If I believed in one God, Allah. If I believed Mohamed was his prophet.

I knew all the answers to his questions and as I looked into his eyes, I saw that he accepted me as a brother.

I realized at that moment that deep down, there was no difference between us.

I could just as easily have been born in North Africa as North America. I was not Mormon or Muslim or American or African, I was just human making a deep spiritual connection with another human.
We didn't even speak the same language, but we managed to connect on a deep spiritual level and see beyond our superficial differences. I felt at home in that beautiful oasis. I loved it there. It was really like a paradise on earth.

I had acheived what I had come to achieve. I had totally integrated myself into another culture. I wore their clothes, ate their food, lived in their houses, learned their customs, learned their language, worked beside them, learned their religion, made friends there, was accepted into their inner sanctums, their families, and made deep spiritual connections.

Then as summer approached and my oldest sister's wedding grew near, my heart yearned for my family back home and I decided to return.

When I got back to Spainish teritory in the North of Africa I went into a Catholic church and saw a crucifix behind the altar. I looked at Jesus hanging there on the cross and said, "I no longer believe in you."

That day was the worst day of my life, before or since. I was beaten badly and nearly lost my life.
It was a brutal fight for my life and I was afraid I killed a man. Luckily I didn't kill him and I managed to survive, bloody and beaten, but it was my darkest hour. I connected it to having renounced christianity.

There's this strange place on the Barbary Coast of Africa. It's a no man's land. So many battles have been fought here between Muslims and Christians. Today it is considered Spanish Teritory, but it is Spanish in name only. It is a place mostly ignored by the world. The populace is descended from the pirates who once called this place home. There's a port city called Mellilia on the Mediteranian Barbary coast of North Africa.

I got stuck there for a couple of days waiting for a ferry to take me back to Europe.

While I was waiting I met a man who asked me for some food, which I gave him.

He then asked me, "Comma me Casa?"

I had a vision of a white house on a hill somewhere with a lovely family waiting to host me. I said nothing, but shrugged my shoulders and followed him, since I had nothing better to do in this place.

He took me up inside this fortress on a hill by the sea and we entered into an apartment where he was apparently squating.

There was nothing there except a matress and the remnants of a fire he'd apparently lit in the corner of the room. The whole house had a sickening acrid smell from the fire that had been lit in the corner of the main room. I took pity on this poor young man and started asking about his family. He was obviously a street urchin. Before I knew it he picked up an empty bottle of African Star beer and asked if I wanted one. I said "No. I'm Muslim."

Then he disappeared without a word.

Something told me to get out of that hellhole, but I hesitated a moment too long.

Next thing I knew, he came back into the room with a guy who looked like Satan, dressed in white. Wearing a white turban, with an evil look in his eye. He was pure evil incarnate. I felt a very evil vibe the moment I saw him.

I knew this encounter would not have a happy ending.
I picked up my backpack and said I gotta go.

They insisted that I stay.

The more strongly I insisted I leave the more strongly they insisted I stay. To the point where they physically took my bags off my back and made it clear I was not getting out of there without a fight.

There was some small talk and before I knew it they were asking for money.

I told them I had very little money.

They told me they knew I was a rich American and must be traveling with plenty of money.

In the course of this conversation I noticed that Satan had a gun tucked into the front of his pants. I looked around the room to see what options I had.

There was a 2x4 leaning up against the wall in the corner. I figured that was my best option for getting out of this thing alive. As they grew more and more insistant that I give them my money I stood up and tried to force my way out of the room. They both tackled me but could not take me down. That's when I started throwing punches.

I managed to back up against the wall to where the 2x4 was leaned up against the wall. And I told satan that my money was in my backpack on the floor in front of us. I told him to take it. The struggle stopped and I had one guy holding onto me with my right hand on the end of a 2x4 and Satan in front of me digging through my belongings looking for money. I felt like I was in a movie. Everyting from that point happened in slow motion. I pushed the street urchin away from me with my left hand, raised the 2x4 up over my head and swung for the fences. I actually knocked the guy's turban off his head when I hit him and he collapsed. I thought I'd killed him and had a vision of spending the rest of my life in a prison like the guy on Midnight Express.

Before I knew it the street urchin pulled out a knife and cut me twice before I was able to get a good shot at him. Fortunately I didn't get stabbed or I probably wouldn't be here writing this. The fight went on, but I was so scared I'd killed the guy that I kind of went into shock and just managed to defend myself from being killed. I didn't want to kill two guys in one day, but I didn't want to die either.

In the end I managed to get out of there and go get the cops.

When we came back they were both gone, with some of my stuff. Fortunately they left my passport and some travelers checks so I could make it home.

I was on the next boat, grateful I'd escaped with my life, and one fight wiser.

I learned from that experience to trust my instincts.

I arrived home two weeks later, my own man, having traveled accross 3 continents on my own. Surivived some serious battles and made some great friends. I had stories to tell, but nobody was interested.

My homecoming was overshadowed by my sisters upcoming wedding in the Mormon temple. I had never taken Mormonism seriously but I had a new appreciation for the religion of my forefathers when I got home. It was my heritage, my tribe, the legacy I'd inheirited, my roots.

I got home and found that the Mormon family I had visited in England had written my parents basically asking why they let their son travel around the globe when I should be preparing for a mission. Nobody had ever said that to me before. Nobody had ever expected that of me before.

My parents were pretty offended, since they didn't "let" me do anything, I was an adult and responsible for my own life, and for that matter they didn't really care if I served a mission or not since they were not even Mormon. They would have rather I joined the Peace Corps. They thought the guy was pretty presumtuous to write to them and rip them a new one for not taking the church seriously. (and they were probably pretty right on with that assessment)

But I thought it was interesting that out of all the people I had met on my journey, the only one who'd bothered to keep in contact with me and take an interest in me enough to inquire about my well being was this one Mormon father I'd been impressed with. I decided I should take a serious look at Mormonism for once. As I did, it seemed like it was a good lifestyle. I didn't find a whole lot wrong with the religion, it was just didn't make a heck of alot of sense. But my grandparents were Mormon, my sisters were all mormon, most of my relatives were mormon and I had all this Mormon geneology and roots I could identify with. There were definitely some absolutely gorgeous mormon women I knew, which didn't hurt.

Most of my friends who were mormon were relatively on the ball and mature, out serving missions, in college, married, kids the whole nine yards.

I'd been to nearly every other holy place I could think of but the one place I was not allowed to go was inside a mormon temple. That was sort of a challenge to me, so I decided make it a goal to gain acceptance into a Mormon temple, like I had the Muslim Mosque. The way I saw it, it was just a different way to worship the same God.

I naievely went in and talked to my sister's bishop about what it would take for me to go to the temple and the rest is history.

Now I'm back to where I started before I got sidetracked--my own religion, with a whole lot more stories to tell my grandkids.

Life has come full circle and that's good.

I'm fortunate that I got what I wanted. A loving family united and supportive in every aspect of each others lives, to contribute to the world. Hopefully I can acheive what my father set out to acheive, to leave behind better individuals than ourselves. Only time will tell.

I'm glad that I'm able to add my story to that of my forefathers, in the book of life. Perhaps somebody in a couple of generations will read my story and recognize something of themselves in it and gain the courage to follow their consicence and become their authentic selves as a result.
That is my hope anyways.

Now you know my whole life story.

David,
P.S. I had one more insight I'd like to share. From my perspective, I get the feeling when we do get to the "other side" there won't be any more comparing, no competition, no judging of anyone--so we'll never find out who "went" where. So I guess you'll never know where all these "lost souls" you thought needed "saving" have ended up. But I can guarantee you one thing. Wherever I'm going, I'll be working, serving, building, growing, changing--not resting on any laurels. Following Christ has taught me that. Peace, bro.

David,
Nice to have a final visit. I guess once more we must part with the understanding that we have agreed to disagree. When you get to heaven, you can ask Paul what he meant and certainly can defend your point of view and position. When according to you I and my family go wherever you think we're going, I can explain that I read all of the Bible many times and lived by it to the best of my ability, and that I love God and Christ with all my heart, might, mind and strength, and my neighbor as myself to the best of my limited ability. Love you too, bro. Best always.

Oh I almost forgot my analogy. Seeing the glory of God would be like holding a mirror to the sun, but if that mirror is around the corner where you cannot actually directly see the mirror, you can still see the illumination from that mirror as a reflection. I think it would be something like that. Seeing the illumination without seeing the actual mirror.

Acts 7:55 (King James Version)

55But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,

"GLORY of God"

I don't have time today to make a long response. But there is a difference between seeing God and seeing the "Glory" of God. "OF" definately signifies that this glory came from a being (God) not insinuating that Stephen actually saw God Himself. Whether Stephen saw something illuminating or something extremely magnificent coming FROM or "of" God, then that's what he saw. But throughout the whole Bible it continuously says that no one can see the Father. I believe in Revelation there is a verse saying the same thing. I don't have it right now on hand, but I know John saw the "GLORY of God". He did see Jesus, but not God the Father. Of course in this description of mine it sounds like they are two seperate Gods, but that is not what I'm insinuating. We don't need to go back into that Trinity debate again, but all I'm saying is that no one can see the Father or the Holy Spirit. Only Jesus. But, seeing the "glory" of God is different from actually seeing God Himself.

Have a great weekend. Taking the kids out today for some fun, so maybe I'll check for responses tomorrow. Take care. Much love and God bless.

Thank you David for your response. I think I would believe differently, but I appreciate your thoughts.

In reference to your point on the bible of it having no contradictions, I've come across a few which appear to be contradictory. But don't interpret that to mean that I don't believe in the bible or feel that it misleads people. Quite the contrary. But I do believe that the bible was written by humans and humans are imperfect.

But just for the sake of interest, let's take for instance the beginning of this thread. I believe you were mentioning that no one can see God. You were able to reference many scriptures referring to this belief. Yet we all know that Stephen did see God in Acts 7:55. I'm curious to know what your thought on this is?

There are a number of others I could list (more in-depth) but I won't go down that path now. I'm only going to reference this because it was brought up in this blog.

Thanks

Oh by the way, I would like to add that if someone wasn't indoctrinated by any Christian sect, then they wouldn't have pre-suppositions when reading the Bible as well. I think that matters because if you've been indoctrinated a certain way, it's like a bad habit to break because your gonna find excuses to keep those bad habits. I fell into that trap at one point in my life as well, as I mentioned, almost falling into a false doctrine known as Armstrongism. Only when I cleared my mind of that mess could I find a real understanding.

Anon and Carol,

Sorry, I guess I shouldv'e read the question more carefully.

So, I would have to say that would be subjective on the person. I can tell you from personal experience that I was raised in a Baptist church, but didn't really understand too much. I really went for the other kids there. As I grew up I decided to read the Bible for myself. I don't feel that I was ever "indoctrinated". I knew of God and of Jesus but never knew God or knew Jesus. I read it for myself with a sincere heart of wanting to know the truth. What I come to find out is that I believed the same thing millions, in fact billions of people in history believe. I never listened to any particular "sect" of Christianity but found the necessary elements for salvation available in the Bible on my own. I believe the same would go for someone who let's say lived on a deserted island, never heard of God or Jesus, found a Bible in the sand and read it. I firmly believe God will allow any individual who reads His Word with a sincere heart to have faith in Jesus and know that He is God in flesh and there is only One God. Of course as Paul says we start with milk, then work our way up to food. Know Jesus, then know Him better by studying His Word. I'm sure any person would come up with the same "interpretation" as me and the millions today who know the truth.

Personally, I used to believe that as long as your a good person you can get to heaven. Of course, until I read the Bible and realized that no one is good and needing of the free gift of grace. The Bible says that the Holy Spirit indwells in the believer. Rom. 8:9-14; Gal. 4:6. If the Holy Spirit indwells the believer the Holy Spirit will interpret scripture for you. 1 Cor. 2:1,14;Eph 1:17. But you have to have faith in the right Jesus. Why would the Holy Spirit indwell in someone who doesn't know or have faith in the wrong Jesus?

So, personally I think someone who never heard of God and just read the Bible would come to know the true Jesus, have faith and be indwelt with the Holy Spirit. And like a baby going from milk to food, the Holy Spirit would guide that person to know God's Word, like He has for me. It doesn't take a genius to know what God is trying to tell us. I truly believe that God would let someone know Him if they just tried and trusted the Bible (God's Word). If you can't trust the Bible, but have faith in Jesus, then why should you trust Jesus? I think that's a good question for Mormons, since you don't trust the Bible. But if anyone does trust His Word, I'm positive they will know all they need to know to recieve the free gift of grace. I still have yet to find a true contradiction in God's Word. People always try, but examining all of scripture proves them wrong. Having faith in His Word matters too or how else can you know Jesus?

David,

I think Carol asked a very interesting question. I was looking forward to your answer, but I think you somehow misinterpreted it. Correct me if I'm wrong Carol, but I think you would like to know what would happen to someone if they were to just pick up the bible and read it (not ever seeing it before, or knowing anything of any religions, sects, churches, Jesus/God, etc) and then interpreting it differently from the truth, but not knowing they interpreted it incorrectly.

David, I think you answered it differently. You seemed to have answered it as if someone asked you a question who knew nothing of the gospel. If you can, please re-read Carol's last post to get a better draft of the question.

I am being sincere here also. I'd like to know your input on what you think would happen to someone if they misinterpreted the bible, without malicious intention, but also not knowing anything about any religion or churches.

Thanks!

Hello Everyone!!

AT&T told me my new modem wouldn't get here until tuesday. It came today! That's great because I've been thinking about you all, all day. Hope everyone is well.

Parker,

Here is the gospel.

1 Cor 15:1-4

“Now brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are SAVED, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the twelve.”

The gospel that SAVES is the death, buriel, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Nothing more. That's it. You know what else Paul says about the gospel?

In Galatians 1:8-9 Paul said, “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!”

ETERNALLY CONDEMNED! Those are some strong words. I've heard many things from the LDS about what the gospel is. Something about repentance, faith, baptism by a priest by immersion, and some other stuff. I don't think you all have a clear idea about the true gospel and what it means. If believing in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus is the gospel, and Paul says it's the gospel that saves, then what more can it be? According to Paul is baptism a part of the gospel? No.

1 Cor 1:14-17

14I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;

15Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.

16And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.

17For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect

Verse 17 says it all. If Paul didn't come to baptize but to preach the gospel (the gospel that saves), then baptism does not save you. It is merely faith in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. That's it. If it is by baptism then that contradicts scripture which states that by faith alone we are saved, not by works. Eph 2:8-9, Titus 3:5, Rom 5:1.

Please understand that there are two types of baptism. Baptism by water (which is a work) and baptism of the Holy Spirit. Some passages indicate that we need to be baptized. Is it by water or the Spirit? We know that the gospel that saves us does not include water baptism, but having faith in the true gospel does which in turn you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit. I do however think that water baptism is important. It is an outside expression of something internal. A public proclamation of faith. I would doubt someone's faith if they did not want to be baptized, though.

This is the true gospel. The death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It saves. Saves you from eternal seperation from God. Mormons don't believe in hell. Hell is real. Those who accept a false doctrine or worship a different God than the God in the Bible will go there. Those who preach a different gospel shall be as Paul put it "eternally condemned". Parker, do you want to risk your eternal life on something without examing the evidence? I wouldn't.

Carol,

Great question. If someone came to me and never heard of Jesus or asked how to read the Bible what would I say?

Start with the basics:

How many gods are there.

Isaiah 44:6, Isaiah 43:10, Isaiah 44:8, Isaiah 45:5.

In Isaiahs time there were many false gods people were worshipping. The real God had to let everyone know how many there really are.

Is Jesus God?

Rev 1:17, John 8:58 and my favorite, John 20:28 where Thomas directly calles Jesus God.

Is the Holy Spirit God as well?

Acts 5:3-4, 2 Cor 3:18

So if there is only ONE God and all three beings are God. There you have the Trinity. The most important thing to know. Think of it this way. If I break an egg and put the shell in one bowl, then the yoke in another bowl, then the whites in another bowl, how many eggs do I have? The Trinity is the doctrine that there is ONE God in the whole universe manifested in the form of three persons. Not three seperate Gods as the LDS teach. This is a start to knowing God and to being able to understand Him.

If someone asked me how to read the Bible I would tell them not to just read it but to study it. When a passage seems unclear I have always found another that will make that one clear. This is what saves Carol. Faith in Jesus' death, burial and resurrection. If you do have faith in this you will repent of your sins. Faith produces works not of your own but of Christ in you. You can do nothing to earn salvation because Jesus did it all already for you. It's called the FREE gift of grace taken by faith alone. If you think that you can work your way to heaven, then wouldn't that be saying that Christ didn't do enough for you? Please study the Bible. Read God's word. Test everything. If I had to recommend where to start in the Bible it would be Matt, Mark, Luke and John. Know Jesus first. Know that no one is good enough or can do enough to earn their way to salvation. Then read the book of Romans. This is the legalistic point of view that Paul gives us on how we are justified by faith alone and why. If anyone thinks this is not the most important thing ever (to know Jesus) then they are not concerned with their eternal being. Please make sure to TEST EVERYTHING. Jer 17:9 says our hearts are decietful. Don't go on feeling, but God's Word alone. Don't even listen to me anymore, I'm but a sinful man. Listen to God in His Word. I'll stop babbling now. Have a great day. God bless you all.

I'm so happy to be back on here. I love talking about God with strangers! Thank you AT&T!!!

Carol,
Thank you for your comments. I am sometimes hesitant to post comments here because I do not want to misrepresent anything. Yes, I would agree with your description.

I believe that God, as our father, loves each of us and has a plan whereby we all have the opportunity to learn and progress and to return to His presence if that is our desire.

I cannot fathom a God that would condemn His child because he happened to born at a time or place or circumstance where he/she could not know of God and His plan.

Thank you Jim for responding to my question with an answer from your faith. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that my sincerity is of utmost importance to God, not the technicalities of my haphazard interpretation -- and if I misunderstand some things, it'll be OK. Please correct me if I skewed things.

David,

I'd like to hear what your belief is also. I feel silly repeating myself becaue my question isn't an intellectual one -- just something simple. I was wondering what would become of me if I were someone unschooled in theology, a simple person in a non-Christian land, and finding a Bible and using it alone, I want to be saved. However, the ideas that form in my mind as I read it are more along the lines of a church (pick any) that you don't agree with. I know nothing about these churches, or yours, or creeds or anything institutionalized. All I have is the book before me -- but I interpret it in a way that some would consider heretical and perhaps even deserving of damnation. I don't know this, of course.

What if, when reading, it seems to me that Jesus is God's son and so he can't be the same entity. I'm a simple person, uneducated in mysteries. My heart is sincere.

What do you think will become of me...?

David,
Sorry to have seemed like I was setting you up with a difficult question--I honestly didn't know, but I'm fine with your answer.

The "gospel" is all over the scriptures, but I especially like Isaiah 53, 55, 58 and 61, the Books of John and Revelation, and Galations 1:3-5 and 11-12 which emphasizes being taught by the "revelation of Jesus Christ". That coincides with how I feel like it has been for me (not by way of a vision, but by way of the same kind of knowledge that Christ spoke of to Peter when Peter said "thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.") ":for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." The fullness of the gospel can only be known by revelation. We can read about it, but until we experience revelation, it will be something of an enigma.

Christ died for you, for me, for all, and rose from the dead in the resurrection, and desires all of us to partake freely of His salvation. "To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." By this remission of sins, we who are unclean can be made clean every whit and be purified "even as he is pure," that we "may be like him." (1 John 3:2,3)

Parker,

I'm sorry but I already know where your going with the heaven thing. I've heard all that before from the LDS. The celestial kingdom and all. Let's just leave that be. Of course, I can't tell you what heaven is gonna be like. I know being with God it's gonna be great. I plan on worshipping Him for eternity. If I got to heaven and God said that I can be a god, then I would tell Him "send me to the flames. You're not the God I know". I'm not worshipping God in vain. I know He is the only God and there is no other. Isaiah 44:6.

One last thing. I've asked this on many occasions. But haven't gotten a complete answer. This will be the last thing I'll talk about here, because it's the most important. What is the gospel? Please tell me Parker. The gospel is what saves us. You should know this. Please tell me what the gospel is according to the LDS. After you tell me, then I'll tell you what gospel I follow, ok? This is the most important of doctrines. What is the gospel? Especially what is the gospel according to the LDS? Thanks. Have a great evening. I might not get back to you until tuesday. My computer is down at home and I won't be back online at home until tuesday when I get a new modem and won't be at work where I've been using the internet either. So have a wonderful weekend. Much love and God bless

I just read "anonymous'" post, and want to clarify a few items though his version of his life is certainly true for him. One point is that it is not that hard to have a membership removed from the Church records. It would take about as much time as it took to write that particular post. It is a methodical process, not haphazard, but not difficult.

Another point is that I have never felt mind-controlled at all, at any point in various callings or any meetings. Sure, some speakers use imperfect methods to try and get the members to serve in ways that are needed, but so what--people are imperfect, period.

I've already described how for me a "testimony" is more than just a warm feeling, far more complex and far more fulfilling. And I never said I "knew" the Church was true until I had ample experience, understanding, conviction, and love for God and others such that it wasn't some blanket statement. That "knowledge" for me has grown so much over the years that it surprises me, because I had such a strong conviction in my soul those 30 years ago when my testimony began to grow.

I am surprised when people expect to archeologically "prove" or find evidence about the Book of Mormon or the Book of Abraham. If God is smarter than man, why would He allow the archeology to demonstrate that Joseph Smith was telling the truth about "translating" through seership "by the gift and power of God"? I reflect that if I were a divine being who wanted my joint-heirs to learn how to have influence in the universe by exercising pure and perfect faith, I wouldn't confuse them by planting archeological evidence (sort of as a fall-back position) unless it were still so hidden and uncertifiable that it still required the faith of the "students" to believe it. It is as if people are saying, "I can outwit God--I'm going to prove or disprove He exists." Seems silly to me.

Finally, this isn't a hundred yard dash. No need to make hasty decisions about religion. Ponder, think, question, explore, do your own thing--whatever. My personal and experiential view is that God is infinitely patient, and infinitely loving. He loves all of us, and is patient with all of us. We ought to also be patient with each other--something I re-learn every day. Best to you and your family, anonymous.

I served my mission in OZ with quite a few Maoris. I was always amazed by the deeply spiritual ancient oral traditions they’d share with us about their “Lamanite” heritage, which all just happened to confirm the Book of Mormon account.

Now I know the Maoris were probably just trying to curry favor with the Mission President by telling tall tales that validated the BOM.

Pretty funny in hindsight actually, since the Maoris were about the least concerned with obeying the white handbook. It seemed their main mission was finding the next hungi to throw down, hauka to perform, or rugby game to play. They had a real thing for pork bones and pooha and ice cream.

I was Zone leader for a bunch of Maoris and I had one group of them down in the furthest district away from mine who were going out to movies every weekend with the members and every day was basically a big party.

One funny story about a Maori I served with named Dalton Winera. He was a rugby player and I think he took a few too many shots to the head without a helmet. We knock on the door of this feminist exmormon. She tells us she used to be MOrmon but resigned from the church because she was disgusted by the patriarchal heirarchy.

I hear Winera say, “Hi Rockey!?!?!? Hi Rockey?!?!?!? What’s a Hi Rockey?!?!?!?”

I had to explain to him that she wasn’t saying “Hi Rockey, but heirarchy, which was a pyramidal social order.” At which point the woman slams the door.

And Winera says, “Well if that’s what she meant then why didn’t she just say so? Why does she have to use all those fancy words?”

I just shook my head and carried on.

The one nice thing about him was that I never had to worry about my safety with him.

If anybody taunted us he’d just go beat the crap out of them. One time a whole gang of kids was giving us a hard time when we stopped at a light at a corner on our bikes. I said, “The hell with this, I’m outa here” and took off. One of the kids took off after me and tried to knock me off my bike. I stuck my leg out and knocked him down and kept going. I get down the hill and no Winera. I look up the street and see a siloette of this huge Maori beating the crap out of the kid who tried to knock me off my bike. By the time I get back up the hill the whole gang has Winera surrounded with knives pulled. I talked them down from stabbing Winera. They stabbed his bike tires instead. Fortunately we got out of that with a couple of popped tires.

Later on he got to feeling guilty about beating up one of the natives and went and confessed to the MP.

The MP asked him, “Who won?”

He told everybody in the mission that I got scared and abandoned him and he had to defend himself.

If it wasn’t for me he would’ve been dead.

Why I left the Mormon Church

My wife and I were members of the Mormon Church for 22 years. We were married in the Washington, D.C. temple and have three children. During those years I held numerous positions or "callings" (from God) as the church refers to them. Among those were Sunday School President, Young Men's President, Elders Quorum President, Executive Secretary, Ward Clerk, and Second Counselor in the Bishopric. I was also a "High Priest" in the Melchizedek Priesthood.
My wife and I left the church about three years ago after realizing we could no longer pretend to agree with many things we had serious doubts and concerns about. These concerns grew over the years when we realized that "things weren't what they were supposed to be". I came to realize that the idea of one having a testimony of the truthfulness of the church was a totally deceitful concept. The church pushes people to say they "know" the church is "true". (The gospel is true, the bishop is true, the Book of Mormon is true, and on and on.) No one ever says they "believe" it is true. Everyone "knows" it is. How? You are to pray and ask God and the Holy Ghost will tell you. I have never met anyone in those years that can actually say God told them. But most claim a good feeling, or a "burning" in the "bosom". But a good feeling or emotional experience is just that. It isn't based on reality. If God, or Jesus Christ didn't tell you the church is true, then you cannot really "know". Here is the key to the power the church holds over its members, and it is really important for an outsider to understand if they are to understand the culture and religion of Mormonism. If the church can get you to say, "The Church is true", then EVERYTHING they tell you has to be true also. It is as simple as that.
People believe that this good feeling, this emotional experience is God telling them the Church is true. They want to believe and they want to have this experience that they have been told they will have if they are sincere enough, and good enough. They equate this good feeling, this emotional experience, with knowledge, yet they are entirely different things.
After being in the church a number of years, I began to have doubts that at first I tried to suppress, because to have doubts means you are not faithful enough, not sincere enough. So you redouble your efforts and try to pretend everything is ok. You don't talk about your concerns with anyone. Not even your spouse. It can cause real distress in your life. One of the great problems I had was with the concept of the priesthood. This is the power to act in God's name on earth. It is represented as being the very power and authority Christ used to perform miracles while on earth. Members hear miraculous stories of how this person or that was given a priesthood blessing and was healed. I never once saw anyone healed in all those years. I was present at and participated in many of these blessings. I saw people get better in a few days as they would have anyway, or I saw people with serious problems who were told they would be healed and they never were. I saw one lady with cancer proclaim from the pulpit that she had received a blessing from the Bishop and the doctors could find no trace of the disease. I saw her die from cancer that year. Was it discussed? Only in select circles in quiet whispers. When I pointed out to a member of the bishopric that there was something amiss here, I got the pat answer. Maybe it was her time. Well, when Christ healed the blind and raised the dead, it wasn't a temporary fix. I believe faith can cause individuals to be healed. But I have seen that the "power" of the priesthood is an illusion. And I have seen many men very uncomfortable with this duty they have to perform. Thus the guilt trip.
The Book of Mormon is the book of scripture the church rests upon. I was bothered that there has been no archaeological evidence for the claims it makes. Oh yes, the church folklore will have you believe there is. But the Smithsonian Institute denies these claims. Where are remains of the cities so named? Where are the references to the heroes of the time that should still exist today? Where are the artifacts? The historicity of the Bible is often proven by remains of cities, artifacts, ancient documents, etc. No engravings or representations exist that relate to anything described in the Book of Mormon. The remains found today in Mesoamerica are from the ancient Mayans, Aztecs and others. Where are the remains of the 100,000 killed in the last great battle with all their instruments of war? They were all left in one place, yet not a sword handle remains?? How strange. How is it possible that the Book of Mormon quotes directly from the king James Version of the Bible that didn't exist for hundreds of years after the time of The Book of Mormon? How is it that this book which Joseph Smith supposedly translated correctly and directly from God has needed over 3,000 corrections since the first printing? (It is claimed that Joseph put the seer stone in a hat and pressed his face into it and that he would give the translation of the Book of Mormon characters to the scribe and if it was correct it would disappear and more characters appear. If incorrect, it would remain until they had it right.) The church leaders maintain that no changes have been made.
I could write a book on such things. I have only scratched the surface of concerns I had. However, maybe the main reason I left was that I was tired. I was tired of the countless hours I was required to be in meetings (besides regular services) that seemingly had no point and served no purpose. I was tired of having to subject my will, my intellect and my desires to authorities over me. I was tired of coming home from church meetings on Sunday thoroughly exhausted. Most of all, I think I was tired of trying to work my way to "heaven". So I quit attending and just felt numb for a long time. Then I began to read and do some research and compare. I found that the church has greatly changed the scriptures, early church history, diaries, etc. This is not conjecture. It is easily proven by comparing the original printings of The Book of Mormon, Book of Commandments (Doctrine and Covenants), and other church historical documents with what is in print today. Today there is a sanitized version. Members are not told today, for instance, that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young taught that there were people living on the Moon and Sun that wore Quaker style clothes and lived to be 1,000 years old. They are not told that Brigham Young and other early leaders told the members then living that they would live to walk back to Jackson County, Missouri to build the temple before Christ's return to earth. They are not told that the prophet said that if the government opposed the church on the polygamy issue, that the government would be destroyed. Most members never see these things. Most would never look at them if they were placed in front of them because they are cautioned not to do so. It is all of Satan they are told. RELY ON FAITH AND NOT HISTORICAL FACT should be the official church motto. In fact, a well known church lecturer and professor at Brigham Young University has stated this very concept in a lecture my close friends attended.
After leaving, the singular piece of evidence I encountered that documents the falsehood of Mormonism, is the truth about the Book of Abraham. The book of Abraham, included in the Doctrine and Covenants, is represented to be the actual writings of Abraham. These Egyptian papyrus were found with several mummies in the early days of the church and were purchased by the church. Joseph Smith then "translated" the Egyptian symbols into English "by the power of God". (Why Abraham, a lifelong Jew, wrote in Egyptian, the language of his enemy, is quite a mystery!) Later, the papyrus were lost and then resurfaced in 1967 in the Metropolitan Museum. By that time the symbols could be translated by Egyptologists around the world. When compared with modern knowledge, it was shown that the papyrus were nothing more than common Egyptian funerary texts buried with the remains and written 1,500 years AFTER Abraham lived. But the church refused to publish these findings to the membership and since the membership in general avoids non-church writings, few have been affected by it. Remember, faith is superior to historical fact! When I studied this, I was really angry and hurt to realize how deceived I have been.
I believe the church does a lot of good. But it is mostly a vast financial empire based on falsehood. The money it collects is enormous, but the membership is not allowed to know how much is collected or what it is spent for and the more "important" callings only go to the person who pays 10% of their income to the church. The church is unique in that much doctrine exists mainly in the minds of its' members, therefore the church can distance itself from embarrassing incidents that occasionally arise. Cults use mind control. I believe the Mormon Church is a master of this. I have a very good friend who I told what I had found concerning the Book of Abraham, and instead of investigating this for himself, he relied on faith and called a General Authority of the church who assured him the Book of Abraham is true. So that ended the matter for him. Here again is the danger of the church method. Someone else did his thinking for him and told him what was correct. If you can say the church is true, whatever your priesthood leaders tell you is true no matter what any historical fact might imply. Mormons decry this in any other group, but don't see that the same exact method is being used within their religion.
So we are out of the church, but our names are still on the rolls. I do not consider myself a member any longer and eventually will probably pursue having our names removed. (No small matter to get accomplished.) I don't think anyone should be afraid of the truth. God gave us a mind, an intellect and expects us to use it. To turn that gift over to someone else and allow them to think for you is scary. I no longer believe there is any one "true" church. I think there is truth and good people in all faiths; yes, even the Mormon Church. But now I feel free from the guilt of never being good enough, and even the guilt of being superior!

