An Inexhaustibe Treasure

bfshmto plcrj kxlw mbvo yhskjuw vxho mxtsya

There are a lot of things in life that I will "fool around" with. GOD and the scriptures are not one of them..

Rev 22 (the end of the book, the last verses)

18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

20 He who testifies to these things says, "Yes, I am coming soon."

Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.

21 The grace of the Lord Jesus be with God's people. Amen.

RMI,
Sorry this is a bit later than I had planned. All the best to you, and Merry Christmas.

8:32 am
New Testament scriptures from memory:

Matthew
Mary: “My soul doth magnify the Lord.”
There came wise men from the east, saying… Where is he that is born king of the Jews? For we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him…. They came to the place where the young child lay, and brought him gold, frankincense, and myrrh.

And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, and the grace of God was upon him.
Then saith John, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me. And he said unto him, thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness. And he suffered him. And the Holy Ghost came in the likeness of a dove upon him.

And straightway they left their nets, and followed him.

5-7: Jesus said, Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth. Blessed are they that mourn, for they shall be comforted. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God. Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy. Blessed are they who do hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be filled. Blessed are ye when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely for my sake, for so persecuted they the prophets who were before you.

Ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, but I say unto you, do good to them that hate you, and from him that asketh of you, turn not away. If a brother compel thee to go with him a mile, go with him twain. If one smiteth thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Judge not, that ye be not judged. Ask, and it shall be given. Seek, and ye shall find. Knock, and it shall be opened unto you.
After this manner, therefore, pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil; for thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory forever. Amen.

Do men put new wine into old bottles? Ye are the light of the world. A city set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in Heaven.
And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field. They toil not, neither do they spin yet even Solomon, in all his glory, was not arrayed like one of these. Take no thought for the morrow. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof. Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father who is in heaven is perfect.

Were there not ten cleansed? Where are the nine?

Whom do ye say that I the son of man am? Peter saith, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona, for flesh and blood hath not revealed this unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Master, which is the great commandment of the law? Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy might. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it: thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. And who is my neighbor?
A certain man went up from Judea to Jericho, and fell among thieves, who stripped him of his raiment, and beat him. And a priest passed by. Then came a certain Samaritan, who bound up his wounds, and taketh him to an inn. Who, therefore, is his neighbor? Go, and do thou likewise.

It is written, my house is a house of prayer, but ye have made it a den of thieves.

A certain man had two sons. And when the second said, give me of mine inheritance, he gave it to him…. And when he had spent all, he was feeding swine, and when he had come to himself, he said, doth not my father’s servants eat better than this? …and when his father seeth him afar off, he came running, and saith, that which was lost is found. And he killeth a fatted calf , and prepareth a feast.

24-25: What shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? Behold, there shall be many false Christs, and false prophets… Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns? Look not in the desert. As the sun risest in the east so shall be the sign of the coming of the Son of man…It shall be said unto the righteous on my right hand, …for I was an hungered, and ye gave me to eat, I was a stranger, and ye took me in. Lord, when saw we thee hungered and gave thee to eat? If ye have done it unto one of the least of these, my brethren, ye have done it unto me. And it shall be said to them on my left hand, depart from me, ye that work iniquity. I never knew you. Not he that saith, Lord, Lord, shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven.

Why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?

Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins. And five of them were wise, and five were foolish. They that were wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps. And while the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept. And when the bridegroom was come, they that were foolish saith unto the wise, give us of your oil, for our lamps are gone out. And they that were wise saith, not so, lest there be not enough for thee and we, but go rather to them that sell, and buy for yourselves. And while they were gone, the door was shut.

Go ye unto all the world, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

Luke
2: And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Ceasar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. And every man came into his own city. Then cometh Joseph unto Bethlehem, with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child. And while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn son, and laid him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn. And there were shepherds abiding in the fields, keeping watch over their flocks by night. And an angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them, and they were sore afraid. And the angel spake saying, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David, a Savior, which is Christ the Lord. And ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. And they came with haste, and found Mary and Joseph, and the babe lying in the manger.

And Jesus increased in wisdom, and stature, and in favor with God and man.

John
1: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And by Him was not anything made that was made. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.

3: Except a man be born of water, and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.
If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.
I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
If ye believe, then are ye my disciples indeed, and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
I am the resurrection and the life. Believest thou this?
And he saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.
The Son can do nothing of himself, save he shall do what he seeth the Father do.
Beloved, love one another, for love is of God. By this shall men know ye are my disciples, if ye have love one for another.
I am the vine, ye are the branches.
Take, eat, this is my body which is broken for you.
I pray not that thou takest them out of the world, but that thou keepest them from the evil.
Peter, this day thou shalt deny me thrice.
And Peter went out, and wept bitterly.
Then cometh Mary Magdalene unto the sepulcher…And she, supposing him to be the gardener, saith, sir if thou hast borne him hence…. And he saith unto her, Mary. And she saith, Rabboni, which meaneth, master.
Jesus saith unto Peter, lovest thou me more than these? Feed my sheep…Feed my lambs.

Acts
Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing into heaven? This same Jesus…shall in like manner descend.
Peter saith, Silver and gold have I none, but such as I have, give I thee; rise, take up thy bed and walk. And he lifted him up.
We have had the fathers of our flesh who correcteth us. Shall we not heed the Father of our spirits, and live?
By him we live and move and have our being, as certain also of your own poets have said.
1 Cor 15: Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? Why are they then baptized for the dead? For since by man came death, by man also came the resurrection from the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
13: Though I speak with the tongue of men and of angels, if I have not charity, I am but a sounding brass, and a tinkling cymbal. Charity suffereth long, and is kind, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked. Now abideth faith, hope and charity, but the greatest of these is charity.
Ephesians: And he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and some teachers, and some evangelists, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come to the unity of the faith, unto a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ. That we be no more henceforth blown by every wind of doctrine, whereby they lie in wait to deceive.
…that ye be no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens in the household of faith.
Hebrews: God, who at sundry times and in divers places hath spoken unto us, hath in these last days spoken by His son.
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
By faith Abraham offered his son Isaac as a sacrifice, believing God was able to raise him up, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

1 John: Beloved, now are we the sons of God, but it doth not yet appear what we shall be; for when he shall appear we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. Whosoever hath this hope, purifieth himself even as he is pure.
Beloved, love one another, for love is of God. And his commandments are not grievous.
1 Peter: By which he went also to the spirits in prison, who at some time were disobedient, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.
James: Pure religion before God is this, that ye visit the widow and the fatherless in their affliction, and keep yourself unspotted from the world.
Faith without works is dead, being alone.
Revelation: He that overcometh shall be a pillar in the temple of my God… He that overcometh shall eat of the tree of life…. He that overcometh shall inherit all things, and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
Behold, I stand at the door, and knock. If any man open, behold, I will come in and will sup with him, and he with me.
I saw the dead, both small and great… And the books were opened, and they were judged according to their works.

10:57 am

Very nice, Parker - impressive - a wonderful memory and a wonderful selection. A very enjoyable read.

You win. May I ask a question? What are your favorites from the New Testament?

I note that you use address Michael Otterson as "Brother Otterson". Would I be correct to think that you are an LDS?

Thank you for your post.

To RMI:
4:13 am
Favorite Bible scriptures from memory

Genesis:
Joseph is a fruitful bough, even a fruitful bough by a well, whose branches run over the wall.

“God will provide a sacrifice.”

Exodus 20:

Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.
Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and rested the seventh day. Therefore, in it, thou shalt not do any work. Thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor the stranger that is within thy gates.
Honor thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.
Thou shalt not kill.
Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Thou shalt not steal.
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
Thou shalt not covet.

Would God that all the Lord’s people were prophets, and that the Lord would pour His spirit upon them!

Leviticus

Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength.

Numbers

Teach them unto your children. Thou shalt speak of them when thou liest down, and when thou risest up, and when thou walkest by the way.

Deuteronomy

(Description of the blessings available for keeping the commandments to the children of Israel, and of the afflictions that will follow if they do not keep the commandments.)

Joshua

Choose you this day whom ye will serve, but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

Judges

Ruth
Entreat me not to leave… for withersoever thou goest I will go, and where thou lodgest I will lodge. Thy people shall be my people, and thy God, my God.

1 and 2 Samuel
Look not upon his countenance, nor on the height of his stature. For the Lord looketh not as a man looketh. For man looketh upon the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh upon the heart.

1 and 2 Kings
Fear not, for they that be with us are more than they that be with them. And Elisha said, Lord, open his eyes. And he looked, and behold, the mountains were filled with horses and chariots, round about Elisha.

Psalms 23
The Lord is my shepherd, no want shall I know. He maketh me to lie down in green pastures. My cup runneth over. Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies. Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for thou art with me, thy rod and thy staff they comfort me. Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life, and I will dwell in the house of the Lord forever.

Who shall ascend into the hill of the Lord, and 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. Lift up your heads, oh ye gates, and be ye lifted up, ye everlasting hills, for the king of glory shall come in. Who is this king of glory? The Lord strong and mighty.

Proverbs

Blessed is he that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly.
Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old, he will not depart from it.

With all thy getting, get understanding.
Trust in the Lord with all thine heart, and lean not unto thine own understanding; in all thy ways acknowledge Him, and He will direct thy paths.
It is good for brethren to dwell together in unity.

Isaiah

1 Come now, and let us reason together. For thou your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow. And though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.
And it shall come to pass, in the last days, when the mountain of the Lord’s house shall be established in the tops of the mountains, and all nations shall flow unto it. And many people shall say, come ye, and let us go up to the house of the God of Jacob, and we shall learn of His ways…. For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.

9 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.

11 The lion and the lamb shall lie down together. Thy swords shall be turned into plowshares, and thy spears to pruning hooks. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the seas.

28 And in that day shall the deaf hear the words of the book.
29 Thy words shall whisper out of the dust, thou shalt speak out of the ground. Thy voice shall be as one that hath a familiar spirit, out of the ground. For they shall learn line upon line, and precept shall be upon precept.

52 How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings of peace.

53 Who hath believed our report? And to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed. He shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground; he hath no form nor comeliness, and we hid as it were our faces from him. He is despised and rejected of men, a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief. He was bruised for our iniquities. The chastisement of our peace was upon him, and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquities of us all. All we like sheep have gone astray. We have turned every one to his own way. And he shall see his seed… when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin. By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many.

55 Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters. Come, buy wine and milk without money and without price. Let your soul delight itself in fatness… the sure mercies of David.

61The spirit of the Lord is upon me. He hath anointed me to proclaim liberty to the captives, to bind up the broken hearted. To provide beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning…

Malachi
Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. And ye say, wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings. Ye are cursed with a curse, even this whole nation.
Bring me all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and I will open the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing that there shall not be room enough to receive it. And I will rebuke the devourerer for your sake.

Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord, and he shall turn the hearts of the children to the fathers, and the hearts of the fathers to the children, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.
5:32 am

James,

I seem to have come off wrong in my last post. I'm sorry for seeming offensive. It's amazing how typed words can portray a different attitude then intentioned. Forgive me for that. I may have come off a little strong though, but I have been enlightened with a new knowledge of a "corrupted Bible" theory which is written in the BOM. I was caught off guard not knowing that this theory is something that is in the BOM. Otherwise, forgive me and I will end this now with a closure.

First and foremost, thank you for the discusssion. I've had several discussion with many LDS members over the past year, but none have been so intense and enlightening as was ours. I do appreciate your apologetics, your expression of faith and your opinions.

Final words:

My pre-suppositions in dealing with Mormonism before speaking to actual mormons has changed. I really pre-supposed that the knowledge you claim to have, had no basis whatsoever. I was really that guy who thought "just another brain-washed mormon". I'm glad to have the opportunity to talk to you all to see where and why you believe what you do. I am far from agreeing to any of it, but my pre-supposition has changed in light of the reasoning behind your beliefs. I see that they do have some basis, but at the same time I see many contradictions.

I believe the most important thing when determining truth is to take the example of the Bereans. They tested everything Paul said to scripture to ensure the truth. I have done so. I rely on scripture for truth as they did. When someone tells me that the truth has been compromised (despite current evidence) then it's hard for me to continue in a debateable conversation. You will always have an out no matter what the Bible says due to a belief in some man-made corrupted Bible. I have researched the evidence extensively and find no way for any man to have been able to corrupt the Bible. The Dead Sea Scrolls confirm Biblical reliability as well. Just another miracle from God to give non-believers less excuses on Judgement Day. I thank God for that discovery.

I'm not sure what your pre-supposition of me is or was. But as I have mentioned before, I was nearly decieved by Armstrongism at one point in my life and almost led to believe in a false gospel. This experience has given me the opportunity to look at all denominations and doctrines to determine truth. But my point being is that I was not raised or "indoctrinated" so to speak, in Orthodox Christianity, such as the Trinity, salvation by faith, not works, the Church as the 'body of believers', and most importantly the person of Jesus Christ who is Truth. These doctrines I have found to be true by extensive study and an open mind, especially in light of believing in a false doctrine at one point, I was determined to find the truth in Scripture, by way of my deception, I feel that my mind was open to real truth. I have even searched archaeological evidences, textual evidences and the such.

When comparing my faith with yours there is a significant difference that seperates us compeletly. In the same way as I do not have the same faith as JW's, Unitarians, Pentecostals, etc. We all believe in Jesus. But, a different Jesus. This is what will forever seperate us in our faiths. But we should not be seperated in our causes as fellow humans. We both agree that love is the most important commandment. And to do so will better help humanity and to serve the Creator of that commandment. I will try to do so as best as I can while in the flesh and I hope the same for you.

Finally, what I have learned which may seem to be in opposition to what you want to hear. Forgive me ahead of time if you find any offense to this, but I choose to be honest in my feelings instead of sweetening you up.

What I've learned the most from the Mormon faith is the lack of trust in Scripture. As Anon posted above four different examples of seemingly contradictions or changes. I have run into several seemingly hard passages in Scripture, but the Good Lord always reminds me that my understanding is finite and by means of study can particular passages be found as truth. All four above by Anon can be explained without contradiction of any sort. I will not do so, but leave that up to you. A bit of advice is to humble yourself enough to know that maybe it's your understanding of those passages that lead you to determine they are contradictory. But with study, like me, you can find that they are not at all but have a specific meaning in the way they were written by means of inspiration from God.

So, in short after all we have discussed, here is my belief in the Mormon faith. I believe Joseph Smith was a false prophet in accordance with Deut 18:20-22. I believe he had to make up a corrupt Bible theory to give the BOM authority to determine what may seem as truth in the Bible. Many other denominations have done the same thing and ended with different doctrines than yours. Ex: JW's, Branch Davidians, Christian Science, etc. All claiming to have the lost truth in their organizations by means of their claim to be a prophet from God and have been given a special "revelation". The Bible warns of false prophets and how to test them. The Bible also warns of a false gospel, which Paul says is not gospel at all. And like the Bereans I have tested these "revelations" and they all are non-Biblical. I do believe a "corrupted Bible" is the only way that any one of those organizations can be convincing to their members that their "translations" are the truth. Otherwise, their "translations" directly contradict Scripture drastically. So what better way to combat contradictions than to claim a corrupted Bible? I also believe that the Church, being the body of believers, never ceased to exist, as theorized by the LDS, by a promise made by Jesus (Matt 16:18) and also confirmed by historical evidence contrary to the belief that the Roman Catholic Church was the only "Christian" faith post-Constantine. I believe that God's Church has always existed in history and the truth was never lost and that that was promised by Jesus Himself contradictory to the LDS claim and a some 1700 year gap of a "lost truth".

And lastly, I urge you to "test everything" and "test the spirits" as Scripture indicates. I truly believe that you can pray for knowledge and be decieved, but it is only by testing by means of Scripture can you know. I believe the "Moroni Test" is anti-Biblical because we are never told to pray for knowledge. Wisdom yes, but knowledge is different. So when I hear that the Holy Ghost has confirmed your faith for you by means of "feelings" you should test those feelings by means of Scripture. I'm some-what appauled at Mormon missionaries claiming that you can just simply pray that the BOM is true without ever reading a single word in the book. I'm sure you will claim that this is a spiritual confirmation, but which spirit??? God's? The Bible is very clear about feelings and how we can be decieved by them, obviously since we are sinners and some feelings cause us to sin. How much more can feeling cause us to stumble by means of finding truth! I for one do have feelings concerning truth as well. I get a great feeling when I find that truth in the Bible. I know my heart is decietful Jer 17:9. And I know Satan will find any way possible to lead me away from Truth. Knowledge comes by searching Scripture. Wisdom comes by prayer to use that knowledge wisely.

Again, thank you for your time and energy in these posts. I wish you all the best.

Take care,

David

Hi David:

Yeah, sorry that my last post was so long– but a very detailed post at that. I feel I have thoroughly and biblically proven that pre-mortal spirits were created by God before the earth was made which, in part supports Joseph Smith’s restorative abilities to bring back lost or “ignored” doctrines that are not taught in Orthodox Christianity today.

On the other points, I was disappointed to see you seemed to reduce our friendly debate to something that is just not very flattering to myself.

Remember David, we disagree on doctrinal points. We aren’t “enemies” per se. I know that you want to feel like we’re enemies but I see something bigger than “doctrinal” points. I see you as a person who wants to do all he can to serve God. Otherwise, you wouldn’t waste time responding to my posts. This view is not lost on me – and I respect you and know that you want to all you can to love and serve God. I would hope that you would not reduce me to the lowest possible level of a debater that all I care about is the debate or worse that I want to advocate beliefs that take anyone away from obeying and serving God and honoring him.

If you’re uncomfortable talking about these points, I understand . As I see it, here's a list of the points you do not want to discuss further:

1) No original manuscripts for the Old and New Testament,
2) Confused and incomplete canon lists sometimes listing and not listing the 27 books of the NT, 3) Archeological proof of textual tampering and accusations of the same from Christian sects during 100-200 AD,
4) Lack of any coherent groupings of the copies of the texts, literally strewn from one end of the Christian sects to the other,
5) Missing copies from the manuscripts,
6) Manuscript inconsistency,
7) and how you say that God protected every word in the Bible but archeological proof shows no original manuscripts could not be preserved.

If what I have posted is NOT true, you should be able to blow me out of the water with biblical proof or archeological evidence that addresses these point by point. The Bible isn’t under attack here – but the doctrine of “biblical inerrancy” is.

You first make a “personal” attack against Metzgar and Ehrman calling them “clowns”. I didn’t see any “circus” experience on their very reputable resumes. You say you find no “truth” in Metzgar and Ehrman. Well, I hate to break it to you David but their work is peer reviewed by the best biblical scholars in the world. Their works are under committee reviews before they are published – the works are all peer reviewed – in other words, before they are published, other bible scholars try to disprove their work in any way they can. Are you aware of this process at the University level? Were the articles you read about them from other reputable bible scholars or Christian apologists whose “biblical inerrancy” has been utterly refuted by archeological proof? This is the crux of the issue – I am already aware of what the “Pastoral” community thinks of evidence that contradicts their Sunday sermons – we didn’t expect them to react rationally to the evidence. However, their work stands and to this day, has not been disproved.

The larger point here David is something bigger than your pastor. It’s about the continued archeological evidence that proves Joseph Smith is a prophet of God. In 1830, Joseph Smith published to the world that the Bible had been “tampered” with. Oh yes, Pastors, professors mocked him, laughed him to scorn, called him “of the devil”. However, over the last 70 years, archeological proof continues to show up that PROVES he was right. Refute the evidence if you can. I “dare” you to try. Not as a prideful challenge, but a plea for you to think rationally – to apply the Bible standard to “test” whether or not this is true. Read the evidence.

In regard, who you should worship? You must worship God the Father, in the name of Jesus Christ through the power of the Holy Ghost. When I say worship I mean obey – not just confession of a name but the “true” power of worship which is loyal obedience. But on Jewish archeological evidence – here’s why it’s relevant: we get a real picture of what they believed regarding the text of the Old Testament. By the way, did you know that there are over 183 references to the divine council of gods in the Dead Sea scrolls alone?

Once again, we go back to the 1840s, Joseph Smith declares that there is a divine council of gods. Pastors around him cry “Heresy!” “False doctrine! “He has a devil!” Then years later it shows up in ancient Jewish literature. Instead of embracing the “bible verses” and their ancient Jewish evidence you claim its all foul. Why? Because it doesn’t fit with your particular brand of Orthodox Christian interpretation. You say you seek the truth of the Bible, but as I see it there is another caveat to your declaration – You seek the truth of the Bible only if it fits with Orthodox interpretation that has formed over centuries as a result of Catholic and Protestant councils or treatises. This isn’t a secret or a revelation – but you should declare that part too.

But instead of debate you question my faith in the Bible and claim that I am trying to do the devil’s work and trick you?

C’mon, you have to admit that you’ve taken the weakest approach to this post – it’s not becoming of a person who has tried to respond coherently. If you need more time, you can certainly have it. You have said that in the past. I realize that the post was made very late – and who knows you perhaps weren’t wearing your best logical hat when you wrote it.

First, let’s clear some misperceptions you have about me and Mormonism. We believe the Bible contains the word of God. The Book of Mormon establishes this fact. This directly responds to your criticism of me and Mormonism that we don’t think the Bible is reliable. However, we do not believe that the Bible is “God” himself. We believe that men were inspired through the Holy Ghost to write his will and his will or God’s revelations to man are written there for us to read, take into our lives and obey. The Book of Mormon declares that “plain and precious” truths were removed. Archeology is now beginning to prove this revelation from the Book of Mormon. Therefore, while, there are some corruptions (very few) in the Bible today, what is the bigger issue is the things that are lost or “taken away” – what remains is VERY RELIABLE. Further, I have for most of my posts defended my beliefs WITH the Bible. I fully believe ALL of the verses of the Bible. Further, I try my best to LIVE them. I don’t just confess that they are true, I try to make them a part of who I am – this is the theology, religion and faith of the Latter-day Saints – don’t just say you believe the Bible – LIVE it. This is the GREATEST expression of belief. The purest form of trust is doing the things that God teaches in the Bible.

Your criticism of me and the Bible is mostly a diversion (as I see it). Remember, the real points were made by archeological proof – not my opinions. If your criticism is not a diversion then you’ll know that I believe the Bible to be the word of God just as much as any Christian – I just don’t accept the “non-biblical” doctrine of “bible inerrancy”. I don’t intend on making God responsible for the mistakes of prophets, scribes, or any other FALLIBLE human.

The purpose of the Book of Mormon is to restore the plain and precious truths regarding the gospel of Jesus Christ and what we must say, believe and do to be saved. Together with the Bible, the Book of Mormon and the Bible if taken together, confound the false traditions of Orthodox Christianity and restore the true gospel of Jesus Christ. Therefore, we LDS, believe, by God’s commandment, and prophecy, believe that ONLY together with the Book of Mormon AND the Bible, can this be accomplished.

This utterly refutes the false notion and false teaching by some pastors that Mormons do not believe the Bible is reliable. Further, we establish this truth:

1 Cor 13:1 In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

Many say that the Old Testament and the New Testament is enough. However, the Old Testament doesn’t fully develop the plain and precious truths of the atonement of Jesus Christ like the Book of Mormon does – the New Testament and the Book of Mormon TOGETHER utterly confound the false traditions of Christianity – they restore the true gospel of Jesus Christ.

David, I am all ears and eyes to hear your evidence that shows that there were 24,000 identical copies of the New Testament in its current form and canon in 125 a.d.. If you have such evidence, you’ll probably be a Nobel price winner soon since you will have out done every New Testament scholar on the planet.

However, I personally think you have overstated your position here. However, I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and say that you may be quoting a source that has mislead you. I will gladly give you that.

The reference to any document that is dated to 125 a.d. is only one. It’s called manuscript P52. It’s a tiny papyrus “fragment” of the Gospel of John. It’s written in Greek and is 3.5 inches long and 2.5 inches wide. There are 7 lines on each side – the approximate dating is somewhere between 125 a.d. and 150 a.d. and was found in 1920.

If your source said that there were 24,000 copies of on an “intact” New Testament canon as it is today that were produced in 125 a.d. – then you need to re-evaluate your source. You must think they are reliable and it would be interesting to know if they have told you anything else – and perhaps this is the impasse to your changing your mind about the archeological proof that I have presented.

David, perhaps its time to include other resources other than www.carm.org?

CARM’s table showing New Testament papyri is misleading. Why? Because they are trying to support the doctrine of biblical “inerrancy” not reliability.

True reliability of the Bible is proven in our LIVES. As we do the will of the Father, we KNOW of the doctrine. This statement should tell you about my “PERSONAL” love I have for the Bible – I am so grateful for the truth in my life because of the joy that it has brought to me and my family.

But I disgress – this discussion isn’t about the reliability of the Bible but the reliability of Evangelical doctrine. That is the crux of this issue.

Look at the Table here that CARM provides: ( I am sure you’re familiar with it)

http://www.carm.org/evidence/textualevidence.htm

They have a column “date originally written”. Notice how you are drawn to this date as if to believe that we have manuscripts from those dates? Yes, in their defense they show the MSS date, but how many lay persons know what MSS means? Why not just come out and just declare the truth boldly?

“There are no complete copies of the Christian Bible in existence until 300 A.D.” What’s the harm in teaching and declaring this fact in your congregations? It’s true – so what are you all afraid of? (If you need the facts on these, look up Codex Vaticanus) It should be noted that there are 5300 Greek manuscripts. Some are named but nearly all of them are numbered from P1 – P5300. All but 7 of them date to 250 A.D or later. Where do the 24,000 copies come into play?

There are 5300 Greek MSS, 10000 Latin Vulgates, 9300 others (Ethiopic, Slavic, Armenian, etc.), which totals the 24,000. Wow, any Evangelical Christian confronted with 24,000 copies of the New Testament – how could they even accept the idea that the New Testament isn’t complete? Right? The problem is that these 24,000 “copies” are fragments – not intact entire copies of the New Testament.

Since all of the copies of the fragments except 7, came after 250 A.D., how is this attestable evidence of the originals? No one has a beef with the copies AFTER 250 A.D. LDS certainly don’t. It’s the period between approximately 70 A.D. and 250 A.D. that becomes the issue.

Let’s limit the details of our discussion to this time period – because that’s where the real issue is found.

The Book of Mormon reveals the details. It says that there is a time gap between when the Apostles wrote the words and the time that the words go forth to the world (the copies). This prophecy has been archeologically proven. The gap is about 150 to 200 years.

The hard questions that LDS ask their Christian brothers and sisters to do is ask the hard questions: What happened to the originals? Did all of the originals survive? Were any of the originals changed or altered?

Can you give me a valid reason why we shouldn’t ask these questions and go out to seek the answer?

Let’s go out and “test” whether or not we can get a true picture of “Biblical Inerrancy” that God didn’t allow loss of manuscripts, textual corruption etc, during that most CRITICAL period of time. The archeological answer is “Houston, we have a problem”.

What’s at stake here isn’t faith – unless faith has been placed in something OTHER than Jesus Christ.

Why do Evangelical Christians fight LDS on this point so hard? Because Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon are right and archeological proof shows it.

During the time after the death of the Apostles, the complete originals were lost BEFORE 150 A.D. But then again, Joseph Smith and the LDS Church doesn’t claim that the Bible isn’t reliable – that is what Evangelical or Protestant Christian groups claim that LDS teach (which is also bearing false witness). What we claim is unreliable is the doctrine of “biblical inerrancy” and archeological proof shows it.

God is 100% perfect. If the claim is true that you say God would not have allowed loss of manuscripts, corruption of texts, omission of texts, etc, then we should see the originals of the Old and New Testaments and have them in their entirety. We should not see any discrepancies in the fragments. They should be consistent from 33 A.D. to the present. All manuscripts should be identical. All of this is expressed in the Orthodox Christian doctrine of “Biblical Inerrancy”.

In summary, I feel you’re offended because I have caused you to defend the doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy against archeological proof.

Toward the end of your post you question whether or not I “really” believe in Jesus Christ. As I read this, I am asking myself, “How could David, really be asking me this question?” Then I tried to look at it from your perspective and I think I now understand. Your faith in Jesus Christ seems to be wrapped up in this man-made doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy. If original manuscripts were lost, or texts corrupted, you see that as the “death nail” to a belief in Jesus Christ. Amazing! I think this is the only context under which you would question my belief in Jesus Christ in regard to this topic.

David, you have to understand, that I believe in Jesus Christ not because of the 24000 New Testament manuscripts that date to 250 A.D. or later, but instead because of the witness of the Holy Ghost!

Such conviction isn’t because of the “perfect text” of the Bible, Book of Mormon or Doctrine and Covenants. Indeed, all of those texts do in fact lead me to believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, but in the end I believe and have a witness of Him by the gift and power of the Holy Spirit.

