Exaltaion requirements

[Vance]

These person are of the same essene the same nature they are the same Being..

I have yet to find a verse in the Bible that mentions "essence". Can you provide a reference?

[James Banta]

I have yet to find a verse in the Bible that mentions "essence". Can you provide a reference?

Hi, I hope you voted on the poll.. Lets define essence so we all know what it is we are talking about..

ESSENCE

the inward nature, true substance, or constitution of God...

I am not going to do a full Bible study for you based on your question.. I ask you to understand that Jesus and the Father are one.. No matter how you interpret that it shows they share the same inward nature. I know you deny that they are the same substance. That doctrine comes to me by many of the verses I have already quoted on this thread.. That God alone is God there is no other.. No other God existed at any time in the past, nor will one be formed in the future. Jesus didn't Become a God He was in the beginning with God.. Jesus is God.. There is One and only one God.. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is that God.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

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.

Oh look your own definition is in conflict with it's self.. A person can be a corporation.. An entity with no body yet it is considered a person.. In dictionary.com the theological definition is: any of the three hypostases or modes of being in the Trinity, namely the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Understand I am not saying you are wrong we just don't agree.. I know I am not alone in believing that there are others meanings that you didn't include.. IHS jim

[Vance]

Oh look your own definition is in conflict with it's self.. A person can be a corporation.. An entity with no body yet it is considered a person.. In dictionary.com the theological definition is: any of the three hypostases or modes of being in the Trinity, namely the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Understand I am not saying you are wrong we just don't agree.. I know I am not alone in believing that there are others meanings that you didn't include.. IHS jim

Not my definition but that of the 1828 dictionary. Also notice the qualifying phrase "in law" and also notice under that definition, it clarifies the usage with "with bodily presence".

So basically, you saw what you wanted to see, and ignored the important facts.

The reason I quoted the 1828 dictionary is because the usage has been corrupted to allow the trinitarian notion. However, when the trinitarian notion was translated into English the meaning of the word "person" would have been that found in the 1828 dictionary and not at dictionary.com.

In your adventures at dictionary.com did you by chance notice the usage of the word "individual"? Did you by chance look up the word "individual"?

From 1828 dictionary

INDIVID'UAL, . [L. individuus; in and dividuus, from divido, to divide.]

1. Not divided, or not to be divided; single; one; as an individual man or city.

--Under his great vicegerent reign abide

United, as one individual soul.

2. Pertaining to one only; as individual labor or exertions.

INDIVID'UAL, n. A single person or human being. This is the common application of the word; as,there was not an individual present.

1. A single animal or thing of any kind. But this word, as a noun, is rarely applied except to human beings.

[Vance]

Hi, I hope you voted on the poll.. Lets define essence so we all know what it is we are talking about..

ESSENCE

the inward nature, true substance, or constitution of God...

I am not going to do a full Bible study for you based on your question.. I ask you to understand that Jesus and the Father are one.. No matter how you interpret that it shows they share the same inward nature. I know you deny that they are the same substance. That doctrine comes to me by many of the verses I have already quoted on this thread.. That God alone is God there is no other.. No other God existed at any time in the past, nor will one be formed in the future. Jesus didn't Become a God He was in the beginning with God.. Jesus is God.. There is One and only one God.. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is that God.. IHS jim

Well, if you won't do it for me, why don't you do it for yourself. And sharing an "inward nature" isn't the same as sharing the same substance.

"Substance" and "essence" are non-Biblical phrases and concepts.

It is true that Jesus was "with" God (the father) in the beginning. But that begs the question "beginning of what?" Also notice the "with", clearly indicating two separate and distinct beings.

[James Banta]

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".

Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.

Does seem possible does it? But was it possible to stop the rotation of the globe so Joshua could win a battle, or that Elijah was able to call down fire and consume a soaking wet sacrifice.. I am sorry I can't give you the answers you seem to demand. I tell you what the Bible says about the nature of God.. One of the main problems with mormonism is their shopping list mentality on what the Scriptures teach.. "Oh I don't like that The Lord being one God thing I'll leave that behind.. I do like the idea that I will be judged by my works, after all you get what you earn, right? I don't like this idea that I need to become a child of God, aren't we all children of God? And I don't believe that stuff about God creating the spirit of man within him, I like the idea that I was born of God in heaven and He sent us here.." Pick and choose, make up what you want and force it in to the mix. Then along come a person that says "I believe just what God says in His word". Then you go out of your way to prove that God is a liar and the man is just wrong.. I think what we are going here together is talking face to face.. It's a metaphor!!