Carol,
I assume your comment was directed more toward David, but it wasn't clear if you had the answer to your own question or really wanted an answer.

If you are LDS, you will be aware that Heavenly Father has ample provision for all of His children- past, present, and future- to receive an eternal award based on our individual choices and according to what we do with the light and knowledge that we do have.

I believe that only God knows the true desires of our hearts. If any of this is foreign to you (or anyone else) and you would like to know more, I'd be more than happy to expound.

Let's say I'm a heathen in a heathen land and come across a Bible. I've never been to a church and so no one has ever indoctrinated me as to their point of view in how I should interpret this strange new book. I read the Bible and want to be saved.

What happens to me if I should interpret its words in the way some church you don't like happens to interpret them...? Will I go to hell?

And why does God have this vast eternal plan in which billions of people will be damned for the crime of never even knowing about him? I wonder if he's not a very nice guy after all. It seems to me he could have come up with a better idea -- where more people had a chance.

Stan and David,
Your interesting, moving and authentic stories have made for good reading, and I for one among several, thank you.
David,
Before you go, I might as well ask what I've always wondered about. What are you saved to do? That is, what is heaven like in detail for you? Do you retain individuality, or become part of some conglomerate "unity of being" or something? Do you sing in choirs all of the time, or what exactly will you be doing? I know it must be joyful and all of that, but what will be the specifics of that joy? Could you please go into minute detail? That's what I've always wondered about when I encounter the kind of general "being saved" language. It doesn't mean anything to me, because I have often been bored enough already. (So please don't make it sound boring.)
Yours respectfully, Parker

I just realized I hadn't introduced myself.

I'll give you my abreviated life story, since I've been working on the long version for about 10 years and it's still not done.

- born into a mixed marriage. Father jack Mormon, mom, never mo - both agnostic & very liberal.

- Grandparents from a long line of Mormons going back to England back in the early days of Mormonism. Which made me something like 6th generation Mormon, sort of.

- Grandparents saw to it that I was baptized when I was 8, even though it meant nothing to me.

- Sporadically attended Mormon church growing up, but my very libreal parents didn't really care one way or another if we went.

- found my parents agnostic, liberal, suburban whitebread existence pretty meaningless and unfullfilling about the same time Alex Haley's "Roots" hit TV.

-Decided I needed to get in touch with my roots, which to me, at the time, went clear back to Africa, Olduvi Gorge, the dawn of man, Austrolopithicus Africanus.

-Went to clear to Africa, hitchhiking most of the way, via all over the US, North, South, East, West, Europe and N. Africa.

-Ended up on the Barbary Coast, Morocco.

-Asimilated into Morrocan society, clothes, speech, food, and naturally, religion.

-gained access to a Mosque via my Muslim brothers.

- epiphany- We're no different, even though I was born in America as a "christian" I could have just as easily been born in Africa as a "Muslim". We're all children of the same god, we just worship god in a different way in different parts of the world. same god. Same water that flowed through the Mosque in Africa is connected to the water that flows through my father's land in America. The earth we stand on, though on separate continents is connected beneath the water. The same moon, sun and stars that rise over Africa are the same moon, sun and stars that rise over my homeland. We're not alien. We're the same kind. Human kind. Transcend all the petty differences, religion, nationality, race, sex, sexual orientation and we're all the same. Your struggles are my struggles. Your problems are my problems. We're all one.

- came home. Again found my parents white bread agnostic, suburban existence pretty meaningless and unfullfilling.

- Sister got married in the Seattle Temple the week I got home from Africa and I wanted in. The fact that I wasn't permitted made it even that more enticing and more of a challenge, like the mosque, I figured I'd have a similar spiritual experience inside the temple that I had inside the mosque.

- went to Evergreen, studied cultural anthropology.

- decided I needed something more "concrete" in my life and a real major and a real degree.

- Decided I ought to get in touch with my Mormon heritage in hopes it would unite my fractured family (half LDS half whatever)

- Started seriously taking steps to get into the temple. Cut my hair, got a shave, cleaned up my act, quit screwing around and smoking pot. Ended up going to the temple to find out it was nothing like my experiences in the Mosque, but I'd just sworn a blood oath to commit suicide rather than turn my back on my heritage. By this time I was mission bound for Australia.

- Mission, married, kids, fast forward 20 years and I'm a perfect peter penis holder, sealed in the temple, with 4 kids born under the covenant, called by god to be an architect.

- I go to the COB to inquire about a position as a church architect, designing temples. Something in the back of my mind tells me to think about it and resolve the issues I have in the back of my mind before committing myself to designing temples.
- I think about it.

- Kids start asking serious questions, which I figure deserve serious answers.

- After 9-11, I found answers.

- The religions where I'd misplaced my faith were barbaric traditions, delusions and frauds, developed to enslave and exploit people and dehumanize non-believers and justify our inhumanity towards our fellow men.

- I couldn't in good conscience allow my children to be indoctrinated with the barbaric delusions I'd been indoctrinated with.

- While I still appreciate the spiritual experiences I've had, both as a Mormon and as a Muslim, the price of gaining those experiences is faaaar too steep, especially when they can be had for free.

- Now I find meaning in the natural, scientific, humanist, liberal world view I inheirited from my parents. Hopefully my children find enough meaning in that world view to avoid the pitfall of religious mental slavery.
Signature

When I left Mormonism after my entire 20 years of adulthood in the church, my PostMormon father asked me, “Why would you abandon a belief structure ...and replace it with a structure that could be even more faulty?"

At first that question pissed me off because I really felt like he didn't respect me as an adult to make decisions for my family. Then I took a deep breath and thought about it.

I told him, "It seems like you raised us without religion and we all turned out fine."

He pointed at the TV and said, "Well, then you're left with that to raise your kids."

I said, "That's BS. Somehow you raised us to have good morals and good ethics."

He said, "I just allowed you to make your own decisions and didn't interfere with you suffering the consequences, unless I thought they would be deadly."

I said, "Yeah, well that's my whole philosophy for raising kids too."

He said, "Well. OK then, just don't put anybody up on a pedestal."

Hello everyone,

My computer took a dump today, so I'm at work abusing our internet.. :)

I'm gonna end this discussion now, but I do want to say thanks to all the mormons on this thread for sharing your faith with me to help me better understand your beliefs. Of course my views haven't changed one bit, but I think that's ok with you all. I really want you to be saved, but I do feel you are not. Please take no offense to that, but I do believe that. I believe your faith is only as good as who you put it in. If it's the wrong God, then that faith is null. I'm sorry if I sound offensive, but I'm gonna end this with my personal feelings and faith. But otherwise I do thank you again for your time. It was very enlightening.

Stan Fan aka Che Dali:

I've heard this same testimony from many x-mormons. It seems to be a pattern. Personally, I almost got fully involved with a so-called "Christian" church that was leading me astray as well. Some may have heard of it. Armstrongism. They were very convincing. They taught that they too were the only true church on earth. They taught just like the mormons do as far as the ten lost tribes bit. They used that as explanation for Britain and the U.S in Biblical end times prophecy. It was so convincing that at one point I was so upset with current evangelical Christianity because gavefalse historical information and false doctrine. It made me a different person. I was less tolerant to any other religion and was becoming hateful to the truth. Then one day I picked up the Bible and read it for myself, with an open mind. Without any outside interferance, I was going to see if there really is truth in this book and if not, I don't want to believe. It was the best thing I ever did. I never realized how much God loves us until I read the book of Romans. All we need is faith in Jesus, nothing else. No one can tell you you haven't done enough to earn salvation. Jesus' death was all the work we needed. Jesus' death was sufficient enough for me to be saved if only I believed in Him. That's all. This is Biblical truth! You don't have to go to church to be the church. Faith makes you a part of the church.

When I read the Bible on my own, I realized how easy is was to recieve salvation. These so-called "Christian" churches take that away from you. I can see how they have done that to you. I don't know what your faith is like now or even if you have faith. But I encourage you to read God's Word on your own. Don't listen to anyone else, but to God. If you can block out all that mess that the LDS instilled in your brain and read the Bible for yourself, you will find truth, I promise. There is no greater feeling than knowing Jesus and knowing my salvation is secure. So many church organization keep you on a limb so they make you think your not doing enough, not giving enough, and especially not tithing enough, but Jesus already did enough for you. I too have been controlled by man at one point in time. Now I'm controlled by faith, and I'll tell you it's the best thing I've ever done, because now I'm free.
Please Stan, don't give up on faith, just find the truth for yourself. God didn't give His word so that man can "interpret" it for you. You can find truth on your own. I hope you do.

Take care LDS and all. I'll keep you all in my prayers.

God bless

Stan,

Your experience with religion and specifically Mormonism is unfortunate and hopefully atypical. Christ never intended to induce stress, but we do sometimes place these pressures on ourselves. I'm sure that some people that don't understand Jesus Christ or his teachings may either intentionally or not place undue and unnecessary burdens on others. None is perfect, and unfortunately our mistakes often affect others.

Jesus, of anyone, knows us and wants us to express our individuality as we follow him, and the two are not mutually exclusive. He taught that the truth is liberating, and I believe that to be the case.

I was listening to this fascinating interview by Terri Gross on Fresh Air, of Novelist Joshua Ferris, who made his debut with Then We Came to the End, a satire about life in a Chicago advertising agency just as the dot-com boom went bust.

She started off by reading this excerpt "We had these sudden revelations that the daily 9-5 was driving us far from our better selves."

Gross asks Ferris " Did you feel that when you were working in the ad agency and then when you left, did you become the better person you thought your job was holding you back from becoming?"

Ferris responds, "I suspect that I had good days and bad days then and now, but that what happens is that it become so highlighte because you cant get away from the other person's gaze. You're always under a sort of big brother condition where somebody's always watching, somebody's always talking, you're always getting roped into conversations and you're saying things that suddenly you're either in agreement with the group or against the group and they all look at you like you're an alien and its that sort of a pressure cooker situation that made me feel like, Boy, here all of my flaws are being highlighted and if I could just get out, I could sort of be at home, then I'd be a better person. Likely it's probably that I'm just not being seen being at my worst."

Which I thought was a great metaphor for my experience with Mormonism after 9-11 which was for me an epiphany that religion was driving me far from my better self. Since having left Mormonism, I see myself in very similar terms as Ferris, after he left the ad agency, I don't know that I've become a better person, it's just that I'm not operating under the microscope of the big brother any more, nor am I governed by fear. Now I'm governed by my self, my conscience, reason, intuition, observation, experience and compassion and nobody but my family (and perhaps my clients) judge wether or not I'm becoming the better person I'm capable of becoming. At least I'm not living in the pressure cooker situation I once considered my lifestyle. I know I'm much healthier and my relationships are much healthier now that I don't have the added stress of trying to fit into the one size fits all standard Mormon mold anymore and I'm free to determine my own destiny and relationship with others/the universe/nature.

Henry,

First, reputation can be a tricky thing. Joseph Smith’s reputation varies greatly depending on who’s talking about him. Jesus Christ also had a reputation as a healer, teacher, prophet and son of God among some people, and others called him a blasphemer and one who used the power of the devil.
Concerning social justice questions, those questions have been answered not only by General Authorities but also common Church members who have been directly affected by the issues and have reasoned for themselves (and people outside the Church have come up with the same answers often, too). That others don’t arrive at these answers, while unfortunate, is not surprising at all.

I think we’re kind of butting heads here; I’d like to avoid that. I’m trying to keep this in a spirit of sharing and learning.

I kind of said this in my last post, but I'll make it clear here. We can and do have knowledge of spiritual things, and that knowledge is as real as our knowledge of everything else. If you have taken a particular path to knowledge you can attest to its existence, but if you haven't taken the path how can you know it doesn't exist? If I told you I had a telescope that could see life on a distant planet but that it took a bit of work to aim and focus, and you didn't see it because you didn't look in it, only gave a cursory glance, or attempted to adjust the telescope for only a short while before losing patience and quitting, how could you tell me outright that I had seen nothing, regardless of whether you believed me? I'm sure that's not the best metaphor, but it should express the thought.
If you don't believe me, so be it. My knowledge will still guide me. Whether or not we can (or even desire to) prove our knowledge to others does not change what we know.
In science, frankly, nothing is ever known. It's always a best guess. The greatest ideas of scientists have repeatedly been shown to be inaccurate or simply wrong. One of my college physics teachers was very honest in saying that what he was teaching us was a pack of lies, and that if we took his Modern Physics class, we could learn even better lies. I suppose that in the "language of science", Mathematics, we can know things (like 1 + 1 = 2), but that's because we define the rules of the language.
Really, what can we know for sure?
I know that Jesus Christ made an infinite sacrifice for me and you, and that He lives today and wants us to have the knowledge that will guide us through challenging lives and into a happy eternity. I know it as much as I know anything else.

Hi Parker

I agree that the general problem is tyrants/authoritarians who try to control people.

And I agree that not ALL religions do that in an abusive way. I think the Unitarians are one of the few faultless examples.

The Catholic Church does lots of good things, but on balance I think their attempt at authoritarian control of their members is a negative thing.

Compared to all the awful influences in the World, the mormon church is a pretty good one. But again, I personally object to their use of authority in relation to the membership, and in relation to positions of social justice that I think are important.

But if people believe in Mormon doctrine and are active in the church and it works for them, that is fine. Most of us aren't involved in the big social justice questions most of the time. Tho most of us will end up having relatives who are gay, or have women in our families, so we will in fact run up against some pretty basic questions of justice.

As you can easily tell, I am an anti-authoritarian, a thoroughgoing believer in democracy and self-determination. Self reliance, as the Prophet Ralph Waldo Emerson called it. He is my prophet. Slightly higher repuation for integrity than Smith had BTW.

Jim
you ask "do we doubt and disbelieve anything unless it can be empirically proven? Is it inherently better to believe or not to believe, and is there any value in believing that which cannot be proven? Why does there seem to be such "tension" between those that believe and those that don't?"

I think in many cases it is OK to believe in something that isn't proven.

But lots of believers go beyond "I believe."
They say "I know",
as in
I know that my redeemer liveth.
I know the Mormon church is True.

Those people are fooling themselves, and others. Those things can't possibly be KNOWN.
Believing them is one thing. Claiming to Know the unknowable doesn't help anyone.

If you say 'I have FAITH that God exists" that is a meaningful and respectable statement.

As to WHEN it is good to believe in something that hasn't been proven, that is a judgment call, to be answered on a case by case basis. Involving questions like "what if i am wrong?" and "how does believing this affect my relations with others?"

Lots of scientists, for instance, believe something is true but it hasn't be empirically verified yet. That is fine, as long as they don't mistake belief for confirmation, for Knowing.

Same with religion, in general. Though believing that God is responsible for things that humans should take responsibility for is not a good idea, in ny opinion.

Henry,
You also talked about 9-11 as having an effect on your perception of religion in our world. Isn't it more that ignorance among people allows them to be led by a person who takes that ignorance and combines it with their own agenda, whether it be under the guise of religion or under the guise of nationalism or under the guise of some "guiding hand of the state" (aka communism) society, to control those people and abuse them and others? If religions were gone, the same thing could happen and would most definitely happen, because it is ignorance that leads to the success of a tyrant, whether of religious truths including those within Islam that are non-violent, or of truths about how to build up and strengthen the better aspects of human relationships that one can find in almost all cultures if one looks for them.

A tyrant uses the weaker aspects of man's nature to control people, whether by false hopes or by threats or worse. I know some seem to think that all religions do that. I think the more we learn about the gospel truths that Christ taught, and really apply them without forcing anyone but also without denigrating anyone, the sooner we can rise above the ignorance that allows a tyrant to operate successfully.

I honestly don't know that they could possible make enough changes for me to ever come back, but it would be a good start if they came out and admitted that they were not perfect, applogize for discriminating against blacks for the vast majority of their existence, allowed women the same privilages as men, quit dehumanizing people who don't fit into the tandard mormon mold of a perfect penis holder.

Quit shaking people down for 10% of their income, admit that Mormonism is no different from any other man made church, tell all the missioanaries to come home and start honoring the 11th Article of Faith.

That'd be a good start, but it probably would never right the wrongs of the vast majority of Mormon history.

I was reading about the LA Times reporter who wrote about Mormons last year. He chronicle’s his loss of faith, thanks in part to Mormonism.

From the article,
"IN late 2001, I traveled to Salt Lake City to attend a conference of former Mormons. These people lived mostly in the Mormon Jell-O belt — Utah, Idaho, Arizona — so-named because of the plates of Jell-O that inevitably appear at Mormon gatherings.

They found themselves ostracized in their neighborhoods, schools and careers. Often, they were dead to their own families.

"If Mormons associate with you, they think they will somehow become contaminated and lose their faith too," Suzy Colver told me. "It's almost as if people who leave the church don't exist."

The people at the conference were an eclectic bunch: novelists and stay-at-home moms, entrepreneurs and cartoonists, sex addicts and alcoholics. Some were depressed, others angry, and a few had successfully moved on. But they shared a common thread: They wanted to be honest about their lack of faith and still be loved.

In most pockets of Mormon culture, that wasn't going to happen.

Part of what drew me to Christianity were the radical teachings of Jesus — to love your enemy, to protect the vulnerable and to lovingly bring lost sheep back into the fold.

As I reported the story, I wondered how faithful Mormons — many of whom rigorously follow other biblical commands such as giving 10% of their income to the church — could miss so badly on one of Jesus' primary lessons?

As part of the Christian family, I felt shame for my religion. But I still compartmentalized it as an aberration — the result of sinful behavior that infects even the church."

AMen Brother!

He makes a good point about Mormons, for such a charitable people, it's amazing that they miss so badly, one of Christ's primary lessons, to love your fellow man as yourself, which seems to take a back seat in Mormonism, whenever there's somebody that needs hatin' according to one of gawd's PRofits.

Then years later PRofits can just answer, "I dunno. Maybe that's just the way they interpreted the scriptures back then."

And the rest of us will say, "WTF? How do you interpret the scriptures to say Hate your fellow man as your enemy when Christ said to love them as your self?"

I found the delusion of "faith" completely untennable, unconscionable and indefensible after 9-11, which is when it became clear to me that the purpose of religion, taken to it's illogical extream, were no different than the purposes of any other genocidal, homocidal, suicidal, barbaric ideology, including Islam, Mormonism, Fascism, or any other form of tribalism.

Wow! There is a lot to say here. I don’t know how much longer I can keep this up; though I love religious discussion, this is taking time away from my other responsibilities, like paying attention to my wife and daughter.

But for now:

Henry, faith in Vice President Cheney is not the same as faith in Jesus Christ. Faith in Christ is what will lead us to exaltation, and is more important than any other faith we can have.
Hopefully you find these thoughts insightful and helpful:
God’s purpose is also not just to test our faith. His goal is our growth. If you don’t have kids, imagine for a moment that you do. From an early age, you do everything possible to ensure that your child (let’s say a son) has no need to exert any effort to do anything. Even as the boy grows into adolescence and beyond, you feed him, change his diapers (which he still wears), do his homework for him, do his work for him, etc. Is that helping him? Obviously not.
Also consider that we just don’t value things that come easily to us. Let’s say you and I have each been a good parent to a teenage child (sons again). Your son works a difficult job for months, making sacrifices and saving money, until he can buy a car. I then buy the same model of car for my son, who has done nothing to earn it. Which car is more valued? Those of us who have put forth the effort to gain a true knowledge from God hold that knowledge as a treasure.
If God gave us absolute knowledge without requiring us to do anything, it wouldn’t change us much. It wouldn’t make much of a difference. It hasn’t in the past. Consider Pharaoh as he witnessed plague after plague. A group of men watched as Peter cut of Malchus’ ear and then Jesus healed it immediately, but they still bound Christ and took him to their leaders for trial. How many miracles did Judas witness before betraying the Son of God?
Our faith makes all the difference in the world.
We don’t have to constantly “take it on faith.” God in fact does give us evidence when we are ready for it. Then our faith becomes knowledge. If you haven’t experienced this, I understand your hesitancy to accept it, but you have no more validity in denying it than someone who tells me children can’t take steps at nine months when I’ve seen my daughter do it, or someone who tells me that marriage doesn’t work when they just didn’t do it right.

By the by, you say that you know love exists, and I agree, but you’d have a hard time laying down physical proof of love.

Betty: does the above answer your question enough?

David, we don’t believe that “we can simply pray about it and know it.” I hope my words above make that clear. Also check out Doctrine and Covenants 9:7-8 (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/9, since you probably don’t own a copy) for further explanation of that. Parker’s last comments are also useful in this matter.
You state, “From what I've studied in the Bible, the Lord says our hearts are deceitful. I have yet to find any verse that states we can simply pray about it and receive knowledge. In fact, I find the opposite. God says to search His Word. Jesus explained that our hearts are naturally evil, full of deceit and lies, etc.” Wow. I’d like to see the passages that lead you to those conclusions. I know that in specific circumstances Jesus told people they had evil thoughts in their hearts, but not as a general rule. We have a similar teaching (Mosiah 3:19, http://scriptures.lds.org/en/mosiah/3), but nothing tells me not to trust what I feel. The scriptures state that the Holy Ghost is a Comforter and teacher (John 14:26) and that His fruit is “love, joy, peace,” etc. (Galatians 5:22). This is just a product of the Holy Ghost, though; the Spirit of God is more than just “feelings”. When God sends us the power of his Spirit as an answer to our prayers, we can trust in Him and not just ourselves alone. Moroni states in his promise that it is by the Holy Ghost that one can know the truth of the Book of Mormon (see the link in YACTTB’s post above). In this promise he says we must read also, because reading God’s word brings the Holy Ghost to us and we couldn’t reason at all about the book without having read it.
Knowing that the Book of Mormon is God’s word, consequently, we can know the truth of both Joseph Smith’s calling and of the Church.
President Boyd K. Packer pointed out that, “No message appears in scripture more times, in more ways than, ‘Ask, and ye shall receive.’” That shouldn’t be a new idea to you. One reference is James 1:5 (one of many Church members’ favorites, I’m sure): “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.”
I agree that Satan has deceived many people. Satan is the great Deceiver, yes, but he has no control over the Holy Ghost.
David, your sincere thoughts are not offensive at all. I truly value others’ faith and efforts to follow Christ’s teachings and act for good in the world.
Also, the scriptural passage I wanted your thoughts on is in an earlier post. Use “Find” (Ctrl-F) and look for the word Johannine. The passage is right above that word. The listed date and time of the post is July 24 at 3:03 am.

David,
I agree that this is a very fruitful discussion, and I would have more to say if I had more time, but I want to emphasize that the LDS belief does not encompass "simply pray about it and know it"--that would as you have suggested, be very subject to getting off on a tangent and being deceived.

The LDS belief encompasses (1) study and reason to the best of our ability including recognizing that truths may lie far afield as well as be close at hand, and that the Bible is a vital source for gospel truths; (2) live the teachings and the personal spiritual insights to come to know that they are true by experience, as the Savior taught; (3) include unconditional, Christ-like love for all mankind in all approaches to finding truths; and (4) if you pray with real intent after having done all three of these preceding elements of "finding gospel truths," then the LDS belief is that the power of the Holy Ghost will "manifest" the truth by bearing witness to the person of the things that are specifically being prayed about.

By "real intent" would mean that that person has desires to act and will act on the spiritual knowledge they have received, and thus begin or continue on a path of spiritual growth that still relies on all four of these elements. Note that none of the four would be contradictory, so it is not as though a person says, "my study says this, but my answer to prayer says the opposite, so I'll follow that answer"--that would be absolutely the wrong approach.

I hope this has made sense.

Henry James asks: is it possible to "know" something that is not true. Obviously, in the religions sense, when we say that we "know" something to be true, for most of us, this knowing is different than the knowledge that 1+1=2 or that gravity is a real, measurable, predictable force. We all have different levels of belief based on our experiences.

Considering the vastness of truth that is "out there," I would ask, is it possible that there is truth that we do not know? Obviously the answer is yes. So do we search for truth and believe in what we feel to be true, or do we doubt and disbelieve anything unless it can be empirically proven? Is it inherently better to believe or not to believe, and is there any value in believing that which cannot be proven? Why does there seem to be such "tension" between those that believe and those that don't?

Hello everyone,

I see there is a new subject at hand here. I guess I would like to throw my two cents in as well. Instead of trying to be Biblically accurate, I guess I'll just give my opinion.

I agree with both sides on the matter of knowledge. If any of us God believers went to a non-biased jury, there is no way to ever convince that jury based on scientific evidence that there is a God. So none of us can actually say there is a God with proof, scientifically. I think HJ remembers that I had a discussion with Phaedrus and it seemed that the way it turned out was that if we take all the scientific evidence in the world neither side could conclude there is or isn't a God. That leaves the whole world in the category of agnostic. Scientifically though.

Spiritually is another matter. (Now here comes my real opinion, which I'm sure can be debateable).

I disagree with Mormons that we can simply pray about it and know it. From what I've studied in the Bible, the Lord says our hearts are decietful. I have yet to find any verse that states we can simply pray about it and recieve knowledge. In fact, I find the opposite. God says to search His Word. Jesus explained that our hearts are naturally evil, full of deceit and lies, etc. He also said that no one is good but God. So do we trust our hearts to lead us? Should we depend on our feelings for knowledge. I say no. Some may disagree, though. I've found through my experiences that I've felt an assurance of certain things until I've really searched God's Word and come to know that my heart really has decieved me, just as the Bible said it would. I do know what feeling that the LDS talk about, because I experience it all the time. These feelings have led me astray on several occasions. The only feeling I can trust is the feeling the Holy Spirit gives me when I am convicted of my sins. I have felt and still feel that conviction today. I truly believe that Satan can decieve us. Satan comes as an angel of light. I know that he can make me feel good about certain things until I search God's Word and find out otherwise. I'm not trying to bring these feelings down that you have, but am simply sharing my faith with you as far as I have been given the knowledge that I obtained and still am obtaining. The only thing I can ask God for in prayer is wisdom. The wisdom to use that knowledge in His Word to better my life and better my relationship with Jesus. I feel that if I trust myself, that I will get nowhere. If I trust God in His Word, I can get much farther. I too have once prayed to God to give me knowledge to know the truth. He in turn told me to read His Word. This is my experience. Of course I have no scientific evidence for God. I could not tell a jury that I get a feeling that there is a God. All I could tell them to do is read the Bible for truth because our hearts are full of lies, sin and deciet. Trust God, not ourselves.

I think finding spiritual knowledge is the equivolent of how scientists use to find knowledge as well. Have you ever heard of a scientist saying they have a feeling that there might be a new species of fish in the Indian Ocean. Therefore because this feeling the scientist has, should he publish this in the Scientific Journal as knowledge? No. He must search the ocean and find this species and verify it by seeking and testing it. If he didn't find this fish, then his feelings betrayed him, right?

So, for me I should say and not everyone else, this is my faith. To have faith first in God. Believe in His Son. Know that He died on the cross for you because we cannot save ourselves. We are naturally sinners and have evil in our hearts and the only way to KNOW Him is by His Word. Faith isn't knowledge. I wish I could show HJ that God is real. But I can't. This is the freewill that God has given us. To choose. But, my knowledge of who God is comes by His Word. Not by feeling. I've learned to never trust that feeling again and only trust in my convictions. But really, you can't know God unless you have faith in Him and faith alone. I know this because He said so right there in my Bible.

Take care and I hope that my faith, being different from LDS, is not offensive to you, but I felt the need to share it. We find our faiths in God in a different manner, and I just wanted to share with you how I found mine. Because it is different from yours and I disagree on how we find the truth about God, please forgive me for the offense. That is why I said this is my opinion at first, even though I am convinced through God's Word that this is fact. I told HJ when we had a discussion previously that even though we may not have the same faiths and quite possibly the same outcome after death, I feel encouraged to know that we all have found some sort of truth in our lives that can change us for the better. To better society and better mankind as a whole. I'm grateful for at least that. I like HJ's approach to things. As an atheist he is insistant on there not being a God. But, he allows us to have our faiths as long as we can show love to our fellow man. I haven't seen HJ fight one time to anyone about trying to prove there is not God. I think because he recognizes that it is our faith that makes us want to be better people. Even if that's not truth to him, I can see he would rather have that than have us hating each other because we have no reason to love each other. I love that HJ. Thanks for that. Have a great day ya'll!

