Exaltaion requirements

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The Church was built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets. This doesn't mean that they will always be on the earth guiding the Church, does it?

Wait, you are arguing from silence here. It might not mean that God wouldn't always use them but you would need something from a prophet that says otherwise. I cannot find anything in the bible that tells me that God stopped calling prophets. Or that he wouldn't call prophets again.

I did miss understand you in God given married women to other men.. I though you meant David was involved in doing that.. David was being punished for his sin.. He lost everything until he finally lost his dear son.. This was a common practice for the victor in war to take the wives of the vanquished. God removed his favor from David and he lost everything even His family.. IHS jim

James, now you see my point. If God did this in the past, what makes you think that he couldn't do it in the future? If polygamy wasn't in the bible I would have a really hard time accepting JS polygamy, but it seems that it was a biblically justifiable practice.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You missed what I said.. God is three separate and distinct Persons.. I have never said anything else.. These person are of the same essene the same nature they are the same Being.. You have seen it before Jesus said I and the Father are One (John 10:30).. Please drop the misleading idea that I or the Bible teaches that God is one Person.. IHS jim

Wait I never said they were one person, I said one phsycial being. I think that you and I have the same understanding of how God works. Jesus and the Father are separte and distinct. The main differnce as far as I can tell is that you think God the Father only has a spirit body. That seems to be the biggest point of difference. If that is all there is then I will take it.

[Doctor Steuss]

I see that... Why are you wanting to make God into something that He is not? IHS jim

Where have I done that?

[James Banta]

Where have I done that?

In your last post by saying that it is limiting to see Him as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.. IHS jim

[Doctor Steuss]

In your last post by saying that it is limiting to see Him as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.. IHS jim

Where on earth did I say this?

What I did say (or insinuated, rather) is that you have limited G-d by saying that He isn

[James Banta]

Wait I never said they were one person, I said one phsycial being. I think that you and I have the same understanding of how God works. Jesus and the Father are separte and distinct. The main differnce as far as I can tell is that you think God the Father only has a spirit body. That seems to be the biggest point of difference. If that is all there is then I will take it.

I really thought I saw you write Persons but no matter The Father has no physical properties to His Person at all. He is Not a Ghost.. He is a Spirit.. I know it's easier to think think of Him being a corporal Person but that is too limiting. I know you hate the wording of the Creeds on this point (I don't blame you) It's the words of men and not God. So I will give you a doctrine from the Bible that explains why I can't accept the idea that God has a shape or a form..

1Kings 8:27

But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded?

The idea of a Spirit body still would be confined to one place at a time.. I don't hold such a doctrine on His nature.. IHS jim

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I really thought I saw you write Persons but no matter The Father has no physical properties to His Person at all. He is Not a Ghost.. He is a Spirit.. I know it's easier to think think of Him being a corporal Person but that is too limiting. I know you hate the wording of the Creeds on this point (I don't blame you) It's the words of men and not God. So I will give you a doctrine from the Bible that explains why I can't accept the idea that God has a shape or a form..

1Kings 8:27

But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded?

The idea of a Spirit body still would be confined to one place at a time.. I don't hold such a doctrine on His nature.. IHS jim

Very well. thanks for commenting. Your view is the first view that makes sense to me. Probably for the most part it is agreeable to the way I see things. I know we disagree on one detail, but I would rather it be that than to be on some of the other things I have heard.

[James Banta]

Where on earth did I say this?

What I did say (or insinuated, rather) is that you have limited G-d by saying that He isn

[Doctor Steuss]

I am limiting God by saying that the passage that calls Him a Fire is a metaphor.. Jesus made it clear that God is a Being of Spirit.. I show how the how the Bible is truthful in that it uses metaphors and not ever word is literal.. Then you grab one of those metaphors an make God something He isn't..

It is clear from the context of the passage that God is the Same Being of judgment and justice in the New Testament as He was in the Old.. He will hold the same Law over us as He did them and consume all who don't conform to His Law.. IHS jim

There is nothing within the Bible that dictates that G-d cannot be both fire and Spirit. This is an extra-biblical creation of your own. In fact, according to the Bible (unless this too is a metaphor) one of G-d's first manifestations was as a fire.