I have enjoyed out conversations. If you’d like out of the debate between us, I am fine with that – if you feel it is necessary. I am ok with that. I wish you the best of all of God’s blessings and happiness and joy in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Sincerely,

James

Anon:

Thank you for your kind words. They are much appreciated.

Hello David,

I am not sure why you seem to be so stuck on something that you yourself seemed to have disproved. Do you think that if you admit there are inaccuracies in the bible that your belief in Christ would diminish? Do you think you will be condemned? I don't think anyone here is trying to do that. Instead many have been trying to show you through countless efforts, through factual and historical evidence that perhaps things might not be exactly as you say they are, but you seem to be in denial. It's absolutely painful to witness someone like James trying to show you so much and you denying it much like an alcoholic stating they don't have a drinking problem. David, it seems that you won't even experiment with the notion that the bible does have inaccuracies. In fact, in one sentence you stated how the bible is 98.5% accurate, and in another sentence elsewhere you stated that it's completely infallible. That argument alone does not hold any water. If and only if a document is proven 100% accurate can you make that assumption, otherwise you have to admit there are errors. These errors were not placed in there by God, but by man. Man is corrupt and imperfect.

Let me give you some examples here that I once read somewhere:

(1) The first chapter of Genesis tells us that man and woman were created together on the sixth day and were the last creatures God created. The second chapter says that man was the first creation and woman the last, everything else being created in between.

(2) In Exodus we are told that the Lord Himself hardened the Pharaoh's heart, causing him to refuse the release of the Hebrews from bondage. Then, in chapters 7-12 the Lord punishes the Egyptian people because of the hardhearted king.

(3) A hungry Jesus finds a fig tree with no fruit and pronounces a withering curse upon it. This curse was bestowed upon the tree in spite of the fact, as Mark's version indicates "it was not the season for figs." (Matthew 21:18; Mark 11:12-14, 20-21)

(4) When will Jesus return to earth? One passage suggests it was to be within the lifetime of his disciples. "Verily we say unto you, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, til they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." (Matt 16:28, 10:23, 24:34; Mark 8:38, 9:1, 13:30; Luke 21:32)

Although there are many more problematic texts in the bible such as these, anyone can hardly say the bible is infallible without being in denial. One would have to ask themselves after reading such errors, what if there are other errors which have crept in which are not as easily noticeable? Again, are we trying to prove that the bible should not be trusted at all? No, but there are questions to some areas that need further explanation or clarification which is not there. This is where and why the Book of Mormon comes into play. As you said, God does not want us to be lost. He wants all of us to be saved, but will not force that upon us because each of us have free will. However, he knew that corruption would become of the world because of many misinterpretations of the same passages in the bible. Why else do we have so many Christian sects all claiming to be the right one? Why would God be the author of so much confusion? Why would he leave us with such an open ended and confusing interpretation that would cause many to fall away from the truth? God said He would "send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD" (Amos 8:11) Because the people killed His begotten Son, God has caused a great famine of words to come to them as prophesied again - and as James said, correctly termed, the dark ages. So how could he correct all these misinterpretations from the same book? Through another testament of Jesus Christ.

I sometimes wonder David, if we were not having this conversation as Mormons speaking to you, but rather a member of your own religious denomination if you would not be as skeptical of it as you are. There is plenty of evidence David - all we ask is that you just give it some thought. I have been following this thread for a while because I have been enjoying James and your conversation. I hoped it would go longer as it has covered many topics I believe are being presented fairly by James, but I understand if you do not wish to continue with your dialogue. I do not want to seem like we're "teaming" up on you either, I'm not all about that. I do remember a while ago you had said that you were once wrong. Do you think just for a day, you could at least just test the waters and see if maybe you were wrong again?

Just a thought....

James - many thanks for all your research and commentary. As stated above I have been following this thread for quite some time and have been enjoying the dialogue... I do hope it will continue...

Hello James,

Hope all is well.

Where to start. Actually, where to end, huh?

I'm not going to get too in depth about your post. I do feel like it's going no where. But just a few comments on some random subjects.

First with Bruce Metzgar and Bart Ehrman. I'm very surprised that anyone with a Christian faith would listen to those two clowns. I do believe in these last days that truth is harder to come by. You might agree to this. I find no truth in Metzgar and Ehrman. I've read several articles concerning both of them. I'll let you do your own research, but they are way off. Especially Ehrman. And anyone willing to work with that guy must be crazy.

I'm still uncertain how Jewish archaeological evidence makes a "divine council" truth. The Jews believed in many things in the past, ex: golden calfs, etc....If I determined Biblical truth by archaeology, then why shouldn't I believe that the Egyptian gods were real? Or maybe I should worship the sun? I find truth in the Word. The written Word and the Living Word. Anything else in this world really isn't trustworthy.

I see why now why you must claim a tainted Bible in history. Your own writings (BOM) said it happened! So of course since you believe the BOM is inspired from God, then you will believe that the Bible was changed and so on. Now I understand. I really had a hard time wondering why LDS members stand on that point of history. It's in the BOM. But unfortunately for the BOM, it contradicts true history. Of course you will disagree, otherwise the BOM would be false, correct? But I do know and have studied greatly on the topics of Biblical accuracy and manuscripts. You said that there is only a portion of the Bible available today. Not true. There are still 24,000 copies of the complete N.T. that are dated at or around 125 a.d. and available to see today. But if you agree to this fact, then the BOM would be false, therefore I understand if you do not want to admit to this.

"Further, archeology disproves your theory above. Biblical archeology reveals that
1. The Bible has not been perfectly preserved.
2. Doctrinal changes were made to the manuscripts
3. the manuscripts of the Bible are not alike (in fact not even TWO manuscripts are alike.)"

I'm not sure where you got this false information. Maybe from Ehrman. But scholars have confirmed undeniably that textual purity is at 98.5% which is extraordinarily rare in dealing with ancient manuscripts. I really suggest you look more into the evidence of textual purity and more manuscript evidence. And for some reason with all these anti-biblical postings, I wonder why you even believe in Jesus? I guess I'm not used to someone who claims to be a Christian not defend the Bible but actually attack it.

I do understand why you have to. Your religion is based upon a lost "truth". And for it to be lost, of course the Bible has to be changed or somehow corrupted in history. No one better to blame it on than Catholics. I agree when it comes to catholic history being a mess, but I know by research that they did not ever change the texts. Also as I learned today, the BOM said that this happened. So now I have a better understanding. Now taking this logically, how is it possible to defend your faith by the Bible that we have today this whole time in our discussion? If you believe it has been changed or corrupted, then how do you know that the passages that you are using have not been changed? Maybe your defending a passage that was changed long ago that really in it's original writing said the opposite of what your defending. Or is it that the Bible is only good if it agrees with Mormon theology, or the passages that disagree with it are the ones changed? How convenient would that be? I'm sorry to sound condescending or even insulting, but I find your position quite difficult to understand. Now, I see why one of your articles of faith is "..as long as it's translated correctly".

I really believe that we should end this discussion for one main reason. You do not believe the Bible is reliable. Therefore, why should I believe your posts are reliable? Especially when you quote scripture. You believe parts were changed. I want to know why you think you can use what passages you want, but assume that they were never changed in their own. I believe the current Bible of today is reliable. Because of that I have much more to prove and definately do not have the excuse of a corrupted Bible. I'm sorry James, but if we were to continue this discussion, then you have no right to use Biblical references simply because you have no idea which ones are right or not, right?

I guess in conclusion I should thank you for your time and energy in your postings. I've learned so much about the LDS faith. Especially in your last post. I must be honest and tell you that holding on to some "corrupted Bible" theory is quite disturbing to me and shows how great the lack of evidence that you have found, so much in that you are willing to accept the testimony from Bart Ehrman in support of your claims. And the most disturbing to me is that this false history is written in the BOM which really shed some light for me on why this claim and this hold on this claim so tightly. But this must be the end for you and me James. Sorry, but I know the evidence. I do wish you the best James. I really hope that one day you will find the evidence you need so that you can have a faith not just in Jesus, but also in His Word that was given to us to guide us and would never have been allowed to be corrupted by men, as evidence shows. I can't imagine having faith in Jesus if what we know about Him had been corrupted. To me, a trick of the devil. I'm not falling for it.

Best to you,

David

Hi David:

Thank you for taking the time and posting your thoughts on my last response. Sorry for the long post.

If I could sum up what I think is a failure of the Evangelical community in regard to the "sons of God" and "premortal" life as spirits would be the general unwillingness to embrace archeological evidence on the subject that is not spurious but authentic.

I think as a community they have lost their "reformationist" zeal as they once had centuries ago in that they were zealous to find out the truth whenever they could find it.

Here's where I see a breakdown in our discussions where we can't seem to move to the next level - we both see our faith at its best - which is a wonderful thing but we have to ask whether or not the "interpretation" of scripture is in agreement with the ancient context - not the "current" context.

This is why archeology in regard to Biblical studies is so important. These studies require Catholics, Protestants and Mormons to look at the evidence and then ask the hard questions.

For example, there is archeological evidence in ancient Jewish literature that shows the doctrine of the "divine council" of Gods to be a real doctrine that was not "heresy" or false.

There is a real doctrine of the "sons of God" in addition to Yahweh - theses sons are legitimate sons. They are sons; God the Father is their father. These sons were created before Adam and Eve.

The hard questions include: What is their purpose and meaning in the grand scheme of heaven and God's plan? Are they at all related to us? What is their role now in the plan of God? Does it matter? Remember the Lord of Heaven and earth said "ye are gods, and children of the most high" a reference back to the "sons of God who shouted for joy. It's the same word -elohim.

Remember, Jesus says it to support that belief that HE is the Son of God. And he quotes an Old Testament doctrine of the "divine council" and "sons of God" doctrine. Jesus is declaring that He is a member of the council.

The doctrine of "pre-mortal" life has been proven to be "real". Now it just a matter of degrees.

That God created "sons" before he created Adam is proven. That is "pre-mortal" spirit son life.
The finer point now is whether all of the people (spirits) on earth were created before t

There is no limitation in the Bible or history of God's dealings with man that would suggest that we weren't created before the earth was made just like these sons were.

The issue is "creation of life" (life other than the Father, Son and Holy Ghost) before Adam took his first breath. (By the way, did you know that "breath of life" actually means "spirit" in Hebrew? Meaning when God breathed the "breath of life" into Adam's nostrils he was breathing into him Adam's "preexisting spirit".) Otherwise, God would have just created his spirit and body simultaneously.

But the biggest point is that the Bible teaches of the creation and development of "pre-mortal" spirit life, i.e. the sons of God, in addition to Yahweh, before Adam came to be in the garden of Eden. We agree on that point right? Remember, these are not called "angels" they are called "sons of God".

These sons also show up in ancient Jewish literature before the second temple period, and it spite of the radical monotheism of the second Jewish period, it remained in Judaism through the time of Christ, when Jesus evokes the Psalm in defense of his OWN Godhood.

If the reference is to fallen angels or false gods, as you suggest (Evangelical interpretation) then Jesus' argument falls flat its face and his reference is worthless to the Jews.

However, Jesus makes an appeal to the scripture in his "defense" and "support" so, the reference MUST refer to real gods - sons of God who are "divine" in someway, otherwise there is no support.

The reference to the "Father of our spirits" is to connect God the Father with the literal spiritual creation of spirit life.

Remember, the sons of God, were spirit sons, and there was not "adoption" law into effect to lean on for doctrinal support. These sons are spirit sons of the Father.

Now, fast forward to the time of Christ and the law of adoption - adoption into whose lineage? The House of Israel and Jesus Christ. Through the covenant of Abraham, we become the "seed" of Jesus through his atonement an additional relationship with God.

However, this reference isn't to Jesus Christ - it is a reference to the Father - God the Father.

So as we were spiritually alive before our birth, which life was created by the Father, we were born into spiritual death through fallen nature. Then later, we are "born" again through the atonement of Jesus Christ - we then "BECOME" his seed. (Our spirits are already created by God the Father.)

We then are spiritually (not literal DNA lineage) adopted into the House of Israel and we become the children of Jesus Christ.

The reference above to Hebrews then is exclusive to the personage of the Father within the Godhead. And the spirit of adoption then is not a part of the doctrine of the creation of "pre-mortal spirit life". Further, in the New Testament - references to the Father are ALWAYS to the personage of the Father - and not the Son.

When we see that this is related to the creation of spirit life (existence) then we can understand the next New Testament verse:

"For in Him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also His offspring. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device."

The connection here is "offspring" - not "creation out of nothing". This language cuts through the idea of a distant relationship of God and brings him as close as a "literal parent" meaning a share in his "species".

Before you reject this thought, remember, that the verse is not talking about "adoption" through the atonement. How do we know this?

Because is says "in Him we live, and move, and have our being" - the seed of Jesus Christ as well as the unbelievers ALL of this gift – this spiritual existence is had by all.

This is speaking about our direct connection with God the Father, and how we are related to him.

That
1) He is the Father of our spirits,
2) we are spirit sons and daughters of God the Father, and
3) we are LITERALLY (not metaphorically) his OFFSPRING.

Now let's understand and put these to verses together. We have earthly parents and our physical bodies are their "offspring". We also have the Father of our spirits and we are HIS literal spiritual offspring. The Greek word for "offspring" is "genos" which literally means "kin" or "family". This word is the root of modern English terms such as "genus" or "genealogy".

Remember, this can't possibly be a "spiritual offspring of adoption" since spiritual creation (existence) is the context. Further, the Father is the Father our spirits and we are later adopted into the House of Israel through the atonement of Jesus Christ.

We don't need adoption to "live, move and have our being". This is the key to understanding the "context" for offspring.

Now, the finer point of “when” this spiritual creation of spiritual offspring takes place is another matter. I believe that it occurred before the foundation of the earth was laid, you believe that

However, Acts 17:29 connects us with God the Father in the “literal” sense and not in the adoptive sense.

In Romans 8:15, the spirit of Adoption is compared with the spirit of bondage. Wouldn’t you be claiming that before we were created spiritually that we were under the spirit of bondage somewhere in God’s mind? Do you see how this doctrine of ‘adoption” in Romans 8 is NOT related to the offspring of God spoken of in Acts 17? Different types of “spiritual creation”. We are created spiritually first by God in which we can live, move and have our being. Then later we are born again (become a new creature and have our hearts and minds changed) so we can obey God.

To sum up this point, the Bible already declares “pre-mortal and pre-earth” existence of spirit sons of God as evidence in the Old Testament. These spirit sons are referenced by the Old Testament and Jesus as “gods” (we acknowledge that some could fall and did so). Jesus uses the nature of these gods to support HIS claim that He is the Son of God or by lineage and offspring, the Son of God, “Ye are gods and children of the Most High”. Paul declares that ALL the people on the earth are the kin and family of God (spiritual existence not spiritual adoption) – all of us are his literal spiritual offspring as God the Father is the Father of our spirits.

The finer point in this discussion is whether our spiritual creation occurred before the foundation of the earth was laid (when the other spirit children of God were created then) or whether our spirits are created at the time of human conception. I believe the former and you believe the later as I understand it.

But I think the interpretation that God only started creating spirit children with Adam is biblically debunked by references to the sons of God, the divine council, messengers (angels), and the like.

On 1 Cor 15, remember, the (2nd) spiritual in verse 46 doesn’t refer to the creation of the spirit that “lives, moves and has its being” but is a reference to the “quickening” process which is resurrection. I didn’t see any new information from you how “spiritual” refers to the “creation of the spirit. However, if you go back the order would be “First, spiritual, then natural then spiritual again”. Either way, the scripture favors the LDS position.

On the canon, here are some additional thoughts. You said:

“I do believe it is in 2 Peter that Peter talks about NT "scripture" as far as the gospels, and even talks about Paul's epistles. I'll try to find that for you later on. I know what history you have been told. You've been told the catholic church decided which books to put in the Bible.”

I believe you’re referring to 2 Peter 3:15-16,

15And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

I see the reference to Paul’s letters but how does that translate into a definite or closed canon?
If the claim is that all scripture referenced in letters of Paul mentioned in the New Testament is therefore the “canon” of the New Testament then I would say that the LDS position has strengthened significantly. (You’d also have to reason how the other author’s works are Canon but are not specifically listed)

Here’s why: First, the LDS position is that before 200 AD plain and precious truths were removed from the New Testament (the Bible). Therefore, as “ALL” of the Epistles of Paul are the word of God and are required for the New Testament canon to be complete, by its own admission then the New Testament is NOT complete. Why? Because its missing three epistles of Paul.

Paul’s epistle to the Corinthians before 1 Corinthians (1 Cor 5:9)
Paul’s epistle to the Ephesians (Eph 3:3)
Paul’s epistle to the Church at Laodicea (Col 4:16)

LDS are not necessarily alarmed about this, although we are saddened by these reports of missing epistles that were supposed to have been included in the New Testament canon according to the Evangelical interpretation of 2 Peter 3:15-16.

The question is my mind remains whether or not there is a hard and fast rule for a New Testament canon and whether it was followed after the death of the Apostles. I think you’re saying that there IS a hard and fast rule according to 2 Peter 3; correct me if I am wrong.

The LDS position that “plain and precious” truths were taken from the Bible is written in the Book of Mormon. It states:

1 Ne. 13: 25-29

25 Wherefore, these things go forth from the Jews in purity unto the Gentiles, according to the truth which is in God.
26 And after they go forth by the hand of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, from the Jews unto the Gentiles, thou seest the formation of that great and abominable church, which is most abominable above all other churches; for behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away.
27 And all this have they done that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men.
28 Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God.
29 And after these plain and precious things were taken away it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles; and after it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles, yea, even across the many waters which thou hast seen with the Gentiles which have gone forth out of captivity, thou seest—because of the many plain and precious things which have been taken out of the book, which were plain unto the understanding of the children of men, according to the plainness which is in the Lamb of God—because of these things which are taken away out of the gospel of the Lamb, an exceedingly great many do stumble, yea, insomuch that Satan hath great power over them.

It is Mormon folklore that the “great and abominable” church is the Catholic church. Earlier in the chapter, the “great and abominable church” is described as:
“Behold the formation of a church which is most abominable above all other churches, which slayeth the saints of God, yea, and tortureth them and bindeth them down, and yoketh them with a yoke of iron, and bringeth them down into captivity.
6 And it came to pass that I beheld this great and abominable church; and I saw the devil that he was the founder of it.
7 And I also saw gold, and silver, and silks, and scarlets, and fine-twined linen, and all manner of precious clothing; and I saw many harlots.
8 And the angel spake unto me, saying: Behold the gold, and the silver, and the silks, and the scarlets, and the fine-twined linen, and the precious clothing, and the harlots, are the desires of this great and abominable church.
9 And also for the praise of the world do they destroy the saints of God, and bring them down into captivity. “

The major characteristics of the great and abominable church described in 1 Nephi may be listed as follows:
1. It persecutes, tortures, and slays the Saints of God (see 1 Nephi 13:5).
2. It seeks wealth and luxury (see 1 Nephi 13:7–8).
3. It is characterized by sexual immorality (see 1 Nephi 13:7).
4. It has excised plain and precious things from the scriptures (see 1 Nephi 13:26–29).
5. It has dominion over all the earth, among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people (see 1 Nephi 14:11).
6. Its fate is to be consumed by a world war, when the nations it incites against the Saints war among themselves until the great and abominable church itself is destroyed (see 1 Nephi 22:13–14).
The position that the “great and abominable church” is the Catholic church or another Christian denomination is untenable.

According to the Book of Mormon, and Mormon belief therefore, the “corruption” of scripture would have not occurred later than 200 AD. The Catholic church and other Christian denominations followed centuries later.

What is VERY interesting about this time between 100 AD and 200 AD is that Christianity had fragmented into many splinter groups. Each of these groups had accused the other of 1) forging scriptures and 2) corrupting existing texts. (These from archeologically sound documents from early Christian history.)

Further, consider that ALL manuscripts of the New Testament come from the period after the 2nd century – except one – which is the size of a postage stamp that dates to the 2nd century. In other words, 99.9 percent of all Greek New Testament manuscripts come AFTER the time period when accusations of textual corruption are rampant. This is reduced to only about ten complete words of the New Testament can be attested in manuscript form during the time of the textual corruption, and not a single one is attested BEFORE that time.

But let’s forget about that for a second, and just consider the manuscripts from the second and third centuries. We’ll list only those chapters where a part of the verse is attested. Guess what? Entire books are missing including 1-2 Timothy, 1-2 Peter, 2-3 John and Jude.

Also, of the 28 chapters in Matthew, there is no manuscript containing even a single verse of 16 of those chapters before the end of the 3rd century.

So when you hear there were thousands of manuscripts of the New Testament, they are referring to the time period after the 2nd century.

Further you stated:

“I would also have a hard time believing that God would allow such a thing being that it took Him 1600 years to inspire scripture to just let it all go and be corrupted. The Bible is a long story of the redemption of man, from beginning to end. I really don't believe God would allow His inspiration to be corrupted being that His purpose is to redeem us. He wants us all to be saved and redeemed. And after 1600 years of inspiration to man, it just isn't logical that He would stop the redemption process for 1700 years until J. Smith came along. I believe the Bible and all it's books are the only God inspired writings and has never been corrupted by anyone. I know God would not allow that.”

I am having a very hard time seriously believing that you really think this position is tenable? God wouldn’t allow the text of the Bible to be corrupted but would allow the complete destruction of all original manuscripts save a fragment the size of a postage stamp?

Let me take this to the extreme to prove a point: So God allows mankind to do these things without intervention: murder, adultery, fornication, pedophilia, rape, slaughter of children, all kinds of brutality through the centuries, and even the sin that does NOT receive forgiveness in this world and the world to come – that of Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost – in these sins God will not intervene, but when satan puts into the hearts of fallible men, scribes and others to alter the text of prophets, and corrupt God’s word, that’s where God takes a stand, eliminates free will, intervenes and stops the man from sinning?

Allow me to say that of course, we would love to consider this to be how things would be. However, Christian history does not agree with this philosophy about God. Man has free will – period. Man is fallible and can destroy, corrupt, alter, change any manuscript ever held in his possession. There is no doctrine in the Bible that indicates that God’s written word recorded by fallible humans is some how off limits to corruption.

Further, archeology disproves your theory above. Biblical archeology reveals that
1. The Bible has not been perfectly preserved.
2. Doctrinal changes were made to the manuscripts
3. the manuscripts of the Bible are not alike (in fact not even TWO manuscripts are alike.)

Remember, you’re not going to hear this from your Pastor or any of your bible believing friends. You’re going to have to actually go to scholars who have studied the texts themselves and then declared the truth of them in printed and published form.

One of those scholars is Bruce Metzgar, an emeritus professor at Princeton. Metzger edited and provided commentary for many Bible translations and wrote dozens of books. He was one of the editors of the United Bible Societies' standard Greek New Testament, the starting point for nearly all translations of the New Testament in recent decades.

In his book, "The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration" said :

"a group of correctors working at Caesarea entered a large number of alterations into the text of both Old and New Testaments." (p. 46).

"The whole of Matthew's Gospel as far as xxv, 6 is lost, as well as the leaves which originally contained John 6:50-58, 52, and 2 Cor. 4:13-xii, 6." (p. 46).

"Unfortunately the beauty of the original writing has been spoiled by a later corrector..." (p. 47).
"All known witnesses of the New Testament are to a greater or less extent mixed texts, and even the earliest manuscripts are not free from egregious errors..." (p. 246)

Bart D Ehrman, who studies under Metzgar, published a book called “The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture”. He received his Ph.D from Princeton Theological Seminary and is the chairman of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He was the President of the Southeast Region of the Society of Biblical Literature.

He points out that:

"scribes occassionally altered the words of their sacred texts to make them more patently orthodox and to prevent their misuse by Christians who espoused aberrant views." (p. xi), and that

"there scribes corrupted their texts for theological reasons..." (p. xii), and that

"Scripture was changed to refute antiDocetic tendencies in early Christian circles" (p. 217).

As it relates to Canons, I was referring to the Muratorian canon, the first list of canonical books extant. This list appears in the late second century.

The unidentified author accepts four Gospels, the last two of which are Luke and John, but the names of the first two are lost in the lacking beginning. Also accepted by the author are the "Acts of all Apostles" and 13 of the Pauline Epistles (but not the anonymous Epistle to the Hebrews, 1 and 2 Peter or, James). The author considers spurious the letters claiming to have Paul as author, and that claim to be written to the Laodiceans and to the Alexandrians, specifically said to be: "forged in Paul's name to [further] the heresy of Marcion."

Here’s a translation of the list here http://www.ntcanon.org/Muratorian_Canon.shtml

The first list of “canonical” books that names the same twenty-seven writings found in our New Testament today appears in the easter letter of Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, Egypt, in 367 AD. Curious, he names them in a different order however.

It should be noted that disputes arose over the canonicity of Hebrews, James, 1st Peter, 2nd and 3rd John, and Revelation.

It would seem that 1) a closed canon, and 2) what actually gets into the canon, are matters of debate and not matters that have been settled by the New Testament itself. In light of this evidence of Christian behavior (no matter if its 1650 years old), to criticize the LDS position that 1) the bible text was tampered with, and 2) we should believe in the Bible as far as it is translated correctly, is a losing position.

That all being said, LDS believe that the Biblical innerancy should mean the “words originally written by prophets and apostles under the inspiration of God are correct.
We agree with Paul that all scripture is profitable and inspired of God. In that set of "all scripture" includes the divinely-inspired, Christ-centered Book of Mormon.

“The Bible and the Book of Mormon go hand in hand, the latter being a second witness of the former, but offering further rich and powerful insight into the Atonement of Christ, the relationship between mercy and justice, the nature of the resurrection, the salvation of little children, and many other precious Gospel truths. The Book of Mormon confirms the divinity of the Bible and is a "must-read" for those who rejoice in the words of Christ. As the seventh Church president, Heber J. Grant, said, "All my life I have been finding additional evidences that the Bible is the Book of books, and that the Book of Mormon is the greatest witness for the truth of the Bible that has ever been published" [Improvement Era, 39 (Nov. 1936):660].”

My best to all,

James

Hi James,

Thanks for the response.

Yeah it seems that we came to an impasse on the Job "sons of God" explanation. My mere point was to point out that throughout the Bible "sons of God" has been used as a term for angels. Therefore it is not unlikely that in this instance it can be used the same. But I know we disagree on that. You mentioned the Hebrew for angel and how it could have been used in this passage. But it could have been used in Gen 6 and Dan 3 as well, but instead God chose "sons of God". It's not up to me on how God speaks, but He has spoken and I do find that "angels" is more suitable for that passage since scripture does point that pre-existence is not the case. 1 Cor 15. although I'm sure you would disagree.

Heb 12:9 is another passage you brought up. I read the whole context. The context is talking about discipline by God. The verse you posted speaks of two fathers. Our earthly fathers and our Father in heaven.

Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?"

"Fathers of flesh" definateley signifies that that part of the verse is speaking about our earthly fathers, and "Father of spirits" is definately our Heavenly Father. I believe you are referring this passage to insinuate that this proves pre-existence because the Father created spirits. But your pre-supposing that He created them in a pre-existent state. This passage does not speak of WHEN spirits were created or speak of any type of pre-existence at all. It merely points out that we revere our earthly dads when they discipline us, so how much more should we revere our Heavenly Father when He disciplines us. Much more! The passage speaks as if we are "sons of the Father" and of course in context this passage is speaking to those who believe in God and are "sons by adoption" by their faith as discussed previously.

I'm not sure if you agree with me or not on one thing concerning Bible study. But maybe this is why we will differ so drastically. I believe when studying the Bible the passage at hand has to make sense in the whole of the Bible, meaning that if 1 Cor 15 means that pre-existence is not truth, then I cannot justify pre-existence by another passage. It would be a major contradiction. Therefore, both passages must be examined in context and with other Biblical backing to support the true meanings. Such as Heb 12:9. I believe 1 Cor 15 is straight to the point and not out of context when speaking about how we are created (non pre-existence). Even the creation of man in Genesis speaks as if man was only created on earth. No where in the Bible is there a clear and straight passage that has such a literal sense of our spirits pre-existing as compared to 1 Cor 15 being so clear and evident that we did not pre-exist. Job, Jeremiah and other passages pointed out are not literal clear passages that can be defined as the truth being "pre-existence". They are merely speculative. Therefore, upon examining Heb 12:9 it is evident that the Father of our spirits is exactly that, the Father of our spirits, but it does not say that our spirits existed before we existed in the flesh. Therefore, both passages (Heb 12 and 1 Cor 15) remain non-contradictory and the meanings are correct.