God bless

Yacttb

i fully appreciate that Mormons who truly believe receive lots of benefits for themselves and others, and that they/you are convinced the principles are "true" for you. I translate that as "they work for you." They don't work for me, but I know many for whom they do feel right.

That's great as far as I am concerned. Some people derive the same benefits from Yoga or Buddhism or Hindu-ism.

My main point is that as a spiritual practice, Mormonism is no more "true" than those other spiritual practices.

To me its irrelevent what happens in the next world, except to the extent that humans base their actions on their beliefs about the next world. A mormon's belief in the Celestial Kingdom has no real effect on me one way or another. Though the belief of those Muslims on 9/11 who thought they were going directly to Paradise did have an effect on me.

peace
HJ

HJ,

You wrote:

" If you stood up in a court of law and testified as you describe, and if the jury were made up of a random sample of people from different cultural and religious backgrounds, the jury would be convinced that YOU believed what you were saying, but they would not be convinced that Mormon Principles were any more true than Buddhist principles (which include No God), and they would not conclude behyond a reasonable doubt that there was in fact a “next world.” "

... and you're *exactly* right. I feel that this is one of the reasons why many Mormons who are either born in the religion or converted for other reasons are encouraged to pray about the truthfulness of it, rather than "just taking my word for it". See Moroni 10:3-5:

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/moro/10/4-5

I believe you could see a pattern form (within Mormons) regarding those who have received a witness and those who have not. I believe a witness will bring to us a conviction which is something that will root a person firmly in a foundation, as opposed to relying on our own perception or thoughts to understand things which did not happen in our generation. I think this is where the confusion comes about in previous discussions. I've read a previous blog which stated that "Mormons check their brains at the door" because they are not allowed to "think" for themselves. That would be true if it were perceived as it were, however for those who have received a witness, we have been given truths of certain things and realize that although we may not have a full explanation of all things now - it will come to us soon. As we have progressed we've seen that happen time and again.

I hope my thoughts have at least made sense. I do appreciate your thoughts as well, as you have conveyed them clearly. I really do enjoy these conversations and thank you for your time.

Jay
you mention
"the blessings that come from exercising faith."

Could you give us a couple of examples?

Hi Jay

Again, if your experience leads you to believe in a God, that is fine with me, DEPENDING on what you do with that belief. If one's belief in God leads one to fly planes into a building, or oppose the teaching of evolution in the schools, it is an odious thing, for instance.

It makes no difference to the morality of a person whether they believe in God or not. Moral judgment and behavior has been shown to be equivalalent for atheists and believers.

I am not an enamored of Faith as you are. It is Faith that led us to believe our leader Dick Cheney when he said he knew Iraq had reconsituted its nuclear program.

And the argument that God doesn't give us evidence in order to test our faith holds no water for me. It sounds like an excuse, an obufuscation. Like saying Gravity exists but it doesn't give us any evidence of its existence, we just need to take it on faith.

I KNOW love exists. I have seen it. I know kindness exists. I have seen it. Once in a while i have even engaged in it.

love
henry

Parker,

I really enjoyed your explanation and thought it was well written. I too have to agree that a significant change happened to me when I have received my witness of the Book of Mormon. This type of change did not happen to me when I was practicing another Christian religion. Although that religion was a good religion and did help me to do good things, I did them because I knew it was good to do. Almost as if I was expecting a reward or recognition of some kind.

But now I have a much different feeling - it's more of a desire and willingness to do good. It's not for personal gain but rather a change of heart, or a change of person. I now see my weaknesses and have accepted them as weaknesses instead of denying them and am constantly working at becoming a better person through the help of my Savior.

Sadly, but admitingly, before my witness I had a hard time accepting others who told me that they have changed. I always thought, once a person is who they are, they will always be that person, deep down inside. I thought their good acts were just a "front". But after this change/witness, I can easily see how it can be possible to significantly change and become a better person.

I've never been very good at explaining this change that has happened to me - perhaps one day I can elaborate on it more.

Jay - I also liked your "consideration" thought. It definitely makes sense!

Thanks Parker

I agree that there are certain things you “know” about your own experience of divine witness. I highly value that feeling when things “feel right”, what you call being “awakened to an alignment with an eternal “voice”.

You call that your confirmation of your belief in God, which is fine with me. I call it an alignment with the moral and spiritual sensibility that all humans have to a lesser or greater extent. And whichever one we call it, it IS real and vital and to be treasured.

It is very common for people to have such spiritual experiences while communing with nature, with art, with other humans. A transcendent feeling of connection and rightness occurs.

The only part that we DON’t “know” is whether your experience, real as it undoubtedly is, comes from an Actual God that exists, and who presides over a Celestial Kingdom.

May be true. But humans can’t KNOW that.

I agree that the principles that Mormons live by (with some notable and very-important-to-me exceptions) are good principles, as good as Buddhist principles in many cases.

If you stood up in a court of law and testified as you describe, and if the jury were made up of a random sample of people from different cultural and religious backgrounds, the jury would be convinced that YOU believed what you were saying, but they would not be convinced that Mormon Principles were any more true than Buddhist principles (which include No God), and they would not conclude behyond a reasonable doubt that there was in fact a “next world.”

But clearly your faith helps make you a better person and a good person, and regardless of what happens in the next world, that is a blessing to all of us in this world.

Peace
henry

Henry,
Remember that I'm not out to prove Joseph Smith's story to anyone. I have plenty of evidence for myself. I tend to think that a personal witness from God is the perfect basis for knowledge, though I don't expect you to take my word for it.

Consider this: If God provided absolutely clear and obvious physical evidence for His existence, He would be denying His children the blessings that come from exercising faith. That wouldn't help anyone.

Henry,
The comparison with Cheney seems quite apropos to me. It appears he was getting different views on the matter from different people, and he chose to believe which view fit with the "reality" he either wanted to believe or that would lead to the decision he wanted to make.

One could assert a similar rationale to argue against my statement that I "know" gospel truths are true because of a divine witness that is real for me, but I would say that a great difference exists from the standpoint that the reality of this spiritual witness has been confirmed to me hundreds of times, through experiences whereby I recognize the difference between when I am feeling elation, love, enthusiasm, an adrenilin "rush", the excitement you get when you learn something for the first time (an epiphany), as compared with the confirming "burning in the bosom" or "still, small voice" or "knowing with every fiber of my being". It feels like my body's cells are awakened to an alignment with an eternal "voice" that they recognize, and when I lose the Spirit through anger or attempting to control someone by unrighteous dominion, I immediately recognize the loss.

I believe that someone who hasn't experienced such a spiritual reality will of course not believe such a thing is possible, because it is out of the realm of their experience. They would think, "if that hasn't happened to me, then it must not be true for anyone." Or they could be like Huff who convinced himself that what he had "felt" must have been explainable by chemical reactions in the mind or body.

The peace that a person gets by living the principles of, say, Buddhaism confirm that those are true principles to live by, but the difference is that if that person says "that is all there is and that is enough for me" then I think their opportunity for a "spiritual awakening" that would be a growth process is shut down through their own choosing.

For me and others I have heard describe it, the growth process that accompanies feeling these spiritual promptings and experiences continues--it is not static. When followed, I will not be the same person I was last month or last year and I will be different in feeling a greater sense of peace, happiness, knowledge, joy, understanding, wisdom--in short, "light".

To put it bluntly, I would be very willing to stand up in a court of law and say "I know absolutely that the truths of the gospel are eternal truths that will provide anyone who lives by them honestly and sincerely with peace, joy, happiness in this life, and prepare them for a real world to come where they will gain even greater knowledge and joy." I don't think Cheney could have been challenged to stand in a court of law and say "I know absolutely beyond a shadow of doubt that there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq ready to be used against the United States." I think he would have backed off from making that strong of a statement in court.

Henry

Can one "know" something that may not be true?

Jay regarding my cheney quote you write
" The sources of the claimed knowledge are absolutely different."

correct.
the White House claimed they had physical evidence to back them up.

few who claim that God exists assert that they have physical evidence. and there is no physical evidence that joseph smith talked to god.

Moral: as cheney's claim to KNOW turned out not to be correct
so Mormon claims to KNOW that the Gospel is true COULD turn out to be incorrect.

and Mormons have less basis for saying they KNOW than Cheney did.

Thanks Jay. I aprreciate it. Really I do because I really am the worst with words sometimes. But I'm looking for a passage that you wanted to discuss, but maybe I'm missing it. Could you refresh my memory? I'll be a little busy the rest of this evening, so if I don't respond today, I'll do my best to get back to you tomorrow. Trust me, nothing makes me happier than talking about God, so I would love to do some Bible study with you. Of course in the end we might disagree depending on our faiths and pre-suppositions, but I always think that it's important to do some serious Bible study. Thanks Jay. Like I said, if I can't get back to you tonight, I'll do my best to respond as early as I can tomorrow. God bless, my friend.

David, I like your discussion of those passages. What about the one I suggested?

JD1,

Hello my friend.

I've read the preterist view of interpreting eschotology. Quite simply it's not right. They claim that the second coming of Christ has already occured in or around 70 a.d. with the destruction of the Jewish temple. There are certain end times passages that can be related to that event and certainly events can repeat themselves in history. They do ignore some major prophetical outcomes though. Such as the nation of Israel becoming one sovereign nation as it happened in 1948. Also, Ezekiel speaks of a time when Damascus will be utterly destroyed. Damascus is known to be one of the oldest populated cities on earth and has never been completely destroyed. This has not happened yet in history, therefore we know that Christ has not come yet. So, they take Matt 24:34 and the words "this generation" to mean somewhere in the realm of 100 years or so. And instead of taking all the facts, they would rather not say that Jesus made a false prophecy, but that indeed He did come back around 70 a.d. Then that leaves them with the previous problem as I have explained. Here's the disputed verse at hand (NIV) but you can check it in KJV if you like since I know mormons do not accept any other translation.

32"Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 33Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it[d]is near, right at the door. 34I tell you the truth, this generation[e] will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 35Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

36"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[f] but only the Father

I threw in verse 36 because I think this is important. First off I myself am not convinced of the sure exogesis of these verses, but I want to express what the arguments are.

First dealing with "this generation" can mean a few different things besides meaning the generation at the present time Jesus was speaking limiting Himself to take a guess at around 100 years. But in V. 36 Jesus follows up with saying He does not know when exactly. Therefore, why would He take a wild guess that it would be within 100 years, I don't know, and I don't think that would be in the perfect nature of Jesus.

In the previous verses Jesus is describing what it would be like in the last days. Then he says that "this generation would not pass until all these things happened". Some argue that Jesus is referring to the generation that will witness these events signifying that all the events He described will happen within that particular generation. So when Jesus is naming all the events that will take place in the last days, He also could be referring to "this generation" meaning the generation that will witness those events, not so much the generation that He was speaking to at the time. He was of course talking about a future subject and therefore He could very well be talking about "this generation" that will witness these things meaning that a generation will not pass for all of these things to happen until His second coming. This makes sense to me when reading in context, because He is indeed speaking prophetically, and in doing so "this generation" could very well mean the generation in the future.

Now for the second argument:

The NIV has another translation for "generation" on the bottom that they describe "generation" meaning "race" as in a race of people. This is not too far fetched as some may think. Looking at the greek word and the definition for it ("genea") and also the root word for it as well, one can come up with a probable interpretation for generation to mean a race of people. Also, searching through scripture, the Lord has used "generation" as a form of meaning as a race of people. A few examples may be Deut 1:35, Est 9:28, and I think especially in Psalm 14:5. Therefore if Jesus said that this "race" would not pass until all these things have happened He very well could have meant the Jewish race. As we know historically the Jewish people are the only race that has existed since the recorded history in the Bible. God has promised them they will exist until the second coming, therefore Jesus is right and confirming to his Jewish disciples that God will keep his promise of letting the Jewish people live till the end of age. Of course in history the race of the Jewish people has been threatened over and over again (Inquisition, Holocaust, etc.) I do think God is letting us know through history that He is indeed keeping His promise to His chosen people no matter how hard some may try to rid of their race. Off the subject really quick I would like to add that seeing what the Jewish race has been through in history and the many attempts from evil people to want a genocide of this race is proof for me that the God of the Bible is real. He has kept His promise that this people will see the end. Even today we see so many anti-semitic governments. But on know that's off the subject and sorry. I just thought i would share how glorious God's promises are and how they are proven with history.

Anyway,both of these arguments make sense to me, but I could not choose to say which is correct or not. Either argument supports the fact that Jesus would not make a false prophecy. And I do think both arguments has evidence to support their case. To me it doesn't matter one way or the other. If us now are that generation of people that will witness these events in their entirety, so be it. If Jesus meants that "generation" meant the Jews, fine by me. Doesn't change my thought process about Jesus what so ever.

So, I hope my apologetics are getting better. I hope that my explanations make sense. Of course, I'm not the best with words, so they make sense to me. I hope it makes sense to you too. Have a great day everyone. Much love and God bless ya.

Actually, Henry, I don't think those two have much to do with each other. The sources of the claimed knowledge are absolutely different.

what?!?! Iraq had WMD?

"We KNOW that Saddam Hussein has reconstituted his nuclear program, and has weapons of Mass Destruction." Dick Cheney, January 2003.

Jay: I believe you can Know the Church is true in the same sense that Cheney Knew Iraq had WMD.

Incidentally, everyone, though it's a minor point, the saying "agree to disagree" isn't quite right. If we disagree, it's just that. We disagree. And as Henry mentioned, it's okay to disagree.

Henry,
Thanks for being a chum. It's nice to have a pleasant repsonse after staying up very late to type. (I'm in MST, but by 1:00 I'm pretty tired...)

I have two little thoughts for you. First, you said, 'but you can't KNOW it is right, in any meaningful sense of the word "know."' I disagree, though I recognize that what I consider some of the surest knowledge is certainly not as meaningful to you. (How I come to consider something as "sure knowledge", well, that's another topic I guess.)

Second, when you say, "You can't prove you are right," you are correct. I believe that only God can prove anything to anyone about God. I expect that you and me and anyone else can only learn about God from Him. Sure, I like to help people along the way by bringing the influence of God's Spirit and sharing insight, but spiritual knowledge is a very personal thing. I suppose that's why members of the Church are encouraged to seek out knowledge for themselves. Every member, born in the Church or baptized later, must put the wisdom of God to trial by faithfully living it. Only then can God prove it to them.

JD1,

I'm running a lot of errands today, but I want you to know that eventually today, I want to respond to Matt 24:34. This verse along with 1 Cor 15:41 is what made me want to study apologetics. I will return shortly to give you an explanation. Sorry for the delay.

Have a great day and God bless

JD1, promises are made to be broken ;)

Answering your thoughts: By “they” I am referring to those who personally witnessed if Jesus did or did not rise from the dead as was being reported at the time. I’m not arguing what they believe to be true in their hearts or heads. I’m arguing what they knew.

If Jesus was just a well know but delusional man who was executed by Rome and upon death stayed in the ground like everyone else, his record would indeed need major embellishment if his followers wanted to paint him as the Messiah who was described by the prophets. After all, they can’t go back in time and edit the Old Testament to match his life.

If Jesus did indeed rise from the dead… why lie?

jay
Correction

i agree - Mormons believe there IS some truth in other churches.

Jay
Thanks for your patient and thoughtful response.

I agree with you that the Mormon Church does NOT thnk other churches have any truth. They certainly do.

I also agree that if one follows the precepts of the Mormon church, it will have pretty good results as far as worldly health and happiness. The same is also true if one follows the precepts of Buddhism, Secular Humanism, Catholicism, Hinduism, Judaism. In other words, Mormonism is about as good as any other in this world, not much better and not much worse. (Except Buddhism, in my OPINION, but not a dogmatic opinion).

Where Mormonism (and Catholicism and Islam) distinguishes itself is in its view that for the Optimal Results in the Afterlife, nothing beats the Mormon (or catholic or Muslim) church.

The Unitarians, for instance, make no such claim. Nor do the methodists, as far as i know.

Fine for you or anyone to believe whatever you want to believe about the afterlife. I happen to believe that there is no afterlife and no God. Fine for me to believe that too.

You can't prove you are right, and I can't prove that I am right. There is no way to "know" what is "really" going to happen when we die. You can have a strong feeling of assurance that mormonism is right about the afterlife, but you can't KNOW it is right, in any meaningful sense of the word "know."

Peace
Henry

Thanks Ghostbuster,

I actually agree with you. I think the same logic applies to J.S. and his followers.

Do you think that they could have truly believed Jesus was the Messiah, but emellished the details to make it seem like so many Prophecies were fullfilled? I am playing devils advocate, I believe the Gospels as an act of Faith.

Now I must make a promise not to return till next thread.

Best to you!

Jd1

Question 4: Couldn't people have believed in and died for a fraud? I am not really following the connection here. How is their situation different than the many frauds that have been persecuted and martyred?

I'd like to take a shot at that question too. My answer is really a simple self examination.

Could I personally commit my life to living and spreading a story I personally witnessed and know without a shadow of a doubt to be 100% false despite verbal threats, public beatings, imprisonment and being ostracized from society in general? Then, would I willingly die (in an excruciating manner) for this lie?

Ghostbusters answers:
1) No!
2) No!!!!!!!!!

Using pure logic, perhaps the only story more illogical than individuals who live, preach and die for a story they know is false is in fact the story itself. It's the story of a man who claimed he was God, who lived and died and rose again for you and me.

I agree with pretty much everything David has said as to why he believes that the bible is reliable source. But even with all the evidence in the world, at some point faith comes in.

Faith is taking the first step, even when you don't see the whole staircase.
- Martin Luther King Jr.

David, first, I truly appreciate your very respectful tone in these recent posts. We can of course teach and learn from each other only if we show mutual respect.

In an early post, you said, "The claim to the "one true church" is a satanic deception that will lead the many into being controlled by fear from those that claim these things." I can't think of any member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that I know of who has been controlled by fear. Controlling other people by any kind of force, though a few make such mistakes, is absolutely contrary to God's will and to the doctrine of His church.

There's been a lot of discussion of Belief A vs. Belief B or Interpretation X vs. Interpretation Y, and I fully realize that arguing generally only strengthens the other's resolve, so I don't want to do that. Also, with so many beliefs in common it's a shame to get upset over the others. Share your thoughts on a few things, if you will:

References to God come in both singular and plural form in scripture. But even when considering normally clear words, there is more than a single meaning. The word "god" itself, does it forcibly indicate a single entity? Consider a sports team (maybe not the best example), like the Jazz, where a single word applies to a group. To answer your question, "Is Jesus God or 'a' god", I would say both. He is part of the Godhead, and His nature is such that He is a god.

The word "one" is interesting. So many groups of people seek unity, unity of purpose, unity of belief, etc. I don't believe you've responded to this next scripture, and I'd really like to hear your thoughts on it. John 17:20-22 (KJV) reads, 20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; 21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: 23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
Christ prayed for believers to be one in the same way that he and the Father are one. To me, this is clear, but how do you say we are to achieve this unity, and thus be one like the Father and the Son are one?

(By the way, are you familiar with the Johannine Comma?)

Earlier, you asked, "Didn't Paul visit different churches?" Where I live, two people who have just met and discovered that they are members of the same church might ask, "What church do you go to?", referring to the building or ward (parish). There are a lot of meetinghouses of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the town where I live, sometimes right next to each other. Our church leaders often visit different churches in the area. These "churches" are part of the same "church", and the same organizational structure under the same leadership.

"And what does the fig leaf represent?" This is the sort of topic I talk about with my wife when we're in the temple, and not really anywhere else. What I'd like to express is that there are a lot of bits of temple knowledge that come very gradually, and there is certainly much that I don't know yet.

"I'm getting the understanding of what you believe, but of course I cannot understand the why." I can tell you why I believe it. I believe because God has shown me the truth of it throughout my life, in ways subtle and in ways obvious, when I have searched and even sometimes when I haven’t, in ways that are undeniable, and certainly in ways that could only have come from Him. I can’t point to any one incident, but rather a great many. Perhaps, if you’d like, I’ll take more space later to elaborate on that.

Henry, I responded to some of your thoughts in Richard Bushman's section, and I've got a few more thoughts in response to your words here. You say, "The Mormon Church thinks it has the One True Conception of Reality." I assume that by "the Mormon Church" you mean the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Either that, or the Church's leaders. Either way, your statement is incorrect. Not a single reasonable member of the Church claims omnipotence. What the members believe is that the Church was established by God, the true disciples of Christ will continue to learn and progress toward exaltion, and that while much truth can be found through other religions, they lack key elements. Referring to your question, "Are Catholics or Mormons or anyone else justified in claiming that they have the ONLY true way, the Only Truth", I must say that the Church does not claim to be the only religion to possess any truth, and that any religion is justified in claiming to be correct while different religions are not entirely correct. Assumption: God wants His children to know how to live and be happy, and uses a church to help them. If God's true church exists, why would he establish another one that teaches different principles and has different practices? That would contradict His nature and His word. I believe that God restored His true church because for a time it was not present on the earth.

You said, "no man can KNOW in any meaningful sense of that word." I say that is most definitely possible to know some things with an assurance that allows us to base our actions on that knowledge. As we live, we'll even be wrong about things occasionally, but we can continue to learn and increase in knowlege. Some are impatient, demanding all the answers from God immediately. They receive none. I don't think God responds well to demands from His creations. Other people have faith. When something doesn't make sense to them or when they lack a particular answer, they simply do the best they can, continuing in faith. These are they who eventually come to understand what they sought and learn even more.

Did you experience the frustration of not knowing how some things in the Church made sense?

I have felt that. I decided that I didn't need to immediately know everything. Things have worked out pretty well since, and it's my task every day to continue learning.

Ghostbuster,
Thanks for the well-written, insightful synopsis of thoughts similar to what I have had about the apostles before and after Christ's resurrection.

Henry James,
Thanks for the poignant insight about the need to leave behind provincialism and be "inclusive of the whole tribe of humanity." I sense how deeply you feel about that.

Roy and Stan Fan,
I enjoyed both the sparkling literary quality and freshness as well as frankness of your life glimpses. I have to say that one of the things that I have both liked and disliked about Brigham Young is that he spoke his mind without holding back, even though I think his discourses sometimes wandered off into doctrinal areas that I don't think he had studied enough or prayed enough about to make statements that appeared like doctrinal pronouncements. I much more like the "united voice of the Brethren" approach to doctrines of the gospel.

David,
Thanks for the kindly response to my answers to you. I have felt kinship with your comments about "has to make sense in my mind and my heart," because it squares with what I believe, though I add two more dimensions: my experience, the "doing" of the will of God helps me "know of the doctrine, whether it be of God" as I find that the doing enriches my happiness and peace as well as having a more fulfilled life; and how I treat others as a result of the doctrines--do I extend unconditional love, compassion, understanding, and the kind of equanimity and inclusivity that Henry was talking about? If I end up going off on some tangent that doesn't include elements of all four of those dimensions--mind, heart/Spirit, the "doing", and unconditional love, then I soon find that I feel lost and that I have back-tracked in any meaningful progress in my life other than "learning by hard knocks."

'Just thought I would share that, as I have thought about it many times lately.

Thanks again for all of the unique-perspective comments.

Hi David,

Just a few items of clarification and a question. I rarely, if ever, in church hear anything to discredit the Bible. Many, if not most, Mormons are probably bigger Biblical literalists than even your self. The restoration is at least in part about bringing Biblical time to the present: Temples, Prophets, Apostles, Revelations etc.

I was first informed about the tenuous nature of the Bible’s compilation while watching the history channel. I learn more about it as I read secular material on Biblical Scholarship. I am no expert on it, and perhaps I should read some Christian apologetic material. I am curious about how Christians who base their epistemology on the assumption that the Bible is perfect in its original language make sense of its historical composition. I also find it very interesting how much weight they place on Prophecy fulfillment. I found that an Evangelical friend of mine also holds to prophecies as his primary, if not only, external reason to have so much confidence in the Divinity of the Bible (that and findings from creation Science). Considering prophecy is so important to Bible Christians, I still wonder how non-preterists make sense of the following prophecy from Jesus (I provided three translations):

30"At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. 31And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.
32"Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 33Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it[d]is near, right at the door. 34I tell you the truth, this generation[e] will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 35Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away (New International Version; Mathew 24:29-32).

29 “Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
32 “Now learn this parable from the fig tree: When its branch has already become tender and puts forth leaves, you know that summer is near. 33 So you also, when you see all these things, know that it is near—at the doors! 34 Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place. 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away.
New King James, (Mathew 24:29-32).

31 And he shall send his angels with a trumpet, and a great voice; and they shall gather his chosen from four winds, from the highest things of heaven to the ends of them. [And he shall send his angels with a trump, and great voice; and they shall gather his chosen from four winds, from the highest things of heavens till to the terms, or ends, of them.]

32 And learn ye the parable of the fig tree. When his branch is now tender, and the leaves be sprung, ye know that summer is nigh;

33 so and ye when ye shall see all these things [so also when ye shall see all these things], know ye that it is nigh, in the gates.

34 Truly I say to you, for this generation shall not pass, till all things be done;

(Wycliffe New Testament Mathew 24:29-32)

I hope this isn’t seen as being disagreeable, I am actually very interested in how a faith that puts so much stock in prophecy can make sense of this. Preterists conclude from this verse that the Second coming happened in 1st century AD. I’m sure that non-Preterist Christians have a decent response, I’m just not aware of it.

Here is a Preterist website for all who are interested:

http://www.preterist.org/whatispreterism.asp

Best to you all!

I will now have family night

Jd1

Anon,

Your right. My fault. It should be the word "before", not "but". Sorry, I was dealing with the word "worship" in that verse.

I looked up the many meanings of "paniym". I see it can mean before, as in a time reference, or in front of someone, such as if I'm looking at something in front of me and say "what is this before me?" It wouldn't be wise to take a guess, so I cross referenced scripture with scripture. How about Isaiah 44:6. This speaks of God claiming that He is one and there is no such thing as any other god.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Isa&chapter=44&verse=6&version=KJV#6

The defining word in this verse is "besides" in this verse it means "except". You might find this interesting. So, I look at it one way. I personally don't believe that God would contradict Himself. That does not seem to be His nature. Isaiah 44:6 is clear on God claiming to be one God and the only God. The exact translation is "there is no God 'besides' me". "Besides" literally meaning except. So for my conclusion, (doesn't necessarily have to be yours), I conclude that Ex 20:3 and the words "before me" mean not the time frame aspect of things, but No other gods "in front of" me. As in no other. Taking Isaiah 44:6 and Ex 20:3 and comparing them, it is quite logical to conclude that they both mean the same thing. That there is only one (numerically) God. You don't have to agree of course, but if I continue to insist that God would never contradict Himself, then no one can argue this particular case. He clearly says He is the only God and it's logical to take the meaning of "paniym" to not have a meaning of a timeframe but an actual indication of something in front of (or even except) God.

But that's my conclusion on the matter. I think we've been good about agreeing to disagree, so I'm sure you'll do the same. Thanks for the correction though, I appreciate it. God bless

JD1,

Again, many other great questions. I guess I need to be more specific, because I can tell my intentions on my previous post were not seen. What I wanted to do was show the Bibles RELIABILITY through means of historical accuracy, archaeological accuracy and textual purity. This does not mean that it is divinely inspired. Divine inspiration can only be validated if you have an historically accurate document. I hope this is agreed. So I will answer your questions. Good questions they are.

Question:

"1. How do fulfilled prophecies demonstrate the validity of entire Bible? I could see them as evidence for the revealed reality of individual books or parts of books, but how does that relate to the total acceptance of the final product? (For example, I can have faith in the Book of Daniel, but I have difficulty having faith in the Divinity of the Book of Joshua, considering it justifies genocide. I was actually happy to learn from Karen Armstrong that this story was added later around the time of Josiah by Deuteronomist scribes, whom I will define as uninspired). "

Answer:

Fulfilled prophecy does not demonstrate the validity of the Bibles. Fulfilled prophecy demonstrates the divine inspiration of the Bible. Prophecy is 100% accurate in the Bible. No psychic or medium can claim 100% accuracy, but the Bible is the only one that can claim that. Deut 18:20-22 shows us that a prophet must be 100% accurate or he is not a prophet from God. Prophecy is the one thing that can confirm a supernatural inspiration in the Bible. Concerning the book of Joshua, I havent' heard of that. I will study on that subject. Thanks for the insight.

Question

2. Why should the geographic accuracy of certain sites validate the Divinity of Bible any more than the geographic accuracy validate the Divinity of the Illiad?

Answer:

Geographic or historical accuracy does not validate divine inspiration. This is something I'm trying to get across. It merely points to the fact that the Bible is reliable. Meaning that for a simple example: Daniel never said he was hanging out with Julius Caesar during the Babylonian Empire. That would be an historically inaccurate statement therefore concluding that that document is not reliable. This is not the case with the Bible. It is reliable based on the historical, geographical, and textually pure evidence. The Illiad may be historically or geographically accurate, but it is not divinely inspired. There are no recorded miracles, or prophecy. Something supernatural needs to occur for us to know that it is divinedly inspired.

Question;

3. Even if the texts have not been corrupted, how can you be sure the selection process was inspired and that that which the original authors put to paper was really God's words?

Answer:

Can you define the selection process?? I'm assuming the LDS told you that at the Council of Nicea they voted on which books to make canon. This is historically incorrect. But I think I need you to define what you mean by a selection process? Thanks.

Question:

. Couldn't people have believed in and died for a fraud? I am not really following the connection here. How is their situation different than the many frauds that have been persecuted and martyred?