Again, why are you limiting G-d?

[James Banta]

Very well. thanks for commenting. Your view is the first view that makes sense to me. Probably for the most part it is agreeable to the way I see things. I know we disagree on one detail, but I would rather it be that than to be on some of the other things I have heard.

This is strange because I sat in a Bible study lead by Marvin Cowan author of Mormon Claims Answered as we discussed this very issue.. BTW Marv is a Conservative Baptism Home Missionary permanently assigned to Utah.. I believe this book was His doctoral thesis.. He and I agreed on every point as we discussed the nature of God.. I don't find it heretical within the Church as as I explain it to other Christian I get a loud AMEN.. It's surprising that you haven't found many that at least explain it this way.. IHS jim

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

This is strange because I sat in a Bible study lead by Marvin Cowan author of Mormon Claims Answered as we discussed this very issue.. BTW Marv is a Conservative Baptism Home Missionary permanently assigned to Utah.. I believe this book was His doctoral thesis.. He and I agreed on every point as we discussed the nature of God.. I don't find it heretical within the Church as as I explain it to other Christian I get a loud AMEN.. It's surprising that you haven't found many that at least explain it this way.. IHS jim

Most others that I converse here say that Jesus and the Father are one phsyical being and that they are only distinct but not separate. I also am told over and over again that Jesus no longer has a physical body. I am sure if I said that I was LDS and said the same thing, some one would approach me and say "Don't you believe in a different Jesus?"

[James Banta]

There is nothing within the Bible that dictates that G-d cannot be both fire and Spirit. This is an extra-biblical creation of your own. In fact, according to the Bible (unless this too is a metaphor) one of G-d's first manifestations was as a fire.

Again, why are you limiting G-d?

I have explained my point on this.. It's isn't part of God's nature just a metaphor of His justice.. The thing God is is Spirit.. I could say that Fire (His justice) is an attribute.. That far enough for you? IHS jim

[Doctor Steuss]

I have explained my point on this.. It's isn't part of God's nature just a metaphor of His justice.. The thing God is is Spirit.. I could say that Fire (His justice) is an attribute.. That far enough for you? IHS jim

Still don't understand why you're limiting G-d, and making Him out to not be something that the Bible clearly states He is (while condemning Mormons for seemingly doing the same). But, we're all free to believe extra-biblical things. I suppose it's only natural to think your extra-biblical things are better than the next guy's.

The scripture is pretty unambiguous. Especially when taking the Torah into account. You have to look outside the Bible to draw the conclusion you have.

Ehyeh asher ehyeh

[James Banta]

Most others that I converse here say that Jesus and the Father are one phsyical being and that they are only distinct but not separate. I also am told over and over again that Jesus no longer has a physical body. I am sure if I said that I was LDS and said the same thing, some one would approach me and say "Don't you believe in a different Jesus?"

If you are asking me if I am saying by this that the Father Son and Holy Spirit are separate Gods I will say NO very firmly.. I will say they are of the same basic, real, and invariable nature. Separate Persons but of the same essence, the same mind, the very same Being.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

Still don't understand why you're limiting G-d, and making Him out to not be something that the Bible clearly states He is (while condemning Mormons for seemingly doing the same). But, we're all free to believe extra-biblical things. I suppose it's only natural to think your extra-biblical things are better than the next guy's.

The scripture is pretty unambiguous. Especially when taking the Torah into account. You have to look outside the Bible to draw the conclusion you have.

Ehyeh asher ehyeh

I have given you my reason for the faith I hold in God.. You can now present yours and we will see who is using extra-biblical reference to establish their doctrine.. I am really not that interesting is trying to disprove that The writer to the Hebrews didn't use this statement as a metaphor to describe God's just nature.. IHS jim

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

If you are asking me if I am saying by this that the Father Son and Holy Spirit are separate Gods I will say NO very firmly.. I will say they are of the same basic, real, and invariable nature. Separate Persons but of the same essence, the same mind, the very same Being.. IHS jim

Most LDS would answer the same way as you. And to my knowledge that is the offical teaching of the church. That The Father and Christ and the HG make up one God. That are united in purpose. IT would be what is called the God head. Some other critics of the church enjoy trying to foist the "you believe in multiple Gods" on us all the time. Some times we play the game sometimes we don't.