Speaking about canons, I have studies how they came to be. I don't have time right now, but I can point you to Biblical passages that indicate that the NT was already "canon" before an official announcement at the Council of Nicea. The only other "canon" I know about is the catholic churches canonization of the Apocrypha. This was some 1300 years later, but otherwise, this was the only canonization by the catholic church that I know about. I do believe it is in 2 Peter that Peter talks about NT "scripture" as far as the gospels, and even talks about Paul's epistles. I'll try to find that for you later on. I know what history you have been told. You've been told the catholic church decided which books to put in the Bible. That's not completely true as is evident with scripture confirming itself in Peter's writings. I would also have a hard time believing that God would allow such a thing being that it took Him 1600 years to inspire scripture to just let it all go and be corrupted. The Bible is a long story of the redemption of man, from beginning to end. I really don't believe God would allow His inspiration to be corrupted being that His purpose is to redeem us. He wants us all to be saved and redeemed. And after 1600 years of inspiration to man, it just isn't logical that He would stop the redemption process for 1700 years until J. Smith came along. I believe the Bible and all it's books are the only God inspired writings and has never been corrupted by anyone. I know God would not allow that.

Anyway, gotta run. Have a wonderful day James.

David

Hi David:

I hope this response finds you in happy spirits and good health. My best to you and your family.

Just a few thoughts on your last post. I suppose that we are in agreement that the term "sons of God" can take on different meaning according to the context of the verse and subsequent discussion God has with his prophets and apostles.

We started out speaking about the "sons of God" who "shouted for joy" when the foundation of the earth was laid. I think where we differ is, I believe that they are the spirit sons of God, created by him, and you believe they are the "angels" of God created by Him. I believe that the Bible term "elohim" rules out your interpretation since the word if not "malikim".

It is an important distinction since it is relevant to "beings" that exist in Heaven who are NOT angels, who are called "sons of God". I am not neccesarily claiming that this one verse "proves" the doctrine of pre-mortal life that LDS teach. However, you would have to agree that the "Orthodox Christian" interpretation doesn't answer the question here either. In other words, Orthodox Christianity cannot deal with the verse "directly" and remain coherent. You'd have to concede that it certainly could be considered a reasonable support for "spirit sons of God" before the world was made.

In other words, that LDS point to it as evidence of "spirit sons (plural) existing before Jesus was made flesh is readily appearant - the emphasis being on "sons" and not "Son".

Connected with this, I was reading in Hebrews 12:9 (it states)

"Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?"

Which person of the Trinity does this refer to in your view? The Father, Son or Holy Ghost?

Thank you for the advice on early Christianity. I agree with it. There were many schisms in the Church that occured over many centuries. The interesting part is to see which doctrines were being taught and advocated and by whom during those turbulent times.

I would make a very strong plea for you to study early Christianity. Not because it supports my position, but because you'll be able to filter through some of what you might think is "Orthodoxy" in the New Testament Church.

In reagrd to premortal life and the "council of gods", I quoted not only early Christianity but ancient Jewish teachings as well.

As a Christian like yourself, you does not accept the authority of the Pope(s), I would hope that you would agree that there have been widespread deceptions among Christians throughout the centuries.

May I also suggest a careful reading of how the Old and New Testament canons came into being. There have been many canons throughout the centuries. Which canon was the one authorized by God? During which century was the word of God complete? Can it change?

I would say that you're probably pretty safe by studying the Church fathers and early Christian saints - This is early Church history. Surely you don't believe that studying early Church history is a danger?

Would it be helpful to understand the Bible in the context of what the early Church fathers believed?

Best to all,

James

Hi again James,

Got some errands done and had a little time to delve a little further.

"I acknowledge your interpretation of Gen 1:26 and how you see singularity amidst plurality. LDS also see the singularity of the Father, leading the Godhead in speaking about “His” image."

The passage does not speak about the "Father". It says "His" image. The image of God. You said you see the singularity of the Father, but the passage does not speak of the "Father" in specifics. It just speaks of God. So to claim that it speaks of the Father is not what the passage is saying. It simply says "His" image. Him who? The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all called "Him" in the Bible. So yes singularity as in a single God, but plurality as meaning "persons" of the Godhead.

"The larger issue that you did not directly address is how did they become “sons of God” whether they are angels or not?"

Actually I did. I said that the "sons of God" are persons or beings directly created by God Himself. For example: Adam was created by God Himself and is called a son of God in the geneology of Luke. Angels are called sons of God because God created them Himself. We cannot create angels. Jesus is called Son of God because His flesh was created by God Himself, by means of the Holy Spirit, hence the virgin birth...not created by man. But for us who are created by man by means of procreation of humans can only BECOME sons of God by means of faith in Jesus. This is where the adoption comes in.

"However, the term “elohim” refers to nature."

I agree with you that big "G" and little "g" are irrelevant in the original manuscripts. But I disagree with elohim referring to the nature of God. Reasons being is that the word elohim is also used for false gods in the O.T. If indeed elohim meant that those who are called elohim are the equivolent nature as God, then you are claiming that false gods (pagan deities, golden calf) are divine natured and really are real "gods". I'm sure you would agree that they are not. Elohim is a loose term and just like in English I can tell you that Allah is a god. I'm using the word "god" here, but you know Allah is not a real god. Just like elohim. Elohim is the word for god in the O.T. but is loosely translated. This reasoning is why I assume scholars translated with little g's and big G's.

"Further, does this mean that within the Godhead, the person of the Son was not a Son until 0 AD?"

Jesus is eternal. He is God. The one and only God. His divinity is eternal. What makes Him the Son is His flesh. Yes, He pre-existed and is eternal and has never been created. I do believe you are getting hung up on the terms "Son" and "Father" as it meaning like us humans who have sons and fatherswho are created beings. God (Trinity) created Jesus in app. 0 A.D. His flesh. Jesus did pre-exist but not in a flesh nature. I will refer Him to the "Son" even in pre-existant nature to define who He is as a person of the Trinity. For example: The Bible says the Father cannot be seen. We both agree the Holy Spirit cannot be seen. But the O.T. records that God was seen. It doesn't say the Father, Son or Holy Spirit was seen. It says that God was seen. So the Father or Holy Spirit cannot be seen. Who was seen then? The pre-incarnate "Son". I know this sounds like I'm seperating the Three as seperate Gods, but I am not. I'm stating that God can only be seen by means of the image or person of the Son which is Jesus. So really the Jesus we know (as flesh) who was on earth and died on the cross and resurrected became "Son" upon incarnation due to the Him becoming flesh. What makes this difficult is the understanding of the Hypostatic Union, which is the doctrine of Jesus' nature being God and man. He always has been God, but has not always been man. Maybe we can discuss that another time.

I just want to give you a word of advice when we discuss and debate Biblical theology. I appreciate the information you give me concerning what early Christians did or did not believe, but it is completely irrelevant to me. There were many heresies going on during that time, which is the many reasons why Paul's letters were so rebuking at times. It's really not about what certain Christians believed at one point in time or not, it's about what the Bible says concerning the matter. So if you would like you can continue to post comments from early Christians, but it has no efect concerning what the Bible really says or means. If I believed everything the early Christians proposed, then I would believe in so many different and contradictory things. I do believe God's Word is the final Word on the matter concerning all things. It is quite evident that even in the Bible in Pauls epistles, he was extremely distraught on how quickly false teachings were forming and how he needed to address the issues. This is why it is so important to study his writings to know what true Christianity really is, otherwise we are left with open interpretation on many matters. God did not want it that way and I see why Paul was so important in developing his writings to correct those who were teaching false doctrines. And because of his writings we now can know whaat is correct and what is heretical. Beyond that (or beyond Revelation I should say) other Christian writings are not Biblical writings and have reason that God did not want them in His Word. SO no offense meant, but the continual posting of early Christian belief systems are irrelevant in our conversation. I hope you can understand this.

Have a great weekend. Take care James.

David

Hello again James,

Hope all is well with you.

Just a quick response from the bottom of your post.

"David, thank you again for the nice conversation. I hope in my letter I didn’t seem accusatory or offensive. If you feel this way, it was not my intention"

No way! I know in theological debating sometimes it may appear that way, but no offense taken and I hope none on your part as well. It is perfectly respectable to disagree and to question. I feel we are doing a great job in keeping that respect.

I don't have a lot of time today, but will quickly give a response. I'm going out of town today. My wife and I are celebrating our anniversary and getting out of town for the weekend. So I have much to do, but will make it quick to respond to your questions.

"Do you believe that God is male? And if so, is this just a facetious description or is God truly male? Or is this pronoun a superficial construct in your belief?"

I believe God is used in "male" terms due to the cultural implications of being male or female. I'm sure you would agree that men are the authority over women according to the Bible. Woman was made for man, not the other way around. Therefore God being called a male is suitable in that He is the authority. I would find it hard to believe God being a woman but then creating "man" as the authoritative species. I do not believe in God to be a man like us with flesh and bones, but possibly an image closer to "man" than woman. Throughout Biblically, man has authority over woman in all aspects. Marriage of course a major one. I feel that marriage is somewhat similiar to the marriage we will experience with Jesus. Believers are calles His "bride". Of course taking the word "bride" we can say that this means a woman and that all believers are only women. I do believe that would be a false statement. But, it signifies something. That us believers being the "bride" are less authoritative than the "bridegroom" (Jesus). That God, our bridegroom, is head of this marriage and that we are His "bride" (body of believers) forever. Taking this, I can conclude that God is called "man" not because He has male genatalia, but because He is the Head of all things and supreme authority, like man on earth over all things.

You brought up Jer 1:5 as an example of pre-existence. I will say that I've heard a few things concering this passage. One being from a Calvinistic point of view known as "pre-ordination". I'm still unsure about the doctrine of "pre-ordination" and still have studying to do to fully accept that, but can somewhat agree to it. You said concerning this passage:

"As I quote the Christian scholar above and we read that indeed the acts of “sanctification and ordination” must be events, your natural reaction is to reject this Christian history and new ideas"

I do not agree that "sanctification and ordination" are specifically "events" that needed pre-existence for them to occur. Sanctify literally means "to set apart". God can do all He wants with His creation and of course is all knowing. I believe God knew every one of us before we were born, but not in a way of pre-existence. God is all knowing and knows the future, as evident will prophecy, therefore of course He could know anybody before they are born simply by knowing the future. To say that the only way God could know somebody before they were born is by pre-existence is to pre-suppose that God does not have infinite knowledge, including future events. So God knew Jeremiah, set him apart and ordained him to be a prophet, not necessarily meaning that he pre-existed, but simply because God is all-knowing and knew that he would be a prophet and for this reason set him apart (sanctified) him.

"“Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was; and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.”

This verse is not a very good one to use for pre-existence. The question for this is WHEN was the spirit given to return to God? Again this is a pre-supposition that pre-existence is truth to conclude that the spirit came from God in a pre-existent era. Can I conclude that the spirit was given to man upon birth, and then the spirit returns to God upon death? Yep. It fits the description as well. I don't believe this verse supports either claim, due to an unspecific time of when the spirit is given.

When I used Gen 6 to support sons of God as angels I stricly meant to show that "sons of God" is used Biblically as a meaning of angels. Especially concerning Gen 6 in the fact that if sons of God are pre-existent humans, then how did these pre-existent humans pro-create with the "daughters of men"? I believe it's Dan 3:25 that supports this claim as well. There are other passages as well, but I'm a little short on time to look them up. I'll get back to them a little later.

Back to pre-existence really quick. I thank you for your explanation of 1 Cor 15:46-47, but I still conclude that this directly contradicts the doctrine of pre-existence. It's jsut one of those passages that is so clear on that subject, that any attempt at apologetic for the contrary is so far-fetched that it just seems impossible. Sorry, but this passage is truly one that I could never somehow justify in favor of pre-existence.

My personal opinion on pre-existence is as follows. I would have no problem if pre-existence were the truth. I see no way on how it would really affect the true gospel. But I find that it is not Biblical. There are many things that I wish I believed contrary to what the Bible teaches, but it is what it is and I believe God, not men. Therefore, with pre-existence, I have no problem with that, but is it Biblical? For me, no. I find the opposite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_S._Heiser

Here's a little bio on Michael Heiser. He does claim that UFO's had something to do with Gen 6. Again that's on the line of Raelian theology. And if he believes that the Godhead consists of three seperate GodS, then he does not believe in the Trinity as the Trinity doctrine is explained. He believes in a Triad. He can say he believes in the Trinity, but he doesn't. Not if he recognizes God as three seperate Gods.

I do have to run James. There are other things I wanted to discuss in relation to your last post, but I'm a little bit rushed today. Have a wonderful weekend.

Take care.

David

Sorry for the long delay on this post… I have been very busy lately with work and family. I hope all is well with everyone and enjoying the fall.

Hi David:

Yes. It was a long post.

Thank you for taking the time and responding to the points I presented. As I read your post, I get a sense of a greater concern for understanding of one another’s doctrine. I thank you for that. I suppose that is a goal I would love to see achieved in our discussions.

Truth be told, the LDS love the Bible. We acknowledge God’s word and seek to obey him in all things (although we fall short.)

I acknowledge that I added “words” to the Isaiah verses (my own words) to express what I hear when I read those verses. But I don’t think I changed the meaning of the verses in light of Genesis and other verses. The larger point I wanted to make wasn’t one of strict “who is right” but to show that the LDS position is biblical. Whenever God is named, I see the Father, Son and Holy Ghost represented. So far, the LDS faith overall is doing a fine job at producing very faithful believers in Christ – not only in confession but in walking the talk. The LDS doctrine of the Godhead as three separate personages (spirits and Gods) has not hindered the LDS faith in receiving fruits of the spirit and all of the wonderful blessings of the gospel. I appreciate your concern over the danger of believing that there is more than one divine being in the universe. To you that is heresy and grounds for losing one’s salvation. I appreciate your concern and it is duly noted. However, that position while admired by millions is not necessarily a biblical one as evidence in the Godhead, the hosts of heaven, divine councils, the sons of God, etc. Yes, I know that you and I differ in regard to “biblical interpretation”- I believe we can respect one another’s position. But I do believe the time has come that a fair assessment be made within Orthodox Christianity; there are many positions and interpretations that seem to agree with the Bible. I certainly won’t try to stop you to make your case, or to disagree with my position – but if we can change the dialogue from “you’re Satan and I am not”, it will be a very good example to set for non-believers.

Please note that the LDS religion as a system of belief (if followed) produces very faithful and obedient believers in Christ – whether they believe God is three personages of spirit unified in the Godhead does not change the fact that the outcomes of their beliefs are “biblical” in that they receive the fruits of the spirit.

I acknowledge your interpretation of Gen 1:26 and how you see singularity amidst plurality. LDS also see the singularity of the Father, leading the Godhead in speaking about “His” image. Of course, we believe that the human body and the spirit within is designed and fashioned after God the Father’s complete being spiritual and material. (The spiritual creation came first in our doctrine which was also fashioned after him.) I suppose a follow-up question to you is, the Bible does say that the “singular” verbiage refers to a male (HIS). Do you believe that God is male? And if so, is this just a facetious description or is God truly male? Or is this pronoun a superficial construct in your belief?

To LDS the usage of “our” describes the members of the Godhead counseling and working together and then the glory going to the Father who is the Father of spirits with the reference to “His”. Therefore, LDS could also lay claim to the usage of plurality and singularity and feel quite comfortable. We do not see anything in the Bible contradicting the belief that the Godhead is three personages of spirit, divine beings that are separate in essence and unified in purpose.

This was the purpose of the post to demonstrate how LDS interpret the Bible and how such an interpretation is biblical. I know that you take exception with that – yet, I believe it is reasonable to make the claim in light of my post (I am quoting many other scholars; Mormon and Evangelical for authority). LDS agree that our interpretation of the Bible does not agree with Orthodox Christianity’s traditional interpretations, however.

On the 1 Cor 15:46-47, we disagree. I can see your viewpoint how you see Paul saying that the flesh is created first and then the spiritual - or that the human body is created first (conception?) and then the spirit is created to match the body? I think this is your position. My apologies if I am mistaken. I’ll continue with this assumption that since the flesh is made first, and then the spiritual, that there is no way we could have existed before our birth since our spirits were made after our physical bodies?

Let’s take another look at 1 Cor 15:46-47 and determine the theme and topic of the chapter. As I read it, the overall theme is resurrection. In fact, in verse 45 we see a direct parallel to the “first natural and then spiritual” by the example of Adam. The play on “first and last” or “first and second” is a direct parallel to “birth & natural life” and “resurrection”.

Look at verse 44-45:

45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

Here Paul is contrasting the corruptible state of man in the flesh with the incorruptible state of resurrected man – comparing imperfect flesh with a heavenly body.

At first glance, I know it’s tempting to use these scriptures seeing “first flesh then spirit” as evidence that the premortal existence is not possible, but the clear context of the “spiritual” here is resurrection, not spiritual creation before physical birth.

Therefore, I believe your position is untenable. Could you cite to other scriptures that directly support your belief that the spirit created within us was not created before birth?

I would like to present some additional insights in support of the doctrine of the premortal existence of our spirits. Please remember that I do not do this to push the argument – but instead to increase your understanding of how valuable and how much we believe the Bible to be the word of God.

Let’s take one more look at Jeremiah 1:5 and an excerpt from Allen Wyatt (FAIR article).

“"Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations."
Notice three key words here: knew, sanctified, and ordained. The wording itself indicates that God literally knew Jeremiah and was familiar with his spiritual attitudes and abilities. In addition, God sanctified Jeremiah, a description not of foreknowledge but of an actual event with participants present. The process of sanctification, or setting something apart as holy, by definition requires that something (such as Jeremiah himself) be present to be set apart. Likewise, the act of ordaining a person—in this case a prophet—requires that the individual be present. These acts—sanctification and ordination—are not mental exercises, but actual events.
Indeed, other modern Christian scholars have chosen to acknowledge the claim that Jeremiah 1:5 speaks of more than mere foreknowledge. In reference to the concept of premortal life, William de Arteaga stated:
"This question was hotly debated by Christians of late antiquity, and the faction of the Church which was bitterly opposed to preexistence gained the upper hand. By the sixth century belief in preexistence was declared heresy. All of this is quite astonishing in view of the clear and repeated biblical evidence for preexistence." (William de Arteaga, Past Life Visions: A Christian Exploration (New York: Seabury Press, 1983), 127, as quoted by Brent L. Top in The Life Before (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1988), 25.)
The event referred to in the sixth century was an edict by Pope Vigilius in 543 AD that rejected the doctrine of preexistence taught by Origen of Alexandria. Historical records indicate that the edict, called Anathemas Against Origen, was actually penned by the Roman emperor, Justinian, and signed by the pope and other bishops present at the Second Council of Constantinople. The official document labeled Origen's teachings heresy and forbid them being taught in the church.”
(It should be noted that there were savage penalties for those theologians who disagreed openly with Justinian including beheading, crucifixion and multilation.)

As I quote the Christian scholar above and we read that indeed the acts of “sanctification and ordination” must be events, your natural reaction is to reject this Christian history and new ideas. I understand that this is your position – but please look at it from our (LDS) point of view. The doctrine of premortal existence was taught openly and freely in ancient Israel and even within Christianity before 540 AD. The biblical components exist, Jewish tradition and Christian precedence exist to support this doctrine. Why must the LDS be badgered over this doctrine from Orthodox Christians in light of these three facts? I am perfectly fine with disagreements over the interpretation but to claim that the doctrine isn’t biblical or that it isn’t “traditional” is a position that is untenable.

On Job, a few thoughts. I agree that God uses a question to call Job’s attention to very important matters – to bring Job into “eternal realities” rather than be weighed down with temporal concerns. However, God does not claim that Job wasn’t there, but tests Job’s knowledge of the events. The belief in the premortal life is accompanied with the knowledge of the “veil” over the mind to provide a life where we can truly act by faith – we don’t have a recollection of the life before at this time. God shows Job’s forgetfulness when he says “declare if you have understanding”. Understanding of what? Where Job was when God laid the foundations of the earth. This line of questioning IS evidence that Job actually was somewhere other than in God’s mind. Otherwise he would have to take a different approach here saying that “before you were created Job, I laid the foundations of the earth”. Why the questioning other than to point out that Job has lost knowledge that he once had. To emphasize “Job’s lack of knowledge” when he actually wasn’t there or in reality didn’t see the event is a very mean spirited way to communicate with Job. It is not mean spirited only if Job was indeed there and used to have knowledge of it.

I certainly acknowledge that your explanation is an interpretation accepted by many Orthodox Christians, but your interpretation seems to only begs the question further – and not settle it. We would have to appeal to other ancient literature to confirm whether or not a “premortal” existence was believed.

But one last Bible verse; in Ecclesiates 12:7:

“Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was; and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.”

This scripture tells us a couple of things about the nature of man. First, the body and the spirit are separate entities and that the spirit will return to the point of origin. If we take the Orthodox Christian view of the spiritual creation of a soul, that creation occurs sometime between conception and birth then there is a dilemma. If the scripture is to be interpreted literally, as a parallel linguistic construction, then dust returns to dust, as it was without life, and the spirit returns to its former uncreated condition, meaning without life as well. The word return is strongly correlated with a pre-mortal life and is the context for the word usage here.

In the last several decades, archeology has confirmed such a belief. The ancient Jews and the early Christians both believed in the premortal existence of spirits (all of us). In the decades to come, Orthodox Christianity will have to defend its position against this increasing body of evidence. Further, what does it say again about Joseph Smith? Joseph Smith claimed that the ancients believed in the premortal existence of spirits (us) in the 1830s; Orthodox Christianity claimed that is was heresy; turns out later that ancient Israel and early Christians believed so.

On the view that the “sons of God” are angels. Aren’t you appealing to Orthodox Christian interpretation here and NOT the Bible? I am concerned that you quickly glossed over the Hebrew and made a directly appeal to Orthodox Christian tradition here. The Bible says “beney elohim” and not “malikim” and later refers to the as “elohim”. The difference is deliberate and HUGE. Further, the term “angel” in the Bible is not species specific – it means messenger only. However, the term “elohim” refers to nature.

I think what you’re trying to say with Jesus and the Word becoming flesh is that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son (in the flesh) which we agree on.

Here’s what I think you’re also saying – my understanding. “Through the power of the Holy Ghost, the Word became a Son of the person of the Father and the woman Mary” is that accurate? Further, does this mean that within the Godhead, the person of the Son was not a Son until 0 AD? This is a VERY important point. How is Jesus an “eternal Son” of God? This is a little far off the path here as we are discussing “sons of God” or “gods”, not members of the Godhead. (Also remember that the constructs “God” and “god” are English constructs. The use of the “big” G and the “little” g don’t really mean anything in ancient texts - no such construct in Hebrew or Greek)

Concerning Genesis 6, I am quite surprised you brought this into the discussion. The reasons are once again, a point that is going to support LDS theology to a degree. Your obvious point and issue here is that the “sons of God” are sexual beings – do you realize that you have just advocated the position that God created spiritual beings capable of sexual intercourse? Did you mean to do this? While there is much to be learned about this particular group of “sons of God”, they are not described as “angels”. Remember, within Orthodox Christianity there is a tradition to describe all spiritual beings beside the Godhead and humans as “angels”. However, no such “delineation of nature” exists in the Hebrew bible or within ancient Jewish literature. Angels are merely “messengers” and could be a member of the Godhead or could be gods (beney ha'elohim) which means sons of God. You further beg the question when you say “But scripture definately indicates that sons of God are angels.” But you didn’t quote any scriptures that indicate that they are angels and how those beings are different than gods.

Further, what does this DIRECTLY have to do with the sons of God spoken of in Job and in Psalms?

In short, you seem to be saying that there were sons of God. But then you call them angels – but we really don’t know what this means. When you call them angels are you claiming a different nature exists for them? Are there different types of spiritual nature? I am not sure what you’re suggesting here.

The larger issue that you did not directly address is how did they become “sons of God” whether they are angels or not?

In the next paragraph you address how WE become the sons of God and that is through faith. LDS have a similar doctrine. We can cover the law of adoption in the next post if you’d like. Suffices to say that God the Father is the Father of our spirits and when we are born again, we are born of God and we become the children of Christ – in US, we become his seed and his children and “sons of God” to do what? To sit with Jesus Christ in his throne and He sits with the Father in his Father’s throne.

On the Divine Council, and the Raelian New Age theology, I didn’t find any connections with the site I referred you to. The information at the site www.thedivinecouncil.com is contributed by Micheal Heiser a man who holds a doctorate in Hebrew Bible and Semitic languages. He specializes in Israel’s divine council. He’s a Christian by faith and believes in the Trinity. He also believes (by biblical and other ancient evidence) in a real divine council of gods. He directly appeals to other Christians to believe in the existence of the council. In response to your interpretation that the council refers to the Trinity (or Godhead) he uses several biblical evidences against that interpretation (remember he believes the doctrine of the Trinity).

I’ll quickly comment on the “first and the last” and its connection with God the Father having a Father, etc. If Jesus says that HE is the First and the Last, then we have a problem because Jesus was the Word made flesh. If we are to believe that Jesus is once again referring to his “essence” then Jesus is probably not the “person” who should be saying this since the “Son” had a beginning within the Trinity theology. Or at least, it should be spoken in the voice of the Father. But I digress a bit here. How does the “First and the Last” as a statement exclusively mean that there are not other beings like God in the universe? I am the first and the last what? Person in the Godhead? Savior? God like being? Does it make sense to say I am the First God and the Last God – in regard to “essence” and when Jesus says “ye are gods”, “ye shall inherit my throne with me”, “ye shall be made partakers of the divine nature”, “ye shall be like me”, etc.? All of those verses make it clear that there will be more gods than one in the future in nature and on his throne.

Revelation 22:13 states:

“I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.”

Here’s an article from fair wiki:
“Alpha and Omega are the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet, respectively. Jesus Christ refers to himself by this title four times in the book of Revelation (1:8; 1:11; 21:6; 22:13). The title also appears in the Book of Mormon once (3 Nephi 9:18) and the Doctrine and Covenants thirteen times (19:1; 35:1; 38:1; 45:7; 54:1; 61:1; 63:60; 68:35; 75:1; 81:7; 84:120; 112:34; 132:66).

The Encyclopedia of Mormonism explains:
Equivalent to the Old Testament term "the first and the last" (e.g., Isaiah 44:6), alpha and omega are the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet. Just as no letters stand before alpha or after omega, so there are no other gods in this creation other than that represented in Jesus Christ. He encompasses all, from beginning to end; he extends beyond all extremities and categories.

Jesus Christ is the beginning because he created the earth; he is the end because he is our advocate with the Father at the final judgment.
When early Christianity—a religion based in Hebrew theology—encountered the Greek philosophical world, Greek-thinking converts tried to harmonize the two worldviews. The Greek worldview came from the writings of philosophers like Plato, who postulated that nothing that is perfect can be physical, and so forth. This collision between Hebrew and Greek paradigms resulted in a redefinition of the Hebrew/Christian God into one acceptable to Greek thinkers. God, according to the philosophers, had to be uncreated, eternal (in the philosophical sense of existing outside of time), and unique (in the sense that he is completely different than human beings).
Modern Christians—who have inherited the Greek worldview as interpreted by the Protestant reformers—use a select set of Bible verses to enforce this interpretation. To them, the "Alpha and Omega" passages in Revelation indicate that Jesus was uncreated and existing from all eternity in a triune form (three persons, but one God).

Latter-day Saints reject the interpretive baggage of the Greeks and Reformers, and claim that Christ is eternal, but not in the sense that the philosophers explain it. “
I feel this last paragraph describes our disagreement in most cases as it relates to the ontological oneness of God. You see the singularity of God as evidence that no other beings like God can exist in the universe – we see them as expressions of His sovereignty.
In the Bible there is evidence that at least the Father was once on an earth just like the Son. We don’t know anything about this existence other than the Son states that he had knowledge of it and followed the Father in all things that the Father did.
Little is known about God the Father’s God or Father, for more information about it see this article here: http://fairwiki.org/index.php/Infinite_regress_of_Gods%3F

David, thank you again for the nice conversation. I hope in my letter I didn’t seem accusatory or offensive. If you feel this way, it was not my intention.

I hope all is well with you and the family. If you respond to this post, it may be a while before I can get back to it. But if you’re patient, I’ll be able to respond.
Best to you,
James

GB,

CONDOLENCES???

That ain't right...

You know, I am happy to be a raider fan for one simple reason. They give me no hope. I hate rooting for a team with even a slight chance to go to the playoffs, because then you just get hope and then get shut down. Kind of like hmmmm.....THE REDSKINS! ha ha.

I know the raiders suck and have no chance. I can root for them to win a few games here and there, but I know they will not give me any hope at all. They stand no chance to make it to the playoffs and definately no chance at the super bowl. So, it's easy to be a raider fan. You know what to expect. There is no heart to be broken and I'm getting used to the embarrasment..... :(

Later.

Raiders? My condolences.

At least you don't like the Eagles, Cowboys or Ravens.

Go Skins!