Answer:

Those that died were those that were actual witnesses to Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection. They testified to what they saw, not just read about. It would be quite different if Christians were not persecuted directly after the resurrection, then spreading Christianity, then being persecuted for their beliefs. Just like Islam, people kill themselves because they truly believe it. But how do we know that's not real, right? I think this is what you are asking. But it's different with the early apostles. They actually witnessed the events. To die for a false testimony is not logical. If I tried to tell everyone that pink leprechauns are real and I've seen them and we should worship them, and I'm persecuted for it...well, before even getting half way to the torture chamber I would recant that belief, wouldn't you? These men (who witnessed these events) died for the truth and their testimonies. It would be illogical for anyone to die for a lie.

You said,

5. You say this is where faith comes it right? You believe the Bible is God's word on faith, therefore you believe God would not allow it to be corrupted? I can respect that. Actually, I would respect faith as the answer to all the above. And, in fact, that is probably what it comes down to for all of us.

I believe we need faith in many things. I can't prove to anyone heaven or hell. But we can have faith in God and also have evidence for Him. This is where prophecy comes in. Who can tell the future, not vaguely or inconsistently, but to the minute details and 100% accurately? Only the Bible has done so. I don't believe in blind faith. I never did. I had to research some proof before I could fully accept Christ. There IS proof. I've mentioned this quote before, but it is one of my favorites by an apologist named Ravi Zacharias. I think it fits the subject once again.

"What I believe in my heart has to make sense in my head".

That describes me. Some may not need hard evidence. I did. I researched it and to my surprise God proves Himself dramatically. And that God is the God of the Bible. Plain and simple.

Thanks for hearing me and I'm sure you would disagree on many things, but I insist that you research the facts for yourself. You'd be surprised on what you will find JD.

Have a great day.

David,

Glad to see you're still around. I've been in and out and apologize for not having time to respond to some of your posts. Just a quick note on something you said:

"Oh by the way, I'm not sure what that last translation was. The TEV??

TEV - 3 "Worship no god but me.

I just checked the original Hebrew on this verse and there is no word for "worship" in this sentence. The word for worship is "shehhah" but it's not found in the original text. Therefore the proper translation of Ex 20:3 is (KJV) "Thou shalt have NO OTHER gods but me.""

Actually, the TEV is "Today's English Version" (reference Good News Translation). Oh and no, I don't follow that one. I only posted it because I was not sure which Christian denomination you were or which book you reference. I agree with your assessment, however, I use the KJV so that doesn't really apply to either of us then. What I was referencing was the use of the word "before" and not "but" when it says in Exodus:

Thou shalt have no other gods "before" me. (not "but" me.)

According to Strong's, the word that was used was "paniym" which is "in front of, before". Again, I am not trying to nit-pick - I very much like the way these conversations are going - but just to point out that it does not say "but". If you change the sentence to say:

"Thou shalt have no other gods "but" me", then I can understand your logic better, but because it says "before", it can be interpreted differently.

I hope that clarifies what I was trying to point out.

Thanks David for sharing that. I appreciated your thoughts and taking time out to write them all down.

That's why I never had time for Bible bashing as a missionary.

The only ones interested in it were Born Again Xtians and JW's and I knew they were full of crap and I wasn't so sure that MOrmonism wasn't full of it either when it came right down to it.

I never believed in a literal interpretation of the scriptures and whenever anybody would ask me about the discrepancy between the biblical account of creationism and the fossil evidence that contradicted it, I'd have to be honest and tell them that the account of creationism contained in the bible obviously wasn't a tennable world view in light of what we knew about the age of the earth and evolution, which is exactly why we need "continuing" and "personal" "revelation", to work these things out on our own with the reason and good sense god gave us instead of relying upon some 4,000 year old myth to do our thinking for us.

That wasn't exactly a great selling point for Mormonism, since I was still relying upon some old geezer in SLC to do my thinking for me, but at least people appreciated the brutal honesty and I'm kind of glad now that I didn't decieve anybody into believing in the fraud of Mormonism.

I had a missionary companion come all the way from Utah to look me up one time. He brought his whole family up here and wanted to have dinner with us. I had them over for a BBQ. He was relatively cool. But we were sitting there at the table with my whole family and his whole family, kids and all and he asks me to explain to him why I left the church. I told him that it probably wasn't appropriate dinner conversation and that he proabably didn't want me to go into it right there in front of his whole family. He made it very clear to me that he did and that he wanted his wife and kids to hear it.

I said, "OK I tried to warn you. Here goes. Answer this question, "Why did the church discriminate against blacks for the majority of its history?"

"Dunno."

"Wrong answer. You know exaclty why they did. Brigham Young couldn't have articulated why any more clearly. He said their black skin was a mark of the curse of cain, from whom they descended and that they would forever more be punished as to the priesthood, until all the descendants of Abel had recieved the Priesthood. Now he said a lot of other things, but you and I both know that we were indoctrinated with that doctrine when we were kids so why do you now pretend that you don't know?"

Silence.

"That was obviously wrong, yet nobody in the leadership of the LDS church has had the courage to admit they were wrong to this day. That's a big problem with me. They expect me to be perfect, yet they can't even aknowledge that they did anything wrong? That's just hypocritical."

Then after I go through the whole litany of other things that I found immoral, intollerable and untennable to me about MOrmonism he tells me, "Well, maybe you just think too much. I just blow it off."

I told him, "Maybe you don't think enough. I can't blow it off, especially after 9-11. I'm morally compelled to raise my children and bring them as close to the truth as I can. That's what I'm doing. I'm following the dictates of my conscience and that will get me and my family to our destination. I'm more confident of that than ever before."

I had a missionary companion come all the way from Utah to look me up one time. He brought his whole family up here and wanted to have dinner with us. I had them over for a BBQ. He was relatively cool. But we were sitting there at the table with my whole family and his whole family, kids and all and he asks me to explain to him why I left the church. I told him that it probably wasn't appropriate dinner conversation and that he proabably didn't want me to go into it right there in front of his whole family. He made it very clear to me that he did and that he wanted his wife and kids to hear it.

I said, "OK I tried to warn you. Here goes. Answer this question, "Why did the church discriminate against blacks for the majority of its history?"

"Dunno."

"Wrong answer. You know exaclty why they did. Brigham Young couldn't have articulated why any more clearly. He said their black skin was a mark of the curse of cain, from whom they descended and that they would forever more be punished as to the priesthood, until all the descendants of Abel had recieved the Priesthood. Now he said a lot of other things, but you and I both know that we were indoctrinated with that doctrine when we were kids so why do you now pretend that you don't know?"

Silence.

"That was obviously wrong, yet nobody in the leadership of the LDS church has had the courage to admit they were wrong to this day. That's a big problem with me. They expect me to be perfect, yet they can't even aknowledge that they did anything wrong? That's just hypocritical."

Then after I go through the whole litany of other things that I found immoral, intollerable and untennable to me about MOrmonism he tells me, "Well, maybe you just think too much. I just blow it off."

I told him, "Maybe you don't think enough. I can't blow it off, especially after 9-11. I'm morally compelled to raise my children and bring them as close to the truth as I can. That's what I'm doing. I'm following the dictates of my conscience and that will get me and my family to our destination. I'm more confident of that than ever before."

David,

Thank you very much for your explanation. I am glad you have learned that the Bible is worthy of your trust.

Your reasons for believing are, from what I understand, as follows:

1. Fulfilled Prophecies.

2. Archeological evidence backing up the accuracy of certain Biblical sites.

3. Numerous copies of the New Testament dating 120 AD, which indicate textual purity.

4. Many people died for these beliefs (which is why you believe certain messianic prophecy fulfillments could not have been made up).

5. You assume the hand of providence in preserving God's word

I have further questions regarding each of these points:

1. How do fulfilled prophecies demonstrate the validity of entire Bible? I could see them as evidence for the revealed reality of individual books or parts of books, but how does that relate to the total acceptance of the final product? (For example, I can have faith in the Book of Daniel, but I have difficulty having faith in the Divinity of the Book of Joshua, considering it justifies genocide. I was actually happy to learn from Karen Armstrong that this story was added later around the time of Josiah by Deuteronomist scribes, whom I will define as uninspired).

2. Why should the geographic accuracy of certain sites validate the Divinity of Bible any more than the geographic accuracy validate the Divinity of the Illiad?

3. Even if the texts have not been corrupted, how can you be sure the selection process was inspired and that that which the original authors put to paper was really God's words?

4. Couldn't people have believed in and died for a fraud? I am not really following the connection here. How is their situation different than the many frauds that have been persecuted and martyred?

5. You say this is where faith comes it right? You believe the Bible is God's word on faith, therefore you believe God would not allow it to be corrupted? I can respect that. Actually, I would respect faith as the answer to all the above. And, in fact, that is probably what it comes down to for all of us.

Thank you for sharing David.

Signing off my friend,

Jd1

Great question JD1,

I think most who argue the Bible's reliability is because they don't know about the historocity of the Bible. I think the main concern is the NT. As far as the OT is concerned, through archeaological finds and historical analysis, the OT is historically correct. Meaning that for ex: Daniel wrote about Nebuchadnezzer and other historical facts concerning the time of that king. These facts have been established through archaeological proof, therefore the book of Daniel remained historically correct. Just yesterday on cnn.com I read about a tablet that was found with an inscription that historically verified the book of Jeremiah. Therefore, we know by archaeological fact that Jeremiah did exist and wrote his account during the time that he claimed. This brings up prophecy. Jeremiah made several messianic prophecies. He prophecied that the Messiah (Jesus) would be born of a virgin Jer 31:22, and also that He would be both God and man and from the line of David Jer 23:5-6. These prophecies were fulfilled in the NT. So we know that the OT was written before the time of Christ. There are 456 prophecies concerning Jesus and He fulfilled them all. (I believe 456....more or less...can't remember the exact number, but I think that's correct). How difficult would it be for someone to purposely fulfill all the prophecies, especially the crucifixion? Not only did Christ have to die by crucifixion as recorded in in the book of Psalms, but he had to be pierced in His side, not any bones broken (as customary with crucifixion in that they would break the legs of the victims to speed up death) along with many other factors that one could definately not be forced but had to happen naturally. These crucifixion prophecies were 1000 years before Christ and approximately 400 years before crucifixion was even practiced or thought of. Prophecy tells me that God and that the God of the Bible is real and the only true God.

The NT,

The most critical of non-believers accuse the NT of not being correct. Or being changed somehow. Of course in that day no one had the luxury of a printing press therefore the NT had to be copied several times in order for circulation. By 125 a.d. there were over 24,000 copies of the NT available. These same copies we have today. Scholars have examined every line of every copy and have concluded that these copies in comparison are 99.5% textually pure, meaning that there are few errors, but the only errors consist of a few misspellings, differences such as one writer writing "Jesus Christ" as compared to "Christ Jesus". No errors taking away meaning or context. Therefore, the Bible we have today is the same Bible that was originally written. Also, in comparison to ancient writings the NT is the only one that had so many copies in such a short time span from the time of the accounts that if you disclude the NT, you are forced to disclude the writings of Socrates, Plato, etc. Their writings were copied as well but the most recent copies found of these writers were far past the time of occurence and had many more errors. Understanding Jewish custom of oral tradition and the works of the scribes within Jewish custom show an extraordinary amount of care in relaying the original message in it's original perfection.

So with historical accuracy in the OT and the NT being 99.5% textually pure with no errors of importance, it can easily be said that the Bible we read is the same Bible that was originally written.

Then comes the prophecy dispute. So many people say that the apostles wrote their accounts to make all the prophecies fulfill. This would be illogical. First of all with Saul of Tarsus. We knew him to be a great persecuter of Christians and to be some Jewish priest in the upper ranks. Why would he testify to the gospel accounts, give up a life of luxury and comfort for a lie? Same goes with the other apostles. Why would they be persecuted, beaten, imprisoned and eventually killed for a lie? It doesn't make sense. If they knew it was a lie, then why be constantly tortured and eventually killed for it? This is illogical. And their deaths are not false as well. This is historical fact. It is fact that Christians were persecuted until Constantine (324.a.d.) especially under the emporor Domintian (is that how it's spelled?) Anyway, I find it impossible to go through what they went through for a lie. Therefore I believe in the fulfilled messianic prophecies of the NT which in turn is proof for me to know that the God of the Bible is the one true God.

And because of having the copies in 125 a.d. which are still available today, no one can say that the Bible has been tampered with. The only problem I see is the translation into other languages. But with Strong's Concordance we can know what words that are difficult to translate are in their true meaning. You must understand that all languages have certain words that do not have a definitive meaning in English, thereofe it is useful once in awhile to look back at the original wording for a complete meaning sometimes. I believe this is important in Bible study. But most importantly is having enough faith in God to know that His Word is true and the Word He promised to give to those who choose to hear it has not been changed. My God would not allow that. His purpose is to redeem us of our sins. Can any believer really believe that He would allow His plan to be thwarted and therefore no one saved? I have faith that God would not allow that, and not only blind faith, but faith with historical and prophetical proof.

This is why I believe in the God of the Bible and not the God of any other religion.

I hope my explanation was sufficient. I have studied on this a little. I too needed "PROOF" to be able to feel comforted in knowing that my God is real. He never failed me and never will.

God bless

Thanks HJ for your kind words. I have returned for a brief time (as I've noticed that this board can certainly take lots of it!). I go by the alias of yacttb but left it as anonymous in my last post.

David - I'm always interested in other's testimonies and religious beliefs too. Please tack me up with JD1 in listening to what you have to say.

Thanks!

following on JD's post

there is a lovely review in the New York Review of Books by Allen Orr (who hated Dawkins' book) of Columbia professor Philip Kitcher's book "Living with Darwin."

Kitcher deals with the science/religion dialog of the last 400 years that has focused on two questions:
1. Can one take the Bible literally? or must it be read metaphorically?
2. Can one be "religious" without believing in a *super*natural God?

Kitcher reads the consensus of religious biblical scholars as saying that it is pretty impossible to read the Bible literally. Start with the 6-day creation, etc. And evolutionary science has disproved theories like "God created advanced species all at once".

So yes, JD, literal readings are difficult to justify. A very fair-minded review again: i recommend it to you smart people.

peace
henry

David,

I am curious why you believe in the Bible? How do you justify belief in the Bible alone, as opposed to other religious texts (Quaran, Upanishads etc.)? The reason I believe much of the Bible is because of the Book of Mormon and personal revelation: how do you justify it? Especially in the face of problems brought up by Henry James and Concerned the Christian.

In in the spirit of this splendid discussion wherein we are trying to reach mutual understanding, I will not try to argue with you about it.

Best,

Jd1

Parker: OK, I see where you are coming from now in your response to me, thanks. I think you wrote a good synopsis and in the spirit of this discussion I'm not going to nitpick or comment on other points that you raised.

Even Jesus closest companions couldn't fully grasp His significance despite seeing the miracles, hearing the teaching and following Him daily for three years. On Palm Sunday, I think the disciples would each testify under oath that Jesus was the Messiah. But what did they think that really meant? Was Jesus going to overthrow Rome? Rule the world from Jerusalem? Give each disciple a really cushy desk job in a new kingdom?

Only on the following Sunday would Peter, Andrew, John... clearly be able to understand and testify to the fact of who Jesus really was and what He had done for them, and us.

WOW, isn't this the way to have discussion? Yeah, I think I enjoy the peace as well instead of the "your wrong, I'm right" attitudes that we all and definately I have done. Parker, thanks for your explanation of those ceremonies. I know your probably used to hearing the word "cult" but I do think you need to realize that has nothing to do with the comparing you or your organization to the likes of Jim Jones and the such. As far as I can see the LDS people are very nice folks. But nice folks does not mean that we believe in the absolute truth. I'm not trying to bring up an argument again, I just want to recant the fact that I do disagree with the beliefs of the LDS, however have come to the peace of mind that we must, again, "agree to disagree".

I do thank you all for sharing your beliefs. I would hope that you would agree that it is important for those with differences to know your beliefs to better understand one another. I know that you already know what I believe in, but I wonder if you know why? If you would like, without being argumentative, would you all like to know why (Biblically) I believe so differently? I do think we share a different gospel. If you would like, I can show you where Biblically from where I derive my beliefs. If not, it's understandable. I believe the gospel is what saves us, but I do believe we have a different gospel. I would like to know if any of you would like to know what the gospel is according to my beliefs? Thanks.

God Bless.

Anonymous

You are such an eloquent voice: please tell us your name.

Since my father grew up in a 250 person Utah town, I have a tropism to defend Utahns too.

I think any overwhelming majority makes minority members feel oppressed to some degree, even if the majority are all good people and have no intention of doing so. And 99% of small town Utah Mormons are very good people.

To me it is an argument for the "world tribe", the "global village", global consciousness. I think in that aspect people all over the world are much better than 100 or 500 or 5,000 years ago.

We should all be aware of the "provincialisms" that we all have (even upper class WASPS like me) and strive to be inclusive of the WHOLE tribe of humanity.

Roy,

I agree with your remarks. I (being a convert to LDS) do not live in Utah, however the area I live in is predominantly another Christian sect. (I am refraining from using the sect name because it is irrelevant and will only stir controversy which will deviate from the point) I do suffer much persecution in this area because of my beliefs which I feel are uncalled for; probably in the same realm as non-mormons living in certain areas in Utah. I think you will find when a group of people find commonality within their habitats, that they may feel threatened when another moves into their neighborhood whom they do not see eye to eye. We need to remember too that people are imperfect, no matter what religious group they belong to, and that the doctrines of the church (not always the people) is what I feel should be examined.

Not to create another argument, but rather a point - I know *many* Mormons who grew up in Utah who no longer live there and have moved out near us because they noticed the behavior that you have eluded to in Utah and did not appreciate it. Granted (from what I hear) it is getting better than what it used to be, but I have observed that there is still improvement needed. (not just in Utah) I do recall many times Church leaders speaking in conference about this and indicating to members that we need to be accepting of other religious groups and be kind and courteous to them. See our 11th Article of Faith here:

http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,106-1-2-1,FF.html

However, (I'm not trying to attack Utahns because they are a good people), there have been many communities as well (within Utah) who work *very* closely with other Christian and non-christian sects on helping the poor and needy. I think some areas are different than others. Generalizing obviously won't be accurate, but I do agree somewhat with your post.

I would also like to state that I do appreciate the difference in tone on this blog. I appreciate David and Parker's recent exchanges and think that this is a much better approach to understanding each other's viewpoints. David and Parker - thank you both for your much kindness here. I look forward to similar future exchanges and believe that more will be accomplished and learned (from both parties) this way, than what was done in the past. Even if we choose to "agree to disagree".

On the surface, Mr. Otterson makes a lot of sense. His words are well thought out and I believe sincere. The problems come when these religions, who claim to have god in their own private box, start politically excluding or picking on others. As I used to say when I lived in Utah, I respect your right to believe anything you want. Who am I to say you're wrong? But who are you to tell me I'm wrong and try to jam your religion down my throat. I think my problem with the zealousness of Mormons is having grown up in Utah where Mormon ethnocentrism is so overwhelming for the so called "gentiles" who must suffer from it. I'm sure the same is true for "infidels" who live in predominantly Islam areas and those who are what the new pope so tactfully brands as the Christian "wounded" who must put up with an overwhelming majority of Irish Catholics.

Is the Bible Literally True?
What DID Jesus Say?

Parker, in his well reasoned post of 128 am, write "As you may be aware from reading in the New Testament, when Christ read from Isaiah 61 in the Jewish synagogue and said, "This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears," he began a process of teaching little by little his divine mission, for he knew exactly what it was and how he was fulfilling so many Old Testament scriptures through his life and mission."

Did Jesus *really* aay this? Many (most?) biblical scholars think that we can't be *sure* Jesus said *anything* ascribed to him in the gospels.

They were written 40-70 years after his death. They were "Gospels" that were meant to Sell the Gospel, not determine historical accuracy. They had great incentive to make Jesus seem to be a fulfilment of the prophecies of Isaiah etc.

Interesting blog. Look at all the catastrophe and fighting that religion causes. Look at all the wars and bloodshed and fighting all done in the name of religion. That's why I always tell people that agnostics might just be those with the "true" faith and path to heaven. How many wars have been started in the name of agnosticism? How much blood has been shed to further the cause of agnosticism? If this is the measure of the truth (the relative behavior of the followers of a path), then it is the agnostics who seem to be those who have found the Way.

David,
I have thought I should clarify two things. One is that by "white clothing" worn in temples I am talking about white dresses for the women and white trousers and a white shirt for the men.

The other clarification is that I am aware that some people refer to the LDS Church as a "cult" in a tone of disrespect, derision and suspicion, partly because of not understanding the purposes of and God's formal instruction to them to build and attend temples. This even though LDS attendance to temples may often be only a few times in their lives (if they live far distant from a temple) or a few times per year; and the instructional "ceremonies" or meetings accompanied by symbolic promises of obedience to God's laws use language and patterns of ideas that can be found in the Old Testament.

The idea of some things being sacred and not to be talked about openly due to special respect for their sacredness, seems unacceptable to some people who can't accept this idea of sacredness. If they had sincerely read the Old Testament about the tabernacle in the wilderness with a "holy of holies" and Solomon's temple, they would recognize that God can instruct and has instructed a sacred aspect of some religious symbolism.

Jim,
Thanks for answering insightfully and well. I also think of the "covenant-making" part of the gospel as something very important that Christ taught, and the beatitudes and parables giving breadth and depth to his messages of love and forgiveness and the equality of all men and women in the eyes of God. Within "covenant-making" is the need for baptism as he taught to Nicodemus, and of seeking to do the Father's will through making promises of faithfulness, even though we fall short and thus still need Christ's help and forgiveness as we seek to become sanctified.

Ghostbuster,
As you may be aware from reading in the New Testament, when Christ read from Isaiah 61 in the Jewish synagogue and said, "This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears," he began a process of teaching little by little his divine mission, for he knew exactly what it was and how he was fulfilling so many Old Testament scriptures through his life and mission. If he had announced to all, "I am the Son of God the Father," the people were not ready to understand that or to receive it, especially not the Jewish leaders. As it was, the Jewish leaders began to raise a stir about Jesus, but I think they weren't really sure if what they thought they heard him saying was that he was the promised Messiah, so that in the meantime he found those people who could be taught and could begin little by little to understand.

With the apostles, he taught them more than the rest of the people (see especially the final chapters of the book of John) about his divinity and his mission of redemption and resurrection. Even so, they probably didn't really understand what he was saying, but began to have their hearts prepared for when he would be crucified and rise in the resurrection as he had promised, so that they could testify about it as fulfillment of what he had taught them.

David,
The temple ceremonies contain much symbolism, but it is important to understand that everyone participates in these ceremonies wearing white clothing (symbolic of purity and becoming of "one heart"), so any other symbolic "clothing" is added during the ceremonies as a part of the teaching process, and this is all done in complete modesty and in what I would call a non-sanctimonious way.

Because understanding God's plan of salvation including the central importance of Christ's atoning sacrifice is so vital to helping us keep a proper perspective as we all deal with the challenges of day-to-day life, the plan of salvation including the purpose of this earth, why we are here, and how Adam and Eve made covenants with God after their fall, are re-taught as part of the temple ceremonies. This is all explained in temple open houses for the general public before they are dedicated, so if you ever get the chance you could go to an LDS temple open house and see the meeting rooms and hear explanations about what goes on there.

I hope this has helped and not confused. Thanks again for the friendly atmosphere and warmth. All the best, as also to your family.

Our 4th article of faith is a good summary of the gospel:

"We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the gospel are first, faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, repentance; third, baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost."

I apologize for inserting my comments here (in this discussion between Parker and David), but I've been trying to follow the posts when I've had time and have appreciated the more friendly tone here as of late and hope that it will continue.

About gospel, to paraphrase from the Bible dictionary, gospel means "good news." The good news is that, through Jesus Christ's perfect atonement, we can be cleansed from sin by exercising faith in Christ and sincerely repenting of our sins. The good news is also that, again through Christ's atonement, all mankind will be redeemed from physical death through the resurrection.

I believe the words "covenant" and "testament" are similar and at times can be interchangeable. So the Old Testament or covenant was the law of Moses that was intended to prepare the house of Israel for the coming of Christ and the new coventant and gospel that he would bring.

I'm sure others that post here can give a better explanation but I thought I would chime in with a few comments....

Parker,

One more thing really quick. I just read Ghostbuster's post and it made me realize something. You said

"....before he had a chance to teach the people and establish the "new covenant" of the gospel."

I don't quite follow either, especially on this part that I posted. I guess the best thing for me to do is ask you, what is the gospel? Or at least the gospel according to the LDS?

I'm wondering if we share the same gospel? I know we don't share the same faith and that we have established and agreed to disagree on, but I'm curious what the gospel is according to the LDS?

Thanks Parker.

Parker,

Thank you. It's well appreciated. I appreciate your explanation. I'm getting the understanding of what you believe, but of course I cannot understand the why. But that is the debateable part that we have agreed to pass on. I guess what I should say is thank you for expressing your beliefs in an honest and respectful manner. I think it's important to know what other faiths believe in. If you don't mind are you willing to answer a few more questions? Again, I promise to not try to refute your beliefs, but have my curiousities.

If you would like, could you answer this question? If not I understand because I know the question I'm about to ask might be a personal religious question, but my curiosity leads me to ask anyway. Like I said, and I will take no offense at all if you do not want to answer this.

I hear, (hearsay) that you have certain temple ceremonies. Now, some people say they are secret temple ceremonies, but I have no idea. But what I've heard is that you wear a fig leaf in some certain ceremony. If you would like to share, I would appreciate it. Otherwise, I understand that these ceremonies might be something that might not be appropriate for public conversation. But what are these ceremonies that take place with the fig leaf? And what does the fig leaf represent? Of course I can guess Adam and Eve, but I don't want to be assumptuious. Thanks Parker and again, if you don't want to share, I understand. Some things are meant to be personal. Otherwise, thank you for your nice responses. Have a great evening.

God bless

Parker said: "...if all of the Jews and the Romans had understood that Jesus was really saying that He was the divine Son of God the Father, he would, I think, have been subjected to being tormented more fervently than he was before he had a chance to teach the people and establish the "new covenant" of the gospel."

Could you please elaborate a bit more on that point if you have time Parker? I don't quite follow.

Thanks

David,
If it can be with the understanding that we are both "agreeing to disagree," since you have asked an important basic doctrinal question that many of us could answer, I'll give my attempt and others may also.

I would encourage you to read the "Lectures on Faith" (or a synopsis of it) if you want to begin to understand the importance the LDS place on God the Father as the Supreme Ruler of the Universe and the Supreme object of our faith and worship. To grasp how we also believe in the divine role of Jesus Christ, who was as you have said the Jehovah of the Old Testament, you need to understand that we believe Jesus was perfect in the pre-mortal life, and thus received power because of His faith, love, and desires that were absolutely and completely in one accord with God the Father, to be fully God and to come to earth acting fully and completely in the express purposes of God the Father. We worship both the Father and the Son, and because they are of one complete unity of accord and will and desires, by worship of either of them, we are giving our devotion and worship to both of them. So when Jehovah commanded the children of Israel through Moses, "Thou shalt have no other gods but me" (your rendering) it would be saying "I have received the commission from God the Father to be the God of Israel whom you should love and worship with all of your heart, and have no other gods but me."

This makes sense to LDS, but probably not to you. One reason, I think, for the confusion that has been allowed to happen through some of the misconceptions in the Jewish and Christian religious worlds about their relationship, is that if all of the Jews and the Romans had understood that Jesus was really saying that He was the divine Son of God the Father, he would, I think, have been subjected to being tormented more fervently than he was before he had a chance to teach the people and establish the "new covenant" of the gospel. Also, the concept of two minds, hearts, and wills being 100% in agreement in every minute respect, is very difficult for mortal men and women to grasp.

God teaches people at the level that they are at and does not impose a greater knowledge than each person is ready to receive. So if the Trinity concept works for you and helps you worship God with all of the faith you can muster, then God will receive that faith and work with it and work with you to benefit those around you through your faith.

Not to be redundant, but best to you in that process of strengthening others through your faith.

JD1,

You asked, "This is very exciting news! Which On Faith Panalist would you say represents the Seraphim perspective on these modern issues?"

Since Muslims are required to believe in angels, one assumes that Pam Taylor, Eboo Patel and John Esposito represent all the angels to include the Seraphim. Dr. Esposito's commentaries should, however, be read with some caution since he and Georgetown U. were paid $20 million dollars by Prince Alwaleed bin Talal to make only "sweet" talk about Islam.

Anon,

Oh by the way, I'm not sure what that last translation was. The TEV??

TEV - 3 "Worship no god but me.

I just checked the original Hebrew on this verse and there is no word for "worship" in this sentence. The word for worship is "shehhah" but it's not found in the original text. Therefore the proper translation of Ex 20:3 is (KJV) "Thou shalt have NO OTHER gods but me."

So, I'm curious if you really derive to your point about worshiping God the Father alone from this false translation? And again, do you worship Jesus?

Anon,

So quick question. You said that LDS only worship the Father. But you don't worship Jesus? Honest question, I really am curious about that.

Concerned,

This is very exciting news! Which On Faith Panalist would you say represents the Seraphim perspective on these modern issues?

Best to you!

Jd1

Im sooo sick of hearing about "my Jesus is better than your Jesus" This is the first time ive ever posted anything like this but all your bickering will put and have put people totaly away from the saviour! Really what would he say himself about all of this, i give you all 3 simple words that will change the whole world and all your attitudes towards Him in whom you speak so light minded about! "LOVE ONE ANOTHER!" Please God wouldnt just cast someone to hell because they followed Christ in which they thought was a peacful way and doing good to others! Il shorten that for you He wouldnt cast someone to hell just FOR TRYING YOUR BEST TO FOLLOW HIM!!

David,
Thanks for the kind response, and the suggested reading. I'll look forward to reading it this coming week.

Also CCNL,
Thanks for the more gentle tone in your most recent comments. I for one have appreciated it. (I'm not saying I'm good at that myself--'have a lot to learn.)

David,

A small technicality. You stated earlier in your post "Also, the first commandment states we are to not have any other gods beside Him .... (and then questioned) Is Jesus God or "a" god?" Actually, it does not say this exactly. I have given three other texts as I do not know which one you follow:

KJV - 3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

NRSV - 3 you shall have no other gods before me.