Sorry I can't show you how God is one.. This is one part of His nature I must take on faith.. The fact that God is one Being is clear from many references. Even Jesus called that doctrine the first of the commandments.. Then Joseph Smith comes along and says NO ALL THAT IS WRONG.. THERE ARE THREE GODS TO BELIEVE THAT GOD IS ONE ID TOTALLY WRONG AND WHO CAN CONTRADICT ME.. Only God has the authority to contradict any man's personal statement of faith.. The Bible is God's word and it does contradict Smith's doctrine of the nature of God.. I am sorry to disappoint you but there are some matters that are just a matter of trusting what God says this is one of them.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

Well, if you won't do it for me, why don't you do it for yourself. And sharing an "inward nature" isn't the same as sharing the same substance.

"Substance" and "essence" are non-Biblical phrases and concepts.

It is true that Jesus was "with" God (the father) in the beginning. But that begs the question "beginning of what?" Also notice the "with", clearly indicating two separate and distinct beings.

God is a Being.. The Father, and the Son are two of the Persons of God..

We aren't going to agree based in this passage and there is a refusal here to allow me show you what God says about His nature in other passages.. You want to ignore those passages in Isaiah that say 'Before me no God was formed and there will be none after me'.. 'I am God and I know of no other'.. These don't matter because I am twisting them to say just what they say.. I don't add enough words that aren't there like 'for this world' nor did I try to say that it is only talking about idolatry.. (Which I accept because disagreeing and saying other Gods were formed is idolatry).. You wish to deny the division I have made of the scripture, Fine.. I have done so by listening to the Holy Spirit as He teaching me His word by showing me the other passages that interpret His message.. IHS jim

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Does seem possible does it? But was it possible to stop the rotation of the globe so Joshua could win a battle, or that Elijah was able to call down fire and consume a soaking wet sacrifice.. I am sorry I can't give you the answers you seem to demand. I tell you what the Bible says about the nature of God.. One of the main problems with mormonism is their shopping list mentality on what the Scriptures teach.. "Oh I don't like that The Lord being one God thing I'll leave that behind.. I do like the idea that I will be judged by my works, after all you get what you earn, right? I don't like this idea that I need to become a child of God, aren't we all children of God? And I don't believe that stuff about God creating the spirit of man within him, I like the idea that I was born of God in heaven and He sent us here.." Pick and choose, make up what you want and force it in to the mix. Then along come a person that says "I believe just what God says in His word". Then you go out of your way to prove that God is a liar and the man is just wrong.. I think what we are going here together is talking face to face.. It's a metaphor!!

I disagree that "mormoinsm has a shopping list mentality" from my perspective you are the one that chooses to ignore certin verse of scripture. I don't want to get inot that though. I just disagree that Isaiah is writting that God is saying that there is only one God in all of exsitance. If that is waht Isaiah meant he would have wrote it. That verse of scripture tells me that THere is only one God for us to worship and there wont be any before him or any after him. It is like looking at the title of "father". I have one Father, in the physical sense. However I will only have one father and there wont be one before him nor will there be one after him. And with regards to my father I know of no others. However that doesn't mean that other fathers don't exsist. Case in point, your father is not my father, but both fathers are real and just as much a father as the other, but with regards to me I only have one father.

It does boil down to interpretation though. You choose to see that "No man has seen God" and instanly think that no man could see God. That is reasonable, however the next few words leave the door wide open and it almost looks like the text has become corupt. Lets look at it.

the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. This passage doesn't make much sense, we are told that No man has seen God yet the only begoten Son has God declared him. Sounds good to me. Another arguement that can be reasonably made is that Jesus is God to you and yet man has seen God. Perhaps that verse of scripture should say that No man has seen God except when he delcares His only begotten Son.

Sorry I can't show you how God is one.. This is one part of His nature I must take on faith.. The fact that God is one Being is clear from many references. Even Jesus called that doctrine the first of the commandments.. Then Joseph Smith comes along and says NO ALL THAT IS WRONG.. THERE ARE THREE GODS TO BELIEVE THAT GOD IS ONE ID TOTALLY WRONG AND WHO CAN CONTRADICT ME.. Only God has the authority to contradict any man's personal statement of faith.. The Bible is God's word and [it] Jame's interpretation of the bible does contradict Smith's doctrine of the nature of God.. I am sorry to disappoint you but there are some matters that are just a matter of trusting what God says this is one of them.. IHS jim

I edited one part of your claim. It is the 2nd bolded part.