GB,

Thanks for the link. I guess it's a common view to interpret Gen 6 as fallen angels according to that site. I think I should've used a different passage to claim "sons of God" as angels. I think Dan 3:35 would be perfect and I should have went with that. Oh well. At least it brought up an interesting subject. I do believe that it is entirely possible for this scenario of fallen angels to pro-create with women. Who knows? There are certain reasons why this race (Nephilim) is no longer in our current day. Of course the best explanation I have seen is because it was pre-flood and all humanity was wiped out except for Noah and his family. To be perfectly honest though, I'm not 100% convinced in that line of interpretation as well, and quite honestly it is pretty irrelevant...just interesting though. I haven't seen a rebuttal to that interpretation as of yet, but I'm searching just for curiousity sake. I do think the only reason I'm not 100% convinced is because it seems so distant and unspoken in the church and also seemingly quite bizarre. But that is personal feelings and I know I shouldn't let my heart decide what is truth. But if I never know the true meaning of Gen 6...oh well. Doesn't matter too much really.

Thanks for the discussion GB. Hope all is well with you. I might be leaving this site for awhile. ITS FOOTBALL SEASON!! I just got HDTV and can't wait! I'll stop by periodically, but with life, kids, church and football, time is getting more and more valuable.

GO RAIDERS! yes, I am a fan of probably the most dark and evil teams out there. ahh...hope God will forgive me for that... :)

God bless you Ghostbuster. Say hi to Slimer! :)

Peace

David,

Thanks for the link. I googled the topic too and I think you did a good job explaining your position. I agree that this is not a topic they discuss in theology 101. But I can't say I agree with the position you have taken :) Women and fallen angels literally reproducing? If then, why not now?

I found some info here that I thought was decent:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c036.html

Like you said though, this point is pretty much irrelevant. It is interesting to discuss though so thanks for bringing it up.

Regards

GB,

I am fully aware of how seemingly crazy that interpretation may be (Gen 6). I actually did some studying on that passage. I have found a certain explanation for how this interpretation came to be. Of course like many things Biblical, there will always be debate. But I feel confident in that line of interpretation. I will post for you the full Biblical interpretation and backing for that passage.

According to this view, the ‘sons of God’ of verses 2 and 4 are fallen angels, which have taken the form of masculine human-like creatures. These angels married women of the human race (either Cainites or Sethites) and the resulting offspring were the Nephilim. The Nephilim were giants with physical superiority and therefore established themselves as men of renown for their physical prowess and military might. This race of half human creatures was wiped out by the flood, along with mankind in general, who were sinners in their own right (verse 6:11,12).

My basic presupposition in approaching our text is that we should let the Bible define its own terms. If biblical definitions are not to be found then we must look at the language and culture of contemporary peoples. But the Bible does define the term ‘the sons of God’ for us.

Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, Satan also came among them (Job 1:6).

Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came among them to present himself before the Lord (Job 2:1).

When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? (Job 38:7, cf. Psalm 89:6; Daniel 3:25).

Scholars who reject this view readily acknowledge the fact that the precise term is clearly defined in Scripture.87 The reason for rejecting the fallen angel interpretation is that such a view is said to be in violation of both reason and Scripture.

The primary passage which is said to be problematical is that found in Matthew’s gospel, where our Lord said, “You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures, or the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven” (Matthew 22:29-30).

We are told that here our Lord said that angels are sexless, but is this really true? Jesus compared men in heaven to angels in heaven. Neither men nor angels are said to be sexless in heaven but we are told that in heaven there will be no marriage. There are no female angels with whom angels can generate offspring. Angels were never told to ‘be fruitful and multiply’ as was man.

When we find angels described in the book of Genesis, it is clear that they can assume a human-like form, and that their sex is masculine. The writer to the Hebrews mentions that angels can be entertained without man’s knowing it (Hebrews 13:2). Surely angels must be convincingly like men. The homosexual men of Sodom were very capable of judging sexuality. They were attracted by the ‘male’ angels who came to destroy the city (cf. Genesis 19:1ff, especially verse 5).

In the New Testament, two passages seem to refer to this incident in Genesis 6, and to support the angel view:

For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment; (II Peter 2:4).

And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day (Jude 6).

These verses would indicate that some of the angels who fell with Satan were not content with their ‘proper abode’ and therefore began to live among men (and women) as men. God’s judgment upon them was to place them in bonds88 so that they can no longer promote Satan’s purposes on earth as do the unbound fallen angels who continue to do his bidding.

The result of the union between fallen angels and women is rather clearly implied to be the Nephilim. While word studies have produced numerous suggestions for the meaning of this term, the biblical definition of this word comes from its only other instance in Scripture, Numbers 13:33:

There also we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim); and we became like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight.

I therefore understand the Nephilim to be a race of super-humans who are the product of this angelic invasion of the earth.89

This view not only conforms to the biblical use of the expression ‘sons of God,’ it also best fits the context of the passage. The effects of the fall were seen in the godly offspring of Cain (chapter 4). While Cain and his descendants were ‘in Satan’s pocket,’ Satan knew from God’s words in Genesis 3:15 that through the seed of the woman God was going to bring forth a Messiah who would destroy him. We do not know that the entire line of Seth was God-fearing. In fact we would assume otherwise. Noah and his immediate family alone seem to be righteous at the time of the flood.

Genesis 6 describes a desperate attempt on the part of Satan to attack the godly remnant that is named in chapter 5. So long as a righteous seed is preserved, God’s promise of salvation hangs over the head of Satan, threatening of his impending doom.

The daughters of men were not raped or seduced as such. They simply chose their husbands on the same basis that the angels selected them—physical appeal. Now if you were an eligible woman in those days, who would you choose? Would you select a handsome, muscle-bulging specimen of a man, who had a reputation for his strength and accomplishments, or what seemed to be in comparison a ninety-pound weakling?

Women looked for the hope of being the mother of the Savior. Who would be the most likely father of such a child? Would it not be a ‘mighty man of renown,’ who would also be able to boast of immortality? Some of the godly Sethites did live to be nearly 1000 years old, but the Nephilim did not die, if they were angels. And so the new race began.

I got this from bible.org. There are two other interpretations that are explained as well, but both do not seem to indicate the proper interpretation due to some contradictory passages in Scripture. Amazingly, I actually googled Nephilim and there seems to be archaeological evidence for some super-human fossils that have been dug up. Now, whether that is truth or not, I'm not too sure. I can only tell you that I've read a few articles on the subject. Otherwise, I am fully aware that this passage is definately something you will not learn in some simple Bible study class. Actually it's quite irrelevant when focusing on the essential part of Scripture, but none the less it seems to be a part of Scripture that God wanted us to know about. Quite possibly for more reasoning for the world wide flood to destroy all man, except Noah and a few others of course. If you want to read the whole article it's here. http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=67

Have a great day everyone. Take care. And thank you GB for the compliments. And thank you James for your postings as well.

David

This is a great dialogue. Thanks to both James and David.

David,
Do you think the verse in Gen. 6 indicates that fallen angels literaly had sexual relations with women? Isn't that pretty speculative?

I can't say I agree with the theory you gave, but I do thank you for your interpretation. I will probably do some research on this passage.

Otherwise, your comments in response to James are spot on! Especially the points you made about the nature of an "Eternal God". I was thinking along the exact same lines.

-regards

Hello James,

Hope all is well with you. I think it took me about an hour to read all that....WHEWWW... :)

No really thank you for that. Your post has shed a lot of light on what the LDS believe and why. One thing I must say is that now I can understand how your beliefs are based Biblically. By far your post has been the most enlightening on the theological basis for your beliefs. Being as in depth as it was, was very insightful. Now time for me to throw in my 2 cents.

I would like to point out one thing first of all which I believe is dangerous when making theological claims. I see where you come up with a plurality of a Godhead in that they are seperate beings. There are verses that indicate the distinction between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Of course the Trinity doctrine is based upon this plurality as well. But the dangerous part comes when you make a theological distinction and then try to tackle other verses by changing words. I see that you have addressed the many Isaiah verses that indicate a singular God. What strikes me as dangerous is that taking the pre-supposition of three seperate Gods making the Godhead, you changed the Isaiah verses to your liking. For example I'll post one that you did.

Isaiah 45:6 ...there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else.

“There is none beside us. I am the LORD, and there is none else (beside us).

You changed "me" to "us" based upon the pre-supposition that God exists as three seperate Gods. Now, if I wanted to look at this non-biasedly to make an assertion as to what is truth, what shall I do? Yes, acknowledge the plurality of the Godhead that is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. But then I recognize the singularity in these verses among many others throughout Scripture. This is where the Trinity is formed. I do not think it wise to change scripture based upon pre-supposed theology.

You brought up how we are made in the image of God or as you say the three Gods that make the Godhead. Of course using Gen 1:26 to back this claim would be correct, but we need to look at the following verse.

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.

27So God created man in HIS own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

I do wonder why God would say "our" image and "our" likeness, but then follow up in verse 27 with "his" (singular) own image. To me this suggests that God is trying to potray His singularity in divine substance in the form of three personages that have the likeness of man. This is exactly what the Trinity teaches. It is also consistent with scripture based upon the singularity of God (Isaiah verses and the such) and the plurality of the personages of the Godhead.

You have asked me to identify what substance God is. This of course is mysterious to man. But if I could define God as substance it would be a divine substance, whatever that may be. Even as I pointed out before, Paul mentions the mystery of God in that we will not know what His nature truly is until we meet with Him in heaven. To be able to define Divine nature by human terms would seem impossible simply because we are humans.

Now about pre-existence. Of course I've brought up 1 Cor 15:46-47 on many occasions to note that Paul explains that we are first the flesh then spiritual. Not spiritual, then flesh , the spiritual again. I do want to address the passage in Job.

Job 38:4-7
Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Of course context is everything. As you know already in the story of Job, Job has everything taken away from him and questions God as the the "whys". God responds. So the question in this is that pre-existence must be true because of the "sons of God" shouting for joy. Here's where I see the problem. You say we all pre-existed. This must include Job as well. God asked Job where he was when He created the universe. Of course God meant that why should you question my authority, your not God and you were not there when I created the universe. God of course questions Job to state that Job is not Creator and was not around for creation so how could Job question God on what He does with His creation. This is the whole point of the book of Job. God specifically points out the ways He created the universe and insinuates that Job has no idea how the universe was created because he was not there to witness it. That is the whole point of questioning by God. So if the "sons of God" were shouting for joy and Job pre-existed and witnessed this creation event, then why would God ask Job where he was during this event? He wasn't there. So who are the "sons of God".

Of course as you know already my view is that they are angels. Here is why. First we must look at scripture wholly to determine an outcome. Why would angels be names "sons of God"? They are directly created by God Himself. You and I are not created directly by God Himself. For example, in Luke 3:38 the geneology account only calls Adam the son of God because he is directly created by God Himself. This is also consistent with Jesus and why He is called "Son of God" because He is the only "God in flesh" that was created. Of course I am referring only to the flesh concerning Jesus, not His divine nature. Jesus did not exist as man before He came to earth. "The Word BECAME flesh". Therefore He was created by God as the only "Son of God" in flesh with divine nature. Angels are also created directly by God. For example angels in heaven do not have sexual relation with each other to pro-create. God creates them by His own hand unlike us humans who pro-create by means of sexual relations.

Genesis 6:1-4 When humankind began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God [beney ha'elohim] saw that the daughters of HUMANKIND were beautiful. Thus they took wives for themselves from any they chose. 3 So the Lord said, "My spirit will not remain in humankind indefinitely, since they are mortal. They will remain for 120 more years."

The "sons of God" are directly seperated as not being "humankind" in this passage. These sons of God are angels (fallen angels) that had sexual relations with "humankind" which created the Nephilim. Now there is a big ordeal concerning who the Nephilim really are, but scripture indicates that they are some huge species of people that are offspring from these fallen angels. But scripture definately indicates that sons of God are angels.

We only BECOME sons of God by faith. 1 Corinthians 5:17, Ephesians 2:10. We are children of God by faith by ADOPTION. Paul tells us it is by adoption that some of us become sons of God. Of course this meaning that we accept the Son and are "born-again" and therefore children of God. Not literal born children. We are first born seperate from God, then in turn by acceptance of the Lord Jesus we BECOME sons by adoption. Born again...and in this new birth we then are dead to sin and born as sons of God. This of course being a spiritual re-birth. 1 Cor 15 backs this up as well in indicating that we are flesh first, then upon death we become spiritual. I do believe the main question you need to address is why Paul says we are children by adoption. If some are children by adoption, then how is it that we all pre-existed as literal offspring of God?

Concerning the "divine council" I read the post you gave on divinecouncil.com. I do not know if you are aware but the author of that site leans towards a Raelian theology. You may not be aware that he says that aliens exist and came down at one point and tried to stop Jesus from becoming flesh. Also, he claims that the "sons of God" in Gen 6 are aliens from another planet that made the Nephilim. Some weird theology. This theology is consistent with Raelian New Age theology which is completely heretical. I'm sure you would agree. But I still insist on the former interpretation that there is not council of Gods (plural). Council could definately signify the Godhead, but keeping it in it's divine singularity. Otherwise, it would be contradictory to scripture, of course unless you change scripture to your liking in which I have some serious theological problems with doing that.

Now you said that God the Father has a father, correct? But the Bible says God is eternal. So logically I cannot understand how an eternal being can ever be created. Also, you said Jesus was created by God the Father at one point. But in Rev. Jesus says He is the "First and the Last". This poses two problems for you. If Jesus is the First, then where does that leave God the Father? And if He is the Last, then how can anyone become gods? If Jesus is eternal, then how was He created? It is logically impossible for an infinite being to create an infinite being. So how is God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) being eternal beings be able to be created by another eternal being. That would mean that they are not eternal, but began in existence at one point. Isn't this illogical?

Thank you for your time James. I do appreciate the dialogue. I am especially grateful that we are able to tone down our arguments in a respectful disagreement. I know we started off on the wrong foot, so I hope that you can forgive me for that and we can remain positive in our dialogue. Thank you again. Take care and have a wonderful day. Blessings to you and your family.

David

This is very thorough work on your part James - very impressive! I enjoyed reading this very much.

Thanks!

Hi David:

::::: warning long post ahead:::::::::: apologies in advance.

In your last post you said:

”I couldn't agree with you anymore than that. This is why it's still up in the air for me on how to explain away Isaiah 44:8. If there is a council of "Gods" then why does God say He doesn't know no other "Gods"? Maybe it's me that is unsure about how this council of "Gods" works. Are they impersonal Gods that do not speak to each other or even know each other but somehow form what is called the Godhead? I really don't know. But what I do know is that God says He knows no other God. If I pre-suppose that there is a council of seperate Gods, then why doesn't the God who is speaking in Isaiah not know the other ones? I'm sure an argument can be made in context that God is speaking about false gods, but why then didn't He state that they are false, but He does know the other "gods" in His council? And then why didn't He say that those are false gods, but then state that He does know other ones that are real that are in this "divine council"? But that's not what He said. He knows no other God. He has no knowledge of the existence of any other God anywhere. Or does God not have infinite knowledge?? I'm sure that can't be, so I'm stuck with my original interpretation of Psalm 82 and Isaiah 44:8 makes sense now. See?”

I hope that you will know that I do not wish either of us to explain away “Isaiah 44:8” in any shape or form. I believe we should embrace all of the verses relating to God, read them in context, and then, combine them together to understand their true meaning as God intended them.

Before I get too far into the meat of the discussion, it should be noted that within LDS theology there is a clear distinction between Gods and gods. This I will explain in more detail later in the post.

The purpose of my post is to show that biblically, LDS beliefs are on solid ground. These beliefs include, the pre-mortal existence of spirits sons of God and the existence of divine beings like God called or defined as “gods”. If these two beliefs can be shown biblically, then the Orthodox concept of deity is not theologically accurate, although well intentioned.

David you expressed that you believe that God is a singular being comprised of three persons. ( I would very much enjoy an explanation on what you believe those persons consist of? Spiritual essence, spirit body, pure energy, flesh and bone?) In short, you believe the Trinity doctrine to be an accurate explanation of God’s nature.

I and others have expressed that I believe that God is our Father, and that the Son and the Holy Ghost, are also Gods, and form the Godhead. We do not believe that they are ontologically one being, but instead believe they are one in purpose (and in many other ways) but are separate spiritual beings and in that sense they are “Gods” plural. While this seems like “polytheism”, it is not; the more accurate way to describe it would be tritheism. It should be noted that while LDS belief includes the existence of other Gods (such as “God the Father’s, Father) these Gods do not save us. A discussion about this Grandfather Go, while intellectually stimulating does not mean much to my personal salvation or the salvation of mankind on earth. The real question is whether or not God the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost have all the power necessary to save me – they do and I can trust in them 100%.

However, Polytheism or even Tritheism doesn’t accurately describe the LDS concept of the Godhead either since Jesus taught us to worship the Father, in his name through the power of the Holy Ghost. Therefore, our theology closely follows the statement in the New Testament that says “There is one God, the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ and that God is to be worshipped in spirit.” All things in the LDS theology point to the Father first, and then to the Son. Why? Because this is the way that Christ taught us to act and worship.

This brings us to question regarding Isaiah 44:8, and how you believe my belief in the Godhead would be inaccurate since God says “he knows no other gods”. To be very precise in this interpretation, let’s agree that God doesn’t say that he knows of no other “Gods” but instead the issue is that he doesn’t know of any other “gods”. But for the sake of argument, you claim that it means “Gods” and or “gods”. And the Son and the Holy Ghost would be the “extra Gods” that he doesn’t know of, as you say.

This interpretation is a problem in two ways. The first is stated above since we are talking about “Gods” and not “gods”. The second has something to do with radical monotheism where the belief in God is limited to one God and one person in God.

So if we were to strictly adhere to your interpretation, it also leaves out any room for persons as well. God wouldn’t know of any other persons, beings, spirits, or gods that had anything to do with humanity at all or that can save mankind – this would be limited to only one expression of omnipotence in a single expression. The monotheism that emerged out of the second temple period of the Jews was one of one God, one person, …just one; that’s it.

However, we both do not believe in just one person. We believe there are three: The Father, Son and the Holy Ghost. These mysteries are not accounted for in the statements made Deuteronomy or Isaiah. To know the true God is to know the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost and to understand their nature, function and majesty.

Therefore, these statements cannot be taken to explain God’s complete and full nature. Why? Because God isn’t revealing his nature to Israel, he is commanding their loyalty. He is comparing himself to the other gods that Israel is worshiping. Among those gods that Israel is worshiping, He knows of none that are God except himself. The problem is that Israel wasn’t worshiping God the Son or God the Holy Ghost – therefore, of course God knows of no other gods among Israel’s “false”, or “powerless” gods.

Instead of explaining the trinity of the Godhead, He is calling them back to God, giving them milk before the meat. Of course, I can understand why. If God had given them more mysteries about his nature and revealed more persons or personages, Israel would have again missed the mark and most likely continued on in their broken loyalty. He is not explaining the nature of God or gods in the universe or persons or personages.

Consider the language used to express God’s nature in Genesis and then compare the language used in Deuteronomy and Isaiah.

Language of God describing the Godhead:

Gen. 1:26, "Then God said, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.'"

Gen. 3:22, "Then the Lord God said, 'Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever.'"

Gen. 11:7, "Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech."

Also, look at the interaction between God the Father and God the Son. There is a plurality expressed here that is absent in Isaiah – but is the plurality absent in God? No.

Psalm 45:6-7, "Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of uprightness is the scepter of Thy kingdom. 7Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated wickedness; Therefore God, Thy God, has anointed Thee."

A separate God anoints another separate God. (One anointing another requires ontological separateness)

Isaiah 6:8, "Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, 'Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?" Then I said, "Here am I. Send me!'"

The Lord God asks, whom shall I send? Another God answers, here I am send me. (Another requirement for ontological separateness.)

Isaiah 48:16, "Come near to Me [God], listen to this: From the first I have not spoken in secret, From the time it took place, I was there. And now the Lord God has sent Me, and His Spirit.”

The Lord God sent the Lord and His spirit to mankind. (God the Father sends God the Son and God the Holy Spirit – another requirement for ontological separateness)

Amos 4:10-11, “I sent a plague among you after the manner of Egypt; I slew your young men by the sword along with your captured horses, And I made the stench of your camp rise up in your nostrils; Yet you have not returned to Me,” declares the Lord [YHWH]. 11“I overthrew you as God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah, And you were like a firebrand snatched from a blaze; Yet you have not returned to Me,” declares the Lord."

Jehovah declares that he overthrows Israel like God the Father overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah. Jehovah speaks of God the Father as God, yet Jehovah, who is God doesn’t take part in the overthrowing of Sodom and Gomorrah – separate Gods by action Ontological separateness required.

In light of all of these verses showing the plurality of Gods, we can now understand the Isaiah verses in context as it relates to the Godhead: ( I quote Isaiah and then state what I understand with the context of the Genesis and other scriptures)

Isaiah 43:10 ...before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
“Before US there was no God formed (by human hands out of wood or stone) and neither shall there be made, (that can save you) to replace me. Among the Israelites gods, there is none that predate the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
Isaiah 44:6 ...I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

“We are the first and we are the last; and beside US there is no God (The eternal Father, Son and Holy Ghost). There will be no other means of salvation in any other gods among Israel.

Isaiah 44:8 ...Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.

Is there a God beside US (that can save you and bless you), yea, there is no God; I know not any (that can save you as the Father, Son and Holy Ghost have power to save you from death and hell)
Isaiah 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me...

I am the Lord, and there is none else (beside US), there is no God beside us (that can save you)…

Isaiah 45:6 ...there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else.

“There is none beside us. I am the LORD, and there is none else (beside us).

Isaiah 45:21 ...there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.

“There is no God else beside us, a just God and a Savior; there is none beside us (The Father, Son and Holy Ghost - that can save you.)”

Isaiah 46:9 ...I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,

We (the Father Son and Holy Ghost) are God, and there is none else (that can save you); We are God, and there is none like (us) among all of the idols you are worshipping that you have made with your human hands.

Isaiah 45:22 Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.

Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth; for We are the Godhead and there is none else beside us (the Father, Son and Holy Ghost) that can save you.

I have replayed this theme to increase the understanding that there is a plurality of God that cannot be denied. The vital question is whether these verses refer to God’s “essence” and whether any other divine beings exist in the universe or whether it means something quite different altogether. Further, is God saying there is no being like him (them) in the universe or is he saying that there is no God like him AMONG the Israelites?

To support and drive home the point that God is speaking to the issue of “gods” among the Israelites, let’s go to Isaiah 43:10-11

“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.”

Now let’s look at the context and completion of the Lord’s thought on this point by reading verse 12:

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.

The strange god spoken of here refers to an idol. In the very next chapter, these commandments and declarations are followed by an extensive discussion on “graven images” Isaiah 44:9-17.

The Isaiah chapters do not reveal anything about God’s essence, his persons or personages, or whether other divine beings like God exist in the universe. They all speak to the Israelites idol gods here on earth, in other words, idolatry among the Israelites – they reveal no mysteries regarding the nature of God or the Godhead but that only that the Israelites were commanded to be loyal to the “God of Israel” and not to their idols.

Now the broader question is/was, what other evidence indicates that there are other divine beings in the universe? The restored gospel of Jesus Christ has evidences galore regarding this doctrine but since you do not believe in the restoration, let’s turn to the Bible for our evidences.

The first evidence is the “divine council of gods”. This is where Psalms 82:1 comes into play.

Before we get to Psalms 82, I’ll address the deities within the Godhead a little further. In particular the Son of God, Jesus Christ.

We both believe that before the beginning of creation of the world, God the Father was not alone. That with Him, were the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

I understand that you believe that the Son was “an uncreated person with God”. LDS theology teaches that the Son of God was a personage of spirit; God the Father’s first spirit born son.

While we believe that he was the first born son, we also believe that Jesus Christ was the co-creator of the world, and was chosen, prepared, and anointed before the world was made, to be the redeemer of mankind. It was He who said “Here am I, send me”.

As we have seen throughout the bible, family is vitally important to God. So, if God the Father has a family, it would first consist of God the Father, his Son Jesus Christ (the premortal Jesus), and the Holy Ghost, all three separate persons (in my case personages) of spirit. The purpose of the earth is to increase and augment the family of God.

Because we live after the crucifixion, the resurrection and the ascension of Jesus Christ, it is not hard for us to understand that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. He was born to Mary (and in your words God became incarnate) to become the only begotten Son of God in the flesh and a son to Mary through the power of the Holy Ghost. “The Word was made flesh” and therefore, we can understand quite clearly that He is the Son of God.

However, long before the “Word” was made flesh, he was the Son of God before the foundations of the world. (I don’t know how you reconcile this with your theology and I will leave that to you – the question is the person of Jesus was not the begotten Jesus in the flesh before the creation – how could he be the Son of God then – according to your theology?).

The next question is, “Do the Son and the Holy Ghost” constitute the entire family of God the Father before the creation and before the foundation of the world was laid? The Bible implies that there is more of the family of God that previously considered. Allow me to introduce you to you to the “sons of God” or “beney Elohim”.

Turn with me to Job 38:4-7. This is where Job is being challenged by God as Job wants to know why he’s suffering. God’s response to Job is that he doesn’t have to explain since God knows everything about Job including all of the details about the earth before Job was born.

Job 38:4-7
Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

We learn from this text that at the very moment of the earth’s creation, there were ALREADY a number of “sons of God”. These sons of God shouted for joy when they saw God’s power in the act of creation.

Now, you might be thinking that the sons of God are actually “angels”. This is a common assumption but it’s wrong since the Hebrew word for angels (mal’akim) is completely different than the Hebrew “sons of God”. The “sons of God” in Job 38:7 is “beney elohim” meaning literally sons of God. You’ll also notice that the “morning stars who sang together” is reflexive and is actually referring back to “sons of God”.

This Hebrew language supports that LDS belief in the premortal existence of spirits and beings refered to as “sons” of God long before Adam and Eve were ever created on earth. The LDS belief in the premortal sons of God is therefore, quite biblical. How those “beings” became “sons of God” is up for discussion – but for the Latter-day Saints, the mystery has already been revealed.

These “sons of God” or “beney elohim” are shouting for joy and singing together would strongly suggest that they honor God and obey him. These particular sons certainly are not rebellious and we know they are immortal (the earth had not yet been made and mortality had not been introduced). We know that they are not flesh (Adam had not yet been created). They had their own wills as they chose to “shout for joy” and “sing together”. We are left to conclude that they exist in the super-natural world and are spirit sons of God.

All of this was in the beginning before the earth was made. Therefore, the family of God consists of at least, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost as well as “sons of God”.

Who are these sons of God? We know they are not angels. We know that are not human judges. (No humans had been born). The biblical testimony is that the sons of God watched God and his co-creator, the Son of God, create the world. They are super-natural or spiritual. Who is their father? God the Father or the “person/personage of the Father”

Before the formation of a single human body, there were sons of God. Is it possible that one of these sons of God was Adam, Moses, or perhaps Jeremiah? Why were these sons of God so happy and overjoyed about the creation of the earth? Was the earth their destiny?

Jeremiah 1:4-5
4 Then the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

The word of the Lord states that Jeremiah was called up, sanctified, and ordained to be a prophet before his mortal life began. It would make perfect sense that he was one of the sons of God who shouted for joy as well as all of the holy prophets who have come to earth. The point here is that spirit “sons of God” predate the earth. And as it is later revealed in Galatians:

Gal 4:7 “…and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.”

This brings us back to Psalms 82:1. I previously posted this scripture to discuss the divine council. Who does this council consist of? Once again we see God in the midst of beings called “gods”. Let’s take a closer look at the Hebrew and make a determination who these gods are.

A psalm of Asaph.
1 God (elohim) stands in the divine council (literally, council of El);
among the gods (elohim) He pronounces judgment.
2 How long will you (plural) judge unjustly,
showing favor to the wicked? Selah.
3 Judge the wretched and the orphan,
vindicate the lowly and the poor,
4rescue the wretched and the needy;
save them from the hand of the wicked.
5 They neither know nor understand,
they go about in darkness;
all the foundations of the earth totter.
6 I said, “you (plural) gods (elohim),
sons of the Most High (beney Elyon), all of you (plural);
7but you (plural) shall die as men do,
fall like any prince.
8 Arise O God (elohim),
judge) the earth,
for you shall inherit all the nations.

Here we have God standing in the midst of a council of gods. Who are these gods in the council? Verse 6 states that they are “sons of the Most High” or the “sons of God” (beney Elyon). Remember, they cannot be angels or “messengers” which is “mal’akim”. This is the God of Israel presiding over an assembly of or council of other gods (elohim).