[Doctor Steuss]

I have given you my reason for the faith I hold in God.. You can now present yours and we will see who is using extra-biblical reference to establish their doctrine.. I am really not that interesting is trying to disprove that The writer to the Hebrews didn't use this statement as a metaphor to describe God's just nature.. IHS jim

If you're not interested in it, then why did you bring it up?

Why make a statement if you aren

[James Banta]

Most LDS would answer the same way as you. And to my knowledge that is the offical teaching of the church. That The Father and Christ and the HG make up one God. That are united in purpose. IT would be what is called the God head. Some other critics of the church enjoy trying to foist the "you believe in multiple Gods" on us all the time. Some times we play the game sometimes we don't.

I am one who would say that. I base that on what prophets of the LDS church have said on the subject.. Smith was the first one to teach three Gods..

I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods. If this is in accordance with the New Testament, lo and behold! we have three Gods anyhow, and they are plural: and who can contradict it! (History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 473)

Not just three Persons in the Godhead but three Gods.. He even asked who could possible contradict him.. As I have show Jesus Himself did in Mark 12:29.. I see you as being more reasonable with your doctrine of the nature of God that Smith was but trust me he was the only one of the LDS hirarchy that held such a distorted view of God's nature. Most members of the LDS church I have spoken to believe that the BofA is the innerrant word of God.. There we see the word Gods in used abundantly in a retold ceation story.. The plan of salvation bring mankind from an existance as an inteligence to a position of organizing a world and populating it with out own spiritual off spring In short BECOMING GODS. Orson Pratt taught:

"If we should take a million of worlds like this and number their particles, we should find that there are more Gods than there are particles of matter in those worlds." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, page 345)..

• 
  

The Mormon Apostle LeGrand Richards commented as follows in a letter written in 1966:

"There is a statement often repeated in the Church, and while it is not in one of the Standard Church Works, it is accepted as Church doctrine, and this is: " 'As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become.' " (Letter from Apostle LeGrand Richards to Morris L. Reynolds, dated July 14, 1966).

Were these statements just games that the leaders of the LDS church was plating on the rest of the world? All of this is false and Mormonism actually believes that YHWH our God is one Lord? Why would they do that and keep it up for so many years? IHS jim

[James Banta]

If you're not interested in it, then why did you bring it up?

Why make a statement if you aren

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I am one who would say that. I base that on what prophets of the LDS church have said on the subject.. Smith was the first one to teach three Gods..

I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods. If this is in accordance with the New Testament, lo and behold! we have three Gods anyhow, and they are plural: and who can contradict it! (History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 473)

Not just three Persons in the Godhead but three Gods.. He even asked who could possible contradict him.. As I have show Jesus Himself did in Mark 12:29.. I see you as being more reasonable with your doctrine of the nature of God that Smith was but trust me he was the only one of the LDS hirarchy that held such a distorted view of God's nature. Most members of the LDS church I have spoken to believe that the BofA is the innerrant word of God.. There we see the word Gods in used abundantly in a retold ceation story.. The plan of salvation bring mankind from an existance as an inteligence to a position of organizing a world and populating it with out own spiritual off spring In short BECOMING GODS. Orson Pratt taught:

"If we should take a million of worlds like this and number their particles, we should find that there are more Gods than there are particles of matter in those worlds." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, page 345)..

• 
  

The Mormon Apostle LeGrand Richards commented as follows in a letter written in 1966:

"There is a statement often repeated in the Church, and while it is not in one of the Standard Church Works, it is accepted as Church doctrine, and this is: " 'As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become.' " (Letter from Apostle LeGrand Richards to Morris L. Reynolds, dated July 14, 1966).

Were these statements just games that the leaders of the LDS church was plating on the rest of the world? All of this is false and Mormonism actually believes that YHWH our God is one Lord? Why would they do that and keep it up for so many years? IHS jim

This really is a matter of semantics. YOu believe (with regards to the first quote) the same thing exepct the part about 3 Gods. I say this and the LDS leaders would agree that there are 3 Gods that make up one God. They are separat and distinct (your words) but yet they are one God. 3 personages in one. But they are all 3 separte and distinct personages.