TEV - 3 "Worship no god but me.

According to LDS belief, we do not worship anyone but God the Father, which is exactly in accordance to the First Commandment. The above does not state "we are to not have any other gods BESIDES Him", but rather, we "shall have no other gods BEFORE" Him. Yes, a small technicality, but a major difference in meaning and one that the LDS supports. We do not put anyone before God and we only worship God the Father.

Unfortunately, stating it the way you did above, puts a different twist on it, which can alter the meaning in your arguments.

Thanks

John D the First,

Since there are elements of the ancient Hittite religions in the "Abrahamic cults", the Hittites have been adding their "whatever" money's worth here so I guess in a way, there have been "angelic" comments after all.

Of course, some commentators believe they communicate directly with God so apparently some "pretty wingie talking thingies" have been given pink slips. That would also explain the lack of e-mails from Heaven posted anywhere on the net.

I've learned to ignore "Concerned". It's been hard, but I think we have to.

Anyway,

Thanks Parker for your well thought out response. Of course we would have to "agree to disagree" on it and I promised to try not to refute it. I made a promise and I intend to keep it. The only thing I will say is that I disagree with the historical account of your response based on my own research of the historical accounts of early Christianity. Other than that, I do thank you and now know WHY you believe in a "restored" church.

I think a good book to read on the historical accounts of Christianity is "The Woman Rides the Beast" by Dave Hunt. It's about the Roman Catholic Church and the end times. (Rev 17). Very interesting facts in that book about the several true Christians that were martyred over the centuries until the Reformation. They were martyred by the RCC. So many people think that the only Christians after Constantine were the Roman Catholics. Of course Christianity is blamed for the Inquisition, Crusades and the Witch Trials, but in fact all those were by means of the power of the Pope at that time. There were Christians throughout history besides Roman Catholics. The only problem is that Catholics murdered them for actually reading the Bible and not agreeing with false doctrine. I wish atheists would read this book especially. That way they would stop coming with the excuse of blaming all Christians for the Inquisition, Crusades, and Witch Trials. Anyway, enough babbling. I just got done with this book about a month ago and it really opened my eyes to the historical account of Christianity. I thought maybe you would enjoy it as well.

Take care Parker and once again, thanks for your kind words and your explanation of why the belief in a restored church. It's well appreciated. I always wondered why that belief. Thank you.

God bless you and your family. Of course like always I'll keep you in my prayers.

Concerned,

Why would any "pretty wingy thingies" participate? As you said, they are representatives of the ancient Hittite faith. On Faith has yet to invite a Hittite panelist. Maybe their all anti-Hittites.

Best to you!

Jd1

Oh where, Oh where, art thou Moroni? Ditto for Gabriel, Michael, Tinkerbell, Tubuas, Uriel, Adimus, Sabaoth, Simiel, Raguel, the Seraphim and the Cherubim?????

Hold on, we just received an e-mail from St. Peter. Apparently, Satan stole all the angel PC's and therefore there have been no angelic commentaries on this blog. St. Peter sends his apologies. Stay tuned though, I hear Michael Dell is trying to sign an agreement with St. Peter for new laptops for the "pretty wingie thingies".

David,
Thank you so much for the kind and considerate way you asked these questions. I appreciate it with all my heart. The LDS belief in a need for a restoration is, as you've noted, fundamental to our beliefs. It ties to beliefs about the "agency" or "individual choice" given to mankind, and to beliefs about the scattering of all of the house of Israel, for the important purpose of spreading "people with believing hearts" all across the world for the final spreading of the gospel of Jesus Christ in all lands and among all peoples.

If God had wanted to, he could have "sent" to the world men and women who would have been strong enough in their faith and understanding, and in following the teachings of Christ in their purity, to have retained the Church that He organized among the original twelve apostles in its original form. We read how in Acts Judas Iscariot was replaced by Matthias, and it appears that Paul became one of the twelve apostles later.

Two things were happening as the gospel was spread to several nations by the preaching of the apostles: 1)communication was slow, so it would naturally and logically be very difficult for the apostles to keep the purity of the teachings the same everywhere, and to make sure as the authority of the priesthood was administered among the new converts, nobody got "off track" and started adding new rites or new interpretations to fit their own thinking or to try and "get more power" or to "consolidate power". 2)the persecution was intense, so that many had to go into hiding and many were killed. It appears that most if not all (except John the Beloved) of the apostles were martyred.

Yet the Christian teachings about love, forgiveness, and the reality of Christ's resurrection were very significant among the people who heard this message. In retrospect, we could hope that a group or groups would have remained strong in the pure original doctrine, but as governments became involved in the process of helping consolidate the power of the Christian Church, perhaps with good, peaceful intentions, it appears the doctrine and rites did not retain their original purity and the leadership could not be replaced fast enough to overcome the loss of key leaders who were killed.

I believe God allowed the consequence of this "falling away" from the pure original Church of Christ because He absolutely allows free choice among mankind, and also because the governments of the time did not allow enough freedom among the people to not inhibit the practices of faith among the faithful as the gospel would spread to many lands. Although it seems unfair to us, I think the spread of many of the teachings of Christ was a wonderful thing, even though it was not accompanied by the full doctrines and ordinances.

The full doctrines and ordinances, and the authority of the priesthood, needed to be "restored" by those very souls who had them on the earth before the "falling away"--Peter, James, John, John the Baptist, Jesus Christ himself, all returned to the earth to re-establish the authority and the teachings in their original and pure form. But it still had to be done in a way that allowed free choice or "agency", and wouldn't be in a showy dramatic way that the whole world would know about. God works in ways that are not man's ways, his wonders to perform.

The "gates of hell" or Satan's power will not prevail against the church that Christ established, because the original church is back on the earth, and Jesus knew that the plan of His Father would be one of success--Satan will not succeed in thwarting God's plan.

One more thing, David. As you teach Bible teachings to people, to the extent that you teach love and acceptance I believe you are being an instrument in the hands of God, and you have every respect from me in that. I think it would be reasonable to allow for differences of belief from Biblical writings, but the core doctrines of love among men and women of all cultures, forgiveness, gratitude to heavenly powers in the universe, heartfelt change for the better as we grow in understanding about how God wants us to treat others and believe in ourselves--these things we can embrace and agree on.

May you be inspired as you seek to serve Him and bless the lives of those around you through your caring thoughtfulness.

Parker,

Apology accepted. I would hope we could remain friends. I think your right about the "agreeing to disagree". I know on threads like these it is impossible to sway any individual one way or another. It seems endless. I have learned a lot about the LDS faith by being on here. I've tried to study the mormon faith a little bit, but it's hard to find a non-biased source for credible information. This is why I preferred to come on here to hear it from the actual people who are LDS. I've learned a lot. I think "agreeing to disagree" should be a doctrine between us. I start seeing the same old thing over and over again on here. Now with James on our discussion, I can see how that discussion might not turn out to be peaceful. I'd rather let it go and remain respectful of one another, than to debate all these issues and feel contempt for one another. It seems that that is the way to go.

There are other things that I would like to learn about concerning the LDS faith. I promise not to try to debate the issue, but I am curious and would like to know. This is something I've been trying to figure out since the first time being on here. It is this "restored" church. What was God restoring? It is my biblical understanding that the church is made up of believers in Christ, not an actual organization. Of course this is debateable, but this is MY Biblical understanding. Others will agree and of course you will disagree. Fine, let's not argue, but figure out what each other believes in. I know Jesus told Peter that He would build His church on a rock that death or Hades could not overcome. I also know that he said that heaven and earth will pass away, but His words will never pass away. If indeed Christ's church ceased to exist at the time of the end of the original apostles until the time of Joseph Smith, then did God break His promise of allowing the church to become COMPLETELY apostate as to His words vanishing and His church being taken over by death and Hades? This "restoration" is the biggest thing in LDS teaching that I cannot understand. Of course, I may be seeing it differently than you and of course we can always agree to disagree, but I still haven't figured out why the LDS claims to need to "restore" the one true church?

I hope you take this question as an act of curiosity and not as though I will try to refute it. I just want to hear how this is expalained from an LDS perspective. No matter how you explain it or any LDS member explains it, I promise, right now, I promise I will not try to refute it. I just want to know a little more about it, that's all. I think that's the best way to keep the peace amongst us. Thanks

God bless

The Original Post spoke of the need to be able to debate and disagree without the need to be rude and "pick a fight".

I personally think many posters on here debate and disagree with the plain intention of "picking a fight". It seems plainly evident.

Jesus taught many "radical" things that went against the view of the time and he debated many times with the "learned" scribes and pharisees but he never went to pick a fight.
He made same pretty incredible and audacious claims that were viewed by many at the time as blasphemous and going against the main religious stream of thought. And yet all were claims that had their foundation in the very scripture that the others had and claimed to be learned in.

I would suggest I see a similar pattern here.

David,
I'm sorry for having misunderstood some of your previous posts about attending church. (I sincerely did misunderstand.) Glad you do--I think that's important, and wish you well with your family. I love the attitude of "agreeing to disagree." Have a great weekend. Again, I apologize.

Regards,
Parker

Parker,

Where did you get the assumption that I do not attend any church? And for some reason you think I'm the only one that reads the Bible the way I do. There are millions of people on earth now who know the same Jesus I know. Ask John M, Amanda, or Nicole from the other posts. We all attend non-denominational churches. None of us the same church or same leadership, but with the same Jesus. I think what you may be referring to is a time when I said I attend several churches. I said that I "church hop". Yes, that is the case. I like to attend several churches. The apostles did the same thing didn't they? Didn't Paul visit different churches? What's wrong with me not sticking to one building but visiting other brothers and sisters in Christ in other cities? Just for your information, I go to a Baptist church once in awhile and two different non-denominational churches. We all preach the same gospel and although all three different "buildings" have different names, they are all the "one true church".

So, I would appreciate it Parker if you could not tell new bloggers false information about me. I see and understand how you want to back your LDS faith along with your other LDS family on here. But to try to destroy my credibility in saying that I do not even attend church, or I believe in my sole interpretation of the Bible is wrong. It's funny because those who oppose Jesus in this current age do the same thing. Attacking Jesus' credibility. Look at the DaVinci Code. An attack on Jesus' purity. There are numerous theories that attack the person of Jesus Christ. It always seems to be a trend to attack His purity. To someway find out that He sinned or made a false prophecy, or was married with children. You attack me by claiming that I do not even attend church and have my OWN Biblical interpretation??? Christ is in me. Yes He is. Do you want to use the same tactics that the atheists use to attack Jesus' credibility as you are doing to me?

I really thought for a minute that you and I, Parker, have built somewhat of an online friendship. I would never attack your credibility. I have constantly said how nice LDS people are. I love you as people. I love the family aspect of the LDS organization. I do not love the doctrines though. This is not a personal attack on you. I thought that you and I agreed to disagree at one point and it seemed that we remained friendly to one another. But if you use assumptuious tactics to try to destroy my credibility as a person, then I would have to say you are no friend of mine. Every LDS member I have engaged, I have grown to love on here. RTC, JD1 and I though you too Parker. I hope the same eventually with James as well. But we'll see. So for now on, I would hope that you can argue with me Biblically instead of making this personal. I mean no harm or personal foul with my arguments as I have repeatedly said in the past. My intention here is to bring truth to the light through Jesus.

God bless

Concerned the Christian,

Thank you for that link. It's all very interesting.

Best to you!

Jd1

For those interested in an analysis of sayings and ways of the historical Jesus where said analysis, based on the number of scriptural attestations and the stratum or time period of their "recording", separates the actual utterances of Jesus from the embellishments and fiction, see http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan1.rtf and http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan2.rtf

For the general "new to this blog" reader:
We have read a vigorous conversation between David who, if I have understood him correctly from past writings, doesn't attend any particular church, and others who belong to the LDS Church in several parts of the country. David says God never changes, yet it seems he thinks (by following his example) all organized religion should disband and essentially follow his interpretation of the Bible. I would actually think Satan would be quite pleased with that approach to religion, as without an organizational structure to provide some type of leadership, and without the coming together of people to help strengthen and support each other, many people including children would have a tendency to be drawn toward worldly interests more than being followers of Christ and His gospel.

Granted, people are imperfect, and by joining a religious body we find imperfect people, but that is part of what this life is all about--learning to love each other and draw strength from each other despite our imperfections and the need to also draw strength from Jesus Christ, the scriptures, prayer, and daily repentance and change for the better.

We can admire David for drawing such strength from the Bible, and I do, but I think Christ and the apostles taught more than what he seems to think the Bible teaches. We need each other. Moses talked about becoming a "kingdom of priests, an holy nation." God still wants that for His children.

Anon,

Joseph Smith boasts about doing better than Christ and I'm called ignorant? Hmmm...

I see Jd1's explanation and it's very thought out and appreciated. I'm wondering where it says Jesus' second coming would be in the 1st century. I'm assuming your saying that Jesus made a false prophecy?

James,

You make statements like these

"David, I can see why you would want to end this discussion - you can't content with the BIBLE verses I am showing you that utterly refute your Trinity doctrine."

It is not me wanting to end this discussion. This discussion has not turned out too peacefully. I agree with JD1 that sometimes when peoples faiths are challenged we can act up sometimes. If you continue to make assumptious statements about me, then yes I will cease to continue in a discussion with you on the fact of you not keeping it civil. Now we both are trying to make our points, but the only way I find that possible is if we have some organization. You went on about a bunch of subjects when particular subjects have not been handles yet. Mainly, the Isaiah verses. You claim that God was not saying that He is One God. Here's your response.

You say I ignore but I already responded to your post about those three verses. The nature of God isn't the context of those verses.

In all of those verses, God doesn't compare himself with REAL BEINGS like himself, he is comparing himself to the false idols and graven images were worshipping at that time.

David, how does the rebuke against a disobedient Isreal consistute a revelation on the nature of God?

So if God is comparing Himself to the idols (or fake gods), and He is saying He knows no other God but Himself. How is this not saying that He is the only God? What does the nature of God have anything to do with this? Isn't God divine? We know this. That is His nature. Nature has nothing to do with this. God made a statement as plain as day. He said there is no other god, but Him. Also, the first commandment states we are to not have any other gods beside Him. He is the only God. How much clearer can that get? You bring up the nature of God, but I wonder why? We are obviously not off this subject yet, so let's stick to this one ok?

And considering I'm outnumbered right now (I like it that way :) ) I can't respond to every single opposing argument I'm faced with. I'm going to stick with the discussion with James for now and stick to one subject at a time. I know you all want to take a stab at me and I appreciate that, but I started this dialogue with James and want to finish it.

James,

Everything else you posted I will not respond to so we can have some order in our discussion. Again, we are on the topic of the Isaiah verses. I do think you need to explain it a little better for me to understand your explanation. Can we PLEASE stay on one subject at a time. I know I am guilty of the opposite as well sometimes, but I find it hard to respond to so many subjects from so many people. I will try to stay on subject as well, and hope that you will forgive me for doing the same in previous posts. So, please. A more detailed explanatin of the Isaiah verses please. Otherwise, I see no point in going on. Thanks.

Just a quick clarification

You said,

Ok, David, in which two images of the persons of the trinty was man made?

Actually it's called the Trinity James. That means three. The three images. But we'll deal with that later.

Oh and by the way, you decided not to use my original post above (as a response to Ezekiel) as evidence of the LDS interpretation of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon because it was a BYU professor. If you're so inclined to search the internet, you would find evidence of it.

Indeed, you can go also get a copy of his article in The Ensign, Sept. 1977, where you will see pictures on pp. 22. Taken from another source "He has also shown many base reliefs of people holding the ancient wooden books conversing on pp. 24, 25 as well as a hinged wooden tablet. On the picture on page 27 the wooden tablet still has some of the beeswax on it."

David:

You quoted:

“"Joseph Smith said, "I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam...Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet." (History of the Church, Vol. 6:408-9).”

While I would be very uncomfortable saying something like this and if I were next to Joseph Smith when he said it, I would have immediately asked him to rephrase the statement.

But I think your quotation of it is to ignore a key doctrine of Jesus Christ.

First, it should be said that Jesus does not say “idle words”. He is honest, accurate and sincere in every way.

Consider what he says:

John 14:12

“12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.”

While Joseph Smith may not have phrased this as well as he could have because of his own personal weakness, to claim that God would have been “utterly” offended by it is not accurate.

The creator of Heaven and Earth, honestly and accurately spoke, that in some way, there would be those who would believe in him and do his works and even “greater works” than those that the Savior refers to here.

David, it appears your version of Christianity doesn't accept this doctrine of our Lord and Savior?

No latter-day Saint believes that any of the “works” of Joseph Smith come close to the GREATEST work of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ – that of his atoning sacrifice for you and me and the whole world.

David:

In your last post you said:

"You just don't get it bro. Of course God says "US". I recognized that already. Give it up! This affirms the Trinity of the three personages of God. This also confirms that if God says "us" that they are three distinct persons! Now, I want to respond to the rest of your post, because you actually murdered the bible in your explanation."

So now you're agreeing with me that man was created in the image of the Godhead and as you say the likeness of the persons of the trinity?

Ok, David, in which two images of the persons of the trinty was man made?

Was it the likeness of the person of the Father and the person of the Son?

Was it the likeness and image of the person of the Son and the person of the Holy Ghost?

Was it the likeness and image of the person of the Father and the holy Ghost?

Who are the two persons that consistutue the "US" when God says "our" image and "our likeness"?

Which two persons?

David,

Why do you continue to repeat yourself when people have already discussed and given good explanations to your questions. James has fully answered the things you said.

In addition, you keep posting:

"Joseph Smith said, "I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam...Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet." (History of the Church, Vol. 6:408-9).

Trust in a man with words like that?...Never! That is satan talking, not a true child of God. No one who is a true Christian would ever boast of doing better than Christ. Such blasphemy! "

- I remember vividly JD1 giving you a very reasonable response to this. You really need to stop repeating yourself. Your ignorance is showing.

Hi David,

Because you quoted that typical boasting quote to discredit Joseph Smith (we cannot be sure it was correctly transcribed) I will post I made which addressed the subject of Prophets and weaknesses:

"Were I to apply you standard, I would have to throw out much of the Book of Psalms, many of its chapters being written by an adulterer and a murderer (David). Not to mention the Book of Proverbs, written largely by a man with 600 wives and 200 concubines, an idolater at that (Solomon). What about the first five books of Moses? Written by a man who killed an Egyptian, who also was a polygamist? What about Pauline epistles? If boasting is such an unforgivable sin, Paul doesn't pass (2 Corinthians 11)."

I forgive Joseph for his boasting, as I am sure God does. I believe his revelations because the proof is in the pudding (the texts themselves). It is clear from the Biblical record that God works through weak mortals.

And for the "false prophecy" accusation. I already pointed out that under this standard Jesus would qualify as a false Prophet and I received no answer (Jesus said his coming would occur in 1st century AD). If I have to choose between Deuteronomy and Jesus, I choose Jesus. In any event there are different ways of understanding both Prophecies (Joseph's and Jesus') that are less straightforward, but cogent nonetheless.

As for your continued debate with James...

Because other Christians often criticize Latter Day Saints for believing the Godhead consists of three separate beings, most Mormons think Christians accept the heresy of Modalism. Hence the nature of their critiques. I actually think Modalism is the only Christian formulation that could rigorously pass the test the verses you cite present. You act like this is just a problem for Mormonism, but it is a problem for all of Christianity (thus, perhaps unknowingly imputing to yourself modalism and continuing the misunderstanding).

BTW, I think James's reading of Genesis is the most straightforward, contextually and linguistically sound, but I'm biased.

I'll return for the next thread (unless sufficiently provoked :)

Best to you all,

Jd1

P.S.- I have been a snooty participant recently, but I realize it is much more pleasant to participate in a non-snooty fashion. I love reading the dialogue, and hope current participants stay. It would be nice to see it look less like a war-of-words and more like a dialogue. Though I know from experience it's hard to do this while discussing such sensitive matters. It's difficult for me to keep irritation down too. That is, I'm a hypocrite in making this statement because of recent actions, Ah well!

David,

You said:

"So J. Smith saw the Father??? How can this be because the Bible clearly states that the Father can't be seen or can ever be seen except by the One who comes from the Father!"

Did you actually read all the way through James' post? Did you read this:

Acts 7: 55-56

"But he [Stephen], being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God."

The bible is either contradicting itself, or perhaps the meaning of the verse by John 1:18 is not what you assume it to be. Stephen clearly saw Jesus sitting at the right hand of God.

David:

You say I ignore but I already responded to your post about those three verses. The nature of God isn't the context of those verses.

In all of those verses, God doesn't compare himself with REAL BEINGS like himself, he is comparing himself to the false idols and graven images were worshipping at that time.

David, how does the rebuke against a disobedient Isreal consistute a revelation on the nature of God?

I already addressed it and your claim was refuted. The context for the verses you quote must be harmonized with the rest of the revelations on God's nature.

Let's see, which hold more weight and is more revelatory?

God's rebuke to disobedient Israel about false idols or God's own words describing himself and eyewitness accounts describing God the Father and Jesus Christ as SEPARATE AND PLURAL BEINGS.

David, I can see why you would want to end this discussion - you can't content with the BIBLE verses I am showing you that utterly refute your Trinity doctrine.

Here's more evidence.

About the Deification of men and women as gods to serve God eternally.

We have these scriptures that support the LDS teaching that men can become gods.

Godhood/godhood according to the Bible:

*To become heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ, being glorified together (Romans 8:14-18)

David, what kind of beings are made one with God? Humans, angels or gods?

*As sons (and daughters) of God, to inherit all things that the Father has (Revelation 21:7)

David, when we receive all that the Father has, what kind of being will we be?

*To become one with Christ, as Christ is one with the Father (John 17:20-23)

David, when we become one with Christ as Christ is one with the Father, what kind of being will we be?

*To sit with Christ on His throne (Rev. 3:21)
David, can non-gods sit in the throne of God?

*To receive a glorified, immortal body like the body that Christ has (Philip. 3:21)
David, when we are like him, what kind of being will we be?

*To partake of the divine nature and be given all things pertaining to life and godliness, receiving glory (2 Peter 1:3-4)

David, when we partake of his divine nature, and our own nature is changed and fashioned like his, what kind of being will we be?

*To be made - in some way - like Christ when He returns (1 John 3:2)

David, when we are like Christ, what kind of beings will we be?

*To be made kings and priests unto God and his Father (Rev. 1:6)

*As spirit children of God, to become partakers of his holiness (Heb. 12:9-10)

*To be exalted by God (1 Peter 5:6)

*To become perfect, even as our Father in Heaven is perfect (Matt. 5:48)

David, once we are complete like God, after the final judgement, what kind of beings will we be?

David, what are you going to do about all of those scriptures that teach we will become more than human, more than angels and partake in God's divine nature?

Once my human nature is purged and I have 100% of God's divine nature, what will I be? I will be divine. Those who are divine have divinity within them - if I have no more human nature and only have divine nature, then I have become a god by God's good grace and will.

David:

How about some other Christian sources for the doctrine of men becoming gods?

"But if thou dost not believe the prophets, . . . the Lord Himself shall speak to thee, "who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but humbled Himself" . . . yea, I say, the Word of God became man, that thou mayest learn from man how man may become God. Is it not then monstrous, my friends, that while God is ceaselessly exhorting us to virtue, we should spurn His kindness and reject salvation?"

David, who do you think said that? Joseph Smith? Brigham Young? Nope.

It was Saint Clement of Alexandria, one of the great early Christian Fathers who wrote in the late second century, recognized as an authentic early Christian leader and defender of the faith.

He said that Jesus became the Word so that we could learn from a man how to become like god.

Here's another one:

"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. “

First created as mere men then later as gods?What?! This has to be Joseph Smith right?

Nope. It was Saint Ireaneus, the Christian Bishop who was the first defender of Matthew Mark Luke and John as canonical books in 170 AD.

Why don't MODERN Christians (like you) talk like this anymore? Why don't they teach this doctrine? What happened to it?

Remember the Bible verses I quoted above where we will be partakers of God's DIVINE nature, where we will sit in the throne of God, where we become like Jesus Christ, where we become complete like God is complete - what do YOU call such a being?

John 10:34-35
"Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;"

Jesus calls them gods.
Ancient Christians called them gods.
Mormons call them gods.

What do you call them?

James,

You just don't get it bro. Of course God says "US". I recognized that already. Give it up! This affirms the Trinity of the three personages of God. This also confirms that if God says "us" that they are three distinct persons! Now, I want to respond to the rest of your post, because you actually murdered the bible in your explanation. But what happened to

I am the LORD, and there is no other; besides Me there is no God" (Isaiah 45:5).
“Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel And his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: ‘I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me," (Isaiah 44:6).

"I am the Lord, and there is no other; besides Me there is no God, (Isaiah 55:5).

You continue to ignore this. I expect nothing less. You claim that I do not take scripture WHOLLY. Well, obviously you do not want to address these verses that contradict your claim of PLURAL gods. How bout it???

After you explain these verses, I will respond to your last post. Otherwise, this discussion should end.

David:

Your presentation of how LDS believe that they can become gods is related to the deception of Satan is an invention of Protestant anti-mormons.

What else are they going to do? Their version of Christianity is threatened by living prophets, apostles and restored priesthood. We can understand why they act this way.

But David, it's not me who has been deceived but you. Consider how you are mislead even when you have the Bible verse right in front of you.

Not watch very carefully. I am going to quote what you quoted from Genesis 3 and then I am going to quote the REST OF THE VERSES. I am also going to show you how the Orthodox Trinity doctrine exercises mind control over you and how you are kept from knowing the truth.

" 2And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

3But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

4And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

5For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. "

What did Satan tell Eve?
1. Satan said that Eve would not die.

2. Satan said THAT GOD KNEW that when Eve ate the fruit that GOD KNEW that
a. her eyes would be open (and)
b. that Eve would be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Satan first lied to Eve saying that she would not die. Then Satan told Eve that he was "quoting" God about Eve's understanding being enlightened and that she would be like God in the sense that she would recognize good from evil.

The question in this scripture is whether or not Satan was quoting God for real or was he lying about God's quote?

Let's read further and test whether or not 1) Eve's eyes would be open and 2) whether she would recognize good from evil and 3) does God confirm all of these outcomes?

" 6And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

7And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. "

Verse 7 confirms that the effect of eating the fruit of the tree caused Adam and Eve eye's to be open and they could recognize that they were naked.

After Adam and Eve were cursed and Satan also, he makes a declaration about the entire event.

" 22And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: "

Now David, please read the above verse very very slowly. It is not Satan who has declared that "man" has become like God, it is GOD who has made this declaration.

Further, notice how he doesn't say, "Man is become like me", he says "man is become as one of US"!

Us? Us who? If God is a singular being how could he use the pronoun "us"?

It's because God is not singular in the sense that you're trying to argue. God is plural.

This fact and truth was emphasized when he said,
"26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

Once again, God is speaking in the plural.

God declares: Let "us" make man in "our" image, and after "our likeness".

Image and likeness as defined in every language means "form" and after the "same manner" as the original.

Now watch David, in this very moment, you are going to try to REDEFINE the words likeness and image and fashion them so that your Trinity doctrine can be true. You're going to tell us that "likeness" and "image" cannot refer to God's physical body. What does it refer to his spiritual body?

Further, it says “OUR” image. This means, that the image and likeness in which man was created is the image and likeness of plural beings.

How you can believe that God’s image and likeness is without body, parts, passions, form, etc is to ignore the first verses in the Bible.

Now compare the Genesis account to Jesus’ own description of himself and his Father.

John 8:13-19
13The Pharisees therefore said unto him, Thou bearest record of thyself; thy record is not true.
14Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go.
15Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man.
16And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.
17It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.
18I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.
19Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also.
Notice how Jesus himself compares himself and his Father to TWO men. Now if God was not in the form of a man or if man was not made in God’s image, Jesus’ analogy cannot be true. Because the law was the testimony of two MEN. Two INDEPENDANT witnesses. If Jesus and the Father are the same being and the same God, one in substance, their testimonies cannot be INDEPENDENT.

Now compare the Genesis account and Jesus’ description to this to the EYEWITNESS account of Stephen when he saw Jesus Christ and God the Father.

Acts 7:55-57
“55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,
56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God. “

Stephen saw Jesus standing – meaning his glorified resurrected form standing next to the Father, at the Father’s right hand. How could he tell Jesus was standing at the right hand of God? Because God the Father’s right hand was visible along with all of God the Father’s resurrected and glorified body.

There is no other way Stephen could describe such a scene unless the Father and the Son were two separate beings both in the form of God, in whose image man has been made – in other words, with a head, neck, eyes, mouth, VOICE, arms, hands, legs and feet.

We have been made in THEIR image.

Once again David, at this moment, you’re going to try to REDEFINE these words to fit the Trinity doctrine of God’s nature. Instead of just accepting the Bible, you’re going to reshape it to fit a centuries old man-made doctrine of 3 persons in one ontological substance WHICH CANNOT BE RECONCILED with Stephen’s EYEWITNESS account.

Now compare ALL of these accounts with Joseph Smith’s vision of the Father and the Son:

“I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me. It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other--"This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!"
In that moment, all of the Orthodox Christian debate, councils, and creeds about the nature of God was wiped away in an instant and Biblical truth was once again restored to the earth.

Joseph Smith is the only prophet since the early Church Apostles and prophets who ever declared the true nature of God through DIRECT revelation from God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.

David,

I don’t know about “three gods” being the exact terminology used. I would be curious to see a source from James on that (which I suspect he will find, he seems to know his stuff). I rarely, if ever hear that term used to talk about the Godhead in LDS discourse, though our leaders have used it from time to time. It is nowhere in LDS scriptures (all you see in the Book of Mormon is One God, three persons). Though I don’t think it is inconsistent to say they are both three Gods and one God, as we talked about earlier.

The subordinationist view of the Godhead was widespread in the early Christendom and was believed by the early church Fathers. This is established fact. I didn’t learn it in church, I first learned it in a secular history of Civilization class. You could pick up any secular Christian history book and read it I am sure. I don’t have time to look for a reference (this is not what you were asking for a reference for anyways right?). I think any secular scholar of Christian history will tell you this, don’t just trust me.