James, thanks your for being forth comming in your responce. I would rather you state what you can and cannot do than just make something up and then tell me how wrong I am. Just so you are aware JS didn't come along and say that it was all wrong. What he did do was follow the logical conclusion of what the NT does teach.

What needs to happen is that if you cannot show me from scripture the nature of God as you understand it, then you need to stop saying that it goes againt the bible. If the bible can't show how 3 persons that are fully God cannot be considered 3 Gods then I am failling to see how JS is wrong. I do agree with you though that what we are doing is sharing with each other our interpretations of the bible.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

God is a Being.. The Father, and the Son are two of the Persons of God..

We aren't going to agree based in this passage and there is a refusal here to allow me show you what God says about His nature in other passages.. You want to ignore those passages in Isaiah that say 'Before me no God was formed and there will be none after me'.. 'I am God and I know of no other'.. These don't matter because I am twisting them to say just what they say.. I don't add enough words that aren't there like 'for this world' nor did I try to say that it is only talking about idolatry.. (Which I accept because disagreeing and saying other Gods were formed is idolatry).. You wish to deny the division I have made of the scripture, Fine.. I have done so by listening to the Holy Spirit as He teaching me His word by showing me the other passages that interpret His message.. IHS jim

We don't ignore it James, we just have a differnt interpretaion for that verse. We don't believe it to mean that There is only one God in all of exsistance. I also seem to recall the Hebrew offered some new insight into that verse. Some one else here will have it for us I am sure.

What is interesting here is that what I can see is that you are looking at that verse in Isaiah, and thinking it says that there is only one God in all of exsistance. From there you take what you do know and that is that God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the HG are all fully God separate and disctinct persons. From here you shoe horn your "one God in all of exsitance" into the other. It doesn't fit (to me that is). What we do is say "Ok, we have 3 separate and disctinct people who are person and are fully God, that means then we have 3 Gods and they make up one God". We then look at Isaiah and try to find a reasonable interpretaion taht will allow for One God yet more than one. What makes your interpretation more valid than mine?

Paul taught that there are gods many and lords many weather in hevean or the earth. I contentd that only real gods would be in hevean. If one wishes to state that false gods are in hevean I would have to ask how is that possible? Can you atleast see my point of view? If you can't I think we are done here.

[James Banta]

I disagree that "mormoinsm has a shopping list mentality" from my perspective you are the one that chooses to ignore certin verse of scripture. I don't want to get inot that though. I just disagree that Isaiah is writting that God is saying that there is only one God in all of exsitance. If that is waht Isaiah meant he would have wrote it. That verse of scripture tells me that THere is only one God for us to worship and there wont be any before him or any after him. It is like looking at the title of "father". I have one Father, in the physical sense. However I will only have one father and there wont be one before him nor will there be one after him. And with regards to my father I know of no others. However that doesn't mean that other fathers don't exsist. Case in point, your father is not my father, but both fathers are real and just as much a father as the other, but with regards to me I only have one father.

It does boil down to interpretation though. You choose to see that "No man has seen God" and instanly think that no man could see God. That is reasonable, however the next few words leave the door wide open and it almost looks like the text has become corupt. Lets look at it.

the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. This passage doesn't make much sense, we are told that No man has seen God yet the only begoten Son has God declared him. Sounds good to me. Another arguement that can be reasonably made is that Jesus is God to you and yet man has seen God. Perhaps that verse of scripture should say that No man has seen God except when he delcares His only begotten Son.

I edited one part of your claim. It is the 2nd bolded part.

James, thanks your for being forth comming in your responce. I would rather you state what you can and cannot do than just make something up and then tell me how wrong I am. Just so you are aware JS didn't come along and say that it was all wrong. What he did do was follow the logical conclusion of what the NT does teach.

What needs to happen is that if you cannot show me from scripture the nature of God as you understand it, then you need to stop saying that it goes againt the bible. If the bible can't show how 3 persons that are fully God cannot be considered 3 Gods then I am failling to see how JS is wrong. I do agree with you though that what we are doing is sharing with each other our interpretations of the bible.

What did God mean when he said though Isaiah that: "Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any." That sound to me as though God is saying just what you said He isn't saying there is only one God. Heck He says that He doesn't even know of another.. And you spin that to say God doesn't know of any other God(s) (that we should worship).. Sorry but that is a practice that God condemned in the scripture

Deuteronomy 12:32

What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

Why can't you just see what God has said and believe Him?