You might want to argue that this is God the Father speaking to other members of the Trinity. However, you would probably end up committing heresy (according to your belief) in some obvious ways. First, not all members of the Trinity are “sons”. According to Orthodox belief, the Holy Spirit is not a son of God. Second, if God is speaking to the other members of the Trinity he is charging them with corruption. In verses 2-5, God is quite displeased with these other “elohim” in his council and has indicted them for their wicked rule. Third, if this is speaking of the Trinity it is having the Trinity sentenced to death because the gods are going to “die” like mortals. Further this can’t refer to Jesus Christ’s death since the death sentence isn’t restricted to just one son and the sentence is for personal guilt and corruption.

Further, these gods cannot be human judges as human judges are already mortal and would die like men anyway – no punishment needed. However, such human judges in Israel’s history had governed all of the nations of the earth. In verse 6, the point is clear that in response to their corruption of the elohim, they would be stripped of their immortality at God’s discretion and die like humans. Clearly these are “gods” just as the verse states.

Clearly these gods are not as powerful as Jehovah and he rules and has dominion over them. However, they are gods, and God created “sons” before Adam came to earth. These verses reveal that there are indeed “gods” in addition to the Father, Son and Holy Ghost and that the explanation of the Isaiah verses above stands in harmony with this interpretation.

There is no radical monotheism in the Bible. The Bible is quite comfortable, in fact, very declaratory in stating that “gods” plural in fact have existed before the foundations of the worlds were laid, and that these gods are in councils in which God stands as their ruler. Further, it is the destiny of mankind to return as “sons of God” “bene elohim” once again.

In Acts 17:28–29 we read:

For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

There is a “biblical connection between God and humanity based on the fact that "the word rendered 'offspring' by the King James translators is the Greek genos, which is cognate with the Latin genus and means 'family' or 'race,' or 'kind,' or, even, and most especially interesting, . . . 'descendants of a common ancestor.'"

God does not know any Gods or gods that are within the pantheon of false gods or idols that Israel had corrupted itself with. However, God (Jesus) knows many other Gods (the Father and Holy Ghost) who anointed him and in whose footsteps He follows. God also has an assembly of sons of Gods who predated the creation of the world; God has councils of gods who he interacts with and they with him. God the Son, further declared that all of us “are gods and children of the most high God” in defense of the connection between humans and God.

God knows of the real other gods all around him, has proclaimed them, and sanctified and ordained them as his sons.

He has promised that we can return to him once again as the “sons of God” to sit with Jesus Christ (God) as Jesus Christ sits with the Father (God) in his throne. (Revelation)

I apologize for the long post. As I said in the beginning of the post, I know that you hold different beliefs. My purpose here is to demonstrate that LDS theology is quite biblical – of course it does NOT agree with Ortrhodox Christianity but that isn’t the goal of LDS theology.

I hope you have a fuller understanding of how the Latter-day Saints believe and can show that their belief in the plurality of gods is quite literal and biblical.

The restored gospel of Jesus Christ offers to all men and women to become permanent participatory members of the heavenly assembly mentioned above. (DC 107:19)

It is quite interesting to note that the word “saints” translates into Hebrew “qedoshim” which refers to the sons of God, council etc.

Psalms 89:5-7
5 And the heavens shall praise thy wonders, O LORD: thy faithfulness also in the acongregation of the saints.
6 For who in the heaven can be compared unto the LORD? who among the sons of the mighty can be alikened unto the LORD?
7 God is greatly to be feared in the assembly of the asaints, and to be had in reverence of all them that are about him.

Because of the atonement of Jesus Christ, all of us have the opportunity to have faith in God, follow him and after this life, partake of his divine nature, live from eternity to eternity with God, and sit down with him in His throne.
That my friends, is the most wonderful and generous promise from the Most High God.

Blessings to all of you of health and happiness.

James

David, your dialogue skills are improving.

"Nothing does reason more right, than the coolness of those that offer it: For Truth often suffers more by the heat of its defenders, than from the arguments of its opposers."

- William Penn

I'll have to point you in the direction of a real good thread buried deep on these boards one of these days. Right now it takes too much effort to find, and I'm semi-retired this month.

Regards also to Parker and James. Parker, I hope your son is well.

GB

Hi Parker,

you said,

" personally think it is not wise to build a doctrinal position from one or two passages of scripture, so although I agree with the NRSV translation, I'm not sure where it leads (particularly after reading some of the commentary"

I couldn't agree with you anymore than that. This is why it's still up in the air for me on how to explain away Isaiah 44:8. If there is a council of "Gods" then why does God say He doesn't know no other "Gods"? Maybe it's me that is unsure about how this council of "Gods" works. Are they impersonal Gods that do not speak to each other or even know each other but somehow form what is called the Godhead? I really don't know. But what I do know is that God says He knows no other God. If I pre-suppose that there is a council of seperate Gods, then why doesn't the God who is speaking in Isaiah not know the other ones? I'm sure an argument can be made in context that God is speaking about false gods, but why then didn't He state that they are false, but He does know the other "gods" in His council? And then why didn't He say that those are false gods, but then state that He does know other ones that are real that are in this "divine council"? But that's not what He said. He knows no other God. He has no knowledge of the existence of any other God anywhere. Or does God not have infinite knowledge?? I'm sure that can't be, so I'm stuck with my original interpretation of Psalm 82 and Isaiah 44:8 makes sense now. See?

I do want to talk to you about the "heir" thing in a minute. I'm not sure what this has to do with the council of gods in Psalm 82. But what I do know is where we differ on what it means to be "sons of God". This meaning to me is exactly what you posted in Galatians. "For ye are all the children of God BY FAITH in Christ Jesus.." I know your beliefs are that we are literal born pre-existant beings. But of course as you know already I do not believe that. But here's something else...

Eph 1:5 5 he predestined us [2] for "ADOPTION" as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.

If we are literal children of God by means of sexual relations with a goddess wife, then how are we adopted?

Just a quick statement on my beliefs on this subject. I do have to run. I believe (according to scripture) that we who have faith in Jesus then become children of God. It is by adoption, meaning God chooses us and we have to accept Him, in order for us to be called His children and recieve eternal life. We then become heirs as Christ did in the resurrection. Not heirs of becoming gods, but heirs of the kingdom of heaven and heirs of eternal life in Christ Jesus. This that we inherit is not what we deserve. We are sinners and deserve of eternal damnation. But by faith in Jesus we then become heirs of the resurrection as did Jesus. I can't imagine a better thing to inherit than eternal life with our Lord in worship and praise of Him. All by faith in Jesus and His sacrifice. So quick sum up; we do not deserve to be heirs of anything but hell. We are born sinners, and naturally disobey God. No one is good. But by faith in Jesus we then become children of God and heirs to eternal life in the resurrection of our souls to Him.

Have a wonderful day you guys. I'll catch up with you all later. Peace.

Your buddy,

David

James, David, and Ghostbuster:
Greetings once again--so good to have your insights. I have a few simple comments on the most recent quite deep topic.

I thought today about Galations 3:26 & 29 and 4:7, "For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus... And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise... Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ."

In my view, Psalms 82 is an incomplete scriptural passage (because it does not seem to complete the thought in verses 7 and 8); with several possible interpretations that could seem plausible. The major messages I glean from it are very common to the Old and New Testaments: (1) God wants His children to do justice to the afflicted, needy, and fatherless by delivering them and by not allowing the "wicked" (who often are in leadership roles) to "judge unjustly" through ignoring the needs of that particular group. (2) God is the pre-eminent, righteous judge of all.

I personally think it is not wise to build a doctrinal position from one or two passages of scripture, so although I agree with the NRSV translation, I'm not sure where it leads (particularly after reading some of the commentary).

I cited the Galatians verses because I think they enlarge an understanding about being "heirs" of God's "inheritance" as truly His children, though this is only made possible because of Jesus Christ, who would have been the only rightful heir if it hadn't been for the atonement. Because of the atonement, Abraham is an heir along with those who become the "seed of Abraham" through the covenant of the gospel.

Where David and Ghostbuster differ greatly is in defining what Christ's true disciples (the "seed of Abraham") are "heirs" to receive. I think the answer to that question is quite clear in the scriptures, but evidently it must not be so clear since the two of you define it so differently. (How do you define it, by the way? I'm still not quite clear on that question.)

Those are my rather incomplete thoughts. I do think the message about delivering the poor and the fatherless is an absolute imperative from our loving God.

'So good to hear from each of you, and to feel your genuinity and comraderie. 'All the best, kind friends.

Hey hey all my online buddies!

GB, what's up bro. I know what you mean. I feel like I spend way too much time here myself. I have been limiting myself lately and concentrating on a few other things in my life. I just thought I would jump in for good old times sake. I would love to hear your input though. But of course if you feel better hanging out watching, feel free. Thanks for stopping by. :)

James,

I know you still have hope in me changing my views to yours but it just won't happen. I feel the same way. I feel a sense of hope that one day you will come to the true gospel. Of course I mean this in a friendly way as I'm sure you do as well with the "restored gospel".

Parker,

Good to hear from you too. I must say, after such a long period of time in discussion with you all I have learned one very important lesson. To not get frustrated and become an ignorant butthead anymore. I'm new to the apologetics arena and in my studies of apologetics. I must say that the dialogue that we have engaged ourselves in has been quite fierce sometimes. I would ask that you and James forgive me for that. Of course we will disagree on many issues but I do intend to defend my faith to the fullest and the best way possible as you will do the same, I assume. But overall, thank you all for these discussions because it is by these discussions that I have learned so much on how to share the gospel with so many personalities that we are faced with every day. Thank you all for that. I think it is discussion and debate that allows us to really examine our faiths and to grow in that faith as well. I hope to continue as we always have been, but with a little less ignorance that I have portrayed in the past. Sorry ya'll! Anyway, have a great evening. I'm not on here as much as I used to be so I'll check in tomorrow and just see how you all are doing. Take care.

Later Homies!

David

whew, looks like my writing skillz' are already getting rusty.

"I trying"?

Ah well :)

-later

well...well... what have we here...

I will follow this conversation as time permits but I won't engage no matter how tempting.

I trying a self-imposed "blogging fast" for September. I've been spending a little to much time online.

I'm sure you all know how that is sometimes ;)

- regards

James and David,
So good to hear from each of you! I consider it a privilege and a technological marvel that we can plumb the depths of our thinking processes through sharing insights and perspectives from anywhere on this globe. In effect, we can counsel together and move forward a step in understanding by sharing. I respect and admire you both.

I have had some thoughts, but I think I need to still think about this passage in more depth before I commit to "paper"--so I'll add my perpective tonight. 'Hope all is well in your families.

Hi David:

I am having a great day - busy but very nice. I would like to respond to your questions which I believe are very pertinent and important.

If you're patient I should be able to respond in the next 24 hours or so.

Also, I am still holding out hope that I can convince you over to our position so you'll consider the restored gospel in the true light that it resides within.

However, I am also fine with the idea that we can agree to disagree but along the way we can gain a better understanding of one another's beliefs in the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost who we both recognize as the Godhead or Trinity in your case.

More to follow,

James

Hello James,

I'm sure our argument won't get too far in convincing one another, but hey...let's defend our faiths shall we??

By the way, hope your having a good day.

Couple questions to establish really quick.

Does God have infinite knowledge?

If so, then if there were a divine council of seperate "Gods" then why doesn't he know them?

Of course James, a divine council can be taken as a literal expression of meaning several Gods, but a council can also be taken as the three persons of the Godhead (not seperate Gods) but one God in three persons forming a Godhead. I know we are both aware of God using a plural form of description and singular as well. So a council can suggest a plural form of Gods, but Trinity wise, this plural form of Gods can be one singular God in the Godhead of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

But it doesn't make much sense to me that God would say He knows no other gods if indeed this council were made up of several "Gods". Doesn't this seem contradictory?

Thanks.

David

David:

Here's an interesting parallel to Pslams 82 from early Christianity:

"For we cast blame upon Him, because we have not been made gods from the beginning, but at first merely men, then at length gods; although God has adopted this course out of His pure benevolence, that no one may impute to Him invidiousness or grudgingness. He declares, "I have said, Ye are gods; and ye are all sons of the Highest." But since we could not sustain the power of divinity, He adds, "But ye shall die like men," setting forth both truths--the kindness of His free gift, and our weakness, and also that we were possessed of power over ourselves. For after His great kindness He graciously conferred good [upon us."
(Irenaeus, "Against Heresies V.38:3," The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 1:521-522)

Early Christians taught that we are first created as men and then later as gods (we become elohim) but that WE first will die like men - this is a direct parallel to the progression of men to become gods (elohim).

Of course, this is foreign to Orthodox Christianity but not foreign to ancient Biblical theology, Early Christian theology, biblical studies and LDS theology.

Comments?

Thanks,

James

Dear Parker:

I trust you are busy with family and all of life's priorities. I wondered if you had time to comment on a quote from a bible scholar. Here's the quote:

A psalm of Asaph.
1 God (elohim) stands in the divine council (literally, council of El);
among the gods (elohim) He pronounces judgment.
2 How long will you (plural) judge unjustly,
showing favor to the wicked? Selah.
3 Judge the wretched and the orphan,
vindicate the lowly and the poor,
4rescue the wretched and the needy;
save them from the hand of the wicked.
5 They neither know nor understand,
they go about in darkness;
all the foundations of the earth totter.
6 I said, “you (plural) gods (elohim),
sons of the Most High (beney Elyon), all of you (plural);
7but you (plural) shall die as men do,
fall like any prince.
8 Arise (the command is singular), O God (elohim),
judge (the command is singular) the earth,
for you (singular) shall inherit all the nations.

Despite the fact that it makes people uncomfortable, the text means what it says.4 In Psalm 82:1, the first elohim must be singular, since the Hebrew grammar has the word as the subject of a singular verb. The second elohim must be plural, since the preposition in front of it (“in the midst of”) requires more than one. You can’t be “in the midst of” one person. And according to Psalm 82:1, the singular God (elohim) of Israel presides over an assembly or council of other gods (elohim).5 Verse six makes it perfectly clear that these other elohim are the sons of the God of Israel. In that verse God himself is speaking (“I said”) to the other elohim of that divine council, and he addresses them with the plural “you.” He says point-blank: “you are gods (elohim), all of you.” The fact that he is speaking to a group (plural elohim) is made certain even in the English, since God also calls them “sons of the Most High.” I made the observation above that the Hebrew word for angels is mal’akim (literally, “messengers”), an entirely different term than occurs for the sons of God. If one still insisted against the inspired textual evidence that the two should be identified, you’d still need to explain why angels are called gods in light of Psalm 82:6.

Some who object to the obvious meaning of the text may assert that this psalm is actually describing God the Father speaking to the other members of the Trinity. This view results in heresy here, in some very obvious ways. First, not all the members of the Trinity are “sons.” The Holy Spirit is not the Son of God or a son of God. Second, if the passage has the Trinity in mind, then God is charging them with corruption! Verses 2-5 are quite clear that God is displeased with these other elohim in his council and has indicted them for their wicked rule. Third, this view would also have the Trinity sentenced to death! They would die like mortals (“as men do”). This can’t refer to the
death of Christ for three reasons: (a) the death sentence isn’t restricted to just one son of God; (b) the death sentence is for personal guilt and corruption; (c) the Son (note the capitalization) who is God’s own essence and uncreated, is superior to the other sons of God (more on that in a moment). Fourth, it is evident from the last verse that the judgment of the sons of God, these other elohim, has something to do with God’s reclamation of the nations of the earth. The implication is that the sons of God have been ruling the earth and doing it wickedly, and so they must be removed for God’s rule to come to full fruition. In other words, they are an impediment or a nuisance (or at best a disappointment). Certainly not the way we’d want to (or can) look at the Trinity.

But what about the view that the elohim upon whom God has placed a death sentence are human rulers? This, too, is incoherent. Ask yourself some questions of the text. What is the scriptural basis for the idea that God presides over a council of humans that governs the nations of the earth? Some commentators who reject the face-value meaning of Psalm 82 like to argue that Israel’s council of seventy elders is in view here—that God is judging Israel’s judges or elders for their corruption. This makes little sense, since at no time in the Scriptures did Israel’s elders ever have jurisdiction over all the nations of the earth. In fact, as we’ll see in the next chapter, the situation is exactly opposite—Israel was separated from the nations to be God’s own possession and focus of his rule. Moreover, since when do the corrupt decisions of a group of humans make the foundations of the earth totter (v. 5)? Lastly, if these elohim are humans, why are they sentenced to die “like humans”? This is nonsensical, and is defeated by the grammar and structure of the Hebrew text.6 It would be akin to sentencing a child to grow up, or a dog to bark, or a human being to breathe. The point of verse 6 is that, in response to the corruption of the elohim, they will be stripped of their immortality at God’s discretion and die like humans die. A clear contrast is set up in the text."

From http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/Introduction%20to%20the%20Divine%20Council%20MTIT.pdf

The recent work by some Bible scholars is nothing short of remarkable.

Long before these biblical studies came into being, Joseph Smith accurately identified that the "divine council" existed before the world was made, operates today and that this truth had been lost to the Second Temple Israel and Orthodox Christianity.

More slam dunks for Joseph Smith and his evidence of his prophetic gift from Elohim.

Best to you,

James

Hi again David:

I hope all is well with you and your family. I am glad that you are defending your belief in how your interpret the "one true God". You made some logical leaps in your post that are beyond the text of the Bible that I'd like to discuss if willing.

We don't need to rehash the Isaiah chapters as others including myself have proven beyond a doubt that the Isaiah chapters do not speak to the issue of beings like God. When God speaks that there is not "other" God beside him, he IS speaking among the "false gods" that ancient Israel had worshipped. The Isaiah chapters do not speak to the nature of God in regard to the LDS concept of the Godhead or to the trinty doctrine. Either way, the context for the Isaiah chapters does not touch about God's nature in regard to persons, personages, beings, etc. They are statements made in to compare the "false idols" of Israel and the true living and breathing God of Israel.

David, we know that you don't accept this since it completely refutes ANY evidence you have for radical monotheisim (only one being like God in the universe).

First, your quotation of strongs concordance and the definition of elohim did not respond or refute reality that the Bible has been translated as thus:

"God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment” (Psalm 82:1 New Revised Standard Version, NRSV)."

David, the LDS Church didn't translate the NRSV. The bible scholars who translated Psalms 82:1 are fully capable of rendering the translation accurate.

Second, you made a leap from the text to your commentary regarding the Protestant interpretation of the doctrine of the plurality of gods, which of course we know you reject. But this is that conversation. My post was about the translation of the NRSV ( a non-LDS translation) that shows the Hebrew revealing that there is a "divine council".

Now a council is comprised of living and breathing beings. And as I recall, Jesus is God and he also died like men, but HE is NOT a false God, right? So it stands to reason that these "gods" could also die like men and not be "false gods" or idols.

David, I have to make a confession before we go much further. I baited you somewhat here. I have been reading about the recent Orthodox Christian scholar admission that anciently Israel believed in and taught the divine council of gods - and that God the Father is the head of the council - similiar to what Abraham testified to in the Book of Abraham.

Now, of course, Orthodox Scholars have not accepted the Book of Abraham as scripture. However, they have verfied that ancient Israel (faithful) taught that there is a divine council of gods and that the Bible used to contain more about it and that radical monotheism snuffed it out.

Further, Max Weber is a trained and loyal Christian scholar (which you cannot dismiss simply because he presents evidence that calls into question radical monotheism) who has produced a scholarly work that is peer reviewed. In other words, if he was wrong, the scholarly community would have disproven him and his work would not be recognized.

Anyway, there is more to follow. I would like your take on the NRSV however.

Are you saying that the term "divine council" is a false translation? If not, does the council exist according to God's will or against it? Is it Satanic or divine?

Best to you,

James

Parker and James,

Hello again. I just wanted to check in and say hi. I see someone else has caught on and is challenging you. I want to put in my input if you don't mind. Especially concerning the word "elohim".

James, do you know ALL the translations for this word? I see psalm 82:1 is the verse at hand and how it is claimed that God has a council of gods.

Here's the verse,

God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. (KJV) I see why anonymous brought up the different translation. The one you said sounded better for your point. But let's find truth shall we?

But here it is in Hebrew

"'elohiym natsab 'edah 'el shaphat qereb 'elohiym"

Here are the definitions for "'el"

) god, god-like one, mighty one

a) mighty men, men of rank, mighty heroes

b) angels

c) god, false god, (demons, imaginations)

d) God, the one true God, Jehovah

2) mighty things in nature

3) strength, power

Here is 'eloyhim.

) (plural)

a) rulers, judges

b) divine ones

c) angels

d) gods

2) (plural intensive - singular meaning)

a) god, goddess

b) godlike one

c) works or special possessions of God

d) the (true) God

e) God

All this from Strong's Concordance.

You may or may not be aware that the word 'eloyhim can be used plural or singular.

Do you see how "'eloyhim" is used in singular God in the first word and plural "gods" in the last. And "'el" a derivitive from 'eloyhim to describe the mighty men.

So, according to the hebrew, 'eloyhim can be a false god or false gods as well.

"God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods."

In context this makes sense. The one (singular) God is among the mighty men (mighty meaning those who are considered like gods on earth) but the one true God is the Judge. V 6 says the 'they are gods' ('eloyhim plural). Who is? The mighty men? The judges of that day that are considered godlike by men? But who will judge them? The ONE true God, right? And what will happen to those 'gods'? V 7 says that they will die like mere men! What kind of gods die? False gods! So, James, of course it is false gods. This also makes sense considering that God said He knows no other god in Isaiah. One would think that if there was a council of "gods" then God would know them right? Or James, was He lying maybe?

The word "'eloyhim" is a very loose word that has several translations. Just like us english speakers. We can say that Buddha is a "god". But is he really? Do we really mean that he really is "god"??? No, but he's a false god that is god to someone. And he died like a mere man that he was and was judged by the one and only Judge.

There is no council of gods guys. Someone lied to you. Again, the interpretation of this part of scripture backs all the verses in the Bible indicating a "singular" God. And I've heard all the conspiracies concerning the early Israelites being polytheists. It's even recorded in the Bible that they worshipped false gods. What happened when they turned from the one true God? They were killed, exiled maybe?? Lost in battle? So in a way your right, the Israelites did worship false gods and were polytheists at times. Does that make it right? Nope! Obviously they continued to disobey God or their exile and many defeats would never have occured. I swear, God says so many times in the Bible that Israel has turned it's back on the one true God and they will be punished. Why because they turned into polytheists!

Again, James, your confusing the Trinity again. And so is your source. God is omnipresent. He can be anywhere and everywhere at one time. He was God the Father and the Son and the Spirit at the same time during Jesus' baptism. Three different personages, but both God. I know it's hard to grasp omnipresence, and that's why you say God is a man with flesh an bones, but that's not true and the Bible says it's not true. Sorry dude.

Besides the arguing again, hope all is well with you and yours. Have a wonderful labor day. Take care you all.

Much love to ya.

David

Dear Anonymous:

Why the hasty dismissal? If you re-read your post, you really didn't comment on the point I was making.

I find nothing in Psalms 82:1 to suggest that there are any "false gods" mentioned.

How can a "divine council" be false? God declares it "divine"? Does divine now mean "satanic" Anonymous?

Further the context of the next sentance is reflexive back to the "divine council"

That God resides among a divine council of gods in which he holds judgement.

Further the Hebrew Bible makes it clear that the gods refered to here are "elohim".

Many orthodox Christians nearly short circuit over these scriptures and cry "False gods!" "False gods!" Why? Because of the extreme radical monotheism that exists right now within Orthodox Christianity. Just google "radical monotheism" - you'll see what I mean.

The reason why we see these verses in the Old Testament showing up is because of the real truth that anciently Israel and other peoples of God and prophets such as Abraham had this divine knowledge.

Consider what one Orthodox Bible scholar has to say about Abraham and polytheism:

"The grammatical forms in Abraham's address (Gen 18) to the divine epiphany of the three men would seem to make it probable that the singular of the address did not preclude the possibility of polytheistic conceptions." The trinitarian hypothesis is vitiated by at least four considerations: (1) the triunity of Yahweh is definitely weakened when two of the divine beings depart for Sodom (18:22), and Yahweh and Abraham are left behind negotiating the fate of the Sodomites; (2) it is clear that the divine plurality is more than three, if the other 'elohîm are the deities of the other nations; (3) even if there were only three gods, this is clearly tritheism and not one divine being with three persons; and (4) the persons of the Trinity are definitely not conceived as a divine council with God the Father as the supreme executive." (Max Weber, Ancient Judaism (Glencove: Free Press, 1952), p. 152.)

The final editors of the Hebrew canon were fervent monotheists but Hebrew scholars and researchers are now finding that early Israel and Moses himself were not radical monotheists at all.

Consider the last statement by Max Weber. That the ancient view of God was a "divine council with God the Father as the supreme executive".

This is LDS theology to a "T". It is the theology revealed to Joseph Smith and claimed by the LDS Church since the early 1830s.

Joseph Smith revealed that these truths were lost and so once again he turns out to be right.

Kind regards,

James

Anonymous,
Welcome! Glad you found something to chat about. You may have thought that because the LDS use the King James Version of the Bible that no other translations are looked at with interest. Not so! I've heard other translations quoted in LDS Sunday School gospel doctrine classes, as they sometimes provide new insights based on a closer proximity to the Greek or the Hebrew. You need not pat yourself on the back quite so quickly. If you'll read Brother Otterson's prior post concerning "Not Picking a Fight" and the many comments, particularly a dialogue between David and James toward the end, you'll at least become aware that the LDS beliefs are grounded in the Bible as thoroughly as are yours. Best to you in your studies and in doing as the Psalmist said, "All nations whom thou has made shall come and worship before thee, O Lord; and shall glorify thy name." (86:9)

James and Parker,

I would like to thank you both for your ongoing contribution to this blog. I am always engrossed in your comments and it is refreshing to hear your perspectives.

James - good find from jeff lindsay's page - I haven't come across that one yet, but it does give very interesting thoughts to the BOA that many tend to ignore.

Parker - great to know such a kind person as yourself. I wish you well in your endeavors as you truly exemplify a peaceful person.

God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment” (Psalm 82:1 New Revised Standard Version, NRSV).

Of course now you use a different translation than the KJV, huh? Smart, dude. Use the translation that best fits your beliefs. But then say the KJV is the only trusted one. Yeah dude, nice try.

Read it in context. FALSE GODS! When you compare the one real God to the false council of gods on earth, who holds judgement?

The one real God!! Hey now you have a proper translation instead of an out of context mis-representation!!

I'm glad I found this mormon site. It's so easy to prove you all wrong. Sorry, but you really need to know the real Jesus. I wish you luck on that.

James,
Thanks for your kind, informative post, and the added insights. I know several of us have appreciated the depth of your knowledge and your adeptness at presenting a step-by-step explanation of doctrinal concepts.

Your comments brought several thoughts to my mind. One, I have learned much from many on these threads, particularly coming to appreciate more fully the statement by Elder Orson F Whitney and quoted by Elder Benson in 1972, that for some who "remain unconverted..., the beauties and glories of the gospel being veiled temporarily from their view for a wise purpose... God is using more than one people for the accomplishment of His great and marvelous work... It is too vast." I have learned from David, Ghostbuster, Phaedrus, Karen, and others, and have found that it is easy to jump to conclusions about people before knowing what is in their heart--hence the need for restraint and allowing the "benefit of the doubt" as to where their viewpoint is coming from.

I have learned from Brother Otterson in being positive and not "dumping the whole load of hay," as Elder Maxwell noted in April 2004. I've seen how 1 Cor. 3:7 applies, in that God will "give the increase" according to His timetable and in His way, since I am naturally impatient and anxious to have a fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy that the gospel would increase across the earth "as the waters cover the seas."

It is so interesting to read the Psalms and find insights that show such depth that a full gospel knowledge seems to be the basis of the writings, with references to pure doctrines such as the one you noted, by allusions or by "glimpse" comments that are so profound. Imagine how King David must have wished he had sought and listened to counsel during his kingship. He would be one who would appreciate the "council of the Gods" in a very personal way.

Again, thanks for all your insights. Best to you and your family.

Hi Parker:

I really enjoyed your post to David about the BOA and your restraint in responding to David's false logic here. Further, your kindness in handling accusatory and ridiculous and unstudied claims is an inspiration to me. Thank you. I am afraid that over the years my run-ins with some of those “blinded by the craftiness of men” has caused me to allow my patience to run a bit thin.

Of course, there is no doubt there's a bit of mystery regarding which papyri fragment is the Book of Abraham and this is as far as most anti-mormon types will go in search of whether or not the Book of Abraham is authentic. I don't see any Christian groups seriously looking at the "text" of the Book of Abraham and comparing it to ancient writings to determine whether or not it agrees with what was taught about Abraham anciently. This demonstrates their hasty and unprincipled criticism of all things "Mormon" in my opinion.

When we do defend the Book of Abraham with scholarly reports, we are accused of merely engaging in "apologetics" and we are further ridiculed because our most harsh critics and enemies do not embrace these evidences. It's all quite laughable.