In LDS scriptures you do see the term gods (with small g) used to talk about Divine beings outside the Godhead (but who are fully one and subordinate to them). This is not inconsistent with Old Testament uses of the noun Eloheim. As I am sure you are aware El is singular for God and heim added on the end of any Hebrew word makes it plural. It is often used as a generic term for God, but sometimes it is used to refer to beings that today might be understood to be angels. Actually translations from the Hebrew to English at times translate Eloheim as angels (since “gods” is poor style now a’days).

Example:

What is man that You are mindful of him,
And the son of man that You visit him?

For You have made him a little lower than the angels
And You have crowned him with glory and honor.

(Psalms 8:4-5; New King James).

The Hebrew word from which angels was translated was actually eloheim (gods).

So a more direct translation would be:

For You have made him a little lower than the gods
And You have crowned him with glory and honor.

The great Monotheistic traditions would be horrified at this rendition, as they have forgotten their henotheistic past. I think most secular Biblical scholars, however, who now recognize the counsel of the gods as a prevalent theme in the Old Testiment and ancient Israel would agree that this captures the original intent.

Best,

Jd1

Hi there Paul,

Thanks for joining the discussion. Yes I am ordained by God. The Holy Spirit indwells in me as it does all believers. Rom 8;9-14, Gal 4:6. And because I have the Holy Spirit indwelt in me I can interpret scripture. 1 Cor 2:1,14. Eph 1:17. And also because I have the Holy Spirit in me I am anointed by the Spirit for service. Luke 4:18. And according to 1 Pet 2:9 if I am a believer, I am a part of the 'royal priesthood'. So I guess I have the authority that God permits me....

Funny how you bring up Heb 5:4. I like how it talks about Jesus being the High Priest in the following verses and that now that we have Christ we no longer need to have a particular priest for sacrifice of sins like in the OT. You might want to read Hebrews 1:1 to verify this as well. I know you LDS are stuck on needing a priesthood, but for what? Jesus is the High Priest now and through Him we all can be forgiven of our sins by HIS sacrifice, which is the final sacrifice, by faith alone. No need to kill anymore animals for sin atonement. Jesus did all the work for us, so that by faith alone Eph 2:8-10, Titus 3:5, we can recieve grace which means salvation!

Concerning Joseph Smith...

Applying him to Deut 18:20-22...he's a false prophet. If you want proof, just let me know. Not just that, but trust anyone who says this....

Joseph Smith said, "I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam...Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet." (History of the Church, Vol. 6:408-9).

Trust in a man with words like that?...Never! That is satan talking, not a true child of God. No one who is a true Christian would ever boast of doing better than Christ. Such blasphemy!

Without having taken the time to read all the posts/comments, I do feel the need to ask David by what authority he is able to make exactly the same claim to infallibility that he denies everyone else? Whence your peculiar gnosis that allows you to determine on behalf of everyone else the line between truth and error? Have you had the theophany you deny Joseph Smith? Or were you ordained by God (see Heb 5:4) to preach your private interpretation of scripture? If not, you would do well to heed St. Paul's advice, "Be not wise in your own conceits."

i keep hearing about how the early apostles preached 3 gods. Please give me the references for that. I have supplied plenty of Biblical backing, but where is yours James? You can't just say the early apostles preached that and then not show me where, right? Do I take your word for it? And by the way, where does it say in the Bible that the Holy Ghost will testify to the BOM or any Biblical passage to being the truth? Show me that as well.

"The Isaiah verses. Just read them. Tell me what it means if you just read them as if they are in any book. Do not add anything or take away anything from them. Just tell me if it says there is ONE God or many. How many do you count here. ONE or many. Please tell me."

Hi David,

I thought we settled this. Honestly, from what I know of the trinity doctrine, if we are toasted by these scriptures, so are you. An orthodox Jew will ask you the same question, and will find nothing but the disavowal of the whole Trinity concept satisfactory. Like I said, our beliefs are similar, except for a few theological particularities pointed out by James- co-equal, for example, same substance or essence etc (all extra-Biblical). I'm not huge on theological correctness. Jesus seemed more concerned with what we do than the fine tuned particulars of what we believe. Jesus was not a systematic theologian and I think Jesus' grace is available to all people, even if their theology is flawed.

But to answer your insistence on a post Nicene view, I want to reiterate what has already been said. We follow a view of the Godhead similar to widespread 1st and 2nd century Christian interpretation. It is the subordinationist view, where Jesus is fully God, but his Divinity is contingent on his subordination to the Father (Bible verses already mentioned support this view). We share the same view of the Trinity as Justin Martyr, as has also been mentioned. I guess if we are going to the flames for this theological difference, we will be in good company: many valiant 1st and 2nd century Christians will be with us.

Peace,

Jd1

James,

Sorry buddy, but the BOM is false. I can prove it.

You continue to speak of Orthodox history. I could care less what the history is. It's what's in the Bible that counts. I didn't come to know the truth in God's Word by the history of the Orthodox church, but by studying and examining the whole of scripture for myself. I can really care less what creeds or doctrines are out there. I don't care if they rename the Trinity the Triple Union. If it means the same, then it is Biblical.

James, I can say with complete confidence that you have been decieved. I know the LDS tells you that the Bible has been changed over time. It hasn't. You need to trust God's word, otherwise you will spend an eternity apart from God thinking about it. I think we need to take this one step at a time. If you would only open up your heart and listen to reason. Let's for now give up the whole of the Trinity and focus on how many gods there are, ok?

Again, how do the LDS account for these verse?

"I am the LORD, and there is no other; besides Me there is no God" (Isaiah 45:5).
“Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel And his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: ‘I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me," (Isaiah 44:6).

"I am the Lord, and there is no other; besides Me there is no God, (Isaiah 55:5).

Please read the whole context if you think this might be out of context. And don't even think about adding words to these as most LDS do. Saying that that meant only One God for this world. That's not what it says.

I want to share with you what I posted the last time an LDS thread was on here. We know how God works. We can figure that out simply. But how does Satan work? How does he decieve people? And ask yourself a question. Are you sure you are not being decieved yourself. You know that "satan comes as an angel of light". And according to Jer 17:9 we should not trust our own hearts, because they are decietful. So trust in God's Word. 2 Tim 3:16.

How does Satan decieve people? What was his first act of deception in recorded history according to the Bible. He decieved Eve, right? How did he do it though?

Gen 3:1

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

Satan used God's words by saying "ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?" So first, he used God's words to affirm that that's what God said. Then v. 4

"You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

He changes God's words and says "you will not surely die!" And then he says that you will be "like God".

How does this fit into the LDS.

They use God's words. Make the meaning different. And worse than that, they tell you, you can be like God. You can be like God. You get that, you can be like God. Just as satan said to eve.

This is a consistent pattern that satan uses. He uses the words God said against you. Look at Matt 4.

Jesus goes into the desert and is tempted by satan.

What does satan do to try to tempt Jesus? He uses God's own words

"5Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 6"If you are the Son of God," he said, "throw yourself down. For it is written:
" 'He will command his angels concerning you,
and they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.'

This from Psalm 91.

And again how does satan try to tempt Jesus.

8Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. 9"All this I will give you," he said, "if you will bow down and worship me."

The same way that satan decieved eve was the same way he TRIED to decieve Jesus. He used God's words and twisted them. Then he offered power. First telling eve that she can be "like God" then telling Jesus that he would give him all the kingdoms if he worshipped him.

LDS does the same thing. They use God's words to decieve you. Then they offer you power. The power to one day become a god. This is how satan works. This is how he is working in your church. You need to know this. Satan is predictable when you are a true child of God. You know which ways he will try to tempt you.

Please, James, I want your eyes to be open. I want you to see that God has warned you that Satan will make you feel good, but in the end he will crush you and you will be with him "where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth". You need to know the True God. But let's start with those verses above. The Isaiah verses. Just read them. Tell me what it means if you just read them as if they are in any book. Do not add anything or take away anything from them. Just tell me if it says there is ONE God or many. How many do you count here. ONE or many. Please tell me.

God bless

The above discussions have been productive and enlightening. Something not brought up that bears on the question of religion is "how has the God I believe in blessed my life and the lives of those around me?" Obviously, someone may see my answers to this question and say it is all coincidence or self-perception, but that is fine for them to do--I still have the following blessings (and I'm not saying non-LDS aren't blessed, for I know that they are abundantly):
1) Blessed by the law of tithing, through which I have been blessed never to have lacked for the needs of life in my large family, including blessings of health and preparation for emergencies.
2) Blessed by the law of chastity, to feel the strength of the power of virtuous thoughts.
3) Blessed by the gift of the priesthood, through which I have been privileged to offer blessings and comfort to my children when asked, including inspiration when they were just infants about their personalities and uniqueness.
4) Blessed by the strength of good friends and neighbors who helped my family tremendously when our youngest daughter, born with a jaw deformity, showed love and support through many rigorous days for my wife and through many operations as this wonderful daughter (who teaches us so much by her incredible love and sensitivity and optimism) has grown from not being able to speak to now speaking clearly despite her still-needed tracheostomy.
5) Blessed by much guiding inspiration in the day-to-day decisions of life.
6) Blessed by frequent and specific answers to prayers personally and in my family.
7) Blessed by the knowledge the gospel offers including growing in understanding to have more loving and fulfilling relationships.

Have to run, but above are just a few of the countless many.
Love and peace to all.

David:

I have visited CARM and I don't accept their interrepration of my beliefs and their characterization of what they call "biblical beliefs."

I fully understand what you're trying to argue about the "trinity" being in the Bible and that such beliefs didn't originate with the creeds. In other words, "I get it". I have studied it for more than 35 years ( I over 40). I would also say that millions of Orthodox Christians do not get it either. Even CARM admits that it's difficult to understand. However, I understand what you and CARM are trying to say that it is - however, I don't believe it and I believe it's nonsense and doesn't fit with the Bible or early Christian writings. In fact, it's a polar opposite.

Moreover, your remarks don't align with Orthodox Christian history.

We can go back in time and see the evolution of the Trinity doctrine and its acceptance as a mainstream doctrine over the centuries.

We can also go back and look at the writings of the early Christian "saints" and read their interpretation of the same verses.

David, do you know what we find? Early Christian writings resemble LDS beliefs more than they resemble Orthodox Christian interpretation including that the Godhead is three Gods not "one God in substance, co equal, co eternal etc."

David, you're referring to the Athanasian Creed. It was invented in the around the 5th century. You can read about it here in this wikipedia article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasian_Creed

You can access the full text of the creed here.

It should be noted that these are "Catholic" doctrines what were continued in the Protestant traditions. They did not originate with the early Church and cannot be found in the writings of the early Christians within 200 years of Christ's resuurection.

So, to put this in perspective, the United States has been around for a little over 200 years, and within such a time period, the early Christians did not know of the "trinity" but instead they spoke of the Godhead (as in the Bible) and did not speak or worship God as three separate persons in one ontological substance.

Instead they believed them to be as 3 Gods, separate, the Son subordinate to the Father, and the Holy Spirit subordinate to the Son. In the strictest sense, they taught that the Father is God, the Jesus is Lord and the Holy Spirit is the comforter or the testifier of truth - just like the Bible. (Just like LDS).

They also did not consider it polytheistic to believe that men can become gods. They taught that doctrine too as evidence in their writings.

David, when it boils down to it, while you claim to be teaching the "Bible", you're teching the traditions of Orthodox Christianity (Catholic) that has been changed, reshaped, reformed and changed again to suit the "needs" of whomever happens to be in power at the time. This is Christian History - it's not my interpretation.

Even today, you can't find many (if any) Protestant or Catholic Churches that preach

1) Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ,
2) Repentance,
3) Baptism by Immersion for the remission of sins
4) the Gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands, and
5) obedience to Jesus' commandments by enduring to the end -

ALL in combination like the Bible teaches it. (As LDS do too).

Instead we hear "Faith alone", "Confession alone", Belief alone", "works alone", "Baptism not necessary", "Everyone has priesthood - no ordination necessary". These are the doctrines and commandments of men.

Once again, it comes down to which organization is ordained by God to administrer the doctrines, laws and ordinances of the gospel?

That organization is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Now, that being said, we don't discount the faith of over Christians. We don't claim they are going to hell because they happen to believe in a false doctrine about the nature of God.

Instead we say, we invite you to partake of ALL of Christ and what the Father has promised. If that Christian will humble himself/herself and read the Book of Mormon with a sincere heart and real intent, believing that it is true, THEN the Father will send forth the testifying witness of the Holy Ghost, and you can "know" that it's true.

David, I sincerely pray that God will guide you past Christian tradition to find the truth that will bring all of the blesssings of Abraham, Iassac and Jacob to you.

James,

I don't mean to be offensive but if you read the Bible like you read my posts, it's no wonder why you don't get it.

I never once said I don't know about the Nicene Creed or any other creeds. I merely stated that that is not the argument at hand. Creeds and doctrine are two issues. I'm focusing on one right now which is the Trinity.

It's funny because you can throw verses out to support your claim such as "The Father is greater than I", and I can throw another verse your way to counter when Jesus says "The Father and I are one" or when the disciples asked to see the Father, Jesus replied. "You have been with me this long and yet you do not know me? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father". These statements contradict one another don't they? It is by the doctrine of the Trinity do they come together. It is by the doctrine of the Trinity that all the verses in the Bible about ONE God and that God being manifested in three persons come together to form a complete and non-contradictroy doctrine. But you have no understanding of Jesus' nature. Man and God. If you did then maybe you would know that the gospels were written to show both his natures. We both acknowledge Jesus as God. So the least we agree on is His divine nature. How about His human nature.

Was Jesus tempted? Yes. Could he be tempted as just a divine being? No.

Did Jesus feel physical pain? Yes. Could He feel physical pain just as a divine being? No.

Did Jesus ever cry? Yes. Would He cry as a divine being? No.

These are human characteristics that are documented in the gospels. When Jesus says the Father is greater than Him, He is speaking of the 1st person of the Trinity as a purely divine natured person who can not be tempted, not feel pain, not cry. The human nature of Jesus is what made Him lower while on Earth than the Father. It's merely a positional status of when Jesus said these things.

Heb 2:9

9But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

Jesus was a little lower than the angels. If the angels are a little lower than God the Father, then Jesus must not be greater than God the Father. At least while on earth.

"The Word became flesh". Do you realize how significant this is? God became man to offer Himself as a sacrifice for our sins while remaining perfect under the law, which no man could do. The ONE God became flesh. Now, all things are possible with God. If God can create time in three forms, why could he not be in human form, and spirit form at the same time. Isn't God omnipresent? If He is omnipresent, can't that mean He is one God?

By the way, I never said they are the same being. I said they make up the One God. Godhead if you will. Past can't be future. Future can't be present. But they are all distinct personages that make the One complete God. This is not polytheistic. Polytheistic is your "progression to godhood" doctrine. That's polytheistic.

I urge you to visit the CARM site. If you are strong in your faith, then no harm no foul right? Go to the left hand column and look up mormonism. You will see with Biblical proof about the false claims of the Mormon church. It's all about Biblical proof my friend, Biblical proof. Study it. If you find fault in it, then leave!

I think I'll leave you all with this post from "Assryian Christian" on the main post that I read today. It completely pierced my heart.

As an Assyrian Christian from Iraq who still speaks the language that Jesus Christ spoke 2000 years ago and can read the bible as it was originally written in Aramaic. Before it was translated into Greek, then into Latin, then into English. I find it sad to hear (if true) that the Pope and/or Catholic Church believes it is the true and only Church that represents Jesus Christ.

St. Thomas brought Christianity to Assyrians and Assyrians accepted Christianity 200 years before the Roman Empire made Christianity its official religion.

With the facts provided above. I can justify that the Ancient Assyrian Church of the East. that still exists today, is the true Church of Jesus Christ.

But as we all know EVERYONE who "professes Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior are all EQUAL in the eyes of God. There is not one Christian denomination that is better then another.

So my final message is for everyone, please do not insult me with who is a real Christian and who is not. We Assyrians in Iraq and Middle east are dying for our Christian beliefs that we have held for 2000 years and refusal to convert to Islam. Unfortunately Assyrian Christians in Iraq do not have the luxury of arguing theological ideals, were busy trying to survive.

While we're arguing about our beliefs, let's try to remember that some do not have this privelage. True Christianity is persecuted around the world. I commend this person for holding on to the truth.

God bless

David:

I'm not buying it. I believe you know about the Creeds, and if you honestly don't know, I suggest you study Christian history.

I'll give you the pass this time, but you can go online today/tonight and you can read about the history of the creeds and their impact on Christianity. Some of that was quoted by me above. Remember, LDS peoplpe didn't make up this history - this history is provided by Orthodox Christian scholars - some of them are Bible scholars and they have to professionally admit that the Trinity doctrine is NOT biblical.
David, these are your fellow Orthoxox Christians.

The Trinity doctrine was handed down over centuries of time by tradition.

The New Testament apostles did not believe in or teach the Trinity doctrine. They never used the word, "persons", "trinity", "Coequal", "Copowerful", "coeternal". (Last three words come from the CARM site you listed)

The Apostles never use these words described in the "trinity" doctrine for the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

The BIBLICAL term is "Godhead" just like the LDS use to describe the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

So, in Bible terms in reference to God:

Trinity is not Biblical -
Coequal is not Biblical -
Copowerful is not Biblical -
Coeternal is not Biblical -
One Substance is not Biblical -
Same being is not Biblical -

Not Coequal/copowerful - Jesus said: "for my Father is greater than I."

Not Copowerful - Jesus said: "I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God."

All of your above terms are CERTAINLY Orthodox Christian. There is no doubt about that. But they cannot be characterzied as "biblical" - in that instance you begin to wresting the scriptures.

Thank you David,

I think what we have is an argument over semantics on both sides. If Mormons and other Christians take time to understand each other, they will find they have much more in common than both realize. There are some very good dialogues going on right now between Mormons and Evangelicals on this very subject. Robert Millet, a Mormon professor of religion, has frequent public discussion with a leading evangelical, I forget his name.

Anyways, have a great day! Thanks for the exchange my friend.

Jd1

The one "true" church doesn't exist.

The bible is a novel, created by throwing together a bunch of old scrolls and then calling it the word of god.

Jesus may have been a good preacher, the son of god he was not. Same goes for Mohammed and John Smith preacher, not prophets.

The bible has no more validity than the ancient Greek, Nordic, or Roman mythologies, or the various faiths of the Far East.

God is not a he or a she, if anything it is an IT. And IT definitely did not create two humans whose offspring went on to procreate in incesteous relationships to populate the earth nor did IT impregnate a married virgin so IT can be born as ITSELF.

All of the faith where invented by humankind's inability to explain the unexplainable and those ideas where then exploited by men to yoke the masses and enrich themselves.

Thanks John D for your honest answer. I do see how some LDS explain away at there only being one God but yet insist on there being several gods, including those who have "progressed to godhood". But I like your analogies. They seem consistent with the Trinity doctrine. This is what I don't understand. If you truly believe all three persons are what make One God, or should I say that God manifests Himself in the form of three persons, then why all the fuss over the Trinity? Who cares if that is the doctrinal name for it? It's just easier to say "Trinity" than the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are One God. Quite simply....Trinity.

Oh by the way James. I never mentioned any creeds. Only the Trinity doctrine. So your assumption that I am bringing up any creeds is purely assumptuious. You say that we like to bring up creeds. I haven't mentioned any creeds or do I plan to. This is not the argument at hand. I focus solely on what is Biblical. The Trinity is Biblically accurate. It takes the whole of scripture and defines it in a simple word. Understanding the nature of Jesus on pre-earth, on earth, post-resurrection, it makes perfect sense in a whole of scripture. Otherwise you have contradictions regarding the clearly stated passages of God being ONE, not many.

David,
So in your mind, the Savior was talking to himself whenever he addressed his Father? Why would He do that--to confuse the apostles?

Sorry for the double post, my one year old is messing with me.

Hi David,

I like your explanation of the Trinity, I think most Latter Day Saints would do well to take the chance to understand it. I’m afraid, however, that all the explanation in the world will not convince the wider monotheistic world that Christians are not polytheists. They have a much stricter view of monotheism, three persons, one substance sounds just like three gods, one substance to them.

I sympathize with your plight. We Mormons are in the same boat, though we have not developed such a consistent semantic in which to cauch our simultaneously singular and plural divinity. I personally like to use the organism analogy. Is a cell one organism? Yes. Is a person one organism? Yes. So is a person simultaneously one organism and billions of organism? Yes. Why? Because all the cells work in such perfect unity as to create one functioning organism collectively.

Is Jesus God? Yes. Is the Father God? Yes. Is the Holy Ghost God? Yes. Do all three constitute one God? Yes. Just like a group of cells constitutes one organism. Does unity take away from individuality? No.

Is Christ an individual? I think we both agree on this. Christians must assert the individuality of the perons of the trinity or else they will be modalistic heretics. Our perspectives are not that disparate in reality.

Once again these types of analogies will not get us very far with the Monotheistic world I’m afraid.

The good news is secular Biblical scholarship is discovering Old Testament support for our views.

Best to you!

Jd1

James,

Again you are not understanding the Trinity. Every verse you have brought up verifies the Trinity. What you are proving is exactly what I do not believe which is called Oneness Theology. This is pentacostal oneness theology. The Trinity is God manifested in three persons. Not three seperate persons, three gods. When God is saying "us" He is referring to the co-eternal forms of three seperate persons that make the One God. Like I said. Time can be past, present and future, but it is still one thing. TIME. 2 Tim 3:16 says that all scripture is useful for doctrine. The Trinity is doctrine and is using "ALL" scripture to verify it. It's not a matter of when this doctrine was in place, it's a matter if it's true.

I'm wondering why it would be impossible for you to believe God can manifest Himself into three beings but not still be One God? This makes perfect sense. The problem you have is that the LDS teach that the Father is of flesh and bones. Therefore you have the pre-supposition that God cannot be in the form of seperate being because He is limited by flesh. This is not the case. God the Father (1st person of the Trinity) cannot be seen by anyone or has been seen by anyone.

"I give thee charge in the sight of God, who the all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession; 14That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ: 15Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; 16Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen," (1 Tim. 6:13-16, KJV)

This is contradictory to Joseph Smith's account to seeing God the Father. But I know that's besides the point. I just thought I would share that. Your left with either believing the Bible or believing Joseph Smith. But my point being is this. If God the Father cannot be seen then how can He be flesh and bone? You cannot see the Holy Spirit as well, right? Because the Spirit is not flesh and bone. But God appeared to many in the OT, right? Was is God the Father or the Son? If it was the Father, then 1 Tim 16 is contradictory. So it must have been the Son. I we both have an agreement that "Lord" is Jehovah in the OT and "Elohim" is God as far as translation goes, right?

Gen. 17:1, "Now when Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to Abram and said to him, "I am God Almighty; walk before Me, and be blameless."
Gen. 18:1, "Now the LORD appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre, while he was sitting at the tent door in the heat of the day."
Ex. 6:2-3, "God spoke further to Moses and said to him, I am the LORD; and I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name LORD I did not make myself known to them.'"
Exodus 24:9-11, "Then Moses went up with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, and they saw the God of Israel; and under His feet there appeared to be a pavement of sapphire, as clear as the sky itself. Yet He did not stretch out His hand against the nobles of the sons of Israel; and they beheld God, and they ate and drank."
Exodus 33:11, "Thus the LORD used to speak to Moses face to face, just as a man speaks to his friend..."
Num. 12:6-8, "He [God] said, "Hear now My words: If there is a prophet among you, I, the LORD, shall make Myself known to him in a vision. I shall speak with him in a dream. Not so, with My servant Moses, He is faithful in all My household; with him I speak mouth to mouth, even openly, and not in dark sayings, and he beholds the form of the LORD..."

So the Father has not and cannot be seen. That means Jesus (pre-existant) appeared to people, we know because it says "Lord" which is "Jehovah".

Now let's see Jesus' own words.

John 1:18, "No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him."
John 6:46, "Not that any man has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father."

The Bible says there is ONE God. You still haven't tackled those verses, but insist on others. Look at the whole of scripture.

Here's J. Smith's own words.

"When the light rested upon me, I saw two personages, whose brightness and glory defined all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name, and said, pointing to the other -- 'this is my beloved Son. Hear him!

So J. Smith saw the Father??? How can this be because the Bible clearly states that the Father can't be seen or can ever be seen except by the One who comes from the Father!

Jesus is God. Taking the whole of scripture proves that there is One God in the form of three personages. This is not impossible for God. Why would you limit His powers? I think God created time and matter in three forms so that our simple human minds can understand this most important aspect of doctrine. How else does it make sense that three can be one. If nature can do it, why can't God?

David,

I like you explanation of the Trinity, I think most Latter Day Saints would do well to take the chance to understand it. I’m afraid, however, that all the explanation in the world will not convince the wider monotheistic world that Christians are not polytheists. They have a much stricter view of polytheism, three persons, one substance sounds just like three gods, one substance to them.

I sympathize with your plight. We Mormons are in the same boat, though we have not developed such a consistent semantic in which to cauch our simultaneously singular and plural divinity. I like to use the organism analogy. Is a cell one organism? Yes. Is a person one organism? Yes. So is a person simultaneously one organism and billions of organism? Yes. Why? Because all the cells work in such perfect unity as to create one functioning organism collectively.

Is Jesus God? Yes. Is the Father God? Yes. Is the Holy Ghost God? Yes. Do all three constitute one God? Yes. Just like a group of cells constitutes one organism. Does unity take away from individuality? No.

Is Christ an individual? I think we both agree on this. Christians must assert the individuality of the trinity or else they will be modalistic heretics. Our perspectives are not that disparate in reality.

Once again these types of analogies will get us very far with the Monotheistic world I’m afraid.

The good news is secular Biblical scholarship is discovering Old Testament support for our views.

Best to you!

Jd1

David you quoted these verses:
"I am the LORD, and there is no other; besides Me there is no God" (Isaiah 45:5).
“Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel And his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: ‘I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me," (Isaiah 44:6).

"I am the Lord, and there is no other; besides Me there is no God, (Isaiah 55:5).

Also, I should add that I hear a great deal about the ten commandments from LDS. How do you account for the first?

Exodus 20:3 3Thou shalt have no other gods before me?

The context for these scriptures is not a revelation on the nature of God. This is a typical Orthodox Christian move to reduce the discussion of the nature of God to a discussion about "idolatry" and the worship of idols and graven images. In EVERY verse, this is the ONLY context.

David, just listen to yourself and the creeds - they are not biblical - they are extra-biblical which goes against your doctrine of "sola scriptura". Also, Orthodox Scholars have proven and shown that they are not Biblical. They were not written remotely close to the time of the New Testament or the compilation of the Bible.

Ask yourself - are the Nicene and other Creeds the word of God? Were they received by apostles or prophets? If they are not part of the canon they are NOT the word of God. They are simply "an interpretation" of God. They do not have God's stamp of approval on them. Even the writers do not claim that the Creeds are canon. Why do you ask LDS believers to accept them?

As latter-day Saints, we accept ALL of the verses in the Bible as the word of God. We believe in all of the verses about God's nature.

Now, let's bring in the Old and New Testament verses REGARDING the nature of God. Let's look at ALL of the verses and see if there is 3 beings or one being of "ontological substance" manifest in three persons.

Bible References teaching
The Father, Jesus, and The Holy Ghost
are Distinct and Separate Beings.

The most fundamental difference between the LDS Church and traditional Christianity is the principle of the Godhead: The Father, The Son, and the Holy Ghost. In 1820, when Joseph Smith knelt and prayed in a grove of trees Heavenly Father and Jesus appeared to him. Now known as the "first vision", Joseph beheld that the Father and the Son were separate and distinct beings. This has been the official doctrine of the LDS Church ever since.

This belief directly contradicts the concept of the Trinity, which are three Gods without form or passion in one. The Trinity was not officially taught in the Christian church until 300 years after the Resurrection of The Savior. The idea of the 3 in 1 Trinity was the product of the Nicene Creed of 325 A.D. Under the direction of Constantine, a council of theologians, scholars, and clergy were called together to organize the official doctrines and beliefs of the church. Confusion about official doctrine was rampant at the time. The council debated the nature of the Godhead until a compromise was reached. That compromise was the Nicene Creed, which established the idea of Christ "being of one substance with the Father" . In the 5th century the Athanasian Creed reaffirmed and expounded further on The Trinity.

The Godhead conceived in the Nicene Trinity was not taught in the Church prior to the Council in 325 A.D. Edwin Hatch, an emeritus professor of Ecclesiastical History at the University of Oxford taught,

"And if the doctrine of God now espoused by the various sects is foreign to the thought of the primitive Church, what was the Godhead of the early Church like? Indeed, we find in the early Church the true doctrine of a Godhead consisting of three distinct persons who are completely separate in substance, but one in will - the Father presiding over the Son and the Son over the Spirit." [Hatch, E., The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages upon the Christian Church, (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1957,) p. 124.]

Justin Martyr, a follower of Christ from 100-161 A.D. wrote that God abides

"in places that are above the heavens:" the "first-begotten," the Logos, is the "first force after the Father:" he is "a second God, second numerically but not in will," doing only the Father's pleasure. He also maintained that the Son is "in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third." --[Justin Martyr, First Apology 13, in Davies, J.G., The Early Christian Church, (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1995,) p. 97.]

The LDS belief in The Father, The Son, and The Holy Ghost, being separate in person but one in will & purpose conflicts with the post-Biblical beliefs originated by the Nicene Trinity, however it does not conflict with the Bible. Let me clarify this before reading on. I don't have a problem with people believing in the Trinity. They just need to understand that it is an extra-biblical theology, unsupported by direct scripture.

Genesis 1:26;

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

Notice God referring to Himself in the plural, using words like "we" and "us". This is because there were two beings there: God the Father, and Jesus. Jesus was known as Jehovah during this time and throughout the Old Testament.
Further, The Father is saying that He and Jehovah they will create man in their own likeness and image. We are singular, individual human entities, not three entities in one body. This means that God the Father, and Jesus, are singular entities also since we were created in their likeness and image.