The LDS shopping list excludes verses like John 3:15-16. It adds baptism to the context of John 3:1-21. The context of Ezek 37 which clearly shows the two divided tribes Judah and Joseph and how they will be one united nation again. And how about Isaiah 29:11-12 I had been taught so many times that this was a prophecy of the coming forth of the BofM and yet here in the passage not only can't the learned man read it but neither can the unlearned..

Excluded from the List is the teaching that even the smallest sin separates a man from God eternally (Rev 21: All liars find their place there, That would include "little white liars".. The teaching that the Spirit of man was formed within him and not procreated by the Heavenly Parents is ignored (Zech 12 :1).. 1 John 5:13 teaches that we can know we have eternal life NOW but that passage is also ignored.. Christian on the other hand accept passage of mormon proof text as truth just not with the Spin on them..

I have already offered a few examples of this but one more is called for.. The son of God that jumped for joy who were these? Because the spirit of man is created within him it had to be someone other than the spirits of man that leaves just the Angelic host (Job 38:6-7).. Oh I haven't dealt with James 2 yet.. Did you know of the pure passage is non, almost anti, LDS? In the context of passage is James 2:19 where we are told that it is good to hold the faith that God is one, that the devils believe that much yet they tremble.. I have shown you where Joseph Smith taught that God is three did I?

Is the LDS church really a Bible believing church? Only as far as it agrees with the teachings and doctrines of one Joseph Smith..

As for the question that began this thread.. The 138 Section of the D&C along with the further teaching of Brigham Young on the subject od polygamy makes that type of marriage a requirement for Exaltation.. According to a "prophet" of God one MUST be a polygamist (At least of the heart) in order to receive eternal life in the Highest degree of heaven.. This is a revelation from God to BY.. Look at what he said that confirms that..

Said Brigham Young, "I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call scripture." (Journal of Discourses 13:95.) Either what Young taught and sent out to the Church in the JofD is scripture or Young is a false prophet.. If he was a prophet of God then all LDSs are required to be polygamist at least of the heart.. If the majority is right from the poll that began this thread and polygamy is NOT a saving ordinance Young is a false teacher and the whole foundation of mormonism is cracked and unable to support the true Church of Jesus Christ.. IHS jim

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

What did God mean when he said though Isaiah that: "Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any." That sound to me as though God is saying just what you said He isn't saying there is only one God. Heck He says that He doesn't even know of another.. And you spin that to say God doesn't know of any other God(s) (that we should worship).. Sorry but that is a practice that God condemned in the scripture

Deuteronomy 12:32

What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

Why can't you just see what God has said and believe Him?

James, try to see and understand what you are reading. You have just demonstrated that you either didn't read what I think or didn't understand it. I laid out exactly how I look at those verse of scripture. Why do you assume that I "can't see what God has said and beleive Him?. The truth is taht I do, I just look at it differnetly than you do.

God has said taht we are gods, and children of the Most High. Jesus used that scripture to back up his divinity before the Jews. It would be a strange thing for Jesus to use that verse if it meant that "gods" really means judges. I have asked this question alot and have not heard a good rebuttle to it. God is a God of gods. Are these gods, that God is a God of, false gods? If you say yes then you have to accept the baggage that comes with it. It only works if these gods that God is a God of, are realy devine beings.

As to your proof text of Duet, I suggest that we through out everything else after that verse as everything else that came after it was "added to".

James, I thought we were having a good faith dialogue? Not that you have been rude, but I have responded indepth and directly to every point you have brought up.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

James,

Consider a more scholastic approach.

http://walkstar.blogspot.com/2009/08/letter-to-local-pastor.html

What has come to be known as Deutero-Isaiah provides the most oft used ammunition for traditional monotheists:

"Before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me." (Isa. 43:10)

"I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Is the LDS church really a Bible believing church? Only as far as it agrees with the teachings and doctrines of one Joseph Smith..

Is James Banta's theology really a bible believing church? Only as far as it agrees with the teachings and doctrines of what James Banta understands..

Please stop with these kind of rhetorical talking points. They serve no purpose.

[WalkerW]

James,

Consider a more scholastic approach.

http://walkstar.blog...cal-pastor.html

40. Frank Moore Cross, Jr., "The Council of Yahweh in Second Isaiah," Journal of Near Eastern Studies, (12) 1953

41. Michael S. Heiser, "Introduction to the Divine Council," IVP Dictionary Article Draft, 2008

But if I know James and the other CARMites, these two will be dismissed as "liberal scholars." Nevermind that Heiser has a Ph.D. in Hebrew Bible & Semitic Languages, while Cross is the Hancock Professor Emeritus of Hebrew and Other Oriental Languages at Harvard.