Here's a what-if: "What if we find details in the Book of Abraham that were revealed by the text when it was first published that were not known in Joseph Smith's day?"

If we see such details in Joseph Smith's "Book of Abraham" - details that reveal a connection with ancient texts, then what? Do we see a rush to rational reactions from Orthodox Christians? No.

When there is tangible evidence that Joseph Smith revealed something new that is true, how do the critics react? Silence.

For example, why don't we see any references to these works in anti-mormon or Christian apologetics:

* Traditions about the Early Life of Abraham
* The Apocalypse of Abraham (ancient document)
* The Testament of Abraham (ancient document)

Why don't wee hear anything substantial from the critics on these works?

Here's something interesting taken from "http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/boa.shtml.

Jeff Lindsay makes a list of differences between the Book of Abraham and the Bible. The list totals 23 issues - 23!

Then Jeff goes onto show how these 23 evidences have been correlated and substantiated with ancient texts about Abraham. Did Joseph Smith get 23 guesses right - all in a row?

Why don't critics of Joseph Smith and the Book of Abraham address these 23 evidences? My guess is they may be hiding behind the translation controversy and know about the 23 evidences but won't talk about them because it may destroy their credibility (priestcraft).

Further, what does it say about "Christian Theologians" of the 1840s when they don't know about these 23 other details about Abraham's life but Joseph Smith does?

As I am writing this, a scripture just came to mind:

"Surely the Lord God will do nothing, except he revealeth his secret to his servants the prophets." (Amos 3:7) Interesting word there – secret. You mean the Lord has secrets that he only shares with prophets? Very interesting.

Speaking of the text in the Book of Abraham and talk of divine councils, I wanted to get your take on a verse I was recently reading in the Bible:

“God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment” (Psalm 82:1 New Revised Standard Version, NRSV).

What I find striking is the translation of "divine council" and the doctrine that God has taken his place in the midst of a divine council of gods (not angels).

I wonder if our Catholic and Protestant Christian friends will declare that the Bible has NOT been translated correctly? (Big smiley face).

Best,

James

Lemuel,
In case you check back on this blog, I did read a couple of chapters of Brodie's book on Joseph Smith. It was interesting to note that she found several instances of people who believed that the Indians were a remnant of one the the "lost tribes of Israel", which is what I had supposed would be the case.

A sentence on page 46 caught my eye: "It may, in fact, have been Voice of the Hebrews that gave Joseph Smith the idea [for the Book of Mormon]." Then she goes on to write as though she knew this was the case. History--shmistory! I find it hard to believe that respected historians thought this was a legitimate history. I guess the world was thirsty for an explanation about Joseph Smith that would undermine his credibility, and indeed she gave it to them, so they bought into it, hook, line, and sinker.

I'll read more of her book as I have the time, since I said I would when we were going to have a discussion about the credibility of the Book of Mormon. The more I read even from such people as Brodie, the stronger is my knowledge and witness that the Book of Mormon is exactly what it says it is. Peace to you, Lemuel.

David,
I went golfing with my younger children--fun time. Getting back to you, I understand why you would draw the conclusions you've drawn, and I don't negate that you have valid logic. But what non-LDS scholar would put their reputation on the line by appearing to give credence to a different approach to the questions involving the possible legitimacy of the BOA? They would have everything to lose, and nothing to gain by taking such a position.

The Rosetta stone was an important discovery. It gave a translation as of about 200 BC. Abraham lived at about 2000 BC. To think the meanings of all hieroglyphics remained unchanged for 1800 years seems a bit of a stretch. Then, too, think of how religious rites and symbols are interpreted by the people who have the rites, and how those rites can change over time. Religion has not been a constant--it has been a variable--in ancient history. But this change probability is not brought up as something to be aware of when translations are discussed by scholars. I would ask, why not? Because a scholar has to take a firm position so that they gain the admiration and credibility of their peers. That's what they care about most of all. If they were to allow for some level of uncertainty in their translation, they would fear being ridiculed by their peers.

David, I appreciate your honest concern. I want you also to know that I learned a great deal from you and Ghostbuster, and I admire and respect each of you and your beliefs that you hold so dear. I think they will provide you with a rich and fulfilling life.

I still would be delighted to know about more than your parents' ancestry. I hope your children appreciate the heritage they have, for the story of your parents having come together from such different backgrounds must be fascinating.

Finally, I assume you will probably think I'm still "deluded" about the BOA, but I find it fascinating that Abraham and Joseph were such important historical figures in the ancient Middle East and Egypt. I think when all of the history is known, it will be absolutely fascinating. These men were brilliant, and they were illuminated by the Holy Spirit, which gave them knowledge far more in-depth than their peers or the Egyptians whom they lived among.

Much joy and peace to you and your family.

Hello Parker,

Hope all is well.

I am having a hard time with this BOA issue. On a personal level, it is hard for me to want to find fault in what you believe due to your specific nature as a kind and well responded individual. I sometimes wish that our beliefs were not so different. I really wish it were possible to be able to convince me that the BOA is true. Because if evidence suggests that J.S. fraudulently translated the BOA, then what else did he fraudulently translate? The BOM maybe? I find great difficulty in knowing about the evidence against J.S. and worrying about if you are decieved or not. This being personal due to us having such a continuous and friendly conversation. I feel like I kind of got to know you, you know what I mean? So why would I want anyone who I got to know on more of a personal level to be decieved if there is evidence for this deception? I hope you understand my reasoning.

I've actually googled and yahooed "evidence FOR the BOA" to see if I can find anything (besides an lds apologetic site) that has any evidence FOR the BOA. Not one non-lds site to be found concerning archaeological or egyptological evidence for the BOA, only against. There is a fascinating website that shows pictures of the actual papryi used to translate the BOA and compared them to the BOA. Then it shows what the translations really are. I'm wondering, have you ever heard of the Rosetta Stone?

If not, it was discovered in 1799 and has been the key to unlocking the mysteries of egyptological translations. Because of this find, it is fairly easy to translate egyptian writing these days. This is how egyptologist know what that papryi was saying. Now if it is fragmented or incomplete is irrelevant. From what the professionals say is that they can translate them easily as the book of the dead or some kind of egyptian burial rites book. Nothing at all what J.S. said they were. Who do I believe Parker? If professional hebrew translators found that the OT is nothing at all similiar to the OT we have today, then why would I believe it anymore? But that is not the case. We know the Bible to be translated correctly because the Hebrew is translatable, just like the egyptian. But the egyptian is not any form of "reformed" egyptian and has nothing to do with Abraham or anything about early Hebrew culture or religion.

I just want to know who's lying here? The LDS or the professional and scholarly world? That's all. Who is lying in this instance? And why would I believe the LDS over the professional and scholarly world?

David,
Jim probably knows more about this than I do, but I suppose I may have an explanation that perhaps isn't in current evaluations of this subject. You've seen Fiddler on the Roof, and heard "The Rumor" song. Ideas, explanations, beliefs passed on from generation to generation are not necessarily pure in retaining the original meaning. Imagine what can happen over twenty generations or more. The Egyptologists are dealing with a snapshot in time when they take a papyrus heirogliphic writing and say, "this is what it means". They would have no basis of knowing whether there was an earlier meaning. Also, relics passed on either in their original state or as a copy, could become a collection of items from various "ancestors" or associates of ancestors, so just because the Egyptologists say "this is from such and such a king" doesn't mean some of the relics couldn't have pre-dated that particular person. But the critics don't think about such things--it would weaken their argument.

Again, thanks for the kindness in your exchange, and I hope all is well with your family.

Actually Jim,

The question I need to ask you is this. Did professional egyptologists translate the BOA papryi as the book of the dead conflicting with J.S's translation?

Hold up a minute...

These papyri were claimed by Joseph Smith himself to be words from Abraham himself. The fascimiles that Joseph Smith claimed were "reformed egyptian" are on the lds website. If comparing these facsimiles to the original and having a professional egyptologist translate them, the egyptologist says that they are fragments from the book of the dead. Even when looking at these fascimiles you can tell it has something to do with the ancient pagan religions in egypt. Look on your own website.

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/abr/fac_1

Look at the other two. C'mon now. You expect anyone to believe that? Especially when trained egyptologists translate them as something way different from J.S. Can I ask you, were the egyptologist wrong?

And if professional egyptologist translate the papryi as something different, how can I logically conclude that the whole book is reliable? Or would it be more logical to conclude that this guy is a fraud and fraudulently translated this book of the dead into something that it is not and claiming it's from the God of the Bible?

Nope. Not logical to me.

David,

The error in logic is this:

1) There is not a 1:1 correlation between the entire papyri scrolls and the translated Book of Abraham. At least I don't believe anyone has claimed this. In other words, the Book of Abraham is a subset of what is found on the scrolls.

2) Only fragments of the papyri scrolls have been found. So the fact that an egypytologist says that the fragments and the Book of Abraham are not the same does not mean anything.

3) Concluding that the Book of Abraham is a fraud based on a few unrelated fragments therefore makes no logical sense.

David,
As Jim noted but critics always fail to point out, what has been examined in recent years is only part of the original papyri that was available to Joseph Smith. It was described by people who saw it, and there were more scrolls, at least one of which was very long, stretching across the room. Of course, an Egyptologist would say "I don't know anything about that--all I know is what I can see and examine." I have no idea whether the Chicago fire burned some of the papyri, but the source papyri are just not available from what was secured from the museum nor has anyone noted another place they could be.

I don't know why you would expect the writing in the Book of Mormon to match the writing in the Bible. Do you think God only speaks one language? Do you think the Book of Luke reads like Genesis? Do you think Paul's epistles read like either of those, or like the Book of Revelation? I can detect distinct writing styles in what John wrote, what Peter wrote, what Paul wrote, what Luke wrote, what Isaiah wrote, what Ezekiel wrote, etc. I think your saying the Book of Mormon doesn't read like the Bible actually strengthens the logic that it is neither plagiarized nor fraudulent, because in either of those cases, an author would attempt of course to mimic the Bible. What's more, as you really read the Book of Mormon those familiar with literary styles become aware when the writing style changes in the book--and lo and behold, it is when the author is another person!

But, David, thanks for reading some of the Book of Mormon. I'll be interested in how you feel as a father when you read about Lehi's and Nephi's dream of the tree of life in the first half of First Nephi. Best to you, my kind friend.

Jim,

How do I know from an outside lds source that there are only a "few" fragments?

Using a logical account as compared to the Bible. There are several "fragments" of our current day Bible that exist as well. What the evidence shows is that these fragments are consistent in their translations. For example, the dead sea scrolls. There are fragments of Isaiah. Of course written in hebrew they are translated to english and match up with our current Bibles.

Using this type of logic to determine evidence as compared to the BOA what can one conclude? Even if there are a few fragments remaining (if that is the truth) they have been translated by egyptologists as a book of the dead or book of breathings of some sort. Nothing close to what J. Smith translated. So comparing how evidence is taken logically, the Bible is reliable in termes of the "fragments" of evidence found as compared to the "fragments" which the BOA is founded upon. Again, logically speaking, why should I believe the BOA is truth when it has been found supremely false by experts in the field of egyptology. Tell me again how I am logically coming to a conclusion on the falsehood of the BOA?

David,

All that exists of the papyri are a few fragments compared to the original scrolls. For anyone to make a conclusion regarding authenticity based on such limited evidence is akin to saying that the Bible has one mistake or error, therefore the whole thing is a hoax. That seems like pretty flimsy logic to me.

Parker,

Hello my friend. I see the continuation of mormonism debates rages on. I wanted to let you know that I've been trying to read some of the BOM as of lately. I have to give you my spiritual opinion on the book. Of course you know that I am a Bible believing Christian. I believe the Bible to be God inspired and therefore when God speaks in the Bible I sense a particular personality within the context of the dialogue. Particularly in Isaiah since the Lord speaks so much to Isaiah. Of course throughout the Bible I sense the consistency of the Lord's personality in the dialogue. With the BOM, I just do not see the same personality as the God of the Bible. Of course this is a spiritual test and not really a debateable issue. I just thought I would share. I know we both believe in a personal God. Being that, I have learned to know God personally through His Word. Since I know God personally, I can tell the BOM is not from the same God. I know you don't feel this way, but I told you in previous discussions that I would try to read it more. Of course you will assume I'm reading it biasedly, but I don't feel that that is the case.

I know the post from someone was a little harsh earlier about the BOM and the BOA. But I can't seem to find any evidence for the BOA. I even found a website with photos of the BOA next to the papryi used. I keep finding evidence that egyptologists translated it as some book of the dead. I found a Dr. Aziz Atiya who found these papryi in I believe it was some museum in N.Y. Now, with all this evidence against the BOA, there is one question I ask myself. Why would the egyptologist lie? Why would he care if the BOA is true or not. I would believe he would care more for his reputation as an egyptologist than anything, right? Because what if he did lie and some other expert said that he was lying? It doesn't make sense. With all the evidence I've seen, I KNOW as in KNOWLEDGE by evidence that the BOA is a fraud. Of course I could listen to the apologetic side from the LDS, but of course they are the biased side and if they are based on lies, then why not lie about the evidence as well? With the evidence at hand, how can anyone conclude the BOA is not a fraud and from that fraud it is easy to conclude that J. Smith was a fraud as well. I'm sorry Parker, but I've tried to give mormonism some credit as we've been talking so long, but I cannot find one shred of logical or empirical evidence to support any of those books. It's not even the BOM that is the key here, I really think this BOA is the main problem. The evidence is sooo overwhelming that it is fraudulent, that I'm not sure how anyone could consider this a serious religious text, of course besides the Egypt pagan text that it really is.

I guess I just felt like responding to the guy who posted that stuff about the BOA. I think he/she is right though. The evidence is overwhelming. How can anyone expect to believe in the reliability of J. Smith after all the evidence? I really don't know.

Take care Parker.

Lemuel,
Since it is quite obvious that your method of reasoning is to say, "Anyone who doesn't agree with my point of view has their head in the sand," then we have no basis for a meaningful discussion. Have a good day, though.

Parker,

The reason I "troubled" myself is because I attended BYU and earned my undergraduate degree there. Are you going to be intellectually honest in our discussions or is it going to be more of the same head-in-the-sand discussions?

Lemuel,
I missed which "issue" you were referring to. For having read the Book of Mormon so many times, I really don't understand why you would have troubled yourself with listening to BYU professors. If you want to give me substantive observations, I'll give back substantive explanations.

Parker,

Not only have I read it multiple times, I have studied and picked it apart in depth and have sat at the feet of the best and brighest minds of mormonism at BYU's religion department and listened as they graced me with their analysis of the BofM. I didn't think you would have the courage or intellectual honesty to examine this issue. So TYPICAL of head-in-the-sand morgbots. YAWN!!!! Keep up the mental gymnastics.

Lemuel,
Not scared one bit. I just tire of the very thing you demonstrate--rhetoric without substance. Why should I waste my time, particularly to satisfy someone like you? The honest historian is tasked to present material in an unbiased way and let the reader draw their own conclusions. My reading of the Book of Mormon more than doubles yours, by the way. I'm not impressed at all. Why did you bother?

Parker said, "I would question if anyone who has seriously read and studied the Book of Mormon could then say, "that book is a fraud." Absolutely no way! Where is a book like it?"

Parker, I have read the BofM at least 20 times over the course of my life. I know it like the back of my hand. It is most definitely a fraud, and a sloppy fraud at that. 1st you say you will read Fawn Brodie's book and then you say someday you will read. Scared of what you might discover? Have some intellectual honesty and keep your word and read it. Are you being "honest in dealings with your fellow man?"

Lemuel 2,
By the way, your reference to "View of the Hebrews" shows a stretch in scholarship. I'd love to read a doctoral thesis on a comparison between the Book of Mormon and View of the Hebrews--looking at textual analysis, linguistic analysis, characterizations, plots, textual complexity, original new material, etc. I would be delighted for anyone seriously considering the Book of Mormon to read View of the Hebrews to get some texts from the Old Testament that corroborate the Book of Mormon's major premise of being a history of part of a lost tribe as a fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy.

I also am surprised there weren't other such works, because I firmly believe that when truth is being revealed to the earth (when it is the right time for God's unfolding of additional knowledge), then those people who are attuned in some way to the source of truth can get impressions that align with that additional knowledge. There would thus be "imperfect versions" that are partially true, and if a true prophet has used his/her agency to ask the questions that are unknown, then those who are ready to receive it can receive the revealed version that is divinely guided in full, through such a prophet.

Lemuel 2 wrote:

"I'm sure you'll check out the lds apologetics for some assurance. Of course they have an excuse for everything no matter how great the evidence"

riiiight.... because if they didn't have an explanation, then the LDS would REALLY be wrong... huh?

Lemuel 1 and Lemuel 2,
I just read Marvin Hill's review of Fawn Brodie's book, not having the book itself at hand. Maybe I'll read her book someday, but I quickly tire of conjecture and conclusions drawn from assumptions, and it is evident reading a single sentence that her book does that. That isn't history, it is historical essay--fine for the person looking for an essay that tells about the beliefs and attitudes of the person writing the essay, but not for one interested in the history per se. Rough Stone Rolling would be the better book to read--I've read some of it. Bushman also draws in some conjecture and interpretation of why the events seem to happen in the way a historian observes them as they sift through the material, but Brodie also has the Jefferson book to discredit her objectivity.

As for the Book of Abraham, show me all (100%) of the materials described as the papyrus that Joseph Smith worked from, then demonstrate to me conclusively that the earliest known papyrus writings from Egypt could not have been pre-dated by earlier source material; when you have done this thoroughly, then I'll consider you have done your homework on the question implied about the translation's authenticity, and I'll look at the results of scholarship looking at all of the material in question. If the scholarship begins with premises, then I have an obligation as a student to look at the premises and see if they are unquestionably valid.

Parker said, "I would question if anyone who has seriously read and studied the Book of Mormon could then say, "that book is a fraud." Absolutely no way! Where is a book like it?"

I know the answer to the question "Where is a book like it?"

It's called "A View of the Hebrews" written by an Ethan Smith in the early 1800's (no relation to Joseph). If you read that book and then the Book of Mormon, it would be plain as day to see how J.S. wrote that fiction. Of course if you've never heard of this Parker, then I'm sure you'll check out the lds apologetics for some assurance. Of course they have an excuse for everything no matter how great the evidence. Especially that book of abraham. C'mon now. Egyptian funeral texts??? Book of Breathings anyone?? Nice try Joe Smith!

Gadianton (renamed Lemuel),
Thanks for the honest, forthright, candid and direct observations. Since you pose no threat to either the government or to my family personally, I don't agree with the notion of "Gadianton" being an appropriate pseudonym, so I'll call you Lemuel.

I actually thought the Time article was only unbalanced in about three respects: (1) The use of the word "requires" instead of a more correct word such as "encourages" or "teaches" with respect to tithing. (2) A clarification would have brought balance noting that the church has moved away from the Brigham Young-era isolationism into a refreshing do-business-with-the-best-companies approach. (3) A change in tone to not create an underlying impression that the church is trying to be protectionist in such areas as agribusiness. It might also have helped to analyze why a church that considers the welfare needs of both its members and the larger society as something worthy of concern and resources. We have the examples of Katrina and other cases to show that foresight and adeptness/agility in emergency response and long-term preparedness are not qualities to be ashamed of. "If only" government leadership had such foresight.

As to Church history, having tried some little bit of creative writing during my life, I would question if anyone who has seriously read and studied the Book of Mormon could then say, "that book is a fraud." Absolutely no way! Where is a book like it? The story of its having been written by a farm lad would be viewed as preposterous if he had said he had written it by himself, which is why some detractors drag Sidney Rigdon into the writing of it. But no way Rigdon could have written anything remotely like it--not intelligent enough, even if he had been around at the time it was written.

But I'll tell you what, if it makes you feel good, I'll read Fawn Brodie's book this week, and get back to you with comments. I haven't read Nibley's book on the subject, so I won't have been prepped--I'll read it cold.

Again, thanks for your fair challenge and directness, Lemuel.

Parker,

If the Time magazine article had conclusions friendly to your Church would you feel differently about it? Of course you would - you would be crowing about how balanced it was and how we should hold it up as an authoritative source. But, since you don't like the conclusions, you discard it out of hand. This is a typical mormon response. Parker, I would encourage you to engage in an honest study of your religion and history without the preconceived conclusion that it is "true." You might be surprised at the results of an objective analysis. But you won't do that, will you? Afraid of what you might discover?

I recommend you start with the book No Man Knows My History by Fawn Brodie. I don't expect you have the intellectual honesty it would take to engage in an objective study.

Concerned,
Thanks for the more straightforward tone. To end on a scripture that gives a deeper glimpse of things, "All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes; we cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter."

Oops, make that "Paul erred 2000 years ago".

Parker,

Sorry, the physical resurrection of anyone does not compute scientifically or theologically i.e. Heaven for one thing is a spirit state as concluded by Aquinas. Also the scriptural reports don't "jive" with respect to the required attestations. Paul errored about the second coming 2000 years ago. It "ain't" going to happen now or in the future either again because there is no place for all those bodies to go. And Earth is going "bye-bye" with next astroid collision and/or in few billion years when the Sun goes "boom".

And I don't believe there was any Mormon rebuttal to the Time article since the information was given to Time by the 1997 Mormon "profiteer"/fortune teller.

Concerned,
Despite anonymous' caution (which I respect) I think perhaps you have felt misunderstood during your life and thus you have taken a pretty narrow view of your fellow beings. Much prejudice in the world is due to misunderstanding--a lack of knowledge brought on by either not having become acquainted with pertinent information, or the deliberate misrepresentations of others. Surely you haven't thought that the Time article you cited was a valid refernce from which to draw conclusions? The author's job is to sell a story to their editor, and the editor's job is to see that the magazine sells. No balance needed, unjustifiable conclusions not only acceptable but expected from a popular magazine. Consider the source!

I worked for Lockheed for 17 years among great people. Your notion that Mormonism is a sort of "closed shop" baffles me. Was the Time article your only source for that conjecture?

I don't know if you ever believed in the literal resurrection of Christ, but when you drift in among LDS believers, among others, you are talking to people who sincerely and absolutely know through a divine witness born of the Holy Ghost, that there was indeed a literal resurrection of Christ and through Him "all shall be made alive" literally by a universal resurrection. This witness is confirmed by both the Bible, which the LDS literally believe and do not try to explain away, and by the Book of Mormon, which is a second witness for that literal resurrection and for the coming resurrection of all people.

You could receive this same witness through sincere, open-minded study and heartfelt prayer, and it would change your life. For one thing, it would allow you to recognize that people have other, much purer motives than economic self-interest, that are more compelling in their inner soul and provide a greater source of satisfaction than wealth or fame.

The apostasy happened, yes. Constantine took advantage of those conditions of apostasy, yes. But things are different now, and there is an opportunity for the kind of mistrust and misunderstanding you display to be swept away by new knowledge. Best to you in further study that will allow for you a healthy change in perspective.

Anon,

Do you work for a Mormon firm? Do you believe that there was an angel Moroni?

The fact that so many on this blog are giving time and credence to "Concerned" (CCNL) is mind boggling to me. As Phaedrus clearly said, the offensive comments are "patently erroneous".

I have grown accustomed to skipping directly over this person's comments as it is evident that he/she does not even know how to make a valid argument. All this person is trying to do is stir up anger in people.

As has been said many times in the past WHO CARES what the church puts stock into. I think it's great they are budgeting and investing tithe payers monies well so that it will go much further. I, as a full tithe payer, honestly could care less what they do with the money because I trust them whole heartedly what they will do with the money. I've seen what they do to help people out, the sick, afflicted, poor, those in need of food, instruction, education, paying for buildings, etc. Ultimately I choose to be a tithe payer on my own. Before I was a member of the LDS church I was catholic and I was a full 10% tithe payer there also. If you are not a member of the church or are not a tithe payer to your church, then so be it; but why persecute me because I feel comfortable giving my tithes to what I feel is right? Do I barge into your personal life to condemn you of all the purchases you make that are not wise investments? Even if the church didn't spend my tithing money the right way, I would still pay 10%, because the Lord has instructed me to do so - see Malachi 3. That's me. I do have a brain and I do use it. You make it appear as though we are mindless idiots who have no idea what we're doing. Please don't try to tell me how I should or should not pay money. If you are offended that the church has so much money, then you need to learn how to DEAL WITH IT. Mormons aren't members because of money and I can ASSURE you of that.

Phaedrus:

References to support your claims??

References supporting the opposite,
i.e. Mormons are Mormons because of Mormon Money!!!! (and employment)

THE GREAT MORMON MONEY MACHINE
http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon392.htm

an excerpt:

"You demand a whopping ten percent of each client's income for their policy premiums and...

You publicly humiliate anyone who questions you or fails to pay. This power is so great that...

You can even ban clients from attending things like family weddings!

And from Time Magazine,
KINGDOM COME
SALT LAKE CITY WAS JUST FOR STARTERS
The Mormons' True Great Trek Has Been To Social Acceptance And A $30 Billion Church Empire

and http://www.lds-mormon.com/time.shtml

excerpt:
"Even more unusual, most of this money is not in bonds or stock in other peoples' companies but is invested directly in church-owned, for-profit concerns, the largest of which are in agribusiness, media, insurance, travel and real estate. Deseret Management Corp., the company through which the church holds almost all its commercial assets, is one of the largest owners of farm and ranchland in the country, including 49 for-profit parcels in addition to the Deseret Ranch. Besides the Bonneville International chain and Beneficial Life, the church owns a 52% holding in ZCMI, Utah's largest department-store chain. (For a more complete list, see chart.) All told, TIME estimates that the Latter-day Saints farmland and financial investments total some $11 billion, and that the church's nontithe income from its investments exceeds $600 million."

And the employees and managers of these firms are??

Parker:

I'd say it was "An Inexhaustible Treasure" myself. Could the "torrent of evident brainlessness" be a treasure map? Where is king Solomon's mine anyhow? Would that be hell?

"Render to Caesar that which is Caesars, and to God that which is God's." Tithes - taxes paid to God. Since God is nowhere to be found we'll just have to do the rendering to God's representatives.

The Roman emperor Constantine the great was both Caesar and God. He is the inventor of tithing. Could you tell me why? Wasn't taxes enough?

Ronald Regan, America's greatest president, said "I'll cut taxes, increase spending and balance the budget." George HW Bush described that as Voodoo economics. The emperor Constantine made and kept the same promise. Miracles never cease.

Regan increased the debt by more than all previous presidents combined going back to Washington. Just plain W Bush has now outdone Regan. "The torrent of evident brainlessness" is not confined to the internet. Is there any of it in God's houses, churches? Let's call Pat Robertson and find out who won the 2008 election.

Those who speak to supernatural beings are above question? We may not ask from whence the beings the speak to came or present evidence? Will the rebellion against God never cease?

CCNL:

As one who believes that all theistic belief systems suffer from "flawed histories," I have to say that to then assume that Mormons sustain their beliefs, en masse, out of economic self-interest would likely be offensive to LDS, were it not so patently erroneous. Mormons sustain their beliefs on the same cognitive and emotional scaffolding upon which all such beliefs are hung.

I gave a radio interview in NYC a couple of weeks ago in which, when he found out I was former LDS, the Christian host began to virulently assert that Mormon beliefs were somehow qualitatively stranger than those of his faith. I pointed out to him that this is not the case, there is just as much magical thinking in older strains of Christianity as in LDS dogma. The only difference is quantitative, in terms of the number of years the world has been exposed to Mormonism, vice Catholicism, Lutheranism etc.

And, if you were to go anywhere in which Mormons were the decided minority, you would find no less fervently held beliefs despite the absence of economic benefit for holding them.

Bgone,
The torrent of evident brainlessness on the internet is mind-boggling.

Some, many, most even say that Moses was the greatest man that ever lived. I beg to differ. The greatest man that ever lived was a Mormon, John Browning. John is a God to many.

John has received more prayers of thanksgiving than all the other Gods combined. He's the God of, "there are no atheists on the battle field."

Who's John Browning you ask? Have you ever heard of the BAR, (Browning Automatic Rifle) 30 caliber machine gun, wondered who invented those things sticking out all over a B-17? That would be John Browning. Did I mention the 45 caliber automatic pistol? Automatic shot gun?

Now the hoax buster says angels can be shot because they have shields, clearly pictured in authenticated pictures. Devils are fallen angels. Exorcising is the process of removing Devil from possessed person. The tried and true method is to shoot the Devil residing in the minds of those who would send us to hell. Thank you John Browning.

Note that hoax buster says Allah is a Devil. Now I find out that Allah is actually the other fallen angel, Gabriel. Apparently, there's a big fight for control of hell between Lucifer, the first angel to claim to be God and Gabriel. So all the confusion springs from the fact that there's more than one Devil. Any ideas about how to deal with them. How about ecumenical? Maybe shoot'em? Did I mention the God, John Browning?