Genesis 3:22

"And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:"

Once again God is using the word "us" , referring to Himself and Jehovah. As a side note, after the experience in the Garden of Eden, Adam and his posterity (us) was cut off from the presence of The Father. Jesus, or Jehovah, became our intermediary to The Father. The God used in the singular through the rest of the Old Testament is Jehovah/Jesus Christ.

Genesis 2:24

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."

I included this verse because it establishes the biblical nature of "oneness". It reads that men and women shall be one flesh. Being one flesh is a metaphor, just as God the Father and Jesus Christ being one is a metaphor.

Exodus 24:10-11

"And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness. And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink."

These verses are subtle in teaching the separateness of Jesus and God the Father. In verse 10 they saw the God of Israel, who is Jesus. Then verse 11 reads "also they saw God". This is not an errant redundancy. The biblical writer records that they saw two Gods - first Jesus, then God the Father, two separate and distinct Beings. Also, notice that Jesus' premortal spirit has feet. This contradicts the Greek philosophy influenced belief that God is a formless, shapeless, immovable mover entity without parts. Remember, we are in His likeness.

Matthew 3:16-17 (See Also Luke 3:22)

"And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."

This, of course, is the baptism of the Savior. This is one of the most compelling manifestations of the Godhead in human history. Jesus is in the water with John the Baptist, The Holy Ghost is above them in the form of the dove, and God the Eternal Father spoke from heaven. All three members of the Godhead present, all three in separate places. This story basically debunks the whole Nicene concept.

Matthew 20:23

"And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father."

Jesus is differentiating himself from The Father, saying that to enter the Kingdom is not His to give but His Father. If They were the same person He wouldn't deliberately set Himself apart.

Matthew 26:39

"And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt."

Jesus is praying in the Garden of Gethsemane as the atonement begins. Who is He praying to? He's not praying to Himself. And if He is God the Father, who is in Heaven to even pray to? Is Heaven empty? No, it isn't. Jesus is praying to His Father, who is still in Heaven, because the two of them are separate. Also notice that Jesus relinquishes His will to The Father, this demonstrates They are one in purpose.

John 1:1-2

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The same was in the beginning with God."

This is a good verse to cover because it's always cited by Trinitarians to defend the Nicene Trinity. The wording in verse 1 appears to confirm that The Father and Son are the same. However, in context with verse 2 clarifies that there were two beings, not one. Moreover, verse 1 still doesn't affirm a 3 in 1 Trinity. The Word, who is Jesus Christ, was with The Father in the beginning, as was discussed in Genesis, and He is also a God, He just is not his own Father and God. Look at from this perspective: I am me, I'm standing with my dad, and I'm also dad. Does this mean that I am my dad? Apparently I am if you interpret that verse the way the Trinitarian Churches do, since I am both son and dad.

John 12:27-29

"Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour.
Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.
The people therefore, that stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered: others said, An angel spake to him."

Once again, Jesus prays to Heavenly Father and He answers from Heaven, and the people around them heard it like thunder. I highly doubt Jesus was a ventriloquist.

John 14:28

"Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I."

Jesus, Himself, is teaching that He is second to the Father. This supports the pre-Nicene Christian teachings cited by Justin Martyr that Jesus was in second position to The Father, and therefore not The Father.

John 17:11, 21-22

"And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: "

Okay, I know there are people reading this page that want to give me grief because I haven't mentioned John 10:1, and John 10:38 where Jesus specifically says "We are one." (There, I didn't ignore it, HA!) I waited to bring them up until now because this verse specifically explains what Jesus meant when He said He and the Father were and are one.
Jesus is offering the Great Intercessory Prayer. Once again, Christ is praying to God the Father (whom is still in Heaven). In verse 11 Jesus prays that the Apostles will be one, just as He and The Father are one. Jesus specifically prayed for them to be in each other like He and the Father. How is it possible for the Apostles to be 12 different people in one body, or for them to be in the Trinity? It's not. Jesus wants them to be one in will and purpose, just as He is with The Father. Jesus praying that they be in Him, as He is in The Father is obviously metaphorically, just like in Genesis. (Incidentally, I'm almost through the four gospels and haven't found anything about a 3 in1 trinity yet.)

John 17: 21-22

"That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:"

I'm repeating these verses again because these are the primary references cited to defend the concept of the 3 in 1 Trinity. The problem with Trinitarians using this statement is that they have to ignore must omit the first line, which reads, "That they ALL may be one;" [emphasis added]. Then if you go on to verse 22, Jesus prays again that "they may be one, even as We are one." I think we can safely assume that the Apostles could never be literally 12 people in the same person. Yet, Christ is saying that they can be one in the same manner as He and the Father are one. This must mean that the Godhead cannot be literally and physically "one".

John 20:17

"Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God."

The Resurrected Christ has revealed himself to Mary Magdalene, before His ascension. He is telling her that He hasn't ascended to His Father. How could He ascend to Himself? He is returning to His Father and Our Father, just like we will when we are resurrected thanks to Jesus breaking the bounds of death for us.

Acts 4:32

" And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common."

This is another verse defines what "being one" means. The New Testament Greek word "one" actually interprets as "unity" . This is apparent with this verse that reads that the people were "one" in soul and in spirit. Not one person in many or vice versa. "They had all things in common", just like God the Father, and His Son, Jesus Christ.

Acts 7: 55-56

"But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God."

While being martyred for his testimony, Stephen gives an eyewitness testimony about the Divinity of Christ and the true nature of the Godhead. Stephen sees Jesus in a vision literally standing on the right hand of God - both of Them exalted both of Them Gods. Once again, here is a scriptural account of someone seeing two distinct personages, not a Nicene Trinity.

Romans 12:5

"So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another."

In this verse, Paul is saying that even though the church has many members, they are still one body. Being one in Christ. They are one because of belief and practice. Being one in the Gospel of Christ. I think I see a trend when it comes to "oneness" in the Bible.

1 Corinthians 8:5-6

"For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, as there be gods many, and lords many,
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."

Paul doesn't say that God the Father and Jesus are the same. He distinguished and separated them by saying we have one God, the Father, AND one Lord, Jesus Christ.

Colossians 2:8

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."

Apparently Paul foresaw the Nicene and Athanasian Councils and Creeds. It's pretty much accepted by Protestant and Catholic Scholars (like the aforementioned Edwin Hatch), that the creeds were influenced by Greek philosophy. It's too bad they were more influenced by revelation and the Bible.

1 John 5:7-8

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

John teaches that there are Three members of the Godhead, now before you Trinitarians give me a big "I told you so" because the verse ends off saying they are "one" , read the next verse. Is Spirit, water, and blood really one? Nope. Once again, "one" means unity, not physicality.

Endnote: Like I said, if someone wants to believe in the Trinity, let them. That's between them and God. For me personally, I'd rather believe in a Godhead theology based on revelation and eye witnesses, rather than one that was debated and voted on. But that's just me. Never at anytime in scriptural history has there been a manifestation supporting the Trinity, and I challenge anyone to show me a verse where someone witnessed The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost resembling an incomprehensible being without parts or passions. The only thing really incomprehensible are the creeds themselves.

David, if God is a "singular" being like you say, then you'd have to admit that your God is a resurrected being of flesh and bone.

Reason? Jesus Christ remains to be spirit, flesh and bone. He is an eternal spirit who is clothed in a body of glorified and perfected flesh (permanently).

If you can't separate Jesus and the Father into two beings, then your God has a body of flesh and bone after all.

The great truth about the Gospel of Jesus Christ IS resurrection and both God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ (separate eternal spirit beings) have physical, tangible bodies of flesh and bone.

According to the Bible, you'd have to admit that your God has such as well whether you think your God is two spiritual beings or one, one of the "parts" of your God (who you say is inseparable and ONE in all ways) has a body of flesh and bone.

Chris,

Thanks for the response. I really don't see how that can be read any other way, but of course we would disagree no matter the proof I bring. Very well. If you would like to continue our discussion, we can. I know you brought up other things, such as apostacy, and the such. If you would like we can discuss those. I get to practice my apologetics....how fun! :)

"Another David"

I think you have a great big misunderstanding about the Trinity. Of course the word "Trinity" is not in the Bible. It's a doctrine. A doctrine is comprised of taking the whole Bible, finding no contradictions and forming doctrine. What mormons and christians don't agree on is how many gods there are. But the Bible is clear on how many there are. ONE. Yep. Singular. One. Here's the proof. Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8; 45:5,14,18,21,22; 46:9; 47:8; John 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:5-6; Gal. 4:8-9

Just so you know, the Trinity is the One God manifested in three persons. All co-equal, co-eternal, etc. Some who do not understand this doctrine accuse of being polytheistic. But another way to look at it is God is like time. There is past, present, future, but it is still time. And God is like matter. Matter is liquid, solid, gas. But still matter. We live in a world full of trinities, why is it so hard to understand the Trinity?

I think we both agree that Jesus is God. You say "a" God, but I say God. My reason being for the verses posted above. The Bible claims only ONE God. Therefore The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are what make up the One God. Remember Jesus also said that the "Father and I are One". You need to understand the Hypostatic Union. That is where Jesus is both 100% human and 100% divine. Hence, the human aspect is what makes Him less than the Father, at least while here on earth. It is written that Jesus was made lower than the angels for a short time. But taking scripture wholly, the Trinity doctrine is 100% Biblical. Of course you wouldn't agree, but I'm just giving you the definition. Here's a better explanation than mine.

http://www.carm.org/doctrine/trinity.htm

So, "Another David", I'm wondering since you believe in many gods, how do you deal with.....well...I'll just give you three examples.

"I am the LORD, and there is no other; besides Me there is no God" (Isaiah 45:5).
“Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel And his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: ‘I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me," (Isaiah 44:6).

"I am the Lord, and there is no other; besides Me there is no God, (Isaiah 55:5).

Also, I should add that I hear a great deal about the ten commandments from LDS. How do you account for the first?

Exodus 20:3 3Thou shalt have no other gods before me?

I see you have other questions as well, but I think I've learned to stay on one subject at a time on here or it just gets too hectic. I think the EZ 37 prophecy is pretty much said for. Of course we could disagree, but I really don't see how that can be seen any other way, considering the numerous prophecies in accordance with that one that prophecy the return of Israel. After reading "Anonymous'" post "verbatim" per a professor at BYU, .....stop right there...."A PROFESSOR FROM BYU? A little biased?? I would like to see this archaeological evidence from a non-biased source, otherwise how do I know this professor isn't lying to protect his organization. I have heard some stories about BYU you know. They don't like mormons too much. But of course this is hear-say and wouldn't want you to take that as fact.

So concerning those SINGULAR God verses in the Bible, how do LDS account for those? Ignore them? Re-interpret them? I really don't see how more specific God can be in divinely inspiring the authors of the Bible to state as plain as day that there is only ONE God in the whole universe. And that God is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Look forward to your response. Have a great day.
God bless.

HJ,
Who are you to speak about "divinity" which you don't believe in at all? And who are you to speak about what Anderson said when he said nothing about Joseph Smith or Mormonism? Did Harvard teach you to put words in anyone's mouth that you want to just to prove a point?

Henry,
See, that's the problem. I wasn't arguing, you were. I was just commenting. But if you want to argue, just go ahead. Not sure what good it does, but as long as it makes you happy...
V.

Thought for the Day: from Anderson, columnist here

". Idolatry occurs whenever and wherever human beings take their own inventions, creations, and constructions and insist they are a container for the very nature of Divinity. Protestants have continually been tempted to treat Scripture as an idol. Catholics have repeatedly been tempted to treat the institution of the Church as an idol. Idolatry is an enemy of compassion, generosity, understanding, and love toward those who are different. In this crowded global village we call earth, we just don’t need more worship of idols."

Mormons (and Catholics) take Joseph Smith's invention as a "container for the very nature of divinity."

Both Catholics and Mormons believe they are the ONLY true church. (Muslims do too). This is idolatry. It also threatens the survival of our species, as Anderson says. It also turns God into a fetish for our own need to be the chosen people, more blessed than the other group, more elevated at the final judgment. For very good reasons, of course.

When all is said and done, those who have abandoned reason in the service of faith as dictated by any one of the 1500 demoninations in the United States or the multitude of other demoninations found elsewhere in the world are in for a surprise. They have turned their backs on the greatest gift we have in the service of man-made "church authorities."
That is and will remain the sad truth.

David,
I apologize for being limited on time again. I appreciate the work you have done to put that response together.
We may have to agree to disagree. I can see how that could be translated that way (which is a testament to me that God's Word can be interpreted in many different ways - I do not believe God is the author of confusion, I believe that Satan's influence on man has made room for interpretation in the scriptures). That being said, I believe that many prophecies were metaphoric. I believe that some were written with the best interpretation that the one receiving the revelation could comprehend (Revelations is a good example).
I believe that writing on the sticks, meant more than writing those simple words "For Judah, For Joseph".
I also believe that gathering Israel means more than just the nation of Israel. We believe in the 12 tribes of Israel (the person). Ancient baptismal fonts are similar to ours today in that they are on the backs of 12 oxen to symbolize these tribes. We believe that God cares about more than just the nation of Israel. He will gather us all to Him, the descendents from all the tribes. I am associated with the tribe of Ephraim.

I apologize, but I need to get to a meeting. I will return later.

Chris

David,
Regarding whether Jesus--the First born of spirits and Son of God in flesh--is God or "a god."
You say your understanding of Jesus comes from the Bible. Are you sure it isn't from the Nicene Creed?
According to the KJ Bible: Jesus said "there is one greater than I." He said "I go to your God and my God." Jesus said after His resurrection that he had a "body of flesh and bones." He ascended into heaven with that tangible resurrected body and said would return the same way. Later, Stephen saw Jesus "on the right hand of God." When Jesus was baptized, the Father spoke, and the Holy Ghost (spirit body) was present as signified by the dove. "Jesus could not be all three at once. Jesus told us to pray to the Father in His (Jesus) name. He never said to pray to Him, Jesus. In Acts, Jesus prayed to the Father that he (the Father) would make the apostles "one" as he and the Father were "one."
As the god of this Earth, Jesus--as the first born spirit son of the Father--made the earth under the direction of the Father.
Obviously, Jesus is divine, but He's not the Father, nor the Holy Ghost (whom the Father sent as the Comforter after Jesus' resurrection). They are separate, according to the Bible. The word "trinity" is not in the Bible. Trinity doctrine is not clearly in the Bible, nor is the doctrine that the scriptures are closed--the Bible was compiled by good men about 300 years following Jesus' resurrection. (If closed, according to what prophet?).
By the way, if the Priesthood was no longer necessary, why after the resurection, did the Apostles replace Judas and why did the Apostles ordain men to the Priesthood (according to the Bible), and who said that priesthood authority was no longer necessary?

Another David

David,

Regarding your last post, (Ezekiel 37:16-22) I would like to share with you (verbatim) something that Keith Meservy has given in study materials regarding Ezekiel 37:15-17. (In case you were wondering, Keith H. Meservy {M.A., Johns Hopkins} is Professor Emeritus of Ancient Scripture at Brigham Young University).

"Recent exciting discoveries now confirm the correctness of Joseph Smith's interpretation in a way impossible in 1830. But before discussing these new discoveries, let's take a quick look at some linguistic points. Both "stick", in the English King James Version, and "rod", in the Greek Septuagint Version are very unusual translations of the Hebrew word "etz"...whose basic meaning is "wood"...

"The modern nation of Iraq includes almost all of Mesopotamia, the homeland of the ancient kingdoms of Assyria and Babylonia. In 593 B.C, when Ezekiel was called to be a prophet, he was living in exile in Babylonia...As he walked its streets, he would have seen the typical scribe pressing a wedge-shaped stylus into moist clay tablets to make the complex writings familiar to us as "cuneiform" (wedge-shaped). But scholars today know that other kinds of records were being made in Mesopotamia: papyrus, parchment, and wooden tablets. Though only the clay tablets have survived the millennia, writers referred to the other writing materials on their clay tablets. [One such writing style was called "wood tablets."]

"Modern archaeologists knew what papyrus and parchment were, but what were these wood tablets? How could cuneiform be written on wood?...

"...Some years ago...San Nicolo [an archaeologist] remembered that Romans and Greeks both made wooden wax tablets for record-keeping purposes out of boards whose surfaces had been cut below the edges in order to hold a thin coating of wax. Scribes wrote on the wax. The raised edges protected the inscribed surfaces when two tablets were put together.

"Could the Babylonians have done the same thing?...Five years later,..a discovery made in the territory that had been ancient Assyria confirmed his theory to the letter.

"The discovery, directed by archaeologist Max Mallowan, was made in a layer of sludge deep in a well in Nimrod, a city known as Calah in the Bible...By the end of the day workmen had found...fragments of the two complete sets of tablets, one of ivory and the other of walnut, each composed of sixteen boards...

"All of the surfaces of the boards were cut down a tenth of an inch, leaving a half-inch-wide raised edge all around. The lowered surfaces provided a bed for wax filling, of which some thin biscuit-like fragments were found either still adhering to the boards or mixed in the sludge nearby...

"The cover boards...had hinge marks on both sides, making it evident that all sixteen in each set had once been joined together like a Japanese folding screen. The whole work made such an extensive record that Mallowan could announce his discovery as the oldest known example of a book...

"With these things in mind, we can see how we might translate Ezekiel 37:15-17 in this way:

"These were the words of the Lord to me: Man, take one leaf of a wooden tablet and write on it, "Judah and his associates of Israel." Then take another leaf and write on it, "Joseph, the leaf [wooden tablet] of Ephraim and all his associates of Israel."

"Now bring the two together to form one tablet; then they will be a folding tablet in your hand.'

"This translation is faithful to what we know of Ezekiel's language and culture."

I apologize for taking this verbatim, however I did not have enough time to put it in my own words.

HJ,

Your response to Vernon reminds me of one of your quotes...

"It takes a great deal of history to produce a little literature."

GB

I have read the entire BOM and much information both supporting and discrediting Mormonism. I suggest that others do the same. I mainly wanted to check in and quickly thank you all for an interesting, mostly cordial discussion.

David, I'm also curious about the is Jesus the "God"/"a god" question. Christians say "God", religious pluralists may say "a god", atheists say "there is no god/God". So, what do Mormons say?

Regards to all.

Vernon

The vacuity of your response corresponds perfectly with the vacuity of your "arguments."

Joseph Smith is impressive because Mormonism has lasted 180 years, and that makes it more likely to be the only true church than Judaism, which has lasted 2,800 years, or Islam that has lasted 1300 years???

Pig jokes is a good line for you. Argumentation is something you might leave to others.

HJ

John D,

Very good point that you mentioned.

"Also, I find your point about scroll(s) splitting hairs. It’s a prophecy, so the Bible could easily be considered one scroll and the future time the prophecy designates."

Your right, since this prophetical it can be assumed that the Bible is One scroll as it is today one book. Good point. Thanks.

I do want to say one more thing on the matter.

Please don't just read Ez 37:16-22. Visualize it.

God is telling Ezekiel to hold one stick in one hand and write on it "For Joseph". In another hand with another stick write "for Judah". Then God tells him to join these two sticks in his hands so that they appear to be one. Visualize that. He's holding the two sticks on each end and putting them together with his hands in the middle as appearing that they are one stick. Then Ezekiel asks what that means?? God tells him in verses 18-22. Each stick represents the two nations of Jews. One day they will be one stick (nation) not two. In 1948 that happened. Please don't just read it, visualize Ezekiel holding two actual sticks and joining them. Then see how God explains that prophecy in the following verses. It can't be translated any other way. This is obviously not a prophecy concerning the BOM, but obviously a prophecy concerning Israel.

If anyone wants to discuss Israeli prophecy, please let me know. You need to know that the prophecies concerning Israel have nothing to do with the U.S. When you look at the whole of prophecy concerning Israel it has to do with the real Isreal in the Middle East, not the supposed Israel (or Zion) in the U.S. that lays claim to the "lost ten tribes".

And James, if your reading this I would like to know about the archaeological evidence you claim to know about concerning Jesus' appearence to the Native Americans. Thanks

Everyone, have a blessed night.

David,

I believe that there are many possible interpretations of nearly every Bible verse, so I am not saying the Mormon one is the only possible interpretation. However, remember that the Northern Tribes were scattered and lost their Israelite identities, so the gathering to modern day Israel doesn't really do the trick; only those of the southern Kingdom are accounted for. Mormons believe that the Book of Mormon combined with the Bible is currently in the process of gathering scattered Israel and helping them become of aware of their Israelite identity, so this verse fits very well within the context of LDS beliefs.

Also, I find your point about scroll(s) splitting hairs. It’s a prophecy, so the Bible could easily be considered one scroll and the future time the prophecy designates.

Signing off,

Best,

Jd1

Jim, I did post above the certain passages that say that all believers are a part of the "royal priesthood". I do want to get into what I intended as far as the conversation I began with Chris. So, I will respond to that a little later. But for now, the question at hand has to do with Ezekiel 37:16-17 as follows:

"16Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim and for all the house of Israel his companions:

17And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand."

First, I would like to say to please verify my post and to not take my word for it. I have made several notes in which I intend to use to verify the proper translation of this text. I know you should not take my word for it, but to verify the facts for yourself, that way you can know what it true or not. The Bible encourages us to test everything and I encourage you as well to test what I'm about to post.

The LDS say that these verses indicate the prophecy concerning the BOM. I say that it is a prophecy concerning Israel. The key word in these verses is "stick". The LDS take this as meaning a scroll. Judah being the Bible, Joseph being the BOM. Two sticks that one day will be one. I see this as historically as it should be. Of course at that time the nation of Israel was divided into two parts. A north and a south. The north being Ephraim and Manassheh, the two sons of Joseph,(Numbers 1 & 26) hence the north being the Joseph that Ezekiel is referring to. The south being Judah whose descendants were somewhat more scattered. See Joshua 11:21, 1 Sam 11:8,17:52,18:16, 2 Sam 2:10,3:10,5:5. So historically we do for fact know that the nation of Israel was divided into two parts, being the north and south and of what descendancy they are from.

So, to the key word in this text. "Stick". The hebrew word Ezekiel used in this passage is "aits" or spelled "etz" as well. Please look this up on Strong's Concordance to know that the proper definition is what I'm giving you. The word "aits" properly translated is an actual, literal piece of wood or tree. If Ezekiel meant "scroll" he would have used the hebrew word for scroll which is "saipher". Therefore the proper translation of stick is not meant to be an actual scroll, but a stick. You can find other passages in the Ez 41:25 and 26:12 that use the word "aits" as a form of wood. The word "saipher" meaning scroll is used in Ez 2:9. Therefore we have an indication that Ezekiel knows the difference. Scroll and stick are two different things.

Now, I want to point out the following verses so we can see the full context of this passages meaning. Because in the following verses God explains what the previous are.

Ez 37:18-22

18And when the children of thy people shall speak unto thee, saying, Wilt thou not shew us what thou meanest by these?

19Say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put them with him, even with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in mine hand.

20And the sticks whereon thou writest shall be in thine hand before their eyes.

21And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen, whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land:

22And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all.

The sticks represent the two nations that are divided according to God. And it is a prophecy that the nation of Israel will one day become ONE nation undivided. And this prophecy was fullfilled in May of 1948 with the nation of Israel becoming one unified nation. You may have heard of Israel being considerd called "The olive tree"? Stick meaning wood or tree is consistent with this as well. This prophecy is also repeated in Isa 43:5, Ez 36:11-14 and Amos 9:11-13.

Even if I say that this prophecy was concerning the BOM it still fails one test. You say that the sticks represent scrolls. But the BOM was "allegedly" written on golden plates. So that fails in the prophecy that says that two "scrolls" will come together as one.

And one more thing to add to remind you is that the Bible is not ONE book. It is many books written by many different people. So the Bible is not one scroll. It is many.

I hope that this is helpful. I do hope that you will verify my facts so you know I'm not lieing to you, especially about the original hebrew translations. Please look at Strong's Concordance or any Hebrew lexicon to know that those translations are right. Thanks and I'm looking forward to you response even though I might be a little busy for the rest of the night, I will check on this site tomorrow some time if I can't get back on.

God bless

David,
Regarding priesthood, where does the Bible say that all believers are given the priesthood? According to your beliefs, how is the priesthood bestowed upon another, and what purpose does this priesthood serve? How do you know whom holds this priesthood?

We LDS believe that the priesthood is an essential part of Christ's gospel- it is the authority to act in his name and to perform saving ordinances such as baptism by immersion and laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

I'm very late now so don't have time for more but will follow these comments and post more when I can.

David,

I do appreciate the way this conversation is going. It seems like your main support for the idea of the Preisthood of all believers is the statement Peter made to first century Christians. Latter Day Saints love that verse, it is quoted by our Prophets all the time.

Mormons, who believe they have a restoration of ancient Christian belief and practice, have a lay Preisthood that every worthy male can hold. Most Mormons would assume, therefore, that 1st century Saints had this same Priesthood authority. So Peter's statement applied very well to the people to whom he is addressing.

To say Peter is speaking to modern Protestants, and is implying that all that is required for authority from God is this very modern conception of individualistic cognitive acknowledgement (belief) for salvation is quite a post-script, in my opinion. It de-historicizes the New Testament. The people of New Testament times were quite collectivist and took Divine authority vested in certain living individuals very seriously. How else could certain men's teachings achieve the status of God's word? The entire Bible is, in reality, contingent on human mediation.

There are some Christians in Africa who recognize this and reject the Bible for this very purpose. They don't want any human mediation so they can experience the direct presence of Christ. Would you fault them for rejecting the human mediums in the Bible only to give all the credit to Jesus? To me, their's seems to be a consistent application of the philosophy you espouse of "No man between me and my God." What do you think?

Best to you,

Jd1

James,

I think you should read John M's post about the peter being the "rock" thing that catholics hold on to so closely. He posted it on the main question response. You said this doctrine of "priesthood of all believers" wasn't until the Reformation. Well, I didn't know it was actual doctrine. Just reading the Bible it says plain and clear that we are all (as believers) a part of the royal priesthood. So, using a time-frame issue on this matter is irrelevant, since it is not a matter of doctrine, but a matter of Biblical fact. You of course are holding on to tradition, and I hold on to God's Word. Tradition means nothing to me if it contradicts God's Word. I do believe Jesus felt the same way, no?

Chris,

I'm gonna post a lengthy one about the stick of joshua and Judah soon. Sorry for the delay

Priesthood of All Believers Doctrine

David, I appreciate you providing your interpretation of the certain Bible verse you believe support the Protestant doctrine of “priesthood of all believers”.

However, I think you’re getting ahead of yourself. Think back to Christian history over the last 1900 years. In all of the Christian writings extant, and within the tradition of Christianity, there was no doctrine of “Priesthood of all believers” until the 1500s.

So, for 1400-1500 years, New Testament Saints, and then later Orthodox Christians, who were “the” Christians for hundreds of years, did not believe in, teach, or subscribe to the doctrine you’re telling us is the “truth” of “true” Christianity.

Further, not Peter, nor Paul, nor any other New Testament writer ever refers to the “priesthood of all believers” nor any practice that would be in connection with it.

Peter, the Apostles, Paul, and the New Testament Bishops practiced a priesthood of formal priesthood hierarchy. Peter was given the keys of the priesthood and was the authorized agent for Jesus Christ on earth and subsequently ordained others to priesthood offices. The 12 Apostles, the governing council of the Church, ministered and administered Church doctrine, affairs and ordinances.

No man took upon himself the “honor” of the priesthood simply because he felt an “inner calling” and faith alone was not the sole requirement.

Such officers were first duly called to faith and repentance, and those believers then received baptism by immersion and the gift of the Holy Ghost only by those who were authorized to perform priesthood ordinances. Later, these saints, could receive the priesthood if they were so called, as was Aaron.

How do you reconcile this recent addition to Christian tradition (priesthood of believers) with ancient Christianity and traditional Christianity (up until the reformation) with your faith today?

James

I see Moroni is back!! (along with "prophets for profits"!!!!!)

A quick "angel" analyses once again:

Joe Smith had his Moroni.

Mohammed had his Gabriel (this "tinker bell" got around).

Jesus and his family had Michael, Gabriel, and Satan, the latter being a modern day demon of the demented.

The Abraham-Moses myths had their Angel of Death and other "no-namers" to do their dirty work or other assorted duties.

Contemporary biblical and religious scholars have relegated these "pretty wingie thingies" to the myth pile. We should do the same to include deleting all references to them in our religious operating manuals. Doing this will eliminate the prophet/profit/prophecy status of these founders and put them where they belong as simple humans just like the rest of us.

Some added references to "tinker bells".

"Latter-day Saints also believe that Michael the Archangel was Adam (the first man) when he was mortal, and Gabriel lived on the earth as Noah."

Apparently hallucinations did not stop with Joe Smith.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07049c.htm
"This belief in guardian angels can be traced throughout all antiquity; pagans, like Menander and Plutarch (cf. Euseb., "Praep. Evang.", xii), and Neo-Platonists, like Plotinus, held it. It was also the belief of the Babylonians and Assyrians, as their monuments testify, for a figure of a guardian angel now in the British Museum once decorated an Assyrian palace, and might well serve for a modern representation; while Nabopolassar, father of Nebuchadnezzar the Great, says: "He (Marduk) sent a tutelary deity (cherub) of grace to go at my side; in everything that I did, he made my work to succeed."

Catholic monks and Dark Age theologians also did their share of hallucinating:

"TUBUAS-A member of the group of angels who were removed from the ranks of officially recognized celestial hierarchy in 745 by a council in Rome under Pope Zachary. He was joined by Uriel, Adimus, Sabaoth, Simiel, and Raguel."

And tinker bells go way, way back:

"In Zoroastrianism there are different angel like creatures. For example each person has a guardian angel caled Fravashi. They patronize human being and other creatures and also manifest god’s energy. Also, the Amesha Spentas have often been regarded as angels, but they don't convey messages, but are rather emanations of Ahura Mazda ("Wise Lord", God); they appear in an abstract fashion in the religious thought of Zarathustra and then later (during the Achaemenid period of Zoroastrianism) became personalized, associated with an aspect of the divine creation (fire, plants, water...)."