[James Banta]

40. Frank Moore Cross, Jr., "The Council of Yahweh in Second Isaiah," Journal of Near Eastern Studies, (12) 1953

41. Michael S. Heiser, "Introduction to the Divine Council," IVP Dictionary Article Draft, 2008

But if I know James and the other CARMites, these two will be dismissed as "liberal scholars." Nevermind that Heiser has a Ph.D. in Hebrew Bible & Semitic Languages, while Cross is the Hancock Professor Emeritus of Hebrew and Other Oriental Languages at Harvard.

I am going to tell you the same thing I tell people that want me to go read the Church fathers.. Lets keep to the scripture.. I really don't care what men say.. Unless those men are LDS authorities and teach other God's, another Jesus, and another gospel.. IHS jim

[Doctor Steuss]

I am going to tell you the same thing I tell people that want me to go read the Church fathers.. Lets keep to the scripture.. I really don't care what men say.. Unless those men are LDS authorities and teach other God's, another Jesus, and another gospel.. IHS jim

I know I

[WalkerW]

I am going to tell you the same thing I tell people that want me to go read the Church fathers.. Lets keep to the scripture.. I really don't care what men say.. Unless those men are LDS authorities and teach other God's, another Jesus, and another gospel.. IHS jim

Heiser and Cross did stick with the scriptures: Cross explained the Hebrew in the specific chapter and drew parallels between Isaiah 40 and Isaiah 6. Heiser pointed out that Babylon uses the same phrasing as the Lord elsewhere in Isaiah.

And I don't particularly care what your terms are for debate. If you have nothing except your personal interpretation of scripture, that is your problem, not mine.

[WalkerW]

I know I

[SearchDog]

I don't spend a lot of time here because I was told by a member of your church I had no right to be here. But this question has come up on another Posting board and I would like to get input from believing members of the church.. Please if you are not LDS don't respond.. IHS jim

Yes, one must be willing to accept plural marriage as a doctrine of the priesthood in order to be exalted in the priesthood.

No, one does not have to practice it in order to be exalted.

And you have every right to be here and express your views.

[James Banta]

James, try to see and understand what you are reading. You have just demonstrated that you either didn't read what I think or didn't understand it. I laid out exactly how I look at those verse of scripture. Why do you assume that I "can't see what God has said and beleive Him?. The truth is taht I do, I just look at it differnetly than you do.

God has said taht we are gods, and children of the Most High. Jesus used that scripture to back up his divinity before the Jews. It would be a strange thing for Jesus to use that verse if it meant that "gods" really means judges. I have asked this question alot and have not heard a good rebuttle to it. God is a God of gods. Are these gods, that God is a God of, false gods? If you say yes then you have to accept the baggage that comes with it. It only works if these gods that God is a God of, are realy devine beings.

As to your proof text of Duet, I suggest that we through out everything else after that verse as everything else that came after it was "added to".

James, I thought we were having a good faith dialogue? Not that you have been rude, but I have responded indepth and directly to every point you have brought up.

You are bypassing one of the first rules of hermeneutics. Identify who the verse is speaking to. Yes are gods.. If you read the whole context you will see that these "gods" are being addressed here are judges of the people the rulers, those that have life and death power over others.. That is who the 83 Psalm is directed to.. The word used for God is the same word used for judges, rules, even the idols, the false gods of the people.. In this passage ie is used for judges though Jesus used it to confound His enemies. He was no denying Isaiah who says that there is ONE GOD never has been any other, never will be..

God is the God of gods.. He is the God of the rules, and judges of the people.. I am not willing to say that God was a liar as you seem to be saying that He knows of no other God(s).. And because the Bible is His message to us and He doesn't lie these gods you want to turn into creative Beings are nothing more than the nobles among men.. Anything else and the Bible is a lie.. You can say that all day if your wish I deny such atheistic notions.. Since it can't be both ways I say that any other gods that came into being after God are rulers and judges of the people or false gods, idols.. And God never created a false God this came from the deceitful and wicked heart on men..