I rest my case.

PS I hope that angel Joseph Smith made his deal with doesn't turn out to be another Devil. Two Devils fighting over hell is enough. Hell is a gold mine so everyone wants control of it. Don't you think?

Note: thinking about http://www.hoax-buster.org is making the pope's head hurt.

Concerned,
Please, do you have such limited world experience that you think Mormons only hire Mormons when they have a controlling interest in the company that is doing the hiring, or that companies who hire Mormons are only Mormon companies? You might want to get out more or read more and get a broader view of the world. There are so many good people in the world, across all spectrums. If you think everyone is motivated by economic self-interest, then you have an unfortunate world view. There are other approaches to life.

Parker,

Hmmm, I wonder what Michael Otterson's salary is??

And would a Mormon boss fire a Mormon who wants to leave Mormonism? i.e. the loss of tithe money.

And would most Mormons leave in mass if they finally came to grips with the flawed history of their religion? Probably not since their livelihood depends on Mormon money.

Bottom line: Mormons are Mormons because of Mormon money.

Concerned,
Since you brought up the subject that seems to be a root cause of much of your frustration about religion (money), I suppose that is a subject worth considering. I know very little about how other denominations use their money, though I have seen many church buildings in many places, so I suppose it is safe to assume money was used to pay for the materials to build them and is used to pay for their maintenance. Why shouldn't people who want to fellowship together and inquire after one another's well-being, to attend classes that will encourage them to conduct their lives in ways that bring more happiness and peace, and to worship as they have chosen to do, be allowed to do so comfortably without being criticized for holding such meetings in a nice building? I think that is one of the better purposes for buildings we find in the world.

I doubt if you have encountered many LDS members, or if you have I doubt if you have asked them about the blessings of paying tithing and observing the fast as described in Isaiah 58. LDS members' payment of tithing couldn't logically be sustained for years such as happens if it weren't that the members have vast experience that they are blessed in their temporal lives for living the law of tithing as described in Malachi 3. Would you propose that they be deprived of those blessings by inferring that it is a bad thing to observe that law? If you have no experience in this respect, who are you to judge? I could easily come up with hundreds of specific examples of how people have been blessed by living this law, if I had the time and saw the need--but I doubt such examples would mean anything to a skeptic.

The LDS church's tithes and offerings are used frugally, and support many worthwhile causes such as education, welfare needs, humanitarian aid, temples that add both a higher purpose and an example of a high standard of excellence for the communities where they are built. If only governments could be as fiscally responsible as the LDS church as to use of money, we would not have the debt burden in the United States government that we have today.

Concerned, you have studied many things, but I suggest that this is a subject in which you have jumped to conclusions that are unfounded in reality. I have known people of other denominations who have also spoken of being blessed for observing the law of tithing, and I hope in those cases that their tithes are used frugally. I know that mine are--not a doubt in my mind about it.

Even you could gain the blessings from observing the law of the fast. The Lord will uphold His scriptural promises. Among them, "thine health shall spring forth speedily". There are many others. These are real promises that have been attested to by thousands--tens of thousands. Peace to you, Concerned.

Thomas,

Please invite us to your next meeting with the Singularity.

The passage in scripture that is referred to as The Lord's Prayer and also the Our Father: Our Father, Who art in Heaven, hallowed be Thy Name, Thy Kingdom come, thy Will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven, give us this day our daily Bread, forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us and lead us not into temptation but deliver us from the evil one. OUR FATHER, as in the Father of the entire human race considering that not only did He create everyone but also everything. WHO ART IN HEAVEN, not only is He in Heaven but He is also putting the finishing touches on the Heavenly Jerusalem not to be confused with the New Jerusalem which is going to go down the tubes just like the Old Jerusalem only more so. HALLOWED BE THY NAME, actually God is Pure Love but from so many of the posts that call themselves christians, you would never know. THY KINGDOM COME, God's Kingdom which will be a Kingdom of Pure Love and it is for all of His children which is ALL OF HUMANITY. THY WILL BE DONE, Like it says in many places in the bible, it is God's Will that ALL BE SAVED, also if all that someone calling themself a christian, cares about is going to the "good place" , how christian is that, considering that on the cross Jesus said, "Father forgive them", there is not an asterick after them, them means ALL OF HUMANITY, we have all done wrong at least I have. ON EARTH AS IT IS IN HEAVEN, as it says even the forces of evil, satan and his cohorts, are working toward the Will of God even if inadvertantly, besides being a liar and a thief, the deceiver is also a loser. GIVE US THIS DAY OUR DAILY BREAD, this refers not only to that which sustains us physically but also the Eucharist which is the BREAD OF LIFE. FORGIVE US OUR TRESPASSES AS WE FORGIVE THOSE WHO TRESPASS AGAINST US, this is a divine equation, pure and simple, Jesus told us as much. AND LEAD US NOT INTO TEMPTATION, satan is the tempter and like it says when we fall which we all seem to do at times at least I have we can ask for forgiveness, we can go directly to God for forgiveness, the curtain in front of the Holy of Holies has been torn in two, yes the one that so many people are trying to sew back together. BUT DELIVER US FROM THE EVIL ONE, yes satan and his cohorts are real and in God's Plan, All of Humanity will be delivered from all evil that is why we are to be willing and active participants in God's Plan whatever we may have been called or chosen to do. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Parker,

As you noted, there is always an economic element in everything we do.

A synopsis:

The Good Words were articulated via reason and common sense by the ancients. These Words of Wisdom were simply repeated with each major race and religion. Unfortunately the Words were attributed to embellished men in most cases as a means of profiteering as noted by the contemporary billions of dollars owned and controlled by the Mormon, Christian, Jewish and Moslem religions. Is it time to get our money back????

Early Christian economics 101:

The Baptizer drew crowds and charged for the "dunking".

The historical Jesus saw a good thing and continued dunking and preaching the good word but added "healing" as an added charge to include free room and board. Sure was better than being a poor peasant but he got a bit too zealous and they nailed him to a tree.

Paul picked up the money scent on the road to Damascus. He added some letters for a fee and "Gentilized" the good word to the "big
buck" world. i.e. Paul was the first media evangelist!!!

Along comes Constantine. He saw the growing rich Christian community and recognized a new tax base so he set them "free".

The Holy Roman "Empirers"/Popes/Kings/Queens et al continued the money grab selling access to JC and heaven resulting in some of today's
richest organizations on the globe i.e. the Christian churches (including the Mormon Church) and related aristocracies.

Concerned,
'Pretty ironic that some of your "scholarship" material talks about "financial security" as being an impetus for the disciples, when it appears to me that much of what masquerades as "scholarship" within what you have quoted really seems to boil down to seeking that very thing for those particular "scholars". Logically, they would assume that everyone else is motivated by what motivates them. What incontrovertible evidence do they have? I know their writing has given you comfort, but it just gives some of us a laugh and yet a cry that people can be misled by such rationale.

Concerned,

I thought you might also find the concept of literal bodily resurrection to be flawed. Thanks for the review of Biblical scholarship. I hope to some day get to all that literature.

Best to you!

Jd1

John D the First,

The many descriptions of "angel" Moroni have been noted above. I will add resurrected personage to the list. Maybe one of your "prophets" can finally choose the correct definition. I however have never seen an angel described though as a "resurrected personage". "Tinkerbells" though seem to arise in some definitions.

With respect to the physical resurrection of Jesus:

The physical resurrection of Jesus as per currernt theology teachings at many large Catholic universities-

"Heaven is a Spirit state or spiritual reality of union with God in love, without earthly -- earth bound distractions.

Christ 's and Mary's bodies are therefore not in Heaven. For one thing, Paul in 1 Cor 15 speaks of the body of the dead as transformed into a "spiritual body." No one knows exactly what he meant by this term.

Most believe that it to mean that the personal spiritual self that survives death is in continuity with the self we were while living on earth as an embodied person.

The physical Resurrection (meaning a resuscitated corpse returning to life), Ascension (of Jesus' crucified corpse), and Assumption (Mary's
corpse) into heaven did not take place.

The Ascension symbolizes the end of Jesus' earthly ministry and the beginning of the Church.

Only Luke's Gospel records it. The Assumption ties Jesus' mission to Pentecost and missionary activity of Jesus' followers The Assumption has
multiple layers of symbolism, some are related to Mary's special role as "Christ bearer" (theotokos). It does not seem fitting that Mary, the body of Jesus' Virgin-Mother (another biblically based symbol found in Luke 1) would
be derived by worms upon her death. Mary's assumption also shows God's positive regard, not only for Christ's male body, but also for female
bodies."

Amazing how this agrees with Professor Crossan and the Jesus Seminarian's conclusions based on attestations and stratums.

See http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/017_Resurrection_of_Jesus for added details.

An excerpt:

"In the epilogue to Who Killed Jesus? (1995:217), Professor Crossan writes:

"The resurrection of Jesus means for me that the human empowerment that some people experienced in Lower Galilee at the start of the first century in and through Jesus is now available to any person in any place at any time who finds God in and through that same Jesus. Empty tomb stories and physical appearance stories are perfectly valid parables expressing that faith, akin in their way to the Good Samaritan story. They are, for me, parables of resurrection not the resurrection itself. Resurrection as the continuing experience of God's presence in and through Jesus is the heart of Christian faith."

Another point of view:

According to Reimarus as referenced in R.B. Stewart in his introduction to the recent book, The Resurrection of Jesus, Crossan and Wright in Dialogue,

"Reimarus (1774-1779) posits that Jesus became sidetracked by embracing a political position, sought to force God's hand and that he died alone deserted by his disciples. What began as a call for repentance ended up as a misguided attempt to usher in the earthly political kingdom of God. After Jesus' failure and death, his disciples stole his body and declared his resurrection in order to maintain their financial security and ensure themselves some standing."

Concerned,

Mormons believe in the literal resurrection of the body. Judging from other posts I would assume you might think that a flaw also.

In any event, words are simply symbols used to signify concepts. They can mean different things to different groups. The word "Angel" most certainly signifies different things to different people. Moroni is believed to be nothing other than a resurrected personage. If the literal resurrection is okay, then Moroni is not really a problem. "Angel" is but a word to refer to a resurrected person.

Best to you!

Jd1

It is all about the Rule of the Five F's of Life i.e. "First Find the Flaws and then Fix the Foundations." This works for all aspects of life from bridges to religion. With Mormonism, the major flaw is Moroni.

Hi Bgone,

Thanks for hearing me out. I know your just having fun, and probably don't even believe in the devil. Like I said, I like your satire. It highlights certain ironies in religious concepts, as well as certain epistemological problems.

If you are worshiping an otherworldly being, how do you know which one you are worshiping? Historically, we theists have associated religious worship that is foreign to us with devil worship. Your satire turns the table on us, and requires people to try to explain how they know that their particular type of worship most certainly is NOT directed to the devil. I personally am amused by it.

Best to you!

Jd1

Well John D, we're a lot closer than I originally thought. I'm just here having fun myself. Attempting to convert me to anything is a waste of pixels. However, I can notice that if others had that attitude, no one left out then the world would most likely be a better place to live.

Did you know the Devil is loose on Wall Street right now? That's the only thing that gives me even a smidgen of faith in hell. Wall Street is located in New York City. Like the cowboy said about the salsa, "somebody get a rope."

I expect to be hit up for tuition at BYU by a talented young lady in a couple of years. She'll get it and without a lecture too.

What little I know about LDS and I'm probably thinking 19th century but the notion of saving for the future, a years supply of food, keeping the finger on the here and now, that I like and practice as best I can.

Regards-

JD, I'd be priviledged if you would do so:

phaedrus63@gmail.com

Looking forward to it,

Thanks!

P.,

It's nice to hear from you! You are kind as ussual.

I am currently finishing the footnotes for a paper I recently presented in a symposium related to this very subject. I will have to email you a copy.

Best my friend!

Jd1

John D:

My friend. I have avioded posting for several weeks for various reasons, prominenently amongst them a growing dissatisfaction with the repetitiveness of what I was writing. Even Tolstoy had to stop when his theme was exhausted. However, I have to ask you about this part of one of your more recent erudite posts:

"There is a strong strain within the bounds of Mormon orthodoxy, which views God as a being in the universe who must do His great work within the constraints of nature."

A God who operates within parameters is a compelling figure! The concept of omnipotence has always been one of the achilles heels of traditional Christianity, in that it is impossible to protect it from internal contradictions, especially when combined with the other characteristics, omnipresence and omniscience. The God you suggest here is uber-mensch-like, merely possessing of wider parameters of control than other beings, yet still subordinated to external laws of nature, not of his making.

For some reason, likely brought on by a run of 70 hour work-weeks, this brings to mind one of my favorite Nietzsche quotes: "I would only believe in a God who knew how to dance."

John, I find that I like thinking about this concept, and why am I not surprised that your keyboard continues to serve as a catalyst for enjoyable musings!

Cheers John!

P.

Here is a sample of the counsel Mormon parents are given about "wayward children":

In 1929 Elder Orson F. Whitney of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles said: “You parents of the wilful and the wayward! Don’t give them up. Don’t cast them off. They are not utterly lost. The Shepherd will find his sheep. They were his before they were yours—long before he entrusted them to your care; and you cannot begin to love them as he loves them. They have but strayed in ignorance from the Path of Right, and God is merciful to ignorance. Only the fulness of knowledge brings the fulness of accountability. Our Heavenly Father is far more merciful, infinitely more charitable, than even the best of his servants, and the Everlasting Gospel is mightier in power to save than our narrow finite minds can comprehend” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1929, 110).

This quote from a former president of the church has often been included in discourses from church leaders:

“Fathers, if you wish your children to be taught in the principles of the gospel, if you wish them to love the truth and understand it, if you wish them to be obedient to and united with you, love them! … However wayward they might be, … when you speak or talk to them, do it not in anger, do it not harshly, in a condemning spirit. Speak to them kindly. … You can’t drive them; they won’t be driven” (Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, 5th ed. [1939], 316).

Elder Orson F. Whitney also Said (this is the most often quoted church leader on the subject of wayward children:

"The Prophet Joseph Smith declared—and he never taught more comforting doctrine—that the eternal sealings of faithful parents and the divine promises made to them for valiant service in the Cause of Truth, would save not only themselves, but likewise their posterity. Though some of the sheep may wander, the eye of the Shepherd is upon them, and sooner or later they will feel the tentacles of Divine Providence reaching out after them and drawing them back to the fold. Either in this life or the life to come, they will return. They will have to pay their debt to justice; they will suffer for their sins; and may tread a thorny path; but if it leads them at last, like the penitent Prodigal, to a loving and forgiving father’s heart and home, the painful experience will not have been in vain. Pray for your careless and disobedient children; hold on to them with your faith. Hope on, trust on, till you see the salvation of God.”

Best to you!

Jd1

Hi Bgone,

Mormons believe in three degrees of Glory or heaven. The lowest is so wonderful that it passes all understanding. Many may experience "hell" before they enter one of the kingdoms but it is temprorary and it therapeutically prepars one to enter a kingdom of glory (much like negative consequences for immorality in this life can cause one to want to change their ways).

No particular groups is condemned to hell, all are believed to recieve a paradisiacal final abode (atheists, buddists, pagans etc). Mormons generally use the carrot approach, the more you follow God or the more moral of a life you live, the greater your Kingdom of Glory. We believe that God so loved the world that he sent his son to redeem ALL the human race (Timothy 4:10)-- no matter their religion (or lack thereof). You will be judged on how you have nurtured the good within you.

We believe that all have both good and bad within them, and that what one responds to determines who you become, and what God can reward you with in the next life.

Children in Mormonism are told that if they keep God's commandments, and trust in Christ, they can have all the Father has, and become one with the Father and the Son for Eternity, thus becoming like them: Divine (the highest Kingdom of Glory).

Thanks for asking.

Best to you!

Jd1

Bgone,

Are you a deist? Meaning that you believe in God but that He is impersonal. That there is a God but He doesn't involve Himself with the world?

David, Parker:

That's not the answer to the question. It's the usual Devil's smoke screen. What threats if any were made to you about hell while you were still children, (I know we are all children of God, the fertility God)?

The 10 commandments are written on our hearts. We don't need to have them written on paper but it's OK. You know in your heart that it was Devil in the ball of fire. And you know Almighty God does not need people to get what Almighty God wants. Therefore, all faiths that have people working for God are actually faiths in Devil. Almighty God doesn't need help. Devil is powerless without people. I'm sure you don't want to be Devil's helper.

So that brings us back to where we started this conversation. The big money goes to those leading the multitudes to hell. Sad but true, an individual soul isn't worth much any more with people paying to get into hell.

Don't forget. (((No Strange Gods)))

Honor the first commandment first else all the others will suffer. Presidents will say things like "we are all sinners" to everyone, call on "higher powers" and hold conferences with those "leading the multitudes to hell" and then lead the country into war based upon all the intelligence.

War is when two or more groups of people condemn each other to hell. It's always, "we'll see who sends who to hell." LDS hasn't condemned groups of people to hell? You're not at war with other religions? Missionaries aren't soldiers?

All hangs on the being Moses made the deal with to become the biggest shot that ever lived.

David: wrote; I wonder what the person who asked the question about the taxes would get a response if he then asked Jesus, "what belongs to God"? What would Jesus' response be? I think it would be along the lines of..."whose image are you made in"? Give to caesar what belongs to caesar. Give to God what belongs to God. YOU.

You're putting words into God's mouth. Begone said that's a violation of the first commandment.

You're also second guessing Jesus. The question was not asked so you don't know the answer. That makes you a violator of the eighth commandment too, bearing false witness.

The smoke of your words likely comes from hell.

Parker,

I thank you for your compliment however I need to correct you about an assumption you made concerning me.

"Bgone,
I understand that you think much of religion is a "scam", but there are many such as David who seek to find the good in people and to encourage that good, that it may grow and flourish."

Actually my understanding of Christianity is a little different than this. I really do not seek to find good in anyone. No one is good. Even myself. None are deserving of eternal life with God. If anyone "deserved" eternal rewards based on "goodness" then Jesus died for no reason. What I seek in people as I share the gospel is the humbleness to admit that we are not worthy of God's love, but yet He loves us anyway and offered the free gift of grace to us by faith in His Son. "We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." Rom 3:23. So who is good? And compared to whom? It is my understanding that because we are not capable of being "good" that the Word became flesh and made the ultimate sacrifice for us. If any were ever "good" as compared to the perfectness and holiness of God, then why did Jesus die?

Sorry Parker, I just don't want to be misrepresented on here. I do thank you for trying and having good intentions though. Have a good evening.

David,
I loved your above response to Bgone.

Bgone,
I understand that you think much of religion is a "scam", but there are many such as David who seek to find the good in people and to encourage that good, that it may grow and flourish.

If you were to study how LDS teachers and parents teach children in Primary classes and at home, you would find no talk of "hell" and absolutely no threats of "if you don't behave a certain way, you will be condemned to hell." Children are taught the blessings of the law of tithing (see Malachi 3:10-12) about once every three years. Mostly, they are taught that they are children of a loving God, that they should be honest, helpful, respectful of all people, should honor their parents and make choices that will help them lead happy, fruitful lives in society--all this because it is what Jesus taught and exemplified.

I'm not familiar with the TV ad you described, but it may have been a depiction of Mary Magdalene weeping because she didn't understand the resurrection of Jesus, then rejoicing because she saw Him and knew He was the risen Lord. Or perhaps you saw something about humanitarian aid showing people receiving wheelchairs or vision correction and weeping for gratitude. We live in a world of mass media, but of much misunderstanding still. I hope that you may come to understand the LDS differently than some mega-church seeking your money. Not so at all.

We believe Almighty God wants people to help each other in these times of stress in the world, to reach out without prejudice and with heartfelt, selfless love. I suspect we join you in that wish for people across the world. Peace to you.

Hello Bgone,

I'm not LDS so I can't answer that for you. But you asked what God wants, huh? I believe I have an answer if you can bear with the passage really quick.

Matthew 22:15-22 (New International Version)

Paying Taxes to Caesar
15Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. 16They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. "Teacher," they said, "we know you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren't swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are. 17Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?"
18But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, "You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? 19Show me the coin used for paying the tax." They brought him a denarius, 20and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?"

21"Caesar's," they replied.
Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."

I wonder what the person who asked the question about the taxes would get a response if he then asked Jesus, "what belongs to God"? What would Jesus' response be? I think it would be along the lines of..."whose image are you made in"? Give to caesar what belongs to caesar. Give to God what belongs to God. YOU.

OK guys, lay it out so I can understand it. What does LDS teach or better yet, not teach the children? Is there a hell? Is there a Devil lurking about?

All other "Christians" disguise their threats of hell in a smoke screen of Jesus love. I've seen LDS ads on TV with the woman looking at something, (crucifixion?) and the tears flowing. What's she crying about? Looks like the same old scam to me. What does that tape have on it?

I got the open mind. However, I'm deathly afraid I might violate the 1st commandment so be real careful describing God, what God said and above all else what God wants and in particular things God needs people's help to get. I only believe in Almighty God, not those puny, sissified Gods like Jehovah, Allah, balls of fire and Gods people can crucify. No one crucifies Almighty God but Lucifer and now Gabriel it seems would certainly do it it they could.

Regards-

Bgone,

What about those who believe in hell but give no money to the churches they attend? Let's say an individual gives to charity and charitable organizations feeding poor kids in Africa, but not anything to the churches they attend. Is your theory of hell=money legite is this circumstance?

Bgone,
Evidently you've only read about Mormonism superficially, or you would realize that Joseph Smith taught doctrines about God's benevolence and liberality that fly in the face of what you have disdainfully written about hell as a threat to make money. It was Joseph Smith who said that even those who inherit "telestial glory" will be resurrected to a place that "surpasses all understanding"--meaning far better than this life. Granted, they will have paid a price through their own suffering in the spirit prison called "hell", but they will be rescued from that condition at the end of the Millenium through finally confessing that "Jesus is the Christ". He whom you so disdainfully reject now will still hold out His loving arms to you, whenever you decide to come unto Him with a contrite heart. If you've dabbled in reading the Book of Mormon, I suspect that you were "in over your head," so it wouldn't make much sense to you. Nor probably does the following passage:

"But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
"All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." (Isaiah 53:5,6)

Bgone, may your search of your own heart find that which is ennobling and uplifting, and may it help you find peace, which really is "an inexhaustible treasure."

Let is prey as others have preyed before us:

Our Father who art in heaven
Hallowed be thy name
Thy kingdom come
The will be done
OR ELSE

Our Father who art in heaven
Muhammad be thy name
Thy kingdom come
The will be done
OR ELSE

Our Father who art in heaven
Joseph Smith be thy name
Thy kingdom come
The will be done
OR ELSE

Given: OR ELSE = HELL (worlds most successful gold mine)

We know who Muhammad and Joe Smith were. How about that Hallowed fellow? Who do you suppose He IS?

Answer at http://www.hoax-buster.org IQ above 10 required to find answer.

Stick to the subject!

"An Inexhaustible Treasure"

Been trying to tell you people that "hell is a gold mine." It's far superior for making money than tending sheep. Put the gun of hell to the head and watch the money roll in.

Stop saying bad things about Joseph Smith. A PhD is not required to dig in shallow water. And the worst literature ever written is the best shovel ever invented.

Your prayers are requested for the rapid recovery and return to good health of America's pastor, Billy Graham. I wonder how fervently his heirs are praying. Shouldn't Billy leave his entire estate to God? Is it "An Inexhaustible Treasure" or has someone poured a whole bucket of ice water on the fires of hell?

(((No Strange Gods)))

Concerned,

I am glad to see you are reading up on Mormonism! Most attempts to explain Joseph Smith end up making it look like he was writting a doctoral thesis!

The account from his mother indicates that he was not a very studious child. Of all her children, said his mother, he was least inclined to books.

Best to you!

Jd1

Parker,

Ok, Moroni was a "pretty talking fictional thingie" or would a better description be "one of the many hallucinations seen by founders of the major religions" or " a clone of the fictional Gabriel" or "Moroni the golden hornblower", or "son of Mormon, the propheteer/profiteer", or "actually Nephi", or "good buds with John the Baptist, Peter, James, John, Moses, Elijah, and Elias all who ministered to Joseph Smith as angels" or as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel_Moroni

"Some scholars have theorized that Smith became familiar with the name "Moroni" through his study of the treasure-hunting stories of Captain William Kidd.[2] Because Kidd was said to have buried treasure in the Comoros islands, and Moroni is the name of the capital city and largest settlement in the Comoros, it has been suggested that Smith borrowed the name of the settlement and applied it to the angel who led him to buried treasure—the golden plates. Complementing this proposal is the theory that Smith borrowed the names of the Comoros islands and applied them to hill where he found the golden plates, which he named Cumorah.[3]

Latter-day Saint apologists have argued that this line of argument commits the logical error of appeal to probability; they also point out that it is unlikely that Smith had access to material which would have referred to the then-small settlement of Moroni.[4]"

Glad to hear you are content in your life. Sometimes that contentment doesn't come across very well. Perhaps a new approach might convey it. You might also want to drop Moroni off of your list of "imaginary" angels, since he was never described or portrayed as having wings. An important point to understand from the Book of Revelation is that when angels were described as having wings in John's visions, it was a type of symbolism, not to be understood literally.

Another symbolism about wings is the beautiful description of the Savior, "How oft will I gather you as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings." He will still do so with loving kindness, but there must be a voluntary act on our part for this to happen. You might be familiar with Gerard Manley Hopkins' line about wings. What a splendid poet he was!

Speaking of wings and symbolism, a friend of ours has told of how much she draws comfort from Psalms 57:1--"O God, be merciful unto me: for my soul trusteth in thee; yea, in the shadow of thy wings will I make my refuge, until these calamities be overpast." Peace to you, Concerned

Quote: "I never want to feel the pain of disappointing Him."

I don't think you should ever worry about dissappointing God. To disappoint assumes that any action fixes you in that place, be it good or bad. And yet you are ever growing and unfolding. You are never what you were before. And if you fell, then you will stand again, and God will understand, because God knows, above all, that you are here on earth to go on and on and on and on.

Bill

Children: All of this arguing over imaginary friends must stop. This whole thread has been TOO funny.

Mr. Glick,

You are not God.

David,

As a landscape designer I create beautiful gardens (I hope!). However, I don't create them from nothing. I use existing materials - in my case, plants, stone, etc. God also creates but on a far grander scale from far more complex material. But just as my material already exists, so does the material which the Great Designer of the Universe uses.

David,

As a landscape designer I create beautiful gardens (I hope!). However, I don't create them from nothing. I use existing materials - in my case, plants, stone, etc. God also creates but on a far grander scale from far more complex material. But just as my material already exists, so does the material which the Great Designer of the Universe uses.

Parker,

Angels don't have wings? Of course not, they are fictional but in most fictional portrayals, they have wings to include the statues of said "thingies" in ancient archeology.

And actually I am quite content now that the reality of religions have been explained by many contemporary NT and religious exegetes.

I read the whole comment section and my conclusion is that the ugliest and meanest comments are coming from the so called christians. Judging from what I'm reading, I think the real christians are the Mormons. Watch and think about what you say because your words can condemm you.

I read the whole comment section and my conclusion is that the ugliest and meanest comments are coming from the so called christians. Judging from what I'm reading, I think the real christians are the Mormons. Watch and think about what you say because your words can condemm you.

Concerned,
Not to be critical, but often your comments seem to come with such a strident "voice" that it seems there may be a lack of peace in your life. Perhaps using the internet is your way of trying to find that something missing or to share your sense of despair so that others may help bear the burden with you. Christ has offered to bear that burden, if you will let Him. When He said, "Peace I leave with you," He really meant it; it brings a spirit of gentleness, not stridence and not despair. (By the way, angels don't have wings, so your poetry falls on deaf ears.) Have a gentle and peaceful night.

Bgone,

Lucifer, Satan et al are simply modern demons of the demented i.e. the dark side of "pretty wingie talking flying fictional thingies".

JD,

Yes I am fully aware of the LDS beliefs thanks to my good friend Parker and the likes of James and other LDS members. It is my understanding that you believe God the Father has flesh and bones. I do not believe this. This is where we differ and I'm sure where we will never see eye to eye. I've been down this argument enough on other LDS threads. I believe in one God. You believe in many. It is quite different. I prefer not to get into that argument again but would prefer to just say thanks for this discussion and best to you JD. As always you have been very kind and I appreciate it.

Anon,

You might want to ask the LDS members what God they believe in. Or how many at that. That is their faith and mine is quite different. I believe in one God alone. I believe God manifests Himself in the form of three persons. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. It's called the Trinity. This does not mean three Gods, it's one God in three seperate persons. Kind of like time. There is past, present and future, but it is still one thing, time.