That is why I asked if you beleived they were one being. You even delcared that you believed them not to be one person but 3 separte and distinct.

The other 2 quotes are biblically justified position, they are not mainstream postions though. I am mainly referncing that there are other Gods/gods. Do we sorship them? No. Do we even acknowledge thier exsistance? No. But they are real and the do exsist we just have nothing to do with them.

[James Banta]

This really is a matter of semantics. YOu believe (with regards to the first quote) the same thing exepct the part about 3 Gods. I say this and the LDS leaders would agree that there are 3 Gods that make up one God. They are separat and distinct (your words) but yet they are one God. 3 personages in one. But they are all 3 separte and distinct personages.

That is why I asked if you beleived they were one being. You even delcared that you believed them not to be one person but 3 separte and distinct.

The other 2 quotes are biblically justified position, they are not mainstream postions though. I am mainly referncing that there are other Gods/gods. Do we sorship them? No. Do we even acknowledge thier exsistance? No. But they are real and the do exsist we just have nothing to do with them.

And you call the doctrine of the Trinity complex.. You believe in Three Gods but yet they are one God? While I have no problem with God being revealed in the three Persons of the Trinity I have major problem with them being three Gods. God is One Being, That Being is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.. Three individual Persons, NOT three Gods. I have ask LDS people several times to produce a doctrine that meets all the requirements of God given to us in the Bible but wasn't the doctrine of the Trinity.

I have yet to have anyone tell me a thing.. Here is what you have to do.. Hold that the Father is God, fully God and the Only God that exists, and that the Son is God, fully God and the Only God that exists, and that the Holy Spirit (Ghost) is God, fully God and the Only God that exists. While doing this stay true to the scripture that says all that Isaiah and Moses both taught about the nature of God.. That God is one Lord, That He has always been God while nothing and no one has ever or will ever become a God.

The doctrine of the Trinity addresses all these issues keeping the whole of the Bible true, while all I see in mormonism is a deny of these biblical principles.. I have never seen anything that addresses these teachings while allowing God to be truth that He says He is (1 Sam 15:29), and as true in keeping that word pure for us as He promised to do (Matt 24:35).. I sure would love it if you could show me how mormonism actually does this. The teaching that they are one in purpose doesn't meet this criteria because of the teaching from your leaders that they are NOT one God but THREE GODS.. And the doctrine that Jesus and the Holy Spirit became Gods after God was already God.. IHS jim

[SlackTime]

And you call the doctrine of the Trinity complex.. You believe in Three Gods but yet they are one God? While I have no problem with God being revealed in the three Persons of the Trinity I have major problem with them being three Gods. God is One Being, That Being is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.. Three individual Persons, NOT three Gods. I have ask LDS people several times to produce a doctrine that meets all the requirements of God given to us in the Bible but wasn't the doctrine of the Trinity.

I have yet to have anyone tell me a thing.. Here is what you have to do.. Hold that the Father is God, fully God and the Only God that exists, and that the Son is God, fully God and the Only God that exists, and that the Holy Spirit (Ghost) is God, fully God and the Only God that exists. While doing this stay true to the scripture that says all that Isaiah and Moses both taught about the nature of God.. That God is one Lord, That He has always been God while nothing and no one has ever or will ever become a God.

The doctrine of the Trinity addresses all these issues keeping the whole of the Bible true, while all I see in mormonism is a deny of these biblical principles.. I have never seen anything that addresses these teachings while allowing God to be truth that He says He is (1 Sam 15:29), and as true in keeping that word pure for us as He promised to do (Matt 24:35).. I sure would love it if you could show me how mormonism actually does this. The teaching that they are one in purpose doesn't meet this criteria because of the teaching from your leaders that they are NOT one God but THREE GODS.. And the doctrine that Jesus and the Holy Spirit became Gods after God was already God.. IHS jim

Luckily for you, if you have bothered to read the posts, your OP concern about polygamy should be resolved. Have a nice day - SlackTime

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

And you call the doctrine of the Trinity complex.. You believe in Three Gods but yet they are one God? While I have no problem with God being revealed in the three Persons of the Trinity I have major problem with them being three Gods. God is One Being, That Being is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.. Three individual Persons, NOT three Gods. I have ask LDS people several times to produce a doctrine that meets all the requirements of God given to us in the Bible but wasn't the doctrine of the Trinity.