My "proof text" in Deut? You mean :

Deut 6:4

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORDOr do you mean that I:

Deut 12:32

What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

So what is it you really disagree with here? Do you believe men should be allowed to add what ever suites their fancy to what God has already given? Can we add to Genesis that God was once a mortal a creation of some other God and became a God through obedience to laws and ordinances? If you want to add such things do it in another book, call it scripture if you wish but don't add to or take away from these truths that God gave to us with mighty works signs and wonders.. Is that clear.. Hands off what is already recorded.. If there is more you believe God gave record it some place else.. Smith did this until he started to "translate" the Bible.. Then he fell into grave error..

If you aren't ready to hold the whole of the Bible as being true then maybe it is ok to hold a doctrine that there are other Gods, gods, other than YHWH. To do this you have to pick out the parts of the Bible you like and ignore the rest.. I address all of it.. I see you don't like the meaning of the passages you love to be challenged but that challenge is put forward in support of the Bible in it's entirety.. I haven't made Psalm 82 my entire view of who God is or how many gods exist.. I agree that though there are many that are called gods but to Christians there is One God.. That is the context of the whole Bible.. So when Psalm 82 says that ye are gods am I to think God is wrong in all the other places in the word or am I to see if the context could also mean that these gods would die like men.. Is God ever going to die? What kinds of gods die? Judges, rulers, nobles of the people and of course idol, false gods.. These die so choose what kind of god you want.. Men, idols, or God..

You may of course keep your beliefs that Psalm 82 is about divine beings.. It doesn't agree with Moses, it doesn't agree with Isaiah, and it doesn't agree with Jesus.. It does agree with Joseph Smith.. So throw out all the references to there being one and only one God and make this passage say what you want it to say.. But there is no salvation in holding onto a false idea of who God is:

John 17:3

And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

IHS jim

[James Banta]

Yes, one must be willing to accept plural marriage as a doctrine of the priesthood in order to be exalted in the priesthood.

No, one does not have to practice it in order to be exalted.

And you have every right to be here and express your views.

I understand your views and welcome your input.. I disagree with you of course.. The Bible is clear that salvation come faith in Jesus plus nothing.. That will be a huge separator between us.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

I know I

[James Banta]

James,

Consider a more scholastic approach.

http://walkstar.blogspot.com/2009/08/letter-to-local-pastor.html

I am sorry that you have taken this a your doctrine concerning this book of scripture.. I always use the Bible to help understand the Bible.. I call this the Biblical approach.. Here there are many NT references to the entire Book of Isaiah that he was the author of the WHOLE book.. (Matt. 3:3, 8:17, 12:18; John 1:23, 12:38; Rom. 10:16, 10:26). I won't bend to liberal thinking in this matter.. If you really trust the words of Jesus I don't see how you could do so either... IHS jim

[WalkerW]

I am sorry that you have taken this a your doctrine concerning this book of scripture

I'm not. It is what scripture and history teaches.

I always use the Bible to help understand the Bible

Deut. 32, Ps. 82, etc. is in the Bible.

I call this the Biblical approach

More like "the James Banta interpretation" approach

Here there are many NT references to the entire Book of Isaiah that he was the author of the WHOLE book. (Matt. 3:3, 8:17, 12:18; John 1:23, 12:38; Rom. 10:16, 10:26).

Though there are other quotes that aren't part of Deutero-Isaiah, all of these examples are.

If you really trust the words of Jesus I don't see how you could do so either

Well, if you really knew what you were talking about, you'd have a better response than this pathetic attempt.

[jimg]

I understand your views and welcome your input.. I disagree with you of course.. The Bible is clear that salvation come faith in Jesus plus nothing.. That will be a huge separator between us.. IHS jim

James.....Indeed the bible is clear about the first requirements of individual "salvation". Peter gave a pretty good overview to the men who were convinced by the preaching of the apostles on the day of Pentecost. They ask what they should do to be saved and Peter said, in effect, to repent, be baptized for the remission of sins, and to receive the Holy Ghost. These things would put them on the road to individual salvation. Although it's not recorded that Peter said it at this time, there is another requirement........endure to the end.

I think, however, that you are asking about exaltation, not just salvation. To qualify for the highest level in the Celestial Kingdom one must be sealed by the power of the Priesthood to one's spouse. Only families dwell there, not single individuals. If I and my spouse make it there some day, I will be happy. I see it as a worthy goal.

If others are there with multiple spouses, I will have no complaint for it will be with my Heavenly Father's approval and consent. I am open to it. I am not one to tell God how to run His house. I only concern myself with what pertains to me. If other things present themselves in the future, I will consider them at that point. Right now my spouse and I have been sealed to each other, and our three children have been sealed to us as a sealed couple. I leave others to do as they think best for themselves.

Jim in Texas