"BEGONE says the God of Exodus was actually the devil Lucifer. Is that so?"

Quite simply....NO.

David:

Bgone,

Your confusing me. Do you believe in God or a god of some sort? Why would you think Jesus is the son of the devil? How do you come up with a conclusion like that and on what basis?

>>>horning in the above conversation>>>

If Jesus is not the son of the God Moses met in the sheep field then Jesus is the son of what God? Is there more than one God in the Bible? If there is more than one God then which one do LDS believe to be the true God?

BEGONE says the God of Exodus was actually the devil Lucifer. Is that so?

Hi David,

I think if we are trying to convince each other about the nature of creation, it is waste of time. If we are trying to understand each other, it is a great use of time!

I think you have opened up a can of worms with this whole nature of God question. I see God as an emergent product of the unified relationship of the three members of the Godhead. And that God the Father and the Son are both corporal--the son in the image of the Father and vice versa. I am almost as uncomfortable with the saying that "God is a Man" as you would be with the state, "Jesus is a Man." I would prefer to say, humans are "theomorphic" literally made in God's image.

There is a popular belief, not taught in church, that there are members of the Godhead above the Father, and that the Father became a member of the Godhead through a similar process as the Son. This is an unofficial, extra-canonical belief and it is not universal. Many argued that, though God the father was incarnated on another world like Jesus was incarnated on this one, He was God before His incarnation, much like Jesus. And that He does not have a father.

So diversity is allowed on this point. The Tripartite Godhead is all this is officially taught by the church and LDS Scriptures.

For an interesting article on the corporal Deity in Mormonism see:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/bookschapter.php?bookid=42&chapid=208

This is an amalgation of articles published in Faith and Philosophy and The Harvard Theological Review.

I will try not to return this week. I must get to work.

Until next time my friend,

Jd1

thanks Jd. Thanks for the conversation again. Have a great night and best to you. Much love to you and your family.

JD,

You'll have to forgive me. I just thought about something that negates the whole purpose of our creation discussion. (I am enjoying it by the way). You believe God is a man, I don't. So of course you are going to say He didn't create matter. I don't think we could go very far on the discussion of creation without agreeing on the nature of God. This of course is an impossible task which I have already noted with the discussion with other LDS members. Therefore, nevermind. I think the whole point is that you believe God was created by his father and so on so on, right? I think that's what I've learned from the LDS, that God was created as well. Am I correct in this? If this is the case, then of course a discussion about creation cannot go any further. It would quite frankly be pointless. Thanks for the discussion though. It's been a pleasure as usual.

David,

I don't really feel like you are addressing my major points, so I don't really have anything more to say. That's okay. I need to turn in for the night anyways.

What this comes down to for me is a problem implied by Bgone’s satire.

If God can create any possible combination of reality, than God is attributed with a sort of magic, and life as we know it is a little difficult to make sense of. The Bible shows God working through people and culture, the earth shows God working through a long and brutal process of nature. It just doesn’t seem like what one would expect if an all-loving Deity capable of unlimited magic ruled the universe. That is why I think Bgone satiristically asserts the God of the Bible must be the devil, because he does not seem to display the attributes he is endowed with by orthodoxy.

Latter Day Saints have a couple different ways of seeing God’s relationship to the universe. There is a strong strain within the bounds of Mormon orthodoxy, which views God as a being in the universe who must do His great work within the constraints of nature. So omnipotence according to this view means that God has all power that is possible within a material universe full of free agents. Seeing God this way, it makes sense that God would have to create the earth through a long process, and/or that God must work through humans and culture (including burning bush, concepts of angels) to bring about His great work. It is even easier to comprehend that for some reason He had to send His Son to save us (If God could do whatever He wants, he could save us without making His son suffer).

Christian theologian and Physicist John Polkinghorn has a view similar to this. He says, as a scientist, he cannot believe the Universe is wound up like clockwork and that God can create any possible reality. God must be conceived of, according to Polkinghorn, as a very powerful actor among other actors existing in the universe and in time. He thinks that modern physics allows for a being like God to intervene through butterfly effects, which I personally like. You should check out his book “Quarks and Creation.” There is also a development in Christian theology called “Openness Theology” which notes the contradictions between the God of orthodoxy and the God of the Bible, and is actually moving in the direction I am talking about (See book Most Moved Mover by Pinnock). It has been accused, however, of trying to smuggle Mormonism into Christian circles. Which of course hurts and baffles its very Evangelical proponents.

This is not the only way to interpret Mormonism. Many people emphasize, what seem to me, God’s magical properties more which is also perfectly acceptable in Mormonism and may be more widespread.

Now I feel kind of bad about distracting so much from the topic. I’ll be signing off for now. Perhaps we can agree to disagree and you can share your favorite scripture? Just know I respect your beliefs and your love of God.

Best to you!

Jd1

JD,

All things is exactly that. Quite simply all things. You mentioned the art museum. If you said you created all things in the art museum then logically that would mean the paint, the frames and everything in it. But God didnt' just put together the pieces, He created the pieces to put together.

What is eternal? Beyond time? Didn't God create time as well? Couldn't that be considered "all things". Time is something. So if He existed before time, then He is eternal. He is infinite and beyond our comprehension because we think of things based on time. There was a "beginning" therefore there was a time that started from a particular point. God created the beginning, therefore He is eternal and not even in the concept of time, correct?

Bgone,
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that in some way that is clear to you, you are expressing something that has troubled you about the Abrahamic religions. One thing you said that sticks out is that God gets what he wants. Guess what? The LDS belief is that ultimately everyone except those spirits who followed Satan in the pre-mortal life, and those who rebel with full knowledge revealed to them by the Holy Ghost in this life (very few indeed), will get what they want, deep-down inside their soul, in eternity. Christ makes that possible.

When the Apostle Paul told the Philippian saints, "...at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,...And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father" (Phil. 2:10,11) he really did mean "every knee"--which allows the Savior to "rescue" the "prisoners" out of the "prison" (see Isaiah 14:17, Isaiah 61:1, and 1 Peter 3:19,20).

Thank you "King David" for your response (I hope you don't mind that, I like it),

I also hope you don't mind if I go over your response point by point. Here is goes...

Point 1:

"When I see "create all things" I logically assume that "ALL" means everything. "

How you interpret this depends on your assumptions. If we walked into a gallery would and I said, "I created all these paintings" would you assume I mixed the paint, created the wood of the frames through a synthetic process ect. ect? No you would assume I used these materials to create the paintings.

You have the assumption of creation ex-nihilio so you have your way of interpreting it. All "things" God created. What is a thing? The branch of philosophy that deals with the nature of things metaphysics and, its sub-branch, ontology is still debating that. I spoke to one philosopher the other day (a very respected one at that) who told me there is no such thing as a thing, or as he would call it "being" there is only meta-being. So the question of what this verse means ontologically gets very sticky I would say.

It becomes much easier when one recognizes as Parker pointed out, "create" in the Hebrew could easily be translated into fashion. There you go, "God fashioned all things" a cogent and perfectly acceptable interpretation.

Point 2:

"How can it say "In the beginning" when there was already a creation of something? How can matter already be there when it states there was a "beginning"?"

I don't get this logic. I experience many beginnings every day. The beginning of the day, the beginning of my lunch, the beginning of my workday, so on and so forth. The verse in Genesis seems to indicate the beginning of particular creative process. I see no reason at all to read more into it than this.

Just a side note so to not overextend the scope of the creation story of Genesis, the heavens were understood to be the sky (or great vault of water as the Hebrews understood it and how Genesis seems to describe it).

"God is not measured by time because He is infinite."

I don't understand why God must exist outside of time to be infinite. I think he can be infinite inside time (assuming we know what we mean by infinite, if infinite must necessarily connote timelessness, all this amounts to is tautology). The narrative of the Bible seems to suggest God is inside time. Changing his mind about destroying Nineveh and what have you. What is timelessness anyways? It seems to me to be an ethereal construct without meaning.

The word eternity in the Bible in Hebrew and Greek does not mean infinite time or timelessness but age, which denotes a manner of existence measured by time.

I hope you are enjoying this exchange.

Best to you!

Jd1

When I see "create all things" I logically assume that "ALL" means everything. Looking at Gen 1:1-2 God created the heavens and the earth. V 2 states that the earth was without void or form. It would seem that the LDS forgot verse 1 and jumped to verse 2 as the beginning of creation. It doesn't say that God "created ALL things, EXCEPT..." He created ALL things. Including matter. God is not measured by time because He is infinite. We can measure time by matter because without existence of something then time doesn't exist. How can it say "In the beginning" when there was already a creation of something? How can matter already be there when it states there was a "beginning"? Beginning definately points to a specific point in time where as to all things were created, including matter. It is quite illogical in assuming that there was a "beginning" before "In the beginning".

David,

I don't think duration makes something infinite. God is God because of both his power and goodness, not because he existed longer than everything else. LDS believe that matter is co-durational with God: that is, both have existed eternally. This does not take away from God’s glory or greatness in the slightest.

I see God as fitting within a materialist, naturalistic conception of things (that is, He exists in the Universe) though some LDS would not want to see it that way (influenced as they are by Post-creedal Christian notions).

Mainstream Christians think differently because they accept creation ex-nihilio, which was not a Christian dogma until the 3rd century. LDS theo-ontology is much different than post-ex-nihilio Christianity because it explicitly rejects creation ex-nihilio.

I know that according to historical Christian notions "create all things" must mean, "create all things out of nothing." So I understand the LDS interpretation might be baffling. We are quite unique among modern Abrahamic religions in this regard. But not unique compared to 1st and 2nd century Christianity.

If you look to Genesis, the creation begins with a desolate sphere or what LDS understand to be unorganized matter. Never does the account point to a time when there was no matter. Most Biblically informed Christian arguments I’ve seen in favor of creation ex-nihilio resort to the Big Bang, not the Bible, in favor of their “out of nothing” orthodoxy. But these arguments ignore string theory (the most recent science on the subject of origins), which does not support creation ex-nihilio.

I hope this is helpful.

Best to you!

Jd1

Bgone,

Your confusing me. Do you believe in God or a god of some sort? Why would you think Jesus is the son of the devil? How do you come up with a conclusion like that and on what basis?

John D the First:

But of course the 10 commandments come from Devil. Where else? Almighty God gets everything Almighty God wants. It's Devil that needs people. If God doesn't want tall building it's gone. Devil needs suicide attacker to fly airplane into it. Same God as LDS?

The 10 commandments have built in violation beginning with the first. Remember that Lucifer WANTED to be God, (God is the best job there is). He raised an army in heaven and tried to take over but was defeated by God's forces. Now He lurks about getting people to sin so they will come down to hell and be with Him. When enough people are in hell He thinks his army will be large and strong enough to again attack heaven win for a change.

The 10 commandments are written on our hearts. We know better than to lie, cheat, steal, kill, make babies and let them go hungry. Don't we? Devil Lucifer's tricks us with those UNNECESSARY commandments to divert our attention away from NUMBER ONE.

((((No Strange Gods))))

Don't you think God protects us by giving us the intelligence to realize it was Lucifer that Moses made the deal with? Don't you think God gave us the intelligence to realize God does NOT send angels to speak to people? Evidently not for the three great faiths. All worship the being that lives in fire, the one Moses made the deal with to become the biggest shot that ever lived, (Devil rewards His followers).

I can't put pictures up here so I refer you to a web site that incites disdain from folks like Concerned and others but you know what I'm talking about.

Don't you think "ball of fire" God is a rather strange one? How about "man on fire" God? Or. "Man getting hotfoot" God? How strange do Gods need to be before people wake up?

Those who do not abide commandment number one admit they are all sinners. Get it? They need Jesus, the son of the being Moses made the deal with to save them. Are folks in hell saints too?

Anyhow, a good hoax has many facets that lead to the kind of misunderstanding you expressed. Abide the first commandment. The others are diversionary, come from Devil to create chaos, (Bible-Devil's handbook in public schools, 10 commandments in court room...). Only the mentally deficient, criminals need to have them written down. They're written on the hearts of atheists and we know atheists don't even believe in Devil.

JD,

Because if the matter always existed, then God didn't. God created everything in existence. How can matter in the universe just be forever and infinite? I agree that God is complex and in no way understandable. His ways and thought are higher than ours. But how did the matter get there? Is it eternal? Wouldn't that make the matter God? I thought God created all things? Isn't it more logical that the Creator of all things created matter as well and that it wasn't just lingering around waiting for Him to do something with it?

David,

Just to chime in...

I might ask you, why does the matter have to come from anywhere? Why couldn't it just have always existed?

It's easy for Christians to say God has always existed, but He is much more complex and difficult to explain than matter. So why does a simple conglomeration of atoms and molecules have be explained and not an omnipotent, omnicsient God?

That's why the insistence that the existence of matter be explained never made sense to me.

Best to you!

jd1

Parker,

Hello again. Yes I understand that create can also mean "fashioned", but I'm wondering where all that matter came from? This is quite new to me because I thought that God created everything, even the matter. I too believe God constitued the laws of nature and created all laws of physics and time, etc. So again Parker, not to be argumentative, but where did the matter come from? How did it get there and if God created everything, then wasn't it made by God?

David,
'Hope all is well for you. I again want you to know I really enjoyed your last post. You know that Book of Abraham that we've talked about? In Abraham 3:24,26 we read:

"And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell;"
"...and they who keep their second estate shall have glory added upon their heads for ever and ever."

Note that in the Old Testament, the word that has been translated as "created" could also have been translated as "fashioned" which would probably have given a more correct understanding.

What were the "materials"? I don't know. As science pursues the answer to those kinds of questions, and leans more toward multi-verses rather than a single universe, that theoretical realm comes closer to what the LDS belief is, I think. We believe God works within the scientific system of laws in the universe, not outside of them.

All the best to you. (Still would like to more about your heritage--it sounds interesting.)

Hi Roy,

Sorry about your experience. A large portion of Mormons are white and American, which means racism has sadly been a part of our past, as it has been for most white Americans.

It may even be part of our present. However, quantitative studies show that Latter Day Saints actually have more liberal attitudes towards race than the general American population (See book ‘The Latter Day Saint Experience in America’ for a review of studies).

So I hope you do not over generalize about us Mormons based on your limited experience. As I am sure you are aware over generalization is one of the causes of racism and prejudice.

Best to You!

Jd1

Parker,

Hey it's me again. What's up buddy?

I didn't know that about the LDS. You guys believe God didn't create the matter that exists today but organized it into planets and the such? So the matter was already there? That was a new one for me. Who created the matter then?

Hello Bgone,

I most assuredly cannot speak for everyone here, but I enjoy your satire. It doesn't bother me, but I think others just find it cluttering and off topic (perhaps they think the same about my responses, sorry if so). Anyways, you said,

"Another question is: Can one actually worship Almighty God? Is that a fair question. Review the 1st commandment. Is a "ball of fire" included in the list of forbidden Gods? Is it an "image" of God? Is it God? What is it? Can you worship anything without an image of IT in your mind. Think Devil and you're there."

You must understand Bgone, your logic here breaks down. You say:

1) It was the devil who appeared in the burning bush (reasonable enough, it was burning after all. If there was a pitch fork involved, however, the association would be more convincing).

2) The devil in the burning bush gave the commandment not to make any engraven images.

3). Therefore one cannot worship God because even to represent God in one's mind requires a type of image.

If it was the devil who gave the commandment in the first place, however, then we have no reason to accept it right? I don't care to accept a command of the devil.

There is but ANOTHER reason to question your logic. If any sort of mental representation constitutes devil worship then why would the devil discourage it? Maybe he is more modest than we think.

If one were to accept your philosophical system, therefore, one must first accept that it was actually God in the burning bush. If it was God in the burning bush, and his commandment means what you say it means, then God made it impossible to worship him correctly. There are two conclusions to come to,

One, God does not care to be worshiped, or

Two, God must have meant something other than what you say meant when he said not to make any "engraven image" of him.

Are there any Biblical scholars in the house to assist us with this difficult matter?

Best to you!

Jd1

P.S. You have yet to share your favorite scripture Bgone...let's have it!

P.S.S. Also, you have not yet answered how I can know you are not the Devil.

Parker:, not only did I read it I looked at the pictures too. Oops!

Parker:

Glad to see LDS doesn't say it just happened. There are some who don't even believe it's really here, no faith at all, (beats faith in Devil).

The Devil:

You'll never find me. I'm hiding in the closet and God is in here with me. Come on down! We'll see who sends who to hell. hehehe

"Let thy bowels also be full of charity towards all men.." How weird. Most of the Utah Mormons I knew had full bowels but it wasn't charity especially toward Blacks, Mexicans and gays.

"Let thy bowels also be full of charity towards all men.." How weird. Most of the Utah Mormons I knew had full bowels but it wasn't charity especially toward Blacks, Mexicans and gays.

"Let thy bowels also be full of charity towards all men.." How weird. Most of the Utah Mormons I knew had full bowels but it wasn't charity especially toward Blacks, Mexicans and gays.

Bgone,
I probably can't answer that particular question, since I don't understand what you mean. I don't know how much reading you've done, but the LDS belief is definitely not that "God created the universe from nothing"--rather, the earth and the planets were "organized" from matter already existing in the universe by a loving Heavenly Father with a plan for our ultimate happiness, despite the difficulties of this life.

There is a lot more to say. For now, thanks for addressing us more cognitively.

Bgone,

I'm comig for you.

Parker:

Can you give me a way to say the three great faiths are faiths in Devil and not God in words that are acceptable? The Holy Bible is my reference. Devils are Holy too you know.

John D the First:

God is everywhere while Devil ONLY goes everywhere. God is Almighty while Devil has limited power.

Read Exodus. Why did the being in the ball of fire need to use trickery and murder to get what it wanted, **the Israelites freed from slavery and into the promised land? Explain that please.

Was the being in the "ball of fire" God is the extremely simple question. If IT was Almighty God should IT not get IT's way? Is that the same God that created the universe from nothing? What gives? Why is that God seemingly so weak, puny, more like a mafia Godfather than God?

Another question is: Can one actually worship Almighty God? Is that a fair question. Review the 1st commandment. Is a "ball of fire" included in the list of forbidden Gods? Is it an "image" of God? Is it God? What is it? Can you worship anything without an image of IT in your mind. Think Devil and you're there.

There is no prohibition on describing Devil. Devil lives in fire because hell is a sea of fire. Anything in a sea of fire must be on fire. But hell is a special type** of fire, "the fire that burns but does not consume" so you won't burn up but you will keep on burning and burning and burning forever and ever.

Is there something wrong with that logic? Is is more reasonable or less reasonable to say Moses sold his soul to Devil to become the most important person that ever lived? You do agree that sale of soul to Devil brings the wealth of earth to the seller? Well, the big money would logically go to those who lead the multitudes to hell. Don't you agree?

So let me restate the question. Did Joseph Smith speak to an angel from heaven or one from hell? The evidence says the angel came from hell. Notice that I am not saying either that Joseph Smith lied, (the best case for you) or that there is no God, (somewhat better than what you're in for worshiping Devil, God according to Pagans that Moses made the deal with to become a big shot).

Bgone,
I read some of your comments in Dawkins' blog, and found them quite a bit more thought-based at least. I suppose you just want to "cut to the chase" here, but when one addresses the world as though everyone is a ninny, they will only turn the mirror around.

Dear BGone,

OH MY!!! This whole time I have, unbeknownst to me, been worshiping not only Joseph Smith but also the devil!!! This whole time I thought I was worshiping God the Father and His son Jesus Christ.

Could you please tell me how one might avoid worshiping the devil? It seems he is EVERYWHERE. How do I know YOU are not the devil?

And while your at it, to keep things on topic, I would be curious to know your favorite scripture, or, as you would call it, saying of "the devil."

Best to you!

Jd1

oops!
That's Matthew 5:22

mark

Despise the Morg:

You should read Mark 5:22
Jesus speaking: "But i say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his briother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgement: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca*, shall be in danger of council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."

Take heed...

Mark

*a word suggesting contempt.

Otterson,

I haven't read your blog in a while but it is evident you are still trying to hood-wink people with smoke and mirrors by trying to convince them you are christian. Doesn't your D&C say that liars will be thrust down to hell? You talk about not wanting to disappoint the Savior but do you think he would be disappointed with you trying to deceive his children with propaganda from your cult?

Here is a good quote for you:

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it people will eventually come to believe it...for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie and thus by extension the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” (or church)
Joseph Goebbels - Nazi Minister of Propaganda

Otterson, you are the Joseph Goebbels of our time....

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated:

John D the First:

Concerned,

I am sure Moroni would be flattered that you consider him "pretty," though being the seemingly masculine figure he is, he would probably prefer handsom.

------- let us get the story straight for a change

Moroni is an angel straight from hell. The Devil made Uncle Joe do that.

Al Capone operated a soup kitchen for the down and out during the great depression. God was behind Big Al because he was so charitable. He is also credited with 235 murders, St Valentine's day killings being the most famous. Did I say God was behind Al?

Mormons do not faith God. They faith Joseph Smith. Maybe Joseph Smith is God or at least a reasonable substitute? God is the best job there is ya know.

Calling Devil God does not make Devil God but does make Devil happy. The big money goes to those who lead the multitudes to hell. Nothing tickles Devil more than a 100 dollar bill on the plate.

How big is the Billy Graham estate anyhow? Didn't Jesus tell His disciples something like, "See the birds in the air. They neither sow nor reap yet the heavenly father takes care of them"? Billy didn't contribute much to the economy did he? America's pastor is leading America to where?

That was Devil, not God in the ball of fire, the supernatural being Moses made the deal with. You need a new God. Your old God broke, malfunctioned, kaput.

Stan Fan,
If you happen to look at this set of comments again, I'd be interested in how your son is doing. I assume from your last post that he hasn't had an easy time of it in terms of finding his place in the world. 'Hope he's doing well.

What was your favorite scripture or what is your favorite scripture? You've had such a wide range of experiences in your life. I'm interested in your thoughts, and your family.

Concerned,

Thanks for your response. I think that's a good choice. I'll have to get a hold of J.D. Crossan's book when I get the chance.

Best to you!

Jd1

John D the First,

"Love thy neighbor as thyself" works for me as long as the neighbor is not a suicide bomber or terrorist or financier of said terrorism.

It is interesting though that Mark 12: 28-34 was an addition to the Gospel by Mark et al and not said by Jesus as per Professor Crossan's analyses. 201. not historical Jesus- The Chief Commandment: (1) Mark 12:28-34 = Matt 22:34-40,46b = Luke 10:25-28, (2) Did. 1:2a (from Professor Crossan's book, The Historical Jesus)

See also http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/201_The_Chief_Commandment

An excerpt:
"Lüdemann [Jesus, 85f] suggests that Mark was handing on the tradition he had received without any significant change, but he sees the two fold summary of the law as a reductionist and anti-cultic development from the early Christian community, rather than as a saying of Jesus:

The historical yield of the tradition is nil, since it is firmly rooted in the community and is to be derived from its needs. This community has detached itself from the temple cult and justifies this with reference to 'Jesus.' Moreover at another point Jesus gives a completely new definition of the term neighbour (see on Luke 10.30-37)."

I have "warm fuzzy" slippers. Does that mean that they are from God?

John D.

Don't bother talking to Concerned. He cut and pastes that same overused comment on every single post by a Mormon author here. The guy's a troll, nothing more. Ignore it.

Bro. Otterson, you quote Moroni 10:4-5 and assert that it calls for a faith-based response. I think this risks reading the quoted scriptures too much in isolation. Verses 4 and 5 assume that you have already rigorously studied "these things." Namely the entirety of the Book of Mormon's message. This is not a purely "faith-based" method that is being called for. Study and contemplation is also called for. It's not just a matter of praying for warm fuzzies.

Concerned,

I am sure Moroni would be flattered that you consider him "pretty," though being the seemingly masculine figure he is, he would probably prefer handsom.

I understand you attend mass and accept certain aspects of the New Testiment that are deemed by reputable scholars like JD Crossan to be historical. Which part of the New Testament do you find particularly inspiring?

I would really like to know.

Best my friend,

Jd1

Good thoughts, Brother Otterson. I agree that each book of scripture has a special place.

I've found it helpful to look for a specific theme while reading the scriptures. This is a studying habit I only recently learned. I suppose it doesn't matter which principle or concept you seek, but for me, focusing on a specific topic helps me pay more attention and get more out of my studying. Next time around, I'll pick a new topic.

One of my favorite chapters from the Book of Mormon is 1st Nephi 17, wherein Nephi recounts what to us is Old Testament history -- the plagues, crossing the Red Sea, manna in the wilderness -- as a means of inspiring his brothers to have more faith in God.

"If the Lord has such great power, and has wrought so many miracles among the children of men, how is it that he cannot instruct me...?"

I think in the same way, our scriptures inspire us to have more faith in God by reminding us what He has done for our fathers.

I love Brother Otterson's genuinity and insights. Two scriptures that have immediately come to my mind are one I learned in my youth and one I spent more time reflecting on two years ago.

"Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths." (Proverbs 3:5,6)

Little did I know when I read this passage as a youth that my "paths" would be so different than I would have imagined, even despite thinking I understood my patriarchal blessing and realized that trials would be a part of my life--trials that I didn't then comprehend.

I so appreciate that learning to trust in the Lord means daily earnest prayer and frequent scripture study to try and learn the Lord's will, then to act on it; to do it with my whole heart, without second-guessing or grumbling or holding back faith; keeping hope alive in the midst of challenges that are a part of the building of character, charity (love for all people) and patience.

The idea that the modern prophets have taught to "go to the edge of the light" has given depth to the meaning of this sublime scripture.

I also deeply love this passage from the Book of Mormon: "Yea, it is the love of God, which sheddeth itself abroad in the hearts of the children of men; wherefore, it is the most desirable above all things... Yea, and the most joyous to the soul." (1 Nephi 11:22,23)

This love is found the world over, among all peoples. Sometimes it is expressed imperfectly, but the more you come to know a person (even hearing their story on the Internet) the more you feel their love that is a motivating factor in their life. I've felt such love from people like "Phaedrus", "Henry James", "Ghostbuster", Karen, and others with different points of view.

I love that both of these passages contain open clauses--they are offered by the Savior as His gift to us if we will, even in the midst of our many sins and imperfections. We are being led, even sometimes when we know it not.

"And it came to pass that Moroni is a pretty wingie talking flying fictional thingie."

One of the main reasons I left the church was because I got into some pretty heavy duty conversations with a friend of mine at church who is African American. He had a pretty blonde trophy wife.

I really wanted to know how he felt about the LDS church's history of discrimination against blacks. I found out just how painful it was for him to discover that he belonged to a church with a sad history of racial discrimination, which has never been renounced and still stands. I really empathized with him. We discussed it and went over the whole history and I ended up feeling the same way as him, after concluding that my skin color really shouldn't determine how I felt about something that was clearly a direct contradiction of Christ's main commandment.

I ended up quiting over it, but he ended up staying. He told me that if he didn't have the spiritual experiences he'd had in the church, that he'd just walk away. When I left we kept communicating and I communicated with other Mormon African Americans I knew about different issues I knew they'd be interested in. I got into a converstion with my African American friend from my former ward. He told me that he'd been contacted by the Stake President who asked him if he'd been communicating with me. He told him he had and the SP told him to quit communicating with me about controversial issues or he could jeaprodize his worthiness (or in other words he'd be restricted from recieving a temple recommend). He also told me, "We had a sort of utopia and you ruined it." (In reference to the discussions we'd have in Elder's Quorum, which apparently went downhill after I left.)

About a year after I left the church it turned out that he had an affair with his wife's best friend, who was also in our former ward. His son, who is my son's age, was the star quarterback and Center of the Basket Ball team of the local High School and got expelled for shooting a kid at school with an air soft gun.

Another young man who was friends with our sons in our former ward, just got arrested for shooting out somebody's car window with a shotgun. When he got pulled over he had a loaded shotgun and a bag of X in his car. He'll probably be sentanced as an adult and get 3-5 in the state pen.

All of that drama just makes me glad I got the heck out of that "utopia" while the getting was good.

Thank you Brother Otterson for those scriptures,

I especially like Moses 1:39 because it gives us a clue about the character of God. He is not an egotist, God does what He does for the well being of his children. He so loves us and values us, that he considers US His glory.

I wanted to include scripture that represents my personal faith and relationship with God. It has often given me comfort when I've felt inundated with pride, personal weakness, and human frailty.

The following revelation was given in 1834 and was addressed to a man named Warren Cowdery, but I have felt like God was speaking to me when I read it:

"Therefore blessed is my servant Warren, for I will have mercy on him; and, notwithstanding the vanity of his heart, I will lift him up insomuch as he will humble himself before me. And I will give him grace and assurance wherewith he may stand" (D&C 106: 7-8).

Best,

Jd1