This is great, you said that I have it wrong because I believe that all 3 are God in and of them slef but are separte and distinct. You even said that "Three individual Persons". Oh I see, they must not be God unless all three are together. Wait no, then you go on and claim that each individual person of the trinity (which separte and distinct) are fully God indivdually. I see that you ahve 3 separte individual persons that are fully God and you say that they are only one God. Tell me how that works. You can't just deny that all there are Gods individually just to suite your interpretaion of a verse in Isaiah that you think means that there is only one God in all of exsistance.

The difference here is that I am willing to state that as 3 separte and idividual Gods they make up One God. "One God" is a title. Notice how One is capatilised. I simply just don't understand your logic. You read a scripture verse in Isaiah that appears to state that there are no other Gods in exstance, when in fact that is not what the verse says, and then you feel the need to invent a way to force the bible to say that 3 people who are fully God are not 3 Gods that make up One God but they are 3 people that are fully God that make up one God. You don't infact believe that God is One physical Being. You have said over and over that God is 3 separate and distinct persons. Like I said trying to understand God is like trying to udnerstand a husband and wife. The scriptures tell us that the 2 shall be one. Does that mean that they are physically one? No. It means that they are one in purpose.

I just find this notion illogical. Can you help me with it. Please don't resort to standard prooftext of Isaiah. If the bible were "monotheistic" it would state it in unequivical terms. Something along the lines of " There is only one God in all of existance and that God is 3 persons that make up one physical being".

[Doctor Steuss]

I told you what I believed and the Bible says on the subject.. You denied me my opinion and interputaion by saying you don't understand it.. I don't understand Einstein's principle of time compression either so what.. I don't keep hammering on him about it.. You don't understand I am sorry I have given you my best attempt to make you understand.. It wouldn't help if I just keep saying the same thing again and again you still won't understand.. Why don't you do what the BofM says if you need an answer.. Pray about it! I promise you that if you pray in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. IHS jim

I'm not sure what the above has to do with you limiting G-d.

Quel dommage

[Vance]

You missed what I said.. God is three separate and distinct Persons.. I have never said anything else..

And what exactly is a "person"? To avoid the more recent change of meaning to include the trinitarian notion, let's use the 1828 dictionary for the definition of "person".

PERSON, n. per'sn. [L. persona; said to be compounded of per, through or by, and sonus, sound; a Latin word signifying primarily a mask used by actors on the state.]

1. An individual human being consisting of body and soul. We apply the word to living beings only, possessed of a rational nature; the body when dead is not called a person. It is applied alike to a man, woman or child.

A person is a thinking intelligent being.

2. A man, woman or child, considered as opposed to things, or distinct from them.

A zeal for persons is far more easy to be perverted, than a zeal for things.

3. A human being, considered with respect to the living body or corporeal existence only. The form of her person is elegant.

You'll find her person difficult to gain.

The rebels maintained the fight for a small time, and for their persons showed no want of courage.

4. A human being, indefinitely; one; a man. Let a person's attainments be never so great, he should remember he is frail and imperfect.

5. A human being represented in dialogue, fiction, or on the state; character. A player appears in the person of king Lear.

These tables, Cicero pronounced under the person of Crassus, were of more use and authority than all the books of the philosophers.

6. Character of office.

How different is the same man from himself, as he sustains the person of a magistrate and that of a friend.

7. In grammar, the nominative to a verb; the agent that performs or the patient that suffers any thing affirmed by a verb; as, I write; he is smitten; she is beloved; the rain descends in torrents. I, thou or you, he, she or it, are called the first, second and third persons. Hence we apply the word person to the termination or modified form of the verb used in connection with the persons; as the first or the third person of the verb; the verb is in the second person.

8. In law, an artificial person, is a corporation or body politic.

In person, by one's self; with bodily presence; not be representative.

The king in person visits all around.