"The beginnings of the biblical belief in angels must be sought in very early folklore. The gods of the Hittites and Canaanites had their supernatural messengers, and parallels to the Old Testament stories of angels are found in Near Eastern literature. "

"The 'Magic Papyri' contain many spells to secure just such help and protection of angels. From magic traditions arose the concept of the guardian angel. "

For added information see the review at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel

Bible References to
The Book of Mormon

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe The Holy Bible and The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ are two volumes of scripture that testify of the Divinity and Earthly ministry of The Savior, Jesus Christ. The Book of Mormon doesn't supersede or replace the bible, it compliments it by providing a second independent witness to it's authenticity and prophetic nature.
These two books enable people who read them to have a better understanding of the fullness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The Book of Mormon makes several references and prophecies concerning the Bible, but does the Bible do this likewise? Here are some biblical verses that prophesy of the Book of Mormon, and Joseph Smith.

Genesis 11:9

"Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth."

Okay, so this doesn't explicitly mention anything about the Book of Mormon, but there is a connection. The Book of Ether, one of the records in the B. of M., is the record of a group of people that migrated to the Americas when they were scattered abroad by The Lord after the Tower of Babel incident.

Psalm 85:11

"Truth shall spring out of the earth; and righteousness shall look down from heaven."

This verse is the psalmist's reference to the gold plates being buried in a hillside by the prophet, Moroni, in approximately 400 AD. In 1823, Moroni led Joseph Smith to where the plates were hidden. In 1827, Joseph was finally allowed to remove the plates. He translated them by the power of God into what is now known as the Book of Mormon - named after the prophet, Mormon. Truth literally and poetically sprung up from the earth.

Isaiah 29: 4, 11-14

"And thou shalt be brought down, and shalt speak out of the ground, and thy speech shall be low out of the dust, and thy voice shall be, as of one that hath a familiar spirit, out of the ground, and thy speech shall whisper out of the dust."
"And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed: And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned. 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: 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."

Verse 4 speaks of the destruction of Christ's believers in the Americas, and their records on the gold plates being buried. Their words came up with a whisper out of the dust.
Verses 11-14 are very prophetic and directly linked with LDS history. Joseph Smith copied some characters engraved on the plates on to a piece of paper. He gave them to Martin Harris to bring to a language expert in New York for verification. The expert identified the writing as Reform Egyptian, but quickly recanted after Martin explained where the writings came from. The expert's exact response was "I cannot read a sealed book". This is almost word for word with verse 11. There is an obvious connection in verse 12. Joseph Smith only had a 6th grade education. He was not a "learned man". Through the power of the Holy Ghost, Joseph was able to translate the writings into English. Since then God has produced a "marvelous work and a wonder" among this people — restoring and spreading the priesthood and true gospel of Jesus Christ across the Earth.
Ezekiel 37: 15-20

"The word of the LORD came again unto me, saying, Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions: And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand. And when the children of thy people shall speak unto thee, saying, Wilt thou not shew us what thou meanest by these? Say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put them with him, even with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in mine hand. And the sticks whereon thou writest shall be in thine hand before their eyes."

The "sticks" being referred to are the records of God's covenant people. The two sticks are companions to each other making one. The stick of Judah is obviously the Bible, since the Jews are through the tribe of Judah. The stick of Joseph referred to is the Book of Mormon. Lehi, the first prophet of Book of Mormon, was a descendant of the tribe of Joseph. Today the Bible and Book of Mormon are companion books in the hands and before the eyes of people today.

John 10: 15-16

"As the Father knoweth Me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd."

Unless you're one of those Da Vinci Code types, you know that Jesus didn't teach anyone outside the Middle East during His Mortal Ministry. So who the heck are these "other sheep" that are part of His fold, that He will teach in person?
After His Resurrection, Christ visited his followers in the Americas and taught them His Gospel as He had in the Middle East. (So much for the Book of Mormon being a different gospel than the Bible) The record of this visit is found in the book of 3rd Nephi, in the Book of Mormon. And for those of you who want proof outside the BofM, there is plenty of archaeological evidence supporting Jesus' appearance in the New World, including the ruins of pre-European Christian churches. Email me if you want specifics. I'd love to hear from you.

2 Corinthians 13:1

"THIS is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established."

Paul is teaching that God doesn't proclaim truth through one witness, He uses 2 or 3. The Book of Mormon is Another Testament of Jesus Christ. The Purpose of the Book is to "convince the Jew and the Gentile that Jesus is The Christ." The Bible is the first witness and the Book of Mormon bears a second witness that all the promises, prophecies, and miracles in the Bible are true. It even supports the things that archaeology could never prove.

Revelations 14:6-7

"And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters."

This passage prophesied of Moroni, the angel carrying the Book of Mormon which contained the everlasting gospel. It was brought forth in this day to prepare the world for the Second Coming of The Lord, and God's judgment.
Here's a bit of trivia for you. Cyrus Dallin was not a member of the LDS Church, but he was commissioned to design the Angel Moroni statue for the top of the Salt Lake Temple. He got his inspiration for his now famous design from this scripture because it reminded him of Moroni's story.

No problem David. I know I will enjoy our dialogue as it progresses. I hope you can be patient as my job can be demanding and I will be on and off of here.

My brief interpretation is:
The Stick of Judah is the Bible, a record of the Jewish people.
The Book of Joseph is the BOM, a record of Joseph's descendants (Lehi was a direct descendant)
They were brought together and are used together today. Sorry so brief. We'll talk more later.

Chris

I love you too Phil O! Thanks for the love. Unfortunately, these threads are made for discussion and of course with discussion comes challenges. I think it's great to challenge one another, and I hope we can all keep it civil. I just hope no one finds me offensive (which they already have) by challenging the LDS faith with the Word of God.

CHRIS, my friend. Hope you forgave me buddy. I found some verses you were talking about. Since you brought up numerous subjects, I was hoping that if we are to have a dialogue that we can talk about one at a time. I guess I'll jump first and bring up the stick of Joseph and Judah. You claim that this is a prophecy of the BOM. Of course I will dispute that. Here is where the stick of Joseph and Judah are in the Bible

Ez 37:16-17

16Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim and for all the house of Israel his companions:

17And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand.

I am a little rushed right now, so I would hope that you could give me your interpretation of this as being a prophecy of the BOM and I will follow up. Thanks.

Hey guys!
I'm reading all the comments and my head is spinning . I'm a latter day saint and I know what I believe is true. If you think your belief is true, more power to you. I'm not going to tell you what to believe. To some, we are all nuts. So I say, let's love one another and be more tolerant of each others belief. We are children of the same God and He loves us all.After all, He sent his beloved son to save us all.
You think your all so clever and smart ,but in reality your knowledge of the truth is very limited. We have one Lord and one Savior and that's what matters in all these discussions.
Really, I love you all!!

Chris,

You will have to forgive me in that the second paragraph of my post was not intended for you. It was intended to whoever posted something using my name and the post reading "I spew hatred because I can". I'm sorry if that seemed intended for you. I do hope to continue in our dialogue. I will look for what restoration you are talking about in Isaiah. I do think you are talking about the restoration of Israel. Of course prophetically speaking this is a true prophecy that came to life in 1948 with the restoration of the Israeli nation. I will seek those verses that you are referring to and maybe we can shed some light on the subject. Thanks.

And once again, I'm greatly sorry for that post. I should have posted that to directly to whomever it was that used my name with a hateful post. It wasn't me and was quite childish. Sorry for the confusion. Have a great day at work. I'm here at work to, but have a little free time today. God bless

Henry,
Well, at least you admit you're a madman. And thank you for reminding me of an old axiom, which I usually live by: Never try to teach a pig to sing. It's a waste of time, and it annoys the pig.
V.

OK. I can continue to have a conversation with you, but it must be "our" conversation. You are accusing me of saying things that I did not. When did I say you "spew hatred"????
I did not mention the priesthood, or keys, or any of the things that you said I say all the time. Are you talking to more than one Chris maybe from another forum?
I haven't hid behind anything, nor misconveyed my convictions. You have confused me on that one.
About the scriptures that I referenced, I'm at work right now and I do not have time to look them up. To be honest, you would benefit more if you looked it up yourself. You seem to be pretty proud of how much you know, I'm shocked you read these things and never understood them. I am not a scriptorian so I can't ramble them off for you. I remember reading in the NT about the falling away from the church, and the restitution of all things. I remember reading in the OT about the stick of Joseph and the stick of Judah coming together in the hand of Jesus Christ to be one rod that He would rule the world with (scriptures were in scroll form then so they were referring to scriptures - a record of the descendants of the names mentioned). Isaiah is where the restoration was described. Let me know if you look this stuff up. I will be glad to help you find it later, but I'm not liking this contentious tone you convey. I'd be glad to end all communication if this is going to turn into an argument, I don't have time for that, and I don't want to be childish.

Perhaps the most damaging and dangerous people in any society are the ones that just know there personal perspective of truth is God's mind and will an therefore feel impelled and justified in beating everyone else up who disagrees with them.

It starts out with name-calling and hate-filled rhetoric, progresses to unlawful persecution behaviors and with enough supporters, sometimes becomes enshrined as a national policy. Islamic extremists, Nazism, Christian white supremacist and Marxism are examples of some of the recient few.

I can’t imagine how anyone could think that they are doing God’s will by employing Satan’s tactics.

LDS Mark

It is brave of you to use the by-now-thoroughly-discredited tack that Mormon apologists take that
all critcs of the church have "problems", implying psychological imbalance and immature control of their emotions.

I've been pretty balanced and controlled for 2600 years. Thank you very much for your Christian concern.

I prefer Pope Benedict's approach to Otterson's obfuscations.

The pope comes right out and says that he considers all other churches inferior.

Mormons do too. You can't deny that, can you? But Otterson says "oh no, I don't want to pick any fights, we are all lovely people".

When asked
"but isn't it true that only Mormons can achieve the highest level of heaven?", he obfuscates, dances around the issue.

Tell us the truth. We are big Greeks. We can take it. Don't give us the PR song and dance.

Wanna Dance?
love
Heraclitus
"the unchanging"

Heraclitus:

You do have issues don't you.
Why don't you come out and say it.
You are jealous of the LDS church.

Yes, we do have the only true church of Jesus Christ (hence the name) but we don't rub everyone's noses in it.
Unlike others, we assist all regardless of their faith, for we are all God’s children.

If you can't handle that then you do have some serious issues that you need to get over. When you do, let me know, I'll be happy to help you as well.

LDS Mark
(was just "Mark")

Chris,

Show me where in the Bible that there is a prophecy of Joseph Smith, a need for a restoration, a COMPLETE apostacy, and most importantly a need for a Book of Mormon. I guess I missed those parts.

And by the way, I guess it's a great "Christian" thing to post in my name saying that "I spew hatred". Yeah real nice. At least I'm being honest about my convictions and about God's Word without having to hide behind my own name and claim that I'm saying something else. I don't spew hatred. I do what I do out of love. I'm not here to bring anyone down. I'm here to bring as many as I can up.

Ok time for the goods.

I continue to hear about needing a priesthood in the order of Melchizedek to obtain salvation. I wish you could all understand that Jesus is the final High Priest in the order of Melchizedek. We need no other since Jesus lives on.

Jesus is the only high priest after the order of Melchizedek (Heb. 3:1; 5:6,10; 6:20; 7:11,15,17,21,24,26; 8:1; 9:11).
"Where Jesus, who went before us, has entered on our behalf. He has become a high priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek" (Hebrews 6:20).
"And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life" (Heb. 7:15-16).
The Melchizedek Priesthood is unchangeable and untransferable
"but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood" (Heb. 7:24).

So priesthood succession is out of the question. Jesus is that final priest in the order of Melchizedek. So who are priests you may ask?

1 Pet 2:4-5

4To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,

5Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ

V 9 says

9But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;

The body of believers (the true church) are the royal priesthood. Upon faith in Jesus we become this royal priesthood. How much clearer can that get? So why the need for someone else to be a priest to annoint you for salvation? Jesus is the High Priest who will anoint you with the Holy Spirit which in turn makes you a part of that royal priesthood of believers.

And this "keys" thing. You continue to ask who hold these "keys" The Bible tells us. It's Jesus.

Rev 1:18

18I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death. Some translations have it at the keys to death and Hades.

So the Bible says that Jesus is the final High Priest. We all become part of the priesthood upon believing, hence, the Great Commission. Jesus commands us to spread the gospel, but I don't see how that's possible is we are first not believers, then priests. How can we teach the gospel if Jesus does not ordain us as priests? Now, Jesus holds the keys that the LDS church lays claim to. These keys give life and death. So, insisting on being the key holder is the insisting on being the only true church. This goes against scripture. Jesus holds those keys. He and He only has the right to give eternal life or eternal death.

I see a pattern here. Am I wrong for giving Jesus too much credit? Both the LDS and the RCC make the claim of holding the keys to life or death thus insinuating that they are the only true path to recieve salvation. Well, I'm sorry if I recognize my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christs death as sufficient. I'm sorry that I have given Him too much credit since we fallible humans should be the ones to give life or death. Is this wrong for me to do? Is it wrong that I follow scripture that clearly states these things? Is it wrong that I use 2 Tim 3:16 as a command to "correct" those who are leading a false doctrine? Why am I at fault in your eyes as following scripture? You say that I interpret it differently. What way am I supposed to interpret it? Is is not correct to use scripture to back up scripture. Isn't it dangerous to make doctrine out of the verses you like but ignoring the ones that contradict that doctrine?

So can I get an answer on is Jesus God or "a" god?

Vernon PS

on your criterion
2.Concoct a story that would be convincing enough to enough people to sustain it through several generations?

Remember Moses?
Several generations, I'd say.

Vernon
plenty of madmen have given their lives for the sake of a story, or a cause. doesn't prove that god spoke to them. they might have simply been crazy.

i don't have to imitate them to know that, nor do you.

Mohammed concocted a story like Smith's that convinced billions more people than Mormonism has. Convert to islam then?

Exactly parallel situation. Are BOTH Islam and Mormonism the Only True Church(es?).

You don't seriously consider these two points to be an argument do you?

luv
henry

Henry the Prophet:
Certainly, a person could concoct a story as you suggest- but that wasn't the premise. But since you wish to go in that direction, could you:
1. Be willing to give your life rather than deny your concoction?
2.Concoct a story that would be convincing enough to enough people to sustain it through several generations?

People say all the time that they could make up a story, and indeed they have, but they have all failed in short order.
I'm afraid you haven't convinced me. But I'm sure you'll keep trying.
Vernon

JD one more point

you write "our convictions are contingent on received assumptions so we don’t impute idiocy onto those who disagree with us."

I certainly agree with this statement.
I would assume that you and I also agree that we should attempt to identify and question those "received assumptions." I suspect you will say that we will never be *completely* free of them, and I suspect you are right. But the continual process of challenging them is necessary in that search for the truth which I have doubts we will ever establish.

DO you think that your belief in "contingent convictions" is at odds with the assertion of "metaphysical certainty" as to the truth of either Mormonism or Catholicism? Seems like a problem to me.

love
henry

thanks JD for the interesting response.

i don't think my world view is self evident. (that truth is extremely hard to define and establish)

but i have yet to be shown an example of "metaphysical certainty," as Father John McLaughlin likes to say.

As you well know, philosophers have been debating the nature of truth for millenia, and the debate continues. the respectible philosopher Karl Popper holds that we can never completely establish truth, and therefore advises scientists to strive for "truthlikeness." that feels right to me at the moment.

Billiions of smart people believe it is True that God and Heaven exist. But to my mind they can't establish that fact to a metaphysical certainty. I of course can't establish that there is No God (or no Zeus for that matter). But i am Occam like: until it is demonstrated to me, I won't believe it. Fine for you and others to. There are things that we can't explain (though i don't hold lots of respect for the "God in the Gaps" position).

i am totally convinced that humans should follow the golden rule, and treat their fellows with loving kindness. Does that count?

peace
hj

James,

I actually like the tone of your response to me, so I am willing to engage a bit. Perhaps we can still be friends despite rocky exchanges as of late. No one should be completely free from conviction. I think it is important to recognize that our convictions are contingent on received assumptions so we don’t impute idiocy onto those who disagree with us. That is as far as I would like to go with post-modernism. I get the impression you think your worldview is self-evident, with that I disagree. Best to you!

Jd1

Vernon

On the basis of your "test"

I could concoct a story of a Deity that coincides with Biblical Records (which, btw, David has pretty conclusively shown that Mormonism's diety Doesn't)

claim it was further revelation to correct past errors or inadequacies,

and you should believe me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I will try to say this as politely as I can, Vernon. A pathetic test you have devised. Sorry.

Love
Henry the Prophet

For one who has an open mind, and who leans towards Christianity, the "test" for Mormonism is obvious:
1. Throughout Biblical history, has the Lord ever called a prophet, charging him to tell the people "Don't change a thing- you've gotten everything just right!"? Or has He always called prophets to correct errors that they adopted as they tried to make His gospel "better"?
2. Throughout Biblical history, have the spiritual advisers whose errors were corrected ever accepted the prophet's corrections with a smile?
3. Does the pattern of Deity's behavior, with regards to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, coincide with His behavior in Biblical records?
4.When anyone makes the argument that the heavens are closed, and that revelations have ceased, how is the truth of this revealed to them? Since they claim the heavens are closed, should we presume that this information comes from another source?
Vernon

To John (who is gone)

I actually have trouble figuring out what you are talking about, because you seem to directly contradict yourself.

First you say ALL knowledge is Socially Constructed, contingent on the society from which it springs.

Then you seem to believe that Mormonism is, to a metaphysical certainty, the ONLY (exclusive) true version of the afterlife and God's plan.

Even though this version is Socially Constructed, contingent.

Where I come from there are plenty of postmodernists. But this seems like a direct contradiction, either within or without the province of Postmodernism.

I am not exclusivist at all. I believe (not KNOW) that ALL humans can know that there is NO metaphysical certainty.

So yes, I think i understand what you mean, and it does not make sense.

Basic question of this post: Are Catholics or Mormons or anyone else justified in claiming that they have the ONLY true way, the Only Truth.

I spew hatred because I can

HJ,

The concepts and "jargon" in my post is fairly common where I come from, sorry, I shouldn't assume it would be understood.

If you do not believe a secular, buddist worldview is the most true, than I guess I have misjudged you. Maybe you are more post-modern than I guessed. I don't condemn your claim in this regard. And perhaps the self righteous designation was a bit uncalled for. I don't really have the time to elaborate on the relationship between knowledge and one's social group, so you may ignore my post. I think you could figure out what I am talking about.

I'm signing off,

Best to you,

Jd1

David,
Your Bible that you hold so dear seems to have passed you by. I use the KJV almost daily. It seems you have missed the many places that prophecy that certain things must happen that seem evident in the LDS church. The apostacy is predicted. The restoration is predicted. Joseph Smith is predicted. The Book of Mormon is predicted.
In fact if you truly learn about the doctrine of the church and then go back and re-read your Bible, these things jump off the page at you and the scriptures seem to come alive like you never understood them before. I would suggest that you study to believe all of the Bible, not just the parts that are easy to abide by. Why would you think that the other prophecies would not happen? God even made a donkey talk in the Old Testament.
As far as us believing a different Jesus . . . Don't you remember the scriptures saying that all that Jesus said and did could not be written? Some because it was forbidden to write it, and much because it said the earth couldn't hold the pages that it would take to write it all. So with that said, are you really going to believe the Bible will tell you everything about our Savior? Or the nature of God (which is obviously above our level of understanding)?

We don't worship a different Jesus, we just know more about Him because we accept modern revelation. Hopefully you will read in the Bible about the times when the Lord will speak to His people again. The famine of the words of the Lord is over David. Would you choose to reject that God can reveal more to His followers? The Bible said this must happen before the return of Jesus Christ.

Best of luck.

David,

I like to make a few posts at the beginning of threads. I just don't have time for endless tit for tats.

I can see where I could have been better about softening my language, though my main point to you and Henry would remain the same.

Honestly, I find claiming persecution after going out of your way to metaphorically crap on someone else’s beliefs baffling.

In my last post I expressed my perception of the social reality of what is going on here.

There is a condemnation of the LDS for claiming to have the true church while in the same breath there is a claim for exclusive truth for oneself. I see no real difference. I wouldn’t condemn your claim to exclusive truth. I admire anyone’s faith in Christ and his word.

I observe, however, the most non-congenial, confrontational types of language coming from those who do not claim institutional exclusivism, while I don't see Catholics or Mormons going to other religion's threads saying " I want to fight", insulting people's intelligence etc. etc.

I think I have been more irritated lately with this thread because I expect more of Christians. In reality, the person here who I think sets the best example of how to dialogue about difference of late is Pheadrus. If we could all take his approach, maybe we could get somewhere. Maybe more intelligent Mormons would find this thread worth their time.

In the end, I think this kind of language will only cause Mormons to believe more deeply, and create sympathy for Mormons among most fair minded people. So I guess I have nothing to be irritated about. Sorry for the perceived "skewer."

Best to you,

Jd1

I agree with "Believing Skeptic"--best to ignore.

The Philosophical Gods Saith:

It is NOT exclusivist for Henry to claim
that No One
(including Henry himself)
has Exclusive Truth.

He is saying that EVERYONE
is the same in this regard,
Including him.

It is lexically incoherent to call that position exclusive, self-awarely or not.

JD

are you claiming that I
"self-righteously condemn
other more self-aware expressions of exclusivism" (i assume you mean yours and the Mormons')

==in other words, I am being exclusive but am just not aware of
by saying that
NO ONE is entitled to exclusivism

My statement that No One Can confidently claim to have the exclusive truth is itself exclusive?

Interesting. Will have to check that with William. Sounds convoluted to me.

DO the mormons have an the One True Version of God and the afterlife? (for instance, are we Certain that God has flesh and bone but no blood?)

Did someone mention my name?

JD, I fail to see the logical connection between your statement
1. Henry is proud he doesn't believe he has the One True Church, and.
2. But knowledge and belief is socially constructed and indicative of the cultural group with which you identify.

Your #2 would seem to bolster Henry's pride in #1. If all knowledge is socially constructed (an extreme postmodernist position that is full of holes, tho certainly LOTS of knowledge is Socially constructed)

as YOU Claim

then why should believe the Mormon Claim, or any claim, that their church has the Only True knowledge.

That is EXACTLY what henry and i are saying. You seem hoist on your own petard.

I have no idea what you mean when you say "you mystify your exclusivism by evoking the myth of the atomistic individual", and I challenge any one else on this site to tell us what that sentence means. Go back and rewrite it if you want to get a pssing grade in my arrogance based course.

Hey JD
thanks for the retort. I am not sure i understood your postmodern jargon, but let me proceed as if i did.

It appears that you have my position exactly WRONG (i won't speak for David)
you write "You both seem quite sure you have the one true conception of reality "

NO.
The Mormon Church thinks it has the One True Conception of Reality.

It is I who say No Man Can Know what the One True Conception of reality is. Is that arrogant? If so, socrates and I are arrogant.

Hinduims *might* be a more True conception of Reality (esp Gods and the afterlife) but no man can KNOW in any meaningful sense of that word.

Now i sound like the postmodernist.

The Mormon fable of the afterlife is a suitable object for faith, but is an impossible object for knowledge.

My brother William, the eminent philospher, told me that. Boy is HE arrogant.

David,
This is the mormon Christ: He is the creator of all things , He is Jehovah of the old testament,He is the only begotten son of the our Father in heaven (we are begotten by our biological father) He died and suffered for us that our sins may be forgiven, He was resurrected 3 days after He died. Only through him can anyone be saved and no one else, He will come again to reign for a thousand years . He is our Savior.

David,
This is the mormon Christ: He is the creator of all things , He is Jehovah of the old testament,He is the only begotten son of the our Father in heaven (we are begotten by our biological father) He died and suffered for us that our sins may be forgiven, He was resurrected 3 days after He died. Only through him can anyone be saved and no one else, He will come again to reign for a thousand years . He is our Savior.

David:

The "one true Church" doctrine is held among most Orthodox Christians and of course Mormons. To say that there are those who don't believe their faith is the "one true faith" is to say that they believe in something they don't believe is true.

The LDS Church is the one true Church, not because it posseses ALL truth (not yet anyway) but because it holds the keys of the priesthood neccessary to bind the covenant of salvation.

The non-demononational Bible beliving Christian, while they proclaim Jesus name, they have no claim to priesthood authority. This is the key. You cannot have salvation without the priesthood of God. You cannot receive the priesthood sealing power without an authorized agent for Christ. Catholics claim an unbroken line from Peter through their Bishops. The LDS Church claims an unbroken line from Christ, Peter, James and John as restored in 1829.

This is what Brother Otterson referred to above in his post, which you ignore.

I know that you'll next give me your version of the "priesthood of all believers" doctrine shortly. But you'd have to admit that this doctrine was a "recent" addition to Orthodox Christianity. You'd also have to admit that neither the New Testament Church or Orthodox Christianity believed, taught or institutionalized the doctrine of "the priesthood of all believers".

You'd also have to admit that if we didn't need any other administrator between God and Man, that Jesus would NOT have called Apostles and Prophets to minister and administrate his gospel.

The promise and hope of Salvation in Christ is received by covenant of baptism ADMINISTERED by one who has the authority to do so - this is the gospel of Jeuss Christ in the New Testament.

Of course Jesus is and remains the supreme High Priest and his sacrifice answers the demands of justice and provides for mercy.

The mere belief in Jesus Christ does not give anyone priesthood. This doctrine does not exist in the New Testament. Nor does it "purely" exist in the Protestant tradition. Article 14 of The Augsburg Confession (a creed for Protestants in 1530) states that for the sake of the religious order, no one should perform anything by way of the "priesthood" without a "call" to do so from God AND from the congregation of believers being served. These calls were 99% reserved for whom? Members of the "professional clergy". Another break with the New Testament church.

Next, while arguing that "all believers have priesthood", you'd have to admit that the Catholic Bishops and LDS priesthood leaders have priesthood too because they are staunch believers. They could make the same claim as you.

Then you'd counter with the claim that only your version of the Bible is the "true faith" and that YOU represent the "only true Church" of believers - a claim you make based on your "own" authority.

In the end, you're arguing the same thing that the Catholics and the Mormons are claiming, that your faith and its interpretation alone holds the key to salvation.

David, in the end you're left with Christian history. You're basing your salvation on a doctrine that was recently invented in the days of Martin Luther that Christ, nor his apostles ever taught or restored, or that can be seen in 1300 years of Orthodox Christian history - nor can it be seen in the New Testament nor in the history of ancient Christianity.

I don't find any hope in that at all.

Anon,

Please refresh my memory. I forgot what I said about Hinckley. Was it the fact that he's a false prophet? Was it the time I said he is leading people away from God. And I might remind you, I continue to ask the same questions because I get no straight answers. Which is obviously a sign of a weak foundation to base your beliefs on. And another question. If I say Hinckley is a false prophet, does that make me less of a Christian or am I heeding the continuous warning that is expressed in the Bible about watching out for false prophets, false doctrine, and false Christs? And if I sit back and watch these false teachings go by and do nothing, am I sinning? Shouldn't I warn others to be aware of these false practices that way they too can enjoy the free gift of grace provided by the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ? Hmmmm..somehow I find myself doing what the Lord would want me to do. Don't worry, I still love you. And for that is another reason why my intentions are not just for those seeking, but for those who are lost.

So again, I ask my question. Is Jesus God or "a" god? I don't think I've asked that one yet. But it's a good one.

Oh by the way. Welcome back John D. I thought you wanted to stay away. I guess it's just so hard, huh? I can't seem to get away from spreading the true gospel myself which is why I continuously keep coming back to the LDS board. Much love.

And please skewer me as much as you want. I love it. Being persecuted for Christ is what I live for.

God bless

This is my first visit here. I have enjoyed reading many of your comments. Thank you for your time and consideration over this matter. I for one continue to practice 'Love one another'. I do believe that includes mutual respect for all mankind. Have a great day!

David and Henry James,

Hey guys. You both seem quite sure you have the one true conception of reality and quite proud that you don't believe you have the one true "church". But indeed, knowledge and belief is socially constituted and indicative of the cultural group with which you identify. Since "church" means assembly, the reality behind the rhetoric is the same. The only difference is you mystify your exclusivism by evoking the myth of the atomistic individual so you can self-righteously condemn other more self-aware expressions of exclusivism.

Best to you!

Jd1

Henry James,

David is welcome to be as dogmatic as he wants, no problem by me. The post by Mr. Otterson calls for "vigorous and constructive debate," which I agree with. It is the "constructive" part that David is lacking, so pointing to the LDS claim of being the one true church misses the point entirely as far as I am concerned.

Anonymous and Richard

Fine to skewer David. he can take it.

But we should remember that it is the MORMON CHURCH that claims IT is the ONLY true church, the ONLY way to the highest salvation.

so when we skewer David for his dogmatism, let we who are without sin cast the first stone.

Peace and love in Christ

Henry

Richard,
In case you haven't noticed in past blogs, "David" keeps asking the same questions over and over, insisting his particular view of Biblical doctrine is the only correct one, while using smear tactics against other genuine beliefs. Somehow I don't get that approach from studying the life of Christ. His comment the other day about an LDS Church leader whom he doesn't know nor has any basis of describing, is the most non-Christian statement I have seen on any of the "On Faith" posts. "Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaketh."

Thanks for your always thoughtful and insightful writing.

Mark Hazell

very human and reasonable and tolerant words.

you do highlight a problem, however, as far as I am concerned.

If we should be ecumenical (including atheists like myself i presume) then we do dilute the rationale for adhering to our own church.

unless we are something like Unitarian Universalist, which believes in everything and nothing.

Which is actually fine with me. I don't think "truth" can reduced to the Catholic Catechism (heaven forbid) or the Mormon mythology about the